Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive887

User:Drmargi yet 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.

---

drmargi has a serious issue with WP:NPA and insults. It all started when with a currently closed ANI report made by User:Unframboise. Like any user, some would add input on the situation, and I did. Although, this user's behavior is far from appropriate and tolerant. On their talk page, they insulted the user Unframboise for being from the UK and has no acknowledgement on American entertainment here here. I brought this issue up on my comment from the ANI report, citing that it does not matter where you're from to edit on Wikipedia for whatever. I even asked them that I am from Canada, does this apply to me as well? I thoroughly explained that the user followed every guideline from WP:SOURCES and WP:Verify. I told them that you don't need to be American to participate on American-based articles from media to people to law and so on. However, they have continued to insult the users involved in the report and/or the discussion of the talk page from the ANI report. This is their message. They called the users petulant, adolescents, and accused me of making the ANI report about myself. This threw me off guard as I did not think a person with over 25k edits would violate WP:NPA. I became offended, since their personal attacks were getting out of hand. I warned them on their talk page per WP:NPA. I explained that their insults were unnecessary and uncivil. I again told them that it does not matter what your age is, the number of edits you have, the years of experience, your current status on Wikipedia or where you're from to edit on Wikipedia. I recommended them to learn to calm down when users are complaining about them. One is more than capable to say otherwise other than insults. I gave them one warning before I reported. However, they removed the warning and insulted me once again per their edit summary: "How infantile can you be? A bit of Extra-Strength "Teen Spirit" Troll Be Gone handles those without the maturity to know what they're talking about." by calling me infantile and so on. Then after noticing them of the ANI report, they claimed it as childish here. This behavior is seriously unacceptable, especially when handling ANI reports. This user clearly shows signs of not being able to be calm and handle reports properly. I am at a loss on what to do after trying to reason with them and show them that insulting users is not the right path, but they have continued to do so. Callmemirela (Talk) 03:33, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I concur with Callmemirela's assessment of Drmargi's personal attacks and insults. Even after a cool down period, her comments to and about other editors seem to be getting worse rather than better. Frankly, I would expect better behavior from someone who has been a Wikipedia editor for more than 8 years and advertises on their user page as having a doctorate in psychology. They've been reminded very recently that making such cutting remarks in talk pages and in edit summaries rather than discussing civilly on talk pages is preferable [1]. As the report above documents, they have not heeded that advice. I have no desire to see Drmargi blocked or sanctioned, but I would like to see her be nicer to editors. Curt and cold is one thing. She's just rude and mean spirited way too frequently, in my opinion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:47, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any real evidence here. I looked at the Drmargi and I'm not seeing him insult anyone for being from the UK.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:33, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

It's no exactly an insult, but rather what comes after that. Drmargi used the argument that Umfranboise is from the UK to claim they have no acknowledgement of American entertainment here. Is there a rule against English editors to edit on American articles? No. Callmemirela (Talk) 09:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I've never seen any evidence of Drmargi insulting me, so I don't understand the claim that she has. From what I can gather, this is an ongoing issue arising from the attempts by some editors to change content at CSI: Cyber based on some pretty weak sources. Drmargi has asked repeatedly for other editors to let the issue go (it was supposedly resolved) but it just continues. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:26, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Here: "But you can't discuss when three petulant adolescents are throwing insults at one another, two of whom are unwilling to abide by a litany of editing, civility and discussion practices, and the third of whom is just in it to win at any cost. (Leaving aside the fourth adolescent who decided to make it all about her on ANI.)" You were apart of the discussion and there were four users (including myself) adding input on the report... Looking back, I suppose this is about the article and not the ANI report? Nonetheless, it still contains insults. I would have known if this was for the ANI report or the article if the user would just compromise instead of calling me infantile, claiming that I don't know what I am talking about and whatnot. Callmemirela (Talk) 09:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I didn't participate in the discussion at Talk:CSI: Cyber. My only contribution to the page was adding {{reflist talk}} to fix the position of some references.[2] My contributions at the ANI discussions were almost as minimal,[3][4] so I doubt it was me that was being referred to. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I meant the discussion on the ANI report about Drmargi made by Unframboise, not the discussion on the talk page. Regardless, I don't know who the insults were directed at, but it had targets. I'll remove that section of my report, but I stand on the insults. Callmemirela (Talk) 14:14, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

No, Callmemirela, you misunderstand the UK statement. They are indicating that the Editor they are talking about knows nothing about American Entertainment. The Possible reason for this lack of knowledge is because the person is from the UK. They aren't suggesting that English folks can't edit an American article. Your English language comprehension seems to be a little lacking. You are picking up on things that aren't there. The other comments don't seem to be actionable either. I would recommend that you drop this. There is no exemption for reporters.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 10:35, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

The UK comment is rather offensive. It doesn't matter where you're from to edit on Wikipedia. Just because you're from the UK it doesn't mean you shouldn't edit on American articles or you don't know anything about American entertainment and so on. I'm from Canada, does it apply to me as well? That's what pisses me off with that comment. Quite frankly, I am not dropping this because Drmargi is rather rude and uncivil with people. Calling people adolescents, petulants, selfish, childish? There are more ways to communicate with people rather than using insults. If anyone is capable to communicate properly, so could have Drmargi. This is why I brought it here. I could only imagine their insults getting worse or never stops as the years go on (personal opinion). Drmargi could have easily set the situation straight and told me otherwise. The user refused and insulted me. Again, WP:NPA. Callmemirela (Talk) 13:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Once again, Deadline.com is not a "weak" source. Beyond that, I agree that other editors should let this go, and disengage for a while. If any patterns of behavior continue, they are free to return to ANI with the evidence at a later date. --IJBall (talk) 16:35, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with Callmemirela, after looking through the editors last 50 edits everyone of them are basically made to "pick fights" with others users. --BabbaQ (talk) 06:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I find User:Drmargi's statement about adolescent extremely offensive and think that Wikipedia is no place for such comments. Whatismore, she has previously threatened me on my talk page that I will get a warning if I continue to act like I do, so shouldn't this be a two-way street? Shouldn't she be forced to follow the same rules and be sanctioned in the same way when she fails to? The worst thing is, that she is obviously aware of her inappropriate behaviour, since she keeps pointing users to WP:NPA and WP:CIV. Is she allowed to say/do whatever she wants just because she is a Senior Editor?

And personally, I find the connection between a country of residence (UK) and "country of the article" (USA) offensive, too. Sources we were all citing are Internet sources, available worldwide to everyone, why should someone who is physically closer to the source have more knowledge about its reliability? I mean, is it more qualified to judge Hollywood Reporter someone from Tijuana (because he's closer) or someone from New York (because he's in the same country)? Irrelevant if you ask me...

Also, about her involvement in discussions about articles' edits. She tends to revert changes and point the users to the Talk page, where she states she does not agree with the edit and the disappears, with that she fails to comply with WP:BRD and with WP:CON and ultimately, she is taking advantage of WP:STATUSQUO because the article can't be edited until consensus has been achieved, and it can't be achieved if one side of the discussions is not even involved in it. Maticsg1 (talk) 09:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

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

User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox

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

---

In December 2013, User:Petrarchan47 and myself were involved in a dispute on medical cannabis with User:SandyGeorgia. Unbeknownst to me, SandyGeorgia began keeping a list of negative (and biased) material about the both of us in her sandbox page. Per WP:POLEMIC, "statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons" and "material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws" should be removed if not used in a timely manner. "Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed."

Here is the full list of diffs of the disputed edits:

• 05:18, 5 December 2013[5]
• 15:11, 7 December 2013[6]
• 23:50, 8 December 2013[7]
• 03:22, 9 December 2013[8]
• 21:35, 9 December 2013[9]
• 02:11, 11 December 2013[10]
• 18:40, 11 December 2013[11]
• 01:16, 12 December 2013[12]
• 03:32, 17 December 2013[13]
• 03:35, 17 December 2013[14]
• 03:36, 17 December 2013[15]

Petrarchan47 requested deletion of the material mentioning her at 03:01, 24 May 2015.[16] However, because this material is from December 2013 and it is now May 2015 and no action has been taken since that time, I have followed the guidance and recommendations given at WP:POLEMIC and blanked it from SandyGeorgia's sandbox.[17] I have brought this here for community review. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 23:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

As much as I respect Sandy I have to say this is pretty conclusive. I feel a warning would suffice in this instance, but if a block must be imposed, it shouldn't be a long one. It's unusual to have the material for so long, so perhaps an explanation should be in order as well.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm guessing she just forgot about it. As long as it remains blanked (if she needs access to it, it's in the page history) I'm happy with the outcome. I don't see any need for a block. Viriditas (talk) 00:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

This reminds me a lot of other things that have happened recently, I hope it is kept blanked and also hope editors know not to collect enemy lists here on Wikipedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Time out. Unless I am misreading something, SandyGeorgia was asked to delete this material at "03:01 on 24 May 2015." That is less than two days ago. Checking Special:Contributions/SandyGeorgia reflects that she last edited on 23 May 2015, i.e., two and one-half days ago. That is not an unreasonable time for someone to be offline, and I'm not sure why this was brought here before SandyGeorgia had a chance to see the request on her talkpage and respond to it. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

(ec)I think it is typical in these cases to allow the editor to delete the material rather than having an involved party delete the contents of a user page. I'd have been more comfortable if an editor who wasn't involved in this dispute had taken action here if SandyGeorgia didn't respond to the request. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

(ec) SandyGeorgia has not edited since May 23, the day before the request was filed on her talk page. A block is definitely not warranted. I have mixed feelings about removing the material without her consent while she is away. If the material has been there since December 2013, why the sudden urgency to remove it? -- Diannaa (talk) 00:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Why the sudden urgency? It's been there since December 2013, it's inaccurate, it's biased, and it makes claims about editors that aren't true. I removed it per WP:POLEMIC. Is there a sudden urgency to restore it? Viriditas (talk) 00:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Just so it's clear, I didn't recommend a block, only a warning. I think the info should stay removed. Other than that, I see no any action needed as long as this activity doesn't continue.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Viriditas, my question to you is why you, an involved party, deleted the content before you had heard a response from SandyGeorgia. If there was an immediate need to remove the material (and I'm not sure there was), you should have waited for a response to this complaint at AN/I or spoken to an uninvolved administrator. I'm sure why it had to be you who leaped in and deleted the material. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I cant speak for Viriditas but seeing red would be an understandable response. This content is over 2 years old though why make a fuss over it now? In my opinion the material can be restored yes but Sandy should delete it herself if that happens. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I would appreciate an answer to my question. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't see a question. You said, "I'm not sure why this was brought here before SandyGeorgia had a chance to see the request on her talkpage and respond to it." That request on Sandy's talk page concerned Petrarchan47's request to have material about her removed from Sandy's sandbox. It has nothing to do with me. I brought this request here after having read the sandbox and noticed that it mentioned both myself and Petrarchan47. Furthermore, the diffs above aren't even relevant, accurate, or significant, and the edit summaries consist of personal attacks and derision. It appears the material was added by SandyGeorgia to her sandbox as an "enemy list" in December 2013 after being involved in a personal dispute with myself and Petrarchan47 and has no business being on Wikipedia after years without action. That's why I brought it here. I don't see why my actions should be tied to what Petrarchan47 is doing or what Sandy might or might not do in the future. In fact, I don't see any connection between either of those things. I'm my own person. Will Sandy remove it in the future? I have no idea. I removed it and brought my actions here for review. Viriditas (talk) 01:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

"Enemy list"! Looks more like she was preparing to open an RFC/u against the both of you and she forgot about it.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Preparing an RFC/u based on false claims and nonexistent diffs? I think not. Good luck trying to find one, single actionable diff from that dispute. It doesn't exist. Viriditas (talk) 01:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Sandy has recently stated in several places that she was planning to take a few weeks off and be out of touch. I can't help but wonder if the timing of this has something to do with the knowledge that she is not available to participate in the discussion. Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI Statement} 01:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I can see you are doing a great job at WP:AGF. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

This is where we discuss user behavior. We try to follow AGF, but its a legitimate issue to raise here at ANI. Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI Statement} 01:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I understand that, but it would help if you provide some evidence of this in the form of a diff, otherwise it is just speculative. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, it is largely speculation. Anyways, I don't see the issue here. The content was removed for just reasons. All that is needed is for Sandy to explain her motives, but that is about it. I don't see any other wrongdoing.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I guess I'd just say that since the material has already been taken down, why not wait till she is back to hold this discussion? Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI Statement} 01:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Because the content was there for too long and needed to be taken down. The discussion is to confirm whether it was justly done.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

At this point I would let it go, and also agree that no action should be taken. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you can have that discussion without Sandy's participation, so Move to close this discussion. Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI Statement} 03:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I have often thought that if editors don't want things to be said about them, then they should be careful not to do things that might attract comment.

I had an issue once where an editor had something written on a User page which was only a problem because it was in a place where it couldn't be replied to. Was that the problem?

Petrarchan47 Viriditas can you point to interactions between you and SandyGeorgia that indicate any attempt to get on with each other?

WP:Polemic presents: "Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities (these are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered disruptive)". How do you think that this applies?

To me you could easily comment that you see that a content is being developed and to mention that such content should not be presented in actual contravention of WP:POLEMIC.

I have long objected that Wikipedia supports private email which can blatantly WP:canvass or simply bitch about other editors. Its also relevant to note that Wikipedia is accessed by electronic devices that typically have their own memories. Anything that SandyG has written here could fairly easily have been written somewhere else.

If you think that an editor has taken a negative view of you then an approach to take may be to remind them of positive things you have done and non-negative involvements you have had. GregKaye 03:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

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

no means no --Jayron32 00:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I disagree that this is polemic at all, secondly, this ANI request was filed on the 24th, she publicly said she's be traveling during this time ? I'd say put the page back how she left it and give her a chance to respond. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 15:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC) Clearly, "polemic" and WP:POLEMIC are not the same thing. Viriditas (talk) 18:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC) Actually, no. WP:POLEMIC actually uses Polemic as part of it's description and includes " The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner. " as part of the Wikipedia definition of WP:POLEMIC. What was removed was, in fact, a small compliation of factual evidence (diffs) which is actually permitted. I would make a motion that Viriditas self revert his removal of diffs in Sandy Georgia's sandbox and allow her to respond to what's being discussed. It's not like she's a known vandal or has a bad history at all with Wikipedia. Quite the opposite, also, as she stated she's on vacation at this point, so I wouldn't expect her to check in while she was. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 10:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC) This is far from the first time she's compiled an enemies list. As one of the people about whom she's done it in the past, I am considering an arbitration request, but am unsure I can spare the attention from more important things. Awaiting a response before acting.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC) Awaiting a response from who? Sandy is away from Wikipedia right now. Liz Read! Talk! 00:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Ban on Ronn Torossian to be extended to his company?

Ronn Torossian is both a notable PR person and an Wikipedia editor with a long history of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry that saw them banned from Wikipedia. That obviously didn't stop them from editing Wikipedia. Now I can to some degree understand that Mr. Torossian is unhappy with our article about him, though it's well-sourced and legal threats are not acceptable. However, his latest spate of sockpuppets or meatpuppets also engaged in a smear campaign against Torossian's personal and professional opponents, including various competitors of his company 5W PR and the New Israel Fund, an organization Torossian criticized over their politics at that time. In fact, here is the Torossian sock (or meatpuppet) citing a Torossian-written opinion piece to add negative content to a direct competitor. And for good measure, an utterly deceptive edit summary by that same sock. Another sock edited an article on a 5W PR client without disclosing their affiliation, in violation of the terms of use. For quite some time I have tolerated Torossian's sockpuppetry since there were some genuine BLP concerns in his article. However, his criticism of that article doesn't stop there, and his company seems to routinely engage in abuse of Wikipedia for unethical purposes, in violation of both our content policies and the Terms of Use. As I said Torossian himself is banned already. I hereby propose extending that ban to all of 5W Public Relations and its employees, along the lines of Wiki-PR. That would include User:Judae1 who serves as the "good hand" account while his co-workers engage in meatpuppetry and deception; at the very least he should be topic-banned from anything related to Torossian, 5W PR and its clients, widely construed. I see no reason to tolerate 5W PR abusing Wikipedia any more than we did Wiki-PR. Huon (talk) 23:13, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

and no the bio is not well sourced. Deal with that. There is a press release, a gossip blog and a random website now used as sources and no one cares to correct it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1444:20A0:CC53:5B41:BF2F:696A (talk) 00:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support extending ban to all who identify as editing on behalf of the company. I also support a widely construed topic ban from anything that could benefit from, be harmed by or be the subject of any public relations, including any living or recently deceased people, organizations and products, that applies to all 5W PR employees, enforceable by an indefinite block from any administrator. Wikipedia is not a place meant to be used by PR companies to further their interests. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 23:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

This is Ronn Torossian I am being slammed unfairly on my page so how does one deal with blatant untruths. Judae1 identified himself as best I understand. Rather unclear how you people propose to have edits handled if you refuse to acknowledge a living person being attacked without sources and links - as is now done on the page. I am commenting on the talk page which is what I am supposed to do as I understand and for that you want to ban me. IS this North Korea? Ronn Torossian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1444:20A0:CC53:5B41:BF2F:696A (talk) 23:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

PhantomTech, that is an incredibly broad brush, requiring admins to know everyone who might be an employee of this company (how exactly?) as well as their usernames and also anticipate any people, organization or product that could be the subject of an edit by these editors/IPs. I don't disagree with the intent of the ban, it just seems, pragmatically, unworkable and unenforceable except in the most egregious and obvious instances. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

@Liz: I don't think it would be much more difficult than the proposed ban of all employees, but I agree that either would be difficult to enforce fully, an editor who is here with good faith could probably slip through without much difficulty but I don't think we should prevent those types of editors from editing because of the actions of their employer. As to determining which people, organizations or products could be the subject of edits by these editors, the easiest thing, though maybe not the best thing, to do would be to consider all living or recently deceased people, organizations and products as covered by the topic ban only leaving subjects open that unambiguously could not be the subject of PR, like space. Though, looking back at the responses, it does seem that one editor in particular may be unfairly affected by any sort of company wide restrictions, that, combined with your concerns, is making me doubt that my suggestion is the best solution. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 16:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not seeing any evidence to the claim of sockpuppetry for Albertoein526. SPA perhaps, but an ill-advised orphan tag removal doesn't prove or suggest sockpuppetry, nor have you presented evidence showing that Albertoein526 works for 5W PR. Or am I missing something?It's at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Babasalichai. I'm also not seeing any evidence presented for any wrongdoing by Judae1, who has been open about his CoI on his user page since 2006. While I did not have time to examine his edits more thoroughly, xtools report does not seem to show many edits to articles where he has a conflict of interest. 5W_Public_Relations is on the list of most edited articles, but all the ones I checked were non-controversial maintenance (e.g. updating logo, updating numbers, repairing links, non-controversial minor grammar fixes). Can you please provide examples where Judae1 has edited in bad faith? ― Padenton|✉   23:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Nvm on Albertoein, found it at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Babasalichai. Not seeing bad faith edits by Judae1 though still. Editing from same IP perhaps, but the editing behavior doesn't seem at all the same from what I looked at. ― Padenton|✉   00:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

It would also be helpful if someone could look at these BLP concerns. While "Ronn Torossian"'s concerns may not have been helped by the attitude with which he brought them up, they do seem to have some merit. For starters, I am not sure that a gawker writer is a reliable source for negative opinions of BLPs (as being used here Ronn_Torossian#Reception) and the inclusion of some criticisms in the Ronn_Torossian#Politics section bothers me, especially since the largest paragraph by far is entirely about his days as an undergraduate. At some point I wonder whether the goal here is to provide encyclopedic coverage of!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> him or to find any criticism we can that has a reliable source. Then it says "his politics created controversy for one of his clients, Birthright Israel, when it selected 5W to represent it". Looking at the source, the entirety of said "controversy" appears to be some activist and 'journalist' "started an online petition" and a rabbi who "posted a long item on his blog". ― Padenton|✉   00:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I own a $20MM company and employ 120 people. These 20 year old stories are half truths. I never burnt a flag like they say - and of course there is no source for it, yet it remains.

Further, I won PR professional of the year and am in TV and newspaper every day for non Israel related matters. Why does things from 1995 define me? Its not why I am noteable - and there's no sources. Its simply meant to harm me 2604:2000:1444:20A0:CC53:5B41:BF2F:696A (talk) 00:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I've mentioned this in the article talk page, but Gawker's reliability is misrepresented here. There was a time when it was a gossip blog, but by the time Hamilton Nolan (author of the piece) joined, its editorial approach had changed to be more like an actual news organization with its own reporting and editorial policies. Nolan specifically is someone who covered the PR industry before Gawker, so his opinions on PR executives are more informed than Mr. Torossian would have you believe. On the politics section, I don't know enough to comment either way. Mosmof (talk) 02:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

In 2007 when Gawker wrote that it was very much a small organization as any number of sources would advise. Its a salicious blog gossip and surely unworthy of a entrée in a BLP. Further, there's numerous unsourced comments that should be removed entirerly. One wonders why the largest section in my biography (I AM 40 years old) is from when I was 20. COme on folks. Its not what I am noteable for. RONN TOROSSIAN 165.254.85.130 (talk) 03:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

As said above " I am not sure that a gawker writer is a reliable source for negative opinions of BLPs (as being used here Ronn_Torossian#Reception) and the inclusion of some criticisms in the Ronn_Torossian#Politics section bothers me, especially since the largest paragraph by far is entirely about his days as an undergraduate. At some point I wonder whether the goal here is to provide encyclopedic coverage of him or to find any criticism we can that has a reliable source. Then it says "his politics created controversy for one of his clients, Birthright Israel, when it selected 5W to represent it". Looking at the source, the entirety of said "controversy" appears to be some activist and 'journalist' "started an online petition" and a rabbi who "posted a long item on his blog"."

PLEASE HELP AND HANDLE THAT ISSUE !!! Ronn Torossian 165.254.85.130 (talk) 03:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

@Mosmof: It doesn't really matter how 'informed' Hamilton Nolan is on PR executives. Having covered the PR field before does not mean he is an objective expert on the people in that field. And I don't know how old you think Gawker is, Gawker has always been tabloid journalism, up to and including recent years, so certainly during the period this article was written, early 2008. I have no idea what reform you think it went through between its creation in 2003 and early 2008. The very premise of Gawker has always been 'gossip blog', hence it comes in conflict with WP:NOTGOSSIP. ― Padenton|✉   04:17, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Sure, Gawker is still in some ways a gossip blog, but it's diversified beyond simply being a gossip site that you have to take each article for what it is - Nolan's cultural critique pieces are nothing like the early Sicha/Spires/Coen posts that simply snarked on New York media figures.

Plus, the direct source of that quote is actually Adweek, which I think is a reliable source for reporting on people in the communications industries. Mosmof (talk) 04:42, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Judae1, I at a glance didn't see much of an issue with his edits either. Since deception and disruption seem his company's default means of operation on Wikipedia, and this isn't the fist time they're caught at misrepresenting their opponents online, I thought a topic ban might suffice to keep the problems afflicting his co-workers from spilling over to Engelmayer's Wikipedia career. At a closer look, however, he's routinely violating the Terms of Use by editing articles on a 5WPR's clients without disclosing that connection, say here (see above for "client" status), here (evidence for "client" status, and that was a blatantly promotional edit, too) and here (Peebles' company is mentioned as a 5WPR client here, and by now I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the editor who edited that article immediately before Judae1, a single-purpose account, also was a 5WPR sock). Thus I see no reason to exclude Engelmayer from a ban on that company. We don't really need editors where whe have to wonder with every edit whether they're adding content in good faith or are promoting a client.

Regarding Torossian's latest claims of "no sources", that's blatantly untrue unless one thinks that paper doesn't exist. The press release he considers unreliable and complains about is, ironically, his own. I'll gladly discusss BLP issues at the article talk page, and I dare say that talk page history will show that I was quite accomodating of Torossian's point of view in the past, so much so that other editors accused me of being in league with him (and in fact he did ask me to email him, which I declined). Huon (talk) 03:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)\

It is not blatantly untrue that you cant use press releases. Nor that Gawker is a blog, nor that I never burnt a flag. I own a $20MM company and you are talking about things 20 years ago and theres not even a link - NO SOURCE - for multiple comments you are claiming. Its scandalous and liberlous. Its lies. THERE IS NO SOURCE TO SAY I BURNT A FLAG. DO YOU EVEN CHECK THESE ABSURD CLAIMS YOU ARE MAKING. THERE IS NO LINK NONE ZERO> ITS A LIE.

Please someone review it besides these obsessed editors. Ronn Torossian03:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Link #1: I don't really care about any off-wiki activity, nor do I see how their alleged unrelated behavior off-wiki should result in sanctions on-wiki. Also not sure what this article is saying, the only bit on Engelmayer is that an intern under his supervision had left internet comments under the names of other people (specifically including opponents). Not him.

Link #2: I'm not sure what the problem is with this one. From what I can see, it actually fixes promotional tone issues in the article.

Link #3 and 4: This edit may be an issue. I'll give you this one.

Link #5: Edit only splits refs into two columns and removes Template:BLP sources tag. Article at this revision has many sources, especially compared to what it looked like in December 2010 when the tag was added: Dec. 2010 rev.. Article has since added New York Times, The Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Whitehouse.gov, and many other sources.

Perhaps the Zeta Interactive edit is enough for a topic ban, I don't know. I would dispute the others being used as reasoning however. ― Padenton|✉   04:17, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose, Support, and Suggest: On the one hand, I think Huon's proposal goes too far; on the other hand, I think it does not go far enough.

Regarding User:Judae1, he has proven himself consistently to be a valuable contributor to Wikipedia. He has adopted a strict hands-off policy regarding the article on Torossian. His edits to articles about 5W clients, while a violation of Wikipedia's conflict of interest rules, have never been blatantly promotional, but generally editorial.

So, in his case, I think that a censure or ban is uncalled for. This discussion should certainly have alerted him to the issue, and I believe that he will henceforth restrict his editing of 5W-related articles to the talk page, rather than the article itself.

As for Torossian, in his recent posts to the talk page of his article and his posts here, he has clearly identified himself with the community-banned Babasalichai. His illiterate puling makes intelligent discussion of the article content almost impossible. As someone who is community-banned, his posts should not be permitted. They should all be deleted immediately.

Finally, I want to second the opinion expressed by Padenton and repeat an apology that I made previously to Huon. When Huon started editing Torossian's article, he deleted everything related to Torossian's politics, and in general edited in a way that suggested to me that he was somehow influenced by Torossian himself. I was wrong, and recent edits to the article show that I was wrong with a vengeance: all the material on Torossian's political activities has been restored, and expanded on. So much so that I think the section on politics is excessive and unbalanced, and should be trimmed. Of course, it is almost impossible to discuss this in a rational way on the talk page as long as the Babasalichai sock (who now calls himself Torossian) keeps up his ranting. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Ravpapa as he calls himself is openly opposed to my politics. I am posting in my name and this Dungeons and Dragons style of childish games about my life is unacceptable. The simple fact remains that I am correcting what I am asserting happened in my life and its not being addressed. I never burned a flag ever - and there's not a source that says I did. Theres endless information on that page which has no sources and that should and must be addressed. And the simple fact remains that this has been discussed ad naseum on my page - and anyone not involved in politics will agree that posting endless 20 year old information from when I was 20 years old is overkill. Unfortunately if this matter isn't fixed there will have to be immediate outside action.

Wikipedia rules say remove libelous and inaccurate info immediately - which would include flag burning - and there's no source yet its not removed. One may be in their best interest to realize that. Please fix the page and reflect sources. There's not accurate ones now. 09:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1444:20A0:CC53:5B41:BF2F:696A (talk)

Support company block At the help desk, 165.254.85.130 said they are Ronn Torossian- therefore it's clear block evasion. The only way to stop this sock/meat puppetry is to stop all the possible meatpuppets from editing. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I did say who I am. What is it that was edited by me. This is my real life. While for you its dungeons and dragons. I ask that someone simply review the material. I haven't edited anything and have said who I am when commenting. Ronn Torossian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1444:20A0:CC53:5B41:BF2F:696A (talk) 11:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

As an aside, no one disputes that I own one of the 20 largest PR firms in the US, with 120 employees and $20MM in revenue. Could not I assign someone on staff to do these things? Realize there is a real world off Wikipedia. No one is addressing the simple fact that there is stuff posted which is not reflective of truth. My bio focuses on things 20 years ago. Would I be on Wikipedia bio if I didn't own a PR agency? Gimme a break. Review my competitors they all have pages that focuses on what they do. 165.254.85.130 (talk) 11:42, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Just for the record, the sockpuppet's claim that "no one disputes that I own one of the 20 largest PR firms in the US..." is not completely accurate. The Holmes report ranks 5WPR as 93rd in the world, and 51st in the United States. So at least one pretty reputable source disputes it.

Support company topic ban Particularly, I don't support banning them for Wikipedia entirely, I just support topic banning them from articles related to the ones Ronn Torossian has been editing. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 11:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support company topic ban It is surprising that a company would do this to themselves but their behavior leaves little option. Chillum 14:26, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support broad scope of ban, both subjects and editors. Rampant sock puppetry, blatant propaganda, legal posturing - everything Wikipedia does not need. Guy (Help!) 16:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support company topic ban. If the org in question was willing to go through our guidelines and ethos then follow them – this debate would not be necessary. After going through the posts & edits (during which time, I could have been doing something more useful) I think a company topic ban is more than justified.--Aspro (talk) 16:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Not sure where to post, but @Padenton: Torossian's political activism is not limited to his college days - if you see this talk page section, much of whose content hasn't made it to the article, Torossian's political activities attracted media attention till 2002. He graduated from SUNY Albany in 1995. In any case, if he was written about in reliable sources during his youth, it belongs here - sources don't become obsolete or unacceptable because they are 20 years old or offline, especially since what he has done afterwards hasn't attracted that much media attention. And I don't agree with his claim that he is only notable for owning a PR company, there are at least 30+ sources about his politics, and far fewer about his PR stuff. Many of these sources about his activism are English-language sources based in Israel, I can only imagine there will be many more Hebrew (and possibly Arabic) sources. Apart from a few profiles (NYT, Forward, Lifestyles Magazine) which also prominently mention his politics, the rest PR-related sources that come up are all about him being in the news because he is representing notable clients - from whom he doesn't inherit any notability. Those sources say nothing about Torossian the person - his views, beliefs, ideology, etc. - except that his PR firm represented those clients, and that he acted as spokesman for those clients. Also, his claim about his company being amongst the top 25 PR firms is false, Wikipedia (inadvertently?) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ronn_Torossian edits (during which time, I could have been doing something more useful) I think a company topic ban is more than justified.--Aspro (talk) 16:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Not sure where to post, but @Padenton: Torossian's political activism is not limited to his college days - if you see this talk page section, much of whose content hasn't made it to the article, Torossian's political activities attracted media attention till 2002. He graduated from SUNY Albany in 1995. In any case, if he was written about in reliable sources during his youth, it belongs here - sources don't become obsolete or unacceptable because they are 20 years old or offline, especially since what he has done afterwards hasn't attracted that much media attention. And I don't agree with his claim that he is only notable for owning a PR company, there are at least 30+ sources about his politics, and far fewer about his PR stuff. Many of these sources about his activism are English-language sources based in Israel, I can only imagine there will be many more Hebrew (and possibly Arabic) sources. Apart from a few profiles (NYT, Forward, Lifestyles Magazine) which also prominently mention his politics, the rest PR-related sources that come up are all about him being in the news because he is representing notable clients - from whom he doesn't inherit any notability. Those sources say nothing about Torossian the person - his views, beliefs, ideology, etc. - except that his PR firm represented those clients, and that he acted as spokesman for those clients. Also, his claim about his company being amongst the top 25 PR firms is false, Wikipedia (inadvertently?) abetted him in propagating this lie for years till it was removed. FireflySixtySeven (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

@FireflySixtySeven: my point is that it's largely WP:UNDUE. We could have similar extensive negative sections on a very wide number of people, yet we do not, because in many of those cases, editors felt it was WP:UNDUE. I'm not sure that it's Wikipedia's purpose to be a log of every media covered controversial decision a person has made in their entire lives. How long would the articles for Barack Obama, George W. Bush (more likely to be covered in his youth due to his father), Bill Clinton (very active in politics in college), if we listed every little thing they had done? I'm not saying Ronn Torossian has had the impact of a president of the United States, quite the opposite. The majority of his article is critical of him, and while I don't agree with how "Torossian" has been handling the dispute (from the recent posts that I've seen), his anger and impatience in this do appear to have some merit.

If these negative stories (many used in our article, though not all the sources in the politics section, are opinion articles) make up the majority of the few sources about this person, then I wonder if he truly has received significant coverage, and this becomes more of an attack page. Again, I don't agree with "Torossian"'s handling of this, but I just entered this dispute which seems to have been going on for a while. And based on my understanding of WP:BLP, some of this stuff is a bit excessive. WP:RS is not the only content guideline. WP:BLP is also a content guideline, and arguably far more important than WP:RS. WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE also applies. ― Padenton|✉   17:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Whatever else, WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE doesn't apply to someone who is known for putting himself in the spotlight (and I can present reliable sources for that, if required). It's not as if he weren't busily publishing opinion pieces to clearly lay out his political positions, though he doesn't want his own writings mentioned in his article (and he's right there, for once; I have repeatedly removed content based on his opinion pieces or on author profiles). Huon (talk) 19:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: At the risk of being picky and legalistic (and repetitive, even!), I wish to point out that a topic ban would not apply to the numerous sockpuppets of Babasalichai who swarm about 5WPR-related articles like flies. Those sockpuppets are community banned - their edits should be immediately reverted and their accounts should be blocked.

We are only talking about legitimate editors who have an association with 5W, and I know of only one of those - account Judae1. And, as I noted above, I think that Judah (whom I don't know personally and with whom I have no association other than having edited articles with him at Wikipedia) can be trusted to abide by the conflict of interest rules.

This in no way mitigates the pressing need to enforce the community ban on Babasalichai and his sockpuppets, including the IP that identifies himself as Ronn Torossian. All of these edits need to be reverted, and the IPs blocked from future editing of Wikipedia. --Ravpapa (talk) 16:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Question: should Cada mori (talk · contribs) be included in the company ban? Based on the writing style, I believe the user is not Ronn Torossian, but the user's input in Talk:Ronn Torossian basically parrots the 5W talking points and seems intended to add the impression that there's a dialog. Mosmof (talk) 14:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• Question, how sure are we that these accounts really are Torossian and his employees, and not just impostors? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 15:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC).

How sure do we need to be? What we do know is that there is a group of accounts (whether it's one person or multiple people) who have spent the past several years trying (justified or not) to remove negative content about the CEO and the company while inflating the company's standing and influence in its category (while also making similar edits to articles about the company's clients and introducing negative content to pages like Yoshiyahu Yosef Pinto. We know these accounts are disruptive, hijack discussions and unwilling to follow community policies. What more do we need to know? (FWIW, I believe some early edits have come from within the company and they're linked to blocked accounts, but I could be wrong) 15:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

You're on a witch hunt. I have no association with Ronn or his PR company. I came across the discussion and decided to participate. You have no reason to believe I am a sock, especially considering that I have a long history of edits on this site. Cada mori (talk) 19:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

"You have no reason to believe I am a sock, especially considering that I have a long history of edits on this site". Ahem.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

So? The block was reverted and it was confirmed it was only one instance. I have a solid history of contributions prior to that and the validity of the opinions expressed on the talk page should not be affected by that one incident. Cada mori (talk) 02:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support Action, but not crackdown It would be impossible to fully find out every single member of this Company by really searching them out, instead, a system of surveillance on all articles related should be set up and anything suspicious should be looked into, If we find someone is putting pro Torossian accounts, we can assume that they are a employee using WP:DUCK. This should not be a crackdown, just a case of keeping a lookout. Happy_Attack_Dog (Throw Me a Bone) 18:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Legal threat

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

---

Please see this link. Please block that IP. I am reporting this to WMF legal. Jytdog (talk) 14:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

this is related to issues discussed above here. Jytdog (talk) 14:24, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP. In the spirit of WP:DOLT this complaint should be looked into. It is not clear what issue the IP was complaining about can you please clarify that? Chillum 14:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we could merge this with the Ronn Torossian thread above. bobrayner (talk) 16:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

 Done. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Ban evasion at Help Desk

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

---

See this diff at the Help Desk: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AHelp_desk&type=revision&diff=663930967&oldid=663927691

This appears to be ban evasion. Please block 165.254.85.130 or perform a range-block. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Jyaku20 on 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami

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

---

Jyaku20 (talk · contribs) This is a new user (less than 25 edits) who has his own interpretation of a source on the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami article. For the last several days I've been protecting the article from the original research that's been added there. An edit war ensued, but we were engaged by some bystanders and it settled down. The current version of the article has the statement that contradicts its source and its edit summary summarizes his application of original research fairly well.

The source is a Japanese newspaper called Asahi Shimbun and part of the story includes comments from seismologist Kenji Satake making comparisons with the earlier 869 Sanriku earthquake event. A few things that were added are fine, but the magnitude of the event is being overstated, as the newspaper article says magnitude 8.3, yet the editor is saying 8.6–9.0.

• Japanese source
• Japanese source (translated)

Dawnseeker2000 04:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

See the original discussion. Dustin (talk) 04:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Athomeinkobe came in and provided an extremely effective and welcome change to the text, though we haven't heard from Jyaku20 yet. I'm tempted to ask that this be closed as resolved, and I don't know what can come of it, but I feel like I haven't been effective at communicating with the new user. Dawnseeker2000 06:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Sajed Mahmud

The following discussion is closed. 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 has created the mis-spelled, mis-capitalised, Catagory: jewish crimes (now at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_27#Category:jewish_crimes although not technically a category as it's spelled wrongly) - either incompetent (WP:AGF) or a deliberate re-creation of a deleted category. The same editor previously made a series of edits adding the now-deleted Category:Jewish crimes to many articles. Appears to be WP:NOTHERE. PamD 07:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

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

*Castle&Gardens*

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

---

*Castle&Gardens* (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User's edits started off with POV commentary, claiming some of which was just capitalizing proper nouns... Or rather, capitalizing random common nouns as if they were proper nouns.

When some basic guidelines and policies (including WP:NOR) were explained to them, as well as the difference between proper nouns (New York City, Bugs Bunny) and common nouns (city, rabbit), he went back and continued to capitalize random common nouns and added more original research.

After this, he went on to capitalize random common nouns at Walmer Castle, as well as adding some editorial commentary ("the castle" -> "this Historic House") and an unsourced date (in Roman numerals for some reason) -- all edits marked as minor despite new content or changes in meaning.

When I explained what proper nouns are (names not types), and why Wikipedia rarely cites primary sources like the Bible except to provide context to non-primary sources, he showed that he has looked up what a proper noun is (despite getting them completely wrong) and responded with "I used Biblical Scripture as a reference" (as if that was not the very problem that was being pointed out).

When I again explained the above issues, he claimed to have other sources (which he has yet to cite anywhere), demonstrated continued problems with proper nouns, and called me a "Cyber-Stalker," "Wiki-Police," and "friend of Julian himself"... A "friend of Julian" is "an indignant spectator of the triumph of Christianity;" i.e. a friend of Julian the Apostate -- which is akin to calling someone "godless" in a discussion as if it is at all relevant.

He then went on to capitalize more common nouns are Borley Rectory, as well as altering a quote and changing the cited name "Foyster" to the uncited name "Foster". When I asked them to not change names without checking sources, he insisted that it's the correct name (despite all the source cited, and any others I can find, saying otherwise). When I presented multiple sources, he tried to dismiss them because they were digital, and pointed to the "free encyclopedia anyone can edit" slogan as if that only justified his actions and no one else's, before restoring the problematic edits.

He has since taken to telling bald-faced lies with their edit summaries, continuing to capitalize random nouns while doing so. When confronted by this, he decided that my relationship status somehow has more relevance than his behavior, and claimed he was just following my example (a damn lie).

Finally, he claims that he doesn't "have a major edit button," so he "can only" click on the minor edit button.

I don't even think WP:CIR applies anymore, I'm convinced that *Castle&Gardens* is nothing but a common and irredeemable troll. The few edits he has that are of even questionable use come with flaws that would require rewriting to incorporate. Many of his edits are bad-faith lies. His interaction shows an initial WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude, followed by an inability to learn, and finally a desire to insult others. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• I blocked him for 1 week for numerous deliberately disruptive and misleading behaviors. If he continues the disruption, we can make it indefinite. --Jayron32 01:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

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

User page defacement

The following discussion is closed. 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 my user page was defaced diff, and I was wondering whether any users associated with the IP responsible could be banned? --Jobrot (talk) 03:49, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

@Jobrot: I've removed the revision from the page history as grossly insulting, but the IP has not edited since. If that happens again please report it. On a separate not this seems to be related to Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, which I've protected for a week. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that FreeRangeFrog --Jobrot (talk) 05:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Content removal and edit-warring by COI editor

At International Archives of Medicine (diffs: [18], [19] and [20]). Can some admins take a look and comment, block, protect etc? See discussion I stated at talk-page, which the IP who claims to be the journals's publisher have not responded to. Abecedare (talk) 21:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I restored the material (minus the unsourced name you removed). The IP is obviously attempting to remove material they don't like. There's nothing wrong with it, and unless they engage in some discussion it shouldn't be removed. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Fake articles

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

---

I have found two fakes: Jonathan Adriano and Daniel dos Santos (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Fake bios?). SLBedit (talk) 22:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

It would help if you explained why you have concluded that they are fakes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

No such footballers exist. The references added to the articles are also fake. SLBedit (talk) 22:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

At least the Jonathan Adriano article seriously stinks; cannot find any sources. I suspect someones wishfully thinking/hoping he was Adriana Limas boyfriend... Huldra (talk) 22:27, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Can confirm this for at least Jonathan Adriano. No mention on the official site of Go Ahead Eagles. A search for "Jonathan Adriano" AND "Go Ahead Eagles" at google gives exactly three results: 1x our article, 1x mention at tool labs & 1 false-positive (this one). Even with the rather exact specification—necessary in this case due to the sheer amount of false positives I got without—if such a person had ever been signed to or played as much as a minute for the GAE, there'd have been a mention somewhere. Could find no sources for a person with this name ever playing for several of the other clubs listed. (Didn't bother checking all of them. After four came up empty, that was more than enough proof). AddWittyNameHere (talk) 22:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• There's no Adriano with Go Ahead. Article deleted. Drmies (talk) 22:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Also blocked both article creators Juancronicles (talk · contribs) and Easymoneymaker (talk · contribs) who besides creating the fake articles and some vandalism, are clearly socks. Abecedare (talk) 22:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

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

List of cities in Morocco

The following discussion is closed. 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 not familiar with english wp handling of incidents like following. Please see revision history of the article from that point. There is some "disput about Morocco". Maybe there is a watch list for? --Tommes ^talk 14:04, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism. Report to the vandalism noticeboard, or, for vandalism by IPs (which this is), request page semi-protection. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:34, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:34, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Roscelese and User:Stalwart111 working together

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

---

Queen Christina of Sweden (one of 6 so named, the only one who was head of state in her own right) and her sexuality have been a subject of controversy since the 17th century. Scolarly and unbiased writers have portrayed her as undefinable, asexual, bisexual or just a complete mystery in that regard. To my knowledge, there is no reliable and neutral source anywhere, i.e. one without a literary (book-selling) agenda, which attempts to stamp her life story with any specific sexual preference.

These 2 editors on English Wikipedia want us to call Christina a probable lesbian by using this top sentence under Gender ambiguity in our biography of the queen: "She is thought to have been a lesbian, and her affairs with women were noted during her lifetime." The problems are, (1) as an Rfc on the talk page concludes, which has been disregarded by these two editors, that only one source for the first part of the sentence ("She is thought to have been a lesbian") is not enough for us to display a generalization of that kind in our article text; and (2) that the second part of the sentence ("her affairs with women were noted during her lifetime") still is completely unsourced, tendentiously turning seems to and suggested (by a totally unknown 17th century person named "Guilliet" - ? - ), into "were noted".

One of Queen Christina's most knowledgeable and reliable academic biographers Sven Stolpe has clearly concluded that there is no basis to assert that she was or probably was a lesbian. Mentioning the accusations of homosexuality leveled against Christina by infamous liars, in writings such as "Princess Lucien Marat's scandalous and tacky La vie amoureuse de Christine de Suède, le reine androgyne", Stolpe reminds us of the risk that gossip intended to ruin a person's reputation in the 17th century can be imaginatively reversed and embraced in attempts to make a life story more interesting today, with spices no longer derogatory but rather trendily appealing and exciting to a vast majority of readers in 2015.

I have fought a losing battle so far in trying to balance the article on this detail. My latest effort, after a long break, was reversed within 7 minutes with the edit summary "drop it, dude", by one of these editors, and the talk page is a trail of tears and anxiety for me with a seemingly never ending sequence of personal slurs by the other one.

Please help me try to figure out if I'm wrong here, or what else besides WP:OWN might be going on, month after month. Thank you! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Serge, ultimately, this is a content dispute, which means it's not actionable at ANI. I'd recommend WP:DR or WP:3O for an issue like this. --IJBall (talk) 21:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

This is not within the scope of WP:3O because it involves more than two editors. The dispute resolution noticeboard or a Request for Comments are reasonable options. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I think the best way to handle this is as JzG (closer of first RFC) later suggested in Talk:Christina,_Queen_of_Sweden#Re:_RFC_result, and start a new RfC with a clearer question and clearer options. I disagree with the removal of Template:Cn, as WP:Verifiability requires "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." The source being used so far is a textbook, a WP:TERTIARY source, and therefore far from ideal. The source does not seem to support the "and her affairs with women were noted during her lifetime" claim, in the pages provided in the preview. On the contrary, it provides one person's speculation on the topic, and immediately expresses doubt on the claim. "Was Christina a lesbian? The record is complex, but the consensus of modern biographers favors that view." Not at all a ringing endorsement of the preceding claim. Consensus here referring to majority opinion, not fact. If somehow we can view other pages of this book, or if someone has access to it, that would be nice. ― Padenton|✉   21:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

The claim that the cited source is a textbook isn't true; moreover, it isn't true that the source doesn't support the statement about her affairs with women being known at the time. This is a silly comment, Padenton. Serge's complaint appears to be that multiple people daring to disagree with him is evidence of some kind of conspiracy, and you shouldn't be wasting your time trying to lend it legitimacy. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

"All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." That's all I'm asking. Nothing more, nothing less. SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@Roscelese: Whether you want to call it a 'textbook' or not is splitting hairs. The point was that it's an obviously WP:TERTIARY source. "moreover, it isn't true [...]" Show me exactly where the source supports the statement about "her affairs with women being known at the time" as you claim, as I've read it twice now. ― Padenton|✉   21:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Crompton attributes her breaking off her engagement with her cousin to "the attachment she formed with a young woman named Ebba Sparre", the quote about Christina calling Sparre her "bedfellow" and saying her mind was "as beautiful as her outside" is here, the Danish envoy writes that she had "hidden the beautiful Ebba Sparre in her bed and associated with her in a special way," a few more quotes from Christina's contemporaries. I don't believe you've "read it twice now". Again, I would recommend that you stop enabling this disruptive user. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:08, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

As I'm sure you already known, it was quite common for women in past centuries to have intimate relationships with other women, even living together, without it being a sexual or romantic relationship. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that your personal analysis of the primary sources trumps Louis Crompton's? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

If you had actually read the pages, you'd see that Louis Crompton says everything that Liz just said. "The Englishman was not shocked—royalty in this age often had same-sex bedmates." Bottom of page 358. The paragraph right after the sentence fragment you pasted above in fact: "The most likely explanation lies in the attachment she formed with a young woman named Ebba Sparre early in 1645." ― Padenton|✉   15:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Again, why do you think it's appropriate to elevate your own personal analysis of primary sources over Crompton's? He literally states that the consensus of modern biographers believes she was a lesbian and follows up with supporting details. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I never said I disagreed with Crompton. You are putting words in my mouth. Go read again what I said. This is not about the first half of the sentence, but the second. ― Padenton|✉   21:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The second half which follows Crompton by stating that her sexuality was noted by her contemporaries. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Except Crompton never says it. ― Padenton|✉   14:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• Despite having claimed (several times) to the contrary, Serge has been unable to point these so-called "personal slurs" and this is, as has been pointed out, a content dispute. My only references to Serge, personally, were with regard to his well-established record of edit-warring, a disingenuous and invalid RFC and his refusal to discuss things before blindly reverting. With regard to content, the conflict has been whether Serge's chosen source (Stolpe) provides a better account than later biographers (Crompton, et al) who had access to additional evidence and didn't have an obvious agenda. In reality, it's a moot question anyway because the article gives an account of both views, heavily referencing Stolpe despite the obvious issues with regard to his reliability and neutrality as a source and referencing (despite Serge's attempts to remove them) Crompton and many others who, on balance of evidence, have formed their own view with regard to her sexuality. Stolpe was free to do so (through his rose-coloured, Catholic-convert, ultra-conservative, inexpert goggles) and we give an account of that. Whether Serge likes it or not, the consensus of modern biographers (ie. everyone other than Stolpe) is that she was something other than a heterosexual woman and that she had (at various points during a life punctuated by drama and bouts of deep religious devotion) relationships with both men and women including a Catholic Cardinal. The extent to which they were "relationships" as we would see them is irrelevant and our personal view as to whether or not she was straight, gay or otherwise is also irrelevant. We simply regurgitate what reliable sources say and that is exactly what has been done in the article. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
• Worth pointing out, too, that the allegation here is that Roscelese and I are "working together". Yes, quite happily so, along with a number of other long-term editors who have contributed recently to the article and have contributed to various talk page discussions. The only individual refusing to participate in that collegial and collaborative effort is Serge, whose conduct has been the subject of some prior discussion here. A boomerang and some quiet time to reconsider his approach might be in order. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm less involved with the article, but did jump in to revert Serge previously, which resulted in a thread about the Crompton source on my talk page. As far as the nature of this thread, there's no reason to think Roscelese and Stalwart111 are "working together" in any nefarious way. Based on the talk page threads, it seems Serge may take pointed disagreement personally. So this is ultimately a content dispute that should be addressed by a new RfC (the previous one was poorly conceived and closed as no consensus) or taken to DR (or maybe RS)? Speaking of RS, @Padenton: Why do you say it is clearly a tertiary source? The preface makes clear that the author drew on previous historical works as well as from original [ancient] sources. If it were only the former I suppose I'd understand? But then it's less likely Harvard would've published it. Also, even if it were a textbook, that doesn't necessarily mean it's tertiary or unreliable. The lower-level textbooks tend to be tertiary, but WP:RS says "Reputable tertiary sources, such as lower-level textbooks, almanacs, and encyclopedias, may be cited." Other textbooks are secondary and among the most reliable sources (again WP:RS "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources.") — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• No opinion on the content but there does seem to be some misunderstanding regarding WP:TERTIARY above, as stated there, "tertiary" is not a way to say the source is "not ideal", a tertiary source is by policy often quite good for summarizing sources, as that's its purpose. Moreover, we often need and use tertiary sources for WP:RS/AC. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• comment - this is not a behavior problem that should be on ANI, but a content dispute, as many have remarked. I suggest this thread be closed so the editors involved can concentrate on content DR. Jytdog (talk) 12:32, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Str77 and Assyrian Kings

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

---

I have been having intense difficulties persuading this user on my own to appreciate our Original Research policy and he responds by what seems to be repeated disruption to make a WP:POINT (ie removing practically every sentence there because his OR won't stand). Please see the talk section Talk:Puzur-Ashur_I#This_edit_is_typical_of_the_problem Philip Mexico (talk) 11:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm the other party in this dispute and was about to file a complaint as well. For more than a week now I have trouble with Philip Mexico due to his unwillingness to collaborate on articles.

I started working on the article Puzur-Ashur I, working in some information (some sourced, some unsourced) from the German Wikipedia. I was immediately opposed by some IP and by Philip. I had overlooked his first edit under that name and thus inadvertedly reverted it. He blanket reverted me whereas I then tried to work in his contributions as much as possible. This has always been my approach on this article and on Talk:Ila-kabkabu, whereto the dispute spilled over.

I repeatedly tried to discuss matters on the relevant talk pages, which Philip practically ignored. Thus, he was eventually blocked for his edit warring. (This can be seen on Talk:Puzur-Ashur I and Talk:Ila-kabkabu. Philipp's user talk page also shows admin User:C.Fred trying to reason with him.) After many, many backs and forth, Philip finally posted on talk pages but even then it took him a long, long time to provide sources for his preferred versions.

When he finally did provide a source, I again did my best to include it into the article. [21], whereas he insisted of inserting his previous POV.

This complaint is about behaviour but to clarify matters I will here report what the dispute is about:

1. Philip insists that a particular section of the Assyrian King List must be titled in a certain way but not in another way, clearly due to his his opposition to a certain interpretation of this section. Both titles are translations and both are sourced to academic literature but Philip rejects one as POV-pushing. I eventually compromised to insert both version, even though this makes the wording a bit cumbersome.
2. The main dispute is about the interpretation of the section, which I sourced to an academic work of reference. Philip first tried to remove it and then resorted to labelling it an interpretation held by "some" scholars, even though at the time it was the only sourced interpretation. He finally provided a source for another interpretation, which I then worked into the article. He still insisted on the word "some" (whereas in comments on the talk page) he insists how wide-spread it is. At the same time, Philip only wants some information from the source he provided to be included, other things he rejects.

I must be candid that neither of us has behaved in a pristine manner. We both have repeatedly reverted the other and yes, today I have for a moment violated WP:POINT: what I did is that I first tagged as unsourced anything that was not 100% sourced and then I removed it all, along with everything that was off topic or even remotely violating WP:SYNTH. The reason for this was, as I explained on Talk:Puzur-Ashur I, Philip's constant double standards when it comes to the requirement of sourcing information. Sometimes he inserts information without any source (be it positive assedrtions or negative contradictions of sourced scholarly view points), sometimes he removes sourced information for no valid reason (apparently when the source he provided went a little bit further than his view. See Talk:Puzur-Ashur_I#What_Mrs_Levy_actually_says)

Philip also shows no regard for tags placed into the article as an alternative to the constant reverting. He has repeteadly blanket reverted to his his version, removing the off topic tag I placed on one passage at Puzur-Ashur_I and never responded to the relevant section of the talk page.

Contrary to what Philip claims, this has never been about me wishing to push a certain POV. My history of Talk:Puzur-Ashur_I indicates that I shifted from a minimalist approach to one more inclusive in order to compromise with other editors (first an IP, then Philipp) and I even placed a request for more contributions - not support for my supposed POV but sourcing for any kind of view - at the Wikiproject Assyria [22], to which unfortunately no one has yet responded. This request came at the time Philip contradicted the sourced information in the article without bothering to provide a fitting source.

As for the IPs: several have also been involved (User:71.246.147.22, User:71.127.135.245). Based on this edit I suspect that these IPs (who via WHOIS point to the same location) are the same as Philip. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Those are indeed my two IP edits where I had forgot to log in and Verizon is constantly shifting IP numbers. Again, please see the talk section Talk:Puzur-Ashur_I#This_edit_is_typical_of_the_problem for my detailed explanation of what is going on. Philip Mexico (talk) 13:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

(non admin observation) Per WP:SOCK editing while logged out can happen for innocent reasons. Unless there is deception, like agreeing with yourself in a discussion, no harm no foul.AlbinoFerret 14:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I never assumed anything else. However, the identity should be taken into account when looking through the history of the dispute. Str1977 ^(talk) 14:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• Well admins, I was hoping one of you would take a look at how ridiculously hard it's been for me over 2 weeks to get this blatant synth totally misquoting Meissner, out of Puzur-Ashur I where it does not even belong. Every single time I took it out it came back. Nobody has responded yet, so tomorrow I will make one more attempt at removing the now-tagged OR. The rest of that article is still an incohesive mess, virtually every single attempt I made over two weeks to make it more cohesive got reverted too. Philip Mexico (talk) 02:49, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Editor removing commas at random

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

---

MitchellPritchettLSD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is deleting commas at random, with no regard for grammar.[23][24][25][26] I reverted a few, but all of his edits look pointless and should be rolled back. KateWishing (talk) 14:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

First he needs to be blocked, then they could be rolled back. This is once of those cases where it would be nice for established editors to be able to issue temporary blocks without having to wait for the admin corps to wake up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Another obvious sock who is doing the same thing: AndersonCooper11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)[27] This is probably related to the recent Acid420 report. CheckUser for sleepers? KateWishing (talk) 14:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding like a useless admin, the ones I looked at look like good faith errors (removing Oxford commas, and the like). I'm not convinced from what I've seen that this is malicious, which is where it'd need to be before I'd consider blocking and doing a mass rollback. Has there been any attempt made to discuss this with the editor before bringing it here? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 15:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC).

I don't see a problem either - I'm not a big fan of commas and the few diffs I looked at seemed to make the sentence flow more naturally. Unless there's been a conversation about the pros and cons of MOS:COMMA, I think any administrative action is premature. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The editor is removing commas that are grammatically required, not just Oxford commas.

• The diagnostic criteria require that symptoms become apparent in early childhood, typically before age three[28]
• The most common form today is known as a residential garden, but the term garden has traditionally been a more general one.[29]

I'd rather not go through every one of his edits and check whether they are actively harmful or merely pointless. More importantly, the edits seem to have no purpose other than inflating sockpuppet edit count. AndersonCooper11 (talk · contribs) and MitchellPritchettLSD (talk · contribs) both deleted commas from the same number article (9).[30][31] The similarity of usernames and edit style between MitchellPritchettLSD (talk · contribs) and Acid420 (talk · contribs) is also probably not a coincidence. Three of Acid420's previous socks also targeted number articles (3, 6, 8).[32][33][34] KateWishing (talk) 16:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Found another WP:DUCK: CamTuckerLSD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) KateWishing (talk) 17:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like this is an issue for a sock puppet investigation, not AN/I. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Don't pass the buck. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

It's not my call, I'm not an admin. And it seems like the primary concern now is socking, not commas. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Since you realize it's not your call, you should line-out your original comment. Let the admins decide what to do. Socks are often blocked strictly from evidence posted here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Seriously, because I suggested starting a sock puppet investigation? The admins are going to do what they they are going to do, regardless of my suggestion to the OP. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

SPI's are a pain to construct and they're typically dismissed by the checkusers. If you want to go through that waste of time, go ahead and file an SPI. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

All these ducks worry me. This appears that someone is trying to make a WP:POINTed campaign and using sockpuppets to avoid scrutiny. —Farix (t | c) 20:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Very similar to a user removing posts at random. Don't pass the buck guys, block and move on. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the issue being discussed. —Farix (t | c) 20:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I reverted MitchellPritchettLSD here and here, and immediately thought that he is trying to get WP:Autoconfirmed, which is one of the signs of WP:Sockpuppetry. I knew that he would get warned about his comma removals sooner than later. Flyer22 (talk) 03:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• MitchellPritchettLSD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), AndersonCooper11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and CamTuckerLSD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are clearly one and the same. Blocked for now, and invited to choose one account. Guy (Help!) 23:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

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

An apparently invalid RfC that probably needs closing as null and void

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

---

See Talk:A Letter Concerning Toleration#RfC: Did Locke exclude Catholics from toleration in his Letter Concerning Toleration? (and also Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#A Letter Concerning Toleration which looks set to be closed as declined, since there has been no prior discussion elsewhere). In essence we have an RfC asking Wikipedia contributors to provide their own interpretation of a primary source - material written by John Locke published in 1689 - and decide content accordingly, rather than following the multiple scholarly sources currently provided for content, which seem unanimous in reaching a conclusion already covered in the article. As I have repeatedly tried to explain to the contributor in question, User:Thepointofit, both on the article talk page, and on his talk page, this is clearly contrary to WP:RS and WP:OR policy, and accordingly wouldn't be valid even in the unlikely circumstances that the RfC went his way. Since it seems that User:Thepointofit is going to argue his (non-policy-compliant) case until the cows come home, and since it seems pointless to continue with an RfC that cannot possibly have any effect on article content, I therefore ask that an uninvolved admin take a look at the RfC, and that if they concur with my suggestion that it is null and void, close it forthwith to avoid dragging this pointless discussion out any longer. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:37, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Close it down - Essentially I agree with AtG, but see my specific argument in the RfC - as long as one of the participants in unwilling to play by our rules, the RfC is a farce, and Thepointofit should be given the choice: follow our policies, or hit the road, voluntarily or by force. BMK (talk) 04:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I've closed the RfC based on both the information here and input from editors in it. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 05:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Strong-arm tactics by Jytdog

The following discussion is closed. 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, Jytdog, has been involved in a multi-editor content dispute at the High fructose corn syrup page. The events (history page, talk page) started with Jytdog making dozens of edits to the page, with the apparent aim of restructuring it; this also involved major loss of content from the Health Effects section, and a merging of the 'Health effects of high fructose corn syrup' page into the High fructose corn syrup page. At some point Jytdog ran into spirited resistance from me and another editor, Bloodofox, repeatedly removed the 'disputed tag' from the page, calling it lame (which Bloodofox kept replacing) and eventually requested page protection, which is currently in place. He opened talkpage discussion by claiming 'all hell has broken loose' (apparently his OWNish hacking and rewriting the article was a gentle breeze through the meadows) Discussion ensued, which at first seemed civil. Soon, though, Jytdog announced to everybody the account I had created long ago but hadn't used for a while (and certainly not ever on the High fructose corn syrup page, or any page connected to it). This was an uncalled-for implication that I was hiding something, or edited anonymously for some ulterior motive. Jytdog also tried to archive this entire active discussion [35]. At the same time Jytdog's separate content argument (on the same talkpage) with Bloodox was proceeding apace, and Bloodox claimed that Jytdog had 'swept under the carpet' certain issued to do with the article's content. Jytdog claimed that was an accusation of 'bad faith', shortly before... accusing my IP range of being Bloodox's sockpuppet. He then opened the thread Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bloodofox, where another user, Kingofaces43 (who was on his side all along), had posted several messages in support of him. And then (as this was still ongoing) Jytdog proceeded to post two 'proposal for edit requests' on the article talk page:

'Proposal for edit request 1 of 2[edit] Does everyone agree to revert these three diffs to restore the summary sentence in the lead about current consensus on health effects, and restore the sentence about "However, the mercury was not methylmercury, the form of mercury that is of most concern to human health." to the body? (I anticipate that the IP/Nitrobutane/bloodofox will disagree but that editor is the only one arguing for that, which is now clear.) Please do support or oppose. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for edit request 2 of 2[edit] Does everyone agree to revert this dif to remove links to the various specific dicarbonyl compounds and to remove the editorializing editorial comment there? (I anticipate that the IP/Nitrobutane/bloodofox will disagree but that editor is the only one arguing for that, which is now clear.) Please do support or oppose. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 05:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
(the second is an incomplete description of what the revert would do - it would also restore content unsupported by the citation in front of it, which I pointed out in the note)

Then Kingofaces43 proceeded to post messages in support on both proposals.

The near-identical, manipulative ("Does everyone agree...") language, the accusations of sockpuppetry (“which is now clear”) when more than one person opposes him, the removal of the 'disputed' tag as 'lame' (indeed, the idea that anyone could dispute with him is 'lame'), the strongarming of the article's content all point to potentially major power issues going on with Jytdog, and this is causing significant disruption, when he is taking out on other editors. The actions of Kingofaces43 are moreover suggestive that it is Jytdog who is engaging in sockpuppetry. 85.211.108.65 (talk) 07:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Primary sources and sources that fail WP:MEDRS should be removed from a mature article. We should strive to use high-quality sources rather than use poorly sourced text to argue with reviews. QuackGuru (talk) 07:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

"Primary sources should be removed from a mature article" is not taken from WP guidelines and has nothing to do with this thread. Jytdog enjoys a loyal group who will support him and/or derail any attempt to examine his "strong arm" style of editing; from what I have witnessed, every ANI opened against him in the past year or so becomes an example of this phenomenon. KingofAces can easily be mistaken for a Jytdog sock since they seem to agree 100% (at least at the GMO articles), but is not, to my knowledge, the same person. petrarchan47คุก 08:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The real DUCK test would suggest that the OP is a sock, and an investigation is open. -Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 09:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

QuackGuru

I don't want to hear about Wikipolicy from someone who has been blocked literally dozens of times, for weeks at a time, for tendentious/disruptive editing, harassing other users, edit-warring in someone's userspace sandbox...

and has posted here five minutes after I put the ANI template on Jytdog's userpage??

Your record in fact even shows you have a history of “canvassing via email and making misleading accusations”...

petrarchan: if what you say is true, Jytdog's history is one of continuous mass CANVASSING to intimidate the opposition with sheer numbers and, if there are several such ANIs against him, there will be many recurrent names and this is worthy of investigation (especially if characters with a history as egregious as QuackGuru are involved (see above))

85.211.108.65 (talk) 10:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

PS: Roxy the dog is also one of them it seems. On Roxy the dog's talkpage, Adjwilley has pointed out: "Continuous pointed remarks to/about other users and the repeated scornful generalizations", "pointed comments to other users", creation of a "toxic atmosphere" on the Acupuncture talkpage, the same on the Ayurveda talkpage, editwarring on the Acupuncture article... Acupuncture is the page QuackGuru keeps vandalizing, that's why he got so many bans.

Also on Roxy the dog's talkpage, Adjwilley mentioned QuackGuru as having 'battleground mentality', 'annoying style of communicating and OWNing articles'

Roxy the dog in turn calls her opponents 'hordes of advocates' and 'POV pushers' on the talkpage, and has a stark red infobox on the userpage, reading 'This user resists the POV pushing of lunatic charlatans.' And a block for 'personal attacks/harassment'... and rollback permission

I wonder if the slavish obedience of this group, who'll do his editwarring for him, and help keep his record 'clean', has anything to do with Jytdog gaining 'rollback' privileges... his brutalizing editing on the High fructose corn syrup page has included undoing the edit he doesn't like... and bulldozing the unrelated intermediate edits too, by different users

85.211.108.65 (talk) 11:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

What I say is easily evidenced (and whether you are socking or not has no bearing on these facts). A couple of examples:

• Bullying and intimidation as well as off-wiki communication was recently proven here * / *
• Working in collusion with KingofAces and off-wiki canvassing was suggested here

petrarchan47คุก 21:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• This posting appears to be the last gasp of a soon-to-be-blocked editor. The OP has engaged in fierce, personally-attacking editing in favor of FRINGEy health ideas for the past few weeks (namely that High fructose corn syrup is really, really bad for you). As of yesterday they appear to have added the use of sockpuppetry to their arsenal, in response to my showing up at the article. The OP kindly linked to the case which I will do again: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bloodofox.

the key diff in that case is this one, by "bloodofox" who wrote: "So, today I rewrote the section on the controversy regarding mercury contamination and mentioned the public controversy in the lead.... You can see this edit here: [36]." that diff is an edit by 85.211.108.65 that matches the description given by bloodofox (the dif is not a typo).

It is interesting that the OP/IP claims that bloodofox is someone else in their opening statement and just above. I guess they are all in on the SOCKing. Jytdog (talk) 11:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC) (striking, no longer see this as pointing to IP edit Jytdog (talk) 00:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC))

No idea if it's a sock, but your smoking gun is a misunderstanding. The diff they linked has three intermediate revisions by you, in which you revert some of their changes. In other words, the diff is meant to show your reversion. The IP edit (inadvertently?) included in the diff link is minor copyediting and clearly does not match Bloodofox's description of their edits. KateWishing (talk) 15:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

That is not correct. The dif starts with the IP's first rewrite of the body, skips over my three edits (which the IP reverted), and ends with the IP's rewrite of the lead. Not a single dif there under "bloodofox". It is bloodofox disclosing that they are editing as the ip. That is not ambiguous. I agree it would have been better had they started it one dif back and shown this, but the one they showed was good enough, and included own my edits and the IPs. Jytdog (talk) 16:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The diff contains four edits, three by you,[37][38][39] and one by the IP. It does not start with the IP rewriting the body (which never happened), and it does not skip over your edits. The changes shown are largely yours. Bloodofox rewrote the controversy section and modified the lead earlier using their own account. You omitted a key part of Bloodofox's comment above: "However, this rewrite, which relied on a secondary sourced (The Washington Post) was removed for a brief mention that entirely relies on Web MD. You can see this edit here: [diff]" They are linking to your edits, not theirs. KateWishing (talk) 17:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Two things. This is not SPI so there is no point us debating this here. Second thing - I will go ahead and respond to you. I believe the diff provided within that dif was to show 'their version. To do that perfectly, they should have started one diff back, as I linked to in my last post. To show what you are saying very clearly, they should not have included the dif by the IP and should have just shown diffs be me. (btw, mine existed before, in a much more clear version -- if their goal was to show mine they could have done that much more easily) I will also add, the IP/Nitrobutane/bloodofox has shown very little interest in actually communicating and reaching consensus; that is consistent across all their behaviors. DUCK in every reasonable way. Jytdog (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC) (strike ref to ambiguous dif Jytdog (talk) 00:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC))

I did not post this on SPI because I hoped you would correct your own error. The problem with your interpretation is that the diff does not show their version. Bloodofox's comment describes their changes as rewriting the controversy section to include a Washington Post source, and to "mention the public controversy in the lead." This is clearly in reference to these edits, made under their own account. In contrast, the diff in question removes both the Washington Post source and the mention of controversy in the lead. These are your changes, apart from minor copyediting by the IP. At no point has the IP rewritten the controversy section or added a mention of it to the lead. KateWishing (talk) 19:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The IP added content to the lead about mercury in this dif. Jytdog (talk) 19:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I didn't notice that, but Bloodofox's comment could not have been referring to an edit made several minutes later. The actual diff cited removes that bit from the lead. KateWishing (talk) 20:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I've looked at your analysis more, KateWishing and I agree. bloodofox was likely referring to my edit. Jytdog (talk) 00:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm sorry our only interactions so far have been disagreements. KateWishing (talk) 00:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

It is all in good faith and civil too. thanks for catching that! Jytdog (talk) 01:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

@User:Jytdog If you are referring to the material here[40] you removed this indicating a MEDRS source is needed for this. However, there is no comment in the material you removed relating to medical issues - therefore your edit summary that it was removed because MEDRS is required is inaccurate, misleading to other editors - and indicative of strong-arm tactics.DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

in your drive to pile on, i believe you just violated your topic ban. Jytdog (talk) 22:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Please explain.DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• Suspiciously talented new editor appears out of nowhere and attacks Jytdog; Petrarchan47 jumps on the bandwagon. What's new? bobrayner (talk) 23:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

You find the comments to be an "attack" on Jytdog? Aren't ANI's meant to gather evidence? You're proving my point, at any rate. petrarchan47คุก 03:07, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

proposal to warn 85.211.108.65 to comment on content, not contributor, and to lay off the rage

So here are the IP's last 14 contribs. Contribs with no diffs are not personal attacks. The IP is on a bit of a rage binge. Please warn the IP to comment on content, not contributor, and to lay off personal attacks. Thanks.

• 03:36, 28 May 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+286)‎ . . Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bloodofox ‎ (→‎Comments by other users) more invective
• 03:23, 28 May 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+2,632)‎ . . Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bloodofox ‎ (→‎Comments by other users) - more invective
• 12:39, 27 May 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+784)‎ . . Talk:High fructose corn syrup ‎- more invective
• 11:28, 27 May 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+8)‎ . . Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ (→‎Strong-arm tactics by Jytdog: syntax)
• 11:25, 27 May 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+1,550)‎ . . Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ (→‎Strong-arm tactics by Jytdog) - more rage
• 10:29, 27 May 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+1,204)‎ . . Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ (→‎Strong-arm tactics by Jytdog) - more rage
• 07:10, 27 May 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+88)‎ . . Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ (→‎Strong-arm tactics by Jytdog: added sigbature)
• 07:09, 27 May 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+253)‎ . . User:Jytdog ‎
• 06:59, 27 May 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+33)‎ . . Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ (→‎Strong-arm tactics by Jytdog: syntax)
• 06:57, 27 May 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+276)‎ . . Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bloodofox ‎ (→‎Comments by other users) - sarcasm
• 06:47, 27 May 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+4,013)‎ . . Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ (→‎Strong-arm tactics by Jytdog: new section) - invective
• 04:05, 27 May 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+4,195)‎ . . Talk:High fructose corn syrup ‎ - invective
• 23:09, 26 May 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+1,591)‎ . . Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) ‎ (→‎A way to prevent revertwars from erupting)
• 23:04, 26 May 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+607)‎ . . Talk:High fructose corn syrup ‎- invective

Instead of using the page protection at the article to discuss changes, which is what it is for, the IP is just raising cain, and bloodofox is also not discussing anything on the article Talk page. It doesn't appear that they intend to work out the content issues while the article is locked down. Jytdog (talk) 04:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Can;t believe Jytdog now accuses me and bloodofox of refusal to discuss, after him being the one who tried to 'accidentally' archive the talk page while active discussion was going on, then got touchy and broke off the exchange ('We are done') as soon as the talk got hot for him and his misconducts were recounted:

I will say this one more time - stop commenting on contributors ("sweeping under the carpet" is an accusation of bad faith editing). The next time you do this, I will simply stop responding to you and we will need to work through some more formal process that will slow things down. OK, would you please provide here the content you would want to see, and the sourcing for it? thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I've provided it above, thanks. And given your goofy antics here—at this point everything from removing NPOV tags because they're "lame" during active disputes to "accidentally" archiving active talk page threads that I've commented on earlier in the day—maybe it's best that you just do that. Given that you're eager to resort to tactics like that, maybe you should take a break for a while. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

bloodofox, I just realized that based on what you wrote above, and especially on this dif, where you link to this dif by 85.211.108.65, it appears that you have been editing here under a username and an as an IP. I actually thought you were several people. This is a clear violation WP:SOCK. You are the only person supporting the position you have been taking here. That changes everything. Jytdog (talk) 03:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC) (striking interpretation of dif. appears that "this edit" was meant to point to my dif. SOCK concerns remain Jytdog (talk) 00:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC))

Couldn't help noticing this... 'accusation of bad faith editing' indeed... lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.108.65 (talk • contribs) 04:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

We are done. I did assume that the IP/Nitrobutane and you were different people. That was AGF. Jytdog (talk) 04:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Then he started two biased-worded polls that pretended the flaky accusations of socking were already proven:

'Proposal for edit request 1 of 2[edit] Does everyone agree to revert these three diffs to restore the summary sentence in the lead about current consensus on health effects, and restore the sentence about "However, the mercury was not methylmercury, the form of mercury that is of most concern to human health." to the body? (I anticipate that the IP/Nitrobutane/bloodofox will disagree but that editor is the only one arguing for that, which is now clear.) Please do support or oppose. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for edit request 2 of 2[edit] Does everyone agree to revert this dif to remove links to the various specific dicarbonyl compounds and to remove the editorializing editorial comment there? (I anticipate that the IP/Nitrobutane/bloodofox will disagree but that editor is the only one arguing for that, which is now clear.) Please do support or oppose. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 05:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

- the second of which misled the reader about what the [diff] would actually do - It would restore content that was clearly misrepresenting its source, and which I left the invisible comment about. Anyone who follows the link I gave in that comment would see that. And immediately Kingofaces43,who was in close contact with Jytdog from the start and colluded with him on this issue specifically, supported Jytdog on both polls. Working in collusion with KingofAces and off-wiki canvassing was previously suggested here, and further canvassing concerns have been raised on Kingofaces43's talk.
Last and worst, Jytdog to begin with was canvassed by Sciencewatcher, the user I was disagreeing with over the HFCS article before Jytdog showed up.

and now Jytdog, after claiming on the WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Bloodofox that he is "a science-based editor who follows policy and guidelines" and when I pointed out he has a record of misdeeds (eg his bullying against petrarchan47DrChrissy - including hounding her out of this very thread instead of responding to her comment!), has called it rage. And demanded that his conduct not be discussed at all, despite ANI is the place for discussing conduct, and examine evidence.(He also suggested a Calorie Control Council-funded study to us on talk - CCC are an industry interest group who call HFCS/fructose 'reduced-calorie and claim health benefits for it - 'science' indeed) Demanding sanctions for daring to mention his misconduct, is very like his falsely accusing Bloodofox of SOCK when he pointed out Jytdog's misdeeds. Meaning, he'll turn on anybody who points out his bullying. Posting a piece of someone's contribs history, with a load of links in it and strong words in red alongside, BUT not quoting any of the relevant passages (as my posts were statements of fact from his history of harassment, and might indict him); hoping to create an impression to all who read it, and nobody will bother to follow the links. When he could have just posted the diffs, and used the space saved to give actual quotes. Diffs would show me saying he is guilty of past bullying and harassment, +offwiki canvassing - as indeed he is. [[41]], [[42]] And collusion, specifically with Kingofaces: [[43]]. Me pointing out the way he acts towards other editors is apparently a “fierce personal attack”. A recent collection of his odium was here, at ANI, regarding his bullying against DrChrissy - including telling her to 'get out more', effing and blinding on her talkpage, saying her edits were 'slimey varmint behaviour'... it [goes on].
His words here are all “It is all in good faith and civil too. thanks for catching that!”; pretending to not have noticed the obvious (that there's zero evidence of socking in the diffs). By Hanlon's razor this should be believed, but his history shows him repeatedly claiming to not notice what he's doing, when it is more than obvious. His actions are at odds with his words: canvassing QuackGuru (who posted here five minutes after I put the ANI notice on Jytdog's user page) and Roxy the dog for this thread, and canvassing Kingofaces47 for the HFCS article and talkpage (see above). petrarchan47 put me onto the thought that there might be a group of people weighing in to anything he does, and presto...
(Jytdog's claims that I posted 'invective' against him (though I never invaded his talk nor used expletives as h'es been known to) are ever more hypocritical through him replying to my accusations on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bloodofox:
“invective harms no one but the person who posts it”
Bobrayner: Just what do you mean by 'suspiciously talented', 'out of nowhere', and 'jumps on the bandwagon'? What kind of an implication is that? If you have something like that to say, then say it, instead of sinuous insinuations.

And considering Jytdog's record of personal attacks on petrarchan47's talkpage, then pretending he didn't notice being warned off thrice, it's understandable petrarchan should bring up those incidents from his record. [Edit: shorten words, struck mishtaek, +new info] 85.211.108.65 (talk) 01:34, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Casting aspersions as this user has done above about me is exactly why I'm supportive of a warning here. Claiming I was "colluding" when I had already been independently alerted at Wikiproject Med here and talking to Jytdog after this user's behavior issues were apparent seems to be this user's attempt to lash out at other users for opposing their edits and alerting them to problematic behavior. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support warning. I'd prefer to wait for the sock-puppet posting to conclude, but I think a warning is merited no matter. Obviously involved in this one, but the ferocity in which this IP has been lashing out at other editors who tried to approach this editor civilly has been extremely disruptive. A lot of pot calling the kettle black behavior after their own initial actions were called out that only got worse as others tried to get them to stop. Anyone reading the article history and talk page (or even above) should be able to gleam the problem with this behavior pretty quickly. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Just to note what started this, we had 8 reverts by the IP in less than 24 hours, 8 additional ones by Bloodofox, and 12 total reverts if we consider the two the same person. This editor is coming in hard and fast while breaking a lot of talk page guidelines while edit warring no matter the outcome, so something should be done to alleviate their behavior issues since it doesn't look like they're seeing the problem. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

See my post above for evidence of Jytdog and Kingofaces arranging to work in concert. Also, see [history of HFCS article] for evidence of dozens of edits by Jytdog, tearing up the article and rearranging it his way, deleting content - even entire sections, deleting NPOV tags in the middle of active discussion, breaking the entire discussion by 'accidentally' archiving the talkpage... After this, Kingofaces has the gall to say I came in 'hard and fast' etc etc..? 85.211.108.65 (talk) 01:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

If you really want more than a warning from here, feel free to keep making personal attacks by misrepresenting my statements as you've been doing here. The behavior under scrutiny in this section is yours, so I highly suggest you look at the edits you've made that have been pointed out. I still doesn't look like you're seeing how problematic your behavior is and the battleground behavior you're engaging in, so I'm disengaging from here for now and waiting for the sockpuppet investigation to wrap up first. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• Why are we proposing to warn? Is there some belief that the user in question is unaware of Wikipedia policy? If you believe they are aware, warn them. You don't need permission. If you believe they are already aware of the policy, what the heck are we warning them for? Is it like "double secret probation"? Seriously. If someone is aware of policy, they don't need a warning. If they continue to violate policies they are aware of, they need blocks. If they are not continuing those violations, then they don't need anything. Since said user is participating in this discussion they are aware of the policy. There's no need to "propose" to make them aware. They are. Unless you want to propose a block or a ban, this is a phenomenal waste of time and server space. --Jayron32 02:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Jayron32 - so close it, already then, or take action. i agree this is a waste of time. I think this raging behavior is blockable, but that is not my call. Jytdog (talk) 04:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

A lot of people at ANI seem to not want to impose bans if a warning hasn't been given an "official" warning by the closing ANI case first. That's been the practice since I came here a few years ago at least. May not be for the best, but that seems to be the environment. If someone not involved wants to propose a block instead, I'd prefer that, but I'd have enough drama from this user already to avoid this ANI until the SPI is concluded. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Without commenting on this case itself, but I think it is rather worrying to see Jytdog so often at AN/I. And with roughly the same type of cases. The Banner talk 22:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Borve - tags

The following discussion is closed. 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,

You have added tags to the article on Borve, Lewis.

One states that

"This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed."

Please can you identify which statements in the article require references in your opinion.

The only two references that the article contained before my revision were to a road users' site (to verify what number road the village is on) and a Scottish places site (to verify what larger administrative area it is part of). Those references seem completely unnecessary because the information is not seriously open to challenge and in the event that someone does read the article and think "Hey, you're saying the village is on the A857 - well that's an assertion I challenge!", they can easily go and verify it elsewhere, just as if someone challenges the assertion that London is located in England.

The second states that

"This article possibly contains original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed."

Please can you decide whether you think it does or does not contain original research and if you decide you think it does, please can you identify which claims you think should be either verified or removed.

Thanks! Lordelephapia (talk) 10:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@Lordelephapia:, thank you for the message I have cleared up most of the problems with the article, I have removed almost everything which was not supported by a reference. If you can find reliable sources to support the claims please feel free to reinstate them using proper citation methods. Removing references from an article is normally not a good thing, by removing them you remove the ability for anyone to verify anything in the article, and Wikipedia policy is that if it isn't referenced it can be and should be removed. Next time you are looking a removing any reference ask yourself the following questions;

Is the reference supporting anything in the article?

If I remove this reference am I making it more difficult for someone not from the area to verify information?

Is there already another reference supporting the same claim?

Hopefully these questions will help when deciding if you should remove references in an article.For the most part references should not be removed, even if they are deadlinks.- McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 11:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

It's as if you didn't read what you're replying to properly. Removing almost everything that's not supported by a reference is completely uncalled for, and you have not argued the contrary. Wikipedia policy is not "that if it isn't referenced it can be and should be removed".Lordelephapia (talk) 12:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

What is the source for your claim that Wikipedia policy is "that if it isn't referenced it can be and should be removed". Have you got a reference?Lordelephapia (talk) 18:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

This is simple take a read through Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research both basically state all, but the most obvious, claims require references or inline citations, the entire content I removed from the page had nothing for verification of the information, the onus is now on you or who ever wants to add information back to Prove it.- McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 18:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

So you are rowing back and saying that rather than "if it isn't referenced it (...) should be removed", which is what you first said, the policy is in fact that that applies only when claims are not among "the most obvious". You also say that it's "simple". And you say that the policies on original research and verification "basically" (a clear case of a weasel word) support your understanding of the policy on the requirement for references. Well I claim there is no Wikipedia policy that says, "basically" or otherwise, that all claims, or all claims other than the most obvious, must be referenced. If there is such a policy, it would patently obviously be published and I ask you again to post a specific link to it if you think it exists, not a link to long policy articles that you think "basically" communicate that policy or have it as their gist. Those documents are full of summary sentences and you should be able to point to a sentence or paragraph to back up your assertion if you maintain its accuracy. Using words such as "simple", "obviously" and "basically", even were they to be used in grammatically correct sentences, cannot obscure the fact that having been asked to cite a source for your very specific claim about Wikipedia's policy you have not yet done so. Please consider the possibility that your understanding of it is mistaken.

If you wish to challenge some of the statements that were made in this article before you deleted most of it, please do so.

Millions of articles at this website contain unreferenced assertions. That's easily verifiable by choosing one at random linked from the main page.Lordelephapia (talk) 18:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I have already challenged the content in the article by removing the unreferenced material, you are free to reinstate if can provide reliable sources for them. I am done arguing with you at this point. If you wish you can take this to Dispute resolution or if you think I have violated any policies you may take it to Wikipedia:AN/I.- McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 01:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• The failure to understand that WP:V says content must verifiable -- not that all content must actually be verified by an explicitly cited source -- and the consequent idea that WP:BURDEN is carte blanche for removal of anything unsourced, without consideration of the circumstances, is a beautiful example of rigid and unsubtle interpretation of policy and guidelines to the detriment of the project. Except in special circumstances such as BLP (and even there a modified version of what I'm about to say still applies) the test for removal is that the person doing the removal genuinely believes that no source exists -- the test is not that no source has actually been produced. Here's what BURDEN says:

When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that there may not be a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable.

A footnote confirms this:

...it is advisable to communicate clearly that you have a considered reason to believe that the material in question cannot be verified.

So let's say a trustworthy editor (i.e. any editor who hasn't given us reason to believe he or she isn't trustworthy) says, on the talk page, "My notes show that while researching this article, one of the several books of Smallville history I used said that Smith's Smithy Road was named for a smithy, owned by John Smith, that used to be there. Unfortunately I spilled coffee on the notes and can't read which source this came from, and my wife returned everything to the library (which is in a distant city) before I was able recover that information." In this case, there's no reason the Smith's Smithy Road factoid can't remain in the article for years -- indefinitely -- without an explicit cite, though of course with a to encourage someone to chase one down.

As a practical matter, if a statement is genuinely disputed and no source can be produced (in a reasonable time -- not necessarily immediately!) then that statement will have to go. But inherent in that narrative is that there are editors who truly question whether any source exists. That's completely different from people who just run around removing, on sight, perfectly harmless and likely verifiable statements that haven't been verified yet. These people trumpet BURDEN without understanding it, and imagine themselves to be helping the project. They're not. (And such misapplication of BURDEN is often used as a form of harassment of other editors and their favorite articles or topics.) EEng (talk) 16:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Wikihounding from User:WordSeventeen

The following discussion is closed. 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 if all this wasn't enough, after yet another incident where WordSeventeen raised another groundless SPI against Joseph2302 (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gabucho181), I have blocked them for 1 month. Collapsing this section in the name of sanity. Black Kite (talk) 13:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This user seems to be hounding me, disagreeing with me and accusing me of uncivility without giving any reasons. It started when I put Cody Sipe and Daniel M. Ritchie up for deletion (initially as CSD, then AfD after they contested it)- I genuinely believed neither of these articles were good enough for Wikipedia, and their AfDs appear to agree with me, but User:WordSeventeen seems to think it's just because they're a paid editor. I tried to discuss the issue at User talk:WordSeventeen, but they just removed my comments- there are whole sections of the pages which are unsourced and therefore violations of WP:BLP, however they implied I was trying to manipulate the Afd discussions by removing them. They then gave the article creator a barnstar (which is okay), with an inappropriate message about me, see here, which clearly implies I'm bigoted, and they know better as a more experienced editor. Now, they've started getting involved at James Rhodes (pianist), the talkpage and it's BLP notice, conveniently enough just after I started getting involved there. They've broken 3RR by reverting 5 times, claiming it to be BLP violations, despite the fact it's well-sourced, and most other users at these locations think it isn't, and straight after I pointed it out, they claimed I was being uncivil here. When I asked for a clearer explanation here, they just templated me again here. They've also incorrectly tagged an article I created for a merger which would never succeed in a million years, tagging List of cricketers who have taken five wickets on ODI debut to be merged with List of Test cricketers who have taken two five-wicket hauls on debut, but not tagging the other article or starting a discussion. I asked at their talkpage for an explanation, but none has been given. Cannot see a rationale for this, other than to annoy me. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC) Also, before this user claims "I'm never civil", I'd like to point out that on my talkpage, @FreeRangeFrog: has thanked me for my COI work- the exact thing that started this hounding- and @CryOCed: has also commended my civility. Only @WordSeventeen: seems to think I'm uncivil, every other Wikipedia user seems to think I'm fine and civil. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC) I've actually noticed WordSeventeen's uncivil actions ever since I got tangled with an old user (who is now retired to avoid a indefinite block). WordSeventeen would constantly commend the user on, to say blatantly, bad articles and criticize those who wanted to delete it. My point is this is a long-term case beyond this AN/I and WordSeventeen needs a block which will hopefully teach them that their actions do not work toward collaboration.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 12:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC) Which editor, TheGracefulSlick? Spumuq (talq) 14:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC) I did not want to out anyone, Spumuq, but the user was CrazyAces489. There was talk on Bishonen's talk page to indefinitely block him, but CrazyAces "retired", most likely to avoid the block.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:48, 27 May 2015 (UTC) Request for a WP:BOOMERANG for User:Joseph2302 Comment That last posting by the OP looks to be a preemptory barnstar defense to allow him to WP:CANVAS another editor to this baseless and false ani report posted by the OP. I would ask any administrator to consider a WP:BOOMERANG. The OP says all this began at Cody Sipe. Well this is what occurred at Cody Sipe. See here: [44] Joseph2302 followed me there Joseph2302 — 21:38, May 23, 2015 (diff | hist) Cody Sipe (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G11). When I declined the speedy Joseph2302 reverted the declination of the speedy and put the article up for a SECOND speedy. "Joseph2302 — 23:16, May 23, 2015 (diff | hist) Cody Sipe (Reverted 1 edit by WordSeventeen (talk): That isn't why I put it for speedy." One minute later: "Joseph2302 — 23:17, May 23, 2015 (diff | hist) Cody Sipe (Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cody Sipe." One minute later he/she proceeded to gut the article after he had set it up for AFD: "Joseph2302 — 23:25, May 23, 2015 (diff | hist) Cody Sipe (/* Research */WP:VERIFY Joseph2302 — 23:19, May 23, 2015 (diff | hist) Cody Sipe (/* Education *WP:VERIFY) Joseph2302 — 23:18, May 23, 2015 (diff | hist) Cody Sipe (/* Post-graduate careerWP:VERIFY) Joseph2302 — 23:18, May 23, 2015 (diff | hist) Cody Sipe (/* Early careerWP:VERIFY)" I objected to his behaviour here: [45] 33 minutes later: "Joseph2302 — 23:58, May 23, 2015 (diff | hist) Cody Sipe (Reverted to revision 663728748 by Joseph2302 (talk): Per discussion on User talk:WordSeventeen, I have been asked to self-revert." WP:BOOMERANG Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 12:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC) I didn't follow you to Cody Sipe, I was patrolling new editor contributions and found a paid editor declaration, so went to look at their articles- this is my standard first response to someone declaring a COI/paid editor status. Also, looking at the AfD discussion, I'd say my decision to want to delete is correct. Also, I did provide them with advice at their talkpage, my standard, successful advice for new editors- I recommend they use AfC, because evidence shows this is the best way for new and COI editors to write articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC) No boomerang here. Joseph2302 was quite correct to remove the swathes of unsourced content from the article, and if it's still there I'll remove it myself when I've finished here. You're lucky not to have been blocked for your antics on the James Rhodes article, and I suggest that if that happens again, such will be the inevitable result. Black Kite (talk) 13:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC) (EC)From what I can tell Wordseventeen altered the title of this section as well to remove their own name. Which is less than optimum. I also agree with your assessment of the Rhodes article Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC) Comment User:WordSeventeen just changed the heading of this topic, I've reverted it. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC) Note - WordSeventeen removed my comment discussing his long-term uncivil actions, this, as I said, is not an isolated event.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 13:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC) I was trying to figure this confusing thread out: created by Joseph2302 in this dif comment by TheGracefulslick here bizarre edit by WordSeventeen here copying most of a talk page reverted here; edit warred (!) back in by WordSeventeen here; reverted again by a third editor here; WordSeventeen opened a new thread asking for boomerang, which was mostly copied from original thread, but didn't include The GracefulSlick's comment WordSeventeen deleted the original thread open by Joseph against WordSeventeen (!) here Joseph added back the original title here some IP further modified the title here in this dif I restored the title, put Word17's header on his/her comment alone, and restored TheGracefulSlick's comments. That is an incredibly disruptive set of edits by WordSeventeen at an ANI thread. That is digging your own hole. Jytdog (talk) 13:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC) I also want to add that Drmies warned Word17 against hounding just a month ago, here. Jytdog (talk) 13:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC) What are these civility and AGF warnings for, [46] [47], Joseph2302 only made one edit on that page, the edit summary is «Take it to the talkpage.», it is not uncivil or assuming bad faith, why does this deserve two warnings from WordSeventeen? Spumuq (talq) 14:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC) The warnings were apparently for this post: [48], although I had to ask twice to get a proper answer about it. Also requesting unprotection seemed fair, since protection was stopping one of the IPs from editing with the talkpage/noticeboard consensus, whilst allowing them to edit against the talkpage/noticeboard consensus. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC) WordSeventeen asked an administrator to block Joseph2302 and 131.191.80.213, [49], because «I am getting personally attacked by the IP editor, as well as Joseph2302 multiple times in the last few hours», where are these personal attacks? I find editors disagreeing with WordSeventeen about an article but I can't find personal attacks. If there are no personal attacks, then WordSeventeen is trying to deceive an administrator, to block editors who were repairing WordSeventeen's damage to the article? Spumuq (talq) 14:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC) Some more diffs about Wikihounding: Durango Mountain Resort: [50] (I deleted the content after creating a redirect as requested at WP:AFC/R). Vic Lindal: Accepted article here, despite the fact it was no different from when I'd commented about it here. There was a note about the article on my talkpage at the time. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC) On the topic of the AN/I edits, I didn't warn after my revert here as from the edit summary I assumed it was a mistake, (meant to thank instead of use twinkle.) Look at the diffs all together though I'm less inclined to see it as a simple mistake. — Strongjam (talk) 14:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC) question - there seems to the beginnings of a consensus that WordSeventeen is at least going through a period of disruptive editing that includes hounding, edit warring, misrepresenting others' edits. Subjects include BLPs but other articles as well. What is the proposed action here? Jytdog (talk) 15:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC) So it appears like I'm not the only person affected by WordSeventeen's actions. There appears to be a case of repeated harassment of other users, so I feel like a block is in order. Timewise I don't really know, like 2 weeks-1 month? With a warning that if they do it again, it'll be significantly longer. Obviously open to other users suggesting things. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC) Two months is more than reasonable, that is about as long as we can track that WordSeventeen has been uncivil and uncollaborative. I support the block of that length, and longer ones if necessary.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC) Several editors have asked to see the info and duscussions about the WP:NPA violations by Joseph 2302 over the past 24 hours or so. This discussion was here: [51] Joseph2302 removed only part of the discussion from his talk page as he can. "Hello, I'm WordSeventeen. I noticed that you made a comment on the page James Rhodes (pianist) that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, 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. James Rhodes (pianist) and your related postings at relevant boards WordSeventeen (talk) 5:36 am, Today (UTC5) @WordSeventeen: Exactly what was the uncivil comment? Just because I disagree with you doesn't make you right, and the fact is that you have violated WP:3RR, and the talkpage and BLPN both support the content being there. Also, don't template the regulars. This feels like harassment to me, since it is improperly justified. Joseph2302 (talk) 5:39 am, Today (UTC5) "Unprotection: There is no BLP violation, as it is covered in reliable sources. This semi-protection appears to be an attempt to quash the talkapge consensus to include it, by preventing the IP user from editing. Joseph2302 (talk) 4:40 am, Today (UTC5) See here: [3] This posting is both uncivil and a personal attack on a specific editor suggesting that someone was attempting to "squash" talkpage consensus. The posting is also in violation of WP:AGF. An editor who has only been on wikipedia for five months is hardly a regular. If you continue all of your disruptive posts and behaviours I will be presenting this disruption that you have caused at WP:ANI. So please do read up on WP:NPA, WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and WP:DISRUPTION. Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 6:00 am, Today (UTC5) Joseph2302 (talk) 5:45 am, Today (UTC5)" the discussion at #3 is as follows" [52] "Unprotection: There is no BLP violation, as it is covered in reliable sources. This semi-protection appears to be an attempt to quash the talkapge consensus to include it, by preventing the IP user from editing. Joseph2302 (talk) 4:40 am, Today (UTC−5) For referral this protection granted by @CambridgeBayWeather was only archived a few hours ago as closed with one week of protection on the article. This contentious book is supposed to be published in the next few das, so it would be quite inappeopriate to remove the protection to the article due to BLP issues, and the two currently unresolved edit warring reports concerning said article. If anything the protection should be lengthened. prior archived request was granted See here: [1] "=== James Rhodes (pianist) === Persistent IP editor is threatening to re-add information that is a blatant BLP Issue. There is currently an edit warring report pending here. [2] Also I started a discussion on the article talk page so that editors may attempt to reach a consensus regarding this matter. Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 9:01 pm, Yesterday (UTC−5) The IP editor involved in the above note has now been taken to the edit warring noticeboard for making 7 reversions inside of 24 hours. See here: [3] There are currently two separate reports about edit warring involving different editors at this same article. Other one is here:[4] Thank you for attebtion to this matter. Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 9:40 pm, Yesterday (UTC−5) Semi-protected for a period of 1 week. After 1 week the page will be automatically unprotected.CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:38 pm, Yesterday (UTC−5)" Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 5:23 am, Today (UTC−5)" I would ask that the disruptive behaviours of Joseph2302 also be examine d in this incident. I too could make a laundry list of all the infractions, warnings, discussions, as well as instances of two personal attacks by Joseph, one at the BLP noticeboard and one other one as well. For this continued disruption by Joseph2302 I would ask an admin to block him for a certain period of time from editing. Due to his block history from his block log [53] Joseph has already been blocked two times once for (Socking + Vandalism on both socks and logged out)-penalty blocked for 72 hours, and another time blocked for an indefinite period of time. Taking that he has come back once from an indefinite block, an appropriate time for him to be blocked so he cannot cause anymore disruption would be a block of six months. He could possibly use a standard offer to come back if he cared to do so. Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 20:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC) I'm sorry but this is the funniest thing I read all day. An indefinite block?! Please spare me the humor, this is just a last ditch attempt to save yourself from being blocked. No evidence of wrongdoing by Joseph here. Even if he has a checkered past, in the future he has improved on his shortcomings. I wouldn't be suprised if the "blocks" are false, but I won't say otherwise. Only WordSeventeen is up to no good with his uncivil actions, tampering of AN/I, and who knows what else.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC) About the past, since people think it's relevant. As a new editor, I decided to test Wikipedia security tools by making a couple of vandalism accounts- note the person I disrupted the most was actually myself. And the other one I made 2-3 vandalism edits, and so admins assumed my account was compromised. Considering you're the only person advocating a block for me, whilst many editors seem to have complained against you, there doesn't seem to be an actual case for me to answer. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC) @that sounds a bit fishy josepeph, but you were blocked two times once for 72 hours and the second time you were deemed guilty of sockpupprtry and were indeed blocked from editing indefinitely? Is that not the hard truth? As for the misrepresentation by thegraceful slich above in his personal attack WP:NPA on me here just now when he posted: " I wouldn't be suprised if the "blocks" are false, but I won't say otherwise." " Only WordSeventeen is up to no good with his uncivil actions, tampering of AN/I, and who knows what else." Could you please tell the truth joseph, that the blocks are indeed true. One was for 72 hours and one for sockpuppetry was Indefinite. I left a diff above for your block log. gracefulslick's second sentence quoted above is in violation of WP:AGF as well as WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 21:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC) No, if you read the log correctly, it was 72 hours for using multiple accounts/sockpuppetry, and indefinite for vandalism/suspected compromised account. Evidence: [54] And stop accusing everyone who disagrees with you of personal attacks. You did tamper with this thread multiple times (changing the heading, removing gracefulslick's comments). Joseph2302 (talk) 21:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC) I am only here to add input about WordSeventeen's disruptive editing here on AN/I. You manipulated the thread, for your own saving. If you want somebody to admit the truth, it should be you, someone who likes to edit disruptively. Changing the header, removing comments and edit warring here. What's next? Your case is weak, and I support a block against this user. The more you edit here, the more you're compromising your "I didn't do this, and they did this instead" statement. I suggest that you relax your flying raging hormones (not NPA; everybody has hormones) as it seems you can't cooperate with other editors. And as a result, you lash out with bad editing. Callmemirela (Talk) 00:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC) Please can WordSeventeen be blocked soon? They're accusing me of sockpuppetry here, with absolutely no actual evidence. I give permission for anyone to run a CU on me, I have nothing to hide. Unlike WordSeventeen, whose every edit involving this seems to get more ridiculous, and more suspicious. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC) I also think that WordSeventeen should be stripped of their user rights if editing disruptively is all they're doing. This is not the way you're supposed to act in any situation. Callmemirela (Talk) 02:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC) comment ummmmm no, let's just hold up one tiney moment... Collapsing complete disruptive nonsense from WordSeventeen. Joseph2302 has only been blocked twice, and both were revoked. The rest are from a serial sockmaster who likes to use established editor's usernames with slight changes. Black Kite (talk) 09:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Gabucho181 Gabucho181 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Populated account categories: confirmed · suspected For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gabucho181/Archive. A long-term abuse case exists at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Gabucho181. Please note that a case was originally opened under IncidentArchive887 (talk · contribs) but has been moved to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gabucho181. Future cases should be placed under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gabucho181. Joseph2302 Joseph2302 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Please note that a case was originally opened under IncidentArchive887 (talk · contribs) but has been moved to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Joseph2302. Future cases should be placed under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Joseph2302. Joseph23023 Joseph23023 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Please note that a case was originally opened under IncidentArchive887 (talk · contribs) but has been moved to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Joseph23023. Future cases should be placed under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Joseph23023. Joseph2302 Joseph2302 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Please note that a case was originally opened under IncidentArchive887 (talk · contribs) but has been moved to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Joseph2302. Future cases should be placed under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Joseph2302. 186.81.66.3 186.81.66.3 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Please note that a case was originally opened under IncidentArchive887 (talk · contribs) but has been moved to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/186.81.66.3. Future cases should be placed under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/186.81.66.3. Joseph2302_2.0 Joseph2302_2.0 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Please note that a case was originally opened under IncidentArchive887 (talk · contribs) but has been moved to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Joseph2302_2.0. Future cases should be placed under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Joseph2302_2.0. Please see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gabucho181) [55] Master stared his soccciiieee drawer on August 11, 2013 to the present 28 May 2015 diff of first block of the masters Gabucho181 in 2013 [56] diff of indef block 17 March 2015 connects to the sock [57] serially blocks of master above Contains five indefinite blocks from August 11, 2013 to the present May 2015 01:11, August 11, 2013 Alexf (talk | contribs) blocked Gabucho181 (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Vandalism-only account) 21:00, March 3, 2015 Tiptoety (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Joseph2302 (2.0) (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) (Abusing multiple accounts: Please see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gabucho181) 20:49, March 3, 2015 Tiptoety (talk | contribs) blocked Joseph2302 (2.0) (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Abusing multiple accounts: Please see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gabucho181) block report for 03:55, March 24, 2015 MusikAnimal changed block settings for Gabucho181 (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (Revoking talk page access: inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked) 03:11, March 24, 2015 Kuru (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Gabucho181 (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) (Revoking talk page access: inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked) 01:11, August 11, 2013 Alexf (talk | contribs) blocked Gabucho181 (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Vandalism-only account) 21:00, March 3, 2015 Tiptoety (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Joseph2302 (2.0) (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) (Abusing multiple accounts: Please see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gabucho181) 20:49, March 3, 2015 Tiptoety (talk | contribs) blocked Joseph2302 (2.0) (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Abusing multiple accounts: Please see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gabucho181) 07:55, March 17, 2015 Gogo Dodo (talk | contribs) blocked Joseph23023 (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Vandalism-only account) block report for 03:55, March 24, 2015 MusikAnimal changed block settings for Gabucho181 (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (Revoking talk page access: inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked) 03:11, March 24, 2015 Kuru (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Gabucho181 (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) (Revoking talk page access: inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked) leftover possible socks from the bureau Joseph23023 - [58] Joseph2302 - [59] 21:00, March 3, 2015 Tiptoety (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Joseph2302 (2.0) (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) (Abusing multiple accounts: Please see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gabucho181) 20:49, March 3, 2015 Tiptoety (talk | contribs) blocked Joseph2302 (2.0) (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Abusing multiple accounts: Please see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gabucho181) Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 02:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC) I know that there this WP:OUCH thing on AN/I threads, but explain to me how exactly bringing an SPI investigation will help your case? (Which should be semi-hidden, because it terribly lengthens this page) Regardless, I stand by my statements. Callmemirela (Talk) 02:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC) As I have said, it is just a last ditch effort by a disruptive user to muddy the waters enough to possibly save themselves. It won't work since any sane admin can see this ploy.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC) Yes, unfortunately. Like I have said, their case is very weak. And I stand by the block and the proposal of WordSeventeen having their user rights removed. Callmemirela (Talk) 02:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC) comment I have seen your names on my watchlist, and have communicated with couple of you @DGG @Bbb23 @PBS @CambridgeBayWeather @DeltaQuad @OccultZone @TheWormthatturned #Ponyo editors I have chosen, because I need to know if I should leave this evidence out here, or post it over at SPI. I really do not want to charged with forum shopping. What do think, is it possible this stuff to be ducky, or perhaps no evidence at all, or is it excellent evidence that ties a possible master sock puppeteer over six different section section block log reports above right back to the OP of this ani? 5-6 indeffings over a 2 year period? Who knows? I ask anyone of you that may be able to apply a WP:BOOMERRANG to @Joseph2302 He really should not be allowed to be indefeed five or 6 times over a roughly two year period, and still to continue disrupting Wikipedia like has been serially for a lenghthy time. I do await further info or discussion from everyone. I am preparing to gather all info possible for the pending ARBCOM presentation. Joseph2303 should be blocked indeff again for is it 6 or 7th time? Should Joseph2302 be wilipedia banned altogether? Shoup Joseph2302 be deemed a WP:LTA? oR should he just get off scot free and allowed to to continue down the road to ARBCOM to let them decide? Who knows? Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 03:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC) There's about a million things wrong with this theory, I'll point out the main ones. Firstly, I've only been on Wikipedia since December, Gabucho has been around for 2 years. Secondly, all the IPs involved locate to Bogota, Columbia, and I live in England. Thirdly, all of the accounts mentioned above were created to attack me, in a similar style to many other socks created by that user to attack other users. The reason I end up reporting them so often is that they often frequent the same pages with some fake cartoon history, or vandalising cartoons they don't like. As I've already said, I endorse the use of CU to check my identity. As you asked, the accounts I created which led to my 72 hour block were User:KingZogKingZog and User:KingZogKingZogKingZog- no other accounts (except for my IP address, which I'm not going to reveal, as I don't want to out myself). But seriously, like all your interactions with me, you're completely wrong about me. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC) Looks like they've started a SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gabucho181. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC) propose 48 hour block on WordSeventeen The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. support as proposer. Behavior here at ANI is reason enough. Editor needs to cool down and come back focused on building content. Jytdog (talk) 04:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC) Oppose 48 hours is not long enough. They've been harassing me for 4-5 days now, and other people for longer than that. Plus this invented SPI is a massive personal attack. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC) 48 hours is not enough, WordSeventeen needs at least a month for his lying, disruption, and hounding in this AN/I alone.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 10:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Propose a one year block from editing on Joseph2302 Support as proposer. Every single character in this ani is a great more reason than should ever be needed. joseph2302 the OP was not truthful in his postings here at this ani, and since some of his posts here were untruthful as well as misleading. Such as he was just trying to "test security" at wikipedia by setting up a couple of vandalism only accounts.Every one has asked all day for proof, diffs, and evidence, I provided all three, and some poster insinuated that I was making my defenses against all of josephs baseless allegations here, then said I was disruptive by participating in the discussion. Defending ones self is always proper in an ani, and if the OP's hands are not clean he is also put under scrutiny, and will receive any sanction any administer may wish to impose upon him Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 05:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC) Boomerang How about a 1-year block for WordSeventeen for continued harassment and personal attacks. I was initially leaning towards a much shorter block, however they continue to attack me by calling me a sockpuppet, with no actual, sensible evidence- just because some attack accounts were created against me, they've assumed I'm the attacker. Repeated WP:NPA. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC) Support boomerang- it seems not so much hounding as harassment Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 10:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC) Support boomerang I've been following this ANI thread closely for quite a while. I've seen a lot of evidence against Word17 combined with the refusal by Word17 to acknowledge and apologize for their mistakes and behavior, but the fact that he has even had the audacity to propose a one year block for Joseph2302 is quite disturbing. I would have found a two month block for Word17 acceptable before this post, but now I realize there is little hope for a change of his behavior in the long-term. I propose a one year if-not-longer boomerang with the removal of both reviewer and rollback rights on the grounds of Word17's grossly uncivil behavior, gaming of the system, false accusations, and all around poor conduct as documented in the thread above. He has been acting in direct violation of Wikipedia's pillars and core principles and the bottom line is that harassment of some of Wikipedia's best new editors is not acceptable. Winner 42 Talk to me! 11:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC) Secondary Boomerang I would also request that Word17 be removed from the list of AfC participants for a general lack of civility and understanding of policy. New-comers to Wikipedia should not have to deal with the behavior of editors such as him. Winner 42 Talk to me! 13:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC) Support Boomerang I too initially asked for a two month block, but by WordSeventeen's lack of respect for others with downright lying and disruption at this AN/I alone, he deserves a year long ban and to be stripped of his reviewer and rollback rights.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 12:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC) Could someone who has been following this please clean it up? Seriously, I cannot make heads or tails out of any of this. John from Idegon (talk) 06:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC) @John from Idegon: The situation has become quite disorganized as WordSeventeen has done their best to obfuscate the process here at ANI. The dispute appears to have originally started when Joseph2302 put Cody Sipe and Daniel M. Ritchie, two articles created by paid editors, up for deletion under G11 and G11/A7 respectively both of which Word17 declined [60][61]. Joesph then nominated both pages under AfD (both of which look like they will be deleted at the end of the seven days) and removed BLP violations from the articles [62] [63][64][65]. This dispute then spilled over to Word17's talk page where Word17 asks Joesph to revert his removal of the BLP violations [66] and Joesph complied in good faith [67]. Black Kite later came and removed the BLP violations again, because they were BLP violations [68]. So far this is all a fairly normal Wikipedia dispute, but Word17's next actions crossed way over the line. He begins assuming bad faith on the part of Joesph, implying that he is incompetent [69], claiming that he is uncivil [70] and when asked for clarification [71] Word17 templates him again [72]. Word17 goes on to follow Joesph to James Rhodes (pianist) and begins removing sourced content from the article under the guise that it is a BLP violation which it is clearly not[73]. He then becomes involved in a dispute with 131.191.80.213 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) breaking 3RR by making 4 reverts in a 24 hour period[74] and abusing the BLP policy. Consensus was reached at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#James_Rhodes that the edits were not BLP violations and therefore are not covered under the BLP violation 3RR exception. Word17 then begins going through articles that Joesph has created and proposing them for inappropriate mergers.[75] Joesph then brings the issue to ANI as this is a case of harassment, but Word17 does their best to disrupt the discussion including removing the discussion about harassment from ANI completely![76] He mucks around with the title and content of the discussion before beginning to post bizarre accusations against Joesph. Including lying about him being blocked and abusing sockpuppets. I could go on, but it seems that Word17 got a 1 month block in the name of sanity for opening false SPI. Winner 42 Talk to me! 13:49, 28 May 2015 (UTC) I have much admiration for the stamina of those who are trying to deal with the disruptive practices of WordSeventeen. I don't have that stamina and have no desire at this point to continue being involved with Wikipedia, if people like WordSeventeen are allowed to continue with such disruptive behaviors. I am a much stronger and clearer writer than WordSeventeen; there is much I could have contributed. What happened over at the James Rhodes page began with WordSeventeen claiming a "blatant" BLP violation when indeed, there was none. He then removed a paragraph I had spent extensive time researching and for which both primary and non-primary sources were included. Details of that are at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#James_Rhodes, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:131.191.80.213_reported_by_User:Tgeairn_.28Result:_Protected_by_CambridgeBayWeather.29, and on the talk page of James Rhodes. His claim of a violation was an abuse of BLP policy. On the talk page, he was unable to articulate in anything approaching a clear manner how the BLP policy was being violated. I suggest people read the reasons he gave on the talk page; they indicate a gross misunderstanding of the UK Court system and he was unwilling or engage in a serious, well-reasoned discussion (the talk page provides evidence of his disruptive editing practices). Other editors finally suggested at least one more non-primary source needed to be added to the removed paragraph and then it would be acceptable; however, once I included that additional source and reinstated the paragraph, another editor then removed it. On the talk page, I justified my inclusion of a primary source and I will point out, the paragraph WordSeventeen removed HAD a non-primary source. (I will suggest that people should pay attention to whether there is a pattern of certain editors always backing other editors, in other words, are they acting in a gang-like fashion.) What I saw to be WordSeventeen's behavioral pattern on that incident was to (1) (deceptively and wrongly) claim a BLP violation then (2) fail to articulate in any clear manner his reasons for the objections. (Quite frankly, the only alternative explanation is he is incapable of reading and understanding the very Wikipedia policies he appeals to.) I saw no evidence of his engaging in a good-faith discussion. His statements were unclear, difficult to follow, and quite frankly, never justified his actions. His actions on that incident clearly indicate an intent to be disruptive. He has also developed a good ability to game the system: since his actions are so ludicrous, any reasonable person is not going to agree with his removal of the material and may revert his changes multiple times (as I did, unaware of limitations on that at Wikipedia; indeed, I didn't even know about noticeboards until I started looking around trying to figure out what BLP was and then, how to appeal his actions at some higher level. Somehow I was able to quickly comprehend BLP policy while WordSeventeen, who has edited for months, still has not, as he blatantly misapplied it on the James Rhodes page.). His behavior can also be bully-like. He threatens you if you do not agree with him (and here, too, he also games the Wikipedia policies by using them inappropriately to attack and silence someone who disagrees with him. On the James Rhodes talk page, he also engaged in personal attack against me, which I pointed out in that discussion. Now, multiple people on this page have spent extensive amounts of time providing evidence showing he has a pattern of disruptive editing and to stop him. It is ridiculous that so much time has been spent by multiple people. Meanwhile, WordSeventeen continues to be disruptive right on this page by removing material and pasting in unclear and extensive rants and other claims. The fact that this discussion has gone on so long is a sign that Wikipedia's policies err far too much on the side of allowing disruptive editors to continue. I'll leave you to it. I greatly admire the work that some editors do to ensure clear writing and strong sources for claims on Wikipedia. I admire those who can continue to participate in a virtual world where so much time is wasted on something like this, but cannot fathom how you do it. I suggest Wikipedia's policies need to be tightened to prevent such a waste of good editors' time. I simply cannot waste my time in an environment which leads to such a huge waste of time to get rid of a disruptive editor. In almost any job situation (including volunteer), WordSeventeen would be fired by now. 131.191.80.213 (talk) 09:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)131.191.80.213 (talk) 09:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Additional proposal for WordSeventeen

This is just a proposal that was originally an opinion. We're all aware of WordSeventeen's bogus editing and claims. As recently, they were unable to cooperate with others, harass editors, being uncivil, and edit disruptively. I propose that WordSeventeen's Pending Changes Reviewer and Rollback rights be removed. They have only been on Wikipedia for 11 months, and it seems they still need to learn how to be proper on Wikipedia before retrieving those user rights again. No person, with any kind of user rights, should be acting this way as WordSeventeen did. They were granted the user rights too early. Callmemirela (Talk) 20:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I've revoked WordSeventeen's PC reviewer and rollback permissions based on his behavior here. KrakatoaKatie 07:06, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Question about this @KrakatoaKatie: WordSeventeen still has userboxes on their User page indicating "reviewer" and "rollback" permissions – should those be removed? If so, can any editor do it, or should only an Admin do that? (I don't want to run afoul of WP:NOBAN here...) --IJBall (talk) 00:25, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Didn't even think about the user page. I've removed the topicons and the userboxen. KrakatoaKatie 00:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Comment Garbling at Talk:Eurovision Song Contest

The following discussion is closed. 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:Wesley Mouse insists on garbling my comments (example) because he thinks they are libelous. Please comment.-79.223.26.113 (talk) 14:48, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I have asked the IP to kindly remove, redact, or rephrase offending comments that are aimed at my personality. I have reminded the IP that we are suppose to discuss content not cast our personal opinion on editors in a demeanour that may tarnish an editor's personality. The IP has point-blank refused to act upon the comments that I have pointed out to be deeply offending, and has repetitively told me to "feel free to engage" and to "stop wasting time". The one wasting time is the IP who is failing to comply with a courteous request. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 15:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually the comments you removed were aimed at your position. It is not a personal attack to say you hold a position on a subject which can be readily seen from your talkpage comments. It is permissable to remove personal attacks. It is not permissable to alter other's comments because you dont like how they portray you. Also all I see from that page is you arguing against consensus using, what can best be described as, rubbish and/or synthesis. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The comments you redacted were in no way personal attacks and you should not have touched them. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked 24 hours for 3RR violations on Talk:Eurovision Song Contest. The multiple reversions are not justified here. You should have sought Admin help before it went that far.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

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

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

---

(EC) Seems overly harsh to block the IP whose comments were being altered. Granted a lot of reversions but a)their comments were being altered out of process and b)blocks preventative not punitive - once Wes has been blocked there would be no need for further reversions as the cause of the disruption will have been removed. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Additionally - reverting vandalism is an exemption to 3RR, and the definitions of 'Vandalism' under 'talk page vandalism' states 'illegitamately altering others talk page comments'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Neither of the editors were justified by 3RR exemptions. 3RR is policy and TPO is a guideline and the block is preventative and not punitive. Both appeals were subsequently declined by another admin. There was no vandalism here. I'm happy to let others review and discuss however.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

However Vandalism is policy. "Illegitimately deleting or editing other users' comments." Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The key word there is "Illegitimately". That word is defined by context in the rest of the Vandalism policy, where illegitimate clearly means "with intent to harm or disrupt for its own sake". Unless the intent is disruption for disruption's sake, it is not vandalism. It may be disruptive, but not all actions that have a disruptive effect are vandalism. Only those actions with a deliberate intent to harm Wikipedia are considered vandalism. As long as the user believes their actions to earnestly be allowed by policy, or to be beneficial to Wikipedia, it isn't vandalism. It may be blockable for other reasons, so don't get me wrong there, but on the narrow question of if it is vandalism, no it isn't. --Jayron32 16:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

That is not what the policy says. 'Defined by context in the rest of the vandalism policy' is opinionated guff. It clearly states illegitimate deleting or editing. It does not say 'illegitimate where illegitimate means whatever admin decides it means at the time'. Either Wesley's altering of others comments was legitimate, or it wasnt. There is no 'well it wasnt legitimate but its not illegimate *enough*'. The policy is clearly worded with no ambiguity. So either you agree Wesley was wrongly editing anothers comments, which is vandalism by the definition of the vandalism policy, or you dont agree with the policy as it is written. And even then its ridiculous to block *after* the person whose comments were being altered has brought it to this board for attention. A simple 'Stop edit warring while its discussed' would have been sufficient. Its pure punitive. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

There may be reasons to block or sanction him for the removal of such comments, but WP:VANDALISM is not that rationale. Vandalism is, can only be, has only ever been, and will only ever be actions taken with deliberate intent to harm Wikipedia. There are a thousand ways to get blocked. Vandalism is only one, but calling things vandalism that are not vandalism is not appropriate. Again, it doesn't mean that a person can't be blocked for doing something else wrong (and saying that specifically in this case doesn't mean that this person should. And saying that doesn't mean they shouldn't be). It just means that it wouldn't be vandalism they are blocked for. Use the word correctly please. --Jayron32 01:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

That is an amazing pile of lawyering just to justify a block against an editor that came here for help. I hope you apply that level of scrutiny every time someone is blocked for vandalism. (Yup, it's me, IP changed, can't help it.)-91.10.62.211 (talk) 22:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

An unblock request based on an understanding to not engage in further edit warring would hopefully have been granted. The request that was actually made instead wikilawyered over the reversions. TPO should probably be tightened. In almost every dispute I see here about someone reverting a talkpage comment, we would have been better off without the reversion and the accompanying drama. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 05:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

See above if you want to see wikilawyering. It's a bit cheap to use the phrase after the mountain of lawyering piled up here.

I merely pointed out in my unblock request that the changes in question deserved to be reverted, and thus reverting them does not violate 3RR. Do you disagree? Do you think Wesley's changes are legitimate?

The changes constituted vandalism according to WP:Vandalism ("Illegitimately deleting or editing other users' comments"). That's policy. Reverting vandalism does not violate 3RR. That's policy. It's really that simple.-91.10.62.211 (talk) 14:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

You are now wikilawyering about what vandalism is. Wesley's edits were unsatisfactory but I don't see them as intending to harm the encylopedia on purpose, which is the essence of vandalism. Your reverts did violate 3RR as observable through your having gotten blocked for them and the block being upheld. Better would have been for you to have stopped reverting after the first revert, discussed the issue with Wesley on his talk page and/or the article talk page, and sought outside help if you weren't able to resolve the issue that way. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 16:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

"You are now wikilawyering about what vandalism is." - Bullshit, I'm just saying that we are allowed to revert vandalism. That's it.

"Wesley's edits were unsatisfactory but I don't see them as intending to harm the encylopedia on purpose, which is the essence of vandalism." - You don't, WP:Vandalism does. WP:Vandalism is policy.

"Your reverts did violate 3RR as observable through your having gotten blocked for them and the block being upheld." - So, the fact that I was blocked is reason enough that the block is valid. Wow, that is really scrapping the barrel. BTW, I was (quite possibly) not unblocked because I was not versed enough in the ways of wikilawyering.

"Better would have been for you to have stopped reverting after the first revert, discussed the issue with Wesley on his talk page and/or the article talk page" - With this Wesley? "Piss off you little twerp." You obviously know nothing about what was going on, so please read a bit of the history before you continue.

"sought outside help if you weren't able to resolve the issue that way." - Like, Third Opinion, RFC or ANI? I did all that. At least I wasn't blocked for contacting 3O and RFC.-91.10.62.211 (talk) 19:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• These were 24 hour blocks that were imposed almost 2 days ago. They expired yesterday.Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Possible Sockpuppetry at Talk:Mair TV

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

---

Can we get a few extra eyes over at Talk:Mair TV? I'm worried we might have a case of sockpuppetry on our hands. I think User:Jonnybrown333, User:MTV772, and User:86.173.222.227 might be the same person. Weegeerunner (talk) 18:01, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Mair TV and its talk page are deleted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Links:

• Jonnybrown333 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MTV772 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 86.173.222.227 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Follow-up: OK, so the top account and the IP have no contribs outside of the deleted article. That leaves just MTV772... --IJBall (talk) 21:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: User:MTV772 is currently blocked for 24 hours for making a string of rubbish pages, seemingly about employees of that organisation. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Threat of violence

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

---

I've received threat of violence against me, [77] [78] and would like to ask that action be taken against this editor. (accordance with WP:Violence) also requesting administrator to delete the revision from my talk history. BTW User:Mywikieditbh had made threats in the Hindi/Urdu, you can ask the editors/administrators from India.-- shivam (t) 09:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't speak Hindi/Urdu enough to know what's being said in those edits, but obviously threats of violence are unacceptable and grounds for an immediate block. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC).

Just pinged | Shyam who was listed on the Hindi embassy , for assistance KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 13:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I have notified Mywikieditbh (talk · contribs) about this discussion. 220 of ^Borg 13:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Shyam is inactive.-- shivam (t) 13:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Blocked. I may not be fluent, but I recognise words like "bhenchod" well enough. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Articles for creation/Redirects broken

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

---

Attempts at creating a new redirect are not working. I have attempted to create a new entry at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects twice, but it is not working. The new redirect request is appearing in the contents list at the top of the page, but the request itself is not appearing at the bottom. 86.153.135.110 (talk) 11:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed Someone had reviewed a request and not added {{afc-c|b}} to the bottom of it. This had the effect of hiding all the requests below it. Your request is there twice, but was hidden-I'll remove one of them. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

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

IP GAN

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

---

• 96.48.57.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Talk:Shetland sheep/GA1 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

An Ip editor has started a GA review on shetland sheep. This editor has no experience apart from one vandalism edit. Also on the page it says "Could reviewed with less "dick-ish" attitude". Not quite sure this is constructive or even good english. TheMagikCow (talk) 14:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

IPs are often dynamically assigned; the days of "one IP= one desktop computer = one person" are basically the internet equivalent of still owning a landline phone: it happens, but certainly should no longer be the default assumption. Without regard for whether or not the person behaved appropriately in that one edit, we cannot make any assumptions about the person using any particular IP address at any one time, because IP addresses are rarely static anymore. --Jayron32 15:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok point taken but his only other apparent edit was one of vandalism, not nice either. Also, see Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations/Instructions lead section in bold. Ips are not allowed to review GAs. TheMagikCow (talk) 15:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I think all we have to do here is close/archive the GAN, and inform the IP that they need to be a registered editor in order to do a GAN (and after, experience with Wikipedia is probably preferred too.) I think that about covers it unless/until the IP was to continually try to re-open it. Sergecross73 msg me 17:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

The GA review looked like vandalism, and was against the instructions anyhow, so I have deleted the review per CSD G3 and rolled the talk page back, so it should appear back on the queue. Sometimes the GA bot trips up and delivers a "your GA review failed" message to the nominator, but hopefully what I've done here should stop that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:15, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

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

User Redleafjumper COI

The following discussion is closed. 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,

This is a discussion with regard to Redleafjumper on his edit on National Firearms Association ([79]) which I believed to lack neutrality and reflect copyright infringement. He insists that the previous content are "inflammatory and incorrect" and his edits ", which are accurate and verifiable, have been placed there to provide a much more balanced picture." During the discussion, he also voluntarily admit that he is Sheldon Clare, Present of NFA ([80]), i.e. the organisation concerned and thus has conflict of interest.

As there are a good number of issues concerned in this case (COI, neutrality, copyright infringement), I thought this issue can be better resolved here. Any help would be much appreciated.

Thanks, — Andrew Y _talk 21:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

The editor has been notified of the concern, and the edit reverted. What else do you suggest be done at this point? DES ^(talk) 23:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I suspect that the account is a way for user:50.99.229.19 to evade the enacted block for evasion. I would argue that an SPI with check user should be opened. 208.81.212.222 (talk) 01:49, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Case opened at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Redleafjumper. I have not requested a check user at this stage because I am unable to fully justify the use myself but I trust that SPI clerk would request that if needed. If the two accounts are linked then this may support a stronger action against both accounts? — Andrew Y _talk 08:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Second opinion on misc ref desk question title.

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

---

This is my first AN:I EVER. So go easy. Hope some neutrality exists here.

Basically, I created a question titled "Black Murders" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#Black_Murders

There is no racist subject in the question, it was merely a request for data and statistics. Yet two editors (medeis and andythegrump) keep fiddling with the title without any due process whatsoever apart from their 'opinion'. Can someone here lock the title or tell them to refrain from mangling my questions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#Conviction_and_sentencing_rates_by_race — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.140.226 (talk) 23:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I would like to add that I would at the very least expect an apology from both editors and reassurance that this won't happen again (including threats to have me blocked) 82.28.140.226 (talk) 23:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Involved. Neither Medeis nor Andy have bothered trying to talk to the OP, and after Medeis's Bold change of the title was Reverted by the IP she simply reverted to her version with no attempt at discussion. Andy then picked up the stick, and threw in an edit-notice threat of asking for a block - still without talking to the OP. I got pretty fed up with this behaviour and jumped in with a few reverts too, so I suppose I'm out of order on BRD too. It is an interesting question that the OP asked - I wouldn't have given it that title myself, but I don't think it's anything worth getting anybody's knickers in a twist about. DuncanHill (talk) 23:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• Reference desk (and all) section titles are supposed to be neutrally worded and informative. I find "black murderers" patently and personally offensive, not to mention obviously inflammtory as has been mentioned in the thread itself. There's no requirement that we discuss this issue with an IP or get his permission to change it to a meaningful title such as "Conviction_and_sentencing_rates_by_race". Frankly, it's quite obvious this whole thing is a deliberate provocation by an IP editor with a six-day edit history filing an ANI like a seasoned pro. μηδείς (talk) 23:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

See also the IP user's immediate revert of this edit by Gazhiley, calling them a troll in the IP's edit summary. The user is not here to build an encyclopedia. μηδείς (talk) 23:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• So new editors who find ANI are to be assumed to be guilty of something? Maybe we should have an editnotice telling them not to come here. And the only comment other than mine, up to now, was one from someone falsely claiming that the question wasn't a request for information when it patently was. DuncanHill (talk) 23:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

  And Medeis - the IP's revert was NOT immediate, so stop lying. DuncanHill (talk) 23:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

  The question was factual, has already (thanks to me) received some informative answer - both links to WP articles, and to external resources, so seems to me to be exactly what the RefDesks are for. As for "not being here to build an encyclopaedia, if I were Medeis I wouldn't try playing that card. DuncanHill (talk) 23:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

All of the titles are of debatable quality but the real issue here seems to be edit-warring today, over the title to this section. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Per Liz's observation, at the moment it bears all of the hallmarks of an awkward attempt at finding a WP:COMMONNAME for the article. The choice of WP:TITLE strikes me as being a somewhat pejorative piece of WP:OR. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The problem here is that a number of editors are attempting to find neutral section titles (as required) and a couple of editors are putting roadblocks in their path by reverting everything but the original title, which was most certainly not neutral. I suggest that those editors doing the reverting be sanctioned with appropriate blocks for disruptive editing, so that some other title, neutral in nature, can be used. BMK (talk) 00:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Yup. That and feeding an obvious troll... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:15, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• Would anyone care to say why they see the original title as "not neutral" or "obvious trolling"? The question is about black murderers, and how they are treated in the USA in comparison to white murderers. No-one has yet given any reason for finding the title unacceptable. DuncanHill (talk) 16:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of censorship, the IP in question did some censoring of his own before posting that question.[81] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The IP who posted the deleted response was blocked for 6 months for "persistent disruptive editing". I think in a case like that deleting their posts is fair, particularly in a case like that where it added nothing (I think it was clear in the context of the thread that Medies was referring to in general, not to each other) regardless of whether it may not have been that disruptive. However I'm not sure the removal was intentional any way. It looks to me much more like a mediawiki or wikimedia glitch killed the most recent post. Nil Einne (talk) 16:08, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

That was an obvious Wikimedia glitch. DuncanHill (talk) 16:39, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

See further diffs by the IP/OP:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReference_desk%2FMiscellaneous&type=revision&diff=664584930&oldid=664584844

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReference_desk%2FMiscellaneous&type=revision&diff=664594885&oldid=664594152

These are racial trolling. Recommend a block Robert McClenon (talk) 20:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

You are POV pushing here and suffering confirmation bias. As for troll calling on me here, you are contradicting yourself. A mis-type now becomes overwhelming proof that I am racist. Please get over yourself. Call a duck a duck if it is one. Don't call a Dove one, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.140.226 (talk) 21:04, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Zackmann08 Making Several Disruptive Edits

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

---

I just warned Zachmann08 for making a disruptive blanking edit to Kalamazoo Department of Public Safety which he promptly deleted. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kalamazoo_Department_of_Public_Safety&diff=prev&oldid=664478302

I have also noticed several other warnings from other users on his page as well for similar things. This user seems to be making several disruptive edits and possible in need of some intervention. Zlassiter (talk) 23:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I see no evidence of blanking by Zachmann. He removed an addition made by the OP referenced to YouTube properly which the OP replaced. IMO his nomination of the article in question for deletion was somewhat in bad faith, and he has some CIR issues but this can be closed. Reporter needs to know Zach can blank his talk page and as long as it doesn't turn into a revert war, there was no harm or ill will in his revert. John from Idegon (talk) 23:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I would like to point out that Zlassiter simply copied and pasted warnings seen on other pages and placed that at the top of my user page. No attempt was ever made to initiate a dialogue. I reverted a SINGLE edit by this particular user because I felt that it violated WP:YOUTUBE. The use disagreed and reverted my revert. Not one to engage in an WP:EDITWAR I left the issue and moved on. John from Idegon did recently help me understand some of the mistakes that I am making. I do however think it is absurd that Zlassiter who has less than 20 edits (most of which were his attempt to report me as needing intervention from an admin), feels the need to report my edits. I have been editing on here for years. To be clear, that doesn't mean I can do what I want! Of course it doesn't. My point is start a dialogue! If you have an issue with me, talk to me. Don't just jump to reporting someone and don't start editing and have your 6th EVER edit on Wikipedia be to warn a user with over 7,000 edits. If any admins have any feedback for me on things I can do better, PLEASE let me know! I welcome any and all feedback. --Zackmann08 (talk) 00:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Zackmann08. You want a very helpful suggestion? Drop it, like a hot rock. The OP here is a very new user, but has done nothing terribly wrong. Copy and paste is how you apply templates if you don't use twinkle or huggle or sticki or any of the other aids available. There is something at these dramaboards however called boomerang. Your conduct today is not beyond reproach. I tried to make this go away. You would be best served by letting it do that. John from Idegon (talk) 01:04, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Clearly not an issue for ANI - reasonable edits on both sides with no edit warring whatsoever. Zlassiter, I strongly recommend discussion with other editors before bringing an issue here. Recommending closure.--Mojo Hand (talk) 01:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Block review requested: Lindi29

The following discussion is closed. 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 request review for my block of Lindi29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 00:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Having looked through the contributor's history, I don't see any basis for their request to be reviewed in earnest. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: thank you for your opinion.

Some back story for everyone:

• This user has previously been blocked for violating 1RR on the same article, and stated he didn't understand the block on that occasion.
• To assume good faith: the user may have been protecting the article from poorly sourced revisions by at least one newish user (explained below). Thus s/he could have broken 1RR on a technicality because the community would have decided that the original edits were inappropriate.

The page has a consensus for what constitutes a valid source, which is different than the rest of Wikipedia due to the fact foreign reporters are not allowed in the country and there is little to no unbiased coverage of the dispute from parties on the ground. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 01:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Reverting due to the value of sources isn't an exception (cf. WP:3RRNO) so they are still in violation of the 1RR. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I've also looked and the block seems fair. I might be persuaded to remove it by a well written unblock request, but the one that's there doesn't even get close to what we'd need to see. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:21, 29 May 2015 (UTC).

Not so sure - the first revert was to remove twitter which is not a reliable source, so that's fine. The second revert doesn't look like a revert. I'd say the block would need to be reversed. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 15:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

You're also overlooking the reason for the block, KoshVorlon. We're not discussing the merits of the revert in question, but the fact that 1RR was breached, and that Lindi29 continues to approach it as being an WP:IDONTUNDERSTANDIT issue. The user has enough experience in editing controversial articles, and content pertaining to these articles, and was made fully aware of the sensitivity of the area (i.e., templated regarding sanctions) some time ago. I'm not going to engage in parsing the nature of the user's contributions as we've had a couple of neutral admins weighing in on evaluating the merits of Magog the Ogre's block after s/he had the courtesy to bring the issue to this board. The decision has been upheld therefore, in as far as pursuing the matter further, this section should be closed. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Aerotoxic syndrome

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

---

Aerotoxic syndrome was protected a few weeks ago due to an ip editor continually adding content that fails MEDRS and refusing to discuss on the talk page. The page protection has expired, and the ip editor is re-adding the same bad content again against consensus and without discussing. --sciencewatcher (talk) 17:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

PS sorry I don't have time to supply edit logs, but if you look at the edit history you'll see pretty quickly the issue. --sciencewatcher (talk) 17:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

But the admins at WP:ANI will ask for diffs. Your report is likely to be ignored unless you provide diffs. That's just the way it is. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

You -can- report it here if you like, but WP:RFPP is generally where you would request protection. They might also ask for diffs. Tutelary (talk) 17:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

(ec) I remember this case, and have gone ahead and protected the article for another month. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:49, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Diannaa. Drmies (talk) 18:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Sockpuppet enquiry

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

---

I have submitted a SPI request at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RebeccaTheAwesomeXD, although I'm not sure if I have done it correctly - its the first time I've ever done one. But anyway, if an admin could please have a look as it is a clear quacking case.

RebeccaTheAwesomeXD (talk · contribs) was blocked on 4 occasions for violation of a WP:NEWBLPBAN sanction, the latest being for 3 months. Now she has returned under the name RebeccaTheMegaAwesome (talk · contribs) and editing the same line of articles, including the creation of a BLP article. Anyone fancy going duck shooting? lol Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 20:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I have formatted the SPI information to comply to {{SPI report}}, however, I would suggest you supply evidence in the form of diffs, as SPI clerks and admins are not expected to make your argument for you. -- Orduin ^Discuss 21:10, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@Orduin: I will happily supply diffs, if someone could point me in the direction of what types of diffs they require? Evidence of editing patterns, or the diff to show they are on the WP:NEWBLPBAN list; or even diffs showing each of their blocks, with the current 3-month block still active. However, the names alone are a clear looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck case. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 21:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd agree with you on the quacking going on, but at least some editing patterns would suffice. The rest is simple to check. -- Orduin ^Discuss 21:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@Orduin: Both accounts have been indef blocked by CT Cooper. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 21:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Repeated personal attacks for days and now threats

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

---

Reporting User:JackTheVicar for continued personal attacks over the last few days; the attacks have now evolved into threats of WP:BOOMERANG via his canvassing of other editors he feels will come out in force against me if I report him.

• Starting backwards chronologically, the latest diff and example of his attacks and threatening comments are found here: [82] "I appeared hear to ask Bbb23 to intervene because of his familiarity with your AN 3RR issue, and I value Bbb23's fairness and approach (although we've never interacted, I've observed Bbb23's input on other matters). If you want to bring a report, go right ahead, I've already talked to 10 other users who are ready to discuss your disruptive and unproductive behavior, most you've crossed during the last few days. There are a lot of people who like me. Again, I advise you to heed WP:BOOMERANG." Also here [83] "If you want to file a report go ahead, just be prepared for WP:BOOMERANG since (a) you're a difficult editor to deal with (b) you don't have clean hands and (c) you're not liked by several of the editors on the pages I've run into you on who also have had difficulty with you." Aside from the tone of his comments, I find it incredibly disturbing and absolutely against policy that he would canvass editors to see to it that I receive a boomerang for reporting him. What's more, somehow, he believes that because these unnamed 10 editors like him and don't like me, administrators and others therefore will support and applaud any boomerang I might receive.

• The personal attacks toward me from this editor began at the talk page of the John Forbes Nash, Jr. article during a content dispute (a dispute that was worked out, by the way). "You've wasted my time. I look forward to seeing what other users have to add to any consensus that emerges and hope you don't harangue them with uncalled-for aspersions of "ridiculous" and "silliness" as you have directed at me just because I had the audacity to disagree with you." Kinda of benign, and I really didn't think much of it, until he did this: [84] The talk page section header read "user:winklevi has an ownership issue with this article" with the comments in the section reading "As above. Apparently constructive edits get reverted by the obsessive overlord. Great way to drive editors away." My response, because it was a total personal attack that discussed nothing in regard to improving the article, was to remove the comments [85]. The edit summary I left was "Removing insults and personal attack per wp:talk...you are welcome to discuss w/npa." He immediately reverted and added more personal attacks [86]. At that point, I placed appropriate NPA warnings on his talk page. He removed them, but not without adding this to an edit summary [87]: "get off my talk page you obsessive article-owning harassing weirdo. do not post here again."

• At this point, he began commenting pretty much everywhere I did, using more personal attacks and a rude tone. I decided to try and reason with him regarding his continued attacks (as it was obvious he wasn't going to heed templated warnings) with this: [88], [89], [90]. Examples of his comments are here [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99]. This was the second to the last one from him for the day: [100] "WV, go away for 24 hours like you offered, spare us your nonsensical obstruction, and you'll come back and find the grownups will have a respectable conversation without you. Your obstructionist behavior is noisome."

• Because his comments only became increasingly rude and insulting, I decided to ignore him completely. Then he started hounding me in order to continue his personal attacks and rude/unconstructive comments. He shows up out of the blue at an editor's talk page where he has never edited previously: [101], [102]. Then at an AfD I started with more attacks: [103], [104].

• The last comment from him at the AfD was the last straw for me today, and I placed another warning on his talk page. His response was this [105] and this (after the final templated warning) [106]. I do recognize that talk page etiquette is to stay off a user's talk page after they have asked you to no longer post there. That said, because I knew I would be filing a report later on when I had time to collect diffs, etc., I weighed the question of whether I should put the warning template there because I need to notify editors adequately before filing a report against not doing it because he demanded (rudely in edit summaries) that I not post there. As a result, I decided to err on the side of caution lest I be told any report I would file at a noticeboard was premature or out of line because I had not adequately warned him. It is my understanding that even when an editor has asked another editor to stay off their talk page, it is acceptable practice to place warning templates when necessary.

I recognize fully that I am a very flawed editor, that there are editors who do not like me, and that I have made my share of mistakes in Wikipedia over the three years I have been here. Yes, I have received four blocks and had a report filed against me a few days ago at 3RR. I realize that I could be flogged here severely and receive a boomerang action because of this report. But even so, it just doesn't seem right to me that with all of the written abuse I have received from JackTheVicar over the last four days it should not be reported and brought to light. Especially with the addition of his threats and canvassing/staking out editors he believes will support him and come out against me in whatever report I would file against him. I'm not seeking a sanction or block against JTV, I just want the abuse to stop. It's been over the top -- to me it seems out of control and just so unnecessary. Beyond that, from the escalation of it all, it seems he has no intention of stopping in his attacks, hounding, and trying to pit other editors against me and into his corner. It's just NOT appropriate or collegial behavior. Like I said, I'm not perfect, but it's my opinion that even as flawed as I am, what JTV has been engaging in against me just really isn't something I deserve. Who does deserve it? I don't think anyone does. If something isn't done this time around, how many more editors will be subjected to this? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:23, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

WV is right, nobody deserves this kind of treatment because of past misdeeds. Weegeerunner (talk) 00:33, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Jack definitely has gone too far. Sorry you've had to take all of this, Winkelvi. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:57, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I think WP:ATONED is becoming one of the more ignored civility essays, and I don't like that. Weegeerunner (talk) 02:14, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this is beyond crap. It violates WP:NPA very badly and shows no sign of stopping with WP:Harrassment, WP:Wikihounding and WP:NPA. They even blantaly admitted to WP:Canvass. I am proposing a block of or over 1 month (probably deserves a lot more). This is seriously too much to handle, and I am also sorry you had to endure this abuse. I now have added my own warning on the reported user's talk page. Let's see how the user reacts. Callmemirela (Talk) 05:00, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

meta: Bad behavior by Editor A should never be seen to justify or even mitigate bad behavior by Editor B; the two should be treated independently. But it does, and this is a good example of what results. No opinion as to behavior of Editor A in this case; I know nothing about that, and it's beside my point. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:34, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• This diffs are way beyond the line. I've blocked jack for two weeks. Kevin Gorman (talk) 14:36, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Some sort of editing restriction between Flyer22 and Bfpage

The following discussion is closed. 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 asking for some sort editing restriction between me and Bfpage. Maybe some sort of WP:Interaction ban? As for why, see this section on my talk page. As is clear at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive877#WP:Harassment by Bfpage, Bfpage has harassed me. I was clear then that I don't want to interact with Bfpage. And I've been clear since then that I don't want to interact with Bfpage. Following the aforementioned WP:ANI matter, Bfpage started adding categories to articles that I edit. In my opinion, Bfpage's category editing was mainly so that Bfpage could ease into articles that I edit. For example, in March, after Bfpage added this category to the Sexual intercourse article, an article that Bfpage knows I heavily edit, I knew that it was only a matter of time before Bfpage started editing the article. That time came today, May 29, 2015‎. Similarly, in April, after Bfpage added this category and this category to the Anal sex article, an article that Bfpage knows I heavily edit, and was reverted by MrX and EvergreenFir respectively, I knew that it was only a matter of time before Bfpage started editing the article soon afterward. As seen here, Bfpage did (in May) and I reverted Bfpage on matters. Another article that I heavily edit is the Vagina article; again, Bfpage knows that I heavily edit that article. Here is a small edit by Bfpage there. Weeks later, here is the heavier editing. Out of all the articles that Bfpage can edit, Bfpage chooses to edit three articles that I heavily edit? If a person surveys the articles Bfpage added categories to, that person should see that, given my history with Bfpage, it's odd that Bfpage chose to significantly edit articles I edit. And then there is the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 64#Tagging anatomy and sexual talk pages with Template:Reliable sources for medical articles matter involving me, SandyGeorgia and others. As seen in the aforementioned link to my talk page, I stated to Bfpage, "You know that I do not like interacting with you and yet you still choose articles that you know I heavily edit or occasionally edit, articles that you had no interest in editing until you saw that I edit them, and that includes the Child grooming article. [...] I never seek out articles that you edit, but it still remains that you seemingly try to interact with me, including by posting the #FYI section above; I would never post any such section on your talk page because I don't want to edit with you; that is clear from these recent WP:Dummy edits I made to your talk page."

Like I told Bfpage before, I never stated that Bfpage can never edit any articles that I edit or have edited, but I would prefer that we do not interact and it seems that Bfpage always seeks to have it so that we will potentially interact. After I made my latest feelings known to Bfpage on my talk page, Bfpage took to heavily editing the Sexual intercourse article, which I interpreted as Bfpage trying to get a rise out of me. By contrast, though I have briefly edited the Menopause article, I took it off my WP:Watchlist once I saw Bfpage heavily editing it and I have not bothered with it since...even though I was tempted to fix some of Bfpage's editing there. Given that we both edit in some of the same fields (seemingly because Bfpage took an interest in the fields I edit in), I don't see how a two-way WP:Interaction ban would work. It would mean that if Bfpage edits an article I heavily edit, then I can't revert Bfpage; it would also mean other things that make contesting the edit trying. And editors might see a one-way WP:Interaction ban as unfair. So maybe there is another remedy? Flyer22 (talk) 04:09, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) pages edited by Flyer22

Bfpage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) pages editted by Bfpage:GregKaye 05:31, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

pages most edited by Flyer22 to date

1076Supercouple 865Todd Manning 755One Tree Hill (TV series) 717JR Chandler and Babe Carey 716Sexual intercourse 673List of fictional supercouples 605Clitoris 602Adolescence 583Bianca Montgomery 574Avatar (2009 film) 562Anal sex 545Titanic (1997 film) 526Pedophilia 517Serial killer 486Babe Carey 477Danity Kane 451Orgasm 449Aubrey O'Day 429Vegetarianism 426Greenlee Smythe 407Bianca Montgomery and Maggie Stone 407Jennifer's Body 397Kendall Hart 394Lucas Scott 382Death of Caylee Anthony 380Sophia Bush 354Peyton Sawyer 347Lucy (2014 film) 340Physical attractiveness 331A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila 330Asexuality 311Vagina 297JR Chandler 288Virginity 281Bisexuality 252Rape 250Chad Michael Murray 248Janice Dickinson 243Josh Madden 241Jesse McCartney 237Sami Brady and EJ DiMera 237Legend of the Seeker 232Sexual orientation 232All My Children 231A Shot at Love II with Tila Tequila 229Téa Delgado 219Whitney Houston 217Megan Fox 214Tribadism 211G-spot 201Gender 191Eye color 189Ephebophilia 182Luke Snyder and Noah Mayer 182Erica Kane 179Frot 176Maggie Stone 174James Lafferty 173List of youngest birth mothers 172List of The Sword of Truth characters 171Jesse Hubbard and Angie Baxter 167Blond 166Angelina Jolie 164Supermodel 161Zach Slater and Kendall Hart 161Hilarie Burton 160James Dean 160Non-penetrative sex 158Stacey Castor 157Michael Jackson's health and appearance 155Pansexuality 152Hebephilia 152Ryan Lavery 152Star-crossed 148Chris Brown 147Alexa Havins 147Child 141Elisabeth Hasselbeck 140Tad Martin (All My Children) 139Marissa Cooper 138Reese Williams and Bianca Montgomery 137Roger Howarth 137Teen Wolf (2011 TV series) 1352009 MTV Video Music Awards 134Dixie Cooney 133Homosexuality 130Bethany Joy Lenz 126Whoopi Goldberg 124Puberty 123Adam Chandler 121Teen Mom 121Human sexual activity 121Tad Martin and Dixie Cooney 120Daryl Dixon 119Preadolescence 118Human sexuality 118Lesbian sexual practices 116Zombieland 115Zach Slater 112D. Woods

pages most edited by Bfpage to date

480Monarch butterfly migration 411Monarch butterfly 177Animal attacks 159Pelvic inflammatory disease 152Village of the Arts 129Scrotum 115Sexism 113List of microbiota species of the lower reproductive tract of women 96Monarch butterfly conservation in California 90Monarch Butterfly Biosphere Reserve 73Mycoplasma 68Danaus erippus 65Center for Food Safety 63Commercial butterfly breeding 61Menopause 61List of Telangana-related articles 58Embryonic and prenatal development of the male reproductive system in humans 53Quebec telemarketing 51Portia Li 47List of bacterial vaginosis microbiota 42She-She-She Camps 42Child grooming 41Evidence-based conservation 40Diapause 39Bacterial vaginosis 37We Players 36Sexual intercourse 31Xerces Society 30Cervical cancer 29Southwestern corn borer 29Butterfly count 29The Days (band) 28Book of Elchasai 26Ice cream 25Female sex tourism 24Arthropod 24Lepidoptera 23Invertebrate 23Mycoplasma hominis 23The Bro Code: How Contemporary Culture Creates Sexist Men 23Butterfly 22Hemolymph 22Lespesia archippivora 21Bipolar disorder 21Larval food plants of Lepidoptera 20Swallowtail butterfly 20Mycoplasma genitalium 20Vaginal flora 19Infectious causes of cancer 18Sorshe Ilish 17Sexually transmitted infection 17Prayer of Saint Francis 17Sarcophaga crassipalpis 17Ureaplasma urealyticum 17Martin Balluch 16Perineal raphe 15Gonnococcal infection 15List of oncogenic bacteria 14Chips and dip 14Pain in invertebrates 14List of environmental and conservation organizations in the United States 13Melainabacteria 13Cornelia De Bey 13Butterfly house (conservatory) 13Lepidopteran diversity 12Robert Duggan (CEO) 12Ketogenic diet 12Mycoplasma adleri 12Hazara virus 12Hong v. Facebook, Inc. 11Megisto cymela 11Atopobium vaginae 11Red hair 11Monarch (disambiguation) 10Carya ovata 10Euphydryas editha luestherae 10Cyclothymia 10Carbon sink 10Domestication 10Lack's principle 10Dongcheon High School 10Citizen science 10Gifford Pinchot 10Mycoplasma gallisepticum 9Human sexual activity 9Insect morphology 9Mycoplasma agalactiae 9Children's rights 9Invasive urothelial carcinoma 9Mycoplasma amphoriforme 9Conservation biology 9Center for Biological Diversity 9Phengaris rebeli 9Captive breeding 8West Mifflin, Pennsylvania 8350.org 8Abrenthia 8Lycorea halia 8Plant perception (physiology) 8Actias luna

• Comment, For a long time I have been consistently impressed with contributions by Flyer22, appreciate honest comment to say "I don't see how a two-way WP:Interaction ban would work and sympathise with an apparent condition of being stuck here.

Bfpage I similarly appreciate the condition in which the citation of Wikipediholism is cited on a user page. The thing that I find most perplexing is that I do not see any response from you in response to the previous ANI case in regard to harrassment. What I would like to see from you is a current acknowledgement / response to issues mentioned by way of an assurance that genuinely problematic issues will not arise in future. At this stage I have not personally gone through the previous incident report but will ping the closer of that recent report Euryalus and contributors to the report NinjaRobotPirate who claimed, "... If I took all the abuse and harassment that Flyer22 does, I'd probably have left a long time ago. ...", Flinders Petrie who said, "... This kind of behaviour from Dangerous and Bfpage is not only bizarre, it's downright scary ... and I also think that they are clear evidence of stalking. ..." and Kevin Gorman who objected "@Bfpage: - stop. Your behavior is inappropriate."

Bfpage my comments are made prior to my taking a personal look into the edits on which the previous report was based but as a general point I think that it is important to note the ideals by which Wikipedians are meant to work together. Please make comment here as to your view and response to these and previous matters raised. Also if there are issues that work both ways then you are at liberty to raise cited comment.

Above I have presented pages most edited to date listings of both editors. My inclination would be that these might be used as a basis to work out topic ban areas if this may be deemed appropriate. The presentation of a time frozen listing will also allow any report on future incident to make reference to the situation as it is at present. 06:56, 30 May 2015 Ping also Viriditas, GregKaye 07:04, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Editor Interaction Analyzer results for Flyer22 and Bfpage: [107] - 228 articles is a significant overlap. Granted, many of the article have to do with subjects related to sexuality, but less than half of them, and the fact that the remaining articles are, subject-wise, all over the map, is a very strong indicator that the overlap is not random. BMK (talk) 08:31, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Some of the article overlap is due to the fact that I use WP:STiki and I am one of the top WP:STiki users. Bfpage started using WP:STiki soon after interacting with me. See this example for one of the article overlaps. These days, it seems that Bfpage prefers WP:Twinkle over WP:STiki. Flyer22 (talk) 08:46, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• I think Flyer is being way too nice in asking for an iban here. Last time this came up I made it crystal clear to Bfpage that if he continued, he wouldn't be able to edit Wikipedia. With the totality of BfPage's actions, the previous warning, and them continuing, I have blocked BFPage for 6 months. Kevin Gorman (talk) 14:23, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Kevin Gorman, I appreciate your help on this matter. I truly do. But I was not looking for Bfpage (who identifies as female, by the way) to be blocked. And Bfpage being blocked for six months is too harsh, in my opinion. I would feel differently if I saw this latest interaction matter as a clear-cut case of WP:Hounding. Instead, I see it as Bfpage wanting to interact with me, and going about the matter subtly except for in some instances. If I press Bfpage too hard (for example, our latest interaction on my talk page), then I think Bfpage gets a little defensive and feels the need to prove something to me. I get defensive often enough on Wikipedia. Yes, Bfpage harassed me before, and recently denied having followed me around, but I've had worse harassers than Bfpage. If you look at this case (and I linked to it in the previous WP:ANI thread I started on Bfpage), which involved another editor who identifies as female, she was a very serious stalker who would email me and talk about how she found me interesting and couldn't stop following me; she didn't get blocked for that long (though she was initially indefinitely blocked); she got a stern talking to. With Bfpage, I just want it so that I barely have to interact with Bfpage. Bfpage also does good work for Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 14:51, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about the pronoun confusion - when I'm talking to a Wikipedian I don't know, I tend to assume masculine pronouns. Whenever I place a long block (with some exceptions) I end up reducing it significantly after reaching some sort of an agreement with the blockee (I'll start a conversation about that shortly.) I agree with BMK's analysis that it isn't random and is in intentional, there's evidence that it's intended to cause you grief, and BFP was explicitly warned to change her behavior previously and chose not to - so even though I'll likely reduce it quite a bit, it'll still likely be a decent length. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 14:57, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, I will go ahead state that I don't like Bfpage seemingly suggesting that I am the one who was doing the stalking. There's not a thing that can show that to be the case. If you, Bfpage, can provide links indicating that I have been doing the following, then by all means...do so. Flyer22 (talk) 15:38, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

And I mean other than when I and others reverted you on your Category:Pelvic inflamatory disease and Category:Sexually transmitted diseases and infections edits. Yes, I reverted you here and here, but I didn't need to follow you. What makes you think that those articles weren't on my WP:Watchlist? Like I recently told a problematic editor, there are articles on my WP:Watchlist that I haven't edited. And either way, briefly following you to revert a couple of your misplaced categories is not the type of following you have done with regard to me. Regarding other cases where you edited the article before I ever did, and I edited after you, it is a WP:STiki matter. The interaction tool above shows that it's usually the case that I edited the article first. Flyer22 (talk) 15:58, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• I support the 6 month block. While Bfpage does some nice work at the teahouse etc the pattern of stalking Flyer is clear. Always civil in tone and often very kind but has this very ugly stalker-y streak, especially around gender parity and sexual topics which Flyer specializes in. She's also extended the barnstar-awarding behavior to "thanking" an editor with whom i have been in a content dispute, who has been really struggling with the reality of policies and guidelines here and who is now blocked for SOAPBOXING. As far as I can see she never acknowledged that she did anything wrong in the ANI that led to her warning nor after, and she promptly posted a request to unblock after Kevin blocked her. She's got to drop the vindictive behavior. It is not just bad for the target of the behavior but also for the editors she encourages to edit badly. Jytdog (talk) 19:18, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • From the evidence in the previous ANI, she does seem to award barnstars and "thanks" at rather counterproductive times. Although six months seems a bit heavy-handed, this drama-mongering and harassment needs to stop. But I guess everyone already knows what I think. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
    • It won't end up actually being six months, Ninja, in all likelihood. If she can admit the problem and come up with a plan to avoid it in the future I'll reduce it significantly (although it'll still be a while since it's an ongoing issue that she was previously explicitly warned about.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:07, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments: Regarding what Bfpage stated here and here on the Bfpage talk page... Bfpage, you did not start heavily editing the Sexual intercourse article until after I reverted you and reiterated on my talk page that interacting with you is something that I am not interested in. It seems to me that you were trying to flame the fire. You went full force into editing the article after our interaction on my talk page, where I told you that I generally do not like how you edit. As for stating that "[you] did not check to see if the article was heavily edited by Flyer22. Why would [you]?"... You already knew that the article was heavily edited by me. You significantly analyzed my edits, and documented them on your talk page and in a special WP:Subpage; I pointed to that in the previous WP:ANI thread about you. Why do you always act so clueless about your knowledge of me and interaction with me when your edits show otherwise? And WP:STiki edits aside, there are edits that show that you clearly followed me to articles. Again, I pointed to this in the previous WP:ANI thread about you. As for stating, "In good faith, my goal was to improve the encyclopedia with good content and references. These two articles have a high readership and need maintenance to keep up with current research."... I know that these two articles -- the Vagina article and the Sexual intercourse article -- have a high readership and need maintenance to keep up with current research. And I have been maintaining them accordingly. The health content in these articles are mostly supported by up-to-date WP:MEDRS-compliant sources, and I generally use Google Books sources so that it's easier to verify; using WP:PAYWALL sources is generally not my style. I went through the health content of the Sexual intercourse article replacing outdated and/or poor health sources with better ones. And the Adolescents section is the latest section I've been meaning to add better health sources to; I already added better health sources to the beginning of that section. I would have removed the Lynn Ponton source from that first paragraph, but since Ponton is a child and adolescent psychiatrist and that source is supporting a well-known social aspect and a well-known mental health aspect, I don't see the need to. Furthermore, I (and other medical editors) have also been clear with you that newer is not always better, and that newer is commonly not necessary for anatomy articles since anatomy is generally the same as it was many years ago, except for certain cases (such as the human brain); again, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 64#Tagging anatomy and sexual talk pages with Template:Reliable sources for medical articles.

As for this, I do not identify as a feminist. NinjaRobotPirate commented on that in the previous WP:ANI thread I was involved in. I can understand why some editors would peg me as a feminist since I furiously oppose the inappropriate application of WP:Neutral that some male editors (especially men's rights editors) engage in on Wikipedia (for example, trying to make it seem at the Sexism article that sexism affects men as much as it affects women), but I've been explicitly clear on my user talk page that I do not identify as a feminist. Do I hold some views that people can validly classify as supporting feminism? Yes, but so do my brothers, who also don't identify as feminists and have a long way to go before they could be accurately described as such. Flyer22 (talk) 00:00, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

sorry about that Flyer, Bfpage was reacting to my writing "Acknowledge that you don't like Flyer22's feminism and that you wanted to add more content favorable to mens rights to articles where she worked, and that is why you did what you did and why you started following her around. " I struggled to figure out what to write for what it appears that Bfpage didn't like. "feminism" seemed to be the best term.my apologies. Jytdog (talk) 00:58, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I know that Bfpage was responding to what you stated; no need to apologize. As noted, you used the word feminism; a lot of people engage in feminism without being a feminist or at least without identifying as a feminist, as noted in the Feminism article. But since Bfpage was under the impression that I identify as a feminist, and in case others concluded that as well, I felt the need to clarify. Flyer22 (talk) 01:06, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I have to say that after reading this report and the comments/responses, looking at the evidence, and seeing the comments on Bfpage's talk page, I've never seen anything like the planned and deliberate stalking by Bfpage. In addition, neither have I seen the kind of denial, lack of personal responsibility, and manipulation exhibited by Bfpage. In my opinion, the 6 month block by Kevin Gorman is right on and appropriate. There is a degree of creepiness and dark weirdness to the whole thing from Bfpage that literally makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up. No exaggeration. If Bfpage returns in 6 months, my suggestion is a one-way interaction ban to be placed on Bfpage. Promises to stop this behavior previously were not followed through on - I see no reason why (especially with the manipulation, lack of honesty, and unwillingness to admit to her behavior I believe Bfpage is exhibiting on her talk page) the community should trust she will stay on her side of the line. I've had harassers and stalkers in the last three years I've been here, but this one takes all the cake in the creepiness bakery. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:24, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

edit conflict: Liz please consider reversing your closure. I am yet to see any clear evidence that anything has been done wrong. What I have seen is that three editors that all seem to have a vested interest in one particular area have all raised issue with one editor. I am yet to understand why. I personally find it objectionable that an editor is being denied right of reply.

This is what I was working on at the time of edit conflict:

Here is a breakdown of so called "interactions":

• Sexual intercourse (from: 05:25, March 14, 2015): F2B 15 days; B2F 23days; F2B 12 days; B2F 2hours; F2B 3mins; B2F 1min; F2B 43mins; B2F 4secs; F2B 43mins; B2F 34mins; F2B 3mins; B2F 11mins; F2B 11mins; B2F 15mins;
• Sexism (from 17:54, February 19, 2015) F2B 4hours; B2F 9 secs; F2B 1 min; B2F 11 secs; F2B 1min; B2F 55secs; F2B 2mins; B2F 59secs; F2B 3mins; B2F 14 secs; F2B 1min; B2F 15secs; F2B 22secs; B2F 5mins; F2B 12hours; B2F 2days;

I am not sure what any of the above means except that two editors share the same topics of interest. GregKaye 14:11, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I've undone the closure. But it seemed to be resolved when Bfpage received a six month block. I'm not sure the matter is still up for debate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank-you. I would appreciate seeing diffs from Kevin Gorman or anyone else of anything warranting an extent of ban. I agree with NinjaRobotPirate on the view that "this drama-mongering and harassment needs to stop". I would not be at all surprised if WP:BOOMERANG should rightly be applied. GregKaye 14:32, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Greg, the links are extensively documented above. Please check them out, especially the ANI under which Bfpage was warned - behavior that Bfpage never acknowledged. Kevin sees the pattern, I see it, Winkelvi sees it, Flyer sees it. I know it is hard to reconcile this ugly behavior with Bfpage's otherwise sweet persona, but it is there, very clearly. Jytdog (talk) 15:45, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• The links are extensively documented in this ANI and the last Ani. Her behavior isn't okay, and everyone who has looked in to it has agreed. As I've noted elsewhere, I do not intend for those to be a six month block, but to work with BFP to shorten it and put in place conditions to ensure it doesn't recur. Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:05, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• Jytdog Please demonstrate a diff that shows "ugly behavior"

Kevin Gorman Please demonstrate any "behavior" that warrants anything close to a six month ban. GregKaye 19:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Please WP:DROPTHESTICK. BMK (talk) 20:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Disruption at article talk page, canvassing

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

---

A new editor has arrived (all of his edits are from May 30) --- Catsmeow8989 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --- and is being disruptive. Please have a look at his short edit history above and advise on best way to move forward. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the edits from may 30th.Catsmeow8989 (talk) 16:08, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The usual... Bold, Revert, Discuss. Anyone can object to any claim. That does not imply disruption. I see some evidence of canvassing (nothing serious, though), but nothing indicating disruption. Kleuske (talk) 12:09, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Agreed. Assuming they are a new editor, they probably did not know any better. Admittedly the discussion should be conducted at Talk:Tea Party movement, which hopefully it will be now. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - General Health ‖ 14:21, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

The problem I have is that anyone can claim they are the "tea party" There is no evidence in my opinion to say that the Koch Brothers made the first tea party page in 2002. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catsmeow8989 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

the old introduction was there for over 9 months and it was replaced with absolute non-sense about koch brothers.Catsmeow8989 (talk) 16:12, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

There is a serious war going on this page...the whole thing needs to be reverted back to the old introduction and protected further. There is way too much disruption and political agenda going on.Catsmeow8989 (talk) 16:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

The third paragraph of the intro was this for over 9 months:

The origins of the current Tea Party movement can be traced back to circa 2007. The movement's beginnings were kick-started by Republican Congressman Dr. Ron Paul in 2007. His GOP presidential campaign received a 24-hour, record breaking, money bomb on December 16, 2007;[22] which is the 234th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party. This event directly contributed to creating a libertarian revival and divide in the Republican Party.[23][24][25] Ron Paul continues to be a prominent force in the Tea Party movement, such as endorsing Tea party candidates,[26] and also giving talks and speeches alongside prominent Tea party activist, and 2008 Vice Presidential candidate, Sarah Palin.[27][28]Catsmeow8989 (talk) 16:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Someone with political agenda changed it to the koch brothers in 2002, which is pure and utter non-sense.

In 2002, the first Tea Party movement website was designed and published by Citizens for a Sound Economy and stated "our US Tea Party is a national event, hosted continuously online and open to all Americans who feel our taxes are too high and the tax code is too complicated."[22][23][24] According to Fox News Channel commentator Juan Williams, the Tea Party movement emerged from the "ashes" of Ron Paul's 2008 presidential primary campaign.[25] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catsmeow8989 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Since this is essentially a content dispute, I would recommend closing this thread so the discussion may continue at the appropriate venue, Talk:Tea Party movement. Thank you. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Health and Welfare ‖ 16:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

This goes beyond a content dispute in my opinion, this page is being vandalized by the left. The original introduction was non-biased and already reviewed. It had a non-biased historical viewpoint imo.Catsmeow8989 (talk) 17:15, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Staszek_Lem reported by User:Samuel Williscroft

The following discussion is closed. 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 person was being considerably rude to me and an administrator, by adding words with questionable phrases, such as 'piss on the walls'.

User talk:Staszek Lem#How to do it.

He deliberately offended an administrator by saying:

@Diannaa: Yes, I've noticed that (that's why I wrote about your mentoring), but you did not advice them not to act while upset. And not to piss on the walls, and not to break toys, etc. And next time he deletes a referenced text you tell him not to delete referenced text. And when he replaces the text of article Poles with that of "Polack" you will tell them not to replace. Well, it's your personal time. I have a hobby of writing wikipedia in my free time. I may admit you have a hobby (or duty) of teaching people manners in your free time. We both have our own fun. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Samuel Williscroft (User:Samuel_Williscroft) 18:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

In reading both the included quote, and that Talk page discussion, I don't think it says what you think it says. I don't think Staszek Lem "insulted" @Diannaa: there (I am quite sure Diannaa would have said something were that the case). Nor does it seem that Staszek Lem crossed the line in to "personal attacks" there in that Talk page topic... I'm not sure there is anything "actionable" here – what exactly is it that you are looking for the Admins here at ANI to do in this case?... --IJBall (talk) 17:27, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with IJBall. The above quote is a bit snarky, but not out of line. If any one is being insulted it is you, Samuel Williscroft as Staszek Lem is implying hat you ae behjvingin poorly, perhaps even childishly, and will go on doing so. But I don't think that rises to the level of a prsonal attack either. By the way, did you notify Staszek Lem of this discussion? DES ^(talk) 17:37, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything that can be seen as blatant insults. Recommend closing this AN/I with no action.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:38, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Personal attack from AddWittyNameHere

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

---

AddWittyNameHere (talk · contribs) has committed a personal attack against me in an edit summary on Pamela Geller. I reverted an obviously POV and non-neutral edit, he reverted me and accused me of being a sockpuppet, without stating any proof. Accusing someone of being a sockpuppet with no proof is a personal attack. Therefore, I'm requesting that he be blocked. BoontonTown (talk) 17:19, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

First off, you are missing evidence of what you are reporting. Second of all, I did my own researching. You are related to 2602:306:3644:13A0:A90B:4EC5:F572:1550 (talk · contribs) and 2602:306:3644:13A0:607C:6C50:5E90:A6F6 (talk · contribs) based on the IP's history. You evaded a block by violating WP:3RR and committed WP:Sockpuppetry by creating an account and resumed edit warring on the same edit previously made by the IP. In fact, you are the one who deserves a block, not AddWittyNameHere. Callmemirela (Talk) 17:24, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

The diff in question, for the record. --IJBall (talk) 17:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Exactly as Callmemirela stated. Same narrow edits with almost identical edit summaries. BoontonTown should be blocked for block evasion and tendentious editing, and their IP accounts should be tagged accordingly.- MrX 17:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver

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

---

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An editor has contributed a new paragraph to this article which purports to describe Wikipedia editors' reaction to Oliver's suggestion to his viewers to vandalize the pages of US legislators as described elsewhere on this board. The editor has included inline links to this noticeboard as sources, and has reproduced comments made on this noticeboard in the body of the article. Aside from the fact that the inline link will break the moment the discussion here is archived, I'm quite certain that neither using a noticeboard as a source for Wikipedia content nor reproducing comments made here in article content is permissible. Dwpaul ^Talk 00:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I do see, BTW, that the quotes the editor reproduced in the article were first reproduced at the Wikimedia blog. However, it still seems to me improper to use them within the context of an article in Wikipedia, and to link directly within article content to (a past edition of) this noticeboard. Dwpaul ^Talk 00:59, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

The goings on of this noticeboard are not notable events and to include it would be undue weight, in my humble opinion. Chillum 03:44, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

What do reliable, published sources say about the comments on this noticeboard, if anything? That is the criterion, as per usual, and we should be citing those secondary sources, not the primary. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:48, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Reverted per BRD. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• I'm with Chillum on this. What we talk about here is not notable. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:22, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• Points duly noted; revert if you wish. However, I do feel that moving forward it would be wise to reserve the right to cite WMF sources in articles that deal with efforts to obstruct operations of Wikimedia sites. --Djembayz (talk) 15:50, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• Nope. If it's notable, someone will write about it. Citing a noticeboard or discussion on wiki fails WP:V, WP:N, and WP:RS. AniMate 16:00, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• Besides, this small issue is only relevant to Wikimedia sites and nowhere else. If a reliable news source mentioned Oliver's comment, then we can mention it. Epic Genius (talk) 16:19, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

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

User:AdmiralAlex has repeatedly created pages with non-Wiki material

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

---

AdmiralAlex (talk · contribs) had their talk page deleted after being taken to Mfd for containing inappropriate material for Wikipedia. User later put the same material on their User page which was speedy deleted. User subsequently created 2 more pages which were also speedy deleted, presumably for being the same material. User has now created another page with the same material. When asked to voluntarily remove this material the User declined. Though User has made constructive edits in the past (much of their contribution history has been deleted, many contributions being to their own, and others, deleted pages) but since the original deletion of their User talk page User does not appear willing to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:37, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any wrongdoing in the page. The content is posted on their sandbox, which the user can add whatever they want. I don't see what's wrong about it or what it makes to bring it to ANI. However, I do see that the user is blatantly exposing himself and his family on Wikipedia to potential criminals and whatnot with their names and birthdate. That's my only issue. Callmemirela (Talk) 04:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Christina Hoff Summers

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

---

An IP editor at Christina Hoff Summers wants us all to understand [108] that "feminists are the modern day Nazis" and should not be violating the purity of Wikipedia. I'm skeptical that this advances the project. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:57, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Perfectly revertable (is that even a word), WP:NOTAFORUM. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:59, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Lol, I blocked him. These people are silly. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:00, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Wow. I feel kinda icky even looking at that. HullIntegrity^\ talk / 21:17, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

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

KoshVorlon vs Timothyjosephwood

The following discussion is closed. 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 concerned by what appears to be KoshVorlon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edit warring to remove comments from Timothyjosephwood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)’s Usertalk page: [109], [110]. This warning also seems inappropriate [111]. Finally, this AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Godwin's law seems unwise, at best. WP:AGF, I voted Speedy Keep. However, @Timothyjosephwood: alleges it was nominated to make a point: [112]. I’d appreciate it if someone would look into this, particularly with an eye towards a Speedy Close of the AFD. Thanks, JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:31, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, not really sure where this guy came from. He reverted an edit I made at No Gun Ri Massacre (I'm sure everyone here will be familiar with the dispute going on there). Then he threatened to get me banned because...basically because I don't take myself particularly seriously and I don't have any problem with self-deprecating humor. Not sure what the deal is. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

No need to be concerned JoeSperrazza. I encountered TimothyJosephWood during my vandal runs when he made | this edit which I rolled back and templated him , now , note I didn't refer to this edit as vandalism, I referred to it as a test as you can see here.. Please note the rest of the conversation. He proceeded to tell me that he had a mental disorder that "where I reference Hitler a lot. I'm on medication." (that's an exact quote). Yes he did refer to Goodwin's law when he said " It's called Nationalist Socialist Tourette's Syndrome. It's very closely tied with Godwin's Law. ". My AFD on Goodwin's law was seperate from my conversation from him. Bottom line, you're getting trolled. Close this up and move on. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 21:39, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Kosh, I know you have good intentions, but (a) sometimes you don't pick up on sarcasm, and (b) sometimes you have a hard time realizing you're wrong about something, and that it's time to stop digging. TJW was not actually making that arguement, he was ironically making that argument. A couple of edit wars today where you turn out to be mistaken, a couple of trips to ANI, a poorly-thought out AFD... might be time to slow down or stop for the day, yes? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:45, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I just don't even know what to say. Is there a mental disorder where you take everything 100% literally, including obvious sarcasm? My post at No Gun Ri wasn't a test. I'm trying to illustrate a point to the initiated. The fact that he reverted my comment on the talk can be attributed to an oblivious mistake. Why he felt the need to continually revert my comments on my own talk page...On a scale from one to even, I literally can't. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 21:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks, Floquenbeam for making a point of which I was thinking when I began this. Let me add - Kosh: I don’t see Timothyjosephwood’s addition to the talk-page [113] as something that meets the criteria to be reverted as a Test edit or to allow the edit of another editor’s talk page entry. More critically, your reverts to User talk:Timothyjosephwood [114], [115] don’t meet the criteria that allows EITHER edit warring OR removal of an editors posts to his own talk page. While he TJW may have been a bit sarcastic (not against WP:CIVIL, by the way, and really very mild - reminded me of Louis C.K.) in pulling your leg, your reactions are not covered by policy. Disagree about the policy supporting your edits (all of them)? Great! Show us here, with quotes. I’d like to be incorrect. Otherwise, as Floq suggests, call it quits for the evening and WP:STOPDIGGING. JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:53, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• KoshVorlon created a nonsense AfD on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Godwin's law with the rationale that it qualified as "made up" (despite the fact that the term is in the Oxford English Dictionary, and article has been around for years and is well sourced). I added about six more top-level sources to support that this article easily meets the GNG. After two more speedy keeps, and the info suggesting the true source of KoshVorlon's real motivation, I speedy closed, which he reverted. There is no way this is anything but a snow close, so I would appreciate if an admin closes it again if it's been re-opened. Creating unnecessary AfDs serves only to make WP:POINT and waste people's time, and in my opinion it's as obnoxious as persistent edit warring. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:50, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• Agree. Please close the AFD. JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:53, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• It's been closed for 20 minutes or so, seems like it's going to stick. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:55, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, since I was asked Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page . Let's see, one , referring to "chink eyed japs" , take your pick , irrelevant obscenities or crude humor, either way it qualifies, and I did AGF and referred to this edit as a test edit here . His response seemed a bit snarky, but that's not a crime on the Wiki , so I spoke with him to see if he was being serious or snarky. I determined he was feeding me bullshit so I left him alone. Now, [User_talk:Timothyjosephwood&diff=664919055&oldid=664918998 | these ] [User_talk:Timothyjosephwood&diff=prev&oldid=664919155 | two ], obvious nonsense, again covered by vandalism. The AFD is not related, and was incorrectly closed as a NAC by a user that actually voted in the AFD , which as we all know, can't be done. I've been doing vandalism runs for quite a while (not just today, but years) , yes, I make mistakes , my first post on AN is proof of that, but I saw the error and stopped. The next entry I placed into AN turned out to be a rev-del, this entry , which is ANI is a bag of bollocks. Joe Sperrazza is attempting to connect two things that aren't even connected. Floquenbeam you're correct that I don't recognize Timothyjosephwood's remarks to me as sarcasm, sarcasm doesn't translate on the internet, since tone of voice can't be heard, neither can his face be seen. Yes, I'll let the AFD lie as is, no worries there, three users voted keep, so I stay away and consider the close IAR. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 22:46, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Man, you gotta loosen up a little bit. After all the tireless debate over at No Gun Ri we can use a little humor. The point I was trying to make is that our sourcing should be strong enough that the kind of person who would say "chink eyed Japs" wouldn't have a leg to stand on. (Seriously, we're not even talking about Japan; we're talking about Korea. (That's part of the joke.)(That's right. Meta-parenthetical. Punctuation overload.)) I am mimicking the prototypical ignorant 'Murca fuck yeah racist in an intentionally exaggerated grotesque manner to illustrate a point. That point being that it is a controversial subject that is sensitive to both the people who suffered (or whose family members suffered) but it's also sensitive to people who want to defend the honor and integrity of the US (as they see it). Along with this sensitivity comes an increased burden to provide good sourcing. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 22:57, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

As someone who is new to all of this (and who was curious because of the sheer novelty of having your edits you made on your own talk page reverted by someone else), I got the impression that the "chink-eyed japs" was VERY tongue-in-cheek. It's not polite language, and no, I would not think it was appropriate on a general talk page, but when you look at the context, I assume that it was in no way meant with true offense (and possibly written by someone who is himself Asian). —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:03, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Not Asian, sadly. Native American. There aren't really any good racial slurs for us. Personally I blame the Jews; they get all the good racial slurs. Selfish really.Timothyjosephwood (talk) 23:34, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Lulz :-D —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:44, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Can you at least recognize, KoshVorlon, that you shouldn't have deleted an editor's comments on his own talk page? As long as it is not vandalism, defamatory or a copyright violation, you don't have any call to be deleting comments on another editor's talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Like I said, I won't touch the AFD, so no problems there, and I get that you're AFG'ing me right now. As far as deleting comments on a user's talk page, sure, I agree with you Liz. Just that to me, h is comments met that definition, however, I'll leave them be too. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 23:17, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

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

IP troll 66.102.146.179

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

---

Quoted directly from their talk page, in response to Binksternet's NOR warning (and I can confirm, the IP's additions to Flip Wilson and Cantinflas were total WP:SYNTHESIS):

Kid, I'm 72 years old and have just celebrated my 50th year in entertainment. Before you go bothering people or starting fights, I would presume you would - in the case of Flip Wilson - read up on Cantinflas, both online as well as off.

In the case of the Three Roosters story, it's been covered by a number of biographical TV shows both in the U.S. as well as in Mexico.

So go bother somebody else, because if you revert my reversions, I will revert your reversions of my reversions and so on and so on and so on.

The three revert rule will be tripped, the page will be semi-protected for a period of time, however once the timeframe expires we will be back at it again, I will report you to administration and THEY will tell you to go bother somebody else.

Or keep on and all the other old geezers like me will keep plying our trades on you kids and eventually all pages will be protected permanently and Wikipedia will by necessity cease to be a free and open encyclopedia anybody can edit. It's been threatened before by the administration - responding to just these types of incidents between kids whose video game consoles have broken down and therefore have nothing else to do - and people who've done this for a living for 50 years.

Also from their talk page, also posted on my talk page and Binksternet's

1. This is a campus of one of the top ten universities in America. We have THOUSANDS of IP addresses.

2. Like I said - keep it up and it will be you kids who will cause the destruction of Wikipedia, resulting in every single page being protected permanently - which is also not what Wikipedia is about.

3. I don't talk to kids. They do what I tell them the way I tell them until I don't tell them or I flunk them. I've been doing it for 30 years - kids have been trying to get me fired for almost as long and I'm still teaching here.

Reported to administration.

Clearly, WP:NOTHERE, with a threat to edit war. Also note familiarity with "three revert rule" etc, indicating previous WP experience. BMK (talk) 02:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• 66.102.146.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is a DSL line, dsl-179.a66-102-146.caltel.com, provided by Caltel Connections in the teaming metropolis of Copperopolis, California, population (as of 2010) < 4,000. JoeSperrazza (talk) 02:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Copperopolis. This is why I watch this page. Can't make this stuff up. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 03:27, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• I just protected the target article to encourage discussion on the article talk page. Hope this helps some. --Jayron32 04:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Reading the above as well as this - it sounds like a bunch of slightly more than little kids whining to their Mama that their little siblings won't stay out of their room.

I told them and I'll tell you: It's impossible to block everybody and everything from everywhere. To try to do so defeats the whole purpose of Wikipedia. Meaning you can all threaten to `take your ball and go home' so nobody else can play if you want - but in the grander scheme of things the whole point is moot.

So I have this IP today. I'll get a different one tonight, a different one tomorrow and a different one every other time I logon. There's 233 countries in the world with Internet and 7 billion people in the world. Grow up.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.102.146.179 (talk • contribs)

"Grow up." "Kid, I'm 72 years old" You are adorable, I just want to pinch your little blocked-for-a-week cheeks. --Golbez (talk) 04:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support a temporary block on the IP. As BMK said, they're clearly WP:NOTHERE. IP is static so it is not likely they'll have a new IP tomorrow. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 04:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Support temp block. Seems like a WP:A-HOLE who is WP:NOTHERE. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 04:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

oh ps i blocked him for a week --Golbez (talk) 05:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Thus winning the coveted BMK Admin Common Sense Award of the Week. BMK (talk) 05:32, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Also inexplicably winning the Lexmark most facetious use of post script that is likely to be printed award.Timothyjosephwood (talk) 06:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Mohafzanwikipedia removing CSD templates from his own 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.

---

Mohafzanwikipedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has removed CSD templates from Javad Shororab (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) repeatedly, including after receiving a fourth and final warning on his talk page: [116] [117] [118] etc.  dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 07:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• I've blocked them. Their article was a pretty blatant hoax, especially given that the "sources" they gave on the talk page linked to stories about Justin Bieber (as well as what appears to be material that was cut/paste from Bieber's talk page). They're pretty clearly WP:NOTHERE to positively contribute to Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
• PROTIP: When trying to create hoax pages on Wikipedia, try not to link to material about other people as a source and try not to claim that others have vetted the page when they clearly haven't. I can only assume that him cut/pasting the Bieber talk pages was an attempt to this end. Although I suppose we should probably encourage this- it makes deletions so much easier. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
• Anyone mind if I cut off his talk page access? I'd say that his chances of getting unblocked are about as high as my chances of becoming the next President of the United States in 2016. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:40, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• I've blocked access. From what I can see this is a kid trying to have a little fun. I've given him a pretty big warning about Internet safety and about doing stuff like this on the Internet. I honestly don't think that he realizes how easily detected this hoax was, so I had to be a little blunt. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Good block. Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors is also good to cite in these situations, as it starts with a discussion of privacy and safety addressed directly to the editors, although overall the page is aimed more toward those who seem capable of making useful contributions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Persistent addition of uncited material by User:HoldenV8

There are a number of issues regarding HoldenV8 (talk · contribs): 1. rarely using edit summaries which I warned him on 22 May 2015 with only minor changes in this behaviour. 2. never engaging in discussion on his talk page. 3. by far the worst issue is very persistent and long term addition of uncited material, especially to BLPs. I've given multiple warnings with no effect. [119] , [120], [121].

Examples of additions of uncited material since being warned are [122], [123], [124], [125] however this problematic behaviour is at least a year old and almost every edit is uncited . LibStar (talk) 06:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I have also warned them for the same issues and while it seems that they may well be adding correct information the majority of the time it is not acceptable to continue adding unsourced material. They have been warned sufficiently and I think a block is now inevitable unless their behaviour changes. --Michig (talk) 07:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

yes. the behaviour hasn't changed despite 3 warnings. LibStar (talk) 08:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

even after this ANI was started, HoldenV8 adds a full uncited paragraph today [126]. I strongly believe a block is in order for failing to heed 3 warnings or explaining their conduct in this discussion. LibStar (talk) 04:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism / disruptive editing, now also block evasion

Same as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive272#"outdated" put on dozens of pages without reason.

(Was previously by: 201.218.11.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), blocked because of disruptive editing).

Block evasion now, too!

New user name: Hillbilly Dragon Farmer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please mass-revert these useless "contributions". User spams lots of (in his limited view) finance-related pages with "Template:update", even when they are not at all finance related... Thanks.

--93.204.119.103 (talk) 21:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked and rolled back. Thanks for the report. Probably a sock of someone, but I don't see any terribly obvious suspects. Monty₈₄₅ 21:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Related accounts: Dark liquidity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Bamboozled malo en wikipedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Secretive 827-mile cable (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Algorithmic trader 007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Front Running Gringo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) PortugueseManofPeace (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (blocked sock: SPI Archive) and ultimately David Adam Kess (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (blocked: ANI Archive) - seems like this is an old sockpuppeteer. --93.204.119.103 (talk) 22:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

You could certainly file an SPI, the behavior isn't identical, but it may be close enough to justify a checkuser, though I've found I'm bad at judging what will or wont be deemed sufficient. Monty₈₄₅ 23:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

i would like to report for blocking for nothing and undo me after i gave more than 5 reliable sources and even 6 reliable books

hello their wikipedians first of all on this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herut i said that the herut got moderated with the years and im not being a sockpuppet just cuz i supported something that someone already wrote i gave here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Herut#7_sources_that_claim_the_herut_moderated i wrote that herut party got moderated and gave7 reliable sources including 6 reliable books and the wikipdia editors still undo it. so what now we need to throw all our books into the garbage and based only about the editors of wikipedia? so the wikipedia editors are god now that know every thing for every thing even more than books? they are humans just like me and humans sometimes can wrong and i gave 6 reliable books. the only reason that im using other account is that you blocked my other for infinity and i dont even have the option to report for unblock. please back my other edit i left 6 reliable books already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoncohen (talk • contribs) 21:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I would revert this edit, but it seems this is the second time this users has opened this section. First, no edits were made by this user other than here. Second, requesting block since this user admits to sock puppetry. Callmemirela (Talk) 21:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Er, wow. Number 57 has been blocking (sock, apparently), has been altering protection on the article and also editing it. No comment on the merits of the above but that alone doesn't look great. - Sitush (talk) 21:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

As I noted on the article talk page, anyone is welcome to have a look at page history. It has been the target of a number of socks over the past fortnight (Orcohen45 (talk · contribs), Morbenmoshe (talk · contribs), 80.246.133.64 (talk · contribs) etc). Only after it became obvious that this was going on did I actually block an editor and protect the page (I did not block Orcohen45 or Morbenmoshe). Number 57 21:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Apparently the recent edits have just been maintenance/clean up after the socks. Not sure about the older ones - does "involved" ever expire? I'll take the content stuff to the talk page. - Sitush (talk) 21:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

This seems like a continuation of this conversation: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive271#hello. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• Looks like routine janitorial work to me, on the face of it there's nothing wrong with what Number57 has done here - Wikipedia is not a bureauicracy. Guy (Help!) 11:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• Question ' is this you ? If so, why are using an IP. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 15:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Meh. The account is blocked, but I still can't work out what on earth he's wibbling about. Maybe that's the problem. Guy (Help!) 17:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The "wibbling" was resolved by me, as per the discussion on the talk page. Basically, the sources are reliable and the point they wanted to make was valid. It was just that admins had gone into auto-revert mode due to socking - Number 57 even acknowledged on the talk page that the point was valid and the sources likely to be, although they hadn't checked them (they were university presses!). There was a query about the location of the information but that is trivial stuff. I'm not terribly happy about what went on, which appeared to be some sort of blind revert even while acknowledging the likely accuracy of the information but, hey, what do I know. - Sitush (talk) 17:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Could someone please look at this more closely; some accounts making these edits have been identified as socks of Morbenmoshe, while others are identified as socks of Itaykaufman12. It seems unlikely ypo me that we have two puppeteers making exactly the same disruptive edits, with similar summaries and linguistic failings, and similar user names, and these should probably be combined. See discussion on Bb23's talk page for more details. RolandR (talk) 08:56, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

User:DylanMcKaneWiki and the Celtic Phoenix article

• DylanMcKaneWiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 109.79.4.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Celtic Phoenix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Post-2008 Irish economic downturn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Post-2008 Irish banking crisis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

DylanMcKaneWiki joined Wikipedia about a month ago and immediately started moving articles around. There were a number of issues with cut-and-paste moves and non-standard titles. Things generally settled down. Then he started the Celtic TigerCeltic Phoenix article—if we assume good faith, it's a split, but it leans into the realm of a POV fork to prevent only the good side of the recovery. That article has been tagged for a prospective merge into the article on Ireland's economy for a few days.

For the past few days, he has shown a pattern of editing while logged out, primarily with the IP listed above. If you look at the edit times over the past 24–48 hours, it's almost a clean handoff every time one or the other starts editing.

Today, he declared that he was giving in and allowing the merge to go ahead.[127] So, the logged-in Dylan proceeded to merge the article. The IP then unwound the merge, and Dylan logged back in to proclaim he'd changed his mind.[128]

Frankly, that was a bridge too far: the number of articles and templates he's edited in the last few hours will be daunting to correct for all of his edits. While I'd like to assume good faith that he just keeps getting logged out, it's starting to look like there's some intent to disrupt the encyclopedia with his edits—almost to the point of intentionally logging out to avoid scrutiny. Maybe I'm reading too much in, but at the least, he needs some good guidance on how to work constructively with other editors. —C.Fred (talk) 19:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC), amended 15:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Guliolopez has tried to engage with him, offering tips and advice. I admit to being snarky with him, but have also latterly offered advice, pointed out some of the problems with his editing, etc. Dylan rarely engages (only interaction with his talk page has been to blank it), and when he does it's to talk about us leaving "his" article alone diff. The cut-and-paste page moves have been problematic, the ownership is an obvious issue, as is logging out to perform edits/avoid his earlier block. A more serious problem is the complete ignoring of WP:NPOV. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

When I looked at his talk page before he deleted most of the content, I see a string of warnings for the past three weeks, asking and even pleading with him not to do moves which mess up the edit history of the page. It seems like this has happened on multiple occasions. Have you seen any improvement, C.Fred? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:13, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't so much say he improved through the first part of May as his editing just quieted down and there were fewer problems. He went away from the economics articles and focused on shopping centres. —C.Fred (talk) 21:51, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, there was no improvements just because he lowered his amount of disruption. I feel a long-term block is required as it is more and more evident from the several warnings he recieved that he has no intention to learn from mistakes and cooperate with others.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Note, this dispute is about the Celtic Phoenix article, not the Celtic Tiger article, which DylanMcKaneWiki does not appear to have edited, but which would be a good merge target. Paul B (talk) 10:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's (mainly) about the Celtic Phoenix article, but DylanMcKaneWiki has edited Celtic Tiger, too, albeit when logged out - see this diff from 15th May is an insertion that adds in a 'See main article: Celtic Phoenix' template, for example, and there are more. The "109.7*.*.*" addresses that edited Celtic Tiger are the ones also disruptively editing Celtic Phoenix. WP:DUCK. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

And checking what links to Celtic Phoenix, I've found that the IP and/or editor concerned has inserted a chunk of text (that completely ignores WP:NPOV, WP:RECENT and WP:CRYSTAL) into many articles, which includes a "See main article Celtic Phoenix" template, rather than directing readers to Economy of the Republic of Ireland. The chunk had been pasted into Economic history of the Republic of Ireland, History of the Republic of Ireland, Republic of Ireland, Post-2008 Irish economic downturn. This is a definite PoV fork... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, I added the above note because this section was originally entitled by C.Fred "User:DylanMcKaneWiki and the Celtic Tiger article" with a link to Celtic Tiger below, and the inaccurate statement that "he started the Celtic Tiger article". Obviously just an accidental slip up on C.Fred's part, but there was no reference to Celtic Phoenix at all in the thread. I changed the title and link so the comment now seems semi-irrelevant. Paul B (talk) 08:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, my bad. I had been trying to see what existed on ga.wikipedia; there is an article on the Tiger but not the Phoenix, so I crossed them up in my brain. Sorry about that. Paul B, feel free to whack me with a trout (which happens to be one of the main aquaculture products of Ireland, but I digress). —C.Fred (talk) 15:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Could an admin also semi-protect Post-2008 Irish economic downturn, please? It's currently got one whole page of edits by this user (both logged in and not), some small changes, some serious, many removing significant content, and what appears to be efforts to remove/alter admin-only templates. Most edits done with no edit summary. This is extremely disruptive editing. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

And now we have a page move - 2008–13 Irish economic downturn, because in Dylan's PoV, the downturn ended then. He has been repeatedly asked and warned not to do page moves like this, especially moves that may be controversial (and instead to use the requested moves procedure), and he simply can't be unaware that this wouldn't be uncontroversial, especially given it's talk page. Can an admin please do something about this? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I've unwound the move. @Bastun: Had he been warned about the moving process and using WP:RM before? I know he's gotten prior warnings related to page moves, but I thought those were cut-and-paste moves. —C.Fred (talk) 17:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Nope, he did another cut-and-paste move today: Post-2008 Irish banking crisis. —C.Fred (talk) 17:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, he has certainly been warned about them before, and I've requested him to use WP:RM. See also his talk page on 1st May and your own prior warning to him. I'm a little too busy right now to hunt down diffs for the WP:RM warnings/requests, though. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Again - can an admin please add semi-protection to Post-2008 Irish economic downturn - Dylan (logged out) is repeatedly removing Financial crisis from the article, not using edit summaries, not genuinely engaging on talk page, etc. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Have added Post-2008 Irish banking crisis to the list above. Similar logged out edits, again removing Financial crisis from the article, without consensus and in breach of NPOV. (A parliamentary committee was told just yesterday that over 110,000 Irish mortgages are in arrears... that should be of concern to the banks...) Can semi-protection be added to this one, too? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Update Semi-protection has now been added to the various Irish economic articles where disruptive editing by the IP listed above was taking place. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:43, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Jaco the 3rd unreferenced articles and untagged files.

Jaco the 3rd (talk) is creating articles and uploading files at a very frequent rate, see his contributions, I have not been able - due to their sheer number - to go through all of them but a majority (possibly all) have no references whatsoever (against WP:VERIFY) whilst the files have no copyright information (WP:FAIRUSE). The content itself is barely enough to constitute a stub, mostly taken from the subject's website (also breaking WP:ORGIND) sometimes complemented by unsupported claims (against WP:ORIGINAL). I don't believe it would do any good warning him of his conduct, he has received a litany of notifications about his actions on his talk page (speedy deletion, license tagging...), all clearly explaining how he needs to organise his edits, yet his modus operandi is exactly the same. He has already been banned in September 2013 for block evasion and edit warring, another ban might be too light a behaviour rectifier, I'll let administrators decide what they think should be done, for my part he should be made to stop editing in that way, either by respecting guidelines or being blocked/banned. I have signalled this here as due to the sheer number of information written, again none of which is referenced, untruths are bound to have been created on Wikipedia, I have not seen anything libellous but again I have not been through all, the cleanup is just not worth whatever genuine information is provided, furthermore there is the issue of using copyrighted images without justification. --ArmstrongJulian (talk) 09:59, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

You didn't notify Jaco the 3rd about this discussion, ArmstrongJulian. I have now done so. DES ^(talk) 14:07, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I see lots of templated notices on Jaco the 3rd's talk page. But I don't see any atempt to actually discuss the issues with the user. Maybe it would be fruitless. But it would be nic to try a bit. I have posted to his/her talk page tryoing to explain at least some of the issues, and linked to this thread. DES ^(talk) 14:18, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Ugh – the 'level 1' (e.g. =Title=) headings on that Talk page are irritating (and not supposed to be used like that, per MOS:HEAD...). --IJBall (talk) 17:04, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog repeatedly disregarding requests for explanations concerning an edit

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

---

Jytdog reverted a change that I made to a page and is refusing to provide a good-faith explanation for the reversion. Here is the policy from WP:DISRUPTSIGNS that he violated: "A disruptive editor is an editor who...repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits..."

Specifically, s/he made the following change, which is the reversion of my change: [129]. The change I made was to remove a citation that did not support the sentence in the article that the citation purported to substantiate.

We started to discuss the disagreement here: [130]. After getting by some misunderstandings, he claimed that the following sentence in the cited web page was his basis for claiming that the citation substantiated the sentence in the article: "GM foods currently available on the international market have passed safety assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved. Continuous application of safety assessments based on the Codex Alimentarius principles and, where appropriate, adequate post market monitoring, should form the basis for ensuring the safety of GM foods." Please note that these sentences make no mention of any scientific consensus. Please also note that they do not pronounce that any such foods pose "no greater risk to human health than conventional food."

When I requested his basis for believing that these sentences from the linked web page were somehow equivalent to the claim in the article, his response was as follows: "I hear you; that is your interpretation"--and then started engaging in a debate about the content of the page (in other words, he started arguing that certain genetically-modified foods were safe), which was not the purpose of the discussion. When I pressed him further (see my 05:36, 29 May 2015 post in the talk thread), his response was: "really, you are beating a dead horse here." When I again asked him to "...explain [his] analysis in more detail to justify [his] position that the citation should remain in the article," his response was: "And I don't agree...You cannot change things by pounding away on dead horses, ..." A further attempt at engaging in good faith resolution was met with: "...you are just shifting ground here. I suggest you drop the stick."

The above paragraph describes the essence of the interaction. We also discussed whether the cited page needs to directly state that consensus existed or whether the sentence could be synthesized from the citation at issue along with the other citations. (WP:RS/AC: "The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. ...[A]ny statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors.") In addition, we also discussed the impact of two somewhat-related RfCs on the discussion and whether comments on that page were relevant even if they did not mention the citation at issue or how it substantiates the sentence in the article.

I think my question is legitimate and and that my request for the information is reasonable. I am not asking the administrators to intervene in the content dispute (over whether the citation should remain). I am only requesting that the administrators either compel Jytdog to provide a good-faith basis for his reversion of my change or to drop his opposition to my change. GrayDuck156 (talk) 02:09, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• Without judging this one way or the other, have you tried to raise these issues on the article talk page, and asked for other users to give their opinion using normal dispute resolution methods? Wikipedia has no deadline and there's no need to be right for the next week, if we can take a more reasoned approach and get it right forever, even if we're wrong for the next week, that's OK. My only recommendation, without getting too much into the details here, is to have patience, use dispute resolution, and have the long-view in mind. Letting the article be wrong for a short while, during which time discussion and exposition occurs that will allow it to be right, is MUCH preferrable to fighting over it, especially where fighting makes oneself look bad and vindictive, and thus ultimately prevents the right thing from happening in the end. Just a general thought. --Jayron32 02:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I linked (see above) to the talk thread that was designed to discuss the content dispute. All the other commenters in the thread favored my change (or a similar change) or were silent or unclear on the issue. I did not use the content dispute resolution methods because this specific violation pertains to user conduct and I am still hoping that we can resolve the content matter without mediation. I see no point in waiting any longer because he has made clear that he is not planning on responding any time soon. I think he is clearly stalling as an obfuscation tactic. He created an RfC that widens the discussion to all of the citations for that sentence in the article--all ten of them. The problem with that tactic is that many editors are endorsing the citations collectively because they agree with the sentence for political reasons. None of them are even mentioning the citation at issue--much less explaining why they think it supports the one citation I am questioning. Once Jytdog manages, through the RfC, to solicit enough of his political allies to endorse the overall claim (the sentence in the article that needs support), he is going to come back to the WHO thread and say "See! We have community consensus that the citations substantiate the claim!" (By the way, I am not here to promote any political agenda myself. I just want Wikipedia to be factual and not be hijacked to promote political agendas.) GrayDuck156 (talk) 03:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
    • ‘... to solicit enough of his political allies ...” ← hmmm, this turn of phrase is suggestive of the problem here not being bad faith on Jytdog's part, but on yours. Otherwise this would appear to be a common-or-garden content dispute. Alexbrn (talk) 10:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
      • I admit that was a poor choice of words. My point was that I think he was going to use the RfC, which was interpreted by editors as whether the statement in the article should remain, as a way of shutting down discussion over whether the WHO citation should remain.GrayDuck156 (talk) 00:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• The RfC did seem to come about in order to stop a very fruitful discussion. With regard to Jytdog ignoring talk page comments, I found this to be the case as well, and it's very frustrating. Once Jytdog opened the sudden RfC, no further work was done in the thread GrayDuck began. In the thread, I had pointed out that 1/3 of the Controversy section was being used to promote the safety of GMO foods, as a rebuttal, rather than to discuss controversy. Jytdog responded by saying that the community had found no problems in some past RfC, insinuating "case closed". I asked for a link to this discussion, curious to see how editors would argue for such a profound misuse of a Controversy section. No response. I asked again at Sarah SV's talk page where he was engaging in a thread I had just opened. No response. When caught promoting POV or a downright untruth, he ignored me and within no time, this new RfC was opened, and silenced all of us. The RfC is another problem altogether, but I'll leave my comments at the behavioural issue for now. (Two cents: It would be neat if this thread is closed by an uninvolved admin - someone who does not work alongside Jytdog on articles.) petrarchan47คุก 10:58, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• I see now that my attempt to address the POV was reverted an hour into the fresh RfC, with Jytdog's bogus reasoning in the edit summary: "revert WP:POINTy revision while RfC on this very section is ongoing". The RfC is about one statement which exists in the lede, and now (again) in the controversy section. I hadn't changed the sentence, nor the paragraph containing it, other than to move it out of the controversy and to its own section for neutrality purposes. Besides moving the claims of safety out of the controversy section, I added the percentage of Americans who favored labeling - which is what makes it controversial. Previously (and now, after the revert) there was no mention of why the labeling issue is controversial, only the FDA's reasoning for lack of GMO labeling is noted. I also updated the article with the fact that the USDA just announced they are creating a non-GMO label. That was reverted too.

There is a serious POV and ownership problem with regard to Jytdog. I know I'll get screamed at for this, but I would suggest a topic ban from all GMO related articles. petrarchan47คุก 11:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

.

I totally concur with the view of Jytdog refusing to provide explanations and, given the time, I would be very interested to research any potential reason why. GregKaye 11:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• Genetically modified food controversies are ... controversial. We get new editors showing up all the time who very vehemently disagree with all kinds of things. And editors who have been here for a while who believe Monsanto is Satan and GMOs are his Evil Spawn. And of course, editors like Petrarchan who vilify me as something like Monsanto's Antichrist Here to Destroy Wikipedia From Within ( see this and this followed by this, and especially this).

• GrayDuck is a new user and a WP:SPA on this issue (see here. ('they have been on WP 6 days. and they already mastered talk page quoting and citing WP:SYN and coming to ANI. fierce, fierce WP:ADVOCACY here on a content dispute.) We also have an IP in the discussion at the article, who is also a new user and a WP:SPA (see here.) There has been a PR campaign by anti-GMO activists attacking the reality that there is a scientific consensus on the relative safety of eating GM food (see here and especially here and this which is scientific PR for this petition. So I am expecting lots of impassioned SPAs to be showing up. As well as my usual haters. I am sorry if this brings drama.

• Probably the most enraging content in the articles is the statement that there is a scientific consensus on the relative safety of eating currently marketed food from GM crops. That is what this is about. The WHO source has been in the article supporting that statement since since Dec 2012 and was among the sources when we had an RfC on the consensus statement back in August 2013 (here). Most of the enraged folks get so angry that they don't actually read what the content says - it doesn't say that "all theoretical food from GMOs is safe" (instead it mentions just "currently marketed" foods, each of which has been through the regulatory process); it doesn't say "absolutely safe" - it says safe relative to conventional food, which also has its risks. And its only about eating food; not about environmental issues or patent law or anything else.

• Yes, the OP raised a question about the WHO source.
  • Like many new editors, GrayDuck first edited warred to try to get their way: here and here and here.
  • i opened a thread on talk here to try get them to start Talking
  • Grayduck finally started talking and opened with the canard (heh) that the statement is about all possible food and threw in some references to "propaganda"
  • I replied explaining the limited nature of the consensus statement and explained how the WHO source supports it.
  • the very next comment broadened the discussion to the statement generally and its sourcing, and it went on from there, as you can see if you review the thread.
  • in my view, it takes an RfC to modify the results of a previous RfC, especially on probably the most controversial statement in a controversial article. So I opened a new RfC on the consensus statement.
• Grayduck became angry that the conversation is no longer about their issue. I explained to GrayDuck here and here and here, this happens in WP - you open a thread, and others take it somewhere else. There is WP:NODEADLINE here and we can turn back and address the specific source once the broader question is addressed.

• This ANI thread has no basis in any violation of a behavioral policy or guideline. Please close it and trout GrayDuck. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment, I was quite prepared to let this incident report pass until I saw what I first regard to be the blatant departure from reality as presented above which, after taking a look at the thread concerned seriously makes me question the extent to which Jytdog is WP:HERE for the purpose to build an encyclopedia. I would advise any editor here to take a look at the content so as to develop their own views.

However Jytdog, I think, makes a fair point in to mention the apparently high level of wiki knowhow exhibited by GrayDuck considering this short history of user contributions.

Jytdog I was very concerned as I first got my head together around this as to: Why, how in the world does any Wikipedia editor have, "usual haters" and have approached you personally about this.

Please be aware that the issue raised here has nothing to do with the view that "there is a scientific consensus on the relative safety of eating currently marketed food from GM crops" but whether or not the WHO citation supports this view.

Regarding the claimed "edit warring" the edits were:

1. removal of WHO cite
2. replacement of WHO cite with comment "Undid revision 664222171 by GrayDuck156 (talk) Restore unexplained removal of source"
3. removal of WHO cite with comment "The citation does not support the claim. In fact, it contradicts it by saying that "...it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods.""
4. replcement of WHO cite with comment "Undid revision 664340537 by GrayDuck156 (talk) please discuss on talk. please also read the actual content - it doesn't say "all GM food""
5. removal of WHO cite with comment "Undid revision 664340715 by Jytdog (talk)"
6. replacement of WHO cite by Greyduck with comment "First, Jytdog ignored my first sentence. Second, the sentence is of no value and is misleading unless "all GMO food" is assumed." (perhaps this was a fortuitous edit in error).

Discussion then began on the TP with Jytdog asking "please explain your objection to the WHO source per your deletions" which was still in the context that the edit summaries had already done this.

The "finally started talking" began with three paragraphs of text 16 minutes after being pinged but with the sentence "I certainly hope that Wikipedia does not change from being a neutral source of information to being a propaganda vehicle" (with emphasis added to WP buzzword).

"the very next comment" was added by Tsavage a different editor.

"Grayduck became angry". It is fair to say that s/he addressed matters in an unnecessarily personal way. However many editors, I think after reading the thread, might have got angry with your, as far as I can see, unsupported responses.

I sympatise with the concerns of Petrarchan47 regarding getting "screamed at for this" but, without better knowledge of Jytdog, cannot comment on whether the suggestion of "a topic ban from all GMO related articles" as being the most appropriate course of actions. I suspect that Jytdog may be best helped to think things through through the imposition of site ban of whatever length that editors that best know/understand him/her think would best fit. GregKaye 19:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

We disagreed at the Bfpage matter where no one agreed with you. so you jumped on this ANI with a strong statement before reading the diffs, followed that to the article (where you have never edited) and wrote this ludicrous summary of the discussion there, then followed me to my talk page where you wrote this note, the spirit of which is kind of nice but which is... well i will not characterize it. And now came back here with yet more baloney. so i have another "fan". OK then. Jytdog (talk) 22:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• We have been trying to call attention to this very serious problem for years.1 2 We have editors/admins who cover for this activity with clown-like distractions and by never, ever giving this a skeptical look. We have 300 scientists, researchers and doctors calling out Wikipedia's Genetically Engineered Food article specifically for its promotion of unsupported GM safety claims, and for misrepresenting science. This is the reality at Wikipedia. petrarchan47คุก 22:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Hand wringing. After yet another attempt to vote your opposition off the island gives up the ghost... Since for years and years and years you've been trying to right great wrongs, failing, and complaining about it with nobody listening, is it possible that maybe this is a sign that you might benefit from a topic ban, rather than everyone that disagrees with you? Geogene (talk) 00:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• Not enough colours. Come back when you you have more colours. Also try different faces. Guy (Help!) 14:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Somewhere, over the rainbow... _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:26, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• The last two edits are disruptive as per Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Please desist.DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you know any more about that policy than you do about WP:FRINGE. It's really not a good idea to go trolling on the admin boards after you've been sanctioned. Guy (Help!) 22:36, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Calling my edits "trolling" is uncivil. Please stop that.DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

By definition, calling a spade a spade cannot be uncivil. BMK (talk) 23:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Advice requested

No More Mr Nice Guy Notified of this discussion.

No More Mr Nice Guy was banned from participation in WP:ARBPIA-related AE discussions after he complained I was engaged in ‘Jew baiting’ in July 2013. He withdrew, apparently in protest at the negative verdict for his claim, from active editing of wikipedia, while over the intervening years, documenting that wikipedia is anti-Semitic on his original homepage. The evidence was mounted exclusively by using several diffs from my work, some of which had been analysed and dismissed in his original complaint.

here i.e., User:No More Mr Nice Guy/Antisemitism and Wikipedia To illustrate the thesis, there is a section called Wikipedia specific. Its evidence lists

• this
• this
• this
• this

He occasionally dropped notes on editors’ talk pages alluding to me in a way that suggested the same message. here, for example

Now that he is back editing, and that is a good thing, and we have disagreements, which are normal, I think this WP:AGF issue directed my way requires some clarification, especially since it is alluded to again here where No More Mr Good Guy was responding to the statement I made here. His disavowel:'Apropos my user page, which was not about you but about Wikipedia and Western society in general', is disingenuous in the extreme, since the evidence for 'anti-Semitism on Wikipedia' there is culled only by a selective use and distorted reading of some of my edits. Advice either way (to me) (to him) would be appreciated so that an atmosphere of less suspicion can prevail, and the kind of exasperatingly perplexing argumentation over trivia, easily resolved by either party (by me orby him), of the kind you find here, may be avoided.

This is not a request for sanctions, which do not apply to the problem. I have no objection to any editor privately entertaining a conviction I am an anti-Semite. I simply think alluding to this personal belief while engaging with me is not conducive to collaborative editing because it tends to make for inordinately long controversies when the issues are simple.

I would also request editors involved in the area not to add their opinions or takes sides, but allow this to be examined by impartial outside editors. Nishidani (talk) 19:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm just wondering what action you are looking for from admins here. A strongly worded warning on his talk page? The deletion of that user page whose examples of anti-Semitism consist of your edits? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd simply like editors to assess the evidence, to tell me if it is acceptable to allude to a fellow editor as an anti-Semite, or as a 'symptom' of anti-Semitism, as he has twice this year. If it is acceptable, fine. If it is not, well, a word NMMGG's way, would be appropriate. By the way 'whose examples' should be 'whose putative examples', I think.Nishidani (talk) 21:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any reason not to delete that page per a textbook case of WP:POLEMIC (and it's bordering on a G10 speedy as well). Does anyone disagree? Black Kite (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

If you are going to delete something from my userspace for being polemic, I request you look at Nishidani's userspace as well. I made that page under the assumption it was allowed, partially based on this deletion request of Nishidani's page. If this sort of thing is not allowed for anyone, fine. Otherwise there needs to be some consistency. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:20, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The difference being, I would suggest, is that Nishidani's talkpage in the above MfD did not, as far as I can see, cast any aspersions about other editors. Black Kite (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I can't document a problem with Wikipedia without linking to diffs. The only thing there that I suppose could be considered as casting aspersions might be me pointing out his laughable attempt of using an anti-semite to explain what anti-semitism is or isn't. I'll remove that if there's consensus it's a problem. But otherwise these are diffs illustrating what I think is a serious systemic problem with Wikipedia and Western society in general. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:18, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The bottom line is, if you're going to document something titled "Anti-Semitism and Wikipedia" by using a particular user's edits, then it follows that you are effectively accusing them of being an anti-semite. There is plenty of obvious anti-semitism at Wikipedia which you could quite easily have used instead, but you've chosen to use one person's edits which don't fall into that "obvious" category, and hence you're breaching NPA. Black Kite (talk) 22:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Have you read the page? The whole point is that Western cultures know how to deal with someone who sprays a swastika on a synagogue, but seem to be unable to deal with anti-semitism when it's mixed up with anti-Zionism. And that moreover, when someone complains about such things they are at best not taken seriously and at worse punished for complaining, thus making it unlikely that others will complain.

I can change the title of the page if that helps. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:37, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to correct some inaccuracies in Nishidani's complaint.

The AE complaint Nishidani links to was dismissed out of hand in less than 24 hours by a single admin with no discussion for, basically, lack of AGF. It is very unusual for AE complaints to be closed that fast, particularly if made by an editor with a completely clean record like I had.

As I'm sure you can imagine, when someone makes a complaint about harassment, particularly what could probably be termed "racially aggravated" harassment, and it doesn't even get minimal discussion, you could get a little upset. I was very disappointed with the system here. I started documenting what to me seem like similar cases in my userspace. I think they're very relevant to the AE complaint I filed.

Over the years I realized there's a systemic problem, but it is not unique to Wikipedia, so I came back.

Nishidani was the one who brought the whole thing up in the discussion he linked to above [131], and now he's complaining that I replied to him. All he had to do is leave it be. And maybe not make off color jokes about being lynched on a page about people who were actually lynched and mutilated. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

By the way, in the same post I mention just above, he accused other editors of having "ethnic-exclusive" "sentiments" [132]. That's an accusation of racism. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Nope. Someone with an "ethnic-exclusive sentiment" is someone who cares only for his own, which is utterly human and absolutely normal. It doesn't help ensure that, in an area of ethnic conflict, WP:NPOV is secured, however. What other contiguous groups are, think or do, is a matter of indifference to them. A racist is someone who aggressively abuses, attacks or smears the outgroup. I do not see established editors here doing the latter: to the contrary I see editors looking closely at whatever edit might be interpreted as reflecting poorly on one party, while showing a total insouciance to the history of the other side. Nishidani (talk) 10:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I see. Someone who cares only for their own ethnicity is not a racist. Whatever. It's still a personal attack. Or did you mean it as a compliment as you spat it at people questioning why you keep changing what the sources say to push a certain POV? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:11, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Are you aware that characterizing me as possible someone who spat your way verbally is rather violent in its imagery? Let me review why this kind of angry language is problematical.

• (a) You maintain a page imputing to me antisemitism
• (b) You accuse me here of engaging in a personal attack for which you have given no evidence, i.e., I assume that since, in your view I am an 'anti-Semite' you are entitled to read that specific animus into anything I do.
• Any independent mind, with regard to personal animus issues, can review the short section where I simply took a Cheshire cat I/P intruder (pops in, reverts or squabbles then disappears)to task and found myself rapidly subject to two personal attacks, by established editors who ignored the issue with the I/P and focused on me. I.e., the issue at hand was ignored, and pretexts were found to personalize the matter.
• User:Plot Spoiler pops in to say that my use of the word 'lynch' to brush off niggling (one about an edit made 2 months ago) 'simply adds to the body of evidence that you are engaged in a POV pushing campaign by mischaracterizing even the most minute details to further demonize Israel.’

Plot Spoiler appears on pages I edit only to revert me, and disappear. No discussion. He believes there is a growing body of evidence I am editing Wikipedia to demonize Israel (translated that means, I edit in lots of information about the P in the I/P area, i.e. what happens in the West Bank and Gaza)

You then jump in and an insult to injury.

• And you have the audacity to lecture other editors about "precision" and "pity" that's not being "ethnic-exclusive"? That's hilarious even from you. You should be ashamed of yourself, but you obviously lack the capacity.

These are personal attacks, and, in context, suggest again that your repeating the idea that I am motivated by anti-Semitism explains a 'growing body of evidence' I am 'demonizing' Israel. Nothing there shows me using this strong personal attack on either your or Plot Spoiler's bona fides. So we have a problem, and that's why I am asking that independent experienced editors review this thesis, which hangs like a cloud over my editing because of this concocted nonsense that I am anti-Semitic and anti-Israel. I have several editors who seem to revert me on any page I edit. Perhaps they haven't read your screed, but the tenor of this collective behavior and the irrationality of the reverts suggests they think anything I do is politically or racially motivated. If I were anti-Semitic or anti-Israel, why on earth do I make these edits, to cite but a few casually over the past few months. E.g.(1); (2);(3);(4);(5);(6);(7);(8);(9);(10)? Nishidani (talk) 19:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't appreciate Nishidani's WP:personal attacks against me by saying that I edit in an "ethnic exclusive" fashion[133]. It's laughable for Nishidani to say it's not a personal attack. S/he should strike it as an act of good faith. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

'Someone with an "ethnic-exclusive sentiment" is someone who cares only for his own, which is utterly human and absolutely normal.'(see above) If you have a range of edits introducing details of tragic incidents regarding Palestinians, I'd be illuminated to discover them. Most editors here edit from their personal interest in only one of the two parties. I find that wholly unreprehensible, because we are biologically wired that way. To the contrary, Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto is contra-factual, however sublime the adage. No personal attack intended.Nishidani (talk) 20:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Strike your remarks as a matter of policy then. It is a personal attack. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

You appeal to policy, which however you wish to be applied uniquely to my comment for its inferred meaning. You and NMMGG have both made explicit attacks on my bona fides. On this you are silent. Rules are neutral, and editors who ask that they be applied to everyone but themselves are not being credible. Review your remark, cited above. I'd be interested to know why you don't consider it a personal attack. And why you think I 'demonize' Israel?Nishidani (talk) 21:11, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, I just realized he later changed the wording. Apparently the other editors don't have a "capacity for pity and horror [that is] not ethnic-exclusive". He was trying to tell us we're normal, you see? He was telling other editors that if they edit differently, he will "convince himself" that they're not normal. This is a recurring theme. For example, here, he helpfully bolded the word "normal" possibly implying that his interlocutors are really really normal. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Good grief, you can't even recognize an obvious allusion to Aristotle. I've asked some questions, raised a query. Please address them. Nishidani (talk) 21:20, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I apologize. Apparently my ability to recognize an obvious allusion to Aristotle is as limited as my capacity for pity and horror that's not ethnic-exclusive (ie normal?). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

The word 'capacity' is ill-chosen. It was you who said I lacked the capacity to feel shame (You should be ashamed of yourself, but you obviously lack the capacity). Saying it is normal, wired into man to look after his own, can't be twisted to imply I intend some (anti-Semitic) innuendo that man is incapable of pity or horror for others. Your attempt to be clever only shows you cannot read anything I write except as some tacit, occultated 'sophisticated, subtle' (your words) game to get at an ethnic group. Back to the point then, why is your denial that I have a capacity for shame not an unwarranted attack? (2) If I am a 'symptom' of an anti-Semitic malaise affecting not only Wikipedia, but the whole Western world, as you now assert, what does this imply for situations where we are obliged to collaborate on articles? Please focus. Nishidani (talk) 21:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

"Capacity" was me directly quoting you. Thanks for elucidating what exactly you meant. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Please read carefully. I said you had a capacity, that was restrictive. You said I lacked the capacity to feel a fundamental moral sentiment. I allowed your humanity, you excluded mine. I don't take offense, except at the failure to make indispensable distinctions.Nishidani (talk) 07:25, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

You said I lack a "capacity for pity and horror that's not ethnic-exclusive". I doubt that's a compliment or meant to affirm my humanity. I'm still waiting to hear what ethnicity you were thinking about when you made that statement. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:55, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

To tie all this back to the original complaint, perhaps Nishidani can tell us what ethnicity he was accusing other editors of being "ethnic-exclusive" towards. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Antisemitism speech is a crime (at least in Europe). Unfairly accusing somebody of antisemitism and reporting this is therefore defaming. This behaviour is in contradiction with WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL and also a worst case of breach of WP:NPA. More, No More Mr Nice Guy was warned by the ArbCom but he keeps attacking Nishidani. The conditions for a good collaboration with NMMNG cannot be met in these circumstances. I suggest that all the comments are removed from his page and that he is blocked for a significant period of time (2 months) if he makes any single allusion to a potential antisemitism of any contributor of wikipedia again. Pluto2012 (talk) 02:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

No, absolutely no sanction. NMMGG has a fine eye for some things, that is productive and useful for Wikipedia. He noted, for example, two slips I made over two months, slips that were minor, but nonetheless distortions of the source (I plead haste, but I suspect in one edit, writing 'mostly' for 'several'(or whatever) does indeed look bad. I don't think this means that over 37,000 edits mostly from excellent sources, this kind of slip is indicative of an anti-Semite demonizing Israel.

As to NMMGG, I asked for clarifications, and none are forthcoming. He has repeated his belief I am a 'symptom' of a malaise in Western civilization, elsewhere identified as anti-Semitism, and this clearly makes his interactions with me difficult. All I really want is an equable editing atmosphere, not personal hostility on the pages.Nishidani (talk) 07:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

The sensible solution is to allow NMMGG to retain his page of indictment of myself and Wikipedia (freedom of speech should be absolute). However, since the page does present his subjective contention about me as an anti-Semite as a fact, both his right to express his private views as a metacritique of Wikipedia, and my right to not be subject to an attack which implies I have a criminal outlook, evidenced in my editing, can be guaranteed, by attribution. All he need do, is present his evidence with some type of prefatory formula:'In my view, these edits suggest' an anti-Semitic attitude'. Underneath the evidence, simply link to my examination and answers to the accusations on my home page (User:Nishidani), and note I challenge his accusation. That done, all can feel justice is done, NMMGG in being allowed to retain a personal attack on me on that page, and my right to rebuff the charges. I make this suggestion after receiving a particularly lunatic death threat against my wife in an email, by one of the dozens of editors who have none of NMMGG's moderation and restraint, but, like him, are convinced that anyone editing also to ensure that the P side of the I/P area is duly and proportionally represented per WP:NPOV must be, ipso facto an anti-Semitic demonizer of Israel. Nishidani (talk) 10:05, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I am certainly not "convinced that anyone editing also to ensure that the P side of the I/P area is duly and proportionally represented per WP:NPOV must be, ipso facto an anti-Semitic demonizer of Israel". That's another personal attack on your part. I do think, among other things, that you (just you, not everyone) are a relentless POV pusher, who subtly changes what the sources say to advance a POV. Those "slips" you mention above do indeed look bad and can hardly be explained by "haste". Just like in the examples you give above that are supposed to showcase your wonderful NPOV editing, an 18 year old Palestinian who stabs people is called a "boy" (not in the source) or an Israeli who is stabbed in the stomach (in the source) turns into "lightly wounded in the torso", or the many many many other such examples I could bring if anyone actually cared about the integrity of this encyclopedia.

Anyway, could you kindly answer the question above? Which ethnicity were you talking about? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:55, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

No. If you want clarification of my varied remarks, which you appear to take invariably as adventitious personal ideas reflecting perhaps some obscure mindcast of mine, rather than allusions to somewhat clichéd elements of sociology, read any of the relevant literature on ethnicity, nationalism, outgroup/ingroup relations, beginning with Daniele Conversi,Ethnonationalism in the Contemporary World, Psychology Press, 2004.p.76

Until you respond to my initial evidence of your documented framing of me as an anti-Semite active on Wikipedia, I feel no obligation to respond to attempts side-step the issue, move the goal-posts, and make out that, in outlining my case, I am engaged in a series of personal attacks. I'm not interested in bickering, but in independent external, neutral editors reviewing that evidence and making some suggestions that might free our collaboration from the sullied image of both myself and Wikipedia which you have highlighted on that page.Nishidani (talk) 18:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

To sum this query up for the benefit of neutral editors, how am I to establish an equable, collegial working relationship with an editor who uses Wikipedia to assert that I am an anti-Semite? It is as simple as that. Nishidani (talk) 18:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

What? You were not "allu[ding] to somewhat clichéd elements of sociology". You were telling other editors you doubt they have the capacity for pity or horror for people outside a certain ethnicity. An ethnicity you now wisely refuse to name. You need to "convert" so you can "convince yourself" they have such capacity, you said. So kindly cut the bullshit. I can't imagine anyone is buying this new line.

I have not moved the goal posts. You claim I am making personal attacks against you. I am discussing the issue with an admin above, and will gladly discuss with any uninvolved editor and will accept any consensus on whether I should keep that page or not. While doing that, I have provided evidence that you engage in personal attacks as you complain about attacks against you. Your hands are not clean and I think it's quite legitimate for me to point that out. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:40, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

You are ignoring the original points, and trying to engage me in a fishing expedition to turn the focus from what you've done, use a wiki page to accuse an editor of anti-Semitism. I have no confidence in your ability to construe my words in any other sense than as evidence of racial animus. I am quite happy to respond to any neutral third party who desires any clarification (i.e. I'll reply to them if, any of your counterfactual assertions have sown some doubt in onlookers' minds, such as: "Just like in the examples you give above that are supposed to showcase your wonderful NPOV editing, an 18 year old Palestinian who stabs people is called a "boy" (not in the source) or an Israeli who is stabbed in the stomach (in the source) turns into "lightly wounded in the torso" .") It is pointless discussing this with you, since, as you state on that page I am an anti-Semite, anything I do say in this context will be read as evidence of that hypothesis. In hermeneutics or science, that is a circular method that leads nowhere. So kindly stop the bickering, and allow others to air their impressions or views. Thank you Nishidani (talk) 22:28, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

To sum this query up for the benefit of neutral editors, how am I to establish an equable, collegial working relationship with an editor who uses Wikipedia to assert that I am an anti-Semite? It is as simple as that. Nishidani (talk) 18:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that assertion is totally unacceptable. At minimum, that part of the page should be removed. --IRISZOOM (talk) 07:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I fully agree with IRISZOOM that asserting that Nishidani is an antisemite is unacceptable. In my view, labeling Nishidani as an anti-Semite violates WP:AGF. I posted a note on NMMNG's talk page asking him to refrain from attacking editors. First he appears to have attacked Nishidani by labeling him as an antisemite. Now he seems to be adding insult to injury by calling Nishidani a 'childless old man.' I kindly advised NMMNG to remove anything from the sub-page off of his user page that can be seen as labeling Nishidani as an antisemite, and to stop posting on Nishidani's talk page. NMMNG's allegations against Nishidani and his posts on Nishidani's user talk page are not in the spirit of the communitarian culture of Wikipedia, are counter-productive and do not help improve the encyclopedia. IjonTichy (talk) 18:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Could either of you kindly quote me "asserting" anything? Thanks. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

While we wait for either of you to provide some evidence of me asserting what you claim I assert, would you like to share which ethnicity you think Nishidani was alluding to when he accused myself and a couple of other editors of lacking a "capacity for pity and horror that is not ethnic-exclusive"? I'm curious as to how other editors read this. Here are the diffs again [134] [135] No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Simpler still. Is this page User:No More Mr Nice Guy/Antisemitism and Wikipedia, in attributing to a fellow editor the crime/pathological mindset of anti-Semitism, since the 'evidence' consist of diffs from my editing history, compatible with Wikipedia's principles of WP:AGF? A note on the kind of 'evidence' gathering, and its defects, being used to confirm NMMGG's suspicion can be found here. Nishidani (talk) 13:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I've changed the name of the page. I hope that solves the problem. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Black Kite (talk) wrote: 'Idon't see any reason not to delete that page per a textbook case of WP:POLEMIC (and it's bordering on a G10 speedy as well).'

He asked if anyone disagreed. No one has.

Johnuniq on your talk page, gave a thorough exposition of the policies principles that page compromises.

Those two editors are independent. I've actually been cautioned at times by the latter, justly so.

I have tried here, on my page, and just now on your page, to reach a compromise to allow you to retain that page (against policy) and my right of reply registered on it by a link. All you need to have added to satisfy my request was to write under your indictment: 'However, see this, a link where everything you list as an accusation is, to me, comprehensively answered. You simply reverted my last bid for a compromise that would save your interests and my honour. So, ignoring the three involved editors who think it should be removed, and my own opinion that you should annotate it to preserve my right to defend myself, I ask that the 2 neutral opinions, given no one is defending that page other than its author, be accepted as determinative, and that the page be erased from wikispace.Nishidani (talk) 18:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I have had no dealings with Black Kite as far as I can remember, and he has a reputation as a good admin, so I will gladly discuss with him and take what he says to heart.

Johnuniq on the other hand shows up to support you every time you're on an administrative board, so no.

Two days ago you told me not to post on your page. As you can imagine, I didn't make much effort to read what you posted today on my page before I removed it. Turnabout is fair play as they say. I do not regularly read your page. So I didn't seen what kind of "compromise" you were suggesting. I did change the page's name as a compromise following the discussion here, since Black Kite seemed to think the name implied something. Any further changes will come if, as I said above, there's a consensus among uninvolved editors, something I don't see here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I told you to stop posting because I found your persistence in insinuating I was getting at Jews, aggressive, repetitive and tedious, and I read everything there. You reverted me without paying attention, mere tit-for-tat. To repeat, you can't 'frame' a fellow editor on wikispace, as you did. It is as strong a violation of any policy as you can get. I said you could, if you linked to my analysis of those accusations. I stated that here, on my page, and your page before you reverted. You dismiss Johnuniq as a partisan. You gave, however, no adequate reply to his close policy analysis, and I suggest any closing editor examine his reasoning before deciding. That's all I have to say.Nishidani (talk) 22:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Johnuniq's analysis is based on the false premise that I'm "asserting" something about you or "labeling" you. He ignored my request for quotes. I believe such claims should be backed up by a diff? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Come on! the Arbs looked at the material, and exonerated me, and told you to stop it. You withdrew, drew up an attack page, and even stooped to dropping hints, not too obscure, to another editor that I was up to the same old game you originally accused me of. I.e.

The page has the quote:

We found that there is hardly any difference in the semantics of highly educated anti-Semites and vulgar extremists and neo-Nazis.

You 'tipped off'(A buen entendedor, pocas palabras bastan) User:Ashtul You gotta hand it to the guy, he's quite good at what he does. Sophisticated and subtle, usually hitting points people from, shall we say "a certain walk of life" will immediately recognize, but outsiders would probably not. It doesn't need a genius to read one in the sense of the other (the 'guy' is little different from a neo-Nazi). Nishidani (talk) 10:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

No, a single admin dismissed it out of hand because he thought it was "vexatious". He even explicitly said he didn't look at all the evidence.

You could read all kinds of stuff into the quotes on that page, it's nice that you found one you feel fits you.

As for "sophisticated and subtle", when you said myself and Plot Spoiler lack a "capacity for pity and horror that is not ethnic-exclusive" [136] [137], what ethnicity were you talking about? Are you not saying that we care only about people of our own ethnicity? If that's not enough, doesn't it allude to a millenia old accusation against, what must be a complete coincidence, the same ethnicity? You drop this sort of stuff all the time. Maybe wording it like this gives you plausible deniability, but I doubt you don't see the connection. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

While you think of a plausible explanation, I just remembered the time you said editors like me tend to be opposed as goyim beyond the pale. It doesn't need a genius to see how these things stack up. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I think it is obvious how it is an assertion. You had, until you just changed it, a page called "Antisemitism and Wikipedia" and some of Nishidani's edit was listed under "Wikipedia specific". --IRISZOOM (talk) 09:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

That's not an assertion. That could be an implication. One that's gone now that I changed the page name. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Per your comment above, do you have a suggestion? I have explained here (permalink) that the user page (which was originally Antisemitism and Wikipedia) should be removed because either there is evidence that Nishidani is anti-Semitic, or there isn't. In both cases, sly allegations have no place at Wikipedia—the correct procedure would be to discuss the evidence at a noticeboard. I would take this to WP:MFD but while reviewing some of the background it quickly became apparent that MfD would be very tedious due to the likelihood that the people who battle over every comma at WP:ARBPIA articles would arrive to vote according to their beliefs, and the principles of WP:POLEMIC would be drowned out with an attempt to discuss the allegations (as seen in the most recent comment at NMMNG's talk). Discussing the allegations completely misses the point of POLEMIC. Johnuniq (talk) 12:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

You said the page name implies something. I changed it. You said it's not ok to call something another editor said "malicious". I changed that as well. There is ample precedent showing I'm allowed to document faults with Wikipedia in my user space, including links to what other editors have said. One such precedent is Nishidani's own user page. So if you have something specific you feel is a problem (not including the fact you don't want your friend on that page at all), feel free to let me know and I'll consider it. Meanwhile it would be nice if you could answer my question after I answered yours, but I understand why you don't want to. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Given your objections to the use of the phrase "the Chosen People" to refer to Jews (or, at least, those who regard territory in the Levant as theirs by divine right), do you think that what the Chosen People and Jews as the Chosen People say about Judaism is problematic, particularly statements such as the one in the latter which reads: "According to the Israel Democracy Institute, approximately two thirds of Israeli Jews believe that Jews are the 'chosen people'?" Since you don't like jibes about choseness in relation to (some) Jews, how do you feel about an Israeli cabinet minister using religious justifications for stating, “All the land is ours?”[138]     ←   ZScarpia   12:29, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• I came here as an univolved admin thinking I could help by closing this endless schlamassel. Well, I'm not going to categorise who is in the right or in the wrong but it looks very much to me like pots & kettles. So without beating about the bush, what I do expect however is for them both to put {{Db-u1}} on their user pages at User:No More Mr Nice Guy/Quotes and Stuff and User:Nishidani very quickly - and I mean delete, not just selectively removing contetious material, otherwise I'll delete the pages myself per POLEMIC. They only exist in order to incite something and have no usefulness towards the building of this encyclopedia or the friendly collaboration of its editors. I'll let any other admins decide what sanctions, if any, shoud be applied to the editors. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:11, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Not quite uninvolved. At Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Nishidani you stepped in ands argued forcefully for deletion and the community voted to keep. 'Pots and kettles' indicates a failure to understand 'cause and effect'. I was the object of a personal polemic: I said nothing for 2 years, and left the attack page unprotested. The editor in question left. He came back. Airily dismissing a defense of my bona fides as on a par with whoever might attack them, is frankly bizarre. As my defense notes indicate, the substance of this insinuation comes up frequently among Wikipedia editors. I don't take them to some policy board for sanctions. They are entitled to their beliefs. I do defend my right to make it absolutely clear on my home page to anyone who sights these frequent defamations what the actual story is about. All you are suggesting is that I am equally at fault for wishing to keep my profile here cleared of any innuendo of a criminal bias.Nishidani (talk) 10:35, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Particularly since I am, like some editors, subject to death threats, such as the latest a minute ago threatening to 'rape (my) granddaughter and smash her skull'. That otherwise responsible and capable editors, or passing admins, cannot understand that tolerance of these innuendoes has consistently led to death threats, is the problem, not my desire to maintain my integrity as an editor.Nishidani (talk) 10:44, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• I wanted to notify people that I have nominated NMMNG's page for deletion, see here. Given Kudpung's above statement, my nomination appears redundant. I have not looked at Nishidani's user page for a considerable time and don't have an opportunity to examine it now, but it must contain some unsatisfactory material for Kudpung to have made the above comment. I suggest that Nishidani take a copy of the page to a file on a local computer, then put {{db-u1}} at the top of the page. After it is deleted, recreate the page with no hint of whatever it is that is a problem. The details of that can be discussed on a user talk page if necessary (not here), but it is extremely unlikely that Kudpung is wrong. Johnuniq (talk) 10:56, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Done. I think Kudpung is wrong. There is no such thing as infallibility, though experience tells me Johnuniq comes pretty close. No problem,Nishidani (talk) 13:00, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

One more thing: presumably the part of the sentence reading, "laughable attempt of using an anti-semite to explain what anti-semitism is," which NoMoreMrNiceGuy added above at 22:18, 20 May 2015 is referring to Richard Falk. Since Falk is very much alive, referring to him as an anti-Semite is a WP:BLP issue and the reference should be deleted. I wonder when NoMoreMrNiceGuy started calling Jews he doesn't like antisemitic?     ←   ZScarpia   13:19, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

The administrator User:Black Kite has promoted the violation of WP:NPOV/WP:VAND/WP:DISRUPT policies

There was already a dispute: in which the administrator didn't take any serious action on it, and instead tried to justify his wrong decision [139], concerning page protection, with a false positive saying that the vandaled editor "have not justified their edits": while the vandaled editor has clearly justified his edit [140] in the talk page as described in the 3RR noticeboard.

The administrator didn't take any action on the unauthorized edit [141] done by the reported user after protecting the page.

All what this administrator did was unacceptable and a disappointment: and he is like to be involved in a conspiracy with User:Ahunt against free content related to the "opinions supporting GNU/Linux" section in the GNU/Linux naming controversy article.

This administrator should be punished for what he did. And the User:Ahunt should get his edits, which violated the WP:NPOV, WP:VAND and WP:DISRUPT policies as described in the 3RR noticeboard section, reverted, if not blocking his account for a period. 41.224.105.105 (talk) 21:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The diffs you provided show nothing inappropriate. What is the basis for the requested punishment? Chillum 21:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

It seem the diffs have since been updated. Still, all I see is a content dispute. Chillum 21:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

What's still not clear here? I think that I'm well knowing what I'm doing when I wrote all that. I want that you understand well this issue to solve it correctly. 41.224.105.105 (talk) 22:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Unauthorised edit? What? The page was only semiprotected, not fully protected so there's no such thing as an "unauthorised edit". Even editing a page fully protected due to edit warring isn't really unauthorised except perhaps when it's in violation of WMF orders, but I'd understand calling editing such a fully protected page unauthorised.. Bad edits sure (although I'm not saying any of the edits were bad), but unauthorised no. I guess at a stretch you could say an edit which violates the TOU, such as paid editing without disclosure is an unauthorised edit but I'm not seeing any suggestion of that. This has all the hallmarks of a run of the mill content dispute with a lot of edit warring, particularly on your part. Nil Einne (talk) 21:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

BTW commenting on the talk page rarely justifies edit warring, particularly when the other parties have participated in the discussion. If you can't reach WP:consensus, there is always the many methods of WP:Dispute resolution. While it takes to 2 edit war, if it's a single IP or new editor or SPA, edit warring against a stable version supported by 2 other established editors, people are rarely likely to look favourable on the IP no matter the content at hand (which would usually be irrelevant to any enforcement anyway), except in special cases such as a clear cut BLP violation. Nil Einne (talk) 21:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:consensus? it wasn't about consensus problem. the User:Ahunt has vandalized the added info without any reason: you can see his edit history and read well the talk page to understand. 41.224.105.105 (talk) 21:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Its clearly not a question of vandalism. I would urge you to retract any claims to that effect. You may have a valid complaint about the decision to semi-protect instead of full-protect, as semi protection should not be used "to privilege registered users over unregistered users in (valid) content disputes". And arguably you were having a valid content dispute. But if you keep up with the vandalism claims, how wrong you are about that aspect will remain the focus of the discussion. Monty₈₄₅ 21:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I would be reluctant to criticise the semi protection even if the reasoning behind it was perhaps not the best. It looks to me like both the IP and User:Ahunt went pass 3RR. But at time, the IP hadn't left any comments on the talk page (although they had by the time BK dealt with the EW case) so I'd be a bit more willing to give Ahunt a pass on this one since the later edits they reverted were removing sourced content. (Although I probably would have cautioned them.) The IP keeps changing, whether intentionally or not, so let's little chance to stop them via a block so semiprotection is probably justified to ensure there are no further 3RR violations. The other participants can be blocked if they violate 3RR. Nil Einne (talk) 22:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

For that matter, even if there weren't any more 3RR violations, the edit warring had to stop, so again we get to the problem that the IP can't be blocked, the editors can't be. Full protection is an option, but with only 3 parties involved blocking is another IMO. While it is often fair to block all parties involved in an edit war, in this case given the reasons I've highlighted earlier, the IPs edits were always likely to be viewed more negatively without considering the content. Nil Einne (talk) 18:55, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

(EC) Of course it's about consensus. That's how wikipedia operates. You're trying to make changes. Two editors disagree with these changes. You need to come to consensus on whether or not these changes should be made. If you can't come to consensus with only you 3, you should seek help via some means of dispute resolution. Since you are the one making changes rather then the other way around, per WP:BRD you should wait until there is consensus for making the changes (which doesn't mean other editors can just say there's no consensus so no changes without much effort to reach consensus). Although even if you were trying to revert to the stable version, it's still no excuse for edit warring on your part. And calling content dispute vandalism is a sure way to make people think you are in the wrong (although I don't think you were the only one who did that). Nil Einne (talk) 22:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

(EC) Finally you named User:Ahunt at least twice, and linked to them without naming another time in your complaint, but only notified BlackKite of this ANI thread, so you'fe failed to carry out the notifications which both edit heading and the heading of the page clearly tell you to do. Nil Einne (talk) 22:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

the issue is not just about User:Ahunt, I just refered to it to talk about the related issue which is itself related to what User:Black Kite did, no more nor less. 41.224.105.105 (talk) 22:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be missing my point. As the big orange box says when you are editing this page, and the red text says before you edit, you need to notify anyone you bring here for discussion. If there is more than one editor, you need to notify all of them (there are very rare exceptions such as with multiple socks, in those case you should at least mention that you didn't do so). It doesn't matter whether the issue isn't just about one editor, your comment clearly discussed Ahunt's editing and even named them so they should have been notified. Nil Einne (talk) 22:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

To give an example, as I mentioned Ahunt's editing myself in a comment above, I have now made sure they were notified about this discussion. This means you don't have to notify them any more, but please remember to do so in the future. Nil Einne (talk) 22:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• Kinda strange this IP account's first edit was this AN/I action. Perhaps this is an attempt to get back at Black Kite for something? Not anything conclusive, just saying it is suspicious.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything that suspicious here. The IP has been edit warring under several IPs on the GNU/Linux naming controversy for a few days now. They took a case to WP:AN/EW which BlackKite closed but didn't go the way the IP wanted. Their complaint is meritless, but it seems fairly unlikely the IP got involved in a dispute on a page in the hope they could bring a EW complaint which would be dealt with by BK, which they could then use to further their grudge with. Rememeber there's no way they could even know BK would be the one to deal with it. I guess they could have tried to time it very carefully, but that seems a bit pointless when there are surely easier ways to further a grudge. Nil Einne (talk) 22:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

This is almost as lame as the CO-founder debate on Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 23:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• That particular IP's first entry is here, but the user behind the IP is IP-hopping. Look at 41.224.94.228 (talk · contribs), for example. In general, look at the history for GNU/Linux naming controversy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG

If the accusations are correct and this IP is just trying to get back at Black Kite, I think some action should be taken. the IP has clearly showed a battleground mentality. Weegeerunner (talk) 00:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I think a set of observant eyes will be enough. Chillum 14:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

@Nil Einne:@Weegeerunner: Your lack of well-discussing is showing here: you are both choosing street slang like "grudge", "battleground" and not well-respecting others. Also, you should try to discuss things the right way so this issue can be solved correctly, instead of saying false positives the next time. 41.224.122.73 (talk) 16:31, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Give us a reason to respect you. Your actions have gotten the page protected, and instead of discussing the changes you wish to make further, you instead open this thread and attack the administrator who protected the page. I am finding it extremely difficult to AGF to a user who does not. I suggest that you find good reason to support why you think sourced content should be removed from the article and replaced with unsourced information that is little more than POV. Granted that it may be the POV of the founder of Wikipedia, but it is still a POV, and is not even an official statement. If you can find an official statement by Jimbo Wales (official meaning off wiki), then it should be included into the article, however, the sourced information removed from the article should be left where it is.

• Support BOOMERANG - per IDHT, CIR, NOTHERE, BATTLEGROUND, and failure to AGF. -- Orduin ^Discuss 18:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

You have convinced me to change my mind. I support a block of the user behind this IP(even if they change IPs) for at least a week until they learn how to work in a collaborative environment. Chillum 18:18, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

41: Um right, but I never used any of those words or any sort of "street slang" in my comments to you (unless you count those which were vital you understand like "consensus" which I linked to). I did mention in reply to another editor why I didn't think this started as a grudge. But frankly grudge is an ancient English word who's meaning here is the same as elsewhere and not "street slang". And even if you didn't understand my comment, it didn't really matter because my comment didn't really matter to you. Nor did I say anything about false positives. (Although I did explain why I didn't think you were explicitly targetting BlackKite when I mentioned grudge.) As for not respecting, I feel I have you as much respect as I deserved. I attempted to clearly explain why your editing was a problem. The fact that you didn't appear to take any of this on board, is unfortunate but I don't think it has anything to do with a lack of respect on my part. If I did respect you, I wouldn't have spent my time explaining why your editing was problematic and what you can do about it. Nil Einne (talk) 18:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: ... Maybe it was a misunderstanding. 41.224.72.21 (talk) 21:46, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support boomarang - for lack of competence in English, if nothing else. (Seriously, for BATTLEGROUND, NOTHERE, IDHT.) BMK (talk) 18:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

@Orduin: You are a rude guy: let your words "Give us a reason to respect you" for yourself, I'm ignoring you.

To make it clear for all, I just started this thread to let the board of administrators know about the wrong decision the admin did which should get some punishment: but now I understand all about these non-honnest administrators involved in this board who were not doing their job as it should be: and maybe wanted a cash instead, and that this wikipedia is like to be an american product promoting the unjustice. To end, I don't care now about what decision this board will get, and I even don't think of getting back to this "Non-free Encyclopedia" again for reading nor for contributing. 41.224.72.21 (talk) 21:46, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

OH NO!!! We're sorry, we're really really really REALLY sorry! Really!!! Don't go, we don't mean to be bad, it's just that mummy never loved us and daddums ran off with the plumber after we had the upstairs bathroom redone, and sometimes we just can't help ourselves. Please stay, we realllllly need you! (Really!!!) Wikipedia is going down the tubes like a lubricated ... thingumbob ... going down a ... pipe-like ... thing. (I'm so upset I can't think properly.) If you go, I don't know if we'll be able to make it. Have pity on us, we're just poor benighted geeks sitting around in our pyjamas trying to make sense of the world. Oh... woe is me...us...me. Come back, Shane, come back! BMK (talk) 22:34, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

(Aside to any admin with a bit of common sense: please indef range block this troll. BMK (talk) 22:37, 30 May 2015 (UTC))

Can we make this the new "poster child" for "assume good faith"?!!... (This definitely smells like "trolling" to this non-involved editor...) --IJBall (talk) 21:57, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• Note This user has changed IPs again, Special:Contributions/41.224.224.129. They should not be hard to recognize though. Chillum 01:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• I would just indef all of the IPs and log the socks. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:36, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Note that the editor has also used the IP Special:Contributions/197.27.115.225. I don't know why as these both belong to the same ISP, but it's possible or even likely a single range block will only cover half the IPs. Personally I would just close this discussion and hope they bugger of as they seem to be an WP:SPA and with the page being protected they have little to do other than to continue discussion on the article talk page. (If they do reopen this thread, perhaps it will be time to block.) Nil Einne (talk) 08:55, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• The very idea that Black Kite is involved in any conspiracy and should be 'punished' for just doing his job is so ridiculous that it could only come from a user with a vengeance and an Internet Provider that issues dynamic IPs every time the user goes online or uses a celluar mobile device. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:04, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oh hello, I've been away for the weekend, so sorry for arriving late to the party. I semi'd the article because the IP, under various guises, was removing sourced information and substituting a section sourced to a talkpage post that Jimbo made over six years ago. Apart from the fact we don't use Wikipedia as a source, it's only reliable for Jimbo's opinion about a Wikipedia page, not for the actual subject itself. Removing sourced and relevant information without any rationale is vandalism per WP:VANDTYPES, so given that it would have been impossible to block the IP without rangeblocking a couple of quite significant ranges, I went for the semi. Cheers, Black Kite (talk) 15:51, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Globally blocked User:Michael Kühntopf sockpuppetry

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

---

There is still 2 unblocked sockpuppets of the globally blocked User:Michael Kühntopf. Found them because they were editing in the now deleted article Michael Kühntopf. These sockpuppets are already blocked in german Wikipedia. Sockpuppets are: User:Schweizerfreund[142] and User:Miles & Schnorr[143]. Kind regards Seader (talk) 12:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I think no admin has acted here because one of the accounts hasn't edited in over 2 years while the other hasn't edited in over 4 years. Maybe if they return to active accounts, an admin will take action. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:22, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Toeknee44

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

---

• Toeknee44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Upon telling this user that his trivia doesn't belong on an article I was met with the following personal attacks:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ribbon_Salminen&diff=664877559&oldid=664877468
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ribbon_Salminen&diff=664877634&oldid=664877559
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ribbon_Salminen&diff=664877788&oldid=664877634
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ribbon_Salminen&diff=664876868&oldid=664874680
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Toeknee44&diff=664877395&oldid=664877223

リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (LOLTNA) 16:32, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Personal attacks and user page vandalism, actually. Block requested. I gave my own warning. Wait for further action from an admin. Callmemirela (Talk) 17:12, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I've removed those comments left on your talk page. -- Orduin ^Discuss 17:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

It seems like given these personal attacks, Toeknee44 should receive a temporary block. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:48, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

My trivia? I added a fact to a page yoy created and then you began re editing it again and again and again. Before when i added information on a page u decided was yours u deleted all of my adds and then re edited all of my adds. Lol. You get so mad when somebody edits a pafe u claim. Get over it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toeknee44 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

If you look at those diffs, you won't see any addition of useful information, you'll see name calling and insults by you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• Toeknee44, I'm prepared to give you a chance to clean your act (and your language) up. Step out of line once more, however slight, and it will be an immediate 6 month block, without discussion here, for PA and language not compatible with collaborating to build an encyclopedia. You've only been around for 150 or so edits and you need to understand that Wikipedia is not some back-alley youth club however much you might feel your edits have been intefered with. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Buddhist Brâhmans

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

---

Saint Tapasya has created Buddhist Brâhmans. This appears to be an article which has been repeatedly created and deleted under various names (see Buddhist Bráhmans and Buddhist Brahmins) all of which were created by Buddhakahika and/or his various socks. There is a very good chance this is yet another sock as it was created two days after Buddhakahika got indefinitely banned for using socks. Helpsome (talk) 17:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes, I was already searching my memory for the name... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:53, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

SPI opened again Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Buddhakahika. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:09, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• User blocked, pages up for AFD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddhist Brâhmans, though I believe all the articles created by the user should probably be deleted per WP:CSD#G5. -- Orduin ^Discuss 21:40, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

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

I guess someone just got their temporary block lifted.

The following discussion is closed. 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 this acceptable behaviour? Pinging User:Diannaa who asked to be let know if anything happened after. For reference. Mabalu (talk) 15:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Another admin has blocked the IP. Please let us know if the person switches to a different IP, and we can do a range block again. The previous range was 151.20.0.0/17. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:33, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Caitlyn Jenner/Bruce Jenner snarl-up

The following discussion is closed. 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 look at the manual, and therefore broken, move of Bruce Jenner to Caitlyn Jenner, reverse it, then do it properly? Or not the last part, if we're going to go for an argument about these things as usual. But certainly the first part. Thank you! Trey Maturin (talk) 16:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and I've not informed anyone about this as the move was clearly made in good faith and the correction would be helping the people who made it - we don't need to terrify them or punish them or the like. IMHO. Trey Maturin (talk) 16:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I've done the first part. --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Bongwarrior (talk · contribs)! Trey Maturin (talk) 17:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

You are quite welcome. I've declined to move it to Caitlyn because I'm not sure how these transitions usually go down, and it would probably require a little discussion first (if not arguing). --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Requesting block for persistent IP 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.

---

IP editor 68.104.250.25 has continued to vandalize Milwaukee Brewers after warnings to this IP and other mobile IPs used to vandalize the same article in the same manner. Please see the article's edit history. I requested semi-protection on the article yesterday, but no one has addressed it yet. NatureBoyMD (talk) 17:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I've protected the page for a few days, and blocked the most recent IP's (although that was probably an empty gesture). You might want to compare the edits in this diff: [144], it looks like the remaining changes are useful but you'll know better than I. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. [145] was a legitimate edit. The vandalism was all in reference to Arizona Diamondbacks player Paul Goldschmidt "owning" the team. NatureBoyMD (talk) 17:25, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Mike Shabazz

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

---

When Mike Shabazz disagrees with you there is absolutely no space between original research and copyright violation [146]. I am afraid to edit articles relating to Judaism because of Shabazz.Scientus (talk) 21:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

It's Malik, not Mike. The last time he was complainrd of here, the complainant objected to his supposedly pro-Arab and Muslim views see here. Do you just want to chat or are you referring to some specific actionable incident? Paul B (talk) 22:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything in the diffs provided that justifies coming to ANI. Scientus is having a disagreement with Malik on a Talk page. From this, we are to assume that Malik has so intimidated Scientus that they are afraid to edit articles related to Judaism? @Scientus, have you even talked to Malik about your feelings before complaining about him here?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe he is either pro-Arab or pro-Israel. I said Judaism because the issues are about the term "anti-Semitism" and the synonym "Judeophobia". Just got really angry when he threatened to block me from Wikipedia because copyvio after deleted my sourced data as OR. The only reason I paraphrased so closely was because of the repeated claims of OR, then when he assumed an edit was a revert (and then reverting it as a minor edit) when it wasn't he didn't respond to my comment mentioning this problem. I feel bullied by an admin. On substance: using "antisemitism" to introduce Pinsker views is an insult to his aversion to that term, and a US report used "anti-Semitism", not "antisemitism" and it should be sourced as such. The former is English, and the latter is German, even if the latter has entered the English language, and I don't really care but we should respect the sources. I imagine "antisemitism" is partially an attempt to avoid the gramattical problems with the term, which have been discussed ad infinum, and even has its own page at the ADL and denial that Arabs are Semites.Scientus (talk) 23:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

He's right about what law applies, and just because someone labels your edit OR doesn't give you the right to infringe to "fix" it. Some of this, btw, seems like a lot of nit-picking, i.e., anti-semitism vs. antisemitism. Finally, "insulting" a source by using a term they don't like is not something that is at all relevant to Wikipedia content.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Scientus appears to have a hearing problem. She/he cannot accept the fact that antisemitism, a word that only means "Jew-hatred", has nothing to do with Semites. This is a content dispute that started about a week ago when Scientus proposed to move Islam and antisemitism, and then Scientus spread the dispute to Antisemitism. I believe Scientus has engaged in original research and copyright violation in pursuit of her/his obsession.

I apologize for my hasty response to an edit by Scientus that claimed to revert my removal of COPYVIO material. I should have looked more closely before I used rollback and threatened to block Scientus if she/he reinserted the COPYVIO material.

I believe the appropriate place to discuss this matter is Talk:Antisemitism, not a noticeboard. I look forward to discussing the matter with Scientus there. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The creation of the neologism "antisemitism" in 1879 by Wilhelm Marr was intended to give a modern neo-scientific gloss to an age-old hatred. Marr had no intention of including other Semitic peoples in the scope of the word, which meant then, and means today, bias and prejudice against and hatred for Jews, and Jews alone. BMK (talk) 01:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

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

81.102.248.140 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.

---

• 81.102.248.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - User made a legal threat in this diff: [147] (in edit summary) and on this talk page. ----Non-Dropframe _talk 22:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I was just trying to report the same incident. Thanks for posting it Non-dropframe. MarnetteD|Talk 22:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Quite simple, if you promote lies, people have the right to challenge them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.248.140 (talk) 22:40, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Also quite simple, if you want to pursue legal proceedings, you don't get to edit Wikipedia. -- GB fan 22:48, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

For reference, see also: 81.106.116.168 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) This IP appears to be the same user has been making similar edits going back to 2013. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• Can we also check whether there are in fact any WP:BLP concerns on this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.106.7 (talk) 22:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• Everything appears to be well sourced, although the length of the section about Loughton "sacking" his constituent does seem a bit excessive for a minor incident and could be severely trimmed. Black Kite (talk) 23:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) I've been doing a WP:DOLT review. The material in question was all properly cited, and reasonable reflected the source material, and I think the article is BLP compliant, though it may give too much ink to the whole affair, per WP:WEIGHT. A full third of the article is devoted to it, and nothing really came of it. Monty₈₄₅ 23:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• OK, this is a bit weird. The 12:08 edit to the article by this IP today was a BLP violation - it accused Loughton of saying something offensive about another person without any source (I've revision deleted it). All the edits this evening, though, have been removing material that may be seen to be negative to the subject. How very strange. Black Kite (talk) 23:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• Right. After looking at the IPs edits to another editor's talkpage, I do see what the issue is now. I'm going to take a look at the Loughton article and I'm pretty sure quite a chunk may need to be excised. I won't go into more details but any admin who looks at the deleted talkpage edits will see what I mean. Black Kite (talk) 23:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that large chunks of the material should likely be removed, given what ultimately came from it. Some mention is probably still appropriate given the degree of coverage; but even then, we can probably greatly minimize the material to which the IP objects. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:26, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I've killed the whole section for the time being on the basis of WP:DONOHARM. I agree there may be a way of restoring a summary of the issue without the contentious material, but it's late here so I'll have to look at that tomorrow. Black Kite (talk) 23:32, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Mikesmithonepercenter and 2015 Waco shootout

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

---

Mikesmithonepercenter Please take a look at the article and take appropriate action. Editor keeps reinserting POV and talk in article with little to no referencing. Viewpoint considerably fringe. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 01:21, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Pure soapboxing, as seen from his edit request to Talk:Anonymous (group). Here's the url for his vimeo rant. User is here merely to push his fringe position using Wikipedia as a host. User is at final warning now; I see no reason for additional extensions of patience. BusterD (talk) 01:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Now editing after final warning. Reported at AIV; btw, there's a bit of a backlog at AIV. BusterD (talk) 01:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Just reverted again. Please block. John from Idegon (talk) 01:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Floquenbeam got it. BusterD (talk) 01:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

(e/c) Blocked until he starts talking to people. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Re-opened as it appears the blocked editor is now socking on 147.26.87.13. Hard block please? John from Idegon (talk) 05:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked the IP; will consider semi-protection if they show up again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 10:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Mitchellellis1

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

---

• Mitchellellis1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Disney XD (Australia) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This user has repeatedly performed edits to the Disney XD (Australia) article (namely the section which relates to the channels programming) which are deemed inappropriate and counterproductive. Conversations have been started on both the user's talkpage and on the article's talk page and despite it being made clear to this user by myself as well as other users, he/she continues to replace reliable and appropriate information and structure with his/her own. Forbesy 777 (talk) 01:28, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Only edits to a talk page or user talk page I could find is his recent deletion of a year's worth of messages, without reply. More than enough warnings; blocked until he begins interacting with people. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Excess protection

The following discussion is closed. 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 unable to leave a message on User talk:JzG because the page is protected. When trying to leave a message, I was directed instead to Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Current_requests_for_edits_to_a_protected_page but that page is also (semi)protected.

Please sort it out. 88.104.27.1 (talk) 12:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Protection of the RFPP is only likely to happen for a short time, this one will be expiring in about 1h 30 minutes. If you can't wait that long you'll have to ask somewhere else. Here is probably a good as place as any. Nil Einne (talk) 12:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

While we are reluctant to to semi-protect admin user-talk pages, that one was clearly necessary. Likewise, the protection at RFPP is very necessary. How about you just reply here with your message, and if its constructive, someone will copy it over to JzG's talk page. Monty₈₄₅ 13:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, here goes;

JzG, please don't refer to another editor as a "boring tit" as you did earlier on AN [148]. No matter what they've done, such personal attacks never help anything - I'm sure I don't need to explain it further. Thanks for listening, 88.104.27.1 (talk) 13:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

He was referring to another IP. What's your personal interest in this? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

None. 88.104.18.121 (talk) 15:21, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry: I meant, of course, deeply tedious and disruptive tit. Guy (Help!) 15:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Possible, but both IP's geolocate to Machester, UK on the same ISP, same mobile broadband carrier ... I won't say it's the same person as the edits don't seem to be to the same places, and both are IP addresses ..... KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 15:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

JzG, I am deeply disappointed by your attitude, and your blatant disregard for Wikipedia's policy regarding no personal attacks.

I'm further disappointed (but not at all suprised) that others assume I have done something wrong, simply because I am an IP editor. All I wanted to do, originally, was leave that polite message for JzG asking to avoid personal attacks.

I think it is shocking that admins can blatantly violate such an important policy, seemingly without any worry of recriminations.

However - unfortunate as it is - I realise there is no point my pursuing the issue further.

I am extremely concerned that Wikipedia has sunk this low, but given the prevalant attitudes, I don't want to be further involved in this discussion. Mostly because I don't see any way that anything can be solved by my doing so.

I hope, one day, things will improve. 88.104.18.121 (talk) 15:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

So... you are concerned, is that it? BMK (talk) 15:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The IP's little essay just above is a classic "non-denial denial". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

And I'm deeply concerned that your only purpose here appears to be trolling. We're done here. Guy (Help!) 16:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Citadel48

The following discussion is closed. 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 really sure what to do with this guy. He continues to mark every single edit he makes as WP:MINOR. I've tried to explain this both on his talk page and at Talk:United States invasion of Panama‎, but he doesn't seem to get it, even though he apologized on his talk page for doing it. It's not a huge deal, but it's such a "minor" issue that it seems like...it shouldn't be something that a person should have problems adapting to. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 22:21, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Writing that a edit is minor would not deflect peoples attention from my edits, even if it was on purpose. Check my edits, even before the Operation Just Cause dispute, I have marked my edits as minor. Citadel48 (talk) 22:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point.

point-> Stop it. <-point

Timothyjosephwood (talk) 22:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Why are you specifically asking me to stop it? Why not ask the dozens of other people marking all of their edits as minor? Citadel48 (talk) 23:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Happy to ask them too. Why are you arguing over something so trivial that actually requires you do to less work? There's nothing wrong with being new and not understanding policy and guidelines. There is something wrong with having your mistake pointed out to you twice and simply refusing to comply because you don't much fancy it.Timothyjosephwood (talk) 23:05, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Citadel48, the reason we dont mark all edits as minor is that edits marked as minor are considered as those not needing review or interest other editors (typo correction formatting issues and the likes). Marking edits as minor when they are not can lead to them being misinterpreted as being used to cover up something unconstructive (even when this is not the case - similarly to turning around and running whenever you see a policeman in the real world, its going to draw unwanted and unnessecary attention). If you can pint us in the direction of other editors who are doing the same I'll quite happily pass the advice on to them as well. Amortias (T)(C) 23:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The only thing that annoys me terribly is that you're giving the excuse "Other people are doing it. Why only focus on me?" I have been on Wikipedia for over 2 years now, and I have never encountered with someone who uses minor edits every single time. Your reasoning is quite flawed. So stop focusing on others and focus on yourself. Just because some people do it does mean you get to do it as well. Second of all, per WP:Minor, the reasons to not use minor edits are the following:

Adding or removing content in an article

Adding or removing visible tags or other templates in an article

Adding or removing references or external links in an article

Adding comments to a talk page or other discussion

That is it. Understood? Callmemirela (Talk) 23:13, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood:, do you feel he's abusing it or something? @Citadel48:, why do you mark almost your edits minor? Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 23:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

It just seems like part of a general unwillingness to conform to community standards. I could have brought him here already for edit warring and violating 3RR at Invasion of Panama, but I was reluctant to because I thought it could be a teaching moment. But to be so obstinate over something so simple seems to say "eff you I do what I want", and that's a no go. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 23:33, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

(This is, of course, not helped by the fact that he decided to close this conversation, because, you know, he does what he wants.)Timothyjosephwood (talk) 23:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, this makes more sense. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 23:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

All you are doing is looming over my mistake, nothing else, which is why I closed the discussion. Citadel48 (talk) 23:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

What mistake? Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 23:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

You literally marked this comment as minor. Notice that no one else in this conversation is doing that. Making mistakes is fine. Being wrong is fine. Continuing to be wrong after you are corrected is not. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 23:48, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

You are better off not marking comments as minor, I only do so here in cases like typos. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

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

IP not following correct AFD Procedures

The following discussion is closed. 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/Baker Boy. An IP is making troublesome edits. Could someone, with the experience, oversee this please? MyTuppence (talk) 11:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Specifically, they keep blanking out everyone else's comments. I've done one reversion. Mr Potto (talk) 11:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

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

hoax articles by Zoso98

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

---

Zoso98 (talk · contribs) has been creating hoax articles and garbage for months, one of which has unfortunately existed since February; Phil McCoy is full of unverifiable/false information using false references, including false ISBN for non-existent books. McCoy may possibly have existed (see claim of being relative here) but note the first draft of article includes image painted by Adolf Hitler credited to him. This edit is also false as no Greg McCoy is on this schoolboard. This user needs to be hit with the banhammer. —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Since there are single-purpose accounts that have edited only hoax pages by this editor, there may be sockpuppets involved too. Deli nk (talk) 12:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment: For example is this a sock? Note the obsession with Phil McCoy. DBaK (talk) 12:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure there are socks involved. It seems like this guy edits a lot of low-profile articles (like the school district one) so could have messed with a lot of things that have gone under the radar. —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:40, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, I suspected there were socks. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zoso98. -- Whpq (talk) 14:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

They all need to be blocked as trolls. The Jays one just vandalized an article. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

They have been all blocked as a result of the sockpuppet investigation. No need for any additional admin action. -- Whpq (talk) 20:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Hate speech from User:201.209.77.147

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

---

Ought to be blocked for this edit summary: "Reverted censorship of the truth by brainwashed tranny freak". Thanks! Skyerise (talk) 14:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done Monty₈₄₅ 14:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. That was fantastic! Skyerise (talk) 14:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Troll and sock accusations

The following discussion is closed. 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, I was accused by a couple of editors of being a sock. Like when I was called a troll, both instances were unfounded and without warrant. (Bb and medeis) Does this constitute a breach of policy here on behalf of the accusers who lack evidence. Or is it OK to go a fling the word sock and troll around ?

I feel unfairly discriminated against here and would like a second opinion on this matter. If the accusers can not back up their claims isn't that trolling, after all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.140.226 (talk) 14:49, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any intention of actually contributing to the encyclopedia, or are you just planning to continue asking ref-desk questions that are unrelated to building the encyclopedia, and then rake muck when people object to your questions that are at least somewhat trollish? Monty₈₄₅ 14:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Hang on a second? I think I was the one asking the question, so can you please try again without trying to twist my question in a jaded way back to me. Or tell me this. Since when was asking ref desk questions dependant on writing a whole section on ancient Greece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.140.226 (talk) 15:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:HERE, specifically WP:NOTHERE. Having intentions of working towards writing an encyclopedia has always been a requirement. Sergecross73 msg me 15:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest that we assume good faith and take the IP at their word that they had no trolling intent with their questions about racial attitude. However, in that case, their comments were so clueless about the divisive nature of naive discussions of race in the United States that I would suggest that an indef competency block for total cluelessness would be appropriate. That is, if the IP wasn't trolling, they should have known that their questions would be seen as trolling, and, if they didn't, they should just stay away. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• This disruptive editor's already been blocked and his appeals denied after his last ANI. He's wasted hours of time and prevented me last week from doing a translation necessary for a time-sensitive nomination. You hang up on him and he calls back to ask why you hang up. μηδείς (talk) 15:34, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
• IP, you seem to have a misguided sense of entitlement with regard to the desks. No one is obligated to accept you or your questions. If you manage to piss off a majority of the regulars, or a majority of the regulars who care one way or the other, you lose. I'd don't see anyone vocally supporting your position, so I'd say you've lost. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:40, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I had some support in principle for my question and the neutrality of it. But, just because I had a difference of opinion does that give people a right to make sweeping accusations and for that to be OK? If I'm medeis, this gives me right to call anyone sock and troll who I please. Can you not see the blindingly obvious double standards that go on here and are willfully ignored.

And any outspoken voices have their wiki political ambitions squashed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.140.226 (talk) 15:49, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Zippyz1234

The following discussion is closed. 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 has repeatedly added unsourced and unimportant awards to the pages of numerous NFL players, such as Rob Gronkowski, Randall Cobb, and Julian Edelman, among others that can be seen in their contributions. They have repeatedly been warned to stop, and even been warned that they will be reported to this noticeboard, but they have continued to make these nonconstructive edits. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 20:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

User has not edited since the last "you will be reported" warning left on his talk page at 20:10 UTC today. —C.Fred (talk) 20:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's a two day old account with 30 edits. The edits I checked were okay, nothing like vandalism although they didn't necessarily improve the articles. I think we need to see how Zippyz responds to the warnings as they have made no edits to a talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:40, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

However, they were making those last few edits at the same time I was leaving that warning. I noticed the edits right after I left the warning, which, by the way, was already after the warning from Template:Uw-vandalism4. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

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

72.15.25.104

The following discussion is closed. 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 72.15.25.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has a history of edit warring, which he hides by deleting every post made on his talk page. My incident with this user stated on this page. He had changed "statistics have been updated as of" date to a false one, so I reverted his edit. He then proceeded to reverse my reverse of his edit. I again reversed his edit, telling him that the stats had not changed since May 31, therefore the date must remain that. He then responded by posted on my talk page that he was "Just trying to update the page you f*cking idiot", which you can see here. This type of outlandish behavior is unexceptable on Wikipedia, and I fear that his disruptive behavior will continue if punishment is not issued. Also, IP was notified of this discussion, but he again blanked his talk page. Taffe316 (talk) 20:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

He actually has the right to do that (although my belief is that only accounts should be able to blank their talk pages). If the IP putting in false information, and continues to do so after the true information has been pointed out to him, that's vandalism. Probably an admin will see this report and deal with the IP, but in the future, you can report the IP to WP:AIV. BMK (talk) 20:49, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Already reported to WP:AIV but forgot to close this down in the process. Amortias (T)(C) 20:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Jesus Christ, son of God, brother of the Holy Spirit.

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

---

Jesus Christ, son of God, brother of the Holy Spirit. (talk · contribs) I feel a bit concerned about this user. The name is a bit extreme and may offend some (unless of course he really is Jesus Christ, in which case I beg forgiveness). Similarly, the scriptural edit summaries are - erm - unusual. Having said that, all the edits I see so far are good vandalism reversions, no complaint there. So I am not sure if this needs admin attention or just some prayer, or more tea. Best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 21:38, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

They've already be warned twice against this. New editor, so a final warning might be appropriate. But this isn't appropriate, and doesn't sem like they're going to stop. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Per WP:IMPERSONATE, shouldn't the account be blocked until they provide evidence to OTRS that they are, in fact, Jesus Christ? Turning water into Coke Zero, feeding the multitudes with two boxes of Oreos, or something? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no evidence that water > Coke Zero represents any sort of transformation DBaK (talk) 21:49, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

You could interpret removing vandalism as "curing wikipedia" or "casting out an unclean spirit", I guess...AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

But I've done that myself; does that mean I'm a god too? (The answer to which, as everyone knows, is always "yes"!) --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:00, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, aren't we all sons and daughters of Wikipedia here? AddWittyNameHere (talk) 22:06, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ::Well to be fair if they are really new then maybe they will catch up with their messages in a minute. If on the other hand they are someone who has been here before (odds available at Ladbroke's) then they know perfectly well what they are doing and are "avin a larff" comme on dit. I am sure that within, say, three days their intentions will become clear ... DBaK (talk) 21:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• I expect some kind of comparison of the above users to the ever-unexpected Spanish Inquisition is appropriate here: please insert one at your leisure. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

This user seems like a productive editor who has done a good job of reverting vandalism so far, but even as a fellow Christian, I agree that they need to tone it down with the preaching in their edit summaries. Talking about their faith on their user page (and through their name) would be one thing, but using Scriptural edit summaries on pages that have nothing to do with Christianity is definitely a bit extreme for Wikipedia. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 21:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

This is a clear case of WP:IMPERSONATE, soapboxing and not in the least funny. Support immediate block. Regards to all, David J Johnson (talk) 21:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Help needed protecting a technology article against 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.

---

I am a technology editor with a very strong and diverse background in technology (BS Chemical Engineering, Masters Information Technology, well read with 500 pages of notes on economic history and the history of technology). I was the main contributor to Industrial Revolution, Economic history of the United States and to other articles such as Electrification, Automation,Mass production, Interchangeable parts, Economic history of the United States and others. My rewrite of Industrial Revolution met good article standards and the topic was elevated to high importance by several of the WikiPjogects that it is in.

I was planning to work on a merger of Productivity improving technologies (historical) with Technology, which from experience with Industrial Revolution I know will this will be a major undertaking. To date no one has interfered with any of my major rewrites. This time I find the source article under attack from a gang who do not edit the technology field but are retaliating against me for filing a case against one of their allies. I also suspect they have opposing political views. These people are only here to make my life difficult and have never contributed any content to this article. However, they did engage in removel of content without discussing it on talk.

Is there a way I can protect these articles and myself from these thugs through WikiProject technology? These people are dead set against me working on this article and have removed my content elsewhere. I started a difficulties list against one of these people and was hoping not to have to take it here, but you can view it Talk:Productivity improving technologies (historical)#Original research and additional citations. Today a second person removed content without using the talk page and put an incoherent tag on the article saying it doesn't have a theme, which it clearly does. This incoherent tag showed up as soon as I stated that I had done so much work due to their constant pestering that I was considering nominating it as a good article. Of course, that tag prevents me from doing that. These people are against the content. I can't continue to work under these conditions.Phmoreno (talk) 21:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Phmoreno, it would be easier to evaluate your complaint if you named the editors you find problematic and provide diffs (evidence) of conduct you find disruptive. "Thugs" and "these people" are too vague to identify any editors and you need to illustrate what the problem is rather than describe how you view the situation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I was hoping to avoid naming names and perhaps have the article frozen until I could get a Project Technology editor to review it. However, here is my reply to User:Cwobeel:

1. You made a very poor first impression by removing material you considered OR without discussing on Talk, which was especially bad because I asked you to add the proper tags. I told you I had hundreds of pages of notes for this article (I can usually locate a reference in a minute or two) but, you decided you knew better. I also asked you to work through Wiki Project Technology, who already rated this article B class and made no claims of OR.
2. You start by citing my statements regarding the definitions of productivity and technology as OR when they are consistent several books cited in this article, plus the Talk:technology link I posted that gave some selected quotes. There is a lot further explanation of the various definitions of technology listed in these sources. So basically, if you don't understand the definition of the article, why are you are coming here criticizing the article?
3. As for the statement about the origins of chemistry, if you had read the History section you would have seen the statement with reference 7. Also, there was a link to De re metallica that discusses this fact, if you had bothered to read it.
4. Regarding references in the Contributors to Productivity section, that is a style preference. A lot of editors do not think it is good style to reference section headers. The references are in the sections.
5. Several sections lacking references use links instead, another style preference.

I did provide numerous additional references, but every time I do, more tags show up.

After I mentioned the GA nomination User:Bobrayner showed up to start removing content related to point 4 without discussing it. He also added the incoherent tag.

All I am requesting is that this be reviewed by technology editors and not either of these two or their allies. In all the years this article has been in existence there never were any complaints.Phmoreno (talk) 22:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Why are you forum shopping? Weegeerunner (talk) 22:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Ownership dispute. There isn't a single actionable incident to report or review here. Could someone please close this thread and give the OP some helpful advice about DR? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 23:00, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

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

My IP stalker is back

• Looks like they need the satisfaction of wasting everyone's time.

• 2001:590:4802:1CD:AEA1:FAEA:4CA1:B228 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2001:590:4802:1CD:297F:878F:E44:44D1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 95.141.31.6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (already caught by @Barek:, who blocked them, and @Walter Görlitz:, who has very helpfully reverted all of their rubbish)

• The IPv4 IP is Kaia Global Networks Ltd. again, this time Italian. Does anyone know if they're a proxy provider? Because it really seems like they might be. IPV6s ping back to nLayer Communications, so I'm guessing they're proxies as well. @Diannaa: to notify you of the latest annoyances. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I am still in Vancouver and won't have access to admin tools for another 10 hours or so. -- Ninja Diannaa (Talk) 14:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Review / mass rollback request

Please could someone with Rollback review recent edits by 67.8.176.249 (~100 on 01/06). Most, if not all, appear to conflict with WP:SUBCAT. Thanks. 171.100.247.198 (talk) 18:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I am in the process of reverting their edits right now. I'll look to see if they have any constructive edits during this period, because I am doing a mass revert. Epic Genius (talk) 18:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

67.8.176.249 is continuing to add inappropriate categories following mass revert and despite User talk:67.8.176.249 message. 171.100.247.198 (talk) 19:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I've left one final message; if it resumes before this is resolved, I'll block the IP. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:32, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Dennis Hastert

Some admin eyes (or any experienced neutral editor) would be appreciated on Dennis Hastert with regard to undue weight in the lead. The man's life is not just the recent scandal. Jonathunder (talk) 21:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion is at Talk:Dennis_Hastert#Indictment_in_lead. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Hardblocking IPs

Zero0000 commonly hardblocks IP addresses with the rationale "Vandalism-only account". This includes (see log) disabling talk page access. However, the blocking policy says, "editing of the user's talk page should be disabled only in the case of continued abuse of the talk page." When I asked Zero000 about this, he replied (diff), "The rules are unclear on this point, but the rationale is to allow for appeals and discussion of the block. If there is someone there who wants to change their ways and edit responsibly, it won't hurt them to wait a week first." I feel that the rules are quite clear on this point: talk page access shouldn't be disabled without abuse of that right after being blocked. An exception would be if it's a sockpuppet/spambot and there is no hope of a successful appeal, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. Conifer (talk) 01:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

As a general principle, I don't think talk page access or email access should be revoked unless they are abused. But I'm also not an admin dealing with difficult cases so I can't say that I'd also go by those principles when faced with disruptive editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I have looked at just a few random blocks and it seems that at least a few of them are the same person with a history of bigoted remarks, in those cases I think it makes sense. Are there any specific blocks you think were incorrect? Chillum 02:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Random, drive-by IP vandalism shouldn't normally disable talk page access, but also to consider that admins are often familiar with particular vandals, and in cases where a vandal can be identified by behavior rather than IP address, I can understand where an block of this type would be justified. No statements on the specific situation here, just in general it could happen that an admin doing this would be justified, in limited ways in doing this. We'd need a more complete picture than what is presented above to decide one way or the other if this specific situation is being handled correctly or not. --Jayron32 02:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

There's no specific incident I'm concerned about, just wondering how best to interpret policy. Personally, I think that while it can be tiring to entertain unblock requests from malicious editors in such controversial areas, it's still better to give them a shot at appeal and revoke talk page access if they abuse it. Conifer (talk) 04:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Fine, but if the admin is correct that it's just the same trolling user IP-hopping, then the odds are the person has abused talkpage access, just on a different IP's talkpage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I take a no-tolerance approach to pure vandals, as per the policy "accounts used exclusively for disruption may be blocked indefinitely without warning". Of course one should only block an IP for a limited time (except open proxies). I don't lose any sleep if a pure vandal can't "appeal" until a short block expires. If there was a technical way to block an IP vandal indefinitely without inconveniencing a genuine editor using the same IP, I would do it. We have enough good editors without worrying too much about those whose only actions are to attack the project. In addition, it is not clear to me that an IP-talk-page counts as a "user talk page" for the purposes of the rules, since the IP doesn't belong to a particular user; I'd welcome other opinions on that. Zero^talk 14:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, it is called User talk:whatever IP it may be, and the box at the bottom of IP talk pages does say "This is the discussion page for an IP user".
WP:OWNTALK says "Personal talk page cleanup: Although archiving is preferred, users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages. Users may also remove some content in archiving. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. This specifically includes both registered and unregistered users" (emphasis mine), which when combined with the first sentence of this quote pretty much suggests that yeah, IP talk pages count as user talk pages.
And there is "You will be notified when someone else edits your user talk page. Since 30 April 2013, registered users receive a notification through the new Wikipedia:Notifications system (see image right); unregistered users still receive notifications with the old-style Orange Bar." (emphasis mine), from WP:ORANGE. I otherwise mostly agree with you, though. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, good points. Zero^talk 23:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

IBAN violation by Catflap08

NOTE that this thread was copied from AN as this seems to be the more appropriate place. JZCL 07:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Catflap08 (talk · contribs) and I were made subject to an IBAN a few weeks ago. Last week, Catflap08 showed up suddenly in a discussion I had initiated, and commented on some of my edits; I reported this, but it was borderline and there was no result.

A few weeks before the ban, I had removed some references from the Kokuchūkai article that didn't back up the statements that were sourced to them, and I also (a little before the IBAN) removed an inappropriate primary source and the claim that was referenced to it.[149][150] Catflap08 the other day manually reverted these edits. If suddenly showing up and commenting on an edit I made (he did that again too, BTW) is not a violation, then surely reverting my edits is? He also admitted both then and now on the talk page that the refs he re-added are unrelated to the article content, so please don't respond by saying that even though it does violate the IBAN it's a harmless improvement to the article.

Sturmgewehr88 (talk · contribs) reverted the edits as an IBAN violation that was also in violation of NOR and V, Catflap08 re-reverted, while copy-pasting text that I had previously removed and attaching a source I added to the article that (1) he clearly hasn't read and (2) doesn't back up the claim.

Could someone please tell him that he is not allowed revert my edits under the terms of the IBAN?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

He also stated on the talk page before the IBAN that he was aware of my edits and was opposed to them, meaning he waited until the IBAN was in place to revert me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

He has since copy-pasted the article (Including signed comments by me) into his userspace and started drafting further additions and subtractions to make the page look more like it did before I edited it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Catflap is continuing to devote his on-wiki activity exclusively to undoing my work on the Kokuchukai article, including large chunks of text either not relevant to the subject or not directly supported by the sources. He has also altered a sourced statement to say something that the source doesn't say, apparently solely in order to fan the flames (the point is one he argued with me for months, ultimately leading to the IBAN). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

So, if you add or removed anything, ever, to the article, at any time, you think its a violation of the IBAN to have it undone? Even weeks or months later? AlbinoFerret 14:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

He expressed opposition to my edits, waited until an IBAN was in place so that I couldn't effectively defend them, knowingly reverted these edits, and continued to do so even after told to stop. How is this remotely appropriate? Am I allowed go around reverting his edits as well? or is there a time limit, and I'm allowed go around reverting his edits as long as they were made more than a month ago? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that an admin needs to clarify about the time. You might also seek clarification from the admin that enacted the IBAN. AlbinoFerret 18:17, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

When the violation took place I went straight to the enacting admin, and was told he didn't want to deal with it, so I should go to AN -- I got no response whatsoever on AN, so the thread was moved here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• WP:IBAN states "if editor X is banned from interacting with editor Y, editor X is not permitted to ... undo editor Y's edits to any page (whether by use of the revert function or by other means)". It makes no mention of time frames. So AFAICS Catflap08's reverts are indeed in violation of the IBAN. I'd welcome more input by other uninvolved administrators. Black Kite (talk) 21:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• I had always understood it to refer to reverting edits made after the institution of the IBan. If not, then on any article whatsoever, each party would have to research to find out if the other party had ever edited there, then read all of the edits they made to see what material changed, then find out if any intervening changes to the material were made by any other editors, and only then, once all those hurdles had been cleared, could the first party alter the material. I think that's extremely unreasonable, and much too broad a reading of the intent of the IBan. BMK (talk) 22:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@BMK: It's pretty hard to revert a particular user's edits without knowing who that user is. You are referring to accidental good-faith new edits to the article, not reversions. The problem here is that I made specific edits to the article before the IBAN (not long before, mind you) and now Catflap is directly reverting those edits. And it's all academic, since Catflap directly stated that he knew which edits were mine, and continued reverting after being told that his edits were reverts of mine. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:14, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The statement " Catflap directly stated that he knew which edits were mine" and the diff do not match. There is no admitting that he know what edits are yours, the diff says they dont want to discuss your edits or statements because they are problematic. That is not the same, its a generalized statement. I also agree with BMK that researching every edit in the past is unreasonable, even new edits after a week to a month depending on how active the article is. After say 50 to 100 edits or so unless you have one hell of a memory its going to take a lot of research.AlbinoFerret 03:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

He stated that he had looked at the edits and considered them problematic -- how on earth could have done this without also knowing the edits were mine? He even called them "Hijiri`s ... edits"! Also, given that in the last sixteen months the only two users who have substantially edited the article are Catflap08 and myself, and the fact that the conflict on that article (and over whether the Miyazawa Kenji article should call him a nationalist) was a major reason contributing to the original call for an IBAN, your "50 to 100 edits or so" comment is pretty irrelevant. Also, how do you explain his joining in a discussion I started, a discussion of an edit I made? And the fact that he mostly stopped editing while the last AN thread on his IBAN violations was open, waited until it was archived without result, and when he came back he immediately started reverting me again? It's inconceivable that all of these were just good-faith mistakes. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Here is the statement he made " I`d rather not comment too much on Hijiri`s comments or edits as I personally find them to be problematic." Nowhere in there is a statement about specific edits. As to your thoughts on the 50 to 100 edits, you do realize that if there is no limit in the past, that you are going to have to look at every edit ever made before changing anything to make sure your edit does not revert something he did right? So if he changed a few words here or there, your going to have to check if a word you want change was changed by him in the entire history of the article. AlbinoFerret 12:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

He was answering another user's (User:Snow Rise's) query about the specific edits he would later revert. He referred to these as "Hijiri's edits". What is the question here? Additionally, Catflap does not need to go back and look at every single edit to know that the edit he is specifically going out of his way to revert is mine. I do not need to be concerned about being accused of violating the IBAN in the same way because (as much as it would benefit the project as a whole) I am not interested in going around tracking down Catflap's old edits and reverting them. And in this case the edits aren't even that old! Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Umm... hello? Feels like I'm shouting into an echo chamber here. User:Sturmgewehr88 pointed out to Catflap on the article talk page that his edits constitute IBAN violations and User:Black Kite agreed but asked for more objective input. So far the only two other users who have weighed in have either (a) apparently not recognized that Catflap went back through my edits to the article in order to revert specific portions of them and reinsert the exact text that was there previously (and therefore couldn't possibly have done so by accident) or (b) failed to recognize that Catflap specifically acknowledged that the edits he was reverting were made by me before he reverted them, and was also directly reminded that they were mine afterward, before re-reverting them (and therefore couldn't possibly have done so by accident).

Anyone else wanna weigh in? Maybe warn or block Catflap? Revert to the better version of the article before the IBAN-violating/OR-infested edits? If this thread gets archived with no result I'm just going to have to un-archive or reopen it, so...

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Non-admin comment Umm, no, you're not "going to have to" do anything of the sort. You have brought something here that you felt was an incident requiring community (in general) and administrator (in particular) attention. During the three days since there has been all sorts of activity on this board, so you can be sure that administrators and editors within the community have looked over your issue and have, fairly clearly, decided that currently it does not warrant their attention. You may not be happy with that decision by the community; it may be a poor outcome for you; it may even be a poor outcome for the community; none of those points, however, mean that you "have to un-archive or reopen it". That would, in mine opinion, be close to a disruptive action, ignoring the consensus that you don't agree with.

I suggest you scrupulously adhere to the IBAN, work with others in the community to improve the article and as many others of the two million (or whatever it is now that there are) that you feel like and wait. If this Catflap is as evil and Machiavellian as you seem to think, we'll discover it soon enough; if not, yay! Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 08:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@User:LindsayH: Please read the note at the top: I did not post anything here three days ago. I posted this thread on the much less active WP:AN (on the specific advice of an admin). In several days of the thread being open there was not a single response (presumably because that page is not as active as this one); I posted more as Catflap continued violating the IBAN again and again. After several days, confused, I asked what had happened and if I had misplaced the thread, and apparently I had. Another user moved it here for me, but I suspect that by then it had already passed the IDHT threshold. That, presumably, is what confused both BMK and AlbinoFerret, and AlbinoFerret's further questioning and my answering pushed this thread even further into IDHT territory. So far one admin has unambiguously stated that they believe the IBAN was violated and some others have found holes in my complaint that I have readily filled for them. Prematurely-archived threads do not count as "consensus to do nothing", and de-archiving or reopening them is quite common practice. Last time I had an IBAN discussion about 20 people agreed the other user had violated it and deserved to be further-sanctioned (and my IBAN should be lifted); the thread was prematurely archived, so I posted on the talk page of one of the admins who had posted and they de-archived it for me.

I would be happy to continue to comply by the mutual IBAN -- I have been doing so for close to a month now. But by letting this direct reverting of my edits fly you are now telling me that you think the IBAN is not mutual, because Catflap08 is allowed directly revert my edits and I am apparently still not allowed revert his. It's not "Machiavellian", though -- Catflap has been quite flagrant about his reverting my edits, even continuing to do so after being told by a third party to stop. I suspect what happened was that two weeks into the IBAN he showed up and joined a talk page discussion I had started, and evaded sanctions for that, which emboldened him do go and directly revert my edits.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I cannot speak for anyone else, but I don't believe I was "confused" about anything, as I read both AN and AN/I. BMK (talk) 15:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I can echo your post BMK, I am not confused and also watch AN/I and AN. AlbinoFerret 18:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh geez, who could have ever predicted this? I'll get to agreeing adamantly with those who have already responded here with regard to how inappropriately Hijiri approaches these situations and to detailing how the "boy who cried wolf" effect might explain, at least in part, why he is not getting the response he is seeking. But let's start by recognizing another fact: the reignition of this drama represents a failure on the part of those of us who took part in the last discussion. This IBAN was never going to work; both editors work in overlapping and fairly niche areas with little buffer between them and neither showed the least suggestion of backing down from any of the content disputes between them that were the proximal cause of the ANI discussion that lead to the IBAN. Add into that battleground attitudes and personalization (to some extent two way but increasingly represented by the inability of one party to just let things go) and its clear this approach was nothing a but guarantee to rubber-band this issue back at the noticeboards in short order. It's pretty silly to recommend as a resolution to an issue that the two incolved editors simply disengage from one-another when the matter in question was that they could not be disengaged. The truth is, after years of watching it in operation, I'm increasingly dubious that an IBAN ever does anything but prolong disruption connected to grudges between editors, but it certainly needs to stop being used in cases like this where the deeper issues are not addressed first.

Now, as to your complaints, Hijiri, I can form that what was suggested to you by others here is true with regard to at least one would-be contributor; I just couldn't see this thread or the matters you raised as urgent, or even necessarily and community oversight, being all to familiar with the context and particulars of your feud. I wouldn't be surprised if other editors saw the names involved and just skipped over it, and I certainly wouldn't blame them. As it happens, I saw both new threads well before you pinged me, and was about to reply several times before being distracted by other issues (on-wiki and off) that undeniably warranted the attention more. It's not the first time you've pinged me into this feud and it's surprising each time because I've been increasingly clear with each iteration of the battle that I view your behaviours to generally be more problematic and disruptive than those of Catflap, especially with regard to seeking out the fight, but at this point I take these actions as part and parcel of your WP:IDHT way of selectively reading what others have tried to tell you about this contest of wills. I've seen so much of it with regard to how your view (and represent) the comments of others who have tried to separate you two that when I see you say something like "Last time I had an IBAN discussion about 20 people agreed the other user had violated it and deserved to be further-sanctioned (and my IBAN should be lifted)" I don't for a second suspect that I am getting the full story there. Because I have seen you distort the positions of other commenting parties before (my own included) to suggest thorough support for yourself where it did not really exist or was limited to just a minor point. And for the record, I'm not even saying that you're lying; in most of these cases, you seem to genuinely believe the spin that you put on these events and the perspectives of those involved, which is part of what is making this ongoing battle such a particularly intractable mess.

Whether Catflap pushed the edges of the IBAN with any edit, I don't know, though I do know that the particular edits I looked at did not violate it outright. Contrary to your assumption, the IBAN does not guarantee that he can not edit that page in a direction that is contrary to your vision for it, nor is the reverse Otherwise IBANs could be gamed to try to force preferred version. All of which is exactly why this IBAN was such a foolish notion in this case, because clearly neither of you wanted to give way on this article and related content, so it was inevitable that you would be lobbing broadsides at eachother in one manner or another. For this reason I'm going to propose that the IBAN be dissolved, that we ask you two gentlemen one last time to try to find a reasonable compromise path forward and, if you fail and the issue becomes disruptive between the two of you, we look at which of the two of you is more deserving of a page or topic ban regarding this subject the two of you cannot let go. Whether or not I am successful in convincing others to follow that approach though, I highly recommend that you let this issue go for now, before you get smacked with the biggest WP:BOOMERANG this side of the Blue Mountains. Because the situation doesn't even warrant discussion of whether you or anyone thinks Catflap is Machiavellian; he wouldn't nearly need to be when all he has to do is what he's doing now -- hang back, say absolutely nothing and let you torpedo yourself. But look on the bright side here, you've got at least one detailed response now. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, all but one user (the only admin, and the only one who didn't previously express support for Catflap's position, I might add) seems to here be ignoring the fact that I presented specific evidence that Catflap reverted my edits after explicitly acknowledging that they were my edits. It has nothing to do with "editing the article away from ny preferred vision". The fact that a single previous AN thread (not two) got archived with no result after one user agreed that Catflap had violated the IBAN and one disagreed is not evidence that I have been "crying wolf"; if anything, it is evidence that the latest, more serious violation should be taken more seriously. Why is Catflap allowed revert my edits but not I his? Can someone please explain to me how this IBAN is mutual if one of the parties is refusing to abide by it? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

An IBAN does not just mean that who ever got the last version in before it went into effect can therefore force their preferred version from that date forward. Even if that were the case, it's clear (as could be seen at the time) that neither of you were really going to back down on this issue. Those are two of several reasons why it was ill-advised to have instituted an IBAN without those issues first being resolved and it locked us with certainty into a new thread AN thread in short order. As to the "crying wolf" comment, you seem to have misread it -- I was referencing your past battleground behaviour in these matters as the reason why you were not getting the overwhelming flood of interest in this drama you clearly think it deserves. Despite the repeated direct efforts of (and warnings from) both an admin ([151][152]) and the community broadly about following Catflap from page to page looking to re-engage with him and other generally tendentious, combative, and disruptive behaviours, you persisted well past any sense -- and often while citing the "shared" perspectives of other editors who were themselves surprised to learn of their unwavering support for you. Frankly, you more than earned the block Silk Tork had implied was forthcoming if you didn't back off, and if it had been dolled out, likely we'd never have gotten as far as the poorly-considered IBAN.

Look, I'm not even sure how much I disagree with you that Catflap violated at least the spirit of the IBAN and should be called out for it. But these are your chickens come home to roost, my friend. You courted sanction and then only avoided a block for continuing down the path you were on (which you surely would have, as you always have on this issue and with regard to this "opponent") because we instead got steered into this IBAN which was certain to impose itself on the rest of us as soon as you two (inevitably) refused to edit in collaborative fashion on one of the issues neither of you can just let go of. And then you want to cry foul when enough editors don't flock to this nonsense and immediately agree that he should be blocked? Well, I can only say that I think you need to look at this situation again from the perspective of the community volunteers here and in the context of your past behaviour. Snow ^{let's rap} 09:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Umm... I don't think "an IBAN just means that who ever got the last version in before it went into effect can therefore force their preferred version from that date forward": I think that WP:IBAN means what it says, that Catflap08 is "not permitted to ... undo [my] edits to any page (whether by use of the revert function or by other means)". I provided clear and concise evidence that several of my edits (specifically, removing the Stone article as a reference for a piece of information she actually contradicts and stating in the text that Miyazawa Kenji rejected the group's nationalism) were directly undone by Catflap (here and here, respectively). The other edits are all problematic in their own ways, for reasons I painstakingly explained to Catflap on the talk page months ago, and completely undermine my earlier hard work on the article (hard work which you earlier praised and for which Catflap earlier expressed a dislike), but those problems are secondary to the direct reverts. So far every user who has checked these diffs has acknowledged that they are reverts and constitute an IBAN violation by Catflap. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• Alright then. Catflap08, apparently you violated the iBan between you and Hijiri. Don't do it again. Drmies (talk) 15:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to go into this circular argument with you for a third time. Several community members here have already explained why the IBAN can't just be a rubber stamp on the last version of an article put forth in a dispute before an IBAN, and I explained that is exactly why the IBAN should not have been insittuted in the first place and have suggested a path forward to resolving that conflict of principles (which you have since !voted in favour of). But even if we take it for granted that Catflap violated the IBAN, you are still missing the larger picture that others have tried at length to impart to you. Because you can argue (and even be completely right about) the technicalities of a particular action taken by another contributor you are in conflict with, but if you bring the matter to AN/ANI, the community members here are going to look at the whole context of the dispute, consider how the IBAN came into effect and why it was deemed necessary and finally ask whether the contributions of either of you are presently worth the disruption you create between you.

Frankly, the truth is that you owe Catflap a huge debt of gratitude for proposing the IBAN. Because without it, you would certainly have been blocked for blatantly ignoring the warnings of an admin (and the recommendation of the community broadly in multiple spaces) to back away from him. If all he wanted was truly to win that content dispute, then he went about it in about the worst way possible, since all he had to do was wait for you to recieve your well-earned block, revert you, and then have the procedural high-ground once/if you were unblocked. Instead, he pushed for an IBAN, seeming to genuinely want to just be through with you. And yeah, you know what, having made that decision and set us down that path, he should have lived with the consequences and not pushed for his version in that article again, if it meant undercutting your edits. And the editors here will probably find cause to see disruption in those actions. But his poor behaviour does not absolve you of your past disruption and WP:BATTLEGROUND outlook that helped set all of this in motion, especially if you are going to keep insisting we put this situation under a microscope...

You keep re-presenting the technicalities of Catflaps edits and whether the constitute reversion, putting up the same evidence again and again and taking any lack of resulting and immediate support for you as evidence that other editors here are either "confused" about these points or that they just aren't looking closely enough. But I assure you, a greater number of us have looked through the edits you keep reposting than you seem to think. Actually, it was while looking through those edits that something occurred to me, something concerning the fact that that you now have explicitly stated that you think it is unacceptable for Catflap to revert your edits on articles with content contested between the two of you. I remembered how you opposed the IBAN at first but then suddenly embraced it, and I can't now help but suspect that the reason is that you recognized that (at least by your own interpretation of the rules) that your version of the disputed content would be the one that would exist in perpetuum. So it seems to me that you believed in the IBAN to the extent that it protected your edits, but you didn't believe in the overall goal it was meant to serve (reducing disruption) enough to abide by the spirit of the community decision and just let this one go past.

But now we have an opportunity to take things in a different direction. If we get a consensus to dissolve the IBAN, and if both you and Catflap still view me as neutral in your content dispute, I will volunteer some time on that talk page to provide a third opinion and hopefully try to bridge the differences of perspective between you two over the sources, to find a compromise solution that is also consistent with policy. If you don't like me in that role, then I recommend WP:DRN, or you could try another RfC. But whatever you do, you're going to have to find a radically different way to approach one-another in the spaces you share in common. Because the only sanctions we have left are blocks and article/topic bans, which I don't think anyone is going to hesitate to consider next time these issues come back here and one or both of you has not been mindful of the amount of rope you have left. And aside from the possible consequences of failing to finally get along and collaborate, it's worth noting that it is just so much easier to reach a middle ground solution that to conduct a months-long campaign of policy battles that draw in and consume the editorial/project energy of your fellow contributors. And yet in addition to being easier, the collaborative approach is also vastly more rewarding.

Please consider what I am saying to you. Having taken an absurd number of paragraphs to make one last effort at making these points explicit, and to draw a distinction between A) what you view as unimpeachable evidence that Catflap is in the wrong in this one instance and B) the whole context that the community will consider when trying to decide what is the most practical and realistic way to stop this disruption once and for all, I know have exceeded the amount of time I was determined not to expend here by a factor of about twenty. But we can all consider our energy well-spent if, when the IBAN is dissolved (if indeed it is), both sides come to the table prepared to compromise and embrace the kind of collaborative approach that serves the encyclopedia best. You two are not meant to be opponents -- you're partners in a project here, and partners of the rest of us, as well. Keep that in mind and you will hopefully never have to worry about the word "ban" coming up in the course of your editorial work again. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment uninvolved non-admin here. We as a community put this iBan in place, whatever its merits or costs. If we wish to dissolve it and try another solution fine but it was in place. I'm also ignoring how things have been reported and tones taken. The brute facts are Catflap knew there was an IBAN in place and it is pretty clear Catflap violated it while it was in place. As such not restricting catflap, however temporarily (I would suggest a broad tBan for a fortnight) for violating his IBAN just weakens any and all existing IBANs. SPACKlick (talk) 15:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: dissolve IBAN, find a more realistic solution to this conflict

See my last posting in this thread (as well as the previous comments diffed at its beginning) to see exactly why an IBAN can accomplish nothing here except to recycle this feud through the noticeboards endlessly. Neither editor has every voiced any interest in letting go of the content issues which brought about the acrimony between them and there is insufficient third party oversight (or even involvement) in the affected pages to keep them from stumbling over eachother's edits and directly butting heads immediately. This was an ill-thought-out community solution (to which I admittedly took part, despite reservations) that needs to be recognized as untenable here, given the circumstances and attitudes of the involved parties. As a first step to finding an actual solution to this conflict, I think the IBAN needs to be dissolved. After that, the best (if still quite underwhelming) suggestion I can give on the next course of action would be to give basic dispute resolution processes one more try. I believe WP:DRN has not yet been explored, for example. If uncivil, non-collaborative, and disruptive behaviours persists, one or both editors should be page/topic banned from the relevant articles/subjects. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• Megasupport (as nom) Snow ^{let's rap} 04:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support First off, @Snow Rise: there is no evidence that I am trying to continue the underlying content dispute; I just don't a user with whom I am mutually IBANned reverting my edits. The only reason I initially agreed to the IBAN was because no one ever told me how hard it was to report IBAN violations. I can choose to assume that if I reverted a bunch of Catflap's edits and he reported me he would het just as poor a hearing as I have. But I have no interest in reverting Catflap's edits. So as is this is a de facto one-way IBAN, which no one agreed to.

I would, though, like to hear back from @Sturmgewehr88: and @Black Kite: first, since they appear to have taken the time to go through all the diffs and recognized that Catflap reverted me, not the other way round.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support - I honestly think Catflap violated the IBAN when he manually reverted Hijiri88's edits. If he's not going to face any consequences, then the IBAN seems pointless. The IBAN should be lifted and both editors given WP:ROPE awaiting further disruption, at which point TBANs will be in order. As an aside, @Snow Rise: I've heard of "strongest support possible" but "megasupport" is a new one :) ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 09:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Well I did just mean it as a one-off effort to combine humor, exasperation, and emphasis, but now I'm thinking it could be a thing; it could certainly get some mileage in this space! ;) Snow ^{let's rap} 10:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support Removal of the IBAN, and may I suggest a path forward, instead placing them both under a 1RR rule. That should end edit warring at least. AlbinoFerret 07:49, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

That's the best idea I've seen since this discussion began, AF. Of course, it requires they have a third party editing the page, since otherwise they will each really only be able to add content to the page -- meaning that with an inability to remove content there is a risk of it getting glutted with large amounts of often contradictory information as each party tries to drown out the other's message. But then, my impression is that these two could use some outside perspective and a buffer for the present time anyway. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes they will need an outside editor, one who has some idea of the topic other than a quick read (like me). Should we start a section on it? AlbinoFerret 00:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Umm... could I ask if either of you know what exactly the "underlying content dispute" between me and Catflap actually is? Because as far as I am aware, the dispute is solely about whether a source should be attached to a statement it doesn't directly support; not a content dispute, but an issue of one user simply not understanding WP:V and WP:NOR. Before asserting that both Catflap and I (rather than just one of us) are incapable of talk-page discussion without an intermediary some recognition of this point would be appreciated. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

For the record, though, I'm not opposed to an intermediary. @Shii: would be great: he knows a lot about Japanese religion, is diligent with sourcing problems, and he and I have rarely agreed about stuff in the past, so there would likely be no cause to call him biased (contrary to popular opinion, I don't follow Catflap around, so I don't know if they have any kind of history of interaction, though). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I am familiar with both Catflap and Hijiri and consider them both valuable to the project, although that hardly means I agree with them a lot. I also hate IBANs and would happily mediate if some kind of arbitration will take place. But I'm not going to be online 24/7 these days. Shii (tock) 10:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Neutral I am not willing to deal with editors who use insulting language (no matter if they strike it afterwards or not), (to my mind) bad faith edits on articles I concentrate on, childlike comments within their edits on articles about my home. I do hear that the ANI is an IBAN free zone. I also do not want to deal with editors who wish that the “opponent” to be blocked from en.Wikipedia. If an IBAN is that easily lifted then it will speak for itself. I would also welcome if admins do have a clue on the matters they get involved in and decide on.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC) If an editor finds it to be necessary to underline his/her edits with swear words and insults (strike or not) on a regular basis I do not find it to be a need to seek any consensus but to rather ignore such an individual. And for the record I am not spending my time here to be called names – not having that, not in real life nor in here. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Catflap, you had a golden ticket to keep Hijiri out of your life in the form of the IBAN (which we should obviously have never considered granting you, given your obvious lack of intention to avoid the other party). You chose to violate the sanction and the reason we are now prepared to do away with it is because it is never going to work (and never could have) if you two were not prepared to abide by it. And let's be clear, you are the party which violated it, not Hijiri. You knew (or certainly should have known) that this would cause him to fly here immediately to impose this onerous issue on the community at large once again, just weeks after we last discussed it. And frankly, the only reason you haven't been blocked already for this violation is that the editors here recognized Hijiri's own long-standing contributions to this feud. But for you complain about the weakness of our dedication to an IBAN which is causing problems rather than solving them is incredibly obtuse, since the only alternative was that follow protocol and block you for the violation immediately. Regardless, you cannot continue to contribute on the contested articles unless you are willing to collaborate with all parties there, including Hijiri.

Frankly, I've seen enough of the approaches of both you and Hijiri to this problem, and of your mutual lack of will to reach for a collaborative approach that might keep us from having to recycle this discussion endlessly. I was prepared to propose the only solution that now seems plausible to me, given the intractability and behavioural issues of both of you on the articles you contest between you, namely that you both be page banned from both Kokuchūkai and Kenji Miyazawa. But now I find that proposal awkward and ill-suited, since Hijiri has said he would be willing to consider mediation and a third (apparently neutral) editor who has worked with you both has agreed to try to facilitate that attempt. I have a hard time proposing that Hijiri be page banned before that effort, since there was a specific call for him to do so. But if you refuse to mediate, and insist continuing to edit war in violation of an IBAN you asked for, then maybe the solution is to page ban just you. Or page ban one of each of you from each of the two articles in question. In any event, if you won't come to table, I'm afraid one of these options will have to be implemented, since you cannot just refuse to work with other editors on an article you wish to remain active on. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed with the last sentence especially. Shii (tock) 02:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: Could you explain what you mean whwn you say I have been unwilling to edit collaboratively on those two articles? On the Kokuchukai article, I have been struggling for months to try to figure out what Catflap's problem with my edits is, so I could work to accommodate him and edit collaboratively, and have been met with nothing but misquoting of sources and accusations of personal attacks and tendentious editing.

As for the Kenji article -- clearly you have not even looked at that talk page or thr edit history of the article. Just look at Talk:Kenji Miyazawa/redraft to see me, User:Nishidani and User:Icuc2 (two users with whom I rarely agree all that much when it comes to article content) to fix the problems that have plagued the article for years.

I would ask that you kindly refrain from any further assertions that I have trouble editing collaboratively, especially since further down this pahe you are currently still supporting a page ban against me proposed by a user who does refuse to edit collaboratively.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Woah. Just realized my above comment sounds unusually petty/grouchy given that two users have finally offered to help put this problem to rest and I finally got recognition that the IBAN was violated and not by me. I had not read SR's comment as closely as perhaps I might have, and I was perhaps also frustrated by the still bubbling-up shitstorm downstairs (hopefully the Wikipedia equivalent of Mack from Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. will be around to talk some sense into that debate soon...). Anyway, I apologize for the above gruffness. I am deeply appreciative of finally getting recognition that I was not the one violating the IBAN. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

First of all Snow Rise, correct me if I am wrong and DO NOT take this personal, but I find it hard to see that any sort of consensus has been made here. I am unwilling to deal with an individual who seems to find no other way to underline his case without an abusive language and to go hysteric. I have found valuable references to have been deleted and decided to reinsert them into the article in question. Other editors seem to have meanwhile taken up the job to bring the article up to agreed standards - thanks for that. A job that I would have liked to have seen being done by admins. I have been called names in this process just because I hinted and referenced the somewhat dubious religious/political background of some editor’s favourite poet. The editor in question then decided to edit the article which I created (and delete references) on the poets religious affiliation. In due process I have been called names by the editor in question, I have been insulted, smearing comments about me while editing an article on my home town and this is a reoccurring pattern by the editor in question on other issues even without me being involved. As soon as the ice gets thin he calls for his cronies including Sturmgewehr88 (being banned from a number Wikipedias for obvious reasons – in many European countries just like Germany the number 88 is a code for a fascist background – based on edits). So go ahead IBAN, TBAN or block me from en.Wikipedia if you like. I did my utmost best to supply Information on Nichiren Buddhism in a non-partisan way, in doing so it might hurt some faithful individuals and this involves a conflict. For some admins there is a piece of advice – get involved on issues you are familiar with otherwise stay out. There is no need to show me the exit sign anymore as the project seems to be preoccupied with many issues but referenced facts – I cannot and am unwilling to deal with some editors mental issues. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone find it concerning that despite posting the above "neutral opposition" (for want of a better term) and despite the IBAN not being officially dissolved yet, Catflap08 requested further down this page that I be "topic-banned" from ... Japan-related articles, I guess, which for me is the same as a siteban. Is this appropriate behaviour? Does anyone seriously think Catflap08 is genuinely willing to engage in constructive discussion, even with a mediator? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

@Catflap08: first of all, I'm not banned from anything, I'm blocked due to an assumption of bad faith which you also assume. "Based on edits" is completely contradicting, as my edits are why I'm not blocked on enWP and why I shouldn't be blocked anywhere else. 88 might be a "secret code" in Central Europe, but in East Asia (my main editing area) the people are either clueless or care nothing about it. Starting a problem where none exists is disruptive. I had already admited that challenging some of your edits to Kokuchūkai was wrong, but you turning around and basically calling me a Facist for my mistake is distasteful. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 07:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• (signing to delay archiving since this thread has an active close request via WP:ANRFC.) Steel1943 (talk) 14:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Rather than giving up on the IBAN I'd like to see it enforced. The entire point of this sort of restriction is that when its violated, violaters have further rights removed so they learn not to violate. Giving up at the first hurdle is pointless. SPACKlick (talk) 15:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose SPACKlick has summed it up very nicely. Blackmane (talk) 02:49, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@SPACKlick: @Blackmane: Yes, but who's going to enforce the IBAN? I only accepted the IBAN in the first place because I assumed that if Catflap08 violated the IBAN someone would either warn or block him. He violated the IBAN on Talk:Kenji Miyazawa, I posted on AN requesting some form of enforcement, I suffered a huge fustercluck and several personal attacks from a friend of Catflap08's. Then he more blatantly violated the IBAN on Kokuchūkai, and I was ultimately (after another fustercluck) able to convince an admin to tell Catflap08 to play nice. Catflap08 responded to that by showing up here and calling me and User:Sturmgewehr88 neo-fascists based on the fact that we were born in 1988 and randomly requesting that I be TBANned from every article I've ever edited. I don't see why I should endure personal attacks and unending ANI fusterclucks just because at one point some months ago I didn't know how hard it was to enforce an IBAN. Clearly this IBAN is not having the effect it is meant to: if you want to petition the admin corps to indefinitely block Catflap08 for the battleground and CIR behaviour he demonstrated both before and after the IBAN I will support it, but otherwise how do you expect me to defend my contributions from a user who is revenge-reverting them despite the IBAN? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:54, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

If there is a clear violation drop a note on my talk page. The same offer goes out to anyone in the same position. Chillum 16:58, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: You misunderstand me, I'm saying admins should penalise anyone who breaks an iBan otherwise the iban is pointless. I'm not suggesting it should be up to you. Messaging a single admin and saying The iBan is documented here, the opposite party directly violated it here should be simple enough to get a tban or other appropriate sanction for the violating party even if it's a short solution immediately and the admin brings it to AN to discuss if further sanctions are required.SPACKlick (talk) 00:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Apologies for a very late reply. I don't think I have any more to say that SPACKlick hasn't already said. See a blatant IBAN violation? report it on ANI. Simple really. Blackmane (talk) 03:49, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:NPA breech following NPOV, THIRDPARTY breeches

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

---

Last year I filed a RfC against User:Middayexpress for repeated violations of NPOV in regarding to Somalia related articles, and associated continual removals of WP:THIRDPARTY sources, often replacing them with official or less scholarly sources. ( Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Middayexpress) He drove me away from editing Wikipedia for a time with his relentless POV reverting, and it appears that User:Chuckupd complained of the same problem. Recently I've come into contact with User:Cordless Larry who has reported similar problems at Somalis in the United Kingdom, most recently removal of complete information in violation of WP:YESPOV and replacing high-quality sources such as the Economist with letters to the editor of a community newspaper. Having been advised that AN/I was an appropriate route, and possibly more user-friendly than Arbcom, I began collation of a draft AN/I response in my userspace. This I set up at a very old draft page, User:Buckshot06/Sandbox Structure of the Soviet Ground Forces, not being too worried about what the page title was. Within about 24 hours Middayexpress was commenting on it at [153], calling it a 'copy of his previous rant'. I've been trying over and over again to correct this editor's misrepresentation, and myself, and users User:Cordless Larry and User:BrumEduResearch [154] [155] are only the latest that are very concerned with this user's edits. I would like User:Middayexpress warned that even if there are disputes over content, or even NPOV, that dismissing editors' descriptions as a 'rant' is a personal attack, and in violation of the spirit of building an encyclopedia. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 03:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

There have been multiple content disputes about Somalis in the United Kingdom that are not entirely civil but are basically content disputes. I have recommended in the recent past, and will recommend again, that they request formal mediation. There are too many disputes for any light-weight dispute resolution process. A mediator should be able to get the parties to be civil and to engage in useful discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

There have been multiple content disputes at a wide range of articles - my initial involvement was at Somali Civil War and Somali Armed Forces. Many display the same characteristics. I was directed to a RfC, but at the very end of that RfC I was told it was the wrong forum. Then I was advised about AN/I. I'd like to avoid having to go through every last forum before having to resort to Arbcom - are you sure that RfM is the correct place? Buckshot06 (talk) 05:12, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Consider WP:RFM as it will give the opportunity to settle this in a civil environment.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Robert McClenon has indeed suggested mediation for the Somalis in the United Kingdom, and I have been preparing to request that, for the education section in particular. I remain willing to do so, but what has been slowing me down with the request is that I've been taking in Middayexpress's behaviour across a wider range of articles. I am increasingly convinced that this is no longer a simple content dispute but rather an issue of user conduct across a range of articles and their talk pages, including Somalia, Somali Civil War and Piracy off the coast of Somalia. Here are some of my concerns:

• Repeated replacement or removal of material in the name of "contextualisation", such as this;
• Removal of third-party and secondary sources, either replacing them with primary sources, or sources that don't support the material, or without replacing them, as is being discussed currently on the RS noticeboard; see also this for another example, discussed here; previous discussions on the RS noticeboard have attracted comments such as "Oh! That editor has had similar problems with source-misuse in the past. I hope that can be stopped soon";
• Removal of material based on reliable academic sources, using WP:REDFLAG as justification (in this example, the text removed was "Vertovec gives the example of Somalis in the United Kingdom, arguing that the Somali community includes British citizens, refugees and asylum-seekers, people granted exceptional leave to remain, undocumented migrants, and secondary migrants from other European states", sourced to an article by Vertovec in the scholarly journal Ethnic and Racial Studies);
• Continued insistence that official government sources must be preferred to scholarly ones (I suggest searching Talk:Somalis in the United Kingdom for the word "official"), contrary to WP:RS;
• Misrepresentation of Wikipedia policy, for example claiming that the fact that WP:CRITERIA states that article title consistency is a goal rather than a hard and fast rule is superseded by the statement that "this page documents an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow";
• Posting talk page comments that seem to insinuate that other editors who disagree with him/her might be members of hate groups, e.g. this and this;
• Not assuming good faith with new editors, such as BrumEduResearch and with User:HOA Monitor (this comment added by Buckshot06) [156];
• Stating that my requesting mediation would constitute forum shopping, while not being ashamed to tag-team edit, as was previously discussed here (note that concerns about Middayexpress accusing others of canvassing but engaging in it him/herself have been expressed before;
• Claiming the support of editors without them having even commented on the issue under discussion, as previously reported by BrumEduResearch;
• Accusing me of WP:HOUNDING for agreeing with him/her.

Additionally, I have looked at the comments Middayexpress has made upon being informed of Buckshot's AN/I draft, and I am concerned that Middayexpress is intending to engage in canvasing off-Wikipedia. I quote: "I'm not sure why he believes that getting rid of me will solve his problems. In actuality, that will only be the start of them because loads of Somalis, Ethiopians, Eritreans and others will subsequently join the website and see the sytemic bias that goes on here. For the moment, just you, me, 26oo, Inayity, and a few other regulars on the Africa WikiProject are aware of it. But with me elsewhere, doing other things and no longer bound by Wikipedia's rules, that will surely be the catalyst that open's Pandora's Box". Middayexpress has previously made reference to posting on external forums in order to solicit opinion, here and here.

I don't want to flood this page with comments, so I will leave it there for now, but I can provide more examples of the above should they be required. As I say, I'm happy to request mediation for Somalis in the United Kingdom, but this is a bigger and longstanding issue, as these archives show. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Should note that I have also noted (and inserted above) another example of not WP:AGFing in regard to a new editor, in addition to BrumEduResearch, User:HOA Monitor (.. ("huge" doubt..). HOA Monitor is no longer editing. I am very dismayed that there are strong indications that Middayexpress is driving away and discouraging multiple editors in this fashion - the project needs all the committed people that it can get, not just the ones that accord with his point of view. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:23, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I registered a Wimipedia account to contribute to article about migrant communities in the UK, which I research, and was immediately targeted with accusations by Middayexpress. He continues to overrule reliable academic sources in favour of official statistics, and rules out compromises using both types. A good example is in the coverage of Somali pupils' GCSE results, where he insists on reporting only figures from a few London boroughs even though data on other parts of England exists. Unsurprisingly, the London boroughs just happen to be where Somali pupils do best. This fits the POV pattern described here. To be honest, I have wasted my time arguing with Middayexpress, which could have been spent better on other articles, but he is so persistent that it is hard to avoid. What worries me is that he edits many, many articles and that some have few other editors, so of he's getting away with POV where Cordless Larry and Buckshot have noticed, what is he getting away with on other less watched articles?BrumEduResearch (talk) 10:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

• I share the concerns about Middayexpress' pov-pushing; I've encountered blanking, source-misuse &c on other pages (I tend not to overlap much with Buckshot06 or Cordless Larry). The previous RfC/U was overrun by people canvassed by MiddayExpress. Now Buckshot06 tries to put together another case and the attacks and canvassing start again. How can this be stopped? bobrayner (talk) 13:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

As of now I am only going to make a few comments. For starts, that page isn't a "very old draft page" nor it is even "old" at all since you made it just yesterday. It contains pretty much the same thing from your previous filing at Request For Comment which other changes as well (some removals as well as the additions of Somalis in the United Kingdom). Anyways, Midday isn't "canvasing off-Wikipedia" at all (or has at least not engaged in any yet) CordlessLarry. Just look at the IPs and accounts that have shown up these past few years, are these all the good individuals that Midday has called up to support him? No. In fact, practically none were here to do some actual work. Hence why he calls it "Pandora's box" because I, 26oo, and few others will be the only ones left to deal with it following his departure. More importantly, do you mind explaining as to why you didn't notify Midday about this AN/I Buckshot06? You did remember to notify Chuckupd, BrumEduResearch, CordlessLary, and many more. That's quite peculiar since the instructions explicitly state: "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page". Oddly enough, this isn't the first time it has happened (see the previous filing at Request For Comment). Maybe you simply forgot again? It's possible, but you don't explain last time as to why. AcidSnow (talk) 14:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I think Middayexpress was informed, User:AcidSnow. I'm not saying that Midday is canvasing off Wikipedia at the moment (that would probably be hard to establish anyway); it's more the implied threat to do so in future that concerns me. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policies apply to actual Wikipedia editors ("This page documents an English Wikipedia behavioral guideline[...] It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow"). Worry all you want, but I'll be free to discuss whatever I want with whomever I want once I leave the website for good. That's one of the many amusing ironies of this witchhunt :) Middayexpress (talk) 18:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh I see it now, my apologize BuckShot06. AcidSnow (talk) 15:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

How many other allies has Middayexpress canvassed? bobrayner (talk) 16:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I could easily post the ample evidence against Buckshot et al., similarly caricature and exaggerate standard contest disputes, ping/canvass select editors like he has, and pick apart his latest rant. But I won't even bother. A vandal ip already tipped me off weeks ago that something was brewing, so this witchhunt is actually no surprise. The ironic part of all this is that I'd been meaning to retire from the website at the end of the summer. However, since Wikipedia is unfortunately no longer what it used to be, now is as good of a time to do that as any. When I joined the website seven years ago, good faith editors abounded. Many of those moved on ages ago to other things; it's time I followed suit and let a new generation of Horn editors assume the mantle. So long, website, and good luck to the last remaining good faith editors among you! Middayexpress (talk) 18:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Attacking other editors is not the kind of answer we had been hoping for. How many other allies has Middayexpress canvassed? bobrayner (talk) 18:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

The reply is worrying too. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Inayity&diff=663644500&oldid=663440105 BrumEduResearch (talk) 00:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Afterthought, Caution, Notes

Maybe I was too optimistic in suggesting formal mediation for Somalis in the United Kingdom. I had been hoping that maybe the editors were willing to dial down their hostility and work to collaborate on the article. Instead, it seems that some of them want one more round before going to mediation, and there are claims of off-wiki canvassing. The only alternative to formal mediation, now, not later, is community action, which could be general sanctions or topic-bans. Continuing to spar and try to gain position prior to mediation isn't the right way to go into mediation. I suggest that this thread be closed with one of the following: (1) agreement by all parties to immediate formal mediation (not waiting for X or Y or Z and then mediation); (2) community general sanctions; (3) topic-bans on one or more editors; (4) failing those, a formal caution that any further reports at this noticeboard will result in general sanctions or topic-bans. This dispute has taken too much community time already. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, I am prepared to request formal mediation for Somalis in the United Kingdom now. However, other editors (Buckshot06 and bobrayner) have expressed concerns about Middayexpress's editing of multiple other articles. Would separate mediations have to take place for each article if that option were to be taken? Cordless Larry (talk) 18:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

In general, formal mediation is limited to one article (or possibly to one article and closely related articles), although you might ask that at the Requests for Mediation talk page. If other editors have concerns about Middayexpress's editing of other articles, those other articles would need to be addressed with separate content dispute resolution procedures, such as discussion at article talk pages (always the first choice), or the dispute resolution noticeboard, or Requests for Comments, or the other editors can present diffs to show that Middayexpress is a disruptive editor or POV-pusher, if that is what they think, and request community action. Proceeding with content dispute resolution and conduct issues at the same time is deprecated. Do not request mediation if you are also planning to request ANI action, and a mediator will probably decline the case if ANI action is also pending. Are there one or more content disputes, where the involved editors are willing to dial down their hostility and work with a mediator or let the community decide via RFC, or do the editors think that there are conduct issues that interfere with content resolution? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:17, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

One possible concern is that off-Wikipedia canvassing or coaching of other editors might interfere, particularly since Middayexpress is now saying things like "Wikipedia's policies apply to actual Wikipedia editors...Worry all you want, but I'll be free to discuss whatever I want with whomever I want once I leave the website for good" and saying that he/she will publicise this dispute in the media. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia guideline against canvassing is about on-wiki canvassing. Do threats of off-wiki canvassing violate that policy also? Is there a policy or guideline authorizing a block for threats of off-wiki canvassing? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, WP:BLOCK allows a block for '..attempts to coerce actions of editors through threats of actions outside the Wikipedia processes, whether onsite or offsite.' Personally I believe a block is warranted for disruptive editing and POVpushing in addition to trying to game the system (such as substantive edits concealed by edit summaries of 'formatting'). Buckshot06 (talk) 22:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I have struck my proposal for formal mediation, because it is clear that an editor who is talking about publicizing Wikipedia controversies to the press is not here to collaborate on the encyclopedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on policy in this area, but could it be covered by WP:MTPPT, which states "Do not recruit your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia and supporting your side of a debate"? The people reading the press concerned aren't all going to agree with Middayexpress, of course, but the publicity might be written in such a way to attract editors of a similar mindset, particularly if the dispute is described in terms claimed bias against Somalia on Wikipedia. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Whatever takes place off the website or not (I think likely well handled by MTPPT), I would like the behaviour exhibited by Middayexpress formally marked. Robert, you've just seen the kind of tactics Cordless Larry, Bobrayner, BrumEduResearch, Chuckupd, StoneProphet (from the earlier RfC) and I have all been concerned of, and these have occurred across multiple articles. Personally I would still like to request a topic ban. This is because one can 'unretire' at any time, and there has been some discussion of canvassing off-wiki. Personally I would request a topic ban from all Somalia-related articles, for whatever the usual duration is (is that six months?). Buckshot06 (talk) 21:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Am I right to be worried about this exchange of contact details with AcidSnow? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AcidSnow&diff=prev&oldid=664003413 BrumEduResearch (talk) 23:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Not at all. AcidSnow (talk) 23:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

This might not be relevant, but Middayexpress's comment suggesting the possibility of future off-Wikipedia canvassing centres around alleged systemic bias, and this reminded me of this discussion that he/she started. Drmies suggested that the discussion was a bit close to WP:FORUM for comfort, and that it should be taken up on a project page. Does anyone know if this happened? I ask because I would expect that if Midday was/is so concerned about systemic bias, they might have tried to raise it at a policy level (I know they posted at Talk:Racial bias on Wikipedia, as that's on my watchlist, but that's not a policy page). Cordless Larry (talk) 16:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

There's a clear consensus below, but after the promises of meatpuppetry, I would still caution the need to be wary of problematic edits by other editors after Middayexpress' departure. bobrayner (talk) 00:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Unresolved

Could an uninvolved admin please take a look at this thread and try to move it towards closure? Cordless Larry (talk) 13:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Topic-Ban of User:Middayexpress from all Somalia-related topics

• Support a topic-ban from all Somalia-related topics, broadly defined. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support. If Middayexpress is telling the truth here, we have a combination of canvassing, meatpuppetry, and offsite coördination whilst maintaining a convenient veil of "retirement". That's on top of the source-abuse and POV-pushing. Canvassing has been a long-term problem - and, once coached on what to say, AcidSnow was quite effective in derailing the RfC/U of Middayexpress which could have resolved our problems so much earlier. If AcidSnow is happily proxying for Middayexpress then Acidsnow earns a topic ban too. bobrayner (talk) 01:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Wow, wow, wow calm down. I am neither a proxy or anything similar to that for Midday or any other user. Anyways, as I previously explains, Midday wasn't coaching me as to what to say. All I asked for is what was going on and what exactly does one do here since, as I stated "I would reply to this but I am not really sure how this work". Hence why he replied with: "Thanks. You'd post in the area under Dougweller, where the code instructs to endorse your own post (the top half is meant to remain unsigned). Note that the nature of the process is non-binding anyway; it's informal and cannot impose/enforce involuntary sanctions. It's meant to help reach voluntary agreements". As I asked you twice already last time, can you please explain how these diffs support you? If not, then please drop it. Although I am not sure how you have come to call me out for something baseless, I would like for both of us to move on after this. Ok? AcidSnow (talk) 03:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support a topic-ban for Middayexpress from all-Somalia-related articles, broadly defined. Canvassing may also need to be addressed at a later point, possibly including topic bans of other users. I strongly agree meat/sockpuppets may soon emerge. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
• As an involved editor, for what it's worth, I support a topic ban from Somalia-related articles for Middayexpress. I think we would then need to carefully monitor those articles for signs of puppetry. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support Robert's proposal for blocking Middayexpress from Somalia-related articles. Will leave it to others to decide if action is required about the possibility of him exerting influence via AcidSnow and others.BrumEduResearch (talk) 10:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
• I am not involved, but supporting a topic ban for User:Middayexpress, it is getting worse, not better. Opposing a topic ban for AcidSnow now, but if Acidsnow is a proxy for a banned editor in future, can we come back to this? Spumuq (talq) 12:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with that approach. While AcidSnow seems to share Middayexpress's POV on most issues, he/she has proven more amenable to discussion and compromise than Middayexpress ever has. If there is any sign of puppetry in future, the issue can always be revisited. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - Inserting a comment to prevent archiving. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Would still like this addressed and resolved - this is definitely *not* an inactive issue. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Would still like this addressed and resolved - this is definitely *not* an inactive issue. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support - There have been many complaints and ANI threads about MiddayExpress in this topic area and a topic ban is years overdue.[157]-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Bear in mind that topic ban proposal in 2013 was closed as "no consensus". The only two people who opposed a ban were Inayity, who was canvassed here, and Obiwankenobi, who was canvassed here. The same canvassing brought down the 2014 RfC/U of Middayexpress: [158] [159] [160] [161] &c. bobrayner (talk) 19:07, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• Commenting to prevent this from being archived. It would be good to get more input from more uninvolved editors and administrators. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support Middayexpress' conduct on articles relating to Somalia's military and military history has been consistently unhelpful, with their edits showing a clear pattern of bias. As such, I think that a topic ban is well overdue. Nick-D (talk) 05:00, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support - topic ban proposal by User:Robert McClenon. My limited interactions with User:Middayexpress were consistent with the POV and conduct concerns raised by User:Buckshot06 (and others) above. Anotherclown (talk) 10:52, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support - topic ban proposal by McClenon. I am very glad to read that user:Middayexpress is now "RETIRED", following some investigations (be informed that there it is also a successful investigation on Middayexpress links, that is being done on the website "Memories" of "Mappista59"; read: [162] ) and complaints like this on ANI. A sympathizer of user:Chuckupd. --4Sedge (talk) 12:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - I would ask that the RETIRED banner not be a basis for taking no action. It is unfortunately not uncommon for a disruptive editor to be RETIRED from Wikipedia for the duration of an ANI thread or other conduct dispute so as to avoid sanctions and then come back. If there is basis for a topic-ban, it should be put into effect in case the editor returns. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support Enough is enough. I have long thought that we are too patient with disruptions. BTW I think I may have caught a chill, is it snowing in here?--Adam in MO Talk 18:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Can we please get this issue resolved? I see very little opposition to Robert McClenon's suggestion of a topic ban, but very little action to bring the discussion to a conclusion. I have been holding off editing Somalia-related articles while this discussion is ongoing, because I don't want to force through changes in Middayexpress's absence. It would be helpful to get this matter concluded so that I can move on and seek consensus for future changes. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Why wait? It seems MDE rage quit and won't be back anytime soon.--Adam in MO Talk 21:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
      • As Robert explains above, it's possible that the retirement will only last as long as this AN/I thread is open. I guess there's no real reason to avoid editing in the meantime, but I would just feel more confident rooting out Middayexpress's POV material if I knew what the state of play was. Cordless Larry (talk) 05:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

It is quite common for the subject of a complaint to game the system by publicly "rage-quitting" or flouncing off when there is a complaint. The usual expectation should be that the subject will be back as soon as the thread is archived. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:20, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, in my experience, it is very rare for a participant in an ANI, ArbCom, or other conduct dispute who has posted a RETIRED banner or has flounced off or has "rage-quit" to truly stay away. They may indeed need a month or so to get over their anger, maybe even two months. But then they will see that no one has else righting the great wrong or pushing the point of view or tending the battleground. It is very easy for the community to assume that a fight is over, when it is only deferred. Since the community has a consensus, I would much prefer to see it enacted now, because if this comes up again, it will probably be at ArbCom. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:20, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. There are plenty of prior cases involving people who claim to be "retired" until the storm died down, and it's one of the biggest gaps in our defences against long-term abuse. However, my stance on this matter is somewhat tinged by the experience of Anupam, who made up some completely false accusations against me, and "retired" when that was taken to Arbcom; having escaped sanction, Anupam is now editing again and there's no way for me to clear my name.

If we actually enact a topic ban on Middayexpress, that makes it much easier to deal with future problematic editing by Middayexpress or by proxies. And if they really never come back and if their not to recruit other editors were a hoax, well, the topic ban has still done no harm. There is no downside. bobrayner (talk) 22:52, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I would also like to request this thread be addressed and resolved by an uninvolved admin as soon as it is possible. It is definitely not an inactive issue. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I've left at note at WT:MHCOORD asking one of the uninvolved admins who watch that page to close this discussion. Nick-D (talk) 03:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Knowledgekid87

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

---

Knowledgekid87 (talk · contribs) is getting on my wick. Worse, he seems to be getting on the wicks of people usually far more tolerant than myself. They were blocked by Ddstretch on 27 February this year and then unblocked the next day (Ddstretch again) - " Ok. I will unblock you on the understanding that you'll avoid drama and stop hovering around these drama-fests".

They haven't stopped. In fact, they were right back at it the following day and then retracted with this comment. They were in other AN/ANI discussions on 5 and 9 March but had reasonable cause to be in those, although no real cause for this comment in an unrelated discussion. Nor was there any need for inserting themselves in this one. Some stuff could be avoided but is mostly !voting (eg: this) but I can see no need for their efforts in this (some of which they then retracted). Some of these retractions amount almost to "light the blue paper and retire" situations, although the root cause is probably more akin to Housman's "Three minutes' thought would suffice to find this out; but thought is irksome and three minutes is a long time."

And so it goes on - the above is only the first three weeks after their unblock. Jumping to more recent events, Slim Virgin felt it necessary to comment about KK87's contributions to something at SPI, which seems rather to mirror what they did at last year's GGTF ArbCom case, where they were the second-most prolific contributor despite having no obvious involvement in matters that caused the case to arise. Bishonen had this to say and my note of 27 May was removed without comment. There have been some odd goings-on here over the last few hours, after they had again interjected themselves (AE this time), went over to EvergreenFir to offer support and (as is not uncommon) didn't really understand what they were writing about (you'll see the strikings, which came later). They have also got themselves involved in the current Lightbreather ArbCom case, again without having any real connection and again involving retractions.

Since they will not even acknowledge that they have broken their promise (eg: mentioned by me here, blanked here with nothing said in between), I think it might be best to apply some sort of formal restriction but I'm just not quite sure how to frame it. In vague terms, I'm envisioning some sort of temporary restriction on contributing to non-article/non-user talk pages and from the drama boards themselves (would we need to define them?). Somehow, we would probably need to find a way to limit their drama-based comments on user talk pages also. Maybe start with a month or two and increase it if they breach; reset the clock if they do not transgress in, say, a six month period?

Ddstretch is currently dealing with real-life issues, so I've not bothered them but will drop a standard notification on their page. - Sitush (talk) 16:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, about time he started focusing on content...♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld, KnowledgeKid wouldn't know about creating content if it came up and smacked him on the face. What I do know is that he will be revelling in the fact that he has a new all singing, all dancing drama at ANI; this time in his name! Cassianto^Talk 18:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Right now I cant really respond in full but I will say that yes I went over to EF's page to offer support, when an editor gets bashed for standing up I do not feel it is right for editors to jump on top of them. The same thing happened to Coffee during EC's last block. If you look at my edit history I have pretty much avoided "drama" (As Sitush defines it, I see drama all over Wikipedia in some form or another) and have stuck to editing articles. The past edits would have to be broken down one at a time for a more detailed history behind them. I am going to be gone for at least an hour right now, I will have more to say when I can get back online. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

This might help you - recent edits to the WP space. Obviously, it includes stuff that is entirely acceptable but it also excludes talk pages. - Sitush (talk) 16:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• Good luck with trying to find an appropriate remedy - Knowledgekid87 has very little knowledge in the content subjects they work in. I find that a bit shocking given the length of time in which KK87 has been here, but given the Village Pump discussion about a fan service image.... the drama is not surprising. Though @Sitush: - your comment over at Tenchi Muyo (another ailing page) is the sort of thing which KK87 does in rebuttals at places like Talk:Futanari. No offense, but KK87 tries to be authoritative when he doesn't know anything. "A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool." comes to mind. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• Well, I know they're weak on basic MOS stuff because I got myself in a scrap at Ani - Imo earlier today while initially looking into what they did do when not on the drama boards. But since I know nothing of manga/anime myself, I can't judge subject knowledge. I hope you are not suggesting that they might be better engaging in drama than in articles ?! - Sitush (talk) 17:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• KK87 doesn't seem to have read Ani-Imo, or even a full review of the work. MOS issues aside, why would you capitalize Incest and Homosexuality like that? The article is misleading in its description and it seems to have been written by a girl with a complex. I have a hard time believing KK87 wrote this... much less read such a thing. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• Excuse me? "a girl with a complex"? What is this whole thing about anyways? I need to do a copyedit of the article I know, I have helped others though get to GA class. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• Well when someone else does the copyedit for you, fixing MOS, spelling and grammar errors, why did you revert back to the version with the errors in it?? That's a quite terrible edit. Black Kite (talk) 18:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• I was feeling followed is why, Sitush who admitted he has no knowledge of the subject posted here on the talkpage of an article I had been working on: [163], as you can see members of the A&M project objected to it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• You felt followed so you undid good changes? That shows a distinct lack of maturity and your own pettiness. I'm okay with whatever decision the community decides - since KK87 has not matured at all since the last time. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• I admit I was wrong with that revert but I had enough, the second time I undid the edits I asked for it to be taken to the talkpage which in retrospect I should have done first. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) You perhaps have a heightened degree of concern, then. I have looked at two articles where you had recently been involved because I've been mulling this report for some time now. In both cases I did a bit of work and, yes, I left a note on one talk - not mentioning you - as a sort of general "kick up the backside". I had also mentioned to you that I was considering this report before I went to the Ani - Imo article. Can we get back to the drama issue, please, rather than create still more where it has no basis. - Sitush (talk) 18:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• Chris who I have no idea why he is here brought this up, not me. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
• In those edit summaries I stood up for Rationalobserver as she was being unfairly targeted by other editors, she had done a lot of good work improving articles to GA status. EChastain was a great cause targeting editors and was blocked as a sock. As for the last few hours, EC was blocked again for posting in a place he shouldn't have which was on my watchlist, this resulted in at least two editors initially taking issue with it. I made my comment at the ARB case just like others did (who may follow the page) and thought that was that. When I saw editors targeting Evergreen on Eric's page I bit my lip and just posted a note on Ever's talkpage to ignore it [164]. Evergreen ignored the edits made but that wasn't enough, the edits were taken to green's talkpage [165]. Wikipedia isn't a WP:BATTLEGROUND editors shouldn't be targeting other editors. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

This feeling, the "I have no idea why he is here", is one other editors often have when they see your comments, Knowledgekid. (By others I mean at the very least me and several already mentioned as having left notes at your talk page.) Although your intentions may very well be good - to defend wikifriends - your methods leave a great deal to be desired. You leave too many messages. Someone who is not the focus of an SPI/ANI thread/Arbcom proceeding should generally not be the most prolific contributor to that page. You go to too many pages. It's not necessary to post at, for example, an SPI, the talk page of the person who created the SPI, the talk page of the person who is the subject of the SPI, and the talk pages of those closing or commenting on the SPI. That's spreading drama. It's inciting drama. If you truly feel a friend is being railroaded/accused improperly, you can say so. You don't need to lodge (in most cases unfounded) accusations against others. You don't need to scream conspiracy. You don't need to bring up past events that are only tangentially related. You may not have done all of those things this time, but you have done them all enough. Karanacs (talk) 18:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

P.S., as for your reversions of good article edits because you don't like the person who made them - that is disruptive editing and edit warring and if I ever catch you doing that again I'm blocking you immediately. Karanacs (talk) 18:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• This would be hard to define, and hard to enforce, but if it could be crafted better, I'd suggest "KK is prohibited from getting involved in issues that do not directly concern him. To be reviewed in 6 months." Or something along those lines. I have never seen a comment of his in a touchy situation that made the situation better. I don't doubt his good faith, really, but I do not believe he has sufficient good judgement to get involved in other people's problems. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

  If you think good will come out of it then I will take the ban, I don't know what issues though in particular I would be banned from. I just want you to know my edits have been in good faith and I don't like seeing others get beaten up. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

  It's comments like this [166] that are a part of the problem. You are assuming that RationalObserver was targeted and people were acting inappropriately. What actually happened is that RO was acting disruptively, RO was blocked and unblocked, and RO has not acted disruptively since then. People aren't upset with RO anymore, because RO changed her behavior and is focusing on oroducing content. Either 1) you don't understand what targeting actually is, 2) you don't understand what behavior is disruptive, or 3) you don't care about the behavior as long as it comes from a pal...any of those three make me question whether you should be participating in any project-level conversations at all. Karanacs (talk) 19:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

  She was targeted by User:EChastain and a handful of editors who thought she was a sock. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

  Opening that thread at RO's talk page was indeed another example of very poor judgement and I hope that she takes Floq's advice. I'm not sure why you chose to leave a note just there, given all the other people mentioned in the diffs in my opening statement, but it really was a bad one to pick, whether you were canvassing or not. IIRC, Rationalobserver has recently declared a prior user account to ArbCom - I'm not fussed provided that she keeps up the sort work she has been doing recently and in which I had a small hand.

  I'm thinking on Floq's suggestion above. It is a tricky issue, although I do think we have managed to deploy it in the past specifically for AN/ANI - just cannot remember any names. - Sitush (talk) 19:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

  Many years ago, just after I passed RfA if I remember correctly, we did place an editing restriction on an editor - for the life of me I can't remember who they were - which stated that any non-articlespace edit must be directly related to article improvement. I think there was an exception for commenting at discussions (i.e. XfD, RfA). Black Kite (talk) 00:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• My problem here is that "heightening drama" is completely ill-defined. I mean, everyone weighing in on this complaint who hasn't been involved in altercations with Knowledgekid could be seen as involving themselves in drama (including myself). Look at Eric Corbett's talk page since his recent block...there are over a dozen editors criticizing his block, making accusations, all of which is definitely heightening the drama but they are seen as expressing support for Corbett, not drama mongering, even though they all have absolutely nothing to do with his block. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• Not entirely true, Liz, but then you have misread things concerning me recently in other matters, which is worrying. My involvement at that talk page is related to his block, as I tried to explain at AE when admins started jumping to conclusions about watchlists. And the drama there is due to a bad block made due to a report by someone who issued personal attacks and was not censured for them. - Sitush (talk) 14:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about any editor specifically, Sitush. Just wondering why messages of support on one editor's talk page (by KnowledgeKid) is seen as heightening drama while in other situations, comments by uninvolved editors are not seen as amping up the drama. And I don't think you can change the point of focus from the individual posting to the subject of the drama (the block) unless KnowledgeKid's user talk page posts are also put into context (being about a subject, not being about him). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

(ec)Knowledgekid is not the only one who frequently stirs drama. If those posting, for example, on Eric's page, are also posting the same comments in 3 or 4 other places on-Wiki right now and are leveling unfounded accusations repeatedly, then maybe they need a similar topic ban. Karanacs (talk) 14:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) all have absolutely nothing to do with his block - I'm one of them, so it isn't all. But this is off-topic, although I'm not surprised to see you raise it given the recent events and your somewhat naive first-ever post at that page today. If you bring Eric Corbett into this thread it will deteriorate rapidly, as you should know. Feel free to collapse this bit or retract. - Sitush (talk) 14:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The difference is Liz is that KnowledgeKid is a talk page tart who pitches up anywhere where there is drama, whilst those who post on Eric's talk keep it to Eric's talk. Cassianto^Talk 16:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• I don't know much about Knowledgekid's article work; I've never run into it, I believe. Their other work is--how do I put this diplomatically--of no use, and serves only to heighten drama in situations they choose to stick their nose. Drmies (talk) 21:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: Per Floquenbeam's comment,"I have never seen a comment of his in a touchy situation that made the situation better," and Drmies' comment above that KK tends to "heighten drama," I must concur. KK can pretty much be counted on to stir the pot and increase contentiousness on a regular basis. A look at contribs shows Knowledgekid87 is sitting about about 50% on mainspace contributions versus talk and drama, so a restriction that comments be confined to something combining Black Kite's suggestion and Floquenbeam's would be appropriate. Or perhaps a restriction of one comment per day per topic at talk, also, unless it's an article KK has contributed to prior to whatever drama triggers a discussion. This editor isn't as problematic as a lot of others, but I think an admonition that pot-stirring isn't helping the project might be in order. Montanabw^(talk) 05:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• (e/c) As the admin who blocked and then unblocked Knowledgekid for stirring up drama (involving Rationalobserver) and then, after extracting a promise from him to just add content and not involve himself in any drama in future, I think I may be allowed to comment here.

  I am deeply sad that Knowledgekid seemed to ignore his promise made, right from the start, and as others have documented above. I did try to reason with him to adhere to the promise made, as did others over time (again as documented above), but to no avail, and so we find ourselves here. Perhaps I should have acted before now and re-imposed the block on him to try to put a stop to his seemingly obsessive behaviour of putting his nose into drama that doesn't involve him? But I was unsure if this could be justified at the time.

  The promise he made allowed for no special cases involving friends of his or any perceived targetting of them, but if one examines the cases where he has involved himself since then, many of them involve disputes involving Eric Corbett or some of his perceived supporters, where Knowledgekid's friends have been at fault. He was, for example, making comments in the latest case that didn't involve him at all, and which led to the most recent block against Eric Corbett.

  The basic issue is that, for whatever reasons, Knowledgekid made a promise that enabled him to have a block removed, and then almost immediately broke this promise and went back to getting involved in drama. He has become untrustworthy, and therefore unreliable even about himself. Whether he lied is a matter only he can know, but if he didn't lie, his behaviour shows such a lack of insight or reflection on what he is doing, that there may be an issue of competence here. To echo what others have said: when he injects himself into disputes, his contributions seem invariably to make bad situations worse. (In some cases, he has acted similarly to those people who shout "jump!" to people wanting to commit suicide by throwing themselves off buildings. In these cases, one wonders just how he thought his contributions were helping his friends.)

  If I had re-imposed the block, I would definitely comment on breaking the promise and its circumstances, and that would mean that, effectively, no real chance of any successful appeal against that re-imposed block could really succeed, assuming that the admin who looked at any appeal considered the circumstances properly. This troubled me and stayed my hand.

  Although we are required to assume good faith, it seems difficult for me to justifiably do so in his case, given his broken promise, and the speed and frequency in which he involves himself in topics that he has no connection with. And this is the more so given the number of people who have referred to his promise in an attempt to stop his disruptive behaviour. He seems so unable to have any insight into this that he doesn't refer to the original promise at all, but protests that he was helping out people he perceives were put upon. This is so inaccurate, especially in the latest case, where, even as this discussion was taking place, he attempted to drag Rationalobserver into this dispute. Rationalobserver has made an excellent reform in their own behaviour since their own problems. Problems in which Knowledgekid also had a big hand in attempting to stir up more drama, and which led to my block of him and the subsequent promise he made to get himself unblocked.

  My own feeling, which may well be biased now, is that Knowledgekid should immediately have the block he appealed against and which I lifted re-imposed. This should show him how seriously we take broken promises to evade a block. It would also be preventative, because he seems completely unable to stop himself, and no amount of assurances he now might make could convince me that he would change in such a short period of time. It would also send out a strong message to others who might be tempted to bait or drive drama. Subsequent to that block being lifted, I suggest that we now decide on strict editing restrictions for him: he should only contribute content; any talk page comments should be specifically about content, and should normally be made on those articles' talk pages. He should be able to contribute to his own talk page, however. If he wants to talk to others, he can ping them and direct them to his own talk page. His talk page should be monitored. Any involvement in drama seen on them should be subject to some kind of action. I suggest that these restrictions last for a sufficient period of time to hope that he matures and gains insight. As I said, I may be biased here because of the sadness I have about his inability to keep to a serious promise he made to me.

  I apologize for the length of this comment.  DDStretch  (talk) 05:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• Ddstretch, we might have to make an exception for the anime/manga project talk page and, for example, for contributions to WP:RSN. - Sitush (talk) 06:15, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• I concur with Sitush that KK87 has made substantial contributions to the anime/manga articles that are clearly where his heart is at; it would be "bouncing the rubble" to say he couldn't edit there - as far as I can tell, his contributions in that area have been mostly constructive. Let him do what he does best, then. Didn't WP ban Eric Corbett specifically from RfA and GGTF? If they can do that, I'd say asking KK to stay away from the drama boards, liberally construed, is a doable idea. Montanabw^(talk) 06:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• Ok. I overlooked his positive contributions to that project page, and to WP:RSN. I don't want to restrict him from any of the pages where he writes content. However, I think we need to be a bit more broad than "drama boards, liberally construed" because a reasonable amount of the stirring goes on on individual editors' talk pages. We could then say "stay away from the drama boards, liberally construed, and additionally stay out of any discussions on any editor's talk page that involves drama (liberally construed) in which he is not directly involved himself." What about re-imposing the block that he evaded by breaking the promise?  DDStretch  (talk) 09:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I thought long and hard about posting here but a few points need rebutting in my view. Let's start by looking at some numbers, and these are only a sampling from pages I'm aware of: KK87 has the highest or second highest number of edits to these non-article space pages, GGTF proposed decision talk, (it's really unusual to see so many comments on the PD talk page), this SPI, (which I launched against RO, more about that to come), and this MFD. None of these had anything to do with KK87 and there probably would have been considerably less heat without their comments. Regarding RO, I launched an SPI, they got exonerated, I apologized. Should have been end of story, but KK87 kept posting to their page that I was out to get them and thus an interaction ban is needed. Samples here, here, here, here, here. That myth needs to be dispelled here, now, on AN/I. Today RO had an article promoted to FA and let me further take the opportunity to extend an olive branch and congratulate everyone involved in that endeavor (I can't do it on their talk pages). I think it was Floquenbeam who somewhere here mentioned that not being able to chat with friends here is a miserable existence, and yep, I agree and understand having been shoved into that type of box. My sense is that Kk87 unwittingly adds heat and won't let go. Even in this thread they've made a mention of protecting RO against the people who are out to get them (that would be me), which does nothing to end any of this. I agree with Ddstretch, Johnuniq, Bish, Floquenbeam - probably have left out a few. Liz accused me of harassment the last time I posted to AN/I, which was enough for this almost-purely-content-driven editor to put up a retirement tag. If 50,000 edits, 20+ FAs, a good showing in a couple of Core Contests, and so on, in the end will only be reduced to being a person who harasses, then that's an example, imo, of the type of disruption KK87 can cause. Victoria (tk) 18:34, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Howdy Knowledgekid87. Going into 2011, a mere 39% of my edits were to mainspace, the rest to talkpages. Today, more then 67% of my edits are to mainspace. This huge change in my pie chart, resulted from me clamping down & concentrating on 'gnoming'. Perhaps, this would be a route for you to take. GoodDay (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban proposed (Knowledgekid87)

I would suggest not reblocking—72 hours would pass quickly and achieve nothing. I haven't seen the current issues, but my observations from several weeks ago confirm the views above that KK87's comments are usually most unhelpful. Translating the proposal to more formal language, how about:

Knowledgekid87 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from all noticeboards and talk pages other than to comment on actionable proposals for improvements to an article that Knowledgekid87 is working on. In addition, any comments or edit summaries by Knowledgekid87 must concern article content and not other editors.

• Support as above. Johnuniq (talk) 10:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Could I particularly ask why you jump to an 'indefinite topic ban' of this caliber? As far as I know, KK has never been the result of any sanction of this type and the 'promise' that he apparently broke is not actionable and absolutely shouldn't be held against them. (Reminded of admins who promised to be open to recall but weren't.) I would support a 3 month topic ban of this caliber--though I'm concerned about the prospects of it. They wouldn't be able to report people hounding them or people adequately baiting him because he's topic banned from all noticeboards. I wouldn't want to leave an editor without an avenue for abuse against them. Tutelary (talk) 12:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I am open to a topic ban, but per Tutelary I want to be sure I can report things without other editors taking advantage of it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

If KK kept his nose out of other people's business then he wouldn't receive abuse in the first place. Those who stick their nose into a beehive are going to get more than a nostril full of honey. Cassianto^Talk 17:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I think everyone here reads you loud and clear and at this point I don't know if you are trying to get a rise or not. Is there a reason why you have been only editing here over the last 24 hours? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Wouldnt want to miss the boat, that's all. Cassianto^Talk 21:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support Johnuniq's proposal as worded, especially per Karanacs' cogent posts above.[167][168] Adding a new section header for it. (And, oh yeah, how appropriate to see Tutelary here. Yet another stirrer, only not quite as busy as KK.) Bishonen | talk 14:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC).

• Comment The problem with as worded is that it limits my collaborations with other editors in building articles. I am talking about for example issues that may come up on the A&M talkpage. Does it only have to be articles that I am working on? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. I think any topic ban of this nature should contain a time limit (6-12 months) and an exception that allows him to respond on any topic in which he is directly involved. Karanacs (talk) 14:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• They must be allowed to respond if directly involved. Not sure about the other bit: how often is it the case that "indefinite" does actually mean "infinite"? If it happens a lot then, yes, there should be a time limit. - Sitush (talk) 14:34, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• Indefinite means I would have to go ask an admin directly, I know that it is usually like 6 months right? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support for reasons explained by others, above. I assume that this would also include Arbcom pages for which Knowledgekid87 is not a party. While I believe there is good faith behind their participation in various disputes, they tend to add little to actually resolving the disputes. A focus on content, rather than contributors would be a welcomed change for all concerned.- MrX 14:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
• Not quite so strict for now. First, addressing one of User:Liz's comments somewhere above, I don't care about his main space to project space ratio; I'm sure it's better than mine. If someone is being useful in project space, more power to them. The problem is not that he's commenting on things he's not involved with per se; it's in being almost uniformly unhelpful in those comments. Far too often he is misinformed or adds fuel to the fire, and he ends up striking his comments in whole or in part, after the damage is done. he is not alone in this, but he is the clearest example of it I can think of.

  Crafting the wording of something like this by committee is always tricky. I think it obviously needs to include a mechanism for him to report issues that directly affect him. I also feel he shouldn't be prevented from occasional non-content chats with friends, like all of us do; that's a recipe for a miserable existence, and an impossible topic ban. What needs to be prevented is the self-insertion into drama, and the problem is I don't know that he will be able to recognize the difference, and I can't think of a clearcut way to word it. I'd be inclined to say "Don't insert yourself into other people's drama, at AN/ANI, ArbCom, user talk pages, or anywhere else. Try harder to recognize when that is happening. If someone points out you're doing it unintentionally, stop immediately. If you keep doing it unintentionally, something worse will be imposed". And see if that works. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that if an editor or admin points out some behavior is a problem, the editor should seriously consider this warning and adapt their behavior, especially if several users indicate it is a problem.

I guess what I was trying to say above, bottom line, is that if the act that is necessitating a ban is the act of going to editor's talk page and posting unhelpful messages about disputes that the visiting editor is not a party to...well, there are a lot of editors who do this or have done this in the past. I know I've received unhelpful comments from an editor chiming in about a talk page argument that they weren't a party to and I'm sure my case is not an exception. And WP:ANI is one big exercise of editors weighing in on disputes they might know little or nothing about. But editors still offer their opinions, both those that are considered helpful and those that are not...which kind this is, I leave up to the reader. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

'*Oppose as written I have a problem with indefinite topic bans as a lot can change in 3 months, and I don't exactly trust administrators to give a satisfactory criteria for the removal of an indefinite topic ban--especially if they've had it for a while. I'm sure that within 3 months of a topic ban, he'll be fine--I'd be fine with a 3 month one, just not indefinite. And yeah, someone will counter me with 'indefinite doesn't mean infinite' but I've seen far too any indefinite topic bans without any possibility of any definite one. What happened to month ones? We just skip straight to indefinite without trying any of the more lenient options beforehand? It also offers no ability or exception for KK to report to the noticeboards if someone is doing something to -him- because obviously, that would cause drama that he can't cause himself, leaving him open. Tutelary (talk) 15:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support for only 3 months - Indefinite is not required. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
• I always prefer "per Floquenbeam", as a rule. If that doesn't make the cut I'll go per Johnuniq, provided that "talk pages" is taken as inclusively as possible, including all talk pages except their own. I think blocking Eric for something on his own talk page is BS, and I wouldn't want to exact the same kind of pitiless and meaningless vengeance on anyone else. But Knowledgekid would do well to basically stay the hell away from anyone else's talk page if it's not about content. Also, per Bishonen, generally. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support See way too much of him and his sanctimonious comments at various places. I think he means well, but it gets really annoying at times, and I think he should spent the time on content instead.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:04, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support 3-month topic ban per ChrisGualtieri's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:12, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban on principal. This is over kill. That said if a topic ban is approved it should definitely have an expiration date of no more than six months. Such a broadly worded ban is very extreme and strikes me as only a step or two removed from an outright ban which I do not think is justified. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support The original proposal. (I mean by Johnuniq.) It seems to me that KK87 just doesn't get it at all. I have seen no admissions of his poor behaviour, or any apology, or any reflection in any meaningful way of his own behaviour at all. Even today, we see questionable behaviour of him in removing comments from this thread: he is not in the position to do this, he should let others do it if they judge it right to do so. If KK87 thinks he can mount a successful appeal against the topic ban, then let us say he can do so only after a three month period has passed, and we can see what, if anything, has changed in that period.  DDStretch  (talk) 05:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose as written. Mainly as per Ad Orientem. It is tantamount to an indefinite site ban which surely is not warranted. Obviously discussions are bound to stray from directly content related items, and it would make his participation here almost impossible. Also support mentorship program as suggested by GoodDay. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 12:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, we should try the mentorship route, first. I've been through alot of hurdles in the last 3+ yrs & can appreciate the situation KK87 finds himself in. If one has stepped on a lot of toes, sooner or later the feet those toes are connected to, will come back kicking. GoodDay (talk) 13:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support A limited duration ban (6-12 months has been mentioned) combined with mentorship (if mentorship is included, I'd be OK with the topic ban being reduced to 3 months). If there's no measurable progress, extend the ban. Intothatdarkness 20:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support per Johnuniq . Mentoring is too little, too late. Cassianto^Talk 20:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support provided that it is time-limited rather than indefinite. Mentorship is not likely to work, given the number of people who have already tried to advise and the fact that the poor behaviour has continued even while this thread has been open. - Sitush (talk) 06:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• I notice that KK said below on 1 June that they had unwatched ANI. Nonetheless, they commented here many hours later on 2 June. No idea of the merits of the comment, nor how they got here, but it does rather suggest a continuing inability to disengage. - Sitush (talk) 08:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Well it's possible to unwatch a page and yet visit it, perhaps through a navbox. Also, if action is being taken against you, isn't it wise to keep tabs on things? Also you don't believe in mentorship without trying it first? --Jules (Mrjulesd) 11:38, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
• My exact quote below was "Once this is over, I am taking this board off my watchlist", can you point out where I said something different? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 11:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, KK, my apologies for misreading that. However, around the same time you said that you had already taken Pump off your list, so why this and some others? Re: Mrjulesd, I'm not sure why you think mentorship is any different from numerous editors in good standing offering advice over a prolonged period with no obvious effect. The time for mentorship has passed. - Sitush (talk)

• I got there from Caitlyn Jenner, no drama was stirred by offering an oppose opinion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• I think there is already consensus that you cannot determine what is or is not drama. Indeed, that is at the root of the problem. Therefore, best to say nothing as would have happened if you hadn't sidestepped your self-imposed restriction. As I said about your ANI post, I am not commenting on the content of your contribution to the Pump (I'm not wandering around to find out what the story is) but rather on its existence. - Sitush (talk) 12:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment, seeing a KK87 has announced his acceptance of mentorship, we should hold off from imposing a topic-ban. Let's not bury a fellow editor, a preventative measure can easily morph into a punitive measure. GoodDay (talk) 13:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I second this suggestion. To not try mentorship first would be a mistake, as this would be most appropriate for a good faithed but errant editor. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 14:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban of some sort: This one, the one in the next section. If indef worries folks, then say 6 months. If KK can get his content contributions up to par, that will be a net positive to the wiki. I'm not concerned about his inability to use the drama boards for legitimate problems, he can always ping an admin and then that person can assess and respond accordingly. Montanabw^(talk) 22:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
• Mentorship. I guess I'm going to be called naive, but I think we should give mentorship a try. People can bring out the torches and pitchforks again if it doesn't work. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban - which is unworkably vague and impinges upon free speech and the right to dissent. This does not seem to rise to the level of a community ban. Mentorship is worth trying, although it seems late in the day for that solution for an individual that has been here since 2008 and has 32K edits on the odometer. Advice to KK: ramp down the controversy by ramping down the drama. Carrite (talk) 14:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support Johnuniq's proposal; despite this ongoing thread, KK87 is still following editors he appears to have a grudge against and injecting himself into possibly contentious matters. These are articles/topic areas where he has had no previous involvement and they don't seem to fall into his general areas of interest. To me, this is indicative that he is unable to stay away from drama. SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• What leads you to believe I have a grudge against anyone? If I see an area that interests me I would post in it. Can you provide evidence that I am "following" editors around because that is quite an accusation to make. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:16, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• See reply below. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Possible rewording of topic ban proposal

Knowledgekid87 is forbidden from contributing to WP:AN, WP:ANI, WP:Arbitration/Requests (and sub-boards) unless (a) he is a party to an action, and/or (b) has prior permission from an administrator. He is also forbidden from commenting on talk pages (other than his own) about actions on these boards, unless (a) and/or (b) above. Restriction is for six months duration, unless there is community consensus otherwise. That is a possible rewording, taking in comments from above. Again it could be modified. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 11:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

How would this remedy as it is worded prevent that kind of ankle-biting? Knowledgekid needs to be shown the door, the project is better off without an individual whose focus is first on drama and second on pervert anime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.224.220.1 (talk) 14:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know who you are as you appear to be editing from a school's address, but anime and manga has a wide scope. As for the comment on Liz's talkpage being an Arb clerk isn't an easy job in general. Seeing she is new at the job I thought a kitten comment would show some encouragement. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:39, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• I will support any ban for 6 to 12 months that strictly forbids KK from posting comments anywhere where they are not directly involved. The slightest excursion should receive an immediate block. Let's face it, KK is everywhere and is a pesky nuisance. If they were born in '87 and have been editing for 6 years there is either still a massive maturity issue or they just don't get it, and handing out kittens isn't going to appeal to anyone's leniency. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:05, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• But would you really want to ban him him from the Village Pump? WP:AN3? WP:AIV? WP:ANRFC? WP:RFC? Deletion discussions? There is no evidence he has caused problems in these places. To not specify which particular boards it applies to would be a mistake IMO. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 13:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
• I never indicated when I was born anywhere in my user-page so using that against me I consider as a form of personal attack and possible WP:OUTING. If you are going to make a case against my edits then please focus on what the content was and not this maturity BS. Oh and the whole "If" factor doesn't matter, how does my birth-year matter here anyways? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• You don't have to be a mathematician to work it out KK.[169]. Cassianto^Talk 15:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I had forgot about those old versions but changed them for a reason, in any case what does that have to do with content here on Wikipedia? It bothers me as my personal information is being used in a negative way here that is not constructive to anything. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:57, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Kudpung was pointing out that at 28, you should really be acting maturely and not like a mischievous young wippersnapper. Unfortunately, by introducing yourself into arguments that have nothing to do with you, you fall into the latter category. You strike me as being the sort of person who shouts "fight, fight, fight" at school when two students were arguing over who won the girl! Cassianto^Talk 16:05, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Again, this isn't about my age or maturity its about my edits if you cant separate the two then please kindly leave. I may have made mistakes in my editing but I wouldn't stoop as low as using someone's personal information against them. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:51, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

You asked a question: "what does that have to do with content here on Wikipedia?" I answered it. Please, don't be so argumentative and assume I'm incapable of "separating the two". Cassianto^Talk 12:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

This complaint is about KnowledgeKid87's conduct, not his biography. His age or any other personal information should not be a consideration here and unnecessarily distract from focusing on problematic behaviors that some editors apparently see. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:02, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Liz, no shit! Cassianto^Talk 12:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Knowledgekid's age is relevant because experience shows that absent severe Road-to-Damascus type life events, adults tend not to change their behaviour. He is 28, and his interactions with other users betray a distinct lack of maturity. If he were 15 or 18, he might still change, but at 28 he won't. The mentoring proposal one section down the page is a noble but futile endeavour. 134.224.220.1 (talk) 00:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Though I have taken no other role in this discussion, Knowledgekid87 should be warned that he is not permitted to remove other editors' comments on this noticeboard, as he has now twice done to the paragraph immediately above (once reverted by the IP, once by me). Dwpaul ^Talk 00:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I already said I do not want my age brought into this, and the post amounts to nothing, I have already been harassed by another school addressed IP on my talkpage. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I and a number of other editors agree with you that your age should not be brought into the discussion, but if another editor attempts to do so, it is on them; you cannot simply remove their comments here on the basis that you have asked that they not bring it up. Dwpaul ^Talk 00:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

You don't think that linking to Road-to-Damascus type In a discussion regarding edits amounts to vandalism? Normally when posts are off topic or are vandalism in nature they get removed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

No, it is not vandalism. And that you may think it does tends to support the comment that someone made above re: general competence, which was also implicitly supported in ChrisGualtieri's remarks about your article editing. FWIW, I still can't make my mind up regarding the various proposals, and I think your age is irrelevant to dealing with this issue. Had you been a decade or so younger then it might perhaps have been viewed as a mitigating circumstance, that's all. - Sitush (talk) 01:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

My article editing is more than just those cherry picked differences though, a few months back I was able to work with other editors to bring an article up to GA. I can accept constructive criticism here but I have seen some posts so far that are anything but. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Would you like to specify here, then, what your thoughts are about which criticisms are constructive, and what you intend to do about them? Try to see how your comments, just now, can be applied directly to your own behaviour that prompted this ANI report. Remember that promises made may not be believed so much as you would like, given what has happened and what you have done with numerous helpful suggestions before we reached this point.  DDStretch  (talk) 05:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• Sitush was gathering material and was going to post this ANI report regardless of the fact so he didn't need to tell me that he was going to in advance. The main complaint here is drama, some discussions editors have been taking things way too personally and that bothers me. Rather than focus on the behaviors of the editor involved I have seen editors go for the throat of the editor involved in anyway they can. So yes I admit that I haven't always been right poking into other people's discussions but as I said above each case should be taken separately rather than having a small snippet of it show through an edit summary. Going through each case instance though I feel is just going to reopen old discussions though. If you want an example of what I find wrong... look at Coffee's block of EC, rather than focus on ways to move forward or for EC to move on, editors slammed Coffee for being an unfit admin, and tore into him in everyway possible, from his edits to his personality. This is what I wish would stop. We have a WP:BLP policy here on Wikipedia, we don't need to bring into discussions about other editors and make Wikipedia about their bios. Discussion about behavior and edit content should take priority and sadly in some cases I haven't seen it this way. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

(sigh) Just because you mentioned Coffee here in passing, do you really think it was necessary to place a notice on his talk page here to try to drag him into all this, just as you did to RationalObserver? I will reply to your comments later, but really! does this really help, or just tries to whip up more drama by deflecting the discussion away from yourself. Think harder in future! (addendum: I notice you haven't placed a similar notice on Eric Corbett's page, yet you also mentioned him. However, thereagain, Eric Corbett or his supporters are often the people you post messages about on pages where you have stirred up drama in the past.)  DDStretch  (talk) 13:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Per ANI policy above I have to, Eric also isn't going to be able to reply so in that case I don't know what it would do but could leave a note there too. Anyways, if Sitush can link edit summaries up there to me, can I at least defend my actions with an example of how editors are taking discussions to a personal level? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

You mentioned him. I doubt you wanted to open up a discussion about his actions (which is what the AN/I instructions are about), unless you wanted to divert attention away from your behaviour. Furthermore, as of this time, long after my previous message you replied to, I see no notice on Eric Corbett's page informing him that you mentioned him here, even though using your own interpretation of the rules you should have, and you almost acknowledged this. above. It is exactly this kind of drama-inducing and lack of clue that people are getting tired of here. I will write more about the supposed distinction you are making between behaviour and "personal comments" later, after some real-life issue has been dealt with.  DDStretch  (talk) 06:25, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Drama exists all over Wikipedia in one form or another so it would be hard to define what "drama" is by whose standards. I don't think the community can agree what exactly drama is because everyone sees it different. If I am to be topic banned then in what areas? I haven't been disruptive at AfDs nor have I caused problems on project pages. As for the other bit, behavior of editors focuses on their actions that led up to whatever it is that they need to improve on. I don't want to drag more editors into the discussion here nobody wants to be the focus of attention here (I sure don't), but as I said above I want to explain my actions. The things I find problematic are other editors that defend editors for their bad behavior, and turn on the editor that has to make the tough judgement call. I am tired of seeing editors targeted for things that aren't content or behavior related. A perfect example is bringing in my birth-year above, does it have anything to do with Wikipedia? No. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Your proposal was well intended but I felt like the promise was being used as a loaded gun to my head, because "drama" wasn't defined, whoever followed my edits with possible bad intentions could say "yeah he is creating drama". Just look at EChastain, a now blocked sock of User:Mattisse who is known for targeting editors and was targeting both me and RO. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

So, if you felt like that then why didn't you say that at the time? In fact, it is very convenient for you to come up with this supposed explanation now, but you were certainly not showing signs that you thought this at the time. You should have raised the issue about modifying the promise at the time, but you didn't. So, if what you say is true, then are you in the habit of making promises or stating what you will do, and then breaking the promise without coming back to people to discuss modifying the promise, or stating that you will do something (like that you will unwatch this board) and then obviously not doing that (as Sitush has pointed out)? It just adds to the idea that you are untrustworthy. As for drama exists all over wikipedia, and it is difficult to define it so you shouldn't be held to it, this applies to the details of incivility, which you seem quite happy to apply to others. I suggest one thing to you now, KK87: when you are in a hole, stop digging or even wriggling, because every time you attempt, post hoc, to justify your behaviour, it leads to more signs that you are being evasive and failing to confront your own bad behaviour here.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

OK I withdraw the idea that you said you had already taken this board off your watchlist. However, there is another outstanding issue. Even though I pointed out your omission of notifying Eric Corbett of the discussion here, in which you mentioned him just as you mentioned Coffee, I see that you have posted a number of messages in this thread, yet still you have not notified Eric Corbett, and yet by your own interpretation of the rules, you should have. Now, why is that? Is it that you don't want to notify a perceived "opponent" of yours, or is it that you acknowledge that you didn't need to inform Coffee, or something else?  DDStretch  (talk) 12:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

He is blocked is why so he wouldn't be able to comment, I will go ahead and post a notice though. When he returns hopefully this discussion will be over and I can avoid contact with those kind of things. I also didn't want to bother you before, I saw you were going through personal issues and respected that. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for now placing a notice on Eric Corbett's page. Also thank you for your concern about the real-life issues I have recently experienced. However, the block and promise happened a few months ago when such issues were not present, yet you didn't raise the "loaded gun" feeling with me then. Is it, perhaps, that you only recently thought about a "loaded gun" explanation of why you decided to ignore, almost from the start, the promise you made in order to get unblocked?  DDStretch  (talk) 13:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Im tired of being dragged through the mud here for trying to do something good for other editors. I have been trying to get back into editing by doing cleanup here and there but it is hard. Once this is over, I am taking this board off my watchlist I can only hope that discussions can focus on the editor and not tear down who they are as a person. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Stay away from the drama-boards & concentrate fully on content & you won't go wrong. PS- I wouldn't mind welcoming a 'new' gnome :) GoodDay (talk) 14:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I already took arbcom and pump off my watchlist. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Mentorship

Perhaps any form of 'topic-bans' is tad harsh & premature, at this time. Seeing as many here, feel that his participation on drama-boards should be curtailed, I'd recommend assigning KK87 a mentor. GoodDay (talk) 19:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

People who require a mentor are not supposed to know how the rules work. KK is well aware of the rules and chooses to conduct himself this way, so I'd say we have missed the boat on that one. Cassianto^Talk 19:39, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd say your definition of mentorship may be a bit narrow. There's room for mentoring an editor who knows the rules but has trouble controlling their impulses. I'm not necessarily recommending that in this case -- I think KK87's behavior is part and parcel of their personality, and have thought that for a while now [170]. There may not be a better way to force a behavioral change other then the "short, sharp, shock" a ban or topic ban would apply. BMK (talk) 20:52, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I take your point, I hadn't thought of it like that. Cassianto^Talk 21:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Numerous experienced contributors have attempted to set KK87 on the straight-and-narrow even before their block. There are some examples since the block in my opening statement. It has made no difference - that is why we are here. - Sitush (talk) 01:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, Sitush, you should always believe in second chances. People are capable of enormous personal transformations. There are a lot of eyes on this editor and I'm sure further slips will be noted and dealt with it. There is WP:NODEADLINE. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

They've had second, third and fourth chances and still do not get it. I wish you were as understanding when you come calling on my talk page, instead of getting the wrong end of the stick as you did. - Sitush (talk) 02:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

@Liz: Your comment does great justice to you in showing your willingness to extend AGF as far as possible, but major changes in one's attitude and behavior don't happen easily and cannot be turned on (or off) like a switch. It generally takes some kind of serious crisis to provoke it, and I think, in fact, that we're doing KK87 a disservice by saying "Change your behavior, now" instead of forcing him into a situation where he has to re-evaluate his behavior, and decide on his own, that it's worthwhile to him to change.

Given this, and given KK87's history, at this time I would support the most strenuous ban than the community is willing to impose. Personally, I think that a site ban of moderate duration might be most persuasive, but if the community is set on a tailored topic ban, I can go along with that as well. BMK (talk) 05:27, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• Mentorship is something we generally offer to promising youngsters who just don't seem to get it right but probably will after two or three more years of growing up. KK is beyond that stage and not only is he clearly demonstrating a most argumentative character, but he is digging himself deeper in. Maturity is behavioural and not necessarily age related. If I were a more radical admin I would be soreley tempted to enact a block at this stage without waiting for the outcome of this discussion in which KK now needs to shut up, stop creating even more drama, and let his peers - both defense and prosecution - decide his fate. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

If I may butt in with a meta comment, I think it's both inappropriate and unnecessary to even mention things like "controlling impulses" and "maturity" on this page. A user either conforms to community behavior standards, or they don't, and they (should) face consequences if they don't. The rest is a self-growth thing that should remain between the individual and him/herself, or between him/herself and any assistance they choose to seek out, off-wiki. See KISS principle. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I agree with you that it is wrong thing to do to write about "controlling impulses" and "maturity" here.

That said:

@Knowledgekid87:

This ongoing discussion is basically dissuading you inserting yourself into drama that doesn't involve you. Can you explain why you - and on this very page - inserted yourself into drama that doesn't involve you?

Peter in Australia aka --Shirt58 (talk) 12:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I just want to say that I would accept mentorship, and to Peter I was only trying to be helpful with an editor who I saw was new. No bad intentions, no stirring up anything, just a simple what I would do comment regarding minor edits. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:10, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Sitush is quite right, he;s been told on numerous occasions to focus on content rather than editors. I don't know if any of you have seen Bad Teacher but Knowledgekid reminds me of Squirrel in it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Alas, no-one seems to be keen to close this thread. Nor does anyone seem to be putting themselves forward as a potential mentor, which makes this particular proposal unworkable even if it did have consensus. - Sitush (talk) 16:57, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree on one thing it has taken awhile for someone to close this thread. Per the above nobody had addressed on how I "follow" other editors around either. I accept mentorship here but if nobody wants to come forward a topic ban is fine by me as I feel I can do it. The only hangup I have is I want the topic ban to be defined so editors don't take advantage of it. Btw in the last few days I have caused no drama (By whoever's standards here) and have been trying to help out with getting an article to GA. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd recommend Steven Zhang and or DBD as your mentor. GoodDay (talk) 17:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm a glutton for punishment (no offense, GoodDay) but I would be willing to mentor this editor, however you would have to play by my rules. I'd also want the ability to impose this topic ban if it's not passed here, but I doubt that will happen. Will see what a closing admin thinks - but I'm not overly fond of having to drag this to ANI every other day to get an admin to impose a ban on editing X/Y page. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 23:36, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87: I don't actually have AN/I on my watchlist as I prefer to work on content; in response to your question: John Le Mesurier is an article you have never edited, yet after having a dispute with Cassianto you appeared at the talk page - again, the only time you have demonstrated any interest in the subject - to comment on info boxes. SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Again it was content, I made it clear I wanted nothing to do with the ANI issue and offered solutions to the info-box issue on the talk-page. You are making a mountain out of a molehill. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 11:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

You say Phil is making a mountain from a molehill. Everyone else says you've been getting on everyone's tits. You act like the person encountering hundreds of wrong-way drivers on the Interstate. Please stop. 134.224.220.1 (talk) 13:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Motion to close

I think I probably commented somewhere above, so in theory I shouldn't close this, but no one else seems to want to close it, and it's unlikely to be productive anymore, and we are sort of lurching towards a potential solution. Unless there are strenuous objections, I propose to close it as follows, rather than have "no consensus for any one particular solution" morph into "no consensus to do anything":

• User:Knowledgekid87 agrees to work much harder at avoiding other people's drama.
• User:Steven Zhang agrees to be KK's mentor in this, and KK87 agrees to be mentored by SZ.
• There was a consensus for a topic ban of some sort, but no consensus on the details. KK87 agreed to a topic ban "of some kind", but was hesitant about some of the details (or lack of them).
• Since SZ will be best positioned to observe what is going on, and is the one who volunteered to mentor, if he feels an explicit topic ban is needed, he can decide on the scope and the wording, and it will go into effect when he tells KK87 about it. If he doesn't feel an explicit topic ban is needed, he won't make one.
• If KK87 disagrees with a future topic ban imposed by SZ, he can appeal it here, but he will be subject to it until there's a consensus to remove or change it.
• People having future issues with KK87 should first discuss it with KK87, pinging SZ. There is no prohibition on reporting KK87 to a noticeboard, but it is strongly encouraged to instead see if things can be worked out with SZ's help first.

If KK87 and SZ can indicate here that this is OK with both of them, and no one freaks out that this is a horrible solution, then I'll close this in a little bit. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Sounds okay to me. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• Floq, almost anything is better than letting this linger. Thanks for your suggestion. Drmies (talk) 21:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
• Looks good to me. I'm happy with these conditions. I imagine this will be logged at the general sanctions page? Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 21:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Lauyulam

The following discussion is closed. 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 recently blocked Lauyulam (talk · contribs) for edit warring; I then removed talk page access for repeatedly removing the block template and for edit summaries like this. After their return they have just posted this on their talk page, which kind of speaks for itself. It's probably best if somebody uninvolved can review please. GiantSnowman 18:15, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Just an FYI, our current guideline at WP:REMOVED does permit removal of the block notice itself, (this changes regularly each time a new RFC is held on it) its only declined unblock requests that are protected from removal during the duration of the block. Since the talk page revocation wasn't technically correct, maybe just give them a pass on the userbox. Monty₈₄₅ 18:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

No matter what reason the editor has, that box and the bad edit summaries can not be okay. "Two wrongs does not make one right", and I dont see why we would allow this just because he could remove block notice. Also as User:GiantSnowman said, the talkpage access was also removed due to bad edit summaries. Qed237 (talk) 18:36, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

True, two wrongs don't make a right; but where a situation has been escalated as a result of experienced editors misapplying policy, (even one we keep changing back and forth) I think we need to be careful to not compound the error and so should give the other party more slack then we might otherwise. It doesn't excuse the conduct, but if we hadn't edit warred the block notice back on, they wouldn't have said what they did in edit summaries, talk page access wouldn't have been revoked, and the userbox probably wouldn't have been added. Monty₈₄₅ 18:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

He wasn't blocked for edit-warring the block notice, but for repeatedly inserting the Catalan names of Spanish footballers into their articles after warnings, etc., (and was reported for it here). Hope this clarifies. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 19:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Monty has a point: edit warring by several editors to restore the block notice further enflamed the situation. However, Lauyulam doesn't appear to hold collaborative editing in really high regard, so I'm not sure we need to pussyfoot around this too much. I've removed the obviously unacceptable notice, and left a note on his talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I think the edit-warring, in regard to the users trying to restore the block notice, was done in the best interests of the situation. However, Lauyulam returned the favor with vagrant slurs that were meant just to be rude. The mistake by others did not justify Lauyulam's actions, and that should be considered when settling this.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It looks like someone unblocked him/her (unless he was on a temporary block that simply expired), but at any rate, this is just uncalled-for. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes it was a 48-hour block, now expired. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 10:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

@Monty845: @Floquenbeam: - while I personally didn't restore the block notice, I probably would have done had I been on-line at the time, as I was under the (incorrect) assumption that only expired block notices could be removed. Regardless, are you saying that that justifies their banner accusing me (and others) of being mentally ill? GiantSnowman 11:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman:, I assume this is some bizarre new way of saying "Thanks, Floq"? --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:19, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: Yes, of course, thank you... :) GiantSnowman 12:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying it justifies it, or even excuses it. Only that we should consider it as a mitigating factor in deciding how to deal with the subsequent conduct. Clearly removing the banner was justified; normally something like that might justify a block, and what I'm saying is that in light of the history here, instead of a block now, we should wait to see if Lauyulam continues being disruptive before deciding. Monty₈₄₅ 12:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

...But not wait very long it seems. See talk page. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Those admin....or better say dictator just know how to block users. never mind, block me and I am going to leave. It's a joke to say I'm vandalizing and edit warring. I want to tell those dictator who claim that they know well abt football (or may be nothing except football), go to listen how those commentator call Xavi. "Xavi" is pronounce as "Ch"avi , in Catalan pronunciation, not "s"a"b"I in spainish pronunciation. These are certainly Catalan names. --lauyulam 14:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauyulam (talk • contribs)

And I want to warn these dictator : Don't vandalize my talk page again --lauyulam 14:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauyulam (talk • contribs)

Per WP:POLEMIC and WP:NPA. I've removed the banner from the talk page. BMK (talk) 15:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Good removal. He has the right to delete stuff from his talk page. He does not have the right to post those types of insults (there OR here). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

By all accounts however, the user will most likely include it again in some childish act of defiance. His so-called "warning" does give an optimistic outlook.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I would just like to point out the underlying discrimination here. As a mentally ill editor, we deserve the right to be admins and disruptively edit the same as anybody else. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 06:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I offered help as a mediator due to the obvious language barrier. Revoked in the light of what I have seen/read (needless to say that, even if I was still interested in offering it, the other user would say "talk to the hand"). Good riddance! --84.90.219.128 (talk) 15:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Scope of a topic ban

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

---

I recently received a topic ban. Does the scope of a topic ban include my own sandbox? It was not stated in the notification of my topic ban. I would be extremely grateful for any directions to relevant policy/guidelines, as I have been searching extensively for these.DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:16, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

If you write about alternative medicine in your sandbox, then yes, it is a violation of your topic ban. Topic banned editors are forbidden to make edits related to a certain topic area, with no restrictions on where those edits are made. If you write about animal biology, behavior, health, and normal veterinary medicine then these will not fall under the scope of your topic ban. In theory, you could also write about human medicine (since the topic ban there applies specifically to articles), but this would be fairly pointless since you would not be allowed to use any material that you composed in your sandbox in actual articles. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:22, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

In fact I see that Adjwilley already told you this when he modified the ban; note that he says " I wanted to make it clear that the topic ban applies to all pages including talk pages. " (emphasis in original). Yunshui ^雲_水 14:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. What concerns me is that there are statements such as "discussions or suggestions about weather-related topics anywhere on Wikipedia, for instance a deletion discussion concerning an article about a meteorologist, but also including edit summaries and the user's own user and talk pages." exist here[[171]], but I have not found any statement about sandboxes being included.DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes indeed - but the clarification was about Talk pages and my own Talk page, not my sandbox.DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikilawyering isn't going to help. Your sandboxes are in your user page space. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you use the rather battleground term of "wikilawyering". I notice you have applied for admin status which will be decided shortly. Perhaps it would support your application if you were able to show me where topic bans apply to "user page space" and thereby include my sandbox.DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Andyjsmith

The following discussion is closed. 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 a bit worried about the quality of User:Andyjsmiths edits wrt caregories. And he is censoring his talk page. 118.93.90.74 (talk) 22:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• I can't tell if you're worried; I can tell you that a. there is no censorship here and b. the editor has every right to remove your comments. Also, c., you do not have the right to reinstate them: this, as well as this very ANI thread, constitutes harassment. No opinion on the alleged content dispute. Work it out some other way. Drmies (talk) 22:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
  • but wp is all about content. everything else should be secondary. 118.93.90.74 (talk) 23:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Andy has done nothing wrong, this is more than likely a ploy to trouble the user when you have disagreed with their editing. Close this AN/I, it is rather ridiculous.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Potential 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.

---

Not sure if this(after second request for help) is a blatant legal threat or just meant to have a chilling effect but it reads like one to me. Anyone able to give it a once over. Amortias (T)(C) 22:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• Well, I don't know. We're certainly not going to let loose the bloodhounds to track down an IP--we only do that for content contributors, via arbitration. I did block 68.196.1.231 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for what one might call assholery, and if need be we can semi-protect the user talk page. I'll leave a note on that editor's talk page as well. Drmies (talk) 22:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Given that this isn't the first incident, semi-protection seems warranted. I'll do so. Huon (talk) 23:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Request for uninvolved editor to rename a thread above

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

---

Could some uninvolved editor please rename the thread #User has gone over the edge above to something neutral. The heading constitutes a personal attack and should have been renamed more or less immediately. Skyerise (talk) 21:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Done. I am curious why no admin would step in and fix this obvious problem. It's almost like they don't care. Viriditas (talk) 21:41, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Given this editor's attitude, that's entirely possible. Skyerise's opinion of what constitutes a personal attack seems decidedly in her favour. Apparently it's OK when she does it.[172][173][174] --AussieLegend (✉) 21:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Eeesh, AussieLegend is right. Skyerise, you are seriously violating WP:NPA and WP:UNCIVIL. I am contemplating whether I should restore it to its original title, since the thread belongs to someone else and not Skyerise. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 22:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Now, why would you do that? The rules apply to all, regardless of who started it. Viriditas (talk) 22:05, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

As stated by AussieLegend. And where exactly is this rule? Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 22:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• Viriditas, of course admins don't care, cruel power-hungry enforcers of the status quo that they are. Sigh. Yes, headings on discussion pages should be neutral and not contain personal attacks. Whether this was one or not is a case of YMMV, but changing it doesn't hurt anyone, I suppose. I'm going to close this, which is to be read as an endorsement of this edit by Viriditas. If Skyerise's behavior is sanctionable it should follow from the content of the discussion, not the title. Drmies (talk) 22:21, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Unconstructive 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.

---

Peacemaker67 has removed a template I added too the Bijeljina massacre page. Citadel48 (talk) 01:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

You forgot to inform the user of this dicussion... Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 01:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I did. Citadel48 (talk) 01:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

You were ought to inform them on their talk page, not user page. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 01:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

It seems that the infobox had been previously removed, so there was a talk page discussion that turned up only one reply (opposing the infobox). It looks like you restored it two days after that discussion. EricEnfermero (Talk) 01:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, what Eric said. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 01:32, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I never heard of that discussion, and without the infobox, the article lacks balancing sources & relevant information. Citadel48 (talk) 01:35, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Quick question: do you even know what WP:VANDALISM consists of? [175] doesn't say so. Removing the template for valid reasons is not vandalism. Additionally, I still see you're marking your edits as minor edits when it shouldn't be, especially after being brought to ANI about this [176]. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 01:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Citadel48 - I was referring to the discussion that you started here. EricEnfermero (Talk) 01:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

First off, that was over a month ago, not two days ago, and secondly, the infobox provides balancing sources. There was indeed fight, for three days, and is thus notable as it was the first combat in the Bosnian war. Citadel48 (talk) 01:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I apologize for that confusion. Still, it looks like the change didn't have any support and it had at least one person who made a good argument against it. If we start discussions and then just wait a month and do whatever we want, it undermines the value of having discussions. EricEnfermero (Talk) 01:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

The change has balancing information, and marks a notable event. Also, we are having a discussion right now. Citadel48 (talk) 02:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

"Having a discussion right now"? Then why are you here? Have you read WP:CONSENSUS and WP:Content dispute? One person has made very good points as to why there shouldn't be an infobox. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 02:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

So we are. So I will go on record as saying that I think that Peacemaker67's removal was entirely appropriate, for the reasons they stated on the article's Talk page a month ago. General Ization ^Talk 02:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Peachemaker's only concern about the infoxbox is that it will downgrade the article's rating, which, it would not, as it provides balancing & sourced information. Citadel48 (talk) 02:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

From what do you infer that the article's rating is Peacemaker67's only concern? General Ization ^Talk 02:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

My question remain unanswered. This report was filed over stupid disagreements: one wants it because it looks better whilst the other one has different point of views with valid reasons (but the opposing user refers to it as keeping the rating on the article). Citadel48 is ignoring WP:CONSENSUS and WP:Content dispute in every angle. You were to restart the discussion again instead of accusing of the user being disruptive, when they aren't, and filing this report way too soon. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 02:17, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

He stated before that the article had a high rating, and that he did not want it "cluttered." Citadel48 (talk) 02:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Peacemaker cares about the quality of the article, I care about factual accuracy, which, should not affect the quality. Citadel48 (talk) 03:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

For the closing admin: Citadel48 is in WP:BOOMERANG territory here, IMO. For starters, it is clear from the article history that Citadel48 is in the minority regarding this infobox. Both 23 editor here on 2 May and I here, later the same day have reverted his addition of it, and asked him to discuss it on talk. I also ARBMAC-warned him about his behaviour here, on 2 May He did start a discussion, two days later, and I responded the same day with my concerns, here. He has chosen not to continue the discussion, or engage with my views about the scope of the article, instead he has merely added the infobox yet again, here, on 7 June. So, he has not made a reasonable effort to discuss this issue with with 23 editor or myself. At the risk of being accused of bringing up WP:OTHERSTUFF, a quick look at Citadel48's talk page shows that he has been refusing to get the WP:POINT about quite a few issues, using the minor checkbox for every edit, adding copyvio links to YouTube, and has been warned by several different users for his poor wikibehaviour across all sorts of subject areas, including being taken to ANI for repeated refusal to get the point about the minor edit checkbox. I may be more willing to bite the newbies than some editors, but where I edit (Yugoslavia articles), we get A LOT of POV-pushers and vandals. Citadel48 does not have consensus for his addition of the infobox, and hasn't even responded to my concerns. Personally, I think some sort of corrective action is needed before he ends up being classified as WP:NOTHERE. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

You're point that this is a article about the massacre not capture is irrelevant, the infobox provides balancing and sourced information. You & editor 23's intent for the removal of the infobox is obvious, all you care about is the rating you get, which should not be affected by the infobox. Citadel48 (talk) 03:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Are you purposely trying to get into WP:NPA territory? Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 03:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Wait a second. If there were fights for 3 days, why would be so inaprpriate to have the infobox in the article? Who said the article should deal exclusively with the massacre and not the fighting as well? FkpCascais (talk) 03:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh Lord, he is sourcing it with youtube... nevermind... Citadel48 what reliable sources do you have that can confirm the addition of the information you added in the infobox? FkpCascais (talk) 03:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, I was hoping this would burn out on its own, so I could close it, but I see this is going off track. Let's be very clear here: this is a content dispute. There is nothing that is actionable here for Admins. If you think Peacemaker67, et al. are correct, or whether you think Citadel48 is correct, please take it to that article's Talk page, not here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:49, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

The youtube videos are from CNN. Citadel48 (talk) 03:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Citadel48, I can't be any clearer here – take it to the article's Talk page. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Allow me to say that this initially indeed looked like a content dispute, however giving the fact that Citadel48 is adding content without reliable sources does in fact make him disruptive. Peacemaker67 is right, his attitude was not correct. FkpCascais (talk) 03:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Mickey1366

The following discussion is closed. 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 seems to think spamming my talk page (and spilling over onto the talk page of User:The Rambling Man) is the best way to go about getting his own way. I think I would like him to stop abusing my talk page and take 'no' for an answer. – PeeJay 22:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

So far, I've reverted the user and am in the process of warning the user. I will "watch" the user until it, if it does, ceases. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑

Mickey does need to stop or be blocked, but PeeJay watch the edit summaries. I can tell your upset and you know that feeding a troll will only make it worse.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I see a welcome message and then a message informing them about this ANI discussion. No one politely just asked this misguided but new editor to stop? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:11, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with User:NeilN here. A couple of kind words and a polite request to stop was worth trying, rather than a rather dismissive undo of the edits with a terse edit history, followed by a rapid escalation to ANI. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC).

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

Mickey1366 at it again

The user has repeated the vandalism despite warnings from me and @SLBedit:: [177], [178], [179], [180], [181] and [182]. I have given them one last warning. If the user continues, I request an admin to block them. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 21:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Links: Mickey1366 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure this qualifies as ("bad faith") vandalism. But it does look like it may be a very clear WP:CIR issue. Somebody may want to write this editor a "real message from a person", and see if they can make any headway. (I don't think I'll have the time to do it today...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• This isn't vandalism. It might be a WP:CIR issue, trolling or simply being annoying, but it isn't vandalism, which has a very specific meaning here. At the very least, it is strange. They haven't edited since the last warning, but I might agree to a short block if they repeat this same request again. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Drmargi - 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.

---

Once again, insults (personal attack) from Drmargi: [183]. 2001:41D0:52:D00:0:0:0:F5C (talk) 15:36, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Who was personally attacked? --AussieLegend (✉) 15:52, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

All those who discussed her on ANI and got called "the children got their noses out of joint". 2001:41D0:52:D00:0:0:0:F69 (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

While uncivil, it does not rise to the level of a personal attack, and thus no administrative action is warranted at this time. Monty₈₄₅ 16:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Anyone who edits needs to understand that you're going to come across editors you regard as "prickly". It's no big thing. The important thing to remember is WP:IDGAF. People need to drop the stick where Drmargi is concerned – unless Drmargi specifically attacks you in an edit, in clear and unambiguous terms, don't come running here to ANI. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I apologize, I misunderstood the guidelines and somehow got the idea that this kind of behavour is not allowed. I now know that insulting is acceptable as long as it is not stated in clear and unambiguous terms, I will take that in mind in the future. Once again, I am sorry for reporting her. Regards. 2001:41D0:2:BF1C:C35F:E5F6:161D:D99A (talk) 16:26, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Here's my question: who is hiding behind this IP, which as such has never edited here before? If he/she wants to claim another offense, it's usually not a bad idea to edit under the account I allegedly previously offended. --Drmargi (talk) 17:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I know I filed an ANI report against Drmargi in May and no actions were taken, but this IP is not from me in any way. I presumed that I would be a suspect, based on research. I want to get that out first. Additionally, based on IPv6 locator, the IPs come from France. I'm Canadian and reside in Montreal. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 17:31, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppets complaining about politeness... tsk tsk tsk.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I know who it is now, and the editor has been indeffed for (unrelated) disruptive behavior. --Drmargi (talk) 13:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Editor pretty clearly NOTHERE

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

---

I encountered KevinFrom (talk · contribs) last year, when I reverted some of his talk page posts (eg [[184]]) as purely forum style political statements. Admins can see one rev/deleted post[185] handled by User:MusikAnimal. See also his first ever edit [186] as well as [187] and [188] He's now back[189] stating (in part making a personal attack on User:Maunus) ":: @Maunus 1. All of your sources are from Left leaning websites. It's not neutral if you only accept sources that advances your theory. Either we accept sources from left and right or none of them. Otherwise just stop pretending to be objective and declare yourself as a lefties, communist administrator. You should be reported for bias. Eugenism wasnt invented by Hitler. So according to your logic every Eugenist who came before Hitler was a Neo-Nazi. That's clearly a fallacy.So I'm removing the Neo-Nazi references." His subsequent edit[190] also removed a statement by a conservative politician, which makes me doubt his talk page statement about wanting right wing sources. I could add more diffs, but this seems enough to make the point. As I'v reverted him in the past I'm possibly too involved, although I think the case is petty clear. Doug Weller (talk) 11:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Hm, the Roger Pearson talk page and article edits seem to fall under the R&I DS alert he was given last year.[191] Doug Weller (talk) 11:50, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

KevinFrom There are significant causes for concern in regard to your previous contributions to Wikipedia and your description of an editor as "communist" is pretty well stereotypical. Your contributions at Talk:Scientific racism seem to me to be argumentative without providing a reasoning by which they can be easily understood and debated. Please understand that we need editors that are prepared to develop and build neutral content and not just remove content that does not agree with them. At no point have you responded to talk page comments or, that I have seen, interventions elsewhere.

On a personal note, it may be interesting to see how the Talk:Roger Pearson (anthropologist)#NPOV dispute discussion develops from now. I personally think that as he has not edited since Sept and has only produced three edits of late that WP:ROPE may apply. GregKaye 13:14, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

So you are claiming that an admin only accepting articles and links as proof from Left leaning websites is not a proof of his political bias?KevinFrom (talk) 10:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

KevinFromThat's begging the question - you're asking us to take your word that all the sources used by whoever are left-leaning. And you are the one who removed the quote by the anti-Communist Geoffrey Stewart-Smith. And I still am of the opinion that you've breached the discretionary sanctions for Race & Intelligance. Doug Weller (talk) 11:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

What Geoffrey Stewart-Smith quote did I remove? Just because he was anti-Communist it doesn't mean he wasn't left leaning even if he was "conservative". As both parties leading the same politics since WW2.KevinFrom (talk) 12:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• edit conflictI am claiming that I have so far seen no substantiation of your claim of "an admin only accepting articles and links as proof from Left leaning websites" which, if it were to be presented, should most appropriately be presented in an article or user talk page context. It may help if you can confirm if you are familiar with the p & g at WP:RS. I am also claiming that WP:Battleground tactics such as presenting leading questions and the use of WP:ASSERT (which I think can also be well applied to inter editor communication) which you applied in a previous unsubstantiated indication of an editor's "agenda". Hopefully you have read on the article TP "We don't evaluate sources in terms of "left" and "right". What matters is WP:RS." GregKaye 11:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

1. All of his sources are books that you have to buy just to check if it's true or not what he states. That's too easy. Can I cite some books as proof that you will have to buy too?

2. Also the writers of those books are all left leaning, that is pretty evident if you look up their biographies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinFrom (talk • contribs) 12:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• After looking at the diffs presented by Doug Weller in his initial post, I must say I'm surprised that KevinFrom is still allowed to edit here. I suggest an indef block. Objections? --regentspark (comment) 13:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
• Evidence update - This racist post. Please indef immediately. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 13:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
• indef blocked. --regentspark (comment) 13:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Repeated vandalism at The Assayer

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

---

An IP that's a constantly changing moving target keeps deleting my sourced addition at The Assayer. There is no talk page to post a comment at because the IP keeps changing, while making the same comments in the edit summary. The comment claims that my secondary source is a "fake" source and that what is needed is a primary source. The IP's comments show a lack of understanding of wiki policy, according to which is it precisely secondary sources that are preferable, as I pointed out in my edit here, which was reverted. The three deletions by the moving IP are the following: first, second and third. I request a protection for the page The Assayer. Tkuvho (talk) 08:50, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I filed Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#The Assayer so hopefully it might get attention. I put the bare bones on the request, Tkuvho, so if you would like to add some context to the request feel free to. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:08, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Borsoka user

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

---

Borsoka user is comiting disruptive edits on Romanian historical regions, i tried to make a good article but romanians and hungarians don't allow that. He is reverting all edits even if are know facts and cited facts. I made him idiot in the last talk and i assume that, he cite me rules he breaks. :) I tried to reach a consensus but he is going with edits and reverting known facts. If you cannot ban him(because is his own page) please ban me, i give you reasons to ban me. He say a book in hungarian and latin from 1900 with old diplomas, who is a famous work of history is not reliable, just because he don't like it. I tried every thing to talk in talk page, to bring sources. He trow me in face the rules, original research, he has no real argument. An the romanian nationalist too, because o try to make a neutral article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_regions_of_Romania https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Borsoka

If i am wrong, i am ok with the ban, but he drives me crazy. Vasile iuga (talk) 06:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Last time I looked Romania and Hungary are in Eastern Europe, which means that discretionary sanctions are in effect, if any admin would like to look over the behavior of these two editors and impose some on them. BMK (talk) 09:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what kind of case you make when one of your logics is Romanians and Hugararians do not allow factual editing...and Vasile iuga has every right to show you policy if you are breaking it with original research. I may be wrong, but if you show actual diffs my opinion will greatly change.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 10:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

TheGracefulSlick, I believe Vasile iuga is filing the complaint against Borsoka but, you're right, diffs (evidence) are essential in evaluating this complaint. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Whoops, you are right, dumb mistake by me, but my opinion on the subject is still the same.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 12:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Having looked over the talkpage in question and Vasile iuga's prior contributions, I have blocked him under WP:CIR. He evidently lacks the skills to write coherent English, make his views adequately understood and uphold a civilized discussion without descending into personal attacks and bogus "vandalism" accusations. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:49, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

If I may make a remark, I have been desperately trying to persuade Vasile iuga to seek assistance either from members of WikiProject Romania [192], [193] [194] or in the Teahouse [195], because he obviously does not understand the basic rules of our community, as it is demonstrated, for instance, by his following remarks: [196], [197], [198]. Borsoka (talk) 16:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Nishidani

The following discussion is closed. 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 concerned that a troll may have hijacked User:Nishidani's identity (his user page was recently blanked). A comment was recently placed on his talk page in which he appears to refer to himself as "genocidal anti-Semitic propagandist Nishidani who is hired by Hamas to spread Pallywood lies about Jews" [199]. This links to a diff, apparently designed to place Nishidani in a bad light [200]. His user page has been restored to its old form after he requested its deletion. A couple of minor, but odd, edits have been made by "Nishidani" since the restoration of the user page. I may be overly-anxious about this, but it is there a chance that another user has been able to recreate the Nishidani identity? I should note that Nishidani does sometimes document nasty comments made about himself, so I may well have got hold of the wrong end of the stick. Paul B (talk) 14:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks PB for that oversight, but I blanked the page as a result of User:Johnuniq's advice, which was accompanied I think by a suggestion I then restore it in due course, without the (contentious) defense of my reputation which headed it in response to consistent and regular innuendoes made against me over the years. Today, I got the usual edit summary attack after I reverted the abusive removal of solidly sourced text at the Jewish Anti-Defamation League Page, and was immediately reverted. 'here we go again', I thought. I didn't expunge that revert, thinking someone would do it automatically. As it stayed up for a while, I thought,'Well time to register that this still goes on, and get my editing record back, shorn of my defense, on the homepage, with a note on the talk page (I'm bad at diff research, and like to keep a personal track of these things, in case the obvious needs documenting). That's all: had no intention to stir controversy, or whatever. Regards Nishidani (talk) 14:40, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, much ado about nowt then. But you really should restore the deleted colon at Talk:Jewish deicide [201]. What were you thinking? Paul B (talk) 14:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't 'thinking' or perhaps I unconsciously dislike colonization? . .Thanks for the tip-off. As the edit summary shows, I'm getten old. Ah, if only we had more 'close readers' around. Will do. Nishidani (talk) 14:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Jungshi threatening email

The following discussion is closed. 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:Jungshi replaced a much-used and well-sourced image of Genghis Khan on that page with an obscure image that the user uploaded. The user also changed the formatting of the page inappropriately. I reverted his edits. In response, the user sent the following message via email (not on a talk page, but to my personal email address): “Hey Laszlo, Stick with you Simpsons, your probably European, western, or non Asian anyway. If you are asian, then good if not stay away from my uncle. The future holds our destiny.” It is rather vague, I concede, but this is beyond inappropriate behavior constituting a personal attack and threat. This user should be blocked from editing. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 14:29, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Jungshi the image you uploaded was deleted by Future Perfect at Sunrise (who may be able to comment on image quality) with deletion made on the basis that the image violated WP:Non-free content. Please be careful with edits and, whether or not a block is prescribed, read WP:CIVIL. GregKaye 17:52, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The image was the one that can be found in this TinEye search and is obviously modern and no doubt still under copyright. (If anyone here can read Mongolian in traditional Mongolian script instead of Cyrillic they might be able give more information about the picture.) The current image is (a) free (b) much better in the context anyway.

As for the email: well, that's just... strange. There is always the chance of getting weird stuff if you have email enabled. (I get a lot of odd emails. I send a lot of of odd emails, too.) A lot of people have Wikipedia-specific emails addresses, wheich appears to me a very good idea. "Stay away from my uncle": maybe they have a Mongolian background? Perhaps we should wait a little longer and see what Jungshi has to say, and see if there are any repeats.--Shirt58 (talk) 04:05, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

There is a lot of nationalism with regards to Ghenghis Khan as he is considered one of the greatest figures in their history, ever. It's no more different to the nationalism that erupts from time to time in the Balkan articles. Blackmane (talk) 09:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure admins can't verify emails sent through the email system, but if that's genuine it's inappropriate and deserves a strongly worded warning, at the very least. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC).

Indefed by Future Perfect at Sunrise Nil Einne (talk) 16:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Article being vandalized: out of control, Smosh: The Movie

The following discussion is closed. 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,

I'm trying to repair an article that is being vandalized, and there are several users going through it right now whom I can't stop. The article is Smosh: The Movie. One of the users is 121.97.216.146. Could someone help out and handle this better than I am?

Thanks! Mechanic1c (talk) 11:59, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Right, I think I've restored it to a "good" version. Page protection is needed here. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Ahh, CambridgeBayWeather has protected it. Nice one. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:07, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

There were over 250 edits today (Zulu time) alone. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:10, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for helping. Mechanic1c (talk) 12:23, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Please revoke talk page access

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

---

User:QGNEKFLDK was indef blocked a week ago as a possible sockpuppet. They're now using their talkpage for free web hosting, against WP:NOTAWEBHOST. Please can someone revoke talkpage access? Joseph2302 (talk) 14:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Censoring new discoveries on Shang Dynasty Linguistics

The following discussion is closed. 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 think some people are unhappy what the new research points to regarding the language of the Shang Dynasty. My content is being removed for no good reason. At first they claim it is not a majority view, but they can't find any sources to back their claims. The latest research may not be majority view according to outdated sources, of course. I thought Wikipedia's policy was to explain both sides in a neutral tone. They are making it seem like it's a vote to see what is legitimate regardless of how reliable the source is. Why can't both views be posted?

Diff page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shang_dynasty&action=history

User pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Balthazarduju

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kanguole --Easy772 (talk) 03:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute, and thus best dealt with by one of the methods described in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution rather than here - though if what appears to be an incipient edit-war continues that may not remain the case. A claim of 'censorship' isn't legitimate grounds to ignore WP:3RR policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. User:Antandrus is a respected admin and contributor who has compiled a list of observations on Wikipedia behavior. The very first entry on that list gives a view that many share. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I am new here and am not aware of all the protocols. If you take a look at my sources I am not misrepresenting them. The user Balthazarduju misrepresented his source and I only found out after I borrowed the book from the library. The author actually agreed with my point, but that was regarding the continuation of Dawenkou to Longshan IIRC. I will read the protocol posted. I will refrain from reverting more than once a day then, but I still find it extremely unfair that emerging evidence gets twisted into a "fringe theory" or "minority view" and gets reverted. I've seen blogs linked as sources, yet no one complains because they agree with the message. Yet my new sources are considered "minority views" "fringe theories" etc. --Easy772 (talk) 03:54, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

As Andy says, this is a dispute over content (which includes sourcing) and ANI is a noticeboard that seeks to resolve disputes over editor misconduct. Places to resolve disputes over article content are the article talk page, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, and, in your case, Wikipedia:Reliable sources noticeboard. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Request to remove racial slur from talk page

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

---

A user has included a racial slur in one of his comments on an article talk page. The comment wasn't quoting a source rather he intended it as an insult. The user's ignored my request for removal. I would like wikipedia to remove it. Is this the best place to request that? 104.254.95.130 (talk) 03:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Uhmm?? Link to talk page please? Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 03:50, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I believe this is the slur that he wants removed. RoadWarrior445 (talk) 03:53, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

And I have notified TheRedPenOfDoom that an ANI report was filed about the comment, since the IP did not notify. —C.Fred (talk) 03:59, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I was not aware I had to notify the user. Thanks for doing that. 104.254.95.130 (talk) 04:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Umm, there is a giant orange box at the top of this page, when you edit it, that says "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page." —C.Fred (talk) 04:17, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's it. Thank you. 104.254.95.130 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:56, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any racial slurs in the comment in any way. To me, quoting this came from somewhere rather than a personal attack. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 03:57, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

There is a slur in the comment, though arguably it's a mild one. —C.Fred (talk) 03:59, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Callmemirela – I don't think it's a slur, esp. in the context that it seems to be quoted from elsewhere. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:02, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion but there is no question it is an insult based on race. Regardless is this something wikipedia tolerates and if not can someone please instruct the user to remove it? If it's a quote which the user can cite then I retract my complaint. I know of no such quote. 104.254.95.130 (talk) 04:07, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, the user edited for almost half an hour after I posted my message on his talk page. CFred: you are right, I should have seen that notice. EDIT: In fact, he edited right until CFred notified him of this complaint. 104.254.95.130 (talk) 04:55, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Is Roadwarrior's link accurate? -Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 05:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what exactly this is supposed to mean, but if the question is if it shows the supposed racial slur, yes. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 05:11, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

So... quoting somebody saying a racist slur is equivalent to saying that slur? Sealion logic strikes again I guess. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 05:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Me too. I personally don't see any racial slurs, more specifically because it's quoted. It's from somebody else, not the user in question. That's the whole point of quotation marks and quoting itself. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 05:11, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

As I said above: if it is a quote I retract my complaint. I'm unaware of any such quote. Perhaps Peter (above) could provide us with the citation. 104.254.95.130 (talk) 05:16, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• In the context of the reply, there is no explicit, literal racial slur. It is a rhetorical illustration of the arguments made during the GG controversy. Viriditas (talk) 05:14, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• I also do not believe that those are actual quotes, I agree with Viriditas that they are rhetorical statements made to illustrate various attitudes towards the issue, as seen by RPoD. As the one statement in particular is not directed at anyone specifically, I don't believe it's actionable in any way, although I do think RPoD could probably have phrased things better. BMK (talk) 05:31, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's likely a rhetorical statement with a slur not used in any source. The only intent in using it was to offend. A racial slur used to offend must be removed. 104.254.95.130 (talk) 05:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Why was this closed? Why would any topic make racial slurs appropriate. I will re-file this request if it is closed again or escalate it to whatever authority possible. 104.254.95.130 (talk) 06:02, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Re-closed, complainant blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:11, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Suspicious activity at Kammavari Palem

Something very unusual is going on at Kammavari Palem. This is a rather obscure, little-edited, and almost-orphaned article that suddenly saw a flurry activity by over a dozen freshly created accounts. Many of the edits are of very poor quality (blanking the page or adding poor English, nonsense, and signatures). Here's the list of accounts and their creation date:

• Jrbondesign (talk · contribs) - 18:58, 5 June 2015
• Stp12345 (talk · contribs) - 19:43, 5 June 2015
• Thurloat (talk · contribs) - 01:07, 6 June 2015
• Vandono15 (talk · contribs) - 02:47, 6 June 2015
• Nishat Reza-Kuchh Sikho (Online Tutorial) (talk · contribs) - 04:43, 6 June 2015
• Arvind2285 (talk · contribs) - 13:01, 6 June 2015
• Serpention (talk · contribs) - 13:34, 6 June 2015
• Lenin Thounaojam (talk · contribs) - 15:07, 6 June 2015
• Thanialorena (talk · contribs) - 17:44, 6 June 2015
• Jgdresser (talk · contribs) - 17:54, 5 June 2015
• AdrianHdzHoyos (talk · contribs) - 18:05, 6 June 2015
• Disruptivefamilycat (talk · contribs) - 18:25, 6 June 2015
• Swimdawg3000 (talk · contribs) - 18:44, 6 June 2015

All these accounts were created within a few hours of each other, and one of them has "Online Tutorial" as part of its username, which leads me to suspect that someone is running an online class involving Wikipedia. I suppose the instructor hasn't notified anyone here about the class, and may not be supervising the students very well. I seem to recall we have some sort of WikiProject that works with course instructors to make sure that students don't run amok in article space—can someone please remind me what it is and/or alert them to this issue? In the meantime perhaps this article, and any others the students are found to be editing, ought to be semi-protected. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:48, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I have posted at Wikipedia:Education noticeboard so they may check this.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Same problem is now occurring with another extremely obscure article, Andrea Cornaro (historian). It's suddenly seen a high volume of activity from some of the above-noted accounts, plus the following ones, also all freshly created:

• AbieKisner1 (talk · contribs) - 07:27, 7 June 2015
• Mangeloaguiar (talk · contribs) - 04:26, 7 June 2015
• Mohitnehatyagi (talk · contribs) - 16:24, 6 June 2015
• Ramit kundu (talk · contribs) - 21:20, 5 June 2015
• Kmccormack601 (talk · contribs) - 20:15, 5 June 2015
• Jgethers88 (talk · contribs) - 19:35, 5 June 2015
• Bedford-Stuy (talk · contribs) - 16:39, 5 June 2015
• Mb Jobish (talk · contribs) - 15:53, 5 June 2015
• Omokejiajao (talk · contribs) - 15:43, 5 June 2015
• JeremyConnors (talk · contribs) - 14:50, 5 June 2015
• ShelbyPipken (talk · contribs) - 15:02, 5 June 2015
• Mohana Priyaa (talk · contribs) - 14:53, 5 June 2015

Even more suspicious, both articles have been recently edited by Vincenzo714 (talk · contribs), a very obvious sockpuppet of the indefinitely blocked user User:036386536a (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/036386536a). If all these other accounts are part of an online course, then User:036386536a may be one of the students, or maybe even the instructor himself (as he claims to be a computer science teacher). —Psychonaut (talk) 09:55, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Also affected by the disruption is another obscure page, Mascot derby, with edits from some of the above-noted accounts plus the following freshly created ones:

• These bones (talk · contribs) - 08:47, 7 June 2015
• Mehuldharkar (talk · contribs) - 12:57, 6 June 2015
• Lxpistir (talk · contribs) - 03:46, 6 June 2015
• Finaltime18645 (talk · contribs) - 20:03, 5 June 2015

Another user at the SPI has voiced concern that User:Finaltime18645 may be yet another sockpuppet of User:036386536a. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:34, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Psj333 and unreferenced additions

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

---

Psj333 seems to be an editor who just adds opinions to articles with no reference at all. Some are unreferenced prognostications while others are personal political opinions. This person seems to have a thing making unreferenced edits about accents and languages that border on racist (especially some WP:OR edits about "Aegyptid race" and a "Berberid race") They have amassed a ridiculous amount of warnings and been blocked in the past but nothing seems to get through to them. They make the exact same edits time and again. I reported them at AIV recently and was told to bring it here. Helpsome (talk) 17:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for two weeks. He made another addition after he was notified of this thread and warned appropriately. He knows what he's doing and I'm a skosh short of indeffing him as a NOTHERE. KrakatoaKatie 20:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Antiochian Greeks

The following discussion is closed. 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 isnt an incident. This article in general has been the focus of persistent POV pushers through the years. In the Levant, about 3.5 millions are Christians and 90% belong to the Greek orthodox church. Those people are Levantines. However, some of them (by some I mean I have first met them here on Wikipedia a couple of hours ago !) consider themselves ethnic Greeks (or even ethnic Byzantine !!!!!), with no proof. This would make most of the Levant christians ethnic Greeks (thats about 35% of the Greek republic population).

The problem is, the page has been abducted, moved from its original name ( which should mirror its religious meaning "Rum Christians" as they are officially and publicly known) and became a page for a newly created ethnicity called Antiochian Greeks.

The talk page has been cleaned of former arguments and before that, it looked like this [202]. However, this isnt the place for content disputes, I know that. But this isnt a content dispute, this is more similar to a POV man creating an article claiming Khazar ancestry for Jews as a proven fact, or changing the article on Latins of South America to make them look as direct descendants from the people of Latium in Italy. Or that the Indian Syriacs claiming Assyrian descent.

Inside Syria and outside, most of the followers of the church identify as Syrians or Arabs.Language, Religion and National Identity in Europe and the Middle East: A Historical Study Religious Minorities in the Middle East: Domination, Self-Empowerment, Accommodation The Governance of Legal Pluralism: Empirical Studies from Africa and Beyond Genetically, they are similar to other Syrians and not to Greeks Influences of history, geography, and religion on genetic structure: the Maronites in Lebanon. No official or reliable source call them an ethnicity. They are followers of a religious sect.

Such editors are part of, or influenced by, something named Operation Antioch just a blog (this is their facebook ! ([203]). Its just like Phoenicianism and other eccentric movements and should probably have its article to explain their beliefs, but not changing the Encyclopedic main article and force its Agenda.

The reason for me to come here is because of the fruitlessness of any kind of discussions on that topic (although I already cleaned the article and posted on the talk page Talk:Antiochian_Greeks#Is_that_a_serious_article_.21. But I cant go through an edit war). Its bad for Wikipedia to offer readers false information based on Opinions and dreams ....etc. So an interested Admin is needed to keep a look on that article. This isnt a legitimate difference in points of views, its just a new movements trying to force its agenda and a discussion with them is going to turn Wikipedia into a forum. It would be totally fine if this message got deleted on the base that this isnt a place for disputes. But with closer look taken, this will not seem as a dispute, but rather an attempt to save Wikipedia reliability, which shouldn't be abducted by bloggers or weird movements creating new ethnicities on the internet.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 08:49, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• Well, you're right in that this is not an incident. If you intended for this to attract admin attention, good luck: perhaps it works. But your post contains nothing that requires admin attention, at least none that I can see. Drmies (talk) 12:00, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree, for now it doesnt. But, I actually write in Wikipedia to improve the content and I cant risk being blocked for edit-warring trying to keep that page real and not full of a weird movement lack of integrity. Having the page as they want will be the same as allowing someone to write on Ashkenazi pages that they are Ethnic Khazars. I hope that some admins will care enough. Anyway, with the way Im expecting things to turn out, I will be back with real incidents soon.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 12:07, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not an admin but I'll add the article to my Watchlist and perhaps a few other editors will, too, so there will be more eyes on the article. I've found these disputes over ethnic identity and the language used are long-lasting and can be tenacious. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:48, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Liz. A user of them couldn't handle it sadly and abstained from the talk page and started edit warring using his IPs. I asked for a sockpuppet investigation [[204]] but no answer, and for now I just try to keep the sourced version instead of the un-sourced false one which they keep reverting back to. What made me sad is that they are allowed to do this and it is normally people like me who get blocked for edit-warring even if you are saving the sourced page from vandals with multiple IPs and an agenda.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 03:12, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Too quick on the undo button

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

---

Have a look at the edits on Soybean Car. Which one is best? 118.93.95.49 (talk) 01:28, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

There seem to be several editors guilty of 3rr here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:41, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

No. I have not reverted more than three times. And I invited discussion. 118.93.95.49 reverted an Admin the last time. So facts would help. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:49, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Who said you were? Liz didn't name names. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:41, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it was several user accounts that were guilty and the IP account 118.93.95.49 which is now blocked for a 3rr violation. Liz ^{Read! 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.

Topic bans and sand boxes?

The following discussion is closed. 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 could someone direct me to the policy that indicates a topic ban includes a ban on editting the user's own sandbox.DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi DrC, WP:BAN says: "Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic ..." A sandbox becomes "related to the topic" if someone adds material about that topic to it. In short, if you're topic-banned, you shouldn't write about that issue anywhere on WP, unless you're told there are exceptions. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 17:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

This was already asked by the user and answered in the section above, Scope of a topic ban. I assume he is still complaining that in the list of examples at WP:TBAN, the word "sandbox" is not specifically mentioned, although I would have thought that the final sentence "but also including edit summaries and the user's own user and talk pages" is crystal clear. Personal sandboxes are user pages, e.g. User:DrChrissy/sandbox. The prefix is "User:" Voceditenore (talk) 17:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sarah, the bit I find confusing is that Banning policy also states here [[205]] "discussions or suggestions about weather-related topics anywhere on Wikipedia, for instance a deletion discussion concerning an article about a meteorologist, but also including edit summaries and the user's own user and talk pages." This seems to actively not include sandboxes. If this is an oversight, perhaps it needs addressing, but as it stands, it does not seem to include sandboxes.DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Ahhhhh...now I see! User talk:Voceditenore has pointed out that my sandbox is one of user pages - I had been thinking that my User page was the only user page I had. Thank you for this clarification. I am happy to have this hatted and I thank all for their input.DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

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

POV-pusher totaly out of control at Tesla talk-page

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

---

There is one user, Asdisis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has been causing disruption at Talk:Nikola Tesla for months now. He is a Croatian based account, (tracing his IP) and his entire involvement in the article ever since the beginning was just to Croatisize as much as he can Tesla. I can openly say he is a nationalistic POV-pusher, a view shared by other editors as well (exemple referring to him and his suspect sock/meatpuppet Michael Cambridge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) which is a one-purpose account as visible by seing his contributions).

The problem here is that Asdisis has been challenging a long-standing consensuses at the article. He made several edit-requests but has failed in all of them since the vast majority of scholar reliable sources say the opposite of his claims.

First he tried to change the birthplace, Talk:Nikola_Tesla/Nationality_and_ethnicity#RfC:_Should_Tesla.27s_birthplace_be_changed.3F, User:MrX opened the thread cause those were the changes Asdisis was making in the article. Everyone can see the result of the long exhaustive discussion in which all aspects were considered and all reliable sources gathered and analised. Then he tryid to change his ethnicity here: Talk:Nikola_Tesla/Archive_6#Tesla_Ethniciy_in_Lead.

Since those went wrong for Asdisis, he has continued trying other ways, like this one Talk:Nikola_Tesla/Archive_7#Tesla.27s_own_opinion_regarding_his_homeland, or this one Talk:Nikola_Tesla/Archive_7#Tesla.27s_father.2C_Serbian_Orthodox_priest which making him more easy this RfC was made Talk:Nikola_Tesla/Archive_7#RfC:_Is_Tesla.27s_father_a_Serbian_Orthodox_priest with the result quite clear against him.

Please notice that all were exhaustive discussions where editors had constant good faith towards him and done the best to help him and explain to him, cause mostly when things started going against him (and always did) he would start with accusations of racism against Croatia. However, the fact is that his problem is his inability to provide reliable sources for his desired changes, he finds some source, then amplifies it, and starts making totally insane WP:SYNTH and WP:OR.

The fact is that Nikola Tesla article actually is very summary regarding that issues, and includes only established facts after analising scholar reliable sources.

But none of this was enough for Asdisis, after those mentioned discussions, hhe was calm for some short period, and then he came and did this: Talk:Nikola Tesla. He exhausted everyone and has no support except from the suspect User:Michael Cambridge account. He totally ignores everyone and everything concluded earlier.

I am asking admins please to stop this madness. He is out of control, obsessed, unable to admit consensus and disengage. It is hard to collect some evidence of clear vandalism but whoever reads and sees the enormous discussions can clearly see he is a POV-pusher doing great harm to this project. His constant attitude is WP:IDONTHEARYOU and just goes and goes talking in circles facts already facts already discussed. He presented no new reliable sources and I think he doesn't even know what scholar reliable sources are). He is constantly breaking the policies of WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH, he is incapable of admitting WP:Consensus of already exhaustively discussed issues, he is incapable of disengaging, and he is trying to WP:GAME. He was also warned about his walls of text. Then he has done numerous WP:PA against me which I didn't even considered important cause I was always more focused in the facts discussed, but the last one in which he claims I am racist against Croatia and puts me a video of ANTISEMITISM is just too much. However, the most important thing is that it is really shamefull for our project here that we allow such disruptive behavior on such an important article for so long. Please anyone do something cause this is ridiculous and painful, either block him, or topic ban him, or at least warn him. He was already blocked a couple of times recently and worned about ARBMAC. FkpCascais (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

One more thing: despite opposition and no new evidence, he announces he will not disengage and that he will even further insist on this, as clearly visible in the bottom comments of this section: Talk:Nikola_Tesla#A_practical_solution_to_the_entire_debate. So it means we will have more and more of this from him... FkpCascais (talk) 15:51, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• I've just fixed the user name. The correct one is Asdisis.--65.220.39.79 (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you. FkpCascais (talk) 17:08, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't have much to add other than this other than the fact that Special:Contributions/Asdisis shows that this user is here primarily to argue this one point. Since their first edit just about a year ago this user has done little else. This seems to be a user with a single purpose and that purpose is not to write an encyclopedia. Chillum 17:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• This has gone on long enough: I have blocked indefinitely. Let me ping Randykitty, who's blocked this user before. Drmies (talk) 17:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oh, whoever closes this, please place the diff on the blocked user's talk page. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 17:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

As you mention, there was an RfC on this exact issue just last summer (Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity#RfC: Should Tesla's birthplace be changed). Unless some very important new sources have been found, I think the consensus arising out of this RfC should stand. It wasn't that long ago and this subject has been so heavily debated that it's a little absurd to already start a new RfC unless there is new information. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

No Liz, he didn't brought any new scholar sources regarding Tesla, but as result has opened a debate regarding "local nationalities within Austria-Hungary" (as seen in the talk-page) and used that as a point of start to bring over the same old arguments he has been making ever since and hoping he will convince someone or have luck this time. One editor actually brought an essay that fits exactly into his behave, which is WP:BLUD. FkpCascais (talk) 17:55, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Drmies and FkpCascais. You spared me the effort of creating a detailed and time consuming AE report.- MrX 19:19, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the above editors. Asdisis seems to be a single-issue editor who is on Wikipedia solely to advocate for Croatian causes (WP:NOTHERE). In his one-year editing career he has been blocked repeatedly for disruptive editing on other Balkan-related articles. On Nikola Tesla for the better part of a year he has been WP:POVPUSHing to change Tesla's nationality from Serbian to Croatian against consensus. The issue has long been settled through an RfC which he has challenged with several other RfCs. As far as I know he has not edit-warred. His technique has been WP:disruptive editing of the Talk page, using WP:BLUDGEONing tactics with voluminous remarks, trying to tire and intimidate opposing editors with the sheer volume of his comments. He is in general polite but makes ad hominem attacks on other editors, accusing them of bad faith and bias and manipulating their words. He has refactored and reorganized other editors comments on the Talk page to appear to support his. He is an activist who challenges every block and refutes every argument, and shows no sign that he has learned anything from previous sanctions, understands WP collaboration and consensus, or that he will ever stop. --Chetvorno^TALK 20:22, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Sholokhov

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

---

Sholokhov (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Sholokhov intentionally misrepresented sources by adding a random stack of refs he pulled from a different article to try to force his beliefs into an article. None of the refs back him up and in the following discussion, he pretended to not hear, showed that he lacked competence to edit and never accounted for his false representation. Subsequently, he has engaged against other editors with a battleground mentality in this article thread, this thread on my talk page and this thread on Iryna Harpy's talk page. I am involved and would like other editors/admins to look this over. In short, I don't think he needs to be here unless he greatly modifies his approach to editing. His net contributions are to drain other editors' time and insist that WP is a western propaganda machine.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• Looks like a clear WP:NOTHERE case from what I read. Paranoid accusations about the CIA bribing Wikipedia to delete his entries. The falsifying sources alone is enough to block someone, that undermines the integrity of the encyclopedia as a whole. I would support an indef until such time that he can display sufficient competence to participate in an non-confrontational way. His insistence on using the phrase "Gruzia" instead of "Georgia" is just one example of how he refuses to listen to reason and use common names. He does appear to be a liability rather than an asset here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 03:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
• Why does he want the Federov Avtomat to be an assault rifle? Does he think the BAR is an assault rifle, or does he just not like that Russia didn't invent something? It makes me really concerned about all those contributions to military history articles cited only to the same Russian website that I can't read. He also inserted the idea that Lomonosov discovered the conservation of mass, which is traditionally attributed to Lavoisier, and I'm not sure about the veracity of this claim. Again, it seems to come from a nationalist perspective. --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment) The user in question seems to be rather unstable; at the very least, some kind of temporary block might be necessary. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Enough rope has been allowed already, yet the user persists with their WP:HEARing disability and WP:BATTLEGROUND tactics. The attempts to add the same trivia to the Mikheil Saakashvili article here, here and here demonstrate that the user is attempting to fly under the WP:3RR radar whilst flagrantly disregarding WP:BRD. Sholokhov lacks COMPETENCE and is NOTHERE... and, no, ethnic slurs like "Gruzian" are not acceptable when a long-term editor is subjected to such pejoratives. It's irrelevant if the user can't distinguish between English WP:COMMONNAME and different forms of Latin script: they were told in no uncertain terms that they were using a pejorative; that it is WP:UNCIVIL; that personal attacks on other contributors are wrong. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:23, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Illogical and rubbish accusation. I say "Gruzia" because that is the name I used to saying for a long long time, and although English media prefer "Georgia", a lot of state media in other language use "Gruzia" [206], [207], [208], [209], [210], [211]. In short, using "Gruzia" is simply a habit, and the accusation that I use "Gruzia" with derogatory meaning is 100% nonsense and fabrication. Not to mention that I limit my use of "Gruzia" in talks and discussion and I won't intend to use it editing articles. And I do not feel like to change my habit just because a number of people accused me of personal attacks or racial discrimination which I didn't commit.

The users here continuously deleted my edit about Saakashvili eat his tie, either without any reason, or saying it "trivia" and "wrong place" but did not make clear which is the wrong place and why is trivia. Kober's argument is completely illogical, he claimed that people is not able to criticize Saakashvili about chewing his tie, but the fact is that a lot of anti-Saakashvili used that events to criticize, poke fun of and discredit Saakashvili. My edit has not POV either, I simply write that Saakashvili chewed his tie and the anti-Saakashvili used that to poke fun of and discredit him, which are all the truth. All these deleterious act against my edit clearly make me suspect whether Western, anti-Russia propaganda take a toll in Wikipedia, not very illogical because Western oligarchs have a nasty history of using NGOs to propagate their ideas and stereotype.

So, instead of bullying using massive number, it is more effective to prove that these thing are not the result of Western propaganda or censorship. Михаил Александрович Шолохов (talk) 06:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Lomonosov... did... not... discover... mass conservation... oh yeah, I understand why. Михаил Александрович Шолохов (talk) 06:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Potentially compromised 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.

---

Special:Contributions/Afronig seems to have been a constructive editor but is now making nonsense vandalism edits about pedophilia on Hastert Rule. KonveyorBelt 01:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The name didn't trigger any warning bells? Ravensfire (talk) 01:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Blocked indef as a compromised account.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:33, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Rollback Abuse by Cassianto

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

---

• Cassianto (talk · contribs)

As most of you know, rollback can only be used when reverting vandalism per Wikipedia:Rollback#When to use rollback. I have noticed Cassianto has been using rollback to revert AGF edits or even helpful edits that they don't like (specifically infobox additions). Most of the time it is reverting IP's who often don't understand Wikipedia and need an explanation in the edit summary, not just a generic one for vandals. I brought this matter up to C on a talk page, to which s/he replied "When I want your advice about how and when to use my tools, I'll ask for it." Diffs: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, though there are a few other less obvious violations in their contributions. This isn't the first time s/he has been questioned about what s/he call vandalism, like when s/he reverted Softlavender's addition of a CN tag, saying "ask on the talk page not vandalise with tags". Note: I don't really like the drama of ANI and have stuff to do tonight so I may not reply immediately. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 00:42, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• Two things: 1) infoboxes are not universally considered "helpful" additions (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes) and 2) the editor in question reverted his rollback then used normal revert. Considering there was an explicit request at the beginning of the article ("PLEASE DO NOT PUT AN INFOBOX ON THIS ARTICLE WITHOUT SEEKING CONSENSUS. IF YOU WANT TO DISCUSS GO TO THE TALK PAGE"), and considering that WP:INFOBOXUSE states "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article" I really don't see how the addition of a box could be classified as a non-controversial (and thus inherently helpful) edit. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• Infoboxes may not be helpful, but without more, they cannot be considered vandalism. Rollback is reserved for vandalism, but since Cassianto reverted his use of rollback, I don't see an issue here. GregJackP Boomer! 01:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• He didn't un-revert all of them. Look at the history of Maddie Ziegler, for example. Some of the examples from the OP are several weeks old. But Cassianto, et al, should NOT be using rollback for these arguments. If they do it again, they should have rollback taken away from them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• I never said his use of rollback was correct, did I? However, the issue of the infobox itself is not as simple as the OP makes it appear. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not surprised to see Cass back here once again at ANI. And I'm not surprised he's using Rollback incorrectly. Caden ^cool 01:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you fuck off Caden, this has nothing to do with you. Your comments here are not constructive and are designed to provoke. Cassianto^Talk 08:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

This is using it in a disagreement between editors.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:22, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

True, but it was over 3 months ago. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

So what? Look at their last edit.[212] Cassianto (et. al) has been on a fierce anti-infobox campaign for ages. Using Rollback in this campaign? Terrible, really. A topic ban should have been imposed long ago. No more infoboxes for you! Less problems that way. Doc talk 05:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

If he's still doing it, his rollback privilege should be forfeited ASAP, and a topic ban would probably also be in order. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (Non-administrator comment) While I personally am probably on the opposite side of Cassianto's "anti-infobox campaign", having the position that infoboxes are generally "bad" isn't, in and of itself, a problem. The issue here is the Rollback side of things – considering that this has come up before, apparently, I lean in the direction of revoking Rollback rights in this case, at least for a period of, say, several months. (Considering how often Rollback issues come up at ANI, it really isn't convincing me to run out and get Rollback rights on my end – besides, it really is not that big of a deal to "manually" rollback to a previous version, so I've never understood why anyone wants Rollback anyway... It does cause me to wonder why Rollback rights aren't being handed out less, and why Pending changes reviewer rights aren't being handed out more, rather than visa versa – it seems like it's a lot harder to mess up Reviewer use, as opposed to Rollback use.) --IJBall (talk) 06:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the two issues are separate. If the user in question is using rollback to revert legitimate edits of any kind that he doesn't agree with, then he's abusing rollback and it must be revoked. The infobox issue is a separate matter, possibly negotiable. Abuse of rollback is not negotiable. Abuse it, you lose it. Period. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:16, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The diff above from 3 months ago is directly related to the infobox campaign. Cassianto used Rollback for a petty infobox content dispute, because Cassianto demands either a) no infobox or b) a pared down one (if it must grudgingly be accepted because there's no consensus to delete it). Cassianto has no business even having Rollback, as this user has consistently proven that they cannot handle it in disputes where it should never be used. How long has Cassianto been here? Exactly. Doc talk 06:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

What the hell has it got to do with you whether I have Rollback or not and how long I have been here. As I have said further down, I couldn't give a shiny shite about losing it so what's all this drama about exactly? Cassianto^Talk 08:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I think the decision to remove his rollback rights here is disgusting. Most people with rollback use it to quickly revert something as it's quicker that doing it manually and think nothing of it. And yes, given the history of the infobo dispute on the Le Mesurier article, Cassianto is quite justified in thinking that the infobox enforcement is disruptive and essentially an act of vandalism going against consensus. Baseball Bugs as usual is clueless into what has gone on here, there is no "abuse". Spartaz if you look into the talk page history and that of Peter Sellers you can see why Cassianto considered it essentially vandalism, so can you please reconsider this decision. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Yep. Same old peanut gallery with the same old tired, tedious long-standing grudges, with no consideration for anything but twisting the knife in based on nothing but a petty little vendetta. And since when, Spartaz, did we tar and feather editors without allowing them time to respond? It's a shame you've swallowed the pettiness and bile from such a dishonourable pack. – SchroCat (talk) 06:42, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I looked through Cassianto's contribs and found a couple of recent examples of rollback being misued. Whatever the rights and wherefores of the edits removed everyone knows that its for removing vandalism not good faith contributions - which is why I removed the right. being right doesn't justify abusing the tool. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

What is a good faith contribution or not is clearly a matter of opinion here. In this particular case it was an act of disruption given the history of disputes with the article. Cassianto has produced a lot of FA material and a lot of people adding "good faith contributions" are not helping the article and in many cases it makes it worse. He simply hits rollback to save time in reverting manually.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Most of the people on this page Doc wouldn't know a featured article if it came into their house on Christmas Day a defecated on their Turkey! Cassianto^Talk 08:15, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Absurd. If you think that edit can be justified for Rollback through some sort of "interpretation" of what is "essentially" vandalism, or as a "timesaver", I urge a thorough investigation into your use of it in the same disputes. Doc talk 07:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

If it's "a matter of opinion", then rollback is not to be used. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

You're acting like he was blocked – he wasn't: he just lost Rollback, which is a special privilege, not a "right". The evidence is clear that it was misused in this case – it's supposed to be for "vandalism" (i.e. "bad faith" edits) only. There's no ambiguity here. Further, Rollback was used in several cases against a single edit where Reverting would have been just as effective, and would have required no extra effort... In short, this is a pretty weak defense in this case, and his loss of Rollback privileges should in no way affect Cassianto's ability to do further content creation. --IJBall (talk) 07:16, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

And several of those edits, esp. at Maddie Ziegler, I'm not even sure were "right" – while the IP edit warred there, their edit to trim the lede of Maddie Ziegler of "fluff" was arguably the "right call". Certainly, there's no justification to use Rollback (over simple Revert) on a Infobox conflict. Meanwhile, it would seem that SchroCat owes the rest of us an apology for not assuming good faith... --IJBall (talk) 07:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

IJBall, not at all. My comments were not directed at you or at one or two others here, but there were directed at the small and vocal number of petty editors with little merit and no honour who do have a tiresome and long-standing grudge. - SchroCat (talk) 07:22, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

You can insult me till the cows come home, but you're wrong. Rollback is only to be used for "obvious" vandalism. If there's a dispute over whether a specific edit is vandalism or not, then it doesn't qualify as a candidate for rollback. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

There's no insult there at all: I have erred on the side of generosity. As I have not named anyone in particular, do you have a guilty conscience? – SchroCat (talk) 07:46, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, it was Blofeld that called me "clueless". It's easy to confuse the members of your little clique, as you all tend to parrot each other. Now, the reverts you made on AndyTheGrump's talk page prior to its protection are totally valid uses of rollback. There's no question about it being vandalism. Using rollback in a content dispute is not a valid use of rollback. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I am not a member of a "clique" at all, I'm afraid. - SchroCat (talk) 07:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Ha. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→

I am not a member of a "clique" at all, I'm afraid. - SchroCat (talk) 07:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• For the record, I couldn't give a toss about rights being revoked, blah, blah, blah.... But since I'm here, I'll explain: I'd forgotten about the rules of using Rollback as it was granted a long time ago. Someone linked to it yesterday ONCE I had used it for a second time wishing 24 hours. Having read it, I went back to Le Mesurier's page, undid my rollback, then reverted that using an edit summary. I recognised that I was using it incorrectly which is why I reverted myself. But clearly we have people like Bugs who have selective vision. Cassianto^Talk 08:08, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• Which is why Spartaz's knee-jerk decision was poor: you have to allow people a chance to respond before taking action (and goes to show that perhaps he didn't look into those diffs as diligently as he could have done). - SchroCat (talk) 08:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: What does that mean? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

It's an old-fashioned way of expressing laughter at a comment. Your generation would probably say LOL. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

It's a childish way of trying to call someone a liar - lack of GF and another minor PA, which is about the norm. - SchroCat (talk) 08:16, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

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

World Passport

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

---

Isn't the article, or at least most of the content thereof, on the World Passport, itself falls under "primary (original) research", "advocacy, propaganda or recruitment", "advertising, marketing or public relation" as well as "content [...] violates [or likely to violate] [...] the laws of the United States [of America]", because it is essentially a self-help manual for the citizens of the United States of America on how to break immigration and other laws of foreign Countries, by means of active misrepresentation? -- 5.198.6.211 (talk) 20:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

This is a content issue and should be discussed on Talk:World Passport. No admin action is required here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I should add that articles are not solely written for "the citizens of the United States of America" and that this article details the myriad of legal issues surrounding the document. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that there isn't an administrative issue, but I don't see a content issue either. The article looks reasonably well-sourced, and it is clear from this article and other referenced articles that these non-national so-called passports are seldom accepted. As NeilN indicates, if you think that the article needs to be edited, discuss on the talk page. If the OP establishes a registered account and is auto-confirmed, they can nominate the article for deletion, but the article will probably be kept, because it passes general notability guidelines. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

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