Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive884

Urgent page protection needed

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.

---

Floyd Mayweather, Jr. vs. Manny Pacquiao is being spammed with links to illegal streams for the boxing match approximately every 2-3 minutes. No response from WP:RPP, it really needs protecting urgently. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Seconded. 24hrs should suffice, as the fight is tonight IIRC. Pax 00:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

It looks like the previous semi-protection expired. I have semi'd it for another couple of days. If it turns out to need full protection due to sleeper accounts you can let me know on my talk page. Chillum 01:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

It appears that the semi-protection did the trick. An admin might want to go through the history and block the usernames used by the spammers before they become autoconfirmed and cause trouble on the page of some future pay-per-view sporting event. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:42, 3 May 2015 (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.

Previously blocked IP now falsifying sources for medical 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.

---

64.222.173.126 (talk · contribs · logs), recently blocked for a 72 hours for adding unsourced information following this AN/I complaint, has now started falsifying sources for medical information. The source given does not support the information added. 173.252.16.206 (talk) 19:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Falsifying sources? Which source has he falsified?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The cited source contains very little of the information they added. Therefore, the IP has misrepresented their source. It looks like they picked a random source already in the article to avoid scrutiny. 173.252.16.206 (talk) 19:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm looking at this and I see that the ip banned for disruptive editing. The disruptions seems to be that they were adding stuff without a source repeatedly with multiple warnings. Here they have provided a source. A source that you say has been misrepresented. If may be that is the case. However this seems to be a content issue. This content issue does not seem to reflect their prior disruptive editing. I notice that you made no actual attempt to discuss your content issue with them. ANI is for conduct issues. Take it to the articles talk page or the users talk page and discuss it.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Is adding a fake source supposed to be an improvement upon no source at all? I see this as a continuation of the behavior they were blocked for. 173.252.16.206 (talk) 19:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Before they did not add sources. They have multiple warnings on their talk page for doing so. They have now added a source. Is this source bad? I have not checked. This is a content issue. When they start misrepresenting sources, ignoring warnings, and not attempting to discuss the issues there will be an issue. That would be conduct issue. You have not tried to discuss your content issue with them. There is nothing for ANI to do here but send you to the talk page to discuss.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you should check - the source cited does not in any way support the material added. Misrepresentation of sources is not a 'content issue', it is a behavioural one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Andy is correct. This is not a debate about what a reliable sources is, this is, if true, about making stuff up. Lying is a behavioral issue, it doesn't matter what is lied about it's the fact that false information was knowingly included in an article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

A good faith mistake by a new editor is acceptable. The source is about the same subject as the article. There has been no reason presented to believe that they are attempting to misrepresent the source. If it was clear they are lying this would be a conduct issue. However all there really is evidence of is that there is a mistake common to new users.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

IP is continuing to add unsourced claims.[1][2][3] 173.252.16.206 (talk) 04:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

If this is all some big misunderstanding then we have a competence issue, because the IP has been warned, many many times, about his/her behaviour. If not this is just a person who is screwing around. Either way, a long block is in order. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

An indefinite block would be a good call at this point. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

[4], [5] it continues. Can we indef an IP? I mean I am sure it is possible, I am more wondering is it something that is done I guess. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• Can't indef an IP but I did block it for 2 weeks. Let me know if it pops up again. Zad68 17:27, 4 May 2015 (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.

Elindiord's reverts, 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.

---

After a 48-hour block stemming from a report here at AN/I, Elindiord has resumed Twinkle mass-reverts of constructive IP editors. Again, they've given no edit summaries or reasons for the changes, and evidently don't understand what they're doing wrong, as demonstrated by their unblock request and failure to respond to yet another warning after the block expired. Conifer (talk) 07:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Conifer (Non-administrator comment) Please read the top template on this page "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page." Please do so.

But yes, this is disruptive, and the user in question seems to think that as long as an edit isn't vandalism they aren't going to be blocked. They appear to be fairly familiar with editing though. Banak (talk) 08:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. I made the report right before going to bed and failed to notify in my haste. Conifer (talk) 14:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Seems to have stopped for now. I have left an abundantly clear warning of the risk of a further block on the editor's talk page.  Philg88 ^♦talk 09:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Propose topic ban User:Studentcollege at the Teahouse

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.

---

Propose topic ban for the Teahouse. The editor has made more than 40 posts to the Teahouse and has ignored all requests to stop, see here, here and here. Editor is not here to contribute to the project Flat Out talk to me 03:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

In agreement on the topic ban, but it is my feeling this is more a CIR issue and as such would also support a competency block. I'm afraid a topic ban would just shift the problem elsewhere. He had yet to make one single actual main space edit. A couple to user talk pages, all the rest at teahouse, Over a month of repeated questions that are far from clear. John from Idegon (talk) 05:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support with reluctance and a heavy heart. The Teahouse is supposed to be a friendly, welcoming space to assist new editors, and I have made over 2500 edits there to advance that goal. But the goal is always to assist new editors in improving the encyclopedia, in even the smallest way. I have tried friendly, helpful answers with this editor, and I have tried chastising. Nothing has worked. This editor has contributed nothing so far that I can see to the improvement of the encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't consider that a topic ban will stop this editor trolling, I have blocked indefinitely as they are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia.  Philg88 ^♦talk 06:38, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

He has admitted having more than one account on my talk page so we haven't seen the last of him! Theroadislong (talk) 07:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, he's no doubt knitting a sock as we speak.  Philg88 ^♦talk 08:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support Every time they have a question they ask there, and they repeat the same/very similar questions constantly- like they've asked similar questions about multiple accounts/sockpuppets about 3-4 times there, every time being directed to ask it at their talkpage, or where the discussion involving it was. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:12, 5 May 2015 (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.

Source misrepresentation by Xtremedood (and section blanking)

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.

---

@Xtremedood: is adding source misrepresentation in articles

In Muhammed bin Qasim he writes about other scholars:

Elliot who hated Islam

U.T. Thakkur, a staunch Indian nationalist

Elliot is a mainstream pillar of British historiography on medieval India, so the claim that he hates Islam is absurd. Xtremedood is claiming that this source "Maclean, Derryl N. Religion and Society in Arab Sind, Brill Academic Publishers, 1989 ISBN 90-04-08551-3 pg.22-29" says that Elliot "hates" Islam.

But the source says nothing of the sort: [6]

There is also a series of unexplained edits by him with blanking of sections, for example here and here He even marked one of those edits as Minor in the edit summary. [7]

His disruptive editing has been brought to his attention by @Kautilya3: @FreeatlastChitchat: @OccultZone: @Kansas Bear: @Ghatus:, and at DR and at ARE but as these edits show, nothing has changed.

I'm not sure if this is the correct place to report source misrepresentations. --Calypsomusic (talk) 12:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

PS. Maybe this should have been reported to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, it falls under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan. Don't have the time right now. --Calypsomusic (talk) 12:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Calypsomusic There is already an Arbitration Enforcement case for Xtremedood. So, your complaint can be added there. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:54, 5 May 2015 (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.

Outing

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/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Marknutley this] violates wp;outing please delete it.Darkness Shines (talk) 18:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

No it doesn't; you admitted the connection yourself. As WP:OUTING says: Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person had voluntarily posted his or her own information ... on Wikipedia (emphasis mine). I'm sorry, but the genie's out of the bottle on this. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

We usually do try to respect the wish for privacy in cases where an editor in good standing has previously disclosed their real name but then asked for a rename – to the extent this is practically possible. But then again, DS is hardly an editor in good standing. In a case like this, where DS' previous record of disruption, under both the accounts in question as well as others, is of immediate relevance to currently ongoing dispute resolution processes, the wish for privacy must not be let to stand in the way of legitimate scrutiny. I have no problem with avoiding to mention his prior account name, but the records of prior dispute resolution processes are full of references to the name, including legitimate links to the SPI page under its original title. I'm not sure those links should be redlinks, because that would make it more difficult for uninvolved editors to reconstruct the history of socking. Of course, even clicking on the redlinks will bring up a page with the move log, where the connection to the present page is also shown. As far as I can see, the presence or absence of the redirects won't make the connection either less or more visible (in terms of privacy problems), while its absence will hinder navigation rather unnecessarily. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Whether an editor, in your opinion, is of good standing or not, it doesn't negate thier right to privacy. Cassianto^Talk 19:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Hehe, there must be an echo here. As well as the Streisand effect...
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I wrote this before seeing your post to his talk page, so the parallel language is pretty funny. But yeah, nothing good is going to come out of this thread, so I'ma close it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

There's something I'm not understanding here, so perhaps one of the admins can clear it up for me. If someone opened an SPI with new allegations about socking by the ediotr currently known as Darkness Shines, but opened it under the editor's old name, why wasn't it moved to his current name, or the name under which old SPIs are now filed, DarknessShines2, as opposed to being deleted? BMK (talk) 19:52, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

There wasn't any new SPI or new socking allegations. Somebody merely recreated a redirect from the original SPI title to the current one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, that clears it up. Thank you. BMK (talk) 20:53, 5 May 2015 (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.

Ame123ojfish - repeated edit warring and CSD tag removal

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.

---

• Ame123ojfish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – On Ahmed Mac (diff): account is being used only for promotional purposes. This account has been warned previously about the notability guidelines several times (inc. a one-week block), and now resorts to removing Speedy Deletion & AfD tags to try and keep their pages live) (all promoting a single person) on the encyclopedia. Mike1901 (talk) 20:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

That's not right , i have made the article in the encyclopedia and i am adding more and more info in it day by day i have added references in it and attached about info too but a user name " mike " is still adding it for deletion so before deleting it tell me the reason of that so that i make it verified and good so that no-one delete it thanks Ame123ojfish 20:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

The issue is (as explained on your talk page several times now over the last few months) not that the article is incomplete - a lot of articles start small and grow - it's the lack of non-primary reputable sources to verify notability (see WP:NOTABLE) Mike1901 (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment A create protection for the page seems appropriate. I will ask at WP:RPP. JZCL 20:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• The page is now creation protected.  Done. JZCL 21:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll consider this matter closed on here (added a follow-up request on WP:RPP for alternative case use) - happy for the discussion to be archived. Mike1901 (talk) 21:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Just one thing, Mike1901, the article had a worryingly high number of views on a couple of days - any idea what we can attribute this to? JZCL 21:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Can't check now as it's been deleted, but fairly sure there were several tens of edits on the day in question by only one or two people (one being the creator) - I'd put it down to that - the tool linked to is total views, does not track unique visitors. Mike1901 (talk) 21:17, 5 May 2015 (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.

Privatization in Croatia

Based on a RFPP request from User:AlbinoFerret (conduct not at issue) I came across a rather large bout of edit warring at Privatization in Croatia. From the edit summaries, article talk page, and user talk page messages, its clear that some of the editors there just cannot get along with each other. All three also have past edit warring history. As such, I would like to ask for discussion on what we should you about the following 3 editors:

Timbouctou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) WP:ARBMAC discretionary sanctions notification: [8]

Tuvixer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) WP:ARBMAC discretionary sanctions notification: [9] (Didn't link to the case properly)

Tzowu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) WP:ARBMAC discretionary sanctions notification: [10]

There is an AN/3 report against one of the editors Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:.E2.80.8ETzowu_reported_by_User:Tuvixer_.28Result:_.29 but I think this goes beyond mere edit warring, and that the community needs to take a broader look at the issue. As an interim measure, I have full protected the article for 3 days. If this is resolved in such a way that removing the protection before then would make sense, please do so. Monty₈₄₅ 15:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Monty845. I was canvassed into this on my talk page link1 link2, I have never edited the article. I did attempt to add Timbouctou to the existing edit warring dispute but I agree moving this here is probably better. Timbouctou reverted 9 times today [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]. Mixed in on the edit comments are civility issues. Tuvixer is not innocent in this as he was involved in at least as many reverts as the diffs in this comment show he was reverting Timbouctou's reverts. AlbinoFerret 15:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, a broader look is definitely merited as this is not the first time User:Tuvixer is displaying paranoid trolling behaviour, mixing hysterical edit-warring with rants about him being stalked and/or politically persecuted. Timbouctou (talk) 17:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I am sure everyone will be looked at. But lets take a look at WP:CIVIL. Name calling is wrong, but you repeatedly call Tuxixer a troll on the talk page [20] [21] [22] [23] and in the edit comments I added diffs for in my last post. Article talk pages are not the place for such comments. Comment on content, not other users WP:TPYES. AlbinoFerret 18:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Not another case of rude and hostile editors in a Balkan article! Personal attacks and other violations of talk-age guidelines in a subject area that is subject to discretionary sanctions, in this case under WP:ARBMAC, can be dealt with at arbitration enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

If this starts looking like its not going anywhere thats the next step. A day or so at most. AlbinoFerret 13:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

For the record, this is what talking to Tuvixer looks like at LGBT rights in Croatia, or Economy of Croatia or Privatization in Croatia or Social Democratic Party of Croatia or Ministry of Culture. He simply starts by edit-warring, then starts asking everyone who does not agree with him what is "wrong with them", calls everyone names, accuses everyone of political bias, rants on and on about him being stalked and then abandoning discussions started by himself at his whim. With all due respect, if that does not fit the definition of a troll, I don't know what does. Timbouctou (talk) 17:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Rangeblock genius wanted

Hi admins. A bunch of us have had problems with someone I've dubbed the Marhc Vandal. He's almost a daily annoyance. Anyhow, I'm hoping that one of the more technically-minded admins can help set up one (or twenty?) range blocks, or figure out something that will help suppress the disruption for a while. List of some of the IPs used are here. Please feel free to add notes to that document as you wish. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:18, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Alternatively, how about we start getting serious about eliminating this kind of crap once and for all with real name registration and sign-in-to-edit? Carrite (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Nobody can help take a stab at this? Nobody? Anybody? Will this be another ANI report that gets archived with no action or reply? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I guess you could try Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to make range blocks. I've never had good luck with requesting range blocks. As a result, I briefly considered an edit filter, which eventually struck me as unworkable. Maybe you could try that route if the range block is declined. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Is this who ThePhantomBot's been detecting with LTA-10? Check the LTA-10 detections at the debug log and if it's the same person I'll try to expand the filter, otherwise I'll see if I can make a new one. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 02:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Account hacked; block ASAP

This account seems hacked. Unexplained reverts and vandalism-type edits in the past couple of minutes. Please block ASAP. Mar4d (talk) 15:06, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Concur, what just creating a section about this. AHLM13 seems to have lost control of their account or is going on a rather odd vandalism spree. They're reverted a fair number of recent edits I've made which effectively restored vandalism ([24], [25] and [26] for example). They've made some odd changes to other editor's user pages] and just recently asked for a block. This is not their typical behavior from my experience. They are a difficult editor that doesn't handle criticism and disputes well, but not something like this. Ravensfire (talk) 15:12, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Does indeed look that way. The account has been blocked indefinitely. Favonian (talk) 15:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. And thanks to those that helped clean up from the short spree of vandalism, appreciate it! Ravensfire (talk) 15:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Ditto. Cheers for the prompt action Favonian. Mar4d (talk) 15:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

 Checkuser note: The account does not appear to be compromised remotely. Thus, it possible the user performed the actions or someone gained access to his or her computer. Mike V • Talk 15:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

It looks just like an opportunistic spree by someone who's gained access to his computer - e.g this edit to the account's own userpage - and quite unlike AHLM13. NebY (talk) 15:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I actually agree with Mike V with what he is saying, there is a possibility that the editor did this all himself. I don't see if he had full consensus from Mar4d or AsceticRose on any of the matters. Ravensfire was his opponent, the way he has used TW rollback on a few of the recent edits is similar to the way he did that before. Well, there are no hurries, we can wait for unblock request. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd say it would be too early, premature and also unfair on AHLM13 to point fingers until he returns and has the chance to clear himself. With edits like these, I certainly don't think, neither find it convincing to believe that it would be him. There is a high possibility the account was abused by someone who gained access to his PC. Mar4d (talk) 16:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Either scenario is possible and I've seen both in the past. Sometimes it's someone who gets burned out and goes on a quick vandalism spree before leaving. Other times the user left his or her computer unlocked and a friend/relative/random person decided to do it. Checkuser can't see who's behind the screen, but I can confirm that the account wasn't remotely hacked. Mike V • Talk 17:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

As you say, Checkuser can't say who is behind the screen. In fact, that is the whole point to the little brother essay. There is a type of "remote hack" that Checkuser can't identify, and that is the use of a trapdoor that has turned the computer into a spam zombie. What Mike V. presumably means is that the password hasn't been compromised. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I think the account has been misused by someone else. I have the impression that if it had been AHLM13, he would not have vandalized my user page at least, because I see no reason to do so. The whole thing came to me as very bizarre and shocking.

I think AHLM13 should be given one chance. However, AHLM13 should come up with more convincing points. -AsceticRosé 23:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

AHLM13 states that no one in his office knows how to use Wikipedia in his unblock request.But the edits appear to be from someone who is familiar with Wikipedia using Twinkle from his first edit and editing pages like Washiqur Rahman Babu in which AHLM13 was involved. Refering to the edits between 14.55 to 15.09 May 03 .It clearly fails WP:DUCK.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Persistent edit war on Ultraman

User:Medeis continues to revert new edits back to his edits. The focus of these edits are of a picture (which he uploaded personally) which he keeps re-adding to the article's infobox, always referring to wiki's MOS (never specifying which rule) as his justification. WP:TVIMAGE clearly states this, The image presented in the infobox of the main article should ideally be an intertitle shot of the show (i.e., a screenshot capture of the show's title) or a promotional poster used to represent the show itself. The user has ingored these rules and the issue continues to persist. The user has a history of restoring his photo back into the article, shown here and here, and keeps deleting new pictures claiming that they are not in fair use or so. I've tried discussing the problem with the user on the article's talk page but never recieved a response. I believe it is now only fair to get an unbiased opinion from a third party. Armegon (talk) 21:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

FTR, I think I prefer User:Medeis' version, rather than separate Japanese and English title cards. --IJBall (talk) 21:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes but his picture is not an appropriate spot for the infobox, per WP:TVIMAGE. And given what the guidelines say, the English title card is appropriate and it is subject for commentary. Armegon (talk) 21:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

First, it's a style guideline – it's carry the "force of law" or anything. Second, two title cards seem like overkill. Perhaps the best solution is to put one titlecard (probably the English one) in the Infobox, and move the Japenese titlecard, and Medeis' image, out of the Infobox and into the article itself. --IJBall (talk) 22:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Seems fair. However, I recommend leaving the Japanese title card, since the show is Japanese. I tried moving Medeis picture into the "Heroes and Monsters" section of the article because I thought the picture itself illustrates the subject of the section but once agaain, Medeis moved it back to the infobox, claiming that the "named character belongs in infobox". Armegon (talk) 22:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I did not remove the Japanese title card, I retained both the card and the image so they were visible without scrolling to find out what Ultraman looks like. μηδείς (talk) 00:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Medeis

The version IJBall has said he likes was a long term compromise showing both the character and the Japanese logo which only a small minority of English speaking readers can understand. Indeed, according to policy, only one version of a stylized trademark logo may be used in an article, not two, and no rule prevents showing the title character of a show in the info box:

• The television infobox template says: "A suitable image relevant to the show. ... Typically the image will be the series' title card, although this is not mandated." Obviously a picture of the main character is quite relevant, especially when many readers will be unfamiliar with the name and unable to read the Japanese text.

• According to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Trademarks#Use_of_graphic_logos, a stylized logo may be used once. There is no justification for having both logos in the infobox, or in the article at all.

In addition to those two points, I'd like to formally request an WP:SPI of the recent editors and in comparison with the recently arbcom-blocked Ryulong whose last edit summary removing the picture of Ultaman was edit summaried: you know what, we're not going to use either efing photo.. (If I need to do so elsewhere please let me know.) The last four reversions of the article removing the character from his infobox have all been by anonymous single-purpose IP users, one of whom has himself been blocked:

1. diff Special:Contributions/2601:A:1700:516E:A49C:E96B:123E:FA6A "stop getting rid of the English title card in favor of that screencap" (user has one edit to Kamen Rider and remaining three edits to ultraman)
2. diff Special:Contributions/85.194.75.18 "this is about the show, not the character" (user blocked as proxy for two years by Zzuuzz)
3. diff Special:Contributions/189.18.36.204 (user's sole editing was to revert image, no edit summary
4. diff Special:Contributions/2601:A:1700:516E:9015:C39E:5C31:E615 "stop putting that ugly screencap in the infobox" (user has three edits, solely to Ultraman)

In summary, (1) we cannot have two stylized trademarked logos in the same article one of the logos (I say the English) must go. (2) We apparently have socking insisting on enforcing the position Ryulong held. And (3) a picture of the main character supplementing a Japanese language text with no picture is a reasonable, permissable compromise that had stood for a long time.

μηδείς (talk) 00:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Again, WP:TVIMAGE clearly states this, The image presented in the infobox of the main article should ideally be an intertitle shot of the show (i.e., a screenshot capture of the show's title) or a promotional poster used to represent the show itself. The article is about the show, not the character, so an image of the character is not the ideal or appropriate image for the infobox. User:IJBall and I have agreed to limit the infobox image to one image and move all other images down the article. Like I've said, the article is about the show, so the Japanese title card should be the only image in the infobox, per WP:TVIMAGE guidelines. Armegon (talk) 02:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I think the important thing at this point is that any further discussion of content issues like the Infobox image should go back to Talk:Ultraman (if that happens, I may even head over there to offer my $0.02...). But the only issue that should be discussed here at ANI is the slow-burn edit war that's been going on at Ultraman. If both of you commits to not revert the other for a while, and take the discussion to the Talk page, then I think then we can close this as an ANI matter... --IJBall (talk) 02:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. The issue about the infobox image is clearly still not settled, so User:IJBall, your input at the talk page would greatly be appreciated and beneficial. I hope we can kick this off from my original post on the talk page, "Edit war of the page" rather than create a new section. Armegon (talk) 02:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• I want the issue of the socking on that page to be addressed. That's not a content dispute, it's someone gaming the system. Four separate anonymous and single IP users make the same edit over three days, and only when I mention SPI is this issue brought here? There's something going on here besides a content dispute. If I should file a separate report, let me know. μηδείς (talk) 04:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Pushing POV and "Serbianization" of Articles by User:Yerevani Axjik/AnulBanul

I don't know where to put this, so I'll just put it at general ANI. User:Yerevani Axjik pushes POV in their contributions. Not so long time ago, he/she started editing articles about some places in Bosnia, putting in them this photo and putting changes like this one. There is list of affected articles on this Commons-picture. Thanks in advance. --Munja-x86 (talk) 19:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Are those places in Republika Srpska? --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 19:27, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

So what? Sarajevo is in Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. What would be if we put it on the separate map, and not in Bosnia? This is clear POV pushing. --Munja-x86 (talk) 19:32, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Clear POV pushing? How come? Is linking to the municipalities of Republika Srpska article problematic as well? All articles clearly state that those geographical places are in Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as in Republika Srpska, a federal unit of Bosnia and Herzegovina, same as the states of the USA. To me, this isn't a problem at all. --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 19:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

You stated that you like Serbian nation. That's fine. But editing in disruptive manner is not, which you are working on. In Bosnian map there is currently entity line, so what is the reason to change map to the new one? You are just making mess by involving new map. --Munja-x86 (talk) 19:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I really don't remember that I said I like Serbian nation or anything similar. The truth is, I do, I studied in Serbia and lived there for some time. Regardless, Republika Srpska location map seems fine, all articles using this map contain a very visible information that they are in Bosnia and Herzegovina. However, who here likes whom or hates whom is clear from your edit where your edit summary was "Fuck Republika Srpska (RS)", or literally translated from Serbo-Croatian - Republika Srpska fucks you. I do not know to which user you referred to, but it's clear that you're the one pushing your own POV, and a very interesting one. --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 19:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

It seems the user "Yerevani Axjik" was renamed to user "AnulBanul" in the meantime, so I amended the section name.

The location map is a moot issue as far as POV-pushing, because it's rather subtle. It's reasonably fair to tell the readers that there's both Republika Srpska and Federation on maps of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Perhaps the POV indicator is that the color of the Federation and of surrounding states is the same. This may give the readers the mistaken impression that these are all sovereign states, which they are not. But you can trivially fix that issue by editing the image file on commons. Only if such edits were e.g. reverted without explanation you might have a case of abuse.

Perhaps a more egregious example of POV pushing would be what seems to have transpired at Talk:Emina (poem) recently. The first edit was tagging the 1902 poem article with Republika Srpska, which seems bizarrely anachronistic on the face of it, and then there was the flamewar about whether it's Serbian or Bosnian.

Another admin should have a look. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Just to make things clear. The WikiProject Republika Srpska has both, Republika Srpska and Serbs of Bosnia and Herzegovina in its scope. --AnulBanul (talk) 15:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

That's because you yourself invented it on 17 February 2015‎. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Is there something wrong about that? Yes, I have invented it, which means it's not limited to the territory of Republika Srpska only, but also Serbs of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and it is wrong to see it as a Republika Srpska-only project, since it's not that. --AnulBanul (talk) 22:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually user is not the person who is pretending to be. He used name Wustenfuchs with same nationalistic agenda, and has been banned on hr.wiki for sockpuppeting. His native language is Bosnian, not Russian nor Armenian! User is trying to imply he is some other person, while pushing POV "from behind". I will change all maps on affected files. Image map (on commons) of RS is fine to keep if used in right context. Thanks Joy for the insight. P.S. I don't know how renaming passed, because person is blocked on hr.wiki. --Munja-x86 (talk) 21:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Err, User:Wustenfuchs? But, that person is a Croatian? Munja-x86, please take a moment to stop and think about WP:AGF. You can't go around blaming people for serious abuses so aimlessly. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

@Joy: yes, that user! Whatever, same language, Bosnian, Croatian, but he is from Bosnia. Please check this out [27]! (hr.wiki part) I know what I'm saying, I have a good faith ;) --Munja-x86 (talk) 22:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, I was blocked at hr.wiki, but have no connection to the said user whatsoever. Croatia admins are group of 19th century nationalists, so they ban you for whatever the reason. Also, you should wait with your agenda of reverting the map where ever it's used. We should finish the discussion here or elsewhere first. The map of Srpska is used in the right context. All those geographical places where it's used are in Republika Srpska, and it is clearly noted they are all in Bosnia and Herzegovina. --AnulBanul (talk) 22:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I have several things to add about User:Yerevani Axjik/AnulBanul since she is already being discussed. This user has had issues with several editors and has been called out on it by a couple, including me. User:Surtsicna confronted the user about the same issue discussed here. Yerevani Axjik/AnulBanul has a history of denying Bosniaks of an ethnic identity, language, etc. You can look through the users edits. The user has been on an edit-spree, removing the term Bosniaks or replacing it with with the Yugoslav-era Muslims. On Emina, Yerevani Axjik seems to believe that those 24 years of Communist propaganda (1968 to 1992, when Bosniaks were called ethnically Muslims) should rule all of history, even Ottoman times. The user replaced the term Bosniak to describe the subject of the poem, Emina Sefic, with Bosnian Muslim and linked the Bosnian part with the Bosnia Eyalet... a division of the Ottoman Empire which lost control over Bosnia in 1878 -- Emina was born in 1884. The user has also made it a hobby to replace the Bosnian language translations on articles with either Serbo-Croatian or Serbian, and has called the Bosnian language a "political term", and not an actual language. To say that the Bosnian language is a "political term" rather than a linguistic term is yet another attempt to deny Bosniaks of an identity. If that's the case then Serbian is also a "political term" and not a language. Emina was written by the Bosnian Serb poet Aleksa Šantić in the dialect of the Bosnian language in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The user also has been moving pages unnecessarily. For example, the user moved several pages like Petrovac, Bosnia and Herzegovina to Petrovac, Republika Srpska. That particular move was reverted by another user. Yerevani Axjik/AnulBanul has resorted to accusing me of being a sockpuppet of a user that was blocked two years ago because I, like that user, say that Santic was a Bosnian Serb rather than Serbian. Because he WAS. Yerevani Axji/AnulBanul literally went onto Santic's wiki and replaced "Bosnian Serb" with "Serb" to prove her point. Everybody else agreed that this man was born in Bosnia-Herzegovina, raised there, spent his entire life there, and died there... he was a Bosnian Serb, it's fact, not an opinion. You explanation for your removal of "Bosnian Serb" on his wiki was "Šantić contributed greatly to the whole Serbian culture, therefore canot be exclusively described as a Bosnian Serb poet, since he was a member of the Serbian Royal Academy and was active in Serbia as well." So if Barack Obama joined the Serbian Royal Academy, he would be Serbian and a Serbian politician? Logical. User:Munja-x86 hunch that User:Yerevani Axjik/AnulBanul is a sockpuppet of User:Wustenfuchs should be looked into. Wustenfuchs became active 31 October 2008 until 20 September 2014. Yerevani Axjik/AnulBanul became active TWO DAYS later 22 September 2014. Coincidence?--Dragodol (talk) 06:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

You're saying it's anachronistic to apply the term Republika Srpska (made official in 1992) to Emina, but don't see the exact same problem in applying the term Bosnian language (made official in 1993). To an innocent bystander, both of your positions will be seen as nationalist.

Nobody has explained the correlation between Serbian nationalist positions held by AnulBanul and Croatian nationalist positions held by Wustenfuchs. How and why would one make such a transition?!

In any case, this discussion seems way too intricate for ANI, if you want to argue a WP:ARBMAC violation, please follow the procedure at WP:AE instead. And for any sockpuppetry accusations, use WP:SPI. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)

Adminstative attention is really needed on this article. A new account, NPOV Ninja, as well as multiple IP’s, have been removing sourced content and vandalizing the article. One of the IP’s, 2601:84:C801:6529:30DD:8C06:907E:A9EA, is apparently NPOV Ninja. He admitted this on article talk page: [28].

NPOV Ninja apparently just joined WP yesterday, yet he is familiar with move discussions [29] and speedy deletion tags [30]. After removing large chunks of content on the article Dominant-party system, NPOV moved to Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight), deleting large chunks of sourced content. Account appears to be WP:NOTHERE. Ninja was warned about his editing on talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) by Sarah(SV) [31], but instead of heading the warning, NPOV Ninja deleted Sarah(SV)'s warning from the talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=Talk:Mattress_Performance_%28Carry_That_Weight%29&diff=660537239&oldid=660535206] and continued to gut the article, changing the title, and rewriting the lead to an incoherent version. [32]

Read the lead here prior to NPOV's changes: [33]

Verses here. Where NPOV rewrote the lead to be incoherent:[34]

There’s more. Just go to the article history. Granger has been diligently trying to deal with the disruption, which also includes various BLP violations from IP’s such as [35], but the disruption is really getting too much for good faith editors to manage. Looking over NPOV Ninja's brief editing history, it seems he should probably be blocked as a WP:NOTHERE, but at a minimum it seems they should be topic banned from Mattress Perfromance (Carry That Weight). SlimVirgin already tried warning them and they just deleted the warning from talk page and continued the disruption. It would also probably help if the article were semi-protected. Because there are multiple IP's that edit similarly to new registered users, but the IP keeps editing, and there is also ongoing IP vandalism/BLP violations.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:34, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Ongoing? I said I would stop. So many unanswered questions. I don't get it. You're only proving my point more. The same people every time enforce the consensus rule. That is not a consensus. Read my own talk page. I was forgiven. I said I would never do it again and I wont. Having an outdated article on an ongoing topic. Before I'm automatically blocked take a look. Really. There's a reason I haven't been blocked yet. NPOV Ninja (talk) 19:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

It appears that just a few minutes ago you were edit waring with Sergecross73 [36] regarding deletion tag. Sarah(SV) warned you to stop yesterday and it's just continued.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

You identify yourself as Exposer of NPOV of all political or ideological orientations...you should probably read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• There's a fast-track solution here in that this is BLP material and subject to sanctions that can be imposed by any admin. I have just posted a BLP sanctions alert on NPOV Ninja's talk page. If their disruption continues we can escalate to topic bans and/or blocks without the need for a prolonged discussion here. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • For reference, this user has tried to delete the article in question via prod, which got removed (and thus could not be attempted again, although not for lack of trying). Next was trying to get it deleted via deletion review, which is obviously not the correct venue for that discussion. When I tried to explain that, it was not well received. The Ninja states he or she will be going to arbitration review on the subject. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I have just blanked the article, as a clear violation of WP:BLP policy - if this is restored, I will contact the WMF, and ask that they take action themselves. An article concerning allegations of rape masquerading as an article on 'performance art' is simply untenable, and I am frankly astonished that this has been permitted to exist for so long. Has everyone else gone batshit crazy? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, I predict that edit will be reverted and I expect you'll need to write WMF then. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, if it is reverted, I will not only contact the WMF, but consider contacting the male individual concerned, advising him of the appropriate manner to begin legal action against the editors responsible - the article as it stands contains at least one clear libel, and probably more (and for the benefit of anyone about to cite WP:NOLEGALTHREATS, I don't give a flying fuck - this article is a disgrace to Wikipedia, and if I end up being permanently blocked for drawing attention to the gross misuse of the encyclopaedia, I don't really care). AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

After seeing the article I have to agree with Andy that it is a disgrace to WP. Violating BLP policies, NPOV and just about everything else, and full of slander/libel. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not a gossip rag. Thomas.W ^talk 21:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

User:AndyTheGrump just removed my warning on his Talkpage with a PA in the edit-summary. He might not even have read the warning to the end. I stated that I agree with him, but he should not undermine NLT to make a point. Andy is totally over the top. 80.132.93.228 (talk) 22:45, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Get real, dude. There's no legal threat in what Andy wrote a couple of steps up in this section, if that is what you mean, so your warning was totally inappropriate. He's also free to remove any warning of any kind from his talk page. Seeing an IP issue a NLT-warning as their first ever edit, and then run to WPANI and complain about Andy as their second edit, also makes me wonder if there's socking involved, because the IP is clearly not a new user. Thomas.W ^talk 22:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I know that it's no creditable legal threat. The point is that it is a slippery slope to allow such things because someone is right. Regarding the PA: so I gather it's free for all, User:Thomas.W? 80.132.93.228 (talk) 23:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

What personal attack? Thomas.W ^talk 23:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

@User:Thomas.W: See the edit summary, as i wrote above. 80.132.93.228 (talk) 23:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Wasn't it obvious from Andy's post just above in this thread that he has heard of NLT and doesn't care right now? No need to post a mealy-mouthed template, 80.132.93.228. Don't poke, please, and use your account. Assuming it's not blocked, of course. Bishonen | talk 23:06, 3 May 2015 (UTC).

@User:Bishonen: I knew that he knew it. That makes it a violation of WP:Point. So it is free for all, or not? 80.132.93.228 (talk) 23:12, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

"Another form of trolling can occur in the form of continual questions with obvious or easy-to-find answers." You only seem interested in one particular part of what people say to you, and ignore all suggestions that you use your account. If you're here in the hope of getting Andy blocked for a minor explosion when removing your annoying template, no rational admin is going to oblige. But I've fed enough. Bishonen | talk 23:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC).

@User:Bishonen: I said nothing about blocking. AGF much? You are asuming a lot of things about me. More important you are not feeding the trolls but the drama, by again allowing certain editors to be "above the law" because they are right. 80.132.93.228 (talk) 23:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

It should probably be noted that after the article was completely blanked, it was restored and frozen at a much earlier version, which omits all mention of the accused student's lawsuit, making it seem more one sided in that respect. This has been objected to by multiple users on article talk page [37].--BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• Here is the situation right now as I see it:

• I have indef blocked NPOV Ninja for edit warring, personal attacks, disruptive editing, and general incompetence. I do not expect that block to be lifted anytime soon.
• If they show back up under another identity, contact me, or another admin, or file at WP:SPI
• I have repeatedly asked those alleging libel to either email me or use WP:RFO so it can be suppressed out of existence. So for nobody has done so, for reasons that are not all clear to me. If it is there, the oversight team will get rid of it, completely and permanently.
• The underlying issue here, whether this young man's name should be in this article, can continue to be debated, but I would note that his lawyer spoke with national news outlets about it and his name has been in the banner headline of nationwide news sources, so that ship has already sailed regardless of what we decide to do and it is clear his lawyer is not trying to keep his name out of it.

• I'm not sure there's much more ANI ca do here, but the more admins watch the article and its talk page the better. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Canvasssing and probable socking from a Comcast IP here. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• I've started another BLPN discussion regarding whether or not to name the accused student: [38]--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not sure how much has changed from the previous BLPN discussion in February about the exact same question. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The only thing that has really changed since the last BLPN, is that the accused student filed a lawsuit against the school, arguing that approving the mattress performance for school art credit constitutes the university engaging in sexual discrimination against him in violation of Title IX. He filed suit under his real name, not as a John Doe, so the press has been reporting it using his name.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Scholar081504 repeatedly reverting a copyright violation into Shelina Zahra Janmohamed

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 March, I found a copyright violation in this article and removed it. This is documented on User talk:Scholar081504.

Scholar081504 (talk · contribs) reverted it back into the article, and I posted a copyvio notice on his page. He reverted it again today and disputes that it is a copyright violation on his talk page. It is a complete book review from a paper posted on Academia.edu. User does not seem to get that freely available is not the same as public domain. Skyerise (talk) 15:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

@Skyerise: After copying-pasting the content that the user added into Google search, yes it is WP:COPYVIO, from more than one source. The user also does not have mcuh experience in proper <ref></ref> techniques. I will add my own comment on the user's talk page, and hopefully an admin will do something about this. Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 18:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Callmemirela! That's usually what the violators need, a second opinion.... Skyerise (talk) 18:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I have added them to my list of people to watch. Any further copy vio will result in an indef block. Thanks for reporting. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:27, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Sir, I respect the copyright law and regulations that wikipedia has. I tried to edit the contribution to Shelina Zahra Janmohamed for several times, to make it suitable for wikipedia. You may check the editing history. You are talking as if I am adding info to a fake person or fake information. I have not provided a single word of info that is wrong. I gave reference to every single sentence I added. I thought this is the authentic way to contribute at wikipedia. I have seen in many other places at wikipedia, where people added info from an website/article/newspaper and acknowledge the source. If you kindly notice, you will see that I cited at least 5 sources. In some places I tried to rephrase and, in many places, I copied and acknowledged. As I know once we acknowledged, it's not plagiarism or copyright violation. I have been alleged that I copied the whole info from an article published in academia.edu, which is completely false. That particular article is simply one of the 5 sources that I added info from. Should I simply write/rephrase info as I want without citing the source. That would be a much more easy job. If I provided any wrong info, you could take legal action against me. I am just lost. I don't know what to do. To contribute to wikipedia, I had to go through many materials. Now I realize that it is wrong to cite the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scholar081504 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Scholar081504#Response to your concern. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2015 (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 creation of Eastern News Agency,(ENA) and similar articles

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

---

Hello, editor SpokesManBD has been repeatedly creating articles such as these, several of which contain copied material from [39]. The editor has been warned that they should probably not edit this article due to COI. Moreover they are continually updating copyrighted files such as Eastern News Agency.gif (which has just been deleted). I would go to RPP and ask for a create protection, but the articles appear to have a variety of names. JZCL 15:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I got an email from them when an OTRS reference (Ticket#2015050410008377). I deleted it as a copyvio, and am unable to verify the OTRS claims. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 15:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• I've protected Eastern News Agency,(ENA) since it was repeatedly created at Eastern News Agency plus since this wouldn't be the proper place for the article anyway. I know that there is a request to restore some of the content at REFUND, but there is somewhat of a problem with this since the copyrighted material (OTRS ticket or no) is too promotional to restore. We're waiting for some confirmation on the ticket before restoring an edited version of the article at Enanews that does not contain promotional or copyrighted text. I'm mildly worried about someone trying to restore the promotional content since User:Enanews and User:SpokesManBD have been pretty gung ho about doing this. I don't see where he's been explicitly warned about reposting promotional content, so I'll give him a formal warning about this and let him know that he can be blocked for repeatedly posting promotional content. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
• I'm thinking that a block may be inevitable here. SpokesManBD doesn't seem to be understanding any of the issues that people are bringing up on his talk page and he's insisting that the pre-OTRS ticket content wasn't a copyright issue and that none of it was promotional. I'm trying to stress to him why this was incorrect and that the article content would have to be re-written, but it's not really going through. I don't want to block him before he has a chance to redeem himself, but so far I'm not really seeing where he's going to do anything different than what he already has. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

It seems as if SpokesMan has agreed not to continually create the article in the mainspace, but to attempt at WP:AFC. Thank you Tokyo Girl for spending the effort to help SpokesMan understand. I am happy to close this on the assumption that the article will not be attempted to be recreated outside of AFC. JZCL 20:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Legal threat

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

---

See User talk:70.128.120.202, where the user threatens to file a petition in court if they're not unblocked. BMK (talk) 23:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Between MaxSem and Ohnoitsjamie, they have taken care of it. Rangeblocked with tpa revoked.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

It would be interesting to see an anonymous editor expose his personal info to the public, all for the sake of a meritless lawsuit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Of course, any hints legal threats must be taken seriously, and this one is handled properly, but I encourage everybody to read and enjoy this "legal threat"; a great piece of a Lawyer joke. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Really? Is it really necessary to take every threat to "sue Wikipedia" seriously? It's usually just a frustrated editor venting who has no idea what is exactly involved in filing a suit against an organization. I just think it's said more to get a reaction ("listen to me, I'm serious") rather than an actual legal threat that will be acted upon. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Liz, it really doesn't matter what the editor's "real" purpose is, we can't get inside their head, so we can't know that. WP:NLT explicitly says:

If you have a dispute with the community or its members, use dispute resolution. If you do choose to use legal action or threats of legal action to resolve disputes, you will not be allowed to continue editing until it is resolved and your user account and or IP address may be blocked. (emphasis added)

That's pretty straightforward. BMK (talk) 03:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Self-reporting

I'm under an ArbCom 1RR, and I wanted to check that two reverts I made fell under the "obvious vandalism" exemption - if not, I'll self-revert. A user at Curtis Culwell Center attack is removing merge tags for an ongoing merge discussion because they personally don't want to merge the article - it seems to me that this, like the removal of AFD tags by users who don't want the article to be deleted and see "make sure no one knows about this conversation" as a better choice than "try to convince others of my position", is the sort of vandalism that's exempt from RR rules. But, as I said, I'll self-revert if that's not the case; what do people think? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I do think that self-reverting would be a good idea. Looking at those 3 votes, all oppose, it would be a better idea to try it out but later. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The discussion has been going on for less than an hour. It doesn't mean that consensus against a merge won't still develop, but what I'm asking here is whether attempting to unilaterally end a discussion you don't like by removing tags, like AFD tags, constitutes vandalism that is exempt from RR - not whether or not you think the article should be merged. Similarly, you can't repeatedly revert the addition of AFD tags just because you really want the article to be kept - you need to wait for the discussion to be closed, even if it's a snow close. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive indeed, but not really vandalism, you can make a call on the talk page. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I think the tag was removed a bit too quickly, so I restored it. Per this amusing essay, I think the merge discussion deserves more than two hours to find consensus. I'm hoping people will avoid edit warring over a tag. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Warning/block needed for user User:\\'arrior 786

Hello. Could any awake admin drop another warning or perhaps another block for this user? Apart from adding unsourced additions, and spreading some ethnic nationalism, there is virtually no single use for his edits. Though he got blocked on the 10th of April for disruptively editing, which is very recently, he still hasn't understood it. It's rather quite annoying for other users who have to rv, rv, rv his edits. Some of his disruptive edits we had to revert these days [40], [41], [42], [43]. Regards.

- LouisAragon (talk) 01:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: You need to notify editors you report to AN/I that you have done so. Best practice is to use {{subst:ANI-notice}}. Monty₈₄₅ 02:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah, check! Had forgotten to do so. - LouisAragon (talk) 02:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: You can't request someone's blocking without any relevant proofs and on your personal nationalist observations as you called me nationalist too, so being it is not a crime. Im trying to expand wikipedia's articles with best sources and proofs available from wikipedia/wikimedia or outside. And you've also reverted my serval article including Afghanistan without any reason. - \\'arrior 786 (talk) 02:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Editor Concerns: Technical 13

Technical 13 has a history of permission removals and temporary blocks resulting from problematic behavior, often undone with the idea that he is doing "good work." The continuation of problematic behavior is a strong indication that previous situations have not been properly dealt with. It should be noted that "good work" is not a sufficient reason to allow a user to get off easier when they violate a Wikipedia policy, disruptive behavior and other policy violations inhibit other editors from doing their own work while they deal with the situation and it is quite easy for several editors to do more "good work" than any single editor.

Past behavior

This section is not meant to be a complete list, it is meant to briefly list some past problematic behavior.

1. Discussion related to removal of TemplateEditor right as a result of edit warring [44]
2. In a frivolous request for arbitration, Technical 13 makes accusations against a sysop in what seems to be part of several responses to having his TemplateEditor right removed and, when he notices the boomerang, appears to attempt to appeal to the emotions of the arbitrators before saying his original concern didn't matter and dropping the case.
3. ANI posts by Technical 13 created after the removal of TE: call for removal of TE from another editor and a request for reinstatement of TE
4. Evidence of another poor response to critisism/resistance [45], ending with the block being endorsed later undone on the condition of it being the "last chance"
5. Unblock disussions related to the above block
6. Modified 02:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC) Edit warring related block information can be found [46] and a related ANI thread [47]
7. Added 02:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC) Here Technical 13 is confronted in relation to suspected canvassing. Additionally, in the thread starting "With another view," T13 is confronted about marking edits as minor and blames the tool.

Recent issues

Though I've tried to include as much as possible, most of the things here have some connection to me, that's how I'm aware of them, and so this should not be considered a complete list and others may wish to add onto it. Deciding between putting something here or in the section above was not based on a fixed date but more on if any actions were taken in response to the incident with some consideration for how long ago "ignored" incidents happened so the line may be a bit fuzzy when it comes to slightly old incidents. I've tried to keep the incidents here somewhat brief to prevent people from not reading due to length, I am, of course, willing to provide more information on request.

1. Another unnecessary appeal to emotion [48]. While I don't have a reason to doubt the truthfulness of these claims, Technical 13 was made aware in his request for arbitration that he should not attempt to use these sorts of "excuses." Regardless of the truthfulness of his statement, continued use of these appeals to emotion appears to be evidence of an attempt to sway the opinions of others by making them feel bad for him.
2. Here a side discussion confronts Technical 13's marking of edits as minor where he claims that the only way he can not mark certain edits as minor is to revert them as vandalism, as the other editor points out this is not true and appears, to me, to indicate that Technical 13 feels that other editors are required to work around him and what he wants
3. In relation to [49], Technical 13 recklessly reverted a fix to a template, even after being explained that the change was a fix and created a RFPP where one of his comments indicate that a reason for protection was to gain an advantage in the content dispute. Technical 13's reverts reference and misrepresent WP:BRD by saying that it "doesn't apply to highly transcluded templates and this kind of behavior could result in you being blocked." WP:BRD is not a policy and states that it can be used on "high-profile" cases. The RFC was created and so far no one except Technical 13 has considered the change as anything more than a fix. On the RFC, Technical 13 even says he does not object to the change, despite all the previous occurrences where he insists it would break all transclusions. Technical 13 quickly goes back to saying it would break transclusions, only giving an explanation of what exactly is broken a few days later and, to be honest, the reason seems to be whatever random difference in behavior he could find to avoid admitting he was wrong by dressing it up as an issue.
4. Technical 13 again demonstrates recklessness when he indicates that he either did not read the proposal or that he intends to mislead other readers by claiming issues exist that do not here, the issues are explicitly accounted for in the proposal. In the same post he references a change he made to nicks after this one had be proposed, his change appears to have been made without any consensus or discussion. Technical 13 also attempts to use his status as "Editor of the Week" to give his opposition, which is based (almost?) entirely on false or questionable information, more weight. His idea that the truth of his claims is self evident does not seem to be isolated to this incident and is not a mindset anyone on Wikipedia should have.
5. Technical 13 seems to often only reply to parts of replies directed at him. An example is here where hardly any of my concerns about his opposition are addressed, he even completely ignores my statement about fixing any technical issues with the code, simply reiterating that they exist after implying that the code creates a privacy and security issue without explaining what the issue is. This sort of behavior unnecessarily delays and complicates the consensus building process.
6. Edits that appear to be POV pushing at Template:Centralized discussion, best demonstrated by [50]. The edit summary is "Misleading. This is about adding global javascript, claiming it is "just about a disclaimer" is deceitful and dishonest." however the edit reverted makes no indication that the proposal is "just about a disclaimer" it, in fact, mentions the sitewide JavaScript and so it appears that the intention of the revert is to include the phrase "add an extra step for new users to get live IRC help" in the link which, though accurate, is not neutral. There is a discussion related to the change here and was one here.
7. Technical 13 made a controversial and major change with no apparent consensus to IRC nicks. Some of the templates edited were template protected. The change effectively tricks users into linking their username and IP address by prefilling the nick with what looks like a random number but is actually a revision ID. This was all done while a proposal on the village pump, that Technical 13 is aware of, that conflicts with the change Technical 13 made was active and editors have expressed similar concerns with the change as I have here.

Suggested remedy

I'm not entirely sure what should happen to Technical 13 as a result of this behavior but, as the very least, Technical 13's TE rights should be removed indefinitely per WP:TPEREVOKE. (1) Number 7 in the section "Recent issues." (2) Number 3 of the "Recent issues" section above indicates that Technical 13 does not always exercise sufficient caution when making changes to templates and (3) his RFPP shows an intent to use the right to gain an advantage in disputes. Removal of his TE right has already been tried, and as shown by the information in this post has be ineffective so to do just that would be ineffective. Regardless of what is done, if anything is done I feel that it should require community consensus here if anyone ever wants it to be undone to ensure that the community agrees it is appropriate. I ask that those who discuss this resist any urge to recommend minor remedies since it appears that the community has already put quite some effort into resolving issues with this editor and it is not in the best interest of Wikipedia to have the community continue to deal with the same problems. Since many of Technical 13's problematic actions can carry on without any "special" rights, I feel the only effective solution would be one that, somehow, limits or completely blocks Technical 13's ability to interact with Wikipedia and the community. Though this would restrict or completely prevent any further "good work" done by Technical 13, the fact is, his poor behavior burdens the community and takes away time that others could devote to do their own "good work". PHANTOMTECH (talk) 02:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

• No to put it simply. I really think you are pulling at straws and digging through very old issues, remember we all make mistakes sometimes. More importantly, in my opinion T13 is one of the most productive and active template editors we have around here, and always is the one to answer my Template Protected edit requests. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 02:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

None of the 7 points in the "recent behavior" section are what I would consider old, (with a quick look back I don't think anything there is older than a month) and quite a bit of it is unarguably recent. Everyone does make mistakes but opposing a change based on what appears to be, at best, a complete lack of understanding of what the proposal does (though that doesn't explain the fact that he still seems unaware even after being specifically told) is evidence of a serious issue with technical skill, if Technical 13 interacts with other editor's proposals in the same way he has interacted with mine then a high number of answered edit requests is a bigger issue than a low number. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 03:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. This seems a bit trumped up. If there were a repeated pattern of very recent transgressions, that would be one thing to possibly bring to ANI. But I'm not seeing that in this. Softlavender (talk) 02:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
• Neutral I currently, due to recent events, need to be neutral on this, but I feel as though the community should look through the diffs and past edits of T13 that PhantomTech posted, as they might pose a serious question on T13 usage of his Template Editor permissions, and should not just dismiss the claims outright due to T13 doing "good work" in the past, rather dwell on the fact that some of his edits currently might be viewed as breaking policy by other editors. The fact that they have done good work before, should not used to keep an editor that might be disrupting the community, and it should not be excused outright due to that fact. Thanks, TheMesquito^buzz 07:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Per above. Mlpearc (open channel) 07:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: Cause for concern? While I'm not exactly sure about the remedy here, the user did breach 3RR through POV-pushing (diff above). While I have mostly interacted with Technical 13 on IRC, and I agree he does good work in templates, there is also a net negative that I see some users like PhantomTech concerned about. Additionally, while I understand that IRC is off-wiki, the user has been particularly argumentative and disruptive in IRC over the past few days in my opinion, templating newbies to the point where they are confused, repeatedly insisting on continuing arguments there ad nauseum, etc. For me to recommend a remedy would probably impose IRC bias. However, TheMesquito and PhantomTech have made perfectly valid points.

• First of all, it is, in my opinion, unacceptable to use Editor of the Week in an oppose as a basis for your argument. We are all editors here, and in the end, admins do not say "My argument is better because I am an admin."
• Secondly, while Technical 13 is indeed knowledgeable about templates and other technical know-how, it is imperative that he explains his technical rationales for supporting or opposing a change clearly and without the effect of the "technical walled garden" so that the community at large, not just Technical 13 and other template editors, can understand his rationale. In templates such as Template talk:Freenode, he should not simply say "It will break all these transclusions" yet fail to provide a single example of a template that it will break, expecting everyone else to be technically knowledgeable and able to find an example to support his argument instead of supporting it himself. This is also evident in the RFC for global javascript/disclaimer (diffs above), where he claims that it is against WMF code, but drops that bomb without elaboration.
• Finally, one should not expect a buried proposal/suggestion comment without any replies on WT:WPAFC to construe a consensus. A widespread policy, involving the use of Revision ID to link them to IP addresses, should have been resolved by RFC, not unopposed edits to template-protected pages where editors in opposition of the change and concerned about their privacy are unable to oppose or revert. Seven days is not a very long time. In fact, while this is all a very recent trend and may not be a trend at all, Technical 13 did not seem to find it necessary to notify people about this widespread change, but rather actioned it in the morning while several users were asleep and unable to comment. On the other hand, he has been notifying, violating 3RR people about a change that he vehemently opposes. In another IRC change he opposed, he insisted on using the channel's bot welcomer to welcome everyone who came to the channel in an effort to ensure that every single person was able to comment on the proposal, often spamming the channel when multiple users entered or quit and reentered in a short amount of time.

• While I do not see this as a support or oppose situation, I do see some cause for concern, and recommend that editors here carefully take a look at PhantomTech's diffs and avoiding the "editor X is too valuable, it doesn't matter what else they do" argument. — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 18:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
• Statement: I agree with PhantomTech and KikichuGirl above. However, my interactions with Technical 13 has been almost entirely, if not entirely, on IRC, making it impossible for me to accuse him. I don't make a habit of keeping IRC logs. I dream of horses (T) @ 19:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - a discussion probably would have remedied this whole issue. I don't find him to be unreasonable or uncooperative. Quite the opposite is true. Atsme☯^Consult 01:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • It may very well be that he's reasonable and cooperative most of the time, but he appears to suffer from frequent bouts of terribly bad judgment - which would've been fine if he'd ever fess up, but he doesn't. This has to stop. In addition to the diffs provided by the OP:
    1. Here's where I asked him not to flag his reverts in content disputes as "minor" and he responded with, 'I'll have to click on "Vandal Rollback". Your choice.'
    2. Here's where he was casting aspersions in all directions out of the sweet blue.
    3. Here's where he threw a tantrum about being reverted once, requesting admin assistance and sanctions. Alakzi (talk) 01:53, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • This is far from a single issue, I alone have listed a significant amount of concerns and other editors, like Alakzi, have brought up more. Additionally, some of the issues are related to cases where editors attempt to discuss with Technical 13. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 03:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
• +1 to kikichugirl and I Dream of Horses. Ironholds (talk) 04:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
• Well if it can't be resolved at this level, it's pretty obviously going to be escalated through WP:DR, so it's probably in everyone's interests if some sort of voluntary agreement can be reached to move forward - but I don't think anything is going to result here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
• Urge caution when using tools and understand that technical issues are often subjective. T13 is bright and very enthusiastic. More consideration needs to be given to opposing viewpoints. I ask T13 to understand that working in a collaborative technical environment has all the pitfalls of working in a collaborative environment and a technical environment. Just slow your roll and understand that your actions need to be copasetic with the technical workings of Wikipedia and the community. Things break fast when you don't work well with others. I don't think any action is called for at this point. Chillum 17:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • It is true that technical issues can often be very complex and cause disagreement based on many different aspects. T13 does seem very enthusiastic but he has a history of assuming all opposing viewpoints are wrong and this has been pointed out to him. While your advice to T13 would likely resolve many of his issues, he doesn't know how to take a hint and I don't see a reason to believe he will take the advice this time as similar concerns caused him to lose his TE right the first time. I do not believe it is sufficient to let off a user, who has a history of problematic behavior, with a warning. It is an unnecessary burden on the community to allow editors to behave in this way and does nothing but encourage others to do the same. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 20:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
• I have found some more relevant past behavior, it has been added to the original post as a modification to Past behavior #6 and the addition of Past behavior #7. The latter is related to the information provided above by Alakzi as it contains T13 being confronted with their behavior marking edits as minor where T13 blames the tool, as he did in the interaction with Alakzi. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 02:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

vandal copy/pasting edit summaries to fake an ip block

Some random IP User:10.68.16.57 marked User:103.251.65.66 as blocked by User:Gillam, although I cross-checked the block log and vandal's talk page that User:Gillam didn't block them. That admin says somebody is faking ip blocks. Could you guys please take care of that? purely bizarre. See also Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism's history. thanks --Fazbear7891 (talk) 01:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

This is User:HBC AIV helperbot5 logged out. I've temporarily blocked the IP until the bot owner can correct the issue. Please note that any IPs in the 10.0.0.0/8 range will be from Wikimedia internal servers and are not random editors. Nakon 01:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

@Nakon: Not sure it makes sense to block the bot now that its logged back in, which would suggest the problem is resolved/resolved itself, and even if its not, the bot would then be editing logged out and unaffected by the block. Monty₈₄₅ 01:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

The IP has now been unblocked. All seems resolved now. Nakon 01:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Did you mean blocked Nakon? FWIW part of the problem was that the wrong template was used in the original AIV report. The template used read {{vandal|User talk:103.251.65.66}}. It should read {{IPvandal|103.251.65.66}}. The bot might have been kicking the report out since there is no User talk:103.251.65.66 (talk · contribs). MarnetteD|Talk 02:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh - Nakon I see that you mean the IP that was running the bot - not the one that was performing the vandalism. MarnetteD|Talk 02:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

My apologies if my statement was confusing. The 10. IP was the bot editing while logged out. This IP has been unblocked as the bot has been fixed. Nakon 02:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

← It (they) seem to be logged out once again. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 11:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Darkness Shines, again

Darkness Shines (talk · contribs), only recently returned from an indef-ban through a BASC appeal, is back to permanent edit-warring. He feels that I am "hounding" him, despite having been told only last week that this charge is groundless, and has been meeting each and every edit I make to articles of his interest with immediate, indiscriminate blanket reverts.

Now, it is true that I have been touching quite a few articles of his. While he was indef-banned, I noticed he had recently created a series of articles on medieval philology – undoubtedly a laudable idea, but unfortunately riddled with so many factual errors I saw myself compelled to fix or rewrite most of them. (Obviously, there can be no "hounding" of an indef-banned user, who isn't supposed to be on Wikipedia in the first place.) Last week I noticed he had again become embroiled in an edit-war elsewhere, at Female infanticide in India, so I did what I would always have done in such situations: intervened (in his favour!) to get a disruptive sock out of the way [51], found that the sock was wrong about most things, but that DS was also wrong about a few others, so I ended up challenging his poor use of sources on a number of counts [52]. This article is an exemption from an area he is otherwise topic-banned from, to allow him to get it up to GA status, but the points I raised will, I believe, make that aim difficult to reach [53]. Since I know from multiple prior occasions that DS has a persistent record of pushing poorly used sources through review processes such as GA, DYK or FA, I finally went to check up on another article that he got through GA last year, Rape during the Rwandan Genocide, only to indeed find yet more of the same kinds of problems [54]. Of course, per WP:HOUND, this is all perfectly legitimate: it doesn't constitute hounding to check a user's contribs history to clean up persistent patterns of unambiguous errors and clear policy violations on related series of articles.

DS has reacted to each and every attempt at cleaning up behind him with the same tactics: immediate, repeated reverts, often abusing Twinkle rollback; in almost every instance indiscriminate blanket reverts including entirely uncontroversial, trivial cleanup edits; combined with an utter refusal to meet any of my challenges with substantial arguments on talk.

This has affected the following articles:

• William of Rennes [55] (on the very first day after his unblock)
• Summa de casibus poenitentiae [56][57], Talk
• Draco Normannicus [58][59][60] Talk
• Prophecy of Melkin [61][62][63] Talk
• Female infanticide in India [64][65][66] Talk
• Rape during the Rwandan Genocide [67] Talk

This is precisely the same disruptive pattern that earned him his topic ban from the India/Pakistan area last May [68], and it needs to be stopped.

Note that Arbcom members were discussing part of this issue last week [69] but dropped the ball again and took no action [70] – but then, it doesn't seem they took any notice of how his hostile behaviour was still continuing on several articles even after they began their review. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I just looked at a few of the diffs but they didn't appear to be vandalism to me and seemed to actually add sources to articles. There are over 4 million articles on the English Wikipedia...could you take your focus being DS' unappointed monitor and have faith that if he makes mistakes other editors can deal with it? There is no shortage of work that needs to be done and I think your interest in policing another editor is misplaced and I can see how it feels like stalking to DS.

You could also view ArbCom's taking no action not as dropping the ball but the fact that they didn't view DS' edits as disruptive. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Who said anything about "vandalism"? Please read again what I said those reverts were, rather than creating red herrings. Yes, they "added sources to articles" – misrepresented sources. And other editors aren't taking action on these things. The errors in the Rwanda article had been in the article for a year, and they had slipped through a GA review unnoticed. The errors in the India article were about to slip through a GA review unnoticed (at least the reviewer didn't spot them in their first pass). And the medieval articles are on such obscure topics it would be madness to hope that any other knowledgeable editor would even chance across them to fix them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

If the topic ban on "all pages related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed" imposed on DS is still in place, why is he editing our article on Human rights in Pakistan? [71] AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that happens to be a violation of a topic ban too (though the edit as such would be justifiable on its merits.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, you are probably right - it would be a bit harsh to block someone for reverting the deletion of sourced content. Though DS might be well advised to take such articles off his watchlist, and let others deal with problems. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The edit that DS reverted would count as disruptive, if not vandalism, in my book; surely BANEX applies in the circumstances. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Not really, no, let's keep clear about what the rules are. WP:BANEX exempts only "obvious vandalism". The edit DS reverted [72] was tendentious, I agree, but there's no indication it wasn't made in good faith, hence it wasn't vandalism. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Darkness Shines' edits are problematic. The edit to Human rights in Pakistan would be fine if he weren't topic banned, but he is, and I do not think the edit he reverted qualifies as obvious vandalism. Unconstructive, sure, but not vandalism. I don't think DS should be blocked for his edit, but he should not be involved in this article at all--so he should take the article off his watchlist, he should not revert any edit to the article, even the most obvious vandalism, so he doesn't raise any suspicions of having violated the topic ban. Any further edits in the area should result in an immediate block.

The edits to other articles are also problematic. Take Prophecy of Melkin as an example: DS created this article, but clearly misunderstood the sources he used, to the extent that he didn't realize that Melkin is a legendary character, about whom no real biography can be written, and who is only known because of the text transmitted under his name. So Fut. Perf. rewrote the article and changed the title to better reflect the sources, and DS reverted these edits, without any substantial attempt to discuss matters on the talk page ([73] doesn't count, because Fut. Perf. explained at some length how the cited sources didn't support DS' version of the article). I haven't looked into Darkness Shines' history or the reason for his ban, but if behavior like this was the reason he was banned, he doesn't seem to have learned much. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

And it goes on and on. I gave him 24 hours time to respond to my challenges on talk at Talk:Rape during the Rwandan Genocide, which he failed to do; yet he immediately reverted my reapplied fix within minutes just now [74]. I also found that the same misrepresented source was present on several other articles; there too I was immediately reverted, all with rapid-fire, blanket "undo" without even an edit summary [75][76][77]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

When is this constant hounding going to be fucking stopped? Since my unblock FPaS has stalked me to five articles, as soon as I said I would no longer edit Female Infanticide in India because of his harassment he has since gone to two other articles I created for the sole purpose of pissing me off. This hounding has to be stopped and I insist an IBA?N is put in place. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

And now it is six articles he has stalked me to. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, are you going to finally bring forward some argument why you think it's legitimate to take a statement made by one author about one historical event and present it to the reader as if it was by a different author and referred to a different historical event? Some might think that's a rather serious form of source misrepresentation, you know. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

How many times must I tell you, I want nothing to do with you, so leave me alone and stop fucking stalking me. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, you don't get the luxury to choose who is or isn't allowed to fix your bad edits, as long as you keep making bad edits. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

It is not the first time he has disregarded his topic ban, see here. --Calypsomusic (talk) 12:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Calypso, that AE case was closed with the decision that there had been no violation. Fut.Perf., that edit was not very different from the one above; the meaning of the content was completely reversed, and a misleading edit-summary given. This is not to say that DS' conduct is perfect, but violating his topic-ban is not one of his sins. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Vanamonde , it's not clear whether you are supporting DS, or opposing him.C E (talk) 17:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

CosmisEmperor, I am neither "opposing" nor "supporting" DS. I am pointing out that two of the edits linked above are not problematic, or certainly not as problematic as they are made out to be. I've worked with DS before in the one topic area that both of us edit (or used to, in his case) and he can be brusque, abrasive, and so forth; but on the articles I have worked with him on, his knowledge of the source material is far superior to most other editors, particularly those who turn up with a political POV to push. The articles that brought the matter here I have not sufficient knowledge of, and not the time to look into, so no comment. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

• I do not believe that Darkness Shines requires rollback, and should be asked to forfeit the right. He's only used it twice over the past week: once to mistakenly revert me, and the other to revert Fut.Perf., for no immediately apparent reason. I've looked far enough into his contrib log; he uses rollback only sparingly, sometimes on - admittedly - clueless non-vandals. I have no opinion on any of the rest of it. Alakzi (talk) 17:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

---

I've been able to look at some more of Darkness Shines' edits and I agree with Fut. Perf. that there are serious problems that DS is refusing to discuss. Something that really jumps out is a quote that DS is edit-warring over at Rape during the Armenian Genocide [78] [79], Rape during the Rwandan Genocide [80], and Rape during the Congo civil wars [81]. Notice it's the same quote in all three articles. If that quote is to be used in each of these articles, it should be about each of these three historical incidents. But it's not--the quote is from a 1994 article by Catherine MacKinnon, "Rape, genocide, and women's human rights", which precedes the Congo civil wars. Now, DS seems not to realize where the quote actually came from, because he cites a 2010 article by Lisa Sharlach that quotes MacKinnon. So he's not only misusing the quote, but mis-citing it as well. From a quick look at the MacKinnon article, it's clear she's discussing the wars in the former Yugoslavia, not the Armenian or Rwandan genocides, nor the Congo civil wars. So there is strong reason for this quote to be removed from these articles, and Fut. Perf. discussed these reasons on the talk page of Talk:Rape during the Rwandan Genocide, and DS has made no real effort to justify the quote's inclusion—he just accuses Fut. Perf. of hounding and edit wars against him. I think this calls for a block of DS (who, remember, has just returned from an indefinite ban through an appeal!) and perhaps a further topic restriction. Of course, the simpler solution is just to ban him again... --Akhilleus (talk) 19:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I also do not see any wiki-hounding by FPAS. The topic ban on DS was put for a reason and there is no improvement. It is evident on this page too, instead of adressing the concerns raised DS goes on swearing and alleging wiki-hounding. --AmritasyaPutra^T 07:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Unarchiving this thread; it still needs resolution. At the moment, DS is lying low and has ceased reverting on this set of articles, but that doesn't mean the issue is solved structurally. At the very least, somebody will need to get the message across to DS that automatic edit-warring is not a legitimate reaction to other people's edits, no matter how much he dislikes them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I am finding it difficult to assess the situation as several diffs have been presented but without commentary as to what in particular is meant to be wrong with them. In many cases, while the content may not be of a style that I would present, I tend to use lots of refs, in many cases the contributions seem quite valid. If any of the editors here can specify perceived problems then this would be appreciated.

This is not to say that there aren't problems but my first thought when seeing the names "Future Perfect at Sunrise" and "Darkness Shines" was that perhaps these two were bound to clash.

Darkness Shines Can I please ask you to make every effort to deal with others here with the highest level of respect possible. Swearing about situations may not be a biggie as long as people are not being attacked. Wikipedia needs to work together as a cooperative group and, in the same way as has happened in other situations, if it is not already happening, I'd ask you to do what you an to play your part here.

Again I would be grateful to know what edits have been a problem. GregKaye 12:13, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

All the problems (source misrepresentation, misattributions etc.) are outlined in detail at the talkpages of the respective articles. Akhilleus explained two of the issues quite clearly just above, too. Please follow the "talk" links at the end of each entry in the list of articles above. I'm afraid explaining all the issues in a way brief enough for inclusion here at ANI won't be possible; there are many of them, and it's in the nature of such issues that explaining them takes up some space and understanding them requires some reading. – That said, the objective quality of the edits is not really the main issue here anyway. The issue is the behavioral pattern of meeting challenges to them with mechanical blanket reverts and refusal to discuss. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I have not been laying low, I have been busy. Greg, I have no intention of editing collaboratively with someone who hounds me, forum shops to get me banned, and has wanted me off the project fro years. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:32, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

DS, We do not always have that luxury in the Wikipedia community. It is down to all editors to work effectively with all other editors and, if paths legitimately cross on issues relevant to the improvement of content, then we have to work together. If another editor is hounding you on issues that have no valid point that seems to go beyond issues of accidental mistake then you can file report and get them banned.

In regard to the edits mentioned by Akhilleus the problem I have is that they are references from books that I don't have to hand and regarding a topic with which I am unfamiliar. It creates difficulties when books are not on line for verification. Its an author who only one piece of published material accessible and not the book in question. The content of the citation is also problematic, ""It is also rape unto death,... It is rape as an instrument of forced exile,... It is rape to be seen ... It is rape to drive ... It is rape as genocide..." yes but what is "it"? In effect the citations present stand alone contents expressing a conclusion that there has been rape as genocide but giving no more detail than that. Worst: it is sitting on the mat. Better a cat is sitting on the mat. Best: the cat is sitting on the mat. GregKaye 12:23, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

• Since DS has stated he has no intent of editing collaboratively, I think it's time to renew the ban. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:34, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Isaid I will not cooperate with one editor, hardly grounds for a ban. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

When you are reverting an editor without providing a reason related to article improvement and refusing to cooperate for the purpose of improvement of the article, you are disrupting wikipedia, and this is a ground for a ban. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. I did a spot check of some material DS added during a past AE request. See AE archive and my talk archive. Although DS provides sources/authority for edits, those sources were misinterpreted and/or misrepresented. Misinterpreting sources can do substantial damage to WP. Many editors will AGF and presume that a cited source says what is claimed; offline sources may be difficult to verify. When material is challenged, DS does not undertake a careful or thoughtful review of the challenge or the underlying sources. I haven't examined the above edits, but comments above suggest that misinterpretation is a continuing problem. A ban would be appropriate for misusing sources. Glrx (talk) 20:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

... And now this thread is about to sink off into the archives unresolved for a second time. Why is it that despite mounting evidence of a long-term, persistent pattern of source falsification and other forms of disruptive content creation, ongoing blatant edit-warring, a history of disruption stretching over five years marked by literally dozens and dozens of blocks, and an explicit point-blank refusal to behave in a collaborative fashion, not one administrator can be bothered to do the obvious thing here? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I would take care of this except that I've posted on the talk pages of some of the articles DS has edited, so someone could say we're in a content dispute. I do think a block is in order, though. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:37, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

@Darkness Shines, can you improve your language please? How come that you are a senior editor, and still use fucking stalking me. Your language has been below standard for long. Please improve it. -AsceticRosé 00:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

This post really requires admin attention, whichever way the admins intend to act. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Vanamonde and FPAS. Note that DS is already subject to a number of sanctions. Calypsomusic (talk) 11:52, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Editor violating guidelines

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 placed a single-line sourced addition to the Moors murders article. A number of editors disputed this edit, and took it to the Talkpage. Unfortunately, two editors, one in particular seriously violated Wikipedia policies and guidelines in their conduct as a result of the disagreement.

User:Cassianto

1.This user undid my edit, with an edit summary 'no I don't think so' which seems to breach WP:ESDONTS namely don't 'Make snide comments' or 'Be aggressive' 2.I tried to discuss at User talk:Cassianto but the user was again rather condescending and seemed to be ganging up on me with other users he already knows 3.When discussion began on at Talk:Moors murders, I simply put 'I think it is notable enough for a single line' - however, Cassianto replied 'Then you need to look up the definition of "notable", clearly.' (Ignoring WP:NNC) I believe this breaches WP:CIVIL - when I indicated the editor should read WP:CIVIL they replied 'I did once, and I vowed never to read it again' 4.It is breathtaking the way some editors feel policies don't apply to them. I was not rude to the editor, but I was treated in a condescending and arrogant manner over a very minor matter

• The user then preceded to launch a very abusive and malicious attack on me. He linked my 710 contributions [82] and entirely falsely wrote 'Not so ridiculous when you look at his contributions which seem to be all geared around the May elections. This user seems to be on a campaign trial on behalf of UKIP'. This is called blatantly misleading other editors, surely in violation of policies such as WP:AGF, WP:BITE, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. I have nothing to do with UKIP. I am not a member of any political party. I am not enrolled to vote in the United Kingdom. So these are ludicrous allegations. I have created 21 pages, 16 non-related to the elections. Articles I have created such as Endorsements in the United Kingdom general election, 2015 are very important and been widely edited and viewed. I have also created articles such as United Kingdom general election, 2015 (Wales) in accordance with precedent. I have worked hard on the project for good and in good faith. Examples: List of European Union member states by GDP growth and Mr Galloway Goes to Washington. I have successfully nominated dozens of articles for speedy deletion. As a new editor, I am deeply upset by how hard it is to edit this site without abuse and being treated like a moron (WP:BITE). It certainly is not encouraging for those wanting to make a difference in good faith.

Nothing at WP:SPA points to me. 5.The editor has breached multiple policies.

Editor still going. He has written now 'What makes you think I give a fuck about your political leanings?' (despite questioning them) and removed the ANI notification remarking 'what a waste of time'. What is the point of WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:BITE? AusLondonder (talk) 01:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• AusLondonder (talk · contribs) is a three-week old account so general lack-of-clue is understandable (ANI should not be used for every minor disagreement, and no one was abused). However, using Wikipedia to post smears just before a general election is not desirable, and anyone who cannot understand that it is a smear to highlight which political party a notorious murderer supports just before an election should not be editing (see WP:CIR). Johnuniq (talk) 01:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I cannot understand why everyone is whitewashing my 710 contributions, 21 pages and pretending I'm incompetent, it's perfectly fine to use the words 'fucking' and 'bullshit' whenever you disagree, ignore every policy in existence, and throw around false allegations whenever you disagree. I'm not even going to bother anymore. You guys can't stand new editors who quote policy.AusLondonder (talk) 01:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I want to 'smear' them (in your eyes), you want to censor and willfully withhold accurate sourced information you feel will damage a party. AusLondonder (talk) 01:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

When will you start listening? The revert had nothing to do with the source, ownership, the fact that you're a new editor, or anything else. It was reverted because it has fuck all to do with the Moors Murders and stinks of political smearing on the upcoming general election. Cassianto^Talk 02:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

It would have been so much easier if you had reverted it and been civil about it. But you just couldn't manage it, could you? Please stop your paranoia about UKIP. Why do all UKIP defenders think their is some great 'stinky' conspiracy to 'smear' the party? 'These bloody editors coming ere taking our jobs and following the rules'AusLondonder (talk) 03:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I was civil. I told you that it wasn't notable. You then asked me "why I got to decide that". Clearly I don't, which makes your question to me uncivil. Cassianto^Talk 03:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Eric_Corbett

• This editor, who I've never met before then preceded to write at Talk:Moors murders 'Make that six against; this is just fucking ridiculous'

This is extremely uncivil, especially because I had given up. It was a minor issue, I couldn't really care less. AusLondonder (talk) 00:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if Eric's behaviour is important enough to bother about, just thought I'd add to show the way new editors are treated over one disagreementAusLondonder (talk) 01:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• AusLondoner, I think you need to get over yourself. I reverted your edit which I'm entitled to do as I do not believe that Brady's political allegiance is in any way relevant to the Moors Murders. I don't fall for this bullshit about you being "deeply upset" and how you think my opposition to your edit was "malicious" or "very abuse" [sic]. I think this post has more to do with the fact that several editors have opposed you and that you now feel aggrieved at having had to resign to the fact that your edit has not made it into the article. Cassianto^Talk 01:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

You really can't help yourself can you? You just cannot accept that being civil is not that hard and it helps the process. Again, I couldn't care less, I haven't 'resigned to the fact' - I just don't care. After seeing a couple of comments, I left it. Despite swearing at me again, let me tell you I am upset by your attitude, it has taken me by surprise. I don't think your opposition was malicious, I think your allegations and attitude was. I'm not aggrieved with the editors who calmly and respectfully expressed their views. Stop misrepresenting what I am saying and what I think. AusLondonder (talk) 01:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• While the incivility is never really necessary, Adding the political affiliation of a murderer, whose sole claim to notoriety is their murders, and whose murders were not politically motivated, reeks of partisan politics, and his totally encyclopedic. As its clear that the editor is primarily editing about the election, and related political topics, its not hard to figure out the likely reasoning behind the edit in question. Considering all that, I think the responses were proportionate, even if uncivil. Monty₈₄₅ 01:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Why do policies like WP:AGF, WP:BITE, WP:CIVIL etc exist if people are free to ignore (and enforce) them as they please. I have made significant positive contributions. But the nastiness is really shocking. The article has lots of details about their past and lives post-crime. I simply added it, according to WP:BOLD. It wasn't malicious. All it needed was calm talk. I don't see how it is partisan. I am not editing primarily about the election - how can you honestly write that given the contributions and page creation link I added? Astounding. AusLondonder (talk) 01:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying this won't end well, and you'd best let it go. Be content to know that you're in the right, and that knowledge should literally be all you can expect from this. --Jayron32 01:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Yep, their is a protection racket at work here. AusLondonder (talk) 02:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Can you back that claim up with evidence, or are you only here to make baseless accusations? Cassianto^Talk 03:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I cannot understand why everyone is whitewashing my 710 contributions, 21 pages and pretending I'm incompetent, it's perfectly fine to use the words 'fucking' and 'bullshit' whenever you disagree, ignore every policy in existence, and throw around false allegations whenever you disagree. I'm not even going to bother anymore. You guys can't stand new editors who quote policy.AusLondonder (talk) 01:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the new editor here. Are we trying to welcome new editors? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

You're full of surprises Knowledgekid. That's unlike you to side with an editor who files an ANI report against Eric and I. Have you even bothered to look at the case, or are you just siding with him for the sake of it? Cassianto^Talk 02:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Sadly, no. They don't want anyone who questions their little rule-breaking community, that ignores policy. They think breaking every policy is 'appropriate'. They think I'm incompetent despite 710 contributions and 21 new pages. I'm not even going to bother with this site anymore. I can't put up with this. I've got better things to do AusLondonder (talk) 01:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Again, as I noted before, it's not everybody. It's just one person. There's 48,266,187 - 1 which aren't this way. If you do what everyone else does, and ignore his comments as though they were never made, and then just pretend he doesn't exist, it would work much better. He's long ago proven he isn't worth listening to. --Jayron32 02:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Have I really? Perhaps that makes two of us then? Eric Corbett 02:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know Knowledgekid87, but I know what you're trying to do, despite your promises to reform. Eric Corbett 02:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

'That's unlike you to side with an editor who files an ANI report against Eric and I' - happens a lot does it? Despite your paranoid conspiracy theories, the reason Knowledgekid might be siding with me is because you are highwaymen who act like bully-boys and spit in the rules of this project. How can you be surprised when others complain about you? AusLondonder (talk) 02:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

If KnowledgeKid has any opportunity to oppose Eric at something, he will. I suspect that him siding with you has little to with him actually agreeing with you and more to do with him seizing the chance to stick the knife in. Cassianto^Talk 03:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Have you got any evidence to back up that allegation? Or just failing to WP:AGF and be WP:CIVIL? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AusLondonder (talk • contribs) 03:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Look through the archives as this discussion isn't about providing diffs on an unrelated matter. KnowledgeKid would be the first to admit that there has been a history between him and Eric. Cassianto^Talk 03:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• AusLondonder, if you bring something to ANI, you need to post WP:DIFFs of every single infraction that you claim has occurred. Posting usernames and making unsubstantiated claims is not going to get you anywhere here. All of the editors involved here (including yourself) have voluminous recent edit histories. You can't force editors watching ANI to read your mind or to search through those histories to figure out what you might be talking about. Post the diffs that back up your case, if you have one. Otherwise, it's just another unsubstantiated rant/complaint, and will be ignored. Please read the guidelines at the top of this page entitled "Welcome to the incident noticeboard". Softlavender (talk) 02:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• Actually, AusLondoner's 771 contributions is in no respect "voluminous", although it's certainly more than respectable for less than a month of editing. Let's just keep things accurate, or the next thing you know all sorts of people will be blowing all sorts of things totally out of proportion.
  As for AusLondoner: You've been here about a monthor so, if you think the place is going to change the way it is to accommodate you, you're totally mistaken. That has nothing to do with welcoming or not welcoming new editors, it's completely about mass and intertia. Try adapting yourself to the folkways of the place instead, you might find that you'll be less frustrated and more productive. As it is, you're titlting at windmills, banging your head against a wall, pushing a rock up a hill, [insert your favorite analogy here]. BMK (talk) 02:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• With respect, Cassianto is the one trying to change the rules and move the goalposts. The editor is pretending sensible, mutually-agreed policies he doesn't like don't exist. Policies that are essential for the functioning of any online community in harmonyAusLondonder (talk) 02:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• OK, I tried. Apparently, you'd rather be "right" then be productive. (You do know that we're here to build an encyclopedia, yes?, and not to be a new model online community.) I've given you a pathway to getting some work done, your choice is just going to lead to more and more frustration on your part. Maybe, after you've got a little more experience under your belt, you'll understand what I'm telling you and move in that direction. Until then, I guess I'll be seeing your name on the noticeboards. BMK (talk) 02:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Note to BMK, I meant recent edit history. Edited to reflect that. Softlavender (talk) 02:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC) // Thanks for the explanation. BMK (talk) 02:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• Again, AusLondonder, this ANI thread is possibly going to boomerang on you, or at best be speedily closed, if you don't back up these claims with diffs. Last warning. Softlavender (talk) 02:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah, yes. I'll be the one to get in trouble. Wouldn't surprise me... I was going to post this, I was eating (I'm not a robot) Here are the diffs

1. WP:ESDONTS breach

2. Talk page discussion a, Another allegation against the editor of [[WP:NPA]] Cassianto then replied 'hit the road' title=User_talk%3ACassianto&type=revision&diff=659714939&oldid=659714697 here and also go bother someone else, to a polite request for civility

3. Conduct at Talk:Moors murders here

5. Allegations against me of WP:SPA Breach of WP:AGF, WP:BITE, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA here with an edit summary entitled 'You've been watching a part political broadcast by AusLondonder' in breach of WP:ESDONTS here and more swearing here with more false allegationshere Please read this in conjunction with the actual points I made above at 1,2,3,4,5AusLondonder (talk) 03:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC) Above, during this discussion the editor also posted this 'AusLondoner, I think you need to get over yourself. I reverted your edit which I'm entitled to do as I do not believe that Brady's political allegiance is in any way relevant to the Moors Murders. I don't fall for this bullshit about you being "deeply upset" and how you think my opposition to your edit was "malicious" or "very abuse" [sic]. I think this post has more to do with the fact that several editors have opposed you and that you now feel aggrieved at having had to resign to the fact that your edit has not made it into the article', another blatant breach of policies illustrated above. AusLondonder (talk) 03:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

My desire for justice and my desire to fight inequality makes me frustrated over this. If I behaved like this towards other users (I wouldn't I don't set out to be awful) wouldn't I get blocked? Every day people get blocked for their incivility. Why are these editors protected? Or are we setting a precedent and abolishing WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:BITE? AusLondonder (talk) 03:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• You write "My desire for justice and my desire to fight inequality makes me frustrated over this." Please read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. We're not here for "justice" and "equality" for anyone, we're an encyclopedia. We state the facts as reported by secondary and tertiary sources (and occasionally primary ones), and that's it. You want "justice" and "equality", start a blog, join a political party, march in the streets, vote in an election, but don't try to get your jones here. BMK (talk) 03:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• The diffs you have provided have bugger all to do with your complaint. Or are you now fishing in my history to bolster up your "case"? Cassianto^Talk 03:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah, they absolutely do. They are the exact issues I'm raising.....AusLondonder (talk) 03:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The second diff doesn't. It has about as much to do with this case as point number "5" (as you only have 4). Cassianto^Talk 03:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Guess what smart alec, the initial complaint did have 5 points if you read it. But only 4 points need diffs. It is important to add diffs which let the mask slip on you and your editing behaviour. I haven't gone fishing. Should I? AusLondonder (talk) 03:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Im all for WP:AGF but at this point I feel you just let it go. You are worked up over this I know but Wikipedia is a big place okay? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Yet more incivility with the "smart alec" comment. You should really practice what you preach. Cassianto^Talk 03:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

That seems to be a surprisingly common feature of Civility Enforcement requests. Monty₈₄₅ 03:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm blow away. You've seen a catalogue of incivility and abuse including 'fucking', 'fuck all', 'bullshit', false accusations, snide remarks, abuse of edit summary, and you have a go at me for saying smart alec. Is this satire?AusLondonder (talk) 03:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Monty845 How much abuse should I put up with? How much do I have to cop before I say something back? AusLondonder (talk) 03:32, 6 May 2015 (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.

seems to be consensus that removing afd comments is ok?????

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

---

There is an editor, name is unimportant, that removed my afd comments and vote to try to make his opinion win. I asked maybe three admins and none of them tell me that it is wrong or right. Common sense would be that it's wrong and admins would say so. I also see that this editor is a troublemaker because he is the source of valid complaints in ANI only 3 days ago here [83]~

Why do we allow such vandalism or is it ok to occasionally, not daily, remove afd comments that you don't like??????? Is wikipedia just a pack of wild wolves? Why is this happening?Deepavali 2014 (talk) 05:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello User:Deepavali 2014 and welcome to this Noticeboard. You said; "There is an editor, name is unimportant, that removed my afd comments and vote to try to make his opinion win." Actually, if you want people here to help you, we need a diff of the removal. Can you supply the diff please?Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

[84]]
Deepavali 2014 (talk) 05:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

First of all name of the user is important because you need to ping him about this discussion. I assume you are talking about this reversion done by Davey2010. Am I right? --Chamith (talk) 05:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The AfD discussion in question is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brattleboro Free Folk Festival (2nd nomination). In your first edit to it, you voted "delete", and put your vote at the top of the page. [85]. This was not the correct place for it, it should have gone at the bottom of the page. Editor User:Davey2010 then did the wrong thing, he deleted your edit instead of moving it to the bottom of the page. [86]. Your next edit to the AfD was to close the discussion as "delete". [87] This was improprer as you were involved in the discussion (albeit you vote had been deleted) and therefore should not have closed it. Your deletion was overturned by LibStar, on the correct grounds that a non-admin cannot close an AfD as "delete" because the non-admin does not have the ability to delete the article. You reverted LibStar's action, which you should not have done because it was edit warring [88], and he reverted back.

That, as far as I can see, is the end of your involvement. Your behavior was not exemplary, Davey2010's behavior was not exemplary, and LibStar could be trouted, I suppose, but I probably would have done the same thing, since you were in the wrong.

In short, your complaint here has little to no merit, and I suggest you drop it. BMK (talk) 05:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• I suggest you familiarize yourself with WP:VANDALISM and WP:BOOMARANG. BMK (talk) 06:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I completely agree with BMK here. Even though Davey2010 didn't do the right thing he was kind of right about your rationale for the specific afd. Just because you don't like doesn't mean it has to be deleted. And here on Wikipedia we don't vote, instead we make consensus. And from what I can see you don't know how to comment on talk pages either. In the case where you provided the link above your formatting is incorrect and you forgot to sign your comment (Well, now you have).--Chamith (talk) 06:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• Deepavali 2014, if someone deletes your comment on any page except their own talk page, then simply re-post it, but in the correct location. That's all that needs to be said here, except do not ever try to close AfDs you are WP:INVOLVED in; in fact, do not ever try to close AfDs at all, because you clearly do not have enough experience on Wikipedia to know what you are doing. Softlavender (talk) 06:03, 6 May 2015 (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.

• Am I the only one who thinks this block is extremely harsh and, while the OP is perhaps overstating the issue, their AFD vote should not have been removed and should have been reinstated when they complained? Seems like very bitey beaviour all round. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• I told the bloke to readd his comment below everyone elses how is that hard to understand ?, Had he complained on my talkpage I would've been more than happy to help and readd it for him but no instead he went to everyones talkpage and seeked to have me blocked ..... He brought the block on himself - Sure perhaps I shouldn't of removed it but he's more than capable to come to my talkpage and ask for help instead of wanting my arse blocked. –Davey2010^Talk 12:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Apparently you didn't get the message. Per WP:Talk, "The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission....Fixing layout errors: This could include moving a new comment from the top of a page to the bottom...." There's no "perhaps" about whether you should have completely removed it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Many well respected editors here remove stray !votes on a daily basis, Sure some move them below some don't - I made the mistake of not adding it below but as I said he should've come to my talkpage where I'd of been happy to help him and then all this could've easily been avoided. –Davey2010^Talk 15:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Davey, it is not reasonable to assume that someone you've mistreated will come to you for help with the matter. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Except they haven't been mistreated in the slightest, Look we can debate about this all day long but me and him both have learned a lesson so lets close this and move on, Past is the past. –Davey2010^Talk 16:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• Eh. This editor is pretty clearly a net negative at the moment. Hassling (by my count) four admins to block someone for making a mistake is disruptive IMO, and so is trying to close an AfD they just voted on. Her weird and blatantly inaccurate accusations of sexism on her talk page make me think she'll continue causing trouble until her attitude changes. In hindsight, good block. Reyk _YO! 12:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
• @Spartaz: I would have appreciated a ping if this discussion was going to continue, especially if there was opposition to the outcome. In honesty, I thought 72 hours without escalation to indefinite following the block was generous considering NPA on multiple pages, ADMIN SHOP, BOOMARANG, edit warring/disruption, and the recommendation to drop it and being warned by several sysops, along with the fact that Davey2010 engaged the editor on their talk page about the issue and not once was it responded to. This editor had ample opportunity on the advice of everyone they approached. They consistently revealed a pattern where if they didn't get the answer they wanted, they kept going. It would not have stopped for them with this ANI and I wouldn't have been surprised if we saw an SPI and Arb Com case filed. BITE is not about giving endless amounts of ROPE to clearly disruptive and destructive editors who do not have the intention to work with others. After a forth or fifth time explaining something and a complete disregard for it, the situation stops being an issue of misunderstanding, and onto a wilful act of disruption. Mkdw^talk 08:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

@Diannaa, Kuru, Davewild, and Philg88: If you have opinions on this since you also had been involved in replying to this editor, I would like to hear from you. If the consensus is clear the block was "extremely harsh" I'm more than willing to acquiesce. Mkdw^talk 08:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I can understand the reasoning behind the block given their inability to drop the matter, which I can see came to become disruptive. However I think they should be offered the opportunity to be unblocked early if they agree to drop this and move on. Davewild (talk) 17:14, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Davewild: if Deepavali 2014 shows any indication that he understands why his actions were disruptive, he should be unblocked. Deepavali's remarks on his own talk page show that the block was prescient rather than extreme. However, it's not at all clear that he even understands the reason for the block. Davey2010 has already said on his talk page that removing the vote was wrong, and that he should have moved it instead, so there's no further action needed at that end. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Since it's not clear that Deepavali understands the reason for the block, I have placed an explanation on his talk page. Diff of User talk:Deepavali 2014. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• @Spartaz: Would like you to engage in this discussion since you re-opened it. I think dialogue is important and sysops should be having these types of discussions if there's controversy over their actions for the purposes of accountability. Mkdw^talk 18:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:PEACOCK by User::115ash on the lead of articles about Italian notable persons

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.

---

Good morning, during the last days I casually met several edits of User . These edits have a common trait. They deal with notable Italians of the past, which are always defined as "the greatest", "the best", and so on. Here are only some examples from the last days:

• Francesco Redi
• Giotto
• Maria Gaetana Agnesi
• Anna Magnani
• Giacomo Leopardi
• Giovanni Domenico Cassini
• Lorenzo de' Medici
• Jacopo Riccati
• Giacomo Agostini

As one can see, the pattern is always the same: find some source (academic, non academic, blog) that assert the greatness of the notable and put the assertion in the article's lead.

My opinion is that behind this edits there is a clear agenda, that is the glorification of the Italian genius through the centuries. When I was a kid, affirming the world preminence of the Italian artists, scientists, and the like was common practise in the Italian schools, still under the influence of Fascism, but in the last decades, with the European Union and the dying of the old generations this was passèe (until now? :-)).

At Wikipedia, this kind of edits is explicitly prohibited under WP:PEACOCK ("Words such as these are often used without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information. They are known as "peacock terms" by Wikipedia contributors. Instead of making unprovable proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance").

Anyway, because of that, I wrote a message to the user ([89]), hinting to a problem with WP:PEACOCK. After a while, another user left a message hinting to the same problem ([90]) but we did not get any answer, and the messages were removed.

Finally, this morning we came to an edit war flare on the Francesco Redi page, after I removed the peacock sentence: at the end, I asked to go to the talk page ([91]), but 115ash reverted again ([92]). He left me a message on my talk page ([93]). I answered on its talk page, hinting again to the peacock problem ([94]), but my message was removed again ([95]).

That's why I am forced to bring the problem here, hoping to stop this flood of peacockry. Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 10:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for one week. The user was blocked for edit warring for 48 hours not long ago, and seems quite impervious to warnings wrt this issue; hence the length of the block. Bishonen | talk 10:55, 6 May 2015 (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.

Project advice for no movies in navboxes

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

---

We have a small situation that is affecting many projects and there navboxes. User:Robsinden has recently been removing all movies from all navboxes according to local project advice page as seen at Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Filmography navbox templates. The problem is that the editors is claiming that this advice allows them to remove all movies from all navboxes including ones made by other projects....thus leading to editwars in a few places. The editors has been directed to read over WP:Advice pages and WP:CONLEVEL and asked to follow BRD while editors talk it out...but to no avail still reverting at will. I would agree that there is a local consensus not to have navboxes devoted to films....but this is a far stretch from all movies being banned from all navboxes. I simply dont see how one type of article can be omitted from templates all together because of one projects POV. Other projects have there own ideas of what is best for there topics. We need to find a nice median....in this case I would say let the other projects have the links they wish in the navboxes they created ....but dont spam the templates in the films. The spamming of templates seems to be the motivation behind the projects POV on this......in my POV its a losing battle that will just cause us to loss editors in the long run. What I am looking for is community input on whats the best way forward. Do we let this editor continue to remove all movies from all templates based on one project advice page that has not gone through the WP:PROPOSAL process....or do we let each project decide for themselves what's best for navigating there own topics. Is the advice from WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers binding on all other projects as indicated by Robsinden edit summaries i.e Template:Madonna: Revision history. What is best here for the community? -- Moxy (talk) 16:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

This is purely a content dispute which does not require the intervention of an administrator - you should note the instructions about this at the top of this page. You should start a discussion at either Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film or Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film though not both. MarnetteD|Talk 17:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Oops my mistake. I see that things are already being discussed at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers. If you want more input you should start a WP:RFC there. MarnetteD|Talk 17:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

What MarnetteD said. Currently Moxy is going against consensus, so I hope this doesn't WP:BOOMERANG on them. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

What? I am not the one involved in the edit wars. I am here trying to resolve an editwar problem that covers many many articles and many projects....before those involved get blocked. Productive comments is what I am looking for..As per MarnetteD will form a RfC. -- Moxy (talk) 21:29, 6 May 2015 (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.

IBAN for User:Eddaido ... or longer block?

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

---

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

In December 2013 I blocked this user due to this pattern of unpleasant and sexist personal attacks on a female editor. Today I received this notice by him that he was going to repeat the behavior, and indeed he has here. I have blocked for two weeks this time. The question is now

• Do we simply introduce a one-way IBAN between Eddaido and SamBlob?
• Or is such pre-mediatated, sexist and unpleasant abuse simply worthy of a longer block, or indef?

Black Kite (talk) 08:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:ROPE. Eddaido is a strange editor. Knowledgeable about some topics, weird on others and from time to time they go off on personal campaigns against particular editors (SamBlob and myself are two favourites) which are mostly just bizarre, more than anything else. I can't explain their behaviour at all. Certainly an iBan would need to start growing longer and longer - if they're banned from going after just SamBlob, I don't relish the prospect myself.

I think they should be held to just the same standards as anyone else (but held to them). If they harass other editors, they get blocked for it. If they do it again, it escalates. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• What would the sanction be for breaking any interaction ban? Would it be a longer block than it would be for repeating the personal attacks? Would it be easier to enforce? If not, then I see no benefit in such a ban that cannot be had from simply blocking for the attacks. Andy Dingley's suggestion of escalating blocks seems sensible and simple. Mr Potto (talk) 09:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
• Agreed. There is no reason for an I-ban if you don't believe the editor will respect it and abide by it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
• Is it worth pointing out civility to them, and defining clearly how it will be enforced in the future? They have a habit of sarcastic sniping in edit summaries. Yet when this was going on a couple of years ago, some admins refused to act on it, on the basis that "attacks in mere edit summaries didn't count". This is one of the reasons why Eddaido has got away with this stuff for so long. Reverting other editors with the comment, "Someone made a nasty mess on the page" wouldn't be accepted from other editors, yet Eddaido was allowed to keep doing it. I would applaud Black Kite here for being the only one so far to have acted.

If we're to avoid an IBan (as seems likely), then I think it is worth making it clear that some of their past actions just won't be accepted in the future.

At the root of today's little spat, Eddaido seems to be blaming SamBlob for some long-running transgression on their part. Whilst recognising that's no excuse, I'd be interested in letting Eddaido put forward their side of it. If only so that other editors can then tell them plainly that there's no such actionable issue and that they need to drop it. (I overlap a lot with both editors and I know of no such thing.) Andy Dingley (talk) 10:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I can't really think of any behaviour that would justify that response, but as far as I can see Eddaido's grievance is purely one of disagreeing with SamBlob's edits or claiming that she has made mistakes. All really minor stuff. Black Kite (talk) 11:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah. Him again. I think he believes completely in his own rightness and has a grudge against me because I have caused some of his weirder edits to be undone. Discussion of one example can be found at Talk:George Holt Thomas (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) and at this archived section. That section also gives his usual defence of his edits, which boils down to "I'm right and you're stupid." He has toned this down a little in the last year or two; some of his more egregious examples are in the archive of his talk page. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 14:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Blocking for two weeks is ultra-restrained in light of the history of this user's attacks on SamBlob, the previous sanctions for them, and now the renewed assault prefaced by the petulant boast to the blocking admin that the “hopefully insulting” edit summaries will continue. Escalating blocks are surely the most effective solution. Nevertheless it looks like this user just doesn't get it, and is determined not to. I don't see it ending well for him. Writegeist (talk) 20:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Continue to post insulting edit summaries to provoke a response is falling into trolling territory. I'd say starved the troll and not only extend the block, but delete the summaries (if possible) or revdel (if not). Blackmane (talk) 01:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Legal Threat

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

---

User:2602:306:3644:13a0:702c:3d49:8ed9:7ca5 made a legal threat here: [96] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winner 42 (talk • contribs) 02:44, May 6, 2015‎

• Before seeing this, I blocked 24 hours for the edit warring after a 3rr warning. If any admins want to increase the block length on account of the legal threat, I have no objection. As for the substance of the claim, the text in question is cited to a clearly reliable source, and as such, there is no compelling policy reason to justify its removal, though of course whether we want to keep it is a matter of normal editorial discretion open for discussion. Monty₈₄₅ 02:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• The text in question is the article Pamela Geller. A shooting in Texas recently occurred, and now the Pam Geller article is getting a lot of views because people think she was targeted in the attack. Geller has anti-Islamic views, and some editors have been trying to remove or whitewash this info. Epic Genius (talk) 03:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Now a 1 week /64 range block for block evasion. NLT block duration in an IP is always tricky, but that may suffice for now. Monty₈₄₅ 03:11, 6 May 2015 (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.

Need an IPv6 rangeblock, STAT

2600:1017:B013:4B9F:4C28:74E4:CEB6:BCA8 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2600:1017:B02A:504:6F:2117:2A1F:5D17 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2600:1017:B00C:4:6C4C:5563:993C:726E (talk · contribs · WHOIS). MO: rapid total blanking. Drmies (talk) 18:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• Smalljim, you just blocked another one. Drmies (talk) 18:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

No idea how to calc IPV6 rangeblocks, sorry. If I tried I'd quite likely block half the world :( I can keep on blocking as he pops up, for a while.  —SMALLJIM  19:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• Well, it seems to have tapered off. I hope I didn't miss any of the preceding ones... Drmies (talk) 19:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• Too big a range to rangeblock anyway; over 4 million /64 subnets (i.e. users). Black Kite (talk) 19:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
• Drmies, I think 70.209.137.98 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was part of it too – same ISP.  —SMALLJIM  19:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Even Handed

Please see my comments here re the recent warning against me for edit warring. I believe the adminstrators have not been even handed nor strict enough on the editor that made a personal attack against me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EdJohnston#Even_handed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robynthehode (talk • contribs) 20:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

For the WP:3RRN discussion, see here. [97] AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Are you referring to the personal attack that was struck through and for which an apology was offered? Tiderolls 20:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

How many times is it allowable to ask someone "what the fuck are you doing", call them an "asshole", a "jerk" etc, just to be threatened with being blocked, say "sorry about that" and strike it out? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I dunno, what do you think would be fair? Tiderolls 20:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Once? After which recurrent and overt personal attacks should be dealt with with short shrift and lame, artificially crafted apologies should be treated as such. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Personally I find the most problematic thing about BMK's posts to be the initial assertion that because he's been editing Wikipedia longer, he's got the right to determine content [98] The swearing was uncalled for, but the WP:OWNing here seems to me to be more significant - it is entirely contrary to the Wikipedia ethos. Having said that I don't really think that further sanctions would be justified, given that BMK apologised. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Both are equally problematic. BMK shouldn't have just been ticked off, he should have been sanctioned for his overt personal attack and ownership claims. The apology was pure "theater". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Nice job not notifying the party being talked about, everyone. Anyway, Robyn, per the discussion that unfolded, BMK apologised for what he said, was warned to be more cautious with his words, and both of you were warned for breaking 3RR, as would be expected when you both reverted 4-5 times-- what now? What else would you want an admin to do? Furthermore, based on your comments at the end of the AN3 thread, you give the air that you don't think you should have even been warned for editwarring, at least not to the same degree, and that's going to seriously undermine a request for further sanctions, especially against the opposing party in the edit war when the affair is over and done with. It doesn't matter if you're doing it in good faith-- if you're not reverting obvious vandalism, you don't revert more than 3 times, end of story. I'd think further sanctions against BMK would be warranted if he showed further behavioral infractions, and as an uninvolved/neutral party I don't know if he has a history of problematic behavior (or from an unbiased standpoint would constitute problematic behavior). BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 20:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Apologizing for a series of shameless personal attacks doesn't excuse the 3RR violation here, and BMK's long-running combination of offensive personal attacks and blatant 3RR violations / edit warring is one that needs to be addressed. A look at BMK's block log lists four separate blocks for edit warring / 3RR violations, including two in the past 18 months:

• 02:21, 10 March 2015 Swarm (talk | contribs) blocked Beyond My Ken (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 24 hours (account creation blocked) (Violation of the three-revert rule: on Little Syria, Manhattan -- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=650725160)
• 10:02, 22 January 2014 Dpmuk (talk | contribs) blocked Beyond My Ken (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 24 hours (account creation blocked) (Violation of the three-revert rule: on No Other Woman (1933 film))
• 21:30, 5 December 2010 Tariqabjotu (talk | contribs) blocked Beyond My Ken (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 24 hours (account creation blocked) (Violation of the three-revert rule: on The Limelight)
• 10:28, 15 November 2010 SarekOfVulcan (talk | contribs) blocked Beyond My Ken (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 24 hours (account creation blocked) (Edit warring)

The warning given here for a blatant violation of the 3RR rule is entirely unjustified, especially from an editor who has regularly reported other users for their violations and is more than aware of his obligations under 3RR. Furthermore, BMK has received an inordinate number of such warnings and non-blocks in the past two years, in situations when blocks of mounting lengths would be amply justified based on his record (including in November 2013, here in January 2014, February 2014, October 2014 and here in April 2015, last month) for serial offenders such as BMK. A bright line violation here resulted in yet another mere warning. It's well past time for a block here. Alansohn (talk) 22:17, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Maybe someone should ping @Beyond My Ken: to let him know about this thread? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

He was pinged and acknowledged the thread, in his own unique way. Alansohn (talk) 23:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block on BMK for a long, persistent pattern of false accusations without evidence, a history of personal attacks, and assumptions of bad faith. Just recently, BMK accused me of being a sock puppet with no evidence. He's repeatedly been asked to provide evidence, and I'm asking him now to submit an SPI. Put up or shut up, BMK. More recently, he made additional bad faith accusations without evidence when I participated in an RfC about images on a page he claimed ownership. It's impossible to edit any article or participate in any discussion where he shows his face. Viriditas (talk) 03:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• And for the record, even after my comment above, BMK is still persisting in making paranoid, bogus sock puppet accusations.[99] Please block BMK for repeatedly making false claims to malign other users. BMK repeatedly refers to some kind of interaction we had in 2008. At that time, the only major editing we were involved with together took place in the Philip K. Dick article. As you can see from the page statistics, approximately 956 IPs have edited that page.[100] According to BMK, I apparently used one of those IPs as a sock, a sock which according to BMK only made two edits. As you can see from the page history during that time, there is no connection between me and that IP (wherever it is supposed to be, as BMK wont specify who or what it is). For the record, I have not engaged in any sock puppetry. However, for the record, BMK has.[101] I'm wondering if another SPI should be done on BMK at this point due to the continuing disruption. Viriditas (talk) 04:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• Ah, Viriditas...it's nice to know that you have not been socking as one of you is more than enough. Screeching for a site ban because an editor of your stature has been afronted has a certain laugh factor at least, and we thank you.--MONGO 07:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• So you think it is acceptable for an editor to continue to make false accusations without evidence? That's a direct violation of our policy on civility and personal attacks. Your comment makes it clear why the community, in a rare display of their best judgement, chose to desysop you. For that, I thank them. Viriditas (talk) 08:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• I read BMKs comments on his talk page and its obvious you're misleading the evidence as usual. Not to disagree with valid complaints made above your idiotic screeching for a site ban, considering your block log and history of personal attacks about all you deserve is indeed the door so it's truly laughable that you'd have the arrogance to demand anyone here be site banned.--MONGO 08:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• Wrong. BMK's comments pertain directly to my request for evidence, which he deleted, which in turn refers directly to his accusation about sock puppetry made on this board. Since he deleted those comments from his talk page, you couldn't have "read" them, and since you didn't know about the comments he made here, you weren't aware of them. I'm sorry, but I don't speak MONGO-ish, so I can't parse "misleading the evidence", but if you meant "misreading", yes, that's exactly what you are doing. BMK has a long history of making baseless accusations and attacks and you defend this behavior. Why? We'll never know, because all you offer is tu quoque as a response. Viriditas (talk) 09:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• No one in their right mind is going to adhere to your arrogant demand that the editor in question be given an indefinite block. The only thing your demand does is reduce the validity of the more rational side of the complaint that was presented before you showed up screeching like a wacko.--MONGO 09:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
• Viriditas...you were blocked for three months for doing the exact same things you are accusing BMK of doing, yet you give no proof that BMK has done the things you claim. Earlier comments by others regarding BMK's editing issues have validity but your accusations are actually things you have done yourself, and received multiple blocks for them.--MONGO 09:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• BMK has most certainly done what I claim and the diffs are freely available:

1. But such lack of judgment and perception are perhaps to be expected from an editor who created a sockpuppet in the attempt to win a dispute. 08:35, 4 February 2015

2. Uh-huh, you deny sockpuppetry. Well, you could knock me over with a feather. Unfortunately, I was there, and I know better.08:55, 4 February 2015

3. And that sockpuppetry? ... Well you and I just put on a show for the kids, right?, using puppets made out of socks -- Yeah, I remember it all now, just as if it really happened!! 09:19, 4 February 2015

4. BTW, any admins want to advise me on what the chances would be on getting a block on a puppetmaster whose sockpuppet made two edits in 2008 and then disappeared? ... Yeah, that was what I thought. 03:23, 2 May 2015 (edit) (undo) (thank)

• The false accusations are there and continue to be repeated without evidence. No amount of fallacious tu quoque distractions from MONGO will change it. The reason BMK can't produce any evidence of sock puppetry on my part is because it in fact never happened. When BMK is losing an argument, he has a tendency to make paranoid, false accusations to distract others from the discussion. This is quite unlike MONGO, for example, who will instead resort to fallacious tu quoque arguments and distorting block log entries. I really can't thank the community enough for desysopping him. Viriditas (talk) 10:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so it's become glaringly obvious that people with laughably gargantuan snarling packs of dogs in this fight are beginning to coatrack this thread into something quite ugly and likely to be closed as no action by the admin least willing to wade through this garbage, so if this is going to go anywhere anyone wants it to go, I'll recommend we look at the following facts about this specific situation and only those facts:

• BMK has been blocked for editwarring twice in the last 18 months. Bringing up issues from a gap of five bleeding years ago seems a little excessive, so let's keep it recent if this is going to be about addressing his behavior now and not nursing some unrelated wound. But why block him and not the editor, or why not both, since they both editwarred and equally should know better?
• BMK has also been, in this case, using his editcount and tenure as reasoning to undermine another editor's contributions, which is needless to say not acceptable. He should be striking that comment out and apologising for that if anything else, and I'd consider it blockable if he made a habit of pulling that card.
• However, I don't see how blocking him is going to actually address the behavioral issues. I'm new, but I'm not stupid; I know that it's all going to become irrelevant in face of all the gravedancing that's sure to come of a temp block, and indeffing him is needless to say excessive. But if you want his behavior to change, coming at him at any given opportunity with an army's worth of axes to grind ain't gonna persuade him, so grow the hell up and get back to editing if your own little snits with him from years ago are getting in the way of contributing neutrally to a discussion of his actions.

Warning him for this incident is all that's really actionable from an administrator's standpoint, as far as I can see. Past that, I'd say his actions certainly were obnoxious in this case, but unless he obviously isn't going to work on playing more nicely with the other kids and says as such, I don't see what else can be done. The piling-on by unrelated editors who've had past bas blood with him is more obnoxious to me, but hey, par for the course on ANI. BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 10:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

The most recent diff related to the continuing false accusations of sock puppetry was dated today.[102] However, I can refer you to another recent interaction, this one having to do with an innocent RfC on Talk:William Street (Manhattan) that took place last month. Here are some highlights from that discussion:

• Since you clearly know nothing about the street, or what's on it, and since you failed to suggest an alternative from the Commons image pool immediiately available to us, or do any research about other possible CC images which we might use, there's no particular reason to take your comments into account at all, except, of course, that your obvious superiority to us lowly peons requires us to get on bended knee and kiss your ring. Since we actually live in a democracy, however, and since Wikipedia is more of an anarchy than anything else, I'll just ignore your bullshit and wait for the comments of other editors more interested in improving the encyclopedia, and less involved with the aggrandizement of their own egos.[103]
• Is that something that you're able to understand, or shall I rephrase it in words of one syllable so you can understand it more easily?[104]
• Thanks so much for your comments, but since you seem to be unable to follow a simple set of instructions, I'll just file your input away in the circular file, where they can keep the majority of your Wikipedia comments company.[105]

This exchange was then followed by BMK's collapsing of my response to the RfC,[106] which of course, defeats the entire purpose of an RfC and illustrates the same ownership problems listed above. If that's a representative sample of the kind of interaction one can expect with BMK, then as they say, Houston, we have a problem. Viriditas (talk) 10:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm seeing this as a representative sample of how BMK interacts with you, and in that RfC I'm seeing problems with how both of you approach the issue-- from my view, if you had a problem with the photos, instead of riffing on the photographer's skills you really should have suggested a better photo from Commons or something, but that aside, the both of you needling each other turned the thing into a dramafest. As for the sockpuppet accusations, they seem be some back-and-forth thing you have with him over some sockpuppet dispute that was over and done with in 2010-- and I'm pretty sure he wouldn't be bringing it up if you wouldn't keep bringing it up, and vice versa. My suggestion? I think I speak for many when I say to both of you, grow up. BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 11:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. For the record, I was not involved in either of the two disputes you mention. In the former, I responded to a random RfC (from the listing page) and in the latter, I had nothing whatsoever to do with either the SPI or discussion about BMK's use of multiple accounts in the past. There's no back and forth here at all. BMK's behavior in both instances listed here, to make false accusations about sock puppetry, and to make personal attacks during an RFC, are exactly the kind of behavior under discussion. The point in me bringing them here to this thread is to show that the behavioral pattern has remained consistent. Viriditas (talk) 11:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Uh... correct me if I'm misreading what you're saying, but responding to the RfC (especially one that he started; how did you imagine that would turn out considering your history?) and in turn getting embroiled in a spat with BMK means you are most definitely involved with that conflict-- you're one of the belligerents in said conflict, how could you not be involved? As for the sockpuppet thing, you're the one who brought up BMK's old SPI in this very discussion. I'm certainly not saying he should be implying you were socking way back when if he can't back it up, because that's just him continuing the utter timesuck of a tumultuous history you two have, and he ought to cut that the hell out at this point. But you have some responsibility in all this, too; he's not going to quit being acerbic to you if you don't quit responding in kind. Be the first to take a deep breath and stop responding, even if you don't think you're wrong for doing so. Something about taking the high road. And moreover, try to be considerate about how you phrase things, if that RfC post you made was any representative sample of your own conduct--if you're trying to make yourself seem spotless in comparison to him, it's not really working. BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 14:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

This is the second time you've implied that I have a "history" with BMK, and this is the second time that I've told you that I don't. BMK apparently participated in a dispute with several editors on the PKD article back in 2008 in which discussion on the talk page went against his position. Several editors participated. Other than participating in the same discussion about a topic that was not about BMK seven years ago (before your time, it seems) I have no "history" with him. Yes, he is the type of person who believes he has a "history" with anyone who disagrees with him, so I'll give you that. Our policies on civility and personal attacks make it clear he is engaging in unacceptable behavior and that's why I've brought it up in a thread about the same subject. Viriditas (talk) 19:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Out of a list of open Rfc's you just happened to pick the one he opened? This was done for the purpose of.....what exactly? I suppose your purpose of picking that Rfc had nothing to do with prior animosities of course.--MONGO 20:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in my extensive contribution history, particularly in regards to my participation in community processes. I was drawn to the list of open RfCs during the second week of March after opening an RfC myself on the naming of Cypress Hills Massacre in the history topic area at 03:19, 13 March.[107] While watching the RfC queue for Cypress Hills Massacre to see when the bot would list the RfC, I watched Legobot get its knickers in a twist as the bot posted both the RfC ID I posted and William Street to the same history queue at exactly 4:00 UTC [108][109] You can see it for yourself.[110] Legobot's page history looks like this:

04:00, 13 March 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+1,850)‎ . . Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography ‎ (Added: Talk:William Street (Manhattan) Talk:Cypress Hills massacre.)

04:00, 13 March 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+14)‎ . . Talk:William Street (Manhattan) ‎ (Adding RFC ID.)

04:00, 13 March 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+14)‎ . . Talk:Cypress Hills Massacre ‎ (Adding RFC ID.)

This allowed me to watch the listing of both the Cypress Hills Massacre RfC and William Street RfC in real time in the same exact history queue, allowing me to comment on it seven minutes later at 04:07, 13 March, William Street RfC (History and geography); I then made my way to two additional RfCs: 04:12, 13 March, A Fine Frenzy (Biographies), and 05:57, 13 March, Kokuchūkai RfC (Politics, government, and law; Religion and philosophy). I hope this simple, prosaic explanation doesn't ruin your complex conspiracy theory. Viriditas (talk) 21:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• Let me be clear (I have said these things before). I accept that I broke the 3RR rule. I accept that there is a sanction for this. I accept the warning given. I do not accept the way Wikipedia deals with editors that persistently are uncivil or break the rules and guidelines (or the way some administrators interpret the rules). Editors who persistently are uncivil or break the rules as seems to be the case in my brief look at BMK's editing history should have stronger sanctions than repeated warnings and requests to apologise. Its a bit like parenting really: constant warnings don't change behaviour, clearly defined sanctions that are enacted do. My request for further sanctions for BMK is not motivated by anything personal even though I received a personal 'attack' from this editor. Rather it is motivated by improving the process of Wikipedia editing. I think temporary bans enacted earlier in these situations are a possible way forward giving any editor time to reflect and change their behaviour. I am happy to accept any consensus about this and do not want this to drag on. I just needed to make my views clear. Robynthehode (talk) 11:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from there and I appreciate you clarifying your stance on the matter, but at this point what complicates matters is that your call for further sanctions is getting completely railroaded by editors who are pursuing the same thing out of spite, due to prior interactions with BMK that went sour, and it really risks admins not taking your request seriously or the issue being closed as "no consensus". As for improving the behavior... blocking him is probably not going to teach him much, if it's already been done. I'm obviously not privy to his thoughts and I can't speak for how sincere his apology was (some seem happy to, though), but I doubt he's going to be preoccupied with thinking about what he did wrong if he gets blocked, especially with all this lot waiting to dance on his grave the second it starts. I'm not entirely sure what the best route would be at this point, but since there's a chance that he'll learn from this and tone it down, it seems likely that he'll be given the chance to do so. A lot of it has to do with the space of time between his edit warring/civility infractions, I think-- he doesn't do it often enough to be considered a net negative for the project which is common in these cases, and it's not generally clear to judging admins that he truly thinks he's in the wrong for doing what he did, apologies and redactions notwithstanding. His meeting of others' immature behavior in disputes with more of the same and his constant potshots about stupid stuff that happened years ago is very telling, as much as I'd like to take his withdrawal of his comment against you at face value. BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 14:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

To summarise the above, BMK has been given a pass to swear at and bully editors because he occasionally improves the encyclopedic content of Wikipedia. Sorry, Robynthehode, you had to be on the receiving end of one of his periodic outbursts. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

...That's putting a really hyperbolic spin on my words. I've already said that getting dramatic about wanting him sanctioned is making it less likely he will. BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 16:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

No, I think I've summarised your position precisely. The idea that a self-proclaimed experienced editor can tell another more experienced and more productive editor "To expect me to treat you as a colleague under those circumstance is asking too much, so this is how you'll be treated instead, like the pest you have become." is fine in your opinion. Or the "Hey, asshole, stop fucking around" charm to a new editor? Apologist barnstar awarded. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Hooray, and it's my first one too! Confetti all around! Lmao, what? Did you not notice that I said his actions are immature and deserving of address, or are you 'trying to pick a fight when I'm not opposing you? I wasn't excusing his behavior, I was saying that based on the circumstances the other admins probably won't do anything-- and that's not to say I agree with that outcome. Moreover, you're just proving my point-- the original reporter's complaint is not going to be heard if it's getting drowned out by others deafeningly grinding their axes, being combative and melodramatic about this whole thing. I suppose I could argue that you made a personal attack and are assuming some catastrophically bad faith in me by saying what you did, but I'm honestly more amused than anything, so it doesn't matter. It just obfuscates the issue at hand. BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 00:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• Robynthehode has a valid complaint and it would be nice if Beyond my Ken might chime in briefly but that is unlikely it appears. Meanwhile, I think regardless of what may or may not happen, I'm going to award him a barnstar for his interactions with Virditas.--MONGO 15:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• Careful, Viriditas, Ken might get really mad and "ban" you from his talkpage. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• Done. Although, try as a I might, I cannot understand the edit summary. Viriditas (talk) 19:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks to the above editors for their positive words. It still, however, begs the larger question as to what is to be done about editors who are repeatedly uncivil, distruptive etc. Are there not advisory guidelines for administrators in such cases or does it all come down to discussion and consensus? As there is a 3RR rule which usually results in a brief block why not a 3 x uncivil rule which results in a much longer block? The actions of these types of editors is not random. There are clear patterns of behaviour which can receive reasonably rapid sanctions without endless discussion. Bullying editors (whether they 'intend' to bully or not) are a reason for new (ish) editors to stay away from Wikipedia or other editors to leave. This leaves Wikipedia the poorer and may be the result of not dealing with these issues quickly and decisively. I am not trying to suggest that administrators do not try to deal with these issues (dispute resolution of this kind is nearly always difficult) only that maybe we should review the process of dealing with such editors as has prompted this discussion. Robynthehode (talk) 17:21, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I don't get the point of all this. BMK and robybthehood were edit warring, BMK withdrew their 'personal comment', both were warned by an admin. The matter should be done with. If you have complaints about the course of action adopted by the admin, then take it up with the admin. If you think BMK has been getting away with murder, then open an RfC/U. this sort of pointless "how come he gets two lollipops but I get only one" carping is a complete waste of time. --regentspark (comment) 17:24, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• RfC/U is closed, and ANI is supposedly the place to post what used to be posted in RfC/U. It remains to be seen whether the admins at ANI are actually willing to take on this new workload, but you cannot fault a user for posting what amounts to an RfC/U here. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• Agreed. The complainant has the right to voice concerns and while I would prefer to see no action taken, the diffs provided do indicate that corrective measures may be needed.--MONGO 20:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

You might all be right. But on ANI lately, the straight-forward cases get closed fairly quickly and more complex cases get archived, unresolved. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, we probably need more admins. Thinks... Hey, now you mention it Liz, I don't suppose you'd consider standing? Begoon ^talk 15:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, we need more admins, and we need at least one who can stand up to this kind of bullying and offensive behaviour. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support blocking Beyond My Ken per the diffs provided. His frequent incivility is quite worrisome. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose block of BMK. Needs a warning for incivility, certainly. The rest seems to be dredging up old grudges and things from 5 years ago. Softlavender (talk) 01:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Раціональне анархіст

I came across User:Раціональне анархіст when I initiated a deletion discussion concerning The Myth of Islamic Tolerance. I am not a Muslim and I have no conflict of interest. Yes, I may seem like a slightly advanced editor, but I am not a sock. I learn fast, already know a lot about computers and programming, and have read up heaps. I unfortunately would like to raise the following issues about the user's conduct:

• Breach of WP:GOODFAITH and deletion discussion guidelines. Of the approx 80 words they used at WP:Articles_for_deletion/The_Myth_of_Islamic_Tolerance_(3rd_nomination) around 60 were aimed at making false accusations against me, claiming without evidence I have a WP:COI and am a sock.
• On their talk page, the user repeated their claims and uncivilly alleged I have an 'impulse-control problem (reinforcing my suspicion that you are a new sock of a previously banned editor)'
• Placed a template accusing me of canvassing for votes on 'sympathetic forums'
• Constant edit warring at Rape jihad, an article the user created (few credible sources use the term). The article absurdly lists the Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal as an example of rape jihad
• Writing at Talk:Rape jihad#Proposed_title 'Britain, Nigeria, et al, aren't "in the Islamic World" (well, at least not until they're conquered)' and 'True, that. (The arguable clear intent of "rape jihad" is demographic conquest. Several hundred captured schoolgirls sold off to jihadi husbands have a thousand holy warrior babies, not a thousand babies brought up another way.)', exposing possible bias and Islamophobia. Countless other examples of aggressive and unpleasant conduct, edit warring and unacceptable behaviour are demonstrated on the talk page of Rape jihad
• Breaching WP:3RR at Rape jihad
• Removing speedy deletion tags I place, not just contesting them ([111]), including spuriously
• Following me and reverting my edits, [112]
• Closing an adminstators noticeboard discussion I started with no responseshttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=660463129 Corrected, see below

The editor seems to be engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour, and trying to make WP:POINTs. I now also see their is a discussion concerning his conduct. AusLondonder (talk) 20:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

P.S. I accept I have made mistakes - but that is precisely because I'm a new editor. AusLondonder (talk) 20:28, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Response

• 1. On my talk page replying to you, I wrote: "Your willingness to fight over a clearly lost cause at the nomination suggests an impulse-control problem (reinforcing my suspicion that you are a new sock of a previously banned editor)" You are doing everything to confirm and nothing to dispel that initial impression. The current !vote at the AfD is presently 7-to-1 in favor of Keep (with you-the-nom being the 1), so this is a lost cause more so now (when you filed this notice) than yesterday (when I cast the 2nd Keep !vote). Regards your request that I "file a sock complaint to clear the air", as far as I know there is nothing preventing you from submitting yourself to a sock-puppet investigation. (Strike that part, as informed otherwise.)
• 2. Your accusation of a WP:3RR breach is false (not that vandalism reversals count toward 3RR anyway...and not that it matters in this case because it didn't happen).
• 3. Regards WP:Battleground, it is you who have chosen to escalate WP:ADHOM in new venues such as here and here. Prior to this, my comments were confined to my one AfD !vote and two replies to you on my TP. You will note that I have not participated further at the AfD (while you have hassled nearly every voter).
• 4. Spending a hour removing a mass of Speedy delete tags and PRODs with poor rationales generated by a new editor who brought himself to one's attention is not stalking; it's housekeeping.
• 5. As is plainly evident, Chillum closed your noticeboard query, not I. Pax 22:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Boomerang Topic Ban Proposal

In order to stall the flurry of inappropriate deletion nominations, incorrect tags and battleground behavior over them by this admittedly inexperienced editor, I propose that...

The community forbids AusLondonder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) from adding tags to articles of any type and from creating or participating in deletion discussions (save concerning his own created articles, if any) or of move or merge discussions (broadly construed) outside of his personal talk page for a period of thirty days. Any uninvolved administrator may, at their own discretion, block AusLondonder from editing and/or impose longer ban if he/she finds they are in violation.

Reformed based upon suggestion by Bosstopher below:

The community forbids AusLondonder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) from starting deletion, merge and move discussions for a period of thirty days. Any uninvolved administrator may, at their own discretion, block AusLondonder from editing and/or impose longer ban if he/she finds they are in violation.

Pax 22:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-oppose Preventing the editor from participating in discussions will make it more difficult for him to learn. Would be better if he was simply banned from starting deletion, merge and move discussion.Bosstopher (talk) 23:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Works for me. (Proposal rewritten.) Pax 00:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• Usually a topic ban pertains to a subject where there is conflict. Also, CUs aren't run to clear people's name so, no, you can't propose yourself as a candidate in a SPI. And you shouldn't accuse another editor of being a sock account unless you have evidence to back up your assertion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I did list a duck-like indicator (account's first edit was creation of a large article with advanced formatting). I didn't go to SPI because I hadn't any hunch on who the master might be, and I don't like submitting single names. Pax 00:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Complainant response

When I first read the response by User:Раціональне анархіст to the issues I raised, I thought he must be having a laugh! How could someone have such a hide to fail to address the issues I raised and instead propose a ban on me is truly breathtaking. Unresolved issues: 1. Continued misleading inferences that I am sock - the editor cites my first edit as evidence (I used 'complex forms they said here and claimed during this discussion I 'created a large article with advanced formatting) - this is false. Please see my first edit here to disprove these claims

2. Acting in bad faith by continuing to falsely accuse me of being a sock, without a shred of evidence, and refusing to withdraw those claims. Suggesting I should nominate myself for investigation, and declining to put forward a single piece of evidence

3. Acting in a disruptive manner during a deletion discussion against me, by engaging in WP:PERSONAL attacks against me and making false allegations against me without a shred of evidence here and failing to assume good faith

4. Engaging in personal attacks against me on his talk page, by stating I suffer from an 'impulse-control problem'

5. Constant edit warring at Rape jihad, an article the user created (few credible sources use the term). The article absurdly lists the Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal as an example of rape jihad, as discussed at Talk:Rape jihad

6. Breaching the WP:3RR rule at Rape jihad, as discussed on the talk page.

7. Battleground behaviour at articles, talkpages and discussions relating to Islam

8. Disturbingly, writing at at Talk:Rape jihad#Proposed_title 'Britain, Nigeria, et al, aren't "in the Islamic World" (well, at least not until they're conquered)' and 'True, that. (The arguable clear intent of "rape jihad" is demographic conquest. Several hundred captured schoolgirls sold off to jihadi husbands have a thousand holy warrior babies, not a thousand babies brought up another way.)', exposing possible bias and Islamophobia. Countless other examples of aggressive and unpleasant conduct, edit warring and unacceptable behaviour are demonstrated on the talk page of Rape jihad

9. Removing speedy deletion tags, for example at Anshul sdr, now prodded and numerous other articles now deleted

10. Calling for a discussion I sought to begin regarding book notability to be closed. (I earlier stated that User:Раціональне анархіст closed it, however they only called for it to be closed)

11. At the same time as accusing me of having a 'master' and being a sock, the editor has called for me to be topic banned because I am 'inexperienced' despite the fact virtually all of my speedy deletion nominations (other than those removed my User:Раціональне анархіст) were supported by admins.

12. Arrogantly attempting to muddy the waters by proposing that I be banned from proposing articles for deletion, even though the vast majority of speedy nominations have been approved and the fact the editor is not an admin. If I were so arrogant as to make any ban suggestions, I would suggest the editor banned from articles relating to Islam

13. Referencing the WP:COMPETENCE essay towards me

AusLondonder (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, here are some examples of articles I nominated for speedy deletion now gone:

• Prime Asia TV
• Rawhyde
• Heartland Brewery
• JADE Switzerland
• Andreas Maierhofer
• Luxoderm

From memory, at least some of these deletions were opposed by the editor in questionAusLondonder (talk) 16:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Replies:

1. Repeatedly bringing up a subject (the Rape jihad article) whose associated disputes (two AfDs and three ANIs over the last several months) considerably predate your new account creation is not a good idea (someone else might get the notion that you're a sock). You're simply not up-to-speed, don't know the material, haven't participated in the discussions, and haven't met the players. Twice now you've accused me of violating 3RR without evidence (and it's a charge not even the section-blanking vandals made in during the ANIs, one current ongoing).

2. You need to provide "difs" when making serious accusations, such as the aforementioned 3RR breach claim. For the purposes of your bringing your deletions in here, nobody in the gallery cares about your "good" nominations that I was not involved in (they're the definition of irrelevant); what's important are the ones I was involved in, such as these:[113],[114],[115],[116],[117] Those are articles with PROD or Speedy tags. Any editor (except the article creator) can remove those; hell, they don't even need a reason in their edit commentary (although they are always appreciated). Your not knowing this, but jumping to drag me in here over it, supports my competence and "impulse-control" assessments, suggesting that the proposed temporary ban is appropriate.

3. I've submitted the Anshul sdr article to general AfD. Pax 18:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

It really is ironic that you have the brass neck to ask me to provide evidence of 'serious allegations' - you've provided no evidence for your constant allegations of sockpuppertry and WP:COI. However, the evidence for WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour and WP:3RR breaches is discussed at Talk:Rape jihad. I became aware of your conduct regarding Islam when I tried to discover what prompted your aggressive input at the deletion nomination - I then discovered your history WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour regarding articles and discussions related to Islam. I have today continued important work on the encyclopedia including speedy deletion nominations. It is entirely relevant to bring in my other speedy deletion nominations I have made given your accusations of incompetence towards me. I think it is right to raise your removal of speedy deletion tags at articles subsequently deleted, because it smells of WP:POINT. AusLondonder (talk) 19:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I've just found this. Just look at the editors conduct here - more WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:UNCIVIL. Any other editor would have been banned by now. AusLondonder (talk) 19:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

"...I became aware of your conduct regarding Islam when I tried to discover what prompted your aggressive input at the deletion nomination..."

I'm curious: what did you find out about the other seven ten editors who likewise voted to keep the article (that being all of the editors who've cast votes at the AfD you proposed)? Pax 20:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

May 5: Speaking of brass, what on earth prompted you to unload this vitrol upon another editor, GuzzyG, at your deletion nom? He was the ninth Keep !voter (versus only you) in your nom, absolutely a lost cause at that point. So, more confirmation of battleground/competence/impulse-control issues in the inability to recognize a lack of equine vital signs. Pax 01:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

What prompted it, you ask? Didn't you read his malicious accusation against me? Am I expected to take it but not give it? Indeed he was a 'voter', failing to actually discuss the matter and simply casting a vote. 'So, more confirmation of battleground/competence/impulse-control issues in the inability to recognize (sic) a lack of equine vital signs. Wrong on every count. Your battleground behaviour regarding Islam is illustrated above. I've got nothing else to say on that. Impulse control? Don't make me laugh? Equine vital signs crap? I know you have some weird obsession with that essay, but I have given up, so I don't quite know what your point is. I didn't realise the standard book review counted as a published source, but I do now. Humility and accepting a mistake - do you ever do that? Competence - my contributions say otherwise. AusLondonder (talk) 01:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

You were wrong about the 3RR, wrong about who closed the noticeboard query, wrong in assuming that the removal of improper-rationale speedy tags represents "spurious" wiki-stalking, wrong about everything regarding the Rape jihad article, wrong to nominate The Myth of Islamic Tolerance for deletion, and wrong to accuse another editor of an undue fixation with Islam when it's apparent your fixation is not at least equal if not greater (given that several of your declined PROD/speedy tags involved other Islam-related books). Quite simply put, you do have obvious competence problems, and lack the ability to cool your jets and back down from lost causes. Pax 03:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

You are having a great deal of trouble understanding this, I know. But I did back down. What more do you want? Blood? However, I was right about WP:3RR at Rape jihad. It is there in black and white on the talkpage. I was right in suggesting you encouraging closing of the noticeboard query, as I made quite clear. I was right in nominating articles for speedy deletion (at least one article you removed the tag from where speedily deleted later). Your conduct at Rape jihad has been a textbook case of WP:BATTLEGROUND. AusLondonder (talk) 03:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

No you aren't right about 3RR because you either don't really understand what that policy is or you can't count. You have failed to provide necessary difs proving your case, and you can't. What's going to happen now: you'll head off to that article's history to recheck your count, then visit the 3RR policy page to bone up, and realize with a sinking feeling that you were wrong. Pax 05:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Additional note

Onlookers may wish to examine a concurrent ANI for additional examples of the AusLondonder's combative, escalatory approach to discussion. Pax 05:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Bad faith and incivility from User:SimonTrew

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:SimonTrew left a comment on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 April 24#I Am (Leona Lewis album) about me which I found to be bad faith, rude and not civil, saying that I had only opened a redirect for discussion thread because he thought I was implementing WP:OWN. I left a polite and brief comment on SimonTrew's talk (see here). To say that the response I received was completely blown out of proportion, rude and extremely bad faith is an understatement. SimonTrew also attacked me for how I have stylized my name, which was completely irrelevant to the original point. I feel like his response on his talk page was not necessary at all, and it shouldn't go unnoticed. (Note: This is not the first time that SimonTrew has been involved with personal attacks/harassment.)  — ₳aron 11:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

That is completely incorrect. Aaron, that is to say User:Calvin999 who chooses a pseudonym (and then uses a strange crossed A so nobody can actually type it) where I use my real name, came and posted stuff on my talk page and I asked him to desist. Continuted to post. Politely I asked him to desist. I said I argue vigorously but politely at my usual hangout, WP:RFD, and everyone knows that. Today actually I used the word Cunt, but that was in relation to the article about Cunt and the redirects to it. WP:NOTCENSORED as I said. I think this user is perhaps a little bit of a baby, I argue vigorously but politely. I asked him to stop posting on my talk page, and he did not, so the incivility is his, not mine. I also said to him to take it here, this was some days ago (he has posted three times since) or shut up. Now he takes it here. So let's get it sorted. In the meantime, I have translated three articles, sorted out numerous redirects, and generally made Wikipedia a little better. It is not my fault there is a shit-stirrer in the midst. Si Trew (talk) 12:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, if you follow through the link, it says I think this is what is objectionable, if you look at my talk page, I wrote on WP:RFD "It seems like a case of WP:OWNERSHIP to me". Now, one may disagree with that, as User:Calvin999 certainly did, but I hardly think that is a personal attack. That is the normal course of discussion. If you want to play with the big boys, then grow up. Si Trew (talk) 12:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I've posted a note (again) on the user's talk page. This is the third time I have held out an olive branch but I doubt it will be accepted, so I just carry on making Wikipedia better. I thought that is what we were supposed to do. This is a complete waste of my time, I've taken from WP:PNT an article to translate, and that will tae me a couple of hours. Si Trew (talk) 12:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

In short, I am not the one being uncivil here. Try to look at the other, Si Trew (talk) 13:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Calvin999 I am unable to see the personal attack in that section you linked to, please provide a diff of it. AlbinoFerret 14:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I have worked with Simon in the past, and have found him to be an editor who has a strong point of view (not necessarily a bad thing), but a very hard working editor and one who is useful for bringing about discernment. Perhaps Aaron/Calvin999 took this a bit too personally, perhaps (and I only say perhaps) because Simon made a valid point against Aaron/Calvin's POV which might have hurt a little. I think there is a simple remedy here: move on. Aaron/Calvin I cannot find the specific "attack" anywhere, all I see is Simon being his usual assertive self. Simon, perhaps you do sometimes come across as a little abrasive, but that is no reason not to move on from what I believe will be a relatively unproductive argument here. JZCL 16:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The personal attack is, for some strange reason, stemming from how I have chose to stylise my name here on Wikipedia. I really don't understand how I choose to present my username added anything to his point. He is clearly a very angry, antagonised person who can't deal with authority and takes it way too personally. All I said was that I didn't think it was fair or good faith to accuse me of ownership without researching why I had opened a redirect for discussion. Instead of just apologising and saying sorry, SimonTrew instead asked to be reported instead of discussing it on his talk (which I found strange), and the proceeded to attack me for apparently using the wrong 'A', in his opinion, and something about Hebrew or whatnot, in my username, and then telling me that my real life name can't be my real life name because I've spelt it incorrectly. Forgive me, but I think I know what my real life name is. He then accuses me of bad faith because I apparently had the ghoul to even post on his talk in the first place. "You come in bad faith, you get bad faith back." (Didn't realise I wasn't allowed to post on someone's talk in any instance), and then tells me "Take it as you find it. Now get off my talk page." Both quotations by SImonTrew here are bad faith and personal attacks. I replied to his comment, not wanting to report him, but he was still being uncivil. So I did as he asked, and I reported him here. He then proceeds to tell me that he asked me "not to leave messages on my talk page. Now this is the fourth time that you have, since I asked you. So, who is in bad faith,, thee or me? You are just making a rod for your own back, here." (There are only three signatures on his talk of mine, not four, by the way, and one of which is a mandatory ANI notice required to be posted by me to inform him of this thread, apparently that was wrong too. Can only imagine what he would say if I hadn't of notified him). Judging by his four posts here to himself, he has worked it in his head that I was the uncivil one to highlight his error in the first instance, and that he has been an angel to me, which obviously isn't true to anyone who reads my post on his talk. Here is a list of his attacks towards me :

1. "The fact that you deliberatly have a nickname that is hard to type is already in my mind an assumption of bad faith because the usual way to spell it would be Aaron, not with the stupid crossed initial A which is not Hebrew."
2. "You come in bad faith, you get bad faith back. Take it as you find it."
3. "Now get off my talk page. Report me or shut up, I have better things to do."
4. "I think this user is perhaps a little bit of a baby"
5. "It is not my fault there is a shit-stirrer in the midst."
6. "If you want to play with the big boys, then grow up."

How are these insults not personal attacks? Someone please find me an instance where I have called SimonTrew anything. One would be searching for a long time, I can guarantee that. At no point has SImonTrew been "vigorously polite". This kind of behaviour is not acceptable. Wikipedia is not censored, but that's in mainspace. On a talk page, regardless of who's it is, it is wholly unacceptable to talk to someone like how SimonTrew has been talking to me. It's not okay for me to leave a polite notice on his talk, but it's apparently okay for him to call me all the things quoted above in the diffs. He has been blocked twice before for personal attacks and harassment, and I don't see how his behaviour is anything but personal attacks toward me. Tell me to "shut up", calling me "a bit of a baby", telling me to "grow up" if I want to play with the "big boys" (I hope he doesn't mean himself), and calling me a "shit stirrer" is disgusting. I've seen editors get blocked for doing and saying a lot less. I hope what I've provided is sufficient, AlbinoFerret. And, {[u|JZCL}}, this is not a case of assertion. It's called being inappropriate, rude and inconsiderate. I won't "move on", because it is unacceptable for an editor to treat another like how he has treated me. You may not know him on a better level, but that's no excuse. But you're clearly his friend, so you will defend him. That's natural.  — ₳aron 18:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me. Yes, all those quotes are on my talk page, which Aaron invaded, when I asked him not to. Now I can blank my talk page and didn't, because I wanted the evidence to show. You personally attacked me, but I never personally attacked you. So do you want me to report you for personal attacks? Because I can see a lot of em. Let it go, Aaron, let it go, and let's get on to improving the encyclopaedia. Si Trew (talk) 19:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Please show me the personal attacks against you. I'm really interested to see them. How have I invaded your talk by displaying the unacceptable behaviour you've demonstrated? Albino Ferret asked me to provide diffs, so I have.  — ₳aron 22:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

SimonTrew may not realize that casting WP:ASPERSIONS is in itself enough to warrant a block. He should supply diffs - fast - or failing that he should equally fast strike out his accusations. 120.202.249.203 (talk) 10:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC) — 120.202.249.203 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@Calvin999 Although we have collaborated in the past, we have also had a fair number of disagreements, so I think that it is unfair that you refer to me as "clearly his friend". And I was talking to him as much as you when I said that I thought it would be best to move on. What is to be gained here? Are you genuinely hoping for him to be blocked or for a one-way interaction ban? All this conversation is providing is a few more kilobytes of memory usage on the Wikimedia servers. These diffs in my opinion are not "inappropriate, rude or inconsiderate". Blunt maybe. Maybe even a bit unexpected. But inappropriate? I think not. I strongly suggest that we just accept our differences and move on. JZCL 19:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

These comments aren't ideal but, frankly, I haven't seen editors get blocked for doing and saying a lot less.. As far as blocks for incivility go, the language has to be a lot worse and aggressive for admins to take action but civility is considered a gray area where different editors have different styles of communicating and tolerance for salty language. It is rude and inappropriate but I've been told worse and I bet most other editors have faced even worse comments than this and they didn't bring it to AN/I. I think it's best if you just kept distant from each other, didn't stalk each other or post on each other's talk page. While this might not seem fair to you, Calvin999, in my experience, it is more likely that this thread will get archived than that any admin will take the action you are requesting. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm not letting it go. The way SimonTrew has spoken to me is appalling and he should be ashamed. It's really reassuring to see several editors think it's acceptable for someone to talk to another editor like this, when all I did was say that I thought the implying of me owning an article was unfair. I can't believe that other editors in this thread think this language and behaviour is acceptable! It's nothing to do with "different styles". This kind of behaviour isn't a "style", it's a problem! If an admin just archives this thread, then clearly there is no regard for the treatment of editors by others. I am really disgusted with the attitude of some comments I have seen here.  — ₳aron 22:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree with Calvin999 who signs himself as Aaron. Sadly, quite often I see good editors feel entitled not to watch their tongue respect other editor's feelings, and because they are good editors, some others tend to side with them, thus reinforcing the problem. From my own experience of a non-native speaker I can attest that while I can write reasonably neutral text on technical subjects, but when communicating on general issues, especially in controversies, I feel that my language is dominated by Hollywood blockbusters, and "bug off" comes easier to me than "please drop this subject", even if I am not particularly belligerent. IMO Aaron's opponent must recognize that people have different tolerance to offensive language and that the spirit of cooperation in wikipedia requires us to respect such simple requests as to change the language register.Staszek Lem (talk) 00:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

P.S. On the other hand Aaron IMO deserves a mild slap of trout for his signature, which makes it more difficult to identify the account. I've seen some user why just love to play name game and change their sig every week, so that from plain text it is impossible to see that the same person talks. Some people like to write in non-Latin fonts, etc. Signatures are to make tracking communication easier, rather than to express your fancy. For example, if I want to ping Aaron, I cannot simply type "Aaron" or even "₳aron"; I have to open some his text in an editor and figure out the account name; sometimes in a signature 5 lines long. Such kind of making people jump through the hoops just to say "Hi" may be seen as impolite. Of course you are not restricted in your choice of your sig, but don't be surprised that someone got annoyed with your A crossed, just as you got annoyed with their choice of words. For example, this thread is started by "₳aron 11:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)", but in the middle I see "User:Calvin999 certainly did" . WTH is this Calvin(1000-1), now? Staszek Lem (talk) 01:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with your characterization of SimonTrew as a 'good editor'. I've found his rfd contributions to be for the most part unhelpful, to say the least, and I've more than once shaken my head at his repeated displays of incivility, incoherence, immaturity and glaring lack of tact/basic knowledge of our policies, most of which we can observe in his childish responses to this very thread, which, by the way, is just the tip of the iceberg. I've neither the time nor the energy to go dumpster diving, but it would be exceedingly easy to find hundreds more diffs demonstrating his rude behavior. If User:SimonTrew doesn't learn some manners, it's not a question of if, but a question of when his editing privileges are permanently suspended. Those defending his tantrums right now are doing Simon no favors - this editor is in a dire need of a reality check, and the sooner it is delivered, the better off he will be - and that's optimistically assuming he can be reformed. 120.202.249.203 (talk) 09:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC) — 120.202.249.203 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Here's another:

1. "With the sillies on my talk page". You are continuing your bad faith and harassing me in places other this discussing in this ANI, such as your talk and other's talk.

Also, SimonTrew, I still don't get why you keep saying to yourself that you don't want to discuss this further on your talk, when it's only you posting on your talk. You keep asking me not to post on your talk, but it didn't stop you from invading my talk, did it. You can't use double standards by asking me to stay off of yours when you clearly think it's fine to post on mine. The idea that one syllable in my name was not up to your liking is not bad faith at all. Once again, you have just assumed and presumed that my real name is a pseudonym for some reason. Aaron is my real life name, and I changed my username to a pipe of it because I wanted people to know my real name when addressing me without having to change my multiple pages with my user name so people knew it was still me. I'd been using that stylized signature for a very long time and you are the only person who has ever complained about it. You keep trying to deflect your bad faith onto me, but it's not working. Your language, demeanor and behavior is 100% unacceptable and it's disgusting to see an editor act in this manner. People in this thread are a) commenting on the secondary issue here (my signature) and not addressing SimonTrew vile behavior, and b) Just brushing it off as "his style" because he isn't an new or inexperienced editor; no amount of time and no matter what your edit count is allows for you to act in this way. No one is above anyone here, but you seem to think you're a saint and a victim who has done nothing wrong. You are showing a complete lack of respect, but as I highlighted before, you've got a track record of being blocked for personal attacks and harassment.  — Calvin999 09:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I really don't understand this. It is making a mountain out of a molehill, and if that is User:Calvin999's intent, it certainly has been achieved. It is not bad faith, I have nothing against you. I disagreed with you at Redirects for Discussion (note the title, discussion, not deletion) and did so vigorously but politely. The best solution is just to drop it, but you won't drop it, because you have the bit between your teeth and you are going to run with it until you lose another Wikipedian who has edited a lot more than you have. Let me lay it on the line: You come to RfD, to which anyone is entitled to contribute, ust like anywhere else on Wikipedia. You offer your opinion. I disagree politely with that opinion. You throw your toys out of your pram. Well that's not my fault. I don't always get consensus at RfD either but I don't take people to ANI over it and I don't put abuse on their talk pages. As for the personal insults, well, I could argue they are just common expressions and weren'r directed at you personally, but since you personally insulted me first by bringing this ridiculous case I think I am allowed to defend myself in whatever language I choose. The one I would use in real life ends in "off". Si Trew (talk) 15:00, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• This is among the more ridiculous and overblown drama board threads I've come across. We have a pretty innocent comment about ownership of a redirect in a Redirects for discussion thread at the core of it, of all things. Why redirects attract so much drama is really beyond me. SimonTrew made an erroneous link to WP:OWN [118] meaning to have linked to WP:TOOSOON, which he retracted a few edits later. It's a looooooooong leap to call that a personal attack. The rest of this entire mess would have been avoided in its entirety had Calvin999 just dropped the goddamn stick instead of coming back more than a week later and badgering Simon on his talk page, after the issue was remedied and after he was asked to stop. Yes, Simon can be blunt, but nobody is required to temper their attitude to appease someone who goes out of their way to get in their face. Ivanvector (talk) 15:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm quite happy to admit it was erroneous to say so, that is what discussions are about. I agree with you Ivanvector, this is just completely overbblown. All I want to do is improve the encyclopaedia. In real life I am a lovely chap but sometimes some things written can sound blunt or harsh which said with a smile would not seem so: I think this is what happened on this occasion. But it is totally overblown, as you say. Si Trew (talk) 15:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

It is very kind of User:Ivanvector to put in a good word for me, which I did not ask for (I've thanked him for it but that is after seeing it here not before). Over at WP:RFD, Ivanvector and I regularly have discussions/disputes over what to do with a redirect, and Ivanvector is usually right. I think I even called him a bastard on one occasion, with my tongue in my cheek, and he still didn't take me to ANI. It is the cut and thrust of a discussion. (The decision usually goes in Ivanvector's favour, but that is because it is right). Si Trew (talk) 15:36, 7 May 2015 (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:Wdon17

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 found this post by User:Wdon17 on an indef-blocked user's talkpage puzzling. Is it random? Does it indicate some sort of link between the users? A look at Wdon17's contribution history shows only low-level vandalism, including this and this on Cicely Saunders, and today there's also this almost identical edit by User:Wdon04 on the same page. Clearly there's reason to suspect Wdon17 and Wdon04 may be socks but is it too obvious and in, in fact, more likely to be someone wanting us to think that? And I don't know what to make about the post to the blocked user's page. So, I'm raising it here in case any admin wants to look deeper into it. RichardOSmith (talk) 12:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Obvious socks are obvious. Both new iterations indeffed. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: as I was posting notification of this at Wdon17's talk page I discovered that both Wdon17 and Wdon04 have just been blocked as socks of User:Wdon01 by Yunshui RichardOSmith (talk) 12:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC) ec

Thanks, Yunshui, for dealing with this so quickly! 12:09, 7 May 2015 (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:Charliesdun only advertizing himself

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.

---

Regarding Charliesdun (talk · contribs): His User page is nothing but an ad for himself and his law firm. His only edits have been to advertize himself. He has attempted to use AFC to create an article about himself. It is sitting in his sandbox, and has been just nominated for deletion here Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Charliesdun/sandbox/Charles Steven Dunn. Choor monster (talk) 15:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that this is the right venue, or, indeed, if any venue is the right venue save those which are in use at MfD and on the editor's own page. People have the right to create autobiographies here. Very few have the skill to do so in a manner which is unbiased. I think your vigilance is praiseworthy, but Mr Dunn is within his rights. I am the nominator at MfD because I do not think it to be fair to him to let this run on for ever. He may be able to show that he is notable, or, and this is important, the editor may not be the gentleman himself. We may, within reason, name ourselves what we wish here. Fiddle Faddle 15:50, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  • No, he is not within his rights. WP:USER is very explicit that brief self-description is allowed, and no more. Any blatant promotion is flat-out not allowed. Choor monster (talk) 15:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• Forgive me for disagreeing with you. Disagreement is a healthy thing. The article is a sandbox draft that has been submitted for review at WP:AFC rather than self puffery on the User: page. It is, currently, in the editor's sandbox. Arguably, it should be migrated to the Draft: namespace, though I am loath to do that while an MfD discussion is in progress.

I can see why you use WP:USER as your guide, but it has no influence here.

Blatant advertising in a sandbox is subject to deletion anyway, of course, but my opinion here, for what my opinion is worth, is that this is simply a non notable jabbing lawyer hoping to get an article here. Fiddle Faddle 16:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Also at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Charliesdun. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. That can be speedied as improper use of a User: page, leaving the sandbox draft in play Fiddle Faddle 16:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

As it has been. G11. Fiddle Faddle 16:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• And a user page is the wrong place for that anyway. Typically, I move such pages to the sandbox and leave a note; in this case it was already in the sandbox also. The rationale is that if it's on the user page, it's an attempt to advertise and not a draft for an article. NeilN has put the user page up at MfD, but I just deleted it as advertising. Drmies (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2015 (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.

Joseph Prasad

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.

---

Said user deleted a new section 'Cover Version' and an entry therein on the page Blank Space (regarding the Taylor Swift song). See the history ofthat page.. Said section and entry were made my me, Sejtam. The first deletion was excused with a '(Cover versions: not notable) '. Afaik content within a page does not require a notability test. Anyway, a cover that garners 1.8 million views on youtuube in 4 months and is released on a album is notable. The second deletion then was excused with 'Not covered by independent sources.' which is again wrong as the Youtube link to that exact version (where it was released, so it's not a bootleg!) was given. The second deletion happened within 1 minute of my first reversal, which indicates some form of BOT?

Anyway, from [[119]] it looks like this editor seems to be overly protective of some artists pages, not allowing additional content like cover versions etc which clearly are on-topic (see many other song pages).. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sejtam (talk • contribs) 15:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

First off this is a content dispute and needs to be discussed on the talk page for the article. Next you should know that the SPI you linked to shows no ownership issues for JP. MarnetteD|Talk 15:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I am going to start a discussion at the talk page when I get home from school. I do not have time at the moment, and that shows no ownership. I am not a bot in any degree, otherwise I would not be commenting here. I refreshed the watchlist and saw it was changed. It is not covered by independent sources. (i.e. no articles or anything), it is self-published, not notable to any degree as Smosh and Shane Dawson videos get more views in less time. And NSONGS states: "Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. This excludes media reprints of press releases, or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work.[3] Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created." "Songs with notable cover versions are normally covered in one common article about the song and the cover versions." -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 16:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

a) Notability does not apply withinn an article. b) as per your last sentence, I am not trying to establish a new article for the cover version (in which cas ethe notability rule would apply, escept for the rule that your last sentence cites). But there is no rule of notability that precludes mention of cover versions.

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.

AusLondonder's battleground conduct

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.

---

It is my considered opinion that AusLondonder is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. The user has demonstrated a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality on multiple occasions, as well as a lack of WP:CLUE in taking exceptions to comments by others, then turning around and making worse comments himself. I am providing numerous examples of misconduct below:

First, see the user's conduct at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Myth of Islamic Tolerance (3rd nomination), which AusLondonder opened.

1. When Раціональне анархіст observes that AusLondonder may be an WP:SPA, AusLondonder responds in a non-constructive manner.
2. When Coolabahapple argues that the subject passes GNG, AusLondonder indicates a lack of competence by apparently arguing that WP:NBOOK overrules GNG.
3. AusLondonder criticizes the users who have !voted keep and takes the unusual step of opening an RfC in an AfD, arguing that consensus cannot be reached because no !voter has indicated how the subject meets WP:NBOOK.
4. AusLondonder lectures both Johnbod and Coolabahapple for being incivil, even though neither user has done anything wrong.
5. After GuzzyG suggests that AusLondonder may be an SPA, AusLondonder replies by calling GuzzyG 'a nasty individual' and saying 'How dare you come to this page and throw around those sort of false and malicious allegations in total violation of deletion discussion guidelines. Notice at the top of the page it says 'that commenting on other users rather than the article is also considered disruptive' - but you ignore every word to spew your lies. How about you check my contributions before you talk such rubbish.' AusLondonder has yet to respond to my follow-up comment in which I inquire as to how AusLondonder's comment to GuzzyG does not violate the same guideline AusLondonder accuses GuzzyG of violating.
6. After I cast a !vote for speedy keep, AusLondonder goes to the AfD talk page and says "This isn't a vote. I know this concept is hard to grasp. Simply saying Keep and repeating the above argument is not a intelligent imput". This comment is arguably more insulting that most or all of the comments AusLondonder has taken exception to.
7. Earlier, on the AfD talk page, AusLondonder suggests that Раціональне анархіст has a problem with Islam. Mind you, this is the same AusLondonder that has acted outraged when others question his motives.

Also, see the user's conduct at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hormones and Brain Differentiation, which was also opened by AusLondonder:

1. AusLondonder attempts to discredit FreeKnowledgeCreator by insinuating that FKC has an anti-homosexuality agenda. This, of course, violates the AfD guideline that says 'commenting on other users rather than the article is also considered disruptive'. As you saw above, AusLondonder had quoted this same guideline to GuzzyG just two days earlier.
2. After I !vote keep and note that the nom has a clear agenda (AusLondonder has PROD'ed several articles about anti-homosexuality books [120], [121], [122]), AusLondonder asks to me strike my comments and points me to WP:NPA and WP:AGF, policies that he never follows himself. AusLondonder pulls another 'How dare you' and accuses me of abusing him.

There are several other things:

1. At Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 May 7, AusLondonder responds to a keep !vote by me by sarcastically saying "Hi there User:Mellowed Fillmore, nice to see your well-explained, constructive contribution on another deletion discussion relating to homosexuality. It's not a vote, by the way."
2. As can be seen above on this page in the thread entitled 'User:Раціональне анархіст', AusLondonder has demonstrated a battleground mentality.
3. In another thread on this page (entitled 'Editor violating guidelines'), AusLondonder complained about impolite treatment by other editors, yet in the same thread he referred to another user as a 'smart alec'.

It is my view that AusLondonder is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. He is likely to remain a problematic editor and I'm not sure that any more patience needs to be shown. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 17:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Re "smart alec", the language AusLondonder was complaining about was an entirely different animal. I know nothing of the rest of this issue, but drawing such a blatantly false equivalence does not engender confidence in the rest of the complaint, in my opinion. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I did not say the language was equivalent. Maybe AusLondonder had a perfectly valid complaint in that case. Still, the bottom line is that AusLondonder has two standards: one for himself and one for everyone else. Please looks at the diffs I have presented and then I imagine you will find this is quite clear. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 17:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

He is a relatively new editor, & I think myself we should be more patient. But I don't dispute the account above. His combination of aggression, casting aspersions very freely, & also complaining loudly the moment he detects anything other than complete politeness towards him in others is both unattractive & ineffective. Johnbod (talk) 17:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, his style leaves a lot to be desired, in an environment where far worse is routinely forgiven. Nothing is more destructive to the community than adjustable standards and selective enforcement. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and he's likely to get worse if he continues to get away with this kind of behavior. I am getting the impression that there are certain users here who you deem problematic and would like to see dealt with, but you realize that due to their entrenched status, this is unlikely. If those users had been nipped in the bud as newbies, they never would have gotten out of hand. That's why we should deal with situations like this one. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 17:36, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

24-hour block levied, with a warning that continued disruption will result in longer blocks. I don't think a long or indefinite block would be helpful here, since he's new and may learn from this incident that we don't accept incivility. Nyttend (talk) 17:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt action. I agree that 24 hours is reasonable and hopefully AusLondonder will learn from this and become a very valuable member of the community. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 17:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I noticed the same hostile style on the CFD discussion. I encouraged the AusLondonder to make more persuasive arguments rather than focusing on criticism of other editors on his/her talk page. I felt that was the right level of response to a new-ish editor but, then again, the comments were not targeted at me. RevelationDirect (talk) 17:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit conflict. That seems reasonable, Nyttend. RevelationDirect (talk) 17:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support 24hr block and a one month ban on making deletion nominations of any type. See concurrent ANI involving AusLondonder and myself. It should be noted that battleground behavior occurred well into obvious "lost causes" (neither AfD listed above has attracted any support for its nomination; all votes so far are to Keep). Pax 19:06, 7 May 2015 (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.

50.26.158.33

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.

---

50.26.158.33 seems to only have one version in mind for content at Clarence (2014 TV series), their own. User refuses to talk or compromise, and keeps adding poor grammar, speculation, interpretation, and tonal problems. IP geolocates to Amarillo, Texas, (ISP: Suddenlink) and I've had ample problems with Amarillo-based Suddenlink vandals.

• "He is a lighthearted, comical & chubby 9-year-old", "fans of the show believe that Kimby has a crush on Clarence." "plucky & blunt" — "Comical" is interpretive. WP:OR, misuse of ampersands, fan belief unsourced, vague, speculative and not noteworthy.
• lighthearted, comical & chubby again. "Belson...is a wealthy yet unpopular kid bullies Clarence" "He is insanely jealous" — Original research, grammar, WP:TONE.
• "comical" again.
• "comical" and "insanely again.

My attempt to discuss with the user is here. About 15 minutes after that I attempted to incorporate some of their content, instead of blanket reverting, but that was immediately followed by "lighthearted, comical & chubby" again.

It just goes on, most recently here with more "insanely jealous" again. There are other issues too, like unexplained removal of content over 10 edits. Unsourced age. Ampersand. Blah. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Reblocked for two months. Nyttend (talk) 17:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Nyttend. I was going to add that another Amarillo IP here added name vandalism (the vandal's typical MO, and I was going to tie it to the reported IP with this edit which includes "Most fans of the show believe that Kimby is infatuated with Clarence, & vice versa" crush cruft nonsense similar to above edit. Thanks for the swift action on this. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome, but what's the point of doing anything with the other IP? That was two months ago. Nyttend (talk) 17:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

@Nyttend: Sorry, my point was unclear. I was drawing a parallel between the two IPs, demonstrating after-the-fact that they are almost certainly the same person and that they have been disruptive for a while. Just to really sell this ANI report. :) I don't expect anything done about the older one until he hops back to that IP. Thanks. Sorry for the confusion. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:06, 7 May 2015 (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.

Dirty Water Brass Band

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

---

I have nominated the article Dirty Water Brass Band for Speedy Deletion three separate times, on the grounds that it is about a small street band with no real significance, written by an individual with a direct connection to the band, which also constitutes as promotional. The first two times, the tag was removed by someone using a proxy IP address (I'm assuming the article's author) and the third time by someone who asserted the addition of references constituted notability.

References alone are not sufficient to make an article encyclopedic in nature and simply including a bunch of references should not be construed as establishing significance or notability. Ormr2014 (talk) 18:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Try bringing it to WP:AFD then. You need to get more editors involved in the discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

References may not necessarily establish notability, but they are enough of an assertion to prevent speedy deletion. I agree that AfD is probably the best course of action to delete the article. —C.Fred (talk) 18:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

@C.Fred: Thanks for the feedback. I have taken this to WP:AFD. Other editors can decide whether or not this article is encyclopedic because I'm through with it. Ormr2014 (talk) 18:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

@Ormr2014: Are you nominating it via AfD? I don't see where you've gone through the nomination process. —C.Fred (talk) 18:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Dirty_Water_Brass_Band --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:56, 7 May 2015 (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:Future Perfect at Sunrise

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

---

Please, protect me from User:Future Perfect at Sunrise. He bothers me a lot. He reverses my cintributions by insisting and he put messages in my page by unintelligible orders!! User:Pyraechmes We were here before you came and we will be here after you leave 18:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Moving this complaint against myself here from WT:VP, where it was obviously misplaced. A boomerang should be waiting here, I guess. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree with a boomerang here on the OP, it looks like FP warned the user about including un-sourced info and actually tried to inform them of what they did that was wrong. [123][124] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

An indef would protect the complainant Pyraechmes (talk · contribs) from pretty much everyone here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

If it amounts to WP:NOTHERE I agree. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Non-admnin comment A swift boomerang on the OP, who obviously is the guilty party here.Jeppiz (talk) 22:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• Bugs's type of protection is interesting, but I propose that we don't indef this person because they filed one bogus complaint. If the user truly is NOTHERE for et cetera, let them dig their own grave with their article edits. For the record, I would not consider User:Future Perfect at Sunrise to be "involved" (I mean INVOLVED) with this editor if they were to place that block. Drmies (talk) 22:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• I saw that too, if the user becomes more disruptive later on then a block without warning would suffice. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:27, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support WP:NOTHERE indef of Pyraechmes (talk · contribs). I was going to ignore this per the good advice from Drmies, but I glanced at a few contributions. User talk:Pyraechmes was created by the user in December 2008 (permalink) with "These are the most historical people of Kilkis prefecture!! Don't you know them? Read a book then. Wou could read wikipedia, instead but as I see, wikipedia doesn't allow encyclopedian knowledge." The next post on that page (still at the top) was in January 2009 by FPaS with "Please stop changing "Macedonian" to "Slavomacedonian" mechanically." A recent edit changed some text to "Krya Vrysi growth to a town in the 1930s when it was renamed of its old name, Plasna." Consider Talk:Voras Mountains where an exasperated editor has recently referred to recent edits and sources as "bullshit". A persistent editor can do a lot of damage by inserting hard-to-check and dubious material into articles, and the onus should be on Pyraechmes to provide a reasonable unblock request showing they are ready to follow Wikipedia's norms. Johnuniq (talk) 23:37, 7 May 2015 (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:190.248.68.18

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 we have a block, please based on the edit summaries of their two edits? BMK (talk) 02:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Based on this third edit, they're also probably responsible for this and this. BMK (talk) 02:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• And the IP who made those last two edits I mentioned, User:91.200.12.66, is globally blocked. BMK (talk) 02:08, 8 May 2015 (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 over Martin Garrix articles

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

---

I don't know where to turn because the problem I am seeing is a little bit of this and that. There are violations of WP:MULTIPLE, a lot of edit warring, and likely a problem of conflict of interest. So rather than choosing SPI or ANEW or COIN I am bring the problem here:

Timothe8872 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Timothe8872 appeared last December to work solely on articles related to the young Dutch DJ Martin Garrix. No other topic interests him, so that makes Timothe8872 a single-purpose account. SPAs are often suspected of WP:COI, fairly or unfairly, and it appears that this case may have such a problem, since Timothe8872 continually adds unreferenced text about future works by Martin Garrix,[125][126][127][128][129] and even unreleased tracks.[130][131] (Unreleased tracks should not be of any concern to Wikipedia unless they have been discussed by reliable sources.)

• Timothe8872 was blocked on 24 April for this re-insertion of unreferenced future works. The block taught him nothing, as he has never added a reference.

Timothe8872 is accompanied in his edits by a handful of IPs from northeast France:

• 90.40.163.2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 3 May 2015
• 90.40.46.221 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 23–27 April 2015
• 90.40.163.44 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 20–21 April 2015
• 90.40.168.109 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 11–14 April 2015
• 90.40.45.76 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 31 March 2015
• 90.40.158.162 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 22 March 2015

The intertwined edit tool shows that Timothe8872 and 90.40.46.221 both edited the Garrix biography on 26 April, demonstrating the pattern of a registered editor getting logged out, then logging back in. Same with IP 90.40.163.44 on 20 April. Same with IP 90.40.158.162 on 22 March.

90.40.46.221 went silent on 25 April in concert with the 24-hour block of Timothe8872. I would have to ask blocking admin MusikAnimal whether the IP range was blocked along with the registered account. If not, the user was adhering to the block.

The big problem here is edit warring to re-insert unreferenced information over multiple articles in the topic. The latest round is all of the following reversions/re-insertions which were made in a 15-minute period.[132][133][134][135][136][137][138][139][140][141] On all of these edits, the previous concern was that the information was unreferenced. Timothe8872 did not address this problem, he just reverted to his preferred version.

What should be done here? Binksternet (talk) 01:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I unfortunately don't have time to look this over in detail, but I can say I did not perform a range block on the said IPs. Best — MusikAnimal ^talk 02:49, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, the guy is at it again. He or she cares nothing for WP:V, continually inserting unreferenced content about a supposedly upcoming album called +x (plus ex). There's no official announcement about this album, nothing in the trade magazines and websites—no references at all. Binksternet (talk) 19:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I've semiprotected Martin Garrix discography and warned User:Timothe8872 of a possible block if he continues adding unsourced or WP:CRYSTAL material to articles about Martin Garrix. EdJohnston (talk) 21:00, 6 May 2015 (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:Henry Bellagnome / User:Camelbinky

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.

---

Look at me!

Don't know where to report this but User:Henry Bellagnome uses a name that is a trademark of TSM, LLC (registered in Missouri) and appears to be a roundabout way to "out" who I am, or more accurately who they think I am, per what it posted on my page. It is obviously a sock as well, most likely of someone who is active at Wikipediocracy where they have "outed" me (or so they think, and I'm fine with them being wrong). Can someone help me? I have neither the level of tools to track who the IP of the user is nor link it to another registered account, nor do I know how to report a user name for violating our policies.Camelbinky (talk) 21:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• My dear Camelbinky, aren't your talents wasted on Jimbo's talk page? Who goes there anymore besides Newyorkbrad and a bunch of trolls? CU would be nice here to fish for more "gnomes". Drmies (talk) 22:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, and I appreciate you blocking the user. I agree that a check user needs to be done. I want the user, and I have a suspicion it's an established user who won't have shit done to him/her, but I want it aired for all to see the wp:DICK move. Frankly, if it's an administrator the person needs to lose their "status" for this attempted outing and socking. But I don't have high hopes of anything.Camelbinky (talk) 23:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• Sure. But I doubt that's an admin--we're often dicks, but not frequently shitheads. Now, let's try and get another admin in here to add a cussword or two! Black Kite, what you got? Drmies (talk) 23:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• Because you asked for another cussword from an admin Drmies, here's one [not directed at anyone specifically], ass hole. Camelbinky, for future reference, usernames are reported at WP:UAA, cheers. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 23:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Given that User:Drmies made the same "Look at me" comment on Wikipediocracy about me, and participated in the outing, I am removing the closing, notifying him/her, and asking someone to do a check user PLEASE to make sure he/she is not the sockpuppeter and then went and got involved here to cover their tracks or that of someone else involved.Camelbinky (talk) 03:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm slightly miffed that you reverted my first NAC after Drmies indef'd Bellagnome, but on the other hand I've never before seen an editor hang himself while being eaten by a bear, so deer-in-the-headlights stare at impending schadenfreude, I guess. Carry on, then, and pass the popcorn. Pax 06:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Add this to evidence, please: DIFF. This is an absolute lie about me (I've never outed anyone, least of all Camelbinky). Moreover, Drmies doesn't even post at Wikipediocracy. See the relevant thread there, which does make assertions about his real life identity (ergo no link from me). Absolutely off the wall accusations here... Carrite (talk) 05:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• And THIS is either a death threat, a suicide threat, or some sort of ham-handed legal threat — none of which have any place on Wikipedia. A block would seem to be in order. Carrite (talk) 05:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• And now a new sock Harry Bellagnome is stirring things up even more. Sick. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• I actually blocked that one myself, and ran a checkuser on both but didn't find anything. Now what? - Alison ^❤ 06:25, 8 May 2015 (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.

Promo at Chandra Bhan Prasad

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 could do with some help at Chandra Bhan Prasad. I've just left a note on the talk page and previously replied on my own talk page. The changes are clearly not encyclopaedic and the writer claims to be acting for the article subject. They're basically say "do it our way or delete the article". I've no idea whether it would be best to deal with this at BLPN, COIN, RFPP or here because I have surprisingly little experience of these situations. I suppose the contributor could be blocked but that is somewhat unsubtle. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 08:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Shirt58 has applied PC1 but I don't think that will make much difference because it looks like the contributor is already autoconfirmed. - Sitush (talk) 10:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

You're right that PC1 won't help. But I don't think anything special is required as yet. The editor has been warned and will be blocked if they keep editing the page against consensus. --regentspark (comment) 12:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. It looks like there are some additional eyes now.

Resolved

- Sitush (talk) 13:59, 8 May 2015 (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: Ronggy creating probable hoax series

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.

---

Ronggy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created a series of probable hoaxes: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabhaktikamanuruddha, [142], [143], [144], [145], trying to identify a unknown (or invented) bodhisattva Sabhaktikamanuruddha with Lee Kuan Yew. After Sabhaktikamanuruddha was tagged as a hoax, Ronggy and a possibly related IP 138.75.152.232 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) began an edit war to remove the tag.

138.75.152.232 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is now editing disruptively by rapidly tagging Buddhism articles to illustrate a point. After being reminded to "please don´t forget to log in", he replies "please delete the account Ronggy" and "Jim Renge deserves a lawsuit" [146].

Please act and get them blocked. JimRenge (talk) 11:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Done. The autoblock should take care of the IP, which is likely to be the same user (I haven't run a CU, but the behaviour is very indicative of Ronggy). Yunshui ^雲_水 12:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

To complete the cleanup from this user, it probably wouldn't be premature to close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabhaktikamanuruddha, as there is clear consensus to delete. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 14:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I have requested speedy deletion for this page, as an obvious hoax. Should have been done sooner. JZCL 15:13, 8 May 2015 (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 pushing creationist POV

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:Epetre is an SPA pushing a creationist POV at Talk:Abiogenesis and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. I am thinking that a warning would be enough at this point. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd be fine with a very direct warning, but if any of this continues after the warning a topic ban is in order. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:57, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: You will have to prove what makes you claim that I have a "creationist" POV. In the Talk:Abiogenesis I asked to have a neutral point of view (that is why I opened a NPOV, I never asked to state in the article that Abiogenesis is false and a creationist view is true. Epetre (talk) 19:30, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Since creationism is considered pseudoscience by mainstream scientists, the next step would appear to be Arbitration Enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: User Epetre's campaign is focused in introducing the creationist propaganda technique known as "Teach the Controversy", that pretends that there is a scientific controversy where there is none. Epetre is a WP:Single-purpose account engaged in a chronic and disruptive campaign. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@Epetre:, creationism is a fringe branch of pseudoscience, not science, and it does not have any place in a scientific article on Abiogenesis, Evolutionary biology, or similar articles. You are making arguments that have no basis in fact, but have typically been made by those seeking to promote Intelligent design rather than science. You won't be able to insert pseudoscience into scientific articles without very strong, reliable, scientific sources. The ones you've presented so far do not meet that standard. GregJackP Boomer! 19:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment It seems Epetre misunderstands neutrality. Neutrality means giving all versions when there are several competing version with equal support. It means giving both version if one is the majority view and one the minority, but clearly identifying which is the majority view. However, it also means not including pseudoscience and presenting a false conflict where there is none (see WP:UNDUE). Creationism is very much a pseudoscience that is undue; a clear warning may be enough for now, but a topic ban should be put in place rather quickly if this continues.Jeppiz (talk) 20:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@GregJackP: It is not relevant what the creationism is, since I didn't manifest it in my requirements. I suggest you to check the things before accusing someone. It is about the fact that a theory is presented with no evidence as a fact and only that is pseudo-science. the real science is about evidence. Epetre (talk) 20:02, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: The neutrality is expressed very well in the relevan Wikipedia article and there is no need to re-interpret it:

• Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."
• Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.
• Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view. For example, to state that "According to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field.

My complaint fits exactly the rules above, abiogensis is presented as a fact, with no evidence for that and with no consideration for the scientific views claiming the contrary. Neutral point of view is to present what you have, namely a theory, not a fact just because you believe that, not presenting anything to support your belief.Epetre (talk) 20:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

There are no scientific views stating that creationism is a serious alternative to abiogenesis. That is the problem here. Religious views are not scientific views. And religious "evidence" is not scientific evidence. A religious view does not require equal representation to a scientific view in an article about science.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• Obvious attempt to push creationist POV is obvious. Epetre's use of the Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center as a source[147] tells us everything we need to know. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Epetre, in constantly referring to whether abiogenesis is presented as a fact or as a theory, misunderstands scientific terminology in a way that is typical of creationist discourse. To refer to a scientific concept as a theory does not mean that it is not considered a fact. "Theory" is not an antonym for fact. "Theory" is not the same as "hypothesis" and does not mean a conjecture. A theory is a systematic explanation of observations, and may have an extremely high degree of certainty. For instance, scientists refer to Newton's theory of universal gravitation, for which there is a very high level of confirmation, with the minor discrepancies from the theory explained by general relativity. Epetre's arguments show that he or she doesn't understand how scientists refer to knowledge. However, I will suggest that ANI is not the venue in which to discuss disruptive editing, because Arbitration Enforcement is more effective. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Sorry, I don't see any logic in your accusations. I understand from you that even if there is no evidence, the abiogenesis MUST be considered a fact and presented as such and any person that doesn't see that nonexistent evidence is a creationist. It makes a lot of sense.Epetre (talk) 20:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

That isn't what I said. It isn't worth my trying to explain. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Propose topic ban for Epetre for Abiogensus, Evolution, Evolutionary Biology, and similar subjects, broadly defined. Editor is WP:!HERE as far as those topics go, based on their use of the creationist IDAEC site as a reference.

• Support as proposer. GregJackP Boomer! 20:30, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Support topic ban Initially I thought a warning would suffice, but Epetre's activity in this discussion shows beyond any doubt that they are not hear to build an enclyclopedia, does not WP:HEAR and ignore all basic Wikipedia policies.Jeppiz (talk) 20:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Isn't better to kill those that notice a lack of neutrality? Is this an attitude of the 21th century????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Epetre (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Sure. The attitude is based on Leviticus 24:16, although adapted somewhat for Wikipedia. GregJackP Boomer! 20:42, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support Clearly here to push a POV and I would suggest a permanent block if the disruption continues. WCM_email 20:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment If I was you, I would honestly be ashamed. This sounds like a comunist/stalinist trial.... You would have been so succesful 80 years agoEpetre (talk) 20:43, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment Please stop your martyr complex, Epetre, it still is not changing anyone's mind into slavishly agreeing with you. There is, in fact a profound difference between "silencing opposing voices" and "punishing someone who repeatedly makes an arse of his/her/itself while refusing to abide or understand house rules."

• Support Clear POV-pusher. JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban User:Epetre clearly does not understand what neutral point of view is in Wikipedia, and continues making an arrogant nuisance of himself in the process.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Since we are not allowed to show by demonstration how Stalin would have done it, a topic ban will have to do. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on this tendentious editor for creationist religious POV pushing in an article about a scientific topic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban of this disruptive single-purpose user pushing his POV and that of creationism. BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. I was going to be neutral for procedural reasons, because I would prefer an Arbitration Enforcement topic ban, but Epetre is making the case. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Clearly here with an agenda to push.Charles (talk) 21:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, it can't come soon enough. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban - Yes, I *entirely* agree - WP:SPA is POV-pushing imo as well - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
• Blocked, Disagree with topic ban. I've blocked Epetre indefinitely for soapboxing, trolling this board,[148][149] and not being here to create an encyclopedia. We waste too much time on characters like this IMO. Bishonen | talk 21:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC).

Bishonen Not sure they were trying to troll this board or doing anything other than POV-pushing. It's entirely possible they believe they have scientific consensus on their side (particularly if educated in the Deep South), and the diffs don't suggest to me trolling, rather complete disbelief. I'm not sure we can WP:ABF here. Just because their first edits are biased doesn't mean we should permanently block them, surely a topic ban would be sufficient? Banak (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree. But I've invited them to appeal the block in the usual way, and if another admin thinks they should be unblocked, it's fine by me. Meanwhile, I guess there's consensus for a topic ban. Bishonen | talk 21:46, 9 May 2015 (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.

"Factchecker at your service"

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.

---

Block request for two weeks for overly antagonistic notes like this on Talk pages, plus user name "Factchecker at your service" differs from signed name ("Centrify") on article talk pages which he justifies on basis of nobody calling him out on it for 2 years. Recently this. Thanks--A21sauce (talk) 19:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• Strong support - Enough is enough. This editor has been warned many times before about personal attacks and general disruptive behavior, yet it continues.[150] [151] [152] [153] [154] [155] [156] - MrX 19:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Don't know that I'd describe it as "calling him out", but the editor's confusing choice of display name vs. their username was discussed with them just last month here. Dwpaul ^Talk 19:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment)(edit conflict): While this user does seem to have had plenty of warnings for PA/disruptive behavior, I don't believe the signed name should weigh into this as A21sauce suggests since the actual signed name is "Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs)" which does meet the requirement of giving some indication of actual username with the "Factchecker_blah_blah_blah" part. Any block here should be for PA, not for username/sig and A21sauce should be admonished for attempting to invoke unnecessary additional drama here in this section IMHO. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 19:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Plenty of examples of PA, thanks Mr.--A21sauce (talk) 19:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
• Very confusing. Regarding the diffs that MrX posted above, I see some warnings made to Factchecker, but I don't see any instances of the bad conduct he is alleged to have done. Also, one of the cited postings includes a statement by Cwobeell to "Go fuck yourself." Exactly what is Factchecker supposed to have done? Can we see some evidence of that? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't know what's so confusing. Click on the links to the warnings, then click on the links in the warnings that leads to the specific personal attacks. For example, "Rm. deliberate source misrepresentation and spin; track what source actually says, not what Cwobeel wants it to say". Also, he's been wantonly disruptive at an Arbcom case. Examples here: WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others/Workshop#Factchecker atyourservice (warned)- MrX 20:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support some sort of sanction The conduct of this editor--whatever he calls himself--at the Arbcom case has convinced me beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is an activist editor with an agenda who is disruptive.

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 20:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I do not believe that there is any policy/guideline requiring or even suggesting that a user's signature should have their actual username, and can think of a couple examples where this is the case. If there is, could someone point me to it? No opinion on the rest. ansh666 21:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Found it: in WP:SIGFORGE, While not an absolute requirement, it is common practice for a signature to resemble to some degree the user name it represents. So that's no reason for a sanction. Again, no opinion on the rest. ansh666 21:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support - The signature is a side issue: very annoying, but not a blockable offense. What's blockable is to be a disruptive POV-pushing editor, and the nickname is indicative of what that POV is: Wikipedia is dominated by a cabal of left-wing editors, and saviors like Factchecker_atyourservice must edit in a right-wing fashion in order to "Centrify" it. He will now, most assuredly, post here to totally deny this, and comment on my mental disconnection from this corporeal plane, but it's what makes sense and accords completely with Factchcker_atyourservice's behavior, editing and commentary. This person is not actually here to improve the encyclopedia, whatever he thinks he's doing, he's here to push a specific political point of view, and that is blockable. BMK (talk) 02:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

So the editor has user names emphasizing that he wants to check facts, and that he likes to limit sources to the mainstream. If you really want him blocked or banned or whatever, I would suggest keeping the weird argument about his usernames to yourself.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: it appears that the OP is here continuing with another ANI thread that the OP started recently on the same subject.[157]. Nothing necessarily wrong with that, but it is worth noting.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

The OP's first diff above [158] shows the OP making an accusation of "yammering". So it seems the incivility was not unidirectional.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

The OP cited this diff at the conclusion of the original post of this thread (above). The diff shows Factchecker basically asserting that certain accusations against one editor (Collect) would be more appropriately made against another editor instead. I see nothing remotely blockable in what Factchecker said there, even if his assessment was mistaken.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Regarding this 2014 edit to which Mr. X objects, not only does it seem rather stale at this point, but it also shows FactChecker removing BLP material that apparently did misrepresent the cited source. Does anyone dispute that the material was unsupported by the cited source?Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

It's only "stale" if Factchecker_atyourservice hasn't continued to do the same kind of thing quite often since then. Since that appears to actually be the case, then it's not "stale" at all, it's a data point in a pattern of behavior. BMK (talk) 08:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Have you looked at the cited source? Have you looked at the correction at the end of it?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment in response to User:Beyond_My_Ken, does anyone fail to grasp that opposing improper leftist-POV edits (among others) is not the same as supporting rightist-POV edits? Because I definitely don't do that -- nor do I fail to oppose those same edits. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 11:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• Let me answer a question with a question: Do you grasp that your perception of what is an "improper leftist-POV edit" is almost totally based on your own political position? (In fact, there are no "leftists" in mainstream American politics, hasn;t been for many, many decades. Unless, of course, you're Fox News, the Washngton Times or the Teabaggers, in which case anything more liberal than Genghis Khan counts as a socialist.) The edits in question aren't undoing "improper" "leftist" edits, they're instituting conservative views that only look balanced to you because of where you stand.
  Actually, I'll answer my question for you - no, you don't see that, and you can't see that, because you are blinded by the fantasy of left-wing hit squads keeping Wikipedia safe for Marxist-Leninist-Maoism. It's actually very, very sad, but it will make for some interesting reading when the history of these times is written in the future. (But, then again, it'll be academics writing those histories, and I guess they're eve worse than politicians. Some of them are still even (*gasp*) socialists! Better go wash yourself, it can't be easy reading that.) BMK (talk) 07:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

As above, this is non-responsive and unnecessarily hostile. Why are you even here? Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 11:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• The signature is confusing, but I'm just a not very hip old man so I'm probably just behind the curve on style or whatever. Hum...MrX, one of your diffs is actually from from December and shows Cwobeel saying "go fuck yourself" to talk:Factchecker atyourservice. Another isn't even a diff of an edit made by the defendant.--MONGO 05:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose for reasons stated.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your helpful observations. I will be happy to clarify why I think admin action is required by providing more detailed examples of Factchecker at your service's personal attacks as soon as I have a little more time.- MrX 10:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

It's pretty cute to ask for more time when the basis for your accusations against me is that I didn't post enough evidence at the ArbCom case before evidence was closed. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 11:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The difference being, of course, that he used that time to compile some evidence, while the only thing you ever did was to keep complaining that you didn't have enough time. Cute for you to keep harping on that? No... revealing. BMK (talk) 07:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

He went ahead and took additional time to present evidence because he wasn't forbidden from doing so, jesus are you not paying attention or do you toss at least one deliberate distortion into everything you say? Since I'm a human being in the world, everything I do takes time. And that INCLUDES responding to the volumes of your bitter sniping on completely unrelated subjects during the evidence phase, almost as if you hoped your filibustering would make it impractical for me to continue participating in that case. Anyway, I didn't have time, or rather I planned poorly and ran out of it, and your ongoing shrill ABFs are just dumb. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 11:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Watch your blood pressure, please. As has been explained to you before, Factchecker_atyourservice, there was plenty of time between the hatting of your "evidence", which was deemed unhelpful and not evidentiary by an Arb, and the closing of the evidence phase. You chose to use that time doing other things rather than gathering evidence, then you complained bitterly when the Arbs wouldn't give you more time, since you didn't even try to take advantage of the time available. That's life -- you make choices, you gotta live with them. Except ... apparently, for you, nothing is your' fault, eveything is the fault of somebody else -- me, the Arbs, the clerks, a cabal of lefist-editors. What is it they call a personality that is unable to take responsibility for their own actions? BMK (talk) 13:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, so long as we're having a completely unrestricted discussion about the character of other editors, what is your excuse for being viciously angry, hostile, and insulting when involved in innocuous content disputes, almost invariably resorting to shrill invective over silly things? Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 00:36, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I think it's slightly ironic for someone to berate others for going overboard yet using all-boldface type to do so. But maybe that's just me. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Are you actually claiming that I've made personal attacks on the same level as BMK here, or do you just think typeface is the most substantive part of a given comment? Do please reply. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 01:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Um. I think Short Brigade Harvester is merely, correctly, pointing out the irony in your boldfaced comment on 'resorting to shrill invective over silly things'. --regentspark (comment) 02:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose , first there's nothing wrong with his signature, second, almost all of your diffs don't show any personal attacks, they show you warning Factchecker about personal attacks, the links within the warnings also don't lead to any personal attacks. There are at least two that I found that are personal attack (near the end) but they happened back in 2014, 2011, etc..... So oppose , and beware of smooth, throwable returning objects. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 10:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Using a different signature is not against policy or guidelines and is the reason I changed mine because that is what the consensus of editors was when another editor began using a signature that was not their username to sign his posts that was very close to my old username. We have a consensus on the name thing. Mr.X's links aside (I haven't looked at them) the original complaint is without merit and I can't see supporting a block.--Mark Miller (talk) 15:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Evidence

May 3, 2015	"With all the hours upon hours that editors here spent compiling diffs against Collect, half of which don't show anything, claiming to be motivated by pure non-partisan Wiki-Concern, yet not a single person posted a single diff against Cwobeel's virtually identical but much more extensive conduct in that regard, just shows what a politically motivated witch-hunt this is."
May 3, 2015	"Learn to read plz kthxbye"
May 3, 2015	"Are you even trying to make sense? "
May 3, 2015	"Cwobeel behaves much worse, right in your face, and none of you says a word. In fact nobody even bats an eyelash when he stands up here at ArbCom, and says, completely without irony, that someone else has problems hearing that and gaming the system. Nope, it's all kosher so far as you're concerned. And why is that? Because he's on your team."
April 28, 2015	"Given your clearly expressed hostility to one of the article subjects and your stated assumption that he must be guilty, you probably shouldn't be editing that article at all. I request that you stop."
April 28, 2015	"since you made reference to an internal mental struggle you were having trying to comprehend this, perhaps the above will clear things up for you a teensy bit. Cheers! "
April 24, 2015	"Because it's soooooooooooo unreasonable to expect that you not beat on this article like a POV drum."
April 24, 2015	"This is a frankly ridiculous position which you can barely articulate in English in the first place because it doesn't make sense."
April 8, 2015	"I don't know, maybe he suspected that you were still on the prowl for an opportunity to hound him off WP."
April 6, 2015	"MastCell: at Joni Ernst you engaged in left-biased editing at a political article, misrepresenting sources in the process, lobbed uncalled-for personal attacks against at least one non-admin who merely disagreed with you on a question of fact."
January 9, 2015	"So you're content to deliberately mislead readers in a racially charged case, unless I initiate an admin action to stop you."
December 8, 2014	"Rm. deliberate source misrepresentation and spin; track what source actually says, not what Cwobeel wants it to say" (edit summary)
October 12, 2014	"You can spew hogwash all you want, but it won't make a non-existent "BLP violation" magically materialize where none actually exists. Or if one existed, you could say what it is. But there isn't one. So you can't say what it is. Again, such meaningless posturing has no effect on WP, and at this point your comments are an abuse of this talk page because all you're doing is saying "nuh uh"... over and over again."
October 12, 2014	"If there is an identifiable BLP or other violation, please identify it and we can talk about it, otherwise shut the hell up.If there is an identifiable BLP or other violation, please identify it and we can talk about it, otherwise shut the hell up."
October 12, 2014	"Saturday night, Cwobeel's got a partisan axe to grind and he's real surprised no one else wants to play. Shocked, shocked. This idiot doesn't understand WP policy, merely sees it as a tool for attacking conservatives. OH, NOTE ALSO SMART GUY, the article was LOCKED UNTIL LESS THAN 24 HOURS AGO — in no small part due to your histrionics and anti-policy editing crusades."
October 12, 2014	"NOTE ALSO that there was no actual edit to discuss — since this was merely a childish partisan rant by a relentlessly axe-grinding editor who's just mad that his dumb AFD failed and now wants to argue vacuously over the result"
October 3, 2014	"Comment. Let's cut through the crap. Cwobeel wants this particular wording because he wants to portray Ernst as a nobody who was magically transformed into a politician by evil campaign money."
October 1, 2014	"Cwobeel constantly goes about violating policies that he already knows about, and he's violating content policies, not procedural policies."

Interweaved amongst these examples are many similar comments directed at various users. Anyone with the time or motivation may find FCAYS's contributions at the following pages to be quite illuminating: Talk:The Federalist (website), Talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight), Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown, Talk:Joni_Ernst, and the various project and talk pages at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others.- MrX 19:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Mr. X, just looking at the item at the top of the list, I am puzzled. Isn't it correct that Cwobeel was (or is) an involved party in the ArbCom case that factchecker was discussing there? So there was nothing inherently wrong with mentioning Cwobeel, right? Could you please explain why exactly the following statement to ArbCom (that you quote in your first item above) is now blockable at ANI? "With all the hours upon hours that editors here spent compiling diffs against Collect, half of which don't show anything, claiming to be motivated by pure non-partisan Wiki-Concern, yet not a single person posted a single diff against Cwobeel's virtually identical but much more extensive conduct in that regard, just shows what a politically motivated witch-hunt this is." Are you saying that politically-motivated witch-hunts never happen at Wikipedia, and that is why we should now hunt down Factchecker and burn him at the stake, so to speak? I'll get to your subsequent diffs if you can explain that first one.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I didn't claim that the first diff was a blockable offense (which is why I provided a non-exhaustive list from roughly the last seven months. FCAYS presented no evidence against Cwobeel, just aspersions. WP:NPA is quite clear that accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence are personal attacks. If you want to explore the topic of Cwobeel's conduct, start a new section and present diffs to support your assertions. As to the rest of your comment, I find your characterization of this discussion as a witch hunt to be especially unsavory, not to mention illogical.- MrX 02:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Mr. X, you are correct that policy says accusations about personal behavior lacking evidence are never acceptable, and serious accusations require serious evidence. However, in the first of your latest series of diffs, factchecker merely said that Cwobeel's conduct is "virtually identical but much more extensive" than Collect's behavior, which strikes me as rather inoffensive if one admires Collect's editing, as I think Cwobeel does. Anyway, there's a serious side-issue here: if a group of editors only compile and present evidence or purported evidence against one segment of Wikipedia (adversaries), while deliberately avoiding doing so for another segment of Wikipedia (allies), then that is a legitimate systemic problem worth pondering and discussing out in the open, especially if the adversaries do not counteract such tactics by mimicking them. One of your own diffs in this thread shows Cwobeel telling Factchecker to "go fuck yourself", so I'm sure you could manage a word of criticism about Cwobeel if you wanted to.[159] The rest of your diffs similarly lack context and apparently are designed to overlook provocation, which I find kind of unsavory.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The point is that this was in the context of a arbitration case, where anyone who wanted to, Factchecker_atyourservice included, could have presented evidence against Cwobeel, and not a single editor did so -- and yet Factchecker_atyourservice still felt free to cast aspersions against Cwobeel on the talk page, with no evidence to support his allegations. This appears to have been done on the theory that the best defense is a good offense, so that by accusing Cwobeel of behaving in a similar manner to Collect, Factchecker_atyourservice was, I suppose, hoping to undermine the charges against Collect – even though those charges were supported by evidence from multiple editors, and Factchecker_atyourservice's charges against Cwobeel were supported by nothing whatsoever. BMK (talk) 02:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. I didn't have time to post evidence before the evidence closed, as clearly stated and explained numerous times. If you truly cared about the case you could have asked for an extension to be granted to me, but rather it seems you quite content shutting the door on people who would try to respond to these accusations, and who actually have a real life outside WP that imposes time constraints. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 11:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you keep repeating that particular Big Lie, hoping that the repetition will give it traction, but it ain't happenening. There was plenty of time between when your non-evidentiary statement was hatted and when the evidence phase closed for you to present evidence, you just didn't do it. BMK (talk) 06:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Anybody with a brain can figure out that "plenty of time" is a relative value judgment that can be made only in reference to time constraints upon the person being talked about. You don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about, rather you are just repeatedly (and bitterly) accusing me of lying about my RL schedule. Shut the hell up. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 11:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

As I said before, nothing is ever your fault. It's my fault, it's the clerk's fault, it's the Arb's fault, it's the fault of "real life constraints". Well, if real life is what got in the way, and that's why you didn't post evidence, then it's not terribly realistic in your part to blame others for your not being able to post evidence, or for their not being any findings against Cwobeel, when there wasn't any evidence posted against him. But, there not being any evidence against Cwobeel, then no one should go around complaining that "Mommy, mommy, Collect did the same thing as Cwobeel, why isn't Cwobeel being sanctioned" Cwobeel isn't being sanctioned because no one presented evidence to support Cwobeel sanctioned -- but that didn't stop you from making unsupported allegations against him - for which, if life was fair, you shuld have been sanctioned immediately.

Of course, I fully believe that you dont see any of this, that you're totally blind to how what you're doing and saying looks like to the outside world. I really do think that you believe what you're saying, more's the pity. BMK (talk) 13:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I notice no warning templates on BMK's page. So, is the rule that consantly initiating personal attacks is acceptable, but when another editor responds to one, it's a violation? Or is it a simpler rule that leftist->rightist personal attacks are always overlooked?

Ken, if you cannot see that time is finite, that I have a real life, and that your nonsensical, malicious rantings were a big distraction from that case, I don't think there is any sense trying to speak English to you. Congratulations also on not seeing that the failure to post any evidence or complaints against Cwobeel is precisely the unmistakeable sign of "hear no evil, see no evil" bias that I'm talking about. As for your "contribution" to this project — you sit and snipe, you make vicious comments and get involved in vitriolic disputes over the most innocuous subjects such as use of pronouns, even when you're obviously in the wrong you keep shoveling dirt in the other person's face.

You are incessantly hostile, as seen in this very thread—as seen in the very post that I'm replying to, in fact. Hell, you've even called an admin "beneath contempt" on your own talk page, apparently for daring to say that you had acted improperly. "Beneath contempt" is about the worst PA I've ever heard on Wikipedia. You've treated so many people so poorly, you're the only person I've ever seen on Wikipedia who constantly finds it necessary to delete other people's comments from his own talk page, so that nobody else will see what people are saying about you.

Guaranteed, sir, that I will make a point of cataloguing the very endless stream of uncalled-for anger and invective that you dish out to anyone who points out something you've done wrong. You dump hostility on people and when they make a comparatively tepid response that is actually responsive to baseless accusations you've made, you whine about personal attacks. Grow the hell up. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 00:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

The big aspersion being that Cwobeel is a lot like someone whom Factchecker admires?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

No, the big aspersion being that Cwobeel, according to Factchecker_atyourservice's unsupported allegations, was doing the same kind of thing that Factchecker_atyourservice was concerned that Collect was going to be sanctioned for -- and, in fact, is on the verge of being sanctioned for even as we communicate with each other so delightfully. You can't evaluate the purpose of the actions of a POV warrior like Factchecker_atyourservice without looking at them in the context in which they occured -- but, you knew that, didn't you? This is all just circling the wagons, innit? BMK (talk) 03:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I discussed the first of Mr. X's latest series of diffs. I could proceed and consider the second too, but its just another instance of decontextualizing, as the remark was in response to a charge of "yammering". It's just too tedious to go through the rest of Mr. X's diffs one by one, especially since I am already dismissed as a wagon circler, or something. Do you have evidence of wagon circling, BMK, or is it just unsubstantiated, because my family hasn't circled the wagons since about 1850, and I am not quite that old. :)Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I'm willing to bet that you've metaphorically circled the wagons once or twice in your day -- haven't we all? But I'll readily concede that my "evidence" for wagon-circling consists entirely of my behavioral observations of the... let us call them "The COLLECTion" ... of editors who share a similar political POV as Collect. Please be clear, I am not accusing the members of The Collection of behaving badly in general, I'm sure that most of you are true assets to the encyclopedia, and it indeed "takes all kinds", as long as we're all working towards the same goal of a truly balanced, factual encyclopedia. But, I'm afraid, that some of your cohort are somewhat less than dedicated to that proposition, and I would number Collect and Factchecker_atyourservice among them. The fact that The Collection may be circling the wagons is quite understandable, and reminds me a bit of FDR's remark about the Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza: "He may be a bastard, but he's our bastard". BMK (talk) 03:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

So, in other words, other people should be blocked for talking about other editors in un-diff'd generalities at an ArbCom case specifically directed at long-term user conduct, but you're exempt from that requirement everywhere on WP because you're very special and on the right side of Wiki-history? And likewise for claiming a conspiracy or series of improperly coordinated actions, right? Nah, you go on repeating your completely unfounded accusations of wagon-circling motivation. You're special. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 11:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Classic: you can't pound the law, 'cause the evidence shows the Collect violated policy, you can't pound the evidence, because there's to m uch of it, from too many people, so now you're pounding the table, trying to distract from the issues by attacking the people involved -- the last refuge of the hopeless case. Sad. Quick, now, rev up the Big Lie again, how poor little old you didn't have time to post evidence because no one thought to knock on your door, roust you out of your bed and force you to do some research. (How much easier just to sling mud, ya know?)

In the classic words of My Cousin Vinny: "I'm done with dis guy!" BMK (talk) 06:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

This is a puerile and unnecessarily hostile non-response to a very clear question. If you can't participate in a discussion without going ape on every single person you disagree with, you shouldn't be stalking ANI cases. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 11:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Goodness!! "Peurile", "hostile", "going ape", "stalking"? Aunt Martha certainly wouldn't approve of such language!!

No, my point was a fair one, and your response was highly appropriate, being yet another example of precisely what I was referring to: you've got no excuse for your behavior, so you lash out at others as a distraction -- "maybe if I make a big fuss about this non-existent problem, no one will notice that I actually have no defense". Don't think it's working, though, the only people coming to your side are the same old crew that anyone who's been paying attention would expect to show up. Only they neglected to bring anything concrete to exonerate you, just more empty rhetoric. BMK (talk) 13:11, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

BMK, do you post anything other than insults? "the same old crew that anyone who's been paying attention would expect to show up" — those'r some real choice words, bro. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 01:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure no amount of wagon-circling by me could protect anyone at Wikipedia for long. Anyway, my comments above are sincere. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

As I'm certain must be obvious to you, wagon-circling is a collective activity, not one undertaken by an independent individual, but each person serves their purpose, as you have here in attempting to take some of the heat off of Factchecker_atyourservice. Unfortunately, the circumstances made that somewhat difficult to do but it was an honorable try. BMK (talk) 04:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I barely started, but you dismissed it as wagon-circling so I stopped. If you'd like me to keep going, I would throw Monsieur X's last seven diffs in the bonfire, as they are from last year. That still leaves a bunch I haven't mentioned yet.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I thought you were going to bed? Couldn't sleep?

I'm sure I don't have to explain to you the difference between the passage of time and a calendar year. "Last year" was not so many months ago, and in any case, the constant cry in these reports is "Show us a pattern of behavior". But, apparently, according to your thinking, if a pattern of behavior is shown, the oldest events get thrown out because they're too old? Do diffs spoil, like fruit or something?

No, the truth of the matter is that a continuous pattern of behavior from 7 months ago right up to the present moment is exactly what is required to show that Factchecker_atyourservice is indeed a disruptive POV-pushing editor. Rather than "throwing Mr. X's diffs in the bonfire" (I didn't know he was French!), I would suggest that he compile even more, going further back, and filing in some of the holes, between, say, January and April. The more diffs of Factchecker_atyourservice's misbehavior the merrier, I say! BMK (talk) 08:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I prefer a few unequivocal diffs than a big boatload of ambiguous ones. The former are easier to analyze and discuss. I barely scratched the surface of discussing this boatload before you got sick and tired of it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support, and I'm myself puzzled at Anythingyouwant's innocent puzzlement in the long dialogue just above ("The big aspersion being that Cwobeel is a lot like someone whom Factchecker admires [=Collect]?").[160] Anythingyouwant, are you saying that the arbitrator (Dougweller) who posted this "formal caution" on Factchecker's page specifically for Factchecker's's out-of-the-blue aspersions against Cwobeel, has misunderstood everything? That Doug failed to understand your syllogism that Factchecker admires Collect's editing (actually, you say Cwobeel admires Collect's editing, but I think that was just a mistake)[161] and Factchecker was comparing Cwobeel's editing to Collect's, so therefore Factchecker was most likely saying something nice or at least inoffensive about Cwobeel? Anyone who looks at the actual exchange in context (here it is, about the middle of the thread), Anythingyouwant, can recognize your argument above as contemptible wikilawyering, Bishonen | talk 18:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC).

"Contemptible wikilawyering" is it? You carefully omit to explain why Dougweller's warning was insufficient to address the matter. You carefully omit to mention that Dougweller's warning was mainly about a different comment by Factchecker entirely, you carefully omit to mention that the different comment was made by Factchecker after a section had been hatted, and you carefully omit to mention that I have said nothing whatsoever in defense or opposition to that different comment made by Factchecker. Contemptible wikilawyering my ass.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I just saw this section, but at this moment I don't even have time to read it all, much less respond. Is the name really that confusing? My sig contains an obvious reference to it, as well as three obvious links that obviously mouseover to my actual username; and I just don't use the old name as my sig anymore because I don't like it anymore (specifically, because it has an annoying tone to it, hence my mocking revision in the signature to "Factchecker_blah_blah_blah". Also, I've been signing posts this way for more like 5 years. I was going to change it but the FAQ for changing usernames suggested a different signature as an alternative. And nobody ever said anything about it until this recent Arbcom case about Collect.

• Comment. Some of these diffs aren't even worth responding to. For example the April 8th diff does not violate the letter or spirit of any WP policy or essay, it is not a personal attack by me and does not contain one, and the OP should be admonished for not taking the slightest effort to examine the surrounding context and see that.

If I respond to nonsense, that both elevates the stature of the nonsense and makes me look like I'm posting a desperate textwall defense. NOBODY wants to read through dozens of diffs and have to use mind-reading techniques to figure out what they're supposed to be evidence of. Can some of these diffs be struck, or others emphasized? Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 10:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

So why push your luck here after being explicily warned?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Looks like he was pinged into that section before it was hatted, by the time he got there it was hatted, so he left one comment. Yawn. If there's any common-sense exception to a hat, this would be it. I suppose if he had removed the hat, then left the comment, and then restored the hat there would be no problem?Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Sure it would, since it was hatted by a clerk. You know that, doncha? BMK (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

No, I really didn't. So if the hatter was a non-clerk then generally it's okay for you to un-hat for briefly responding to a ping in a section you haven't commented in before?Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Generally speaking, no one should be hatting discussions on Arb talk pages except Arbs and clerks, and once they're hatted, that's it. The clerks have their marching orders from the Committee to keep things under control. BMK (talk) 00:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

FTR, I have asked for the clerk's opinion.[162]Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Wow, you could be a defense attorney with your ability to ask a leading question. I've been attempting to deal with you here as someone honestly interested in exploring the issues, but it's become quite clear that you're nothing but an advocate for Collect in sheep's clothing, so as afar as I'm concerned, this discussion is over, see if you cna get someone else to bite. BMK (talk) 06:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

You keep dragging Collect into this, accusing me above of being part of a "COLLECTion". This thread is about FactChecker, and I've never received any off-wiki communication from either of them. On-wiki, I rarely edit the articles they do, and I don't really think about them a whole hell of a lot. I've admired what I've seen of Collect at BLPN, and I left a couple comments on his behalf with ArbCom recently. There is no more a "COLLECTion" than there is the nefarious meaning that you alleged (above) in FactChecker's user name. Anyway, maybe we can start fresh with some AGF next time. I don't like the way Wikipedia allows the stamping out of editors who enforce NPOV when they come across left-wing bias. I get the message though: go away or face wikilawyering charges. So see ya later, I am going away.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:09, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Come on, stop with the naive act, it's intellectually dishonest, and you know it. And here's the thing about NPOV: it is what a consensus of editors says it is. And right now, the consensus of editors called ArbCom is telling Collect -- and, by implication, the rest of The COLLECTion -- what NPOV is not, and what it's not is using Wikipedia policies in one way for people whose politics you favor, and using it another way for people whose politics you abhor. BMK (talk) 07:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll just add one brief thing in response. I don't know Collect or FactChecker very well, I haven't followed their editing much, and I cannot rule out that they have misused Wikipedia. But if you really want to convince me about them, the way to do it is not by pointing to mounds of ambiguous or trivial diffs, but rather by pointing me to the worst one. The worst one always tells more than all the others put together. And I don't mean the worst one standing alone without its context.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Subject of complaint respectfully requests that no action, other than closure with no sanction, be taken before 5PM GMT Saturday 8 May. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 11:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Factchecker_atyourservice, I hope that you realize that your contributions to this discussion are harming and discrediting you more than helping you case. I also hope that you realize that your "request" here isn't how things work, and dictating a time that this should be closed by is more likely to not work in your favor. It might very well be that an administrator will grant your request for it to be closed by the time you have indicated, but it will likely be at the cost of the hoped for outcome. Personally (if you are interested in the advice of someone who has been dragged here multiple times and blocked on a couple occasions), considering the current status of support v. oppose comments above, I'd strike your last comment here and not comment in this discussion any more than you have to (you probably don't have to unless a bunch of the opposes start flipping on you, and if that happens feel free to ask me for help on my talk page or pinging me to your talk page by copy/pasting my signature and signing your post for further advise) and just let it be forgotten and fall off the page. Good luck. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 12:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Tech13: While I agree with your observation that Factchecker_atyourservice is not doing himself any service with his comments in this thread, I think you've misread his last remark. I believe he was asking that no decision be reached before the time specified, unless it was to close the thread with no sanctions. I can only speculate that he will not be available until after that time, and was hoping that the thread wouldn't get closed while he wasn't around - but that, as I say, is supposition. BMK (talk) 12:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Entirely possible that I misread/understood that part, I'm not convinced that them making another comment to clarify will do them any good and <s>striking</s> is still probably the best thing for them to do. Then again, I suppose that is just my opinion, whatever that is(n't) worth. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 13:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose any sanctions against factchecker, but recommend that the best way to argue against idiots is to not be an idiot.--MONGO 12:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• "Oppose"? Of course that pretty much goes without saying, doesn't it? BMK (talk) 12:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• I refuse to be an idiot.--MONGO 13:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Never said you were. BTW, anyone in particular you were referring to, or just waxing philosophic? BMK (talk) 13:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• • But... But... But... That's where all the fun is... Come to The Dark Side, we haz cooookies... ;) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 13:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose The main complaints against appear to be civility issues. Several of the responses against those that oppose have been COLLECTively un-civil. In general it appears the recent trend on WP is to try and get someone you don't like to say something uncivil and then get them blocked for being uncivil. Arzel (talk) 14:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

  How exactly does one go about getting someone they don't like to say something uncivil? Your argument, which I assume can be summarized as "it's OK to make personal attacks if your were baited", is not memorialized in policy nor is it evident in most of the diffs that I presented. For example, FCAYS has (to the best of my recollection), never been particularly uncivil towards me. On the other hand, he has been extremely uncivil toward Cwobeel, whom I note has not participated in this thread to request sanctions. Believe it or not, some of us just want to participate in a project where the level of discourse is slightly above name calling and barroom brawling. Others seem intent on using verbal bullying to brutishly push their own POV, while at the same time accusing others of non-neutral editing, and left or right wing bias. I have seen editors chased away from articles before by loutishness. One of the reasons I stopped editing Shooting of Michael Brown was because of FCAYS's talk page edits.- MrX 16:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

  Civility is largely in the eye of the beholder, much of what you put forth appears to be complaints of incivility. Ironically, with your statement above they were not even directed at you...so why do you even care? Regardless, the underlying guiding principles of WP are the 5 pillars, yet many seem to be far more interested in some abstract notion of civility, and even more so they appear to be more interested in the civility of those they disagree with. Just in this discussion, BMK has made numerous statements which far surpass the guidelines of civility that I know you have objected to in the past. If your statement is true, you will appropriately report these transgressions as well. If not, then my initial statement is correct, why do you care? Arzel (talk) 17:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

  Why do I care? To quote myself "I consider Wikipedia to be among the most significant cultural expressions of our time" and as a significant contributor here, I have a vested interest in the fulfillment of the project's goals. Corrosive comments don't belong on article talk pages because it stifles collaboration. I'm more tolerant of such comments in the context of an ANI discussion or on a user talk page. I'm also not a crusader against all form and manner of incivility. If you feel that BMK's comments cross a line, do the homework and make your case. It's not my job.- MrX 17:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

  MrX...you are correct. Some of us do want to participate in a project where the level of discourse is slightly above name calling and barroom brawling. So when I see Cwobeel making comments like Go fuck yourself to factchecker and you have defended Cwobeel numerous times yet come after factchecker who is not in alignement with your admitted POV, it raises my eyebrows about what your motivations are. Fair is fair so harping about others while defending like minded editors who behave as badly or worse makes for a weak argument in my book.--MONGO 17:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

  I'm not defending Cwobeel's outburst, nor excusing it. I've defended Cwobeel on occasion and I've also criticized them: [163] [164]. The difference here is that, by my observation, Cwobeel doesn't frequently make these kinds of outbursts, nor do they commit the more insidious verbal assaults that FCAYS does. I may be wrong in my conclusions, and I may be blinded by my ultra amazing liberal bias, but that is how I see this. I'm open to being conviced otherwise that Cwobeel behaves "as badly or worse," but you, FCAYS, Arzel, Anythingyouwant, or Anyoneelseyouwant will have to do the grunt work of making your case by researching and compiling diffs, and making a cogent argument. Until then, your protests are merely empty bluster.- MrX 17:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I was just pinged on this, I was not aware of this discussion. I have tried to ignore the very numerous WP:BAIT by FCAYS, as that is the only way to deal with this highly strung user. FCAYS seems to enjoy WP:BATTLEGROUND; WP:NOTHERE would apply. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

@MONGO: The GFYS, was in response to the same comment he made to me in a talk page. I regret having lowered myself to his level at that time. Since then, ignoring him has worked much better. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

This NOTHERE suggestion you make, I'm hard pressed to see why he is less troublesome than you are, especially considering this and your multiple other blocks.--MONGO 18:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I am not proud of these blocks. But I have learned my lessons. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I spent some time looking though the diffs and formulating a response... only to find that MONGO had said it more succinctly than me. So, I will quote the estimable MONGO:

MrX...you are correct. Some of us do want to participate in a project where the level of discourse is slightly above name calling and barroom brawling. So when I see Cwobeel making comments like Go fuck yourself to factchecker and you have defended Cwobeel numerous times yet come after factchecker who is not in alignement with your admitted POV, it raises my eyebrows about what your motivations are.

I think that sums up this thread's problems neatly. bobrayner (talk) 20:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

@Bobrayner: No, it does not. I made that comments once, in response to the same comment FCAYS made to me, because I had enough of being harassed in talk page discussions. But with FCAYS, the PA and combativeness it is the recurring behavior. There is a massive difference, if you take some time to check our contribs lists. This is not a symmetrical issue whatsoever. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't contend that this is symmetrical - I feel that the temptation to think in symmetrical terms makes it harder to resolve may NPOV problems, However, when the evidence of long-term pov pushing includes having to reach back to last October for a statement as appalling as "If there is an identifiable BLP or other violation, please identify it and we can talk about it, otherwise shut the hell up", then I think that says more about the accuser than the accused. bobrayner (talk) 22:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

@Bobrayner: That comment was made by FCAYS... [165] ... in response to a request from me to find a compromise... And that is just one example of many more. I don't want to use my time to dig through edit histories, as I much prefer to do the work, so I leave it at that. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:05, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

LOL. Bob was quite aware that the comment was mine. I suggest you keep re-reading until you understand the point he was making. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 01:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Though I would be seriously annoyed if the barbs listed by Mr. X were directed against me, I certainly wouldn't ask that the editor making them be blocked. And I wouldn't even consider asking if they were directed at someone else (leave Hecuba to Hecuba). I kind of agree with Mongo here. Just because there are some editors being idiotic, it doesn't mean that we all have to join that particular club. --regentspark (comment) 22:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - Throwing up a wall of text of diffs (that still do not amount to a block)...after the thread began getting opposing !votes was disappointing to say the least.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

  What's disappointing is people who whine about too many diffs, don't bother to read them, and apparently believe their uninformed, drive-by opinions carry any weight.- MrX 01:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

And that was doubly disappointing. My opinion carries as much weight as any other editor here, regardless of your personal attack. Your actions speak louder than your complaint. I would !vote support right now to block you for 24 to 48 hrs just as a boomerang.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment to admins: the OP's ANI complaint is only slightly less baseless than his last one, and bears troubling signs of similarly improper motivation. I think excessive and less-than-forthcoming use of admin sanction procedures amounts to harassment. I don't want to spend my Friday night or Saturday afternoon responding to allegations that seem malformed at best, or meritless and dishonestly presented at worst. I formally request a boomerang against OP for the filing itself. Additionally, BMK's participation in this thread has consisted almost exclusively of personal attacks. In his case, too, I formally request a boomerang.

I don't believe the bulk of complaints here are valid; please note that there is a large volume of them and it will would take a long time to respond with diffs. Thus I again repeat my request that — if the reviewing authorities find these accusations compelling — no action be taken before 5PM GMT on Saturday. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 00:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Legal Threat

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

---

Clear legal threat here. They are accusing Wikipedia of deliberately providing false information, and the phrase "I will have you charged for information falsification and attempting to destroy a fruitful environment" is a clear legal threat. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Frankly, it looks like trolling to me - the IP claims to be teaching students, yet makes elementary grammatical mistakes. Probably best ignored. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Using an IP locator, it also seems there isn't a school near their location, which would support the troll theory. I felt obliged to post it here though. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:18, 8 May 2015 (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.

@Orangemike: was it intentional that you blocked this IP indefinitely? I was under the impression that indef blocks for IP's were frowned upon, and it seems oddly harsh for one edit (as trollish as it was). EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 16:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

request block DYK-related preventative right now

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 an admin please block editor Nikkimaria, who has been attacking the article linked from the great leading DYK on the main page, Soldier at a Game of Chess. Allegations of copyvio, plagiarism, everything else appear to be entirely false. Editor mis-applied Duplication Detection tool. Editor intent on marring the article with unnecessary tags. One technical violation is that they used Twinkle to revert, which used to be taken as a serious problem, if that helps. This started when I removed, with support on Talk page already, the OR tag put at top of article.

I don't have time for this, really. See the Talk page, Talk:Soldier at a Game of Chess and see the edit history in the article. --doncram 17:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I have provided evidence at the talk page that the copyright issue is not "nonsense". As for the tagging, I had initially added only a single, article-level tag; however, Doncram and others insisted that each section/issue should be tagged individually instead, despite my objection that given the extent of the issues a whole-article tag would be more appropriate. I realize that the number of tags being added looks like tag-bombing - that's not what I would prefer, but I'm trying to indicate what and where the issues are, per the request on talk. I've also asked that the article be removed from the main page given the copyright concern, but that hasn't yet been actioned, so it would be very helpful if someone could do that. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Tag-bombing applies, yes. Also wp:POINTY removal of an entire section "Related works" because YOU don't believe they are related. I have undone some of this editor's edits, but have been reverted. Call it edit warring perhaps. I spent a long time today explaining at Talk page, etc. I don't have more time. I request that an admin now block Nikkimaria and ask questions later, after this article is not getting hits from prominent DYK-link on main page. That would be a PREVENTATIVE block. --doncram 17:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

You were reverted by another editor who agreed that my concerns were valid ... and "block first and ask questions later" is never a good approach to a problem.

This article should not be on the main page right now: it includes verbatim copying from this source, very extensive close paraphrasing from this source, and other issues. That's why there are close-paraphrasing tags on the article, as explained at talk. And again, the only reason perceived tag-bombing is taking place is because you insisted that the single tag I initially added was too marring and that I should instead individually tag sections. I would be happy to replace most of the individual tags with the article-level version, but I don't want to get into an edit-war with you on the matter. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

(ec, and not responding to last entry) Okay only some of the edits are entirely nonsense, like where the editor detected multiple 2-word phrases used in both of two similar articles. I am sure there are some valid concerns in Nikkimania's edits that should be addressed, but with reasonable time, through reasonable process. It is not necessary to attack it for hours. This one editor wants a citation, so removes a whole section. Or inserts two tags into the lede. Again I don't have time for this. Can't. --doncram 18:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I haven't been "attack[ing] it for hours"; it just takes significantly more time to tag issues individually, particularly when there are many of them, then to just add a single whole-article tag. Finding the copyright issue added more time to that - since one of the sources being copied wasn't cited in the article, this requires more extensive searching beyond the existing sources. The other issues you mention have already been explained at the talk page, where this dispute belongs. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

No block is warranted here; the editor raises perfectly valid concerns on the talk page. HiDrNick! 18:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Will some responsible admin please get this off of the mainpage now? Here we are, five years after the infamous DYK blowup, and we still have DYK putting copyvio, plagiarism, cut-and-paste, non-reliable sources ... you name it on any given day ... on the mainpage. (And, if not for Nikkimaria being one of the very few who pay attention, we'd see even more of this.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The article has now been removed from the main page (thank you Harrias!) and discussion is proceeding on talk. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I can't take the credit for removing it, that was The Rambling Man, I just tidied up the errors page afterwards! Harrias ^talk 20:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Oops, my mistake - thanks TRM. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

S'ok. Us "worst admins around" occasionally mistakenly do something right, even sitting in my car on my phone waiting for my world class dinner to be prepared. It's just statistics. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Nikkimaria is trying to address real problems. Instead of denying that problems exist and then starting an AN/I thread, doncram should consider facing up to, or perhaps even fixing these problems. Seeking a preventative block in order to stop people putting tags on a front-page article is missing the point - very much so. Our need for policy-compliant articles trumps the need to remove embarrassing warning tags. bobrayner (talk) 20:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

  Oooh, watch out User:doncram, someone might try and pull out a cubist boomerang. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

No block Even though it appears as if the issue could have been communicated better, blocking for the editor action is way over the top. prokaryotes (talk) 20:31, 8 May 2015 (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.

IBAN-violation reported on AN but receiving no attention

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.

---

Did I format this incorrectly or something? Should I have posted it here instead of AN? The reversion of my edits my someone with whom I am supposed to be in an IBAN has been going on for days, and I don't know what to do about it.

Could someone please tell me what I'm missing?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:01, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

ANI is probably a more appropriate location for this incident. JZCL 07:42, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I copied the thread to this page here. The Administrators' Incidents page is for general notifications, updates etc. whereas this page is for more specific incidents (like yours). JZCL 07:47, 9 May 2015 (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.

Continuing abuse of revision delete by User:Kww

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:Kww is continuing to engage in serious policy violations regarding the use of revision delete. He is engaged in a systematic campaign to undo whatever edits he can find of mine, explicitly stating that he has no regard for the quality of the encyclopaedia and simply wants to get rid of me. He does not just undo them but has taken to deleting the relevant revision as well. WP:REVDEL says that "The community's endorsement of the tool included a very strong consensus that its potential to be abused should be strictly barred, prevented by the community, and written into the policy", but Kww has abused the tool as follows:

1. According to WP:REVDEL, "Material must be grossly offensive, with little likelihood of significant dissent about its removal." None of my edits are even remotely offensive, and there is significant dissent about their removal.

2. "If deletion is needed, only redact what is necessary (i.e. leave non-harmful fields visible)" - none of the fields are harmful but Kww has generally deleted all of them. There is no possible harm associated with the IP address I edited from.

3. "RevisionDelete should not be used without prior clear consensus for "ordinary" incivility, attacks, or for claims of editorial misconduct" - Kww has no consensus even to revert my edits, let alone delete the revisions.[166]

4. "When reverting edits, care should be taken not to reinstate material that may be in violation of such core policies as neutrality, verifiability, and biographies of living persons. Editors who subsequently reinstate edits originally made by a blocked editor take complete responsibility for the content." - Kww has restored serious violations of core policies to the encyclopaedia. See for example the extraordinarily biased and promotional text that he put back to Alex Lowe and serious factual errors at SN 2003fg for two particularly egregious though very far from unusual examples.

I pointed out these violations before, and was surprised to find that no-one particularly cared about abuse of revision delete. They told me to take it to the policy page, which I thus updated to reflect the fact that these violations are apparently acceptable, and that the community apparently no longer minds that much about the potential for abuse of the tool. But that got reverted, and people said that if there were policy violations they should be reported on AN/I. Kww has continued to abuse the tool, so one of two things must happen:

1. Either Kww's policy violations are not acceptable, in which case action needs to be taken to prevent him from abusing revision delete.

2. Or, they are acceptable, and the policy pages need updating to reflect that. Perhaps you all think it's OK to violate policy as long as you're doing it to get rid of someone you really don't like? If so, then you need to write the policy pages accordingly, and it would be good to define the circumstances in which people are allowed to ignore policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.9.132.118 (talk) 04:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Two things:

1. You didn't notify Kww of this discussion (I took care of it, however).
2. I'm always skeptical when a supposedly brand new user opens a thread at ANI about someone else's behavior—wait a minute, you said "reverting [your] edits", but you only have two edits to your name under this IP. What other account(s) are you using? (I think we're in Australia again...) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

The fact is that you are a long term abuser who is evading a block. ANYTHING that is done to prevent you from further abusing the system, degrading the encyclopedia, or interfering with the project is warranted. There is nothing to see here, except someone who is banned from the project and is continuing to interfere with Wikipedia. Go away. Scr★pIron^IV 04:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I am no such thing. Even if I were, Kww is violating policy. If that kind of policy violation is OK, then it needs to be reflected in the policy description. 186.9.132.118 (talk) 04:56, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I have undone the removal of this post. I am skeptical of a policy justification for removing threads from ANI that are not clear vandalism, which this is not. It would be nice if 186.9.132.118 (talk) provided some diffs or links to these REVDELs. But as I recall, there is no policy saying users can not edit while logged out, nor has any evidence been provided that the poster's account is blocked. ― Padenton|✉   05:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

But the sockpuppetry is obvious. The link the IP provided on raising this before, the IP address is different at " 186.9.133.182". -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 05:02, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Obviously, I can't provide diffs for edits that have been deleted. But you can see which articles Kww has attacked here. As far as I can see, all of the revision deletes in that list are relevant to this post, and all contravene policy. I already gave the particular examples of Alex Lowe and SN 2003fg which you can look into if you like. Until someone deals with these policy violations, I'll keep on pointing them out when they occur. 186.9.132.118 (talk) 05:09, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I have done all I can without running afoul of the dread 3RR - hopefullly an admin is awake and available to deal wih this. Scr★pIron^IV 05:13, 9 May 2015 (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 pushing creationist POV

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:Epetre is an SPA pushing a creationist POV at Talk:Abiogenesis and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. I am thinking that a warning would be enough at this point. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd be fine with a very direct warning, but if any of this continues after the warning a topic ban is in order. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:57, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: You will have to prove what makes you claim that I have a "creationist" POV. In the Talk:Abiogenesis I asked to have a neutral point of view (that is why I opened a NPOV, I never asked to state in the article that Abiogenesis is false and a creationist view is true. Epetre (talk) 19:30, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Since creationism is considered pseudoscience by mainstream scientists, the next step would appear to be Arbitration Enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: User Epetre's campaign is focused in introducing the creationist propaganda technique known as "Teach the Controversy", that pretends that there is a scientific controversy where there is none. Epetre is a WP:Single-purpose account engaged in a chronic and disruptive campaign. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@Epetre:, creationism is a fringe branch of pseudoscience, not science, and it does not have any place in a scientific article on Abiogenesis, Evolutionary biology, or similar articles. You are making arguments that have no basis in fact, but have typically been made by those seeking to promote Intelligent design rather than science. You won't be able to insert pseudoscience into scientific articles without very strong, reliable, scientific sources. The ones you've presented so far do not meet that standard. GregJackP Boomer! 19:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment It seems Epetre misunderstands neutrality. Neutrality means giving all versions when there are several competing version with equal support. It means giving both version if one is the majority view and one the minority, but clearly identifying which is the majority view. However, it also means not including pseudoscience and presenting a false conflict where there is none (see WP:UNDUE). Creationism is very much a pseudoscience that is undue; a clear warning may be enough for now, but a topic ban should be put in place rather quickly if this continues.Jeppiz (talk) 20:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@GregJackP: It is not relevant what the creationism is, since I didn't manifest it in my requirements. I suggest you to check the things before accusing someone. It is about the fact that a theory is presented with no evidence as a fact and only that is pseudo-science. the real science is about evidence. Epetre (talk) 20:02, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: The neutrality is expressed very well in the relevan Wikipedia article and there is no need to re-interpret it:

• Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."
• Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.
• Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view. For example, to state that "According to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field.

My complaint fits exactly the rules above, abiogensis is presented as a fact, with no evidence for that and with no consideration for the scientific views claiming the contrary. Neutral point of view is to present what you have, namely a theory, not a fact just because you believe that, not presenting anything to support your belief.Epetre (talk) 20:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

There are no scientific views stating that creationism is a serious alternative to abiogenesis. That is the problem here. Religious views are not scientific views. And religious "evidence" is not scientific evidence. A religious view does not require equal representation to a scientific view in an article about science.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• Obvious attempt to push creationist POV is obvious. Epetre's use of the Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center as a source[167] tells us everything we need to know. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Epetre, in constantly referring to whether abiogenesis is presented as a fact or as a theory, misunderstands scientific terminology in a way that is typical of creationist discourse. To refer to a scientific concept as a theory does not mean that it is not considered a fact. "Theory" is not an antonym for fact. "Theory" is not the same as "hypothesis" and does not mean a conjecture. A theory is a systematic explanation of observations, and may have an extremely high degree of certainty. For instance, scientists refer to Newton's theory of universal gravitation, for which there is a very high level of confirmation, with the minor discrepancies from the theory explained by general relativity. Epetre's arguments show that he or she doesn't understand how scientists refer to knowledge. However, I will suggest that ANI is not the venue in which to discuss disruptive editing, because Arbitration Enforcement is more effective. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Sorry, I don't see any logic in your accusations. I understand from you that even if there is no evidence, the abiogenesis MUST be considered a fact and presented as such and any person that doesn't see that nonexistent evidence is a creationist. It makes a lot of sense.Epetre (talk) 20:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

That isn't what I said. It isn't worth my trying to explain. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Propose topic ban for Epetre for Abiogensus, Evolution, Evolutionary Biology, and similar subjects, broadly defined. Editor is WP:!HERE as far as those topics go, based on their use of the creationist IDAEC site as a reference.

• Support as proposer. GregJackP Boomer! 20:30, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Support topic ban Initially I thought a warning would suffice, but Epetre's activity in this discussion shows beyond any doubt that they are not hear to build an enclyclopedia, does not WP:HEAR and ignore all basic Wikipedia policies.Jeppiz (talk) 20:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Isn't better to kill those that notice a lack of neutrality? Is this an attitude of the 21th century????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Epetre (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Sure. The attitude is based on Leviticus 24:16, although adapted somewhat for Wikipedia. GregJackP Boomer! 20:42, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support Clearly here to push a POV and I would suggest a permanent block if the disruption continues. WCM_email 20:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment If I was you, I would honestly be ashamed. This sounds like a comunist/stalinist trial.... You would have been so succesful 80 years agoEpetre (talk) 20:43, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment Please stop your martyr complex, Epetre, it still is not changing anyone's mind into slavishly agreeing with you. There is, in fact a profound difference between "silencing opposing voices" and "punishing someone who repeatedly makes an arse of his/her/itself while refusing to abide or understand house rules."

• Support Clear POV-pusher. JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban User:Epetre clearly does not understand what neutral point of view is in Wikipedia, and continues making an arrogant nuisance of himself in the process.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Since we are not allowed to show by demonstration how Stalin would have done it, a topic ban will have to do. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on this tendentious editor for creationist religious POV pushing in an article about a scientific topic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban of this disruptive single-purpose user pushing his POV and that of creationism. BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. I was going to be neutral for procedural reasons, because I would prefer an Arbitration Enforcement topic ban, but Epetre is making the case. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Clearly here with an agenda to push.Charles (talk) 21:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, it can't come soon enough. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban - Yes, I *entirely* agree - WP:SPA is POV-pushing imo as well - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
• Blocked, Disagree with topic ban. I've blocked Epetre indefinitely for soapboxing, trolling this board,[168][169] and not being here to create an encyclopedia. We waste too much time on characters like this IMO. Bishonen | talk 21:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC).

Bishonen Not sure they were trying to troll this board or doing anything other than POV-pushing. It's entirely possible they believe they have scientific consensus on their side (particularly if educated in the Deep South), and the diffs don't suggest to me trolling, rather complete disbelief. I'm not sure we can WP:ABF here. Just because their first edits are biased doesn't mean we should permanently block them, surely a topic ban would be sufficient? Banak (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree. But I've invited them to appeal the block in the usual way, and if another admin thinks they should be unblocked, it's fine by me. Meanwhile, I guess there's consensus for a topic ban. Bishonen | talk 21:46, 9 May 2015 (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.

Farshad Fotouhi

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

---

Resolved

Sockpuppets of Detroit Joseph frequently attack this article and another sock is doing it again. Can some admin block the newest sock, please? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:30, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Black Kite. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I've put the protection back to full. DJ's sockfarm are basically the only accounts interested in the article, so we're not really losing much, and anyone with a good-faith edit to make can always ask on the talkpage. Incidentally, I've just noticed that the last sock is actually a Wayne State University IP. Black Kite (talk) 21:35, 9 May 2015 (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.

Personal attacks from User:213.114.203.95

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:213.114.203.95 has been personally attacking me after I reverted them for WP:UNSOURCED content or unproperly sourced content at List of Jessie episodes. This was the original edit. They were later reverted. They again added the content here. I reverted them. They again added the content. I reverted them. After that, they started sending me personal attacks and partially vandalizing my talk page:

• Random no.
• Told me to go to hell.
• Said I was owned.
• Accusing me of destroying Wikipedia. (later blanked)

I have warned them about their editing: Personal attack and vandalism (later blanked). P.S.: It is possible the IP is a sock from User:Kendoalkaedasincorporate (now blocked for 3RR). They also added the same content which can be seen here. Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 00:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I've protected the page and blocked the IP two weeks for evasion and doubled the master's block to 48 hours.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Links: Kendoalkaedasincorporate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and 213.114.203.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) --IJBall (talk) 00:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I am now reopening the case. I am now asking for a rangeblock (perhaps by @Berean Hunter:?). The user is back with User:213.114.200.19 with an edit I reverted at Peyton List (actress, born 1998). Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 01:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi'd the article and blocked the IP...no rangeblock yet.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

On second thought, I checked and found that based on blacklisting info, that range has open proxies and tor nodes so hard rangeblocking 213.114.200.0/22 for 6 months.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:47, 10 May 2015 (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.

A Hoaxer

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.

---

Popmelica (talk · contribs) is inserting hoaxes into Greenland and Nuuk and when warned graduated to vandalizng my userpage.[170] They are not here to build an encyclopedia it seems.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Banhammered. Max Semenik (talk) 02:57, 10 May 2015 (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.

Bright line violation of Interaction Ban

This edit to the article for Trenton, New Jersey blatantly violates the term of the interaction ban mutually agreed upon by me and Magnolia677, having been made immediately after an edit I made to the article without any other edit having been made. And we're back. Quite sadly.

The terms of the Limited Interaction Ban proposed on April 16, and adopted two days later are rather clear in stating "that neither party shall either directly revert the other's edits, or edit the same article until at least one third party uninvolved with either of the two has made an intervening edit."

The other editor is clear that he understands and supports the interaction ban, stating "Do what you want. I'll agree to an interaction ban" and that "I now completely agree with the IBan. All this feuding doesn't move the project forward, and wastes everyone's time." Yet, before, during and after the implementation of this interaction, similar harassment has been ongoing. All I ask is that this persistent pointless feuding and abuse be stopped, once and for all. May I please ask an uninvolved editor to notify the other party. Alansohn (talk) 13:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• I have notified Magnolia667. Do you seriously have a problem with them adding in something innocuous to the article that is unrelated to their edit? How does having another editor make an unrelated change in the middle make that edit suddenly acceptable? Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
• I'm uninvolved in this, and I get an IBAN is an IBAN, I've seen you two having what, three ANI topics? Anyhow, Magnolia's edit is almost a day later, and while yes they should have waited for someone to edit as per the IBAN, there isnt need for much more than a slap on the wrist here it looks like. cnbr¹⁵ 13:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oh FFS, again? It's obvious now that both of these extraordinarily annoying people are only interested in gaming the topic ban and infuriating each other with petty sniping. Block both for a few days because otherwise we will be here every few days until the end of time. Reyk _YO! 14:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • This Interaction Ban was imposed in the wake of persistent harassment and WP:HOUNDING, be it at Scotch Plains or Battin High School, with the persistent pattern continuing here at the article for Trenton. If this Interaction Ban is to have any value, it needs to be respected by both parties and it needs to be enforced. All I want is to get this editor to stop riding my ass. Alansohn (talk) 14:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes, if the interaction ban is to have any force it does need to be respected by both parties. But you broke it first, and repeatedly. I don't doubt that Magnolia is winding you up on purpose and I think it's blockable. But if I voluntarily agreed to a topic ban that the other guy then immediately broke with impunity I would no longer consider it to have any force. Also, a lot of the problem is because of your ownership issues about New Jersey and your tendency to immediately go to Defcon Screech at the tiniest provocation. Reyk _YO! 15:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
• Perhaps the only solution which is equitable and reasonable here is to topic ban both editors from the articles they both frequent. If neither is allowed to edit any New Jersey related articles at all, problem solved? They can go on editing topics that the other doesn't edit, but neither gets to "own" New Jersey... --Jayron32 14:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support Block of both (non admin) The gaming of the IBAN seems to be an ongoing problem. An edit that is unrelated to the edit by the other party, while technically a violation, should never have been brought here. Block them both for a week. Perhaps that will end this endless nonsense. AlbinoFerret 14:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support Topic Ban for Alansohn (non admin) I have struck my original comment because it was pointed out that Magnolia677's edit pre dates the "final warning" about the IBAN. This is the second time Alansohn has posted a questionable claim of breaking the IBAN. I would support a boomerang topic ban or block of up to a week. AlbinoFerret 19:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• Block both - I'm all for assuming good faith and all that but they've been here what 3 or 4 times.... if neither of them can even stick to an IBAN then I think blocking is in order till they both get the hint and stop interacting with each other. –Davey2010^Talk 15:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
• Troutarang. This edit? Do my eyes deceive me? This edit is what you're coming to ANI to complain about? How did you manage to get a trout so firmly attached to your boomerang this morning? HiDrNick! 15:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
• Block Magnolia677, ping Euryalus, possibly trout Alansohn but I don't see the justification for a block against him. Magnolia677's edit looks to me like an intentional and pointy breach of the iban. It followed almost immediately on Euryalus's closure of the earlier thread, saying that the iban was going to be strictly enforced, and specifically naming the "intervening edit" rule as a target of enforcement. I'm never big on the zero-tolerance thing but that edit appears to just be asking for it. Besides breaching the intervening edit rule, it's a crappy edit that exactly echoes a similar crappy edit (regarding Chris Christie) in the same article. I agree with Reyk's statement "I don't doubt that Magnolia is winding you up on purpose". That winding-up is harassment and battleground editing all by itself. Yes there were earlier incidents, they were discussed and resolved, putting us at a place where the editors were supposed to drop the stick and observe the iban. That didn't happen, Magnolia677 breached apparently on purpose, Alansohn might have handled it a bit differntly, but it's not a symmetrical situation. Only one of them breached the ban. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 21:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Struck since I didn't notice that the offending edit was made before the last ANI closed. I still think that the edit was pointy and terrible and maybe blockable: note Magnolia's stated intention to add the rest of NJ's governors to the same article.[171] I'd definitely support a block if that happens. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 05:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• My apologies for this edit. When 406,256 edits have been made to New Jersey by just one editor, it's hard not to let one slip by. I'll try to be more careful. My edit had no impact on him though; any good faith editor would have recognized that and turned the other cheek. A few days ago, when he went onto a talk page here to denounce an edit I made, I didn't run here in a hissyfit. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• Boomerang There's clearly an established context of disruption here, and there may very well be an argument for blocking both parties, but Alansohn has brought a complaint to ANI that can be best summarized as "Mooooooooooooom, Daaaaaaaaaaaaaad - Magnolia has his knee on my side again!" Interaction bans are meant to restrict (yes, that's right) interaction, and Magnolia's edit made no alteration to (nor was it in any way particularly connected with) content added by Alansohn. I did not see the previous discussions which lead to the IBAN, so I can't comment on what justification was given for its implementation, but I will say that the community does not support the tool broadly as means of providing peace of mind to the sanctioned editors but rather to decrease the amount of disruption caused by their personal grudges while retaining their useful edits. Alansohn seems to have missed that distinction in bringing this particular edit to this particular space as evidence of something that supposedly requires community attention. And being the immensely experienced editor that he is, he really ought to know better. If he's lucky enough to avoid a block (or a TBAN, yikes) then he should at least take the comments here as a firm warning about what the purpose and spirit of an IBAN are, whatever the specific wording of his and Magnolia's particular sanction. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

*Comment: It's a clear violation, and in this case I agree it is WP:POINTy. I don't think this ANI thread is necessary though; I think notifying Euryalus and having him institute the IBAN block would have been sufficient, since he closed the relevant thread yesterday. Softlavender (talk) 01:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• It took 4 hours and 6 minutes from the closing of the very long previous thread by Euryalus to the opening of this thread. One gets the impression of runners in their starting blocks, just waiting for the first action that could be reported as a violation. BMK (talk) 02:17, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
• Thanks for the ping, am keen on letting this community debate continue awhile so we get a clear consensus for action, if possible. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• In passing, the IBAN breach that kicked off this thread predates the thread above, and so cannot be held against Magnolia677 as a breach of the final warning. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Recommend both editors see their doctors for a prescription for tranquilizers, nothing heavy-duty, just some "happy pills" to take the edge off. In other news: Magnola677, you must work harder not to piss off Alansohn violate the IBan, and Alansohn, you really have to get over the idea that you own New Jersey, because if you don't, people are going to start coming to you to solve their problems instead of to Chris Christie. As to who should be blocked, or topic banned, or what, I dunno. Perhaps all the rest of us should be banned from reading these threads and commenting on them. Then we'll find out what happens when a tree falls on AN/I with no one around. BMK (talk) 02:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
• Boomarang for Alansohn I've just realized that the edit Alansohn reported Magnolia677 for was the addition of Jon Corzine, former governor of New Jersey, to a list of notable people of Trenton, New Jersey. IBan are IBans, but we're not expected to throw our common sense in the trash can when enforcing them. This thread is an egregious violation of the community's expectation that both parties to the IBan actually do a little work to avoid exacerbating matters. BMK (talk) 02:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I personally disagree. The edit came after an edit by Alansohn, with no intervening edit, which is a direct violation of the IBAN. Not only that, the edit was a direct provocation in that the wording and profession mirrored Magnolia77's contentious attempt to add incumbent governor Christie to list, which Alansohn criticized in the just-closed ANI thread; even the wording of it is the same. It appears to me that the edit is a blatant attempt to get Alansohn topic-banned from NJ (along with him/herself) by baiting him to take this to ANI less than 24 hours after the previous thread which threatened such if this appeared here again. In my opinion, Magnolia77 needs a violation block and possibly a NJ topic ban, but not Alansohn in this case. Softlavender (talk) 02:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I don't deny that there's a possibility that M677 made the edit to needle Alansohn, but, at least in my view, that's not been shown to be the case. In looking at the situation in general Alansohn's proprietary attitude towards New Jersey articles is a much more significant problem, and he's already received two passes for violating the IBan himself. At this time, I'd be agreeable to a trout of Magnolia677, but I still believe the boomarang for Alansohn is the most appropriate sanction in this case. If there's a next instance, and there's any possibility of it having been provoked by M677, I'll be supporting a topic ban for both, as the net value to the project of both of these editors, which has been so far the reason they haven't been blocked, goes down with every disruption of the peace of the community they cause. BMK (talk) 03:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, he had to report it somewhere, and chose to report it here (just as Magnolia77 hoped he would, it seems). If Alansohn has "already received two passes for violating the IBan himself", that was before the last ANI closed. Since then the only one who has violated it was Magnolia77, and it was nearly instantaneous and blatantly provocative. As Euryalus said in their close last night, "Final warning to Alansohn and Magnolia677 that absent any further community decision the I-ban will now be strictly enforced and blocks applied for any breaches, including of the "intervening edit" rule and/or any interaction or reference to each other on talkpages". I'm not denying Alansohn may be gaming by editing lots of NJ articles, but he didn't break the IBAN today, Magnolia77 did. Softlavender (talk) 06:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

No, the last ANI was Alansohn's second pass. He opened the thread, but the (loose) consensus was that Alansohn was the responsible party, not Magnolia677. I know it's long and tedious, but you should read the thread again, especially the earlier parts.

In regard to this current one, yes M677 made the edit without an intervening edit, so it was indeed a technical violation of the IBan, but the edit itself was totally innocuous, as multiple editors commented above. The parties to an IBan have something more than an obligation to report every possible violation, they have the responsibility to reduce disruption to the community -- that's why the IBan is in place. Given his ownership issues regarding New Jersey articles, it was rather unlikely that it would happen, but Alansohn's highest responsibility was to just let the edit go by, without comment, and give M677 the benefit of the pass that he got when he first broke the IBan (and that, too, was a technical violation, very much on a par with M677's in this instance). To throw the book at M677 for the edit he made in this instance is pretty much killing a flea with a tommy gun. BMK (talk) 07:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

*Block Magnolia77 for blatant, immediate, and pointy violation of the IBAN, which seemed to be designed to entrap Alansohn into receiving a NJ topic ban along with him/her. Please let's not let the blatant gaming succeed. Quite obviously NJ is Alansohn's expertise; there's no reason for him to be punished for Magnolia's violation. Softlavender (talk) 09:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• Lightly Boomerang Alansohn, Super-Mega-Ultra-Trout Magnolia. Alansohn is trying to nitpick the editor, and while yes the possibility is that Magnolia was gaming, I'd like to AGF here. Very easy for someone to not check the edit history and just go straight to the article. While irresponsible on Magnolia's part should that be the case, they weren't trying to poke and prod anyone if that is how it happened. Should it be revealed that Magnolia was intentionally gaming, immediate support of a block for Magnolia only and a trout for Alansohn for the ANI.cnbr¹⁵ 12:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Topic-Ban

• Support topic-ban as per Jayron32, as an alternative to repeated blocks. If they won't respect the TBAN, then they need blocking. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support Topic Ban I previously supported both of these editors, as they have both contributed prolifically to Wikipedia. However, Alansohn's ownership of New Jersey is an ongoing problem for everyone who dares venture to that topic. As for Magnolia677, I'm not so sure...While it appears he may be challenging Alansohn to take his bait, the root of the problem lies in Alansohn's combative ownership of the topic. I think Jayron32 has the right idea Jacona (talk) 16:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban This has passed way past tedious and is sucking attention away from other activity. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I still don't see how this is even slightly justified. I'll hold back on outright opposing since some sensible and apparently uninvolved editors are supporting. That's unlike the earlier thread, where the supporters either (IMHO) either hadn't examined the situation, or else had crossed the border into involvement. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 21:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Topic Ban I think the frustration of uninvolved editors is leading to thoughts of draconian solutions. Both editors have contributed a lot to Wikipedia and I think it is better to dole out limited, but increasing, blocks for violations of the I-ban than topic ban either editor from ALL articles or parts of articles that involve the state of New Jersey. The problem isn't that they don't make constructive edits but that they don't get along. An I-ban was created to try to resolve this feud and if either party has violated it, at all, they should get blocks of increasing duration, not a ban from a primary area of the project they contribute to. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban(s) at this time. BMK (talk) 02:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support This is getting ridiculous. Blackmane (talk) 02:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for both sides. It's clear that nothing else will stop these two from constantly butting heads and wasting everyone's time. The iban has turned out to be useless, since neither editor is interested in abiding by it, and we already know at least one of them can break it with impunity. Reyk _YO! 08:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban(s) at this time. Both have plenty to add to the article, they just need to stop hounding each other like school children. cnbr¹⁵ 12:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

*Oppose topic ban, at least not for Alansohn. Block Magnolia77 for blatant, immediate, and pointy violation of the IBAN, which seemed to be designed to entrap Alansohn into receiving a NJ topic ban along with him/her. Please let's not let the blatant gaming succeed. Quite obviously NJ is Alansohn's expertise; there's no reason for him to be punished for Magnolia's violation. If anyone needs a topic ban, in this case it's Magnolia. It also seems that this would eliminate the problem altogether, since NJ seems to be the place where they overlap. Softlavender (talk) 02:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• Note: Softlavender, this section is about a possible topic ban. Your !vote to block M677 has already been cast in the general discussion section above this. Because of this, I've removed the bolding you put around "Block Magnolia77" (and it's "677") in the comments above, since the bolded text is generally seen to be an indication of a !vote, and you can't !vote on the same issue twice. You can certainly support or oppose a topic ban, and at the same time support or oppose a specific sanction for either editor, but you can't do either of those things more than once. BMK (talk) 02:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Not a problem; you didn't need to explain your action here; I understood it from the edit summary and that's fine and to be expected. No worries. Softlavender (talk) 02:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, I only explained because I wasn't sure you would read the edit summary. Thanks. BMK (talk) 03:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Further discussion

• Note: I'm striking my !votes based on Euryalus's recent revelation that the edit in question preceded his closing of the previous ANI thread. My opinion is that at this point both editors are acting in bad faith, both are editing/posting provocatively, and both are gaming. That said, since the edit in question preceded the points Euryalus made in the closing, my personal suggestion (for what it's worth) is that this thread be closed, and if in the future there is a violation of the IBAN, that it be reported to Euryalus, not here, and he will institute the block. Softlavender (talk) 09:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
• Because it could easily get lost in the shuffle, I'd like to repeat what Euryalus wrote above:

  In passing, the IBAN breach that kicked off this thread predates the thread above, and so cannot be held against Magnolia677 as a breach of the final warning.

  Every editor, of course, can determine for themselves how this information changes (or doesn't change) their previous !votes in this matter. I think Softlavender's response to strike all of their comments is perfectly understandable, and a resonable response. It is, however, not mine.
  Although the uninvolved editors here were (I assume) unaware that Magnolia677's edit preceded the "final warning" with which Euryalus closed the previous thread, I find it impossible to believe that Alansohn was unaware of it when he opened this thread. Because if this, I see no reason to change my reccomendations above: a short boomarang block for Alansohn (short because his last block was in 2009), and no topic bans for the two editors. Whether he's aware of it or not, the latter (no topic bans) is a gift to Alansohn, since New Jersey is almost entirely his area of practice, while Magnolia677 has other areas to work in, thus mutual topic bans would hurt Alansohn more than M677. Even so, I would not hesitate to support mutual topic bans for New Jersey if there is a next incident. BMK (talk) 19:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out BMK. AlbinoFerret 19:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, I pretty much agree that bringing to ANI an edit made before the last ANI was closed was questionable. I agree that a short boomerang block of Alansohn for this would be in order, and a reminder that stricter measures will ensue in the future. As in all IBANs, the participants have to want it to work. Hopefully that is what we will see from them. Softlavender (talk) 01:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Malware link removal request

On KMPlayer I tried to remove a Download.com malware link, but another contributor was unconvinced that at this time rather old or on CNET#Download even unsourced warnings are still applicable. Meanwhile I've added two referenced statements in this section, updated the fresher "bare references" on Download.com#Adware to {{cite web}} style with authorlink= where applicable, added new references for the years after 2011, and a video while at it. Could somebody please remove the offending section from KMPlayer, the link can't be a good idea (IANAL). As SoFixIt-fan I am already at three attempts to get rid of the crap. –Be..anyone (talk) 19:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• Download.com/CNET is not a "malware site". I have no idea what the issue with this user is, but they seem to be on a very mistaken crusade. Download.com is perhaps the biggest website of its type, and is most definitely not a malware site... there was some speculation of issues with an installer in 2011, which are completely irrelevant four years later, and the source used as an explanation for the last revert was still a year old, and was far from calling Download.com a malware site... it simply stated that there was an issue with AVG (a well-known anti-virus provider)'s search tool where it wasn't secure, and it was included in the Download.com installer. Note please that this user, who as far as I can tell is failing terribly at WP:CIR, hasn't once tried to discuss this, despite me pointing out BRD twice in edit summaries (even if I mistyped it in one of them), and has simply marched off here. Quite frankly, I don't think this user understands what malware or adware are... because the things they've added to the Download.com section are either dubiously referenced, not calling anything adware/malware, and are still old. "In 2013 a groovypost editor explained how to uninstall the potentially unwanted programs left after an installation opting-out from additional offers." - seriously? Where's the evidence they're a reliable source? Random mailing lists certainly aren't, and those are being used as references as well. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

JFTR, I informed the user on his talk page about this thread after starting a thread on Talk:KMPlayer with a {{ping}} four hours earlier. So far for not once try to discuss anything, the edit history of KMPlayer with some kind of discussion in the edit summaries is pretty mild in comparison with Download.com. –Be..anyone (talk) 22:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• You notified me about the ANI thread, yes. You did NOT notify me about the talk page discussion, which is what I said - so don't try and flip my comments to be something they're not. And not only did you never notify me about the KMPlayer talk page discussion... you ran here with a content dispute just four/five hours after making the initial post. That's lame. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oh, and note that any attempt at cleaning up the unreliable sources in the Download.com article - which I also intend to try and sort out with ones that are actually known as being reliable - is reverted with the "revert vandalism" tactic. Yep, User:Be..anyone fails WP:CIR clear as day. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

"Most of those sources are either obviously unreliable (mailing list, teacher's blog, random websites with no oversight whatsoever), or of dubious reliability" in this edit about Brian Krebs (Krebs on security), Ed Bott (ZDNet), Scott Hanselman (Microsoft blogger), insecure.org, howtogeek.com, The Register, US-CERT, twit.tv, Gordon Lyon, etc. in six fully referenced links and a video. Three of these links actually as they were as stated above, i.e. converted to {{cite web}} and now reverted, the newer references + video removed. After the user claimed that everything is old, as it in fact was (2011, only The Register/US CERT was 2014.) Interpreting that as request for fresher references was plausible, resulting in 2012+2013+video (also 2013)+2014+2015, five good new references from notable sources. Removing referenced on topic statements is vandalism in my book. –Be..anyone (talk) 21:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• I did say most, not all. ZDNet is good, yes, but I fail to see where that was actually being used in any way as anything other than just a video. There was certainly no justification for dumping it in the article in that way - use it as a reference by all means, but not like that. That's not how Wikipedia works. The Register was already in there, and remains in there. In the meantime, there were things cited to mailing lists, blogs of random teachers, and sources that have no evidence of being reliable. Howtogeek.com is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. There's no evidence for insecure.org being a reliable source for Wikipedia. Etc, etc. Even if I'm wrong, then I'm misguided, not a vandal, and THAT is why you are failing CIR. Please note how I have used reliable sources to tidy things up a bit, whilst fixing various formatting issues myself. Such a great vandal, aren't I? But by all means, continue grinding your axe with unreliable sources and things being added in badly. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
• It is also worth noting that CNET/Download.com is owned by CBS Interactive, who are owned by CBS Corporation - hardly the sort of place that would actually be deliberately, and consistently, providing a "malware site" now... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oh, and as a further note, it's such a dangerous site that the likes of PC World Magazine are more than willing to provide download links that use that site - and that was from last year as well. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

google:download.com+malware to find more potential links, only one is "teacher" Scott Hanselman. The issue that CNET used to be a trustworthy site before 2011 is addressed in almost all references, removed by you or still there—actually I haven't checked anything older than Brian Krebs+Gordon Lyon. –Be..anyone (talk) 21:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• Only one was a teacher, yes, but that is an example of the multiple sources that are either blatantly unreliable, or do not comply with the reliable sources policy. Whether you added them in or they were already there, we had information cited to a teacher's blog and a mailing list. And yes, I've been Googling the information to see if there's anything out there... there's a fair bit of discussion of the 2011 issue (again, four years old), and basically nothing bar The Register's piece that is a properly reliable source since then. The fact I've been Googling the issue should be obvious by the fact I've added in a couple of actually reliable references myself... And I've even left in something with an unreliable source tag, to give you a chance to prove that it may be an acceptable source for use on Wikipedia - since a lot of that section is dependant on it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• WP:3RR joined the club: 1, 2, 3. –Be..anyone (talk) 21:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• You don't even understand that policy! I made three reverts, not four, which I would need to have made to violate the rule... meanwhile, given that you were removing things from the KMPlayer article, it could be technically stated that you made four reverts there - and I've seen that definition used before. But by all means, continue to destroy your own case. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The blatantly unreliable teacher Scott Hanselman is quoted as expert on 21 articles about Windows topics on enwiki, because that's what he really is, after all MicroSoft employs him, and he published various often quoted articles on his blog. Interpreting policy is the job for an admin, that's why we are on this page. –Be..anyone (talk) 21:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• ANI is not for content, it's for user conduct anyway. He may be a reliable source for some things, but there is 0 evidence that he is a reliable source for this particular topic. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Most issues are obvious for somebody trying to figure out what happened, but this edit summary was not on one of the three directly affected articles or their talk pages. –Be..anyone (talk) 22:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• And I stand by it. You don't understand what vandalism is, you don't understand the 3RR policy, you're relying on sources that are at times blatantly unreliable, and at others are dubious at best, and you're edit-warring content that is inappropriate into articles in defiance of general practice. You also completely failed to allow any discussion to take place before running here... five hours is nothing, and without any ping, I didn't even see the discussion at first. WP:CIR is a thing, and I'm seeing a striking lack of competence here. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

So far you failed to identify even one "blatantly unreliable" reference in the four I've added, because you claimed that only one incident in 2011 was old and irrelevant. 19+21 uses on enwiki for 2 of the 4 sources with fresher incidents, one fresher interview with a ZDNet exert not disputed by you (but nevertheless removed by you), and the groovypost recipe matching my own observations, admittedly a site used only in seven enwiki articles. You also removed the technical term PUP several times, even after adding the good EMSISOFT reference using exactly this term. –Be..anyone (talk) 06:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• So you're going to pointlessly prolong this decision, even when no one has backed you? I've identified that the HTG source is unreliable (which means that, by extension, every single source that relies solely on that is also unreliable, regardless of host), and that you're basing your claims off of people's blogs and mailing lists. "groovypost recipe matching my own observations" - nice way of admitting your WP:OR. Wikia links are used as references on Wikipedia in some articles... doesn't make them reliable sources. Besides, the entire point of this ANI thread was that you were demanding the removal of a malware link. It has been incontrovertibly proven that Download.com/CNET is not a malware site, and there is a huge difference between PUP and malware. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:6RR field trial in 4, 5, 6 by a user who has serious problems with a "howtogeek.com" reference, a site quoted on nineteen Wikipedia articles. –Be..anyone (talk) 23:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• Any policy you do understand? 3RR applies to individual articles, and at no point have I broken that. Making up statements like the above is ridiculous. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The one EMSISOFT link you added tested the top ten downloads individually with both antivirus programs. The Howtogeek test published two months earlier tested the top ten downloads in a row skipping the 2nd antivirus program for obvious (and explained) reasons. IOW they tested the same nine downloads + one different program, and arrived at the same results, EMISOFT with a summary that 62% of the programs while avoiding "voluntary" add-ons were bundled with PUPs. One of the links you conveniently avoided inventing a new term "potentially unwanted software" for the issue. EMSISOFT didn't bother to count minor issues like modified browser homepages.

Their definition of PUP is close enough to the definition here to be considered as in essence the same thing. So removing references totally agreeing with what you later added using another source might be also some bad case of WP:OWN. There's still a missing good recipe how to get rid of one "opt-out everything but" PUP, a missing video interview with an expert published two years before the EMSISOFT pages, the missing howtogeek now confirmed by your research, the missing Microsoft expert Scott Hanselman, and the missing criticism on CNET—apparently a point where we actually agree, one page for this cesspool is enough, but my merge suggestion failed. –Be..anyone (talk) 05:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• How can I be "owning" a page I'd barely edited before yesterday? HTG isn't a reliable source for that kind of thing, and the comments within the article only prove it. There's a big difference between a PUP and malware, a very big difference. It's also complete bollocks to say that I'm "owning" a page by replacing unreliable sources (and, yes, pieces in usually reliable sources that draw solely from an unreliable source, without doing anything of their own, are therefore unreliable) with reliable ones, not to mention using more neutral wording. You have presented 0 evidence for Hanselman being an expert in malware, and the piece he did was so far from being neutral and balanced that it's untrue - and HTG were just as bad. Also, Download.com is not a "cesspool", but thanks for showing your true motivations - to slander the company no matter what. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment There's a more recent claim I've found that adware can be installed like Superfish which installs a root certificate in the user's computer to extend adware to SSL sites (google encrypted search). (howtogeek - copied in Forbes blog NDTV churnalism The Guardian Technology) Lifehacker writes that Wajam is adding Superfish-style SSL root certs, and Wajam is accused of being one of the companies that has a deal to install additional software though wrapped installers. This might not be RS. Note, CNET admits that they bundle Wajam software, see this interchange from 2013:

  We sincerely apologize for the inconvenience here, and we have shared your feedback with the appropriate site managers. It sounds like you may have inadvertently accepted this offer in the CNET Download.com Installer.... You should be able to uninstall any offer(s) via your computer's Add/Remove Programs panel, but if for some reason that does not work, you might want to try one of the programs listed in our uninstaller software category (keeping in mind that some do use the CNET Installer too)... And instructions for resetting your browser(s), if you need them, are here: http://download.cnet.com/2701-2023_4-2107.html... Should you need any further assistance, please feel free to contact our support team directly by filling out the form ... In the "Description" section of the form, please include a link to the Download.com page from which you downloaded when Wajam was installed as well. - Jen

  Yes, CNET bundles Wajam and a range of other "offers" that provoke user frustration, some of which which break internet security by forcing an SSL root cert into the system. I don't have an RS for this, but Facebook is accused of making an "evil interface" that allows them to claim that users have choices, when in fact the users haven't chosen their own privacy settings. I'd argue the average technical competence of the average user is why they accept "offers" that they later, in frustration, find difficult to remove, and didn't understand they were getting in the first place. -- Aronzak (talk) 21:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for providing a useful response. The Guardian piece is a reliable source, as is the Forbes blog; not certain about Lifehacker or NDTV. How-to-Geek does not seem like one. I'll read those pieces and put something in the article that fits. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
• Hmm. The Guardian piece would normally be a reliable source... but it references this article, which relies heavily on How-To-Geek without verifying anything itself. So that one is out of the window. The Forbes piece does exactly the same thing. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
• Yes, it may be churnalism. Note, see here.

  The Download.com Installer securely delivers software from Download.com's servers to your computer. During this process, the Download.com Installer may offer other free applications provided by our partners. All offers are optional: You are not required to install any additional applications to receive the software you selected... The Download.com Installer may show offers for other free applications. All offers are optional: You are not required to install any additional applications to receive the software you selected. We screen all application offers to ensure they are safe and can be uninstalled. No offers are ever automatically installed without your acceptance.

  Note that these kinds of vague statements are usually highly mendacious - "choice" is a euphemism - most users lack the technical competence or patience to read warnings and "click though" dialogs to the default option (Browsers now offer bright red warning pages to tell people SSL certificates are not safe, after studies showed that small yellow triangles were often used in harmless/meaningless boxes that pop up on a user's computer with out of date/misconfigured software). -- Aronzak (talk) 22:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
• As to why I don't believe HTG is compliant with Wikipedia's RS policy; I don't see any evidence of a proper editorial process that a reliable source would require, and as the name suggests, this is primarily a How-To site, not a journalism site. It's also worth noting that they're criticizing all free download sites, but only mention CNET/download.com by name as it is, well, the biggest and easiest target. HTG even admits that Note: the installers are so tricky and convoluted that we aren’t sure who is technically doing the “bundling," Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
• The paper on browsers, by the way is here - 70.2% of Google Chrome users clicked though SSL warnings in one trial. I think there's a peer reviewed study or at least a professional survey asking people if they have software on their computer they didn't install. -- Aronzak (talk) 22:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• I'd be surprised if there wasn't one, to be honest. In fact, I'd expect there to be a few of them. That number sounds about right; too many people do things like that, due to either laziness, or not knowing any better. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• TLDR, but if it helps anyone, I've found an article in German at Heise Security about Superfish-y adware certificates referencing CERT. From the news article: "These applications will embed the dangerous root certificate in your system: <bullet list>."De728631 (talk) 22:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• Interesting pieces, but sadly not directly relevant to the articles in question by the OP - if they're not in the Superfish article, they may be worth adding in. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• Should note that the reporting user is still making bogus claims of vandalism, and edit-warring to keep content in place that is neither appropriate for that particular article (belongs in the main one), is not neutral (directly linking to a criticism section of an article for no good reason) and contains the dubious HTG source. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Emsisoft blog? 1 2 - note that the prase "potentially unwanted program" which wiki links to Malware#Grayware -- Aronzak (talk) 22:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• That one looks good to me. I'll add in a comment with regards to that, making sure to note that every other site tested had an issue as well. I'll use the unwanted program term rather than malware, because most of the programs are obviously reputable, and there are multiple ones I'd vouch for myself. Still don't see how this would justify axing CNET as a reference in other articles, but it's certainly worthy of note. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't, the CIR issue still stands and the user should be warned sternly. It just raises the question here of a content issue, where on the CNET page there is a need to educate users. And forgive me for being sentimental, but the content issue just rankles me - in the early days of the internet it was run by academics wanting to make useful software that would open up a community of free inquiry and exchange, and now the top results for open source applications are scam links that bundle PUPs that track their online activity. -- Aronzak (talk) 23:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• Absolutely, I couldn't agree with you more - the number of PUPs loaded in is just a pain in the backside. It can be a nightmare trying to find obscure drivers, for example, without hitting these sites. But I do recognize they have to make money somehow... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• Still edit-warring in content without a care about whether it is actually relevant or not. This user doesn't appear to understand any policy or guideline at all... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted the user and have given them an edit warring template on their talk page. I told them to wait until the issue has been resolved on ANI. I'll wait for an admin to take action. Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 23:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, I recognize my part in the edit war fully, and hold my hands up to it; I just don't like things being removed for poor reasons, and I really object to being called a vandal for no good reason. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Maurice Cotterell

An editor claiming to be the subject of this article has been editing it by copying content from Cotterell's website. See User_talk:Paul_Barlow#Maurice_Cotterell_wikipedia_entry and User talk:159.134.158.2. The article in the form preferred by the editor states as fact that Cotterell has "found a way of calculating the duration of long-term magnetic reversals on the Sun" and that by "using this knowledge he was able to break the codes of ancient sun-worshipping civilizations", thus deciphering spiritual and scientific content in the artifacts left by Mayans, Egyptians etc etc. This raises so many issues of WP:COI, WP:RS and WP:FRINGE I would be grateful for input from editors with relevant knowledge and administrators who can deal with issues of copyright for the web-content and other matters by communicating with this editor, whether or not he is in fact Cotterell. Paul B (talk) 13:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

BTW, the article is almost entirely innocent of reliable sourcing. And the editor who says he is Cotterell now says he wishes the article on himself to be deleted (see my Talk page). Admin help in securing his assertion of identity is requested. Paul B (talk) 13:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• Those are some unattractive books. I put the article up at AfD; I have no ideas on or opinions about verifying identity. Drmies (talk) 15:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

(ec)The article is now on AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maurice Cotterell). -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 15:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Didn't Simon and Schuster at one point be a reputable publisher...? Bizarre. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:36, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Mizzou Arena (3rd round)

The issue with the Mizzou Arena article has already been brought up twice before, and the editor who has saw fit to OWN the page has once again started the dispute. Basically the arena was named for a Wal-Mart heir's daughter just before it opened, it opened under the daughter's name, but then said daughter's school discovered she was using her roommate to commit academic dishonesty and the school and Wal-Mart heir who were rightfully embarrassed quickly pulled her name off the building and went with the neutral Mizzou Arena title it has today; this has all been well-sourced in the article and many, many other sources outside.

However, Eodcarl (talk · contribs) has been on a long crusade to remove all mentions of the arena naming, no matter how much article editors try to minimize it. The editor's entire history since December 2013 has been devoted to removing the arena's naming history against all consensus. I thought it was settled the first time, but they came back in July of last year to continue to remove it. Again, we established consensus and thought they moved on. Then at the end of February when nobody was really paying attention to the article, they removed it anew. I came upon it last night upon checking my article history, re-added the sourced information and warned the user. They came back on my talk page to call me a bully and call the sourced info 'libelous', and then asserted OWN by removing the team's 2014 record they edited in through the 2014-15 Mizzou basketball season, as if they are the only one who can edit information on the article; their response was to call me a 'facist'. I ask for some kind of action to be taken against Edocarl, as it's obvious trying to come to some kind of consensus with them would be fruitless. Nate • (chatter) 03:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

24-hour block levied. If he resumes, report for a long or indefinite block. Nyttend (talk) 03:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Has this been discussed at WP:BLPN? At first glance, it looks like the blocked user might be correct, although unaware of how they should proceed. The disputed text appears to be a classic misuse of an article to permanently record stupid behavior by a living person in a way that is totally unrelated to the content of Mizzou Arena. At BLPN I would argue that if the event (someone cheating at school) is notable, there should be an article on the incident. Failing that, and assuming there is no ongoing discussion in reliable sources, all mention of the living person's problems should be removed from the article about a building. Johnuniq (talk) 07:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Seeing as the building's history is deemed noteworthy and this incident is the explanation for an important part of that history (name change), I don't see how one could avoid some mention.-- Elmidae (talk) 17:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The detail in the article at present is startling and seems WP:UNDUE. It would be quite enough to say that the stadium was to be named after the donors' daughter but they renounced naming rights following an unrelated scandal, and even that might be - as Johnuniq points out - more than enough. NebY (talk) 18:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

They don't seem to be contesting the naming detail (which with the cheating scandal and the revocation of naming rights, is related; there's only so much reducing you can do when the two are intertwined but if you want to give it a shot I won't be in the way at all), but that they played under the first name for three home games, which were mainly the usual early season college basketball cannon fodder opponents, but it still was under the original name for those games until Mizzou announced the termination of the deal. Seeing as in the past they were needling editors on articles related to the Kansas Jayhawks with negative details about that team's history, this seems to be a Tigers fan who doesn't like that we aren't going to be able to make Mizzou look golden at all times but we also have to be balanced. Also, since this is an arena and not a person, I felt BLPN would be an awkward venue. Nate • (chatter) 00:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I've done that.[172] The wrongdoing led to the stadium renaming but the naming didn't play a part in the wrongdoing, so they were hardly intertwined. The material does fall within the scope of WP:BLPN (WP:BLP begins "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page." - emphases in the original) and Johnuniq's comments above have merit, so we may still need to discuss it there. NebY (talk) 08:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your edit at the article which I am watching. I repeat that if anyone wants to list the faults of the doner's daughter, they should do so in a separate article on that incident. Johnuniq (talk) 09:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As for team partisanship, I've left the section Mizzou Arena#Men's basketball record at Mizzou Arena in place but its inclusion is surprising. Such sections aren't part of the basic structure recommended at Wikipedia:WikiProject Event Venues/Sports task force#Structure and I could only find one such table in Category:Basketball venues in Missouri and Template:Southeastern Conference basketball venue navbox. NebY (talk) 09:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I made a similar point, as did others, for a long time. The editor who got me blocked claimed there was consensus to give the Paige Sports Arena name prominent first billing at the top of the page, when no such consensus ever happened. It was nothing more than editors who liked the idea of highlighting embarrassment for Mizzou. It was certainly embarrassing, but it is a footnote. I never removed all mention of the naming controversy; Like you said, I always thought it appropriate to include it in the article, just not as a redirect and IN BOLD prominence at the top of the article. It has been over 10 years since the arena opened, and the original name is already an obscure footnote, and Wikipedia should treat it that way. Eodcarl (talk) 13:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Quick point on the side. You should pay attention to the text above the save button "By clicking the "Save page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL with the understanding that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient for CC BY-SA 3.0 attribution." You can't revoke permission for other editors to work/edit/delete/use it since, by hitting save, you have irrevocably released it. Blackmane (talk) 02:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't really care about minor points like that. It is this sort of Pharasetical stuff that makes Wikipedia so irrelevant. This incident has convinced me to leave Wikipedia. The page in question is still a farce because of your point of view. I'll leave it to you and the others who make Wikipedia a joke. Eodcarl (talk) 03:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it's not a minor point as it has legal ramifications. It's copyright law. I have no horse in this race and what people think of as controversial at an irrelevant little arena in the back end of some random state university campus is of little importance to me. Blackmane (talk) 03:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Scalhotrod --Outing efforts

Scalhotrod and I don't get along, but this goes well beyond what's acceptable. Earlier today, due to a glitch involving the incognito browsing function on the tablet I was using, a single edit I made at Commons appeared under an IP address. Although I corrected the edit signatures immediately, Scalhotrod later posted an accusation of sockpuppetry, associating me with the IP address, which, since I'd acknowledged the edit, just reeks of bad faith. He's lately made talk page posts summarizing what he thinks he's figured out about my identity and personal info (eg, [173], which have no legitimate purpose, and he's also made strange posts insinuating that editors who associate with me are likely to be blocked [174]. Some of these seem to be laughably crude attempts at chilling discussion, but gratuitously identifying an editor's IP address is reprehensible, given the tracing tools that are out there -- some giving rather pinpoint information via Google Maps (so I'm not linking to Scalhotrod's post, to avoid republishing the information, but it's easy enough to find in his global contributions.) This is serious misconduct, deserving a sanction with teeth. There's no excuse for doing something like this to spite one's opponent in a content dispute. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• Uninvolved editor comments: The possibility of having your real life identity outed is worrisome, but I just don't see how this incident equates Scalhotrod outing you. Stating "From statements he's made in the past, he lives in the UK and is an older gentleman since he talks about his grandchildren. I've wondered if he is of Indian descent given some of the articles he works on" isn't outing -- especially since part of what he said was gleaned from information you provided. The rest is just noting editing habits. As far as the IP address: you made the mistake of editing with your IP address exposed. The tools to identify the IP are provided on the editor's contributions page, so looking up the IP isn't a violation. I honestly don't see a violation or an outing attempt, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

But it certainly isnt a behavioral standard we should condone, or which is in line with the policy of focusing on the content not on the editor. Taking advantage of an ditors mistake in that way at least runs afoul of WP:DICK.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, yes, there is that, Maunus. I just don't see how this is quite as egregious or drastically horrible as the filer seems to believe. But, yes, it's not okay to take advantage of an editor's mistake. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Until you've been outed, you cannot appreciate the damage that this can do to an individual. Dancing around the outskirts of the policy is not acceptable, and if Scalhotrod can't restrain himself on this, he should be blocked. Nothing he can say can excuse a veiled attempt to out another editor, he is compiling information and opining on who BBW may or may not be. GregJackP Boomer! 03:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, when you put it that way, I guess there is a possibility that more is going on. That said, you seem to be making a judgement/assumption that may or may not be true. Only Scalhotrod knows for sure and we've only heard one side of the story. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Then you block him until you hear his side, but you do not play around with someone's real life identity. I was outed and lost my job over it. It changed my entire life, and it is not something that should happen to anyone else. This isn't a situation where you take any chances on what his motivations are. You block him, and he can explain how it is not outing in his unblock request. GregJackP Boomer! 05:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• Since the second diff is a comment to me by Scalhotrod, I think I should comment: Scalhotrod simply shouldn't be discussing these matters at all, unless he believes it is strongly relevant to Hullaballoo Wolfowitz editing, and then do it on an appropriate noticeboard or the like, while closely following our behavioral policies and guidelines. Granted, I work with COI-problems a great deal, which I believe requires an extremely careful avoidance of WP:OUTING violations. --Ronz (talk) 00:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - For the record, from my perspective I think that I get along just fine with HW. Generally I consider them a conscientious Editor that makes a lot of valid edits in their perceived role as a "watchdog" or "gatekeeper" of a great many BLP articles. And I mean that in a positive light, HW's steadfastness is something that I respect about them. That said, while I make the effort to WP:AGF about any Editor's efforts, in light of my experiences and various interactions on WP I do not take some things for granted. Thus, I tagged an IP User page with my concern about Socking. Sock-puppetry is also a very serious issue. Again, experience has shown me that new as well as seasoned Users who I had no reason to believe would Sock, have done so. And as has been mentioned already, I have only commented about information that was revealed by HW.

With regard to my linked comments above about HW, this is coming from a User who likes to refer to me by my first name for whatever reason such as here (same User page mentioned above) and here (HW's own Talk page). It's always used in a somewhat odd context, but I get the impression that HW gets some vicarious thrill from announcing to all of WP that they dug far enough back into my User page history to see that I had it posted there. I took it down quite some time ago because almost no one called me by it, it was always "Scal" or "hotrod" or "rod" etc. I've considered just posting my identity as many others do, but it would seem that the temptation to misuse that information is too great for some. In as much as I do not wish to be outed any more than I already have, I have no interest in doing so to anyone else. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 15:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Don't play the ingenue, Scalhotrod. You didn't have any legitimate concern with sockpuppetry. You didn't post until after I'd acknowledged the edits, and put my signature in place wherever I could. You only knew I was responsible for the edit because I'd acknowledged it. And rather than admitting your bad behavior, you're doubling down on it, making up a story about me digging back into your user page history, when you certainly know perfectly well that you used to sign that name to your talk page posts regularly. There was no justification for your actions. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 02:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

You know what, after I made this comment[175] on Sue Rangell's Talk page in July of last year and then got called on it[176], I never in my wildest dreams would have imagined that it would come to fruition, but 4 months later it did[177]. After that, I became convinced that anyone can become a Sockmaster. As much as I respect your overall editing efforts, you've demonstrated that you are capable of spiteful and vindictive behavior as well as making your arguments personally directed. In other words, I don't feel I can trust you to just leave well enough alone so I have to be on my guard around you. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 05:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

You can huff and puff all you want, but it doesn't disguise the fact that you're hiding from the simple fact that you went out of your way to post a phont sockpuppetry charge without any reasonable cause. And you did this to harass an editor with whom you're engaged in a content dispute. Talk about spiteful and vindictive. . . . The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 10:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

My equally childish retort to your untenable accusation starts now: "No I didn't... times infinity" </retort> Sincerely, The --Not Big, not Bad, with far less Hullaballo Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 03:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Removal of categories due to ethnic nationalism on the Rosie Malek-Yonan page

As of recently there's a disupute on the page about Rosie Malek-Yonan who is of Assyrian descent but was born and raised in Iran (northwestern Iran to be precise, around Urmia), and is therefore an Iranian of Assyrian descent, with Iranian being her nationality and Assyrian her ethnicity. There is no such thing as a nation called Assyria, and while this disruptive concept on Wikipedia is pretty common namely the spreading of ethnic nationalism at the expense of the articles quality is relatively common (often seen with ethnicities such as Armenians, Assyrians, Kurds, the latter two being stateless while the former has an extensive diaspora in the Middle East) and even though it gets corrected by people whenever possible, now and then there are those though people who keep persisting on this ethnic nationalism.

Assyrians are a stateless people with an indigenous and native homeland split between Iran, Turkey, Syria, and Iraq. They are native to the soil of all these nations. The definition of Iranian (according Merriam Webster,[178] but also several other dictionaries) means that you're either 1) A native or inhabitant of Iran (which Rosie Malek-Yonan UNQUESTIONABLY is, or 2) referring to the branch of Iranian languages.

Every citizen or native person of Iran, whether Iranian Armenians, Iranian Georgians, Iranian Assyrians, Iranian Azerbaijanis, are Iranian (native/citizen of Iran) by their nationality, always have an Iranian passport, but are respectively Armenian, Georgian, Assyrian, or Azerbaijani by ethnicity. All of these mentioned ethnicities have categories like this [179], [180], [181] on their pages.

And now we get to the point where this particulair disruptive user has the main role as why I had to make a section here. On the 26th of April, user 3Bluepenguins removed all the correct categories saying she's Assyrian not Iranian despite Assyrians have no state and Iranian is a nationality, and she was born and raised in Iran. When I reverted that back, several hours later a new user (might be a sockpuppet of 3Bluepenguins) hopped in, stating that she is the actual person the article is about (Rosie Malek Yonan). I subsequently made a section [182] on user [User:RMY]'s talk page explaining why this rationale she says holds absolutely no ground, as he/she is constantly removing all categories ([183]) that designate her nationality being Iranian and tries to stick to this nonsensical internet ethnic nationalism. She however keeps saying that she is Assyrian and not Iranian (still doesnt get the whole point) and removed the categories once again. [184]

I think I showed enough willingness and good faith in order to explain why he/she is wrong but I dont believe there is any point in continuing an irrational conversational on the respective users talk page. Those removed categories are the correct categories, and need to be reinstated. Ethnic nationalism at the expense of Wikipedia's quality and integrity shouldn't be allowed on Wikipedia and I hope there are moderators here that can assist in solving this issue. Excuse me for the somewhat long text and while I believe it shouldnt be something that ANI should be usually necessary for, I didn't see any other way as how to solve this rather fast. Thanks - LouisAragon (talk) 16:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I am Rosie Malek-Yonan the person this article is about. I know my identity better than anyone else. I am an Assyrian and that is not up for debate or change. I am not Iranian. Nothing about me is Iranian. It is not up to Wikipedia and its editors to make that decision or distinction about me. I have notified Wikipedia in the past and this vandalism of my identity has got to stop. I am not going to get into a long winded debate about this issue. I have stated the same on the talk page of the article and last week emailed Wikipedia directly about this. No Wikipedia editor has a right to change my identity from Assyrian to what they think may be appropriate. RMY (talk) 18:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Yet "you" were born in Iran, yet "you" were raised up in Iran, yet "you" have had an Iranian passport, yet "your" family stems from a line of Assyrians living in Iran for centuries, yet Assyrians are amongst the native ethnicities in Iran, and yet Iranian is nothing else than a nationality. If "you" (I'm writing "you" over and over as you keep saying the person the article is about is actually you) can prove us than there is a country named Assyria or that "you" were born with an Assyrian passport, I see absolutely no reason as to why even respond on these irrational ethno-nationalistic words you've been repeating over and over, in order to prove something that does not exist and is not conform the rules here. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

RMY, I can see how this can be delicate. Living somewhere with a large separatist movement will do that. That is why there are separate nationality and ethnicity category trees. Nationality is a purely legal concept (what country controlls the place you come from, what is your passport). In that sense, a separatist Quebecer is still Canadian (much to his annoyance). Ethnicity is where identity plays a role. Your ethnicity is Assyrian, as is reflected in the article. Please understand that no one is suggesting that you consider yourself ethnically Iranian, but only that you come from what is currently Iran. The categories are there to help readers find the articles, that is all. Happy Squirrel(Please let me know how to improve!) 19:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

“Nationality is the legal relationship between a person and a state.” [Wikipedia, Nationality] I do not have any legal relationship with Iran.

“Nationality affords the state jurisdiction over the person and affords the person the protection of the state.” [Wikipedia, Nationality] Iran has no jurisdiction over my person and does not afford me the protection of its laws.

“Nationality is also the status that allows a nation to grant rights to the subject and to impose obligations upon the subject.” [Wikipedia, Nationality] Iran cannot grant rights to me nor impose obligations upon me.

Nationality does not equal birthplace. If it did, then how do some people have dual nationality? Were they born in two places?

“Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that ‘Everyone has the right to a nationality,’” and ‘No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.’” [Wikipedia, Nationality]

“Nationality is required for full citizenship” [Wikipedia, Nationality] I am not a citizen of Iran. As a citizen of USA, I am, by this definition, a national of the USA.

“Nationality is sometimes used simply as an alternate word for ethnicity or national origin, just as some people assume that citizenship and nationality are identical… In some countries, the cognate word for nationality in local language may be understood as a synonym of ethnicity, or as an identifier of cultural and family-based self-determination, rather than on relations with a state or current government. For example, some Kurds say that they have Kurdish nationality, even though there is no Kurdish sovereign state at this time in history.” [Wikipedia, Nationality] If a stateless Kurd can be said to have Kurdish nationality, then, too, is an Assyrian, both Assyrian in ethnicity and nationality.

Wikipedia gives further examples by listing people from the former Soviet Union and former Yugoslavia, as having Russian and Serbo-Croation as both their nationality and ethnicity. Wikipedia goes on to say that ethnicity was usually determined by the person's native language, and sometimes through religion or cultural factors, such as clothing. [Wikipedia, Nationality] My language is Assyrian, as is my culture. My religion is not Moslem, the religion of Iranians.

The same description and explanation is given by Wikipedia as to nationalities of China referring to ethnic and cultural groups in China.

Further, “Spanish law recognises the autonomous communities of Andalusia, Aragon, Balearic Islands, Canary Islands, Catalonia, Valencia, Galicia and the Basque Country as ‘nationalities.’” [Wikipedia, Nationality]

“National identity is a person’s subjective sense of belonging to one state or to one nation. A person may be a national of a state, in the sense of having a formal legal relationship with it, without subjectively or emotionally feeling a part of that state. Conversely, a person may feel that he belongs to one state without having any legal relationship to it. For example, children who were brought to the U.S. illegally when quite young and grow up there in ignorance of their immigration status often have a national identity of feeling American, despite legally being nationals of a different country.” [Wikipedia, Nationality]

We conclude from reading the above, cites from Wikipedia, that either Wikipedia must change all its definitions and explanations of nationality, or it is a foregone conclusion that I am Assyrian, culturally, ethnically, and nationality-wise. I reiterate that only I can say what is my nationality. This is not up for debate. RMY (talk) 21:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Seems to me like the article should say "Place of birth: Iran", "Ethnicity: Assyrian" and "Nationality: American". Thomas.W ^talk 21:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

RMY says, in effect, that the subject of the article is not an Iranian citizen or national. @LouisAragon: do you have WP:RS that say otherwise? You seem have drawn a conclusion that because she was born in Iran and her family come from Iran that she legally holds Iranian nationality. That would be WP:OR unless there is a reliable source that confirms it to be the case. She could have once held Iranian nationality and now renounced it, in which case she is not an Iranian national. I'm tempted to quote the Duke of Wellington when "accused" of being Irish: being born in a stable doesn't make you a horse. RMY is right, it's a specific legal status (unlike ethnicity, for which we follow the subject's self-declaration) and can't be inferred merely from the subject's biography. @RMY: we can't tell if you are who you say you are (although there are mechanisms for verifying that). The way Wikipedia works is we simply replicate what's said in reliable sources, which are defined here. It's mainly a question of what those reliable sources report as being the subject's nationality. It does seem likely, subject to finding confirmation in a reliable source, that her natiinality should be stated as US. Generally, however, this is a straightforward content dispute and shouldn'rt be on this page. DeCausa (talk) 22:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

DeCausa, I think I never stated that she still is or is not an Iranian citizen. If I somehow did by mistake well then that was not my intention. Regardless of the fact that she was born and raised in Iran to a native ethnic community there, she nowadays resides in North America. However, the reason why I made this ANI is because RMY doesnt want to agree that those categories should be listed namely Iranian expatriates to the United States, American people of Iranian-Assyrian descent, and two other ones. He/she is constantly removing them by the nonsensical rationale that she is assyrian and not iranian My question is now once again, from what other country did she migrate then to the US, so that we can agree that those categories shouldn't be added? This is basically disagreeing on the fact that she migrated from Iran to the US while being an Iranian citizen, born and raised. No matter whether she teleported there, walked all the way to there, or flew to there, she still originally moved from he native country of birth and that's why those categories need to be added. This is honestly nothing more than spreading of irrational ethnic-nationalism as we see very often on the internet. Please give me, if you dont agree with that those two categories I mentioned some lines above should be added, solid reasons as why to so we can agree with that.

User:RMY, you have no solid grounds to stand on. You are stating that there is nothing Iranian about me Then how in our dear Gods name did you happen to be born in Iran? How did you manage to grow up there in Iran in a native community which in your case happened to be Assyrian, without an Iranian passport? You say your natioanlity is Assyrian Then where on the world map can we find this country? Can you show me an Assyrian passport? I would be really happy to see that as I like Assyrian people and history. However, with what reality we know, this is time wasting at its best and I think there are enough other Wiki moderators and editors who have enough first-hand experience with internet ethnic nationalism on here, which in most cases is nothing more than to prove something that does not exist, or giving some non-existing fluff to a stateless ethnicity to make them look more distinct and real.

PS: Moderators, you're allowing more of this stuff by RMY? While this ANI is going on; [185] - LouisAragon (talk) 00:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Thomas W. seems to have come up with a sensible compromise. LouisAragon, please don't run off into these text heavy posts. It comes across as quite aggressive, which obviously isn't your intention (AGF and all). Blackmane (talk) 01:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Blackmane, excuse me if it looked like that, as it indeed definetely isnt my intention. Its just that we're all spending too much time on something that doesnt need that much time and effort. I agree with Tomas W.'s rationale as well, which is basically what I meant from the start. It just has to be expressed in the categories again as well on the article which RMY has removed. That's all. [186] Regards - LouisAragon (talk) 01:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps, an RFC could be raised on the article talk page with Thomas W.'s recommendation as the starting point? Blackmane (talk) 02:00, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

What surprised me looking at this page is seeing that she was categorized as "American" which makes Iranian nationality irrelevant. But I could find no statement that she has actually become an American citizen, just that she has worked in America. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Blackmane, if you really think that is something that might be needed, then I guess its something we could do. I just dont get why we need to comply to a rationale that holds absolutely no ground. She was born and raised in Iran (Tehran) and left the country some decades later, for the US. I dont see why then, when knowing all this and while its confirmed in the article, categories such as Category:People of Tehran, Category:American people of Iranian-Assyrian descent, Category:Iranian emigrants to the United States, etc. are blatantly removed by RMY....Even if she dropped her Iranian nationality, there's no reason as why to remove these categories, given that there is no Assyrian state nor nationality. @Liz, and indeed that as well on top of that. [[- LouisAragon (talk) 17:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

According to her 2006 Congressional Testimony on Capitol Hill she states under oath: "I am an Assyrian. I am an American citizen." I think this should put an end to this debate. If this declaration is good enough for the United States Congress, then it should suffice for Wikipedia. Here's the link to the transcript. Her testimony begins on page 117: http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/intlrel/hfa28430.000/hfa28430_0f.htm There's also a video of the proceedings and a documentary film. @LouisAragon, you seem very vested in the "Iranian" aspect and are making a lot of assumptions about her. You don't know if she was raised in Iran or how long she lived there. She could have left right after birth. And interestingly, neither of her Assyrian parents were born in Iran! Zayya (talk) 19:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I am not making "alot" of assumptions about her. I'm only mentioning that there are categories being removed without any reason, simply for the fact that some people cant deal with facts. We can't allow any type of false ethnic nationalism that does not exist no matter how much sympathy we or others have for certain aspects of it. We are ought to state that what is true and most importantly, confirmable. If an Assyrian states her/his nationality is Assyrian, this is simply false, because there is no such state as Assyria.

This is the official website of Rosie Malek-Yonan: http://www.rosiemalek-yonan.com/biography-rosiem.html Everything stated so far is backed up by it. It states she studied in Iran, and she was even nominated to participate in the 1980's Iranian Olympic Ice Skating team, by the Queen Farah Pahlavi herself, which eventually never happened due to the Revolution that commenced in 1979-1980. Thus, it confirms that she was brought up in Iran. - LouisAragon (talk) 20:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

What does her being brought up in Iran got to do with it? If she's an American citizen, as she says above, and sees that as her nationality (as opposed to her ethnicity, which is Assyrian), it isn't up to us to decide that she's Iranian, and state that in the article. Or the categories, for that matter. There are lots of articles on en-WP where the nationality of an individual is given as being a country other than the country they were born in, and no policy that says that the nationality should always be the country of birth, so just drop it. Thomas.W ^talk 20:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Thomas.W And what reasoning do you have for the removal of Category:People from Tehran? Also becaus she simply identifies as American?... and Category:Iranian emigrants to the United States? and Category:American people of Iranian-Assyrian descent? We have plenty of people listed in those categories. RMY removed those as well but I cant see your rationale covering the deletion of these ones too. - LouisAragon (talk) 20:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion we shouldn't have any categories like "People from" this or that city, province/state or country, or at least require self-identification as being from and feeling they have a connection to a certain place, before putting a label on anyone. Thomas.W ^talk 21:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Thomas.W, I'm in agreement with you on this. Zayya (talk) 21:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: Assuming good faith that RMY is indeed the subject of the article, then WP:BLP applies (which it always had anyway) and since the subject of the article has raised the concern then even if it is more bureaucratic, we should seek to allay their concerns. Thoma W. has again made an excellent point. Blackmane (talk) 02:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I guess I concur, if she really doesn't want to have any mention of her nation of origin/birth in the categories and identifies as something else, then I guess we should be fine with that as well, for whatever reason she holds. - LouisAragon (talk) 14:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Long term disruptive editing by User:Eshwar.om

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 some admins look into the disruptive editing and POV pushing by Eshwar.om (talk · contribs) at a large number of article over several years? Frankly I believe he is editing in good faith, but is hindered by issues of:

• competence, which makes his talkspace posts, which are very rare, often incomprehensible (sample at random). Article space contributions are even more troubling and detailed below.
• Bad faith (see posts here and here)
• POV pushing of Tamil language, history and literature.

Some examples from this week, although the problem has persisted for years

Evidence of article space disruption from just one week

At Ganesha, which is a featured article: Added a copyvio image (that he had falsely uploaded on commons as own work, as he has done dozens of times) of an idol from Tamil Nadu with dubious and unsourced claim of it dating from 400CE, and then edit warred to keep it in: [187], [188], [189], while removing scholarly quotes that undermined the claim. For details of the issues with the edits see here. After the image file was deleted as copyvio, added more undue, poorly written and poorly sourced content about Ganesha in Tamil literature and Tamil Nadu. Issues with these edits detailed here Next, moved to adding irrelevant tags: [190], [191], [192] Most recently removed large chunks of well-written and sourced information related to Ganesha worship in states of India other than Tamil Nadu. At Chola dynasty: edit-warred to remove a sourced alternate spelling from the article [193], [194], [195], [196], [197] even after User:Sitush had started a talk-page discussion and presented several sources; Eshwar didn't participate in or respond to the discussion. At Pāṇini and Ramayana: added the exact same ungrammatical, and context-less, sentence with unclear sourcing at random places in each article, with both the sentence and the placement making no sense. When the addition was reverted by User:Cpt.a.haddock with edit-summary "Revert random statement also copy/pasted in other article(s) by the same user.", Eshwar simply added it back. Eshwar created seven cookie-cutter articles Tirunaraiyur Vinayaka Tiru irattai manimalai, Tirunaraiyur Vinayaka Tiru irattai manimalai, Aludaya Pillaiyar Tiruchabai viruttam, Aludaya Pillaiyar Tiruttogai, Aludaya Pillaiyar Tirukkalambakam, Aludaya Pillaiyar Tiruvulamalai, Aludaya Pillaiyar Mummanikovai based on one sentence in the cited source that says, "His poems include...", instead of simply listing those poems at the poet's page, and creating redirects. I wouldn't raise this as an issue, except that such POV pushing and cut-and-paste editing is typical of Eshwar's edits over the years with cookie-cutter context-less additions without regards to exiting content, eg [198], [199], [200], [201], ... Added large number of images (indiscriminately IMO) to Chennai, Chera dynasty, Pandyan dynasty etc. Refused to discuss issue. Simply reverted User:Thomas.W who removed the images from one page with an explanatory edit-summary "Removed image clutter (far too many images of temples, in a gallery with oversized pictures placed right in the middle of the text in the section)." Again not a big deal in itself, but in conjunction with all other edits... By the way, even this is not an exhaustive list of problematic edits from the week!

Let me know if any clarification is needed. And thanks in advance to whoever looks at the volumnious evidence and the users longer editing history, which in earlier days would have belonged at RFCU. Abecedare (talk) 04:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
PS: Should have mentioned that Eshwar.om has been amply warned/advised about his edits as a quick look at his talkpage will show (and that's just since April 2015). Abecedare (talk) 04:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• Topic ban for 3 months from Hinduism-related articles would be a better idea. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Oops.He given wrong information about my contribution.my edits and his Edits are visible for all in wikipedia.Every one will look on that.but i dont know why this editor saying like this?!but yes i will look on that. i will give diff and page links.thank youEshwar.om^{Talk tome} 04:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid this is a competence issue and the competence seems not to have improved in the slightest over time. I do not question that they mean well but the level of disruption is pretty extreme. It has, by the way, included unfounded accusations that I was editing while drunk, seemingly just because I disagreed with something that had been done. A topic ban from Hinduism articles isn't going to achieve much: they have exhibited problematic behaviour all over the place, as demonstrated by the sample diffs provided by Abecedare. We are at the stage of a parting of the ways, unfortunately. I'm guessing that English is not their first language, so perhaps it would be more useful if they were directed to a native-language project. - Sitush (talk) 05:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• July 2014 ANI discussion: "User:Eshwar.om disrupting" that led to a one week block by User:Bbb23 (the user has had other 30 and 59 day blocks). Note that the main issue at that ANI was disruptively adding large number of (often copyvio) images to several articles, which as I noted in my post above are both still a problem. Also note the problems are also seen in the user's edits related to Indian history, languages, and geography. So any edit-restrictions limited to a few months or Hinduism-related articles alone are likely to result in a recurrence and us being back here sooner or later. Abecedare (talk) 06:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Abecedare saying Long term disruptive editing by User:Eshwar.om.it is not true. he is saying that iam pushing POV pushing in the name of one particular language.i will not agree that.see the article which is created by me recently List of Hindu Female saints .it covers all languages and literature from india.if i like only one language then why do i create this article?!.India and Hinduism covering more information.my contributions are based on that. even i used to provide more Reliable source too.also i am wondering he showing almost all my edits.oops.Eshwar.om^{Talk tome} 06:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Even i used to talk with senior editor likeSitush while create an article ..click here.but he is saying points against me here :) .i know He is not polite with other users in his talk page.some time he uses angry and vulgar words.click here.i dont know whether the two users joining together and dominating others ?!if it is true then how the new editors may contribute in future?!Eshwar.om^{Talk tome} 07:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

And also i remember one thing that is user Abecedare left a warning message on my talk page once.in that he said "I don't usually leave templated warnings for experienced users, but in this case I don't think the message is getting across"click here. And now he is saying" Long term disruptive editing by User:Eshwar.om ".it makes to think how it is?!.he only said , discuss the issues on articles talk page.but he is not discussing in talk page click here.instead of talking in relevant talk page he is reporting me here .wont i feel surprise ?!.Eshwar.om^{Talk tome} 08:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• And Eshvar.om just keeps going, adding tons of images in galleries, in most cases just images of Hindu temples (sample edits from the last few days: [202] with the misleading edit summary "corrected image gallery" when he in fact added a new gallery, and [203] where he added a new gallery with images of Hindu temples, plus [204] where he removed all images of churches, in an article about a city with a sizeable Christian minority, and several famous churches), and often right in the middle of the text of a section, as if this was Photobucket or Flickr. And then edit-wars to keep the images in the articles if reverted, not getting the hint. A behaviour that is clearly disruptive. Thomas.W ^talk 11:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

We can now also add abusing warning templates to the long list of disruptive behaviour, for posting an immediate level-4 warning for vandalism (along with reverting the edits with the edit summary "vandalized by user Ajayy99,reverted back") on the talk page of a user who had most certainly not vandalised anything. Unless adding a couple of images of churches is now considered vandalism. So I suggest a long block, the longer the better, for Eshwar.om. Thomas.W ^talk 12:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Eshwar stopped for almost a day, and I thought the message may have finally got across and the ANI thread thus served its purpose. But alas. Have requested Drmies to take a look. Abecedare (talk) 14:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Thomas.W please dont make a link with any religion.some places could have its own importants with its ethnicity.so it's unavoidable some times in some cases .and that was a not new gallary please see.click here .it was removed by user Wasifwasif .Might be his own interest belongs to one particular view click here .And you are saying i given warning to user ajay99.yes i given.user ajay 99 created wiki page for him in the past with out any importance [here] . and you tube vedio uploaded by him and link inserting in to chennai articles.here you can see 'Architecture sec Click here.also he never provide any Edit summary atleast once in his full Edit historyclick here.user Thomas supporting him.and i have one confusion that is user ajay 99 uploaded some files namely called chennai Thomas like that click here.is user Thomas.W and ajay99 are same?!Eshwar.om^{Talk tome} 16:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I have a hard time figuring out what you're trying to say because of the garbled English, but I can assure you that Ajayy99 and myself are not the same person. And since your English obviously isn't good enough to make yourself understood (or read and understand warnings and messages you're being given, for that matter), I suggest you find a Wikipedia in your own language, and contribute there, instead of here. Thomas.W ^talk 17:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• I have notified Eshwar.om about the WP:AC/DS concerning Afghanistan, India, Pakistan subjects. Any more disruption can be reported at WP:ARE. Nothing is really going to happen here since these subjects are rather technical. As for any non-related discretionary sanctions issues, yes he has violated copyrights and only indef block is solution if he had been warned before. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• What is technical about image-bombing, wild accusations against others etc? Or inability to communicate in a meaningful manner (or even at all, sometimes). You don't have to know anything about Hinduism or indeed India to recognise the disruptive nature of a lot of the issues that have been raised. OZ, you have to realise that AGF is not a suicide pact: you've been supporting quite a few (for want of a better word) duds in the Indic sphere this last couple of weeks and I've no idea why. We've got enough problems to deal with in this area without having to go round in circles with long-term competence issues. - Sitush (talk) 23:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• @Sitush: You are correct about everything that you've said. I had expected some quick action, and it has been already 2 days since this report was filed, and until now nothing has happened.

I can point to these warnings,[205][206][207] that's why I said that indef block is the only solution. POV pushing, personal attacks, are coming along with serial copyright violations, nothing can be more obvious than that.

And after all this, he is still involved in WP:GAMING, check [208][209], he claims that he has reviewer and rollback right, although his user rights log is empty. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• Which is why I saw it as just plain vanilla disruptive editing, in sharp contrast to the religious/caste/language/ethnical POV-pushing I often deal with, and didn't feel it merited a DS warning. Thomas.W ^talk 23:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• And the disruption continues, with creation of Swami Vivekananda and Tamils article based solely on a quote pulled from primary source. The evidence in my original post whows that this is not an isolated example that can be easily handled through AFDs etc. Any admins care to weigh in? Abecedare (talk) 21:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• And at Chera dynasty and Valmiki. We really need an uninvolved admin here, please. - Sitush (talk) 05:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I have left a warning on Eshwar.om's talk page and will monitor the situation.  Philg88 ^♦talk 05:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks.

Btw any objections to my nominating the articles on [[Nambiyandar Nambi's poems mentioned in my original evidence for merger, and Swami Vivekananda and Tamils for deletion? I had not done so so far to avoid sparking off new edit-wars, or charges of piling on. Of course, if somebody else takes up either clean-up task, that would be even better (I'll wait at least a couple of days before proceeding, in any case). Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 05:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thanks Philg88. - Sitush (talk) 06:06, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• Has Eashwar.om been informed of the discretionary sanctions in place on India articles?--regentspark (comment) 10:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Apparently yes, though only a few days ago, after the opening of this thread [210]. But given the fact that his incompetent/disruptive editing has clearly continued without any change after that notice, and the history of prior blocks, I'm pretty confident we can go ahead with whatever sanction we consider proper, be it with the formal label of DS or without. I can't see what would be improper about a simple non-DS indef block (compare the similar case of User:Pyraechmes just the other day; similar display of non-cooperation and incompetence, just in a different geographic topic area.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

  You're probably right. There doesn't seem much point in allowing this disruption to continue and will save a ton of pain down the road. Support indef block. --regentspark (comment) 11:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

  Support. As FPaS and RegentsPark suggest, there is no sign that they are learning even now. - Sitush (talk) 12:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

  I've gone ahead and blocked for "long-term uncooperative editing and lack of editing and language skills". Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:55, 9 May 2015 (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:Pooballsacks

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.

---

Requesting a block for Pooballsacks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), for both personal attacks (diff1 and diff2) and vandalism (diff3 and diff4).

Clearly a case of WP:NOTHERE. --IJBall (talk) 18:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Don'tcha just love it when they prove your point for you?... --IJBall (talk) 18:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Made my job easier. Indef blocked. —C.Fred (talk) 18:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying the name wasn't enough, C.Fred? Bishonen | talk 18:23, 10 May 2015 (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.

Quick filter, please?

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, some charmer is creating quick-fire accounts of the form AntiCalton, AntiCalton2, AntiCalton3, etc, of course for the purpose of hounding User:Calton. A filter, please? Bishonen | talk 23:02, 9 May 2015 (UTC).

And "AntiCaltons1–3" have been blocked by various Admins, including yourself! (Now, why someone would do this to hound an editor that hasn't participated on en Wiki in weeks... for this, I have no explanation...) --IJBall (talk) 00:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, many of our puppetmasters have long memories, and little or no ability to self-censor. The behavior of some borders on the classic definition of sociopathy. BMK (talk) 01:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Legal threat at Robert H. Richards IV

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

---

See here, IP6 blanked article up for AfD and threatened legal action. GregJackP Boomer! 14:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Also made a death threat. An admin has put him on the shelf permanently. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:16, 10 May 2015 (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 must be some new usage of the word "permanently" with which I was previously unfamilliar 86.153.132.83 (talk) 17:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Trappist the monk and Monkbot

1. Old discussion about Monkbot altering citation style in medical articles (including Featured articles) from November 2013
2. Old discussion about Monkbot altering the citation style on Venezuela articles from November 2014
3. Current discussion about Monkbot editing citations at Trappist the Monk talk page

In spite of unresolved concerns, Trappist the monk continues to operate MonkBot in ways that interfere with editing. The current issue is not unlike past issues: the bot is introducing convoluted parameters that affect ease of editing ("overengineered" and "unreadable in general" according to KateWishing) and Trappist the Monk has a communication style that is difficult.

Monkbot resumed running even though the concerns I raised were not addressed. In its current iteration, as one simple example shows, it:

• introduced the unnecessary "over-engineered" parameters at a medical article, that
• clearly uses the Diberri/Boghog format favored in medical articles because it limits template clutter, as I have tried to explain to Trappist the Monk.

The notion that Trappist the Monk can push through his individual preferences, via a bot, that then other editors have to spend hours reverting is problematic. The recurring pattern is even more problematic. The bot has introduced this parameter, which takes chunks of characters to simply say et al, in thousands of articles already. This is reminiscent of past discussions of bots and editors altering citation style and other formatting without consensus, and I am concerned that Trappist continued to run this bot even while discussion was unresolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The link to the "over-engineered" diff above shows the following citation style for reference #28 before Monkbot's edit and after Monkbot's edit:

• before: Pagon RA, Adam MP, Ardinger HH et al. (1993). "Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome, Hypermobility Type". PMID 20301456
• after: Pagon RA, Adam MP, Ardinger HH et al. (1993). "Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome, Hypermobility Type". PMID 20301456

What is the objection? I see no difference. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The objection is that Trappist and his Monkbot have a style/personal preference that ignores ease of editing. As you notice in this one simple example, the difference resulting from the chunked up template parameters is insignificant to our readers, so why do editors trying to write content have to work around convoluted parameters that take overengineering to simply say, et al? The bigger concern, of course, is that Monkbot continues forcing his personal style into templates even after concerns are raised. There is no reason for such convoluted syntax to be replacing et al, which chunks up articles in edit mode-- and many editors have told that to Trappist in multiple discussions about his template choices. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Trappist received approval to add the keyword to the display-authors parameter at WT:CS1#How to use "et al"? (I happened to participate in that discussion but only from a "not quite the right name" perspective), silent consensus for the actual template amendments regarding this actual change at WT:CS1#Update to the live CS1 module weekend of 18–19 April 2015 (which is broadcasted to multiple different locations in effort to reach a broader audience) and approval to run Monkbot in this fashion at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Monkbot 7. To suggest they are his "personal preference" or that he was ever uncommunicative with the interested community when he had consensus for all three actions stretches my good faith and I'd say is probably an ad hominem argument.

Maybe there's some room to improve which pages and who gets an advertisement of the changes being made to an arbitrary citation system, but I'm not sure you're here looking for better ways to get the information to more users. --Izno (talk) 19:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Izno. So, I shall watchlist the Bot approvals page now, since discussion on the CS1 pages is invariably unnecessarily obtuse to people who don't speak that language.

On your concern about bad faith, well, once something goes out to a broader audience and local consensus is trumped and discussion ensues (It did. I shouldn't have to watch bot pages.), it is a behavioral issue for the bot operator to relaunch the bot before the issue is resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• My understanding of the situation is as follows. Trappist is splitting "et al" into a separate parameter, so that it doesn't get shoved with the author's name in the metadata. For example, whereas previously the metadata output might've been { ... "author3": "Ardinger HH et al." ... }, it now is { ... "author3": "Ardinger HH", "other_authors_omitted": true ... } (this is all hypothetical; I've no idea what the actual output is). The latter is semantically correct. Though splitting out "et al" in post-processing is a possibility, it is also confusing that it should be part of the |last= parameter - or any other numbered author parameter. The fact that you've made a habit out of this does not make it right, or intuitive, or easy for newcomers, as it's been falsely asserted elsewhere. Perhaps Trappist should attempt to explain the inner workings of CS1 and its toolset to other editors in a plainer language. Perhaps a better name could be found for this parameter. Your claim that he has changed the citation style, in contravention to CITEVAR, appears to be incorrect; as has been demonstrated above, the text is unaffected. Finally, it appears to be true that there is a general lack of consensus for this change as concerns medical articles, so it might be best to hold off applying it to any more until an understanding can be reached. I do not see an immediate need to revert any of the bot's edits. Alakzi (talk) 01:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

  Past discussions were about CITEVAR; in this discussion, it looks like you are confusing WP:CITEVAR (how a citation renders to our readers) with unnecessary template clutter (how a citation is seen when an editor has to work around all of that unnecessary clutter). Please spare me from any more discussions of the inner workings of CS1, and respect the inner workings of editors trying to write content. Bots should not be used to force preferences on content writers, and should stop running when issues are raised. (Meaning, this is not a CITEVAR issue-- it's a behavioral issue.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

  I agree that the bot should stop for the time being, but you're gonna need to find a common ground. You have a point; Trappist has a point. Will you not try to compromise? Alakzi (talk) 01:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

  The style of many medical articles is to place all authors in a single parameter, such as authors = Landes AM, Sperry SD, Strauss ME, et al.. The "ideal" style for metadata purposes would be last1 = Landes | first1 = AM | last2 = Sperry | first2 = SD | last3 = Strauss | first3 = ME | display-authors = etal. The former is obviously more intuitive and less confusing to everyone except bots. KateWishing (talk) 01:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

  Yep, and even if Trappist didn't favor adding even worse and longer convoluted names to replace five letters (which he did in this case), all those parameters create a mess to edit around in densely cited medical articles, and chunks up article size, too. Perhaps those bot operators who are so concerned about "metadata" can write a bot to get it. My concern is what processes we have in place that allow bot operators to go around ... chunking up and over-engineering templates in articles without consensus. I think they probably talk amongst themselves off in some technical space, but when their product hits "the real world", and editors complain, they should stop. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

  OK, that's sensible; the diff you linked to in the OP had |last=Wenstrup et al.. I presume this is - in fact - not compatible with the medical article style - and it shouldn't be expected that it should be parsed correctly by {{Cite journal}}, either. I see that {{Vcite2 journal}} exists for the purpose of parsing the comma-delimited authors list, so why isn't the bot replacing Cite transclusions with Vcite2? Was any of this discussed? Alakzi (talk) 02:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

  Is there any particular reason why you are here speaking on Trappist's behalf, while he is not? I think he knows what discussions have been had. If the communication issues from the way he writes are part of the impasse, we should get to the bottom of that, because I can't follow most of what he writes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

  How is it that I'm speaking on Trappist's behalf? What if he knows? I'm asking as a member of the community, for the benefit of the community. I'd appreciate it if you stopped treating me like an enemy, or worse. Alakzi (talk) 02:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

  You are "speaking on Trappist's behalf" because, in spite of this being a behavioral issue, you are asking for "compromise" when Trappist himself hasn't even bothered to weigh in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Horologium, for fixing that; [211] I have always wondered why we have a sysop with a red-linked username, and I may have even inquired about that once, since that problem was likely to happen. Considering that the 'crats granted Trappist sysop rights after a marginal RFA specifically for template purposes, it is disappointing to see these kinds of issues recurring. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I saw this at WT:MED also, and while it'd be a good idea to hold off the bot till things get figured out, I have to admit I'm lost on this one. Cleaning up bad metadata sounds like a good idea. The underlying problem that the current suite of cite templates puts a giant glob of wikisnot in the edit window is IMO insignificantly improved by truncating the author list. (Recognizing that I haven't been around for prior discussions on this, I'd argue that it's worse to lop off the last authors in this context.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Opabinia regalis, imagine the number of citations in a Featured medical article like schizophrenia (166 citations, mostly journals) or Alzheimer's disease (283 citations, mostly journals), and the template clutter and article size that result if we don't use the Diberri preference of listing all authors when there are five or less, and truncating to three when there are six or more. (I know I don't have to tell you after your cleanup of Enzyme :) The discussion of the concerns of those who favor metadata issues over content writing (remember the infobox wars) has been had many times, in many places, but we have a behavioral issue here because template/sysop rights were granted by the crats to an editor who doesn't seem to respect the needs of content writers. As the links above show, I've discussed with him several times over the years, and in this case, he simply resumed running the bot.

And again, for those bot operators so concerned about metadata, the Diberri/Boghog format (as explained many times) always links to the PMID (PubMed identifier), and any metadata anyone wants can be had by using that PMID to access PubMed-- freely and forever. We needn't have well cited articles chunked up to an enormous size and with long load times because they are clunked up with templates to parse out 15 author names on a journal source, when et al suffices for those that have six or more authors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I should've replied on one of the other threads instead of in the drama pit on AN/I, since my interest is in the data and I haven't been paying attention to the behavior angle. It seems that the bot is stopped, so probably this should continue elsewhere. Ideally clean metadata is a useful thing for content editors to have available, though at present it doesn't seem to be used very effectively. (This template-clutter problem is why I liked {{cite pmid}}, but that's another thing. As a total side note, improvements in the wikEd 'simple' view with collapsed references would make the author-list-bloat much less of an issue.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Opabinia regalis an issue with the Cite PMID template (which may have surfaced during your absence) is that it frequently returns errors-- often enough that we started watching for them at FAC, and insisting that they be replaced by full cite journal templates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Samples to illustrate what the whole discussion is about:

Style preferred in medical articles for at least the ten years I've been editing:

• author=Borchelt DR, Thinakaran G, Eckman CB et al |title=Familial Alzheimer's disease-linked presenilin 1 variants elevate Abeta1-42/1-40 ratio in vitro and in vivo |journal=Neuron |volume=17 |issue=5 |pages=1005–13 |year=1996 |pmid=8938131

Same source, in style of Monkbot change discussed in this thread-- no reason to add a separate template parameter to separate the et al, because that has no effect on ability to get metadata on all authors):

• author=Borchelt DR, Thinakaran G, Eckman CB |display-authors=etal |title=Familial Alzheimer's disease-linked presenilin 1 variants elevate Abeta1-42/1-40 ratio in vitro and in vivo |journal=Neuron |volume=17 |issue=5 |pages=1005–13 |year=1996 |pmid=8938131

Same source, in style preferred by metadata advocates:

• |last1= Borchelt |first1= DR |last2= Thinakaran |first2= G |last3= Eckman |first3= CB |last4= Lee |first4= MK |last5= Davenport |first5= F |last6= Ratovitsky |first6= T |last7= Prada |first7= CM |last8= Kim |first8= G |last9= Seekins |first9= S |last10= Yager |first10= D |last11= Slunt |first11= HH |last12= Wang |first12= R |last13= Seeger |first13= M |last14= Levey |first14= AI |last15= Gandy |first15= SE |last16= Copeland |first16= NG |last17= Jenkins |first17= NA |last18= Price |first18= DL |last19= Younkin |first19= SG |last20= Sisodia |first 20= SS |title=Familial Alzheimer's disease-linked presenilin 1 variants elevate Abeta1-42/1-40 ratio in vitro and in vivo |journal=Neuron |volume=17 |issue=5 |pages=1005–13 |year=1996 |pmid=8938131

I have really had to edit around pages full of citations like this, where the citation is literally many times larger than the text it is citing. If metadata advocates really must have every single author, a bot can get it at PMID 8938131, so can bots please stop messing with long-established citation methods? (That there exist faulty citations with other errors in articles, as raised above by Alakzi, is a red herring.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

You can respond to me directly. A misinterpretation is not a "red herring". I've suggested a way forward and an alternative. It is now up to you to approach this issue constructively. Alakzi (talk) 09:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

You are incorrect regards your second bullet. It corrupts the metadata that Wikipedia provides to include "et al" as an "explicit" author (as has prior been explained to you above), because "et al" isn't an author but instead an abbreviation humans use to signify that we really just don't care about the other unlisted authors. No one is claiming you can't use |author= for actual authors. Your third bullet simply appears to be hyperbolic concern for the future of your citations (as no-one has proposed to deprecate, nor do I think anyone will, the use of |authors=). --Izno (talk) 18:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

No, the third option is not "hyperbolic concern for the future of [my] citations"; it is what currently happens in many articles. As to the issue of "corrupt metadata", again, we can revisit the infobox arb case, but a balance must be found between the concerns of editors who write articles, and those who want to generate metadata. As I've already explained, you don't have metadata on all 20 authors there anyway, and it can be had by visiting PubMed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

If this user wishes to have their bot alter the citation style of articles that are primarily medical they need consensus at WT:MED. Until that time they should not be making these changes. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

That seems like a WP:LOCALCON problem waiting to happen. WT:MED does not own articles; to suggest as you have done certainly makes that an implication. If there should be a discussion (which I won't dispute whether there should or shouldn't be one), that is not the location to have it (per WP:CANVASS if not WP:LOCALCON). --Izno (talk) 18:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Totally agree with Izno. Yes a discussion needs to happen, but no not a WT:MED per localconsensus. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 10:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The LOCALCON problem is happening on obscure technical pages that most editors who actually build articles don't follow (partly because of some of the jargon-filled discussions there). Once the LOCALCON hits the "real world" where content is written, and there are problems, than pls pay attention to them.

Further, you both seem to be misstating what discussions may or may not be happening at WT:MED (a discussion about maintaining consistent citations in Featured articles is not the same as this discussion [212]). Right here-- and also linked at the top of this thread-- you can see that the discusion has been had in the past with Trappist:

• Old discussion about Monkbot altering citation style in medical articles (including Featured articles) from November 2013 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

GoUNC

User:Gouncbeatduke ("GoUNC" for short) has again removed reliable sources and content while claiming nonexistent BLP violation.[213]GoUNC was cautioned just yesterday at their user talk by User:Drmies about this, but disagreed with Drmies.[214] The consensus at BLPN was that the material is BLP compliant,[215] but GoUNC blanks it anyway. I got involved because of the BLPN thread. Drmies suggested yesterday that editors at this BLP consider escalating to ANI if the behavior continues,[216] it has, and we are. Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• I agree that the Gounc's behavior is not acceptable. I have rolled back the two recent edits since I find them severely disruptive, and the BLP claims to be unfounded. I'll leave the possibly blocking to someone else: I'm only on my second cup of coffee for the day. Drmies (talk) 14:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I disagree, the overall tone of the article is that of a smear campaign against Walt, and I think the gratuitous insults of Sotloff and Hitchens should be removed, per the discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Stephen_Walt . However, if there is now consensus that the insults should remain, I will not revert them. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 14:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Have you noticed that the quotes from Satloff and Hitchens were already truncated yesterday? Even if they had not been, I don't see a BLP violation, but there definitely is unanimity there isn't a BLP violation now (aside from your opinion).Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The overall tone of the article is still that of a smear campaign against Walt. The quotes from Satloff and Hitchens just make a non-NPOV article more imbalanced. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

You would have had more success proposing additional counterbalancing material instead of repeatedly blanking reliably-sourced stuff.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

They're sounding a bit like a broken record. Sour grapes, possibly, because of Duke's supremacy in the NCAA tournament this year. Note that on their talk page they resorted to the old "YOUDONTLIKEIT". Bleh. Drmies (talk) 15:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• It is not just on BLP articles, see [217] and [218]. The first was a removal of sourced content while a discussion was on-going at the talk page, the second was in response to a reversion of his edit. I'm not sure what the proper response is, but GoUNC is, it appears, being disruptive. GregJackP Boomer! 14:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The insulting remarks have been removed, so I don't see BLP violations now, but the Satloff comment in particular, needs counterbalancing material for context, because it doesn't address anything said by Walt in the WP article or the FP article, so that needs to be illuminated for the reader.

Gouncbeatduke should drop the stick and expand the article by adding counterbalancing material. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I tried adding a counterbalance for the Hitchens quote. I would appreciate any feedback you have on it.Gouncbeatduke (talk) 18:19, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

It's better, that's for sure. Hitchens' comment was also somewhat diversionary, but not as much as Satloff's, which still needs context and balancing. Anyway, this is Talk page discussion.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that Gouncbeatduke may have been better off presenting more of the case in regards to allegations against Dennis Ross as found in this article by the citation mentioned politico contributor Laura Rozen. I generally applaud efforts to try to balance these articles. GregKaye 18:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Xtremedood: Editor assuming he gets to vote in his own AfD nomination

Could someone take a look at this? (The editor twice reverted my strike-through.) Pax 21:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I say let it go. You've noted the duplicate !vote implied by the nomination, and the duplication isn't adding any weight to the argument. The closing admin will be smart enough to consider this. Ivanvector (talk) 21:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

There are actually instances where the nominator has no opinion, and is nominating for other reasons, for instance at the request of an IP, or for procedural reasons. It's also quite normal for the nominator to !vote delete, only to mark it "as nominator". I think the agate type discussion under Xtremedood's delete !vote is sufficient to let the closer know that XD is the nom, so I don't think there's anything to do here, except perhaps to remind XD to mark their delete votes with "as nominator" in any AfD they start in the future. BMK (talk) 21:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

(Point of clarification: The nom labeled the subject a "hoax" in the second sentence of the rationale, so his position is unambiguously delete from the get-go.)

As I've seen it dozens of times (and it happened to me when I was a wee pup making my first AfDs), my assumption is that it's perfectly OK for other editors to add strike-through to double-votes (i.e., it's not "vandalism"). If that's actually not the case, please advise. Pax 21:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I think it's better to politely explain the single-!vote convention and suggest that the editor strike the duplicate !vote themselves. The guideline specifically uses striking another user's comment as an example of unacceptable behaviour, but I've rarely seen it be an issue. If the editor is abrasive about it, you can stick a {{duplicate vote}} template after their comment. Ivanvector (talk) 21:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Someone should explain to Xtremedood what does and doesn't constitute vandalism, and then should warn him about canvassing. Also, that entire AfD is so poorly structured that it is an assault on the eyeballs. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 21:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I hadn't intended to mention him by name, but since it has occurred twice now, I'll change the section title and go ahead and notify him. Pax 21:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

You should have notified him in the first place, seeing as how this discussion is about him. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 22:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Seems pretty normal to me. Let it go. The nominator is allowed a vote, it's just usually assumed that the nomination is a vote in favor of Delete and most nominators imply in the wording of their nomination what their stance is. So he was unaware his nom would be counted that way and added a vote below the nom. This is hardly a big enough problem to bring to ANI. You've made your point in the comments, the closer will see it and take it into account. This should not be a big thing. Adding strikethrough to a double vote (imo) is fine, but it's not something you should go to war over. ― Padenton|✉   22:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

My only complaint is that the user in question does not exactly know what WP:VANDALISM is. Striking-through a comment is not vandalism. Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 22:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

There is also the fact that he canvassed some of his friends [219] [220] [221] [222], with three of them !voting delete in the AfD. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 22:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

@Раціональне анархіст: might want to look into this. WP:CANVASSING :/ very flawed editing. Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 23:05, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• (comment from an uninvolved editor) He does get to !vote. I've posted AfDs which I opposed before (per edit request). It's up to the closer to pay attention to those things. Don't forget, it's not the number of !votes, it's the comments and arguments made. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 23:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Posting is one thing but voting is usually seen as WP:POINTY. Unless you withdraw the AfD pretty much everyone should know you as the nominator want the article deleted. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Let me try rewording it. I've started AfD discussions in the past per an edit request that I've !voted to keep, so to say everyone should know you as the nominator want the article deleted is unfair and inaccurate. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 00:39, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, but it's a fair mistake to make, and we WP:AGF, so we side with the presumption that Xtremedood didn't know his nom would be considered as a delete vote already. Canvassing is a second sign of an inexperienced editor. Just warn the canvasser, mark the canvassed users, and put a canvassing note at the top of the discussion. Problem solved. No reason for ANI. ― Padenton|✉   00:17, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

You are right to assume good faith on the first part but seeing the editor involved had already been warned against canvassing [223] on April 28th if he/she is still doing it then its a problem. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

On a separate note, this editor has been engaged in a series of heated edit wars and disputes with multiple other users since March, and has actually been reported at least twice, and very recently, for his unconstructive behaviour and lack of clear objectivity; it is frankly not at all unlikely he will continue likewise in the future. I am strongly considering nominating him for review elsewhere on this and other grounds. Gorgevito (talk) 10:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Userpage 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.

---

Yeah, I know, twice on ANI :). Anyhow, I encountered this page on my vandalism patrol. This user is using their page as a webhost for their role-playing character. I removed their text (All of it was for their roleplaying character ) and left them on a note on their talk page explaining that Wikipedia is not a webhost for their character. Their response was not to respond, but just revert the removal of text on their userpage. They seem to have only two contributions, one in Sun TZU and the other to their page, however, they may be logging in as an IP as well as s seen | here where they're reverting my removal. I can't revert them again, perhaps they need someone else to tell them, or a stronger warning. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 22:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Deleted for misuse of Wikipedia as a webhost. Huon (talk) 00:31, 11 May 2015 (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.

BeastBoy3395 misrepresenting sources

BeastBoy3395 has a habit of misrepresenting sources. The most egregious example is this edit to Political positions of Ronald Reagan; the source cited for the first sentence actually says, "Reagan never supported the use of federal power to provide blacks with civil rights." The New York Times article BeastBoy3395 adds does contain the Reagan quote, but it also says: "A grass-roots lobbying and legislative campaign had forced Mr. Reagan and Attorney General William French Smith to abandon their plan to ease the restrictions in the landmark civil rights legislation." - thus it cannot serve to show that Reagan had started supporting the legislation. That's not a one-off; here he claimed "multiple sources show love jihad is real, and that people have been convicted of it" when the source he presents says no such thing; when I pointed that out, he cited the Guardian to support the same claim when the Guardian does not say so but in fact pretty much says the opposite. That's not acceptable. At best he's wasting the time of other editors who have to debunk his spurious claims, at worst he's directly attacking the veracity of Wikipedia. This may serve as an indication of his motivation. I'm obviously too deeply involved to take administrative action myself, but I do not think someone who routinely misrepresents sources has a place on Wikipedia. Huon (talk) 21:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Oppose administrative action: I don't believe that I am, in fact, misrepresenting sources. Reagan did indeed support the extension of the VRA in 1982 after a massive lobbying campaign, and it was a federal law to provide blacks with civil rights; thus, Reagan supported a federal initiative to provide blacks with civil rights, which means that I was right when I put "Reagan initially did not support federal initiatives to provide blacks with civil rights, but changed his mind later on". Therefore, Huon is wrong on this. BeastBoy3395 (talk) 21:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Trout Huon It's very clear that you decided to search through Beastboy's contribs in search of something (in an article you've never edited) to shaft him over, due to your previous disagreement with him in the rape jihad and love jihad articles. You've demonstrated this by immediately going to ANI, instead of trying to discuss it with him on his talk page or the articles talk page. If this ANI thread were truly about Beastboy's edits "attacking the veracity of Wikipdia" you would have at least bothered to revert his edits to the Ronald Reagan article, which as it currently stands still has all the misrepresentation of sources you claim Beastboy added. (To clarify this isnt necessarily an endorsement of Beastboy's actions I just find what Huon has done very dodgy) Bosstopher (talk) 22:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Bosstopher, do you seriously expect me to "discuss it with him on his talk page" if he misrepresents another sources on the same article talk page a second time after I pointed it out the first time? How often should I, in your opinion, "discuss with him" that the sources he presents routinely are not reliable and/or do not say what he claims they say? Indeed I checked his contributions after I fould them inappropriate in one article; after he misrepresented sources in a second place I was anything but impressed, when he did so in a third place I came here. You're right, however, I forgot to clean up the Reagan article; will do so now. Huon (talk) 00:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I've undone your reverts to my edit; it wasn't helpful. Also, Reagan clearly did later on in his career support federal initiatives to provide blacks with civil rights, which was shown by his signing the 1982 federal extension of the Voting Rights Act. I also removed this sentence "His opposition was based on the view that certain provisions of both acts violated the US Constitution and in the case of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, intruded upon the civil rights of business and property owners.[35]", as the source doesn't support it. The source says absolutely nothing about Reagan thinking the Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional. BeastBoy3395 (talk) 00:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Looks like BeastBoy3395 has done about a dozen reverts Rape jihad in the last 24 hours, someone might want to explain 3RR to him. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 02:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• With thanks to Gouncbeatduke's remark, the Beastboy is now blocked for edit warring on Rape jihad; they are clearly editing against consensus, and I'm putting that nicely. Now, if they return to their previous behavior, we can discuss an indefinite block. Huon, is that alright? Drmies (talk) 02:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
• He was also edit-warring at the Love jihad page yesterday, and I didn't realize he was even more busy at another page. Another editor was considerate enough to open a talk page discussion but he exhibited a severe case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. - Kautilya3 (talk) 05:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

And before he was blocked, he reinstituted the claim that Reagan changed his mind on civil rights legislation based on one source that says Reagan "never supported" it and on another that says he was "forced [...] to abandon [his] plan to ease the restrictions in the landmark civil rights legislation". WP:SYN had been pointed out to him, so ignorance is not an excuse. Huon (talk) 20:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Huon, because Beastboy was given a block for edit warring, not misrepresenting sources, I expect you want this case to continue its discussion of his edits? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:22, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I expect the more serious behavioural issues, ie routinely misrepresenting what sources say in favor of BeastBoy3395 thinks we should report, will re-surface as soon as the block runs out. Misrepresenting sources is not acceptable, and I see no indication that BeastBoy3395 even acknowledges there is a problem. So yes, I still think more permanent measures are required, but we can return here the next time BeastBoy3395 claims a source says something it doesn't. Huon (talk) 22:31, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Legal Threat

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

---

Legal threat here because someone didn't approve their unsourced article, they kicked up a fuss, and lots of their clients' other articles are now up for deletion. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:22, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Saying we should consult with Legal is not a legal threat. It's vague enough to be able to get past that only my opinion of course. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Encouraging us to talk to a lawyer isn't really the same as threatening to sue. But @Lion126: should be encouraged to read WP:NLT and know that direct threats of legal action will result in a loss of editing privileges. Dragons flight (talk) 23:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I made no threat, direct or otherwise. I advised checking with your legal department. simple enough advice. Lion126 (talk) 23:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Really because telling you to "check with your legal team" implies that there's a reason to do it. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
No, "If you do XYZ, you will be hearing from my attorney", is a threat. I merely gave sound business advice to a person who is not the owner of the entity, and whose actions could also trigger the "Streisand Effect", I believe that was the phrase your editor used in this discussion. But I made no threat of legal action, direct or otherwise. Lion126 (talk) 23:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Whether or not there was a legal threat, we've got a clear case of WP:COI WP:ADVOCACY here -- user is WP:NOTHERE. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

[224]- clearly WP:NOTHERE and just trying to taunt. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

again not true. I have tried to contribute to WP in a positive manor, correcting articles on my clients. I did go on the offensive until your representatives did so towards me (see live help log). My frustration is due to the unprofessional manor in which your representatives approached my original question (prior to the message board interaction). I am not here to argue nor to incite. When your board representatives began setting pages for deletion instead of allowing me time to correct them, the conversation descended further. Perhaps if we all behave as adults, myself included, we can achieve the desired results. Lion126 (talk) 00:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm allowed to put any articles up for deletion if they don't comply with Wikipedia standards, so I did. Also, per WP:COI, you shouldn't be directly editing article where you have a COI.

Plus you won't fix them, because they need reliable sources to show notability, and according to everything you said at the Teahouse, not many sources exist about your clients, yet you still claim notability against all the principles of Wikipedia, in particular WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

"Not many sources" I suppose the guiness world book of records, the RIAA, Right On Magazine, Word Up Magazine, Rolling Stone, Jet, Ebony, MTV, BET, and many more, are not "sources". You have evidently not done your research on the sources for Full Force, UTFO, etc. Hopefully there are others involved in this process, who listen to reason and act logical instead of acting on emotion. Lion126 (talk) 00:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, except they're the 2 that are actually notable, the rest aren't, and they're the ones up for deletion. You're so WP:NOTHERE that you should have been blocked ages ago. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, this thread appears to have actually been resolved, there was a preceived, not but actual legal threat, from a SPA with COI and WP:ADVOCACY. Doesn't seem like there's anymore to discuss, if no-one is going to block them as WP:NOTHERE. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

wow....KANGOL KID IS THE LEAD MEMBER OF UTFO. As to the Force MDs, look them up. Look up their hit songs "Love Is A House" and "Tender Love"v and get back to me. I'm done. Block me if you want, or let's move forward. Lion126 (talk) 00:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Well that's strange, because a lot of people seem to agree with my deletions. Also, this is an official warning that you are banned indefinitely from my talkpage- any attempts to contact me on my talkpage should be treated as harassment/personal attacks. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

The AFDs you created were UTFO, Force MDs, Kangol Kid, and Full Force (already withdrawn). I wouldn't hang your hat on any of those actually being deleted. Only one seems even like a marginal case. Dragons flight (talk) 02:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• I consider this an unambiguous legal threat. I doesn't have to be direct. I think it's well established here that disguising the wording so it isn't literally explicit does not change the meaning. That's the only reason anyone would mention our legal department in the context of such a discussion. DGG ( talk ) 01:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• I agree. The purpose of the remark made is to create a chilling effect on editing. I'd support an NLT block. BMK (talk) 01:13, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• I concur. The purpose of NLT is the fact that legal threats chill attempts to participate on Wikipedia. That is precisely what Lion126 is intending: to chill attempts to deal with this COI/Advocacy. Resolute 01:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. These are exactly the sort of threats that should be stopped, and blocked. Then maybe the whole stupid arument above wouldn't have happened. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

As I said above, I don't read his initial comments as a legal threat. Even if you do read it that way, Lion also said (above) that "[he] made no threat of legal action, direct or otherwise." Which I assume means he didn't intend his comments to be perceived as a threat. I suppose you could ask him to clarify that further, but my current impression is that he has no further intention of taking (or threatening) legal action, so I'm not sure what an WP:NLT block would be intended to accomplish. Most of the time we would undo an NLT block if the person withdraws the threat and says they won't make legal threats in the future, which seems more or less to be where we are at already. Dragons flight (talk) 01:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

You know, I assume, that our definition of WP:vandalism is based on intent:

Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. (emphasis added)

So, when someone vandalizes a page, and gets called on it, and then says "There was no deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia," your feeling is that we should take them at their word and not sanction them, or at least remove the vandalism - is that right?

Of course Lion126 is going to say there was no threat of legal action, but we, being individual, rational, adult(ish) human beings, are able to make our own evaluation and decide that Lion's disclaimer is just self-serving BS, and that when someone you're in a disagreement with says to you "You'd better go consult your lawyer," the unstated subtext is "because if you don't do what I say you should do, you're going to need one." Lion's game of strong-arm is painfully transparent (as is the purpose of his disingenuous remark below). I say let's give him the block he wants, and do it up right -- first class all the way! BMK (talk) 02:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Again I say, block me. Have my acct removed. Do whatever makes you all feel superior and exclusive. This could have been terminated a long time ago, when I attempted to back up and reboot the conversation by saying "let's all act like adults and move forward". You have all chosen to believe things non-existant in my intent. So, handle it as you feel best. I'm not losing sleep, money, clients or freedom based on your collective opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lion126 (talk • contribs)

personal attacks and off-topic discussions thereof

If I were one of Lion126's clients I might switch my business to someone well versed in the basics of English spelling, grammar, and punctuation. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC) In all probability, they probably don't care much about that. I would think they would be more concerned about Lion's inability to get the results they want, either through persuasion or strong-arm tactics. He looks to be rather mediocre at what he does. BMK (talk) 02:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC) Both of you know better than to start engaging in personal attacks. Dragons flight (talk) 02:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC) Well, SBH Boris was commenting on edits, not the editor who, by the way, is now indef-blocked given a consensus here that there was in fact a legal threat. BMK is of course a loose cannon. Drmies (talk) 02:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC) Thank goodness, for a minute there I thought you said I was a "louse cannon", which was a disgusting thought. :) BMK (talk) 03:05, 12 May 2015 (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:Dartman1001 was indeffed by User: Drmies for being WP:NOTHERE, and only here to promote The Chauntry Cup. They are now using their talkpage, User talk:Dartman1001 to attack both of us and call us bullies, see [225], [226], [227], [228]. Please revoke their talk page access for these attacks. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Probably unnecessary. Give him a day or two to rail against the silence, and he'll go away. People get pissed when they get blocked, and say stupid stuff. If we do nothing, he'll just disappear. If he doesn't in a day or so, we can revisit revoking talk page access. --Jayron32 19:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Well they've spent the last week failing to work with other editors, ignoring everything anyone is saying, and accusing people of having no knowledge of cricket because they disagree with them (including me, even though I'd mentioned I'd checked every cricket website). I doubt they're going to stop now. I'm not responding to them, but they've now called be a bully 3 times. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

More false accusations [229], [230]. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

What Jayron says. Drmies (talk) 20:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Until they called Ponyo a bad name: talk page access revoked--it's a privilege, not a right. Drmies (talk) 20:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Knew they wouldn't last long, thank you. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Legal threat by Eagle1981

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.

---

Regarding Sport London e Benfica F.C. (at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football), Eagle1981 (talk · contribs) wrote this "Cited Sources have been added. Please note: A letter has been sent to Wikipedia regarding the violation of trademark and fraudulent use of Sport London e Benfica name by SLBedit." and this "The person in question has continued steal the identity of the club in various social media. We have tried to politely ask him to stop doing this without result. Our club neither has the time or the resources to continually chase this person from harrassing our organisation. After several pages were removed from facebook we politely request Wikipedia to do the same."

I am not that person and I know nothing about Sport London e Benfica F.C. SLBedit (talk) 13:36, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the problem in your quotation. How does reporting a copyright or trademark violation to Wikipedia constitute a legal threat? Consider what our policy Wikipedia:No legal threats#What is not a legal threat says: "A polite, coherent complaint in cases of copyright infringement or attacks is not a 'legal threat'." —Psychonaut (talk) 13:43, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

That's an attempt to intimidate, and qualifies as a legal threat. The user must be blocked until or if he recants and disavows. However, also make sure that the threat has no merit, i.e. that whatever info he's griping about is properly sourced. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Then we'd better block everyone else who, upon discovering an apparent infringement, has come here to "politely request Wikipedia" to remove it. There's no indication this user has involved, or are threatening to involve, a lawyer or the police; they are simply approaching the administrators of the sites where they believe the infringement has occurred. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes there is, see the comment made to this section 5 minutes before you made your comment. --Jayron32 14:31, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

The legal threat for which I just blocked is not as presented here but rather for the threat in this edit summary; "Copyright Violated. Repeated violation will be dealt with be dealt with by Sport Lisboa e Benfica legal department."
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough; I wasn't aware of this other communication. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:31, 11 May 2015 (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.

Continued addition of original research and edit-warring from one specific member

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.

---

Arifbehapiee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been adding original research and unsourced claims to Fifth Harmony related materials, and despite numerous warning(s), revert(s) and even a 72-hour block from the website, said-user has continued to ignore their warnings and re-add the information to the pages and is now engaging in battleground behavior and edit-warring over the information. They were warned about edit-warring, and was also warned and subsequently blocked for their continued addition of original research. I have also suspected them of sockpuppetry in order to gain their way with a fan-dictated point of view. Both Iknow23 and iPadPerson have had a strong hand in reverting their continued additions to the limited pages they edit to. It should also be noted that they continue to upload images that violate the content criteria for non-free images on Wikipedia. I've attempted to take them back to ANV, but every report continues to be ignored. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 00:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• iPadPerson, you should be careful--a less sharp and insightful admin might block you as well for edit warring (which is edit warring even if you're right...). Anywayz, Arif is blocked again, for two weeks, and they got this close to an indefinite block. Drmies (talk) 02:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • edit conflict I would like to note that SPECIFIC WP:MOS explanations are frequently given and ignored. One example: "WP:CHARTTRAJ, 'A song/album's chart trajectory should not be included in an article as this constitutes an indiscriminate collection of information.'" I can understand differing view on references and do not just revert out-of-hand, but provide explanation, such as: (http://kworb.net/cc/ustotals.html is an IMPROPER source for singles sales figures as they themselves state, “Subtracted sales due to ‘Complete My Album’ are still included.”) It's an improper source because "Complete My Album" sales are NOT being sold as singles but as a grouping of album tracks. —Iknow23 (talk) 02:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello ,Drmies I would just like to point out how these three users , , —livelikemusic , and iPadperson have been continuously bullying Arifbehapiee . These users have been continuously reverting edits which are not theirs , assuming that edits that are not from them are not valid. For example, when 'Worth It' , a Fifth Harmony song peaked at number 21 on the Billboard Hot 100 , —livelikemusic changed it to number 34 , assuming that it did not peak at number 34 even though the source provided under chart history DOES prove it peaked at number 21 . This user has done this many times , not looking at the source and continuing to revert edits . Additionally , Billboard have confirmed that they have sold more than 1.5 million singles , with three CERTIFIED Gold singles. However , —Iknow23 removed that information , assuming its incorrect and not valid when it is valid in every way. Sales information have been provided by hitsdailydouble.com under sales and streaming, a chart with sales information that REFRESHES every week. I have given my sources for every sales statement but these three users have continuously removed this information when it is in fact correct and valid. This includes iPadPerson ignoring me when I gave my reason for these sales statement under his/her talkpage , including iPadPerson using vulgar language against me ,asking me to stop adding "bullshit" statements which I felt was extremely unprofessional . These three users are trying to paint me as a disruptive vandal but when —Iknow23 told me that single sales under kworb.net/cc/ustotals.html was not valid , I listened and did revert my sales statement for single sales. —Iknow23's claim that SPECIFIC WP:MOS explanations are frequently given and ignored is NOT true as I reverted that particular sales statement . —livelikemusic also claimed that the United States iTunes chart is not relevant but who is he to deem the chart not relevant? Lastly, the album has indeed spent 14 weeks in the Top 50 of the Billboard 200 . These three users claim it is wrong but I invite them to check the Billboard 200 right now and see that it is indeed at number 34, additionally , they can check previous weeks of the Billboard 200 (the full chart) and they will find the album never left the Top 50. The addition of the Worth It album cover which has been confirmed as the OFFICIAL album cover was also reverted by —livelikemusic , claiming it is not official when it has been used in the official fifth harmony website. I have left messages on —livelikemusic's talkpage to try and explain to him/her that my edits are valid but he/she has just simply removed my messages , refusing to acknowledge my reasons at all. These users have been continuously reverting my edits , in an attempt to place their power over new/inexperienced users but I hope you will see their own true colours and how they themselves have been disruptively reverting edits by other users , only allowing their own edits and claiming that those who revert their edits are disruptive vandals. I hope you will take a fair and neutral standpoint on this and listen to my reasons and take an objective view on this , thank you. I will also not be surprised if these users attempt to remove this message as this is what they have been doing consistently. As a fair editor , I hope you will do the right thing as I believe I have been wrongfully accused of disruptive editing. Thank you. 222.165.98.116 (talk) 06:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Arifbehapiee, do you know that block evasion could earn you an indefinite block? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:21, 11 May 2015 (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.

Edits by User:FRibeiro66

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 was patrolling edits and came across this editor Fribeiro66 . He was removing test or nonsense edits, which is ok, but the messages he was leaving on the user pages for the users he was reverting wasn't. He didn't curse, nor did he outright violate WP:CIVIL, but, they weren't the best either. Examples are : | "Get a life loser" , | "Get a life loser" again , | "Get a life loser" , for the third time [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:65.190.50.216&oldid=661738096 | "Romans may have been weird, but you're a loser" ] and [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:76.109.84.166&oldid=661738257 | " loser " again. He's stopped, so AIV wouldn't be appropriate (they'd probably tell me this report is stale ). I placed a warning on his page, however, he might need a bit more or a bit stronger, since he placed a lot of those messages after I warned him. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 22:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

(Non admin comment) I left them a final warning for their attacks on the IPs. Their reactions are pretty much exactly what the vandals want to see and can lead to vandal sprees or in the worst case persistent online harassment, which has happened before. Blackmane (talk) 02:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Links: FRibeiro66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --IJBall (talk) 03:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello! You are of course right to have reacted to my comments as you have. I was angry at the ridiculous number and nature of the idiotic edits that some people will do just to be disruptive. I won't do it ever again. I understand what you had to do and I respect it. I have to rise above the idiotic behavior of these people and have faith in the system and that it will capture these stupid edits. Please accept my sincere apologies. FRibeiro66

Just as a further point, you should not edit another editor's comments as you did with this edit, even if there are spelling errors. Also, please learn to sign your comments with 4 tildes, ~~~~. Blackmane (talk) 12:11, 11 May 2015 (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.

WP:TWINKLEABUSE by USER:AHLM13

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

---

See User talk:AHLM13#So what's with the reverts? for most recent details, as well as very recent problems with reverts blamed on his WP:BROTHER. In summary, AHLM13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a user with:

• A long history of complaints filed on WP:ANI: [231]
• A block log that includes being blocked for misuse of Twinkle [232]
• Two immediate instances of Twinkle abuse, [233] & [234], yet both of which are actually edit warring on AHLM13's part, per [235] & [236], so are particularly egregious misuse of Twinkle. JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:36, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the user doesn't fully understand what vandalism is but this edit is not Twinkle abuse because they didn't use Twinkle to do it.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough regarding the one edit, but not the other. Both edits are edit warring to restore the editor's preferred versions, labelled as vandalism reversion when they are not, and seem to be a reversion to behaviors for which he was previously blocked, and, as I understand it, most recently he blamed on his brother to get unblocked. JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:01, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Is there any possibility to just T-ban from using twinkle? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Not per my understanding. Even if it was possible, as Berean Hunter pointed out, the 2nd instance I noted wasn't Twinkle, but was WP:EW and WP:NOTVAND - the latter could be considered WP:CIR, but not the former. More fundamentally, however, is the demonstration of continued behavioral issues for which the user has previously been warned, blocked, and warned & blocked again. Add to those the concerns raised by @CosmicEmperor: at my talk page and elsewhere (there was a prior ANI, too). Perhaps a topic ban from those areas where the editor's behavior is most egregious would be the best solution. JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:01, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

One time I was blocked because I used twinkle to revert Ip's edits. But now I am not doing any kind of vandalim. I do not know about what User:JoeSperrazza is talking about. I just clicked "restore this version",but I do not know why it is written "TW".-- AHLM13 talk 16:02, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• Despite clear warning by myself and @Jpgordon: [237], you are continuing to edit war [238] on Imam, restoring error to the article in the process. JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:06, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

My edit in that article is correct and certainly there is no error. Therefore not just me, even you are continuing the edit war. I think we need to discuss on the talk page. I actually corrected many mistakes in the article, but you reverted all of my edits.-- AHLM13 talk 16:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@AHLM13:, you have Twinkle activated. Saying I don't know why TW is written is a poor excuse. Second of all, yes, you are abusing twinkle rights. It's that the fact you think the user's edits are vandalism. Please take a look at WP:VANDALISM. I will request protection if edit warring continues, by anyone. Elaborate with your reverts with accurate reasons, because JoeSperrazza's edits are not vandalism. Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 16:15, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Callmemirela, I did not notice they forget to write FILE. But there the imam is not leading, he is just in front of everyone.-- AHLM13 talk 16:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Regarding your assertion "My edit in that article is correct and certainly there is no error", this revert [[239]] again introduced, for example, this red error text: "thumb|280px|left|An Imam presiding over prayer, North Africa.". I leave it to someone else to revert or correct. Sheesh. JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• Separate from the Twinkle issue; on the underlying content issue, does anyone object to anything about the edit by AHLM13, other than that it broke a file link? Fixed before someone reverted it a again... Because if that is the only thing that is a problem, this seems like much ado about something that would have been an easy and uncontroversial fix. Monty₈₄₅ 16:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• The editor's habit of misidentifying edits not liked as being vandalism is one concern. His dissembling here about WP:TW is another. His edit against talk page consensus is yet another concern. Regarding the one edit you fixed (thanks), beats me, I don't edit that page routinely, I noticed, gave an explanation in the edit summary and moved on. This editor seems, from the many ANI filings and his own postings, to have competency and/or other behavioral issues that need to be addressed. JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I have request page protection which was granted by an admin. The full protection for edit warring/content dispute will expire in 3 days. I want this issue resolved first before we dive into a long list of reverts. Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 16:34, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

These are the reasons why I feel AHLM13 requires a topic ban on Pakistan, Bangladesh related topic, including those topics related to religious conflicts and Biographies of people related to religion:

• using abusive language "jahil ka bachcha"

• nonsensical comment with hatred

• using "Munafic" in edit history

• reverting user's own talk page unblock request

• calling me names after i pointed out his canvassing

• calling a user double agent

• speculating country of origin

• threatening another user

• Anti-Bangladeshi sentiment

• ethnic comment on a sockpuppet

C E (talk) 16:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

User:CosmicEmperor copied and pasted things the he wrote in someone else' talk page. He is bringing back old problems, which were already solved. As everyone can see, I apologised to all of these previous users. However, COSMICEMPEROR, insulted me and other users a lot of time. He offended Pakistanis for several times. -- AHLM13 talk 16:50, 9 May 2015 (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.

Rape jihad article still needs attention

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.

---

Despite the recent block of one participant, Rape jihad is still seeing a moderate amount of edit warring. I would suggest temporary full protection, possibly with a revert to a version from before the edit war, to encourage the editors there to work things out on the talk page rather than through reverting each other. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I also started a discussion at the WP:AN about the article. AusLondonder (talk) 02:44, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Oppose full protection (the article has been fully protected twice in just the last month, to little effect). Support implementing the "Relisted Proposal" and the "Amendment to the Relisted Proposal" at the "FreeatlastChitchat yet again" ANI.

(And I'm highly tempted to recommend adding AusLondonder to that list for having the gall to keep carrying water for the small group of censor-minded vandals in that article only two days off his block for disruptive editing.) Pax 06:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Please be WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. If you only want to insult, I won't discuss. Nothing to do with censorship, all to do with Wikipedia policy. AusLondonder (talk) 10:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I posted this at the admin noticeboard however the discussion was closed by an involved, non admin editor User:Раціональне анархіст:

• I am a mostly uninvolved editor, and I am concerned about the Rape jihad article. Talk page discussion has not been constructive. My concerns are:
• Many of the sources in the article are highly unreliable and opinionated - for example Robert Spencer, National Review, The Christian Post and the Daily Beast
• The article, and many of its key contributors seem to be engaged in WP:POV pushing and WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. See Talk:Rape jihad.
• One editor (User:Раціональне анархіст) has made several comments which seem Islamophobic and WP:POV such as 'Britain, Nigeria, et al, aren't "in the Islamic World" (well, at least not until they're conquered).' and '(The arguable clear intent of "rape jihad" is demographic conquest. Several hundred captured schoolgirls sold off to jihadi husbands have a thousand holy warrior babies, not a thousand babies brought up another way.) What I seek to avoid during any potential move to a new seemingly "neutral" name is the WP:WEASELWORDED WP:COATRACKING' on the talk page
• Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom by primarily Asian men has a section in the article despite no credible source linking the matter to Islamic fundamentalism or jihad. If White or Christian men were engaging in such horrendous crimes would we have an article linking that to White or Christian terrorism? The BBC source mentions rape jihad in this context 'The International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation, based at King's College London, recently detailed how the English Defence League (EDL) had been attempting to link child sexual exploitation with Muslims.

"This 'rape jihad', as it has become known, is a significant concern for the EDL," says the centre's report, Neo-Nationalist Network.'

• The article does not approach the matter from a fair or neutral position
• The article was nominated for deletion on 24 February and result was delete

I want to ask Administrators what action can be taken on this matter? Should it be referred to arbitration? AusLondonder (talk) 10:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

And...I'm done with AusLondonder: his strategy is to damn-the-blocks,-full-steam-ahead posting the same stuff all over the place and finally here because it previously appearing at article TPs, personal TPs, AfDs and several ANIs has yet to bring him satisfaction. 24hrs for disruption was obviously not enough to hammer home the hint. Pax 10:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Working hard, creating 30 articles, contributing all over the place. Block was about uncivility, not this. AusLondonder (talk) 10:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment(non admin observation) Perhaps a indef full protection is needed. There is alot of reverting going on and little discussion aimed at consensus building. Short term protection of contentious articles seldom works as the editors just wait for the protection to end and then back to war, thats what looks like is happening here. AlbinoFerret 12:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• In other words, short term protection works in the short term. So let's protect it while we discuss what to do in the long term. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

More of an attempt to change how the article is edited for the long term. In contentious articles there is almost always little consensus building going on on the talk pages. People talk past each other, and stick to their point of view. When protection is short term it doesnt fix it if the editors dont work towards consensus but stay in that pattern and wait for the protection to end. By making the protection indefinite, it forces the editors to come to consensus because thats the only way to get changes into the article. They cant just wait for the protection to end. Later (read a long long time) after the pattern of consensus building is in place, the protection can be removed.AlbinoFerret 13:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• This topic has been deleted twice at AfD already. Then there's a recreation and a no-consensus result followed by an absolutely out of policy non-administrative close of another deletion effort by Davey2010, who pulls a 5 month "do no debate again" date out of the sky, or somewhere. The path forward seems clear. Carrite (talk) 16:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• Like it or not Carrite consensus was to keep and it wasn't "out of policy" at all, Bad-faith much?. –Davey2010^Talk 16:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Nice of you to leave a twice-deleted, No Consensus closed redo open for seven hours in the middle of the night because five people thought that was the path forward, completely making up a "wait five months" suggestion. Bad faith or bad wannabe adminning, you decide... Carrite (talk) 17:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The keeps would've piled on that would've been obvious to anyone, The five months was me attempting to stop the constant renomination and was a brilliant suggestion as it's worked ... for now anyway, Everyone is discussing it which is a damn sight better than constantly recreating and or speedy-keeping. –Davey2010^Talk 17:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah I see you've !voted Delete in the No Cons afd which explains your shitty attitude here - There's no point arguing - If you honestly believe this should be deleted then please go and renominate it . –Davey2010^Talk 17:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

My attitude is explained by the fact that Sandstein tossed my vote as part of his (bad) "no consensus" decision, which you backed with your non-administrative close on procedural grounds (super vote) closing the re-try and attempting to lock it in for five months or whatever. I have relisted this for deletion at AfD now. Carrite (talk) 17:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• Link to the AfD debate: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rape_jihad_(5th_nomination). Carrite (talk) 17:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• My apologies to Davey2010 for my outburst. A grumpy morning for me exacerbated by the fact that this twice-deleted article is still causing problems. Carrite (talk) 18:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• Apology accepted and my apologies to Carrite for replying in a shitty way - Anyway all in the past :) –Davey2010^Talk 18:40, 10 May 2015 (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.

Clear Legal Threat

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

---

Unambiguous legal threat here. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Joseph2302, he was blocked for the legal threat, it was also a sock of User:Croonerman. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

They're reiterating their legal threat on their talkpage, revoke talkpage access? Joseph2302 (talk) 23:17, 11 May 2015 (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 wonder if Edward A. Hoffman, Attorney at Law, knows that someone who has trouble with spelling, capitalization, and basic mechanics is writing letters and pretending they're from him. EEng (talk) 06:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Closure needed at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Exceptions_to_Small_Caps

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 discussion REALLY needs closure, there are lots of articles that have broken citation templates untill this issue is settled. The discussion is that the smallcaps parameter was removed from citation templates based on the argument that the policy doesnt supposedly allow small caps in citations - the counter argument is that WP:CITEVAR allows all citation styles, requiring an explicit exception for citation templates. The discussion has been stagnant for months and I have listed it at requested closures with no luck. Surely there must be an admin with sufficient courage to close the discussion, so we and the templates can get on with our lives? ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:05, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

It appears this RFC is already listed on WP:ANRFC. This page deals more with behaviour issues and may not be a good place to ask for a close. AlbinoFerret 00:34, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

(unclose) Yes, I listed it there more than a month ago, and no one has responded. That is why, per WP:IAR I am posting here to get some admin attention.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:06, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Maunus, the last conversation I saw about this at AN revealed the reluctance of many admins to close RfCs on MOS issues because of the divisive atmosphere in that part of the project. Basically, it's a lose-lose proposition. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I understand that, but it nonetheless has to be done.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:36, 9 May 2015 (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:唐戈

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

User 唐戈 has been indiscriminately reverting edits by Sammy1339 and now me, including removing AfD notices, blanking AfD discussions, and re-adding excessive OR and unencyclopaedic material that had been correctly removed. Not straightforward vandalism but clearly disruptive. I don't know if it's a sock or just someone on a crusade against another editor.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

He has violated 3RR on Fibonacci hyperbolic functions...I stopped counting after 5 reverts today. The only reason that I haven't blocked him is that he hasn't been warned regarding edit-warring or 3RR. It would be better to have the dialog here so that the editor can be clued into what they are doing wrong. If they persist without responding to concerns then a block is likely.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:05, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

This user's pattern of behaviour as reported, the Chinese username, the fact that he/she has only made one significant attempt to post a fair amount of prose text in the talk or Wikipedia namespaces (here), and the user's extensive contribution history over more than ten years on Chinese Wikipedia, all indicate to me that this user may be a good-faith newbie with a limited command of English. I'm not entirely sure what the normal course of action in cases like this is, though. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I think it's a alt/sock of Gisling:

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

Two reasons. First the edits initially seem to be restoring edits and content added by Gisling. But more conclusively looking at global contribs and finding that zh-wiki is the most likely home wiki then zh:User:Gisling is just a redirect to zh:User:唐戈. See also commons:User:Gisling. Alt rather than deliberate sock though as it looks like the account Gisling was created before SUL, while 唐戈 only started editing after SUL implementation. I.e. the change of name/account use was prompted by account unification.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I second the sock observation. I observed this at WT:WPM based on the duck test. In and of itself, this is not exactly disruptive, but the editor's other behavior and aggressive edit-warring to include rather questionable content is disruptive. I'm not sure it is actionable at the moment, but the editor in question has left a mess of awful animation galleries that someone is going to have to clean up (see thread at WT:WPM for a partial listing). Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I was prepared to accept that 唐戈 and Gisling were not deliberate socks of each other based on one then the other editing after a gap, as if there was some interruption, perhaps related to the implementation of SUL which caused some editors to change names on some servers. But now the accounts are editing on the same day, seemingly defending the same articles, with if not the same then similarly unconstructive approaches to defending their edits (the reverting noted above, supporting the articles and questioning other editors' qualifications at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics). Even without the above links clearly relating them this now clearly passes the duck test for misusing multiple accounts.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Gisling blocked for 72 hours and indeffed his sock account.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter: I disagree with this. He never edited any discussion page under more than one name, and there's no indication he was attempting to conceal his identity. As pointed out above, he has been editing Chinese Wikipedia under the Chinese name for ten years. I think the failure to disclose the alt was an honest mistake. Moreover, he never received a sockpuppetry warning. As for his disruptive behavior, it's good reason for a topic ban on advanced math articles, but he has also made many good contributions to articles on other subjects, especially Chinese math history. I recommend unblocking both accounts. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Take a look at this history. Who created that article? ...and who used an illegitimate sock on the same article today?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and three accounts that were created just after my blocks were User:Zhangyingmath, User:杨风 and User:摘星阁. I'm not sure if they are connected but they may need to be monitored.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

It's only a 72h block; they can return to editing in three days, or less if they can persuade an admin that the block is no longer needed – though neither account was very active before the problem edits on 9 May, so an enforced break will not especially interrupt their editing.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment. On a closely related note I would like to solicit opinions, while people are here, on how to handle the numerous articles by Gisling of the type that are being edit-warred over. On his talk page several editors have raised concerns about these articles. In some cases, such as at Eckhaus equation, an editor went over the article, corrected it, and produced something respectable. In other cases, such as at Fujita-Storm equation, the concerns were not addressed. I started a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bogoyavlenski-Konoplechenko equation asking to delete an article (and probably some related articles) on the flimsy grounds of WP:TNT in cases where I can't determine if even the subject of the article is accurately described (as it was not at Eckhaus equation, or Fifth order KdV equation - even the definitions of these equations were erroneous.) On the other hand I very much do not want to see Gisling blocked, as he has made many high-quality contributions to articles about the history of Chinese mathematics and science. If there is a sockpuppet violation, I think it is probably unintentional. I would, however, like him to stop editing advanced math articles. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:43, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Not really an admin issue. Probably the best venue would be the mathematics project, e.g. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@JohnBlackburne: Thank you. I started a discussion there instead. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Request for Second Opinion

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 noticed that Dribbble, an article that has been recreated a number of different times, had been reincarnated again and proceeded to delete it on grounds that there had been an afd for it that was closed as a copyvio deletion. My deletion grounds were recreation of a page substantially mirroring a previous version that was deleted per afd discussion, but since that afd closed early I would like a second opinion on whether I was to quick on the trigger here. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Reckon so. All versions appear to be the work of accounts with no history other than creating and re-creating articles on non-notable companies. Guy (Help!) 08:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Right outcome if not necessarily 100% the right process. Stifle (talk) 08:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• Wait a minute here... That doesn't seem to be an appropriate deletion reason. The deletion log reads:
  • 04:02, May 11, 2015 TomStar81 (talk | contribs) deleted page Dribbble (G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion)
  • 15:01, April 2, 2015 Peridon (talk | contribs) deleted page Dribbble (A7: Article about an eligible subject, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject)
  • 14:09, February 8, 2015 Diannaa (talk | contribs) deleted page Dribbble (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.webdesignerdepot.com/2013/11/the-ultimate-guide-to-everything-dribbble/)
  • 16:59, March 7, 2012 Anthony Bradbury (talk | contribs) deleted page Dribbble (A7: Article about a website, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)

Where was the AfD for the deletion that it supposedly mirrors? I only see CSD deletions there. I'm not saying that the article should stay, but I would like to have the content emailed to me so I can review it, please. Thank you. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 22:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I deleted the article as a copy vio of this page, and closed the concurrent AFD discussion as moot. Therefore the article was never deleted as a result of a deletion discussion. The version that was deleted by user:TomStar81 did not have the copyvio issue, but may qualify for speedy deletion under another criterion such as A7 or G12. I have put a copy of the most recent deleted version in a sandbox (User:Diannaa/sandbox) so we can figure out what to do next. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you Diannaa. I see some sources there so this certainly doesn't fall under A7. I agree it could probably use some more sources and some copyedit, but I don't think it's very promotional, especially since the most reliable source used was the last one in the list that seemed to be in support of the controversy section. I think the most appropriate thing to do is to move it to Draft: and see if it is improved in the next 6 months. No improvement/submission then it can be G13ed. I do intend to see if I can personally clean it up and improve it when I get a little time. Since I'm not a reviewer (don't want to be, please don't add me to meaningless checkpage) I'll submit it when I'm done. Feel free to WP:SKYBLUELOCK the title in the mean time if needed. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 22:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I've now restored the article and moved it to draft space Draft:Dribbble -- Diannaa (talk) 02:36, 12 May 2015 (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.

In Order to Prevent 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.

---

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding to prevent edit warring, a Wikipedia admin should look into the issue and identify what are the best sources on the matter. The discussion is about the topic Saudi Professional League. Thank you. MedStudentIMAMU (talk) 14:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Could a moderator or an admin in Wikipedia look into this situation? The issue at hand is that there is a disagreement about Saudi Arabia's League founding. Both the Saudi Pro League Association (SPL), a branch of the SAFF, and the RSSSF, hold that the league was founded in 1975-76, but the other user (user:حزل) consistently edits to remove and omit these sources in favour of an editorial piece on a feature in FIFA's website. FIFA itself holds a note that states "The honours listed above are considered to be the club’s major titles and, as such, are not intended to be a full list of achievements.". In other words, claims stated are not necessarily all-encompassing, and just highlight feats, and are prune to inaccuracies. Warmest Regards MedStudentIMAMU (talk) 14:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I think you're looking for WP:DRN Blackmane (talk) 04:49, 12 May 2015 (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.

Special:Contributions/108.25.74.111

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.

---

108.25.74.111 is abusing their talk page privileges whilst blocked by making fake accepted unblock requests and impersonating Barek. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 03:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk page access revoked. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:54, 12 May 2015 (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.

Harassment and repeated insults from 70.51.38.110

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.

---

Note: that user already contacted you here, when he asked you to block me for false reasons. His request was denied here (simply not motivated by true reasons, in fact he lied). This users just takes a personnal revenge on my talk page or elsewhere. When his request was closed here, I closed his discussion on my talk page and instructed him that it was terminated. As I promosed him, I deleted ALL the replies he added to the thread I had visibly closed on my talk page.

See the history of his actions my talk page here on EN.WP for example.

He doesn't stop after he's been told to stop repeately. (that user has always refused to create an account on this wiki, but he continues weeks after weeks to use the same IP). He is also sometimes sending such insults or harassments on several others of my talk pages on other Wikimedia wikis where I have an account (I also found occurences outside Wikimedia, however it is hard to track and often no way to act on these places), or on various talk pages that I would have visited (not just my own talk pages).

I don't reply him, just delete his posted junks.

What he does is simply harassment and just pollution (this takes also some time for me to cleanup and I need to keep my time for something better). Can someone take action against this IP (blocking it globally if possible, because EN.WP will not be enough) ?

May be he thinks that posting this junk via an IP protects him (I think he reall has a true account on wikis, but does not use it to post his junk). He also refuse to sign his posts (the IP signatures are autoadded by monitoring bots only). Blocking the IP should also have an impact on the related WM accounts he may own (I can't investigate it, only IP-checkers can do that, but blocking the IP would also block all connections to his account from that same IP).

Thanks. verdy_p (talk) 12:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• I have blocked 70.51.38.110 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for two weeks for the repeated personal attacks. If you keep getting incivil comments from other IPs, please report them to WP:AIV which is most often faster than this board. De728631 (talk) 21:12, 12 May 2015 (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.

FreeatlastChitchat yet again

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

Only a day after the Rape jihad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article came off lockdown, this editor has resumed section-blanking: [240]

In addition to continuing this disruptive behavior which prompted the other incident report submitted earlier this month, I shall add another charge: brazen lying in edit-summaries. For example, in this edit he claims "No mention of rape jihad Anywhere in the sources given" (even as the very edit he was making was eliminating one such source,[241] and his immediately prior edit eliminated more).

And all after claiming he was walking away from the subject (in another associated ANI submitted earlier this month by @Softlavender:):

"...I have decided to forget that rape jihad article exists for the next 4 months, after which I will push for its deletion. I have removed it from my list and will not be contributing to it anymore..."

(Lack of action stemming from these other ANIs has apparently emboldened him to renege).

Could someone please implement Esquivalience's topic ban proposal from the first ANI? Pax 05:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Useless allegations and counter allegations. Nearly no third-party interaction to determine consensus. Discussion kept for review. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 09:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
The following is a closed discussion. Please do not modify it.
Response to Allegation(Boomerang) My response to this frivolous allegation and an appeal for Boomerang is as below. Content was changed according to consensus with more than 90% support The crystal clear consensus on the talk page shows that section should be removed (98% supporting removal, with only PAX and one other guy whom PAX canvassed disagreeing). The Rotherham and Rotherham sourcing discussions on the Rape jihad Talkpage show that almost everyone agrees with its removal. Some editors reverted the section blanking during the edit war launched by PAX but all of them ,except one, later said that their actions of reverting were in the spirit of protection(They saw a section removal and reverted it, just to be on the safe side. Guy Macon(I won't ping him, looks like canvass) said "I reverted when I saw section blanking with an edit summary that gave an invalid reason for the blanking. I had and still have no opinion on whether the passage should stay or go; that's an editorial decision that you folks need to seek consensus on". Another editor Helpsome reverted the blanking but said "An IP removed a whole section without giving a reason in the edit summary. When they did it a second time, but this time provided a reason I left it alone. I have nothing to do with the edit wars happening here." So you can see what the consensus is. It is clear that this is a case of pushing pov on part of pax. To be honest PAX makes it looks as if he WP:OWNs that article and anyone who touches it should be banned and no one has any rights to edit that article, he even reverts any edits which have nothing to do with section blanking(I removed links to articles from a quote and was reverted without any explanation). My edits were in 100% accordance with WP:NEO policy When I read the source given I immediately saw that the entire article did not mention the term Rape Jihad even once. It was only the title of the article which was Rape Jihad. The article did not explain the term, nor did it use it in anyway. The article talked about slavery in 21st century Islamism and I removed it as a source from Rape jihad according to the following policy at WP:NEO To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy. PAX has displayed classic IDHT attitude PAX has not even ONCE tried to defend any of his sources. His only explanation of why Consensus established at 'SIX' (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ) occasions on RS/N is not good enough is directed at me and is as follows "You're new here. Let me tell you how it goes: would-be fact-censors go to the RS board, inquire about a source, some politicos come out of the woodwork to gas "right-wing" and "Islamophobic"....and then the rest of us get to ignore them because it's not binding because those are piss-poor criteria for dismissal."[242] and more recently his reply to said consensus has been "I know partisan censorship-hunts when I see them, and discount them accordingly. Meanwhile, you're on record above thinking that a Russian front-group is a worthy source of information, so I'm seeing little reason to consider your argumentation credible."[243] PAX has a history of launching frivolous accusations Furthermore he launched a false accusation of sock puppetry against some of editors who removed the section that backfired ,and it was noted that statements by PAX were "blatantly inaccurate". PAX then went into the archives and edited the archived SPI removing his inaccurate statement and was reverted immediately. It is also common for PAX to accuse almost everyone of being a sock puppet. To date he has accused 8 editors of being a sock and not provided even a shred of evidence about them. He thinks that just because some people disagree with them, then they all must be socks. Just for reference, here is the SPI, referred to: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RatatoskJones/Archive, I commented in the SPI in defense of Reddogsix as I knew him to be nothing but a good-faith editor. -War wizard90 (talk) 22:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC) PAX has been banned(in one form or another) for 20% of the time he was on wiki Even more damning is the fact that the user Раціональне анархіст has a history of being topic banned. As you can see from this Topic ban that more than ten users reached the consensus that Раціональне анархіст is not here to build an encyclopedia, rather he is here only to create disruption. He was recently topic banned for 30 days, with a high consensus saying that he should not nominate articles for AFd. I can ping those ten here and they will agree that this user should now be perm banned, but as it may appear to be a canvass I will refrain from doing that. Раціональне анархіст has also been blocked recently due to his continued edit warring and for being highly uncivil to others. The blocking admin noted that Раціональне анархіст was being blocked for "Modifying other editors comments" and then "for edit-warring in an effort to preserve his editing of other's comments". This to be honest is the most uncivil thing that a person can do on wiki, i.e edit another person's comment when one is involved in a dispute with him and then edit war to preserve one's own version of another's comments. It is quite true that I have been blocked for 48 hours. But the period PAx has spent under sanctions is almost 16 times longer than mine. PAX is highly uncivil Add to this the fact that user Раціональне анархіст is highly, highly uncivil in his comments and generally derides others and accuses them of, sockpuppetry, meat puppetry and general vandalism even when there is no such thing going on as a recent SPI proved. He has made my experience of editing wikipedia a highly unpleasant one, he replies to my every comment even if it is not directed towards him and uses insulting and sarcastic language, as is clear from the counter response he posted. He started a new section on the Rape jihad TP labelled as Pattern of vandalism so far, which I had to changeto a more neutral heading. To him everyone who disagrees with him is a vandal or a sock. As this ANI has progressed PAX has displayed even more uncivil behavior, as is evident from his comments on this board. He calls me a liar repeatedly even without any reason(such as his claim that I lied about studying books on Southeast Asian frogs. Had he asked I would have told him that I gave my class the said article as a project so that they could look for sources, they spent three days and worked tirelessly to find sources but could not, I was therefore quite proud of their efforts and mentioned the time spent in my edit summary) One of his habits is to insert his own comments into other people's comments. He inserted a counter response inside my response. Pax should realize that even though there is an edit button, everything should not be edited by everyone and other people's comments are no-go areas. Result Should be a Boomerang for PAX Therefore, seeing this kind of behaviour where I am following consensus and even then coming under attack from a person who was topic banned for 30 days and blocked for another (i.e Almost 20% of the time he has been on wikipedia he has been banned in one form or another). I would like to recommend a Boomerang for PAX with topic ban on rape jihad. And another additional ban to prevent him from accusing people i.e PAX should be banned from launching any SPI or ANI reports himself, he should contact an uninvolved admin on thier TP to report something. Both bans should run concurrently for 2 months. (Response created 28 April, Last Modified May 7)(PAX modified my comment without permission and inserted a counter response within it, I have moved the said section out of my comment to a position directly below it)FreeatlastChitchat (talk) Counter-response by PAX Note: the itemized allegations list above was created by FreeatlastChitChat after most of this discussion had already occurred. It, and the counter-response immediately below, are therefore newer than the rest of the commentary. Note2: FreeatlastChitchat has considerably altered his list above after I formed my replies below, such that many of them no longer correspond. He also removed the numbers from his entries, making it even harder.(My response addressed his material as it appeared at this point. I'm done playing Whack-a-Mole. Wow. You almost had it pulled off: drowning this ANI under a gargantuan wall of text so huge that no admin was brave enough to step forward and tackle it. Archival without a clear resolution seemed almost certain a second time. But you just couldn't help yourself bloating it out even more and adding so many new sections that it's bloody impossible for anyone on the board to ignore now. 1. Your claim of "over 90% support" (edit: now upgraded to 98%) is pure absurdity galloping over the border into outright lying. People here can do math. They can count. The section-blankers have been reverted by at least seven editors (or is it higher now? I've lost track); do you have seventy or more people on your side? No you don't. Not even close. 2. You're lying by equivocation (with an assist from Paul B) by claiming that a phrase isn't "in" a source if it's not in the body of the source article even though the phrase is in the title in fat, bold letters. 3. You're confusing WP:IDHT with me having exhausted patience with an editor who tells lies. 4. My accusations of you lying are not "frivolous"; you've been caught red-handed. You could have just said "Oops, that was a mistake," but instead you've doubled and tripled down defending the lie, going "all in" with deuce-7. This unvarying pattern of behavior basically brings every claim you make under scrutiny. For instance, I find it incredibly unlikely that you've read "1007 news stories" or "wasted 200 hours reading books" about southeast Asian frogs. Could it just be that big numbers are irresistibly shiny to you? And: an outlook shaped by Russian and Islamist propaganda mills doesn't bode well for any issue you're involved in. 5. Your name has graced the title of an ANI thread for a longer percentage of your "career" here, and you've been blocked more often, so calling the kettle black really isn't the best tactic. 6. It's true: I dislike people who tell lies unabashedly and unapologetically, which is why I brought this to the noticeboard in the first place. In fact, I am beginning to have serious doubts as to whether or not a mere topic ban (see Relisted Proposal below) is going to rein you in given the clear ethical issues. Pax 19:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC) FreeatlastChitchat has significantly enlarged this discussion since I first replied to it on the 28th; the material below does not seem to be replying to wording directly above due to material having been inserted, altered, or removed. He references a temporary ban placed upon me several months ago in nominating porn articles for deletion. FreeatlastChitchat demonstrates continued malfeasance by falsely implying that my limited activity in that area since then amounts to a violation, which it does not. Pax 18:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC) You mean the SPI that you requested starting? (My final reply in that) Regards the composition of 2% and 98%, I shall leave it to others to determine whether or not your misrepresentational counting is a matter of WP:BADFAITH or a troublesome inability to handle basic arithmetic. Pax 07:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC) Раціональне анархіст(Pax) should first discuss this thing at the talk page, he has not yet discussed the recent developments, before dragging this to ANI. I don't see what disrupive behaviour Раціональне анархіст refers when he too is engaging in the edit war without bothering to discussing their grievances or differences. Per this I doubt Раціональне_анархіст's ability to distinguish vandalism from content disputes. One can put a level four on his tp for restoring the content back, but that's is not the way to go about doing things. If a user states that they want to walk away and eats their words afterward, it is a silly reason to bring them to ANI. This is more of a content dispute than diruptive editing, if a t-ban is warranted, it is more so for Раціональне_анархіст from ANI. --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 07:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC) I have twenty (and counting) posts on the TP this month. Section-blanking to remove massive numbers of RS while lying in the edit summaries in order to support spurious argument on the TP that the castrated article is then applicable for merging (in violation of the spirit of a recent AfD's closer's (@Davey2010:) suggestion to leave the article alone for at least five months) is not a "content dispute"; it is vandalism with an ulterior purpose. The editor has been warned of vandalism on previous occasions, warned specifically about section-blanking on previous occasions, been a subject in at least three ANIs over the last two months, not counting this one, and has been blocked twice during the same span for edit-warring. Pax 07:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC) PAX, do you think just because an editor got tired of you accusing them of being a sock and told you to just put in the SPI in order to clear their name, that this somehow exonerates you from taking responsibility for opening the SPI? An SPI that was clearly erroneous, perhaps you should have seen the truth in your ridiculous accusations, stopped the accusations and made the choice never to open the SPI. I came to the ANI page for a completely unrelated matter, but when I saw your name posted literally all over ANI and recalling the SPI case I had to look into it. I'm not going to get involved in whatever is going on in the Muslim-based articles, as I know it's a highly contentious area in general, and an area I'm no expert in. But from what I've seen of these behavior based discussions is that you've made some questionable decisions recently. -War wizard90 (talk) 23:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC) I take that back, after perusing the main article in contention, I will say that I support PAX in that this article should be kept. As a society we need to start recognizing these thugs for what they really are, the world would be better of without the Muslim religion (and without any religion for that matter), and especially better without these extremists (who really are the best example of Muslims if you follow the Quran to the letter, other Muslims don't really follow the Quran). That being said, we still have to follow Wikipedia policy and only put verifiable facts into the article which I'm sure is a never-ending frustrating task as the views on this subject are so polarized, that misinformation abounds. Given that fact we should be editing with extreme caution and prudence on any article of this topic, but we certainly should not be censoring the horrible documented murders of women, children, and "infidels" that occurs daily due to ISIS, Taliban, etc. And I do have some sympathy for PAX, in the regards that this can be an extremely emotion-provoking topic and maybe we should try and understand that while emotions shouldn't be involved, on such topics it is bound to happen. -War wizard90 (talk) 23:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC) @War wizard90: <nod> Yup. It's easy to get the wrong impression at the first glance (and regrettably many are). But when you wade in up to your armpits, you go, "Hey...wait a minute...." Btw, the only reason that SPI (requested by at least three people and CU endorsed by two IIRC) was denied was because I screwed up and forgot to remove a sentence when adding a few more suspects to the list (which made the formerly-good sentence erroneous). It's all in the link in the "My final reply in the "SPI you requested?" paragraph up above. (That doesn't appear in the final close because it literally "turned blue"/close while I was typing and I missed hitting Send by about ten seconds.) Concerning the editor who is the subject of this incident report, get a load of this nonsense. It just never ends. He has quite the history of misleading edit summaries. Pax 06:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC) This should be a very clear case of WP:BOOMERANG. The only disruptive editor on this article is Pax. His behaviour has been deeply problematic for a long time. Other editors who disagree with him have attempted discussion and had asked for input at other venues, notable WP:RSN. Pax merely dismisses views he does not like, stating that the consensus at RSN doesn't count because editors there are "politicos" (what on earth does that even mean?). There has also been clear consensus at the talk page for removal of the section, which Pax simply ignores. The article itself is a mess, thanks in large part to Pax's kneejerk edit-warring. Paul B (talk) 14:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC) Paul B has also sectioned-blanked the article.[244] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Раціональне анархіст (talk • contribs) Of course I did, because consensus at all pages in which was discussed was to remove the section, as has been explained. This disingenuous attempt to make a consensus-supported edit look like vandalism is typical of Pax's tactics. Paul B (talk) 20:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC) Drawing in a number of one-shot !voters with no history in the article, and swayed by discredited albeit voluminous repetitive blather to bury other commenters under mountains of text, does not constitute establishing a solid consensus for deleting the article by alternative means (the clear ulterior objective of the section-blankers). Pax 21:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC) You mean discussions do not count when they go against you. I'm glad we cleared that up. Paul B (talk) 21:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC) Agree with WP:BOOMERANG. Instead of justifying their sources in the face of consensus that they are unreliable and/or improperly used in the article there is only edit warring and dismissal. An overwhelming majority on the talkpage have agreed that the paragraph is unsourced and unrelated to the topic. This is ignored. WP:RSN have disqualified the sources used in the paragraph. This is ignored. At no point has the user attempted to justify their sources by anything other than assertion. I have been dragged to a frivolous WP:SPI case, which Pax continued to flog even after it had been thrown out for being without merit and archived [245]. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 16:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC) RatatoskJones has also sectioned-blanked the article,[246][247] and was a subject in a prior ANI regarding it. Comment I do not recall having had anything to do with either of the editors in question, so cannot comment on the appropriateness of a topic ban for either one; but in treating an Islamophobic slur as if it is fact, that article is a disgrace. That article has no more reason to exist than would, for example, Christian babies in Jewish cuisine. Get rid of it. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC) If there actually were Jews cooking babies and citing scripture for it, we'd have an article, right? (They're not, and we still have an article - what does that tell you?) Anyway, the AfD was last month. Pax 21:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC) And if there actually was such as thing as a 'rape jihad', then the article as it currently stands may be warranted. There isn't, so it isn't. And if you'd bothered to follow the link I'd provided, you would have noticed that the anti-Semitic slur in question was discussed appropriately, compared to the way the Islamophobic slur in question is not discussed appropriately. Daveosaurus (talk) 01:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC) You should perhaps also read What is not vandalism. Your false accusations of vandalism are becoming disruptive. Daveosaurus (talk) 03:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC) @Daveosaurus: So "false" that FreeatlastChitChat finally earned a new block for vandalism over the exact issues I've been detailing here? (I also should not have to point out again that "Islamophobia" is itself a neologistic slur, i.e, not a real phobia, which has an article here due to sufficient sourcing.) Pax 09:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC) The link given to a Wikipedia policy page explains that "Disruptive editing or stubbornness", "Reversion or removal of unencyclopedic material", "NPOV contraventions" and even "Harassment or personal attacks" are not usually considered vandalism as such. And Islamophobia may have been a neologism in 1923, but is now in the Oxford English Dictionary; I suggest you bide your time until Rape jihad appears in the OED and then try to write a neutral article on the subject. Daveosaurus (talk) 18:52, 10 May 2015 (UTC) Proposed ban Since Раціональне анархіст is refusing to accept the consensus, (•RSN: 1 2 3 4 5 6 •NPOVN: 7 •TP: 8 9) the following remedy is proposed: User:Раціональне анархіст (Pax) is banned from editing the article Rape jihad for a period of six months. In case of breach of the above ban, the ban is reset and the user may be blocked by an uninvolved administrator for a period determined by them. The user is encouraged to contribute positively to the discussions on the talk page of the relevant article and suggest changes. --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 17:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC) Fauzan has a prior ANI history of edit-warring and apologetics. Pax 08:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC) RSN1: Seven years old; does not concern the writers or topic involved. FPM's claims were otherwise supported by reporting in the Washington Post.[248] RSN2: Does not concern the writers or topic involved. Spurious listing by an editor self-identified as a Marxist on his user-page. Discussion result was that the author was notable. RSN3: Does not concern the writers or topic involved. A muslim editor gets a few bites complaining about Islamophobia. RSN4: Seven years old; does not concern the writers or topic involved. RSN5: Does not concern the writers or topic involved. A single question with a single response consisting of a red-herring argument. RSN6: An RSN posed by the subject of this ANI. A few participants (one overtly partisan) attempt to impugn author Kern (who it turns out is entirely correct regarding the other subject they were pillorying him for). These RSN arguments are at best tenuous, do not cover all of the sources involved, and the secton-blankers have been reverted by at least seven different editors. It is clear that they lack consensus to do so at this point, and the article has been locked twice now in a state which preserved the material they sought to delete. Pax 19:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC) Support Clear indication that Pax has no intention of collaborating with other editors and encourages WP: BATTLEGROUND behavior. Soldier of the Empire (talk) 19:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC) Did you mean I have no interest in collaborating with other editors except @Softlavender:, @Esquivalience:, @Guy Macon:, @DawnDusk:, @220 of Borg:, @Kleuske:, @Helpsome:, @BengaliHindu:, @KrakatoaKatie: and @AlbinoFerret:? (That's a list of editors who've reverted the section-blockers, sided against them on the TP, and/or voted to topic-ban FreeatlastChitchat during the last ANI, or assisted in writing the article. I am not counting one IP and the two who both locked the article in a state not preferred by the section-blankers.) Pax 20:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC) Do not invoke my name as supporting something that I have never offered an opinion on. The edits in question[249][250] do not in any way refer to your behavior, and it is rather insulting to assume that just because I reverted some section blanking done by someone you are having a fight with that somehow translates to me collaborating with you. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC) I apologize in advance for any misunderstanding. "Collaborating" was Soldier of the Empire's choice of term, not mine. Pax 02:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC) Support Pax cannot engage constructively in this topic. His comments are typically sneering and dismissive in tone and he regularly demonstrates that he has no intention of engaging with actual arguments, just repeating assertions ad nauseam. None of the editors he claims to be "collaborating" with come close to Pax's dogmatic POV, though some have supported specific claims of his (and rejected others). Paul B (talk) 20:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC) Oppose (uninvolved non admin) Nothing here rises to the level of a topic ban, this appears to be a content dispute. AlbinoFerret 21:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC) So ignoring consensus, constantly misrepresenting evidence and rejecting out of hand the opinions of independent editors, unrelenting edit warring, constitute a "content dispute". Nonsense. Those are behavioural issues. Paul B (talk) 21:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC) Thank you for the opinions of an involved party. AlbinoFerret 21:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC) Yes, I became involved because of the evidence I saw of Pax's behviour (which includes disingenuosly canvassing support by pinging you in a 'list' of his supporters, contrary to Wikipedia:Canvassing). Typical of his 'sneaky' tactics, to use one of his favourite words. Nothing to do with content dispute, everything to do with gaming the system. Paul B (talk) 22:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC) I commented on the last AN/I section on this. I also watch this page and comment on it. If you do a find on it you will see 18 or so posts, so the so called canvassing isnt really canvassing. If you read the words after the list above, it explains why they are all exceptions to the canvassing rule. AlbinoFerret 22:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC) If you don't think he was canvassing, I think you are being very naive. Your other edits here are irrelevant to his motivations. I've no idea what you mean by invoking the "words after the list above", They simply demonstrate his disingenuousness. Paul B (talk) 01:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC) That comment shows how involved you are and that you have lost objectivity. That post is close to a personal attack and likely violates AGF. AlbinoFerret 01:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC) Attack on whom, you or him? I stand by my statements about Pax's disingenuousness. There is a mountain of evidence for his misrepresentations. This board is for discussing misbehaviour, so pointing it out with evidence is not a "personal attack". If it were, we would never be able to assess editor misconduct at all. Paul B (talk) 12:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC) Silence at this point does not indicate consensus. AlbinoFerret 18:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC) If that's supposed to mean something, I've no idea what it is. It's not a response to anything I've just said. Paul B (talk) 21:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC) It means that this little conversation is going nowhere, and I if I dont respond, it does not indicate that I somehow agree with whatever points you may raise in additional comments. WP:SILENCE AlbinoFerret 21:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC) Comment: Both sides of the equation are problematical here; one side (Freeat lastChitChat and Xerxes...[sp?], etc. [sorry, it's early here and I can't be bothered with getting that username right]) with tag-team POV edit-warring and section-blanking on more than one article; the other side (Pax) with (possibly) ignoring consensus. I'm not sure a ban on one side, or one side only, is going to help matters or is equitable. Softlavender (talk) 01:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC) I don't want to deride you, as I said earlier. However I would like to ask if a consensus is reached on a talk page and numerous debates that a section ought to be blanked then someone blanks the section, how does that equate to "tag-team POV edit-warring and section-blanking". FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 01:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC) This has all been discussed and well-documented on previous ANI threads. It's all a matter of public record; I'm not going to discuss further. Softlavender (talk) 01:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC) SupportFor the simple reason that this is 'The only' article where Pax makes any contributions and has grown to think of it as his own property. He thinks everyone else is wrong even when consensus has been reached. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 01:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC) Pax's contributions dont show any real unhealthy focus. link He has made more combined posts to Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa and its talk page. AlbinoFerret 02:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC) Quite wrong. The combined green numbers in ebola pale in comparison to his activity in Rape jihad.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:49, 30 April 2015 (UTC) No; you're wrong. Look at it again. Pax 05:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC) I have looked at it again and again, and furthermore it is not my opinion that you are obsessed with rape jihad. According to x's tools. 49 edits were by User Раціональне анархіст on Rape jihad (36.57% of the total edits made to the page) while 28 edits were by User Раціональне анархіст on Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa (0.31% of the total edits made to the page) You are being willfully blind and evasive; The Xtools link provided by AlbinoFerret reveals as of this post 49 edits by me to the Rape jihad article and 71 to the two Ebola pages, and 36 versus 63 to the associated talk pages. In other words, I am half as interested in this subject as opposed to the other one by that metric. Even less so if, of the 49 edits, we discount the 16 which are straight reversions of vandalism by you section-blankers. Lastly, since I entirely rewrote the article from the original, and it's relatively new, it stands to reason that a high percentage of the edits to it would be mine. If you ran that tool the moment after I created it and before the earlier version had been linked, it would show that 100% of the edits were mine. Yes, it's shocking that editing is going on in here. Pax 07:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC) Support per Paul B. Ignoring WP:V and WP:OR as well as consensus from talkpage and WP:RSN because they don't agree with it is not productive. I had hoped that Pax would start to defend their sources or find ones that actually can be used, but they have spent more time opening WP:ANI and frivolous WP:SPI cases. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 04:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC) A section-blanker wants a vandal-reverser out; nothing surprising there. Regards your falsely-asserted talk page consensus, a new arrival (Kleuske) is doing a wonderful job of demolishing various nonsenses. So, you can't even claim to hold that ground now even with lessened participation from myself and other previous participants who are awaiting administrative assistance in curtailing the disruption. Pax 05:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC) Removing sections that consensus says should be removed is not "vandalism". You are being dishonest again. None of your disputed edits constitute "vandal reversing". Paul B (talk) 13:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC) Kleuske has not even attempted to justify Rotherham's inclusion in this topic (with the exception of a single source, found unreliable at every turn at WP:RSN), which is what this is all about. Nothing has been demolished. Personally, I hope that people go to the talkpage and check it out for themselves. There is a barrage of WP:V, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH issues that would benefit from more eyes and voices, and could help with the WP:OWN issues. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 14:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC) Classic WP:IDHT on display right there: Kleuske is exactly the "more eyes and voices" you clamored for, and are receiving, and he has addressed your RSN argument at length on the TP (as I did here before he arrived) while you pretend no one has done so. Pax 05:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC) So you ignore all the other editors who have commented on the talkpage because you found one other similarly ignores clear consensus from WP:RSN that you do not like? There is a great majority in favor of merging whatever can be salvaged from this article into Slavery_in_21st-century_Islamism, a majority that only grows with each day. As for the comments from Kleuske, they're running afoul of WP:SYNTH, which anyone who looks at the talkpage will see. None of the sources provided (except the Gatestone, which is unreliable) have anything to do with the topic. Even Kleuske wants to move the page, which you object to for reasons of, and I quote "What I seek to avoid during any potential move to a new seemingly "neutral" name is the WP:WEASELWORDED WP:COATRACKING then sure to smother the article, as it has Chitchat's preferred Islam and domestic violence (whose very first sentence reads "The relationship between Islam and domestic violence is disputed")." which I personally find very telling. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 07:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC) Don't change the subject. In your comment immediately above this one, you claimed "Kleuske has not even attempted to justify Rotherham's inclusion in this topic." That's not true, as his dispute with you over the Gatestone source expressly concerns Rotherham. In fact, he's making solid arguments for extending article scope well beyond that. Dissembling like this is why I've amended the proposal to include you in the topic ban. You've sectioned-blanked the article, have the same WP:IDHT and WP:NOTHERE problems, and present false narratives to this noticeboard. Pax 08:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC) Well, things continue to deteriorate. Now Pax removes POV, disputed, notability and reliable sources tags from the article in spite of heavy discussion on the talk page, where most people disagree with them [251] [252]. Then they remove the merger tag from the article, in spite of the merger discussion having 2:1 support for merger! [253] When a new editor comes in to discuss the poor sourcing in the article they attempt to shut down the discussion with threats of blocking [254]. Considering their refusal to acknowledge the clear consensus regarding their sources (Gatestone Institute, FrontPage Magazine and self-published books factor among them), talk page discussion has proven fruitless. This is how they regard the consensus against them: [255] You're new here. Let me tell you how it goes: would-be fact-censors go to the RS board, inquire about a source, some politicos come out of the woodwork to gas "right-wing" and "Islamophobic"....and then the rest of us get to ignore them because it's not binding because those are piss-poor criteria for dismissal. [256] Of course these "reputable academic sources" wouldn't dream of explicitly promoting a particular point of view Then there are these charming comments: [257] Nobody is going to report on a demographic-warfare tactic without having a pretty strong opinion of it, either for (Muhammad) or against (the filthy kafir targets). [258] The fact that you're using the coined smear-term "Islamophobic" speaks volumes. At this point, it's clear that this user is less interested in collaboration pr good sourcing, and more interested in sticking it to the muslims. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 05:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC) Strong Support In my very brief interactions with Pax I have seen him use the Rape Jihad article as a WP:POVFORK for the Rotherham article. He then attemped to justify his actions by misrepresenting sources, and claiming an article about an Oxford abuse case was about Rotherham[259]. The other source he linked to was so dubious it was laughed out of RSN the only time it came up. He has demonstrated a clear inability to use sources responsibly in this topic area, that combined with his itchy trigger when it comes to proposing topic bans makes it very clear that he needs a break from the topic area.Bosstopher (talk) 20:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC) Another involved editor weighs in with a non-defense of FreeatlastChitchat's lying in edit commentaries. The topic-ban to be applied to him is a relist of someone else's proposal, so let's not imply it were my idea initially - he's generated a lot of noticeboard attention over the last several months. Regards the content issue, replied to Pax 23:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC) Oppose Paul B is correct but Pax is mostly correct about the behavior of other editors who have disruptive many other similar pages. There is some hope with Pax, but there is no hope with those editors who are engaged in these edit wars. Delibzr (talk) 14:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC) Support per Paul B. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 16:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC) The following text is present on Gouncbeatduke's user page: "...Wikipedia('s) systemic bias can only be corrected through a new aggressive Wikipedia policy of topic bans of Islamophobic and Anti-Arab editors." — Given that he is !voting to exonerate serial section-blanking and lying in edit summaries (with his !vote in the Relisted Proposal below) while simultaneously !voting to condemn (with his !vote in this section) the person who brought the disruptive activities of these vandals to notice here, I can only assume he is abandoning any semblance of non-partisanship in order to pursue that stated "aggressive" agenda of harassing editors involved in articles delving into the less savory aspects of the religion he obviously seeks to protect with the ultimate aim of censoring those articles involving it. Pax 05:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC) Just repeat, there is no rule against "section blanking". Sections are content like any other content, which can be deleted for the same reasons as any other content. And no one "lied" in an edit summary, as has been exhaustively demonstrated. Perhaps you think that if you repeat this often enough it will somehow become fact. Paul B (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC) Gouncbeatduke has a prior block stemming from an incident involving section-blanking of an Islam-related article, and has another recent block as well. Pax 20:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC) Oppose (semi-involved) The section blanking is a violation of WP:CONSENSUS. This proposal seems like an attempt to reinstate the blanked version of the article. Restrictions are used to prevent damage or disruption to the encyclopedia, not to instate an editor or group of editors' preferred version. Esquivalience t 23:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC) Support per Paul B as an absolute minimum, with preference to a topic ban from Islam, broadly construed. The editor opposes any content not coinciding with his/her own POV: [260], where neutral wording is replaced with internal POV; and [261], where sourced content contrary to Pax's POV is section-blanked (the same offence Pax accuses other editors of). Daveosaurus (talk) 01:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC) Support per reasonings provided by Paul B. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC) 2 cents (involved) (Non-administrator comment) I got involved. I'm not happy with the title, which fails WP:NPOV in my view. I have made an argument that sexual violence in Islamic culture (proposed new title) is worth an article or rather, should have an article in much the same way as Catholic Church sexual abuse cases. This cannot only cover atrocities by cookoo cults like ISIL and Boko Haram, but also the accepted violence agains women in (for instance) the Pakistani community in Britain. I have cited several sources quoting Muslims explicitly acknowledging the problem and without any exception these were either ignored or deemed not reliable without any explanation of why they are unreliable. I do not think that the goal of my esteemed opponents is reaching some kind of consensus, but rather that their main goal is to obstruct improvements as much as possible by simply opposing anything and everything. With respect to FreeatlastChitchat I have reached the conclusion that WP:IDHT is applicable and I'm beginning to wonder about WP:NOTHERE. Kleuske (talk) 12:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC) I agree with all of that that Kleuske wrote above, including the fact of NOTHERE and so forth. I agree that the title change would solve every problem the article (which has survived recent AfDs) is experiencing. I also would like to state that the level of disruption and SPA partisanship and intransigency on the article talk page (and in the edit-warring) has long been at the level of unconscionability and unworkability. I would like to see obvious partisans held off of the article for a good length of time while neutral parties cleaned it up, titled it something neutral and verifiable as Kleuske has suggested, and then keep the warriors and SPA partisans out if possible. (PS: I'm not involved in editing the article but I have reported some of the tag-team edit-warriors.) Softlavender (talk) 12:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC) 'Sexual violence in Islamic culture'. Yes that sounds neutral enough lol. On a serious note, there is already a merger on the table which has been proposed with Slavery in 21st-century Islamism. If you want to rename the article, why don't you support the merger? After all, what you proposed is all but a merger. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 17:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC) I would strongly oppose that, since sexual violence against women in Islam is (sadly) not restricted to 'islamism' nor the 21st century. See, apart from the sources I already mentioned this listing of 20 fatwa's. You are, of course welcome to suggest a title you think is better suited, but I kindly request you do it on the appropriate talk page. The above just makes my point. Kleuske (talk) 17:32, 30 April 2015 (UTC) There is an article Islam and domestic violence which is 'exactly' 100% related to you listing of 20 fatwa's. I don't get it, why are you proposing making new articles about something which already has an article on wikipedia? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 17:43, 30 April 2015 (UTC) All of the fatwas you link are about beating. None of them say anything whatever about sexual violence. Do you understand what the phrase "sexual violence" means? It does not mean any form of violence to someone of the opposite sex. Paul B (talk) 10:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC) Kleuske, thank you very much for the input, and I am more receptive to this title proposal than the other you posed on the TP (even though the current titles is in actual usage by sources, and thus my current preferred), but to be honest it should wait until after this ANI is resolved, because no serious work can be accomplished until the disruption ends. Pax 03:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC) Relisted Proposal (to topic-ban FreeatlastChitchat) (As originally submitted by Esquivalience t in the previous ANI concerning FreeatlastChitchat.) Pax 19:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC) The community forbids FreeatlastChitchat for six months from making edits to articles related with Islam, especially to Rape jihad, any articles that Rape jihad has been merged from or spinoff articles, and historical articles involving Muslim armies or political entities, broadly construed. Any uninvolved administrator may, at their own discretion, block FreeatlastChitchat from editing for a period of up to one year, enforce a longer topic ban (the period can be chosen by the administrator) from articles related with Islam, and/or enforce an indefinite topic ban from articles related with Islam, if he/she finds FreeatlastChitchat has violated the topic ban. If a block or lengthening of the topic ban under section 2 is enacted, then FreeatlastChitchat may appeal the block or lengthening of the topic ban by: discussing it with the administrator that enacted the remedy; or appealing it to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, Administrators' noticeboard, or the Arbitration Committee If the community or ArbCom does not wish to vacate the block or lengthening of the topic ban, then FreeatlastChitChat may appeal again in six months and every six months thereafter. Comment: There are also votes in the previous ANI, anyone closing this proposal should take them into account. Esquivalience t 20:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC) Might be a good idea to rescue the section from the archives. AlbinoFerret 21:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC) Previous participation is here - !vote below - Esquivalience t 01:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC): Support: six months is reasonable. Recommend proposal be amended with "...broadly construed, including historical articles involving Muslim armies or political entities" just to make things very clear that old Pakistan/India/Bangladesh bio and war articles are off-limits. The editor is fresh off a new (acquired same day as Esquivalience's proposal) 24hr block for committing five reverts in a twenty minute span. Given level of impulsiveness, suspect he'll hang himself long before the duration expires, but we'll see. Pax 23:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC) Comment: I have added an amendment that places an emphasis on articles related with Rape jihad, any articles that Rape jihad has been merged from or spinoff articles, and historical articles involving Muslim armies or political entities, broadly construed. to make it crystal clear. <note: removed extra ping when moving previous discussion here.> Esquivalience t 01:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC) Thumbs up. Pax 04:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC) support He's causing a ridiculous amount of problems across a wide swath of pages. It has to stop. KrakatoaKatie 16:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC) Support (uninvolved non admin) Edit warring in one topic area is never a good idea. Consensus is how articles are edited. The actions linked to show he has is acting as an advocate, removing negative things that have some relation to Islam. AlbinoFerret 20:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC) If you take some time to read the talk page at Rape jihad you will find that most editors (i.e 95%) support my actions of blanking the sections due to reasons ranging from synthesis to lack of RS and OR, this includes editors with good standing such as Fauzan, User:Paul Barlow and User:Nawabmalhi. Also if you see this opinion by an uninvolved editor, you will see that all edits on the Mughal wars made by me and Xtreme were rational and according to policy. At the talk page of rape jihad you can see that User:RatatoskJones, User:Rhoark, User:Fauzan, User:Blueboar, User:Paul Barlow, User:Nawabmalhiand four others 'support' the exclusion of rotherham from the article and merging the article or redirecting it. While there are only 2 people who say that rotherham is included.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC) 95%? You personally reverted a sum total of more editors (5) than were ever on your side during the blank-out war at the article page, or who've shown up to support you during the lockdown on the TP. Pax 10:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC) Oppose as currently worded. Looking at the history, both the sides have crossed the line. General sanctions need to be implemented that encompass the editng of the said article. And yes, BRD is an essay, not a policy. If the content is not suitable, you can't cite BRD to retain the content. --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 16:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC) WP:BRD is not a policy, but WP:TALKDONTREVERT certainly is. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC) BRD is just more popular. Delibzr (talk) 14:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC) Support Everyone has said it. If he is removing those things that he found to be negative then he has to select other topic. Delibzr (talk) 14:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC) Oppose per Fauzan. -- Gouncbeatduke (talk) 16:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC) Support I have seen what is going on with this page and it is none-too-impressive. It seems a number of users just want to duke it out and that consensus and the encyclopaedia are at best of secondary concern. I vote for a topic ban on a temporary basis not to punish this user but rather to calm the situation and allow him to review his position. wp:battleground is the alternative. Trout 71 12:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC) Moment of Truth I think this has dragged on long enough. It seems clear that PAX will not agree with what I am saying(Lets just say that taking out rotherham is not based on consensus and it is my own, personal, POV, biased action). And I am not going to agree to rotherham being in the article, to be honest I would like to delete the article, but for now rotherham should be deleted in my opinion. Therefore being mature adults, I propose that we let the community decide what should be the content of the article. To this end I propose that Both me and PAX, voluntarily remove ourselves from the Rape jihad article for the period of one month, to commence after the page is unprotected. We both waive our rights to comment/participate on the talk page of the said article and/or mention the said article on any other page in English Wikipedia.(except an admins TP). We both agree to voluntarily submit ourselves for speedy checkuser if an IP/anon is found to be editing the article in a way deemed "unconstructive" by more than 5 other editors. We are both allowed to participate in editing the article by placing our suggestions on the talkpage of an admin(preferably the admin who closes this debate). We both volunteer to be subjected by 1 revert in 24 hrs sanction even after this period is over. We make at least 300 major edits to wikipedia articles in general (excluding nominations and tagging) during the 1 month period. So that others can assume good faith that we are not here just to fight, rather to build an encyclopedia. We both voluntarily submit ourselves to an indefinite t-ban(non-appealable) if we are found to be editing the said article during this period of voluntary cool off, or if we do not comply with any of the conditions mentioned above. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC) You reneged on your last non-binding declaration (quoted in italics at the top of this ANI) to leave it alone, and came back in to lie in edit-summaries. The only "truth" I see above is finally a stipulation on your part that securing the article's deletion is your primary desire, not its improvement. Since your presence in the article at this point is one of bad faith, my proposal (already submitted by myself and others) is that your removal from the subject be made binding in the form of the submitted topic ban. Pax 01:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC) I don't know what is going on here, but the tinypic image of a "diff" labelled a "lie in edit-summaries" presented by Pax does not correspond to the actual diff in the page record [262]. The so-called lie is nowhere to be seen. Paul B (talk) 11:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC) Yes, you have made it absolutely clear that you "don't know what is going on here" and aren't making any attempt to listen or learn. As anyone can easily see by clicking your own link (which exactly corresponds, contrary to your claim above, to the picture -- which I created to preserve a permanent record of this malfeasance in the Incident archives should the article ever be deleted in the future), FreeatlastChitchat has removed a source whose title is "title=ISIS and the Rape Jihad" while including in his edit commentary: "No mention of rape jihad Anywhere in the sources given", which is a patent falsehood (you'll note that Chitchat has not denied it despite the charge occurring multiple times in this ANI). Are you blind? Were you hoping no one would click it, or that you would not be called on it? At this point, it really doesn't matter as this nonsense from you three is obviously not going to stop, So, could we please get some administrative action in this notice? The section-blankers have richly earned a topic-ban from this subject. (Please see Amendment to the Relisted Proposal below.) Pax 06:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC) If you read the article you will see that it does not mention rape jihad at all. Rather it mentions slavery. Hence my summary. But it is almost impossible to argue with you. You are highly uncivil to anyone who has a different opinion and therefore I try to keep my contact with you to a bare minimum. This reply is for any admin who is looking through and your further comments will not be replied to. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:17, 1 May 2015 (UTC) So "it does not mention rape jihad at all" except right in its VERY TITLE? Good God, please make this person go away. Pax 07:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC) That's right. The article does not mention it. The title is a catch phrase not mentioned even once in the article. In journalism, titles are often eye-grabbing phrases created by editors and sub-editors, not the article writer. Paul B (talk) 15:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC) That has to be the most disingenuous argument I've ever heard yet to justify lying, maintaining that the title of an article is not part of an article. Pax 19:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC) It isn't. Article content is what matters. We are writing about subjects, not catch phrases. And in any case the "article" is an unreliable source, so it can just be discounted. Paul B (talk) 11:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC) Pure deception. Pax 21:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC) There is no need to create a tinypic, as the diff is a permannt record. THe fact that byou have linked to an image you created rather than the diff indicates your disingenuousness. Paul B (talk) 12:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC) You've been around long enough to know perfectly well that if an article is deleted, its history is deleted too, and thus the dif link would become 404 to anyone except administrators. *That* is why I made the picture: for a permanent record of this malfeasance that anyone can see. Pax 19:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC) Amendment to the Relisted Proposal For multiple reasons expressed elsewhere in this notice, I propose including Paul B and RatatoskJones (who have also section-blanked the article) in the topic ban restrictions to be applied to FreeatlastChitChat in the Relisted Proposal above. This would also address an unresolved separate ANI over the issue. Pax 05:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC) So let me get this straight, you want to topic ban three editors Me, Paul B and Ratatosk Jones? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC) What kind of fantasy world are you living in Pax? This proposal is utterly frivolous, or rather it is a disgrace. Paul B (talk) 09:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC) Ridiculous. I've removed the poorly-sourced section twice, the last time on April 16th. Since then, my edits to the article mainspace have been solely to insert a citation-needed tag, which Pax removed twice (once directly, once by reverting FreeatlastChitChat's removal of the section one revision too far) without consensus. I'll WP:AGF and assume the second one was a mistake by Pax, but since I've edited and commented on the article, I've gotten nothing but attacks by Pax. I have been falsely accused of vandalism and sockpuppeting, of being "sneaky" [263] and "disingenuous" [264], and this nugget [265] where asking for comments from uninvolved editors is met by: "RatatoskJones canvassed unrelated-topic RFC forums, transparently gaming to build up a war-chest of support for article disruption once the one-week lockdown expired), convince me that WP:BADFAITH and WP:NOTHERE problems are not going to stop." Ratatosk Jones (talk) 13:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC) I'm incredibly tempted to propose a topic ban that bans Pax from proposing topic bans at this point, because at this rate 90% of the ANI page will be Pax proposing topic bans for people. Bosstopher (talk) 20:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC) Humorous WP:ADHOM duly noted. But can you offer any defense of FreeatlastChitchat's lying in edit summaries? Pax 23:14, 3 May 2015 (UTC) Support This thing is a mess. Unfortunately I was silly enough to get involved by voting on a merge proposal. I voted against a move or rename and very quickly I had responses from both User:RatatoskJones and User:Paul Barlow. This is well within the rules but that !vote seems seriously skewed. Certainly it is a case of badgering. Anyway I feel a temporary topic ban might be in order so as to diffuse the situation. These editors are valuable to the project, but not when they are engaged in wp:battleground, which they certainly are. Things need to cool off. Also this article is getting few visits other than those of the combatants and those attracted by this excessively large and likely unsolvable ANI. It really isn't worth the trouble. and I support the amendment. Thank you Trout 71 12:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC) YOu are truly unbelievable. I'd refer you ro WP:Fantssyworld if there was such a thing. Why don't you actually read the details of the arguments, which you have shown zero evidence of doing. Paul B (talk) 12:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC) Another incident, May 4: Battleground, incivility, and vandalizing a talk page with a single edit (his first there after not posting for three days). Pax 10:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC) No editor has any right to brand another editors actions as 'Vandalism' in a Talk Page section. If you think something done in accordance with consensus of the majority is vandalism you should go open a case somewhere and 'PROVE' it as vandalism. Just branding something as vandalism on an articles TP is highly uncivil. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 15:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC) I see you; you're a section-blanking vandal. You've section-blanked the article well over a dozen times:[266],[267],[268],[269],[270],[271],[272],[273],[274],[275],[276],[277],[278],[279],[280],[281]. You need to go away, and since you won't do it voluntarily, administrative assistance is sought to help you find the door. Pax 20:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC) Removing content in accordance with consensus is not and never has been vandalism. There is nothing magical about content that happens to have been stuck under a sub-heading, so that removing it becomes some offence of "section blanking". People add and remove sections all of the time for legitimate reasons. Paul B (talk) 10:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC) But you didn't have consensus. FreeatlastChitchat lied in edit commentaries. That's why you need to go away for an extended duration. Pax 16:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC) He did not in any sense lie. OK, you can disagree with his view that there was consensus (which has no clear defintion), but there was certainly a significant majority in favour of that view. Please don't make out-and-out false accusations. Having read the discussions and compared Freeatlast's comments and yours, I know who I trust more to be truthful. Paul B (talk) 12:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC) Because some people have WP:IDHT problems, I shall repeat myself yet again: FreeatlastChitchat did lie in this edit[[282]: The exact phrase "rape jihad" was in the very title of the source he was deleting as he was making an edit whose commentary maintained "No mention of rape jihad Anywhere in the sources given". His immediately prior edit eliminated more sources containing the exact phrase. Yes, you certainly do have WP:IDHT problems, as several editors have independently pointed out to you. It is not a lie to say that the article does not contain the phrase. Again, this is a fact that several editors have pointed out, and which you just ignore, ignore, ignore and splutter and bluster. The edit removed content that was cited to sources that do not mention rape jihad in the content. Of all the sources the phrase appears in one unreliable one in a catchy title and even in that case, it is not in the article content at all. You are just blowing smoke as usual. But the main problem here is that you are not interested in trying to work with other good faith editors, you are just trying to catch someone out and then blow up as big as possible that editor's supposed (and in fact non-extistent) transgression. This should not be an issue of wikilawyering over exact phrasing in an edit summary. The summary was an accurate and correct application of wikipedia policy. No reliable source, of the ten that were cited, used the term at all, or made any reference to any such concept. Paul B (talk) 10:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC) This ANI isn't about content (however much you wish to derail it). Pax 23:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Request for administrative closure

Due to the size of this discussion and the fact that a previous iteration was closed by a non-admin, I have requested that an admin review and close the topic. Pax 20:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Finally, a sensible move from one of the involved parties. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 09:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

List of Presidents of Croatia, again

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive875#List_of_Presidents_of_Croatia. Again.

Will any admin object if I implement the measures I suggested earlier? Nothing has changed and Director is still engaging in a clear and unambiguous WP:OWN violation.

--Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:45, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

A user made an edit, two other users opposed that edit and reverted him. There were two reverts. There is no OWN. The only thing that's "clear and unambiguous" is that you're trying to push a POV over there. Joy, if you have a content issue to discuss, take that to the talkpage. This is no way to voice grievances about the article's state, its disruptive and frankly suspect (not to mention you didn't even notify me).

For the record, Joy is heavily involved over at the article, his general position is opposed and and he's (rather transparently) trying to push a topic ban on me in order to have his way against clear consensus.

My summary: a while ago user Timbouctou attempted to push certain changes, but was opposed by participants on the talkpage. As a kind of "consolation prize" he posted a POV tag. After weeks of no discussion, the tag was removed. Yesterday Timbouctou re-introduced it, and I reverted him twice and posted a thread, wherein another user (Tuvixer) expressed opposition to the tag. There is no OWN here. There isn't even an edit-war, and I have no intention of entering one. But I personally think Timbouctou doesn't give a damn he has no consensus and is opposed on the talkpage - he'll probably re-introduce his unwarranted consolation tag and edit-war for his edits in general. At that point I don't think there's much more I can do besides post a thread here myself and lay out what I believe is a pattern of disruption exhibited by the user over the past several weeks.

As regards Joy, frankly I feel he might justifiably get BOOMERANGED for trying to push his POV through successive disruptive ANI reports, rather than, say, reporting Timbouctou (given how many edit wars the guy was in only in the past week). He agrees with Timbouctou, though, you see... -- Director (talk) 10:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Can somebody tell us what this freaking dispute is actually about? I would like both Timbouctou and Director to summarize, in exactly two brief and neutral sentences each, what their own position is and what they think the other side's position is. "Director feels that the article should… Timbouctou feels the article should…". Nothing more, no comments, no ridicule, no accusations, no justifications, no reasons. I will support a topic ban for either party, should they fail to provide this simple summary. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I feel the article should pretty much stay as it is, as it has been basically since its inception. I can't say what Timbouctou wants to do at the moment, but he started with demands to delete more than half the article (basically rendering it pointless) on grounds that he's really really sure the constitutional heads of state weren't heads of state - if they served that function during the Yugoslav period. He has very interesting personal views about what is or is not a "head of state". Personal views contradicted by scholarly sources. His motion would also necessitate the creation of about two or three additional, completely pointless articles.. and all for the same basic office of the same exact country (mind you, the current Croatian republic is defined, in the preamble of its constitution, as being the exact same country as was part of the Yugoslav federation).

Its a politics thing, Future.. A right-wing candidate just recently became president in Croatia, and its not fitting to have good solid Croatian! heads of state be sullied by the presence of yugocommunist traitors in the same list! As if the Presidents of the Presidency of Croatia have anything to do with the Presidents of Croatia!... -- Director (talk) 11:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, Director, you failed my easy little test, so yes, I will support a topic ban for you. Let's see if Timbouctou fares any better. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Brilliant method, @Future. Truly thou art the Solomon of the Internets :). Only one who can say "how he feels" without explaining why he "feels" is the just party! (reasons are for idiots).

Except I'm a busy man, at work, glancing over your post, and didn't read the last few words of the Socratic exercise you devised. Instead I stupidly made the effort of replying to your request, as opposed to simply ignoring you - and/or pointing out that the content itself has no real relevance to this ANI thread. I sincerely hope you're joking. I've seen arbitrary, but this would be a new low.

Seriously, though, I have no idea why the content dispute is being discussed here. Its not just between me and Timbouctou.. there are many participants with differing points of view - on the talkpage. Is this an RfC...?? -- Director (talk) 12:37, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment from completely uninvolved editor: If the title of the article is List of Presidents of Croatia, then the article should begin with Franjo Tuđman and exclude anything before that, since he was the first President of Croatia. If someone wants to re-title (move) the article to List of Croatian heads of state, then that's another matter entirely. Alternatively, there could be two articles, one that lists all past Croatian heads of state, and one that lists only Presidents. Softlavender (talk) 12:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

@Softlavender: its not that simple, or we wouldn't even have a dispute. On a basic level, a "president" is defined by the OED as "the elected head of a republican state", which is a definition all these people fit. Moreover, they were all formally titled "President" ('of the Presidium', 'of the Presidency').

More importantly: every single Prime Minister and Presidents list article for every one of the six (ex-)Yugoslav republics lists all republican heads of state (presidents) in this manner, and has for years and years, since its creation. This is because they all had the same republican history, and the alternative would logically necessitate the creation of at least two additional articles for each of the states, each with just a couple of entries. Its pointless.

The trouble with an article titled List of Croatian heads of state is that there were many, many kings of Croatia. -- Director (talk) 12:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

You are conflating "elected head of state of a republican state" with "President". Per the OED, all Presidents are elected heads of state of a republican state, but not all elected heads of state of republican states are presidents. Case closed. If you want to include the other heads of state, figure out a way to re-title the article, such as List of elected Croatian heads of state. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid argument. Softlavender (talk) 13:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Can we please not delve into an in-depth debate over the content here? This belongs on the article talkpage. If this trivial editorial decision is in dispute, why hasn't there simply been an RfC? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I totally agree, Fut.Perf. But it's apparently the second thread on this article in two months. Suggest they all be reprimanded and told to solve content disputes via WP:RfC(s) or other WP:DR, and keep this off of ANI. Alternatively, since Director seems at a glance to be a significant source of the problem, suggest possibly topic-banning him/her from all articles on Croatian heads of state, as suggested in the former ANI. Softlavender (talk) 13:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

There hasn't been progress at resolving the content issue, rather only a deterioration (removal of valid cleanup tags), and you already observed the root cause - this is almost too ridiculous to actually be a content dispute. It's a behavioral problem, and it has to be addressed with precise and fair administrative sanctions. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

There was a proposal - it was rejected. Just because something isn't resolved to your satisfaction - doesn't mean it isn't "resolved". Your dissatisfaction with the resolution is further no justification for the nonsense tag staying there in perpetuity. The rationale behind it is patently ridiculous and rejected on the talkpage.

And yes, I agree that repeatedly attempting to use this board to resolve your content disputes - is a behavioral problem. It must be very comfortable WP:GAMING the system in this manner - just ignore discussion when it isn't going your way, and post cockamamie reports over and over again. -- Director (talk) 15:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment from a disgruntled former editor: We're talking about Croatia. I mean, Croatia. Why is everyone getting worked up about Croatia? INSANO! Robtransit archdurbar (talk) 12:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

By the way, can someone please block Robtransit archdurbar as a troll? Softlavender (talk) 13:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Done. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• #1 The user proposes changes.
• #2 Four users end up opposing him, myself included.
• #3 In spite of having no consensus - he edit-wars to push his edits in.
• #4 After a month of no discussion, his tag is removed.
• #5 He restores his tag (and other edits!) twice, and is opposed once again by two users on the talkpage.
• #6 I get reported by Joy, who openly supports the other guy's position, in an (extremely transparent) attempt to shift the consensus. I get on report - rather than the guy pushing his edits by revert-warring, against consensus (he just reverted for the third time; does he give a damn others disagree with his edit? - not on your life). Yeah, I get on report. For reverting the guy twice. Under a stupid, arbitrary rationale of "OWN" - in spite of my position being shared by three other participants, and being the status quo of virtually ten years both there and on all twelve comparable articles! Why is it OWN? Because its very convenient, my having written most of the article - and for no other reason at all: not a single argument or elaboration was posted for the rationale at any point. I can't see a violation of any policy here.
• Finally, #7 - instead of ignoring this farce of a thread for the transparent attempt at "strategizing" that it is, my respect for the participants leads me to make the mistake of actually investing time and effort into responding, thus making myself the "cause of the problem at a glance".

Do what you will, guys. Topic ban me for twice restoring the consensus version of an article against right-wing nationalist POV-pushing, by a user who by rights should be on report here instead of me, and has no qualms shattering Wikipedia's coverage of a topic into absurd little fragments for the sake of a political agenda. I will appeal any sanctions - on grounds of not having done anything. As regards the article, that's simply the best way to list those officeholders, which is why its present everywhere in all of the twelve comparable articles. Anyone who doesn't want to split it into three or four non-WP:NOTABLE stubs, listing maybe two people(?) - should agree. Now I think I'll stop playing into Joy's hands. -- Director (talk) 15:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment (non admin observation) This is the second section on this page that Timbouctou is involved with. The other is Privatization in Croatia where they got involved in a massive edit war. AlbinoFerret 15:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

If you check the user's contributions, you'll find he was active in revert wars on about a half-dozen articles just in the past week, pushing various Croatian-nationalist edits. -- Director (talk) 16:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I guess I've just grown too old to tolerate utter imbeciles who come here with the express purpose of political soapboxing and trolling around talk pages. Direktor's editing pattern shows clear signs of pyschopathic behaviour and User:Tuvixer has serious WP:COMPETENCE issues. I guess I would need to spend 16 hours of my time collecting evidence to prove that to admins who earned their stripes editing articles on Pokemon, but guess what - I value my time too much for that crap. Timbouctou (talk) 16:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

God knows what we might find if somebody took to time to check your "contributions". Also, I don't suppose you have an example of a "Croatian-nationalist" edit I made, do you? Timbouctou (talk) 16:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Its not like my contribs are hidden somehow, feel free to have a look.. not much to see, I'm afraid.. just created a new article a day or so ago, nothing much else. In regards to Croatian right-wing agenda-pushing, it'd be harder to find exceptions than examples. And your "getting too old"? I'm sorry to say we all are, Timbouctou. But don't try to paint your extreme incivility and apparent annoyance with everyone on this project as something "new".

Also - this is ANI, I hope at least here you'll try to make an effort not to modify or move around other users' posts. -- Director (talk) 16:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

So I guess we'll be seeing no examples of my alleged "Croatian-nationalist" edits from you then? You'll just resort to slanderous accusations? Yeah, this is ANI - the place which spent years buying your bullshit, never questioning how is it that you seem to have issues with someone at least once a week. A new admin born every day I guess. Timbouctou (talk) 16:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Right. At this point, the way I see it, it is little use trying to figure out who is originally to blame for this impasse – it seems pretty clear to me that there is no objective "right" or "wrong" on this matter (whether or not one wishes to list both sets of politicians on a single page or not is a matter of legitimate editorial discretion, and whether the one set were "presidents" and in which sense is a matter that could be easily explained and hedged appropriately in the text, if needed. There are clearly reasonable arguments to be made on both sides.) What is abundantly clear though is that neither of the two main parties involved is currently willing to work reasonably and constructively with the other. In this situation of dispute resolution breakdown, what we need is to get both parties off the scene. Could some uninvolved admin colleague please do the obvious thing and apply WP:ARBMAC? (I would do it, as being completely uninvolved in matters of Croation history, but I happen to have had disputes with Director on some other unrelated topics not too long ago, so I'd rather not be the one to act here.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

While this discussion has been going on, a new round of edit warring has taken place. I am asking for page protection while we wait. AlbinoFerret 17:34, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I have fully protected the page for three days. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 17:45, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Mark: whether his position represents a legitimate point of view or not, its been discussed and shown to lack support. But its not his position that causes the problem - its his disruption in pursuit of it. His edit-warring against status quo and consensus. I am perfectly willing to discuss with Timbouctou (in fact I posted a thread), the problem is he doesn't want to discuss - and quite logically. He doesn't say what he needs "verified" - because there is nothing to verify. The matter is one of editorial discretion - and his position was rejected on the talkpage: four users oppose it. His argument (about heads of state supposedly needing to be 'sovereign' before they can be called such) is both unsourced and debunked with sources. He. Has. Nothing. Which is why he doesn't discuss, just provoke with typical disdain. And I can not agree that anyone besides him should be sanctioned for his disruption.

Its your decision guys, but I will appeal any sanctions to ARBCOM. Like I said - I reverted someone twice, restoring the consensus status quo version, and disagreed with him on the talkpage. I don't see myself as having done anything warranting bans of any sort.

P.s. I consider you quite uninvolved, FPaS.. I don't even remember what disputes you're referring to. Do what you feel is best. -- Director (talk) 17:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't suppose you can name the "four users" who "reject my position", can you? And I don't suppose you have actual diffs for anything you claim, do you? And I suppose you conveniently fail to register an admin reported you (not me) for owning the article in question? Interesting how these details always somehow slip your mind whenever posting at ANI, isn't it. The amount of wikilawering you use to disguise an editing career that has been nothing but disruptive is mind-numbing. And the fact that there are always suckers at ANI willing to buy your shit is the most depressing thing about this project. Timbouctou (talk) 18:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Whats depressing, is after edit warring on one article, and getting involved in an edit war on this one, while this discussion was ongoing YOU edit warred again. Breaking the WP:3RR rule [283] [284] [285] [286] [287]. Its time to look at your own behaviour and not at others. No matter what anyone else did, you acted in a way that is unacceptable. Pointing a finger at others is not a defence. AlbinoFerret 18:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I suggest forwarding that to WP:ANEW. I would do it myself, but it probably makes more sense for the editor that looked in to it do the filing. It's clear that a "cooling off" period is needed here, for at least Timbouctou. --IJBall (talk) 18:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Timbouctou is pointing fingers at others because he is trying to hide what he has done, and as you said, he has broken the 3RR. He has engaged in a edit war and ha ignored the talk page. He has started all of this and the page is protected because of his edits and unwillingness to stop the edit war and engage in a constructive debate. He has done all of that because he has no consensus and he has no valid arguments to back his position. In three days we will again see a edit war because without arguments and a consensus that is all what timbouctou has to push his political or better to say insane agenda. Everyone can see that he is mean and insults other users, he calls other users trolls but we all can see who the actual troll is. I don't have to say his name. --Tuvixer (talk) 18:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

IJBall there is already a section he is involved with on WP:ANEW. What I'm thinking is perhaps a 6 month topic ban broadly defined. AlbinoFerret 18:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I think the problem there is that the filing against Timbouctou was simply "appended" on to a pre-existing filling, rather than being put in as a separate report. As a result, both ANEW filings seem to have gotten lost in the shuffle there, as the Admins probably don't want to tackle that wall of text. I think I'd suggest breaking the Timbouctou report out into a separate entry... --IJBall (talk) 20:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The point of view that advocates an wholly unreferenced list is not actually an argument that should be entertained as reasonable because it's against a core Wikipedia policy of verifiability. This has been fairly clearly articulated at the talk page already, but it has been completely drowned out by the surrounding flamewar. It's rather similar to this discussion - Director grew a forest of text and now most people can no longer see the trees. It had the effect of dissuading most people from participating, and making Timbouctou start one of his revert binges. Make it stop... --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

"Wholly unrefrenced list" - now that's manipulation. Nobody (you and Timbouctou included!) ever challenged the basic fact that these people served in those roles as laid out - because if that were the case sources can be found instantly for each of them, and for the fact that their offices were those of the head of state. The only thing that's been challenged is placing them in the same article - which is fundamentally a matter of editor discretion, and not sources. Asking for sources over and over again and tagging the article for no reason - is disruptive, and nothing more than a red herring. -- Director (talk) 03:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:IDHT... --Joy [shallot] (talk) 06:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, its you who's not listening.. and I think that's pretty obvious. You: "I want sources". Me: "This is editor discretion, it doesn't have anything to do with sources". You: "I want sources! You have no sources!".

And I think its pretty clear from all the reports and edit-warring going on even at this time - that Timbouctou doesn't need anyone's help to go an a binge. His attitude of dismissive disdain and condescension is standard for him. -- Director (talk) 06:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Article titles have to be based on facts. You can't waive that requirement by asserting some magic of editorial discretion. If someone wasn't called a President of Croatia, they shouldn't appear on the list of Presidents of Croatia. This would be a trivial WP:COMPETENCE issue if it wasn't accompanied with 4 years of bullheadedness ([288]). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to respond, I'm only going to quote Future from his post just above: "whether or not one wishes to list both sets of politicians on a single page or not is a matter of legitimate editorial discretion, and whether the one set were 'presidents' and in which sense is a matter that could be easily explained and hedged appropriately in the text, if needed". A position shared by participants on the talkpage. All this, all your gaming the system and that troll's edit-warring - is just a hissy fit that you didn't get your own way.

And the article is most certainly based on facts. It has been, in this form, for nigh on ten years. All those people are listed in precisely the function they had. As for the title - propose an RM and seek consensus! But up to this point, neither you nor Timbouctou ever challenged the title: because the point is to push a right-wing political agenda and remove the Yugoslav-era officials from the same list - not any concerns over accuracy. -- Director (talk) 08:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, do you really agree with Director on this content matter? That it someone who wasn't ever referred to as the President of Croatia, and whose characteristics didn't match those who were, can freely appear in the list of Presidents of Croatia? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh will you stop trying to mislead already?! Is bold-faced deception all you've got on this? Could you once try to frame this issue in honest terms?

Anyway, I'll take your inquiry alone as a concession that this is indeed a matter for user consensus - otherwise why ask around? To that end, if you need users disagreeing with you, you can find enough of them on the talkpage. I think it should be pretty clear by this point that this thread is just a manipulative attempt to solve a content dispute by WP:GAMING the system. In a month or so we'll see another.. -- Director (talk) 17:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Don't flatter yourself. I was simply curious to see whether you actually managed to convince a neutral person that your content argument has merit. The same neutral person who already agreed that your behavior in presenting said argument was in sufficient violation of policies that you should be sanctioned. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• Observation: Director and Timbouctou engaged in an astonishing 102-round edit war on February 17, all within 5 hours, which must be a world record. And nobody stopped them, talk-page warned them, or blocked them. Something is broken on how that page is being handled, and yes administrative oversight and WP:ARBMAC need to be enforced, in addition to probably removing one or more of the main combatants from the field. Softlavender (talk) 03:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

It was a stupid thing to do, I lost my temper there, and I apologized profusely. Markedly - Timbouctou (the party introducing new edits against talkpage consensus) did not at any point condescend to even admit he did something wrong. And, as I promised, I did not revert war again - nor will I (while he just broke 3RR again). The matter was up in April, and I don't think anyone should be sanctioned for it now. -- Director (talk) 03:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Hahahaha, I'm just infinitely amused with Director's bullshit artistry. It's amazing how none of the admins ever bothers to take a look at what actual discussions with Director look like, how belittling and insulting his posts routinely are, the scope of his WP:OWN issues are, the years he has spent abusing the project, etc. There must be a userbox for that somewhere lol. Has it ever occurred to the geniuses at ANI that revert-wars happen precisely because of the complete uselessness of reporting anything at ANI? Timbouctou (talk) 07:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Timbouctou, edit wars get reported at WP:AN3, not ANI. It's a simple quick process, and gets immediate and guaranteed results. Softlavender (talk) 08:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Balkan editwars often get results at AN3. Certainly not guaranteed; it depends on the topic and on support from the editwarrior's allies &c. bobrayner (talk) 11:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Is this ([289]) a constructive discussion? As I said, when the protection ends timbouctou will again engage in a edit-war. And again, as many times before, break the 3RR. Please, you have to stop him. You all can see his attitude and what kind of language he uses. Nothing can be achieved with him, he only attacks and bullies other users and that is all. It is horrible. Tnx. --Tuvixer (talk) 14:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The amount of venom between both of the main parties here is so great I am quite convinced now we need a topic ban for both, and I was just about to impose one myself (given that the party I thought I might be seen as "involved" with said that he himself didn't consider me to be), but I'm just not quite sure what the exact scope of the topic ban should be. Everything related to Croatia, just the issue of Croatian officeholders, or something in between? Any ideas?

In the meantime, I warn both participants that they are definitely going to end up topic-banned from the specific article and dispute in question, and should therefore stop fighting over it immediately, both on that talkpage and here, at the risk of getting blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

At least or Timbouctou, I would recommend Croatia topics since this is the second article dealing with Croatia he has edit warred in and the Privatization in Croatia section on this page is still open. AlbinoFerret 23:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Croatia in general is too wide and would be unnecessarily punitive. I previously proposed a topic ban on Croatian heads of state, but was ignored. Croatian politics seems like an appropriate compromise. I'd support that for Director because his behavior is the root cause of this mess; I'm not sure I support a broad topic ban for the latter two at this point because I haven't reviewed all the other evidence yet. I do support an 1RR for all three in the topic area. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:52, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

My behavior is not the root cause of this mess, the root cause is Timbouctou's (and your own) refusal to accept the rejection of your proposed changes by talkpage consensus. You've made that clear yourself in this very thread (by claiming opposition to you "isn't a legitimate position"). And since I still haven't really been told even what I've done - I will appeal any topic bans to ARBCOM as possible (and I think obvious) abuse of ARBMAC discretion. I dare say I've written extensively on that topic and should not be excluded from it unless actually necessary. An IBAN, on the other hand (as I said below), is something I'd probably do myself..

I will also repeat that topic bans seem only to be under consideration due to their proposal by a heavily involved and biased party - Joy, and that because they fit his agenda in terms of the content dispute. -- Director (talk) 05:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Will you PLEASE stop casting aspersions on me? There absolutely was no talk page consensus; your incessant flaming and pretending policy-based arguments against your POV don't exist doesn't count as consensus by any stretch of imagination. The only agenda I'm promoting at this point is stopping your senseless tirades, which is so obviously in the best interest of the English Wikipedia when pretty much everyone else has stopped paying attention to this discussion as it is so annoyingly repetitive. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree, you were the one proposing changes, and "there absolutely was no talk page consensus"... but hey.. maybe if you can ban some people - you might get that to change. Neat idea. Regardless of whether your "policy-based" arguments are such or not (and they're not) - they had no consensus. Moreover, the entire mess on this thread is entirely of your own making, so don't try to blame me somehow. It was your decision to pester the community repeatedly for assistance in pushing changes you prefer, and that is absolutely what this is about: you're a participant in a content dispute, pushing for a ban against a party you disagree with. There is no concrete evidence, there isn't even a coherent argument for OWN or anything of the sort, there's just this vague whiiiine about how you're personally frustrated and don't want to "deal" and all that.. "oh please make him go away", etc.

The next guy who steps up against your asinine idea to split that place apart will no doubt annoy you as well, and may find himself defending against your dishonest accusations. And why not - his position would be "illegitimate" and therefore disruptive. Right?

But I can see you're impatient to finally get your ban ("everyone has stopped paying attention!"), so I'll leave you to it. Oh and thanks for speaking against my getting banned for no reason from ALL Croatia topics, that's real generous of you. -- Director (talk) 20:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

When there's "venom between two users" (and I don't dispute that there is) - isn't an WP:IBAN the solution? Rather than a topic ban? The "venom" is hardly topic-specific, the tban only seems to be discussed here due to Joy's preference in the content dispute. And, in actual fact, Timbouctou and myself were interaction-banned in the past [290] - with good effect.. its just that it expired, unfortunately. -- Director (talk) 04:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

There hasn't been any more input from uninvolved observers here, but I still think the sanctions proposed earlier should go ahead. So, under WP:ARBMAC, I am imposing:

1. A full interaction ban between Director (talk · contribs) and Timbouctou (talk · contribs), of indefinite duration, under the same conditions as the earlier one in 2012 ("banned from all interaction, undoing each others edits, making reference to or comment on each other, replying to each other in any discussion, editing each others user talk space, or filing ANI reports about each other for 6 months except to clarify or abolish this interaction ban or to report violations of the interaction ban")
2. A 12-months topic ban for Timbouctou from all topics related to Croatia
3. A 6-months topic ban for Director on the narrower topic area of Croatian constitutional continuity and related issues of Croatian officeholders.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, but this ratio would send the wrong message. In fact, thinking about it some more, I would say that that kind of a statement would be so illogical to me that I would find such a move to be resulting in a case of WP:DEPE, one much more serious than this particular incident alone. Here's why: in this topic, both of them are using all the wrong methods, and I have no qualms as far as putting an end to that. But at the same time, Timbouctou was acting wholly inappropriately in order to advocate a mainstream position, as opposed to Director who was acting wholly inappropriately in order to advocate a fringe position. Wielding a larger axe towards the less nutty party would have the practical chilling effect on all the other editors in this topic area.

Note that I recently got blocked for the first time in my life for having blocked Timbouctou among others in an overzealous manner. It would actually reflect better on me in light of that earlier case if I were to simply let Timbouctou take a bigger hit here. But that just would not be right, nor would it be in the interest of the project. I also find it indicative that in that earlier incident, I had found Timbouctou to be inappropriately reverting against others who were inappropriately advocating a Croatian right-wing nationalist position, and yet Director has portrayed him as one of those. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

He's already violated his topic ban, I think. Within two hours of receiving and archiving the notification on his talkpage. I'd say your perception of "nuttiness" may be skewed (or you may just be a tad biased). -- Director (talk) 06:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Timbouctou has violated the ban? He has edited the talk page on the article about Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia [291] --Tuvixer (talk) 11:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Yup, and there he's discussing a topic related not only to Croatia, but even to the specific issue on the Croatian Presidents article (namely Yugoslavia's legitimacy during WWII). But perhaps the clincher is his editing four other Croatia-topic articles... Bad Blue Boys (Croatian football hooligans), Ibrica Jusić (Croatian singer), No One's Son (Croatian movie), Mate Matišić, (Croatian screenwriter).. -- Director (talk) 11:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Joy, while I cant be 100% sure, the admin probably gave Timbouctou a longer and broader ban because they were involved in edit warring on at least two Croatia articles at the same time. The other was Privatization in Croatia, and edit warring is edit warring no matter what position on the material you hold. AlbinoFerret 12:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I had a look at the page history of Privatization in Croatia and I see that the kerfuffle there started with this edit by Tuvixer - prior to that, the article seems to have been reasonably stable for a while. Two other users, Tzowu and Timbouctou, opposed these changes, and an edit war ensued. Soon they seem to have settled at an actual improvement of the article, each party adding a half a dozen references. But then soon afterwards, Tuvixer made this edit removing a table of economic indicators referenced to un.org, was reverted by Timbouctou, and the edit war continued on that topic. Certainly Timbouctou is guilty of edit warring, but if you want to apply WP:ARBMAC, you can't apply it in such a wishy-washy manner - Tuvixer was involved in both edit wars and he goes scot free?! That's WP:DEPE all right. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that some topic ban time for Tuvixer is probably a good idea. He really didnt come up that much in this section, and the other section was archived without much input. But the edit warring was massive on all sides there, lets see what the admin says. AlbinoFerret 15:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I tried to take part in dispute resolution with some of these editors with regard to articles about former Yugoslavia. I am not ready to comment on who should get the longer topic-ban or be blocked. However, the general scope of the disruption across multiple articles illustrates the need for WP:ARBMAC and for sanctions to enforce it. Some of these editors have very strong points of view and treat articles on the Balkans as a battleground, as if they haven't learned anything from World War One, which started in the Balkans. I support any proposal for draconian sanctions against disruptive editing with regard to former Yugoslavia. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

The name sounded vaguely familiar to me so I checked, and I found my warning to them about wholly disruptive behavior in Sep 2014. User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, do you see the problem here? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

First of all I am really sorry for that. I have promised never to do that, and I never will. I am new to Wikipedia and I don't know all the rules. I have reported Timbouctou before when he broke the 3RR and the report was ignored so I did not know what to do. I have started to have a constructive discussion with Tozwu and then Timbouctou came and had initiated a edit-war. Tozwu agreed to remove the table, everyone can see that on the talk page, but Timbouctou ignored the talk page, also he was extremely aggressive and rude towards me from the beginning, and he never "assumed good faith" WP:AGF. I don't know why. He has been following my edits, and has reverted them without any reason and when I started a discussion on the talk page he ignored it. I am hoping nobody will consider punitive sanctions. I am really happy to be able to take a part in this wonderful project. I did not even know that it was possible for me to edit Wikipedia. And when I started it was all ok for a time, and then came Timbouctu, like a bully and started reverting my edits on almost every article that I have edited. He was very mean and called me by names, I didn't know what to do, so I reported him but the report was ignored. I really felt horrible and I did not know what to do. You all know what kind of user and maybe what kind of person he is, everyone has seen it and I think that is one of the reasons he got the ban. I promise that I will never engage in a edit war, and I will try my best to remember all the rules and abide by them. I really hope that I will not be sanctioned. Also it happened quite a while ago, WP:NOTPENAL, so I don't know why User:Joy is saying this now. It seems he is systematically trying to ban all opposition from the talkpage of the article. Is that right? :/ Tnx. --Tuvixer (talk) 19:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Ssolbergj, constant edit warring and pushing of own work

The behavior of Ssolbergj across multiple articles is problematic for several reasons. The user often inserts their own work in a heavy handed way, caring little for discussions and consensuses. A rather blatant example concerns a proposed new coat of arms for Macedonia. To start with, the user has made up the coat of arms themselves(!) StanProg has showed here [292] that what Ssolbergj has done is to take the Belgian coat of arms, recolor it, and then present it as the new coat of arms for Macedonia. That is already problematic. Equally bad, the user edit wars heavily and against consensus to keep inserting their creation [293], [294], [295], [296] even though the user is alone for their version and always opposed by more than one user, making it clear there is no consensus. The user even went as far as moving Historical coat of arms of Macedonia (an article that had existed for 6 years and to which many articles linked) to Proposed coat of arms of Macedonia [297] just to be able to push their home-made Belgian-Macedonian coat of arms there as well, and then again edit warring against consensus [298], [299]. If any more evidence were needed that this user is here just to push their own work, a look at the user's actions at other Wikipedia's is revealing. Not content with inserting their own work here, Ssolbergj has pasted it across Wikipedia in dozens of languages, never bothering to see if it fit and even pasting the whole section with the text in only English at Macedonian Wikipedia [300], [301], [302], at Danish Wikipedia [303], at Spanish Wikipedia [304], at Swedish Wikipedia [305], at Norwegian Wikipedia [306], [307], at Dutch Wikipedia [308], [309], at Turkish Wikipedia [310], [311], at French Wikipedia [312], [313], and at German Wikipedia [314]. In all of these cases, the user ignored the language used and just pasted in their own work with a description in English, clearly showing their intention. To finish, I've only come across the user concerning Macedonia, but a look at their talk page indicates that the same disruptive behavior is repeated in other areas as well [315]. This user is not here for the right reasons.Jeppiz (talk) 12:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not being silly. Please read this discussion, where I've replied. This is the subject of the matter. -Ssolbergj (talk) 13:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

No, the subject of the matter is your behavior. You are constantly edit warring against consensuses and pushing your own work even when aware it's not accurate (as well as copy-pasting your own work into dozens of Wikipedia in English, but that's outside the scope of English ANI)-Jeppiz (talk) 19:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the diffs, it seems as though this may warrant a topic ban. Ssolbergj, you were clearly told to discuss changes with fellow editors before making more changes to templates. I see no excuse for the continual (apparent) POV pushing to go unpunished. JZCL 15:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

@Jeppiz When you reverted me you accused me of OR. If you read my reply you could potentially realise that is not the case. When it comes to the template of Airbus Group, I have engaged in discussion on how to best organised it here. -Ssolbergj (talk) 16:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've made a request at WP:RPP for Historical coat of arms of Macedonia to be move protected. JZCL 16:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

There was no consensus for or against that title, and I do not see why it would be necessary to move protect it. It is not particularly controversial. - Ssolbergj (talk) 16:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Like JZ, I would also support a topic ban on Ssolbergj for anything concerning coats of arms. The user's behavior clearly indicates not being here for the right reasons.Jeppiz (talk) 12:36, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, that is a ludicrous notion. IMO I am quite a responsible editor and contributor. Your absence from the discussion on the topic in question is telling. If anyone were to deserve a topic ban in heraldry it's you, who seem not be interested in learning what function a blazon has (i.e. the topic in question). - Ssolbergj (talk) 15:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I'm actively involved in the discussion (and started the discussion) at the talk page of Republic of Macedonia. And I'm not the one who has inserted my own work in countless articles against consensus, moved articles at will, and been spamming loads of Wikipedias in other languages pasting in your own work and text in English.Jeppiz (talk) 23:07, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

If you are interested in discussing then you should continue to respond in these talk pages. There were no consensus for or against having such pictures inserted or concerning the article name. WP:bold. -Ssolbergj (talk) 08:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)