Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive911

User:SWASTIK 25 violating WP:NFCC#9

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

---

The user continues violating WP:NFCC#9 on the page User:SWASTIK 25/Sports Statistics & Trivias and removes the warning from his talk page. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I've not violated WP:NFCC#9 more than once (though mistakenly). And Stefan2 doesn't have the authority to decide what to keep or remove from my personal talk page. Thank you. — Swastik Chakraborty (User talk) 14:34, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Technically you are encouraged to archive, not remove, but ya, you can remove it if you want as long as you at least listen to the warning. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 15:19, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

That's not correct. You have reposted the non-free content three times today. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Stefan2, SWASTIK 25 reverted your removal of the image here, but then after you commented it out again, SWASTIK 25 changed it to not actually have the image in it - see here. You then mistakenly reverted that. So I see nothing that needs doing here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Hm. Echo reported that my edit had been reverted, and this confused me. Then it seems that there is nothing to do. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:29, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and yes, users are allowed to removed warnings from their talk page - it's usually taken as a sign that they've read them. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:26, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Boing! said Zebedee :) — Swastik Chakraborty (User talk) 20:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Swastik Chakraborty. We do not own our user pages any more than the articles we edit or create. Although a user page can technically be edited by anyone, it is generally considered inappropriate to edit another's user page. Most experienced editors will refrain from editing another's user page, unless they have a good policy based reason, such as the things listed in WP:UPNOT, for doing so. In this particular case, Stefan2 was removing a non-free image from your user page per WP:UP#Non-free images because such images are only allowed to be used (i.e., "displayed") in the article namespace per WP:NFCC#9. In order to avoid NFCC#9 in the future, I recommend you verify the licensing of any images you wish to add to your user page or user subpages before actually doing so. Freely licensed images may be added to sandboxes, drafts, etc., but non-free images should not. If you're not sure whether an image is freely licensed, then feel free to ask for assistance at WP:MCQ. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Returning troll

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

---

A troll that used to hound me has has returned after 6 years under the new IP 31.55.82.48 and started to revert my edits with with the simple edit sumamry "rv v" that they used back then as well. This is the only way the user communicates, and they continuously come back under new IP addresses. All the user's previous IPs have resolved to the UK, and all to the ISP "BT". This new one does as well. When this started way back, I tried to report the user to their ISP back then but ran into a roadblock: The ISP was cooperative, but I was told to produce "server logs", which I'm unsure how to obtain from Wikipedia, so I would appreciate it if someone here could aid in this process if this user is indeed back to their nonsense. The furthest I got back then was trying to contact one of the wikipedia Bureaucrats. In light of all of this, I'm not going to leave an ANI notice on the IP's talk page to avoid giving them recognition.

Here is an example of the user's edits. Search for "rv v" to find them. Going back over the WHOIS information for the IPs, two names stand out: "preston.dialip@bt.com" "steve.r.wright@bt.com"; they show up for all the IPs the troll has used for the edits on the aforementioned article, but the new IP mentions "mark.a.barrett@bt.com". I don't have much experience with IP addresses so I could be way off thinking this is current or reliable information, but I figured I need to give you guys something to work with. Eik Corell (talk) 01:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I see four edits for that user, all of which are constructive. Can you link to specific instances?142.105.159.60 (talk) 01:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

They're not. They're just blind reverts of the last 4 edits in my history at the time. Same pattern: Edit summary "rv v"(reverting vandalism) just like they did on the article I mentioned above. Here is a list of the contributions of one of their many, many previous IPs from over 6 years back, doing the same thing to other articles. They had a "favorite" set of articles, including the two I've mentioned, but they eventually started attacking my contributions to other articles that they themselves were not involved in. Here is a specific example of that. Eik Corell (talk) 01:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Erik, I was about to do something, but I see Future Perfect at Sunrise has blocked. SarahSV ^(talk) 07:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Predictably, the user is back under a new IP: 86.187.217.30, so I'm going to need you guys' help here with the technical stuff~above; Apart from the links that I included, what else am I capable of getting my hands on as far as server logs go? Also, is it actually the bureaucrats I need to go to? Tried that last time, but the one I was able to find told me that for all intents and purposes, the history page IS the server logs, in which case, do I just send them a link to the article's history? Doesn't seem like that's gonna cut it. Eik Corell (talk) 15:51, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Returned again

Adding to this, several other IPs involved in this long term, generally focused on undoing all edits by WP:VG members who are making edits based on WP:VGSCOPE. The currently active IP is 86.187.173.156 (talk · contribs), who is currently reverting the same edits of @Eik Corell.

Other IPs that have been involved in the last week: 31.51.232.222 (talk · contribs), 31.55.82.48 (talk · contribs), 86.187.217.30 (talk · contribs). I know of older IPs with the same behavior but they were active in December. -- ferret (talk) 19:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

86.187.173.156 blocked for 31 hours. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks/vandalism only account

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

---

A new user called Wikipedia page damager just vandalised an article and used highly inappropriate insults aimed at the living person that the article is about and the bot that originally reverted the user. Is there any way we can get this user blocked and his/her edits removed from being visible, per RD2? ([1] [2]) The user's username pretty much says it all. DarkKnight2149 07:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I indef'ed the user. The edits themselves seem too much like garden-variety vandalism, doesn't rise to the level of requiring action beyond reversion IMO. Other admins are welcome to take stronger action to hide them further. DMacks (talk) 07:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Uservk removing notices on Sri Manakula Vinayagar Medical College and Hospital (SMVMCH)

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.

---

Uservk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sri Manakula Vinayagar Medical College and Hospital (SMVMCH) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) This user keeps removing a speedy deletion notice, despite being asked not to do so and despite the issues not being resolved.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Resolved

I deleted the page and left him a warning on his talk page. If he continues similar behavior, please contact me. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Edit war regarding List of top international association football goal scorers by country

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.

---

• List of top international association football goal scorers by country

Recently, I've been engaged in edit wars several times with User:GoalsGalore while editing the List of top international association football goal scorers by country regarding the counting of official caps and goals of the soccer players. You can check it in the article's revision history. The user states that, the caps & goals that aren't officially acknowledged or counted by FIFA but by the football association or federation of the respective players' country, should also be included in the list. Should those be counted as fully official statistics, though not counted as official ones by FIFA? Please help me find a solution to it. Thank you. — Swastik Chakraborty (User talk) 10:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Everything on the page is in line with reliable sources which I've provided. The only thing wrong here is User:SWASTIK25 being disruptive. GoalsGalore (talk) 13:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Then this is a content dispute, but one in which you both made a half-hearted attempt at TP discussion. That has now fizzled out, and you have both resorted to templating each other. That is why I suggest 36 hours... 24 for edit warring and 12 because both of you have clearly shown you know the way to resolve the dispute, but have chosen not to... _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment Both editors are as bad as each other, as ironically the OP seems to recognise. So, the solution he requests: I recommend 36 hours to cool their heels away from such thorny subjects as lists of international footballl scores, etc. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I have blocked GoalsGalore for 48 hours and SWASTIK 25 for 1 week (as he has been blocked for this before). GiantSnowman 13:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Request old versions for naked article

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

---

Jet Naked Airlines is a real airline. People hate sex and nakedness so several versions have been deleted.

Wikipedia is a joint effort. You cannot expect one editor to completely write an article. Besides that would be article ownership.

• • • • • • • • • • Please provide me with earlier deleted versions or add them to the talk page so I can build upon those earlier efforts of others.

Why help Wikipedia when peple try to delete your work? That is vandalism and harassment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tough sailor ouch (talk • contribs) 17:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

You're disrupting Wikipedia to make a point on Jet Naked Airlines - unacceptable. Yes, it's funny, haha it's got the word naked in it, but maybe you should just write the article without the disruptive disclaimers. Chesnaught (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I have added five references, far more than billions of people on earth. Tough sailor ouch (talk) 17:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Deleted versions may have more info which is why they are useful to see. Tough sailor ouch (talk) 17:46, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

That's besides the point. You have written disclaimers at the top, which isn't how we work here. Just write the article normally. I think maybe it would be a good idea if someone with rollback could revert it back to its original version. Is that what you are asking? Chesnaught (talk) 17:51, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

This editor is most likely a sockpuppet of the editor who previously created this article. I won't list the reasons here per WP:BEANS, but any admin who digs a little deeper should be able to figure it out, and I would certainly recommend an SPI or CU. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:05, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• Ponyo, what do you think? Drmies (talk) 19:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The edits are coming from the same geolocation as Stephanie Bowman socks and contain the same hyperbole as previous socks ("Kill me now" "please don't murder me") etc.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

They're also using Tofino Hospital for Sheep as a  Confirmed sock. I'll be blocking both accounts.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Typical wikipedia passive aggressive. Want to rob or bully someone, claim they are a sock. The previous versions are from TWO years ago. Tough sailor ouch (talk) 19:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I have both declined the request for speedy deletion and rewritten the article based on the CBC story. I'm going to look at the old version and see if it has (a) salvageable content or (b) history that needs restored for attribution purposes.

That said, there are probably many reasons not to have an article yet (WP:TOOSOON, for one), but I think we need to evaluate the situation more. —C.Fred (talk) 18:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Deleted versions date to 2014. Last version was mostly a complaint about the article keeping getting deleted, but I see a couple links to news stories. I'll scrape those to the talk page, but I don't think the history needs restored. —C.Fred (talk) 18:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

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

major bias and error on the main page

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

---

On the main page is in the news. There is a woman's picture and says she is the President of Taiwan. This is a major erro. Look at the article. She is the president of the Republic of China (Taiwan). Big difference. Wikipedia is neutral, not siding with one side or another. Use of Taiwan alone plays favor to one side of the debate. There has been major discussion that WP is neutral.

Correction needed: "President of the Republic of China (Taiwan), not just Taiwan or not just China.Person 905 (talk) 19:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I see no discussion to use Taiwan in this case. Most likely, it was a sloppy error. Person 905 (talk) 20:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Is it time to semiprotect this page?

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

---

The United States Pony Clubs page is constantly being edited by vandals and well-meaning but not helpful newbies, often within hours of account creation. [3] [4] [5] As you can see from the diffs, these edits range from unnecessary trying-to-help to blatant vandalism. As you can see from the page history, the article has a long history of such edits, and it's a waste of many editors' time to keep reverting them every couple of days (I just reverted the latest less than 30 minutes ago). Is it time to semiprotect it from IPs and brand-new editors? White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 21:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Make a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.--Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:46, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The article is now semiprotected. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 22:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Possible threat of self-harm?

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.

---

Any available Admins in the house:

Advised to post here in case not seen on IRC. Link: [6] Seems to be calling it a 'warning.'

Posted as per Wikipedia:Responding_to_threats_of_harm#Contact_administrators. Cheers _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:19, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

On it. I'll email the WMF. Mike V • Talk 18:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I just emailed the WMF as well, didn't see your post. BethNaught (talk) 18:29, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks both. Better too many cooks than too few in this situation. Cheers! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:35, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Long-term low-frequency blanking on Talk:Perry Hall High School.

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.

---

Since July 2015 IPs have consistently removed a valid comment on said Talk page. Today's repetitive blanking resulted in a (currently already challenged [7]) 31 hrs block for the IP involved today, for vandalism [8].

The Article Talk page History [9] shows persistent blanking of (the only) comment on that page, every, say, 3 weeks or so since July 2015, untill now. Today, January 17th the involved IP was more persistent and blanked various times in a row, and even accused others - in his/her edit summary - of fabricating his (nazi) comment at someone's User page [10].

My question is, are all these listed IPs to be considered SPs? And, how can this page be protected from this blanking, since it concerns a Talk page, which is usually only semi-protected for a short time, so I have a hunch that would not help very long (given the edit History of the Article)? Cheers, Horseless Headman (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2016 (UTC).

In the unusual case, which this is, of vandalism of a talk page, I would advise requesting semi-protection of the talk page for a longer time. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The IP tends to be fairly stable, one or two repeatedly for a while, not lots of them all at once. And they typically make bad edits to multiple other pages too. I've taken to giving longer-term blocks to the IPs as they pop up. DMacks (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the talk page for 3 days. You can make an argument for longer protection at WP:RPP. It does appear looking at the different IPs that they originate in the same town. The current IP account who was reverting was given a six month block. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:19, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Why only 3 days? We should place a much longer semi-protection on the talk page. It is clear, the talk page is just being used for vandalism from the IPs. Meatsgains (talk) 19:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree the semi-protection should be for at least 6 months to a year. There's nothing stopping an IP from improving the article itself if the TP is semied. If no admin reading this thread will increase the length of the semi, then someone needs to take the request to WP:RFPP (where actually it should have been filed rather than here on ANI). Make it clear at RFPP that the timeframe needs to be lengthy, as this has happened 25 times in 6 months. Softlavender (talk) 07:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I upped the protection to 6mos. The history warrants it. In the future, please post such requests at WP:RFPP, as previously indicated. There are separate noticeboards for a reason (the main one being so that the request will actually get noticed, since this page has really high traffic). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Joobo is harassing other editors and making personal attacks

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.

---

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

Joobo, a single-purpose account, is harassing other editors and making personal attacks, primarily on Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks but also at User talk:Bastun and User talk:Malik Shabazz. I'd like to see them blocked, because this has been going on for more than a month.

Here are a few recent diffs:

• [11]
• [12]
• [13]
• [14]
• [15]

For dozens more, look at Special:Contributions/Joobo. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

By the way, Joobo has been warned about their personal attacks repeatedly. Here are a few examples:

• May 14, 2015
• January 8, 2016
• January 9, 2016
• January 18, 2016
• January 18, 2016

And even those are just from their talk page. There have been more at Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Joobo is definitely engaged in personal attacks, but how is the editor single purpose account? Out of 575 edits, he made 91 edits on List of Islamist terrorist attacks and 28 edits in Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks. He has extensively edited Immigration to Germany and List of major home appliance manufacturers‎. Marvel Hero (talk) 01:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Joobo is an SPA because (a) 91 of their 202 mainspace edits have been to List of Islamist terrorist attacks. They made only 41 edits to Immigration to Germany (their second most popular article), only 34 to List of major home appliance manufacturers (their third most popular article), and no more than 10 edits to any other article. Of Joobo's 40 edits to talk pages, 34 have been to Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks. See here. That's what makes them a single-purpose account. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:59, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

By the way, Joobo's 575 edits include 286 to en.wiki and 289 to de.wiki. See here. I don't know anything about their behavior on de.wiki; only his behavior on en.wiki is relevant here. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I expect that their edits to Immigration to Germany and List of Islamist terrorist attacks might share some common ground... Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely. This is indicative enough of their...well, everything that could be wrong is. Personal attacks, playing the ball and not the man, total bias, you name it. For a forum post, see this. This--well, I think we all get the point. Drmies (talk) 03:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you Drmies. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Block request for User:Reywas92

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:Reywas92 first, on the page Supermajority, removed the quotation marks on "one-half" (according to MOS:QUOTEMARKS), but using only, as a description, "incorrect"( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Supermajority&oldid=700554487 ), making me, User:Goodone121, believe he was editing disruptively, so I tagged his talkpage with a substituted "uw-disruptive2" template. After I did that, he made a good edit, which I thanked him for; however, when I went back to my watchlist, I discovered he had removed my comments, despite him, due to his status as a regular, obviously knowing that was against policy( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Reywas92&oldid=700558470 ), so I reverted( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Reywas92&oldid=700563659 ), and added a "uw-tpv3" template ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Reywas92&oldid=700563842 ). After this, he went to my talkpage, and struck a conciliatory tone ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Goodone121&oldid=700564445 ), to which I replied ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Goodone121&oldid=700564971 ), but kept up his behavior of removing my posts ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Reywas92&oldid=700564784 ), so I reverted ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Reywas92&oldid=700565066 ) and warned him a final time, using "uw-tpv4" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Reywas92&oldid=700565135 ). This time, when he went to my talkpage, he taunted me with "Good luck blocking me!", saying my comments "[were] never legitimate" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Goodone121&oldid=700565408 ), while proceeding to, yet again, delete my comments ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Reywas92&oldid=700565399 ). I, at last, reverted his deletion of my comments ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Reywas92&oldid=700566136 ).

Oh my God this is hilarious. Soooo...why didn't you remove the first uw-disruptive template yourself after you realized that my edit wasn't actually disruptive?? Sorry my edit summary was unhelpful to you, but you should have realized that just removing unnecessary punctuation is not disruptive. No, the tags were never legitimate, as I did not ever make disruptive edits to the article. It was not so inappropriate to remove the false tag, especially when I came to your own talk page asking why you put it there. Why did you refuse to ever discuss why you tagged me in the first place? Rather than engage in conversation as I did, you thought for some reason that templating the regular would be better. Removing a falsely accusatory template from my own talk page is not disruptive, and definitely not blockable. Repeatedly putting them there without responding to discussion that I was initiating is disruptive. Now stop wasting my time. Reywas92^Talk 08:49, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• Just a note: per WP:UP#CMT, a user can remove content from their userpage as long as it's not an unblock/block or deletion tags (MfD, speedy, etc). Everything else is fair game and removal of the templates is frequently seen as acknowledgment of the tags themselves. However in this case the tags weren't warranted or applicable, as the initial edit in question was WP:GOODFAITH misinterpreted as unhelpful due to a rather short edit summary. Reywas's other edits to his talk page didn't warrant further tagging, as he was well within his rights to remove the content from his page. He was a bit sharp on your talk page, but this was after you repeatedly replaced the content on his page after he removed it - and without actually starting a discussion on his talk page. As far as I can tell, there are no actions that need to be taken here. The initial edit wasn't disruptive, nor was his removal of content from his user page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

You can delete block notices. Just not declined unblock requests. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• I think that the best thing to do here would be to shake hands and walk away. There seems to be no actual malice behind any of this, just an honest mistake followed by an unintentional misinterpretation of policy, fueled by frustration from both sides. The best thing to do in this situation is to just try to be more clear in the future and communicate more, especially if you think someone is going against policy. Templates are brief and cannot always fully explain things, so good communication is key in order to undo misunderstandings like this one. My only other advice would be to start up a calm discussion on the user's talk page first explaining your reasons for the initial tag and if you think that they're making other mistakes, ask why they're doing that. It could be that they don't realize what they're doing - or that you might be the one making the mistake. I've been on both ends of this, so good communication is very important. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Whether troll or incompetent, I suggest an indef for user Wikihil123

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 suggest an indefinite block for user Wikihil123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). If they are not a troll/vandal, then they are incompetent to edit Wikipedia. They persist in making edits that aren't backed up by the sources provided. Attempts to discuss this are met with vague and peculiarly incompetent language that is inconsistent with the proficiency displayed in the edits themselves; i.e. playing dumb. I call shenanigans.

For evidence, I point to their talk page, particularly my recent contributions there. While my comments focus on the many assertions that aren't properly sourced, others' concerns round out a picture of an editor who is unable, or simply not here to help build an encyclopedia. Willondon (talk) 15:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• I checked the reference for Marvin Gay, Sr.'s burial site, and you're correct, it didn't support the sentence the user wrote. However, after a quick Google search I realized that the information was, in fact, correct. I've undone your reversion on that one, adding the appropriate reference. Perhaps that would be a better course of action, combined with explaining it to Wikihil123, in lieu of indefinitely banning them? An indef ban should probably be reserved for very extreme cases of vandalism, trolling, and/or harassment, in my view. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 16:58, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

They've made hundreds of edits like that, and it's not reasonable to expect other editors to do the legwork for them. WP:Burden (which is part of an en-WP policy, WP:Verifiability, not just a guideline) also explicitly states that it's up to whoever adds material to articles to also provide reliable sources for it. Thomas.W ^talk 17:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I candidly admit that my take could be entirely wrong here. But, in my view, if the edits (or a vast majority of them) are useful, but improperly sourced, indefinitely banning the account making them would be the wrong way to proceed. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 17:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• I just did another spot check, of that accounts very first edit. It seems to be both appropriate and well-sourced. diff Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 17:12, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

That's not "well sourced", quite the opposite, Findagrave is a user-generated website, and thus can't be used as a reference (suggested reading: WP:Reliable sources and countless previous discussions at both the reliable sources noticeboard and here at WP:ANI, all ending with the same finding, that Findagrave is not reliable...). Thomas.W ^talk 17:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• My apologies, then. I'll defer to the rest of you as to whether this editor (IMO, a person who could eventually become a good editor) deserves to be banned indefinitely. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 17:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• I looked at a half a dozen more edits, and I'm calling incompetence. I will not block indefinitely, but this editor needs to understand that when we say "encyclopedia", we mean it. Drmies (talk) 17:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Lemnaminor and Antarctica

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

---

This user is creating a plethora of article stubs on minor Antarctic features. I left him a notice on his talk page suggesting that rather than creating articles that will plug up the AfD process and be ultimately deleted pursuant to WP:GEOLAND, he should instead improve other stub articles by merging his ideas for proposed new articles with existing ones. He hasn't responded or slowed down. Please help. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 19:51, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Dear Jsharpminor, you brought me here less than 10 minutes after you started mass nominating my articles and cluttering the AfD process. Since you did not wait for me to respond on my userpage (and that one is full of your templates too), I'll answer here. I also note that you continue nominating pages while I am preparing this answer, which does not strike me as constructive.

I am creating a lot of missing articles on Antarctic geographic features, following community concensus at WP:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Antarctica and its talk page. Per Wikipedia's Five pillars, the encyclopedia also functions as a gazetteer; therefore, geographical features meeting Wikipedia's General notability guideline (GNG) are presumed, but not guaranteed, to be notable. Especially in a place like Antarctica we are lacking coverage, and the longstanding concensus is to create article stubs based on the USGS gazetteer as a starting point. Most new page patrollers have reviewed these new stubs and found no issue. I understand that you want some of these merged into other articles - please propose a merger on the talk pages, AfD is not the place for that. And may I also ask that you group your requests for deletion, so that there can be a centralized discussion. --Thank you, Lemnaminor (talk) 20:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@Lemnaminor: Since you're responding here, I'd be amenable to removing this request from AN/I if you are.

Anyhow, yes, what you're proposing sounds good. To where shall we move this discussion? J^♯m (talk | contribs) 20:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

One thing further: have you reviewed WP:GEOLAND? I don't object to your adding this content to the encyclopedia; you're right, our coverage of Antarctica is somewhat lacking. You're also right that AfD may not be the best place for it, and even if it is then one large grouped request may be better than my plethora of individual ones. However, you should note that I nominated the first page at 19:23, and you had created four more of these stubs by 19:45. I only created the ANI report at 19:51. So, no, I don't agree that my coming here was completely baseless. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 20:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Jsharpminor, I am familiar with the notability guidelines and with the existing community concensus regarding the USGS Antarctic gazetteer in wikiproject Antarctica and Missing Articles/Antarctica. Also note that per WP:MAPOUTCOMES: "Major geographical and geological features featured on maps, such as lakes, rivers, mountains, mountain passes, etc., generally survive AfD". That is also recognized by the many new page patrollers who reviewed my articles without marking them for deletion. You are actually the first and only one so far to do so. Finally, you might want to actually check notability before nominating an article for deletion: the hypersaline lakes of the McMurdo Dry Valleys for example have been extensively described in the scientific literature. Yet we lack good coverage of them. I haven't had the time yet to expand the stubs, but it has long been accepted that wikipedia articles are started as stubs and then gradually expanded.

I suggest that you retract the nominations for deletion for those articles that you want to merge, group the ones you actually want deleted so there can be a centralized discussion at AfD, and that you propose mergers for those articles that you feel are not worthy of standalone articles. The appropriate place to discuss the creation of Antarctica stubs in general is Wikiproject Antarctica or Missing Articles/Antarctica. Thank you,--Lemnaminor (talk) 21:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Request for admin oversight on RT News article -- civility needs to return (just grab some popcorn and take a gander at the talk page)

Please follow the steps on WP:DISPUTE, including using the WP:THIRDOPINION option. This really isn't the place for what boils down to a content dispute. And everyone should step away and take several deep breaths and calm down. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:51, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

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

---

The article on RT was recently locked and is currently being debated as a rather contentious issue, and a lot of hostility is flying in all directions around whether or not RT constitutes propaganda; I say there are no academic studies nor scientific data that have quantified the data to reach this conclusion, whereas others think politico and Tumblr constitute valid sources.

It's even resulted in me being reported for a misconstrued "legal threat", tensions are so high.

I ask that some administrator come by to diffuse the situation on the talk page, as I don't see it getting any better by the time the article protection expires on January 19th. There's just a lot of arguments, lack of WP:GF (I must admit, I have succumbed to poor faith as well in my fellow editors on this article), and a need for quality, scientific or academic sources, since polemical opinion analysises keep getting cited as valid sources; Mutual disagreement is leading to high tensions.

I could also be wrong. I could be wrong about the sources being invalid, and in need of knowing what constitutes a correct source.

Either way, I formally request help for the talk page on there, as it has become a real mess. Solntsa90 (talk) 07:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• Civility is not the problem. I see that you were warned about discretionary sanctions pertaining to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe (by EdJohnston, on 31 March 2014). I think you have fallen below the standard expected of editors in your refusal to accept reliable sources and denying that such sources discussed the relevant topic (for example, this source), and I will topic ban you from this article and its talk page accordingly, for six months. Drmies (talk) 17:17, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• I just read the last section on that talk page. I agree with Drmies, and suggest that you take a break from that article before you end up topic banned from it. You are ignoring what other people are saying and seemingly trying to win your point through stubbornness. It is not the first time someone has tried to out-stubborn a content debate, it pretty much never ends well. HighInBC 17:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

If that's a reliable source (with one passing mention of RT as a 'propaganda station', despite no studies, citations, or sources to back its own claim up), then no wonder Wikipedia is dying the slow death.

I've edited a lot of pages over the last 4 years, I've contributed a lot over the course of 4 years, and I think this may as well be my penultimate editing, as this is exactly the sort of overzealous arbitration inspired by editors with an WP:RAILROAD axe to grind that Jimbo Wales has warned about. This was an attempt to get me to stop editing by a particular user who was stubborn about terrible sources (no, not me, I just want a scientific or university study is all--is that so hard to find?). Why is the Daily Beast a good source on what constitutes a news organisation? It's a polemical magazine with a slant. Why is a tumblr page okay for a source citation?

I'm not trying to be rude, but did the admin who banned me actually read the entirety of the conversation that took place on the talk page? I was attempting to maintain civility.

But alas, I see that opinion now passes for "fact" here at Wikipedia, and I'll have no part of it anymore. No more contributions from me, (especially in Japanese history, where you'll need it ) Solntsa90 (talk) 19:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I haven't edited an article on Eastern Europe in about as long as that arbitration was handed out. Certainly this would be a mistake (or an attempt to silence my editing, take your pick), seeing as I haven't edited any article related to Russia or Eastern Europe extensively in almost 2 years. With that in sight, I think this is punishment is a little harsh (especially considering I don't always read what's on my talk page--I'm not the only editor who doesn't), especially in light of me attempting to find proper sources on RT, and even asking other admins to help aid the process. Solntsa90 (talk) 19:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Finally, between the poor attempt at getting me banned from wiki outright for supposedly making a legal threat and now this, the admin who banned me basically fed right into their hands as to what they wanted you to do; From the RT News Talkpage:

:I won't say anything about the topic, since I am not familiar with it. I just want to say I am shocked by the hostile rhetoric (I think it's pretty much time you got a block here) and the clear attempts to WP: RAILROAD an editor who makes very reasonable requests for university studies or scientific sources. Examen Intelligentia (talk) 12:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

You wouldn't think this is an attempt at WP:RAILROAD, would you? I certainly would. Solntsa90 (talk) 19:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• @Solntsa90. All your claims on this noticeboard are factually incorrect:

1. You edited many articles related to Eastern Europe in 2015, and on highly controversial subjects ([16],[17],[18] and others)
2. You tell that others did not provide "academic" sources on the subject when they actually provided them (e.g. the example by Drmies above and by others on article talk page);
3. It was you who commented on other users, made a comment that could be interpreted as a nearly "legal threat" (see discussion above) and conducted discussion in WP:TE manner. Hence Wikipedia:POV railroad actually applies to you. My very best wishes (talk) 22:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• If Solntsa90 gets topic banned from the article for 6 months, I ask for the privilege to be banned too. Indeed I had the audacity to make an edit to the article (different from the one made by Solntsa90) which was not agreable to Galassi and to Trappledinburnley, so that they reverted it. It did not please Volunter Marek either since, after this, he took a look at my editing history and found an edit I made about the concerns of the European Union and numerous human rights organisations over the new Polish laws restricting the freedom of press as well as the powers of the Constitutional Court. He started removing my edit without warning me and, now that I have insisted he discuss on the talk page, he either dismisses all the sources I present as unreliable (The Norwegian Human Rights Organisation "Human rights house" or irrelevant (A declaration by Lech Wales reported by AP). I fail to see the logic behind an attitude consisting of accepting any source as reliable on one article while dismissing AP, The Guardian, Human rights house and others as unreliable on another article. Therefore, convinced that I have committed the same crime as Solntsa90 in opposing such an influent editor as Volunteer Marek, I should receive the same punishment. So that order may reign in Wikipedia. Göndul (talk) 00:46, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

---

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

User:Robsinden

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, I have some concerns I'd like to address with you guys. The user mentioned in the heading has continuously edited out information over at Degrassi: Next Class and it's season 1 page. I've asked him to stop in the note sections and didn't want to result in contacting an admin but he hasn't. For Next Class, the main broadcaster is Netflix and is also the producer of the show. Without them, there would be no show. This has been stated several times by the people behind the show and it's listed as a Netflix original program. For some reason, he continues to remove the categories from the pages because he believes it's not. Yes, the show is shot in Canada and also airs on Family but as noted, Netflix is the main broadcaster. They've made sure to note this in both credits for Netflix and on Family. It is not the "original broadcaster" although it aired first. When the Degrassi: The Next Generation page was created, we made sure to cite both the Canadian broadcasters and the U.S. broadcasters because both had reigns over the show. We've also listed both airdates for the seasons. He also removed that on the season 1 page of Next Class. I don't know why he continues to do that but I would like it to stop. I was directed to this page to discuss this and I hope for a swift decision. Thank you. Joshie (New Horizons Await You) 20:34, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

See to be discussed at Talk:List_of_original_programs_distributed_by_Netflix#Degrassi:_Next_Class. There's a policy citation at User_talk:Robsinden#Broadcaster_for_Next_Class regarding distribution or production deal. I don't think there's any conduct concerns here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Urgent range block and page protections needed

Unfortunately our 'old friend', the sick IP troll operation out of UAE who caused a month of extensive disruption and some fifty thousand ranged block IPs is back. As usual, he targets articles about both Christianity [19], [20], [21], myself [22], and Islam [23], [24], [25]. As well learned far too well in November, the only thing that works against this extremely persistent troll is extensive range blocks and temporary protection of his targets. So I propose a range block on the appropriate IP range and a page protection of the following articles. No doubt it will be expanded; in November this same troll moved on to new pages but the extensive range blocks combined with extensive protections eventually got rid of him, but apparently the blocks have expired.

• List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks
• User:Jeppiz
• Paul the Apostle
• Talk:Jesus
• Talk:Christianity

Jeppiz (talk) 12:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Just for the record, I have never been blocked at all.--31.219.124.159 (talk) 12:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

You have now. Do we have a link to previous discussions? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The history of my page, and the page of DeCausa show how this troll harassed us continuously in November, often with up to 10 different IPs per day and using the very same insults. I'll check for the links from NovemberJeppiz (talk) 12:55, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I wonder if it is the same one as the various UAE IPs, that kept reverting my CopyVio nominations at The Great Mosque of Algiers. - HyperGaruda (talk) 12:59, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Undoubtedly, yes both of them. I've personally blocked him/her before as 176.204.186.17 (talk · contribs · block log). I think we just need to determine which ranges would be appropriate at this time. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• The background Here's a discussion from November about the same user [26], involving myself, DeCausa, Cliftonian, Diannaa, Blackmane, Harrias and others. As I said, only a combination of protection and range blocks (not limited to just 24 hours) seem to work. Jeppiz (talk) 13:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

List of Islamist terrorist attacks is full-protected until the 24th. I have added semi-protection (1 year) to Paul the Apostle. User:Jeppiz is already semi'd indefinitely. Edits to Talk:Christianity and Talk:Jesus will be taken care of by range block of 31.219.96.0/19, which we can do with minimal collateral damage. Looking at the previous ANI and the above info, there's three ranges this time. I have checked checked back to the beginning of December for collateral damage on these three ranges, which I have range-blocked for one month:

• 31.219.96.0/19 (covers 65536 IPs) - little collateral damage
• 176.204.0.0/16 (65536 IPs) - there looks to be more people using the range this time, but there's little useful work coming from there
• 2.48.0.0/16 (65536 IPs) - A few useful edits, but mostly not. — Diannaa (talk) 14:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Messina Sockpuppets on enwiki

While Messina did make only one edit on enwiki [27], Messina for sure has used socketpuppets on enwiki. I don´t know how many socks were used on enwiki, most of them to hide article-versions of deleted or articles discussed for deletion on dewiki or old versions and drafts worked on during blocks on dewiki. I identified some socks on enwiki, that are not blocked today This includes this accounts

1. User:Messina111
2. User:30ax.93
3. User:Abwe
4. User:Loew17
5. User:Loew14
6. User:Loew13
7. User:Loew26
8. User:Mikel bradley

These accounts ar for sure Messina sockpuppets beyond reasonable doubts.

How to identify articles by Messina socks? This are frequent issues:

• drafts can contain more than one subject at a time, sometimes they are a collection of many articles stiched together
• the subject of the page can change immediately into something very different between the versions
• title might not match with the content of the page
• lots of copy an paste actions
• lots of pictures, often red links because the files have been deleted on Commons.
• use of pictures uploaded by Messina socks on Commons
• some unusal topics like unimportant buildings or street in Heilbronn, Dresden or elsewhere
• Language German or Hebrew at least in part or in older versions.
• Another complex is articles of unimportant Israeli politicians or artists you might never have heard of.
• this kind of articles usualy have more or less hebrew words/phrases/sentences, also in the last versions.
• extensive citations untranslated or in several different languages
• other topics with jewish background like jewish prayers or synagoges
• very frequent unneccessary empty lines
• layout ist generally a total mess, mix of languages, mix of topics, lots of offtopics
• overreferenced: several footnotes linked to the same sources on one sentence. Multiple footnotes, frequently footnotes after each significant word. One sentence can have 6 footnotes or more.
• at phases many small or minimal changes within a short passage but no substancial change in the content. Unser migt use over 30 edits to set up three sentences.
• overuse of formatting tags, bold, italic, big, small tags also in combination scattered all over the article.
• overuse of links, same things are linked repeatedly in each an every sentence
• mixture of different spellings of the same word
• little content but lots of literature. Most of it uncited and with little connection to the topic
• lots of redundancies

Now do as you like with this information. This socks and edits are about two years old, so its too late for CU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giftzwerg 88 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

User Messina is now globally banned [28] --Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 15:30, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Global rename 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.

---

An apparently well-meaning user, Duffhouseroyalwiki (talk · contribs), who I blocked for username vio, would like to change their username. Apparently I'm not allowed to do that, as I don't have global permissions. They're now asking plaintively if it'll be reviewed this week. I wrote up a message to the user, to tell them "Oh, just create a new account", but then I thought that might make it even more complicated. Could somebody with the right permissions assist, please? (Sorry about the doubled unblock request…) Bishonen | talk 13:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC).

I've sorted out the unblock requests and done the actual unblock - just need the rename now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Presumably the next step is for the user to make the request at WP:CHUS? --David Biddulph (talk) 13:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Pinging @MusikAnimal: since they applied for Global renamer specifically for this reason.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

It's all been done now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

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

User:ErikvanB interwiki VANDALISM

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 about the renaming of a page: Portobuffolé. This page was originally written like this, not only in en.wikipedia but also in other Wikis with different languages. And it is the right name, as I am going to show below. A pair of Dutch admins (one is User:ErikvanB) started changing the name to Portobuffolè in ALL Wiki pages when I dared to correct the name in nl.wikipedia. So I thought to deal with the problem following the rules: I requested a renaming of the pages in Talk:Portobuffolé and in it:Discussione:Portobuffolé (since the name belongs to an Italian town). You can read my reasons there, but here they are summarised up too: in Italian there is a lot of confusion about accents, especially about accented E, the only vowel which can have both grave and acute accent. This is why pronunciation and orthography guides exist, guides like the DOP (the most important pronunciation/ortography dictionary of Italian language), the DiPI (another big shot, even more complete), Sapere.it (the main on-line Italian encyclopedia) and Treccani (the most authoritative Italian encyclopedia). It was established both in English and in Italian Wiki to use this spelling, so the admins have corrected the name also in the other languages. But yesterday one of the Dutch admins who were the origin of all this unnecessary mess decided arbitrarily and without consulting anyone that "Portobuffolé" is wrong and started over again renaming a lot of Wiki pages; so far they are: Dutch, French, German, Portuguese, and... English! This is vandalism. If it was when I changed the pages "without" consent, then again it is now when this admin, abusing his power, is changing the pages "against" consent. Not only in his own language Wiki, but also in others among the which there is this one, the main and international Wiki and the first one where it was decided to use the correct spelling with acute accent. Let's remember that, if it is true the municipal site of the town uses (mostly) the grave accent, it is as true that: it uses also the other and more correct spelling; it uses also a spelling where there is an apostrophe in place of the accent; it makes orthographic errors about accents such as "perchè" (instead of "perché"); it is not an orthograpic guide and on the contrary it contradicts them all; a lot of other municipal sites of Italian towns ending with accented E have wrong spellings in their home-pages (I am not making examples because the aforecited admin would probably go and modify immediately them too); who is not Italian cannot know the confusion we Italians make with accents, at school we are not even taught to distinguish grave from acute accent, and the fact that even in a municipal statute ([29]) is used an apostrophe in place of the accent and when the accent is used it is found in some articles grave and in some others acute, well, this speaks volumes about its reliability... So: please, make this admin stop vandalising the Wiki project just for personal feelings, and restore the consensus spelling in all the articles that have been vandalised by him/her. 151.20.4.197 (talk) 16:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

What the hell is with IPs bandying about vandalism accusations in the last couple days? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I have nothing to do with them. But how would you define the behaviour I have described above? 151.20.4.197 (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

But how would you define the behaviour I have described above? "A content dispute". Although I note that (as you yourself concede) "Portobuffolè" is what the comune itself uses consistently on their website, and they presumably know how to spell their own name. ‑ Iridescent 18:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Iridescent: "...and they presumably know how to spell their own name..." and that is one of the clarified issues in the Italian and English talk pages; your statement is uncorrect. 151.20.4.197 (talk) 18:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, Iridescent, you're uncorrect about the speling. EEng (talk) 18:43, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

May I kindly refer you all to this page on nl-wiki? ErikvanB is no sysop on nl-wiki (albeit many wished he will one day apply) but one of our most valued vandalism fighters and controllers. Also I was harrassed by this person everytime logging in with another dynamic IP-adress. Regards, MoiraMoira (talk) 18:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

There: the other Dutch admin I talked about above. The reasonement (s)he makes in the Dutch talk page is the following: I don't care about your sources, no matter how strong and reliable; I don't care about the inconsistency of the official site, where you find not only both Portobuffolè and Portobuffolé but also Portobuffole' (with apostrophe!) and where you find several accent/apostrophe spelling errors (such as "perchè" and "Mansue'"); I don't care about what was established both on en.wikipedia, the international WIki, and in it.wikipedia, the one which should worry the most about its towns spellings; I've, pardon, we've decided that "Portobuffolè" is totally correct and "Portobuffolé" is completely wrong and, since it's personal with the Italian IP who wants to change the name, I don't even care if this behaviour of mine harms the Wiki project itself. That is what (s)he is meaning in the linked talk page. I would like to remind this Dutch admin that at the beginning, when (s)he was starting reverting my edits on nl.wikipedia, I came on this admin's talk page asking civilly to discuss about the issue and explaining my point of view... Just to read answers in Dutch and a not well hidden refuse of any chance to talk. When (s)he went out of nl.wikipedia and moved every single article named "Portobuffolé" to "Portobuffolè", even the ones that had the right spelling before (such as the one in en.wikipedia), well, you can imagine how I felt and reacted badly. But is my one-month-ago reaction a valid reason to invalidate the correctness of Wiki-pedia itself, acting also against the English, Italian and other languages admins who moved the pages respecting the decision and according to the provided sources? 151.20.4.197 (talk) 18:59, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTVAND. Whether or not this is appropriate it is not vandalism, and continued accusations vandalism over something that is not can be considered a personal attack. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:50, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The Bushranger: then I have a question for you. Why, when I had first moved the pages across the Wikis linking the sources I have provided above, "that" was called "vandalism", "I" was called "vandal" (and blocked), my edits were reverted in all Wikis and in all Wikis it was witten in the summary that I was an inter-Wiki vandal globally blocked? Or, better: why was this right while now the fact I am doing the same is wrong? And remember that this time it was English admins, Italian admins, other languages admins who moved the pages, and also remember that this time both in en.wikipedia and in it.wikipedia we agreed that the correct spelling, according to sources, was Portobuffolé and that renaming the pages was correct, it was not my personal initiative. I hope you answer me and clarify this doubt of mine. 151.20.4.197 (talk) 9:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this. Firstly, I noticed there wasn't any consensus about the spelling, and yet, the spelling was changed on every wiki, so I reverted the moves on a few wikis and gave five random reasons why Portobuffolé may not be the correct spelling (or not the only correct spelling): Comune di Portobuffolè (TV), a city poster, Google Earth, the regional website, and the provincial website. That's all. I received a friendly message from Lucas, an Italian admin, on my Dutch discussion page, but then IP-address 151.*** suddenly appeared, and I don't know who he is. There are now long discussions everywhere, for example on this page, here, here and here, where 'vandal' admin MoiraMoira refutes accusations of vandalism. It is best that everyone agrees before pages are moved. I am certainly not a vandal. ErikvanB (talk) 14:49, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

You like to be precise. Let's be then. I made a move request on en.wikipedia and it was accepted. The sources I brought were strong and reliable and they establish clearly that the correct spelling is Portobuffolé. When I showed such sources on it.wikipedia where the discussion was stalling they were considered the turning point of the issue. I may understand that on nl.wikipedia, "your" Wiki, you might allow no foreign users to change pages even if he or she is being right, but the fact you came to en.wikipedia to rename a page without consulting anyone and without asking anything just on the basis of your personal opinion "IS" vandalism. Or, if it is not, it was not my similar behaviour when I tried moving the page on nl.wikipedia either. I have already spoken about the other Dutch admin, I would like to speak, again, about "your" sources and their reliability, even if this is not the right place. The municipal site: the same site where you read 4 (four) times just in the home-page "Portobuffole'" with APOSTROPHE? The same site where you can find the official statute ([30]) where you read Portobuffole', Portobuffolè and Portobuffolé (3 different versions in the same document, an official and the most important document of the "comune")? Next: Google Images? I am able to use it too: [31]. Next: Google Maps? Where did they take the name from? From the official site, obviously, whose reliability I have already shown. Regional site? Boomerang effect: I read "votiamo portobuffole’ borgo dei borghi italiani". With apostrophe, again. Reliability, again. Provincial site? I read 4 times the apostrophe version, even in the coat-of-arms, and just 2 "Portobuffolè"s. Boomerang effect, again. You are just searching the web for anything which can prove your statement is correct, while I have brought since the very beginning authoritative encyclopedias and pronunciation/orthography guides which ALL say the same: the correct spelling is Portobuffolé. Period. Let's be precise. 151.20.4.197 (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to get upset for a minor issue like this one, so please keep WP:LOVE above everything. Please talk about sources and reasons, not about users, to avoid personal attacks and uncomfortable feelings. I posted a reply in Talk:Portobuffolé, if you are interested please leave a note there. Thanks. :-) --Lucas (talk) 05:53, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Range block needed

Hello,

Upon recommendation of HJ Mitchell, as he's very busy, I'm linking this here. Could some admin that is able to please perform a range block on this? Its some very nasty disruptive IP hopping that involves numerous articles, and its going like this for quite a time. Not only is this IP hopping being highly disruptive as foremost and obvious duh.. reason, its also very annoying for many users here. Furthermore, he's often warring, adding factually incorrect info, and what not. Its basically sockpuppeting through an extensive number of IP's. Therefore, this range should be blocked as its not only a violation of Wikipedia's policies, it furthermore also hurts Wikipedia's content and integrity. (Page protections have been made for a few articles, but it won't help given the large scale of articles he edits). I suggest that if the user genuinely wants to contribute to this place, he should create an account, and not resort to extensive IP hopping.

• 2600:1001:B108:5C2A:4147:4DD3:DCA:3D1B (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2600:1001:B010:9EEE:1D6B:8EBB:FB63:F963 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2600:1001:B028:C7BF:B1F3:3AA9:79C:4502 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2600:1001:B11D:977D:A517:5FBA:AAD3:D458 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2600:1001:B009:A831:A5EF:A130:C8E:4CAC (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2600:1001:B005:DBE2:C981:22C3:A25C:6F3F (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2600:1001:B120:119B:1C59:B5D3:F248:81E7 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2600:1001:B02A:FD5E:956E:BC34:6CBD:6CCC (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2600:1001:B00F:5E95:C906:C2C7:7DA1:7557 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2600:1001:B02F:340:809B:4820:B1B5:818B (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2600:1001:B125:7270:8127:5D7F:CAF6:604E (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Bests (excuse me if this wasn't the right ANI page for this to be placed) - LouisAragon (talk) 16:18, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm working on a module to calculate IP ranges and have put a demo of what it does with the above here (permalink). It's not very helpful, I'm afraid. Johnuniq (talk) 00:46, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Base range is 2600:1001:b000::/39. MediaWiki only allows /64 blocks for a reason, of course. RangeContribs seems to give only a handful edits. (Also, why does the tool not support IPv6 CIDR ranges.) I think, a softblock for the range is safe, of course the blocking admin will have to block several /64 blocks. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 07:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Bad behavior from User:Mona778

This user wrote to Jimbo Wales, referring to me and Yeza as "gang of Users...from the third world Latin American countries" because a situation in Spanish Wikipedia. We're sysops from that Wikipedia, and Mona778 had a local block because always erased his messages in the User talk page in Spanish Wikipedia. Also, we saw the same pattern in English Wikipedia and Commons. Seeing the history page he constantly erased the messages from ClueBot NG, Ponyo, AKS.9955 and me. So I reinstated the warnings because the user maybe don't want see warnings in his userpage. But, he uses Jimbo Wales as shield for any problem, maybe seeking a more powerful protection, and he accuses to us and the Spanish sysops as a possible "vendetta", and uses the misinformation pointing us as stalkers.

Mona778 created a Archive, but is empty, all the previous messages are missed. Now, recieved a warning message from a new user MPS1992, without any idea about me. I'm user from 2005, and 10 years old sysop from Spanish Wikipedia and another projects, also I was Meta sysop. So, I deduce that MPS1992 was manipulated because the misinformation of Mona778. Also, I demand an apologize from MPS1992, for this negligent response.

I won't revert the blankings of Mona778, also I won't revert the warning of MPS1992, but I need to reply this distorted situation. --Taichi (talk) 05:24, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• Aiaiai where to start. First of all, removing warnings is just fine. If y'all block for that on the Spanish wiki, power to you, but that is not how we roll here. Second, I looked at the warnings and what they were for. ClueBot's was wrong; there was nothing wrong with this edit. AKS.9955's warning was wrong too: this revert on AKS's part means either they didn't look to see what they reverted or they don't read English. And then you come by and restore two incorrect warnings and a couple of old things from Ponyo. No, that's not OK, Taicho; maybe y'all have different rules but here you'll have to play by ours. And don't go casting stones at MPS1992, who was absolutely correct. Best thing for you to do: apologize to Mona for incorrectly reinstating useless warnings (that's two different things you did wrong) and then move along. Drmies (talk) 06:17, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Problematic signature

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

---

The 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 really didn't know where else to bring up this issue. I have definitely had my share of disagreements with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz over the past few years, but now the addendum to his signature ("The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006")—and I'm not sure when he did it; that's just when I noticed it—is kind of rubbing me the wrong way. I mean, if that's how he feels, then why is he here? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 11:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Probably because he cares more about the encyclopedia than the admins? To be honest given his history, he is fairly justified in feeling aggrieved. Think yourself lucky, at least its not flashing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

It's kind of clunky. Maybe cut the specifics and have a simple "treated like dirt since 2006". That rolls off the tongue a lot smoother. Rgrds. --64.85.217.207 (talk) 14:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

No, no, no. If we admins are gonna treat him like dirt for a fucking decade, we'd damn well better get credit for it. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

_{Also, signature's fine. Just don't call out a specific admin or personal attack or whatever.} UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Not a problem in my eyes. Maybe he's doing point 18 of User:Antandrus/observations on Wikipedia behavior, or maybe he's not, but either way, it's not something that warrants sanctions of any sort. Nyttend (talk) 14:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

It's still just too clunky IMO. Maybe "Disdained by admins since 2006". Or just "Dissed by admins since 2006". Whatever. Rgrds. --64.85.217.207 (talk) 15:21, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

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

One more quick thing...

I forgot to mention that the reason that I didn't ask him on his talk page is because he banned me from it years ago. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 01:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Then you're also allowed to ignore his signature and not being it up at all...--Jayron32 03:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

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

NewsAndEventsGuy reported by NewsAndEventsGuy

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.

---

Earlier today, I started at a thread at the talk page for the occupation now underway in Oregon. Afterwards, with WP:APPNOTE in mind and intentionally selecting a wide array of pages with eds who may or may not agree with me but might be interested in the thread, I posted pointers to the thread. I was cognizant of the WP:CANVASSING and WP:SPAM rule and tried to follow both while pulling in more interested parties from a wide range of perspectives to the discussion. Here they are....

10:32, January 16, 2016 Talk:Sierra Club 10:31, January 16, 2016 Talk:National Cattlemen's Beef Association ‎ 10:29, January 16, 2016 Talk:Sagebrush Rebellion ‎ 10:26, January 16, 2016 Talk:Federal lands 10:26, January 16, 2016 Talk:Harney County, Oregon ‎ 10:24, January 16, 2016 Talk:Burns, Oregon 10:22, January 16, 2016 Talk:Malheur National Wildlife Refuge ‎ 10:21, January 16, 2016 Talk:Bundy standoff 10:19, January 16, 2016 Talk:Sovereign citizen movement

I started with the Sovereign Cit Movement, and ended at Sierra Club which hopefully shows my effort at NOT soliciting one sided views.

Later, an admin interacted with me briefly at one of the talk pages. I did not know they were an admin, and I explained that I thought WP:APPNOTE applied. With no substantive reply, the admin then deleted all those postings citing SPAM. I have no beef with the admin.By not mentioning their name I'm trying to demonstrate that I'm not pissed at them and am not complaining about them. Since I have started this here, I will privately ping them about this filing and they can comment here if they wish, or not, it's all good, as long as somebody explains.

At first, when I thought they were a regular ed vandalizing my talk page comments I challenged them at their talk page. When I learned of my identification error, I then realized I must have screwed up and asked for an education. They declined. That conversation is here.

So here I am still ignorant. Would someone please explain why this identical message sent to those pages was a WP:SPAM violation, rather than an WP:APPNOTE?

==Bundy's Militia's demands == :Regarding our article about the [[Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge]] please consider commenting at that article's talk page on the question [[Talk:Occupation_of_the_Malheur_National_Wildlife_Refuge#Should_we_say_anything_more_about_Public_Lands_Privatization_and_demand_feds_cede_ownership?|"Should we say anything more about Public Lands Privatization and demand feds cede ownership?"]]

Thanks for enlightening me NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:02, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Reply to Lava

:::I'm happy to answer your complaint on the merits. I need 24 hr. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC) with Lava's retraction of seeking a Tban against me, this is now moot. I'd still like some admins who apply the guidelines to teach me about SPAM and APPNOTE in this context, and for that matter, if I should have pursued admin opinion on the question via some other process. I'd be glad to hat, and go there. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Huh? What complaint? (And if "I need 24 hr." means that you're typing up another wall of text, please, don't. No one has time for anymore autobiographical novels. No one has made a complaint against you, ergo no response is necessary. For the sake of us all, please just leave it at that.) LavaBaron (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy: I'm not an admin, but here's the explanation I think you're looking for. Firstly, I think the link to WP:SPAM is incorrect, I believe LavaBaron was referring to the proper link is the canvassing guideline by a similar name. The problem is that you were excessively cross posting. From your post it seems that you posted this on 9 different pages. That's a lot, especially on article pages. I'd say for notifying multiple people, either use WP:RFC which would get a good number of people or post on the page of one or two WikiProjects or article talk pages with a large number of watchers. Notice that the section right beneath WP:APPNOTE shows that "Mass posting" is inappropriate notification. LavaBaronThe admin you mention (and myself for what its worth) probably believed that you were posting on too many articles in violation of WP:APPNOTE and WP:CANVASS more broadly. Wugapodes (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: - I agree with you but, in point of clarification, I didn't raise this issue about cross-posting to NewsAndEventsGuy, @Valfontis: apparently did. I only chimed-in here as I thought it was an unusual thing for him to report himself (I've been watching NewsAndEventsGuy's contribution history as it often requires editors engage in a bit of clean-up after he hurricanes through an article, as noted in my diffs below; other than some furious first-shaking from him it's never really a big deal and he never edit wars or anything - so certainly not block or ban-worthy, just a little tedious [I have a suspicion I know what the specific issue with his unusual edit style is which is the reason I have intentionally not brought this to ANI as I think he deserves some slack - of course, my best efforts were for naught when he decided to report himself]). LavaBaron (talk) 22:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean to put words in your mouth. I've struck above. Wugapodes (talk) 22:16, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

It's no problem, these interactions vis a vis NewsAndEventsGuy often devolve into a high level of confusion all around. LavaBaron (talk) 22:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• Trout Support 7-Day TBAN - The enthusiasm and exuberance you've shown for editing WP is commendable. However, your current ... unusual ... style of editing is causing (unintentional) disruption. Reporting yourself at ANI is a prime example of this. Relentlessly posting to my Talk page with demands I self-revert some gentle guidance I've given you similar to what Valfontis offered or you'll report me is another example. "Guerilla deleting" articles by blank/revert citing the "precedent" of unrelated AfD discussions [32] is another example. Unexpectedly introducing a staggering Wall of Text into a relatively calm and good-mannered page [33] is another example. The examples you, yourself, have cited above are more examples. You've become a bit of a bull in a china shop. Again, I think this is not intentional and if you had the opportunity to observe from a distance for a few days you could be a very fine editor. LavaBaron (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
• Trout and move on NewsAndEventsGuy has apparently been a rather consistent editor since 2011. He's not new and I think just needs a clue adjustment. I feel like an admonishment that his actions have been disruptive is enough, a don't see a topic ban as effective as it's not intentional disruption. If he's aware of the disruption being caused that LavaBaron is citing, I believe he's a mature enough editor to adjust. Perhaps I have too much faith in people, but I think a topic ban is too much. Wugapodes (talk) 20:12, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Great points, Wugapodes, you have me convinced that a clue adjustment is all NewsAndEventsGuy needs. Changing my opinion to admonish only. LavaBaron (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: Thanks for your comments. Yes I am aware of the allegations. If he believes them, he should probably file at AE. We're both on notice that DS-AP applies. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Note the second half of my suggestion was "and move on". You already reported yourself at AN/I which is disruptive in itself (see WP:POINT) and opens you up to community sanctions whether you like it or not. I recommended a trouting over sanctions because I think you'd be better served learning from your mistakes, but part of that is recognizing you've made some, and not asking people to report you at AE. LavaBaron provided a good explanation as to why the edits you made were disruptive (with links to specific instances). My recommendation for trouting is contingent upon you learning from your mistakes and working to not make them again. Don't shoot yourself in the foot. Understand the mistakes you've made, learn from them, and move on. Wugapodes (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

That's easy... I'm eager to learn from mistakes, and I make plenty.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I don't care if anybody is pissed at me or not. Especially since as far as I can tell, there is no reason for anybody to be pissed at me. I cleaned up some talk pages and maybe I was hasty. Enjoy the debate. Valfontis (talk) 22:43, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll also note that the fact I am an admin has no bearing on my actions, I would have done the same without the bit. I had no idea about any sanctions against anybody, I just watch a lot of Oregon pages. And yes, the cross-posting seemed excessive. Cheers, Valfontis (talk) 22:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining, @Valfontis:. Subjective minds can differ on these IAR type things. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC) (Later) Elsewhere I just saw your link to Wikipedia:Canvassing#Spamming_and_excessive_cross-posting. Given the context (and the care I know I took in deciding) I don't believe the list was "indiscriminate". But IAR works too. Whatever. Thanks again for the response. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:34, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

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

List of best-selling music artists

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 change the figure for Beyonce as it has stayed the same for 9 years now she has not sold 75 million records worldwide she has sold an estimates 118 million to 150 million records. I believe you much change this as it is misleading people. Also since the release of 25 Adele has sold much more records then that of 90 million that is reported on this page. Thanks You for reading — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:388:332:150:98BB:C1BC:624E:7A6E (talk) 02:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

It's best to discuss content changes on the article talk page. Have you tried that yet? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Rigel Squadron 2 violating WP:NFCC#9

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:Rigel Squadron 2 continues violating WP:NFCC#9 on the page User:Rigel Squadron 2 despite warnings at User talk:Rigel Squadron 2#January 2016. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

The editor's user page looks like a bit of a WP:FAKEARTICLE as well.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed a WP:FAKEARTICLE/WP:NOTWEBHOST violation, and after checking about, it has been G3'd and the user indef'd as WP:NOTHERE, as said fakearticle was their sole reason for being here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:09, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

@The Bushranger: User:Rigel Squadron 3 looks like the same thing. User:Rigel Squadron did until it was blanked, while Special:contribs/Rigel Squadron 4 hasn't made any edits. I will be opening an SPI here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rigel Squadron. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 17:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

...aaaand looking at those I think we have an even larger potential sockfarm here. I'll post at the SPI. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Alexis Ivanov's WP:Personal attacks and blatant incivility

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 being reported

Alexis Ivanov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Background

This user and I are having a disagreement on the article Cossack Hetmanate about saying that the Cossack Hetmanate was a protectorate of the Ottoman Empire in the infobox. My view is that this places WP:UNDUE weight on a small part of the history of state. It also seems to go against general accepted practice on Wikipedia in similar articles, so I have advocated placing this in the body of the article only. His view is that this should be included in the infobx. However, he has turned this conversation in to some very uncivil, rude WP:Personal attacks against me.

Personal attacks

• On Talk:Cossack Hetmanate, I asked the user to "Please be WP:CIVIL and follow WP:Etiquette."
• In the next reply, I again asked the user to tone down the sarcasm and insults
• The user responded with more mocking, saying "I already expect for you to whine and whine" and "For you it is Sir Ivanov, so please don't call me Mr. Ivanov"
• Disagreements about content continued. In accordance with WP:DISPUTE I appealed to 2 neutral editors for a third opinion: 1 and 2
  • On the talk page of Aleksandr Grigoryev, this user said of me: "you slithering like a snake with more and more lies"
  • On the other talk page, (user Toddy1), Alexis Ivanov called me an "innocent little baby", "a snake moving and slithering in the grass", "childish", and "shut your mouth boy".
    • I asked him to stop the name-calling and personal attacks yet again, and to take back those insults by striking through them (in accordance with WP:NPA) I asked him to stick to substance. Finally, I told him I would appeal to this page.
    • The user responded: "go and cry somewhere" and admitted to be intentionally behaving uncivilly.
• According to WP:CIVIL, I contacted the user on his talk page with my concerns, asked him to take back the insults, and stop doing them. I also told him I would appeal to this page.
  • The user deleted my post with a summary "deleted some filth"
  • The user commented on my talk page and said, among other insults, "I don't enjoy you vandalizing my page and desecrating it" and "don't come in my talk page ever again and ruining it with your writing". He also said "go ahead" and report his behavior to here.
    • I responded that "this is inappropriate".
    • The user responded: " I can clean my talk page as much as I want and delete filthy intimidating tactics"

I would like an admin's take on this situation. Where do we go from here?--BoguSlav 07:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Note

The user has been blocked twice before, the first of which has the summary: "persistent edit warring on several articles, personal attacks, some of them right on WP:ANI itself, uncollaborative editing".--BoguSlav 07:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I am completely uninvolved in the current topic area(s) under discussion, but I'd like to point out that this is a pattern with Alexis Ivanov. He seems to be completely incapable of editing collaboratively and sticking neutrally to discussions of content, sourcing, and policy, without going into WP:BATTLEGROUND mode and indulging in personal attacks, incivility, judgments, sarcasm, ridicule, anger, and so forth. Everything for him seems to be a "you're either for me or against me" situation, and if you happen at any point to disagree with him, you're in the enemy camp or the "you betrayed me" camp. It makes co-editing with him nearly impossible, and as I said, a battleground instead of a discussion or collaboration. I realize he's fairly new (has been editing 7 months), but he definitely needs to change his behavior and his outlook and his style if he wants to stay here long term. Softlavender (talk) 07:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment from a lurker: Alexi pops up here all the time. This isn't good.142.105.159.60 (talk) 20:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Procedural comment I have nothing to add to this thread as such (I had WP:NPA issues with User:Alexis Ivanov 3 months ago for which Bishonen blocked but we've had no problems since and I think he's a knowledgeable user), but I'd like to point out to Bogu that you must notify a user on their talk page whenever you report them on ANI. That has not been done here, so I hope no action is taking before Alexis has been duly notified and allowed to express himself. That's my first and last comment in this thread, nothing more to add as I know nothing about this dispute. Jeppiz (talk) 20:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Apologies to Bogu who did notify [34] Alexis, who removed it [35] as he of course is free to do do. My mistake. Jeppiz (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Steel1943

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.

---

Steel1943 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Please give this user a block. He is not allowing a harmless page-related question on Talk:Undergarment to stand. 134.154.255.76 (talk) 22:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• To anyone reading this, is there any way there can be some sort of range block applied to all of these IPs that User:Fangusu is using to violate their site ban? I'm honestly getting a bit tired of having to deal with their ban-violating edits every day. Steel1943 (talk) 22:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Granted, I guess I should be a bit flattered that they are taking time out of their day every day for the past few weeks to interact with me ... but this is not the way to get on my good side, I tell you what. Steel1943 (talk) 22:43, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

You'd need to provide a few more IP's to help admins narrow down the range. Blocking all 134.x.x.x is obviously out of the question, but a targeted range block might be possible provided collateral damage isn't significant. Blackmane (talk) 01:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

At this point, I'm getting close to determining the subnet mask, considering the IPs in this range seem dynamic. There's a few IPs this editor used that are outside of the range, so they are probably not at their "home base" when they use it, but those are less common. Stay tuned! Steel1943 (talk) 02:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Request for RevDel

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

---

Would an administrator please RevDel this edit? Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for spotting it. Acroterion (talk) 05:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Editor repeatedly adds Speedy Deletion tags on established 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.

---

Editor Trobinson16 repeatedly adds speedy deletion tags to established articles, without talk page discussion, has been warned yesterday and before (Contributions). Probably requires a block to prevent further disruptions. Thanks. prokaryotes (talk) 11:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok. blocked now as clearly here to cause mischief. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

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

No longer able to log out (thank you, WMF!)

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.

---

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T124409

If you try to log out (to edit as an IP, or to change accounts, e.g. going from your admin to your non-admin account), this no longer seems to work, as I am "globally logged-in") and this takes precedence over what I want to do. This looks a lot like a new WMF implementation gone seriously wrong, and may have consequences for a lot of editors (you may believe to be logged out, but you are actually still logged in). Someone else already noted this problem at WP:VPT#Logout = login and perhaps also with problems with bot functioning at the moment. Can we get someone with connections at the WMF to sort this out ASAP please? Fram (talk) 11:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Delete your browser's cookies, or just the Wikipedia cookie. prokaryotes (talk) 11:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, but I try to find a solution for everyone, not just for me. Fram (talk) 11:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Same problem reproduced here. I get a "you are now logged out" result screen, but the next page I load shows me as being logged in again. If this is happening widely, it is a major security issue, because any user who edits on a public computer and then duly tries to log out and relies on the "logged out" success message, will essentially have their account compromised without noticing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and I seem to remember this happened to me at least once before, maybe about two weeks ago. I didn't pay it much attention then, thinking it was some one-off quirk of my browser. This seems to suggest that whatever bug is responsible for this has been present for more than just a day or two. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:55, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Something to add here: I have just this hour encountered the problem: I log out, but when I reach the page, the icon tiles don't load and my... whatever that list of user-related links is called... slides back into place. I tried clearing my cookies and cache, and that worked when I tested it, but after I logged back in again, I couldn't log out. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• If you have checked the Keep me logged in for 30 days the logout seems to work but if you simply log in the logout does not work. Massive security hole. Jbh^Talk 12:18, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

  I have filed a bug report at https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T124409 —Kusma (t·c) 12:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Thanks. It has been given the priority "unbreak now!", which sounds like "very high priority" (not sure, no idea where I could check their priority codes). Fram (talk) 12:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

    • I believe that is the second highest priority, after "fix this within 30 minutes if you value your job". ;) ―Mandruss ☎ 12:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Logout works fine for me on enwiki, FWIW. 2001:8B0:FAFA:8023:B4B2:E58B:655A:C082 (talk) 12:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

If it makes you feel any better, Fram, they called me early this morning to look into this. Hopefully I'll have it fixed for you ASAP. BJorsch (WMF) (talk) 13:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad they (and you) are taking this serious. I'm not thrilled with the general "oops, forgot to test this properly" culture at the WMF (going back for years and much more commonly seen in the new gadgets like VE, Flow, Gather, AFT, you name it), but it would be rather unfair to blame you personally for that when you are the one trying to help us here. When you have done with this, you can perhaps also check why I get such a strange range of mostly empty boxes when I log out. Beneath "Logging you out from other wikis of the Wikimedia Foundation:" there should probably be a list of logos for the other WMF sites, but on every try, only between 2 and 4 have an image, the others are plain white boxes. It is an utterly useless gimmick, as far as I can tell. But that's not urgent obviously. Fram (talk) 13:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Logout works fine for me, and always has; I wonder if it's a browser issue? I'm using Internet Explorer. Fram, FPAS, anyone else who can't log out: what browsers are you using? Nyttend (talk) 14:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I get logged back in both in Chrome and in Safari (on a Mac). —Kusma (t·c) 14:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I get logged back in in Firefox on Windows, so not specific to one browser or OS. It also happens at other wikis, according to the phabricator discussion. Anomie reports not getting it on her normal profuile, but having the problem with a new profile, so it is a bit weird but obviously not uncommon at all. They seem to be getting an idea of what causes it, and seem to be working hard to correct it, so that's great. Fram (talk) 14:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Brad Jorsch doesn't look like "she" Perhaps different browsers, by default, have cookie settings that prevent or don't prevent this from happening? Or perhaps my dislike of cookies (I block most, accepting only ones that I find useful) made me block a cookie long ago that would have enabled this to happen. Nyttend (talk) 14:36, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. "Anomie" as a word closely resembles some feminime names in Dutch (like "Annemie"), so inadvertently I made the gender link. I'll try to remember it, but in general I don't really think about what gender anyone on Wikipedia is, and mean no offense when I incorrectly use "he" or "she". Fram (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Confirm IE works fine in the UK - in case it is a WP server issue - (another good reason to use IE ;-) ) - Arjayay (talk) 14:39, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Pronoun confusion doesn't bother me. (: It should be fixed now. We're also going to log everyone out in a few minutes for good measure, in case people didn't notice some public terminal stayed logged in. Anomie⚔ 16:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing this, Anomie! —Kusma (t·c) 17:06, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@Anomie: Just one more thing: Since the fix, I no longer get automatically logged in to Meta by global login. Could you check that? —Kusma (t·c) 17:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@Kusma and C678: this is T124468. It's driving me nuts too since I hop wikis constantly. The patch is in the works :) Keegan (WMF) (talk) 21:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Question: For all those who think they are currently logged out on a public computer, but are in fact not; would it be possible to enforce their logout centrally? --Pipetricker (talk) 13:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean? Someone at WMF sends a command to log-out everyone worldwide? Nyttend (talk) 14:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Something like that, yes. --Pipetricker (talk) 14:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's possible. I think it's been done before. We also run a password-crackers on each admin account to make sure they aren't weak, so this can be easily done. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 15:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• I'm having a similar but different session issue. This morning when I was tending the user rename queue, I sometimes got a Permission Error, and I saw I was logged out, but logged in centrally, according to the pop-up bubble, when I reloaded the page, I was logged in again, but I then logged out again. It's definitely not a cache issue as special pages don't get cached. It seems Wikimedia may have some session issues happening. Just a moment ago I got kicked from my account and actually had to login again.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 16:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• After reading the Phab it could work when you logout directly via https://login.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Logout Anyone tested this yet? cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.225.183.54 (talk) 16:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• Heads up! Issue's been fixed. Invalidation of user sessions in progress. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 17:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

  That explains the persistent logouts on various projects. It doesn't seem to be happening anymore.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 17:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

  I just got logged out upon visiting a separate page (going from WP:RDH to Deed of change of name) simply by clicking a link. Thanks to all you tech folks for working on this! Nyttend (talk) 18:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

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

National Society of Collegiate Scholars edited repeatedly by user Nscs in clear violation of WP:CORPNAME and WP:COI; other users potential COI

User Nscs (contribs) has exclusively edited pages relating to NSCS (National Society of Collegiate Scholars), and has claimed to be an NSCS employee. In addition to minor edits they have added the long list of NSCS sponsors to its page which is now in need of cleanup, and I have marked with WP:Advert. Several other users and IPs editing National_Society_of_Collegiate_Scholars are suspect, removing content that negatively portrays NSCS (example) and adding advertisement-like content. The article needs cleanup and further investigation (perhaps to be kicked downstairs to regular users), and action should be taken against user NSCS for clear policy violations. Saposhiente (talk) 11:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Not obvious to me that a mostly lower case rendition of the acronym of a rather obscure organization screams WP:CORPNAME at me "unambiguously represent the name of a company, group, institution or product".--Wehwalt (talk) 11:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Their last edit to that page was in February 2014 and several other editors have changed the page since - don't see an issue here. Mike1901 (talk) 11:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I ripped out the list of sponsors as well as some other content-guideline ripping-outing (all unrelated to who contributed it, but thanks for brining that mess to my attention even if not admin-ish). DMacks (talk) 11:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment Just slightly curious that- with the exception of today's edits- the nominator has made one edit since 2011. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Nscs is 10 year old account inactive since 25 February 2014, next edit on 8th January 2016. Saposhiente was inactive for four years. Marvel Hero (talk) 14:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Nscs was active through April, not just February, of 2014, in drafts that were rejected (on topics related to his organization). DMacks (talk) 15:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

User:David Biddulph left a note on User talk:Nscs about username concern and COI editing. DMacks (talk) 15:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Requesting an IP block

I am requesting an indefinite IP block for following two users which are created to insult me personally. Both of them are obscene and mean really bad in Urdu:

1. User:Jinnah ka lund choos (means "Suck Jinnah's dick"
2. User:SheriffIsInTown apni ammi ki choot mein peshab kiya (Don't want to tell the meaning, just block it please)

These users were created after I had weeks of edit conflicts on Bangladesh articles with User:Akbar the Great along with heated conversations.

I was thanked by these two user accounts after I replied to User:Vinegarymass911's oppose vote on move request which I am supporting at Talk:2016 Ouagadougou attacks. I thanked this user earlier for an edit on that same page. I have also interacted with this user on Bangladesh articles and we kind of have opposing views but User:Akbar the Great did not seem very happy with User:Vinegarymass911's edits and he expressed that during talk discussions so it might be a ploy.

I have an ongoing conflict with User:Vaibhav.times at Adnan Sami and earlier today he left me a kind of nasty message on my talk page.

Not sure who created those two accounts but if someone can find out their relative location and see who that matches with. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 06:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Please be sober discussing about some topics and don't blame someone without any proof, i said some relevant things and for your information i haven't created these accounts .. Please stop bullying people on your behalf . Anyone can check the messages which were in discussion on his page rather than going so low and blaming someone. Vaibhav.times (talk) 07:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The 2nd name is something on the order of "SherrifIsInTown to piss in your mother's [something]" (Google Translate's translation was "discount" but that doesn't seem to make sense, nor do the alternates it provides). Both names appear to be flagrant violations of WP:USERNAME and should be username blocked, if not indef blocked as sockpuppets. BMK (talk) 07:09, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@BMK [something] means le arse. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:14, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah! Thanks, I can put that problem behind me now. BMK (talk) 07:29, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

These two ids should be blocked at once because they are insult to religion as well as personal attack and whosoever involved should be punished too by blocking his/her ip too. Only my two cents that why MR Sheriff is always in conflict with most of the editors? And even for reason he is it doesn't give him any right to point fingers on others without any valid proof. It is some sort of name shame and getting so low to prove his point Vaibhav.times (talk) 07:18, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

He most certainly has the right to bring their usernames to the community's attention, since, as you agree, they are flagrantly insulting. BMK (talk) 07:30, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

True but only conflicting usernames, not of the editors whom he differ in views on some topics. It is just relating them to the conflicting usernames and it is sort of name shame for them without any intention and reason. Once you have proper proof you can bring in anyone's name but not just basis of your useless and pointless imagination. Vaibhav.times (talk)vaibhavthedestroyer--- 07:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@BMK I think @User:SheriffIsInTown should open a sockpuppet investigation on these two. Although it is not fully through the "red tape" but no one can deny this kind of blatant sock puppetry. a simple checkuser will show which accounts are connected to these guys. I am quite sure it will be a nasty surprise for the person who did this.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:41, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@HighInBC: beat me to blocking both. I'd open a SSP regarding these. SQL^{Query me!} 07:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I blocked both of those accounts. I hard blocked them so any account on the same IPs will be autoblocked. HighInBC 07:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@User:SheriffIsInTown so proof is infront of you, please don't blame people randomly Vaibhav.times (talk)

@Vaibhav.times: You can't edit your comment like that to ping someone. You have to have the ping template, and sig in the same edit. @SheriffIsInTown: SQL^{Query me!} 08:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Why have I been dragged into this? Sheriff, if you thought I had something to do with this, I would consider you paranoid.

A few weeks back I saw this. Isn't there a way for Wikipedia to block certain words being used as a username? Who has pig as a username? I'm sure these two accounts will be similarly blocked. I also condemn, in the strongest possible terms, the attacks on Sheriff.--Akbar the Great (talk) 10:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Well there's Pigsonthewing, just to name one right off the top of my head. There is nothing inherently "wrong" with "pig" in a username - it's all about context. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:56, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@The Bushranger and User:HighInBC this seems to be a serial offender who uses some Ip other than his to do his dirty work. The pattern of "thanking for edits" is telltale. My 24 november notifications show that this occurred against me with the stupidly named User:FreeatlastChitchat watched his sister taking bath and User:FreeatlastChitchat is a madarchod. Perhaps there can be some work done to unmask the real guy behind this? not sure how though. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I've suggested a request so that the words maybe added to DQBot's blacklist. Feel free to vet it here. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 14:41, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I would just like to note to everyone that apni ammi ki choot mein peshab kiya, roughly translates into Discount to piss in your momma. Happy_Attack_Dog (Throw Me a Bone) 18:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Close to a legal threat

This comment comes pretty close to making a legal threat. At the very least the user should be warned.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I left a suggestion that SoIntSa may want to make it clear that they're not the one considering legal action. My interpretation is that they are implying RT may consider the allegation, that they are a propaganda mouthpiece for the Russian government, slanderous or libelous. Blackmane (talk) 03:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I was saying that, such material constitutes libel in some jurisdictions (such as the UK where I was born) if claims can't be carefully backed up by adequate sources: that is to say, I was speaking in concern of wikipedia, not any legal threat by any means.

And just to clarify, No I have never threatened legal action against anyone, wikipedia, or any entity, and I think my wording was unambiguous enough and quite clear, but editors want to start a ruckus in a petty attempt to silence me.

Solntsa90 (talk) 07:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that Volunteer Marek has attempted to get rid of me for my opinion, even stating on the RT page "It's time you get blocked", implying that this is merely an attempt to oust me from the editing process on the RT page.

Just check the talk page, and see how vitriolic it has become; I have tried to maintain a polite demeanour, but a lot of insults and accusations can make anyone a bit grumpy. Solntsa90 (talk) 07:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The only thing I know about this case is the quoted diff in the OP. I tried to read it as a legal threat but failed. Whatever other problems there may be here I do agree with Solntsa90 saying " I was speaking in concern of wikipedia"NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

even stating on the RT page "It's time you get blocked" <-- well, yes, if you're making legal threats then it is indeed that time (though you are of course being disruptive in other ways as well).Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:51, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

And just to be clear, I don't think the mere use of the word "slander" makes something a legal threat, since that word is commonly used in a non-legal sense. However, in this particular case Solntsa90 made it clear in his sentence that they did indeed mean it in a legal sense.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

And honestly, Solntsa90, while your edits and participation in the discussion at the article has definitely brought negative value-added there, if I was actually "trying to silence you" (though you do need to learn how to listen rather than playing at WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT) I wouldn't have suggested that you be warned but would've asked that you'd be blocked.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:56, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

People really need to stop thinking a word is a legal threat. We have a page called WP:LIBEL. It's not a legal threat to point out policy. Wikipedia:No legal threats#What is not a legal threat says explicitly that discussions regarding libelous material is not a legal threat. --DHeyward (talk) 12:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's more or less what I said above, but in this case the user did seem to be implying legal action. Anyway, the material under discussion is not libelous or even close. It's just that one user doesn't like it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The wording "That is quite slanderous, and subject even to libel" gives me pause. If someone is being slanderous the only way it makes sense to say "and subject even to libel" is if they meant libel proceedings. I would say this is ambiguous enough that we can get away with a clear warning that we are pretty strict about legal threats. HighInBC 16:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood, it's not him (Solntsa90) making the legal threat, it's him making it clear that the editor in question might face legal threats for the content added by him. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 19:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Which makes absolutely no sense (especially since the info's straight from a few dozen sources) - who exactly would sue except the user making the comment? Anyway, the distinction may not matter, see [36]. From the policy: "For example, if you repeatedly assert that another editor's comments are "defamatory" or "libelous," that editor might interpret this as a threat to sue, even if that is not your intention. ". I do agree that in this case this could've been done out of ignorance so for now a warning is sufficient. Having said that, pretty much anytime anyone starts bringing up libel or slander accusations on talk, especially when they are objecting to well sourced material, it's basically a tactic to try and win a dispute when you can't win on merits, and so is disruptive even putting all legal stuff aside.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd argue that bringing an ANI NLT accusation based on a talk page discussion is much more of a tactic "to try and win a dispute when you can't win on merits, and so is disruptive even putting all legal stuff aside." I'd much rather see the discussion about why it's libelous on the talk page rather than an ANI thread that "libelous" is a legal threat. It's important to note that unless the statements are about the editor, they lack standing for legal action and is exactly why the policy excludes such discussions. Calling a statement "libelous" is not a legal threat in any sense. Not a close one. Not in the same ballpark. --DHeyward (talk) 23:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@HighInBC:, do you see the following as a legal threat - I don't want to see Wikipedia be sued by a third party? It's not a rhetorical question, but one I think cuts to the crux of this filing.... to me, that is what the user wrote, just in other words. @Volunteer Marek:, while you describe a common behavior, we shouldn't cultivate a kneejerk culture that concludes before it thinks. I can quote libel caselaw, and sometimes I see stuff in these pages that really looks like it could meet the legal standards, of which I have personal knowledge. So let's be dubious but open minded and take 'em case by case. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:36, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it steps over the line into "legal threat" territory the way Wikipedia uses the term, but it's only about a millimeter from stepping across that line. Editors should stay away from legalistic terms such as slander and libel. If they're concerned about Wikipedia, they should say they are concerned that such-and-such could get Wikipedia into trouble. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:49, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Sarah Shapiro

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.

---

Sarah Shapiro (talk · contribs) has been to court with Naomi Ragen, and has of late extensively edited that article with the stated goal to "set the record straight for myself and the other two litigants". I have pointed her to WP:COI[37]. Her last edits [38] and [39] are very much POV, in that they try to make the subject of the article look worse than they deserve. In view of the stated goal of making her point on an article she is personally involved in, the tens of edits she has made to this article of late, and the blatant POV violation in the last two edits, which she also edit warring about, I recommend she be banned form this article. Debresser (talk) 14:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Handling. Nyttend (talk) 14:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Blocked for ten hours (that should be in the middle of the night for Israel's time zone) with explanation at her talk. Nyttend (talk) 14:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Attitude issues at Talk:Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain

The video game Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain was the topic of some contoversy, namely the depiction of the character Quiet (see Metal Gear Solid: The Phantom Pain#Sexualized portrayal of Quiet). Over the last couple of months, this issue has been discussed repeatedly on the talk page. One particular IP editor (I'm assuming it is one person) is determinated to have as little of the controversy mentioned, and is convinced that who doesn't agree with them is wrong. The article itself is one thing, but this anonymous editor will not listen to reason, or just walk away. This has come to a point where this has to stop.

A message from October 6 reads: "I'm not going to be the one to make more edits at this point, but it's painfully clear people are trying to own the page". Untrue and accusatory, but not particularly a terrible attitude. After a while, they're back on January 8, starting off their new message with "Please put how you feel about it or any emotion you may have about the topic aside when you read the following points". Okay, sounds good. "There are sources and information here that talk about the PlayArtsKai figurine of Quiet. Are you out of your mind?! What relevance does this have to the RECEPTION OF THE GAME???" Taking a bit of a turn there. "To any senior editors, administrators, or anyone with an interest in Wikipedia standards. It should be extremely concerning that this level of bias is present in an article that is supposed to be by and large, factual." Extremely concerning? Oh boy.

Well, from that moment on, things got worse. On January 12 there were two messages. The first: "They're just feigning ignorance so they can use wikipedia as a soapbox or personal blog, just like creationsist or other opinion-based groups would. They want this slander to be visible in the table of contents, obviously". Later that day: "You aren't interested in presenting facts, you're interested in putting forward a particular kind of opinion. One that states that EVERYTHING is sexist/sexualized, because you folks obsess over this kind of stuff for no other reason than to be as obnoxious and supremacist as you can".

Today came another post: "Everything is sexist to them, it seems. Really every single thing. They can't even think of a world where something isn't sexist. Therefore, they have no endgame, no solution. The only thing they do is go around and troll/declare everything to be sexist."

All the while, experienced editors like @Peter Isotalo:, @Prisonermonkeys:, @Czar: and myself have pointed towards Wikipedia's guidelines on notability, on balanced articles, you name it. Today, @Sergecross73: had to semiprotect the article again, because they will not stop. --Soetermans. T / C 14:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Martin Hogbin

Martin Hogbin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

The user consistently makes disruptive edits and his contribution to Wikipedia on the talk pages of the applicable articles is normally nothing constructive but him unreasonably claiming everything is too promotional. If you search for the word "promotional" within his edits, you'll see a large amount of those cases. One of the last incidents involved him trying to completely remove the occupations of those on the list of vegans, where his actions had already led to a large portion of the useful information being removed, such as the band names for musicians that aren't known for their solo work.
He has been warned yet continued to make numerous disruptive edits ([40][41][42]). Not only that, but he appears to be extremely biased when it comes to editing articles about animal rights and such, which falls under the definition of "Bias-based" from WP:COMPETENCE. An admin already put a link to that page on Martin's talk page. --Rose (talk) 04:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Even after I started this discussion and Martin was made aware of it, he continued being disruptive and made an edit asking to "find [him] some reliable sources" to support the commodity status of animals. As Sammy mentions below, this subject was discussed at length and put to rest back in June-July and Martin was among the people involved; as SarahSV summarized back then: "Martin, you've been offered sources, from the United Nations to commodity markets to academic sources, including several in the article. The onus is on you now to provide sources to support what you're saying.". The bottom line is that this is exactly the pattern of his behavior that almost everyone talked about below. --Rose (talk) 16:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• Nothing actionable here My interactions with Martin may be found primarily at Talk:Carnism (where I was usually agreeing with him) and Talk:Veganism (where I sometimes was). He is not exceptionally good at building consensus in controversial areas, but I don't think there's any fair case to be made that he edits in bad faith. He is consistently civil, even when others are less so (e.g. User talk:Martin Hogbin#Final warning). His contributions are almost always from the same POV, "disagreeing with editors who are promoting a green political agenda" [43], but they are generally reasonable. He has a tendency to spend a lot of time on frustratingly subjective points (are livestock "commodities"?, etc), but that's no grounds for admin action.

Do I think it would usually be easier to reach consensus without his input? Regrettably, yes. Does that imply the articles would be better without him? Not at all. FourViolas (talk) 06:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that at one point he expressed the view that there should be no positive information about veganism in that article. That was the definition of neutrality to him. Just because some of his (reverted) edits lead to people paying more attention to some sentences doesn't mean that he's the reason it happens. It's just like some inexperienced vandal putting insults on a page about someone, another user reverting those yet noticing some other issues while doing so and making changes to improve the article. Should we thank the vandal for that and take no action? I don't think so. The problem with Martin is even worse as he's not new here so he deliberately makes those disruptive edits and starts practically pointless conversations repeating the same words ("too promotional") over and over again for months if not years now. --Rose (talk) 06:37, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, to add to the above and respond to you saying "He has a tendency to spend a lot of time on frustratingly subjective points, but that's no grounds for admin action."; I disagree with that. His behavior forces other editors to dedicate a lot of their time just to try to make a case to him because otherwise he would (as the past has shown) make the same kind of unacceptable edits that would have to stay in the article. After days of multiple users proving something to him, as it was in the discussion about whether animals are treated as commodities, he may lay low but then he comes back and brings up the same subjects. This is the very definition of disruptive editing. --Rose (talk) 07:01, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Unfortunately I think FourViolas, as usual, is exceptionally patient. Martin has a long history of strong views on green topics broadly construed, dating back years (see e.g. his global warming skepticism [44],[45],[46]) and several editors have mentioned his disruption on articles such as BP. He argues at tremendous length and frequently raises the same issue over and over. Notably, I have almost never seen him support his views with sources of any kind. To mention just one recent example pertinent to veganism, he attempted to present the fact that animals are commodities as a "vegan opinion" here, and then argued this at length at Talk:Veganism/Archive_10#Commodity_status_of_animals. Despite being offered high quality non-vegan sources showing that animals are regarded as commodities, including with the specific phrase "commodity status" which he insisted on, he maintained that there was something implicit in "commodity" which implied that animals are mistreated, or treated exactly the same as inanimate objects. As always, he never provided a source for the idea that the word has this connotation, or that this was intended. When an editor arrived who wanted the UK-based Vegan Society's definition, "the doctrine that man should live without exploiting animals", to be given priority in the lede, Martin endorsed this - blatantly contradicting his view that the lede should not contain vegan "opinions" as noted by SlimVirgin. He then suggested several sources which he presumably knew could not be used - several primary sources from other vegan societies [47] and a couple dictionary definitions [48] including a disparaging joke from Urban Dictionary. This is literally the only time I have ever witnessed him cite a reference for anything. And this is just one of many episodes - generally speaking, he argues at tremendous length without familiarizing himself with the topic or supporting his views. As in this comment where (in the course of dredging up another discussion which had gone on ad nauseam) he suggests that other editors "could find (an RS) somewhere to support what (my acquaintances) say", he does not seriously engage with the project, and makes never-ending demands on other editors' time. --Sammy1339 (talk) 07:30, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment There isn't a competence or civility issue IMO. My interactions with Martin Hogbin are limited to articles involving veganism and I do not regard him as having a destructive influence on these articles, even in cases where I disagree with him (and there have been several occasions over the last couple of years). In regards to him removing the occupations from the image captions at List of vegans I actually disagreed with this action but I found it well-intentioned and he did not edit-war when challenged. Animal rights are an emotive issue at the best of times and there will always be regular disputes on these articles. I would be more concerned if these articles were exclusively edited by editors all of the same mindset. The example raised above about "whether animals are treated as commodities" is a good example of this: some editors—I being one of them—expressed some concerns about what we felt was "broad" language used to define "Veganism" in the lead of the article. Some editors may have disagreed with those concerns, or even consider then unfounded—and it's perfectly fine to adopt a different position in a debate—but ultimately disagreement is not disruption. Betty Logan (talk) 07:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

It's perfectly fine for sure but this isn't about him simply disagreeing with some editors. Pretty much all the editors that have made comments in the Final warning section on his page have different views within the so-called "green" subjects but currently nobody's trying to say they take it over the top and act in a manner that is very disruptive. --Rose (talk) 07:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• The problems are long-term and wide-ranging, not only to do with environmental issues. Martin arrives at articles about which he has strong views but no knowledge, and proceeds to equate his personal opinions with NPOV. He often appears not to have read the key sources even when someone else has typed up what they say; or he misinterprets them or suggests inappropriate sources and edits; and he misunderstands policy. This continues for months or even years. It stymies article development because editors spend so much time dealing with it, and people become unwilling to develop the article because new material will give him more ammunition.
  For an example, see Talk:Battle of Britain, where in June 2015 Martin wants to add some counterfactual history, [49] having already suggested it at great length in 2014. [50] See Trekphiler's responses, e.g. "More to the point, this has been already (fairly exhaustively) hashed out, yet Martin Hogbin refuses to let it die," and "Have you just ignored everything I've written on this subject?" and "the dead horse comes to life again." Those exchanges illustrate the problem well (WP:TENDENTIOUS, particularly WP:REHASH). Pinging Binksternet and Coretheapple, who I believe have also encountered it. SarahSV ^(talk) 08:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
• My own interactions with Martin Hogbin have been limited to the Battle of Britain page. I can't say if it rises to the level of disruptive, but I sense a strong strain of refusal to acknowledge views other than his own. I'm not immune to strong views, nor really inclined to change them, so I appreciate it's not exactly easy; I get the sense it approaches willful ignorance, a "don't confuse me with evidence" attitude. That said, I should say I've seen his edits on other pages, & they don't seem contentious or controversial; it may be this only arises with "pet projects". That may be trouble enough... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Immediate action needed. I sincerely appreciate the opinion of FourViolas up above. Since he has rarely encountered Mr. Hogbin, I suspect his opinion is typical for those not familiar with the long-term problem. However, for those of us who are aware of this problem, particularly editors who focus on content building like SlimVirgin, it is frustrating that Mr. Hogbin has spent 57% of his contributions,[51] the majority of his long Wikipedia career, using talk pages to push unusual, often contradictory POV that keeps editors running around in circles wasting time. It is difficult to determine if he is consciously doing this on purpose or if there is something else at work. Although I have encountered him in many places, it was my experience with him on March Against Monsanto (especially on the talk page, likely archived now) that led me to believe we have a serious problem. I would like to first propose limits on his talk page interaction. For example, "Martin Hogbin is limited to one talk page comment per day per article." That would go a long way towards mitigating the immediate issue. Viriditas (talk) 19:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Just saw the ping. I agree with Viriditas above in all respects, based upon experiences at Talk:BP. Coretheapple (talk) 14:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• I worked with Martin on the BP article. He seems like a very nice person but as an editor he was the type that constantly made me feel like I wanted to tear my hair out. Same issues as discussed above. Gandydancer (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I hope you still have some hair left Gandydancer. We have to accept that people may have fundamentally different opinions on a subject. The way to deal with that in WP is by civil discussion. I can assure you that I understand how frustrating it can be when someone else does not seem to understand what is perfectly obvious to you but there is never any need to resort to personal attacks, insults, or threats like some editors (not you) are doing here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Martin, the problem isn't that you have an opinion. The problem is that you are engaging in explicit civil POV pushing and ignoring talk page discussion by keeping a discussion open in perpetuity and constantly changing the framework of the discussion to allow it to continue indefinitely until you get your way. Viriditas (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• I haven't seen diffs of bad behavior on talk pages. I also don't understand people's wishes to limit other's participation on talk page of all the places. In addition I also don't understand accusations of POV pushing because whenever someone accuses of that I guarantee you they push their own POV all the time. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 14:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• I've encountered Martin Hogbin in a few places covering topics such as probability, mathematical physics, Midway, and a third opinion response. He devotes a lot of energy to his positions, but that can be good or bad. I agree with some of his positions, disagree with some others, and am out of my depth in still others. I don't see anything outrageous in the diffs above, and the talk page dialog does not appear disruptive. He can be pointed, intense, and demanding, but it takes two to tango on a talk page. If someone responds to Martin, then he will respond. If the other person stops responding, then Martin will stop responding. It might be annoying, but trying to revisit a topic 6 months later does not seem outrageous. Martin can be difficult and he can be wrong, but I don't see the behavior here being actionable. Glrx (talk) 04:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Many months ago, I interacted with Martin Hogbin, around British articles. I found him to be quite pleasant & easy to collaborate with. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Martin Hogbin

I am involved in a content dispute in the Veganism article with the editors who are making this unpleaseant personal attack on me. Unlike some here, who have resorted to persistent personal attacks, my contibutions there have conformed to the normal standards of discussion and will continue to do so. Through civil discussion we are now beginning to make some progress on that page. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The section where you said "now we seem to be working better together" and that you're now referring to didn't even involve any contributions by you. The only comment you made there was irrelevant and didn't lead to any progress in that regard whatsoever. --Rose (talk) 09:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I noticed that. It actually begged the suggestion that people were working better together because of your your lack of participation, rather than in spite of it... _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 19:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I support the suggestion to begin with restricting/curtailing Martin Hogbin's article talk page privileges. It appears he has good intentions but his behavior is disruptive to the project. IjonTichy (talk) 04:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

This now seems to have turned into a vendetta against me by every user that I have ever disgreed with. My editing and talk page comments are based on the fundamental principles that: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view, editors should treat each other with respect and civility, and that what we write in article should be supported by reliable sources rather than an expression of our personal opinions. I believe that disputes are better resolved by civil discussion than by edit warring, threats or personal attacks. That is what I am doing and it is what will continue to do. We either stick to the original principles of Wikipedia or we give in to mob rule. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

On the other hand, you have repeatedly and quite openly expressed a POV bordering on an agenda, and you've repeatedly misused the article talk page to push your agenda. By limiting your participation on article talk pages to one comment a day, we can begin to restore normalcy and consensus building. Viriditas (talk) 01:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

"There has been considerable support for this article being a lipogram, not just from JJB. I think you should assume some good faith on his part. Just that he wants one thing and you want another is not a fair fair reason to assume bad faith on hos part. So, why should this article not be a lipogram? Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC) ". You kids are adorbs.Dan Murphy (talk) 04:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Identification of Cecil Rhodes as a "white supremacist" in opening sentence

IP 158.143.212.121 and I have been having a disagreement at Cecil Rhodes and Rhodes Scholarship. He thinks Rhodes should be identified in the opening sentence as a "white supremacist". I have opened a thread at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard and asked him to discuss rather than edit warring, but he has in my view chosen to continue in the former vein, repeatedly restoring the epithet in the opening sentence. I think administrator intervention is necessary to find a solution here. Cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  11:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that referring to someone as a "white supremacist" in the leading paragraph of an article is an NPOV issue (especially if it's a BLP). Repeated restoration of edits such as this is not constructive, and the IP can be blocked on those grounds. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Cecil Rhodes is a BLP??? EEng (talk) 14:31, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Noooooooo. This is just more of the activism related to the recent Rhodes controversies around the world. Clearly attempting to make the article as negative as possible. But since he has been dead for quite awhile, BLP isnt an issue. NPOV is the main issue. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Exactly. I was discussing the principle in general when I referenced BLPs - it obviously doesn't apply to this situation, as the article is not a BLP. The issue here is WP:NPOV - and that description absolutely does not conform to that policy. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Apparently Mark Twain did not have a very high opinion. Although that source also claims that L. Ron Hubbard thought himself to be Rhodes' reincarnation. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:49, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree that it doesn't belong in lede. It's well-established that Rhodes is known for being a strong advocate of Colonialism, which seems appropriate for the lede, but he's not a self-described "white supremacist" or primarily known as such. His views on race are certainly worth discussing in the article, though. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

That's completely fine; this can certainly be a section of the article (provided that it's done appropriately... lol ;-)) - but when you put those kinds of words in the lead paragraph (especially in the first sentence that describes who or what the article subject even is), it implies a very biased viewpoint. The adjective "white supremacist" (when describing a person) is very controversial and it puts the article out of the neutral zone if used to describe someone in your opening statement. This is the issue, and it is the primary cause of the focus in this ANI. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• Having it in the lede definitely violates NPOV and also UNDUE. All of the three citations provided thus far are from the past 10 months. I therefore don't think it merits being in the lede (or possibly even in the article at all). It seems like a recent flare-up. If there is nothing substantiating this characterization from the 20th century, this stuff should probably be relegated to something at the end of the article that mentions recent criticism (or omitted altogether). In the lede it has way too much weight (WP:UNDUE), which is not justified by a few items from merely the past year. (Not to mention the fact the lede is only for a summary of the major points discussed in the body text.) Softlavender (talk) 16:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• This is turning into something of a campaign, not necessarily involving a specific group of people but popping up anywhere the present real-world campaign against these figures is likely to touch. We've just been through a round of this on South of the Border (attraction), a South Carolina tourist trap with, shall we say, a decidedly dated Mexican shtick. Given the current attack on Woodrow Wilson's reputation I would expect the campaign to show up there as well. The problem I'm seeing in all of these is indeed WP:UNDUE: they are trying to make one category of objectionable opinions/acts the salient characteristic of the subject by shame-tagging them. Rhodes's racial views were objectionable, no doubt about it, but his colonialism is what is primary. Wilson's racism is secondary to his presidencies. SotB is a tacky ethnic caricature, but being offensive is not its point. Mangoe (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah one of the three citations is about Wilson (and only minutely about Rhodes). Softlavender (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• His weel known racist views should have the same weighting in the lead as they have in the body of the article. If there is a section on it in the article then a sentence in the lead seems warranted.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:30, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

The point is, there isn't one. Softlavender (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

There is a section on his political views and the main content of that section is his racism. Indeed if there werent such a section it would have to be added, since his racist and imperialist views are widely written about and have characterized the subsequent political development of the region.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

It looks to me like the lede already covers that in recap form. It also looks to me like Rhodes' attitudes and beliefs were no different from any other Englishperson or even Afrikaaner of his generation (or even later), at the height of the Empire. We don't vilify Rudyard Kipling, for instance, for having those beliefs. We can't apply 2015 judgments to Victorian people, which is exactly what is happening with these 2015 flare-ups. I'm not saying his attitudes were equitable, but they were in step with his time, and should not be labeled with 2015 terms by Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 19:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• • The point is phrasing, not content; as of the moment I looked at the article, the lead is fine without the inflammatory language and does not whitewash his views. Rhodes was a person who held beliefs we find objectionable today, but he was in many respects a man of his times with his belief in the "white man's burden". It is entirely appropriate to discuss his views and to have an appropriate summary of those views in the lead. However, a phrase such as "white supremacist" is a "loaded" polemic term of art that fits more appropriately on people of more recent times who hold assorted neo-nazi or KKK viewpoints. If you look at the ngram, the phrase was virtually unused until after WWII. Montanabw^(talk) 19:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

From a content side, this idea came up relatively recently when dealing with how a scene in Revenge of the Nerds should be presented in light of modern sensibilities, and that lead to refinement of Wikipedia:Presentism, which I believe should also be applied here. Modern-day critical takes on Rhodes should be a section in the article but if that wasn't the case during their life, it shouldn't be in the lede. --MASEM (t) 19:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

If it's the reality then it can be stated plainly in the opening sentence or in the lede in general, if it's well supported by reliable sources. It is not necessarily a violation of NPOV to do so, as someone else said above. NPOV is about representing sources neutrally and with due weight. It does not prohibit stating a harsh truth plainly if that is supported by reliable sources. I also don't see any policy that is about not using modern-day takes to define an article's subject. If information later comes out that changes the general perception of a subject, then this is indeed used. For instance, Monsanto did knowingly sell PCBs long after they knew of their dangers, and they hid those dangers. That was in the 1960s and the 1970s. The knowledge of this came out in the year 2000 with a legal proceeding that revealed internal memos showing their culpability and knowledge at the time. This knowledge would be fair to use to define what happened in the 1960s and 1970s, with good sourcing. History is often revised with further knowledge and with further interpretation. In fact many people were white supremacists while they may not have explicitly called it that at the time. The degree to which that was a notable ideological principle in a person might be the measure of whether it should be a primary label for them. SageRad (talk) 13:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

While I don't want to take this discussion to far since it belongs somewhere else, I think there's an obvious difference between information about a historic situation (regardless of when that information became available) and modern intepretations of events and behaviour based not on new information but modern beliefs, values etc. To give a made up example, if someone finds a letter from some BC/BCE individual where this person calls for the elimination of race X via force, that would be new information. If someone says that person was calling for genocide, that would be to some extent a modern intepretation. This doesn't mean I'm saying we shouldn't include the information in the lead. (Actually I'm somewhat symphathetic to including the information in the lead here, although I do question whether it would make sense if we were talking about a BC/BCE individual. And to go back to my earlier example, I also support the current or a similar wording in the Genghis Khan article.) Rather all I'm saying is we should make a distinction between how our understanding of events change based on new facts or information that emerges of what was going on; how our understanding of events changes based on our modern day values, ethics, beliefs etc. Nil Einne (talk) 16:39, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, i do agree with this distinction very much, and i hold that both are valid. The link to WP:PRESENTISM above is interesting, though it's an essay and not a policy or guideline, so it's not required to be followed in toto. SageRad (talk) 11:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

David Bain

There is an on-going battle over details of content which should be on the David Bain page. This has now been going on for some weeks. Although there have been a number of editors involved, the one who has been the most disruptive is Mr Maggoo. Others who have been constructive are Akldguy, Moriori and Gadfium.

Mr Maggoo is the self published author of a book titled The Bain Killings Whodunnit? written under the pseudonym Michael Sharp. He outed himself in correspondence with Akld guy here. He seems to have very strong opinions that David Bain is guilty of the murders for which he has been acquitted. Although there has been much discussion on the David Bain talk page about the various issues, Mr Maggoo has shown himself to be incapable of "hearing" what other editors are saying. In response, he has often taken a hostile approach when communicating on the talk page. He frequently adds or deletes material without giving a reason on the main page and his justifications on the Talk page make little sense. There are so many examples of his disruptive behaviour, it is hard to know where to begin. Turtletop (talk) 21:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that when I edit the David Bain Wikipedia page citing reliable sources such as newspaper articles and books [not my own] Turtletop deletes them. Mr Maggoo (talk) 22:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

That's not the problem. Maggoo has a history of quoting unreliable sources, especially the David Bain:Counterspin website. He also repeatedly tries to add material from a lawyer who has been disbarred for lying. Even when he does quote a reliable source, he seems to have little understanding of whether the information he wishes to include is relevant. His edits all support the view that David Bain is guilty even though the privy Council declared a miscarriage of justice and his convictions have been overturned. Turtletop (talk) 22:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The David Bain article has had ongoing disputes mostly between SPA accounts for some time. A sockpuppet investigation on some of the accounts found them to be unrelated. I semi-protected the article to prevent new SPAs getting involved, and have tried to keep all parties discussing on the talk page.-gadfium 22:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The David Bain murder case has been highly controversial in New Zealand. Mr Maggoo is a novice editor who began editing on 11 December 2015, and has edited nothing but DB-related pages since. He became frustrated at being asked to provide reliable sources and indent his posts correctly. He initially ignored advice that he was not permitted to cite from his own work or from a highly NPOV website, Counterspin. Nevertheless, he has learned much, albeit slowly. He is now competently adding information to the DB article which the OP objects to. This is essentially a content dispute and I note that the OP has not asked for any particular action here. Akld guy (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

It is partly a content dispute. But it is also about Mr Magoo's attitude and disruptive editing. Some of the edits he says he will make on the talk page are reflective of taking revenge rather than being constructive. I would like to see Mr Maggoo blocked from editing OR the page completely protected from editing by anyone except administrators. Turtletop (talk) 23:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

You yourself removed highly relevant material that was correctly cited and pertained to the alleged pregnancy or childbirth of one of the victims. You did that, despite knowing that your removal of it would be controversial. Mr Maggoo should absolutely not be blocked. He has learned much and has now become a threat to the NPOV editing of the page by Turtletop. Both Mr Maggoo and Turtletop have edited contentiously, but there has been no bad behaviour, insults, or abuse that would justify a block on either, and certainly not on Mr Maggoo. Akld guy (talk) 23:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Really? Mr Maggoo made an edit about you in which he told you to stop being a girl. You have also seem to have allied yourself with Mr Maggoo by reposting a link to his self-published book and made insulting comments to Moriori accusing him of a conflict of interst with no evidence whatsoever. You have also made insulting comments about David Bain's sister in this post: "Laniet told so many people so many stories about pregnancy, childbirth, or abortion, that she must have been a flake. And if she was a flake on that score, she may have been a flake on her father's alleged illicit relationship with her. That is why Turtletop does not want the evidence of NEVER PREGNANT by the pathologist and hospital records, because it PROVES she was a flake and therefore tends to discredit the incest claim. The pathologist and hospital reports should be in the article. There is no reason to keep them out except censorship. Akld guy (talk) 01:28, 15 January 2016 (UTC)"

Your neutrality and your personal judgement are highly questionable. Turtletop (talk) 23:52, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Akld guy has played a valuable role in mediating between the conflicting parties.-gadfium 00:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

He has also contributed to the conflict and has started his own one with Moriori.Turtletop (talk) 00:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

(ec) Don't make this about me. I have not aligned myself with Mr Maggoo. I came down on him hard in his early edits for not sourcing appropriately, and reverted many of them, but now that he has learned, he is posting material that you don't want in the article. I believe that some of that material he's adding should justifiably be in it. I did not accuse Moriori of having a conflict of interest, but asked him whether he had one, asking for a yes/no, not his identity. I note that he has not yet answered the question despite the elapse of more than two hours, prior to which he was active on the Talk page. He has to be given time to answer of course. Akld guy (talk) 00:24, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Asking is equivalent to accusing. Why did you ask/accuse him in the first place? You appear to have done this to divert attention away from your posting of a link to Mr Maggoo's COI self-published book. Turtletop (talk) 00:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

(ec) Gadfium, he may have played a mediation role, but he undid that with other behaviour, and I am quite surprised you didn't give him a little nudge for his insults to me. At the Bain talk page I have left the following reply to his latest insult -- "You continue with offensive insult. The Wikipedia article you have edited the most is David Bain with 58 edits and 100 to its talk page. I have made 4 edits to David Bain and 14 to the talk page. You = 158. Me = 18. I have edited more than 7,000 unique Wikipedia articles so I guess to you that suggests obvious COI." Moriori (talk) 00:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Don't make this about me. The question asked by the OP was to the effect, "should Mr Maggoo be blocked?" Akld guy (talk) 01:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I also suggested that a total block could be put on the page. It's about all of us - and you seem to be avoiding taking any responsibility for your offensive behaviour towards other editors. If you don't want it to be about you, then I suggest you withdraw your insults to Moriori and apologise.

It would also help if you stopped accusing me of not being neutral. Bain was found not guilty and my contributions generally support that outcome. When you and Mr Maggoo add material which undermines that reality, you are not being neutral - and that's what leads to the content dispute. Turtletop (talk) 01:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The question asked by the OP was to the effect, "should Mr Maggoo be blocked?" Akld guy (talk) 01:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC) Akld guy (talk) 01:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I would like to reply to a number of false allegations made about me by Turtletop. Mr Maggoo (talk) 01:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

First he accuses me of citing the Counterspin website. I have not cited the Counterspin website. I asked if I could cite the Counterspin website as a reference and was told I could not. Turtletop himself has cited the Counterspin website. Mr Maggoo (talk) 01:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Second he accuses me repeatedly trying to add material from a lawyer who has been disbarred. This is not correct. When I first started editing on Wikipedia I set up a paragraph heading Response by Michael Guest. At that time I wasn't aware I had to cite a source. That paragraph was removed for that reason. I then asked if I could cite two different sources as a reference and was told that neither of those sources were reliable. I have not been able to find a reliable source I can site re that paragraph, so I have not tried to set it up again. Once is not repeatedly. Mr Maggoo (talk) 01:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Third, he says all my edits support the view that David Bain is guilty. I resent that insinuation. I just find an article pertaining to the subject and cite it. I could just as easily say that all Turtletops edits support the view that David Bain is innocent. Mr Maggoo (talk) 01:56, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Fourthly, he says I have little understanding as to whether the information I am including is relevant. Let me assure Turtletop that I have no problem deciding what is relevant and what is not. And might I add I always endeavour to quote verbatim from the article I am citing. For example I don't say "some academics" when the article cited only refers to one academic. Turtletop would have us believe that a number of academics support the suggestion made by Justice Binnie that the Government was "shopping around" . From what I have read one law professor supports Binnie and three law professors disagree with that suggestion. [User:Mr Maggoo|Mr Maggoo]] (talk) 02:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

This post is directed to Turtletop You are definitely not neutral. You are trying to keep the insinuation that Laniet may have been pregnant/given birth/aborted as a result of incest by her father, despite the fact that not one witness has ever stepped forward to say that they saw Laniet with a baby, not one witness has ever stated that they KNEW Laniet had given birth, not one witness has ever stated that they KNEW Laniet had had an abortion, not one witness has ever stated that they KNEW Laniet gave away a baby for adoption. In short, there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of a pregnancy/baby/abortion. Mr Maggoo and I are attempting to corroborate that with highly relevant pathology and hospital record material that shows that there was almost certainly never any pregnancy. You have on several occasions disruptively attempted to censor that pathology and medical material from the article. Akld guy (talk) 01:45, 17 January 2016 (UTC) Edited Akld guy (talk) 02:24, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Hardly anyone KNEW anything about this case. That’s why it has been controversial for 20 years. And of course there are no witnesses who KNEW Robin Bain raped Laniet or committed incest with her. But multiple witnesses testified that Laniet told them her father was sexually abusing her. On that basis the Privy Council obviously concluded that where there is smoke (and there was a lot of it), there may well be fire - so they declared there had been a miscarriage of justice. If you still think you need to include material that you think proves she wasn’t pregnant, can I suggest you read the following. Under the heading Due and undue weight, WP says:

“While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence”… “Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects”.

If you insist on including testimony that Laniet was NOT pregnant, you are giving undue weight to a minority aspect which was of no relevance to the Privy Council or to the jury at the retrial. The topic is David Bain (and perhaps whether or not he is guilty). Whether or not Laniet was pregnant is not the topic.Turtletop (talk) 05:49, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Whether or not Laniet was pregnant is germane to two issues: 1. that she was pregnant to her father, which you are trying to insinuate is a motive for him killing the members of his family, 2. the issue of Laniet's credibility, since if she was given to fantasies about a pregnancy/childbirth/abortion/white baby versus black baby, then there exists the possibility that the alleged incest with her father was also a fantasy. You are trying to censor from the article medical evidence that refutes a pregnancy because it counters your insinuation that there was a pregnancy/baby. Akld guy (talk) 06:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Laniet's credibility is not the topic. David Bain's is - or was. Your allegation of censorship is offensive. I don't control anything on WP so I can't possibly censor it. Please use more moderate language. Your allegation that I am insinuating that Laniet was pregnant to her father is also offensive. You have now said this a number of times. I have never said any such thing and your insinuations are a breach of WP:assume good faith

You have refused to apologise to Moriori over your insinuation that he had a COI so I don't expect you will apologize to me for your behaviour either. It would go a long way towards resolving this if you did. Turtletop (talk) 07:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Instead of trying to communicate with other editors via edit summaries - would you consider using the talkpage first, and holding off on reverting other editors as an absolute last resort? SQL^{Query me!} 07:54, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Already tried the Talk page. It didn't work. Turtletop (talk) 09:14, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I am still trying to master the correct procedure when using Wikipedia. Could I just say in my defence [ though age is no excuse] that it is hard for an old dog to learn new tricks specially when that old dog is in his eighties. Mr Maggoo (talk) 02:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think any of us come out of this scrap looking good. I ask that some uninvolved people add the article to their watchlists, and crack down on any poor behaviour.-gadfium 04:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest cross-posting this to the BLP noticeboard. They generally have zero tolerance towards this sort of thing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• ...I find this Mr Maggoo's choice of name interesting to say the least? 😨 --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 15:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• Page is protected for 2 days. Will escalate protection, or issue blocks if the warring continues. SQL^{Query me!} 23:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Mrss.shourie

Persistent copyright violations. Bazj (talk) 17:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

For reference: Mrss.shourie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log).

I just deleted one article that seemed to be a direct copy of one of the linked references. So the concern is a valid one, at least on that front. The user's deleted contributions indicate that this is not their first deleted article - others were deleted in early November 2015. They said, in their edit summary, that they were basing it on references - perhaps there is a language issue at play that prevents them from understanding the issue? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Basque&Roll- 79.167.164.4 Vandal and sockpuppeteer

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.

---

  Y Merger complete. --QEDK (T 📖 C)

He made several ip disruptive edits (as 79.167.164.4) in Olympiacos B.C.. They were reverted by Jim1138 and myself. As soon as the page was protected, he returned today with the exact same edit he made as ip user (vandalism - POV edit in a matter already discussed and explained over and over again in the past), this time as Basque&Roll. There is a high posibility that he uses even more ips. I made a report for Checkuser here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Basque&Roll, but he keeps vandalizing (see Olympiacos B.C.). At first he vandalizes as ip user, then the page was protected, now he keeps on as Basque&Roll. It's obvious that he has some kind of fixation and as soon as the page was unprotected (after a six-month protection) on 25 December 2015, he came back with the same old story. It's the same drill. I don't want to revert yet again because I'll violate 3RR. I defer to the admins. Gtrbolivar (talk) 12:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Here is the proof (beyond any shadow of doubt) that he is the same person (ip and account): [52] and after the page gets protection: [53]. Gtrbolivar (talk) 16:13, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello admins. I made these two reports: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Olympiacos B.C. and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:79.167.164.4 reported by User:Gtrbolivar (Result: ) many hours ago, and there hasn't been any development so far, so I decided to ask your help through this page. Thank you for your immediate attention. Gtrbolivar (talk) 17:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Please read MULTI. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 16:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Attitude issues at Talk:Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain

The video game Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain was the topic of some contoversy, namely the depiction of the character Quiet (see Metal Gear Solid: The Phantom Pain#Sexualized portrayal of Quiet). Over the last couple of months, this issue has been discussed repeatedly on the talk page. One particular IP editor (I'm assuming it is one person) is determinated to have as little of the controversy mentioned, and is convinced that who doesn't agree with them is wrong. The article itself is one thing, but this anonymous editor will not listen to reason, or just walk away. This has come to a point where this has to stop.

A message from October 6 reads: "I'm not going to be the one to make more edits at this point, but it's painfully clear people are trying to own the page". Untrue and accusatory, but not particularly a terrible attitude. After a while, they're back on January 8, starting off their new message with "Please put how you feel about it or any emotion you may have about the topic aside when you read the following points". Okay, sounds good. "There are sources and information here that talk about the PlayArtsKai figurine of Quiet. Are you out of your mind?! What relevance does this have to the RECEPTION OF THE GAME???" Taking a bit of a turn there. "To any senior editors, administrators, or anyone with an interest in Wikipedia standards. It should be extremely concerning that this level of bias is present in an article that is supposed to be by and large, factual." Extremely concerning? Oh boy.

Well, from that moment on, things got worse. On January 12 there were two messages. The first: "They're just feigning ignorance so they can use wikipedia as a soapbox or personal blog, just like creationsist or other opinion-based groups would. They want this slander to be visible in the table of contents, obviously". Later that day: "You aren't interested in presenting facts, you're interested in putting forward a particular kind of opinion. One that states that EVERYTHING is sexist/sexualized, because you folks obsess over this kind of stuff for no other reason than to be as obnoxious and supremacist as you can".

Today came another post: "Everything is sexist to them, it seems. Really every single thing. They can't even think of a world where something isn't sexist. Therefore, they have no endgame, no solution. The only thing they do is go around and troll/declare everything to be sexist."

All the while, experienced editors like @Peter Isotalo:, @Prisonermonkeys:, @Czar: and myself have pointed towards Wikipedia's guidelines on notability, on balanced articles, you name it. Today, @Sergecross73: had to semiprotect the article again, because they will not stop. --Soetermans. T / C 14:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Martin Hogbin

Martin Hogbin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

The user consistently makes disruptive edits and his contribution to Wikipedia on the talk pages of the applicable articles is normally nothing constructive but him unreasonably claiming everything is too promotional. If you search for the word "promotional" within his edits, you'll see a large amount of those cases. One of the last incidents involved him trying to completely remove the occupations of those on the list of vegans, where his actions had already led to a large portion of the useful information being removed, such as the band names for musicians that aren't known for their solo work.
He has been warned yet continued to make numerous disruptive edits ([54][55][56]). Not only that, but he appears to be extremely biased when it comes to editing articles about animal rights and such, which falls under the definition of "Bias-based" from WP:COMPETENCE. An admin already put a link to that page on Martin's talk page. --Rose (talk) 04:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Even after I started this discussion and Martin was made aware of it, he continued being disruptive and made an edit asking to "find [him] some reliable sources" to support the commodity status of animals. As Sammy mentions below, this subject was discussed at length and put to rest back in June-July and Martin was among the people involved; as SarahSV summarized back then: "Martin, you've been offered sources, from the United Nations to commodity markets to academic sources, including several in the article. The onus is on you now to provide sources to support what you're saying.". The bottom line is that this is exactly the pattern of his behavior that almost everyone talked about below. --Rose (talk) 16:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• Nothing actionable here My interactions with Martin may be found primarily at Talk:Carnism (where I was usually agreeing with him) and Talk:Veganism (where I sometimes was). He is not exceptionally good at building consensus in controversial areas, but I don't think there's any fair case to be made that he edits in bad faith. He is consistently civil, even when others are less so (e.g. User talk:Martin Hogbin#Final warning). His contributions are almost always from the same POV, "disagreeing with editors who are promoting a green political agenda" [57], but they are generally reasonable. He has a tendency to spend a lot of time on frustratingly subjective points (are livestock "commodities"?, etc), but that's no grounds for admin action.

Do I think it would usually be easier to reach consensus without his input? Regrettably, yes. Does that imply the articles would be better without him? Not at all. FourViolas (talk) 06:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that at one point he expressed the view that there should be no positive information about veganism in that article. That was the definition of neutrality to him. Just because some of his (reverted) edits lead to people paying more attention to some sentences doesn't mean that he's the reason it happens. It's just like some inexperienced vandal putting insults on a page about someone, another user reverting those yet noticing some other issues while doing so and making changes to improve the article. Should we thank the vandal for that and take no action? I don't think so. The problem with Martin is even worse as he's not new here so he deliberately makes those disruptive edits and starts practically pointless conversations repeating the same words ("too promotional") over and over again for months if not years now. --Rose (talk) 06:37, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, to add to the above and respond to you saying "He has a tendency to spend a lot of time on frustratingly subjective points, but that's no grounds for admin action."; I disagree with that. His behavior forces other editors to dedicate a lot of their time just to try to make a case to him because otherwise he would (as the past has shown) make the same kind of unacceptable edits that would have to stay in the article. After days of multiple users proving something to him, as it was in the discussion about whether animals are treated as commodities, he may lay low but then he comes back and brings up the same subjects. This is the very definition of disruptive editing. --Rose (talk) 07:01, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Unfortunately I think FourViolas, as usual, is exceptionally patient. Martin has a long history of strong views on green topics broadly construed, dating back years (see e.g. his global warming skepticism [58],[59],[60]) and several editors have mentioned his disruption on articles such as BP. He argues at tremendous length and frequently raises the same issue over and over. Notably, I have almost never seen him support his views with sources of any kind. To mention just one recent example pertinent to veganism, he attempted to present the fact that animals are commodities as a "vegan opinion" here, and then argued this at length at Talk:Veganism/Archive_10#Commodity_status_of_animals. Despite being offered high quality non-vegan sources showing that animals are regarded as commodities, including with the specific phrase "commodity status" which he insisted on, he maintained that there was something implicit in "commodity" which implied that animals are mistreated, or treated exactly the same as inanimate objects. As always, he never provided a source for the idea that the word has this connotation, or that this was intended. When an editor arrived who wanted the UK-based Vegan Society's definition, "the doctrine that man should live without exploiting animals", to be given priority in the lede, Martin endorsed this - blatantly contradicting his view that the lede should not contain vegan "opinions" as noted by SlimVirgin. He then suggested several sources which he presumably knew could not be used - several primary sources from other vegan societies [61] and a couple dictionary definitions [62] including a disparaging joke from Urban Dictionary. This is literally the only time I have ever witnessed him cite a reference for anything. And this is just one of many episodes - generally speaking, he argues at tremendous length without familiarizing himself with the topic or supporting his views. As in this comment where (in the course of dredging up another discussion which had gone on ad nauseam) he suggests that other editors "could find (an RS) somewhere to support what (my acquaintances) say", he does not seriously engage with the project, and makes never-ending demands on other editors' time. --Sammy1339 (talk) 07:30, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment There isn't a competence or civility issue IMO. My interactions with Martin Hogbin are limited to articles involving veganism and I do not regard him as having a destructive influence on these articles, even in cases where I disagree with him (and there have been several occasions over the last couple of years). In regards to him removing the occupations from the image captions at List of vegans I actually disagreed with this action but I found it well-intentioned and he did not edit-war when challenged. Animal rights are an emotive issue at the best of times and there will always be regular disputes on these articles. I would be more concerned if these articles were exclusively edited by editors all of the same mindset. The example raised above about "whether animals are treated as commodities" is a good example of this: some editors—I being one of them—expressed some concerns about what we felt was "broad" language used to define "Veganism" in the lead of the article. Some editors may have disagreed with those concerns, or even consider then unfounded—and it's perfectly fine to adopt a different position in a debate—but ultimately disagreement is not disruption. Betty Logan (talk) 07:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

It's perfectly fine for sure but this isn't about him simply disagreeing with some editors. Pretty much all the editors that have made comments in the Final warning section on his page have different views within the so-called "green" subjects but currently nobody's trying to say they take it over the top and act in a manner that is very disruptive. --Rose (talk) 07:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• The problems are long-term and wide-ranging, not only to do with environmental issues. Martin arrives at articles about which he has strong views but no knowledge, and proceeds to equate his personal opinions with NPOV. He often appears not to have read the key sources even when someone else has typed up what they say; or he misinterprets them or suggests inappropriate sources and edits; and he misunderstands policy. This continues for months or even years. It stymies article development because editors spend so much time dealing with it, and people become unwilling to develop the article because new material will give him more ammunition.
  For an example, see Talk:Battle of Britain, where in June 2015 Martin wants to add some counterfactual history, [63] having already suggested it at great length in 2014. [64] See Trekphiler's responses, e.g. "More to the point, this has been already (fairly exhaustively) hashed out, yet Martin Hogbin refuses to let it die," and "Have you just ignored everything I've written on this subject?" and "the dead horse comes to life again." Those exchanges illustrate the problem well (WP:TENDENTIOUS, particularly WP:REHASH). Pinging Binksternet and Coretheapple, who I believe have also encountered it. SarahSV ^(talk) 08:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
• My own interactions with Martin Hogbin have been limited to the Battle of Britain page. I can't say if it rises to the level of disruptive, but I sense a strong strain of refusal to acknowledge views other than his own. I'm not immune to strong views, nor really inclined to change them, so I appreciate it's not exactly easy; I get the sense it approaches willful ignorance, a "don't confuse me with evidence" attitude. That said, I should say I've seen his edits on other pages, & they don't seem contentious or controversial; it may be this only arises with "pet projects". That may be trouble enough... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Immediate action needed. I sincerely appreciate the opinion of FourViolas up above. Since he has rarely encountered Mr. Hogbin, I suspect his opinion is typical for those not familiar with the long-term problem. However, for those of us who are aware of this problem, particularly editors who focus on content building like SlimVirgin, it is frustrating that Mr. Hogbin has spent 57% of his contributions,[65] the majority of his long Wikipedia career, using talk pages to push unusual, often contradictory POV that keeps editors running around in circles wasting time. It is difficult to determine if he is consciously doing this on purpose or if there is something else at work. Although I have encountered him in many places, it was my experience with him on March Against Monsanto (especially on the talk page, likely archived now) that led me to believe we have a serious problem. I would like to first propose limits on his talk page interaction. For example, "Martin Hogbin is limited to one talk page comment per day per article." That would go a long way towards mitigating the immediate issue. Viriditas (talk) 19:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Just saw the ping. I agree with Viriditas above in all respects, based upon experiences at Talk:BP. Coretheapple (talk) 14:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• I worked with Martin on the BP article. He seems like a very nice person but as an editor he was the type that constantly made me feel like I wanted to tear my hair out. Same issues as discussed above. Gandydancer (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I hope you still have some hair left Gandydancer. We have to accept that people may have fundamentally different opinions on a subject. The way to deal with that in WP is by civil discussion. I can assure you that I understand how frustrating it can be when someone else does not seem to understand what is perfectly obvious to you but there is never any need to resort to personal attacks, insults, or threats like some editors (not you) are doing here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Martin, the problem isn't that you have an opinion. The problem is that you are engaging in explicit civil POV pushing and ignoring talk page discussion by keeping a discussion open in perpetuity and constantly changing the framework of the discussion to allow it to continue indefinitely until you get your way. Viriditas (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• I haven't seen diffs of bad behavior on talk pages. I also don't understand people's wishes to limit other's participation on talk page of all the places. In addition I also don't understand accusations of POV pushing because whenever someone accuses of that I guarantee you they push their own POV all the time. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 14:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• I've encountered Martin Hogbin in a few places covering topics such as probability, mathematical physics, Midway, and a third opinion response. He devotes a lot of energy to his positions, but that can be good or bad. I agree with some of his positions, disagree with some others, and am out of my depth in still others. I don't see anything outrageous in the diffs above, and the talk page dialog does not appear disruptive. He can be pointed, intense, and demanding, but it takes two to tango on a talk page. If someone responds to Martin, then he will respond. If the other person stops responding, then Martin will stop responding. It might be annoying, but trying to revisit a topic 6 months later does not seem outrageous. Martin can be difficult and he can be wrong, but I don't see the behavior here being actionable. Glrx (talk) 04:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Many months ago, I interacted with Martin Hogbin, around British articles. I found him to be quite pleasant & easy to collaborate with. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Martin Hogbin

I am involved in a content dispute in the Veganism article with the editors who are making this unpleaseant personal attack on me. Unlike some here, who have resorted to persistent personal attacks, my contibutions there have conformed to the normal standards of discussion and will continue to do so. Through civil discussion we are now beginning to make some progress on that page. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The section where you said "now we seem to be working better together" and that you're now referring to didn't even involve any contributions by you. The only comment you made there was irrelevant and didn't lead to any progress in that regard whatsoever. --Rose (talk) 09:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I noticed that. It actually begged the suggestion that people were working better together because of your your lack of participation, rather than in spite of it... _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 19:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I support the suggestion to begin with restricting/curtailing Martin Hogbin's article talk page privileges. It appears he has good intentions but his behavior is disruptive to the project. IjonTichy (talk) 04:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

This now seems to have turned into a vendetta against me by every user that I have ever disgreed with. My editing and talk page comments are based on the fundamental principles that: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view, editors should treat each other with respect and civility, and that what we write in article should be supported by reliable sources rather than an expression of our personal opinions. I believe that disputes are better resolved by civil discussion than by edit warring, threats or personal attacks. That is what I am doing and it is what will continue to do. We either stick to the original principles of Wikipedia or we give in to mob rule. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

On the other hand, you have repeatedly and quite openly expressed a POV bordering on an agenda, and you've repeatedly misused the article talk page to push your agenda. By limiting your participation on article talk pages to one comment a day, we can begin to restore normalcy and consensus building. Viriditas (talk) 01:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

"There has been considerable support for this article being a lipogram, not just from JJB. I think you should assume some good faith on his part. Just that he wants one thing and you want another is not a fair fair reason to assume bad faith on hos part. So, why should this article not be a lipogram? Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC) ". You kids are adorbs.Dan Murphy (talk) 04:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Identification of Cecil Rhodes as a "white supremacist" in opening sentence

IP 158.143.212.121 and I have been having a disagreement at Cecil Rhodes and Rhodes Scholarship. He thinks Rhodes should be identified in the opening sentence as a "white supremacist". I have opened a thread at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard and asked him to discuss rather than edit warring, but he has in my view chosen to continue in the former vein, repeatedly restoring the epithet in the opening sentence. I think administrator intervention is necessary to find a solution here. Cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  11:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that referring to someone as a "white supremacist" in the leading paragraph of an article is an NPOV issue (especially if it's a BLP). Repeated restoration of edits such as this is not constructive, and the IP can be blocked on those grounds. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Cecil Rhodes is a BLP??? EEng (talk) 14:31, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Noooooooo. This is just more of the activism related to the recent Rhodes controversies around the world. Clearly attempting to make the article as negative as possible. But since he has been dead for quite awhile, BLP isnt an issue. NPOV is the main issue. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Exactly. I was discussing the principle in general when I referenced BLPs - it obviously doesn't apply to this situation, as the article is not a BLP. The issue here is WP:NPOV - and that description absolutely does not conform to that policy. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Apparently Mark Twain did not have a very high opinion. Although that source also claims that L. Ron Hubbard thought himself to be Rhodes' reincarnation. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:49, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree that it doesn't belong in lede. It's well-established that Rhodes is known for being a strong advocate of Colonialism, which seems appropriate for the lede, but he's not a self-described "white supremacist" or primarily known as such. His views on race are certainly worth discussing in the article, though. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

That's completely fine; this can certainly be a section of the article (provided that it's done appropriately... lol ;-)) - but when you put those kinds of words in the lead paragraph (especially in the first sentence that describes who or what the article subject even is), it implies a very biased viewpoint. The adjective "white supremacist" (when describing a person) is very controversial and it puts the article out of the neutral zone if used to describe someone in your opening statement. This is the issue, and it is the primary cause of the focus in this ANI. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• Having it in the lede definitely violates NPOV and also UNDUE. All of the three citations provided thus far are from the past 10 months. I therefore don't think it merits being in the lede (or possibly even in the article at all). It seems like a recent flare-up. If there is nothing substantiating this characterization from the 20th century, this stuff should probably be relegated to something at the end of the article that mentions recent criticism (or omitted altogether). In the lede it has way too much weight (WP:UNDUE), which is not justified by a few items from merely the past year. (Not to mention the fact the lede is only for a summary of the major points discussed in the body text.) Softlavender (talk) 16:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• This is turning into something of a campaign, not necessarily involving a specific group of people but popping up anywhere the present real-world campaign against these figures is likely to touch. We've just been through a round of this on South of the Border (attraction), a South Carolina tourist trap with, shall we say, a decidedly dated Mexican shtick. Given the current attack on Woodrow Wilson's reputation I would expect the campaign to show up there as well. The problem I'm seeing in all of these is indeed WP:UNDUE: they are trying to make one category of objectionable opinions/acts the salient characteristic of the subject by shame-tagging them. Rhodes's racial views were objectionable, no doubt about it, but his colonialism is what is primary. Wilson's racism is secondary to his presidencies. SotB is a tacky ethnic caricature, but being offensive is not its point. Mangoe (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah one of the three citations is about Wilson (and only minutely about Rhodes). Softlavender (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• His weel known racist views should have the same weighting in the lead as they have in the body of the article. If there is a section on it in the article then a sentence in the lead seems warranted.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:30, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

The point is, there isn't one. Softlavender (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

There is a section on his political views and the main content of that section is his racism. Indeed if there werent such a section it would have to be added, since his racist and imperialist views are widely written about and have characterized the subsequent political development of the region.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

It looks to me like the lede already covers that in recap form. It also looks to me like Rhodes' attitudes and beliefs were no different from any other Englishperson or even Afrikaaner of his generation (or even later), at the height of the Empire. We don't vilify Rudyard Kipling, for instance, for having those beliefs. We can't apply 2015 judgments to Victorian people, which is exactly what is happening with these 2015 flare-ups. I'm not saying his attitudes were equitable, but they were in step with his time, and should not be labeled with 2015 terms by Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 19:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• • The point is phrasing, not content; as of the moment I looked at the article, the lead is fine without the inflammatory language and does not whitewash his views. Rhodes was a person who held beliefs we find objectionable today, but he was in many respects a man of his times with his belief in the "white man's burden". It is entirely appropriate to discuss his views and to have an appropriate summary of those views in the lead. However, a phrase such as "white supremacist" is a "loaded" polemic term of art that fits more appropriately on people of more recent times who hold assorted neo-nazi or KKK viewpoints. If you look at the ngram, the phrase was virtually unused until after WWII. Montanabw^(talk) 19:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

From a content side, this idea came up relatively recently when dealing with how a scene in Revenge of the Nerds should be presented in light of modern sensibilities, and that lead to refinement of Wikipedia:Presentism, which I believe should also be applied here. Modern-day critical takes on Rhodes should be a section in the article but if that wasn't the case during their life, it shouldn't be in the lede. --MASEM (t) 19:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

If it's the reality then it can be stated plainly in the opening sentence or in the lede in general, if it's well supported by reliable sources. It is not necessarily a violation of NPOV to do so, as someone else said above. NPOV is about representing sources neutrally and with due weight. It does not prohibit stating a harsh truth plainly if that is supported by reliable sources. I also don't see any policy that is about not using modern-day takes to define an article's subject. If information later comes out that changes the general perception of a subject, then this is indeed used. For instance, Monsanto did knowingly sell PCBs long after they knew of their dangers, and they hid those dangers. That was in the 1960s and the 1970s. The knowledge of this came out in the year 2000 with a legal proceeding that revealed internal memos showing their culpability and knowledge at the time. This knowledge would be fair to use to define what happened in the 1960s and 1970s, with good sourcing. History is often revised with further knowledge and with further interpretation. In fact many people were white supremacists while they may not have explicitly called it that at the time. The degree to which that was a notable ideological principle in a person might be the measure of whether it should be a primary label for them. SageRad (talk) 13:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

While I don't want to take this discussion to far since it belongs somewhere else, I think there's an obvious difference between information about a historic situation (regardless of when that information became available) and modern intepretations of events and behaviour based not on new information but modern beliefs, values etc. To give a made up example, if someone finds a letter from some BC/BCE individual where this person calls for the elimination of race X via force, that would be new information. If someone says that person was calling for genocide, that would be to some extent a modern intepretation. This doesn't mean I'm saying we shouldn't include the information in the lead. (Actually I'm somewhat symphathetic to including the information in the lead here, although I do question whether it would make sense if we were talking about a BC/BCE individual. And to go back to my earlier example, I also support the current or a similar wording in the Genghis Khan article.) Rather all I'm saying is we should make a distinction between how our understanding of events change based on new facts or information that emerges of what was going on; how our understanding of events changes based on our modern day values, ethics, beliefs etc. Nil Einne (talk) 16:39, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, i do agree with this distinction very much, and i hold that both are valid. The link to WP:PRESENTISM above is interesting, though it's an essay and not a policy or guideline, so it's not required to be followed in toto. SageRad (talk) 11:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

David Bain

There is an on-going battle over details of content which should be on the David Bain page. This has now been going on for some weeks. Although there have been a number of editors involved, the one who has been the most disruptive is Mr Maggoo. Others who have been constructive are Akldguy, Moriori and Gadfium.

Mr Maggoo is the self published author of a book titled The Bain Killings Whodunnit? written under the pseudonym Michael Sharp. He outed himself in correspondence with Akld guy here. He seems to have very strong opinions that David Bain is guilty of the murders for which he has been acquitted. Although there has been much discussion on the David Bain talk page about the various issues, Mr Maggoo has shown himself to be incapable of "hearing" what other editors are saying. In response, he has often taken a hostile approach when communicating on the talk page. He frequently adds or deletes material without giving a reason on the main page and his justifications on the Talk page make little sense. There are so many examples of his disruptive behaviour, it is hard to know where to begin. Turtletop (talk) 21:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that when I edit the David Bain Wikipedia page citing reliable sources such as newspaper articles and books [not my own] Turtletop deletes them. Mr Maggoo (talk) 22:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

That's not the problem. Maggoo has a history of quoting unreliable sources, especially the David Bain:Counterspin website. He also repeatedly tries to add material from a lawyer who has been disbarred for lying. Even when he does quote a reliable source, he seems to have little understanding of whether the information he wishes to include is relevant. His edits all support the view that David Bain is guilty even though the privy Council declared a miscarriage of justice and his convictions have been overturned. Turtletop (talk) 22:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The David Bain article has had ongoing disputes mostly between SPA accounts for some time. A sockpuppet investigation on some of the accounts found them to be unrelated. I semi-protected the article to prevent new SPAs getting involved, and have tried to keep all parties discussing on the talk page.-gadfium 22:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The David Bain murder case has been highly controversial in New Zealand. Mr Maggoo is a novice editor who began editing on 11 December 2015, and has edited nothing but DB-related pages since. He became frustrated at being asked to provide reliable sources and indent his posts correctly. He initially ignored advice that he was not permitted to cite from his own work or from a highly NPOV website, Counterspin. Nevertheless, he has learned much, albeit slowly. He is now competently adding information to the DB article which the OP objects to. This is essentially a content dispute and I note that the OP has not asked for any particular action here. Akld guy (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

It is partly a content dispute. But it is also about Mr Magoo's attitude and disruptive editing. Some of the edits he says he will make on the talk page are reflective of taking revenge rather than being constructive. I would like to see Mr Maggoo blocked from editing OR the page completely protected from editing by anyone except administrators. Turtletop (talk) 23:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

You yourself removed highly relevant material that was correctly cited and pertained to the alleged pregnancy or childbirth of one of the victims. You did that, despite knowing that your removal of it would be controversial. Mr Maggoo should absolutely not be blocked. He has learned much and has now become a threat to the NPOV editing of the page by Turtletop. Both Mr Maggoo and Turtletop have edited contentiously, but there has been no bad behaviour, insults, or abuse that would justify a block on either, and certainly not on Mr Maggoo. Akld guy (talk) 23:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Really? Mr Maggoo made an edit about you in which he told you to stop being a girl. You have also seem to have allied yourself with Mr Maggoo by reposting a link to his self-published book and made insulting comments to Moriori accusing him of a conflict of interst with no evidence whatsoever. You have also made insulting comments about David Bain's sister in this post: "Laniet told so many people so many stories about pregnancy, childbirth, or abortion, that she must have been a flake. And if she was a flake on that score, she may have been a flake on her father's alleged illicit relationship with her. That is why Turtletop does not want the evidence of NEVER PREGNANT by the pathologist and hospital records, because it PROVES she was a flake and therefore tends to discredit the incest claim. The pathologist and hospital reports should be in the article. There is no reason to keep them out except censorship. Akld guy (talk) 01:28, 15 January 2016 (UTC)"

Your neutrality and your personal judgement are highly questionable. Turtletop (talk) 23:52, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Akld guy has played a valuable role in mediating between the conflicting parties.-gadfium 00:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

He has also contributed to the conflict and has started his own one with Moriori.Turtletop (talk) 00:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

(ec) Don't make this about me. I have not aligned myself with Mr Maggoo. I came down on him hard in his early edits for not sourcing appropriately, and reverted many of them, but now that he has learned, he is posting material that you don't want in the article. I believe that some of that material he's adding should justifiably be in it. I did not accuse Moriori of having a conflict of interest, but asked him whether he had one, asking for a yes/no, not his identity. I note that he has not yet answered the question despite the elapse of more than two hours, prior to which he was active on the Talk page. He has to be given time to answer of course. Akld guy (talk) 00:24, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Asking is equivalent to accusing. Why did you ask/accuse him in the first place? You appear to have done this to divert attention away from your posting of a link to Mr Maggoo's COI self-published book. Turtletop (talk) 00:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

(ec) Gadfium, he may have played a mediation role, but he undid that with other behaviour, and I am quite surprised you didn't give him a little nudge for his insults to me. At the Bain talk page I have left the following reply to his latest insult -- "You continue with offensive insult. The Wikipedia article you have edited the most is David Bain with 58 edits and 100 to its talk page. I have made 4 edits to David Bain and 14 to the talk page. You = 158. Me = 18. I have edited more than 7,000 unique Wikipedia articles so I guess to you that suggests obvious COI." Moriori (talk) 00:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Don't make this about me. The question asked by the OP was to the effect, "should Mr Maggoo be blocked?" Akld guy (talk) 01:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I also suggested that a total block could be put on the page. It's about all of us - and you seem to be avoiding taking any responsibility for your offensive behaviour towards other editors. If you don't want it to be about you, then I suggest you withdraw your insults to Moriori and apologise.

It would also help if you stopped accusing me of not being neutral. Bain was found not guilty and my contributions generally support that outcome. When you and Mr Maggoo add material which undermines that reality, you are not being neutral - and that's what leads to the content dispute. Turtletop (talk) 01:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The question asked by the OP was to the effect, "should Mr Maggoo be blocked?" Akld guy (talk) 01:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC) Akld guy (talk) 01:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I would like to reply to a number of false allegations made about me by Turtletop. Mr Maggoo (talk) 01:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

First he accuses me of citing the Counterspin website. I have not cited the Counterspin website. I asked if I could cite the Counterspin website as a reference and was told I could not. Turtletop himself has cited the Counterspin website. Mr Maggoo (talk) 01:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Second he accuses me repeatedly trying to add material from a lawyer who has been disbarred. This is not correct. When I first started editing on Wikipedia I set up a paragraph heading Response by Michael Guest. At that time I wasn't aware I had to cite a source. That paragraph was removed for that reason. I then asked if I could cite two different sources as a reference and was told that neither of those sources were reliable. I have not been able to find a reliable source I can site re that paragraph, so I have not tried to set it up again. Once is not repeatedly. Mr Maggoo (talk) 01:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Third, he says all my edits support the view that David Bain is guilty. I resent that insinuation. I just find an article pertaining to the subject and cite it. I could just as easily say that all Turtletops edits support the view that David Bain is innocent. Mr Maggoo (talk) 01:56, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Fourthly, he says I have little understanding as to whether the information I am including is relevant. Let me assure Turtletop that I have no problem deciding what is relevant and what is not. And might I add I always endeavour to quote verbatim from the article I am citing. For example I don't say "some academics" when the article cited only refers to one academic. Turtletop would have us believe that a number of academics support the suggestion made by Justice Binnie that the Government was "shopping around" . From what I have read one law professor supports Binnie and three law professors disagree with that suggestion. [User:Mr Maggoo|Mr Maggoo]] (talk) 02:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

This post is directed to Turtletop You are definitely not neutral. You are trying to keep the insinuation that Laniet may have been pregnant/given birth/aborted as a result of incest by her father, despite the fact that not one witness has ever stepped forward to say that they saw Laniet with a baby, not one witness has ever stated that they KNEW Laniet had given birth, not one witness has ever stated that they KNEW Laniet had had an abortion, not one witness has ever stated that they KNEW Laniet gave away a baby for adoption. In short, there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of a pregnancy/baby/abortion. Mr Maggoo and I are attempting to corroborate that with highly relevant pathology and hospital record material that shows that there was almost certainly never any pregnancy. You have on several occasions disruptively attempted to censor that pathology and medical material from the article. Akld guy (talk) 01:45, 17 January 2016 (UTC) Edited Akld guy (talk) 02:24, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Hardly anyone KNEW anything about this case. That’s why it has been controversial for 20 years. And of course there are no witnesses who KNEW Robin Bain raped Laniet or committed incest with her. But multiple witnesses testified that Laniet told them her father was sexually abusing her. On that basis the Privy Council obviously concluded that where there is smoke (and there was a lot of it), there may well be fire - so they declared there had been a miscarriage of justice. If you still think you need to include material that you think proves she wasn’t pregnant, can I suggest you read the following. Under the heading Due and undue weight, WP says:

“While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence”… “Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects”.

If you insist on including testimony that Laniet was NOT pregnant, you are giving undue weight to a minority aspect which was of no relevance to the Privy Council or to the jury at the retrial. The topic is David Bain (and perhaps whether or not he is guilty). Whether or not Laniet was pregnant is not the topic.Turtletop (talk) 05:49, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Whether or not Laniet was pregnant is germane to two issues: 1. that she was pregnant to her father, which you are trying to insinuate is a motive for him killing the members of his family, 2. the issue of Laniet's credibility, since if she was given to fantasies about a pregnancy/childbirth/abortion/white baby versus black baby, then there exists the possibility that the alleged incest with her father was also a fantasy. You are trying to censor from the article medical evidence that refutes a pregnancy because it counters your insinuation that there was a pregnancy/baby. Akld guy (talk) 06:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Laniet's credibility is not the topic. David Bain's is - or was. Your allegation of censorship is offensive. I don't control anything on WP so I can't possibly censor it. Please use more moderate language. Your allegation that I am insinuating that Laniet was pregnant to her father is also offensive. You have now said this a number of times. I have never said any such thing and your insinuations are a breach of WP:assume good faith

You have refused to apologise to Moriori over your insinuation that he had a COI so I don't expect you will apologize to me for your behaviour either. It would go a long way towards resolving this if you did. Turtletop (talk) 07:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Instead of trying to communicate with other editors via edit summaries - would you consider using the talkpage first, and holding off on reverting other editors as an absolute last resort? SQL^{Query me!} 07:54, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Already tried the Talk page. It didn't work. Turtletop (talk) 09:14, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I am still trying to master the correct procedure when using Wikipedia. Could I just say in my defence [ though age is no excuse] that it is hard for an old dog to learn new tricks specially when that old dog is in his eighties. Mr Maggoo (talk) 02:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think any of us come out of this scrap looking good. I ask that some uninvolved people add the article to their watchlists, and crack down on any poor behaviour.-gadfium 04:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest cross-posting this to the BLP noticeboard. They generally have zero tolerance towards this sort of thing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• ...I find this Mr Maggoo's choice of name interesting to say the least? 😨 --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 15:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• Page is protected for 2 days. Will escalate protection, or issue blocks if the warring continues. SQL^{Query me!} 23:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Mrss.shourie

Persistent copyright violations. Bazj (talk) 17:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

For reference: Mrss.shourie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log).

I just deleted one article that seemed to be a direct copy of one of the linked references. So the concern is a valid one, at least on that front. The user's deleted contributions indicate that this is not their first deleted article - others were deleted in early November 2015. They said, in their edit summary, that they were basing it on references - perhaps there is a language issue at play that prevents them from understanding the issue? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Request for administrator intervention regarding personal attack

Hi,

User @El Alternativo has resorted to personal attacks even after been asked to stop doing so.

Evidence on the matter:

• on this diff he calls me "juveline",
• on this other diff he calls me an "estadista" (someone who supports the statehood movement in Puerto Rico),
• on that same diff accuses me of patronizing him, and
• on that same diff claims that I'm somehow throwing jabs at him.

I have tried to remain civil but considering the continuous personal attacks on my person I would like to request intervention from an administrator.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 04:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Curious how the OP forgets to mention that I actually requested for the confrontations to cease and cooperate in editing the article in peace during the same edit. Anyways, is any of this even remotely close to being considered a "personal attack"? Saying "juvenile" when referencing a tag that was apparently added due to a revert is hardly an attack. And saying that his edit pattern would allow for a better attack since he is an apparent estadista is like saying it would allow for a better attack since he is democrat or republican. The reaction is way overblown. El Alternativo (talk) 04:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• But since we are here, I would like a take on the OP taking the source that I added to the article (my attempt to deal with his concerns) directly to the RS noticeboard without even asking me to prove it as reliable, and misrepresenting it as a strictly "pro-independence and socialist" source despite likely knowing, given his constant work on articles related to local politics, that the ideological range of the authors is varied and even includes people that belong to a centrist party. As noted in my rebuttal, this moves seems way undue and exaggerated to the point that I suspect a vindictive motivation, since he could have discussed the reliability of the source and I would have cited the same about PhDs and mainstream journalists, yet opted to take it all the way to the RS noticeboard, tag the article and leave me a note noting how he felt that I was being incivil for saying the word "juvenile". It seems to me that the OP may be abusing the RS noticeboard and he is most likely abusing this one. And since he is also actively engaged in a move war at Ricky Rosselló, I feel compelled to question if he is letting his passion of local politics get the better of him in his interactions with other users. El Alternativo (talk) 06:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Please do not distort what I said. I never said that 80grados was "strictly" pro-independence and socialist. I said that it is a publication "with socialist and Puerto Rican pro-independence tendencies." Please stop twisting my words. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Excluding that other authors diverge from the posture that you adjudicate to the source, despite likely knowing beforehand, makes it voluntary omission. And since you took the reference to the RS noticeboard and tagged it as "failing verification" before the matter was disputed, and also before trying to engage me (if you can call posting a "warning" an attempt to engage), it seems quite clear that your intention was to defeat my posture before even discussing it, perhaps because you were offended that I called one of your actions juvenile. El Alternativo (talk) 04:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Kindly notice that the personal attacks persist. On this diff the user is now claiming that I am "pursuing some sort of vindictive retribution" against him. Can an admin please intervene? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, I already mentioned and linked that above. How does that constitute a "personal" attack? It is just a note of the way that I perceive this sort of behavior. The only one of us that has actually tried to drop the one-sided conflict has been me by suggesting that you reconsider the overly-sensitive approach and I even took the first step by inserting your language in the article. Conversely, you did nothing to discuss the source's reliability with me; instead opting to take it there and tagging it. Given your edit history, it is likely that you know that it passes as a RS simply due to the notability and work of its authors within the mainstream. El Alternativo (talk) 04:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Mdclxvi0 harrassing User:JesseRafe

This account came out of nowhere and began goading me on my Talk Page. I politely warned them about it, and then they ran with it accusing me of harassing them even though I only responded (unprompted) the one time. My second time I gave them a Final Warning on it (because in recent months I've been getting a lot of flack from registered and Anon-IPs) while pointing out their mistake that I've not done a thing, and they responded (for their third time with lies on my Talk Page) that I had done so thrice. This person is also seemingly very well versed in Wikipedia policies, nomenclature and backdoors and it would not surprise me if they are trying to avenge a past dispute.

1. Random passive-agressive harassment, no prior interaction at all: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JesseRafe&diff=700180517&oldid=699601413 at 18:39, 16 January 2016
2. I send a generic TW level 1 warning on harassment of other editors: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mdclxvi0&diff=700498750&oldid=699719662 at 17:39, 18 January 2016 and think nothing more of it.
3. Then it gets good. User makes it obvious he or she is delusional or/and a different user with the following edit's claims: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JesseRafe&diff=700693285&oldid=700180517 at 21:33, 19 January 2016. Note that they said I am harassing them and they don't want to engage in a conversation with me! I had done nothing close to resembling this. My only interaction with this account was an automated low-level warning and by choosing my name out of a hat to harass on my Talk page the case could be made that a conversation with me (especially since they technically asked a question) was exactly what they wanted.
4. For the reasons as stated above I didn't want to have to deal with another abusive troll so gave them a Final Warning on harassment, noting that that notice itself was only the second time I had ever interacted with them: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mdclxvi0&diff=700726190&oldid=700498750 at 02:49, 20 January 2016.
5. And, of course, after that final warning of harassing me, they couldn't help themselves and came back to my Talk Page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JesseRafe&diff=700831329&oldid=700743845 at 18:05, 20 January 2016 again accusing me frivolously of things that are easily seen to be untrue.

Given this, and the specific language used, I find it hard to believe this user has only 9 days experience on this site, and at that almost 20% of their total edits have been to blatantly upbraid me on my Talk Page with random noise and lies. JesseRafe (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

JesseRafe, why don't you and Mdclxvi0 just agree to stay off each other talk pages? It seems like a tit-for-tat situation that isn't actually about any article. I'm sorry that you have had to deal with trolls and socks in the past but I don't think Mdclxvi0 qualifies as "an abusive troll" at this point. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I am off his page! I was never on it! It's blatant lies on my page and he or she needs to get a warning. How else would a user fresh out of not having an account in nine days make 3 out of 16 edits on my Talk Page complaining about me when I had never interacted with their editing in their (at that time) prior 11 edits in 5 days, if they were were not a new editor just a new account? To say this is a "tit-for-tat" is a very unsatisfactory response. Clearly this user has an agenda. In fact, to deign to call it "tit-for-tat" legitimizes this blatant and obvious harassing troll behavior. There is no tit-for-tat when one party is unilaterally harassing and libeling another. JesseRafe (talk) 23:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't see harassment and libel, I see two editors telling each other to stay away from each other. This doesn't need to escalate if you can just choose not to interact with each other. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Liz, he feels as though because I am new user that he is entitled to sanction bans and harass people with accusations of sockpuppetry. He also threatened me with "administrator action" believing his time spent on Wikipedia gives him preferential treatment, and I am glad it didn't work! Screaming "libel" on one hand while accusing others of ban evading is ironic in and of itself. I have no interest in ever going to his talk page and am glad he is banned from going on mine. Thank you once again and will heed your advice to ignore. Mdclxvi0 (talk) 23:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

This response itself is libel. I am happy to ignore this troll. The issue is his or her repeated and unprompted messages on my Talk Page over nothing but whatever he or she has imagined. I never knew this person existed until they started goading me. I had none of the mens rea this troll accuses me of, just stating the facts neutrally in the timeline provided above. What else is supposed to be done in this circumstance? JesseRafe (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

"What else is supposed to be done in this circumstance?" - She just told you, in plain English, to "agree to stay off each other talk pages". Also, referring to me as a troll is a violation of WP:PERSONAL and doing so only gives credence to your persecution complex. Let bygones be bygones, stay off my talk page, and stop wasting the administrators' time. Mdclxvi0 (talk) 00:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

If calling another editor "an abusive troll" is a personal attack, then saying that an editor has a "persecution complex" is equally so. You want the other editor to stop? Then you do the same. BMK (talk) 02:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Alright, both of you: knock it off. Slinging a continually escalating series of personal attacks at each other is only going to end with both of you being blocked, so let's have an end to that. You don't want to talk to each other. Stop talking to each other. If you want a formalized WP:IBAN then ask for it, without using words like "lies", "libel", "delusional" or "persecution complex", but the issue can be resolved right now by both of you walking away from each other and working on content instead. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Go to your neutral corners: JesseRafe, I was inclined to support your complaint until you started saying "libel", "delusional" and "troll". I understand you're annoyed over this, but that's no excuse for intemperate behavior. I'll grant that Mdclxvi0's sudden inquiry at your user talk is suspicious, but you need not jump to any conclusions. Also, your OP is incorrect in stating that you used a level-1 warning template: You used a level-3 as an opener. That's definitely not appropriate. That said, Mdclxvi0: Your response to JesseRafe's use of a user warning template, even if incorrect, was way over the line and only made things worse. All that said, it's way too soon for administrative intervention. Furthermore, I'm inclined to say there's no reason that either of you must stay off each other's user talk pages at this time. It would probably be a good idea to leave each other alone for a bit, but I'm not a fan of jumping to what's essentially a voluntary interaction ban given how minor the precipitating incidents were. We shouldn't reward either knee-jerk accusations of harassment. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Wikibreaking personal attacks and WP:FORUMSHOP

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

This editor has received multiple warnings about civility and personal attacks. The most recent yesterday. Despite being here only a short while, they have engaged in numerous conflicts, including one that resulted in a block for edit warring, and further exhaustive conversations to overturn a deletion at multiple locations. They originally opened multiple deletion reviews for the same AFD and once it was scaled back to only one DRV and the direction of the consensus clearly pointing towards endorse, they've continued to pursue the closer on their talk page and another admin on their talk page. Their conduct at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 January 17 has been very combative telling editors they "lied" or calling other "annoying unqualified people" or telling them they "keep on insisting your bullshits anyway". This editor has also made statements saying they'll "resubmit this petition" because they don't like or agree with the discussion. I also noticed on their talk page that they've essentially re-posted much of the deleted content using their user talk page as a WP:SOAPBOX. I see this heading towards WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Mkdw^talk 19:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Their last edit was at 23:08 on 19 January - otherwise, I'd have blocked immediately for disruption. Their conduct at DRV has been dreadful, and probably got more people endorsing the close than would otherwise have bothered with it. I understand that they clearly feel strongly about the topic, but this isn't how it works here. So, if Wikibreaking is able to assure us that they are going to chill out, edit something else, stop threatening disruption, stop accusing editors of lying, and almost threatening civil action, then they can continue editing. I'm going to issue a final warning now, and ask them to come here and discuss the issue. Or, you know, not, and then they can discuss the block on their talk page. There does not appear to be much middle ground, here. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I have no intention of refraining from the terms "lied", "annoying unqualified people", "keep on insisting your bullshits anyway". First, they don't sound like personal attacks or insults to me. Second, I was talking facts. If you can't translate the language in the reference I linked, then you are not qualified to judge whether that reference is legitimate or not. Despite being unqualified, if you keep on insisting nonsense, then I am obviously annoyed & I have the right to express such infringement. Also, I obviously shouldn't have to avoid using the term "lying" (or the term bullshits) when you did lie. That's the level of discussion going on right now. I provide legitimate references on legitimate notable topics. My unqualified opponents just keep on insisting "not notable & not legitimate sources" without any indication to a specific detail. This is also why I split my article into 2 separate parts because the later half has ONLY English Google books as references (notable because of being talked about in the books & legitimate references because of being Google books published hundreds years ago). The result? Read the level of shits going on there. They shouldn't have any voice at all in this. Wikibreaking (talk) 21:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, there is no such thing as "my" article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

When you start talking about "my unqualified opponents", it's usually a sign of a battleground attitude that will just lead you into more conflict and reappearances on this noticeboard, Wikibreaking. This discussion right here is a warning that your behavior has not been acceptable. You can choose to adapt to discussion, Wikipedia-style, or you can go on as you have and are likely to run into sanctions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Well that response essentially highlights everything I've pointed out. I don't see this becoming a WP:NETPOS anytime soon. Mkdw^talk 23:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Judging by their last comment Wikibreaking (is that supposed to mean something?) ought to consider improving their grasp of idiomatic English before editing English Wikipedia. BMK (talk) 02:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I am concerned with this colloquy from the DRV discussion, which, I think, comes perilously close to be a violation of WP:NLT by Wikibreaking:

• You are not entitled to anything, just so you know. Stifle (talk) 10:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
• If you are talking about legal issue, that can be sorted out in the civil court. (Infringement of privilege & entitlement unjustly.) If you are talking about the actual laws, that's for the judge & the written laws to decide. [...] Wikibreaking (talk) 21:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikibreaking appears to be claiming that their "privilege" and "entitlement" has been "unjustly infringed", and that this is a matter for the civil courts. BMK (talk) 02:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this edit[66] is both a legal threat and a claim of article ownership. The user in question needs to be indef'd immediately. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

That's intended to cause a WP:CHILLINGEFFECT using legal language, which makes it a legal threat; blocked. I'll note that in addition to withdrawing the legal threat they need to have a better understanding of WP:OWN and WP:BATTLEGROUND before being unblocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikibreaking is a problematic editor not only in DRV but also in editing other articles. The user added the same edit rejected as WP:SYNTH by other editors to other article. The user has a lack of grasping what the problem the user is doing and is incompetent in understanding the guidelines. Also, most of Wikibreaking's massive edits in Korean Wikipedia have been reverted by other experienced editor. Bulgogi [67], Gimbap [68], Taekkyon [69] The user is clearly WP:NOTHERE. The user should be blocked indefinitely.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 04:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• I can't tell whether it's a true legal threat or use of legal language to cause a chilling effect, but I'm usually of the opinion that the difference should be academic in practice. "Real" legal threats should result in a block per WP:NLT. "Fake" legal threats should result in a block for disruption, either for a finite length, or until the "fake" legal threat is retracted so as to end the disruptive chilling effect. Generally speaking, some form of sanction is appropriate here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
• The user has been blocked for legal threats, but I'd endorse leaving the user blocked because of their overall attitude. They have a serious battleground mentality and the trend I'm seeing is that they're unwilling or unable to assume good faith from other editors if they do not agree with their specific versions/edits. Their userpage, along with the massive amount of content they've added to their talk page, shows that they're almost guaranteed to be brought back to ANI and blocked for their behaviors. Upon being told by multiple editors that they're behaving poorly, their response is to accuse the other editors of lying and being disruptive. I don't think that there's any way that they could collaborate well with others even if we gave them a last chance unblock. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
• I tried to raise some of these issues with Wikibreaking and got nowhere. Their writing is aggressive and difficult to understand, but since I don't speak Korean, I was hoping that at least some of the sources were valid, and maybe other editors would be able to get through. Many other editors have tried, and now Phoenix7777 points out that this content has also been widely rejected at the Korean wiki as well, so AGF is exhausted. From their edit history, the user's name is likely a reference to Breaking (martial arts), so that part, at least, shouldn't be seen as a threat. Otherwise this is a constant battleground attitude over confusing and questionable edits, with only token attempts at compromise. Many of the user's edits go through contortions to advanced a pro-Korean and sometimes anti-Japanese POV ([70] [71] [72], etc.). There are competence, attitude, and advocacy problems here. Grayfell (talk) 07:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • As a note, I added a bit to the block notice there noting that it's not just because of the apparent NLT violation that the block became necessary. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
• Yup, support all the above. The user was on notice about his/her combative behavior since 19 January and stuck the fingers in the ears. Stifle (talk) 10:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Mshmurd at film 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.

---

Mshmurd (talk · contribs) keeps going around to film articles adding "black comedy" for films that are clearly not black comedies, as seen here and here. When reverted, even if the edit is clearly explained to him via an edit summary, he returns to add the same edit; for example, as seen in this case. This editor has warnings on his talk page and does not seem to listen; he just edits disruptively again and again. I will go ahead and alert him and WP:Film to this thread. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Ohnoitsjamie gave him a final warning on his talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that this is/was the best course of action. If it occurs again, he can be reported and blocked. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Persistent Vandalism

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

---

The user with IP 196.14.21.218 has vandalized Wiki multiple times:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3A196.14.21.218

Some vandalism is hard to spot, for example the following vandalism persisted for almost 3 years before I corrected it today:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Herero_and_Namaqua_Genocide&diff=next&oldid=556065464

This user has been blocked multiple times, and it hasn't worked. Can we have a longer or even a permanent ban?

JS (talk) 15:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The IP has not edited since April 2015. — Diannaa (talk) 19:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

While it is true that this IP hasn't edited for about a year, this editor has a long history of vandalism for over 3 years (March 2012 to April 2015) and could be back. It took me a bit of time to identify this well disguised vandalism that persisted in an article almost 3 years. JS (talk) 06:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Jayanta Sen - Blocks are not a punitive measure, but a preventative measure. In this situation (vandalism), blocks are only performed when they are currently in-progress, and after other measures have been attempted (such as sufficiently warning the user). Also, IPs are usually never indefinitely blocked from editing; they're blocked for 36 hours (longer if long term, repeated, or a block just expired - behavior typically seen by School IPs). In this situation, there is absolutely no reason to block the IP at this time. If vandalism starts up from this IP, warn the user, and report it to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. This is the proper procedure that should be followed. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:20, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Millimeter Wave Scanners page

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

---

on the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millimeter_wave_scanner, the primary contributer to that page is contantly changing my edits to his erronious information. He is citing blogs and tabloids as credible sources for scientific and medical information. His statements are false and or misleading most of the time. I have tried to make corrections to his edits and information based on more up to date and credible sources of information, but he keeps going back in there to erase my edits and interject his own poorly researched information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:7742:89B0:91A0:1E54:F890:ACE6 (talk) 19:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually it is three different editors that have reverted your edits. This is a content dispute and your first step should be to go to the talk page and explain why you think your changes are correct and the article is wrong. With the size of the changes it would be best to start with one piece and discuss that and gain consensus to the change. Then move on to the next one. -- GB fan 19:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed with GB fan (Sorry about the Green Bay @ Arizona game - I assume that's what your username means ;-)). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Steel1943

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.

---

Steel1943 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Please block this user. He keeps adding unnecessary plot description to Zapp Brannigan, and has also added unnecessary original research to Melissa Duck. 172.56.38.239 (talk) 15:32, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Take it to the article talk page.142.105.159.60 (talk) 15:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

It appears that 172.56.38.239 is a block evasion. The edits in question are not OR or unnecessary, let alone a reason to block Steel1943 (Zapp diff, Melissa Duck diff). --Soetermans. T / C 16:02, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Jsp722 and his campaign against the word "pagan"

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.

---

Jsp722 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been pursuing a campaign to eradicate the word “pagan” from various Wikipedia articles. Most recently here. The edit comment was: “Undid vandalizing edit which lacked any summary or justification and removed relevant information without any previous resort to talk, perpetrated by notorious wikistalker.” That last comment was directed at me. He has been told any offence he takes is his problem on more than one occasion by more users, and I don't see him engaging on talk pages anywhere. He only once reacted on his own talkpage saying: "Hi Irina, it's funny that me too I found the usage of terms such as “pagan” and “paganism” promotional and worth some kind of soapbox. Such blanket, disdainful, derogatory terms are well known propaganda weapons customarily used by fanaticized Christian propagandizers with the sole intent of degrading non-monotheistic religions. On the other hand, “ancestral Slavic religion”, and “ancestral Slavic, Indo-European religion” are a perfectly neutral, accurate, precise, and insightful phrases. Therefore, I undid your changes and request you not to insist on your unruly, propagandistic changes." Other gems from his edit comments are: “Replaced inaccurate, uninformative, religious-politically biased, propagandistic, Abrahamic-supremacist, pseudo-scientific, derogatory “pagan”, with accurate, informative, neutral, scientific, ethnoculturally appreciative “Norse religion” or “Replaced derogatory, politically motivated, inaccurate, terrorist hate-propaganda term “pagan” with neutral, informative, accurate, unbiased “followers of traditional religions”. Here, can be seen that this is a one issue account all about WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

This has been going on for years (he also has an equally large bee in his bonnet about "Nazi Party",FWIW). I do note that while various people have told him to knock it off in the past, nobody's ever actually given any kind of warning. ‑ Iridescent 19:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

While I agree with the problem with the edit summaries, in the second case the replacement of "pagan" with "Norse religion" - and the addition of an appropriate wikilinks - seems entirely appropriate. In this instance, I have restored the change (with a more helpful edit summary) in the hopes of adding clarity to the article. Scr★pIron^IV 19:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

In that particular case it's OK. However I think that replacing a perfectly understandable word as "pagan" with categories that are based on "feelgood"terms combined with linguistic categories like "ancestral Indo-European religion" or negative terms like "non-Abrahamic" is problematic. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I suggest a "final warning" from an Admin here. While they haven't necessarily been warned about this specifically, they've received plenty of other kinds of warnings from other unhappy editors. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

[Hebel says:] Jsp722 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been pursuing a campaign to eradicate the word “pagan” from various Wikipedia articles. Most recently here.

Dear Hebel, thank you for your interest in my humble edits.

I believe that you have improperly resorted to this Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents page.

Indeed, according to the Welcome Section above, “[b]efore posting a grievance about a user here, please consider discussing the issue with them on their user talk page”.

However, no such discussion has ever taken place, as per your own weird choice.

Indeed, while it's true that you have posted a note on my own talkpage at 21:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC), no actual discussion could take place, since immediately thereafter you posted your grievance straight on this Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents page, at 19:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)!

You simply could not wait even 24 hours for an answer from my side! Please note as well that since you posted your note on my talkpage I have refrained from any edit you might perceive as offensive (or from any edit at all to that effect). It just happened that I was busy with something else.

Therefore, you behavior appears to be precipitous, to say the least.

As to the content of your complaint, any edit which replaces any given word with another, deemed to be more appropriate, in any number of Wikipedia articles (even if it is just one), could be alarmistically misrepresented as a “campaign to eradicate” such word from such article or articles, which is precisely what you did.

Such an exaggeration alone makes your complaint sound inadequate, if not a bit preposterous, just because those word replacements may, in principle, be perfectly adequate and well-warranted.

Therefore, what should be discussed is not the trivial fact that a word was replaced with another in any number of articles, which is the very essence of how Wikipedia works, but rather the worth, or lack thereof, of the replacement itself.

However, such discussion should take place on the modified articles' talkpage, or on the interested editors' talkpages, but not on this Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents page as though the mere act of editing were an infraction.

Apropos, may I point to the fact that all of my edits without any exception were offered together with a clear explaining summary, while all of your reverts (except for the last one, after my warning) were done without any summary explanation, which suggests an unwillingness to discuss the topic, if not a disruptive, vandalizing intention.

Add to this that all of your reverts (except for the first one) were done in articles on which you had shown no previous interest, but which you could only find as the result of a dubious, patrolling, wikistalking behavior. Add to this your systematic lack of edit summaries, and we have the reinforced picture of a disruptive, vandalizing intention and behavior.

Therefore, may I suggest that you review your own intentions, correct your own behavior, and wait for my opportune answer on my own talkpage, or for my inputs on any edited article's talkpage. Then you will be able to explain your reasons, and why you fear that referring to Norse religion as “Norse religion” rather than “paganism” is the ominous sign of the end of the world. Jsp722 (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

[Hebel says:] The edit comment was: “Undid vandalizing edit which lacked any summary or justification and removed relevant information without any previous resort to talk, perpetrated by notorious wikistalker.” That last comment was directed at me. He has been told any offence he takes is his problem on more than one occasion by more users, and I don't see him engaging on talk pages anywhere.

For someone like you, who has never offered even a mere edit summary justifying your own relevant edits (except for the rather phobic threats accompanying your last edit), you are asking a lot. I believe that any user is entitled to decide by themselves if and when to engage in any talks, and should not be judged from how many talks they have engaged in.

In my case, I have consistently offered clear, meaningful edit summaries, and my edits have most often been accepted without discussion, except for the occasional “thanks”. When they were reverted, I have consistently accepted the revert, and refrained from edit wars, choosing instead to wait until the moment I may find it appropriate to engage in further talks. Jsp722 (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

[Hebel says:] He only once reacted on his own talkpage saying: "Hi Irina, it's funny that me too I found the usage of terms such as “pagan” and “paganism” promotional and worth some kind of soapbox. Such blanket, disdainful, derogatory terms are well known propaganda weapons customarily used by fanaticized Christian propagandizers with the sole intent of degrading non-monotheistic religions. On the other hand, “ancestral Slavic religion”, and “ancestral Slavic, Indo-European religion” are a perfectly neutral, accurate, precise, and insightful phrases. Therefore, I undid your changes and request you not to insist on your unruly, propagandistic changes." Other gems from his edit comments are: “Replaced inaccurate, uninformative, religious-politically biased, propagandistic, Abrahamic-supremacist, pseudo-scientific, derogatory “pagan”, with accurate, informative, neutral, scientific, ethnoculturally appreciative “Norse religion” or “Replaced derogatory, politically motivated, inaccurate, terrorist hate-propaganda term “pagan” with neutral, informative, accurate, unbiased “followers of traditional religions”. Here, can be seen that this is a one issue account all about WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Hebel for so extensively quoting my edit summaries and talks. I think that they offer abundant evidence of my own reasons about the inadequacy of the “pagan” word, and the appropriateness of phrases such as “Norse religion”.

However, I believe that the appropriate place to discuss the worth, or lack thereof, of such words and phrases are the relevant talkpages, not this Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents page, which should rather deal with users' editorial behavior -- a field by the way where your own behavior seems to be far from exemplary.

Still, it is interesting to remark that, although I have offered abundant reasons against the “pagan” usage, you have never refuted them, and while you have so passionately objected to phrases such as “Norse religion”, you have never offered any reason in support of your objection either -- and you have even explicitly accepted the same phrase when used by ScrapIronIV, as seen below, which discomfits your whole complaint!

Therefore, it seems that your inconformity is propelled by some personal, irrational phobia, rather than being based on any scientific, rational, equanimous assessment. Besides, your empty quotation of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS sounds rather like a wikilawyering-motivated need to fill up an empty protest with some high-sounding law article, which if anything applies precisely to your own behavior.

For the sake of completeness, may I add that of course there are abundant scholarly references showing both the devious nature of the terminology “pagan”, and the appropriateness and scientific worth of phrases such as “Norse religion”, but I believe that such discussion hardly belongs here, and should be reserved to the appropriate talkpages -- to the chagrin of Hebel, of course, who would seemingly prefer the summary elimination of dissenting voices, à la Kim Jong-Un. Jsp722 (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

[Iridescent says:] This has been going on for years (he also has an equally large bee in his bonnet about "Nazi Party",FWIW). I do note that while various people have told him to knock it off in the past, nobody's ever actually given any kind of warning. ‑ Iridescent 19:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Iridescent for your interest, and your deep research on my edits; it's always uplifting to know that someone has read what I wrote! Now, if my edits have been “going on for years” without “any kind of warning” they should not be that bad, eh?

As to your objection to name Hitler's National Socialist Party as such, rather than “Nazi Party”, the big bee seems to be in your own bonnet, as you have such a hard time to call things by their names.

Your logic is reminiscent of European dark ages, when it was thought to be dangerous to mention the Devil by name (http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/speak-of-the-devil.html).

However, since God too should not be mentioned by name, the doubt remains whether according to you Hitler and his party belong to the side of God or of the Devil (unless like Hitler you are an atheist as well)! Jsp722 (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

[ScrapIronIV says:] While I agree with the problem with the edit summaries, in the second case the replacement of "pagan" with "Norse religion" - and the addition of an appropriate wikilinks - seems entirely appropriate. In this instance, I have restored the change (with a more helpful edit summary) in the hopes of adding clarity to the article. Scr★pIronIV 19:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you ScrapIronIV; I was almost despairing of my unpopular “Norse religion” theory, to the point of fearing that even Thor from now on would call himself a “pagan” as per Hebel wishes! Jsp722 (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

[Hebel says:] In that particular case it's OK.

That “particular case” is exactly the same as all other “cases”, except that the change was made by another editor. Your agreement here shows that your concern with my identical changes is purely personal, and that you lack any point at all.

Besides, accepting the change when made by another editor, but obsessively wikistalking and reverting my identical changes, just because they were authored by me, plus your virulent personal attacks, make it a hard job to assume your good faith WP:AGF. Jsp722 (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

[Hebel says:] However I think that replacing a perfectly understandable word as "pagan" with categories that are based on "feelgood"terms combined with linguistic categories like "ancestral Indo-European religion" or negative terms like "non-Abrahamic" is problematic. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

This you could have said in the appropriate talk page, which you miserably failed to do, instead inappropriately coming straight to vent your unresolved personal frustrations on this Administrators' noticeboard/Incident page. Jsp722 (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

[IJBall says:] I suggest a "final warning" from an Admin here. While they haven't necessarily been warned about this specifically, they've received plenty of other kinds of warnings from other unhappy editors. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, no! Another Kim Jong-Un in the block! You dislike, plus someone else was unhappy, then... zap!, Final Solution on the poor target of your annihilating instincts! You might find yourself together with some self-help here: http://www.cracked.com/article_21834_5-realities-life-when-your-brain-wants-you-to-murder.html Jsp722 (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

While I do see certain problems with Jsp722's style of expression, I note that quite a lot of his edits do indeed seem to replace "pagan" or "paganism" (and some other specific buzz-words) with descriptions that are in fact more nuanced and more exact. Also, while we aren't here to right great wrongs, for those who are bothered by the derogatory origins and occasional derogatory overtones of the word "pagan", his descriptions are definitely less of an un-necessary irritation and make for a better encyclopedia. I have no present intention to make any further comments on this thread, but I feel that all sides might benefit from some careful reconsideration, possibly some advice. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I should add that I'd be happy to discuss this further with any editor. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

This edit is a good example of why Jsp722 needs to be stopped: removing this word makes it unclear whether we're talking about their religious beliefs or something about cultural mythology comparable to George Washington and the cherry tree. This edit, likewise: Judaism was a traditional religion of the region, but that's not the meaning at all. Unrelated issue, but also problematic, appears here, as Jsp722 either takes offense to "precocious" or misunderstands it as some sort of derogatory term. All of his edits that I've checked involve removing or replacing useful terminology, and in every case the result is worse. Finally, Richard, what do you mean about the derogatory origins of the word, and how is it a buzzword? It merely means "rural" in its etymology, and while I can imagine that being used derogatorily like "hick" or "redneck" are in the US, that's irrelevant to the issues at hand here. It's been used for millennia with essentially its current meaning, and most or all fluent speakers of English will easily understand what's being meant. Nyttend (talk) 14:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Taking Nyttend's points one by one, This edit removes the word "pagan" and leaves "Prussian mythology". I'd see that as an improvement. In most cultures the mythology is the religion, or, to put it another way, very few cultures have regarded religion as an entirely separate thing from mythology. The word "pagan" is at least superfluous here. At This edit we find "pagan" replaced by "followers of traditional religions", again possibly an improvement, though I personally would consider piping it to Religion in pre-Islamic Arabia. (I also don't have the reference so can't check whether Jewish Arabs made pilgrimage to Mecca or not.) And at this edit, Jsp722 removes the word "precocious" from the description of a man whose career achieved the École Normale Supérieure only at his third attempt and at the age of 21. The substituted word "persistent" is simply an improvement in accuracy, I suggest. Finally, the word "pagan" was indeed originally derogatory, meaning "country hick", and it still does carry pejorative overtones at times. I'm not hung up on avoiding offence, the word has indeed been widely used including by neo-pagans, and there are appropriate places to use it, but it's not something we should be insisting on at every place where it could possibly be used. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

May I add, beside the already tired topic of derogatoriness, that the usage “pagan” reflects a Christian, or maybe Abrahamic, point-of-view, whereas Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, or as neutral as possible. Otherwise we might start to call followers of Abrahamic religions “mlechccha” (barbarians) which is how some Eastern traditions would refer to them. Besides, “pagan” and “paganism” are inaccurate, imprecise, confusing, and thus unscientific terms, because they may variously refer to different sets of religions, including or not Zoroastrianism (held by some as monotheistic and thus included among the “religions of the book”); including or not great religions such as Taoism, Hinduism, or Buddhism; including or not Catholicism, Anglicanism or Orthodox Christianity (viewed by some as polytheistic and idolater), and so forth, and one will never know which set of religions is meant by such terms, although one will always know that whoever is referred by such terms is or was supposed to be exterminated anyway. Besides, “pagan” and “paganism” are obscuring, uninformative terms, as one remains in the darkness as to which culture victim of Christian or Islamic physical and cultural genocide the reference is made, whether to those of the Anglo-Saxons, of the Frisians, of the Norse, of the Iberians, of the Lusitanians, of the Franks, of the Celts, of the Slavs, of the Mithraists, of the Arabs, of the Native Americans, of the Yazidis, of the Greeks, of the Romans, and so forth, all of them in the last two millenia dismissed, trivialized, and demonized by Christian propaganda as merely “pagans”. Therefore, lazily indulging in such blunt, gross, uninsightful, generalizing, defacing, dehumanizing, blanket terms as “pagan” and “paganism”, without any effort to identify, individualize, specify, and therefore humanize such a wealth of religious traditions together with their followers, whenever possible, kind of complements their programmed and systematic physical and psychological extermination with their intellectual extermination as well: a weird, uncomely role to be performed by Wikipedia. Jsp722 (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

One extra remark: while the words “pagan” an “paganism” are seldom or never used in relation to ancient polytheistic religions, such as those of the Sumerians, of the Egyptians, of the Akkadians, of the Harappans, of the Hittites, and so forth, which were not subjected to the episodes of physical and cultural genocide called “Christianization”, these very same terms are systematically used to describe those other polytheistic religions which were subjected to such episodes of genocide, such as those of the Celts, Slavs, Norse, Saxons, Prussians, Balts, Native Americans, and so forth. Therefore, the conclusion is obvious that the terms “pagan” and “paganism” were created and have served strictly as a war propaganda jargon in support of physical and cultural genocide, not unlike “idolater”, “infidel”, “devil worshipper”, “heathen”, “satanist”, “apostate” etc., variously used by Abrahamic religionists from biblical times (whatever is the fact behind biblical mythology) to the Islamic State in our days. In other words, there are arguably more similarities than differences between the Islamic State terrorist razing Palmyra or decapitating a Yazidi “idolater”, and the Christian-biased Wikipedia editor trying to raze even the scientific names for non-Abrahamic religions exterminated by Christianity or trying to decapitate a co-editor just because they have objected to the obsessive, indiscriminate use of such Christian-terrorist jargons as “pagan” and “paganism”. Jsp722 (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

[Nyttend says:] This edit is a good example of why Jsp722 needs to be stopped: removing this word makes it unclear whether we're talking about their religious beliefs or something about cultural mythology comparable to George Washington and the cherry tree.

While I believe that every mythology is anyway cultural, from the article's context it is clear that the reference was the old Prussian religious belief system; among other reasons because the text explicitly say that it was something followed (unless you are used to follow anecdotes).

Besides, Webster clearly defines mythology as “A body of myths; esp., the collective myths which describe the gods of a heathen people; as, the mythology of the Greeks.” Add to this the context of the article, and it is quite obvious that the reference is a religious system, with or without the term “pagan”.

Personally, I think that the best wording would be something like “Prussian religious beliefs”, according to your own description above, rather than “Prussian mythology”, which is more restricted. Indeed, “religious beliefs” include many other factors beside mythology, such as ritual, cosmology, taboos, and so forth.

However, since “Prussian mythology” is the very title of the linked Wikipedia page, I found it more appropriate to leave the word “mythology” unchanged. Please note that the title of the Wikipedia linked page is “Prussian mythology”, not “Pagan Prussian mythology” as you would want, which would indeed sound rather ridiculous.

Indeed, “pagan mythology” is rather redundant, since in the current context mythology is anyway “pagan”, “heathen” or whatever you want to call it, as highlighted by the above quoted Webster's definition. Unless of course if you want to suggest that there is “Christian mythology”, “Jewish mythology”, or “Abrahamic mythology”, with which I would immediately agree.

That said, what strikes me is your slightly phobic proclamation of the “need to stop” Jsp722 just because of such a trivial disagreement. If you, like Hebel and probably others, want the “pagan” word in this phrase, just undo my edit. If I disagree, I can discuss the topic in the article's page, as I'm doing here. If there's still no agreement, anyone of us can still request a dispute resolution, and the issue will be settled by a neutral party.

Therefore, may I suggest that you cool down a little bit, review your motivations, and engage in discussions with a proper, constructive attitude, rather than trying to almost criminalize editors you may perceive as rivals just because of petty differences of opinion, and to impose your views, right or wrong, through the invocation of extreme, disciplinary means, all of which run completely against the very collaborative principles on which Wikipedia is based. Jsp722 (talk) 17:39, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

[Nyttend says:] This edit, likewise: Judaism was a traditional religion of the region, but that's not the meaning at all.

There the original text was like this:

“tribes from all around the Arabian peninsula, whether Christian or pagan, would converge on Mecca to perform the Hajj”,

while after my edit it became like this:

“tribes from all around the Arabian peninsula, whether Christian or followers of traditional religions, would converge on Mecca to perform the Hajj”

While of course Judaism was a traditional religion of the region, Jewish tribes were not, according to my phrasing, necessarily included among the followers of traditional religions converging to Mecca, just because I did not say that “tribes from all around the Arabian peninsula, whether Christian or followers of all traditional religions, would converge to Mecca”.

Besides, if you insist on saying that beside Christian tribes only “pagan” tribes would converge to Mecca to perform the Hajj, you are adventuring the unwarranted, unreferenced, novel theory that absolutely no Jewish tribe was converging to Mecca to perform the Hajj!

Now, if you have a specific reference showing that no Jewish tribes were converging on Mecca to performing the Hajj, please feel free to enrich Wikipedia with it, which still does not imply that the useless “pagan” word has to be used at all, since Jewish tribes are not necessarily implied in my edit, and given the word's many already discussed shortcomings.

Bottom line, blinded by your inquisitorial frenzy to find petty faults in my humble edits, and by your furious obsession for punishments aiming solely at the summary elimination of a perceived rival, you have not only incurred primitive logic faults, but also tried to pass your own ahistorical, thoughtless guesses as though they were ultimate truths. Jsp722 (talk) 22:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

[Nyttend says:] Finally, Richard, what do you mean about the derogatory origins of the word, and how is it a buzzword?

When it comes to ignorance of the meaning of words, consulting dictionaries, or just reading in general, makes miracles (or pagan magic, if you wish). While any standard dictionary should do the job, try for instance the links below. Once you are in the linked webpage, press Ctrl + F to search for the word “derogatory.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paganism

https://simple.wiktionary.org/wiki/pagan

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=pagan,

http://www.hellenicgods.org/pagan%3Aacontroversialterm

Also, a Google search gave 144.000 results for the search pagan+derogatory

Were you and others such as Hebel to spend with honest research 1% of the time and energy you spend with ridiculous wikistalking, petty nitpicking, and infantile bickering, strictly motivated by the base wish of eliminating from Wikipedia editors you might perceive as rivals, and you wouldn't need to ask this kind of primitive question.

However, just for the sake of illustration, and so that you may develop some minimal acquaintance with the topic, here follow some authoritative quotations from the above links:

“Paganism is a term that developed among the Christian community of southern Europe during late antiquity to describe religions other than their own, Judaism, or Islam–the three Abrahamic religions. Throughout Christendom, it continued to be used, typically in a derogatory sense.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paganism

“Paganism has also been understood by some[who?] to include any non-Abrahamic religions, but this is generally[who?] seen as insulting by adherents of those religions.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paganism

“Once monotheistic religions, such as Christianity and Islam, started to become more prominent (in processes known as Christianization and Islamization), names to encompass polytheistic worshipers started to develop; some of these include Hellene, pagan, and heathen, and at times these names were used as slurs.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paganism

“Pagans were usually described within this worldly stereotype, especially among those drawing attention to what they perceived as the limitations of paganism.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paganism#Perception

“Pagan, adjective”

1. If something (or someone) is pagan, it is from a kind of religion called paganism.

2. (often offensive or derogatory) Relating to a religion that is not a major religion; often anything non-Christian.

3. (by extension) Immoral, uncivilized, savage, heathen.”

“Pagan, noun

1. A pagan is someone who follows paganism or a polytheistic religion.

2. (often offensive or derogatory) A person who doesn't follow a major religion; often used to refer to non-Christians.

3. (by extension) Someone who is immoral, uncivilized, savage, or a heathen.”

https://simple.wiktionary.org/wiki/pagan

“Religious sense is often said to derive from conservative rural adherence to the old gods after the Christianization of Roman towns and cities; but the word in this sense predates that period in Church history, and it is more likely derived from the use of paganus in Roman military jargon for "civilian, incompetent soldier," which Christians (Tertullian, c.202; Augustine) picked up with the military imagery of the early Church (such as milites "soldier of Christ," etc.). Applied to modern pantheists and nature-worshippers from 1908.” http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=pagan

“'Pagan' is a word invented by early Christians to describe anyone who refused to recognize the Only True God, and no self-respecting pagan ever described himself as one.” http://www.hellenicgods.org/pagan%3Aacontroversialterm

“...paganus, the root of 'pagan' as well as 'peasant,' is consistently pejorative.." (A Chronicle of the Last Pagans by Pierre Chuvin, 1990, Harvard University Press, p.7)” http://www.hellenicgods.org/pagan%3Aacontroversialterm

Jsp722 (talk) 01:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

[Nyttend says:] It [pagan]] merely means "rural" in its etymology, and while I can imagine that being used derogatorily like "hick" or "redneck" are in the US, that's irrelevant to the issues at hand here.

You might want to elaborate a bit more in depth on your thoughts, and explain exactly why you say that the derogatoriness of a term is irrelevant within a discussion centered on... the derogatoriness of the same term!

Or maybe you want to say that the derogatoriness of the term “pagan” is irrelevant in the context of an article describing the extermination of a people and its religion just because they were, eh... “pagan”, is it?

[Nyttend says:] It's been used for millennia with essentially its current meaning,

For about two millenia, and always with the same derogatory meaning and purpose, as extensively shown elsewhere in this discussion, to wit, as the foremost war-propaganda enemy-bashing hate-jargon supporting the physical and cultural genocide globally perpetrated against countless non-Christian peoples, called “Christianization”, akin to the 1400 years old parallel physical and cultural genocide waged against non-Muslim peoples known as “Islamization”, both parts and continuation of a wider and older relentless war against humanity, civilization, and religious freedom, known as “Abrahamization”, which started when Hebrews invented the so-called “first Noahide commandment”, which commands and wants binding on all of humanity, Hebrews and non-Hebrews alike, full surrender and submission to the Hebrew tribal “god”, the cruel, murderous, genocidal, envious, narcissistic, exclusivistic, monomaniac, mythical creature of a sick imagination, known as “Yahveh”, as represented, of course, by “his” “chosen people”, the Hebrew, thus conveniently elevated by their own supremacistic mythology to the supreme rank among nations, with a little help from their Christian and Muslim ideological vassals.

[Nyttend says:] and most or all fluent speakers of English will easily understand what's being meant.

Of course. They will understand exactly what is meant, to wit, “someone who is immoral, uncivilized, savage, or a heathen”, a “devil worshipper”, an “idolater”, “someone worth being burned at the stake”, “someone from a worthless culture worth being destroyed and denied”, and so forth.

Jsp722 (talk) 00:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• Jsp722, you need to knock it off with the "my humble edits" crap and the condescending attitude here; all editors are expected to edit collaboratively and collegially and treat other editors civilly and with respect. You also need to knock it off with the "politically motivated, religious-terrorist-propaganda coined term 'pagan'" etc. edit summaries and personal attack edit summaries. That said, in the instances I looked at and the instances mentioned above, the replacement of the word pagan with the more accurate specific, neutral, and correct terms has been an improvement. "Pagan" is not, and should never be used as, an antithesis of "Christian" or other 1st-, 2nd-, or 3rd-millennium religions, monotheistic religions, or Abrahamic religions. Where specificity is available and verifiable, specificity should be used. Of course in the end this is a content dispute, and content disputes should be worked out on talk pages using citations, discussions, and consensus. Softlavender (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

[SoftLavender says:] Jsp722, you need to knock it off with the "my humble edits" crap and the condescending attitude here;

Dear SoftLavender, thank you for your remarks. My usage of the phrase “my humble edits” is just a polite way of saying that I would be happy to listen to diverging opinions, or that I don't expect my edits to by accepted without question.

It is an expression akin to “in my humble opinion”, often initialized by IMHO, and described by Wiktionary as an expression “[u]sed to introduce or qualify a statement, as expressing one's own view, not one backed by external authority or to be accepted without question”, although in case my expressed views are even lavishly supported by external authority, which IMHO makes my usage of the word “humble” very humble indeed.

What makes you construe standard good manners and politeness as “crap” is beyond me, but is probably not my problem either, and therefore I'll let it go.

As to the supposed “condescending attitude” from my side, you might care to specify where did you find it, instead of just irresponsibly machine-gunning your subjective perceptions as though they were some sort of obvious truth.

Finally, as to your compulsive need to start sentences addressing others with the commandeering phrase “You need”, which is hardly a show of collaborative and collegial civility and respect, I'll leave the topic for you to discuss privately with a professional, if so you wish.

[SoftLavender says:] all editors are expected to edit collaboratively and collegially and treat other editors civilly and with respect.

As the old saying goes, “you teach best what you most need to learn.”

[SoftLavender says:] You also need

Did I say it was compulsive?

[SoftLavender says:] to knock it off with the "politically motivated, religious-terrorist-propaganda coined term 'pagan'" etc. edit summaries

I believe that expressions such as “pagan” and “paganism” are indeed politically motivated, and highly so to that effect; a well-documented genocide-supporting, religious-terrorist propaganda slur, to put it mildly, not unlike the “idolater” and “devil-worshiper” name-calling used by Islamic State terrorists in support of their own unspeakable mass-murderings. Besides, Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. Therefore, I wonder why a reference to the slurring-propagandistic nature of such terms as “pagan” and “paganism” should be excluded from edit summaries, since they are one among the many important reasons justifying the edit to start with!

[SoftLavender says:] and personal attack edit summaries.

Since you have failed to offer any evidence in support of your presumably subjective, impressionistic assessment, may I assume that your accusation is not serious, and therefore can be safely ignored.

[SoftLavender says:] Of course in the end this is a content dispute, and content disputes should be worked out on talk pages using citations, discussions, and consensus.

This has been my main, often repeated point from the very start, as you can see if you just care to read all of my posts on this thread.

However, for some unknown reason, some people, in a somewhat hysterical way, saw my humble objections against the usage of such terms as “pagan” and “paganism” as some sort of transcendental-disciplinary-issue-and-existential-threat-against-Wikipedia-urgently-necessitating-the-violator's-summary-crucifixion, which in turn necessitated my, er, humble subsequent responses together with explanations on my own views on the topic.

Jsp722 (talk) 22:44, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Extended content

Someone's threatened to crucify you? Martinevans123 (talk) 00:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC) You are obviously a Crucifixion denier. Jsp722 (talk) 00:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC) Is that your joke? Martinevans123 (talk) 00:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC) Anyone's. Jsp722 (talk) 00:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC) Sorry, no. Not mine. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC) Did someone say everyone's? Jsp722 (talk) 00:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC) Someone said "some people, in a somewhat hysterical way". 00:42, 16 January 2016 (UTC) Congratulations. Yawn. Jsp722 (talk) 00:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC) Tired already? Why am I a "Crucifixion denier"? Martinevans123 (talk) 00:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC) You missed the opportunity to ask. Now you have to figure it out by yourself. Jsp722 (talk) 00:52, 16 January 2016 (UTC) Ah yes, handy that. Struggling already, alas. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:57, 16 January 2016 (UTC) I see. Just keep struggling, then send some news. Jsp722 (talk) 01:08, 16 January 2016 (UTC) We can see why you're so popular here. Martinevans123 (talk) 01:16, 16 January 2016 (UTC) Awesome. Are you two, or how many? Jsp722 (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC) I sense the beginning of a bromance here! - theWOLFchild 21:40, 16 January 2016 (UTC) Rock on. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:57, 16 January 2016 (UTC) Martinevans, being a “we”, can easily “bromance” themselves self-sufficiently (assuming of course that the two or more “me” making up their “we” belong to the same gender). Jsp722 (talk) 22:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC) We obviously can have no issue with that. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• At this point, I'd say Jsp722 does need some sort of wake-up call and an at-least temporary sanction, as his style of editing and interaction is incompatible with Wikipedia's pillars of civility and neutrality, and his contentiousness and tendentiousness are veering into WP:NOTHERE. There is far too much deliberate time-wasting going on here in this thread, rather than a willingness to actively resolve the issue. I think a six-month topic ban on "pagan" and "paganism", broadly construed, would probably be the best route. Anyone agree? The topic could be extended to include other areas if the behavior simply shifts. After the topic ban is over, some sort of mentoring might be in order. Softlavender (talk) 05:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
• Agree. The central idea, that the word "pagan" is often misused, is probably a valid one. But Jsp722 seems to be more concerned with rubbishing the views of other editors and sneering at their supposed ignorance. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

My general feeling is that the discussion about the terms “pagan” and “paganism”, which gave rise to the current thread (please see its title), is for the moment rather exhausted, and reasonably settled, with general agreement on the shortcomings of the terms, which is arguably an asset for Wikipedia's future development. Clearly this Administrative noticeboard/Incidents page was not the appropriate place for such discussion, but that is the way it happened. There was some noise at the very end of the thread, by people who gave absolutely no contribution to it, and apparently more interested on provocative jesting, or on venting personal frustrations, than on actually contributing to the settlement of the topic — a settlement which has been reasonably achieved and was the only purpose of the current incident. Jsp722 (talk) 13:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

There were two points. The first is the substantive one about the use of "pagan" and other words, which I hope we have indeed exhausted. The other is about interactive style, in particular Jsp722's, though a quick riffle through history does suggest that other editors have made some contribution to the problem. The paragraph immediately above is an example of an approach and style thoroughly inappropriate here. (In a college session of friends setting the world to rights it might be far more appropriate, context is key.) Jsp722, would you accept any sort of mentoring? Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:16, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Of course! I'm here to learn. (Although your two sentences before the last remain a bit of a mystery to me). Jsp722 (talk) 14:33, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the word "pagan" as commonly used is inappropriate for a world encyclopedia for the reasons noted. It would be far better to name the religion or culture the word "pagan" was intended to reference. I also agree that Jsp722 needs to learn some manners in order to be more effective at effecting the changes he'd like to see. Rklawton (talk) 14:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

You might be my mentor, as proposed by Richard, if this is feasible. I'm ready to learn about manners, about effectiveness at change, and about just anything else from you, or from anyone else to that effect. Jsp722 (talk) 14:33, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

That sounds much more encouraging. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:06, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually I can have many mentors! From Hebel I'll learn obsessively to wikistalk/wikihound editors for personal motives, to gratuitously mass-disrupt and vandalize their useful edits, and to still have the impudence to report my victim to an ANI page; from IJBall I'll learn to join the chorus frantically asking the summary elimination of disliked editors just for the fun of it; from Iridescent I'll learn to suggest that other editors are “Nazis” in the lack of any other arguments; from Nyttend I'll learn to find fault in the faultless, and bold-facely to pretend that I have never heard that “pagan” is a derogatory word; from SoftLavender I'll learn to start every sentence addressed to another editor with a domineering “You need to”, the joylessness to dismiss even standard collegial politeness as “crap”, and the exhilarating pleasure to be found in controlling and punishing; and from Martinevans I'll learn to refer to myself as “we”, and how to spend my night making witty remarks without falling asleep! Jsp722 (talk) 22:27, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Good job it's not a case of "us and them". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Here you come again with your “us” thing... But I have to agree, this is indeed a case where Pagan is wonderful! Jsp722 (talk) 23:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Martinevans123, I'm not quite so encouraged by Rklawton's mentorship, admin or no admin. Given the advice offered here, I don't feel that Rklawton is paying correct attention to the content of the article he has suggested has some form of 'redundant' information about who followed what religion. Given that the subject of the article (being Sviatoslav I of Kiev) is someone we don't know very much about, the length of the section on religious affiliations, and the context of a changing European politico-religious landscape, and the lack of any positive or negative connotations as to religious choices outside of an alliance-based predisposition, suggesting that any references to religion are redundant seems more like a WP:BADIDEA than a desire to improve the content of the article. Perhaps I have misunderstood Rklawton's reading of the article and he could enlighten me as to why "It's amazing to me that someone would link a person's religion to a generic article that essentially proves your assertion that its use is POV.". How is the article 'generic'? How is Sviatoslav I of Kiev's political and religious ideology a gratuitous use of mentions of his religion as opposed to that adopted by his mother and other political figures around him? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I think we have gone way too far discussing content on an ANI page. It is irrelevant here whether or not “in the context of changing European politico-religious landscape” or “outside of an alliance-based predisposition” it is a “WP:BADIDEA” to discuss “Sviatoslav I of Kiev's political and religious ideology”, let alone the “religion adopted by his mother”. Not only irrelevant, but preposterous. Please ladies and gentlemen, cast your votes below, so that we can put an end to this farce, and so that those willing seriously to collaborate can work. Thanks! Jsp722 (talk) 13:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Question: in your rebuttals above, you've linked twice to simple wikt, but not to ordinary wikt where the primary defintioins are in no way pejoratuve? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Answer: For whatever reason, the editor of the simplewiki used “derogatory”, whereas the editor of the ordinary wiki used “pejorative”, in both cases to define“pagan”. Therefore, “pejorative”, which is about the same as “derogatory”, is found on the ordinary wiki at least 4 times, as quoted below:

• “2. (by extension, pejorative) Savage, immoral, uncivilized, wild.”
• “(civilisation): barbarian, barbaric (pejorative).”
• “2. (by extension, pejorative, politically incorrect) An uncivilized or unsocialized person.”
• “3. (pejorative, politically incorrect) Especially an unruly, badly educated child.”
• Also, on the ordinary wiki, the word “pagan” appears precisely because it is an entry on the list of English pejoratives”.

As you can see, “pagan”, itself a demonized word, is used as a particularly perverse way of demonizing even “misbehaving” children; demon (Anc. Grk. “daimon”) itself being a satanized word; “Satan” (Hbr. “adversary”) itself being a devilized word; “Devil” (Sanskr. “deva”, “god”, “luminous being”) itself being an evilized word, and so forth.

The idea here is to make out of whoever does not toe the line of the Abrahamic “god” the very definition of “evil”, “evil” itself being defined in Abrahamic religions not as murdering and so forth, bit as opposing a murdering “god”. Jsp722 (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

But those definitions are not the primary ones, are they. As you rightly point out, Jsp722, they are (2), (2) and (3) respectively. That doesn't make "pagan" necessarily a "demonized word." It depends on the context as to which meaning is intended, and thus whether or not it's inappropriate. I think that's why many people may see your crusade against use of this word as misguided. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

This is more or less like “shit”. Definition #1 is just feaces/feces, perfectly neutral; definition #2 is derogatory. The same applies to “ass”, and any number of slurs you can imagine. The devil is in definition #2. Besides, as already noted elsewhere, not only the word's overtones are derogatory, but its origin as well; it is a word meant from the start to be derogatory which became a name for those derogated. Therefore, in this case, the devil is in definition #1 as well. But, may I insist, this is a topic to be discussed on specific talkpages, maybe one day even on dispute resolution pages, but not here. Jsp722 (talk) 21:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

No, it isn't. That's just your interpretation. Insist all you like, but this is a general discussion based on the overall pattern of your contributions. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I was suspecting this; please don't tell anyone, and just pretend that we don't know anything. Jsp722 (talk) 23:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I’m not “just pretending that you don't know anything”. I’m suggesting that your comparison of the word “pagan” with the word “shit” is not a very good one. I’d say that “shit” is used more often than not in a derogatory way. It’s frequently used as an expletive, for example, which pagan never is. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

You managed to miss your own point, which is that the derogation is most often in meaning #2, just this. And being an expletive is not a requirement for being derogatory, although calling a “misbehaving” child “pagan” is surely an expletive. Jsp722 (talk) 00:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I’m aware that words can have more than one meaning. And yes, meanings can sometimes be unclear, or can partly merge. But in this case, whereas I see a word with two separate meanings, you seem to see a word that has always carries a mixture of all possible meanings. I certainly didn’t say that being an expletive is a requirement for being derogatory. Calling a misbehaving child a “pagan” might be an insult, it might be bigotry, but it is certainly not “an expletive”. Additionally, I don’t think that the origin of a word has any significant place in its meaning in everyday use. Most people will use the word “pagan” without any knowledge at all of its etymology. I’m pretty sure that’s true for most words used by most speakers of modern English. So I think your overly-prescriptive approach is based on quite false premises there. Should we ban the word “influenza” because it had its origins in medieval astrology? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

No, this is not like “shit”. A word can only be disparaged as “derogatory” or as a "slur" when it is clearly and according to most and many sources, generally in such use. However, the word “pagan” is still used to describe something, even in fairly recent scholarly works about the subject. Your personal opinion about that word is therefore just that, when it comes to it’s use here on Wikipedia. That may change of course but that is not up to us as editors here. Maybe it’s not the most fortunate of words, but we can say that about some other words that are in general use as well. And for the time being it is in general use. Your offense may very well be, as derived from your above comments, just your personal opinion about the matter. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• Many slurs are embedded in language and in people's thoughts, deformed as they often are by millenia-old massive slurring propaganda and bestial beliefs transvestite as “religion” (no offence intended to beasts, please) most people hardly even perceive that they are slurring, a fact well described by the Microaggression Theory;
• recency, laziness, carelessnes, and even claimed unawareness do not make a slur less of a slur, and unawareness is hardly a distinction for scholars;
• your views about the sacred mission of Wikipedia editors as perpetrators and perpetuators of slurs is fascinating, but hardlly fit a disciplinary page; and
• your noble view about the slur being the fault of the slurred brings tears to the eyes, and surely the world will be a better place when more people think like you!

Jsp722 (talk) 23:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

You're now telling us that "many slurs are embedded ... in people's thoughts"? Yes, I think a discussion about such things probably belongs elsewhere. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

In the end, everything boils down to thought and language, I think. I don't know where you think this discussion belongs, but I see its placement on a disciplinary page is a tragicomic excrescence in Wikipedia. Jsp722 (talk) 03:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for repeating myself. I have also put this comment as a comment in the section below which may not have been the right place to write it. I’ve kept myself quiet a little because I had other things on my list, but I am a bit taken aback that we now get to vote on this. Is that the way it’s supposed to go? Anyway, what I would like to stress here once again is that, apart from the objectionable reasoning in the edit comments and the modus operandum of this user, his alternatives for the wording in question remains part of the problem. Whatever may or may not be wrong with a word or with the origins thereof, doesn’t make the alternatives any better and I do think that using language pertaining to linguistic or ethnolinguistic categories to describe religions or religious practices we don’t know an awful lot about is problematic. As are “exclusive” terms that begin with “non”. A word cannot help how it came about and who thought of using it first. And while that can of course be debatable it doesn't need to be problematic as long as it’s meaning is clear and as long as it is in general accepted use in matters pertaining to what that word is about. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I find your objections, as also Irina Harpy's, perfectly legitimate, and worth careful scrutiny and discussion. Personally, I would be happy to scrutinize and discuss them. Besides, even though most people until now on this thread have indeed agreed on the inappropriateness of terms such as “pagan” and “paganism”, I concede that there is room for much more discussion, taking into consideration further objections such as those brought by both of you. However, this ANI is clearly not the place for such discussions, which should happen, at least initially, on specific articles' talkpages — which did never happen until now, at least as far as I am aware. In the extreme case of unresolvable disagreement there is still the possibility of starting one or several dispute resolutions. But anyway, this is definitely not the topic for a disciplinary page. Therefore, may I propose that from now on we all refrain from discussing the terms “pagan” and “paganism” on this thread, leaving such discussion to the talkpages of each specific article. And, as you asked, now that we have a votation, “Is that the way it’s supposed to go?” Jsp722 (talk) 21:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Your pattern of editing has led a number of other editors to think that a general discussion on the use of those words might be more efficient than leaving discussion "to the talkpages of each specific article". You seem to think that those words have no proper place in this encyclopedia at all? Where would a general discussion be best placed? At WP:DR perhaps? But then there are also editors who think your approach to editing itself warrants some kind of sanction. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Surely words such as “pagan” and “paganism” have a proper place in Wikipedia, for instance on Lists of pejorative terms for people. Otherwise such usage of words should be checked at each specific occurrence, in order to ascertain the best replacement. Since “pagan” and “paganism” are just generic, blanket, and on top of it indefinite words, and this another of their essential shortcomings, each occurrence may require a different replacement and rephrasing. There are many partially or entirely distinct religions and sets of religions indiscriminately labeled as “paganism”, and thus no room for a simplistic “one size fits all” here.

As to the best place for discussing the issue, while I believe it should be each article's specific talkpage or, in case of need, a dispute resolution page, but never a disciplinary page, others may indeed think otherwise. Since I am no administrator, this is actually not my problem; I just discuss the topic with whoever might be interested on it, wherever it is decided by administrators.

The unasked question, however, is whether or not this topic, rather than my “pattern of editing” is a disciplinary issue warranting some kind of sanction. Probably those favorable to the indiscriminate usage of the words “pagan” and “paganism” will tend to see any scrutiny as a disciplinary issue, while those favorable to scrutiny will tend to see the topic as something to be freely discussed on talkpages, and anyway no good reason for any kind of disciplinary action.

In general, however, I believe that treating any debatable topic as a disciplinary issue is an unhealthy sign for Wikipedia, but my contribution cannot go beyond just offering this remark.

Jsp722 (talk) 02:29, 18 January 2016 (U TC)

I don't see anyone here advocating "indiscriminate usage of the words “pagan” and “paganism”". And I'd be very surprised if anyone ever would deliberately have such an agenda. I would suspect that misuse of those words, if that misuse can indeed be agreed by consensus, will probably have grown up incrementally and unnoticed over many years. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The very usage of the Christian slurs “pagan” and “paganism”, as already extensively shown and largely agreed upon, is itself indiscriminate by nature, which is by the way the very nature of slurs in general, specially of those intended to support genocides, such as those perpetrated by Christianity.

It would be very difficult to perpetrate relentless genocides against countless peoples and cultures throughout two millenia without an agenda. Surely a Ku Klux Klan member has an agenda when they call people perceived as dark-skinned “niggers”.

The bestiality of a behavior is often unnoticed, specially by perpetrators. Islamic State fanatics decapitating, drowning, burying, and burning alive a “kafir” (“disbeliever”, the Muslim word for “pagan”) probably do not realize the bestiality of their own behavior: rather, they think it is pure behavior recommended by their scriptures (which happens to be exactly the case).

The Christian usage of the terms “pagan” and “paganism” are in every respect similar and paralell to the Muslim usage of terms such as “kafir” and “shirk”; they are the derogatory epithets given to “disbelievers”, in order to justify their physical and cultural elimination. And it is not less so just because it is “unnoticed” by some, or because the usage grew up incrementally over many years.

Another similar word is “apostate”, which was for centuries used by Christian hate-propagandizers, for instance, to name in a derogatory way the Roman emperor Julian, which they called “Julian the Apostate”. After a long and heated debated, folks decided that 1700 years of slur were not enough to justify the continuation of such despicable usage on Wikipedia, and moved the page from “Julian the Apostate” to “Julian (emperor)”, and the world did not come to an end.

By the way, that fruitful debate happened in a civilized way, without any threat of disciplinary action against anyone, although it changed such a millenia-old usage. The same should apply to the current discussion about “pagan” and “paganism”, no matter how many pages might be potentially affected by refreshing views on the topic.

Indeed, on each page someone may raise objections, and these objections will have to be discussed, and if there is no agreement there will be a dispute resolution by a neutral party. And there are 1.150.000 Google results for the search “Wikipedia pagan”, plus 450.000 results for the search “Wikipedia paganism”.

Therefore, phobic reactions and accusations that my “modus operandi” is somehow disruptive make no sense at all, specially because my 5 or so edits (please check and correct if you have time) have all been largely found to be good and praised as better than the original “pagan” or “paganism”, even by experienced and learned editors, on this very page.

Therefore, dear Martinevans123, please cast your vote so that this ridiculous disciplinary incident, regretted even by its very initiator, comes to its deserved end.

Jsp722 (talk) 03:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

You say this discussion "doesn't belong here", but then add another huge wall of your own carefully constructed argument. I see we've now moved on to "niggers". And you've made just "5 or so edits"? I'm sure closure of this thread does not depend in any way on my !voting, dear Jsp722. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not me deciding where this discussion takes place. Never heard that giving an example means “moving” to another topic. Twenty-seven edits on the pagan thing since 2009, according to last count, as detailed below. Of course it depends on you, Wikipedia is supposed to be collaborative. Jsp722 (talk) 03:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

My edit on this place seems to have been inadvertently deleted by this edit I'm going to resore it here again. Sorry if there was any mistake. As far as I can see the word “pagan” is descriptive of some religions or religious practices we know of or know very little about in a historical sense. And it has been and is still used widely to describe that phenomenon or set of phenomena. Of course it has also been used in a negative sense, but I (and many others that still try to use in a purely descriptive sense) don’t think the word should be disparaged just for that. The word “Deva”, the Indian word for “God” may very well be the origin of the word “Devil” (and it wasn't an Abrahamic religion that made it so) but it is also a cognate of “Dieux” (French) and “Deity” (English). Revivalists of pre Christian religions call themselves Neopaganist! What I mean to say is that if a multitude of sources show that a word is clearly objectionable, we, here on Wikipedia, would seriously have to consider that. On the other hand we are dealing here with a word that, for now, is in general use to describe a particular phenomenon. We don’t get to judge that. Others might do so in the future, but that is not the task of an editor in Wikipedia. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for any inadvertent indeed deletion; now I'm afraid of reverting it and making things even more complicate, so I leave as it is. Now short answers, so that people may concentrate on all-important disciplinary issues without losing their time with unimportant content issues.

• The argument of “knowing little” about “paganism” is hardly a justification for the naming.
• Looks like Abrahamic religions have lots of Iranian roots, including the demonized “deva” thing, plus ressurrection, final judgment, militancy, and so forth.
• As words clearly show, “Dieu” is actually the “Devil”!
• Revivalist introjection of slurs is hardly an argument, specially because such a folk as Sviatoslav I was hardly a revivalist; please note that American Blacks proudly call themselves “Niggas”, adapted from the racist, derogatory ”Niggers”.
• Finally, your whole case for defining Wikipedia as a tool for perpetrating and perpetuating slur, while interesting, can be appreciated in other places, hardly on this ANI page.

Jsp722 (talk) 23:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: Temporary topic ban

At this point, I'd say Jsp722 does need some sort of wake-up call and an at-least temporary sanction, as his style of editing and interaction is incompatible with Wikipedia's pillars of civility and neutrality, and his contentiousness and tendentiousness (including this latest salvo [73]) are veering into WP:NOTHERE. There is far too much deliberate time-wasting and personal attacking going on here in this thread, rather than a willingness to actively resolve the issue. I think a six-month topic ban on "pagan" and "paganism", broadly construed, would probably be the best route. Anyone agree? The topic could be extended to include other areas if the behavior simply shifts. After the topic ban is over, some sort of mentoring might be in order. Softlavender (talk) 05:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support six-month topic ban, as proposer. Softlavender (talk) 05:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. This looks like a content dispute, unnecessarily brought to teh drama boards, in which the content issue has largely been resolved in favor of Jsp722's position. Good faith editing and failure to properly grovel in the face of the almighty power of the admins are not good reasons for any kind of disciplinary action. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:41, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, for the same reasons above. Jsp722 (talk) 12:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC) Just for your information, the issue is already well-resolved for quite a while, thanks to the active contribution of many users, while your only contribution has been your persistent, disruptive bid to make a tempest in a teapot, demanding disciplinary measures on the basis of trifling issues, such as me referring to my own edits as “my humble edits”. Jsp722 (talk) 16:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment it is not normally allowed for !votes from subjects of proposed bans, when the !vote is about them. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 01:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment If so, the one proposing the ban should not be able to vote either, as the vote is about their proposal Jsp722 (talk) 12:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

That's not exactly how it works over here. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 20:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

So be it. Everyday we learn something new. Still, giving double weight to accusation and zero weight to defense sounds a bit unbalanced, if I'm allowed to say so.

Besides, apart from medieval, inquisitorial judgments (and any deliberation, even consensual, is a judgment), the accuser should never judge, to start with because of their natural bias in favor of their own accusation.

The name “Inquipedia” has already been suggested on this thread to fit such medieval standards.

And, as you can see, love for the genocidal slur “pagan” and love for inquisitorial behavior seem to go always, and once again, hand in hand!

Jsp722 (talk) 02:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose The discussion would sit far more comfortably at DR. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:24, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose A topic ban is necessary when an editor refuses to budge on one particular issue. Jsp has shown a willingness to learn and has accepted at least one mentor. Wikipedia has several noted "single issue" editors who have helped Wikipedia move forward, and I'm confident that Jsp can successfully join their ranks. And, of course, Jsp has raised an excellent point about the use of the word Pagan in our articles. Many of our articles would be much better served if we could specify a subject's religion with reliable sources rather than label it with a term that could mean almost anything. Rklawton (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• His response seemed to cast the meaning of the term "mentor" in a new light?Martinevans123 (talk) 23:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Not new. Learning what not to do from the mistakes of others is surely a very old idea. Jsp722 (talk) 00:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that this is not the style of mentoring that Rklawton had in mind. That's not to say that many people, myself included, don't come to this page to try and learn from the mistakes of others. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Probably I misunderstood what you meant; sometimes you are a bit esoteric. Anyway, if you are interested on more details on the style of mentoring implemented by Rklawton, you are welcome on my talkpage. Jsp722 (talk) 01:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Let's leave Eric out of this, shall we. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I’ve kept myself quiet a little because I had other things on my list, but I am a bit taken aback that we now get to vote on this. Is that the way it’s supposed to go? Anyway, what I would like to stress here once again is that, apart from the objectionable reasoning in the edit comments and the modus operandum of this user, his alternatives for the wording in question remains part of the problem. Whatever may or may not be wrong with a word or with the origins thereof, doesn’t make the alternatives any better and I do think that using language pertaining to linguistic or ethnolinguistic categories to describe religions or religious practices we don’t know an awful lot about is problematic. As are “exclusive” terms that begin with “non”. A word cannot help how it came about and who thought of using it first. And while that can of course be debatable it doesn't need to be problematic as long as it’s meaning is clear and as long as it is in general accepted use in matters pertaining to what that word is about. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:19, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I find your objections, as also Irina Harpy's, perfectly legitimate, and worth careful scrutiny and discussion. Personally, I would be happy to scrutinize and discuss them. Besides, even though most people until now on this thread have indeed agreed on the inappropriateness of terms such as “pagan” and “paganism”, I concede that there is room for much more discussion, taking into consideration further objections such as those brought by both of you. However, this ANI is clearly not the place for such discussions, which should happen, at least initially, on specific articles' talkpages — which did never happen until now, at least as far as I am aware. In the extreme case of unresolvable disagreement there is still the possibility of starting one or several dispute resolutions. But anyway, this is definitely not the topic for a disciplinary page. Therefore, may I propose that from now on we all refrain from discussing the terms “pagan” and “paganism” on this thread, leaving such discussion to the talkpages of each specific article. And, as you asked, now that we have a votation, “Is that the way it’s supposed to go?” Jsp722 (talk) 00:58, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support six-month topic ban. Now it seems to be that their modus operandi is to go to every article where "pagan" appears (presumably excluding the article Paganism) and replace it with other words to that effect. The problem with this approach is that article descriptions of religions should be based on reliable sources, not POV pushing as to the suitability of the word. From the above walls of text I feel it is unlikely that consensus will be reached on these issues. Also, I simply don't believe in the real world that "pagan" is particularly pejorative, with organizations such as the Pagan Federation proud to use the term. Therefore I would support this restriction. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 00:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

According to a Google search, there are 1.150.000 occurrences of “Wikipedia + pagan”, plus 454.000 of “Wikipedia + paganism”. I have edited some 5 instances (you may go through my history and correct the number), all of them with detailed edit summaries. When my changes were opposed, I did not engage in any edit wars, rather waiting for the opportunity to engage in discussions on talkpages. All of my changes have been scrutinized on this thread and found to be good, despite some criticism to my edit summaries, which I have accepted. Therefore your attitude seems to be a bit exaggerated and alarmist, and actually tending dogmatically to impose wording to wikipedia without allowing for the possibility of discussion, which adds to the weakness of your argument in support of it, since, after all, people like Sviatoslav I were not “neopagans” anyway. Jsp722 (talk) 12:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

If you've slowed down it may be due to this active thread. But it is clear from your above comments that you consider "pagan" a pejorative word, which you would like to see expunged from Wikipedia. I disagree with both of these points. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 15:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Which means that you want to impose a disciplinary sanction just because of a content disagreement. Like sending Galileo to burn at the the stake just because the Earth was flat. Congratulations. Maybe we rename Wikipedia to Inquipedia! Jsp722 (talk) 00:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

It's ok, it seems that Galileo and his mates were all pagans. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:12, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Maybe just “tendentious”. Jsp722 (talk) 04:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. Jsp722 has useful contributions to make, but is making them in a way that disrupts the encyclopaedic project. I would suggest mentorship on discussion style, if Jsp722 will accept it, first. Would Rklawton be willing to lead this? Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

From my side already gladly accepted; from Rklawton's side he is willing to lead and already effectively leading, as one can be see on my talkpage. Jsp722 (talk) 12:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps I could ask if Rklawton has the time and inclination to take this on formally? Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Dear Richard, following your suggestion, I have accepted Rklawton's “mentorship” in an informal way, because I have learned to appreciate his human qualities, knowledge, and skills. I see him, as I could see others, rather as a beneficial friend capable of helping making my contributions better. However, I'm not at all interested on accepting any “formal mentoring”, or anything which might restrict my legitimate freedom as an editor. If this means that you will vote for my ban, please vote for it by all means.

Me and other users such as David Eppstein and _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} obviously have different opinions from yours about what does it mean to be “disruptive” and what should be or not treated as a disciplinary issue, and anyway I am vastly used not to be on the “winning” side. Wikipedia has countless other topics of my interest, and even if I am banned from editing all of them I still enjoy the good fortune of having plenty of rewarding activities in life. Therefore, please cast your vote so that this tragicomic incident, which should never have started, and which was regretted with perplexity by its very own initiator, comes to its well-deserved end.

Jsp722 (talk) 04:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I have agreed to help mentor Jsp with the caveats he has noted above. This is not a "formal" relationship - just a collegial one between two editors who wish to see Wikipedia continually improved. Rklawton (talk) 05:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I suppose my main criteria for success would be for Jsp722 to discuss in a style that doesn't needlessly irritate people who tend to agree with his substantive points, and doesn't needlessly distract people who tend to disagree with them. Softlavender, would you think this a good point to close this thread, or are any further actions required? Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support per the reasoning of User:Mrjulesd. A cooling off period on the topic would be a good idea, so the contributor can practice his interaction in less confrontational areas. --Jahaza (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Quite possibly. If I were mentoring (I'm not volunteering) I'd probably suggest some sort of cooling off period. But I'd be happy to leave that to a voluntary arrangement with an experienced editor such as Rklawton. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support per Softlavender. Having seen this issue from both sides, and seen the extent to which Jsp722 seems prone to disregard WP:SOAPBOX, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and similar guidelines, that time might allow Jsp722 to gain needed perspective on the issues leading to tendentious editing regarding the word pagan. A word to Jsp722: please consider taking some time to study the pagan communities who embrace the term to describe themselves. Dar Williams' excellent "The Pagans and the Christians" on YouTube might help desensitize you to the word 'pagan,' and convince you that it is far from always pejorative. And please take advantage of the offers of help from more experienced editors here. loupgarous (talk) 10:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

It's funny how accusations of “tendentiousness” pop-up immediately as soon as someone just questions the hyper-tendentious slur “pagan”! I'm sure the same happens in Saudi Arabia or in al-Raqqa when someone questions equivalent slurs such as “kafir” or “shirk”. American Blacks embraced the slurring “nigger” as “nigga”, but “nigger” is not the less slurring. Besides, Sviatoslav I of Kiev or Christian-massacred South-American Inca or Quichua people were hardly “Neopagans”, and should hardly be described according to “neopagan” fashion. While a word does not have to be “always” pejorative in order to be a slur, the fact remains that the “pagan” word was born and has consistently been used for almost two millenia as the main Christian religious slur to justify physical and cultural genocide, to which you appear to be rather desensitized. Furthermore, the “pagan” word says nothing, as it is just a negation, an indefinite generality, a fuzzy word for “non-Christian” (and many other possible negations, as already extensively discussed above, which just adds to the uselesness of the word), and which says nothing about what is supposed to be described. Jsp722 (talk) 04:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Jsp722 is now showing 'red'. Is this an indication that the user's retired his username permanently or deleted it? loupgarous (talk) 10:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • No it does not mean that. From the looks of it, User:Jsp722 should have always been red. Since they have never created a userpage the link to their userpage shows up red. -- GB fan 10:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
• Well, after wading through numerous walls of text, I've come to the opinion of weak support. Jsp722 believes "pagan" to be pejorative. I don't think it is important whether it is or is not, but Jsp722's belief is important. The usage of the word "pagan" can be, and has been vague in some very clear cases (like "Norse religion") and some where reasonable minds can disagree (like "followers of traditional religions" here). Making the encyclopedia more accurate is a good thing. However, it seems that Jsp722 is engaging in this editing to get rid of the pejorative word without regard for whether the instance of its inclusion is reasonable or not (see the edit summaries in particular: [74] [75] [76] [77]). Further, and probably more concerning it seems that Jsp722's editing style is a little less than civil as SoftLavander has pointed out [78]. While I respect that resonable minds can disagree on whether the edits are an improvement in specific instances, and single purpose accounts can be helpful, I think on balance, Jsp722's pattern of editing is causing more disruption than improvement, and a break from topics in the subject and mentoring on how to edit in less heated areas would benefit them when they are able to return after a few weeks time. I think 6 months might be too much, but I don't have a particular alternative. Wugapodes (talk) 21:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

To briefly clarify, my reasoning is not simply in response to the removal of "pagan" but Jsp722's larger pattern of tendentious editing. While those few edits relating to "pagan" which they enumerated below wouldn't cause me too much pause alone, they are part of a pattern that seems to show me that they are not here to build an encyclopedia but to righting great wrongs. A pattern that is not recent but has extended back to 2010: paganism-related in 2010 paganism related in 2010 [79] paganism related in 2011 something about whitewashing in 2011 changing of Burma to Myanmar. A number of these edits were helpful and improvements, but as I said above, the way in which Jsp722 goes about them is tendentious and causing disruption. As such, I still support a temporary topic ban, not because of the specific recent removal of pagan but because of the larger pattern of editing. Wugapodes (talk) 00:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

If so, let's change the proposal, from ”temporary topic ban” to “permanent user ban”. I can improve my “civility”, I can offer smoother edit summaries, I can be less rude and sneering, I can refrain from personal attacks, I can gladly accept mentorship, I can learn and abide by Wikipedia rules, I can do or make an effort to do nearly everything I've been recommended to by both sympathetic and unsympathetic editors. What I cannot, however, is change what you call my “pattern of editing”. As already remarked elsewhere, I am the avid reader, and the occasional editor. I read out of curiosity about the topic, but if I find something which I believe to be unfitting, I contribute an alternative, with a justification. If it is not accepted, so be it; I have never entered edit wars. Most of my edits have been accepted, some thanked, even praised; after 1700 years, for instance, the Roman emperor Julian is not anymore the “Apostate”, and so on. This is my way of collaborating; if this does not fit Wikipedia, please kick me out by all means. Now to say that I am “tendentious” just because I changed the colonial name of a country for its actual, legal, official name; or because I stated that a person, not a company, offers bribes; or because I replace hyper-tendentious slur “pagan” with neutral “follower of traditional Slavic, German, Semitic, Greek, or Quichua religion” is beyond me. Maybe I'm just in the wrong place! Jsp722 (talk) 03:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

If you're going to quote me, please quote me correctly. I said "pattern of tendentious editing". You seem to be missing my point that yes, in isolation, all of these actions would seem to be perfectly fine, it is them together with your edit summaries and agenda that raise them from a normal "pattern of editing" to a pattern of tendentious editing. In response to an editor arguing you are here to right great wrongs regarding the term "pagan", you say "It's funny how accusations of “tendentiousness” pop-up immediately as soon as someone just questions the hyper-tendentious slur “pagan”!" which doesn't instill confidence in me that you are here to build an encyclopedia. You say "I can improve my “civility”, I can offer smoother edit summaries, I can be less rude and sneering, I can refrain from personal attacks, I can gladly accept mentorship, I can learn and abide by Wikipedia rules, I can do or make an effort to do nearly everything I've been recommended to by both sympathetic and unsympathetic editors." And I believe that, and I hope you do. However I support the proposal because I want you to prove you can do that in a different topic area before returning to this one. Wugapodes (talk) 17:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Wugapodes says: “If you're going to quote me, please quote me correctly.”

And there we go with a new barrage of misinformation and tendentious accusations. In your frantic attempt to disqualify me, now you even falsely accuse me of “misquoting” you! Please have a look in the last sentence of your above post dated 00:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC), where you say with all the letters:

“As such, I still support a temporary topic ban, not because of the specific recent removal of pagan but because of the larger pattern of editing”.

Is it good enough for you or shall I make it in colors?

Wugapodes says: “I said "pattern of tendentious editing”.”

This you had said before, in the start of the same post. Now you want to decide even which part of your ungrounded accusations I have to quote, is it?

Anyway, the meaning is the same, because meanwhile everybody knows that you tendentiously want to frame me as “tendentious”. And the fact that you want to make a tempest in a teapot because of such a trifling “misquotation” puts in doubt your own good faith here.

Add to this that you have cavilously insinuated in your post dated 21:01, 20 January 2016 that mine is a “single purpose account”, obviously without showing any evidence for it. Your slurring insinuation having been exposed by my post dated 22:04, 20 January 2016, you later, closemouthedly stroke through your defaming insinuation, without having at least the decency to apologize.

Wugapodes says: “You seem to be missing my point that yes, in isolation, all of these actions would seem to be perfectly fine, it is them together with your edit summaries and agenda that raise them from a normal "pattern of editing" to a pattern of tendentious editing.”

How great! I've been accused of every single possible violation of Wikipedia pillars, rules, and guidelines, and now you say that all of my actions “seem to be perfectly fine”! What a waste this thread! I feel the joy and gratitude of Kash Delano or Bruce Lisker, who spent decades in jail only to be informed later that “all of their actions seemed perfectly fine”! Now finally I can relax, see my family again, and walk and dance in the streets without fearing the police!

But wait! Those engineering false accusations against the innocent did not give up! Now a new, unheard of, much more serious accusation against Jsp722 comes to the fore! While all and any of their edits “in isolation” seem to be “perfectly fine”, when put together they show Jsp722's actual agenda, an undeniable attempt to transform Wikipedia into the soapobox of Jsp722's sinister, “tendentious” ideologies!

The evidence is clear: Besides the enormous amount of three “pagan”-related edits in the short period of two years (2010-2011) — a furious average of one edit every eight months —, in the annus horribilis 2011 Jsp722 has also changed the name of Myanmar from its colonial name “Burma”, still favored by disgruntled ex-colonizers, to the actual, legal, official, UN accepted name “Myanmar” in an article's body! So dangerous this sneaky subversive is that even the main article itself was eventually moved from “Burma” to “Myanmar”! High time to ring the alarm bells!

Julian, the Roman emperor, is not anymore “the Apostate”, Myanmar is not anymore “Burma”, and soon “pagans” will be identified by meaningful names rather than by blanket genocide-supporting slurring! What will remain of the world as we knew it? The evidence is clear that Jsp722 is for years secretly subverting Wikipedia, but now me, Wugapodes, the smart one who does not recognize even his own quotes, caught them!

Wugapodes says: “In response to an editor arguing you are here to right great wrongs regarding the term "pagan", you say "It's funny how accusations of “tendentiousness” pop-up immediately as soon as someone just questions the hyper-tendentious slur “pagan”!" which doesn't instill confidence in me that you are here to build an encyclopedia.

Then according to you the hyper-tendentious, millenia-old genocide-supporting slur “pagan” does not prove that those insisting on its usage are even a little bit tendentious, but me calling Myanmar “Myanmar” proves that I am tendentious, is it? And how can I prove that you are not tendentious?

Wugapodes says: [...] I support the proposal because I want you to prove you can do that in a different topic area before returning to this one.

To start with, I don't see any reason showing that I have to prove anything to anyone, specially not to you, given your aforementioned blunders and blatant inconsistencies.

Besides, this statement contradicts your whole quibble above. You said with all the letters that “in isolation” my actions “seem to be perfectly fine”. This means that all of my edits individually, including the ones about “pagan” and “paganism” are perfectly fine. Why now do you want to impose a sanction related specifically to such terms?

Moreover, you say that what is troubling are not my edits taken in isolation, but rather what you see as my general behavior, my “agenda”, my general “pattern of tendentious editing”. If so, why a ban only on “pagan”-related topics? Indeed, you should support a general ban, because of my larger “pattern of editing”, shouldn't you?

Furthermore, which “different topics”, not included in your “ban”, would you suggest before my return to “pagan” and “paganism”? Since my “agenda” is general, overarching, your proposed, limited ban, would be rather ineffectual. Indeed, I could still pursue my sinister designs editing countless other topics.

In such case, only a full ban from editing Wikipedia, or a full block on my account, would do.

Jsp722 (talk) 02:51, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Starting on February 11, 2009 and ending on January 7, 2016 (when this incident started), 83 months in all, I could find exactly 27 edited paged where edits were performed by me replacing words such as “pagan” and “paganism” with descriptive phrases such as “Norse religion” or “ancestral Slavic religion”. This makes an average of 0,32 edited pages per month, or one edit every three months. Recent edits were as follows:

1 Dazbog

2 Prussian Mythology

3 Germanic paganism

4 Old Prussians

5 Kaaba

6 Quraysh

7 Hubal

8 Sviatoslav I of Kiev

9 Varangians

10 Gamla Uppsala

11 Himyarite Kingdom

Edit #1 was “thanked” by the learned and experient editor Ivan Štambuk.

Edit #9 was praised and supported as “entirely appropriate” by barnstarred user ScrapIronIV, as seen above on the main thread.

Edit #2 and edit #5 were both praised as “an improvement” by multi-barnstarred user Richard Keatinge, as seen above on the main thread.

Edit #8 was initially rejected by multi-awarded veteran editor Iryna Harpy, who notwithstanding later accepted the possibility of a suitable replacement for ”pagan” with the following words: “We'll see whether we can table a proposal on the article's talk page that other editors find acceptable”, as it can be seen from my talkpage.

All of the remaining 22 mentioned edited pages are similar. Besides, among the total 27 edited pages I could find only 5 which have been reverted by other editors in the last almost 7 years, until Hebel, the initiator of the current thread, at once reverted several of the most recent ones. However, even this user regretted the direction taken by the current incident with the words: “but I am a bit taken aback that we now get to vote on this. Is that the way it’s supposed to go?”, showing vivid willingness to discuss the topic outside disciplinary constraints, as one can see above, by the end of the main thread.

I hope that this objective data may help to put the current discussion in its due perspective. I'm no “vandal” (itself an ethnic slur) indiscriminately destroying Wikipedia pages . Rather, I'm the avid reader and the occasional editor; and whenever I edit I offer substantial edit summaries justifying my changes, without ever having entered any edit wars.

And no, mine is not a “single purpose account”, as suggested by Wugapodes above; my edits since February 11, 2009, have ranged from ancient Israel, to Sumeria, to human sacrifice, to Western philosophers such as Cassirer, Heidegger and Bergson, to Jainism, to Amorites, to Yoga, to Hindu conceptions of godhead, to American pharma companies, to German historians, to Scythians, to South Indian monasteries, to fighter jets, to Tibetan oracles, to the Greek Delphi, to Dionysian Mysteries, to Hebrew dynasties, to Epicureans, to Indian atomic theories, to Buddhist discourses, to Mongolian alphabets, to Tibetan dissidents, to Belarussian statecraft, to Chinese warlords, to Kashmiri pandits, to Kartvelian-speaking people, to Icelandic alphabets, to Iranian newspapers, to Buddhist iconography, to Mongolian Communist leaders, to Tibetan theocratic hierarchy, to Yazidi people, to Hypsistarians (this one was about the “pagan” word, in 2010, and is still there), to computer viruses, to Chinese geography, to Turkic generals, to Tsakonian peoples, to Iranian religions in the Himalayas, to country nomenclature, to Buddhist lineages, ritual and philosophy, to Jewish kabbalists, to Roman law, to Spiritism, to Norman kings, to Syrian politics, to uranium mining, to Greek goddesses, to old Indian metaphysical treatises, to Russian writers, to Central Asian demonology, to Manchurian statecraft, to Slavic gods, to Ukrainian politics, to Vedic gods, to Chinese ethnic minorities, to Portuguese navigators, to Tibetan philosophers, to Lithuanian monarchs, to Émile Durkheim, to Central Brazilian Native tribes, to even the already discussed articles were the “pagan” thing came about.

And, as to the suggested “cooling off”, it is already in place, both because I have refrained from any similar edits on the topic since the start of this thread, and because other more knowledgeable and skilled editors such as my informal mentor Rklawton, and Iryna Harpy, have already shown willingness to refine ideas and coordinate any future edit proposals on the topic, with ongoing discussions on my talkpage open for anyone interested on them.

Jsp722 (talk) 22:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. I've been watching this discussion for a few days now and I feel it has been going on for too long. A six-month topic ban would be way over the top. It seems this user has a lot to contribute and has shown willingness to achieve consensus, let him get on with it. If it turns out mentoring doesn't help with improving issues with collaboration (edit comments and such), a temporary topic ban could still be revisited. Robby.is.on (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Tend to agree. Editor seems to have become progressively more amenable to discussion. Agree with him that this is essentially a content dispute (over the use of two specific words). This thread really doesn't need to get any longer. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Editor is just here to argue. Alternatively, a permanent block, as requested below, might be more suitable. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Suport full block, as per editor's own suggestion. See below Martinevans123 (talk) 15:26, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• Conditional Oppose. [EDIT] Support I'm reticent to involve myself with mentoring on a complex level, but discussions with Jsp722 suggest to me that the editor has moved on from WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, and has demonstrated a willingness to collaborate with other editors. I'm certainly aware of the fact that pagan/paganism is frequently used as a soft/lazy option instead of using the opportunity to make articles more informative. Despite the fact that, in most instances, it isn't used as a malicious or biased term, Jsp722 strikes me as being prepared to do some research in order to enhance the content. Should the editor go OTT, it will become evident soon enough and the prospect of a topic ban could be revisited. Rklawton is on a break, but was certainly willing to act as the primary mentor. Having seen the example Mrjulesd pointed out in the section below, I realise that I've inadvertently aided and abetted Jsp722 by pointing him/her to more articles to censor. Strike my support for this disruptive, POINTy editor. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

"Censor"? What has all of this got to do with censorship? This discussion here is getting more absurd by the day. Jsp722's changes have been well-reasoned and in this discussion everything Jsp722 has written (including his latest response to Mrjulesd below) is more sound than anything I have read from those trying to block him from editing. Robby.is.on (talk)

@Robby.is.on: Technically, trying to get rid of words because you just don't like them is censorship. In the majority of cases, the term "pagan" is not being used as a pejorative. If there are cases where the use of the term is obviously negatively geared, there are an abundance of editors with enough good sense to discern between WP:WEASEL and terminology used by reliable sources. Wikipedia needs editors who are WP:HERE to develop and improve content, to to wage crusades against perceived enemies of the WP:TRUTH. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:51, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: So, if I don't like the word "nigger" I should better leave as well? After all the rational arguments Jsp722 has given implying his main argument is "I just don't like it" is really not very fair at all and does not constitute "Good faith". If you don't think the word "pagan" is used as a pejorative, you are entitled to your opinion but I don't think you can just presume that's the consensus. Regarding all the WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS accusations: Some people are more passionate about certain things than others, I think it is wrong to keep holding that against them when they have clearly shown to be open to discussion and achieving consensus. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Cheers for your opinion, Robby.is.on. You've had personal dealing with the user on articles... where? Sorry, but that's an appalling analogy. 1) There is an article on Nigger; 2) No one is going to ban the use of "Muslim" because of frequent pejorative use, and certainly far more broadly touted in the media as being an evil thing. I can't even remember the last time I saw "pagan" being used in the same derogatory sense. We're living in the 21st century, not the 19th century. There's "passionate", then there's WP:BATTLEGROUND, disruptive, uncivil, and lacking in the ability to back down when you've pushed it too far and feel justified in being continuously abusive and dismissive of other editors. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Talks about the “pagan” topic are closed, Iryna. You came too late to the party. Besides, you've had personal dealings with me on my talkpage, which makes you ineligible to express any opinions here. Jsp722 (talk) 00:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. LjL (talk) 00:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion, but this doesn't change anything. Jsp722 (talk) 00:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: I didn't realise personal dealings with a user on articles were required to afford an opinion on public goings-on here on ANI and elsewhere on Wikipedia. The point I was trying to make with what you call an "appalling analogy" is: 1. How does the disapproval of a undescriptive word such as "pagan" disqualify someone from editing?, 2. Who's to say that "pagan" might become an inappropriate word like "nigger" after rational debate / as Western society shakes off more religious baggage? To be clear: I'm disappointed how combative Jsp722 has become in the last couple of days. Still, I believe that bad faith as well as crude accusations have brought out the bad in Jsp722. Robby.is.on (talk) 00:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: full ban from editing any article on Wikipedia.

A partial ban, as discussed, would be thoroughly ineffectual, futile, because my sinister agenda aiming at subverting Wikipedia and destabilizing the world as we know it, together with my lack of civility, would inevitably just shift to countless other contentious topics, and I would anyway disruptively return to the “pagan” topic as soon as the ban would expire. Therefore, there is hardly another effective solution except for my permanent, irrevocable ban from editing any article on Wikipedia, or even better a full, permanent block on my account. Jsp722 (talk) 02:51, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Seems I was mistaken. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

5THWHEEL. Calm down and sort things out. I'm sure some editors commenting here will be more than happy to see you go. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 16:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Gee, thanks, QEDK. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm horribly confused. Is this the sarcastic "Gee" or the surprised "Gee"? --QEDK (T 📖 C) 17:45, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

As usual for me, it's both. You were replying to me? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:29, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Yep. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 19:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm perfectly, calm, thanks. But when do you want me to go? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:06, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Hahaha, no need to go . I messed it up, my bad. That was definitely for Jsp722 (my 1st message). The 2nd message (where I asked you the meaning) was meant for you, hence I said that it was a reply for you. I hope all's clear. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 19:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Shucks, I was going to dramatically "retire" in a fit of petulant frenzy. Now I guess I'll have to wait, at least until this thread is closed. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment As a possible compromise could you only replace "pagan" if you can find reliable sources describing said religion as something else? As it stands it's making articles less comprehensible. For example changing "pagan" to "ancestral beliefs"[80] is less precise, which ancestors? Even replacing it with "non-Abrahamic religions" would be an improvement on ancestral beliefs, but again it is less precise as it is not a perfect interchange, read the article for why. I simple don't believe you're improving articles by doing this, or that pagan is pejorative as the term is proudly used by many neo-pagan organizations. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 17:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I suspect Jsp722 would find a topic ban far more tantalising than a full ban. I think he'd find such an outcome far more difficult to comply with. Mere mention of the "p-word" is like lighting the blue touch paper. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Whatever is behind your shocking attitude, you have just confessed that your purpose here is definitely not to build any encyclopedia, but to feel pleasure inflicting what you see as psychological pain on other editors, as more “tantalizing” to them, thus maliciously encouraging the outcome you believe to be “far more difficult” for them “to comply with”.

This attitude is not only sick, but also violates the whole spirit of Wikipedia. It is a disgrace for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a place for learning and sharing knowledge, not a place for compensating for personal frustrations. I believe that you need serious reeducation in order fruitfully to remain in this community, if this is what you wish.

As to me, I'm neutral about outcomes. As already remarked by Richard Keatinge, I may have indeed a penchant for fixing buzzwords, even if this is not a deliberate program or “agenda”. “Pagan” is far from being the first on Wikipedia, and, depending on outcomes, will not be the last. I don't have to edit and discuss personally this or any another buzzword so that changes are implemented successfully. Other equally controversial buzzwords have been successfully changed after my edits, but without my participation in the ensuing debates. And there are countless buzzwords, which means that the potential joy of fixing them is infinite. A partial, topic ban will just add more sauce to the discussion, which I don't look for, but I don't mind either, as it attracts attention to it. Usually those opposing change are precisely those helping it, just because their panicking overreaction brings the attention of many to that which needs to be changed. Who ever cared about the word “pagan” before? Hardly anyone. But now the debate on the topic is raging — and will keep raging whatever is the outcome about “Jsp722” — which, I believe, is a good thing. And then I'll be free joyfully to pursue this or other topics, within or without Wikipedia.

Jsp722 (talk) 01:58, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I have no desire to "inflict psychological pain on other editors". That was just an observation based on your inability to leave the discussion to another place. But, to leave no doubt, I'm happy to fully support your suggestion for a permanent block on your account, which you say will be "even better" than "a full ban from editing any article on Wikipedia". Martinevans123 (talk) 15:25, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Now it's too late. You have been caught redhanded confessing with all the letters that your actual purpose and motivation here is sadistically and debauchedly to inflict what you see as psychological pain on other editors — just changing your vote will not disguise this crude reality. Jsp722 (talk) 16:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean "with all the letters"? You've used that phrase three times now. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but I only give explanations after the fourth time. Jsp722 (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

(Mrjulesd) says: As a possible compromise could you only replace "pagan" if you can find reliable sources describing said religion as something else?

There are plenty of sources detailing Norse, Lusitanian, Slavic, Arabic, Greek, Roman, [[81]], and any number of other so-called “pagan” religions. And, even if there were absolutely no such sources, it would be still thoroughly inadequate to bluntly call them “pagan” for all the already extensively discussed reasons.

For instance, there is relatively little information on Harappan, or on Hittite, or on pre-Buddhist and pre-Manichaeist Tocharian religions, but hardly anyone calls them “pagan”, simply because they were not an object of Christian genocidal discourse.

(Mrjulesd) says: As it stands it's making articles less comprehensible. For example changing "pagan" to "ancestral beliefs"[82] is less precise, which ancestors?

The actual question here is rather, which beliefs?, in reference to the beliefs held by Slavs before their Christianization. In this specific case, I replaced the phrase “documents describing the beliefs of pagan Slavs” with the phrase “documents describing the ancestral beliefs of Slavs”.

Now, it is clear that Slavs had their own traditional, ancestral beliefs, encompassing mythology, ritual, cosmology, folklore, calendars, festivals, taboos, paraphernalia, and so forth, all with well-established Indo-European roots, as you can see, for instance, on the article Slavic mythology.

Of course there would still be other alternatives, such as “Slavic traditional beliefs”, or “Slavic Indo-European beliefs”. I would reject “Slavic pre-Christian” beliefs, as there is no need to define such a wealth of inherited beliefs with a negation, or merely in relation to Christianity.

(Mrjulesd) says: Even replacing it with "non-Abrahamic religions" would be an improvement on ancestral beliefs, but again it is less precise as it is not a perfect interchange.

Since “non-Abrahamic” could be Indo-European, Semitic, Turkic, Mongolic, Sinitic, Maya, Aztec, Dravidian, and many other things, just “non-Abrahamic” is still far from qualifying for the requirements of the job — although it might occasionally be useful as a clarification or a complement.

“Ancestral” is still much better than “non-Abrahamic”, just because Slavs had only one “ancestral” religion, which is their, er..., ancestral, inherited, traditional, aboriginal, native, Indo-European-rooted religion.

Please note that the beliefs of the Slavs before their Christianization are as much “ancestral Indo-European beliefs” as the beliefs of Arabians, Phoenicians, Egyptians, Chaldeans, and so forth, before their Christianization or Islamization, are “ancestral Semitic beliefs”.

In both sets of cases, they were ancestral and “non-Abrahamic” beliefs, but they had each their own specific, distinctive roots, either Indo-European or “Semitic” — “Semitic” itself being merely a biblical- and quranic-rooted, longstanding, unscientific buzzword (a great topic to explore, in case of a “pagan”-limited topic ban).

Bottom line, even though “non-Abrahamic” is indeed far better than the ridiculous “pagan” blanket derogation, it is still merely a poorly-informing negation, or generality.

(Mrjulesd) says: but again it is less precise as it is not a perfect interchange, read the article for why.

As with “non-Christian”, the phrase “non-Abrahamic”, while possibly useful, depending on context, is just a generality, a negation, and therefore a poor way of informing readers about the discussed topic, to wit, the actual, specific religion followed by Sviatoslav I of Kiev, the very subject of the article, much of whose historic importance is precisely related to such religion.

“Pagan”, while explicitly not a negation, is actually one, and a imprecise and inaccurate one to that effect, as already extensively discussed in the main thread, as it merely means “non-something”, and informs nothing about what the specific “pagan” religion is supposed to be. Was Sviatoslav I of Kiev following Arabian “pagan” beliefs? Or maybe Hindu “pagan” beliefs? Or who knows Norse, or Korean, or Bantu “pagan” beliefs?

“Pagan” informs nothing, and actually it hides from and denies the reader the information they are entitled to receive, which is the actual, specific, concrete religion followed by Sviatoslav I of Kiev. And by the way this is the very purpose of the creation and multimillenial usage of the word “pagan”: to deface, to dehumanize, to reduce to insignificance that which is supposed to be eliminated from life and from memory.

“Pagan” is a bit like the “Devil”: one is not supposed to know anything about them, except that they are to be hated. Beyond mere derogatoriness, its uncritical usage is nothing short from religious discourse and propaganda, something not supposed to have place in Wikipedia, as per WP:NOTSOAPBOX guidelines.

And this brings another important argument: the word “pagan”, even apart from its derogatoriness and manifold other defects, expresses a purely Christian point-of-view, or how Christianity sees non-Abrahamic culture. Now, Wikipedia is supposed to non-point-of-view, neutral, not viewing the world from any ethnic or religious point-of-view.

Reducing the non-Christian to merely “pagan” is akin to the Hebrew usage of “goy” referring to the non-Hebrew, or the ancient Greek “barbarian” referring to the non-Greek, or the Vedic “mlechccha” (barbarian) referring to foreigners in general, and so forth. These are all terms used from the specific point-of-view of those cultures, and none should be used by a neutral encyclopedia, which is what Wikipedia is supposed to be.

(Mrjulesd) says: read the article for why.

This is not enough. You have to say which part of the article you think says what and proves what; then I'll be pleased to give you an answer. This is the way a serious discussion develops.

(Mrjulesd) says: I simple don't believe you're improving articles by doing this,

Great. That's why we have talkpages and even dispute resolution pages. There you can express your disbelief, and support them with specific reasons and quotations, rather than the blanket argument “read the article for why”.

What is striking, however, is that you started your current post proposing “a possible compromise” if only one “can find reliable sources describing said religion as something else” apart from “pagan”, which as shown is precisely the case — just to finish the same post with the prejudiced, negative, statement that “I simply don't believe you're improving articles by doing this”.

Therefore, the intention of your post is not clear. Are you sincerely interested on discussing the topic, in order to reach a reasonable settlement, which is going to serve the reader rather than anyone's personal prejudice, or are you just parti pris interested on bolstering your already given vote for my banning, tardily adding your oh-so-weak, unbaked arguments?

To be honest, your intention actually became crystal-clear. You are not discussing in good faith. Your intention is not to find the best for the reader. Your intention is just to eliminate an editor you see as a rival and who holds opinions opposing your prejudices. You were just pretending that you were looking for a “possible compromise”, and making others waste time with it.

(Mrjulesd) says: or that pagan is pejorative as the term is proudly used by many neo-pagan organizations.

This wasted, pedestrian argument has already undergone full rebuttal on this thread, without any further comment from you or anyone else. Please make a favor to yourself and others, and read the whole thread from the start, and get acquainted with it, before untimely coming with digested food as it were a fresh plate.

To conclude, an interesting, illustrative quotation from the Swedish scholar Alexandra Sanmark in her paper “Power and Conversion — A Comparative Study of Chritianization in Scandinavia” might be in order:

“The terminology used to describe pre-Christian cultic ideas and practices will now be considered. Two terms that are commonly used are ‘paganism’ and ‘pre-Christian religion’. Neither of these will be used in this thesis. ‘Paganism’ has been avoided because its obvious negative connotations. [...]”

Jsp722 (talk) 23:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Good job we've all agreed this isn't the most appropriate place to discuss use of the word, isn't it? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

“We” who? Jsp722 (talk) 00:08, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

How could I forget? You are the one already caught calling yourself “we”, as beforehand remarked, and below quoted — a well-known symptom of alternate personalities, or “alters”, within Dissociative Identity Disorder — remember?

We can see why you're so popular here. Martinevans123 (talk) 01:16, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Awesome. Are you two, or how many? Jsp722 (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Jsp722 (talk) 00:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah right, I "got caught". Yes, I should have put "Good job you've agreed... "Martinevans123 (talk) 09:36, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Right you are, because agreeable I am. But since others, including you, have not agreed, here we are still on this thread. Jsp722 (talk) 16:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

You said "discussion should take place on the modified articles' talkpage, or on the interested editors' talkpages, but not on this Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents page". But you continue to discuss here, at great length, whenever the opportunity arises. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

If so, you should complain to those making such opportunities arise, including you. It was not me starting this thread, and from the very beginning I say that it does not belong here — but for some strange reason almost everyone else, including you, has disagreed and insisted on the content discussion. Jsp722 (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I've insisted on nothing of the sort. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

None of you? Jsp722 (talk) 00:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jsp722: Mrjulesd asked that you provide sources each time you replace the adjective "pagan" with more a descriptive, appropriate adjective. That is a non-negotiable policy and a part of the core principles of Wikipedia, and if you provide those sources, many editors will support you. This board is not for general discussion of religion and paganism, and is not a place for sarcasm or mock proposals. -Darouet (talk) 02:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Darouet says to Jsp722: Mrjulesd asked that you provide sources each time you replace the adjective "pagan" with more a descriptive, appropriate adjective.

Thank you for the confirmation. I though it was just my imagination.

Anyway, just to keep the record straight, “pagan” is sometimes a noun.

Darouet says to Jsp722: That is a non-negotiable policy and a part of the core principles of Wikipedia,

Thank you for refreshing my memory. Are you a human or a robot?

Darouet says to Jsp722: and if you provide those sources, many editors will support you.

I though that many editors were supporting me because of my beautiful blue eyes, but thinking well it must be because I've hardly done anything here apart from providing sources, together with reasons.

As to previous edits, I would definitely have offered such sources on talkpages, if at least I had had the opportunity to. But, as you can check, I was directly and summarily reported to this ANI page for trial and execution by a disgruntled editor, without having had the opportunity even to offer one single source!

Darouet says to Jsp722: This board is not for general discussion of religion and paganism,

Do you really think it was my choice to discuss this content topic here? But judging from the interest triggered by the topic on this page, I think it was not a bad idea after all!

Darouet says to Jsp722: and is not a place for sarcasm or mock proposals.

Have you seen “sarcasm” or “mock proposals” anywhere? Please provide your sources, such as quotations or screenshots, and support them with credible reasons.

Jsp722 (talk) 03:35, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• Disclaimer: My eyes are not actually blue, as the post above might have suggested. But they are still beautiful, depending of course on the beholder. Jsp722 (talk) 03:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you not comprehend that you've completely blown any assumption of good faith on your behalf, Jsp722? Your volatile nature and WP:WALLSOFTEXT have fairly much precluded you from any form of mentorship. Editing Wikipedia requires WP:COMPETENCE and an ability to work collaboratively without throwing toys out of your pram when you don't get your way. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:38, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Yawn. Jsp722 (talk) 04:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

That's really offensive - Iryna originally opposed your being banned on the notion that you meant well. At this point, the advantages you might have brought to wikipedia are totally overshadowed by a level of condescension and arrogance that make collaboration with you impossible. -Darouet (talk) 07:04, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Feeling sleepy? Time you had a long rest, I think. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:46, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

The walls of text are easily explained: Jsp722 seems to be very diligent in taking apart the frivolous and crude arguments and accusations thrown around. Tragically, they nevertheless are repeatedly and mindlessly regurgitated. I don't know how I'd react to such a ridiculous trial. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:17, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support permanent block on account, as per editor's own proposal above. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:25, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

This is your third vote, the three of them in diametrically different directions, in 24 hours or so. You have voted for “full ban”, “partial ban”, and “no ban”. And me, naively thinking that “you” (the one who calls themselves “we”) were only two, but now I know that you are at least three! Jsp722 (talk) 16:08, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

It's my third choice of vote. Editors can change their mind as often as they wish. I only changed in the light of your responses here. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Your vote became irrelevant, from the moment you confessed, as one can see above, that your intention here is debauchedly to inflict what you see as psychological pain on other editors. The confessed meanness of your intention makes of you a rogue member of this community. Jsp722 (talk) 16:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

It was a comment about your pattern of editing. But feel free to propose an indef block for me if you believe that is justified. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:20, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

For whatever reason, I don't find joy in pursuing punishment for others. This I leave for folks like you and Softlavender. Jsp722 (talk) 17:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support Any editor who is so lost as to petulantly and/or sarcastically propose their own perma-ban does not have the competence or maturity to participate collaboratively in this project. They asked for it let them live with it. Jbh^Talk 17:08, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support - We have many administrators willing to consider self-requested blocks. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 17:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
• Disclaimer: The two votes above were spontaneous, thus presumably reflecting the voters' actual opinions, and were by no means canvassed or votestacked by me. Jsp722 (talk) 17:48, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Among the most common things which leads to sanctions for long term editors is not knowing when to just stop posting. You have made 263 edits to this thread. You may want to consider whether so many posts are doing you more harm than good. I am certain the non-threaded walls of replies are disruptive. Jbh^Talk 18:08, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

It amazes me how someone could waste one's Saturday counting the posts of someone else. Anyway, the immense majority of my edits are just minor ones, about spelling, punctuation, grammar, linking, formatting, polishing the phrasing, and the such (even if sometimes I forget to tag them as “minor”).

Otherwise, all of my posts, including this one, are just answers to someone, like you.

By the way, a reply by definition is threaded, isn't it? — otherwise it simply wouldn't be a reply.

Jsp722 (talk) 20:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

As to the “wall of replies”, actually they are saving space and time. If you care to check, after them usually there is no further answer from the questioning editor. The reason is that the question is fully dissected by the “wall of replies”, and nothing remains to be said. Still, it is hardly my fault that newcomers insist on already discussed topics. Jsp722 (talk) 21:00, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• 40% of Jsp722's edits have been to this now-2-week-old ANI thread. From this I think it's fairly obvious at this point that Jsp722 is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Therefore I'm going to support this proposal before he wastes much more of the community's time. Softlavender (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• Ooh, how dare one defend themselves. That alone, is apparently worthy of a ban. /s --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 01:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support indef block, with WP:STANDARDOFFER. 40% (260+) of Jsp722's (720+) edits have been to this now-2-week-old ANI thread. From this I think it's fairly obvious at this point that Jsp722 is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Therefore I support this proposal and hope this is effected before he wastes much more of the community's time. Softlavender (talk) 19:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Yawn. Jsp722 (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

If you have nothing of substance to say, it's best to say nothing at all. clpo13_(talk) 20:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say anything. I've just yawned. Jsp722 (talk) 21:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

It's unnecessary and doesn't inspire a lot of confidence that you're taking any of this seriously. clpo13_(talk) 21:15, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm so eager to inspire your confidence. Yawn. Jsp722 (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support indef block - The editor has requested his own block above. Easy enough. Do it and let's move on. Jusdafax 20:46, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support indef block at user's own request. Keri (talk) 21:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support indef block because I use an experimental browser that has trouble showing overly long pages and this thread isn't helping. LjL (talk) 21:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support, as proposer. Jsp722 (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support indef block... and pronto, please. It appears Jsp772 is convinced s/he is a martyr and can't wait to get onto as many blogs as possible to boast about it. Oh, and Jsp722, given your alacrity in citing policies and guidelines when you've had little real editing experience, if you think you're going to have success WP:SOCKing, think again. Everything about your style gives you away. You'd be able to conceal your smug, superior tone for more than a single confrontation. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:54, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

You really managed to read my thoughts! I was just wondering about my next nick so that no one suspects! What about Jsp723? Jsp722 (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support - I originally thought this person had something to offer, but obviously not. -Darouet (talk) 23:25, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for having deceived you. When I reincarnate as Jsp723 I'll try to be more clear about myself. Jsp722 (talk) 23:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Update: This thread is now two weeks old and over 140,000 bytes long

At the moment this thread is 2 weeks old and over 140,000 bytes long, and counting. The vast majority of the thread is Jsp722's endless pointy sarcasm, ridicule, and mockery, walls of text, and time-wasting, as exemplified by the following response to this good-faith and obvious question: [83]. I'd personally like to see the situation dealt with fairly expeditiously, so that the thread does not grow another 100,000 bytes and waste the community's time another week or two before closure. Softlavender (talk) 20:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually this thread had already reached its natural end a long time ago, with a mutually accepted proposal of mentorship, and even with a designated mentor, when you suddenly irrupted with your weird request for punishment. Afterwards, when the mentorship was already active and showing promising development, Richard Keatinge, in a very conciliatory way, asked if you agree with the closing of the thread, with these words:

Softlavender, would you think this a good point to close this thread, or are any further actions required? Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

However, you didn't even care to give an answer. Therefore, if anyone is responsible for the unnecesary overextension of this thread, the answer is hardly anyone except for you, seemingly more interested on punishment than on conciliaton.

Jsp722 (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

So why propose an indef block for yourself, three days later: [84]? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Don't remember anymore. Probably I was bored. Jsp722 (talk) 22:05, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• Adding: The fact that this thread has grown so endlessly repetitious and increasingly disruptive on Jsp722's part is an indication that WP:IDHT is a basic problem here and is not likely to improve, indeed has only gotten worse; I can only foresee increasingly more of the same. Softlavender (talk) 21:45, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Funny that you always find a WP:SOMETHING to support your obsession with punishing! Does it make you feel more confident? Jsp722 (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• Suggest rapid close of this thread. Now starting to approach incivility. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree that as the trolling accelerates, block, close, and WP:DENY become increasingly appropriate. Softlavender (talk) 23:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that “trolling” is a rather derogatory word. Please drop a line on my talkpage so that we find a suitable replacement. Jsp722 (talk) 23:47, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

"Trolling" seems perfectly accurate and at this point I genuinely wish this incident is closed swiftly by virtue of an indefinite-length block on Jsp722 without further waste of space. LjL (talk) 00:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

This is not a place to discuss the accuracy of words. Besides, indefinite length will waste too much space. Jsp722 (talk) 01:05, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Clarification of Gamergate topic ban

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

---

I wanted input on whether the Gamergate topic ban, specifically "(b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed" applies to the article about Chanty Binx (a controversial feminist.) If this is not the appropriate place to ask can someone move this to the appropriate place? Thanks. Great Go-Buster! (talk) 22:53, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Taking s look at the situation if you think that AFD is a violation WP:AE would likely be the bets place to go.--174.91.184.47 (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd stay far far away from that mess even without a topic ban. Legacypac (talk) 03:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

To clearly Go Buster is not asking if they can edit the article they want an AFD crated by User:NorthBySouthBaranof closed because they think the AFD is a violation of their topic ban form GamerGate,--174.91.184.47 (talk) 04:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Aggressive Canvassing (WP:VOTESTACKING) to Ensure Deletion

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.

---

Sequence of events:

1 On 16 January 2016 Reywas92 nominated United States presidential election, 2024 for deletion.

2 By 20:42, 23 January 2016, it had received six KEEP !votes against only three DELETE !votes, and the quality of policy-based argument was also trending toward KEEP.

3 Beginning at 23:05, 23 January 2016, Reywas92 started posting notices on the Talk pages of editors alerting them to the AfD (see: [85], [86], [87]) who had previously voted DELETE in prior AfDs related to U.S. presidential election topics. By every appearance, no attempt was made to similarly notify KEEP editors of the same topics.

Recommended resolution: The integrity of the AfD has been compromised. It should be closed based on the status of discussion as it existed at 20:42, 23 January 2016. LavaBaron (talk) 23:58, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I can't speak for the other editors who were invited to the Afd-in-question. But the message I got on my talkpage, was quite 'neutral' in its wording. IMHO, WP:CANVASS hasn't been breached. GoodDay (talk) 00:02, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

As per WP:VOTESTACKING, canvassing includes any "attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion." LavaBaron (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

You're so worried about soliciting delete votes, yet you yourself have solicited countless DELETE votes by posting to ANI. Talk about WP:BOOMERANG. 207.38.156.219 (talk) 03:08, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Update: Due to aforementioned editor's votestacking activities now attracting a larger number of his confederates, to preserve the integrity of the RfC I have notified 13 editors who participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States presidential election, 2020. This notification was provided to all editors in that AfD, regardless of the way they !voted, and is therefore permissible under WP:CANVASSING / WP:VOTESTACKING. I am noting this fact here to maximize transparency of process. I still strongly implore an admin to close this AfD as of the discussion prior to the soiling occurring (timestamp: 20:42, 23 January 2016). LavaBaron (talk) 00:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• @LavaBaron: I hope you realize your AN thread is going to attract more deletionists to the AfD than Reywas' "canvassing" ever could. pbp 00:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Update2: Note that the AfD ran for seven days and attracted 6 KEEP !votes and 3 DELETE !votes in that time. In just the 60 minutes since Reywas92 has initiated WP:VOTESTACKING activities, the flow of !votes is now 6 KEEP vs 10 DELETE. This is one of the most malignant, bald-faced and overt attempts to subvert the AfD process I've seen. Usually they're more subtle. LavaBaron (talk) 00:46, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

You linked it from WP:AN and WP:ANI, which are very heavily-trafficked noticeboards. Of course there was an uptick in participation. clpo13_(talk) 00:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

The AfD was heavily VOTESTACKED just before the sunset of the AfD. The integrity of the AfD was compromised at the point that occurred. It should be closed based on the status of discussion as it existed at 20:42, 23 January 2016, which represented a full, 7-day run. We have a high barrier to deletion of material from WP. That barrier includes a fair and equitable process of discussion and consensus. The fairness and equity has been breached and it is incumbent on us we defer to not deleting where there is obvious and demonstrable WP:GAMING. LavaBaron (talk) 00:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Nope, AfDs are open until they are closed. No 7 day statue of limitations. Legacypac (talk) 03:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@LavaBaron: If you really had consensus to keep the article, it wouldn't matter if the AfD discussion were open for 1 week or 2...the consensus would be the same either way. Generally speaking, the higher the number of registered users participating in a discussion, the more likely it is to reflect the consensus of the community. pbp 04:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

PB89 - no offense but I think you're confused. I don't need consensus to "keep" the article. The nominator needs consensus to "delete" it. This is an important difference; Wikipedia imposes a high barrier on the destruction of knowledge. LavaBaron (talk) 07:08, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Update3: It's now been 3 hours since Reywas92 began Vote Stacking to purge knowledge from WP, with incidences of secondary and tertiary stacking now also directing a steady flow of more !votes in. The flow of discussion has now flipped from 6 KEEP vs 3 DELETE to 6 KEEP vs 13 DELETE. The manipulation of the AfD renders it virtually unsalvagable at this point. I, again, implore the AfD be closed based on the status of discussion as it existed at 20:42, 23 January 2016, prior to Reywas92 beginning his Vote Stacking operation, or, I be allowed liberty to also begin directing stacking votes into this AfD. I have not done yet as our policy identifies WP:VOTESTACKING as a serious transgression, to wit: editors engaged in this "... may result in their being blocked from editing.", however, I have developed a targeted list of editors and can begin stacking them into this AfD ASAP if the community decides equity in this discussion could be best achieved by allowing me to do so. I would simply ask for a quick ruling so I can begin pouring canvassed !votes into the AfD quickly. LavaBaron (talk) 02:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• Of the last 10 delete votes, only 2 editors were brought there by user talk page notices, and one of them was a talk page notice you posted. If Reywas92 had been canvassing, it doesn't seem to have had any effect on the recent flow of delete votes. That being said, Reywas92 should know better than to only notify those who voted delete on a previous AfD. But, because of the limited posting (only three users), the time since the AfD they participated in (2009, which means they may have changed their mind, unlikely, but possible), and the lack of an effect (at least 10 of those !votes are valid), I feel sanctions would only be punitive since no major disruption was caused or seems to be impending. I recommend we warn both users and move on: Reywas92 for pretty clear votestacking, and LavaBaron for bludgeoning the process over at that AFD. Wugapodes (talk) 02:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I saw the post here, assessed the AfD and voted on as I'm guessing a bunch of other editors did. Now LavaBaron wants to toss out a bunch of votes they themselves effectively solicited? That is disruptive. Legacypac (talk) 03:02, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I am seriously tempted to ask that LavaBaron be topic-banned from this ANI, the AFD and the article itself for a couple of weeks, as he is continuing to bludgeon a dead horse. pbp 04:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support warnings The canvassing was unacceptable, but quite limited. The exposure via this thread will dilute any impact to a point of irrelevancy. The bludgeoning is way out of line, and getting worse.
  I agree with Wugapodes: warn both users and move on. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the warning, I apologize. I made just three neutrally-worded notifications, which I understand is inappropriate. It seemed very few people who may have been interested in the discussion were even aware the article existed, perhaps assuming the previous consensus stood. All additional votes are likely from the LavaBaron's publicization of the discussion on this messageboard. Reywas92^Talk 04:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology, Reywas92. FWIW, I apply a personal policy that if I notify any editor or group about a discussion in en.ep, I try to immediately disclose that notification in the discussion, preferably with diffs. That way everyone involved can see what's happening, and if I have screwed up, everyone knows promptly. Similarly, if I get a personal notification about a discussion, I try to remember to disclose that when I post.
As I say, it's only a personal policy, but it does save a lot of misundersandings. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Apology accepted and move to close both AfD and ANI

Thanks, Reywas92, apology accepted and appreciate the explanation as to the amount of vote stacking you engaged in. It would be an equitable remedy if we could strike any !votes from those three editors (though only two appear to have actually !voted in response to the canvassing). By my count we have 7 !votes and solid policy arguments for Keep and 12 !votes for Delete (after excluding the two vote that were solicited via Vote Stacking). In my mind, this doesn't really represent a consensus to destroy knowledge but I'm happy to agree to disagree with those who believe it is. Either way, since the AfD has become heated, I suggest a decision be made one way or the other and it be closed. BrownHairedGirl, can you do that? Thanks! LavaBaron (talk) 06:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of an Afd closer publicly 'striking out' any votes. Best that the closer keep that to him/herself. GoodDay (talk) 07:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Great point. I think if the AfD closer just ignored the !votes that resulted from the policy violation that would be fine; the actual act of striking would be rather vindictive and silly. LavaBaron (talk) 07:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, if the closer decides to ignore or accept the 3 votes-in-question? then let him/her do so in the privacy of his/her thoughts :) GoodDay (talk) 07:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely, the privacy of the closer's thoughts should be respected and I fully intend to report any instances of mind control in this AfD directly to ANI. LavaBaron (talk) 07:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• LavaBaron, I urge you very stongly to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. The proposal above is to warn you as well -- to stop bludgeoning the process, but you are still at it.
  Enough already, or pbp's suggestion above of some topic-bans for you could rapidly gather legs as a direct proposal. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:35, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Close

Recommend closing this ANI report, as it appears to have run its course. The AfD-in-question, will most likely continue on & then be closed as 'keep' or delete', like many others before. GoodDay (talk) 07:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

No give the editor a little more rope [88] Legacypac (talk) 08:05, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. ANI accomplished what was intended. As proposer, second GoodDay's motion to close. LavaBaron (talk) 08:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz making multiple personal attacks

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:Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz, User:NewsAndEventsGuy, myself and others have been working on Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge and related pages. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz took exception to certain edits and discussions by NewsAndEventsGuy and myself, and we have now seen three days of uncivil comments, mainly directed at NewsAndEventsGuy, but also at me. Main examples:

• 23 Jan: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AOccupation_of_the_Malheur_National_Wildlife_Refuge&type=revision&diff=701282001&oldid=701231450

• 22 Jan: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NewsAndEventsGuy&diff=prev&oldid=701178018

• 22 Jan: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LavaBaron&diff=prev&oldid=701102054

• 22 Jan: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LavaBaron&diff=prev&oldid=701095658

• 21 Jan: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bondegezou&diff=prev&oldid=700976879

• 21 Jan: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NewsAndEventsGuy&diff=prev&oldid=700949941

I note Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz has made many useful edits. I don't know why Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz got so angry. I initially ignored the issue, hoping the anger would fade. It hasn't. Bondegezou (talk) 17:38, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I got so angry because you and your buddy decided to create a hit page and harass me for the stated intent of driving me away from contributing, just like you're still doing, Bondegezou. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 17:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

@Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz: your comments are right out of line. Name calling and hostile behaviour will quickly result in your account being blocked. If you cannot disagree without name calling then your stay here will be short. Any further personal attacks and I will block you personally.

If you have concerns about the behaviour of Bondegezou or any other editor you can present evidence in a calm fashion. HighInBC 17:53, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

They uncivilly threatened me repeatedly, and "NewsAndEventsGuy" started setting up a targeting page. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 18:05, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

What's this "hit page" you're referring to? clpo13_(talk) 18:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

He created a page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:NewsAndEventsGuy/1 and threatened me with it. Looks like he had it deleted now so I can't show what he was up to. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 18:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

@Clpo13:, The page in question was my civility-based draft AE complaint against Prostetnic. At one point I thought he was walking away - both from the article, it's talk page, and me - so I moved it off wiki. I did keep it since these things have a way of coming back... and (obviously) I am glad I did. Since it has roared back to life with gusto I have restored the page. You can see the version at the point in time of its deletion at the first diff in its version history. There's no guarantee, of course, that thousands of other eds didn't help me manipulate it while it was off site, so everyone will just have to take me on trust, no matter how hard that is for them. I will probably develope my properly formatted and documented complete comment for this filing under that file name in my user space. Everyone is invited to watch, but not to help except at the attendant drafts talk page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh that [89] is real cute. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 18:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz made this edit to Talk:Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, which I reverted and warned him for. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Now there is this. PVJ at this point you may want to read WP:BATTLEGROUND because you are displaying many of the attributes mentioned there. MarnetteD|Talk 18:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Meanwhile in reality, things like this. [90] Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 18:17, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I've reported the IP to AIV for harassment. This, however, does not excuse your battleground conduct and your repeated incivility towards others despite multiple warnings and reasonable attempts to allow you to correct the behavior. I think that a block is completely justified at this point, to be honest. I hate to say it, but if it were up to me, I would be doing so. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:23, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't know about Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz's beef with NewsAndEventsGuy. I haven't myself seen anything unreasonable in NewsAndEventsGuy's behaviour. Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge has been a fast-changing article with lots of edits and discussions. Most of the prior conflict with Prostetnic is at Talk:Occupation_of_the_Malheur_National_Wildlife_Refuge#Too_long.3F seq. Also see User_talk:Bondegezou#Occupation_of_the_Malheur_National_Wildlife_Refuge, User_talk:NewsAndEventsGuy#Conversations_with_P, User_talk:Parsley_Man#Thanks_for_your_hard_work and Prostetnic's own Talk page. Bondegezou (talk) 18:25, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

For the record: I had no prior relationship with NewsAndEventsGuy prior to recently getting involved in work on Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. We have both agreed and disagreed over edits on that article. NewsAndEventsGuy has posted once to my Talk page. That's about the sum total of our relationship now. I have never threatened Prostetnic. I think the harshest thing I've said to PVJ is, "Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz, would you please read WP:AGF and WP:FOC." PVJ has made many very useful contributions and I hope will continue to do so. I do not want PVJ to leave: I do want PVJ to adopt a different approach to disagreement! I note this recent edit in addition to the above: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AOccupation_of_the_Malheur_National_Wildlife_Refuge&type=revision&diff=701288664&oldid=701283774 Bondegezou (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I would like to THANK the editor who left me a note in support on my talk page, copied here. "It's unfortunate that so many with power on Wikipedia are so unaware of recognizing when an editor is being bullied, antagonized, gas-lighted, and pushed to the wall. --MurderByDeletionism"bang!" 18:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)" Thank you, MurderByDeletionism, that sums up the conduct of Bondegezoi and NewsAndEventsGuy nicely. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 18:47, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment by NewsAndEventsGuy

A. Prostetnic first got mad at me when I posted an EW template to his user talk

• 15:05 Jan 15 PVJ deletes EW warning template with edit sum Remove uncivil insults mischaracterizing my edits by "NewsAndEventsGuy"

B. Jan 15 Prostetnic next got mad at me when I posted the FYI no-fault DS alert template to his user talk

• 15:27 Jan 15 DS Alert by me left at PVJ page
• 15:29 Jan 15 NAEG to PVJ, personal note
• 15:31 Jan 15 PVJ deletes DS template and personal note with edit sum And now he's on to more threats

C. Prostetnic later got mad at me when I posted a suggestion he self revert a personal attack he put on article talk

• 13:25 Jan 20 At article talk PVJ attacks Bondegezou (talk · contribs) saying Congratulations on making a bunch of extra work for everyone. I'm going to keep updating information as I can get it and putting up the sources, you figure out what to do with it then. Obviously you think you WP:OWN the article anyways and don't want to actually work with anyone else, Bondegezou
• 13:33 Jan 20 I ask PVJ to self revert the personal attack
• 13:39 Jan 20 PVJ refuses saying I meant what I said and I said what I meant. I'm tired of Bondegezou playing games and not caring to work with anyone else
• If asked I can provide subsequent diffs of the fall out

D. Eventually I started drafting a civility-based AE complaint in my userspace, which for awhile I moved offwiki when I thought this was resolved with him/her taking a voluntary page ban

E. Apparently, P didn't really mean it when P said P was taking a voluntary page ban, and P has it in for me

F. I will fill in diffs and details by Monday 18:00.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:00, 23 January 2016 (UTC) This has been updated with DIFFS NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:18, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

There he goes again. I haven't edited the page since, and I have stuck to that despite the page falling into disrepair because it appears that nobody else bothers to keep either page (the main, or the "timeline" that was set up with no discussion) up as things change. That's my point: it appears NewsAndEventsGuy has WP:OWN issues regarding the page, preferring it fall into disrepair rather than see me try to keep it current, and is willing - as he has just admitted - to keep up a pile of attack material ready against me, so that he can follow through on the threats he made.

I had no problem with people working on moving things to the Timeline, and reducing to summaries, or helping fill in sources (god knows I suck at figuring out those citation templates, every time I try I screw it up). I do have a problem being threatened, abused, gaslighted, and otherwise treated badly. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 19:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• I wonder if a checkuser could see if 66.87.120.254 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is connected to any of the involved accounts. This edit is concerning. clpo13_(talk) 19:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Second the call for checkuser While I do think a temporary topic ban for Prostetnic is in order, I disavow the IP's nastiness in the DIFF posted by Clpo13. If that can be attributed to a regular account, that ed also merits a sanction. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've hard-blocked that IP for 48 hours. SQL^{Query me!} 21:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

It might be useful to have a checkuser look into this one - the IP is continuing to hop around on Sprint's network, harassing PVJ. SQL^{Query me!} 05:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• I just want to add that anyone who has things like Tricks for consensus in a heated environment on their talk page is playing mind games with editors here. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 20:56, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Murder, of course, is referencing the grey box at the top of my user page. I'd love to hear what anyone thinks about it at my user talk. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:24, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

It looks like good advice to me. HighInBC 21:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• So . . . you are condoning tricking editors to get consensus? Now that's one stamp of approval I didn't expect to see. Woo, hoo!!! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 00:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• Did you read the text or just the title? What you are saying makes no sense based on what the text says. HighInBC 01:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, High, but that's getting off topic. I'd be glad to host that discussion at my usertalk. See also Murder's pretty similar remarks at Vpump NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Prostetnic did indeed withdraw from editing the Malheur event pages. They say above that they haven't "edited the page since", but they have edited the Talk page to leave an uncivil message: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AOccupation_of_the_Malheur_National_Wildlife_Refuge&type=revision&diff=701282001&oldid=701231450 This was deleted by User:Oshwah, and Prostetnic re-added it in a slightly edited form: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AOccupation_of_the_Malheur_National_Wildlife_Refuge&type=revision&diff=701288664&oldid=701283774 Such language is in clear violation of WP:AGF.

Prostetnic also claims that, since then, we have seen "the page falling into disrepair". This is clearly not the case, as a look at Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge will show.

Prostetnic claims to have been "threatened, abused, gaslighted, and otherwise treated badly". No evidence has ever been presented to back-up such language. Bondegezou (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• The "threatened, abused, gaslighted, and otherwise treated badly" was an observation that I made. It's obvious Prostetnic is being mob bullied here. No one should be surprised that they fought back. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is set up to defend only those editors who've been here the longest and this is just another incident of tag-teaming to eliminate a new editor. Well done! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 00:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you MurderByDeletionism. That's precisely how it has felt to me the past few days. A pair of people tag teaming and using threats, intending to create a "consensus" by running off anyone who asked to hold up and have a discussion of unilateral actions that had a major impact on the page first. The harassment that's been thrown [91] [92] [93] at my talk page today just shows me that someone is trying to get me to react to them yet again, likely for NAEG's stated intention here of having me banned from so much as discussing about the article. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 01:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment by LavaBaron I created this article and was heavily involved in editing it for the first week. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz and other editors became inundated with a high level of ownership and excessively WP:BOLD editing being exhibited by Bondegezou and NewsAndEventsGuy, the latter of whom engaged in disruptive WP:POINTY self-reporting at ANI [94] in which Wugapodes (among others) repeatedly cautioned him that he was shooting himself in the foot.
I don't feel this ANI notice has been posted in GF. Many of the diffs provided in the original ANI don't contain anything remotely classifiable as personal attacks, nor even mention the complainant editors by name. I really think, given that, this should WP:BOOMERANG to a TBAN against NewsAndEventsGuy, especially considering the previous warnings he's received (linked above). Editors should not be subjected to claims of making personal attacks without diffs that demonstrate said alleged attacks. The diffs appear to just have been randomly pulled from the air to create the appearance of legitimacy and are simply content discussions. LavaBaron (talk) 00:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

NAEG reply to LavaBaron request for Tban on me ... and BOOMERANG request to prevent ongoing harassment from LavaBaron

A. Lava casts DIFF-free aspsersions of owernship

B. Lava invents the novel but unarticulated WP:Excessively bold editing Tban policy

C. Lava fails to assume good faith re: my-self reporting to ANI, which --- to anyone who assumes good faith --- was intended to educate me as to the basis of an admin's actions. An admin reverted me saying "Spam" in the edit summary.

Below is a summary of my self reported case (now archived). At the article, LavaBaron reverted me and I started a talk thread. I also posted several pointers to the thread at the talk pages for articles that should be interested. An admin reverted them with edit summary "spam". Here's what happened next

C1. Since I could not see how WP:SPAM applied, especially in light of WP:APPNOTE I asked.

C2. The admin declined to explain.

C3. So I self reported for purpose of getting education about how these two rules interact.

C4. My self-report at ANI may not have been the best approach but my intention was the opposite of POINTY. On the contrary, my method was consistent with WP:ADMINACCT which says in relevant part, unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools. Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed.

C5. And it worked!!!!! The admin in question did reply and explained she did not mean "spam" when she typed SPAM in the edit sum, rather she meant the section from WP:CANVASS on "spam and excessive cross posting". Whether what I did was "indiscriminate" has never been hashed out, because I then accepted the admin's reverts and moved on.

C6. Note that Lava's diff supports his NAEG thumping, instead of the archived thread which shows the actual response and education that accomplished the self report's good faith purpose. The full archived thread is here (there was some additional back and forth between us elsewhere also).

D. CONCLUSION - No OWENRSHIP diffs, an invented policy, and a stubborn failure to assume I simply wanted, in good faith, to flippin' understand the admin's actions... these all tell the same tale - Lava doesn't like me. I can live with that. That's hardly a reason to impose a Tban. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I like you just fine. This isn't about me "not liking you." You've been repeatedly told my many editors to stop shooting yourself in the foot with this repeated reporting - reporting that is almost paranoid in its obsessiveness - of various editors who have content disagreements with you, usually not really even regarding content (you and I are both pretty much on the same page on the Malheur article) but about your extremely unconventional style of editing. Anyway, I'm a 10,000 word underdog to you, as always. From viewing your sandboxes, I know you invest a lot of energy into typing up these complaints and rebuttals and Wikidrama just isn't something that interests me, so I'm leaving it there. LavaBaron (talk) 02:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@Lava, who said "You've been repeatedly told my many editors to stop shooting yourself in the foot with this repeated reporting - reporting that is almost paranoid in its obsessiveness - of various editors....."

A. Diffs please. Since you gave no diffs this looks like WP:Casting aspersions. Was that a harassing attempt to bait me?

B Hey! Wait a minute! There's evidence that suggests the answer! In the face of logic, you won't bother to defend your initial Tban request, which you made before and withdrew before. So what's that tell us about the armies of editors who have warned the paranoid NewsAndEventsGuy to stop these obsessive reports? What it tells us is you deserve a sanction yourself.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Is it possible to bring this to some resolution?

• User:Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz repeatedly made uncivil comments (pace User:LavaBaron), as detailed at the top of this section and including, "Fuck you, NewsAndEventsGuy, clearly all you want to do is damage this article. Well go the fuck right ahead and do it" [95], "two uncivil jackholes who think they WP:OWN the article want to play games and run people off" [96] and "uncivil threatening jerks" [97]. Prostetnic has made no apology and continues to repeat ridiculous claims here (e.g. that they are being "gaslighted"). Administrators: I would like to see some resolution of this issue, whatever you decide is for the best. I do not like having to approach Wikipedia with trepidation that more such personal attacks may have been made. LavaBaron: I am taken aback by your comment that "I don't feel this ANI notice has been posted in GF." I don't think "Fuck you" or "jackholes" or "jerks" are, as you put it, "simply content discussions".

• There have also now been unacceptable personal attacks on User talk:Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz by IP editing. Administrators: I fully support an investigation into this development and blocks for anyone involved.

• User:LavaBaron and User:Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz: if you wish to make a case against User:NewsAndEventsGuy, you are entitled to do so through appropriate channels. However, I would recommend you do so with clear diffs. A past trout-slapping hardly seems like a strong basis for much! Whatever your beef with NAEG is, however, it cannot warrant the personal attacks from PVJ against me. I would like to separate your past concerns around NAEG from my the complaint I have brought now against PVJ.

• User:MurderByDeadcopy: I suggest you review WP:AGF. Wikipedia is no place for conspiracy theories.

• User:LavaBaron: you accuse me of "overly bold" editing. Feel free to raise any concerns you have on my Talk page or on the article Talk page. I have made a number of bold edits: initially, there was about trimming details (e.g. the time of a press conference) from an overly long section in the main Malheur article. Some stuck, some were reverted, at which point I respected BRD and went to the Talk page [98]. There, several editors supported my edits [99] + [100], including NewsAndEventsGuy [101]. LavaBaron [102] and Prostetnic opposed these edits. I sought to discuss these with Prostetnic [103]. I also sought to discuss these with LavaBaron [104], but received no reply from LavaBaron. Later, this whole section was spun off to a Timeline article (by User:CaseyPenk, contrary to Prostetnic's implication it was me or NewsAndEventsGuy). I then made some bold edits moving material to the Timeline article and substantially abbreviating what remained in the main article to avoid duplication: e.g. [105]. I do not recall LavaBaron objecting to these edits. Thus, I do not feel I have been overly bold, but, as I said, happy to discuss further. Bondegezou (talk) 12:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• User:Bondegezou: I suggest you review WP:DONTBITE. Wikipedia is no place for conspiracy theories, indeed! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 18:02, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Since I was mentioned here I will toss in some context: I spun off the timeline article because the main article was ridiculously lengthy and way over-specific for a summary article, but it had valuable information and the efforts of the contributors deserved to be perpetuated. I stand by anyone who makes an effort to prune information (condensing or deleting it) from the main article and keep the specific details to the spinoff article. I haven't read the context of this discussion and I prefer not to get involved in administrative matters. But broadly speaking, I would hope no one would be personally attacked for trying to clean up an article and make it more concise for the reader, and I appreciate the efforts of people who do so. I support boldness in service of the reader. CaseyPenk (talk) 16:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I just need to point out that Bondezegou and/or NewsAndEventsGuy - whichever of them is doing it - are continuing to leave harassing messages on my talk page like this one: [106]. I do not think anyone should be put through what these two are putting me through. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

At present there is as much reason to think you're doing it yourself as there is to think its either of us. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:18, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

That IP address has been temporarily blocked for personal attacks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:35, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

And this[107] is the type of behavior I'm referring to. Attempting to blame the victim for the abuse is a classic tactic; this confirms for me the evaluations of MurderByDeletionism and Lavabaron that the goal is to have me "bullied, antagonized, gas-lighted, and pushed to the wall", "mob-bullied", and "tag-teamed." Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 19:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

This is not blaming the victim. They pointed out that it could be you just as easily as it could be them. Do YOU have any evidence proving that they are leaving these messages? Take a step back, breathe and try and realize that not everyone is trying to bully you here. The "bully card" is being overplayed on this thread and on Wikipedia in general. Anytime anyone seems to disagree with someone else there are accusations of bullying. Same goes for quoting policy. Wikipedia needs strong policies to survive, just because you don't agree with them doesn't mean you are being bullied. Mrfrobinson (talk) 20:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• I'm flattered that you followed me here! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 20:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes you are right. I followed you to AN/I a noticeboard that has been on my watchlist for almost 10 years. Mrfrobinson (talk) 20:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• AND you chose to comment here only because I'm here! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 21:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry this is out of order but I don't even know where to put it. I've been gone for 12 hours and there's another several WP:WALLOFTEXT from NewsAndEventsGuy. The only reason I'm posting at this point is that he is now attacking me that I'm "casting aspersions" and is demanding diffs of where he was warned by another editor. Fine. Right here just days ago: [108], Wugapoles said NewsAndEventsGuy is "not new and I think just needs a clue adjustment. I feel like an admonishment that his actions have been disruptive is enough" NEGuy - as you've been told by me and others, no one is out to get you. I'm not. No one is. Please cut it out. I don't believe you're gaslighting Prostetnic as MurderByDeletionism has alleged, I think you just don't know better and, in Wugapoles words, "need a clue adjustment." I know, from watching, you spend hours, and sometimes days, putting together these polemics against editors you believe are out to get you in your Sandboxes and then parachute them into Talk pages and ANI. I'm not going to do a bullet-point response because I, frankly, don't have time and also don't really care. This thread, like your previous ones, will be closed with no action and then, next week, you'll again be firing off walls of text peppered with exclamation points. Please just stop, have a glass of cold water, take a short walk, and then come back to WP with a new outlook. LavaBaron (talk) 20:57, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Behavioral evidence about likelihood that the trolling is by NewsAndEventsGuy:

• This diff [109] is NAEG's latest complaint about my edit. He complains that I have edited " closely related pages " and singles out Oath Keepers and Sovereign Citizen Movement.
• This diff [110] is the troll's latest threat on my talk page. Note that it too tells me to stop editing "related articles" with the phrasing "THAT MEANS RELATED ARTICLES TOO. YOU DON'T GET TO EDIT POSSE COMITATUS OR SOVEREIGN CITIZEN ARTICLES. FIND A NEW FOCUS OR GET BANNED. (all caps left by the troll on my talkpage).

Based on this, I feel it is a strong likelihood that NAEG is the who has been doing this, for purposes of gaslighting/harassing me. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 23:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

That is not even remotely evidence. HighInBC 23:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment This appears to be a kind of messy content dispute, I think all involved editors should take a deep breath and chill. This is a current ongoing, and obviously controversial topic to some degree. I know NAEG from climate related edits, but his contributions are good faith edits. I don't know the other editor, but ad hominems are really not the way to communicate efficiently. prokaryotes (talk) 23:57, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

If this bickering keeps up it is fairly likely some administrator will take advantage of the discretionary sanctions covering the article and remove those who are adding more heat than light to the situation. I suggest everyone involved takes a day or so off from the topic and when they return the strictly stick to commenting on the topic and not other editors. I am about to go through those involved and make sure they have gotten the DS alert to be sure they are fully aware. HighInBC 00:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I have left a American politics DS notice on the talk pages of NewsAndEventsGuy and Bondegezou. LavaBaron and Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz have already gotten them in the past. Please remember that these notices are not an accusation, however you are all considered aware of the sanctions in place on the article. More so than other Wikipedia articles editors are expected to work together in a polite fashion. If you are unable to do this then you should avoid the area. HighInBC 00:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Repeated reverts by Aubmn socks

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.

---

Blueundigo5 (talk · contribs · block user)
Banned Aubmn (talk · contribs · block user) has made multiple reverts of edits by Blue Indigo and now myself, most recently as Blueundigo5, and in the last couple of days as BlueUndigo4 (talk · contribs), BLueUndigo2 (talk · contribs), Blueundigo3 (talk · contribs), Blueindigo23 (talk · contribs), Newqueen2 (talk · contribs), Samfrodo (talk · contribs) and others. The others have been blocked by Bbb23 and Acroterion. Could anyone block Blueundigo5 and take whatever measures seem appropriate? NebY (talk) 19:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• Most recent sockpuppet account (Blueundigo5) responsible for vandalism to Italians and Paris in World War II, among others; also responsible for repeated and persistent edit warring. Helmut von Moltke (talk)

Blueundigo5 now reverted by many and blocked by the tireless BBbb23 - thanks. NebY (talk) 19:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

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

MoiraMoira's abuse

En.wiki is not Nl.wiki. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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. Doesn't belong here The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. I am really sick of this situation. Being stalked by an admin is already bothersome, but having one's IP range blocked for nothing is way too much. On nl.wikipedia the range 151.20.0.0/18 (belonging to a big slice of Italians) has been blocked for 1 months because of (Google Translate) "Disturbance / threatening atmosphere". The "Disturbance / threatening atmosphere" is the following message in a talk page: "We agreed to move also the German article at the end :-)"; such message was a reply to another user's message: "For your information: the German WP has the wrong spelling as well and the same discussion. Regards". The fact is that it was being discussed about an Italian spelling on de.wikipedia, and at the beginning user Tusculum did not agree with my purpose to rename a page, so he wrote that message in the related Dutch talk page. Eventually he and the other German users concurred with me and move the page, so I added "For your information" my message, to explain in that talk page that he agreed with me too. And I was blocked. For a month. For doing nothing bad. And with me a lot of Italians. In the last week on nl.wikipedia I have just written to another Dutch user and made no edits. Do you think is the admin's behaviour correct and respectful of Wikipedian rules and conditions? Besides I have seen that (s)he and another pair of Dutch admins/users are literally stalking me, even if I am not doing anything wrong, in each single Wiki-project I dare to surf, in one of ErikvanB's pages, whom I had already reported here. I have read some affairs on the Internet about this MoiraMoira and I am wondering whether I have to start being scared or not. It is not just the fact that admin has decided to make chasing me his/her mission: I do not know how tracking a user's activities is possible, either a lot of time is spended to search the Wikis for every 151.20 IP's contribution, and this would be a bit scary by itself, or they know more about "me" than the simple IP address, than what they are authorised to know, violating a user's privacy without being policemen or lawyers. I just would like this to end. The article for all this started has already been renamed in every language except Dutch, and I do not care if they prefer being the black sheep, but they still are not stopping the useless stalking, if I were a vandal I would have been blocked or warned on other Wikis or they would even do it themselves (actually it is one of them who has undergone that). And now MoiraMoira has abused admin's powers too, by blocking me for literally nothing that is worth a block, as you could read above. Please take some actions to stop such a behaviour. I would have written this on nl.wikipedia, but I was prevented from editing anything and even if I did they would delete it since they are the ones ruling the Dutch Wiki, so... 151.20.87.220 (talk) 20:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC) Nothing to see here. This is about a dispute at nl-wp, and as far as I can see MoiraMoira has been taking no action at all here on en. As far as I could figure out, the IP is on a cross-wiki campaign about the spelling of some Italian village, with "é" or with "è" (see Portobuffolé). Blocks on nl don't concern us here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC) So... I can do nothing and will just stay blocked as many others Italians for doing nothing wrong, is this what you mean? 151.20.107.241 (talk) 20:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC) There's certainly nothing you can do here. If you want to do something about it on nl-wikipedia, the best advice I can give you is to try to talk to them in a way that just sounds a bit less shrill and a bit less, pardon my French, obsessed. And stop behaving in ways that come across as hounding, like the way you kept posting unwanted messages to Moira on her nl talkpage, or the way you accused her here. I realize you are trying to get something done that you think is right, and as far as I can see you have successfully convinced a number of editors here on en-wikipedia that it is in fact the better version, but it really would help if you could acknowledge that it's (1) not a black-and-white matter – seeing as both forms clearly coexist, and (2) not an important matter at all – seeing as this is all about nothing more than the angle of some little black dot over the name of some obscure village. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:18, 24 January 2016 (UTC) But how could I talk if blocked? I wrote that at the end of my comment. Maybe it is not possible for an English admin to intervene there, even if "this" is the main, international Wiki and I think that some hig-ranked admin may do something about such an abuse, but if it is not so at least could an admin just try speaking in that Dutch admin's talk page to ask her to remove this unmotivated range block and to stop stalking, since I have no longer been doing anything wrong to those Dutch admins and in nl.wikipedia? 151.20.120.68 (talk) 21:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC) Seriously, you should simply leave the Dutch wiki alone. Since you don't speak Dutch, there's not overly much you can do there anyway, and if they want to keep those "è" instead of "é", why not just let them? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC) It is what I wrote in my message above, I do not care they are the only ones with a wrong spelling, so much the worse for them, I do not want to do anything more there, but the fact remains that block is motiveless and an abuse. If nothing is possible, well, at least English Wikipedians have learnt something new about that Dutch admin. 151.20.122.199 (talk) 21:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Refusing proper categorization

• KewinRozz (talk · contribs · count)

I properly categorized the Lavdrim Muhaxheri-article, created by the user, see diff here. I was reverted, insisted, was reverted, then initiated a discussion. From the discussion, it is clear that the user does not know how to properly categorize people. He is new, and this is his only article. After several replies clarifying the matter, he is still not getting it. Last revert here. I have assumed good faith, but I'm losing patience. Am I wrong here?--Zoupan 15:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

As I've replied on the talk page; As for now I'm reverting this to the original version which has been co - edited by not only me. The categories should be consistent with the article. I think that you're confusing subcategories with main categories when it's the main categories that are referenced to in the article. For instance, the article mentions "wahhabism" as a theory and not exclusively people who are wahhabists.Readers of the article might want to know both about the theory or people who adhere to it. The same goes with the rest. I'm currently looking at if your tag 'Kosovo Muslims' is consistent and relevant for the article. KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 15:43, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

First of all, this is a content dispute; in the future, things like this should go to a forum like WP:THIRDOPINION first, not here. But since we're already here, I'll give you my opinion. Looking at this diff, for the most part the tags on Zoupon's version make more sense the the other cats. This article is about a person, and thus person-oriented tags are more appropriate (e.g., "Wahhabists" vs. "Wahhabism." A tag like "Wahhabism" would be entirely appropriate if this person was an influential figure in Wahhabism as a school of thought, but not so much if they are simply an adherent. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:52, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi,Ohnoitsjamie, it concerns the following part; 'In August 2014 Kosovo mobilized to fight religious radicalism, also referred to as "wahhabism" and "radical Islamism", and terrorism by arresting around forty citizens who were suspected of engaging in the conflicts in Syria and Iraq.'KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 15:59, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

(1) I thought this conversation was about categories; I'm not sure what point you're making with this quote. (2) Please take this discussion back to the article's talk page where it belongs. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:02, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

It is (was?). I seriously believe that further discussion between the two of us will lead nowhere. It is now obvious that the user has ownership issues. See this revert of copyediting.--Zoupan 16:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The reverted versions was also an over - write but I've changed to the 'wahabists'. I have no ownership - issues whatsoever, as one can see I welcome co - editors.KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 16:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

But you just reverted Ohnoitsjamie... Need I say more?--Zoupan 16:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree that this sort of dispute is exactly what the WP:THIRDOPINION dispute resolution process is designed for. Mike1901 (talk) 16:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

That may have been the case. But now we're here, and the third opinion was reverted.--Zoupan 16:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Do yourselves a favor and stay away from category arguments. Nobody cares about categories. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Obviously some people do or we wouldn't be here, would we. 74.205.176.200 (talk) 16:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to see some evidence that anyone besides Wikipedia editors care. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Heh, touché. 74.205.176.200 (talk) 12:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

These categories were added by me and other co - editors and I've suggested that the discussion would be on the talk page so that other co - editors could partake. One can compare with the previous versions prior to today User:KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 16:34, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion between the two of us went nowhere. Since the user has been warned, I would also like to ask if this revert of copy-editing is appropriate?--Zoupan 16:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

...Lavdrim Muhaxheri was 9 years old during the Kosovo War. Should he be included in the "People of the Kosovo War" category? KewinRozz insists.--Zoupan 18:27, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

It is now getting seriously annoying. Please take a look at the user's replies at the article talk page.--Zoupan 14:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editing & dishonest behavior by experienced editor Alexikoua

I believe there's a glaring discrepancy between what you'd expect from someone who's been an editor for more than 7 years, and how Alexikoua (talk · contribs) behaves, especially concerning intellectual honesty. I made an edit (explained here and here) since this was the only way for me to get Alexikoua to engage in discussing this specific issue. I subsequently pinged Alexikoua to make sure he understood why I made these edits. Not a single time did he discuss the issue on the appropriate section on the talk page during this period (my post still stands as the most recent one here), but this has not stopped him from reverting, again, again, again, and again. His reasons for reverting in chronological order are:

1. He claims removing "in Albania" is disruptive
2. Accuses me of violating "DRN procedure" and threatens to report me
3. He implies the issue has been settled because it's been "refuted in all noticeboards (DRN etc)"
4. He states that "all noticeboards disagreed with this removal" (my removals of "in Albania")
5. He states that it has been "ignored in DRN & all noticeboards"

I will get back to points 1-4 (point 5 speaks for itself), but first some background (who's Kone?)

Why is Alexikoua insisting on adding "in Albania"? Because by adding "in Albania", it leads the reader to believe that Kone did not mean "Albanian origin", and Alexikoua has already decided that the latter is not possible (WP:IDONTLIKEIT). This is not a coincidence, but a tactic he's used several times to push a certain narrative. Two other examples come to mind:

• The Italian source which labels Kone as "greek midfielder of Albanian origin" is interpreted by Alexikoua as "the greek midfielder originating from Albania".
• Eventhough two neutral editors claimed that Kone declared in his press release that he was of "Albanian ancestry" (here and here), Alexikoua insists that it could also mean "originating in Albania" (see the pattern?). Noitce how Alexikoua gets accused of distorting Kone's own saying. I'd argue that this isn't the first time Alexikoua distorts Kone's words (compare translations he did in 2014 vs 2015). The addition of "whether in Albanian or not" is important because it allowed him to argue that "all relatives are greek independent of where they live, and parents are relatives too, thus Kone's ethnic greek".

With regards to point 1 raised earlier, I'll let the admins decide. As for point 2, at that point, the DRN was closed, so it's beyond me how he can accuse me of violating DRN procedure. And finally, points 3 & 4 are downright dishonest. To refute means "to prove to be false or erroneous, as an opinion or charge." The DRN, which was closed due to no one volunteering, can be found here. Notice that in his summary of dispute Alexikoua never addressed the specific point which he argues was refuted. As for being refuted on other noticeboards, that's simply not true either. I welcome Alexikoua to present diffs where these points have been refuted on noticeboards. Unless he can provide these diffs, his reasons for reverting on said basis should be regarded as fabrications (never mind that he doesn't discuss it on the talk page).

Alexikoua resorts to ad hominem and accuses me of "usual trolling", and again threatens to report me, but this time for "continuous disruption". Notice how he on both occasions doesn't follow through with the report, and on both occasions I am "1 step from being reported". One can only conclude that these are merely attempts to silence the new editor (me).

Shortly after the DRN was closed, I opened a RfC. Alexikoua stops by and accuses me of manipulating available material. Apart from the fact that it's disruptive to "crash" someone's RfC like that, the accusations he make's have no merit whatsoever. This is evident from the fact that the concerns I raised on the RfC concerning unsupported claims about Kone's ethnic background have now been remedied through consensus.

I even warned Alexikoua, but he didn't hesitate to remove it. [111]

I believe an administrator could look at all of this, and say "tl:dr, new user vs old user, this is a content dispute, will not get involved". I'd argue that this is the easy way out. At least ask Alexikoua to provide some form of evidence for points 3-4. Ask him about point 5 (is this even a legitimate reason for reverting?). Ask him why he ignores to discuss the issue on the talk page. Ask him why he's accused me of trolling. My closing statement will be a straightforward question to the administrators: provided what I present here is true, would you say that the actions of Alexikoua are in line with the policies of Wikipedia with regards to intellectual honesty? DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 23:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

A short note on one point: removing a warning is entirely acceptable; the only thing not allowed to be removed is a declined unblock request during the duration of the block in question. Removing a warning is considered the same thing as saying "I've read it". Don't have knowledge to dig into the rest here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not saying that it's not acceptable. However, if you look at his reason for removing it, it reads "tag misuse". My intention was just to show that there is a pattern on behavior that's not allowing us to move forward with the issue. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 09:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid that this is a rather desperate report by DevilsWB simply because he fails to wp:OWN the specific article & more precisely to remove a tiny part [[112]]. Although he was kindly adviced by third part users in the DRN that his proposal is clearly problematic [[113]] he simply ignored it and continues with the removal like nothing happens.

I would rather disagree with the "young innocent user" scenario. DevilsWB was already blocked once (as an unlogged editor [[114]][[115]]) due to disruption in this article & he was until recently cooperating with two persitent socks: MorenaReka ([[116]] the only one that found his pov reasonable in the DRN) and Lostrigot (edit-warring in DWB's favor [[117]]). The last one was blocked a few hours before DWB filled this report.

The "third party" user would be User:Zoupan? He easily qualifies as neutral here as much as I or User:Athenean do. You're welcome to present a topic where he took a stance or voted against you or Athenean. So much for the canvass that you try to accuse DevilWB.--Mondiad (talk) 14:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

It is also worth to mention that there are off-wiki attempts in favor of DWB's pov. For example this thread [[118]] shares the some spelling spelling mistakes with DWB (Greek without cap [[119]]). Thus, if there is a specific user that creates disruption as part of the above that's not me.Alexikoua (talk) 15:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

As much as User:Alexikoua tries to divert attention out of the article itself, DevilWB is right about the content:

The Italian sources which are the most neutral in this case clearly state di origine Albanese[120] (Kone è di origine albanese ma di nazionalità greca) [121] (greco di origine albanese) - a fragment coming out of his word int the press-conference in Italy - and not "of origin in Albania" as Alexikoua tries to push.

Still related to the content, I made some edits in order to stop any edit-warring and placed all Greek sources along with Albanian and Italian ones. But the Greek text is a mistranslation of the original Italian text ma sono Greco (but [I] am Greek) using probably Google Translate ending by mistake in "but they are Greeks" which would be "ma sono Greci". You are welcomed to ping any native Italian user and ask for an opinion, as a matter of fact I will start searching for one. The importance is that by this statement Kone's family comes out to be of Greek origin, going back to Kone as an Albanian of Greek descent. This is the nutshell of all discussions. Instead of categorizing him as Category:Greek people of Albanian descent it came up as Category:Albanian people of Greek descent. It's not the first time Alexikoua pushes these kind of misinterpretations, and I am pretty sure he understands here to error in translation.

It is too bad we have to loose so much time about his "basic ethnicity" which is clearly Albanian and not focus on other topics, just because Alexikoua doesn't like the idea. At the end, Kone made his own choices in life. He states that he "feels Greek" and he "never denied his Albanian origin". That should be sufficient. The rest should be just soccer.--Mondiad (talk) 14:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Although he was kindly adviced by third part users in the DRN that his proposal is clearly problematic 89 he simply ignored it and continues with the removal like nothing happens. Reading this might give you the impression that these neutral "third party users" (not sure if he meant users or user) decided to step in and lecture me about the problematic nature of my arguments. No, that's not what happened. What really happened, is that one of the users who happened to disagree with me from the get go, explained his position in his dispute summary. It's the same user who later made this statement: [122]

I would rather disagree with the "young innocent user" scenario. DevilsWB was already blocked once (as an unlogged editor [[123]][[124]]) due to disruption in this article

I started editing under my IP-address, and decided to create an account shortly after, but I never hid the connection [125] Yes, I was blocked for disruptive editing, but what Alexikoua is conveniently hiding is that my unblock request was accepted. [126] Further, I did what I promised to do. I opened a DRN, and during the time it was open I only made two edits to the article: I reverted vandalism, and placed an OR tag (which Alexikoua subsequently reverted). I asked an admin for assistance who agreed with me that the entry was troublesome. [127] I opened a RfC. I never touched the main part that was being disputed (the opening sentence under Personal Life), not once! I finally convinced the "third party user" that the entry was problematic, and he made the necessary adjustments. [128] With regards to the other part that is disputed, i.e. "in Albania", I started editing it after the RfC was opened in order to get Alexikoua to engage in discussing it, because he had until then (and still has) ignored the discussion related to this part on the talk page. It's all in my OP.

he was until recently cooperating with two persitent socks: MorenaReka ([[129]] the only one that found his pov reasonable in the DRN) and Lostrigot (edit-warring in DWB's favor [[130]]). The last one was blocked a few hours before DWB filled this report.

Notice the lack of evidence here. For what it's worth, when I first made the DRN request, I didn't even include MorenReka [131], but this was closed by a volunteer since he noticed that MorenReka had made one or two posts on the talk page related to the dispute and his/her participation was thus required. There was never a cooperation between me and MorenaReka, quite the contrary. I told her/him that I preferred to tackle the dispute alone. [132] With regards to Lostrigot, he decided to enter the scene relatively late. But there's no cooperation here either, I agreed with his addition of Kone's origin (something I myself had been arguing for earlier), but I disagreed with his addition of trivia.[133][134]

It is also worth to mention that there are off-wiki attempts in favor of DWB's pov. For example this thread [[135]] shares the some spelling spelling mistakes with DWB (Greek without cap [[136]]). Thus, if there is a specific user that creates disruption as part of the above that's not me.Alexikoua (talk) 15:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

How's this relevant? DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 18:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Attempting to recruit people online to join your battles on wikipedia is very relevant, as it is considered very disruptive. So I'm going to ask you point-blank: Is this [137] you? Athenean (talk) 00:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

It's called Stealth Canvassing: "Contacting users off-wiki (by e-mail or IRC, for example) to persuade them to join in discussions (unless there is a specific reason not to use talk pages)" and/or Meat Puppetry: "Do not recruit your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia and supporting your side of a debate.", and both are clear violations of Wikipedia policy. In my eyes this is more egregious than the content dispute.UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 00:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's me. However, I was a new user (only days old). I did not know the policies of wikipedia. If it's sanctionable, so be it. For the record, here's a similar request I made to an editor: [138]. I always had good intentions, I wanted to make something right that I knew was wrong. Also, this shouldn't be a reason to dismiss everything I presented about Alexikoua's behavior. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 09:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@UnequivocalAmbivalence: This is not a content dispute, but rather about Alexikoua's behavior. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 09:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

In this case DWB fully ignores DRN statements, especially from the DRN filled by himself and continues with instant removals. This is indeed serious evidence of disruption from his part. Nevertheless the editor initiated this desperate report, after unsucessful attempts to recruit long-term sock accounts. No wonder it was filled a few hours after the last recuited sock was blocked. I'm afraid that this is a case of Wikipedia:Don't shoot yourself in the foot.Alexikoua (talk) 11:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

In this case DWB fully ignores DRN statements, especially from the DRN filled by himself and continues with instant removals. This is indeed serious evidence of disruption from his part This is so bizarre. The DRN statement you speak of was from another party involved in the dispute. It's as if I would accuse you of ignoring my DRN statements, or Resnjari's comments. The DRN was closed, there were no volunteers. I didn't edit during the DRN (apart from the edits I made explained above). The end. It's all in my OP. Nevertheless the editor initiated this desperate report, after unsucessful attempts to recruit long-term sock accounts. No wonder it was filled a few hours after the last recuited sock was blocked. I'm afraid that this is a case of Wikipedia:Don't shoot yourself in the foot I have already admitted to "meatpuppery" (see post above), but there were no attempts to recruit long-term sock accounts. I don't think I even knew what sock accounts were then. But, honestly, whatever. I'm not even surprised anymore. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 12:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@DevilWearsBrioni: If this wasn't a content dispute than you should have refrained from proffering evidence that your content is correct. Instead, the bulk of your posts here are related to proving that you were right in your content changes, and that his refusal to accept your correctness is at the heart of his "Disruptive editing & dishonest behavior". Secondly, I find your argument that you were new and unknowing to be unconvincing. You clearly acquainted yourself with enough Wikipedia policy to start this report, and by that time you should have become familiar with the core policies, so any failure to understand the rules at this point is on you as it would have to be a willful ignorance. Also the tone of the reddit post makes assuming good faith impossible, as the intent was clearly laid out. The bottom line is that this type of behavior is unacceptable, regardless of whether or not you are right. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@UnequivocalAmbivalence: If this wasn't a content dispute than you should have refrained from proffering evidence that your content is correct. Instead, the bulk of your posts here are related to proving that you were right in your content changes, and that his refusal to accept your correctness is at the heart of his "Disruptive editing & dishonest behavior". This is absolutely false and the fact that you'd say this makes me question your motives here. The heart of his "disruptive editing & dishonest behavior" is the fact that he repeatedly reverted me without discussing the issue (why am I obligated to discuss, and he's not?), and that the reasons given in his edit summaries are incredibly dishonest. Or do you agree with him that my edit was "refuted on all noticeboards" or that "all noticeboards disagreed" with my edit? Like I wrote in my OP: Unless he can provide these diffs, his reasons for reverting on said basis should be regarded as fabrications. Do you think it's OK to revert without discussing the issue and justify reversions with lies and half-truths? Do you think it's OK to accuse someone of trolling? Do you think it's OK drop a comment like he did on the RfC? I look forward to you answering these questions. Moreover, I'd love to hear what parts of my posts involve "proffering evidence that my content is correct". Secondly, I find your argument that you were new and unknowing to be unconvincing. You clearly acquainted yourself with enough Wikipedia policy to start this report, and by that time you should have become familiar with the core policies, so any failure to understand the rules at this point is on you as it would have to be a willful ignorance. By what time? The post on reddit was written a couple of days after I started editing on wikipedia (2 or 3 perhaps). That was one month ago. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

It is not false. To avoid large blocks of text I will refrain from long quotes, but I will offer this one from your first post. "The Italian source which labels Kone as "greek midfielder of Albanian origin" is interpreted by Alexikoua as "the greek midfielder originating from Albania"." This is a content issue. As to his accusations, the reddit link seems to give them quite a bit of credence. And the phrase "By this time" means just that, right now when you expressed your ignorance as to why your previous actions, which were disruptive and directly against policy, would be relevant. Even if you didn't know then, you should absolutely have known by now, and you should understand why they are extremely relevant. The interceding months should have given you insight into that, and you should understand why they were disruptive, why they are relevant now, and perhaps even show a little contrition about it. I am not condoning the way in which Alexikoa may have been going about asserting his version or that he is blameless, but to my eyes the most egregious violations are your breaches of policy and your failure to recognize them. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 00:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

It is demonstrably false. There's an important sentence preceding the one you bring up: "This is not a coincidence, but a tactic he's used several times to push a certain narrative. Two other examples come to mind:". It's not about the content per se, but about the pattern of dishonest behavior. It takes a special kind of dishonesty to interpret this the way Alexikoua does, and if there's any ambiguity as to why he does it: the other material I put fourth (originating in/from Albania) certainly paints a picture. As to his accusations, the reddit link seems to give them quite a bit of credence. The "evidence" that I am recruiting "long term socks" pales in comparison to the evidence I've presented with regards to his dishonest and disruptive behavior, but it seems like you don't give a rats ass about that part. The interceding months should have given you insight into that, and you should understand why they were disruptive, why they are relevant now, and perhaps even show a little contrition about it. Months, or month? No agenda here, right? I am not condoning the way in which Alexikoa may have been going about asserting his version or that he is blameless, but to my eyes the most egregious violations are your breaches of policy and your failure to recognize them. I have recognized them. Your focus this entire time has been on me, and only on one side of the story. You don't condone his actions, but you've been very cautious to not condemn them either. You didn't even answer my questions concerning his behavior. Him being blatantly dishonest doesn't depend on my existence. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 01:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@UnequivocalAmbivalence:, this discussion was not raised to decide if User:Alexikoua is a good or a bad guy, but rather his behavior towards an article. All this is getting too long. User:DevilWB accuses him "Disruptive editing & dishonest behavior" related to the Kone's article. It has to be seen in the article's context. DevilWB is also taking responsibility for his actions, and not denying anything. Can you please also take a moment to consider if DevilWB is right or not about Alexikoua's behavior in this case? It's not a content issue but user's behavior towards the article's content issue. For what you are saying seems like an editor can do whatever he/she wants with an article as long as the other side is a potential subject to WP:SHOT. By the way, WP:SHOT says There is no "immunity" for reporters, it does not state that the initial topic of the report should be ignored based on a weighting system of who is more culpable. It's not a tool for scaring reporters, but for making sure there are no exceptions to rules. --Mondiad (talk) 00:08, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

An IP on a dynamic AT&T Mobility range has been engaging in persistent personal attacks over the past 24 hours

There's an issue with drafts being shuffled around by Ricky81682 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) that's being handled over at WT:WPAFC. However, we've had a repeated issue with an anon placing inflammatory comments over on that page. He was already banned after trying to get Ricky desysoped over at AN but apparently he's on a rather dynamic network and has swapped IPs consistently and continued to leave messages. Here's a hopefully complete list of socks:

• 166.170.44.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - original banned IP
• 166.170.45.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 166.170.45.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 107.72.98.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

He's already been banned on the first IP and it's pretty obvious he's the same guy. Could we get a ban on these and any other socks that he shows up with? --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 05:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Let's just WP:DENY and move on please. The same complaint is happening here by regular editors here so if they want to bring it here, let them do it without encouraging this character. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:56, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, but we need to at least deal with these IPs. It's vandalism all the same, even if it's on a talk page. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 05:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

It's been months of this. WP:RBI. This character is following me around demanding the same thing ever change he gets. The subject matter is the excuse. Worst part if I can't even tell if it's from the longevity issues or the Indian caste stuff or the Koch-brother stuff or what but he's been consistently angry with me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I considered leaving a polite message asking what draft it was but since he's already been banned after he tried to get you desysoped it'd be better if we just ban these IPs and semi-protect WT:WPAFC for a few days. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 06:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

As I said, I don't think it's a draft that's an issue. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Blocked, not banned. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@The Bushranger: If it's this dude, they are indeed banned.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I meant to say blocked. But since it looks like they have already been banned previously, it's a moot point. In any case, he's back on 2605:e000:3f13:1d00:8a7:d8fe:c0d1:f4f6 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 166.170.48.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) doing the same thing he's been doing (either trying to call for Ricky to topic banned from AfC or just spouting personal attacks against everyone involved). --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 18:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah, then I stand (well, sit) corrected! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:18, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah this guy! As Jezebel's Ponyo has mentioned, this particular individual has been quite a thorn for a while. Liberal application of WP:RBI is pretty much the SOP when dealing with this person. A little back history is available here, if anyone happens to be interested. Blackmane (talk) 01:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@Blackmane: Geez, looks like that guy's got quite a history, especially with the consistent personal attacks against Ricky. Might ought to consider a range block, at least over 166.170.44.xx and 160.170.45.xx and possibly even higher to 166.170.xx.xx if that won't cause too much collateral damage. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 04:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Rangeblocks have been assessed by several Checksusers and are not possible due to extensive collateral.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

In the case, can we just get a block on these and then deal with any other socks that pop up when they do? --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 00:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, looks like he struck again over at bot requests. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 00:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Massive deletion of userspace

166* troll. Do Not Feed, before or after midnight. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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. DGG is going on a rampage and going to pretty much wild out all of userspace. This requires more than a small suggestion. We can't drive away all out content creators here. 166.176.59.145 (talk) 10:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC) (Non-administrator comment) Ummm... And what exactly is the reason you bring this to WP:ANI? Kleuske (talk) 10:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC) To be fair, an RfC would probably have been a good idea. Or listing at T:CENT. But yeah, a proposal to apply WP:G13 outside of draftspace isn't something to announce on ANI. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 10:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Err.... compare the IP address here with the IP address on this report . Might there be a connection - he certainly doesn't have any userspace to delete KoshVorlon 16:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC) The WP:DUCK is strong in this one - good catch. Blocked and will hat per WP:DENY. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Here to build an encyclopedia

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

---

I just reverted some edits at WP:Here to build an encyclopedia and was going to leave a typical warning but this is above my pay grade. See the result of the edits and the uploaded file. Is any action needed beyond monitoring? Johnuniq (talk) 09:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Looks like the edit was suppressed by an oversighter. The image is on Commons but is now tagged for speedy deletion. — foxj 09:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Eaglestorm and How I Met Your Mother 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.

---

In mid-2015, Koavf edited some How I Met Your Mother articles en masse, without leaving an edit summary, performing edits which did things along the lines of removing sections under the headings "Trivia", "Cultural references" and "Music", and adding tags to indicate plot sections were too long or lead paragraphs too short (e.g. [139]). I initially disagreed with him, and even reverted one of his edits ([140]), but after beginning a discussion on his user talk page (archive link), I came to agree with him.

Eaglestorm, before this discussion, was reverting many of Koavf's edits, and has been doing so intermittently ever since. Eaglestorm's edits usually have one of the following edit summaries: "nonsense pogrom", "culling", "revert driveby deletion", "pogrom by converted", or something similar. ([141][142][143][144][145] and many more.) Today, he reverted three of Koavf's edits and wrote this message on his talk page before quickly archiving. Every time I've seen Eaglestorm doing this, I've reverted him/her, leaving edit summaries linking to the discussion mentioned above, citing relevant policies and trying to start discussion ([146][147]). Eaglestorm has refused to open up discussion, ignoring messages left on his/her user talk ([148], until his response today). I believe there have been some other issues involving Eaglestorm's conduct in the past ([149][150]), particularly with their lack of communication. I have avoided bringing them to ANI in the past as their edits were erratic, but this message was probably the clearest indication that Eaglestorm has no intent of editing constructive in this topic ("FU both"). This is not a simple content dispute issue as there have been no objections to the actions of Koavf or I, other than Eaglestorm, who has never started a discussion or (as far as I can remember) cited policy in an edit summary when editing this topic. I'm unfamiliar with ANI so I don't know how things usually work here, but I feel a topic ban from HIMYM articles, or a block would deter this action by Eaglestorm. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 19:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I think this is a subject that should be discussed on the article talk pages. I know that when this series was on the air, the pages were heavily edited and I think a consensus should be attempted because I'm not sure whether either editor has consensus on their side. I remember that it was standard for this series to have Trivia sections for each episode so removing them from certain episodes could be seen as disruptive. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

It is not like Eaglestorm is a newbie. He has almost 13,000 edits compared to 8,000 for Bilorv. I guess that could cut either way. H. Humbert (talk) 06:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

On one hand, Liz, we have WP:FANCRUFT, WP:IINFO, WP:V, WP:TRIVIA, WP:OR, WP:UNDUE; on the other, we have... resistance to change. Have you read some of the content Eaglestorm is fighting to include here? Cultural references such as "Robin's "vice" bag is compared to Mary Poppins' magical bag." ([151] For context in the show, this is one character making a joke about another's bag in a 5-second portion of a ~21-minute episode, and should not be mentioned any more than anyone would ever think of listing all the jokes in the episode. This isn't cherry-picking: this is essentially the gist of every bullet point under every "Cultural reference" section there ever has been on a HIMYM article.) Now I know several Wikia where lists of allusions to any work of media in the real world is standard, but that's not the case on Wikipedia. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 07:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Eaglestorm is continuing to violate WP:CIVILITY with this obvious attempt at provoking me ("ugly stains by butthurt people"). If this was a new editor, admins would have no problem blocking him. Because Eaglestorm has 13,000 edits, as H. Humbert points out, no one but Liz can even bother to reply here. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 13:47, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I have placed a temporary block on this account for the personal attack noted above, which should show that such comments are not acceptable here. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to disagree with Liz here, in that this is clearly progressing into much more than a mere content issue. If it were that simple, I'd suffice it to say that Bilorv and Koavf clearly have the right of this, according to all policy and community consensus on this kind of fancruft. The disputed material (in-so-far as has been presented here), clearly falls under WP:TRIVIA, WP:OR, WP:WEIGHT, and the other policies cited above. This kind of content is, broadly speaking, not important to an an encyclopaedic summary of the subject of those articles and constitutes a kind of bloat upon which the community has very clear standards. I can't see the removal of this content as being very contentious in any consensus discussion amongst experienced editors, though I'm curious nonetheless to know how many editors have been involved in the relevant discussions thus far.

But these content issues are quite beside the point, insofar as ANI-relevant complaints are concerned. The behavioural issues are quite another matter. Edit-warring under any circumstances is problematic, but all the worse when one of the parties is using inflammatory, hyperbolic language like "pogrom" and "conspiracy", which is clearly a violation of WP:AGF and general common sense when it comes to measured discussion between contributors. There's also a pretty significant implication of WP:OWN and lack of perspective and understanding of the collaborative process of WP anytime an editor invokes the kind "things were just right until you came along" sentiments that can be seen here. As if that were not enough, the "FU" comment blows by the bright line with regard to WP:CIVILITY and is not to be tolerated on this project. This is all superfluous commentary, given Martin has taken the action clearly warranted in these circumstances, but I thought I would add my voice to those urging the editor in question to learn to be less attached to his content and better internalize Wikipedia principles and procedure, or at least to understand that civility is the best route around even those you think are trampling on good content. Bear in mind, all I know of this dispute is what has been presented here, but in light of that evidence, I rather suspect Bilorv and Koavf are to commended for keeping their cool and for pursuing the issue through proper procedure. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you for your input, Snow Rise. I'm afraid I feel that Eaglestorm is not going to change, following their presumably intentional choice to refuse to discuss this even at ANI, the edit summary "illegal block by conspirators", this rant and rude comments to IPs like this (although to be fair, the IP was wrong to make this revert). I understand that Eaglestorm has been around for a while and made a lot of edits, and while I'm sure many of the ones he/she makes today are still constructive (e.g. this and this, although I'm not familiar with the subject matter), if they were a new editor solely reverting edits to HIMYM articles and writing these overly intense rants, I would probably be quoting WP:CIR. They've been blocked five times and they still don't get the message. I don't wish them any ill will, but I do feel that this discussion has been in vain. However, I still hope Eaglestorm will take your comments on board and try to react less angrily and defensively in the future. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 22:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• Propose indef block. While this thread does look to be a masquerading content dispute, what we really have here is a user with a long history of blocks for edit warring, refusing to discuss anything in any venue, and personal attacks. Wikipedia is a collaborative project; any one of these would be unacceptable behaviour as isolated incidents, but together and in a pattern they show an editor who is not here to build an encyclopedia. Their response to the NPA block above was to post a screed disguised as an unblock request railing against the "deletionist alliance" (paraphrased) working against them, which after their block expired they removed immediately with a note decrying the "illegal block by conspirators" (removing a personal attacks block notice with another personal attack), followed by a nasty note (now deleted; it included the text "Get lost and mind your own business, loser!") to an IP with three edits. We don't need any more of this kind of editor around here. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support: I'm afraid I have to agree. Unfortunately, this user appears to unambigously lack even basic competency with regard to our most minimal standards for civility and the collaborative process. Indeed, despite more than eight years on the project, they seem to lack familiarity with many of our most straight-forward content and behavioural guidelines. At this point, it is pretty obvious that they will not desist in outright harassing any editor which they perceive to be members of the "conspiracy" that exists in their head; they cannot disengage from said editors because "these assholes" are "RUINING EVERYTHING!". Frankly, at this juncture, the diatribes have devolved to the point where I honestly don't think they can be described accurately as anything but meltdowns and temper-tantrums. Even putting aside the paranoid suggestion of conspiracies, I just don't think this user has the social maturity required to participate on this project. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support Snow rise has summed it up nicely. For an editor to have been here as long as Eaglestorm, this really is unacceptable. Blackmane (talk) 05:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support per Snow Rise, as well as the fact that this editor should know this type of behavior is unacceptable, considering they have over 13,000 edits and have been here for eight years. Not to mention this[[152]] complete lack of trying to recognize wrong behavior, as well as trying to shunt blame to other editors in a ban appeal. Boomer Vial (talk) 07:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
• Eaglestorm continues incivility and refusal to co-operate in a different topic, Ace Combat articles, with this and this edit summary directed at ScrapIronIV. I'm unsure as to what "going after me with all those other editors" is supposed to mean (possible this very ANI thread, which is completely and utterly unrelated?), but "unjustified stupidity by troll" is a violation of WP:AGF at best, and in my opinion another personal attack. I think that an indef block is warranted. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 18:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support I have had minimal interaction with this editor. As posted in links above, posting a 3RR warning on their page was "unjustified stupidity by troll", warning them of that incivility was "continued harassment" and made me part of some cabal that is out to get them. I do not believe this is acceptable behavior. Scr★pIron^IV 18:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support - I'm going to have to agree with Snow Rise on this matter. This degree of uncivilized behavior is appalling to say the least. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:08, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Hoaxes

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.

---

58.96.113.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked on January 8 after creating many many nonsense pages/hoaxes. The block expired and the IP address has returned to creating even more hoaxes. Qpalzmmzlapq (talk | contribs) 02:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Blocked for a year. The IP appears to be static and this has been going on for a long time. Acroterion (talk) 03:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Block evasion

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:LongDistance06 was previously blocked and has since evaded the block under the new account User:NewLongdistance06 without discussion of why the indefinite block should be removed. SFB 15:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Blocked, with a little information on their page about what they need to do to be unblocked. It's not exactly a well-hidden sock — maybe they simply didn't understand that a block applies to the person. Bishonen | talk 15:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC).

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

Backlog

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 a massive backlog on WP:AIV and consequently a vandal I reported an hour ago has spent the last half an hour writing "fuck you bitch" on my talk page. Can someone please handle this? 108.94.155.69 (talk) 17:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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.

---

Diff Clear threat of taking legal action against FoCuSandLeArN. Winner 42 Talk to me! 19:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Now blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Long term abuse

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Long_term_abuse

 – Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:35, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Py0alb

Please refer to this ANI which resulted in a warning to User:Py0alb following "conduct (that) is attacking and ill-informed". The admin at the time said that "a block for incivility at this point would be more punitive than preventive. However, any more attacks or warring by Py0alb will be met with sanctions". A formal warning was placed on Py0alb's talk page and was promptly deleted by Py0alb.

Py0alb is a very occasional visitor to the site with just only 582 edits in five years and yet he makes bold claims about site policy as if he is an experienced and regular user. He seems to become involved in conflict every time he visits the site as a check of his talk page and contributions will reveal. For example, an argument with User:115ash led to him posting this warning which was not justified. On his own talk page, there is this complaint about his attitude. He has also been in breach of copyright.

He had not been on the site since November last year and reappeared on 18 January with this confrontational attack on the major cricket article. I considered his tone and his use of the phrase "un-encyclopaedic gibberish" to be a breach of WP:CIVIL. I therefore reverted his edit and suggested that he puts forward a constructive argument if he wants someone to respond to him. His response to that was to reinstate his original post, "warning" me that I will be banned and demanding that other people are polite and respectful to him. Admittedly annoyed by his attitude, including his apparently entrenched view that the term does not exist despite the evidence in the article, I responded by advising him to study the citations. His response to that was to again threaten me with a ban because I, and not he, am guilty of abusive behaviour. Apparently, it is abusive to suggest that he needs to read the citations to understand that the term does exist and has widespread usage.

He placed a PROD on the article, claiming that the term does not exist, despite the citation evidence. That is his prerogative and it is mine to remove the PROD as I do not agree with it, so I did so. He came back and reinstated the PROD, demanding that the article is deleted immediately. This is, of course, out of process because if a PROD is rejected by an interested party, the next step is to take the article to AfD. His second attempt at PROD was removed by another user who advised him of the correct procedure.

Today, having been inactive for two days, Py0alb blanked the entire article and placed a redirect on it. His comment was a threat that anyone reverting his change would be banned, which is bang out of order. He made reference to a previous AfD in 2011 when an earlier version of the article was deleted because it lacked citations. The current version has several citations from significant sources to comply with WP:GNG. Besides blanking the article, he went into the talk page and declared that it is "a direct contravention of Wikipedia policy" (this from someone with only 582 edits in five years) to recreate an article that was formerly deleted. Any article can be recreated if the earlier issues (in this case, no citations) can be resolved. He finishes by saying without any authority whatsoever that "The article will now be deleted for the final time".

Frankly, this person is a troublemaker. He seeks confrontation and it is evident from his attitude to this article and also to the Indoor cricket article for which he received his warning two years ago that his sole rationale is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. He has obviously not learned anything from the formal warning which, remember, he immediately deleted from his talk page. I recommend an indefinite WP:BLOCK for someone whose behaviour is repeatedly hostile, abusive and unreasonable. Jack | ^{talk page} 21:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

AfD on this page was discussed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Major_cricket. Consensus is to delete. Jack is ignoring this consensus and is now engaging in an edit war and engaging in a personal vendetta against me (see this completely unnecessary ANI for an example). This is not a personal matter, it is merely a matter of correctly following protocol. I understand that it can be difficult when a page you have worked on is deleted - I have experienced this in the past - but Jack needs to calm down and understand that this page is unencyclopaedic, and that his opinion alone is not sufficient to supercede a clear consensus. I do not want a war, I merely want correct protocol to be followed. The phrase is a nonsense.

Thanks, Py0alb (talk) 00:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

You're absolutely wrong as a matter of policy. Fortunately, another editor has reverted you, or I would have done so myself. But you don't have only one choice (take it to AfD); you can also tag it per WP:CSD#G4. Frankly, I doubt an administrator would delete it on that criterion, so taking it to AfD again is the better option. From the diffs above, this isn't the first time you've made statements or acted as if you are a policy wonk when in fact your grasp of many policies is sorely lacking. No one expects editors to understand all the Wikipedia policies, but you should at least have enough insight to know when your interpretation of policy is at least close to correct. I suggest that at a minimum you step back from some of these confrontations, or you are going to find yourself in trouble.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Bbb23. You may note that since writing the above, Py0alb has tried to canvass support from the other editor involved in the dispute. He has not, however, been successful and has again been told to follow the correct process. What he is saying about consensus is ill-informed, to say the least. The article that went to AfD in 2011 was completely different as it was no more than a stub that, crucially, lacked citations. I did not take part in that AfD but thought the decision to delete was fair enough. Since then, usage of the term has increased and I keep hearing it in discussions on the media and at cricket grounds. I decided to research it and found that it is now quite widely cited so I decided to recreate the article and capture a range of sources so that it will meet WP:GNG, not just the NCRIC SNG. I am not engaging in an edit war as I have only reverted one of his changes and that was effectively a response to vandalism because he had blanked the article without following due process, and that after the process had been explained to him by another editor. To say that I am conducting a personal vendetta is a ridiculous statement. I am not even protecting the article because I was quite happy for him to PROD it and I would be equally happy to defend it at AfD. I want only two things from this: one is that the article will be treated with respect which includes being taken to AfD in a constructive manner if someone deems it necessary; the other is that I do not have to deal with ill-informed, opinionated editors who are confrontational and rude from the outset. In view of this editor's past record of confrontation, including a formal warning that he has completely ignored, not to mention the serious doubt I have about someone who appears sporadically yet writes as if he is a continuous user, I still recommend that an indefinite WP:BLOCK, especially as he has again blanked the article since I restored it yesterday and repeated the correct process to him. Jack | ^{talk page} 07:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

There is something I am slightly confused about, in that Jack claims above "I was quite happy for him to PROD it" and yet this edit reveals something different: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Major_cricket&type=revision&diff=700427615&oldid=700423682

Aggressively defending articles you have a personal interest in from due process is really not the sign of a constructive member of our community.

Py0alb (talk) 09:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Please try to format your responses in the proper way. You make discussions difficult to read. There's nothing confusing about what Jack said. He said it in his opening post. You prodded the article, and he removed it. Your prodding the article was your prerogative. Reinstating it after he removed it was not. Your last sentence is more meaningless rhetoric than anything else. At the same time, some of Jack's allegations in his last post are off the mark. The reverts here by you were wrong, but I would not label them vandalism, just a repeat of your misunderstanding of policy. Also, your last revert came before my comments above, and at this point it's fairly clear that you're not going to heed good advice from Jack, but did from another editor (the same one who reverted the reinstatment of the prod). So, I don't think that last revert is anything surprising. Finally, whether you should be blocked for what you've done is unclear. If it were clear, I would have already blocked you. Regardless, jumping to an indefinite block of an editor who has a clean block log is a rather drastic sanction. I would think any sanction would depend on how you conduct yourself after this discussion. Certainly, my 3-year-old warning is not as relevant as a more recent warning, and, in any event, was limited to personal attacks. Although your style is more aggressive than collaborative, I don't believe a case has been made for personal attacks. I'm more concerned with your competence and whether your edits are a net benefit to the project.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:37, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Bbb23. Looking at the history of Major cricket, I see that Py0alb added a PROD tag to the article, which was then removed by BlackJack. Py0alb then reverted the PROD tag removal, which is not proper procedure; if the PROD tag is removed, the article must be AFD'd (or CSD'd if it meets criterion - even though I agree with Bbb23 that administrators rarely delete per this criterion unless blatantly obvious; an AFD is preferred). Despite the fact that another user correctly reverted the restoration of the PROD tag (note the edit summary), he reverted the page twice (here and here) before finally nominating the article for AfD as instructed by multiple users. This is edit warring in my eyes, as multiple users have attempted to leave edit summaries describing proper process, and the changes were reverted outside consensus and despite a discussion on the article's talk page. Py0alb - You should stop making reverts such as what you did recently. I note that you have since nominated the article for AfD, and I wouldn't block you for edit warring since you seemed to have stopped (if I was an admin) - but you need to acknowledge this, listen to other editors (especially when multiple editors step in to correct your reverts and actions), and discuss disputes before reverting. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:02, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Since raising the AfD, he has written this which indicates that he is continuing to ignore advice given by other users. In the AfD itself, he has voted twice and he has made a personal attack: both entries removed. In addition, he is evidently seeking to mislead readers re the citations and persuade them to ignore non-internet sources, claiming that "'Its in a book I once read, trust me' is not a valid form of evidence". Apart from its nonsense value, this constitutes a serious breach of WP:AGF. It doesn't end there. Since raising the AfD, he has removed a link to the article from another article. Frankly, this is all completely out of order and I repeat that WP:BLOCK is necessary in this case. Jack | ^{talk page} 05:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I understand that these edits may have issues, but I'm not seeing a personal attack against another editor here (addition diff). It appears to be a logical analysis to me (taking "right or wrong" out of the equation). When it comes to the issue of edit warring, he has ceased doing so. Py0alb has voted; we just need to let the community have a chance to give input and come to a consensus. If disruptive editing occurs, that's a different story. However, until this happens, I suggest that we step back (both of you) and let the AFD take its course. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:37, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

you are of course correct, I have maintained a rational, impersonal, and professional dignity throughout this discussion. I have nothing agaisnt jack on a personal level, I simply feel that the page in question quite clearly fails WP:V and needs to be deleted from the site. A "personal attack" might constitute raising a spurious ANI and repeatedly insisting that another editor be given a block simply because you don't agree with them. If an editor acted like in such an antagonistic and uncivil manner, I think the admin might need to consider looking into their behaviour at that point Py0alb (talk) 18:35, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't a personal attack, that is a ludicrous accusation. I just repeated the point made here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Cricket&type=revision&diff=698008924&oldid=698004810 that the term "major cricket" is one that has been invented by wikipedia editors as a convenience. There is nothing personal about this. Py0alb (talk) 09:56, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Relevant external link - useful/valid or too close to "outing"?

I'm writing an article on the UK undercover policing relationships scandal. As part of this I came across the following link (embedded in the wikimarkup via comment to avoid oxygen: ><). It aims to identify and document relationship aliases of the kind condemned by police chiefs today, as far as I can tell. I'd like views whether or not it is appropriate to add this as an external link.

Why it might be appropriate:

• High profile issue in UK; police themselves acknowledge in their statement that this activity was completely unacceptable and that targeted persons are considered victims of abuse
• Genuine research value - a person researching this area may well have a legitimate interest in learning what is known and cases it arose, which is hard to find elsewhere
• Factual rather than opinion, not designed or intended as an "attack page" per se
• "Names" are of persons using aliases in which there is legitimate significant public interest

Why it might not be appropriate:

• Could be considered an attack page anyhow, even if not intended as one?
• We don't have to advertise people's details as "persons who may have been involved in a kind of wrongful official action" (although we usually do when they are known and we have an article on the matter, see 'Death of Freddie Grey' and others).
• Potential for harm vs potential for beneficial encyclopedic information?

Comments appreciated; this is a delicate decision I wouldn't like to make without some sense of how views shape up and/or consensus. Not posted on article talk page in order to avoid oxygen there until it's clearer and because I'd like experienced views on it. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:ELN might be a better place, though it seems somewhat dead. Maybe advertise this request for feedback there? --Izno (talk) 14:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I've been involved in the discussion directly above this one, and I happened to glance down and notice this – and I also happen to have been involved in recent discussions about the outing policy, so it's something where I have been giving the subject some thought. Of course, you are not proposing to out any Wikipedia editors, but it happens that none other than Jimbo Wales himself put a sentence into the outing policy long ago, that says that one also should not "out" the subjects of pages, a concept that today would be more associated with BLP. It seems to me that the critical issue for you to consider is the extent to which the EL would reveal real names or other personal information about the persons using those aliases, to a greater extent than what is generally known throughout the source material. If there are lots of other published sources that name these people, or link to their names at that EL, then you really would not be revealing anything that isn't already public information, and there would be no problem with the EL. But if you have found a website that just happens to have this personal information, but that information is not widely known, so that these persons could be considered private individuals rather than public figures, then I think that it would be best to omit the EL. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

User:MusicHistory101

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 noted at the bio article Axe (battle rapper) the lack of reliable sourcing and added a ((notability|biographies)) tag diff. MusicHistory101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who is also apparently 73.35.68.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)[153] and Topbookclub (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)[154] keeps removing the tagdiffdiffdiffdiff without bothering to improve the article reference wise and saying I "have to go through the forums and read them to see the rich history of the sport and beginnings of battle rap". Civility went down hill from there with the user calling me a "person who hates Hip-Hop music" and "some sort of racist" and saying "your account could be deleted for racism and acting maliciously with intent to discredit a person and destroy valid articles"talk. Pointing out Wikipedia policy and guidelines has gone nowhere. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I have made numerous attempts to resolve the issue and have noted several times that the article clearly meets notability guidelines. He seems obsessed with me and destroying this one particular Wikipedia article for which I can only make guesses as to why. The user Fountains of Bryn Mawr should read the guidelines instead of continuing to act in this manner. User:MusicHistory101 25 January 2016

I've sent the article to WP:AFD, as I fail to see how the subject meets notability guidelines. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I've also sent the related Fam Nice to AfD, who looks even less notable. Laura Jamieson (talk) 23:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

You can delete these articles. That's fine. However, these people are definitely a notable part of hip hip history whose work greatly contributed to the rise of the hip hop and battle rap culture. If you actually read the articles you would see that. People such as Mickey Factz, Novel, and dozens of other hip hop artists who these two men help launch their careers know who they are, so they will always be a part of hip hop history even if they aren't a part of Wikipedian history. Good luck in your manhunt and I hope that some of you find something to do in your spare time other than destroy the credibility of music pioneers. Thanks for your time. User:MusicHistory101

We can't delete them under your say because you aren't the creator of either article. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 01:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Help with archive bot

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

---

Hi, everyone. I added a bot to Emily Dickinson's talk page to archive past discussions. I don't know what happened to the previous one, since nothing had been archived in the past three years. The problem is that the new bot archived the discussions in Archive 2, when there is an archive 3.[155] Could someone fix the issue? (also, and transfer the mistaken discussions in archive 2 to archive 3?) Thank you, --Lecen (talk) 13:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Lecen - I've incremented MiszaBot's counter to 3, meaning it will now use archive 3 (until it's full, then move onto 4 etc) -- samtar ^whisper 14:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

And have copy/pasted the mistaken discussions to archive 3 -- samtar ^whisper 14:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much!! I'm truly grateful for that! --Lecen (talk) 14:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

No worries! -- samtar ^whisper 14:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Justinw303 and NPA/UNCIVIL

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.

---

Following an edit war with another user and the resultant AN/EW reports, Justinw303 has engaged in repeated personal attacks and incivility, to wit:

• Tells another editor, "Fuck you."
• Repeats "Fuck. You."
• Claims he's finished with "this pile of shit website that is so willing to ... appease a celebrity with a huge ego."
• Reverts removal of "Fuck. You."
• Tells an editor, "Fuck off already."
• Calls an editor a "bitch".
• Reverts removal of "bitch" comment. (first of three such reverts)

Clear violation of UNCIVIL and NPA; access to talk page should be revoked. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 00:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Fully agreed. Time to block this user. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Support block. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 00:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I've reblocked the account, this time for two weeks, for continued battleground behaviour. If they continue to use their talk page to launch personal attacks then access can be revoked.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• Ponyo, it looks like we didn't have to wait long for that to happen..... Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Ironically, he's not wrong about "then go away. It's pretty fucking simple." 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 00:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• Ponyo, looks like it's time. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 00:43, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you I JethroBT for revoking the user's talk page access. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Tainted AfD

I'm referring to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joey Bond. Several strange things are happening there: four "keep" voters (plus a single-edit IP) showed up there, all parroting similar lines, and noticeably failing to address the lack of credible sources in the article being discussed. One of these is a single-purpose account. Two others are very close: one of them left 128 messages on the other's talk page in the past three months. All this is bad enough, but now, three of these four have taken to assassinating my character on another forum. I can't quite put my finger on it, but I do think there's something suspicious about the whole scenario, and I'd appreciate some administrative input. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't see anything suspicious at all. You nominated an article, others think it should be kept. To say that Checkingfax and Natalie.Desautels are somehow meatpuppets is laughable. Newsflash: editors who collaborate in the same area often message each other, and if someone finds a helpful person they often ask that person for help in the future. Jbeaton5 has admitted he got a bit oversensitive and has apparently moved on. So should you. Katie^talk 17:24, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not the fact that other users disagree with me that I find problematic — although it would help if said disagreement were based on policy rather than emotion and empty rhetoric. It's the frivolous accusations of incivility and tendentiousness, the forum-shopping, the seemingly coordinated feigned outrage, the baseless ridicule, the consistently diversionary arguments, the piling on for no reason other than that I nominated for deletion a deeply problematic article. I don't have a problem moving on, but I did want the record to show that my complaint is not entirely without merit.

And yes, Jbeaton5 is still a single-purpose account, while 96.20.154.75 is still a single-edit IP. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:25, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I am a pretty regular denizen at BLP discussions - and I assure you that a person who even gets into the NYT is more likely than not to meet Wikipedia notability criteria. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:08, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think this requires any administrative action, Biruitorul. The fact that an IP made their first edit to vote on it, for example, will be taken into account by the closing administrator. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 21:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive/problematic IP

Need help with a problematic, disruptive anon IP --107.107.58.183-- geolocating to Brooklyn, NY who has been targeting my edits today. Currently, the IP is reverting at Drake Bell in what seems to be a mission to have me dinged for a 3RR vio (see here and here). The same IP has been adding and reverting back in what is incorrect information about a photograph at the Billy the Kid article for the last couple of days (see here, here, and here). It seems they are mirroring edits made by this IP (see here: [156], [157], [158]). Not sure if this IP is the same as the problematic and disruptive Brooklyn, NY/Bronx/NY IP I (and others) have encountered numerous times over the last year or so? Whatever the case, their edits and reverts are not helping either article. In fact, I have finally gotten an edit warrior at the Drake Bell article to finally start discussing edits rather than reverting -- the IP edit warring as well has certainly thrown a wrench in the works. I don't expect they will stop reverting, rather, this will continue if not dealt with. Page protection would be great, and I'd rather see that happen over blocking, but since they now seem to be following me around Wikipedia, protecting one or two articles may not be the answer. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Now this IP --166.172.61.144-- (geolocating to the Bronx) has joined in :[159]. I do believe they are either working together or are the same individual. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

As the disruption/edit warring has continued [160], I have filed a RPP here. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Another Bronx IP has joined in: [161]. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• If it's any help, the 166.x.x.x IP range is known to be used by disruptive editors and have been summarily banned from Wikipedia. clpo13_(talk) 00:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Lynda Obst Productions

Please see the mess at Lynda Obst Productions.

A couple different IPs in the same range really messed things up. Reverted to last version prior to that. Doesn't appear to be any warring or anything. Just lack of competence from an IP, which most likely requires no ad.in intervention. John from Idegon (talk) 06:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by 2607:FB90:43:660A:D7A8:3DC6:D8BD:6BDA

This editor - 2607:FB90:43:660A:D7A8:3DC6:D8BD:6BDA - who has also edited as 2001:558:6007:71:1D73:C89:31B2:941, 2607:fb90:41:819e:2d0e:1d0f:e2e1:9b77, etc. - seems to be becoming increasingly disruptive, and when blocked simply moves IP address. The problem is not that their edits are vandalism as such, as many are helpful - but they are sometimes contentious, and the editor has totally ignored all attempts to communicate with them. The editor leaves no edit summaries, and has never, so far as I know, commented on a talk page. The contentious edits, so far as I am concerned, relate to the years of birth of Dave Bartholomew and Freddy Cannon, both BLPs. They also have a habit of removing redlinks, despite being warned not to. I admit to getting exasperated with this person because of their complete refusal to communicate - I would be more than happy to discuss with them how best to address the issue of the contentious birth years (through footnotes, etc.), but I cannot resolve a dispute when the other editor refuses either to explain their edits or communicate in any way. Advice or action welcome. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:47, 23 January 2016 (UTC).

Just an update - the 12-hour block yesterday had no effect, and the editor is continuing to remove redlinks as before, without any discussion or edit summaries, most notably at Roscoe Lee Browne. Can anything else be done? Thanks, Diannaa, for protecting Freddy Cannon and Dave Bartholomew. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

promo-seo.co.uk

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.

---

Large numbers of user accounts have been set up in the past few days, each making a single edit adding a spam link to one of a number of related websites offering tennis-court surfacing or similar services. First reported on talk:Spam-blacklist, but it seems to have outgrown the scope of this option. Example edits include:

• [[162]], [[163]], [[164]], [[165]], [[166]], [[167]], [[168]], [[169]], [[170]], [[171]], [[172]], [[173]], [[174]], [[175]], [[176]], [[177]], [[178]], [[179]], [[180]], [[181]], [[182]], [[183]], [[184]], [[185]], [[186]], [[187]] . . .
• Mean as custard (talk) 18:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Please list on the spam blacklist, we have automated tools there for blacklisting the spammed domains. Guy (Help!) 19:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

 Added. I've also started Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bobblehat99 to out any more accounts and domains. MER-C 03:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

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

POV Pushing/edit warring by user at Criticisms of Marxism page

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

---

Pablo Rosentown over at the Criticisms of Marxism page has attempted to POV push. Does not bother with the talk section, seems to have created a profile just for this one edit and has been reverting the removal of their post from different IPs. It may be vandalism, but seems more politically motivated. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 04:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment I would have brought the issue at the edit warring section, however, it seems that this user has created the account just for this one particular edit. There is no other history other than this edit. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 04:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

This editor is clearly yet another sock of the serial puppeteer Need1521, and I have submitted an SPI. RolandR (talk) 10:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Uncivil header on editor's talk page

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

---

Unframboise has added header text to his talk page which is receiving some opposition from editors but he keeps restoring it whenever it is removed as being uncivil. Unframboise does have a history of incivility and, in August 2015 Floquenbeam even blocked him for "acting like a jerk".[188] My involvement with Unframboise has been minimal until this discussion started at Talk:NCIS (franchise). He pretty much abandoned the discussion after deciding he was going to add disputed content to the article regardless. In a subsequent discussion at WT:TV he made the rather uncivil comment "Clearly I overestimated the intelligence of some editors".[189] Subsequent attempts to continue discussion on his talk page resulted in more incivility when he linked to this gif containing the direction "You should fuck off. now." when I tried to discuss another matter.[190] He also replaced all the content on his talk page with Hi, welcome! It's a fresh year, so here's a nice, fresh talk page. If you're here to nag (I'm looking at all you Herr Wikifuhrer brown-shirts, throwing about your barnstars) then please don't, I'll ignore it and go about my business as I usually do..[191] The offending text "Herr Wikifuhrer brown-shirts" was redacted by Drmargi with a note about civility (and other things),[192] and there has been discussion about it on user talk pages. Most recently, Unframboise has attempted to justify the text in a way that doesn't seem any more civil,[193] but since it is causing offence, I thought I'd raise the matter here and ask, should Unframboise be permitted to have this on his talk page? --AussieLegend (✉) 12:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

This header was not meant to cause offense, but instead it was meant to be a jesting dig at the senior editor culture present within the wikipedia community. After stumbling across [194] discussion taking place about me, without my knowledge (further reinforcing my existing perceptions of an existing senior editor clique), I decided I should spell out, in simple terms, the jovial nature with which the header was intended. Indeed, I find it worrying that you and your fellow editors feel the need to frequent my talk page. Of course, if this discussion is just about the header, I would appreciate if it didn't turn into an all out assault (bringing up resolved issues from a year ago, etc.), although I'm fully aware that any time now I'm going to be inundated with notifications from your pals jumping on the bandwagon, as usual. I could dig up past transgressions on your part, but I don't see the point. I think you should - to put it nicely - mind your own business, as this is beginning to feel like a personal attack. The header has gone (because apparently the freedom of speech that is so well spoken of in America doesn't extend to the internet -- Certainly, I don't see why your false perception of this header referring to a European regime causes so much offense, as a citizen of a non-European country. I won't be commenting on this thread again. Its bullying masked as bureaucracy. --Unframboise (talk) 19:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to point out that just because yourself and your "senior editor" friends are subtle in your uncivil behavior (phrases such as "go play elsewhere", "petulant and childish", etc., spring to mind), it doesn't make it any less uncivil. Indeed, I'm sure you've perfected this art over your many years, but if you look at my user page you'll note the vast amount of excellent editing I've put into wikipedia over the past year. How long before you get over the "being a jerk" thing? (Also an uncivil comment, by the way). --Unframboise (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Of course the header was intended to cause offense. Why else would you put it there? It's mean, and it's tasteless. There is no circumstance under which referring to other editors as Nazis/fascists is other than a personal attack, and as such, it has no place on your talk page. Period. The same was true of your misogynist "humor" you directed at me that you claimed wasn't intended to demean -- and look where that got you. As for the discussion on an editor's talk page, there is no requirement we inform you. There's a very simple solution to this issue, and it lies entirely in your hands: knock off the tasteless garbage you try to justify as humor. --Drmargi (talk) 22:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Unframboise's latest version[195] took the offensiveness even further than previous versions. The page has been blanked[196] by Drmargi, but I suggest a simple final warning to Unframboise that any more such abuse of their talk page will lead to a block without any further warning ... and that blocks will escalate with each further offence. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't directed at anybody in particular, it was witty repartee, much in the same vain as British comedians including John Cleese (circa Fawlty Towers). Obviously this is a regional divide in terms of what we find amusing. There was no reference to Nazism at all, I can't help what you infer. Of course, if this caused offense then I apologise, but I'll be cold and dead before I let another user dictate what I put on my user page without even consulting me first. BrownHairedGirl, I'm failing to understand how an edit to explain the header didn't refer to Hitler's political leadership is *more* offensive. Who knows. --Unframboise (talk) 00:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Unframboise, it wasn't witty. It was just offensive trolling.

Read WP:UPNOT. There are limits to what is permitted on your userpage.

If you want to be a martyr, that's your choice. But there will be no statues, and no ballads about you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

See, this is what I mean. So-called "senior editors" throwing around demeaning comments like "there will be no statues, and no ballads about you." Just because it isn't explicit, it doesn't mean its not uncivil. Wikipedia is a hostile environment if you're not part of the clique. I don't think I want to be a part of this Mean Girls-esque community. --Unframboise (talk) 00:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it's a hostile environment mostly because you post banners comparing people who don't see things your way to Nazis. When people ask you not to do that, they are not being hostile. They're being reasonable, and asking you to tone down your hostility so we can get some work done around here. --Jayron32 00:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I was recently involved with Unframboise over content at Code Black (TV series). They initially added content about a cast's departure. I reverted them. A few days later (may have been shorter), they restore it. I again reverted as it was unsourced and original content. WP:Burden was seriously disregarded and assumptions were made when nothing had been confirmed (speculation). They then added the same edit, using the most unnecessary edit summary on earth: do I really need to go to this much effort to spell things out to people?. From I can clearly recall, three policies were blatantly ignored. I did see Unframboise's talk page header when I gave them warnings. Drmargi was the one to really give me clear view about it. Whilst I do believe it had been there for quite some time now, I found it highly uncivil, rude, mean, wrong and unnecessary. It's not the first time I had been called nazi-related insults, but it still bothered me. I cannot thank Drmargi enough for having redacted the uncivil comments. Then the user tries to restore the talk page? What's even more insulting is when they tried to justify their comments by actually adding definitions of each word. Who does that? And now mockery is their "thing" with this: I wonder how long it'll take before someone comes and redacts this. So many bees in so many bonnets. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 00:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• Enough. The trolling of those warning Unframboise[197] shows that their WP:BATTLEFIELD approach is still active ... so I have blocked[198] Unframboise for 24 hours. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

He removed the block message [199], so I restored it.142.105.159.60 (talk) 01:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

A user is allowed to remove the block notice while blocked. They are not allowed to remove denied unblock requests. -- GB fan 01:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: I think more blanking is required: [200]. I googled the quote and I was led to a page about "serious leadership lessons". Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 01:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

It's a well-known one-liner from a stand-up comedian. Don't be so precious and move along. Nothing to see now. Keri (talk) 01:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Understand the meaning of the italicized word. And frankly, I don't care about your opinion. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 02:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, deep breath ladies. Brown Haired Girl has handled the situation, and unfortunately, Unframboise needs the last word, however petty it may be. It's no skin off anyone's nose. I think the best move is a little WP:DENY. Whatever else your squabble may be about, it might better be taken to one or the other's talk page. In the meantime, perhaps an uninvolved admin might consider closing this? --Drmargi (talk) 02:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• When someone complains of Nazi's, and the first response is to go jackboot over their userpage, its never going to end well. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Talk page vandalism

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/Special:Contributions/128.186.134.156 — Preceding unsigned comment added by FoxNewsChannelFan (talk • contribs) 04:11, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

IP warned, OP given explanation on how to deal with such matters. I'm hoping this leaves the matter...

Resolved

Ian.thomson (talk) 04:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

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

WikiBriefed - continued disruptive editing and incompetence

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.

---

WikiBriefed has been brought to ANI before for disruptive editing and battleground behavior, but that ANI case went unresolved. WikiBriefed continued the disruptive editing and was blocked on 26 November 2015 for personal attacks and edit-warring by JamesBWatson. WikiBriefed continued the personal attacks and was blocked by Bishonen for repeatedly making unsubstantiated paranoid accusations that I am a "Salman fanbot" (a fan of Indian actor Salman Khan) and that I am on some sort of idiotic hate-fueled crusade to denigrate another Indian actor, Shah Rukh Khan. Pure fantasy.

As to the competence issues, much is detailed on the user's talk page. Most recently, in these edits he restores the word "illegal" in the sentence "The film criticizes the prohibition of alcohol, prostitution and illegal drugs in Gujarat." The word was previously removed by DMacks as redundant with prohibition, which DMacks explained. While this sounds like no big deal, it demonstrates that WikiBriefed is trying to maintain a single vision for articles, and is interfering with the productive evolution of our content. In the same edits, he introduces a random blog as a reference. He also adds the following tidbit: "Khan will be seen in a never before seen look from 1980s ghetto Gujarat", which is clearly parroted from here and is also glaringly trivial.

Today I found this gem, where WikiBriefed seems to believe he can indiscriminately copy/paste the entirety of the obviously promotional summary found here, just by adding a ref. He apparently didn't bother to check if the tone of the content was appropriate for inclusion, leaving in rhetorical questions like "how difficult could it be for the world's biggest FAN to get an audience with the world’s biggest Star" and the obviously promotional statement "In an edge of the seat thriller". These are somewhat moot points, since it was inappropriate for him to copyvio the plot summary. Between the battleground editing, the content stonewalling, the personal attacks, and the copyright violations, there's no indication that this editor is capable of participating constructively in this community project and I'd probably recommend an indef until he can convince the community otherwise. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Indef blocked, at least until we can get some confidence that this user understands our basic principles. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

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

More incivility in autism AfD

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

---

There is more incivility in the AfD for List of people with autism spectrum disorders article mentioned a few days ago, this time by User:Calton. See here, here, here, and here, all directed at the same anon IP who is making efforts to improve the article to address the concerns expressed in the AfD. According to his talk page, Calton has a history of incivility, so I'm not inclined to assume good faith at this point. Smartyllama (talk) 01:08, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit: He also posted uncivilly on the IP's talk page. Smartyllama (talk) 01:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Here [201] he told me I needed to "get new reading glasses" and then offered to recommend retailers that sold eyeware. He recently told Neutralhomer that he was "delusional" and "self-absorbed" [202] while here he apparently accused a different editor of suffering from schizophrenia [203]. It appears he's previously been blocked 9 times for incivility on charges ranging from "taunting" to "racist edit summaries." [204] LavaBaron (User talk:Lavaetalk) 02:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

This is Calton's SOP, insult and keep insulting, rules be damned. How he is still an active, unblocked user is beyond me. I personally believe that Calton needs to be blocked indefinitely as he doesn't offer anything positive to the project. - Neutralhomer has Escaped • Talk • 02:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)f

It does seem odd. Maybe 10 times a charm, though - at this point - more drastic protective measures do seem in order. LavaBaron (talk) 03:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Considering that you selectively quoted part of a page claiming that it supported your idiosyncratic opinion whilst utterly missing the immediately following paragraphs that contradicted it, then it's a fair question to ask how you managed to miss it. --Calton | Talk 02:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. "You deserved it," is certainly the most novel defense of CIVIL I've seen, but I guess there's a first for everything. LavaBaron (talk) 04:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not "you deserved it", it's "you don't what you're talking but should, why is that?" SO: you don't know what you're talking about, but should: why is that? --Calton | Talk 06:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

As for Smartyllama's yammering about "good faith", considering his attempts to lard List of people with autism spectrum disorder with criminals using laughable sourcing -- "his mother said he had Asperger's on an online forum" is good enough for him -- or even create a separate criminals-with-autism list despite there between no connection whatsoever between the two elements, he set fire to his own expectation of good faith in what he's trying to accomplish. --Calton | Talk 02:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

This isn't the AfD. Your conduct is at issue here, separately from whether you may have had a point. 50.185.134.48 (talk) 03:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

For the record, my proposed "separate criminals-with-autism list" was nothing of the sort. It would discuss the numerous studies which show no correlation, and incorrect claims by certain individuals to the contrary. It could even discuss the recent controversy over President Obama's proposed gun control measures which would prevent certain autistic individuals from owning guns and was opposed by several autistic advocacy organizations. Smartyllama That being said, after looking over the sources again in more detail, rather than just looking at the publication and seeing if it was reliable, most of them were not reliable, and the ones that are (such as Adam Lanza) have remained in the article. I have no objection to the removals that were made at this point. (talk) 11:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• Move to close. I reviewed the diffs offered by the OP. Nothing egregious stands out, other than the usual heated discussion. I blame the lack of structure in AfD discussions. We need less free for all and more regulation. Perhaps we should limit all participants to one initial comment followed by one discussion reply. We need less talk and more action. Some things don't need to be endlessly debated. Viriditas (talk) 06:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - There has been a pattern of issues cited in the last 30 days that should be addressed first, particularly in light of the (astonishing) nine previous blocks for the same issues to which the editor of this ANI has been subject. Even in the ANI itself, the subject of this report seemed unable to contain himself, using words like "yammering" to describe Smartyllama's input, for instance. LavaBaron (talk) 06:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: Nine blocks for incivility and his responses here show Calton isn't going to change. This isn't a "heated discussion", it's Calton's SOP of nonstop insults and snark with zero positive contributions. This, this, this, and this are all from yesterday (minus the Autism AfD ones). All laden with insults and snark, no positive contributions. Just to add to this, he actually uses TWINKLE to revert "most wins" to "winningest", even proper english and sentence structure doesn't stand a chance with him. Some serious sanctions regarding his incivility, insults and snark, or just a long-term block are needed for Calton. This is not business as usual here, this is a problem editor who has proven time and time again that he will not follow the rules. So, we as a community, must make him follow those rules or show him the door. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• This abysmal "winningest" junk is turning up everywhere. My experience is that the people pushing to include it don't just want to lower the tone of the encyclopedia, but the tone of every conversation about it. Reyk _YO! 07:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• Gotta agree with ya there. I have even heard it on the news (ex: "the winningest coach"). If I had used a word like that as part of a sentence, I'm pretty sure my 7th grade English teacher would slap me with something. :) I even use the Oxford comma and a double space after sentences, both of which are rarely used anymore. I can thank my 3rd grade English teacher for that one. :) So, in the greater scheme of things (Calton's incivility, etc.), it isn't super important, but I thought it was worth mentioning. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• Ah, the latest salvo in Neutralhomer -- as this incarnation is called -- and his long-running, years-long petulant attempts to get me blocked. Given his history, you may wish to take anything he says with a grain of salt. --Calton | Talk 06:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• This is my community and AN approved sock for my mobile device. It's on the userpage for the account. Please check this next time before making accusations. This is about you, not me. - Neutralhomer has Escaped • Talk • 10:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Weak oppose- Calton is right about the substance of this dispute. That's a crappy article, and unsubstantiated claims on an internet forum are no better than "I heard it from a bloke at the pub". But Calton sure does have a way of making you want to disagree with him even when he's right, with constant sarcasm and insults for no good reason. Reyk _YO! 07:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• I don't know. It seems to me that people here are distracting from the underlying problem with the article and why it's at AfD. I am not the least bit interested in analyzing or examining Calton's tone or personality. I'm more interested in what he's saying. There's way too much discussion on this. Put it through AfD, one comment per person, and then close it. Stop arguing about trivialities and find something else to get offended about. Viriditas (talk) 11:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• The AfD can be discussed there. Even if Calton is right, he went about it the wrong way and that needs to be addressed. If he had no previous bans for incivility, I might be inclined to assume good faith and be done with it, but he has nine, so I'm not. And the very anon Calton attacked has made significant efforts to improve the article and address the AfD concerns. Smartyllama (talk) 11:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• Calton's conduct in the AfD can be discussed here, as well as his recent conduct elsewhere. For example, it might be discussed whether telling an editor on sight to "go away, you are supremely unqualified to edit here" is a statement on the merits of the article under discussion, or something else. 50.185.134.48 (talk) 16:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• And in the case of his statements towards me on this very ANI, it shows he is often either willfully ignorant or unable to comprehend the arguments others are trying to make. To quote the article's talk page, here is what my proposal was.

"I don't think we need a specific list article for that [referring to infamous individuals], but we could have an article called Autism spectrum disorder and violent crime or something like that which discusses the individuals in question as well as the lack of overall connection between the two in more detail than the main ASD article, this list, or the articles on the individuals themselves can provide. That would also be a good place to put forth the factors any additional diagnoses might have played in those individuals, provided such claims are reliably sourced and not original research. But this article is not the place for that. We could add a "See also" at the bottom once said article is created though to make it easier for people to learn more." So in fact I specifically said I did not support a separate list article for infamous individuals as I understood another user to be proposing. Rather, I was proposing a detailed, non-list article to discuss the studies in question which show no connection, as well as individuals who falsely proclaim there to be a connection, as well as the fallout from this controversy (which would include the recent gun owner controversy and a Congressional proposal barring the Social Security Administration from cooperating and enabling the law to be enforced.) Smartyllama (talk) 17:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

ANI doesn't deal with content disputes. Viriditas (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I didn't realize that, as Smartllama claims, that "willfully ignorant" was a synonym for "entirely accurate". Or maybe it's not, and he's simply proving my point for me.

This is not rocket science: if you create an article called "[X] and [Y]", you are connecting the two subjects "X" and "Y". And if you do that, you'd better have an actually reason for doing so, either because there actually is a connection or because there is a specified belief in such a connection. Your comments above make it clear you think there IS some sort of connection being made. Unless you have some evidence that someone, somewhere actually is making this connection, creating the article -- or, in your case, advocating for the creation of such an article -- is creating the connection out of thin air. Wikipedia policy won't let you pick random unconnected things together -- Redheadedness and crime, Autism and hair color, Dwarfism and alcoholism, Leo (astrology) and astigmatism -- to make articles, even if you promise to put a disclaimer in it, because of the implication the very existence of such an article entails. In effect, you're borrowing a page from creationists and their Teach the Controversy tactic. --Calton | Talk 06:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

If nobody's making the connection, this whole AfD is rather ridiculous and pointless since it's predicated on the fact that people are, in fact, making the false connection. And that's still a separate, non-ANI issue, regardless, and should be discussed elsewhere. And again, nowhere did I propose creating a separate list, which you claimed I did. You can't have it both ways - either people are making the connection, in which case by your own admission the new article is acceptable, or they're not, in which case the AfD is based on false premises. And that still has nothing to do with your incivility, which is the reason for this ANI. Smartyllama (talk) 16:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Obviously, this is a content dispute. Please keep this discussion off ANI. Viriditas (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose As I mentioned above, but just stating for the record. Calton's personal attacks need to be addressed regardless of whether he has a point. The AfD concerns and the concerns about Calton's actions are not mutually exclusive. And changing the entire structure of AfD as user above proposed would require more community input than a single ANI request. Smartyllama (talk) 17:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• I strongly disagree. This is the second concurrent ANI thread on the same topic you've started in the last several days. Please stop. All discussion needs to be confined on the discussion pages. As both ANI threads show, this is a content dispute, despite attempts to show otherwise. Please close both threads. Viriditas (talk) 00:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@Viriditas: So you would like the community to just overlook continued behavior by a user, 9 blocks for incivility, and an unwillingness to change one's behavior because Smartyllama started another ANI thread? I'm hoping you aren't actually serious.

I can't speak for the other thread, but this one should not be closed until Dalton's ongoing behavior problems are addressed by the community. - Neutralhomer has Escaped • Talk • 06:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I decided to go back and check: you and your original block-evading sock have been blocked twenty times (not counting administrative reblocks), including 5 indefinite blocks and 8 blocks whose edit summaries explicitly mention harassment and personal attacks. That's not counting your other sockpuppets created to harass me. So, should the community overlook that, too? --Calton | Talk 06:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

This is about you, not me. This is about your behavior, not mine. Sorry, you can't turn the tables on this one. - Neutralhomer has Escaped • Talk • 10:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• The AfD is not the appropriate place to discuss lack of civility by a user. And this was a different user and a different page than the original, so I fail to see your point anyway. And besides, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy so even if incorrect procedure were followed in creating an ANI, which it wasn't, that's not a reason not to act. Smartyllama (talk) 15:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposal for Resolution: ~6-Month CBAN

Since the above discussion appears to have run its course, I'd like to proffer a concrete proposal for consideration. Based on the preference indicators expressed in the views above, I suggest a six-month sitewide WP:CBAN could be applied on Calton. The question I propose for resolution is:
By community consensus taken in accordance with the WP:RECIDIVISM decision, and due to a pattern of past incivility evidenced by nine blocks for the same - a pattern which continues with no indication a change of behavior is forthcoming - Calton is banned from making any edit, anywhere on Wikipedia, via any account or as an unregistered user, under any and all circumstances (except as otherwise specified) until 1 August 2016. He may continue to post to his Talk page and edit his userspace during this period. The community further expresses its will that an indefinite block be placed on the Calton account should this CBAN be violated.
I am pinging everyone who participated in the preceding discussion, namely, Viriditas, Smartyllama, Reyk, Neutralhomer, Calton, 50.185.134.48 LavaBaron (talk) 06:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support for reasons previously stated by me in response to Smartyllama's OP. LavaBaron (talk) 06:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support: As I said above, Calton "is a problem editor who has proven time and time again that he will not follow the rules. So, we as a community, must make him follow those rules or show him the door.". This proposal forces him to follow the rules of Wikipedia. - Neutralhomer has Escaped • Talk • 06:36, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support: Calton has nine bans before. Clearly he hasn't learned and we need to step things up. Smartyllama (talk) 14:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose second transparent attempt in one week to get an upper hand in a content dispute by silencing critics and running circles around active discussion already taking place in the appropriate venue. The forum shopping and asking the other parent needs to stop. Viriditas (talk) 19:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

What? Are you talking about me? LavaBaron (talk) 19:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I think he's talking about me, since I opened this. I'm perfectly willing to have a civil discussion about the article in question. Calton, it seems, is not. Stop treating the AfD and this ANI like they're mutually exclusive, because they're not. One deals with the contents of the article, one deals with the actions of a specific user in said AfD and elsewhere. Smartyllama (talk) 19:55, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The content dispute is the central theme of this and the other thread up above. Please keep the content dispute where it belongs. Viriditas (talk) 20:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

You're the one who's bringing the content dispute here. Not me. This has nothing to do with the content dispute. This has to do with Calton's lack of civility, in the AfD and elsewhere, as I and others have said repeatedly. Also, I now believe Galerita was acting in good faith in spite of whatever civility and/or 3RR issues he may have had, and have moved to close that ANI. Calton, on the other hand, has a repeated history of this and has exhibited such behaviors recently outside of this AfD, including in matters in which I have no involvement, and thus no bias. Smartyllama (talk) 20:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Your comment supports my contention that this thread (and the other one up above) should be immediately closed. I don't see a lack of civility, I see you trying to get an upper hand in a content dispute. I also question your judgment. I have not participated in any related article or discussion about this subject, nor have I discussed it anywhere. This entire thread is about your dispute, and Calton's comments are directly part of that dispute and on point. You're trying to silence your critics by pretending this isn't about your dispute. Luckily, people like me can see right through this. As an uninvolved editor I oppose your attempt to silence the opposition. Viriditas (talk) 20:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Did you even read the difs above? I don't know on what planet "sucks to be you" could be considered civil. And as other posts above (which were not by me) show, he was also uncivil to LavaBaron and Neutralhomer in discussions I wasn't even involved in and thus couldn't possibly be biased in. And those weren't civil either - calling others delusional and telling them they obviously need glasses, among other things. Not to mention I'm not the one who complained about those, and even if you ignore the AfD issues, which you shouldn't, you still have failed to address other users' concerns about those. If you want to civilly discuss the content dispute, I have no problem with that. Otherwise I would have reported every single editor who opposed me instead of just the one who resorted to personal attacks. Smartyllama (talk) 20:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Why are you asking me if I read the diffs when I said in my very first edit to this thread that I did? I'm beginning to sympathize more and more with Calton the longer you continue this IDHT campaign. I think a topic ban on you and others might be warranted if this disruption continues. Viriditas (talk) 21:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Why are you continually making this a content dispute when I've said several times it isn't? I'm not disputing the content right now - that's what the AfD and RfC are for and I'll abide by whatever comes out of it. This is an issue of Calton's repeated incivility. And even if we ignore the incivility on The AfD because Lord Almighty Viriditas says I'm biased and that alone is sufficient reason to ignore what I'm saying, that still doesn't address his repeated recent incivility to other users which I wasn't involved in, which I didn't report (they did) and which you have repeatedly failed to address. It just seemed like you hadn't read the difs because if you had, I don't know how you could possibly think in good faith that they were civil. And I should note you have a history of bans for incivility even lengthier than Calton's. Perhaps he's not the only one who needs a ban for incivility right now. Smartyllama (talk) 21:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

By all means, keep digging yourself into a deeper hole. Your intolerance for opposing opinions is hereby noted and supports my proposed topic ban on you from all autism-related topics. You are continuing a content dispute here on ANI in two separate threads. You are disrupting Wikipedia because you refuse to consider opposing opinions might have merit in their critical approach. Instead you frame all criticism as ignorant and uncivil. Thank you for clearing this up. Viriditas (talk) 21:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

No, I'm not. I've been reasonably nice to those with differing opinions who express them respectfully and in compliance with Wikipedia policy, including Galerita once he started discussing the matter and stopped edit warring. Calton and yourself have shown a lack of willingness to discuss things civilly, and that is what this ANI is about. Not the content dispute, which I am taking up in the right channels and have said repeatedly I will abide by whatever comes out of it. At this point, and judging by your past ban history, I am convinced you are showing an utter lack of AGF in addition to your incivility. Calton isn't the only one who needs a lengthy ban in my mind. Smartyllama (talk) 21:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Good luck trying to ban and block everyone who disagrees with you. I'm seeing several admins and at least one arb who are opposing your arguments. There's nothing uncivil about telling you to stop misusing ANI with your content dispute and your attempt to canvass supporters for the AFD. Viriditas (talk) 22:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

It seems like you're the only one opposing my arguments on this ANI. And the merits of the AfD, as I have said at least a dozen times, are irrelevant to this discussion. That you still don't understand that shows you are not acting in good faith in this matter. Smartyllama (talk) 22:03, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

In the unusual event that someone actually falls for your rhetoric, I would like to set the record straight: in a ranking of contributors who have added content to list of people with autism spectrum disorders, you are listed third.[205] Not surprisingly, you have voted to keep your contributions in the AfD.[206]. Unfortunately, consensus is to delete the article. So you've been trying to stir the pot with multiple ANIs. Viriditas (talk) 00:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Try again. I'm listed sixth. Another false claim by you. And as I've said 15 times, the AfD isn't the issue. I don't care about the AfD. Let that fall where it may. It's a civility issue. And you have repeatedly and willfully lied, and this time it's blatant. Smartyllama (talk) 00:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Reading comprehension is important. As the above link shows, you are ranked third as an editor who has added the most content (by bytes). You are ranked sixth only by the sheer number of edits. In other words, five editors have made more edits than you, but only two have added more content. Instead of repeatedly making personal attacks based on your reading comprehension problem, it would be better if you took a break from the content dispute. You have acted incredibly uncivil here and throughout this thread because you are a vested contributor whose contributions are about to be deleted by consensus. Both ANI reports are an attempt to distract the community from your poor contributions. Viriditas (talk) 01:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

This isn't about the content dispute, which I have't been involved in for several days. This is about Calton's incivility. I don't know why you can't seem to understand that. Smartyllama (talk) 11:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Couldn't figure out about to whom he was referring. I didn't think I'd even edited the same article as Calton ever, let alone had a content dispute! LavaBaron (talk) 20:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. 6 months, or indeed anything close to that, is unwarranted. Drmies has just now blocked him for a week. I'd say that should suffice for now, and this entire thread should probably be closed. Softlavender (talk) 02:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment to closing admin: Please note that Hallward's Ghost issued an Oppose !vote to this proposal, but posted it elsewhere [207] (I recommend that they post it here, in the correct place). Softlavender (talk) 02:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, per my reasoning below. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 02:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment It may not have been fair to ban Calton while this ANI is still in progress as now he can't respond. Perhaps we should undo that ban, and if this measure fails as too extreme but there is support for some sanctions (as Softlavender proposed), reinstate it at that time. Smartyllama (talk) 11:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Calton wasn't banned, he was blocked. Please learn the difference. And I haven't proposed anything beyond Drmies' one-week block, which is entirely sufficient to this case. Again, now that Calton has been blocked, I recommend closing this entire thread before it starts to WP:BOOMERANG on Smartyllama. Softlavender (talk) 11:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Even though I supported this proposal (and still do), I believe there are plenty of eyeballs on Calton so that when his block ends he won't repeat this behavior at least for awhile. With that said, I support closing this thread. - Neutralhomer has Escaped • Talk • 12:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree with NH. Block #10 will definitely be the one that changes his behavior. Support closing this thread. LavaBaron (talk) 17:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

My apologies for mixing up the terms "block" and "ban". I take full responsibility for inadvertently using the incorrect terminology, though I don't think that's as big an issue as Softlavender is making it out to be. Still, I'd support closing this too - hopefully Calton learns his lesson, and if not, we have a bunch of people watching him. As for the rest of what Softlavender said, I know you proposed no additional sanctions, but unlike some in this ANI, you did feel there was incivility and some sanctions were in order - namely the one-week block which has already been implemented. Sorry for the confusion. Smartyllama (talk) 14:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposal for Resolution: ~6 month CBAN on Viriditas (plus above sanctions on Calton)

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

---

I'm starting to think Calton may not be the only one being uncivil here. Seeing as Viriditas has a history of bans for incivility and WP:AGF violations even longer than Calton's, is exhibiting the same behaviors in this very ANI, and is showing a lack of ability and/or willingness to comprehend what civility even means, Viriditas is banned from making any edit, anywhere on Wikipedia, via any account or as an unregistered user, under any and all circumstances (except as otherwise specified) until 1 August 2016. He may continue to post to his Talk page and edit his userspace during this period. The community further expresses its will that an indefinite block be placed on the Viriditas account should this CBAN be violated. 21:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support per what I just said. Smartyllama (talk) 21:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. As an entirely uninvolved editor who has had zero participation in the disputed article in question or its related disputes such as the AfD, this proposal substantiates my claim that Smartyllama is misusing Wikipedia as a battleground and attempting to canvass support to fight his opposition on ANI. Smartyllama's attempt to threaten any editor who opposes him and criticizes his opinion is the problem, not Calton. Viriditas (talk) 21:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• A claim you have absolutely no evidence to support, and which I have explicitly said on multiple occasions is not the case, thus supporting my claim that Viriditas is not assuming good faith. I have repeatedly said on multiple occasions this is about Calton's lack of civility, and if you'll notice I didn't report anyone who was actually civil. I reported a 3RR issue by a new editor who didn't know any better, now that he does I have had no issues with him and discussed the matter civilly. I have also not filed ANIs against the ~15 people who civilly supported the deletion without edit warring. As for the one edit war, I'm willing to assume good faith that the editor didn't know better, being new, and drop it. Calton and Viriditas have been here long enough to know better, and have repeatedly not done so. Viridita's claims against me were, and continue to be, completely unsubstantiated, thus proving my own point. If the AfD results in deletion, as it looks like it will, I will abide by that result. That's not the issue, as much as Viriditas wants to make it one. And Viriditas seems to admit that my one minor editing spat on the main article didn't even violate 3RR. Plus he has a lengthy history of AGF violations and baseless accusations. Smartyllama (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Your accusation of canvassing for votes in the AfD is equally baseless and not at all supported by my edit history. Smartyllama (talk) 22:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: You are not exactly "covering yourself in glory" with this kind of WP:POINTy "proposal", Smartyllama. In my experience as a (usually silent) observer of ANI, these kind of "proposals" often WP:BOOMERANG on the proposer. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 21:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. Whatever the merits of the arguments over comments related to the AfD, all Viriditas did was offer opinions here. Let's not compound the dispute. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
• I don't wish to post on each of the CBAN proposals, so whoever eventually closes this discussion, please consider this post my blanket oppose to all of them. They all smack of trying to silence their opposition using ANI, at least in my view. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 22:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • And with regards to Calton's incivility towards other users in completely separate discussions - they're also trying to silence the opposition by complaining here? Smartyllama (talk) 22:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

More Steve Comisar annoyances

This biography article has repeatedly had "fans" of the subject advocate for inclusion of various things, and people actually threaten editors who had removed them (see ANI archives).

One common thread with a few of these advocates had been that, instead or in addition to making their point on the article's talk page, they have spammed the personal talk pages of every editor involved with the same long statement. You can witness the latest incident of this sort at Special:Contributions/205.115.188.114. Should this be ignored and should it be assumed to be good-faith behavior? LjL (talk) 21:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jim bexley speed, TheThoughtfulOrc, Ruby Murray, Cwobeel, Tokyogirl79, DanielRigal, and Onel5969: pinging you as the involved parties who received the talk page message this report is about. LjL (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

This story has something for everyone: Canvassing, probable sockpuppetry and possibly also paid editing. Discussion is ongoing here too: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TonySpraks. I am assuming that this will lead to the people responsible getting blocked very soon and then it will all calm down. I'd be sad if it meant that Comisar lost his internet access completely (or if that is already the case) as there is so much scope for education and entertainment that he could be taking advantage of instead of wasting his time trying to manage his own reputation. If Wikipedia stands for one thing it is to bring knowledge of the whole world to anybody who who is interested, prisoners included. I find it genuinely sad that he is not interested in any of that, only in himself. The talk page messages are unwelcome and somewhat annoying but I am just rolling them up on my talk page. So long as he doesn't start with the snail mail again I'm not going to get too angry. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Don't forget the offline and online harassment, if I'm reading the article's talk page correctly. At one point Comisar was sending out multiple letters to at least one editor's home address, which was viewed as harassment given the amount of letters sent AND the fact that one of the sockpuppets began making threats. The IP shows up as being located in Jacksonville, NC and is through the Naval Network Warfare Command, but I'm not sure if that's accurate or not. Now if this is accurate and the IP is someone in the military editing on behalf of Comisar, they need to stop. The military does not take well to people taking part in harassment campaigns, which is essentially what's happening here. They might not be making threats like TonySpraks, but these accounts and IPs are all making the same claims based on the same, unusable sources. This shows some clear off-line coordination so even if this is a case of different people, it's still clearly meatpuppetry. This unfortunately also makes it difficult to tell if this person is one of the same people that have already posted or if it's someone who is spamming the page with the same requests because they're all being told to go to the page and use these specific sources. I'm leaning towards this being multiple people using a script to ask for changes because Maniamit (one of the more vocal people recently to lobby for Comisar) wrote something similar and claims to be located in India. Can we lock the page to where an admin would have to approve any edits to the page? This has been going on since 2011 and it's only going to get worse once he gets released from prison. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm usually opposed to full page protection unless there is continuous vandalism that cannot be dealt with timely enough. Here, for now, we seem to be able to revert the dubious edits just fine with semi-protection alone, so, I would leave full protection for another day. I note that this IP editor directly claimed we "educated" them "on the Wikipedia editing process", so I would say that's an admission that they are the in fact one of the same people that have already posted. LjL (talk) 23:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it's an annoyance at this point. I was simply going to delete messages like that to my talk page, and just keep an eye on the article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

One of Comisar's puppets threatened me in a very ugly fashion about five weeks ago. WMF legal got involved and asked if I would talk to law enforcement about it. The next day, I got a call from a Naval Criminal Investigative Service investigator who confirmed that the threat came from a Navy IP address, and that they were trying to figure out who was responsible. Comisar and his puppets want the article to state that he is an experienced actor as well as a multiple convicted con artist. He is also reaching out to any actor in Hollywood who has been in jail or prison. He is clearly lobbying for an acting career when he gets out of prison. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Just curious, is there a reason the article's set to PC1 instead instead of full SPP? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• That'd be me - I tried doing some page protection but borked it up. If you want to fix it, feel free. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• No problem. Consider it done! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Jethro's team will solve this mystery! LjL (talk) 13:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

The only reason anyone should watch that show is if a kidnapper shows up and says, "Watch an episode or die!" --QEDK (T 📖 C) 16:36, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• Update: the IP I've reported here has been been blocked for a week for disruptive editing; the SPI involving them has concluded, but unsurprisingly, no word has been stated about the IP; anyway, most of the spamming at the Steve Comisar talkpage has been hatted, and it seems like it will continue to be as it happens in the future. LjL (talk) 15:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Checkuser won't link an IP with a named account, but there was sufficient behavioural similarity between it and Curiouskitten777 for the week-long block to be applied. There's also enough here to pursue any new IP or account that comes by with the same set of actions (spamming usertalk pages with requests to make proxy edits saying Comisar is an actor). So, yes the socking will likely continue, but please re-report at the SPI if a suspicious new IP or account appears - it should be quicker to resolve than it has been in the past. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@Euryalus: is this a good example / test case? Maniamit was determined by checkuser to be unrelated to the sockfest, but the pattern is the same, and some editors have conjectured he might be a meatpuppet (paid editing or similar). In any case, it was in his plain sight that others who pestered editors with this lobbying were hatted or even blocked, and yet he just went ahead and made a personal editing request to Tokyogirl79 on the article's talk page. LjL (talk) 13:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Raggz BLP violations

Raggz (talk · contribs) Repeated violations of WP:BLP policy; drawing own conclusions (WP:FRANKIE) from multiple sources to apply controversial labels not stated in the sources. Labels considered incendiary in US politics (Marxist, communist, Trotskyite, supporter of revolution) are being used based on combining membership in the Socialist Alternative (United States) with other sources that draw conclusions about that party. Reputable sources that have followed Sawant's political career have consistently called her a socialist and given little or no attention to the Marxist and Trotskyite labels.

Diffs:

• [208] -- calling a citation for blocking a street during a protest, later thrown out by a judge, "criminal activity". No reputable sources have ever called Sawant "criminal"--Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

It was not a civil trial but a criminal trial. His edit was better phrased and I accepted it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raggz (talk • contribs)

• [209][210][211] -- Communism, Trotskyite, etc--Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

The Socialist Alternative Party is a revolutionary Trotskyite Marxist party.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Raggz (talk • contribs)

• [212] more of the same after final warning

BLP/NPOV policy warnings: [213][214][215][216][217] --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I am just an editor with no political agenda regarding this article. Dennis is all of this true for you as well?

I am not acquainted with the subject, nor am I am not a member of this revolutionary Marxist party. I have accepted some of Dennis's edits and agree that these improved the article. In particular the criminal issues were better addressed with his edits.

Well, I suppose that I do have an agenda here to state. I dislike politicians that mislead us as to their true political agenda and political philosophy. I have edited this article with the intent to ensure that the Reader is not misled. I had never heard of her and could be mistaken, but this is not a forum for that discussion. Dennis, why are we even here and not on the Talk page? Have you even once engaged in Talk?

Bottom line recommendation, explain to Dennis that we talk about our edits and try to reach a consensus before we come here. Raggz (talk) 07:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

In biographies, the default position is to remove the disputed negative material until a consensus is reached that it is suitable for inclusion. In this case, it's my observation that relentlessly attaching the phrase "Marxist" or "Trotskyite" to every single mention of her political party affiliation is not good writing style, never mind BLP. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• Not sure what the big deal is here. Multiple RS describe Socialist Alternative as Trotskyist - e.g. ... MSNBC [218], Seattle Weekly [219], Seattle Post-Intelligencer, [220], etc., and the diffs of Raggz' edits show the addition of descriptive prefixes to the party, rather than to Sawant's name. (Also I know this isn't admissable but, purely as an aside, in conversations I've had with officers of the SA they've described themselves to me as Trotskyist, and, IIRC, it could be I'm wrong on this, but SA is a member of the Committee for a Fourth International, aren't they?) The question about "citation" vs "criminal activities" I agree with, however, it seems Raggz deferred and accepted the change so not sure what the prob is there either. Maybe I'm missing something. LavaBaron (talk) 08:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
• Why does this BLP still contain disputed, controversial assertions? {{disputed}} does not belong on any BLP. The policy at WP:NOCONSENSUS is "for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it." These disputed epithets and labels need to go now. Reach consensus on the talk page before restoring any controversial claims about a living person.--Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

"Epithets" seems a little hyper-dramatic for what's been described. LavaBaron (talk) 19:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Boaxy misbehaving and socking

This user has been consistently attempting to add an LGBT category to Unfinished Business (2015 film) in an attempt to push a political viewpoint. However, I initially disagreed with what the category specifically meant; especially without a verifiable source to back it up. Boaxy claimed that he didn't need a source because it wasn't "original research." [221]

At that point, some unknown user (whose IP kept changing daily) stepped in and tried to undo Boaxy's vandalism. But Boaxy continued to edit war over the inclusion of the category for several days, during which Boaxy logged out and used an IP address (71.116.235.134) to further push his viewpoint. [222] [223] [224] [225] [226] [227]

At one point, Boaxy finally added a source, but the other user reverted it after he reviewed the source and found it to be unverifiable because it was just a short review with no talk about the film being targeted to an LGBT audience. Boaxy used his IP evasion again, in which I discovered what was going on and decided to refer this matter to this board. [228] [229] [230] [231]

I bring this matter to your attention to also remind the administrators of the fact that Boaxy was previously involved in edit-warring to include LGBT categories on some Sailor Moon articles (during which he also threw temper-tantrums and made personal attacks against other editors - myself included - who opposed the additions) in 2015, and was subsequently topic-banned from editing Sailor Moon articles. [232]--Loyalmoonie (talk) 17:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)Chris

I ask whoever is in charge of this procedure to watch the film. You only need to watch the first fifteen minutes or so to see why the LGBT category is perfectly being fine to be added. I put the category without a reference as the LGBT category is not original research. One of the four main protagonists is homosexual so that automatically warrants a LGBT category. As my oppressor thinks I'm pushing an agenda, I added a reference and they still insist I'm being spiteful. I'm not. The LGBT pop culture category should be removed if I can't use it. It's there for a reason as wikipedia is LGBT friendly and my oppressor has to just deal with it and accept it. Boaxy (talk) 04:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• Boaxy tried to be bold and add Category:American LGBT-related films; it was rejected. Given that this is a BLP issue here, the caution says no until there's good reason. I see no discussion at Talk:Unfinished Business (2015 film) so take the discussion there and I suggest Boaxy provide more than personal WP:OR of "you need to watch the film". And this source of not particularly reliability doesn't tell me anything that says to call it a LGBT-related film. But again, I could be wrong so onto that talk page, please. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• • What do you mean tried to be bold? I saw this movie for the first time around Christmas Eve or so, and I always check to see if Wikipedia is up with pop culture as they usually are. I thought to myself, there should be a LGBT category as one of the main protagonists is homosexual and there is lots of lgbt undertones in the movie, such as being at gay parades, gay bars. etc. I look and see there isn't one. I didn't fret that much over it as this movie is still quite relatively recent. So I added the category without a source as I didn't think it warranted one, and it really doesn't. It's quite obvious the film is LGBT related. Some things do not need to be sourced if it isn't original information or things that need to be cited, like box office prices, behind the scenes information, etc. I'm more than willing to add more sources, but what good would it be if they get removed because there is a user who believes I'm pushing a gay agenda? But I also said this seems to be a conflict of interest. I don't know the wikipedia term for that, I'm sorry. Loyalmoonie seems to be stalking me and thinks I'm pushing a gay agenda. I been on wikipedia for 11 years. I don't need to push anything. If someone is gay related, I'm going to tag it as such. If he/she has a problem with that, they need to talk to the wikipedia staff to remove the LGBT tags and projects and shit. I'm sorry. Boaxy (talk) 20:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
    • And as far as the sockpuppeting goes. I edit on my mobile phone and the app doesn't seem to use my username sometimes. I mentioned this before. I think as long as I'm not sockpuppeting on disputes or etc., it shouldn't matter. It's obvious it's me editing it. Boaxy (talk) 20:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:Blethering Scot

• Blethering Scot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Talk:St. Cuthbert Wanderers F.C. (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)
• Talk:St. Mirren F.C. (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

Reported by BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Any suggestions on how to dissusade User:Blethering Scot from a series of personal attacks across two RM discussions, which are repeated in edit summaries (contrary to WP:ESDONTS)?

Some examples among many:

• [233] " saying you lied is not a personal attack" - edit summary "You did lie, you are a liar"
• [234] "you were called out on your lies". edit summary "you are a liar"
• [235] -- edit summary "Stop replying if you truly want it to be enough"

The last one is a clear statement of intent to drive me away from a discussion of which I was nominator.

I have asked them several times to desist, and discuss the substance ([236], [237]), but it only makes things worse.

What to do? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Blethering Scot notified[238]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:38, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• I don't personally think this is worth an ANI filing. If you don't like the way Blethering Scot is expressing himself, don't engage with him further. It's a survey(s), not a debate(s). Blethering Scot's points are that the vast majority of other Scottish teams with "Saint" in their name use the full stop on Wikipedia, so in terms of WP convention, the convention is to use the period. The fact that Blethering Scot is being rather clumsy in his communication is fairly irrelevant in my view. As always on Wikipedia, focus on content, not on other editors or their behavior. Just ignore the wording, focus on content, and let other people !vote. Don't clutter the page(s) with unnecessary conversation. Softlavender (talk) 03:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I thought that XFD and RM were consensus-forming discussions in which policy and evidence assessments were scrutinised and discussed, and not just WP:VOTECOUNTing. Closers are certainly instructed not to just count heads, but to weigh a debate.
    As you can see, I did try to focus on content, and did significant research on common usage. But I was just met with tirades of abuse.
    BS's claim is as you say, that "the vast majority of other Scottish teams with "Saint" in their name use the full stop on Wikipedia" ... but reality is that it's 50-50 (3 each way, less than I had initially thought). I would have replied to correct that, but the barrage of abuse is intimidating and explicitly intended to intimidate. Is that really acceptable? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

He may have gotten heated in his replies on the two similar RMs but that's something that can be easily ignored and redirected to discussions of content. It's always best to completely ignore insults, name-calling, accusations, etc. and stick only to content. Every single editor on Wikipedia will get name-called, accused of something, or insulted, if they are here long enough. The trick is to overlook that and discuss the content issue behind the words. I don't personally think the blow-up on these two extremely similar RMs warrants an ANI. If this were a longstanding problem across multiple subjects and over a long period of time, and had also been attempted to be resolved over a long period of time, on user talk pages, then it might. But I don't personally see anything actionable here other than a return to sticking to RM !votes and WP naming conventions. Softlavender (talk) 03:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll be interested to see if others share that view that aggression and personal attacks are just "clumsy communication". WP:CIVIL/NPA/AGF are supposed to be fundamental policies. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I think you've missed my point. This is one instance (on two nearly identical RMs). If you had had problems with the user over a lengthy period of time across multiple subjects, and had tried to work things out with the user on their talk page over a lengthy period of time, that would be the time for an ANI. As it is, I personally think the behavior best and easily ignored. (But maybe that's just me; I don't let myself get baited by other people's name-calling, and in content discussions I stick to discussing content, not editors' behavior or the way they express themselves.) Softlavender (talk) 04:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be focusing on target's strategy for dealing with attacks, rather than on the acceptability of the attack. That seems to me be as misplaced in this context as in any other -- there are many ways in which people can minimise exposure to attack, or mitigate its consequences, but they shouldn't have to. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm focusing on your handling of this matter, and whether an ANI was warranted at this juncture. See Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#First_offenses_and_isolated_incidents. Softlavender (talk) 04:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Brown haired girl is correct to complain. Unless there is clear evidence of lying then calling someone a liar is a personal attack and a failure to assume good faith. I don't think we do the project any favours by asking the victims of personal attacks to toughen up or ignore it, if we don't work to make sure this is a reasonable place to be then the good people will leave and only the stubborn and rude will remain.

@Blethering Scot: is reminded that accusations against editors must be backed up by evidence or they should be kept to yourself. Repeated or egregious personal attacks can result in a block. HighInBC 04:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Also Softlavender I don't think that it could be called a first offence or an isolated incident if it is ongoing after a request to stop. Also notice a previous block for personal attacks in October. A warning is sufficient now, but if it continues it is actionable. HighInBC 04:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - Agree a final warning is warranted. This is a complete overreaction concerning whether an article title should contain a full stop. Not the first time the editor has engaged in personal attacks. Should be made clear that any further similar behaviour will be met with a further block. Fenix down (talk) 09:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@HighInBC: my accusations were backed up clearly with evidence. BrownHairedGirl lied, she had refused to withdraw that lie. i provided clear evidence proving her statement was false. She said enough, but kept replying thats not my fault but hers. You issued a ping reminding me to provide evidence, this indicates you did not read my responses. i provided evidence to prove she had lied in her statement of as reflected for example in the names of the other Scottish football clubs. This was a false statement in my view to mask her mistake and misleading opening. I proved this to be false, yet she thought it acceptable to continue to lie. I do not see calling out an editor for her lies to be a personal attack, nor will i apologise for it. if that means a block then go ahead. It is my view that @BrownHairedGirl: should be frankly embarrassed. She has wasted everyones time because she refused to withdraw a lie. She knows she wasn't correct, she has seen my evidence showing she was incorrect and attacks me. This isn't about a simple ., but about her false statement and misleading opening. If there was a convention stating the . should not be used as she said in her opening then she needed to prove it. She said all Blethering Scot 21:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

If you cannot tell the difference between a lie and a difference of opinion then you are indeed heading for a block. You have not provided evidence of anything other than that you and BHG made a mistake or disagrees with you. Now argue the merits of the dispute without resorting to attacking editors or you will be blocked for personal attacks.

It seems that BHG has admitted that the numbers were not as they thought, so why not just move on and stop with the assumptions of bad faith. HighInBC 21:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@HighInBC: Show me where she has admitted or apologised to me. You are frankly wrong and i told you very clearly block me if you can prove I'm attacking her. She lied by virtue of making a false statement, a statement she hasn't withdrawn. Sorry but tell me how saying as reflected for example in the names of the other Scottish football clubs isn't a lie. Tell me how that statement is a difference of opinion. In the thread I clearly provided evidence that she was wrong. She attacked me first, not the other way around. She has not redacted her lie, or made any attempt to apologise for it. Can you advise where in the NPA policy it states that calling an editor a liar is a personal attack, when it is proven the person is lying. We are only here because Brown Haired Girl handled herself very badly. Had she as soon as I provided evidence of her false statement, redacted and admitted she made a mistake then fine. She choose to ignore my evidence and pile it on. Im embarrassed for her and thats a fact. Please note any block against me must show to me that calling a user a liar when proven she lied is a personal attack or we will be heading to arbcom. Blethering Scot 21:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

In addition I simply do not care about a dot. This isn't the issue with her move request, the issue was she opened her move request saying to remove the dot from "St." per wikipedia naming convention. When I asked her to show me where the convention was she said The convention does not seem to be documented, but it is longstanding practice on.wp not to use the dot in "St.", as reflected for example in the names of the other Scottish football club. Essentially it doesn't exist. As she said as reflected in names of other football clubs, I wanted to verify this info so I checked all other football clubs in Scotland and found no such demonstration existed either. When i advised she had mislead she said I was just showing signs of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This was antagonising behaviour, because at this point all id said was her initial statements were misleading and they clearly were. I then provided her with the evidence she asked for. She kept saying I hadn't provided evidence, when i provided the link to back up my point. She said i was like an advocate conducting a cross-examination. The fact is all I did was question why here statements were misleading a move request. She should no signs of withdrawing statement or clarifying why she mislead us. The fact is it was lies or at best deliberately misleading. Not something you would except from a sysop. Also its not entirely unclear whether a dot can be considered to be covered by the common name policy. Blethering Scot 21:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Even presuming the factual claims you made are accurate, being mistaken about our conventions when you make comments doesn't automatically make someone a liar or imply they delibrately mislead. Refusing to admit you were mistaken (again presuming your claims are accurate) is problematic, but again doesn't mean someone is a liar or delibrately mislead. I don't see where you've presented any evidence that BrownHairedGirl knew she was wrong when she made the statement which is implied by your claim she lied or delibrately mislead. And frankly calling someone a liar or saying they delibrately mislead without significant evidence is a far more serious thing than being wrong about our naming conventions. So unless you do have evidence it's far more important that you withdraw your claim then she withdraw her claim about our naming conventions (presuming she is wrong). P.S. I had a brief look at the discussion so I'll add that WP:COMMONNAME is one of our naming conventions, one of the most basics ones. As to whether it should apply to the dot in an abbreviation, I would say yes, but I don't think that's a discussion suitable for ANI anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 12:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I am going to leave this for another admin to decide. I don't like it when people dare me to block them, and I don't really feel like playing this game with you right now. HighInBC 22:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't daring you to do anything. You said you were going to block me, if i believed she was lying. I said go ahead if you feel you have enough evidence it is a personal attack and can prove that BrownHairedGirl did not lie or try and mislead. I think its obvious at best she was misleading and at worst she lied. I won't apologise for that when the evidence is clear to see.Blethering Scot 23:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

How about you just make your argument based on the facts of the dispute instead of engaging in ad hominem attacks. If you think the fact claimed by BHG is wrong then make an argument to disprove it and gain consensus, there is no need to assume bad motives. Comment on the content not the contributor. This is Wikipedia 101. You can believe whatever you want, we are only concerned with what you do. HighInBC 23:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I am happy to discuss the substance of the issue, including BS's concerns over my assertions ... but only with an editor who behaves in a civil manner. I have no problem with some discussion of a disagreement, but I will not engage in substantive discussion with an editor who assumes bad faith and repeatedly engages with personal attacks.

I would not stay in any workspace or other meeting in meatspace with people who conduct themselves like that, and per WP:CIVIL, Wikipedia editors are entitled to discuss disagreements and allegations of error without being repeatedly called called "liar", and without facing an editor determined to bully them out of a discussion. Wikipedia's decision-making process is consensus-forming discussion, but consensus-forming cannot happen in the context of such aggression. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I would point out to User:BrownHairedGirl that the conversation was civil until she said I was displaying signs of Wikipedia:I just don't like it, all because i asked her to clarify the policy she was referring to & challenged her ascertain that the policy was reflected in the names of other Scottish football clubs. She also accused me of being like a barrister because i was wanting her to clarify her comments. None of this displays a civil attitude towards me. She specifically asked me to provide evidence that there are no other clubs in the SPFL called Saint that use the displayed name without the dot. As provided in the RM St. Johnstone F.C. and St. Mirren F.C. are the only clubs named saint in the SPFL. Click on the league links on the spfl tables on the official website to see this for yourself. Her failure to acknowledge this and her belligerent style make me fully believe she intended to mislead therefore i have to come to the conclusion she lied. At the same time i looked at Category:Football clubs in Scotland. As you will see there are only a further 4 with the name Saint. These are St Anthony's F.C., St Roch's F.C., St. Andrews United F.C. and St. Cuthbert Wanderers F.C.. That means of 6 Scottish football clubs named Saint, only 2 use the naming style without the dot. That means clearly there is no deliberate reflection in the names of other Scottish football clubs. It is my believe that BrownHairedGirl is showing evidence of behaviour not befitting an admin, and because i called her out on it brought this here.Blethering Scot 18:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I assume BHG is referring to this, clear articulation in the MoS. I really can't fathom why therefore, this has all blown up over a full stop. Fenix down (talk) 10:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Nil Einne Im fully aware of the common name policy and one I agree with, however i think its debatable whether it applies in this case. However BrownHairedGirl pulled it out as an after thought when called out on her misleading facts. Im glad u acknowledge that her behaviour is problematic if proven. I have very clearly provided evidence that she was wrong, yet she fails to acknowledge that fact. She know full well there is no reflection in other Scottish football articles. Blethering Scot 18:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Fenix down it has not blown up over a dot. It has blown up over BrownHairedGirl failure to admit she provided misleading evidence to a WP:RM. This is problematic behaviour not befitting an admin.Blethering Scot 18

55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Being mistaken is not the same as lying. People have disagreements on Wikipedia and that doesn't make them liars. It was inappropriate to use that term - and multiple times yet - even if her information was incorrect, and even if she didn't explicitly acknowledge that. After all, part of the reason to have the discussion is to gain a consensus as to what should be done, including verifying what the facts are, if they are in dispute. Rlendog (talk) 19:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I dont believe that to be the case. As far as i can see she wasn't mistaken, she misled. Im not going to withdraw that view in anyway. She is still belligerently ignoring that facts and refuses to acknowledge despite evidence being presented to her. As for my repeatedly repeating my view, given she started the attacks on me, again I won't apologise for that. She is an admin and I am not, therefore she should be setting an example. She has not set an example by accusing me of being a barrister for asking her to clarify her statements and i mean ask her, she has not set an example by not acknowledging the facts. Frankly this is not about a dot but the fact she won't admit she was wrong and tried to hide it by pushing me.Blethering Scot 19:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

This should never of been brought to AN, had she apologised and said sorry I was wrong, redacted her false statements, then i would of apologised to her. The fact it was brought here without any acknowledgement on the RM or here makes me think whats the point.Blethering Scot 19:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• Here's where it all blew up. BS wrote As you've said to me show me your evidence to back up your lies. ‎ As for I dont like it thats just you trying to hide the fact you are being evasive. If you can prove common name applies to a ., then please go ahead. However dont make false statements

I replied[239]

| have provided evidence of common usage, and of usage by the club itself. That is what matters in Wikipedia policy.
You have offered no evidence in support of any other names, and so as noted, your comments are just WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
You now seem to be trying to find flaws in my comments as if you were an advocate conducting a cross-examination, rather than a fellow en.wp editor trying to reach a consensus. Your latest statement, with its accusation of "lies" is a direct personal attack and assumption of bad faith, so I will not discuss any further with you. If you persist with such a personalised approach, I will consider seeking sanctions.

From then on, BS just kept on repeating "liar", and repeating the impossibilist demand that I somehow prove that a generic principle applies to a particular aspect of a name. The hostile advocate-in-a-courtoom-bullying-a-witness approach makes it impossible to have a dialogue about any concerns over evidence and assertions. For the record, one of my assertions about other usage on Wikipedia turns out on checking to be a little overstated, but given the evidence of common usage I think it is immaterial.

There is a fairly simple way to handle assertions that appear incorrect. Simply say what you have found, and ask the other to explain the difference. If we had had that discussion, then I might for example have pointed out to BS that part of the difference was because I had referred to "football clubs" whereas BS was talking about the much more limited set of SPFL (premier league) clubs. But such misunderstandings don't get unravelled when an editor immediately assumes bad faith and responds to every reply by yelling "liar", and by abusing edit summaries to make that attack.

The edit summary "Stop replying if you truly want it to be enough" is a clear statement of intent to drive me away from the discussion. This isn't consensus-forming; it's a blatant attempt to shout me down and not only drive me away, but deter any other editors from joining in. It's WP:BATTLEFIELD behaviour. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

User:BrownHairedGirl Sorry, no i referred to every Scottish football club with a Wikipedia article. There are only 6. Actually no you said Enough, then said [240] enough again. My reply was to say if you are truly saying enough to me then stop replying to my posts. Because i have to reply to yours. You are still trying to misinterpret facts.Blethering Scot 19:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

BS, please read WP:AGF. Disagreement over facts, or difference of interpretation or understanding, or even an error, can be due to an mistake or to a difference of view or to nuances of language. It is not, as you claim yet again, "trying to misinterpret facts" -- that is an assumption of and faith, which the core of the problem with your approach.

That phrase "trying to misinterpret facts" is just a rewording of your cruder yelling of "liar". I don't now how many editors need to warn you stop doing this assumption of bad faith before you will listen. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

User:BrownHairedGirl Well you are. You made out above it was me that started the enough's, when in fact it was you and my enough was in response to yours, which was an attempt to close down discussion. You made out above I didn't provide evidence of all Scottish clubs, when i did both SPFL and the other 4 clubs outside. The issue is here you are showing no sign of acknowledging anything, therefore it is very difficult to assume good faith. As another user said above thats evidence of problematic behaviour. Why won't you admit you made errors, the more you insist you didn't the more it looks like it was deliberate. Seriously thats all you had to do, two days ago. I would of apologised at that point. The more this drags on the less i see to apologise for.Blethering Scot 20:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

BS, I give up. You are quite entitled to say that you believe I am wrong. You ae quite entitled to point out how you think I am wrong. You are not entitled to call me a liar or to assume that I acted in bad faith.

I am quite happy to discuss a disagreement, but not with an aggressive, abusive editor who persists in assuming bad faith. If that is your assumption, then any discussion is pointless. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

User:BrownHairedGirl Where in this recent conversation am i being abusive or aggressive. Im not swearing at you, I'm not shouting at you, I'm simply asking you to acknowledge your errors. Nobody can blame me for not assuming good faith when you never with me (and its clear you didn't) and it does simply look problematic when two days later you won't admit the mistakes. You also above did provide a misleading version of events, that missed some very key points so i highlighted that your version of events did not tally up. You keep denying them despite evidence to the contrary. Saying I'm being abusive certainly isn't the case. Im being perfectly polite during this conversation and have highlighted the inaccuracies that you raise. Im sorry you feel how you feel, but not sorry about anything else. I cannot fathom why you won't just be honest. Its bizarre that you are continuing to deny this, as genuine mistakes are usually owned up to. There is no point continuing this with you as you are showing no signs of ceasing your insistence that you are totally innocent, when you are not. This situation has been escalated by yourself for no good reason.Blethering Scot 22:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Anyway enough is enough. It is clear you aren't going to admit your errors and as such I cannot apologise. And as i would rather improve the encyclopaedia by improving content, not concentrating on trivial matters like this, I think we should both depart this conversation.Blethering Scot 22:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Repairperson needed because of undiscussed page moves and simultaneous cut-and-paste-moves involving multiple articles

Calerusnak has made a total mess of a number of articles by first moving them around and then making cut-and-paste moves. The currently affected article names are, as of latest count, Mercedes-Benz ML, Mercedes-Benz ML-Class, Mercedes-Benz GL, Mercedes-Benz GL-Class, Mercedes-Benz GLE and Mercedes-Benz GLE-Class. I know the standard procedure is to tag with {{histmerge}}, but this also involves (AFAIK at least) undiscussed moves, so the best fix would be to move everything back to where it was when Calerusnak started the circus... Thomas.W ^talk 18:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I think I have fixed everything up, except I need an admin to move Mercedes-Benz ML back to Mercedes-Benz M-Class. OSX (talk • contributions) 22:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@OSX: The page histories still need to be fixed since a number of edits have been made after the cut-and-paste-moves were made. Thomas.W ^talk 22:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I guess if you see this as necessary. All Calerusnak did was change a few small things that got reverted anyway. He did not actually improve the page. But if an admin wants to history merge, I have no objection. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

What a mess - thanks for straightening it out.  Mr.choppers | ✎  22:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

ML > M-Class fixed. It might need to be moved to GLE-class is that is now the official name but that needs to be done through a Requested Move. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Legal threats?

Are this (the last paragraph) and this legal threats? —teb728 t c 00:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Can't see the first diff (deleted) but yeah, the second one is, even though it's uploaded to Commons rather than Wikipedia. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Related to this, someone at Commons probably wants to take a look at the uploads of Commons:User:Nmkkato. I'm pretty sure they all unquestionably fall out of scope. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

And they've been cromulently blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Some of those uploads have highly sensitive personal info in them. clpo13_(talk) 00:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Their commons uploads have been mass deleted. Nil Einne (talk) 01:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I have invited them to explain their concerns without making threats[241], it is not really clear to me what they are complaining about. I am about 70% sure that they got something taken down as a copy vio and they are misunderstanding our licensing requirements with an accusation of copyright infringement. HighInBC 00:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I would normally agree with you, but I think this individual probably doesn't belong on Wikipedia even with a retraction of the legal threat. It looks like the whole purpose of her presence here is to push information about a lawsuit against BMI. And honestly, that little of an analysis is charitable. But from the look of the documents and how she's conducting herself elsewhere, I feel pretty confident a retraction won't happen anyway. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I was less concerned about a retraction and more concerns about figuring out what they were concerned about per WP:DOLT. HighInBC 01:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

It appears it's their taking "your content has been removed as copyvio" as "Wikipedia is commiting copyright violations on me". And/or a a failure to grasp Wikipedia's licensing requirements w.r.t. content that has been posted (and thus copyrighted) by themselves elsewhere. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Note that the legal threat in this case appears to be an ongoing lawsuit against wikipedia and wikimedia. At least that's what the upload and comment [242] seems to imply. If that's really the case, then retraction of the threat requires the lawsuit is resolved (whether it's dismissed perhaps because they drop it or ask for it to be dismissed or it goes to court and achieves some outcome). Nil Einne (talk) 01:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Campus sexual assault RfC

Hello, there is currently an active RfC going on at the Talk:Campus sexual assault page regarding whether or not to use in-text attribution for a statement. When the RfC was first opened, User:Flyer22 Reborn (who supports not using attribution) phrased the question as two opposing areas of comment: 'Don't use' and 'Use'. I requested on her talk page that this be changed to a simpler, one-question format. She did not change it, so I noted my objections on the RfC page and left my comment only in the latter section. Another user, User:FoCuSandLeArN, also noted on Flyer22's talk page, "It is my opinion the RfC !voting space was indeed very poorly organised. Having to support and oppose several points in the same RfC is indeed very impractical, which is why I only !voted once." and left a comment only in the latter section. As the RfC progressed, it collected a total of 7 comments in the latter section. Today, five days after the discussion was opened and the objections were noted, Flyer22 has added a new note to the latter (and only latter) section which reads "Note: There is no obligation to vote twice. Feel free to ignore voting in this section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)". As the time to compromise has passed and this note is suggesting that an active area of the conversation be ignored (either entirely or for new votes, depending on the interpretation of the wording) I move that the note be struck from the conversation, at least as it pertains to suggesting that participants ignore any part of the discussion at this point. Given that the note may impact an active RfC discussion, I have attempted to comment it out pending the resolution of this issue. Please advise the best course to proceed. Scoundr3l (talk) 22:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the discussion's transpiring nicely. There are points where both parties are willing to compromise, and it appears there are attempts at drafting modified content per the results of the ongoing conversation. I think we can ignore this little bump in the road and interpret the consensus accordingly. I assume Flyer22 was just trying to correct that incongruity. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 22:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Scoundr3l brought the matter here because I made it clear on his talk page that I would seek to get him blocked if he kept messing with my comments like he did here and here, which is a WP:Talk violation. There was nothing inappropriate about the note I left in the RfC, which was to clarify that there is no obligation for editors to vote twice in that RfC; that editors can vote once or twice in that RfC is made clear by the way editors have been voting in it thus far. It's also made clear by this discussion on my talk page. FoCuSandLeArN seemed to question if he had to vote twice, and so I left the aforementioned note in the RfC that there is no obligation to do so, just like there is no obligation to vote twice if a RfC has a Support and Oppose heading. The only reason things have escalated this far is because of Scoundr3l's need to debate every little thing, and because Scoundr3l and I bickered with each other at the talk page; see this link for what I mean. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Clarification: I began writing this before Flyer22 left a comment on my talk page. My motivations were not swayed by idle warnings on my talk page but by a desire to remove confusing statements like "Feel free to ignore voting in this section" from a section which is currently being used for comment. Scoundr3l (talk) 22:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Trolling over there now coming over here. Seems like a discussion is getting somewhere over there, though it's pretty tl;dr. The statement is so WP:POPE obvious that it is clear we have the "men's rights" trolls just there to cause drama, but looks like the actual content issue might be getting resolved anyway. Montanabw^(talk) 22:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I clarified my note with this edit. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• Let's just keep cool heads and let the issue move on. No need to let petty grievances take over. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 00:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Frankly the RFC looks to be a real mess, but I don't think there's any way to solve that now. However I do agree it's a little weird to only have the comment for one of the options in the middle. Even if it's felt it wasn't needed for the first, I don't see why it wasn't mentioned for the third option. I think it was particularly bad with the original wording.

It would have been best if the lack of need to !vote could have been clarified at the beginning (not that I'm sure why it needs clarification, people participating in RFCs should know we aren't voting so there's no obligating to to vote in any specific maner). But the beginning of that RFC is such a mess that I have no idea, and no desire to learn what it's about and I suspect many potential participants are just going to completely ignore the beginning of the RFC.

Anyway, to avoid dispute, I've included a modified version of Flyer's comment under the other two proposals that people seem to be !voting on. The new wording from Flyer is better, but there's still no reason why it only belongs in the middle option.

P.S. Personally I find it hard to call commenting out (or better simply removing the additional poor wording) included in the beginning of the middle option only, a violation of WP:TALK. People should remember that RFCs are supposed to be worded and structured neutrally. And if they're modifying an ongoing RFC, they need to take great care not to violate that principle. If their actions violate it or appear to, undoing their actions until the issue is resolved is a fair call.

Nil Einne (talk) 11:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

BTW, I remembered Flyer 22's name from a dispute over another RFC. At the time writing above, I couldn't recall if they were the one who's actions I had mostly criticised. But a quick check has now confirmed they were. I do not believe my above comments were significantly influenced by any memories I had of the previous experience with Flyer 22, but I obviously can never say for sure. I have no particular desire to involve myself in either RFC. Nil Einne (talk) 12:45, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Nil Einne, I'm sure you remember it was me you mostly (rather only) criticized in that previous discussion, despite the clear-cut personal attacks, etc. from two administrators directed toward me, including this mess; that discussion is now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive909#Administrator User:Jehochman's conduct at Talk:Jennifer Lawrence. As seen there and now in this discussion, you and I have different ideas of what a WP:Talk violation is. It is also quite clear that we never agree. And I don't see how your edits to the RfC, which is going fine except for the occasional bickering, helped. The note I left was placed in the second section because people will see the first section first. And the note for the third section, which you added, was not needed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:54, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I do my best not to hold grudges and so don't remember the name of precisely who did what unless I have a reason to (like they are an editor I feel I need to keep an eye on) or they come up often enough that I do remember, or I happen to remember for some other reason. I considered and consider your actions there wrong, but they weren't so wrong that I had any reason to keep an eye on you, nor was I particularly likely to encounter you again in my own editing. So as I said in my second reply, I did not remember you were the one who I criticised when I left my first reply (which includes the edits to the article talk page).

I did remember your name, but I did not think you were the one who I criticised until I checked. When I thought about it a bit more, I began to wonder if you were the one based partly on your actions here and since I did have a vague memory I felt your behaviour somewhere was unresonable. I didn't actually look for the discussion, instead I looked at the RFC and was easily able to figure out from what it was in fact you.

(Now that I've looked back at the discussion and read your final comment which I never read before, my concerns combined with my concerns about what happened here are even stronger. It sounds like you didn't and I'm guessing still don't understand how RFCs are intended to work and why they are intended to be a community discussion, not simple one random person's ideas which may include including stuff you don't yourself support but believe the community wants or may want to consider. Or making a proposal which isn't your preferred version and not including your preferred version in the interest of compromise based on previous discussion. Whatever else may or may not have gone on, I'll freely admit I didn't look that closely. What I did see was that it was quite clear you committed a major error and where unable to see you had done so and that this error was quite serious since it risked damaging any RFCs you were involved in. So maybe I will remember you now, although why you would want that, I'm not sure.)

Anyway, I hope you are willing to WP:AGF that I was and am telling the truth when I say I did not remember you were the one when originally replying.

I obviously disagree that the notes I left are unhelpful. Firstly as I said above, your original wording was seriously wrong in an RFC, something which you haven't really acknowledged. (You've improved your wording, but haven't said anything to suggest you understand it was a major problem and people were right to be seriously concerned about it.)

Your second wording was better, still while it may be more likely people will read the first section there's never any guarantee, so telling people they don't have to !vote in only one section is out of place. I'll admit though I made a mistake in my original wording. I simply copied yours without thinking too much about it but your wording still has the flaw that it's only discouraging !voting in one section. (There's no more reason why people who've !voted in the second section need to !vote in the first section.) I've now improved my wording [243].

Unfortunately this means the middle section still has the poorer wording. However from all you've said and done so far, I suspect if I delete your wording and replace it with my signed wording you'll complain. And the problem isn't significant enough that I'm going to bother to try.

And in case it's not clear, it does matter, since even with the improved wording, leaving the wording in only the middle section leaves the impression it's some sort of secondary proposal that doesn't matter. The first and second proposal may be mutually contradictory so can't both be implemented, however that doesn't mean people have to !vote on the third proposal, they don't have to as they never do.

It's of course possible for someone to !vote support for both the first and second proposal. Often they may give some indication of which they prefer. But on the other hand some people may think it doesn't matter so they will support both equally. Since this is an RFC aimed at achieving consensus and not a vote, whoever closes the discussion should take their comments on board based on strength of argument and grounding in our policies and guidelines as they should always do regardless of who !vote what & where. Not that many real votes with multiple questions require you to vote in both for your vote to be valid anyway.

As I said before, the far better thing would be for such notes to be left at beginning of the RFC. Except the beginning is such a royal mess, it's fairly likely that very few people will actually see the comment. Mind you, the reason why this often doesn't come up is that normally if there are only two possible mutually contradictory options, it's better to simply include one option. While it's still important to get the wording right in such cases to ensure you aren't biasing in favour of any specific option, it makes things clearer and avoids such needless confusion. (Of course including both options seperately is no better when you are going to say "There is no obligation to vote twice. Feel free to ignore voting in this section" in only the second section.

Anyway as with the previous discussion which I now sadly remember much more than I ever wanted to, I've spent way too much time here so won't likely be commenting further. If editors wish to reword or even remove my notes in that RFC, feel free to replace or delete them as you believe is fair and there is consensus for. Don't however take this as carte blanche to do anything which may bias the RFC. If you've had problems before in that direction, I suggest seeking consensus first before making any changes to avoid that issue.

P.S. Whatever is achieved in that RFC, that shouldn't be taken as a sign it was handled well. Any RFC where when someone visits it, the first thing they are greeted with is a very, very long (significantly longer than this very very long comment of mine) discussion between editors, rather than a neutrally worded summation of the issues and main points is a mess. While RFCs growing organically out of existing discussions is a good thing, this doesn't mean people should ignore the basic tenets of making a good RFC when starting them. (And this is ignoring the confusing and seemingly unnecessary inclusion of the only two possible mutually contradictory options which effectively lead to this ANI in the first place when the comment was added.)

And while achieving a result if that happens is good, RFCs are generally best when they have maximum participation and it's fairly likely people have and will visit that RFC, see the very long beginning and go "um okay, whatever, bye". I suspect most of those who do choose to participate are going to jump straight to the !vote parts. The trouble there is while they will hopefully get an idea of what the issues are from the !vote discussion, they may not particularly those who visited early on because there was no such simple introduction and summation. Therefore they may not be well informed and may have trouble coming up with their best policy and guideline based argument. I suspect only a tiny number of new participants are going to read any significant part of the initial discussion.

P.P.S. It looks to me like the personal attacks you referred to include "obnoxious" and being basically referred to as a troll. Personally, while calling someone obnoxious can be uncivil, it's also the sort of thing which can be a harsh but fair description of behaviour. (I'm not saying it was fair in that case, simply that it can be.) And funnily enough, when searching that ANI, I few threads down I found someone else was called obnoxious in ANI itself. Calling somone a troll is more serious since it's in many ways an even more serious accusation of bad faith than vandal so should IMO be reserved for clear cut trolls. However it's complicated and the OP of this thread was effectively accused of trolling and being a troll in this very thread. Despite your apparent strong concerns about calling some a troll being a PA, it looks like I was the first to raise the issue. Which to be clear, I don't think is something worth worrying about.

Nil Einne (talk) 10:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Nil Einne, you sated, "I do my best not to hold grudges and so don't remember the name of precisely who did what unless I have a reason to (like they are an editor I feel I need to keep an eye on) or they come up often enough that I do remember, or I happen to remember for some other reason. I considered and consider your actions there wrong, but they weren't so wrong that I had any reason to keep an eye on you, nor was I particularly likely to encounter you again in my own editing. So as I said in my second reply, I did not remember you were the one who I criticised when I left my first reply (which includes the edits to the article talk page)."

I stated that we never agree, and that's true. I have a very good memory, as a number of editors at this site know. Any time I am involved with a WP:ANI thread and you happen to weigh in on it, I have come away with the conclusion that you strongly dislike me. So you are one of the administrators editors I have pegged as knowing not to come to for help. When I see the type of comments you made in that previous WP:ANI thread focusing on me the way you did with the mess I was put through and downplaying bullying tactics by two administrators, I am left taking your comments regarding me with a grain of salt. Plus, there was this edit by you soon after that matter, which I consider you having felt the need to keep an eye on me, as though I was the main disruptive one. After all, you had never edited that article before, and one of the administrators I was in dispute with made it seem like extra eyes were going to be on me to keep me in line. I received emails from well-respected editors stating that the main administrator in that RfC dispute had been wrong to make a fuss over the headings, especially since the headings represented his views, and that he was completely out of line for his incivility. I received even more emails from well-respected editors stating that this administrator (yeah the one Clpo13 had to revert on that gross personal attack) was over the top and should have been admonished. Yes, Nil Einne that, was a personal attack, whether you want to simply consider it incivility or not, as if that would make it better. These editors all agree that the Jennifer Lawrence RfC was formatted fine. And, indeed, other than the bickering between me and those two administrators, it was a successful RfC and will be closing soon. I know how to format RfCs (I've been doing it since about 2007, either then or a little afterward, when I started editing this site), though I occasionally misjudge what is the best formatting. Just because you wouldn't have formatted the Jennifer Lawrence RfC that way...it doesn't mean that it wasn't the right format. From what I see, it was the best format for that type of dispute. As for the current RfC formatting, that's clearly not my best work. And I still feel that your edits there were not needed. But either way, this simply marks another case where we have disagreed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I suppose my memory is not always as good as I think it is. Looking at User talk:Nil Einne/Archive 3 (at two sections I posted to your talk page), I see we were on better terms before, and that I perhaps used to think fondly of you. At some point, that changed. In Wikipedia years, 2009 was a lifetime ago. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

The above 'troll' comment certainly appears to be a PA. Uncivil at best. But it also appears to simply be a pattern with that user's commenting style. I don't pay it much mind as I imagine most users don't. If there are any sincere concerns over trolling, the original discussion is still on display. Scoundr3l (talk) 01:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

"being ineducable"

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: This section was originally misplaced by me at WP:AN. I have moved the full discussion as far as 05:59, 28 January 2016 here. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 06:48, 28 January 2016 (UTC))

Mabelina (talk · contribs) has a turbulent history here. For quite some time, many editors have been attempting to help this individual understand Wikipedia policy and editing practice, mostly specific to WP:MOS and WP:OVERLINK, but also sometimes WP:CONSENSUS. While I believe I've seen some improvements since my first interaction with the editor some time ago at Order of Saint John (chartered 1888), s/he continues to make the same grammatical mistakes, ignore consensus, and edit war, despite the aforementioned help.

Recently, there was dispute over the way Mabelina was editing the biographies of British peers. A lengthy discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies#Use of Rt Hon and PC for UK Privy Counsellors and Peers reached a sensible consensus. Yet, Mabelina still insists his/her way is the right way, often edit warring: [244], [245], [246]. A glance at Mabelina's talk page will show how a number of editors (including myself) are becoming very frustrated with the behaviour. Though, it also shows a stubborn and troubling refusal on Mabelina's part to accept concepts like consensus (see User talk:Mabelina#Disruptive editing from 19:59, 27 January 2016 on). Confounding matters even more, pointing out the problems to him/her is deemed by them to be undeserved, at best, threats or abuse, at worst.

Mabelina's block log is illustrative of the difficulty s/he has been having adhering to Wkikipedia rules and guidelines. One block by RHaworth (talk · contribs) was imposed due to Mabelina "being ineducable". That's a succinct way to sum up the issue with Mabelina and, unfortunately, I don't think it's improved enough.

Another block should temporarily stop Mabelina's edit warring. But, there would still remain the big question of: what's going to be an effective way to see Mabelina become a cooperative editor in the long term? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• I admit that this did ping on to my radar yesterday and I quickly became overwhelmed when I tried to tease apart the various issues when reviewing Mabelina's talk page and associated edits. There is a significant gap between the involved editor's expectations (e.g. collaboration through clear discussions) and Mabelina's often over-the-top responses. I completely understand why frustrations have bubbled over but I'm not sure I have the stamina to take another crack at it.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I have to say that I agree with everything User:Miesianiacal says. I too have seen some improvements by Mabelina but there is still too much POV-pushing it seems. I spent a lot of time engaging with Mabelina back in November 2015 regarding BRD and MOS specifically, but also wikipedia conduct more generally. Unfortunately, even after returning from their block of 13th Nov they still seem to have made little progress and I have spent even more time over the last few days attempting to deal with issues around their latest area of dispute, namely styles of peers. I think the whole issue can be summed up by this post Special:Diff/700431092/700639180 in which Mabelina was presented with evidence that the style they do not wish to see used has been used by RS, to which Mabelina responded "so perhaps it could be a typo". Other evidence along the same lines has been presented to Mabelina but ignored, the only response ever being along the lines of "I am right" (I paraphrase) - Special:Diff/702010181/702011565. Mabelina seems unwilling to respect a consensus when that goes against their view of how articles should be. It is getting very frustrating, and like User:Miesianiacal I am at a loss to know how to deal with this in the long term. Clearly previous blocks have dealt with the problems in the short term, and they have had some limited longer-term improvement, but I don't see that they have had the intended impact since much of the editing style that caused the blocks is still persisting. Frinton100 (talk) 00:31, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

My edits just now have been deleted - edit conflict - try again in 20 minutes. Thanks M Mabelina (talk) 00:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Frinton100, I should also have pointed to your own talk page for more evidence of what I said above. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Another edit just deleted by virtue of edit conflict...

Look back in your talk page archive and you will find where I gave you some advice about edit conflicts. Frinton100 (talk) 00:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I have but it doesn't work on this page seemingly. Anyway, a moment svp: ineducable is to be "considered incapable of being educated, especially (formerly) as a result of mental disability". Is this really how low an opinion you have of me, or is it that you, NH-H, Afterwriting, etc just simply don't like my contributions (because of the reasons you have set down time after time)? Qv: User talk:Mabelina Mabelina (talk) 00:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
PS. see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies

I've been following this from the sidelines for some time now. Would it be possible to have Mabelina pick a quiet topic, either in her user space or draft space, and improve it to DYK/GA/FA to demonstrate her competence? Apologies if she has already shown proficiency with article development and improvement. Viriditas (talk) 00:54, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Viriditas, I don't think that would really help as Mabelina is capable of producing good articles, and has created many articles of their own which have been perfectly reasonable pages. The issue is more about what happens when they come up against a difference of opinion with other editors, and how they go about trying to resolve this. Frinton100 (talk) 01:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

@Frinton100: this doesn't quite concur with your agreeing with everything Miesianiacal has to say. It is hopefully more than apparent that I dislike such public discord, but if this is now the forum to state one's case so be it (I personally do not think it worthy of ANI). Apart from disparaging me, I am not entirely sure what Miesianiacal's purpose is here? I should have thought that bringing up the article about the Order of Saint John is in no way to my detriment (apart from the arguments), which is what I think Miesianiacal is trying to make out. Close inspection of that article's edit history serves only by way of illustration to show my edits to be respected (although sadly with much intervening conflict from Miesianiacal).

The issue indeed has much more to do with what User:Frinton100 states above as "what happens when they come up against a difference of opinion with other editors, and how they go about trying to resolve this" - a perfectly reasonable general enquiry - however, not as stated relating necessarily to me. Anyway, let's suppose it were meant to refer to Mabelina, it should then be pointed out that I have set down substantive reasons as to why Wiki MOS should be clarified accordingly (with regard to Style/Titles - particularly re. Infoboxes), given that the present situation is totally unclear and far from being satisfactory. I should wish to help further with minimum hassle & so that Wiki provides concise and accurate information throughout its pages. Much obliged to hear as to how to resolve this. M Mabelina (talk) 01:57, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

It is incomprehensible how you can be unsure of why I mentioned Order of Saint John (chartered 1888); I was blatantly clear: it's where I had my first interaction with you.

But, now that you've drawn more attention to it, one can see in the edit history you were edit warring with Anglicanus (talk · contribs) back in October 2015 over the same kind of edits you've been making in the last few days. Compare this with this. Even back in October people were citing how many times you'd been told about incorrect capitalisation. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

And now you're doing it again at House of Lords. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:37, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Mabelina is a male in his mid-40s. I have to agree with the assessment of ineducable, and, in spite of years of WP:ROPE, unable to effectively, accurately, and collaboratively edit on Wikipedia. I believe a CIR farewell is long overdue; he's somehow managed to squeak by and disrupt things so randomly and haphazardly that he hasn't been dragged to ANI lately and given the final boot. But I think it's time, as enough time has been wasted on him. Softlavender (talk) 04:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Would a strongly enforced 1R restriction (maybe per 48 or 72 hours) be of any help? To at least drastically reduce his edit warring on multiple pages? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Doubtful. We don't have the manpower to babysit one single editor, and frankly, Mabelina does need babysitting. That's why it's time for a CIR boot. By the way, I'm going to ping RHaworth. Softlavender (talk) 05:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

As a member of WP:RETENTION, I don't want to see any editor getting the boot, who hasn't vandalized articles or socked. If a 1RR hasn't been tried, then give it a go - if it's required. Also, If the editor-in-question is having competency problems? then getting him/her a qualified mentor, would be the route to take. GoodDay (talk) 05:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that shows a misunderstanding of WP:CIR. The whole point of CIR is that the person cannot be rehabilitated. People have tried for years to get through to Mabelina, to teach him, to mentor him. He appears unable to comprehend the simplest and most patient or blatant instructions. It just isn't working (he's been blocked 9 times in 8 months), and it's time to show him the door, because the community cannot waste any more time on him. Pinging Bbb23, Anglicanus. -- Softlavender (talk) 05:36, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, he does appear on pages on my watchlist fairly frequently. It also seems there's others who regularly interact with him. If a 1 or 0RR restriction were imposed (maybe with a pre-agreed, automatic block time of, say, 6 months), I, for one, could volunteer to report here any breach by Mabelina that I witness. Perhaps Frinton100, Afterwriting, N-HH, and/or Anglicanus would do the same?

Whether or not mentoring succeeds is another (doubtful) matter. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm confused now - are you, Miesianiacal, determining/considering my future on Wiki? You wanted to boot me off earlier??

I don't know what you're talking about. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Well you should do since you launched this farce... M Mabelina (talk) 05:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

You're not doing yourself any favours.

Given I wrote "temporarily" and "see Mabelina become a cooperative editor in the long term", it's baffling how you concluded I want to "boot you off". You should be more concerned with those who really do want to see you gone from Wikipedia forever. I don't wholly agree with them right now, but, I wouldn't invest a lot of effort in contesting the idea. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

another edit conflict - despite the learned abilities of Frinton100 - these haven't worked for me - ie. my defence has been deleted again...

& it might be worth pointing out at this juncture, that the only times I get edit conflict - YOU CAN ALWAYS DISPUTE ANYTHING I SAY - is when I try to link another editor's name before saving...

To sum up, I note that the usual players are lining up to orchestrate a vote of no confidence - is that what it has come to? M Mabelina (talk) 05:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

@Mabelina: You do know that when you run into an edit conflict your post is not just deleted right? The information you wrote is shown on the bottom of the page. Everything you wrote can just be highlighted, copied, and pasted back into the editing window. All you have to do is scroll down. --Majora (talk) 05:48, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Or copy your post before hitting 'Save page'. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

@Miesianiacal: the term ineducable refers to mental disability. Unless you publicly disclaim this assertion with respect to me throughout Wikipedia, all rights are reserved. M Mabelina (talk) 07:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Howdy, Mabelina. I monitored your posts here, at your talkpage & others talkpages. Just an observation, but I think you've pinged Miesianiacal enough times, already. You don't have to ping him anymore. GoodDay (talk) 07:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

@LilaTretikov: please be advised that Wikipedia is hereby put on notice for publicly using the term "ineducable" in reference to User:Mabelina. M Mabelina (talk) 07:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Mabelina, are you threatening legal action? Please clarify. GoodDay (talk) 07:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• I'm afraid it sounds like a classic case of exhausting the community's patience. The time, energy and good will of constructive editors is Wikipedia's most precious resource, and we can't allow it to be squandered in this way. Softlavenders point about babysitting a single editor and years of WP:ROPE is well taken. (The part I don't understand is why Softlavender adduces in a carping tone that Mabelina is a male in his mid-40s — so what? Middle-aged men are allowed to edit Wikipedia. Under female names, too, no problem.) In view of what has transpired here, on user talkpages, and in the block log (=nine blocks by six different admins in less than a year), I have blocked indefinitely. Bishonen | talk 08:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC).

• As a post-closing footnote here regarding @GoodDay:'s last query above: yes, they were. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Backlog at UAA

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

---

The 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's a serious backlog at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention for any admins who can find a few minutes to stop by and help out. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 22:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:AN, I believe, would be a more appropriate place for these kinds of notices :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

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

That was very unhelpful and rude, @Oshwah:. Please reconsider how you help other editors on this noticeboard as preemptively closing legitimate requests without doing anything meaningful to address them doesn't help anyone. ElKevbo (talk) 18:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Materialscientist is threatening 71.3.140.221

Please block Materialscientist for that. 71.3.140.236 (talk) 23:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)