Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive903

User:Dimadick and the addition of WikiProject Women category (and peripheral categories) to every single female tennis player

Suddenly today I see the addition to hundreds, and I assume soon to be thousands, of female tennis players a new category... WikiProject Women. That is way to general a category to add to every single female player that ever played the game of tennis. Do we add WikiProject Men to every male player? Do we add "WikiProject Homo Sapien" to all players? I deleted some additions and I asked the person in question to stop so it could be discussed wiki-wide... the answer was an emphatic no. So here we are. All I want is for it to stop since the widespread addition was challenged. User:Dimadick will be notified. It looks like this is not the first time this editor has had problems with adding categories. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. As far as I know, there's no limit on how many WikiProjects an article can belong to. There are unique issues that affect women more than men and WikiProject Women seeks to address those issues. Adding related WikiProject tags is no more disruptive than adding related categories, and there are plenty of categories specifically for women. clpo13_(talk) 23:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Categories get removed all the time from articles for being far to generalized or fivolous. This one takes it almost to the nth degree. 1/2 our tennis biography articles are affected. I can open a full RfC under Biographies or MoS. I sometimes go to a category like "cities in france" or "NFL teams" or "river of the United states" etc... to narrow my search for things. But this category is ridiculously large if it's tagged for every single female that ever lived and is here in this wikipedia. Before it gets tagged onto that large a base it needs to be discussed wiki-wide. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll admit that the subject of that WikiProject is pretty broad, but nowhere on the page does it list criteria for what articles can or cannot be included. Given that, I really don't see how Dimadick has done anything wrong. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 02:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

This isn't a question of punishment. The user started adding bunches of these. I asked him/her to stop and reverted several of those additions. The protocol now is for him to show a proper need and convince a consensus that the addition is warranted... not keep adding more and more. They refused, so we are here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The relevant guideline would be WP:PROJSCOPE, which discourages edit warring over the inclusion of project headers. I would suggest that you just leave it alone. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I haven't checked specifically, but my impression was that that project was being added to every article about a woman. If that's the case, I would say that's an unmanageable number of articles, and could become a problem if the project generates style or format guidelines and then attempts to enforce them across all those articles, a sizable percentage of the encyclopedia. If I'm correct about their intended scope, I would suggest to the project that choosing articles about people who have advanced the cause of women's rights or something similarly restricted might be a more manageable and appropriate purview. BMK (talk) 04:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. WP Biography has a unmanageable scope of articles on that basis. The better thing is to suggest that WP Women consider task forces for their articles that are basically the underlying major projects. Just like WP India has an Indian films taskforce and WP Films has an Indian films task force that I think redirect to each other, WP Women can create a women tennis players task force that's really a task force underneath WP Tennis. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Correct. let's take someone like Billie Jean King. I have no issues with that addition at all. But otherwise what would stop me from say... adding to EVERY US President and every UK Prime Minister, the categories wikiproject Mammals, wikiproject Homo, wikiproject Primate. They all fit but you can 100% bet it would be challenged (as it should be). Would @NinjaRobotPirate: say those additions should also be ignored? This is just far too broad a project if it intends to have itself attached to every single female on the planet. I think most of the tennis players are already listed under WikiProject Women's sport, and special ones are listed under WikiProject Women's History. Here's a query since it's running through my mind... if this sticks and I want to challenge this with an RfC, where would be the best most all-encompassing place to put it? Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate would say that he doesn't really care what WikiProjects do as long as they don't get in his way. But I don't see the harm in making task forces. If it were me, I'd go to WikiProject Women and suggest Ricky's idea. If that didn't work, then I'd maybe try starting a discussion at WP:WikiProject Council. If that didn't work, then I'd fall back to WP:VPP, I guess. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

On the German Wikipedia they made the decision long ago to add "Frau" as a category to all female biographies. I just checked Maureen o'hara and it's still there, but I was under the impression that the need for this (in order to measure the proportion male/female biographies) was answered with Wikidata. There all people items are assigned properties for human and gender. Anyone know whether the German Wikipedia is still adding that category? It seems a bit redundant to me. Jane (talk) 05:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Women is not about Women's rights, that is WikiProject Feminism. WikiProject Women has a much wider scope and discussions on its page regularly addressed the need to add more articles about women, whether manually or about robot. Since the discussion is about their scope, I wonder if they should be notified. Dimadick (talk) 06:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

They were notified before this an/i took place. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, and while this an/i is going on Dimadick continues to add this item to every woman and specifically tennis player articles. Talk about bad faith and chutzpah. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest that User:Fyunck(click) has misunderstood what WikiProject|WikiProjects are. They are not categories to help readers find articles. They are there to direct groups of editors to articles that fall within their particular field of interest. When an article is created, it should be added to as many relevant WikiProjects as possible so that editors who might have an interest in contributing to it can do so. The only people who should be concerned if there are too many articles, or inappropriate articles, being added to WikiProject Women are the members of WikiProject Women. The best place to discuss if the new additions are appropriate is probably the project's talk page. --Nicknack009 (talk) 08:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

A couple things. Those articles that fall within this field of interest are every notable female in history. I still say that's ridiculous. And it was being discussed at the project page, but while it's being discussed there (and here) this particular editor will not stop adding what I deem as controversial/overkill. They aren't even a member of the project from what I was told. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, there is a WikiProject Women's sport so for the women tennis players could it be suggested to Dimadick that this project be added instead of WikiProject Women? As an example I have been adding WikiProject Women writers to articles about women who are authors, and articles about their books. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I try adding both banners where they are missing. Dimadick (talk) 09:50, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

This is a forum shop in the wrong forum; OP started Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women#So_what_criteria_is_used_to_tag_articles_with_this_category.3F shortly before filing here. Per WP:PROJSCOPE projects define their own scope and per WP:PROJGUIDE concerns should be raised at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council. NE Ent 12:50, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm the co-founder of {{WikiProject Women}}.

Let's take a look at Jane Austen. Should we have a discussion over including both WikiProject England and WikiProject Hampshire, or including both WikiProject Biography and WikiProject Women writers, or including both WikiProject Literature and WikiProject Romance? IMO, there is room for all of these. If editors want to concentrate on a subgroup of articles, they can create a WikiProject, and work on those articles. This entitles them to add their project's banner to talkpage space. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

This isn't a question of having multiple banners. Almost every tennis player has multiple banners. No qulams about that at all. This is about a particular editor adding a particular banner that encompasses every single woman on wikipedia. Specifically 1/2 of all our tennis bios. Most already have a women's sport banner. Some already have a women's history banner. But this editor is now being reverted by multiple editors for adding an over-reaching banner to these articles. And make no mistake, this An/i is not here because of wikiproject women. It is here because a single editor kept adding the banner, was challenged, would not discuss these additions, and kept (and keeps) adding more... even while this discussion is happening. It is not inconceivable that wikiproject women and I could have seen eye to eye and come to a compromise. But User:Dimadick pretty much dared me to bring it here because of words and actions. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

• Regarding Task Forces: At WikiProject Women, we've talked about creating a separate Wikiproject or a TF for Women in Leadership and for Women Entertainers... we haven't created either, but we've talked about it... and there's talk about Women in Religion, too. Fictional women are also within this project's scope; did you know that WMSV did a series of edit-a-thons on them, bringing Lisbeth Salander to GA? Any woman who self-identifies as a woman is a woman, so transgender women are women, and are within this project's scope, i.e. Chelsea Manning. We're not going to start creating a slew of new task forces for all of these subdivisions of "women" as we don't want to split up our resources.
• Regarding "Frau": While a "Frau" category has probably accomplished something similar at the German language Wikipedia, we have not gone in that direction on En Wiki and I haven't seen any discussion about doing so; if there is, link please.
• Regarding Wikidata: it does NOT capture every article created on Wikipedia, and it does not have a gender value for every biography.
• Regarding AfD: if an article has a WikiProject Women talkpage banner, and if the article lands at AfD, then WikiProject Women will be alerted and can participate in the discussion.
• Regarding banner specificity: If a woman's biography is tagged with more specific banners, e.g. {{WikiProject Women's History}}, {{WikiProject Women writers}}, and so on, we don't add WikiProject Women, but if there are no "women" talkpage banners on an article's talkpage, why shouldn't we add an applicable one, such as WikiProject Women? Note, only 15.5% of En Wiki's biographies are about women, so it's a slim subset of WPBIO.--Rosiestep (talk) 25 October 2015

  But that's not the case here. Let's look at a couple articles in question. Talk:Dorothea Douglass Lambert Chambers already had 7 banners on it... two of which were "Wikiproject Women's sport" and "Wikiproject Women's History." Talk:Suzanne Lenglen had 6 banners that also included "Wikiproject Women's sport" and "Wikiproject Women's History." Maybe a more modern player like Steffi Graf that had 5 banners including "Wikiproject Women's sport." You don't see me removing multiple banners just because they're there. Above you say that "If a woman's biography is tagged with more specific banners we don't add WikiProject Women. Well most of these additions are already tagged so you should be admonishing this rogue editor who won't follow protocol. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to try again. WikiProject Women exists and sets its own scope. If there are too many articles for the project to manage, that is not your problem, it is theirs. You really have no dog in this fight.

Incidentally, your accusation that Dimadick "dared" you to bring the issue here appears to be misleading. The evidence of Dimadick's talk page is that you first threatened to report this to the administrators, and Dimadick told you to go ahead. --Nicknack009 (talk) 20:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

That would be misleading Nicknack since that was not my first post on their talk page. And it appears per their project founder that they don't put that banner on just every article, it depends on if there are other more narrowly defined banners already in place. So your dog appears to have run away. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Apart from tagging the tenniswomen pages in a way that mimics the behaviour of male dogs drawing the boundaries of their territory, perhaps someone could describe what improvements were provided to these tennis pages by the tagging team ? Pldx1 (talk) 23:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

90.200.46.221

This editor, 90.200.46.221 (talk · contribs) makes people into Islamic/Arabic. Yi Gu was in Category:South Korean Roman Catholics before 90.200.46.221 made him Islamic. Julia Mullock apparently converted. Ben Gurion did just fine without Arabic transliteration of his name. I didn't have a look what else he did, but I think somebody should look into 90.200.46.221's edits, and possibly block him. Debresser (talk) 20:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I just plowed through their edits and reverted unexplained additions of Arabic names to Mauritian and Indian politicians. Not sure why they were doing it. Blackmane (talk) 01:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Harry Jaffee's illness

The following discussion is closed. 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 recently added material to Al Jaffee, based on the 2010 Weisman biography, written with Jaffee's extensive co-operation. Some of it was regarding Harry Jaffee, Al's brother (deceased since 1985, no BLP here). One editor, User:Modernist, objected to my including the mention of Harry's mental illnesses, reverting out "mental" repeatedly. His first edit summary said it was merely "ce", his second merely said "disputed", his third time he went to the Talk page (and pointlessly left me a duplicate message on my Talk page). He claims he has personal knowledge, and that the Jaffee family is appalled, and I'm supposed to find some other source. So far as I can tell, the Weisman book is RS, and Modernist is just engaged in censorship regarding dirty laundry.

His Talk comments have been rather dictatorial and entirely useless. I'll mention that "libel" in this context is nonsense. You can't libel the dead. Mentioning Rashomon in this context is completely silly. If some other RS contradicts Weisman, well, okey dokey, maybe we should include that too. And yes, I am aware of bios that turn out to be hit pieces or otherwise quite terrible, but usually word gets out and there are reviews somewhere that point out the problems. For example, the Charles Shultz biography was methodically trashed in a long Comics Journal article soon after it was published. I have not seen any on Weisman's book, I'm more than welcome to evidence.

I had originally planned to go to DRN, but the instructions there say that when the issue seems to be more over behavior instead of content, one should come here. I presume mentioning this discussion in the current Talk:Al Jaffee#H Jaffee thread counts as notification.

Meanwhile, I'm putting off dealing with other things in the article, like some extensive copyvio. Choor monster (talk) 14:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

If you are bringing a specific editor to ANI you need to notify them directly on their talk page rather than a discussion. If your intent was just to get more eyes on it, DRN or RSN would probably be a better bet (if they are disputing the reliability of the source you are using). Since you mention behavior you would need to notify Modernist directly. Since it appears to be a fairly standard content dispute, you need to provide diffs of behavioral issues rather than just disagreement between two editors. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Although really, Modernist objects to 'mental' in front of illness but not that he was committed to Bellevue? Seems ridiculous. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

FWIW Bellevue is located in Manhattan in the east 30s and while it does sometimes serve as a metaphor for 'mental institution' it happens to be one of the best medical hospitals in New York City, especially back in the 1960s. As to the above dispute - I stand by my remarks...Modernist (talk) 14:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Which are largely irrelevent in the face of reliable sources. Harry Jaffee is dead since 1985 so its not a BLP issue for him. While his surviving family might find it distressing it has been published that he suffered from mental illness, do you have a policy backed reason for excluding it? Do you have any evidence the biography it is sourced to is unreliable? Is there any published source that states the family object to the biography's statement of fact that he suffered from mental illnesses? I can see an argument that it may not be relevant in an article about Al Jaffee, but that is a content dispute. 'I know the family and they say its libellous' does not hold much weight. Its also borderline a legal threat designed to chill discussion. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I provided diffs for Modernist's unhelpful and misleading edit summaries. I provided a link to his utterly useless Talk comments, where he simply claims the cited RS doesn't count because he knows better. This is a behavioral issue. DRN does not want behavioral issues. RSN is pointless here, there's nothing about the source that raises questions, other than an editor's bald-faced claim.

And the source, written with Jaffee's personal involvement, tells how Harry was taken to Bellevue for his mental problems, by the police per standard procedure at the time. His remarks that he is standing by, so far, consist of nothing but bad-mouthing an RS, claiming he knows better. Choor monster (talk) 15:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Essentially what is stated in the Weisman book is the primary sources opinion; and I am stating that that opinion needs corroboration and that I have personally heard objections to that opinion. Weisman takes the primary source at his word, however I am stating my objection to that as a reliable source. I'm not bad mouthing anything by the way - these are extremely private matters...Modernist (talk) 15:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Unless you have some evidence that Weisman did not do basic fact-checking when talking to their source, thats a non-argument. Again, do you have any policy-based objection? "I have heard personal objections" does not count. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:18, 28 October 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.

Disruptive editing by *AirportUpdater*

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

---

*AirportUpdater*

I've been editing here for as long as I can remember, as an IP of course. But I have a complaint to make about this particular user. *AirportUpdater* .

Overview
When I came across the user I noticed that he was removing hyphons '-' from airport links on articles despite a consensus on WP:AIRPORTS. Not only, he has have removed references from articles. This could result in the article ending up with a source tag.

Report
Here is 1 example of his disruptive editing: from this diff .

He continues the exact same behaviour using the exact same edit summary on multiple articles, despite consensus.

Action
I would like the user to be blocked for a while, maybe even indef. The editing has gone to far, without any admin action. Please take care of this situation as soon as possible. Thanks.

46.208.248.225 (talk) 18:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

If that example is typical, what he's doing looks like a waste of time, though it's not clear why he should be blocked for it. There are no hyphons (or even hyphens) in "Orlando International Airport". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I can see why you might want me be blocked but my edits are not meant to harm any pages. I am simply making each page better. In relation to references, there is no need for them when flights are already running. That's why I've been deleting them from airport pages (and I'm not the only one doing so). Now, talking about MCO, this has been an ongoing issue and topic between editors and I have been commenting on WP:Airports about this issue. For the longest of times, MCO has been listed as "Orlando" on every airport website and I am simply sticking to this idea. We are currently in discussions on WP:Airports and until a final decision has been made, there shouldn't be any changes to the airport pages. Hope you understand. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 19:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, 46.208.248.225, I would consider you creating a talk page so we can discuss this matter privately instead of bringing to the Administrator's attention first. Thanks, *AirportUpdater* (talk) 19:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I must admit I am confused about the idea that you don't need sources for flights that are currently active (am I misunderstanding?), like in [2]. Wikipedia relies on sources; not everything is required to have an inline citation to stay, but when there is a valid inline citation to prove a fact, it doesn't seem appropriate to remove it to me. LjL (talk) 19:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks you for your comment. Yes, you are correct. However, on airport pages, this is how we do things: When an airline announces a new service, we add the airport with a "begin" date and a source verifying that this is accurate. Then, when the service does start, there's no need for the reference anymore telling us when it will begin so it makes no sense to keep it. That's why these sources are then deleted. Hope this answers your question. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 19:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

It answers it I guess, but it's concerning that it is the way it's done just on airport pages. Since "unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope" (from WP:Local consensus), the accepted guidelines about having reliable sources in the articles are as valid for airport pages as for any other article. LjL (talk) 19:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, I don't know about other articles as I am only an Airport Updater (my name). All I know is regarding references for airline routes, we've always been deleting these after flights have begun. Otherwise, the page would get very clobbered and littered with unnecessary junk. One last thing we airport editors do is put references when services resume or end. Again, after they do resume/end, we take away the source as there is no need for it anymore. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 19:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

References to sources are not "unnecessary junk"... :-\ Don't you have sources with a consolidated list of current flights that you could use as non-inline references for such articles? LjL (talk) 19:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Have you ever edited an airport's page before? It seems as though you aren't entirely sure what I'm talking about yet. Airport articles only need sources for new/resuming/ending flights that will happen in the future. Once that date has passed, there is no need for a reference telling us when it will begin, end, or resume. It is, junk (it doesn't benefit the page anymore). Understand a little better? *AirportUpdater* (talk) 19:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't need to have edited an airport's page to know that claims on Wikipedia need to be backed up by sources. Do these airport pages claim that certain flights are currently ongoing? If so, are sources given to verify that the claims are true? If not, why not? LjL (talk) 19:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Every airport page has a chart listing which airlines fly from that airport and the destinations (next to the airline) that each airline flies to. Some also have which concourses/gates/terminal they are located at. Here are some examples: John F. Kennedy International Airport, Pittsburgh International Airport. Maybe looking at these pages can answer your 2nd question because I believe I've answered it multiple times already. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 19:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

If you can see, there are some sources next to routes that will be beginning, ending, or resuming. There is no need for sources next to all the others because they are already running. This is how it's always been on Wikipedia. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 20:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

My second question is a simple one that can be answered with "yes" or "no". My tentative answer is "no", as I can see no sources to the lengthy tables of current routes. Is that how it's always been? I don't know, but that's inconsequential. I'm sure if people systematically remove the sources, then in the long run they will not be there. LjL (talk) 20:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Please consider that I do not share the opinion that administrative action needs to be taken against you, as to me, it seems obvious you have acted in good faith. At the same time, I see a possible inconsistency between Wikipedia guidelines and your "typical-of-airport-articles" edits, and I think it's worth making sure the people who routinely edit airport articles (like any other group) do it in line with the guidelines of the rest of the encyclopedia. LjL (talk) 20:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Exactly! It's always been like this. I'm not the first one to be deleting sources for routes that are running so I have no idea why this person is accusing me of doing something disruptive and worth blocking. Good discussion. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 20:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

...And thank you very much for agreeing. I am not a kind of person that goes around editing articles for pure enjoyment, I do it to make each page as accurate as possible without having unnecessary text in places it shouldn't be. Thanks again, *AirportUpdater* (talk) 20:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I must still stress that citations that verify the material contained in the article are not unnecessary, though, but in fact necessary in most circumstances. That doesn't mean you should be sanctioned, but if removing such citations is the norm for the airport articles people, then those people should really start a discourse with the rest of Wikipedia. LjL (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. Citations are definitely necessary, I couldn't agree more. Airline/destinations charts are a whole different ballgame though as you've noticed. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 21:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I am picking up a strong sense of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and a touch of WP:OWN here. "(Policy X) is important, except for this one thing _I_ do" is not a Wikipedia policy I'm familiar with, nor is "We've always done it that way so it's fine". Perhaps the reason no one has commented on the sourcing issues with these articles might be that they're not a highly-trafficked area of WP?

WP:RS is policy. Not "...policy except for these articles..." or "...policy when I think it should be..."--POLICY. *AirportUpdater* needs to abide by this just like everyone else. GJC 23:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

This is absolutely false. I am not sticking to my ideas even though the community has moved on (as stated in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT). Absolutely not. The community has been doing the same thing I've been doing long before I even started editing. To answer your question, these pages have a very high traffic and is constantly being updated by many editors. It seems as though you are not familiar with how airport pages work based on your thoughts and comments. I recommend you take a look at a few pages to see how they look, then make accusations if you still have any. Here are some examples: Pittsburgh International Airport, Orlando International Airport, John F. Kennedy International Airport. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 23:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, if you really want to. I suggest you read WP:AIRPORTS a little more carefully. If you still think no hyphons are needed, then you are welcome to start a new disscussion at WT:AIRPORTS. Why it was obvious that you were acting in good faith, note, that you can't rely on your opinion. I think community should find consensus, a non-involved editor can close if everyone's happy that this will have no action. 46.208.248.225 (talk) 06:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, websites are not a Wikipedia. Just because they do it one way doesn't mean we copy it. 46.208.248.225 (talk) 06:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

• I have an idea: how about dropping the mindnumbing enumerations of which carriers fly to which cities, departing from which concourses? Such information changes frequently (WP:NOTGUIDEBOOK) and really has little to do with understanding the subject. This would reduce the arguing such as above by 100X. EEng (talk) 15:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I was afraid to suggest it... then again, I am an inclusionist (who does find it a bit backwards that long list like those generally survive while there's a trickle of genuine articles semi-irreversibly deleted, but that's off-topic I guess). LjL (talk) 16:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

It's an idea. But I know that's never going to happen. Wikipedia is the only place where you can easily pop on and see where a city has flights to around the country/world. It's very helpful for someone who is trying to book a flight. They can see if that city has a nonstop flight to whichever city they want to go to. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 16:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

What part of WP:NOTGUIDEBOOK don't you understand? EEng (talk) 21:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I just looked at John F. Kennedy International Airport and the amount of information and unnecessary detail is just staggering. And, this might just be me, but I've never run into anyone who consulted Wikipedia when booking a flight. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikivoyage is a guidebook though, might it not be helpful to unobtrusively move the ever-changing flight information there and then continue to maintain them there? Although I'm not even sure wikis are the best place to search for that kind of data, because I suspect a backend that could connect origins with destinations would be so much handier... LjL (talk) 21:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Looking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports is an eye-opener. It seems like updating flight information is the primary activity of the WikiProject. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes; updating flight information is a common task carried out by members of the WikiProject, but it contributes to building an accurate and comprehensive encyclopedia so I'm not sure why it would be considered a negative thing. The airlines and destinations served from an airport are relevant and notable, and they help to provide context to the reader by indicating the significance of the airport. The references to WP:NOTGUIDEBOOK would be justified if the articles were including non-notable information such as fares, frequencies or timetables, but the airlines and destinations serving an airport are significant, verifiable, widely covered by both primary and secondary sources, and are of interest to the majority of people reading an encyclopedic article about an airport. OakleighPark 12:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Verifiable and sourced, right? LjL (talk) 12:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Whether or not the destination tables are sufficiently sourced is debatable; most current destinations do not have inline citations as the airline's timetable is considered to be the implicit citation. This is stated in WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT, but if it's not in agreement with Wikipedia's policies then it should be discussed and changed. I'm sure the editors of WP:Airport would be happy to address your concerns and work towards a constructive solution for ensuring that the referencing in destination tables meets Wikipedia's standards. However, I strongly disagree that just because there are issues with referencing that all destination tables should be removed. OakleighPark 13:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I am not saying people go to Wikipedia to book flights, I'm saying that Wikipedia is a good site people can go on to get an idea of what flights run from which cities. Yes Liz, us airport editors are all about updating flight information. It keeps us constantly checking Wikipedia to make each airport page better. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 03:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

This is entirely inappropriate article content. In addition to NOTGUIDE, there's WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. Hey -- why not include fare information too?

The fact that this information is the locus of editing disputes makes it not just deadwood, but wormwood. It should all be removed. And yes, a look at e.g. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports#Chinese_carriers_operating_.22direct.22_flights_from_China_to_Europe_via_another_Chinese_city shows how bankrupt all this busy-bee activity is. EEng (talk) 04:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I see where you are getting at. There are constantly issues regarding these airline routes (and that is a good example that you gave), but again, these charts aren't going to get deleted because they've been on every airport page since Wikipedia even started. They go way back and I think they are a great way to see how many nonstop routes each city has. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 05:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, these airline/destinations charts are one of the most important stats for an airport that everyone looks at when they visit an airport page. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 05:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The more stuff like that you say the more you strengthen the argument for removing it -- all of it. EEng (talk) 05:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Don't forget maps, articles about roads, railway lines etc.. Because WP:NOTGUIDE. Did someone mention fare information? New York City transit fares *grabs popcorn, sits back to watch* Ssscienccce (talk) 06:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Articles on roads and railways aren't subject to the kind of rapid change airline routes are, nor do they involve anything like the same mind-numbing quantities of information. The transit fares article should certainly be cut. EEng (talk) 06:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Just because the Wikiproject frequently has discussions to establish consistency, it does not make it 'bankrupt'. The discussion linked to was a case where what was reported by some sources (ie:direct flights from certain Chinese airports to the US) was not an accurate reflection of the real-life situation (ie:the flights were actually just domestic flights that were linked to the US flight only by having the same flight number). Such discussions may seem menial and pointless to many people, but they contribute to the quality of the encyclopedia by ensuring that the airport articles are as accurate, consistent and reflective of real-life as possible. Removing content because it has sparked discussions and disagreements among editors will do nothing to improve Wikipedia. OakleighPark 13:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• Agree with EEng. This primary-sourced or unsourced garbage does not belong on Wikipedia. The project needs to be reminded of our core policy on verifiability. A lot of these articles will need trimming. --John (talk) 06:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Can you give some specific examples of content you think is not verifiable? Ssscienccce (talk) 06:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

If the issue is that the destination tables are lacking appropriate sources, then surely the best solution would be to improve the quality of the referencing in destination tables, instead of removing them. Just because they currently lack sources, it doesn't mean that the information is unverifiable. OakleighPark 13:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

That is not a good idea, take to WT:AIRPORTS. 87.112.66.233 (talk) 06:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

You make valid points elsewhere but this report is getting way too off-topic... however, to stay within its realm, part of the original issue was that the reported editor was alleged to be removing references from those tables (or elsewhere in airport articles). Inline citations aren't mandatory for everything, but at least if the content is dubiously sourced or not easy to verify from the non-inline sources, then they shouldn't be removed. LjL (talk) 13:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Moved to WT:AIRPORTS, please post your input there. And please act in good faith. 87.112.66.233 (talk) 06:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

@Diaanaa, David Biddulph, GiantSnowman, Blackmane, and JzG:need consensus on keeping/nuking transit fares, routes and times.ping admins for urgent attentionMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 07:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

@Diaanaa, David Biddulph, GiantSnowman, Blackmane, and JzG:retryMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 07:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Is that how you form consensus now, pinging a small group of specific people in an ongoing discussion? --LjL (talk) 11:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Mahfuzur rahman shourov is under the mistaken impression that there is some sort of committee of higher up admins that can lay down the law as it were, which is somewhat amusing since I'm not an admin. @Mahfuzur rahman shourov: admins do not make editorial decisions as you think. Admins are granted privileges to enact the will of the community and to protect Wikipedia from disruption or damage. Blackmane (talk) 10:26, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I think this discussion has gotten way off topic for an Admin page. These are great discussions to be held on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports if you chose to do so. There you can discuss these topics with actual airport editors such as myself. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 12:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Is the Wikiproject page the right place to propose deletion of the Wikiproject?

This discussion is highly relevant for right here. It seems to me there is an out-of-control group of editors tag-teaming on airport and airlines articles which has been hiding their non-Wikipedia-compatible practices by dealing with each separate regular editor who arrives, one-by-one. In their tag-teaming, they try to create an impression that the newly arriving editor is being disruptive for noting and tagging or otherwise beginning to address the obvious problems. I got their treatment recently, when I arrived at American Airlines destinations to disambiguate a term. I noticed it was entirely non-encyclopedic, an extreme example of a directory, and in passing I removed an asserted future destination claim. On basis that Wikipedia is not a place for forecasts of future film releases or airline services or other crystal-ball items. From an I.P. editor and from editor Oknazevad I got obstinate treatment asserting that "wp:AIRLINES" (not a policy or even a guideline) rules, when that is merely a link to their WikiProject. I was eventually directed to their [WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT]] guideline, which is a local consensus out of sync with Wikipedia. Some of this is reflected at User talk:Doncram#New services. They called my tagging an article "bad faith" and "disruptive and unneeded" and stated bureaucratically "it has been removed". Which is not how legitimate tags pointing out problems are to be handled.

I didn't take it further then, but seeing others' encountering this stuff now and being equally horrified, I think it is time to eliminate all of this stuff.. on airport articles and on the 433 (!) airlines destinations articles in Category:Lists of airline destinations. This may all be moved to WikiVoyages perhaps, but certainly is to be removed from Wikipedia. The "Other stuff exists" argument about trains does not hold water; this is egregrious directory stuff and needs to be cleaned up, including for reason that we need clear treatment for trains editors and others elsewhere that this other stuff existing does not justify directories elsewhere. These editors' out-of-sync views and cumulative treatment of concerned other editors make this a bigger issue than one simply to be covered by themselves in their Wikiproject. Also, there have been past AFDs in ancient times (2007) which failed to stop this stuff (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Airlines destinations/archive and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Airlines destinations); it has only gotten worse since then.

Has a big new AFD been started yet, or could someone please start one (and post here and notify myself and others concerned about this), or where else is this being addressed, besides here (which should continue here). This is a big ongoing problem area, which is not going to be resolved by a chat among airport/airline updaters themselves. --doncram 22:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Ever heard of WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH? You accuse the WikiProject of a grand conspiracy when the reality is that 99% of the members are just trying to improve the coverage of airports on Wikipedia. In my years of editing airport articles, I have never observed any 'cumulative treatment of concerned editors', as disagreements are regularly discussed in a civil manner to reach consensus. I think a lot of the conflict stems from misunderstandings from people who aren't too familiar with airport articles. For example, future destinations are only added to tables when it is reported in a verifiable source and is almost certain to actually happen, so stating that it is a 'crystal-ball item' is completely inaccurate. If concerned editors took some time to observe what actually happens in the Wikiproject, they would see that everyone is there to improve Wikipedia and improve the quality and consistency of airport articles; not to deliberately circumvent Wikipedia's policies and attack editors who disagree them, as some people are alleging.

Finally, demanding that a Wikiproject be deleted is extremely nonconstructive, especially when you appear to have significant misconceptions about how it operates and what it does; if you are genuinely wanting to improve Wikipedia, then why not suggest ways that the Wikiproject could improve instead of demanding such drastic action? OakleighPark 23:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Discussion started at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pages in Category:Lists of airline destinations about this following comment above about whether these articles are needed or not. Any further opinions are welcome on the AfD page --Mdann52 (talk) 16:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Wow, this turned to something.

If you would be to remove the destinations both from airports and airlines, there would be chaos. Before I promote the argument, one editor will refer to the German Wikipedia. Which has no destination lists, but has done so well. But this is because it is so strict, every non-airport editor will refer to other guidelines. Which does not apply to all WikiProjects. @Doncram: Please stop removing future announced routes till consensus is revolved, thanks, also as per WP:AIRPORTS, The main issue here is also referencing, all we need to do is add references for unreferenced routes and there! Problem solved. As I said earlier in this disscussion, some airport articles have been ranked at amazing levels. And, big suprise, they have... destination lists. Removing these will destroy the WikiProject, destroy the Wikipedia. I don't want to bring this up but please take your time to look at the 'Wikipedia Is Failing' essay. Where it describes the general failures of the English Wikipedia. We are failing, rubbish consensus' are destorying this project. We need to finally realize what this project is really about. 217.45.102.139 (talk) 18:31, 26 October 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.

FkpCascais 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.

---

I need external help at this point.

Recap: There was a complicated RfC. It was closed against FkpCascais's stance. After further debates, he asked for a review of the close, which is, let's say, ongoing. This is when I got involved. In the meanwhile, there has been (a lot) more discussion on the article's talk page.

I have been sort of mediating. FkpCascais has gone from seemingly hating my guts to apologizing. The current problem is that I had added a "disputed" tag to one of the two main points of contention. FkpCascais removed it twice and then removed my talk page request not to do that (I see he has reverted that now, though).

He had repeatedly removed another such tag before (prompting me to report him for edit warring) and had been told by, among others, HighInBC that the tag should stay. He had gone well over 3RR before.

There is also an IP-hopping sockpuppet involved in this (opposing FkpCascais), and I have more than enough of everyone, really. FkpCascais needs to cool down and realize that the RfC was against his stance and that it's completely backwards that, even though his stance is still reflected in the article, he's even getting "disputed" tags removed. LjL (talk) 00:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

What I am proposing with this report is that FpCascais be somehow made to relent from edits and arguments on topics related to ex-Yugoslavia (I think there have been issues on other articles too, but I have not been involved), or at least Serbs of Croatia. How this is achieved is not my concern, but talk pages can't just keep on inflating with people running away from the sheer length and absurdity, and the consensus from the RfC can't be unilaterally overturned. LjL (talk) 14:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

You added this last paragraph just now, you are asking for me to be removed. I am asking for an admin please to see LjL conduct as reviewer. From the very start they were not been making a neutral review but a clear tendentious one with a goal of prooving me wrong. I dont think that is a review at all, but rather involvment in the dispute. They even got to call things "my side and their side" that much neutrality has been seen on their behalve. Once I continue providing sources and backing up my points, it obviously becomes a situation where I become the undesirable one. I am the only one providing sourced arguments there against the Croatian POV, remove me and we will be left with no Serbian editors and the articles will loose even the chance of being neutraly written. What the admins need to do is to see what happened there and recoment this users to stop trying to eliminate me. They made a consensus ammong them which is not backed by any reliable sources and which goes clearly against what English-language sources are saying. Albino made a very controversial close, and now LjL all that has been doing there is to proove me wrong. That is a valid position as edtor, but than they are not a review that was asked, and should stop pretendng to be one. FkpCascais (talk) 14:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Of course I added the last paragraph now, everyone can see the double signature. AlbinoFerret's close is not "very controversial", since you're effectively the only one still opposing it. You're making a ruckus. I also take big issue with the concept that to be neutral, the article needs to have both Croatian and Serbian editors. I'm neither, and in fact, I'm sadly starting to think that if neither nationality took part in its editing, it would be for the better. And, of course, no, a review going counter your opinion is not the review you asked for: I do recognize that. LjL (talk) 14:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Just one minor point of correction LjL, I asked for the review. FkpCascais mentioned starting one and then waited a few days, so I started it since I closed the RFC. AlbinoFerret 00:16, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I will be asking for formal mediation on this. LjL started wrong foot on this from the very start, and now is ignoring 20 reliable sources and engaging in WP:OR by making their own interpretation of the constitution. Things dont work that way, 20 authors certinly know why they are saying something, and there is no need for a Wikipedia editor to go to the Constitution and check their findings. They are unable to provide RS so that is why this is happening. FkpCascais (talk) 00:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

LjL the talk-page revert of your comment was an accident, I reverted myself instantly. Also, I must say that LjL has been condoning the participation of that very same evading-block editor, and having a nice long chat with him at their talk-page, even using the arguments provded by the IP at the article talk-page dscussion against me. Strange at least! FkpCascais (talk) 00:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

"Things don't work that way" is valid about ignoring the result of an RfC, too. And my talk page is mine to talk to people at, thank you. LjL (talk) 14:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh and sorry about the original section heading HighInBC, it wasn't meant literally, but this has really felt... weird. Couple of days ago he gave me a half barnstar and apologized for, well, you can see that on my talk page; couple of days before that, he was hating me and saying I was "lying through my teeth", and removing tags; now he seems to be back to that. I am confuzzled. LjL (talk) 00:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I assumed you made the initial missinterpretation of soures by accident, I AGF towards you, however by seing your continuos loyering of one side only, you making ways to ignore sources, I really have to say I was not wrong, you are indeed involved in this, and you are being tendentious. I can, and will, provide clear exemples of your tendentious atitutde if asked to do so. FkpCascais (talk) 00:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I need to say I objected LjL being the reviewer of the close from the very begining, and I had my reasons, but I ended being flexible. Can I please ask this time for the reviewer to be an experienced admin please? This is an easy case actually, just that a series of mistakes were made in the process. Or, if the admins believe the option of fomal mediotion is better solution, that would be great as well. FkpCascais (talk) 00:32, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The review should be closed. There's a very solid consensus that it should be closed, despite it having become another very long thing to read because this is basically how you murk waters. LjL (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

And perfectly sourced material (your own words) will be left out... You are letting emotions affect your decitions now, you know it. FkpCascais (talk) 00:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Mirror, mirror... LjL (talk) 00:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Not funny at all. This entire process was handled extremely poorly, and I spent weeks digging into sources and finding consensus ammong them. FkpCascais (talk) 00:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

But you found none. You are actually still going counter RfC consensus, and I have also spent a long time trying to sift through your mess and arbitrate a little. I've had enough. LjL (talk) 00:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Cause all you have been doing there is trying to find a way to dismiss my 20+ sources, a terribly difficult task. Obviously you had it enough and we got here. If you only once accepted sources are right we wouldnt be here. FkpCascais (talk) 01:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

And I didnt found consensus? Not because you receve advices from an evading indef-blocked editor and a user opposing me constituously claiming it is all propaganda my sources are saying (strong arguments for sure). But there is a clear consensus ammong the sources for what really matters, 20+ sources agree ammong them about most, it is just minor peripherical aspects left to work out and can be finished quite easily. But you come and you question everything, even clearly establshed facts backed by 20+ sources and contradicted by... zero sources and 2 partisan editors. Such as "Serbs lost constituent status in Croatia in 1990." You ignore the 20 authors, and you want to see yourself the Constitution. OK, you said you can do it talk-pages without breaking WP:OR, but how are you going to insert it n the article iif you have no RS opposing the statement? What are we loosng time there for? So you ignore WP:TRUTH, Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:OR just to see if it is possible to make them right and me and my 20+ sources wrong, that is crystal clear. FkpCascais (talk) 01:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Every time someone examines those 20+ sources they come to the same conclusions that they dont say what you want them to say. An RFC, outside editors who looked after the RFC. Its starting to look like filibustering. Its starting to look like you are WP:NOTHERE because you are ignoring the consensus of everyone else and want to continue in an endless discussion that goes round in circles, Its time to drop the stick. AlbinoFerret 01:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

They are not all saying "Serbs lost the constitutive status in Croatia in 1990" yes or not? FkpCascais (talk) 01:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

You are being accused of not dropping the stick and WP:NOTHERE, and you thing that dragging the discussion to this ANI will help your cause? Listen to the others and drop the stick, you "lost" the RfC and soon the review. What else to do. Prevent a consensus enters the article? That would be a first, at least for me. 93.171.64.118 (talk) 02:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I asked for a review of your close cause you didnt even read the sources, you just copy/pasted their argument, and later you refused to clarify the close to me. So obviously you want it now to be dropped. FkpCascais (talk) 01:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

@AlbinoFerret:, I was even willing to have lengthy debates, but not ruckus. Not ruckus like removing tags, edit warring and even reverting me on the talk page, which I'm sure was done in the heat of the moment (since it was undone), but whatever: it shows what this has come to. LjL (talk) 01:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I told you the revert at the talk-page was a mistake, for God sake, the screan I was using is small. I reverted mself instantly. But using whatever to get me out, nice from you. FkpCascais (talk) 02:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh my God, WP:NOTHERE is perfect! All this time I was trying to point that he isn't discussing in good faith in my own words and I didn't know of this. This perfectly describes it. Thanks. 159.224.0.18 (talk) 01:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

LjL, if you look closer at the discussions, you'll see he's really been attacking everyone who doesn't agree with him. The user who started the discussion got reported by him. He got fed up with Fkp and left. I got attacked that I'm a sock to the point that it's generally accepted as a fact, although no report was made. Director got attacked as a nationalist. You got attacked...The whole discussion should be reviewed so let's leave it for the admins. Every single editor had left the discussion because of FkP and if it weren't for me he would successfully enter his POV to the article after all the opposition is gone, one way (by blocking) or another (by exhaustion). I told it a long time, he's not been discussing in good faith and it's really hard to notice until you get involved with him. Isn't that right LjL. It's hard to notice that when someone puts a direct question how he neglects to answer it and buries it with a wall of text. You can't easily notice if you don't read carefully. But when you get involved you see it very clearly. Your last section is a great example. 159.224.0.18 (talk) 01:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're pretty much on the spot (but you still shouldn't evade blocks). LjL (talk) 01:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I shouldn't have to since I'm not blocked. ;) I can tell you that I'm staying away from this user when this is over. I won't get involved in another of his "discussions" since I tend to finish it when I get involved. I can tell he's doing some contributions on football related topics. I would advise him to stay on that topic,but I doubt he would listen. 159.224.0.18 (talk) 01:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I am not even going to comment this evident cumplicity the two of you had been having from the very begning. I will defend myself by saying just one thing: I was the only one to present sources there, and plenty. That was my way of "attacking you", sorry both of you perceve it that way. FkpCascais (talk)

No: I previously documented your way of attacking me, and perhaps it's due time to bring it up. LjL (talk) 01:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Of course I attacked you, you were lying about sources clearly ignoring parts of a sentence thus turning their meaning upside-down. FkpCascais (talk) 01:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, admitting and justifying your personal attacks won't help but, but on contrary... Stop, take a deep breath and objectively think what you are doing.93.171.64.118 (talk) 02:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Listen pal, even if I didnt existed, your tendentious editing will not get to the articles cause people here are not fools. And you were not indef-blocked because of me reporting you, but because of your own edits. So deal with it, and stop chasing me around. Get a life. FkpCascais (talk) 02:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Let's not get paranoid and see someone who doesn't exist and think someone is following you. If you get blocked here it will be because of proving the arguments against your behavior in this very own report. You are still not dropping the stick and you are even admitting and justifying personal accusations. You made them against everyone participating here and all in front of admin eyes. I told you, take a deep breath and think about what you are doing to yourself here.93.171.64.118 (talk) 02:32, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I see there is now a push into making this look as if it is me not dropping the stick. But the case is the following, in a cntent dispute I was alone representing one side vs a group of editors. I have plenty of sources, that is what made me hang on all the way. However, a reviewer came and made a close just copy/pasting their argument claiming consensus ammong editors. He made a mistake, but once a mistake is made it is hard to fix it without making the closing editor look bad. For some reasons, and in quite strange ciircunstances, an editor offered to be a reviewer, although rather than offering itelf, he started reviewing by their own will and sort of self-declared as such. All they been doing while eviewing is trying to make me wrong. I am please asking for a real review. If the reviewer want so, I will not even participate, and I will respect whatever the cocnclusion will be. Or a mediation. Whatever the admins find more appropriate. FkpCascais (talk) 01:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

You don't get infinitely many reviews until one agrees with you. Also, one doesn't "offer to be a reviewer", and I didn't close the review, which is still ongoing (but ought, for the love of everything good, to be closed soon). LjL (talk) 02:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

LjL you went above and beyond. I know that some will look at the claim of 20+ sources with concern that perhaps there was a mistake someplace. But you looked and found there was none. I am glad you did, because being an outside editor you confirmed that everyone else was right. This should have ended with the RFC, but I am glad you looked and found there was consensus. AlbinoFerret 02:11, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

You made the poorest close I have ever seem in 10 yers, I ask any admin to confirm it, and if I am wrong I will block myself. FkpCascais (talk) 02:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Here.93.171.64.118 (talk) 02:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

There is already a review, and its going against you. You dont seem to understand that you dont get to argue again and again and again until by some slim hope you get someone (unlikely) to agree with you. AlbinoFerret 02:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah and let's remember LjL was slightly on his side at the beginning. It someone finds himself/herself in that situation I strongly recommend he/she takes a few days and tries to deal with him himself/herself.LjL I hope you saw what I was going trough this last few MONTHS. 93.171.64.118 (talk) 02:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

LjL, There was just one close by now, and a non-admin one, in a hot-topic case. So it is not me asking for indefinite reviews for sure, and you certanly read the part me saying "I will respect whatever the cocnclusion will be". Do you have problems understanding my English or you iintentionally pretend not to? FkpCascais (talk) 02:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

You removed a comment against you.[3] granted by an IP that is probably shouldnt be here, but that removal should be by an admin if anyone. AlbinoFerret 02:16, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, now make a party because of it. Anyway, that will not make your close any better. FkpCascais (talk) 02:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Because his comment about not asking for indefinite reviews wouldn't make much sense if he didn't remove my comment. Fkp, you can't and you shouldn't take this as a fight and try to win by getting others blocked by neglecting arguments and with personal accusations, by removing other peoples' comments.93.171.64.118 (talk) 02:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

At least let this current review finishes against your favor until you ask for another one. ;) All this doesn't help you look like you had dropped the stick.. 93.171.64.118 (talk) 02:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

You dont even have a stick... @Everyone else, so nice you condone an evading-block user to post, and LjL even let him participate in the discussion perfectly aware of who he was and his sockpuppeting. FkpCascais (talk) 02:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

You let me open a RfC. What a big mistake that was, to bring your fallacies to the eyes of other editors. So if someone is letting someone participate, as if it's up to them to decide who should participate. Everyone is free to make a report against anyone and you didn't make it. 93.171.64.118 (talk) 02:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I sure hope this is my last night I spend like this. I didn't get much sleep this last few months. FkP go to sleep and allow us others go as well. We can continue tomorrow. Maybe you really should sleep it over so you realize what you have done here.93.171.64.118 (talk) 02:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

A further incident: after FkpCascais cursed and accused another editor, I was about to intervene when he simply deleted his message. I did not consider that fair, so I reinstated it struck-out (and explained in the edit summary), but he reverted my edit without further explanation. LjL (talk) 22:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Ridiculous? Please focus on content there and answer the questions presented to you by another editor who clearly questions your conclusions there. And dont edit, move, remove my comments. Thanks you. FkpCascais (talk) 22:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

What is this all about?

If you want to know, then expand this hat. But it's a content dispute not belonging here

This is my edit (The entire section "Socialist Yugoslavia", you can see the content and the sources, it was empty before my edit), this is the close of Albino (look at the argument and the edit of mine and the sources He sugests removing the entre section and replacing by a sentence saying just: "On 22 December 1990, the Parliament of Croatia ratified the new constitution,[89] which was seen by Serbs as taking away rights that had been granted by the Socialist constitution.[90]"). This is basically an attempt to eliminate perfectly sourced content and replace it with a dubious sentence, but OK, that is my view, someone should confirm it. At bottom of Talk:Serbs of Croatia is where the review of LjL is found. I will leave this thread and not answer anymore unless asked by an admin. FkpCascais (talk) 02:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC) That's another thing. You really shouldn't make unilateral edits while that very own thing is being discussed. Look at what you did here. Another user pointed out that the very same thing we are discussing on Serbs of Croatia is also present on Croatian_War_of_Independence article. You open this discussion (20:00, 18 September 2015 ) to point that both articles will be changed after the RfC is over. Then you go and unilaterally edit the article yourself ( 00:24, 20 September 2015). That article is still standing with your unilateral edits while the RfC is already closed against you. That's not a way Wikipedia is edited. Did you think no one will notice you went on unilaterally edit an article although the discussion is still open and pending? I could have reverted you, but I haven't.Since I know you would go to edit warring there as well and have that article protected as well.93.171.64.118 (talk) 02:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC) Will someone please remove an evading blocked user? It is not because he is criticizeing me, couldnt care less, but because he is cluttering the thread. Thanks. FkpCascais (talk) 03:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC) Question for admins: there are many articles that dont get much attention beside the involved editors. Such articles clearly are some international disputes such is this case. Puts head-a-head the opposed views each nation has. In my view the ideal situation would be to have a decent number of editors from each, plus neutral ones, side making consensus all together by gathering sources, seing wht they say, and applying our rules and principles. However, when one side has just one editor, the situation becomes clearly totally different than that ideal one I mentioned. The easiest thing the lone editor can do is letting the other side have their way. But is that fair for Wikipedia as a neutral free online encyclopedia? This case here is very interesting because it demonstrates all the problems the lone editor faces if he wants to fight for archiving neutrality. Armed with sources, I am facing all possible and impossible means to get my text out or to get me out. Albino made a close just copy/pastng their arguments and I bet the life of my sons he didnt even opened one single source of the 20 I presented to see what they actually say. Then LjL, she imposed herself as reviewer and has been her best to see how to turn around things and make me loose. It was terrible for me. She even missquaoted sources, when I checked them to see how could I have missed them saying what she claimed they say, I found out she just lied brutally. Why she did that? Even so, I was conviced to give her a chance. But, what should I do as an editor when I see she is reviewing clearly tendentiously? Cause, they really got me to the limit, it is just a pharse to see when I am going to give-up or if I am going to do something they could report me for, then they have the group, and have the close editor who clearly wants to support his mistake... I really couldnt have done much better, I gatheres so many sources, all of them scholar and in English, all of them verifiable just with a click at Google Books, I made an edit as fair as possible having in mind te sources, and I am basing my arguments at talk with sources (I am so much pressured I even have to source my comments! And I do!). They hardly look at the sources (besides LjL who I made look at them after much reluctancy on her behalve; she did the best to avoid looking at sources and was trying to find a way to convince me to just accept the close, she even proposed an "one for you-one for me solution" just to escae dealing with sources, cause they knew I had sources). I had to gently ask to give sources a chance, after what they in anger just 10 minutes later, made a totally tendentious presentation. Instead of accepting to see what sources say, they started immedately working to defend their goal... Wait... should a reviewer clearly back one side? I dont think so, but that has been her behavior all time. Of course, in that edit, actually only 1 of the 4 sources says what she clamed, you can see the reality ofthat thread of hers: Talk:Serbs_of_Croatia#Sources_suggesting_.22rights.22_may_have_been_retained. FkpCascais (talk) 03:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC) Well some things need to be said, and I think that other editors are not aware of your behavior on Croatian War of Independence article. I on the other hand have been dealing with you for months and I'm perfectly aware of it. Now's the time to point it out. It wouldn't be productive if I had gone to edit warring over there, so I waited to an opportunity like this. 93.171.64.118 (talk) 03:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC) Yes indeed, I did this at that article. Please, please dont mention it anymore, if someone noteces I added perfectly sourced content in an article I will not get a chance to mantain my terribly tendentious nationalist editor reputation. FkpCascais (talk) 03:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

To prove what LjL is doing, please see the exemple of what they are doing here Talk:Serbs_of_Croatia#Two_points_about_the_RfC on point 1. Lets see her claims if are backed with sources. 14:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Not that it matters much, but I'm male, by the way. LjL (talk) 15:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Just look what is happening there. I will saying nothing, just judge by yourselfs who is doing what. FkpCascais (talk) 15:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Linking to your own statement proves nothing. AlbinoFerret 22:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

History repeating itself

This seems a lot like Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Request_for_RFC_close_review. The same actors, the same dispute, same wall of text. It is also very reminiscent of the discussion at Talk:Serbs of Croatia. ANI is not the place to carry on a debate. While I agree that the original thread needs to be closed. I also think that while all involved(except for the IP hopping sock) are acting in good faith the behaviour of all should be examined. While I have acted only as an admin in this area I would welcome fresh eyes as the whole thing is making my old mind wrinkle.

I don't think it is serving any of the party's interests to be carrying on this dispute here. I have read what has been written and it seems like the involved party's have already made their point and now just going in a cycle of disagreement. I ask that the involved party's refrain from providing information that is already present on this page and instead continue the debate on the article talk page. I ask that an uninvolved admin close the current RFC review on WP:AN and if there is not anything new here this too. HighInBC 15:49, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure; may I additionally ask that if the RfC review is closed in favor of the RfC close (i.e. against FkpCascais's stance), than that consensus be, at this point, and finally, enforced in the article, in one way or another? Dead-letter consensus isn't useful. LjL (talk) 15:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

In my experience when an RFC has that much debate afterwards there is a problem. A strong consensus is rarely hard to enforce because those who agreed with it want it enforced. The RFC repeatedly referred to here involved few editors and numerous occurrences of sock puppetry(including the person who proposed it).

A fresh RFC with a clearly defined set of outcomes that is not created by a blocked user would represent a much more clearly enforceable consensus. Right now it takes someone with the patience of Job to sift that RFC and find the reason in it. Props to @AlbinoFerret: for closing such a mess of an RFC. HighInBC 16:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks HighInBC, I do think another RFC would likely be a good idea. But the way that RFC was laid out is really bad. I think another editor should open a new one, one who doesnt write a question that is almost TLDR, that leads to less participation. Another issue is how to remove the sock. They were heavily discounted in the RFC so they really didnt impact it much. I counted the IP's as one editor, and even if taken out completely it doesnt change anything. You have been doing what you can, but they seem to come back again and again. AlbinoFerret 17:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I am sure now that an uninvolved senior editor came questioning LjL conclusions, LjL wants to see the RfC closed as quckly as possible. FkpCascais (talk) 17:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Every time I read a comment on this topic, its like deja vu all over again or Groudhogs day. AlbinoFerret 20:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Boomerang

This is what is happening. I am facing a clearly tendentious "reviewer" who is making WP:OR, intentionally ignoring reliable sources (sometimes even pretending not to understand their content despite being all in perfect English), and sugesting to drop Wikipedia:Verifiability. As revewer he has clearly been siding since the very begning clearly not in compliance with WP:NPOV, absolutely necessary for a reviewer. I am askng please uninvolved admins to review LjL behavior as reviewer, the link here is just one exemple of the constant he has been having there. In a subsecton I made, which LjL colapsed,are more diffs of exemples of their tendentious atitutude. FkpCascais (talk) 18:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

This again FkpCascais? I think it's time for a TBAN for FkpCascais , broadly construed on anything dealing with Croatia. This is about the second or third time I've seen this issue come up, with him. Enough already ! KoshVorlon 15:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

A senior editor has come and questioned LjL conclusions. Please wait to see the outcome, I believe it would be fair. It is very hard to be the only one at one side of the dispute and it is very eeasy to make a precpitated conclusion that I am the one in fault, by it may, or not, be that the case. FkpCascais (talk) 15:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

You are consistently mixing up content issues with user behavior issues. LjL (talk) 15:56, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

There's no such thing as a "senior editor" FkpCascais. There are Editors, there are sysops , then there are Arbs. KoshVorlon 17:10, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

In this case, there are. Cause we have been dealing with a great ammount of new single-purpose accounts. That is why I said it. But it is OK, you are entitled to have your opinion. Thank you. FkpCascais (talk) 18:23, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Please list the alleged single-purpose accounts (aside from the IP-hopping sock). LjL (talk) 18:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

It is him I aam talking about obviously. He has a list of related accounts already blocked. But what does it matter? All I meant is that the editor questioning your decitions is not a newby but an established editor. FkpCascais (talk) 20:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Several of the people who opposed you during and after the RfC were also established editors. What's your point? LjL (talk) 20:41, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes a topic ban on Balkan articles should be in order. I'm looking at his contributions and everywhere I go I see walls of text and him accusing others of being socks, nationalists, making personal accusations. It often leads to him reporting and trying to ban other users, like it happened on Serbs of Croatia where he tried to block me and another user when we were the only one that opposed him. I already told what I think of his behavior in the upper sections, but let's see what some of the other's think:

Director : "Of course he's not discussing in good faith.Don't know when ever he had." [4] , "Frankly I think this horrendous, farcical mess is grounds for a topic ban." [5]

Shokatz:"And here we go again, you should be topic banned for WP:UNDUE and obvious one-sided POV-pushing." [6]

Topic ban for FkpCascais

Withdrawn, FkpCascais has agreed to drop the stick and wait for someone else to start the new RFC. AlbinoFerret 22:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

The above section shows that FkpCascais is WP:NOTHERE. He has engaged in personal attacks, removing others comments, filibustering, ignoring consensus/failure to drop the stick, and appears to be to involved in this topic. I propose a 6 month topic ban, the width of the ban determined by the closing admin. I suggest 6 months in order that he broaden his editing in other areas of WP and return a better editor to this topic area. If not, there will be enough WP:ROPE. AlbinoFerret 17:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC) Now that for the first time we have an unnvolved editor looking at the dispute criticizing your conclusions, sure it is time to eliminate me. FkpCascais (talk) 18:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC) At the time of the close I was uninvolved, and tried my best to stay uninvolved. But with everything that has happened, including talk page sections on my talk page after the close and comments in discussions after the close that is not the present case when dealing with the disruption you have caused. AlbinoFerret 18:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support Definetly support a 6 month topic ban - and just so you know this, FpCascais, I'm under one myself, I know what it's like and hate proposing this for anyone, but in this case, it's applicable. KoshVorlon 18:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposal how to solve this and move on

Seems obvious that by now personal conflicts are interfering wth the objectivity and neutrality. I seem to be the problem, LjL and AlbinoFerret are pointing out. I propose then to stay out from now on. Since a new editor gave a look at the content and is adressing some issues I myself was adressing earlier, I agree that my part is done; I made an edit, I provided sources, I asked questions, nothing else I can do anymore. I promisse to stay out from the review till its end, I will come only if asked to. User:LjL, User:AlbinoFerret and User:biblbroks, would you agree? FkpCascais (talk) 20:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

As mentioned elsewhere, the review has ended. Until another RfC takes place, the results of the previous ones are valid. LjL (talk) 20:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, it is closed then. I just asked. Its over then. Thank you. FkpCascais (talk) 20:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear, its over, FkpCascais you agree to let RFC stand and the consensus that was reached there. You will drop the stick and wait for someone else to start another RFC? If you agree to that I will withdraw the TBAN request. AlbinoFerret 21:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Of course AlbinoFerret. I was actually unaware the RfC had been closed today. If it is closed, then it is closed. FkpCascais (talk) 21:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Withdrawn, I am glad to see this on the way to solving the issues without banns. Dropping everything is a good idea while everything moves forward. AlbinoFerret 22:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. Oppose any wide topic bans for FkpCascais, but if it were up to me I'd go with a narrow ban for the one specific article, no longer than 6 months. In other words: nothing big that stops him contributing in general - just something to get him to shut the hell up over there definitively, and not just start this all over again in a month. I know the user rather well, he's a clever guy: I'm seeing him getting a buddy to post another RfC in a week or two, and then starting this stupid show from the beginning. I'm hoping we can address that possibility here?

Don't doubt for a second that he hasn't accepted the community's position, he just isn't dumb: he saw a tban on the horizon. He still thinks he's in the right, that he has "the sources and you don't have sources and I have them and.." etc. Pardon my frankness, but... -- Director (talk) 06:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Director I have no doubt that there will probably be a round two. But banns/blocks are not meant to be punitive, so if he dropped the stick I was willing to drop the request. Nothing in the agreement above stops anyone else from starting a RFC, you could do it if you want. I would recommend that at the first post by the sock on the RFC that someone ask HiInBC to block the page to IP's for the remainder of the RFC. This will give one less argument for anyone that disagrees with the outcome. AlbinoFerret 14:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret Naturally. What gave you the impression I was proposing a punitive measure? Quite the opposite, I'm talking about making sure this affair comes to an end for more than a week or two, I don't want to see Fkp "punished". And I think you made my point for me: "there will be a round two"? Well there shouldn't be a "round two" of disruption. I think Fkp, while he has pledged to drop the stick, has an easy window back into there - simply by getting a buddy to post an RfC in a week. A 6 month ban from the article should cement the matter - and if he's honest he shouldn't even mind it, since he pledged to drop it.

I'm really not trying to see anyone "punished" :). I'm opposed to any wide bans on Croatia topics or Yugoslavia, and am in general a big opponent of willy-nilly topic banning. And, in spite of us being on opposite sides in a few debates, I've known Fkp for a while on Wiki and I really hold no personal grudge against him at all. In fact, I originally joined the discussion there with the intent of helping him out, thinking he's advocating sources vs Croatian nationalism... and then it turned out to be Serbian nationalism vs Croatian nationalism... Sigh... (the change was indeed probably a deliberate provocation by the Croatian government, trouble is, Fkp wants it to have concrete legal ramifications - which it did not have.. even further, he wants it to justify a Serbian takeover of a third of the country as their constitutional right... ugh...) -- Director (talk) 19:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't saying you wanted to punish him Director, just me saying something I'm sure most people agree with. I have a feeling though, that if he repeats his behaviour in the near future my withdrawing will be seen as WP:ROPE. I really dont want that, I am a firm believer that multiple points of view make better articles. Its just that we need to discuss things in good order with cool heads, and no I am not suggesting you want disorder or are a hothead. :) AlbinoFerret 21:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I think the recent amendments to the section make it relatively balanced (though I might think that because I made them), since FpkCascais's point of view wasn't really reversed or even removed, but simply toned down considerably. Sources would need to be updated and reduced to a sane number, though, which I haven't done. LjL (talk) 22:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

@Direktor, you really want to continue this? The RfC is closed. I argued while it was open. I dont pretend coming even near enything involving this any soon. I got tired. Proposing a TB for me is really clearly an attempt to eliminate me. Let me ask you one thing: how do you think it will look if I gathered here all you comments from the discusions? You provided zero sources, you continuosly made unsourced claims and OR, and half of the content of your comments were personal remarks breking the rule of coment on content not on contributors. Your personal remarks were intentionally offensive and provocative and full of content totally unrelated to the discussion. Move on, its over. FkpCascais (talk) 03:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

You're right, and I apologize.. but it'd have been pretty silly for me to shut down my brain and pretend I just met you. About as silly as you pretending to be completely neutral on this. Look, I'm not "continuing" anything - just keep it quiet over there for at least a couple months.

If you'll permit me to ramble a bit.. my personal opinion on this is that both the Tudjman and Milosevich governments were trying their best to provoke ethnic tensions, where previously there were virtually none. Tensions were absolutely in both their interests. And Croatia wasn't Bosnia or Kosovo, everything was pretty much fine: the Croats got what they wanted in the 1974 constitution, and the Serbs were pretty far away from all the Kosovo drama to get particularly fired up by the "anti-bureaucratic" bull. I think that both Tudjman deliberately worded the preamble as a provocation, and Milosevich of course took to shamelessly inflating the significance of it... -- Director (talk) 09:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Director, but I must disagree that he is "right", at least on the part where he accuses you of unsourced claims, OR and personal remarks (as if the former two were a breach of any rules when in the context of a talk page discussion, anyway). LjL (talk) 12:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Please close this section

It appears to have ended well, nothing more needed. Would an admin please box this up so it can end without any more drama? AlbinoFerret 03:45, 28 October 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.

Persecution from Collect and McGeddon

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

---

Hello. I'm here to talk you about the incorrect actions of other Wikipedian. There are two users that are percuting me. They delete, change or undo everything I add to Wikipedia pages. They have voted negatively in a AfD debat without reason. User Collect and McGeddon are persecuting me. He voted negatively in the AfD debat of the Internet Horror Movie Database, they are persecuting me in the page [7] and in the page [[8] where I added some titles. He have segnaled me here and here where the debat was archived. They continue to change all I do. Plus, Collect, for what i see in his talk page has various problems with Wiki like sock and blocks. This is why yesterday I afded some of his pages. Please help me stop this persecution. Please verify. Pizzole (talk) 23:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

See also his WP:ANEW complaint, his multiple AfDs and PRODs etc. Note also his SPI file. Then kindly tell him what the result of his harassment is. Collect (talk) 23:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The user Collect reported just now for the second time in one week an issue regarding biographies of living persons for an article I created. The first one it was archived. Please stop this persecution. Pizzole (talk) 23:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

They brought it here because they were told WP:ANEW wasn't the right place. LjL (talk) 23:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

There is no "right place" for blatant harassment. Check out the AfDs and PRODs he did to "Get at" others. Really. Collect (talk) 00:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Collect, I already reported what's the problem for my AfDs. It's you and your bad faith. And I have withdrawn the AfD just after some minutes because I'm here in good faith.Pizzole (talk) 00:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Um -- two hours is not "some minutes" and you CSDed an article about the first African American letter carrier, and an article about the world's most renowned publisher of reference works on artists. And did not even apologize on the talk pages for the nominations. "Just after some minutes" is pretty brazen. Collect (talk) 12:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This editor started going after Collect yesterday with frivilous AfDs[9] [10] and [11], all of which were closed Speedy Keep. I believe it has something to do with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet Horror Movie Database possibly relating to some COI the editor may or may not have [12]. This looks to be just another step in that same harassment. I think they have passed the threshold for at least a WP:BOOMERANG block for disruptive editing. Jbh^Talk 00:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I withdrawn the AfD. Collect are persecuting me for days, not yesterday. No COI for me. And for Collect? Please check out his history.Pizzole (talk) 00:17, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

The real problem here it's that I'm not english or american and I dont't know well the language. I can't well protect myself from your bad faith.Pizzole (talk) 00:21, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

This matter was discussed yesterday at Jimbo's talk page. I will repeat here what I first said there: Pizzole "is retaliating against people who support deletion of their overt SPA self promotional editing by nominating for deletion articles those other editors have written, on spurious grounds. It is naked and it is ugly. Fortunately, it will not be successful, but it gets people riled up and wastes people's time. Classic tendentious editing." I hope that a boomerang gets taken out of storage. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Damn, it isn't true. I want to stop the persecution from Collect and his negative behavior towards me. I have withdrawn the AfD by myself because I was wrong. But who protect me from Collect? Pizzole (talk) 00:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: you talk about Classic tendentious editing. Take a look at the last edits on one of the pages I created: [13]. Check out the two nominations in one week of this page in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. Is this Classic tendentious editing or not? Pizzole (talk) 00:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Here is a direct question for you, Pizzole: Do you have an undisclosed financial connection with Antony Coia or any of these other articles? Your behavior at the website AfD and the various related articles tends to create that impression. I do not want to violate your privacy, but if by chance you have any financial interest in these topics, you have a legal obligation to disclose it immediately. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 3) I am glad you followed my suggestion and withdrew your AfD nominations of articles created by Collect and Onel5969. Nobody is persecuting you. Wikipedia is an collaborative effort, and you can not expect the rest of us not to edit e.g. Antony Coia or have an opinion on Internet Horror Movie Database. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello Sam Sailor, and I'm glad that you are a reasonable person. I not expect all of you to have an opinion on Internet Horror Movie Database but I want a real debat and not a persecution without proofs. This is not mature. And if comments are immature and the same user persecute me in all pages, I think that not all wikipedians are really correct.Pizzole (talk) 00:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

One of the first edits of Collect in the page Antony Coia i created was to modify "owner of the internet horror movie database" to "owner of a commercial site". What is this? Is a genuine edit? No. It's vandalism? Yes. And it was a week before the AfD close.Pizzole (talk) 00:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't sound in the least like WP:Vandalism. LjL (talk) 00:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Look at here: [14]. It isn't vandalism? He changed the text to insert about a site that sell movies. But the site don't sell movies. Is this a correct edit for a Wikipedia. I don't think so.Pizzole (talk) 00:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Nowhere does it says it "sells movies", it just says it's a commercial website. Anyway, no, that sort of thing is absolutely not vandalism. Vandalism on Wikipedia has a narrow definition: I encourage you to read WP:Vandalism. LjL (talk) 00:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

No, that edit wasn't vandalism. It was the removal of a link which looks to me like an attempt at advertising a site. Your inclusion was inappropriate, the removal was appropriate.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but you are wrong. There wasn't links. Stop talking about untruth. I'm new but i'm not an idiot. This is Wikipedia and not a forum. And Collect reported that website sell movies in the debat: [15] just after editing the page Antony Coia. Ok, it's not vandalism but it isn't a correct edit for a wikipedian. I'm forced to add tons of sources but Collect can edit articles with untruths and to ruin a debat with unsourced comments? Pizzole (talk) 00:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

At the AfD discussion on the Horror db page, I repeatedly asked Pizzole to drop the stick. Which he refused to do. His engagement in this discussion is a continuation of that behavior. He then proceeded to target editors who disagreed with him. I suggested that he withdraw the bad faith AfD nominations, which he refused to do, more than once. Eventually, after other editor(s) (I'm not sure if it was more than one) also suggested this course of action to him, he did withdraw those nominations. He is a new editor, so a certain amount of slack should be given him. But this continued behavior is becoming very troubling. Please, Pizzole, read the links that other editors point you to. Don't argue simply because you feel wronged. Arguing with experienced editors is not a good start. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:28, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but it was a trial. This isn't the right place for me, maybe. I can not stand untruths and ambiguous behavior. I know that here there are a lot of valid people and good volunteers but I expect that in Wikipedia, all the comments are truthful and grounded. I keep reading unsubstantiated claims and no one checks the truth. It's very frustrating for a newbie. I am a consistent person and I can't wait for stars and merits to have to be considered credible. No one will believe me because I'm new and because you, old wikipedians are in bad faith with me. Thank you. Pizzole (talk) 01:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

"I expect that in Wikipedia, all the comments are truthful and grounded" ← It's Wikipedia, not Dreamland... you really are off to a bad start if you're just in the business of feeling persecuted after any potentially less-than-exact comment. LjL (talk) 01:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

It's ok. This is your home, not mine. You decide how things go. Guest are unquestionable and base more on stars and merits. I'm not interested anymore in the debat. Things are misunderstood. Maybe because I don't know well english. Don't worry. I'm adult. ;)Pizzole (talk) 01:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

• too long, difficult to read - However, most new users who immediately complain that they are being persecuted do not understand the give-and-take environment. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Cullen328, I don't have any undisclosed financial connection. My behavior is matter of principle. If anyone claim for a delete has to comment with truth and not with assumptons. The debat was a farce. I'm not interested in talking anymore about it. Pizzole (talk) 08:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Not much to add here. If someone is an WP:SPA whose only actions have been to create two articles on non-English subjects and have them merged into one by an AfD, then they're likely to see some of the same names commenting on "everything I add to Wikipedia pages" as they comment on that AfD and cleanup the merge. My AfD !vote certainly wasn't "without reason", and my only edits to Antony Coia have been to flag or remove unsourced content, and some minor copyediting and cleanup. --McGeddon (talk) 09:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

The movie database article was about an english subject. Is a english-language website an english subject? Yes. And I edited some other articles here on Wiki but only about horror cinema like Soska Sisters, Bruno Mattei, Lucio Fulci and Joe D'amato. So, if in Soska Sisters page I added horrorsociety.com as source, am I affiliate to that website? No. Pizzole (talk) 10:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

And one of the "frivolous" AfD I opened, received a "delete" claim from an admin just after few minutes. The articles I AfDed was not very well sourced. Now it's different and more sources have been added.--Pizzole (talk) 13:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: look at this article [16] what sources are these? [17], [18], [19], [20] but they aren't the unique. I need to delete them? It's correct?--Pizzole (talk) 13:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

A source can, at least in some instances, consist of a commercial site. I don't see anything immediately wrong with those sources, although I think I recall some guideline against linking to Amazon in book sources, but that seems like a detail, the important thing being having the key information about the book. LjL (talk) 14:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

For sure. And the other sources? All is good. Yeah!--Pizzole (talk) 14:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

And this one? [21] What kind of source it is? Oh yeah, everything is perfect.--Pizzole (talk) 14:16, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not responding to rants and sarcasm. LjL (talk) 14:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't want you to respond to sarcasm but only about the invalid sources I linked here. --Pizzole (talk) 15:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Note In this article [22] where are the sources about de birth date and place? And where are the sources for the citations?--Pizzole (talk) 14:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

If you find that sources are lacking for basic facts in articles, feel free to add them. The citation is sourced. LjL (talk) 14:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

This text sound me like advertising, am I wrong?: "Dr. John Phillips, president of the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities praised Seymour's work at Rollins. According to Keith Henderson of The Christian Science Monitor

What Seymour has accomplished in his eight years here is "pretty remarkable," according to John Phillips, president of the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities. "He's gone against the trends." When others have been willing to say, "whatever people want, let's provide it," Seymour has never veered from his purpose -- the establishment, as Dr. Phillips puts it, of "a high-quality liberal arts institution in a place that's associated in the public's mind with Disney World and fun in the sun."--Pizzole (talk) 14:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:POINT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. LjL (talk) 14:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Pizzole: My firm suggestion is that you not go off on any source deletion sprees as right now, it would be seen as WP:POINTY behavior and you would likely loose your editing privileges for a bit. Just because other articles have poor sources is not a reason to include more. If you have not done so please read our policy on reliable sources and maybe look through some of the discussions at the Reliable Source Noticeboard to get a feel for things.

Since English is not your first language you might want to reconsider the use of the term "persecution". It is a very strong term in the English language and I can think of no circumstances when it would be appropriate to use it in the context of behavior here. Wikipedia is a collaborative environment and if someone disagrees with you assume they feel they have a valid reason for doing so and figure out what that reason is. Wikipedia has rules but you need to read the blue links quoted to you, not just the name or the first few lines. Look for the parts of the policy/guideline that disagree with your position not just what you think supports it. It takes time to learn the how to edit here and if you get stuck on what you think should be rather than what is you will only be frustrated. Cheers. Jbh^Talk 14:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I have understand your messages. I'm an idiot and you have stars. I show you reliable and independent sources but I'm wrong. I tell you that other articles have not valid sources (something like 404) and so, I'm wrong too. Here I'm the newbie and I can't have any voice that matter. I already read the policy about realiable sources. Dozens of times. So there are 2 possibilities: 1. I am really an idiot. 2. I'm only a newbie and a spammer (for you). But sorry, here I'm the italian boy who knows how to open a real debat in english language. --Pizzole (talk) 15:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Your attitude is being awful, honestly. This is not just about WP:RS, far from it. And by the way, dead links ("404") aren't automatically unreliable sources at all. Read WP:Link rot. LjL (talk) 15:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try for the second time. What source is this one? [23] And this one? [24] Please... I need your help to understand Wikipedia. Are these two sources, valide and reliable? Thank you!--Pizzole (talk) 15:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm the opposite of an expert on TV/film topics, but I'm not sure why that source is there since it doesn't seem to mention the fact that David P. Levin was in any way related to TV Land Confidential. Maybe it should be removed. But do you understand that the fact some articles may have bogus sources doesn't authorize you to do the same? LjL (talk) 15:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

But I don't do the same!! I'm here to find help! My sources was reliable. They was sources from newspapers, blog and website written by journalists, blogger and professional writer. Do you understand the difference? Do you understand why I can't stop to have a voice here? This is not justice.--Pizzole (talk) 15:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Blogs, for instance, are usually not considered reliable sources. LjL (talk) 15:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Only because is wordpress? And I talked about registered newspaper written by journalists. Collect claim a watch on the article Antony Coia because some sources are written on Wordpress!! Even if there are a staff page. In the article about the website there was 17 reliable sources. In the article antony coia there 21 sources, even from newspaper (La Gazzetta del mezzogiorno) but my pages are under continuous attack.--Pizzole (talk) 15:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Pizzole: Please try to believe me when I tell you with kind and good intentions: take some time off from Wikipedia for the next couple of days. You do yourself no favor with this discussion. Tanti saluti -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

What's the problem, Sam Sailor. Why I can't have a voice? What is my fault? Why you threat me? Why do you all think I'm in bad faith? If you can't believe me, you can block me because there is no chance for me to find the truth. I'm italian and I have a big pride. I'll never shut up near the untruth--Pizzole (talk) 15:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Your nationality has nothing to do with this, and the idea that it would influence your amount of pride is borderline offensive. Sometimes I choose to hide or downplay my nationality to avoid being associated with people with your sort of attitude and behavior. LjL (talk) 15:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

You're italian, right? :D Please stop to quote only my negative comments. ;)--Pizzole (talk) 15:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

NoteOk, stop. I'm sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pizzole (talk • contribs) 15:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Pizzole, take this from someone who edits occasionally, there are core secondary sources that establish notability. The articles you have linked have those. Then there are primary sources that you have been linking to above that have minor details that are above the level of trivial information and add useful, uncontroversial information. These are used throughout Wikipedia to add further detail about articles that have robust secondary sources. Articles from the lowest stub to many Featured articles have them. 129.9.75.194 (talk) 14:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment IMO it's way past time for a WP:BOOMERANG. This user displays severe ownership issues, retaliates against anyone who tries to enforce Wikipedia policy, and is wasting the time of dozens of editors with their frivolous complaints. Enough already. --MelanieN (talk) 15:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - Agree with MelanieN. The retaliation is actionable. Jusdafax 15:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
• He said he'll stop, though. Unless he doesn't, why be punitive? LjL (talk) 15:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

He didn't say what he would stop doing. He said "Ok, stop. I'm sorry." If he actually does stop retaliating and complaining, then that solves the problem, hopefully lesson learned. We can wait a little bit and see what he does. --MelanieN (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Note. What I stop is my wrong behavior. It was because I'm new. Lesson learned. I'll do my best to have a honorable behavior.--Pizzole (talk) 11:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

And to relax myself about Wikipedia, of course. --Pizzole (talk) 11:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

My apologies to Collect, McGeddon and to all editors that wasted their time. Sorry--Pizzole (talk) 11:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• I can confirm that there has been no disruptive editing in the past two days. Looks like we are done here, with no action needed. --MelanieN (talk) 18:10, 28 October 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 user 173.21.188.179

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.

---

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

Numerous past warnings on their talk page over the last three months. Persistent disruptive edits to Solar System articles and templates. They keep adding uninformative images to articles and when told why they are not appropriate for the article in question, they simply revert without comment. They've also been deleting information from templates and again, reverting back changes even when they are explained. ([25]) In the rare cases that they have left a comment with an edit, it's something like, 'OH MY GOSH STOP TAKING OFF IMAGES LEAVE THEM'. ([26]) --Patteroast (talk) 23:38, 26 October 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.

peacocks, un-RS infos, personal bloglinks in "rakkhi bahini" 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.

---

EndeavorBD add those in page, OP can remove not all, helpMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 15:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC) Endeavorbdfix linkMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 15:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Are you talking about Rakkhi Bahini'r Shotto-Mittha? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

The user being reported is an unregistered account. GRAPPLE ^X 16:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks like it's Jatiya Rakkhi Bahini and Endeavorbd (talk · contribs). And it also looks like a content dispute and should be handled on the article talk page for now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not even sure what's going on here; is there a language barrier? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 01:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@Erpert and Baseball Bugs:use of personal bloglinks from wordpress, somewherein, amarblog etc, use of dubious sources, OP report user involvedMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 15:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Regardless, it's a content dispute. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:26, 28 October 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:Engleham

The following discussion is closed. 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 kindly requested User:Engleham to remove a personal attack against User:George Ho from his userpage (and, to a lesser extent, from Talk:Full Service (book)) but he refuses. I will not do so myself, as I am George's mentor, but I ask that the community intervene and do so on George's behalf. Shaming editors with a learning disability is entirely unacceptable for Wikipedia's standards of community. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 23:15, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Struck. Might be worth pointing them to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA if you haven't already. Amortias (T)(C) 23:31, 27 October 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:Dumb daisy competence issues

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

---

Dumb daisy (talk · contribs) wrote on their user talk page: "I currently hold a Ph.D in the following: biology, neuroscience, psychology, physics, psychoneurology, applied neuroscience, mathematics, medical science.[27]" They started by edit warring on the Dissociative identity disorder page to insert POV material over the objections of me and Flyer22.[28] Now they are edit warring with me and Quercus solaris on Language acquisition to insert material like "Language acquisition is one of the quintessential human traits, specifically innate to the genetic adhered gene pool of specific groups of cultural humans." (a representative example of paragraphs of confused nonsense).[29] On Epic (genre), they wrote that epic "refers to not only epic amounts of action, drama, storytelling and literature, but also fear, passion and most of all an epic death," among other nonsense.[30] On Literary nonsense: "In few other forums is this seen more than in Wikipedia, because this is a place where vultures collect and attack as a whole those they see as weak and beneath them. Is this a form of literary nonsense or not?"[31] The rest of their edit history follows the same pattern, including more edit warring.[32] I propose an indefinite block. KateWishing (talk) 03:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support indef block - Trolling. BMK (talk) 03:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• Their talk page is set up in such a way as to make it almost impossible to communicate with them. I removed the crap, but they reverted. Users generally have control over their talk pages, but not when they deliberately subvert its purpose. BMK (talk) 03:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

A block for a editor that started 13 days ago? I will say the name sounds like something from Match Game from the 70's. AlbinoFerret 03:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

It's totally irrelevant how recently a troll started editing, troll is a troll is a troll. and a troll and should be blocked - or do you perhaps think this is a legitimate editor? This person who claims to have 8 doctorates, and not in basket weaving, either. BMK (talk) 04:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Even this guy with 29 degrees only has 1 doctorate. BMK (talk) 04:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I would also add that the very first sentence on her(?) talk page reads like some creepy joke. WP:NOTHERE? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

There is no "X amount of time must pass" before a WP:NOTHERE block can be administered. It sure looks like one is needed for this problem editor. MarnetteD|Talk 04:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• BTW, even if this editor's actions are due to some other reason, and are not deliberate trolling, a sanction is still appropriate. Actions which are indistionguishable from trolling need to be dealt with in the same way, as they are disruptive. Wikipedia, after all is not therapy. BMK (talk) 04:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with the above assessment and have blocked this editor indefinitely. If this is not outright trolling, it's unquestionably fundamental incompetence. Swarm ♠ 05:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• Note: If anyone is interested, I did note that Dumb daisy is likely the vanished Tylas. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• After looking moderately deeply into the matter, I believe that you are correct. Of course, a vanished user should not return to edit under another account, they should have their vanishment undone. Even if this was intended as a WP:clean start, it was improper, for if Tylas is Dumb daisy, they picked up editing exactly the same article they had extensively edited before, which is contrary to the purpose of a clean start. BMK (talk) 07:41, 28 October 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 sock

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

---

Lmoravidmo's account was created after User:RussianMuslims was blocked for edit warring. This new account voted to delete an article that User:RussianMuslims placed an AFD tag on (against consensus). coincidence?? TypingInTheSky (talk) 05:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations is thataway. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC).

@Lankiveil: Technically, there is nothing wrong with reporting DUCK cases on ANI instead of SPI, if the new account's edits were of the same standard that got the previous account blocked and therefore are themselves blockworthy, and there has not been any previous SPI to establish a precedent. But in this case it's moot because the link you should have provided was thisaway. :P Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:50, 28 October 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.

Nikhil1234567

User Nikhil1234567 (talk · contribs), adds unsourced claims about Hinduism in "Religion in Country X" articles [33], [34], [35]. He was informed/warned by several editors [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], but continues to rapidly add unsourced content [41], [42], [43] with support from several, possibly related, IP´s (41.136.*):

• 41.136.53.229 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 41.136.33.229 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 41.136.50.83 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 41.136.43.117 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 41.136.11.105 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 41.136.28.5 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Examples: [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52]. JimRenge (talk) 05:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

• "Hinduism compromises mainly of Indian people in Tajikistan.They are thought to be around 100 Hindus in the country." Not quite up to snuff. No reference could probably be found on that one. Doc talk 08:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

There's certainly enough for a SPI here, BTW. Nikhil1234567 could be blocked for being a sockmaster in addition to adding a bunch of unsourced claims. Doc talk 09:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Blocked 41.136.0.0/18 for two weeks. Waiting for Nikhil1234567 (talk · contribs) to respond here before taking further action. If they continue to edit without communicating please update this thread. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I've taken it can be read as safe to roll back the multiple additions of cats, redirects to the same article, plus additions of unsourced content added by this dynamic IP. I'm checking through them all - from Liechtenstein to Guatemala and beyond - in case there's anything WP:HERE about them. So far, however, no banana. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

User Tzowu

Tzowu constantly removes sourced material without explanation, ignoring other users and the talk page. On article Franjo Tuđman he has removed sourced material without explanation multiple times, even though there is a discussion on the talk page. It is common for this user to engage in a edit-war. He has done this many times before, which makes him a really problematic editor. He has many times tried to bully other users by edit-warring and ignoring the talk page. Now I am reporting him because some days ago when another user has reverted his edits and has suggested to me that if Tzowu does that again that I should report him here. That same user has warned Tzowu on his talk page, and Tzowu has in the mean time deleted that warning. It is really hard to be constructive when you have a user who is disrupting everything and pushing his own agenda without discussing anything. Here are some of his edits: 1 2 3 4 5

For user Tzowu edit warring is a normal way to edit Wikipedia, and that kind of thinking is horrible. That leaves only one option to other users, and that is to report him. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 13:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

That's not true, I'm on the talk page there, you are not. The content of the lead is a subject of a RfC, while my last edit was for the article body, which you reverted without examination. Even edits that involved typo fixing and adding images from commons. I also discussed the comment of Rms on the Franjo Tuđman talk page, as he didn't take a closer look and see that I explained my edit on the talk page. So I don't see which rule did I break. As for you, you basically called my edit insane [53], and now you say that my "kind of thinking is horrible", that I'm a "really problematic editor", a "bully", "distrupting everything" and "pushing his own agenda". So I'm reporting you for insults in a clear case of WP:BOOMERANG. Let's remember that in the past you insulted my parents [54] and called me a liar [55] [56]. Have a nice day. Tzowu (talk) 13:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

In your edits you have removed sourced material without explanation. Threatening me won't help you, and it is rude. Everyone can see what you are doing. Rms125a@hotmail.com suggested me to report you if you do that again and so I did. You have ignored the talk page, and everyone can see that. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 14:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

• Putting the bickering aside, the dispute is about whether to include material in the lead that apparently everyone agrees should be in the body. Both parties are edit-warring at the article over it, and both are discussing the issue on the Talk page of the article. An RfC was started I believe yesterday. At this point, very few editors have contributed to the RfC, so there is no consensus. This does not belong at ANI. It's an ongoing content dispute that should be resolved hopefully through the RfC. If the edit-warring continues, though, one or more parties risk being blocked. Also, both of you should cut out the name-calling and stick to content. I don't much care what the history is between the two of you. The time to stop that sort of behavior is now. And that's just as true here as it is in any venue.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Anon IPs reversion drive

Following IPs involved. 1, 2, 3, 4 at article viper (rapper), possible WP:COI, placing huge list of linked self-published music releases (uploaded to Spotify) as part of what looks like WP:SPIP. Encouraged discussion, nothing, drew attention to WP:NMG, no engagement. Semitransgenic _talk. 18:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Persistent disruptions (and WP:LEGAL) despite several warnings

Rajatbindalbly disrupts Wikipedia by resufing to WP:HEAR. The user originally demanded that we change List_of_languages_by_number_of_native_speakers to fit the personal opinion of some "Dr. Nautiyal" [57]. This was rejected, and explained. However, the user continues to disrupt the page (as evidenced by talk history). Despite the obvious WP:OR-pushing being rejected by at least four users, Rajatbindalbly continues to reset the question endlessly [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], and making the request edits just the same, despite the complete consensus against it [69].
In addition to these disruptions, the user goes after users who object to their POV, sometimes with WP:NPA violations [70], sometimes "just" repetitive. [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77].
In addition to the refusal to WP:HEAR and the disruptions, the user even took to WP:AN (!) to try to get their POV pushed through there. [78]. It was of course swiftly thrown out, and NeilN closed it by explicitly stating that ANI should follow if Rajatbindalbly continued this behavior. [79]. As Rajatbindalbly ignored Neil's warning just like he has ignored the complete consensus by Thomas.W, kwami, Arjayay, Stabila711 and myself.
Last but not least, the user also violated WP:LEGAL be threatening to have the Indian PM block Wikipedia in India unless we let him have his way. [80].

• In short the Rajatbindalbly disrupts WP by completely refusing to WP:HEAR, by resetting the same rejected demand eleven times (and counting), by spreading the conflict to several pages, by making the edit even though it's unanimously rejected, by threatening to have WP blocked if he does not get to call the shots. This disruption has taken up a lot of time for several editors and it's time to stop. I suggest Rajatbindalbly eithed be indeffed or blocked from any article connected to India, as the user is most certainly WP:NOTHERE for the right reasons. Jeppiz (talk) 16:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The legal threat is enough to put the guy on Himalayan ice, at least until he retracts and disavows the threat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but I'd want a more permanent ban on him editing India-related articles. Posing a question is fine, and I can even understand resetting the question if someone thinks there's a problem with the answer. But ŕesetting the question eleven times, after several users have declined it, and continue resetting after several users have told them to stop, that is indicative of a problem. Jeppiz (talk) 16:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

• However, the link provide in the OP is not a legal threat. A legal threat involves some for of legal action, such as a law suit, retraining order, C&D letter, etc. Petitioning a government official, however, ("I will also request The Prime Minister Office to Ban wikipedia in India") is not a legal threat. —Farix (t | c) 17:32, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

@TheFarix: but requesting the prime minister to ban wikipedia is a threat of legal action and causes a "Chilling effect" by trying to get the user in trouble with outside resources because of a on wikipedia dispute. Hasteur (talk) 18:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

It is definitely a legal threat by Wikipedia's use of the term, and even more outrageous than the usual. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

• I blocked Rajatbindalbly 48 hours for disruptive editing on Talk:List of languages by number of native speakers. If another admin views his statement of talking to the Prime Minister as a legal threat instead of mere hyperbole, feel free to institute a longer block. I realize that this is a temporary solution but let's see if it affects his tenacious approach to editing this page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Good call Liz. I rejected a "legal threat" AIV report earlier. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:32, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
    • It's a blatant legal threat under Wikipedia's definition, and the block should be indefinite. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
      • It's far from a legal threat Bugs. The Prime Minister can take no action against Wikipedia in the first place, nor is Rajatbindalbly threatening to take any form of legal action against Wikipedia or another editor. "I'm contacting my President/Prime Minister/Congressmen/Parliamentarian" is not a legal action. —Farix (t | c) 02:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
        • Trying to intimidate other users by threatening to contact government officials is most definitely a legal threat under Wikipedia's usage of the term. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
• I don't see Rajatbindalbly's "threats" to have the Prime Minister of India ban Wikipedia as a credible legat threat, nor are his claims that the comments about Jayanti Prasad Nautiyal's fantasy report were "defamatory" a real legal threat. But he has repeatedly skirted the boundaries, and his comments were undoubtedly intended to have a chilling effect, and continuing to make that type of comments even after being told that it's not acceptable has in the past led to blocks here at ANI, including indefinite blocks, but per WP:Disruptive editing and WP:NOTHERE, not per WP:NLT. Thomas.W ^talk 16:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Maybe not a credible legal threat by narrow standards, but definitely a credible attempt to intimidate, which is why it qualifies as a legal threat by Wikipedia standards. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Greco-Italian War

The following discussion is closed. 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 above article has seen a wave of vandalism over the last week. Per the talk page, editors are requesting admin intervention to perhaps block the article from being edited by anons for a short period to attempt to curb this.

It is unknown if the below are socks of Thelematarios (who was making the same changes but has since agreed on the status quo, per their talk page comments) or if they are separate individuals or one person with a roaming IP address:

37.6.92.172
94.64.138.37
94.70.90.207
46.190.116.61
46.190.117.52
46.190.116.167
109.242.65.98
2.86.48.195
220.157.131.109 (blocked as being a sock of AnnalesSchool)

Regards, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:17, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the page for a week. For simple protection requests, you can also post at WP:RFPP, which is usually quicker I think. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:08, 27 October 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:Purplebackpack89 edit warring

The following discussion is closed. 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 been editing warring on 300 save club over a sentence I gave a valid reason for not to be on the article. User seems to have history of harassment and warring as you could see from his block log (he's been blocked 5 times). User has also resorted to senseless name calling as you can see here. Taffe316 (talk) 22:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, I see the editor trying to discuss this on the talk page, but I do not see you doing the same, even though you edit warred as well (it takes two). What you told him on your own talk page, instead, was It's me me and only me because I'm the only one who has bothered to update the page during the regular season., which sounds a lot like WP:OWN. Care to clarify? LjL (talk) 22:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Certainly, he accused me of claiming ownership on the page saying it was me and only me who edits on it. I responded that the reason I'm the only one who updates the page is because no one else updates it, so I keep it up to date. For someone who supposed to be a conflict resolution person, you trying to take my quotes out of context is disappointing.Taffe316 (talk) 22:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry the people on this board don't always necessarily take the reporter's side, and anyway, I am not a "conflict resolution person". You reported to the wrong board, by the way, the board for edit warring is WP:AN3. LjL (talk) 22:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, @Taffe316:, you might want to consider why I might be upset with you. I made some relatively innocuous edits of adding active leaders to baseball statistics pages, and you acted like it was WWIII. And you refuse to discuss your edits anywhere until you ramp things up to ANI. BTW, in the interest of consistency in your crusade against active leaders, you might want to remove them from the baseball statistics pages I haven't edited. pbp 00:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Bringing this to AN/I was premature. Purplebackpack89 has started a discussion at the relevant project, WP:BASEBALL. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Couldn't have said it better myself...OWNership, failure to engage, and edit warring on Taffe316's part. Not to mention the fact that WP:3RR is the proper venue for this; and the five blocks number is inaccurate. pbp 22:24, 27 October 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.

Deletion of verifiable content and sources

The following discussion is closed. 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 article (Olympiacos Women's Basketball) has sources only from the fan pages of Olympiacos ([81] [82] [83]). Αlso the creator of the article (User:Gtrbolivar) removed text based in reliable, published sources (here). I put {{POV}} in the article, I explained the reasons for which I put the {{POV}} and I called the User:Gtrbolivar from my message in the talk page of the article (here), to restore the text which he deleted it. User:Gtrbolivar delete the {{POV}} from the article (here), without consensus (here). I please to do the necessary actions according to the policies and guidelines of enwiki. --IM-yb (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I answered to all these in the talk page Talk:Olympiacos Women's Basketball#Problem with WP:RS and WP:NPOV. There is no POV whatsoever, I restored 2 of those sources (why use 4 for the same thing), and I made a footnote which includes everything. There is no POV, no violation, nothing of the sort, it's 100% unsubstanciated, a witch-hunt. The article contains 4 lines of text (!!!) merely highlighting some very basic facts and dates. Despite my answer to IM-yb's "arguments" in the talk page, he chose to make it a big deal here. The whole thing is a joke. Gtrbolivar (talk) 22:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The club (Olympiacos C.F.P.), in their Extraodinary General Assembly (Έκτακτη Γενική Συνέλευση) officially decided "merge" (συγχώνευση). It mentioned in the official website of the club (here). It exists in reliable, published sources like this (here and here). The fact is hidden by User:Gtrbolivar in footnote and the word "merge" replaced by the word "absorbing". That is vital information for the department of the club (Olympiacos Women's Basketball) and please to do the restore of the text and sources without "footnote". --IM-yb (talk) 23:44, 28 October 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 evasion from sockpuppet disrupting Good Article nominations

WP:DUCK case of sockpuppets performing WP:BLOCK EVASION to disrupt Wikipedia's Good Article nominations process.

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TekkenJinKazama.

Bringing here, as problem is ongoing, right now.

Would appreciate admin action on this.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 07:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Greengauge121

Battlefield behaviour at Movement for Socialism (Britain), and other pages in past - many warnings, and history in deleted comments on user talk page. Clearly a new editor with much to learn, but polite warnings are having zero effect. Some intervention needed, I think. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

The editor concerned is currently at 6RR at that article. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:41, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

This Ghmrytle (aka Guy Hamilton) is pursuing an editing vendetta against me since I successfully managed to modify the BBC page of the obviously right-wing bias in his edits. He started the "battlefield behaviour" with his sneering, pompous put=down to my initially cordial reply to a post by another editor. This individual is obnoxious, arrogant and pompous and deserves a lesson in netiquette. I am deleting the content of the disputed page (and not the page per se)because there is no evidence whatsoever to demonstrate the actual existence of the Movement for Socialism. The MASTER EDITOR III refuses point blank to post any evidence for its existence and yet he lets its supposedly factual content pass unchallenged. If Wikipedia is replete with master editors like this, then heavens help us! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greengauge121 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

"I am deleting the content of the disputed page (and not the page per se)" - all you left was the title? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

If you feel that he article in question here does not meet Wikipedia's standards, you can always list it for deletion at WP:AFD. However, just because you don't link the tone of the article does not give you the right to completely delete all of the content from it. That's considered page blanking and seen as vandalism. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I've given Greengauge121 a 31 hour block for edit-warring. You could also have filed a complaint at WP:ANEW. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I did file a report there, I guess that's moot now. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I suggest this thread could now be closed. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:19, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I suspect we may need to revisit the issue in a day or two's time. Hopefully I'm wrong. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

You could be right, but we have to adopt WP:AGF and assume the editor has seen the error of their ways? I must admit the tone used in responses and the use of multiple usernames does not bode well. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this editor has engaged in battleground behaviour before, against editors who tried to help them at the Teahouse. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism of page tags by nationalist tag-team, Iryna Harpy and Faustian

Vandalism of page tags by nationalist tag-team, Iryna Harpy and Faustian

I have been an editor for now over 3 years now, and this is my first complaint here. I have issues with Iryna Harpy and Faustian, who work as a WP:TAGTEAM. I have had a problem with them on Polish census of 1931 repeatedly deleting the NPOV tag. (I believe this is the only time that I have invoked it on a page, and I did so with good reason, infra.)

Evidence submitted

Iryna Harpy was warned here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Iryna_Harpy&oldid=685660546#Do_not_remove_NPOV_tags_until_issues_resolved_on_pages. And here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Iryna_Harpy&oldid=685660546#Disruptive_Editing_of_the_Polish_census_of_1931 Faustian was warned here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Faustian#Do_not_remove_NPOV_tags_until_issues_resolved_on_pages. And here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Faustian#Disruptive_Editing_of_the_Polish_census_of_1931 And here for removing maintenance tags by Poeticbent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Faustian#November_24 Iryna Harpy was warned for innappropriate conduct on talk pages recently here by Admin Softlavender: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=683692541#Harassment_by_user_Iryna_Harpy Iryna Harpy was warned for canvassing on her talk page regarding Ukrainain nationalist POV here by user Volunteer Marek https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Iryna_Harpy&oldid=683535025#2.2C000_dead_Russian_soldiers Iryna Harpy here is canvassing Faustian here on Ukrainian pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Faustian&oldid=638861689#Articles_being_changed and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Faustian&oldid=638861689#New_article_makes_me_very.2C_very_nervous and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Faustian&oldid=638861689#WARNING_regarding_Wiki_naming_policy_for_ethnic_groups_and_self-identification Faustian was blocked for edit warring on Polish-Ukrainain issues here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Faustian&oldid=638861689#March_2014 Faustian was warned by Admin  Sandstein  of The Arbitration Committee sanctions for violating normal editorial process in pages related to Eastern Europe here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Faustian&oldid=638861689#Arbitration_enforcement_warning:_Eastern_Europe In this case, over a year ago, the editors of the 1931 Census of Poland decided to replace the census results data from a tertiary source, to the published census itself (the secondary source). Faustian here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Polish_census_of_1931#Regarding_manipulation and Iryna Harpy here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Polish_census_of_1931#Removed_original_research Began making claims that citing from the original census document, which is standard practice on WP for a census, was OR, Synth, or a violation of policy regarding primary sources. (Comments from uninvolved editors on the NORNB and village pump policy are contrary to this opinion see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Polish_census_of_1931 and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Primary_source_guidelines_on_census_pages ) A year later, percentages were calculated per WP:CALC and data was put in tables. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polish_census_of_1931&diff=next&oldid=684533225 This resulted in POV blanking and more similar complaints from Iryna Harpy, (Faustian also reverted the page,) also claiming that editors cannot translate foreign documents, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Polish_census_of_1931#Objections_to_the_fidelity_of_this_page_reporting_the_results_of_the_Polish_Census_of_1931 In a discussion on the NORNB, Iryna Harpy, admited that she, herself, translates foreign langue into English in her editing, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Polish_census_of_1931 I consider this a tactical play to censor the page. Please note that this census was the last in what had been an extremely ethnically, linguistically, and religiously diverse region before WWII. The census data is an important tool for social scientists and students studying the region now that archives are now open. It is important that the original census be made public. So, to avoid disruptive objections about OR, I took the time to save images of the population totals both nationally and from each city and province and provide links on the page. This resulted in Iryna Harpy, censoring the images in what I consider vandalism here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polish_census_of_1931&oldid=685657081 My edits adding the image links has been sustained by other editors and presently remains on the page. I also noticed that the page was giving undue weight to the opinions and contentions of a Communist Party historian Jerzy Tomaszewski that the census itself was somehow rigged, but obscuring that source through citing it indirectly through other tertiary sources, and also not giving equal weight to contemporary sources from the era of the census, or post-communist historians. Therefore, I tagged the article with the NPOV tag. This resulted in the WP:TAGTEAM of Faustian and Iryna Harpy repeatedly deleting the tag, with comments like “no need for tag judt because one single editor has a problem” purporting to speak for all of the remaining editors of the page. See here: here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polish_census_of_1931&oldid=686103633 here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polish_census_of_1931&oldid=686118684 here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polish_census_of_1931&oldid=686189263 here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polish_census_of_1931&oldid=686359396 and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polish_census_of_1931&oldid=686412518 This is contrary to what the tag itself clearly states, “"The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight." Also note that it reads, "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." Thus, there is no rule for a consensus on the page for an editor who see a problem with NPOV to tag the page. Also note that improper deletion of page tags is considered vandalism: “Abuse of tags Bad-faith placing of non-content tags such as {afd}, {delete}, {sprotected}, or other tags on pages that do not meet such criteria. This includes baseless removal of {policy} and related tags.” WP:VANDTYPES (NPOV is funadmental WP policy) Since the dispute had not been resolved, repeatedly removing the tag was baseless, and thus vandalism since those who removed it were attmepting to defeat the clear purpose of the tag. If nothing else, it was disruptive to normal editing process. Reverting vandalism is not edit warring or a violation of 3RR. Even though he had engaged in vandalism, Faustian reported me for edit warring and violating the 3RR rule here citing Iryna Harpy in support of his contention., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User_talk:Doctor_Franklin_reported_by_User:Faustian_.28Result:_blocked.29 The result is that I got blocked by Admin MSGJ without giving me an opportunity to respond. I honestly didn't think I had done this. I was not reverting the page content itself, just the tag in accordance with the stated policy. I was acting in good faith, and I believe that some clarification is in order on the NPOV tag if I was incorrect. I then requested to have the block that was placed on me removed. I even agreed to not edit the page again for the duration of the block, and requested to be able to respond to another editor on the noticeboards. This was denied by Admin  OhNoitsJamie, who considered this not as a first time possible violation of 3RR, but made a comment about “You don't get to keep ugly tags up until someone joins the discussion who agrees with you.” here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Doctor_Franklin#You_have_been_reported_for_your_behavior. Well that assumed bad faith on my part, failed to address that another editor, Piotrus, had edited the tag on the page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polish_census_of_1931&oldid=686453370 and agreed with my point in the talk page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Polish_census_of_1931#What_exactly_is_not_neutral_here.3F. Thus, the NPOV tag worked as intended, despite the vandalism and disruptive editors. Since this was my first citation for violating 33R, I consider the refusal to accept my promise to not edit the page for the duration of the block, and the resulting threats about sanctions for NPOV tagging by Admin  OhNoitsJamie inappropriate and punitive, contrary to the policy for blocking a user which did not amount to a violation of 3RR.

In conclusion, this is my first complaint here. I have had a clean record in this regard, and I believe that there were problems with the other editors cited, and the application or explanation of the relevant policies related to the NPOV tag by admins. I was acting in good faith and trying to address this problem on the noticeboards when I got blocked. Doctor Franklin (talk) 17:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I've collapsed the above for brevity's sake. What exactly are you asking for here? What actions would you like to see taken (in a short two or three sentence reply)?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

1. I would like an explanation for the application of 3RR and vandalism of page tags. “Do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.” Should mean exactly that.

2. I request protection of the image galleries from vandalism.

3. I am requesting a WP:IBAN on Faustian and Iryna Harpy editing the same page for canvassing, following each other around and tag-teaming. Alternatively, I request that they be considered as a binary unit for issues of consensus and revert limits, or other sanctions that the admins deem appropriate.Doctor Franklin (talk) 03:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Please see this: [84]. Doctor Franklin is involved in a one-man crusade against various other editors and this is part of his disruptive behavior. An example is here: [85] (this also linked to, in the other link I provided)Faustian (talk) 19:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I would have similarly noted the ethnicity of the individual and Nazi collaboration per RS-biased had the person been a Ukrainian, Lithuanian, Belarussian who collaborated with the Nazis. I object to the insinuations. WP:ASPERSIONS. I didn't inject that person into the page to hide the true source of the claim: A Communist party historian. Nice try. [Edit to note that Marek Edelman would not have found anything that I wrote offensive.] Doctor Franklin (talk) 03:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Faustian This would be a clear WP:BOOMERANG were it not too long to read. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

If you can't be bothered to read what was written, please consider abstaining from commenting lest you be considered overtly biased.Doctor Franklin (talk) 03:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

What a tl;dr hodgepodge of 'anything I can find to indict a couple of editors by cherry picking stuff I haven't a clue about and am taking out of context because it suits my purpose' (and, my, what a delightful way to start the day).

Doctor Franklin has already explicitly misused another noticeboard as a venue to conduct a witchhunt - beginning on 9 October here - despite the fact that a number of other editors were disputing his changes, which speaks volumes for the calibre of this experienced WP:SPA. An editor who tries to develop an article introducing this offensive content is WP:NOTHERE, nor should they be. Considering how many editors involved in the article have disputed RS and OR issues, I can't help but wonder why he's targeted Faustian and myself. By the processes of his own logic, wouldn't that make all of the others who disagree with him Ukrainian nationalists? And multiply the number of TAGTEAM-ers by a half a dozen? Ultimately, I believe that the article falls under ARB sanctions. Doctor Franklin's accusations deserve to be met with a BOOMERANG and a block from editing any articles that fall under ARBEE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

You are here, because you removed a gallery of 22 images which I added, and two other editors further edited and wanted on the page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polish_census_of_1931&oldid=685629667 and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polish_census_of_1931&oldid=685630808 Should I ping them? After being warned, you removed the POV tag, contrary to its clear wording. I do agree that this falls under ARBEE sanctions, and Faustian has already been warned about that on his page. You raised the claim of OR, so I put it on the noticeboards. The un-involved outside editors disagree with you. One even posted on Faustian's talk page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Faustian#Primary_sources.2C_secondary_sources.2C_and_the_census Should we ping him here about your claims of OR? [Edit to note that Marek Edelman would not have found anything that I wrote offensive. See above.]Doctor Franklin (talk) 03:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

This guy's disruptions continue. You were already blocked for being disruptive and violating 3R by removing the POV tag that you alone wanted at the top of the article, and that 5 others had removed. So now here you are. A note: your comment above was misleading. On of the editors who added the table also stated: [86] "While I agree that the gallery looks kind kinda ugly, IMO it is no harm to keep it until that time some not very lazy Wikipedian copies the relevant info into our wikitable. Of course the tables should not be copied completely; only language totals be enough, so everything fits into a single table: Languages per voivodships." In this discussion Woogie10w (talk observed [87], "A week ago I gave Dr. Franklin the benefit of the doubt and assumed that his edits were made in good faith. During the past week we have seen a pattern of disruptive editing that is obviously aimed at wearing down the patience of other editors in an attempt to gain control of this article and turn it into a soapbox for his OR and fringe theories." This ANI that Doctor Franklin opened is a perfect example of that.Faustian (talk) 04:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, addressing Doctor Franklin's enumerated points above:

• 1. Your block for 3RR is correct and their removal of the NPOV tag is not vandalism. The part that you aren't seeing there is that a consensus of several editors are removing the tag and only you are trying to keep it up. Here you need to defer to that consensus and drop the stick. If you want more input from other editors then there are other ways to do it without needing that tag. I would suggest that you place a small concise, neutrally-worded request for more opinions on the talk page of WikiProject Poland...not the TLDR post that is there currently. Please do read TLDR otherwise your posts won't have the positive impact that you are hoping for. People don't like responding to raw data dumps.

So "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved," actually means that it is OK to remove the tag. (Maybe because it is TLDR.) I make an effort to follow the rules here. This confusion was caused by Admins not explaining that 3RR trumps NPOV policy. That tag still remains on the page because the consensus is that it belongs there. Two editors wanted to remove it to prevent other editors from giving an opinion, which was a clear violation of WP:DICK.Doctor Franklin (talk) 05:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

• 2. There is no way to protect only a section of a page. Editors should once again work on the article talk page for consensus on how to handle the copy of the census that you have provided. The better idea would be to link to them but not display them. That way you leave it up to the reader to click through to analyze the data. Primary sources are permissible like that. Showing the whole thing within the article isn't normal or a good writing practice.

"The results of the census were being published in 39 volumes between 1936 and 1939 in a publishing series "Statistics of Poland"." The editors of the page have concluded, for the present at least until chart summaries might replace them, to use 23 images of population summaries to summarize the 39 volumes. It is hardly a data dump of all 39 volumes, and it summarizes the most important information, much as WP pages from the U.S. census do.Doctor Franklin (talk) 05:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

• 3. I haven't seen evidence which leads me to the conclusion that an IBAN is necessary or that tag teaming is going on. This is a content dispute that has gotten out of hand across several noticeboards. I would encourage editors to not try to get anyone in trouble but to continue to try to reach a consensus and work together. If necessary, follow dispute resolution or file a request for comment to gain more input and balance from additional editors.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, this dispute arises from the process of involving other editors to ensure NPOV, (the higher law). Here Admins have decided that keeping order in the nursery (3RR) trumps the higher law (NPOV). This only ensures more problems, rather than creating a framework for resolving disputes among editors. I put this on what I considered the relevant noticeboards, and declined to put it on more lest I be accused of forum shopping or disrupting WP to make a point. This is about how WP handles emotional attachment to ethnicity and nationalism by some editors. At its present course, it may well end up at ARBCOM. Hopefully, the problem will get resolved before the page becomes the subject of a published academic study in anti-polinism or Ukrainian nationalism on WP.Doctor Franklin (talk) 05:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Is the irony of invoking NPOV and finishing on "Hopefully, the problem will get resolved before the page becomes the subject of a published academic study in anti-polinism or Ukrainian nationalism on WP." not lost on you, Doctor Franklin? The dispute continues despite the fact that there are multiple editors (who are not Ukrainian by ethnicity) being drawn in: all of whom disagree with you vehemently on everything from what sources are reliable and what sources are completely and utterly extremist, but cherry picked by you because they agree with your POV. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

In a nutshell Doctor Franklin is pushing his own OR/POV on the page, he has yet to cite a single reliable source as backup. He has engaged in an long winded un-sourced blog on the talk page to discredit the reliable sources which support the pages content. His fringe theory about a communist conspiracy promoted by a Polish Jew [88] has been removed from the page. On the talk page he has cited as support for his POV a piece from the Russian nationalist website ruskline.ru by Sergey Viktorovich Lebedev who has co-authored works[89]with Oleg Platonov who has been described as an ultranationalist, anti-Semitic, and a Holocaust denier. Another source is a German map from 1930 of dubious reliability. --Woogie10w (talk) 12:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

2.27.x.x / 2.24.x.x (Orange Home UK) persistent transport system vandalism

Hi, got a problem with a person or group of people in the 2.27.x.x / 2.24.x.x (Orange Home UK) ip range performing persistent vandalism on transport articles/templates (changing numbers and colours mostly). I had been reverting (those I've found), warning and reporting to WP:AIV. However they are now changing IP addresses frequently without even being warned (so maybe a group of local friends) and I'm not sure I've caught it all - and not sure what can be done if anything?

Today I found Special:Contributions/2.27.214.244, Special:Contributions/2.27.206.246, Special:Contributions/2.27.215.53, Special:Contributions/2.27.214.64 and Special:Contributions/2.27.206.144 at it.

Others:

• 13 Oct: 2.27.206.224
• 14 Oct: 2.24.122.252
• 15 Oct: 2.24.143.250, 2.27.206.35
• 18 Oct: 2.27.204.161, 2.27.205.145
• 20 Oct: 2.27.213.238
• 24 Oct: 2.27.204.194
• 25 Oct: 2.24.143.29, 2.27.207.123, 2.27.206.39
• 25 Oct: Special:Contributions/2.27.214.244, Special:Contributions/2.27.206.246, Special:Contributions/2.27.215.53, Special:Contributions/2.27.214.64 and Special:Contributions/2.27.206.144
• 27 Oct: 2.24.126.138
• 27 Oct: 2.24.126.221

There may be others I didn't make a note of as well, as it's taking me longer to find, fix, report, track than it does for them to vandalise. (Also I haven't bothered to inform all of the above of this report as it seamed like a pointless exercise - let me know if it must be done!)

Can anything be done to combat this? Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 20:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

It's likely one person on a dynamic IP rather than a group of people. The ranges are 2.27.192.0/19 (covers 8192 IP addresses) and 2.24.0.0/16 (covers 65536 IP addresses). It doesn't look like the second range has been used by your guy since the 15th, so there's no point blocking it. But it looks like we can block 2.27.192.0/19 without a lot of collateral damage so I am going to block that range for a week. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

• Cheers Diannaa, I think its half-term this week many places in the UK hence the up-scale in activity today - hopefully after a week blocked they will find something more worthwhile to do with their life. Ta KylieTastic (talk) 22:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

• Unfortunately Diannaa that didn't work they are back 2.24.143.146 just reported to WP:AIV 19:18, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit war on Scarsdale diet resuming within hours of release of EW block

It looks like Anmccaff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) resumed an edit war over at Scarsdale diet almost immediately after release of previous block for edit warring. Diffs:

• [90] (less than 3 hours after release of EW block)
• [91] (less than 3 hours after release of EW block)
• [92] Anmccaff blocked for edit warring on a different article
• [93]
• [94]
• [95]
• [96]
• [97]
• [98]

While not a 3RR violation, it seems like a continuing pattern. The Dissident Aggressor 14:21, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

• I was the admin who blocked Anmccaff for edit-warring on the other article. DissidentAggressor was also edit-warring. I didn't block them, though (the reasons are complex). DA, unlike in the other article, has nothing to do with the Scarsdale diet article, and, frankly, I don't trust their motives in bringing this to ANI. If you look at the history of the diet article, you'll quickly note that there was an edit war in September, a discussion on the Talk page, and no consensus as to what was appropriate. For whatever reason the last version in play was Anmccaff's on September 28. Then there was a blissful one-month break, and then Alexbrn reverted (while Anmccaff was blocked, which may of course be pure coincidence). That then triggered some back-and-forth between the two users. This issue should not have been brought here, and certainly should not have singled out Anmccaff. The involved editors need to spend more time on the Talk page, and DA needs to stay out of it unless they want to join the discussion based on content.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Also see WT:MED#Scarsdale_diet. There's also been trouble at South Beach diet in the past. Alexbrn (talk) 15:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
    • If an admin here feels this is worth opening, or have any questions, I'll be happy to add to it, but for now I suspect the filer's actions speak, loudly, for themselves. Is there any reason to constrain posting on any articles in the mean time? Anmccaff (talk) 19:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

• It appears that you and others have been reverting back and forth on 'reducing diet' versus 'fad diet' as the best description of the Scarsdale diet. For instance here. If this is important to you, consider opening a WP:Request for comment or use WP:DRN. EdJohnston (talk) 20:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

RfC might be workable. DRN, I suspect, would not. Anmccaff (talk) 20:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

User:David8302: Possible and suspected subtle long-term (and possibly cross-Wiki) abuse, vandalism or trolling

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

---

Matter dealt with elsewhere privately.

David8302 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [99] Making unexplained edits throughout without ever making use of the Summary Box ([100]; [101]); deleting others' comments on an article's talk page; making unexplained, unjustified and unjustifiable deletions of material from articles, both in the English and the Spanish Wikipedia, especially (if not chiefly) from British articles on this Wikipedia ([102]; [103]) and from Colombian articles on the other Wikipedia ([104]). A few odd complaints to him ([105]; [106]; [107]) about his odd unexplained deleting or otherwise vandalising edits ([108]; [109]) over the course of the last few months. Subtle long-term cross-Wiki abuse. Definitely WP:NHBE. WP:DENY. The man probably holds some kind of a bizarre personal or family grudge against England and Britain! -- Urquhartnite (talk) 17:11, 28 October 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:Alessandro57 & User:EtienneDolet

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

---

Obvious Meat-puppetry. See here--The Unstopable 4G (talk) 12:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Alessandro was also vandalizing and edit-warring the article of the independant republic of Northern Cyprus with the help of other corrupt meat puppets such as User:Materialscientist. See here.--The Unstopable 4G (talk) 12:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

If that diff is what you're going by, I don't see what's "obvious" about it at all. Notifying an editor of a concern is far removed from consciously organising a meat puppet. GRAPPLE ^X 12:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

he called upon another "Greek" editor (EtienneDolet) to help him in his edit-war. This is the absolute definition of meat puppetry.--The Unstopable 4G (talk) 12:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

No it's not. All that diff shows is that they notified another user of something. There was no request to act or !vote in a certain way, just a notification of something happening. Assuming that it's nefarious with no actual basis for that assumption is counter to a pretty core tenet of the project, to be honest. GRAPPLE ^X 12:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

The OP is an obvious sock of the Unmovable33, Unblackable434 and Unchangable455 sockfarm which has been disrupting the article of Northern Cyprus. The account has been blocked by Bishonen. I suspect the latest socks belong to older master Alexyflemming who in turn was a sock of Justice Forever. Dr. K. 14:58, 29 October 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.

Action needed at Mark Shapiro (sports executive)

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

---

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

Someone's asleep at the switch at WP:AIV apparently. Very active and persistent vandal attacking pages related to the Blue Jays' new executive, not to mention violation of the username policy, needs to be blocked, and page maybe semiprotected since other people have been posting the vandalized edits on Twitter. Sprotsfans gonna sprotsfan. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:33, 29 October 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.

Suspected new sock of User:Futurewiki

The following discussion is closed. 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 104.243.167.109 (talk · contribs). Suspected new sock of Futurewiki (talk · contribs). Their many socks include User:Futuristic21, User:Dragonrap2, User:Futurewiki2, User:Mega256, User:Futurewiki The Third, User:Futurew, User:Mega257, User:Mega258, and User:Futurew.

Both Futurewiki and 104.243.167.109 have made edits to such obscure articles as List of Cities, Towns and Villages in Ark-La-Tex, KQID-FM, Ark-La-Tex, KKST, Capital District, K265FB, WEZB, Bobby Jindal, Acadiana, and Chainsaw Gang.

I also recall that one of the previous socks--which I couldn't find--was an IP address located in Natchitoches, Louisiana. So is this IP address. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:36, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

More info here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dragonrap2/Archive. JohnInDC (talk) 23:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked two weeks for failing the quack test. Katie^talk 01:51, 30 October 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.

Obvious meat-puppetry and corrupt admins

The following discussion is closed. 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:EtienneDolet is a proven meat-puppet of User:Alessandro57: See here for evidence

User:Alessandro57 was edit-warring the article of the Sovereign State of Northern Cyprus when he called upon his "greek" meat-puppet User:EtienneDolet to help him in his edit-war

User:Dr.K. is another suspected "greek" meat puppet of user Alessandro57.

There are also multiple admins here who seem to have a cabalism mentality. They blocked my accounts in order to protect their nasty greek puppets and accused me falsely of sockpuppetry even though all what i was doing is "block evasion" not sockpuppetry. Keep in mind nasty greeks that blocking my accounts can never result in blocking my person. I swear by God that i am able to change my ip every second with only one click.

Keep in mind also that no greek will ever be able to make a "single step" in the lands of the Sovereign State of Northern Cyprus without our permission. You may enjoy lying here on this wiki but we will always enjoy the reality in North Cyprus.--Greece Mother of Whores (talk) 11:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

This was thrown out the last time you reported it too. GRAPPLE ^X 12:04, 30 October 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 Address 66.168.88.182 keep vandalizing page and making unsourced changes

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

---

This IP Address User talk:66.168.88.182 keep vandalizing and making unsourced and false claims on on Today (U.S. TV program) Show Page and other related TODAY Show pages (It Anchors and Weekend TODAY Show Page as well as on NBC News p page). They have been told to stop repeatedly and given a warning but they will not listen. BreoncoUSA1 (talk) 17:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

A six month block expired three days ago and they immediately resumed the same behavior. Blocked one year. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:15, 30 October 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.

Question for administrator

As the User:Marchjuly told me, i created the temp section for Keith Sequeira's Section Personal life in my own words. I request all administrator, OTRS and clerk For the rewrite of Keith Sequeiras personal life section and removal of the copyright violation tag as soon as possible. --kartiktiwary3 (talk) 08:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure what you're asking to be removed, but it does seem like this would be a better question asked at the help desk. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 02:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

IP user 175.32.97.37

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

The IP user 175.32.97.37 continuously edits numerous television related articles without adding any references for his/her additions. While the edits are indeed usually constructive or relevant, the user has been constantly reverted with edit summaries explaining that he/she needs to add reliable sources for the additions made. Additionally, the IP user's talk page has numerous warnings on it about adding unsourced content, yet the message still has not got through to this user. I also requested an edit notice on the article Border Security: Australia's Front Line which the user has repeatedly copied episode synopsis word for word from copyrighted material, yet the user has continued to do so despite the notices on this and other pages.

Again, the user is not vandalising or deleting content for no reason, which I know makes the situation difficult, but none of the talk page, reverted edits or page edit notices seem to have gotten through to him/her. Some examples are [110], [111], [112], [113] and [114]. Thanks for your time, User:Whats new?^(talk) 05:08, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

The IP user has just made another unsourced edit to Border Security: Australia's Front Line. User:Whats new?^(talk) 07:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by BulgariaSources

BulgariaSources (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues to make major changes like [115], [116], [117], [118], [119] to the Bulgaria national football team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) without leaving any edit sums or making any attempt to reach a consensus on the article's talk page. This has been going on for quite some time, and has included the using of IP accounts, despite being reverted on numerous occasions by different editors and messages being left at Talk:Bulgaria national football team#Changes being made by BulgariaSources and User talk:BulgariaSources#Major changes to Bulgaria national football team, etc., but still they continue on as before.

Similar edits have been made by the same editor to other Bulgaria related articles, but the editor continues to leave no edit sums and make no attempt to engage in any type of discussion to clarify their reasons for making those edits as well.

For the record, I've been assuming good faith, but I am starting to wonder whether this editor is really not here to help build an encyclopedia. I have notified them of this discussion here, so perhaps they will comment and help clarify things. I feel, however, that a failure to respond here means that some sort of administrator action is warranted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Might be time to throw all of the socks into the drawer. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd go one further and say that a medium length block is in order, considering they've been blocked twice before for this sort of behaviour. (For disruptive editing at the end of July, and for sockpuppetry at the beginning of August). Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

It seems as if BulgariaSources has never made an edit outside of the article namespace since their account was created in July 2015. It also seems as if they have not left an edit sum for any of the edits they have made during that time. I am not sure if this means they simply have no desire in engaging in discussion with other editors, or that they feel unable to do so effectively in English. Regardless, no acknowledgment at all of any of the comments directed to them either on their user talk or article talk pages is making it quite hard to resolve these issues through discussion and not administrator action. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I think this was archived prematurely and that the matter is still unresolved, so I have moved it back to the main page per the instructions in "How to use this page". I hope an admin will take a closer look at what BulgariaSources has been doing and consider not only my comments, but also the comment of Sir Sputnik as well as that BulgariaSources has not yet responded at all to any of the above. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't know how admins still couldn't stop him from making this edits...I saw the history of article and its seems he does this from quite long time as not registred user until the page is protected. I hope admins can find a solution and can't believe he is stil not banned. -- Chris Calvin (talk) 08:22, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Spambot attack

We are under attack by IP spam bots from China. Please click on "recent changes" to locate these IPs. I have to get ready for work now, need help here. Thank you, -- Diannaa (talk) 14:17, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

• Examples: 125.124.252.75 (talk · contribs) is one of them 125.124.247.51 (talk · contribs) another, creating a mass of user talk pages. Maybe there's a rangeblock? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

• I put up a provisional block. Elockid^(BOO!) 14:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks. Going by 183.166.145.134 (talk · contribs) and 114.104.183.22 (talk · contribs) we're going to need either a few more, or a filter. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

• I placed a couple more. Looks like it slowed down a little. I'm going to see if I can minimize the ranges. Elockid^(BOO!) 14:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

• We have a new IP here: [120]. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

• That's 114.98.138.189 (talk · contribs) I presume. They keep trickling in. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

It's back! I have reported two to WP:AIAV so far. Stephenb (Talk) 10:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Light show

This editor, also known as Wikiwatcher1, was placed under a topic ban prohibiting image uploads less than a year ago Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#Placed_by_the_Wikipedia_community, after an extensive copyright investigation and an essentially unanimous ANI discussion (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive861#Long-term_copyright_concerns:_User:Light_show). The topic ban has not been lifted or relaxed. Nevertheless, Light show resumed uploading images here on October 17. User:Moonriddengirl blocked Light show earlier today. A review of Light show's contributions shows that they both continue to disregard the extensive copyright concerns that have been expressed in the past, and have otherwise violated image use policies. Their recent uploads, in particular, show a complete disregard for the serious concerns that led to their topic ban:

1. File:Sharon Tate 1966.JPG, No evidence of prior publication, or of the date or location of the supposed publication. This may have been the most serious problem; as Moonriddengirl stated in the ANI discussion, Light show "was advised by one of the WMF attorney that for us to be certain of copyright he needs to verify on upload whether an image contained a copyright notice, how the exact image was released, and whether the release was 'general' or 'limited'". Yet Light show is, yet again, disregarding these simple, basic requirements. Same problem with File:Sharon Tate still.JPG.
2. File:Mamie Van Doren.jpg. This image carried no indication of US publication (or, really, of any publication). Instead, the back carried a Spanish-language stamp indicating it had been sold through a retailer in Latin America. To the extent there was any evidence of publication, it indicated that the image was published outside the US and that neither a copyright notice nor copyright renewal was needed to protect copyright.
3. Polanski and Tate 1968.jpg. This photo was taken in London, and while distributed for promotional purposes, was intended to publicize a UK event. There was no evidence of US publication. It was offered on ebay by a Canadian seller. There was absolutely no basis for concluding that US law applied and the photo was public domain.
4. Light show made repeated posts at Wikipedia:Files for upload, trying to escape their topic ban without disclosing its existence. Many of these requests show the same disregard of copyright issues that led to their topic ban, including items 1-5 and 7 here [121]. While requests at this board may technically not breach the topic ban, it borders on improper proxying requests and, given Light show's recalcitrance, amounts to more, and cumulatively substantial, timewasting for editors who understand and accept our copyright policies. It's also clearly not what that process was intended for.
5. On August 17 and 18, 2015 -- barely two months ago -- Light show deliberately committed major NFCC violations by adding multiple nonfree images [122][123][124] [125] (not a complete list) to Jack Nicholson, which is, of course, a BLP, and is amply illustrated with free images. Compounding the violation, Light show, despite being experienced with our image use policy, did not provide article-specific use rationales for the images. I removed the violations about a month later [126], but didn't realize at the time that Light show was behind the violations.

I therefore propose that Light show's topic ban be expanded, to prevent further waste of other editors' time and efforts in necessary scrutiny of their edits, as follows:

• Light show may not post requests at Wikipedia:Files for upload;
• Light show may not add nonfree images to any articles;
• Light show may not edit file description pages to change file descriptions from nonfree to free.

Copyrights may be a complex subject, but that that cannot justify ignoring simple, basic rules. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

He also mistook being technically able to upload images with being allowed to upload photos. I'm not sure what's unclear about an indefinite ban on uploading images. clpo13_(talk) 18:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

• Light show claims that he misunderstood something about the ban when uploading the files. If there was a simple misunderstanding, then I do not think that an indefinite block is appropriate.

One problem with many of Light show's uploads is that he often states that files are in the public domain without providing any evidence of this. If we want him to learn from his mistakes, it may be better to arrange a solution where the editor can ask for assistance before an image is uploaded. Therefore, I am not sure if banning the user from using files for upload is a good idea, as that page is meant for editors who need help uploading images. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I assume the indef block will be lifted (or made limited duration) by Moonriddengirl as soon as Light show agrees to abide by their topic ban. The problem with allowing Files for upload requests is that Light show has not been using the page for requesting help, but for rearguing the same issues over and over. After the mess they made at the Nicholson bio, I've lost any hope that they're ready to learn. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

An indefinite block is nothing more than a block without a set expiration. It is not a forever block and could last mere minutes. I've unblocked him after reiterating that the topic ban remains in effect so he can contribute here. However, I do not believe that this resulted from confusion between the two projects and their rulings. Light Show was blocked on Commons for nearly a year before he was topic banned, as I noted here, and continued uploading images to Wikipedia throughout. He knew then the difference between Commons and Wikipedia. (As he should, being a contributor of nearly 8 years.) That he has an agreement whereby reviewed images may be uploaded to Commons after they are preapproved does not mean that he can upload to Wikipedia any more than his block on Commons meant he could not upload here (a fact he understood). Beyond this, he was cautioned on Commons by the admin who unblocked him that he could not assume tacit approval on 14 October. Three days thereafter, 17 October, is the day he started uploading images to Wikipedia - for none of which he had approval here or on Commons: File:Vincent Sherman.jpg (10/17); File:Polanski and Tate 1968.jpg (19 October); File:Sharon Tate still.JPG (20 October); File:Suzanne Somers - Three's Company.jpg (20 October); File:Mamie Van Doren.jpg (20 October); File:Walter lippmann.jpg (22 October); File:Maureen-OHara and Walter Pidgeon-1941.JPG (25 October). Prior to his block, Light Show understood quite well how to upload images to Commons (as distinct from Wikipedia) and more recently since his unblock has managed to upload modifications to older images. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

For someone to have been on Wikipedia for nigh on 8 years to not know that bans of any sort, excluding site bans, cannot be enforced by admin tools except by blocking the account smacks of BS. Blackmane (talk) 01:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support proposal - I remember the thread linked above from a year ago. In response to a query to WMF's copyright lawyers, the community advised Light show that they should follow certain simple criteria when uploading photos; Light show's response was somewhere in the vicinity of flagrant refusal, and that led to what I thought was already an indefinite ban on uploading images. An indefinite topic ban recognizes a severe problem, which copyright of course is, but gives the banned user the opportunity to acknowledge their mistakes and learn to edit according to community standards (and in this case, the law). Light show's recent actions show continued flagrant refusal, so a block for violating their ban and a discussion about extending it are appropriate. We're not talking about a few mistakes by a new user, we're talking about thousands of unacceptable contributions. And Light show continues to insist that their own novel interpretation of copyright law is correct, when they have been told that they are wrong by lawyers. I think that Hullabaloo's proposal is quite reasonable - this is a user who has shown up to this point that they should not be allowed to participate in Wikipedia images at all, and Light show shows no signs of even trying to improve. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
• Of note: I didn't think of it, but since Light show is currently blocked, they cannot reply here, but they have replied on their talk page. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Clarifying the current state of the ban

Given this comment, I want to be sure we are clear here:

• As as I understand it, approval that an image is okay by editors on Wikipedia (or even administrators) does not make it okay for Light Show to upload images to Commons. Light Show needs approval on Commons in order to comply with the terms of his unblocking. I will ask User:Revent if I have misunderstood this.
• Approval that an image is okay by anyone does not make it okay for Light Show to upload images to Wikipedia. Light Show is banned from uploading images to Wikipedia.

Again, Light Show knows the difference between projects. After this deletion on Commons, he knew to upload the same image to Wikipedia as non-free content at File:Lumet-TV-1953.jpg (I'd like more information on how that use clears WP:NFCI and WP:NFC#UUI).

Just looking at the article where that image is used to see if there is sourced commentary on the magazine picture raised concerns with three older images on Commons:Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lumet-1950s.jpg and Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lumet-Caine-1982.jpg. Perhaps those images are fine, but lack of accurate information makes an assertion that they are speculative. Speculation has always been the problem here.

Instead of focusing on uploading new images, I think we'd be much better served by a demonstration on Light Show's part that he understands standards on Commons and English Wikipedia by reviewing and correcting information on content already uploaded. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Just verifying here that, yes, this understanding of Light Show's Commons unblock is correct...he must obtain explicit prior agreement on his Commons talk page (though the subpage is established is fine, as long as he links it) that he has demonstrated that a work meets the requirements of the Commons licensing policy, and the precautionary principle, before he uploads any new work. A discussion or approval on another project is not fine, for several reasons...the projects have different policies, Commons users will not be notified of discussions on a project they do not edit, and the discussions need to be in a central location where they can be referred to easily. Light Show is aware that he must seek approval on Commons...both his unblock request, and my note when approving it, stated that the discussion would take place on his talk page. I indeed hope that he will work on cleaning up his old mess.. the ability to do (as well as an agreement that would avoid copyvio uploads) was a major consideration when I unblocked him. If he wants to upload, on Commons, he needs to find knowledgeable editors there who are willing to work with him.....so far it does not, to be honest, look particularly promising. Revent^talk 14:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments by User:Light show, reposted from their talk page

As noted above, I have last year proposed on User:Moonriddengirl's talk page and last month on Commons that I would add a special talk page with links to potential images in order to get them reviewed and pre-approved. I was therefore unblocked. MRG and a Commons admin both also suggested I try to find other editors to pre-approve them, since a wide broadcast of my request wasn't getting any feedback. As far as I can see, the only other place to request an editor's review and feedback was at Wikipedia:Files for upload, in which case they would review and upload an image. I use the term "broadcast," since MRG has nearly 700 watchers on her talk page and the Commons Copyright group has 750! My photo proposal pages got 250 reviews. Yet not a single editor could or would review any bio-related images. Therefore now banning me from even requesting another editor's help seems contradictory in the extreme. --Light show (talk) 19:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

• Regarding your comment at the ANI, "Light show deliberately committed major NFCC violations by adding multiple nonfree images...", I think that while the use of the images on Jack Nicholson could have been disputed, but weren't, they were in no way a "major" violation. That's plain silly. For example, I added a supporting image to Nicholson's page, directly relevant to the commentary. Not only was the image used to support the entire subject discussing the particular film, but the image supported the descriptive details. The other non-free images were likewise included alongside commentary discussing the particular films. And while I wasn't going to argue the point after your deleting the images, their use is only slightly less relevant to their use on the film article's pages, none of which discuss either the image or poster itself. And FWIW, most of the other free images are recent event candids which really add little or nothing to the commentary. The article could clearly benefit from some descriptive relevant images besides snapshots of him at a recent party or holding a wine glass somewhere. --Light show (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

• Regarding another comment, "Light show made repeated posts at Wikipedia:Files for upload, trying to escape their topic ban without disclosing its existence," that makes little sense. My very first upload request, for Rod Steiger, explained that because I was unable to respond to a deletion request, I had already asked that the proposed image be uploaded by someone else. Seems a bit melodramatic, to me at least, to say I was "trying to escape" a ban. --Light show (talk) 20:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

• Regarding User:Ivanvector's comment that my response to MRG about the copyright lawyer's reply "was somewhere in the vicinity of flagrant refusal." If anyone cares to read it, my reply was essentially the opposite of a refusal. Not only did I agree with most of what they said, I actually expanded on their reply by saying that they didn't go far enough. I wrote, "The result is that the attorneys have included "production stills," including movie posters as usually PD, when the opposite is the case."

In other words, while they allowed "production stills" as PD, I pointed out that they in fact needed permission. I was adding restrictions to PD claims, not removing or "refusing" them. And FWIW, I have made multiple requests to have the WMF find a U.S. copyright attorney go over this issue, since part of the disputes relate to Europe's lack of laws about pre-1989 copyrights. --Light show (talk) 20:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

CurtisNaito at History of Japan

CurtisNaito made a grand total of two edits (out of a total of over 5000) to the article History of Japan, nominated it at WP:GAN, and ten days later (after a very superficial review) it was made GA on 25 August. The article's status has been under heavy dispute by a large number of editors since, and after a month long WP:GAR, it was delisted today. Less then 12 minutes late CurtisNaito renominated it, and has editwarred with me to keep it nominated. Despite being told on his talk page that, per Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations/Instructions#Step_1:_Prepare_the_article, the article is to be brought up to quality before nomination. His persistent WP:IDHT response is that "the nominator is permitted to decide whether or not he or she believes the article to be of good level quality"[127][128]—obviously not the case because the article was just delisted for not meeting the criteria. CurtisNaito has already been warned at ANI to drop the IDHT approach or he'll be sanctioned with a 72-hour block. He continually tries to filibuster any attempt at discussing the article or his behaviour, including currently at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan‎‎. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

My personal belief is that the article is already of good level status, and that is why I chose to nominate it. In general, I think Wikipedia allows nominators to decide whether or not they want to continue with the nomination of a good article. On the good article review FAQ, one rule states, "Nominators have no special privileges over other editors, except that they can withdraw the nomination." Another says, "I failed the article, and the nominator just nominated it again without fixing the problems I identified! - That's okay. There is no time limit between nominations..."

During the good article reassessment, there was not a very clear consensus to delist. At least four users or maybe more were in favor of keeping. It is true that user Prhartcom, who delisted the article, stated that the article is only "70–90% there" towards good article status. However, my hope is that the future good article reviewer will check the article for quality and assess whether or not the article is at 70-90% or greater. If it is at 70-90% or more, then I expect that the future good article reviewer will merely ask for changes, rather than failing the article outright. Naturally though, whether it passes or fails is up to the good article reviewer.

I'm sure it will take a long time for the article to get picked up for good article review. It usually takes months. In the unlikely event that the article is still very far from good article status right now, all we need to do is improve the article before the review happens. If CurlyTurkey or any other user asks me to make changes to the article prior to the review, then I will make those changes. If any further improvements are asked for, I am ready and able to make them.CurtisNaito (talk) 05:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Also note that, while I did make only two edits before initially nominating the article. One of them was a large edit. I modified almost every section of the article in order to add citations and make the text more concise. I believe that if the article is up for nomination, there will be good incentive to solicit new opinions and to improve the article even further.CurtisNaito (talk) 06:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

• CurtisNaito's disruptive behaviour both here and elsewhere should have resulted in blocks a long time ago. He and I were recently both told not to bludgeon discussions or engage in IDHT behaviour or suffer immediate 72h+ blocks. He almost immediately violated this moratorium by claiming on the GAR that no misrepresentation of sources had been found in the article, ignoring all the talk page discussion to the contrary (Ctrl+F this page for "IDHT" for the specific examples). His recent behaviour since the GAR closed has gone to a whole new level. Full disclosure: CurtisNaito has been monitoring my edits for the past year or so, jumping in any opportunity he sees to get rid of me. There is currently an ArbCom case due to be opened involving me and another editor with whom I am currently IBANned. CurtisNaito has absolutely nothing to do with this dispute, but immediately jumped in to badmouth me. However, the need to sanction him for his atrocious behaviour on the HoJ page is completely unrelated to the ArbCom case. If he is blocked but has anything worthwhile to contribute to the ArbCom discussion, he should be allowed do so. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC) Edited 11:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC).

I don't believe any misrepresentation of sources was found in the article. During the good article reassessment, it was concluded that the accurate sourcing requirement "is done as much as possible" because "I was able to perform my spotcheck and have my questions answered." It was also noted during the reassessment that the article was at least 70 to 90% towards good article status. There was thus good reason to renominate it. If needed, I will make improvements to the article even before a good article reviewer picks it up, though when the time for good article review comes I'm expecting the good article reviewer may ask for revisions.CurtisNaito (talk) 12:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Acrimonious bickering about an unrelated ArbCom case

Self-collapse by Hijiri88. Sorry. Disputes involving CN tend to enter TLDR territory very quickly. Can one of the many reviewers who have already been poring over the article for weeks and finding mistake after inaccuracy after OR claim that have yet to be resolved act as the reviewer and immediately reject the nomination until further discussion has taken place and consensus has been formed? Also, if there was any justice on Wikipedia, your IDHT claim I don't believe any misrepresentation of sources was found in the article. would result in an immediate block per Dennis Brown's explicit warning (with the caveat that you would be unblocked if you wanted to submit evidence to ArbCom, of course). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC) Edited 12:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC). I don't think there is a need to immediately reject it. In fact, the user TH1980 did a thorough spotcheck of the article and found no inaccuracies or misrepresentation to speak of. Given how many users have checked the sources and found no problems with the way they are cited, this doesn't seem to be a big issue with the article. Ultimately though, the future good article reviewer will likely check some or all of the sources in order to determine who is right.CurtisNaito (talk) 12:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC) FWIW, pinging another user apparently doesn't work if the link is broken in the first post and you edit it. I have heard tell you need to re-sign the post or some such. And why did TH1980 not find the misrepresentation that I later rooted out in the exact same text? TH1980 was recently the subject of a separate ANI thread because virtually all of his non-mainspace edits since May have been attempts to undermine me -- his !voting the opposite way to me in a GAR should most definitely be taken with a pinch of salt, especially when he makes outrageous claims like that he has checked the sources and there was no misrepresentation in order to justify such !votes. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC) Comment This area and these editors are presently before arbcom with an open case. This section should be closed and anything of importance should be brought up during the case. AlbinoFerret 14:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC) As you're well aware, I'm not involved in the ArbCom case. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC) I will point out that the clerk in the case has added Sturmgewehr88, CurtisNatio and TH1980 to the case as involved parties.[129] and your activity on the sections and talk pages may yet see you added. AlbinoFerret 12:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC) Comment Like CurtisNaito said, it's up to the nominator to decide whether or not to nominate an article. There was nothing wrong with nominating it. All Wikipedia articles are continuously improving, and this one will improve before, during, and after any future review. I did go over the sources and I didn't see any problem with the citations. I did need to give the article a good copy-edit, but I corrected the typos before the reassessment was over.TH1980 (talk) 14:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC) You never gave "the article a good copy-edit". Why would you lie at ANI? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC) Comment If this is a behavior issue, as it seems to be, behavior is covered by the ArbCom, and, with the case about to be opened, I agree it would be reasonable to allow the Arbs to address this behaviorial issue. John Carter (talk) 15:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC) I'm not involved in the ArbCom case. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC) Note I included the caveat that CurtisNaito is NOT involved in the ArbCom case but should be allowed to comment if necessary, even if he is blocked for this entirely unrelated problem, precisely because I new AlbinoFerret and John Carter would try to Wikilawyer and game the system by bringing up ArbCom to derail this discussion. I knew they would because they did this exact thing not long ago with my wikistalker TH1980 (whose almost every edit outside the mainspace since May has been to undermine me) -- and, lo and behold, who is the other user to comment here? Anyway, CurtisNaito is in no way related to my dispute with that other user, and merely posted to ArbCom to continue his campaign to get me removed from the site. If he wants to post evidence to ArbCom he should be allowed, but this should not be used as an excuse to oppose all sanctions against him for his other behaviour. Please also note that John Carter and AlbinoFerret also condoned my getting blocked for my dispute with CurtisNaito, during the ArbCom case, even though I am a named party in the ArbCom case, so there is some major hypocrisy going on here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC) I am frankly disgusted by the above editor's insistent refusal to ever assume even the slightest degree of good faith, and instead continue to indulge in what some might reasonably call his ongoing paranoic jumps to conclusions about the motivations of others. That behavior, in and of itself, particularly the rather extensive history of such behavior, is probably the main concern the arbs will have to review in this case. It is also worth noting that Dennis Brown in his opening comment specifically noted in the request for arbitration that the interactions of CN and Hijiri were problematic, and that CN has in fact requested of thhe be specifically added as a party. Therefore, therefore, there is a very good reason to believe that his conduct will be potentially subject to review in the arbitration as well. However, evidently, none of that seems to have been considered in the framing of the ill-informed, wildly prejudicial, and frankly rather irrational attempt to insult others above based not on facts, but rather on what seems to be that individual's own preconceived biases. John Carter (talk) 22:54, 21 October 2015 (UTC) @John Carter: Where in the above did I fail to assume good faith? CurtisNaito made a statement about my unrelated dispute with him on ArbCom. You supported CurtisNaito's ANI thread on me while the ArbCom case was being initially assessed. I was blocked based on what he said. You condoned this block. You thereupon opposed a block for TH1980 based on their supposed, at best peripheral involvement in the ArbCom case. Your comments there ran that discussion off the rails. All of these are facts, not assumptions. I stated before you posted here that there is an open ArbCom case in which CurtisNaito is peripherally involved, and if he is blocked for his actions on the HoJ page he should still be allowed post evidence to ArbCom if he wishes. So why did you feel the need to repeat what I said with the allowance made for a temporary block and a provisional unblock carefully removed? You had clearly read my comment, since you expressed agreement with AlbinoFerret's view that "these editors" (plural) are involved in an ArbCom case. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC) @Curly Turkey: Would you be willing to add this evidence to the ArbCom case, just in case this thread gets run off the rails? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC) This thread has already run off the rails, and I have nothing to do with the ArbCom case. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC) I repeat, despite the insistence of editors involved in this discussion, the arbitration committee determines what is and is not involved in the cases presented to them. CurtisNaito has specifically requested the drafting arbitrator that he be made a party to the case on that individual's talk page, and Dennis Brown, in his comment requesting the case be opened, specifically referred to a prior incident of a dispute between Hijiri88 and CurtisNaito. I had attempted to remove the collapsing, but the collapser, I believe Hijiri, has collapsed at least two comments in this thread already, making it more effort than it is worth to revert the multiple collapsings. It is the place of the arbitration committee to determine what is and is not relevant to their case, and I cannot see how it is necessarily reasonable for involved parties to determine on their own, without the input of the arbs, what is and is not relevant to a case before ArbCom. I believe the comment in the visible collapse note, "Acrimonious bickering about an unrelated ArbCom case," while clearly indicating that the collapser considers him or herself qualified to make decisions for the ArbCom without their input, and the rather presumptive judgment contained in it, "Acrimonious bickering about an unrelated ArbCom case," that the parties involved are not in fact the sole determiners of what is and is not related to the case, despite the apparent belief to the contrary, and suggest that the individuals involved perhaps allow the arbitrators to determine what evidence can be considered relevant to the case, considering their greater knowledge and awareness of the policies and procedures involved, than parties and prospective parties to that case. John Carter (talk) 23:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

• That CurtisNaito's editwarring with me over an invalid GA nomination at History of Japan is irrelevant to an ANI case about Hijiri and Catflap and Nichiren Buddhism is an empirical fact. The scope of an ArbCom case cannot be all of Wikipedia. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I have moved the end of the collapse template once again above my last comment. The edit warring on the History of Japan talk page has only taken place after roughly a month has passed since the arb request was first made. I realize the extreme situations the arbs have been facing has been a reasonable cause for their delay, but, at the same time, I also think that virtually anyone would acknowledge that had the arbitration opened more quickly, in the normal manner, the individuals who have been waiting for the case to be opened, none of whom have had any direct indication when that might happen, may well have been, in a sense, postponing related action until such time as the case was opened and they presented their evidence. If that were the case with CN, that in and of itself might be seen as accounting for his apparent lack of other activity since the request was made.

To Hijiri, you explicitly accused me of wikilawyering above, which is at the very least an implicit accusation of bad faith.

I also point out to Curly Turkey that BMK has specifically indicated on the ArbRequest evidence page that CT be added as a party to the arbitration.

I personally consider the rather poorly-thought-through, possibly rather GAMEy and OWNy, attempts to stifle any discussion, or even consideration of mitigating factors in the recent events, such as the collapsing of comments, itself extremely disruptive, and I sincerely urge Curly Turkey to refrain from such behavior in the future. Whether he wants that to be the case or not, there is a very real chance at this point that he will himself be made a party to the existing case, and, if that is the case, his own conduct, including attempts to collapse and thus refuse to address concerns of other editors, whether they agree with his own perceptions or not, and the possibility of such actions being in and of themselves inherently disruptive, may very easily be addressed there. And I believe I would be within the bounds of reasonable conduct here to remove further attempts on his part, or the part of anyone, to try to ignore the input of others regarding related matters. Those who may choose to respond to this thread should be given a full indication of related matters, including the matters collapsed by CT above, before being asked to make a decision. John Carter (talk) 15:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Collapsed comment. (Please sign your name when you collapse or archive text, as the original collapser of this did not do. BMK (talk) 22:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I did accuse you of wikilawyering, because that is what you did. You accused me of being the collapser solely to associate me with this thread more than I am, in order to draw the link you need between this thread and the ArbCom case. Why on earth would I refer to my own post as "acrimonious bickering"? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC) @BMK: Can you quote the relevant policy or guideline that says I am required to ~~~~ collapse titles? I have never heard this rule before, and I have seen probably hundreds of editors violate it. Furthermore, I did sign it, just not with four tildes; the collapse was clearly made by me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC) Yeah, the primary rule it falls under is "Don't be a WP:DICK. I know that's hard for you to follow, but give it your best. BMK (talk) 01:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC) @BMK: How on earth does my collapsing my own off-topic reply to JC's off-topic comment and clarifying that I was the one doing the collapsing but not doing so with four tildes qualify as "being a dick"? Have you just resorted to childish name-calling at this point? You make up an imaginary guideline and accuse me of violating it, and then when called out you call me a dick? How is that in anyway appropriate? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

The one stifling discussion here is you, John Carter, with this filibuster about an entirely unrelated ArbCom case. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't say so. I believe that John Carter is simply making everyone aware that this issue is not a straightforward one, as it is scrambled up with the issues in that ArbCom case, which is why I've requested that the scope of the case be expanded to include all the editors involved in the conflict. BMK (talk) 04:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not involved, and if CurtisNaito is in any way involved, his involvement has nothing to do with the conflict here. If the issue were in some way related (which it's not) that would be an awfully strong reason CurtisNaito shouldn't be allowed to renominate the article. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the difference between when the article was delisted from GA and when it's current state (for the purpose of nomination) I see a majority of minor wording fixes that do not appear to resolve the issue with respect to the concerns raised. I suggest that the GA Nominator withdraw the nomination unless they wish their actions to be construed as WP:IDHT/WP:FORUMSHOP as the only reason to re-nominate so quickly after being delisted (especially in light of the cosmetic changes to the article) is to make a disruptive point. Hasteur (talk) 20:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The immediate renomination against the wishes of the editors sends a clear WP:OWN message and, I am sure, will emphatically discourage all necessary collaborative effort. zzz (talk) 23:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm purposefully ignoring whatever is going on with ArbCom because it isn't necessary to evaluate the local issues here. The rationale behind renominating appears to be based on the reviewer's initial opinion that the article is 70-90% close to fulfilling the GA criteria. Whether that that percentage is accurate or not, a nontrivial amount of work in article breadth and original research evaluation is needed on the article based on the reviewer's close. Those improvements have not been implemented yet (I see mostly copyediting improvements since 21 October), so it's premature to open a GAN so soon after delisting. CurtisNaito, I think it's a good idea to withrdraw the nomination for now and continue to improve the article-- there's no hurry here to renominate. Getting another reviewer for another GAN right away is not what is needed (and frankly, Prhartcom did a fantastic job of facilitating discussion on the GAR). I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 07:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

(ec) If CurtisNaito removes the nomination of the article and promises to wait for consensus to renominate, the issue here will be resolved. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

He renominated 12 minutes after it was delisted? This sounds like serious WP:OWNership, let alone the continued WP:IDHT comments here. Will an admin please act on Dennis Brown's warning that CurtisNaito would be blocked for 72 hours for violating IDHT? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 05:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Sturmgewehr88, tell me again about how often you disagree with Hijiri88 and criticize him for his intransigent attitude. I need to be reassured, because without your constant assertions of such, I would start to think that you were a proxy of your fellow "-88" editor, or worse. BMK (talk) 18:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: give me a few hours and I'll add diffs if that's what you're asking? And yeah, I'm definitely a proxy "or worse" since I care so much about ないちゃー poets and he edits extensively on Ryukyu. </SARCASM> ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 18:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Then a word to the wise: you need to re-evaluate what seems to be your habit of supporting H88 in practically every noticeboard thread he's involved in, because you're creating a specific appearance of off-hand approval of everything he does. Whatever is true or not about him, that's not conceivably the case, and you might want to be more circumspect about your support in public discussions. BMK (talk) 18:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: I'll keep that in mind. I have never supported Hijiri's misbehavior, I've actually supported sanctions against him for it in the past. However, I do usually support him in content disputes, because he's usually right, and I rarely see some truth in his accusations. Take TH1980 for example. Hijiri accused him of being a sock almost the instant he noticed him. I have never beleived that TH1980 is a sockpuppet. However, I have seen first-hand an obvious pattern of wikistalking. TH1980 has gone to almost every dispute that involves Hijiri and immediately takes the opposing "side" no matter what the dispute is about. This is a textbook example. Just because Hijiri has a habit of crying wolf doesn't mean that wolves don't exist. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 19:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, I shall assume that you know best about what you're doing, just keep in mind how it sometimes looks from the outside. BMK (talk) 20:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Please close this section

• Note: AlbinoFerret has a personal beef with me; keep that in mind when wading through this interminable filibuster. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

That's the second person you've accused of "filibustering". Before you try for a third, I suggest you look up the definition of what an actual filibuster is. If either AF or JC were really "filibustering", no one would be able to get an word in edgewise, and that's clearly not the case here - everyone's having their say. Having facts inconvenient to you or with which you disagree pointed out is not a filibuster, in this case it's an attempt to provide context for the issue at hand. You may not like it, and you may disagree that their relevant, but it is in no way "filibustering", nor is it an illegitimate use of an AN/I report, in which all aspects of the issue reported are subject to examination. BMK (talk) 04:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

They are not "aspects of the issue reported", they are attempts to muddy the waters. This issue is unrelated to the ArbCom case, and this issue needs to be dealt with. Are those facts "inconvenient to you"? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

CurtisNaito is a party at Arbcom case that deals with editors in this area. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08_and_Hijiri88 This section should be closed and reopened at a future date if necessary. AlbinoFerret 13:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret Please demonstrate how CN being a party to the ArbCom case involves this. Yes, Hijiri88 started the GAR but other editors commented and the consensus was to delete. I don't see how Curley Turkey is involved in the ArbCom case and therefore question if this really is connected to the ArbCom case between 2 other editors. Your proposition that being an associate party to an ArbCom case precludes other Dispute Resolution actions on other topics makes a very dangerous precedent that I believe should never be encouraged. Oppose closing this untill concrete evidence can be shown that CN's actions are directly related to the above mentioned ArbCom case. Hasteur (talk) 13:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

While not a named party, Curly Turkey has involved himself in the dispute. Rather than retype, look here.[130] The topic of the nominations has already been added to evidence.[131] AlbinoFerret 13:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Until a clerk or ArbCom member agrees that Curley Turkey belongs in as a party to the case, I'd suggest we try to resolve this here. I see this dispute as a sidebar to the case, and I suspect with the large amount of reviews ArbCom has recently granted, they'll pass on pulling this into the case. I also note it's only your leap that puts Curley into the case, and therefore doubt the consensus. Hasteur (talk) 13:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Careful, Hasteur, if you get on AlbinoFerret's bad side, you'll find yourself a "named party", too. Just look at how far backwards he's bending to try ot get me named—and how hard he's trying to filibuster this discussion. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually the nominations are a point of the case as they started right after CurtisNaito posted against Hijiri88 in a section on the noticeboards. It doesnt matter if Curley is added, CurtisNaito and the nominations already are part of the case. This is close to forum shopping, as this evidence should have been added to the arbcom case because of the place (nominations) and the party involved (CurtisNaito). This was added October 2nd in the case request.[132] AlbinoFerret 13:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Evidence of what? CurtisNaito is editwarring against people, therefore Hijiri and Catflap are bad people? No, AlbinoFerret, you're just creating drahmah while trying to filibuster this discussion. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually the nominations are a point of the case as they started right after CurtisNaito posted against Hijiri88 in a section on the noticeboards. AlbinoFerret, you know perfectly well that that is completely untrue. CurtisNaito posted about me on "the noticeboards" because I was already challenging his faulty GA and FA nominations, and had been doing so (successfully, I might add -- I have always remained appropriately focused on article content, which is more than can be said for CurtisNaito) since May. (And if you try to assert that I have been "following" CurtisNaito since May, please bear in mind that he followed me to four other disputes before that over a two-year period.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The drafting arbitrator has indicated that Curtis Naito, TH1980, and Sturmgewehr88 all be added as parties to the existing case as perhere. Considering that there have been numerous complaints regarding CN and Hijiri88 among others recently, it seems to me that this matter, which is in ultimately the same topic area as that of the Catflap and Hijiri, and involves some of the same principals, as well as others who were asked to be made parties to the arbitration in the opening statements, specifically including Curly Turkey, I think it is reasonable to say that this matter can probably be addressed as part of the ongoing serious of behavior which is being dealt with by that case. John Carter (talk) 14:16, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

It should be noted that the comment which was made about the article being 70 to 90% towards good article status was made in the middle of the review, long before many changes were made. In fact, at the very beginning of the review, I was told by Dr. Blofeld that, "it does appear to have the basics in place and is adequately sourced for GA." Dr. Blofeld said this before several sourcing spotchecks were done, which, according to Prhartcom, left the issue of source verification "done as much as possible". In other words, this article is extremely close to good article status, so much so that Prhartcom recommended that the article be reviewed again "in due course" Although I am hoping that the future good article reviewer will make recommendations for changes, I am already prepared to take suggestions on how to improve the article. I think the argument against renominating would be stronger if there was no one around with the time to improve the article upon request. However, I have the time to modify the article depending on what others users say between now and the many months which may pass before a review begins.CurtisNaito (talk) 17:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Both of those editors explicitly stated that they had not examined the sources even a little bit, and they also stated that they are not topic specialists and so don't know how comprehensive the article is. Put simply: They didn't say one way or the other whether the article's many critics were right in any of our assertions, since no one was talking about the quality of the prose. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC) Edited for clarity 08:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC).

• Please close after blocking CurtisNaito for 72 hours for his repeated and continuous WP:IDHT behavior so we can all go back to editing. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 05:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose block, support expansion of ArbCom case, support everyone going back to editing. BMK (talk) 18:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Photograph of a cat

We can haz all boomrangz?

Outback

Boomerang for Curly Turkey

(NAC) No boomerangs (especially ones proposed by involved editors) will be thrown today. Knock off your disruptive point making lest you find yourself at the mercy of a testy Administrator. Hasteur (talk) 13:08, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Curley Turkey has hidden discussion under a double hat.[133] when I removed it to show my comments Curley Turkey reverted it.[134] Then proceed to post multiple ABF comments to the section.[135][136][137] I have never edited an article he has to my knowledge. AlbinoFerret 23:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC) I have never edited an article he has to my knowledge.': no, you haunt ANI and target certain editors. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Oppose CT didn't "hide" anything and you know it. He collapsed off-topic discussion under an appropriate title that clarified the content of those posts. Any closer is free to look at whatever was under those hats. Your actions here (attempting to filibuster legitimate discussion with endless reams of text about an unrelated dispute, repeatedly lying about the timeline of events, jumping in immediately to a dispute to which you are not party just because you like one of the participants' external edits and dislike one of the other editors', etc.) clearly justify everything he has said, so there was no assumption of bad faith. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC) AlbinoFerret curiously thanked me for the above post. I'm not sure if it was meant ironically or if I actually convinced him of my point of view and a withdrawal of this proposal is forthcoming, but the latter seems unlikely. If the former, this seems like an abuse of the thank function. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC) Unacceptable. LjL (talk) 23:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC) @Hijiri88 Endless reams of text? What? I have two small posts under the hat with a total of 67 words. I did thank you for being so loyal to your friend. AlbinoFerret 00:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC) "Your" was plural. You and John Carter are clearly in this together, and no one could seriously argue that he has not been posting endless reams of text. You were the one who initially tried to make this about ArbCom (although I had already specified that if Curtis is blocked he should still be allowed to contribute to the ArbCom case, so both you and John Carter were being redundant), and you are now arguing that John Carter's endless reams of text should be allowed to clutter this thread and cloud the issue rather than being collapsed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Thats just fantasy, I have never edited a article with John Carter. I havent to my best knowledge ever had a conversation on either of our talk pages. Well I do vaguely remember there may be one on my talk page, but I cant for the life of me remember what it was about. This sounds like talk of a mini cabal, who are plotting against people. I think you better think that over a bit and come back and strike it. As for endless reams of text from others, I have no more control over the amount of text anyone posts that I do of yours, which is none. AlbinoFerret 01:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Hijiri88s claim is, I regret to say, simply another manifestation of his previously and well documented paranoid tendencies.I believe it would be at best inopportune to take any action here, pending the arbitration, and I find it nothing less than hilarious that Hijri, who has as was indicated per recent discussion, BLUDGEONed a page with no less than 71 edits, would accuse anyone else of talking too much. And I note that Hijiri himself posted on six different occasions in the total of 14 comments made to this subthread before my comment here. That, by the way, is more than a little amusing considering this very recent comment in which he indicated he was going to attempt to devote himself to building the encyclopedia. John Carter (talk) 15:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC). Yes, and then I woke up the next day and found a whole lot more nonsense that I needed to deal with. I really would like to be working on Ariwara no Narihira or Natsume Sōseki instead. Or heck, even dealing with CurtisNaito's unending nonsense IDHT ramblings on Talk:History of Japan ("influence of regency over shogunate = influence of shogunate over imperial court; the two are the same, so having a source that verifies one automatically verifies the other") is more productive than posting here. The really amusing thing, though, is your claiming that I am paranoid and assuming bad faith while you are the one who said "Hijiri88 should be TBANned from Christianity because he will follow me to that topic area".[138][139] I really don't understand why you refuse to just get along and work together, like we did in the old days ... on articles on Christianity ... to which I couldn't have followed you because I had never heard of you ... huh.[140][141] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Can we clarify, are you claiming that John Carter is not trying to filibuster this thread with endless reams of off-topic commentary? Or are you claiming that you are not trying to facilitate this by uncollapsing said and calling for sanctions against the collapser? The claim that you and he "don't edit the same articles" (John Carter hardly ever edits articles to begin with, and hasn't since you started editing articles) is immaterial -- you are very clearly collaborating right here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC) I am not collaborating with anyone. Collapsing other peoples on topic comments about where this issue should be raised is a serious problem. The ABF posts by him, and now you are very sad. AlbinoFerret 01:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC) There is no assuming here. You are acting in bad faith, in order to filibuster this discussion. In the section above you explicitly asked for the thread to be closed, and when that failed you tried to make this into a boomerang. Furthermore, the user who not long ago wrote this should not be accusing others of fighting imaginary mini-cabals. You are not only in a glass house here, you are storing your throwing stones inside your tinfoil hat. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC) I suggest you strike all of these accusative posts your making. AlbinoFerret 02:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC) There is nothing accusative in my posts. I'm just stating the facts. And why would you tell me to strike a post that you thanked me for? Why did you thank me? Are you admitting it was ironic? If so, do you understand why this is problematic? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Oppose - Curly Turkey did nothing wrong. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 05:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Oppose - Playing the "Boomerang card" (against whomever) is inappropriate here, since in this instance its point is simply obfuscation. BMK (talk) 18:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Boomerang for AlbinoFerret

(NAC) No boomerangs (especially ones proposed by involved editors) will be thrown today. Knock off your disruptive point making lest you find yourself at the mercy of a testy Administrator. Hasteur (talk) 13:08, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

For drowning this discussion in drahmah unrelated to the issue raised. Note that AlbinoFerret's revenge against my collapsing the attempted filibuster was suddenly to try to name me party to an ArbCom case involving an editor I've never interacted with and areas in which I don't edit. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Cut the crap please, and discuss what needs to be discussed. You cannot control the shape and form of an AN/I discussion, even when you are the OP. BMK (talk) 04:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC) "Discuss what needs to be discussed"? None of you are discussing CurtisNaito's behaviour at History of Japan. That's the crap that needs to be cut. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Support - and I nominate John Carter for his share of the boomerang for WP:WIKILAWYERing: they both came here claiming that this discussion should be "put on hold" until the case at ArbCom was over (in a few months), and that CurtisNaito shouldn't be blocked during an ArbCom case. Well guess what? John Carter supported Hijiri getting blocked during the ArbCom case. Hijiri was blocked for a week, yet I heard no pleas from John Carter to wait until after ArbCom. The fact that he got away with this before over TH1980, and is trying again, is sickening. And a trout to Beyond My Ken for "being a dick" about collapsing. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 05:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Support Lying ("Hijiri88 started the GAR as revenge against CurtisNaito for his ANI posts, not the other way around"), BLUDGEONing this thread with off-topic commentary, KETTLE ("The sinister cabal of Japan-focused editors are assuming bad faith by accusing me of coordinating my filibuster efforts with John Carter"), edit-warring (constantly reverting the collapse), double-standards ("Hijiri88, whose name is in the ArbCom filing, and his co-cabalists should be blocked, but all users on my side should be exempt from blocks by virtue of me claiming they are involved in ArbCom"), using the "thank" function ironically... a 24-hour block for AlbinoFerret in light of all this would be mild given all this, but it would at least teach him that this behaviour is inappropriate and might prevent further disruption. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Oppose This section is casting aspersions against me and others, and think this is a completely bogus charge. AlbinoFerret 12:26, 24 October 2015 (UTC) It's not even close to being as bogus as the section you opened on Curly Turkey, or your (and John Carter's) claim that CurtisNaito should be untouchable during an ArbCom case while conveniently letting "the other side" get blocked. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 14:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC) This is to my eyes simply a desperate, and rather transparently desperate, attempt of the individuals involved in making the request to try to dodge the inevitable criticism of the ongoing Arbitration case, and seems to me to just be adding more fuel to the charges against the individuals making it. John Carter (talk) 14:47, 24 October 2015 (UTC) This is a transparently desperate attempt to drown the discussion of CurtisNaito's behaviour at History of Japan with non sequiturs about an irrelevant ArbCom case. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 15:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC) User:Curly Turkey, you seem to be incapable of understanding that the conduct of all people involved, including you, who have recently been requested by I think more than one person to be added as a party to that case, are not in a position to make the sort of absolute pontifications as the one above, even though you have made it several times recently. The arbitration in my eyes will, with luck, address the matter of the pre-existing battlelines which have been drawn in this content, which Catflap seemed to, inadvaertently, step into. Your refusal to believe that you could possibly be wrong in your recently oft-repeated assessment of the situation, which you repeated again above, can not unreasonably be seen as raising questions regarding your judgment. John Carter (talk) 15:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Keep bludgeoning away, the ArbCom case ain't getting any more relevant. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 15:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC) to try to dodge the inevitable criticism of the ongoing Arbitration case What? Could you rephrase that in an intelligible manner, please? Are we trying to avoid criticizing the ongoing Arbitration case? Or are we trying to avoid being criticized for the ongoing Arbitration case? If the former, why would we be compelled to criticize it, and why would we want to avoid doing so? If the latter ... what? The Arbitration case was your idea, and every involved party including Sturmgewehr88 and myself have been compliant with it, so why on earth would we be criticized for an arbitration case existing? And what on earth does any of this have to do with Curly Turkey, Prhartcom, CurtisNaito and History of Japan? Also, way to throw stones in your glass house, John Carter. Never accuse me or Sturmgewehr88 of being paranoid or violating AGF again, please. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC) substitute the word "sanctions" for criticism, if you prefer. And, Hijiri88, I am not the only one who has accused you of paranoia, Hijiri. The frankly remarkable display of narcissistic gall in your preemptive demand of me regarding what I can and cannot do is itself something I think will probably be noted by the arbitrators. I have myself refrained from adding any evidence yet until such time as Catflap himself submits evidence. I will however submit as part of my evidence the e-mail Sturmgewehr88 forwarded to me in which he asked you whether you wanted Th1980 to be discussed at ANI, and your response. There is a serious question regarding the amount of impact on these matters numerous e-mails and possibly other on- and off-wiki communications exchanged by multiple parties have had in the cementing of the "sides" here, and I think that is something that will certainly be submitted as evidence, and, with luck, considered by the arbs in determine how to deal with this situation. John Carter (talk) I hope you also hand over your emails between you and Catflap, but then again, that would be self incrimination. The only thing that email proves is that I wasn't proxying for Hijiri. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 18:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Support The intention was clear. zzz (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Strong oppose, I only see mobbing by some users with histories of blocks here. LjL (talk) 17:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC) You mean AlbinoFerret, John Carter, and BeyondMyKen? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 17:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Nope. LjL (talk) 18:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC) @LjL: "With histories of blocks" what does that have anything to do with this? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 18:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC) That seems obvious to me by now but I guess those people who don't find it obvious will just ignore it. LjL (talk) 18:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC) @LjL: obviously it's "obvious to [you]" or else you wouldn't have said it, but nobody else knows what you're thinking. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 19:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC) I don't only say things that are obvious to me, do you? That would be pretty dull. LjL (talk) 19:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC) No, we all know what he's thinking, despite his bad-faith efforts to obfuscate. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC) So now your an Internet mind reader. Are you using software, or is it some mysterious inborn psychic ability? AlbinoFerret 23:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Was this comment supposed to mean something? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Well, you said you know what someone is thinking. If it isnt software based, you must be a real powerful psychic to be able to read minds over the internet. AlbinoFerret 23:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Again, was this comment supposed to mean something? It's like reading random YouTube comments. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC) Hey, you were the one who said they knew what people were thinking,[142] not me. While I think its impossible I thought you might have some explanation for the claim. You might think your full of psychic energy, but maybe its something else entirely different. AlbinoFerret 00:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC) Ljl said it was obvious what he meant, and it was. If your comments are meant to be anything else but disruptive, you'll have to show us how. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC) Oppose - of course. BMK (talk) 18:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Boomerang for LjL

(NAC) No boomerangs (especially ones proposed by involved editors) will be thrown today. Knock off your disruptive point making lest you find yourself at the mercy of a testy Administrator. Hasteur (talk) 13:08, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I haven't taken part in this discussion. How dare I? Maybe my contributions could have made a change, and now the chance is gone forever. I think I should definitely be hit by a WP:BOOMERANG. --LjL (talk) 12:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC) You should have posted on the sky being blue, or what songs are in the top 40. AlbinoFerret 12:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Well you can have a WP:WHALE instead for such a WP:POINTy proposal. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 14:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Pointing out that Curly Turkey just removed other people's comments from this section. I can't easily revert that because of intervening edits. LjL (talk) 15:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Well, I obviously did that in bad faith, to get at my longstanding enemy Hijiri. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 15:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC) I claimed nothing about faith, but please take the time to restore the deleted content. LjL (talk) 15:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC) I notice the obvious refusal to directly address the concern raised about removal of comments, which, considering the nature of this page, and the history of that editor in making unilateral declarations regarding what is and is not acceptable and/or appropriate, potentially one that raises very serious concerns regarding his conduct. John Carter (talk) 15:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC) No, but John Carter is accusing me of bad faith, despite my having restored the content. Anything but discuss CurtisNaito's behaviour at History of Japan for some reason. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 15:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC) For the record, I do not think that anyone noting a tendency toward unilateral pontification is necessarily called acting in bad faith by people who are not involved. And the rather obnoxious insistence that I am somehow obligated to discuss an article which falls outside of my own interests is an amusing comment, and a rather transparent attempt at misdirection. If you can actually deal with the matters of present concern in the appropriate locations, that would probably be to everyone's benefit, including your own. John Carter (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Well, that was gibberish. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 17:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Sometimes we all need a little boomerang on the head, and a strong trout whack.--MarshalN20 Talk 15:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC) This whole section is becoming pure trolling. Stop commenting here. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 18:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Stop saying boomerang

(NAC) No boomerangs (especially ones proposed by involved editors) will be thrown today. Knock off your disruptive point making lest you find yourself at the mercy of a testy Administrator. Hasteur (talk) 13:08, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we should let the boomerang cool off for a little while, it is getting hot. It is meant for occasional use and there seems to be a line up to use it here. HighInBC 00:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC) The fact remains that AlbinoFerret started off the whole mess with a blatantly disruptive attempt to derail this thread, after he saw that an uninvolved editor, and myself, and an admin had just agreed with the OP. By your own logic, a double-boomerang should therefore be legitimately deployed in this instance. zzz (talk) 01:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC) Suggest WP:FRISBEE for HighinBC for not letting us say "boomerang" anymore. BMK (talk) 04:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC) I am wondering about the terminology for an offensive projectile that redirects itself mid-flight not to the person who launched it, but instead, ninja-style, to the user that (mis-)directed its redirection. SurelyProbably this has come up before. zzz (talk) 05:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC) I don't think so, and don't call me Shirley. BMK (talk) 08:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposal

Proposal I understand Curly Turkey's reason for bringing this up here at ANI. Curly Turkey is usually right on target when he feels strongly about any topic; He writes high-quality articles himself and naturally demands high quality from others. I have learned a lot from Curly Turkey over the years. Therefore, Curly Turkey's advice is at least worth listening to, if not outright heeding the advice of, every time.

Curly Turkey observes that the nominator could do more to address the concerns of the community. Challengers in the community care about the article as much as the nominator does, and have access to sources just as the nominator does, and have fiercly but legitimately objected to certain acts of the nominator:

• WP:OWN exhibited by edit-warring to keep role of nominator
• WP:IDHT exhibited by failure to listen to and understand the ideas of the challengers or even to respectfully acknowledge each of their specific concerns.

Eventually, the nominator must either win over the challengers or leave. Truly: If the nominator were able to satify each of the strong suggestions clearly listed by each of the challengers, ensuring that they are ultimately happy, then the nominator can be assured that the challengers will stop their fierce objections and allow the nominator to take the article all the way to good article status.

What I propose is the following:

1. An immediate, strong showing of good faith by a specific act of the nominator: immediately withdraw the article from GA status. After all, there is no time limit, and the community is loudly objecting, so it hurts nothing for the nominator to show the community that he is willing to back off; to demonstrate that, from this point forward, there is definite respect for the community: there is no WP:OWN and there will never again be any WP:IDHT. A withdraw at this time does not exclude the nominator from nominating the article again in the near future after community concensus, so the nominator can take comfort in that. This act would be a strong showing of good faith.
2. An immediate positive statement from the nominator to the community stating suggested leadership plans for the article; i.e. that the nominator wishes the article to become GA status, and agrees that, of course, others have good ideas, and agrees to listen to and respect other's advice and ideas, and have meaningful content discussions with others, and asks for help implementing everyone's ideas. This begins real steps towards the ability to work with the community in a way that is nearly always postive and constructive. Remember, the nominator cares deeply about the article, and has the sources to improve it, but he is not the only one who cares and has sources. The nominator agrees to immediately state their desire from this point forward to make it right: to listen to the challenger's ideas, type them back out again; repeating them back to show that he understands their communication; and actively participate in the discussions about the content, always exhibiting a desire to implement the ideas that the challengers have suggested, as everyone only wants what's best for the article. The nominator proves with, not only words but actions, that he understands that the article is truly a team effort.
3. A strong showing of good faith by a specific act of the challengers: Drop all fierce objections. Change the tone. Never decide to throw a wrench in the works by allowing yourself to be visibly frustrated; that only turns the "complain" volume way up and makes it look like you can't help but behave abominably. Understand that this approach only turns people off, it doesn't work, and it will no longer occur. From this point forward, all communication will be with a definite respect for each other, with a good faith agreement to work with the nominator to help him improve the article. The nominator has demonstrated good faith by agreeing to listen to and resolve your objections. Then why not demonstrate good faith and professionalism by proving your ability to work with the nominator. Objections must be stated, yes: All objections should be stated in list form, very clearly and concisely, then in discussion form, always in a constructive and helpful way. Be helpful, help the nominator work this list in a positive way. Do the work yourself whenever you wish, this will only help the article and will also demonstrate your excellence to the nominator. Remember that the nominator has pledged to listen to and respect your advice, and is competent enough to eventually put out good work, so therefore you promise to be nothing but helpful to achieve that, as it will be best for the article. Exhibit good faith that the nominator desires to read and understand your objections and meet your expectations. Everyone works with each other, all for the purpose of improving the article. When it is clear that the nominator is demonstrating good faith and competent effort, the challengers will allow the nominator to take the article all the way to good article status.

If anyone reads anything above that they kinda object to, and they feel tempted to complain about it below: I wouldn't recommend it. Instead, we are so over all that—stow it. The time has come to ante up. Let's see you do it: become more positive and productive and collaborative and goal-oriented and get this GA done! Comments are welcome. Best, Prhartcom (talk) 01:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I very much like Prhartcom's suggestion above, and have brought it up with Curtis on the article talk page.

@Hasteur: I hope you don't mind, but I slightly altered your collapse parameters. It was messing with the formatting in a manner that damaged the links in the table of contents as well as the edit summaries. I've changed it so all of the text is collapsed, but in individual sections, so the section titles are still visible. Again, I hope you don't mind...

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Support proposal. Thanks to CurtisNaito for removing the GA nomination ([143]). I agree that Phartcom's proposal above is the right way for all parties to move forward here, and I especially want to emphasize that both the nominator and reviewers must be careful that communication is done with the purpose of improving the article. The disparagement and accusations, derailing of initially productive discussions and actionable suggestions, and repeated failure to productively engage reviewers' comments and concerns here— none of this is acceptable behavior, and some of that will get reviewed at the present ArbCom case. There are behavioral issues present here, but I see some evidence of productive outcomes and that the involved editors here can work together coming out more recent article discussions. I consider the case closed here. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 06:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I would say this is an admittance that CurtisNaito does not want to coöperate on the talk page, this is WP:IDHT in the most extreme form, and this is his ego speaking (I'm better than you because I have more GA articles). Exactly how much WP:ROPE are we supposed to give him? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 16:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

In the first diff, I didn't say that I didn't want to cooperate on the talk page. What I said was that discussion could be better facilitated if we only discussed article content, instead of issues not related to article content. I still think that this is a good policy.

In the second diff, I was only pointing out that Henshall does not say that lifetime employment was a misconception. What he says is that the scale of the system and its historical length have been exaggerated. According to Henshall, lifetime employment was a purely postwar innovation which only covered one quarter of the workforce. However, the system itself did exist.

In the third diff, I'm merely pointing out that the reason I consolidated the citations was because I figured that I might be asked to do so during a future good article review. I didn't think it was a big deal to cite multiple facts to a short range of pages from the same chapter of the same book covering one period of history.CurtisNaito (talk) 17:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, I believe other users were asked to "Drop all fierce objections. Change the tone." A basic content issue over lifetime employment does not need to be brought up at AN/I.CurtisNaito (talk) 17:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Issue with user behavior

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

---

I've encountered an issue with Some Gadget Geek (talk · contribs), and would appreciate someone else trying to resolve. To the best of my knowledge, my only direct interaction with the user has been in my userspace. I ask that another editor notify the user of this ANI discussion - I have no interest in continued contact with them myself.

It began with their placing a templated warning with a snarky addition at the end on my user page (I had reverted vandalism, but not warned the IP as I viewed it as stale - all this can be read in my discussion with the user at User talk:Barek#October 2015). After a brief discussion, I finally posted on my user page "stop posting to pages in my userspace - any further edits by you to this page will be reverted". (emphasis added here).

They stopped posting to my main talk page, but then edited my alternate talk page - which I reverted stating that further such action would be reported as harassment. They then edited that alternate talk page again (again reverted), as well as blanking User:Barek/index2 - a page that is no longer linked from anywhere (until this very post) - meaning they had to be actively searching my userspace or past edits just to find it (the text they blanked was added in February 2012 and simply read "blanked - no longer used" because Wikimedia software prevented me from deleting the page due to the long edit history on it - a restriction that no longer exists, so I deleted the page today).

The other user needs to drop the stick - leave my user-space, and just move on with other editing activities. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:56, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done: notified user for you Barek samtar ^{t} 15:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• Well, I commend your self-control in not blocking or TP-warning the user outright. Perhaps if he comes here with a distinct promise to avoid your userspace altogether he will avoid that fate. Softlavender (talk) 16:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
• Browsed their talkpage. They have a history of less than constructive edits to other editors userspace. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

And it continues ... my browser bookmark opens a page showing edits in my userspace. When I opened the page a few minutes ago, I saw the disruptive behavior continues.

Well after being notified of this ANI thread - Some Gadget Geek managed to find another page in my userspace which is not publicly linked in any way (User:Barek/index1‎) and this time tagged it for deletion (I do not want it deleted at this time).

I do not know why the user is obsessed with me and my userspace - but they need a serious talking to, if not a block for harassment. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: I was just informed that about two hours prior to their most recent edit within my userspace, both Liz and samtar had posted at User talk:Some Gadget Geek#AN/I and had attempted to assist the user in understanding the issues brought up at this ANI thread. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I have given @Some Gadget Geek: a 48 hour block so they can consider their talk page messages. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:11, 30 October 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.

Someone is spamming the name Gautam Mrinaal in Bollywood pages.

First it started in Prem Ratan Dhan Payo (check my reverts) and the next revert by Peppy Paneer. After that I found it exists in many pages. This is not a website that can be added in spam blacklist.1 2 , All Ips start with 182.66/ range. 3 , 4--The Avengers (talk) 12:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Adding [5]. The Avengers (talk) 12:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Today , second. --The Avengers (talk) 06:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The Avengers, the IP range is way too wide for a rangeblock. The best we can do is block and protect some favorite targets. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:55, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:AF? DMacks (talk) 15:57, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

User Unbuttered Parsnip

Hello. Unbuttered Parsnip blanked large section of Ryōtarō Okiayu which I reverted on AGF. Despite warnings, he then engaged in edit warring and I cautioned him accordingly. This user has a history of disruptive editing, edit warring and has been blocked previously also. User has a track record of not leaving edit summaries and has been warned several times. His talkpage and it is full of warnings, notices and then hostile comments by the user: here he used term "f**k off. And now, in response to my comment here, he responded with quote "Already stuck this shits in the pan were it be looks...." unquote. Several other aggressive comments can be found on his talkpage. Several edit warring notices have been issued to him but he does not seem to be slowing down. Incidentally, he was attempting to delete filmography from this page in discussion, and in Apr 2015 he was issued a 3RR warning for exactly the same reason (but for Kangana Ranaut, roles and awards). Not only is he abusive, he refuses to learn too. Please check here. This user appears to be a case of WP:NOTHERE and his userpage reflects that. Kindly consider a block on this user. Thanks, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 19:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Assuming you're talking about this edit, I'd consider the removal entirely correct. His language could be better, but it's understandable to occasionally lose your cool when you're trying to uphold Wikipedia standards and someone keeps edit-warring with you. ‑ iridescent 19:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

• iridescent, help me understand this. Are we advocating abusive nature of someone (that too with multiple people on several occasions)? I have edited more that him and not once have I abused anyone. What about Wikipedia:Civility? Don't tell me you are encouraging bad behavior? Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 20:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

AKS.9955, what is the difference between your edit warring and Unbuttered_Parsnip's edit warring? You both have reverted 3 times now and neither one of you have made a single edit to the article's talk page. You have been warned before about edit warring also. Your response to Unbuttered Parsnip's edit warring warning was wrong. You are edit warring also but your response is that Unbuttered Parsnip was just out for revenge. Take it to the talk page. -- GB fan 20:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you are both edit-warring and before I placed a comment on the article talk page, it hadn't been used since 2008. The filmography on this article is ridiculous and needs serious pruning. As for Already stuck this shits in the pan were it be looks, I would not be offended as I find it completely undecipherable gibberish. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Even gibberish can be insulting and offensive, Liz. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Kumquat allopecia nickoldeon pork sausage hat trick, Kemosabe. BMK (talk) 21:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Can someone revdel this egregious assault? Admins plz. clpo13_(talk) 21:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Can someone revdelete what? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 01:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Lemon curry!! BMK (talk) 21:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

• Morning folks. Here are my final comments on this matter (unless specifically asked for comments by one of the users).

1. Yesterday, whilst working on STiki I reverted a mass blanking with inapt comment that obviously did not support the blanking.
2. User Unbuttered Parsnip reverted the changes without bothering to provide edit summary, leave alone discussing.
3. I again reverted his blanking and issued him two different notices.
4. User ignored both the notices and reverted the changes - again without any edit summary and discussion.
5. I then posted a detailed (and personalized message) on his talkpage, advising him what my objection with his blanking was and what next steps we need to take to perform the edit. If you read here, you will be able to see that I requested him for a discussion and also advised him in advance that I will be reverting the changes so that discussion can take place.
6. I had no intention of bringing this to ANI till I saw his reply here. Upon checking, I noticed that this user has a history of being abusive, not providing edit summaries and engaging in 3RR. I hence opened a discussion here.

What I did not expect was that being non-responsive, hostile, and being abusive will be totally ignored or taken lightly in this forum. This is very discouraging. I have enough experience to understand that edits can be disagreed upon but then there is a civil way to go about it. On similar lines, I had two (other) similar instances yesterday when the original editor reverted the changes made by me but in both cases the myself and editors communicated with reach to a conclusion, which in-turn improved the articles under discussion. See talkpage of ChoudharyPrerna and her comments on my talkpage here. She attempted to update (twice) death of a politician which was reverted by me twice and later when the sources were found, it was me who went and updated the page. Also, please see this (word "shit" was used in the article which was reverted by me originally). In both case, all editors communicated with each other (without being abusive) and discussed the issue (unlike in the case we are discussing where only one party communicated and other abused). If someone gets frustrated so easily and starts abusing, then perhaps that person should not be editing on Wikipedia at all.

Dear GB, you asked for the difference - I hope my reply above explains the difference. WP:3RR looks like a double edged sword to me where the person not erring gets cut more than the person erring. If we are strictly going by number of reverts, then there is no need of 3RR notices and discussions and a bot can simply do the job by issuing notices to anyone reverting any edits 3 times + also block them for sometime. The very reason that does not happen is there is always a different reason behind two people reverting the same edits. Now my point is, rather than blindly looking at the revert count (like a bot), lets please also look at the reason and the approach (plus the abuses) behind the reverts.

In any case (and as I wrote above), the primary reason I opened this discussion was the perennial abusive nature and non-responsiveness of user reported. Whilst we all discuss this here, there is not a word from the user anywhere and ironically there are attempts by senior editors to justify his abusive history & present (and encourage bad behavior).

I thank everyone for their time on this matter. Have a good day / evening. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Talking about non-responsive, have you responded to the substance of the first reply in this thread (by iridescent)? I see the comments about CIVIL and so forth, but what about the substance? By the way, it can be very irritating when someone uses semi-automated tools to revert edits and issue warnings with meaningless edit summaries. Johnuniq (talk) 06:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Both of you were erring in your approach. Someone needs to stop the edit warring even if it does not leave it at their preferred version, neither one of you could do that until you both got to three reverts and it ended up here. You say that "there is always a different reason behind two people reverting the same edits", I have to disagree with that. Usually both sides of an edit war have the exact same reason for what they are doing, they think their edits are correct. That appears to be what both of you thought. Neither one of you were correct. As others have said above the material needs pruning, but the edit war was all or nothing, no middle ground, no compromise or discussion on the article's talk page, just warnings and reporting. -- GB fan 13:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Hrrmph.(Uninvolved) I'd like to note that Unbuttered Parsnip does seem to have a somewhat disturbing habit of blanketing sections instead of fixing them, apparently without even bothering to check the results. First I had to clean up this one [144], which left the refs in smoking ruins, and now I've just stumbled upon this [145], which just excised the refs altogether. Both of these could easily have been fixed with a little thought, but they decided to just nuke the entire section instead. So yes, I'd suggest some tender criticism might be directed their way.-- Elmidae (talk) 07:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• AKS.9955 (talk · contribs), I understand where you're coming from, but I can't possibly see how you think you're helping by blindly reverting and templating a regular and then reporting them here. This user has difficulty communicating due to a stroke and I can only imagine how frustrating it would be to have to explain why you're removing a bloated, severely-excessive, unsourced bullet-list. As you can see by the current re-work, it needed a complete refactoring and severe pruning just to be acceptably retained. I can't see any particular reason you would jump into this conflict during the course of vandalism patrol, but you're not doing it right. I fail to see where they habitually blank sections. Maybe we can stop harassing them for working productively here. Swarm ♠ 00:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I've rebuilt and sourced the filmography. But the complaint still stands that the editor in question has used a WP:BATHWATER approach. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a constructive approach to this edit-warring, AngusWOOF. Your efforts are appreciated. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:59, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at MEDRS

Hello, recently there was an RfC that was closed with a consensus reading that stated a particular change was warranted. However, there have been a couple of editors who objected to the reading and have been disruptively edit warring this change off completely, User: Alexbrn, User: QuackGuru and User:CFCF. See diffs 1 2 3 If they have a problem with it, there are other routes to take, but it appears they have chose disrupting and edit warring. LesVegas (talk) 21:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

The closer was not clear how it should be worded and is it clear there are specific countries where journals are of low quality such as Chinese journals. See Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Country_of_origin for current discussion. Without context LesVegas continued to add "country of origin" to the MEDRS guideline page.[146][147][148][149][150] LesVegas claims what he added was the "best compromise". See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive896#User:LesVegas for previous discussion involving LesVegas. QuackGuru (talk) 21:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

One thing the close was clear on is country of origin is not a valid reason to exclude high quality sources.[151] Its the wording afterwards that some want to use to create a loophole. I think it is possible that the simple "country of origin" could have been added to MEDRS list of things that dont disqualify high quality sources and the remainder could have been worked out. Simply removing things that have a consensus close isnt a good idea. AlbinoFerret 21:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

It is qualifying low quality sources such as Chinese journals when "country of origin" is added [152][153][154][155][156] without any context. QuackGuru (talk) 22:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Thats part of what I was refering to. The "country of origin" wording is clear in the RFC close. The rest is not. Taking that out with the rest is tossing the baby out with the bathwater. AlbinoFerret 22:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

During the RfC evidence was shown that Chinese journals are low quality. QuackGuru (talk) 22:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

The RfC was asking if we should add "country of origin" to that particular sentence. The consensus read was "yes". By the way, the closer came back to answer QuackGuru's objections with a reply stating you have an odd interpretation is utterly nonsensical. Get the point. Discussion closed. And for everyone's information, QuackGuru was also recently topic banned from a topic related to this discussion and his presence on this current discussion might be an attempt at border lining, the same behavior that got him topic banned in the first place. LesVegas (talk) 22:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Do you think Chinese journals are low quality or high quality? QuackGuru (talk) 22:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

That's off topic. But the consensus reading clearly said that the high quality ones shouldn't be rejected based on country of origin. That this addition has been removed, is disruptive and is the only purpose of this thread. LesVegas (talk) 22:41, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

This is germane to the topic. Do you think journals from China are low quality or high quality? What you added was claiming there is no problem with country of origin. There is publication bias from certain countries. QuackGuru (talk) 22:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I go along with consensus and therefore, I believe that the high quality ones shouldn't be rejected based on country of origin which was a problem that was occurring on a topic you have been topic banned on. LesVegas (talk) 22:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Thats a tangent QG, the RFC was about high quality sources, the section the edits are in is about high quality sources. Bringing up low quality sources is besides the point. AlbinoFerret 22:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone think it is possible that there is publication bias from Chinese journals?

Please read "The outcome of the RfC is not constrained to be binary. It's intended to gauge consensus, and the closer found consensus to include 'country of origin', but with the caveat that it might be a legitimate consideration where "hard data" demonstrate a concern about biased literature." Including the phrase "country of origin"[157][158][159][160] without the caveat was a direct violation of the close IMO. LesVegas, do you think you had consensus for your change after reading the comments by others? QuackGuru (talk) 23:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

QG, we are waiting for the closer to clarify, bringing it up here is starting to look like forum shopping the question. AlbinoFerret 23:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

It may–but QuackGuru was not the one who started this discussion. CFCF 💌 📧 23:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

No, QG did not start this section. But LesVagas did not ask for the language or RFC to be reviewed or make suggestions of what it should be, that is not the purpose of AN/I. He came here because some editors are reverting contrary to consensus from a RFC close. AlbinoFerret 05:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE The closer of the RfC has just responded on the talk page for clarification, reiterating that these editors modifying and rejecting this close are out of line. To recap, there was a RFC at WP:MEDRS the question was "to address only the addition of high-quality sources into the guideline." If "country of origin" should be added to the list of things that dont disqualify high quality sources. The RFC ran 30 days the result was YES, it was closed by someone who was not involved. The closer said consensus was that "country of origin" should be added. There are a group of responders who wanted to comment on the RFC and mentioned low quality sources. But that was not the question. The closer made a policy- based close and mentioned WP:RS and WP:V and that we cant override them, meaning that low quality sources would not be allowed anyway. It appears some editors here still don't understand this fact and are blindly going against a policy based consensus reading. It is a waste of everyone's time to have to put up with edit warring and disruption. If the editors here can agree to not only cease going against consensus readings at MEDRS, but also such readings in the future, then I suggest they be warned and let's move on. If they aren't willing to do that then blocks may be necessary. LesVegas (talk) 18:21, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

ANI does not issue rulings on content disputes

ANI does not issue rulings on content disputes. If anyone here wants ANI to deal with a user behavior issue, please post evidence in the form of diffs that establishes the behavior in question. Otherwise, this should be closed and referred to one of the content dispute resolution venues listed a WP:DRR. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:21, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

For the record, one editor here is trying to turn this into an off-topic content dispute so I can understand your confusion. This matter is purely behavioral with editors disruptively edit warring a phrase that had consensus to be added following this RfC. The closing reader also was asked to clarify and stated that the discussion was closed, yet some editors persisted in changing the wording to their liking or removing it entirely 1 2 3. That's why we're here. LesVegas (talk) 23:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

The point is the upshot of RfC is not clear: the "behaviour" problem lies with axe-grinding editors falsely saying it is and trying to ram home their preferred text in support of such misrepresentation. And that would include you. Probably better this is discussed further in Talk, we shouldn't be trying to decide our WP:PAGs through edit-warring. Alexbrn (talk) 05:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

That is incorrect, there is a clear finding, and a unclear part. The closer will probably clear up the unclear part. But there is already consensus from the RFC for adding country of origin to the list of things that should not be considered when looking at high quality sources. The close can be found here. [161] The words of the closer are "There was consensus however that "country of origin", per se, is not a valid reason to reject a source (and no more valid than "funding sources") hence for the change." This isnt a case of a content dispute, this is a case of some editors not liking the close of a RFC and reverting contrary to consensus mentioned in a close. I will grant that some have added things that are unclear, and that should have been removed, but not everything. AlbinoFerret 05:45, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not clear; you are oversimplifying it since nobody is arguing that country per se should disqualify a source. The point at issue is how to deal with sources when there are material grounds for supposing their national origin compromises them (so not "per se", but based on distinct evidence). But this is all better discussed in Talk rather than trying to "win" through misrepresenting the situation here. Alexbrn (talk) 06:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually in the section above this one QG is very clearly saying "Chinese journals" = "low quality", and he links some examples of papers that supposedly prove this absurdly sweeping claim to be true.Herbxue (talk) 05:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

If QG is linking to papers in support of the claim then it is not an objection "per se", but per external evidence. There are well-known issues with Chinese research into Chinese medicine, are there not? Alexbrn (talk) 06:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

QG did not say anything as simplistic as that. QG posted this link a couple of times to show that there is good reason to be wary of certain studies. I don't see a response. RS issues always involve a balance of various factors and it will never be possible to apply a rule that country-of-origin is always relevant, or that it is never relevant. Johnuniq (talk) 06:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Please review my block

Please can I get a quick review of my block of Blethering Scot (talk · contribs) - partly because I was the one of the subjects of his insults here and here; and partly because I will not be around that much over the last week and don't want to be seen to be 'blocking and running.' FWIW he's probably attempting death by admin and has also tagged all of his sandboxes/usrpages for deletion. It all stems from a dispute he has had at 2015–16 Heart of Midlothian F.C. season. I've not been involved in that but I have been involved in a subsequent discussion (which is where the insults were made). GiantSnowman 22:56, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Seems like 36 hours was warranted, the language was pretty unacceptable and seemed to stem from a very minor dispute. From my experience of the editor it seemed quite out of character so a cooling off period would probably be for the best. To be honest I'm not sure how genuine the requests are given how quickly this seemed to escalate so I declined the speedy of the main space article on the grounds that it was difficult to assume genuine good faith given the way wider related discussions had progressed. Fenix down (talk) 23:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Currently a discussion on OTRS regarding this. Amortias (T)(C) 23:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm logging off for the night, will try and come back on tomorrow morning. GiantSnowman 23:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I support the decline of speedy. It's a deletion request - doesn't mean we have to abide by the demand. As all contributions are released under CC BY-SA 3.0, there's no requirement that we abide by a G7 request, only that we consider it. In this case, as 2015–16 Heart of Midlothian F.C. season is well sourced and is widely linked, I see declining to be perfectly acceptable. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:28, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree with the decline. Also we might need to revoke TP access looking at the threats(with or without merit) as it may be they're planning on releasing personal information but I'll leave that to someone with a bit to decide on. Amortias (T)(C) 23:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Note, the user is also insisting that User:Blethering Scot/WikiProject Football/Scotland task force be deleted. In all fairness, this template should have been moved to be a subpage of the related Wikiproject long ago. As all edits to Wikipedia are released under CC BY-SA 3.0, they have no ownership of it - but they have the right to disappear and not have the template lingering in their userspace. By moving it to a subpage of the Wikiproject, the users in that project can just update the usage on their userpages. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Barek that moving the template is a good idea. BMK (talk) 04:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

The userbox was moved by someone else into a subpage of the Wikiproject. So I have updated all of the transclusions to point to the new location, and deleted the redirect from the userspace location. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

If anyone needs a wider explanation of my involvement in this, it can be found here. Fenix down (talk) 09:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

• A bit of general advice: if you are unsure of a block, it is better to ask for outside input before rather than after blocking. Perhaps what you really wanted to say is, "I made this block and the user might appeal, but I will be away. Feel free to amend as you see fit." Jehochman ^Talk 16:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

• Do you come here for reassurance, GS? We can pat your hand or something but in the meantime we're down a content contributor who is a human being. What are you doing to ensure content doesn't suffer because of your actions? The reader doesn't care about our conflicts, he wants information, information, information. You have helped ensure he won't get it. Well done (pats hand).--Wehwalt (talk) 20:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

User deliberately provoking arguments at Talk:Jews

The article Jews and its talk page is a sensitive topic even at the best of times, permanently semi-protected and under WP:ARBCOM-protection. Given this, it's highly problematic that No More Mr Nice Guy treats it as a battleground and repeatedly violates WP:SOAP and WP:AGF with multiple comments only directed at provoking other users and not even an attempt to discuss the article. These are some of the most recent comments by No More Mr Nice Guy:

• "It's news to me" says the one-stater. What a joke. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC) (nothing on the article, 100% WP:SOAP) [162]
• Another self-serving anecdote about Jews? What a surprise! No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC) (nothing on the article, 100% WP:SOAP) [163]
• That is all very obvious. Why do you think all these "anti-Zionists" have suddenly shown such an interest in this article? Check out who's participating in the NOR board. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC) (nothing on the article, 100% violation of WP:AGF) [164]

As a previously uninvolved user, I already removed these obvious policy violations once, and informed the user about the policies and warned them about this behavior on their talk page [165]. The user's response was to immediately revert me to reinsert all the above provocations once more [166]. It's obvious this user is only here to treat WP as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Already the name (No More Mr Nice Guy) is indicative, and repeatedly inserting (and reinserting) numerous comments only meant to provoke other users on the of the more sensitive talk pages shows that this user is WP:NOTHERE for the right purposes. Jeppiz (talk) 22:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Kindly note that Jeppiz did not find any fault with another user telling me to "try not to be an idiot" or calling other editors' comments "useless" and "stupid", not to mention the general SOAPboxing my comments above are directly responding to. I'll leave the obvious "why would he focus only on one editor?" question open. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I haven't been involved in the whole dispute, but I left a notice to all users to discuss the article, not each other. No More Mr Nice Guy was by far the most disruptive. The comment above is of course irrelevant as a defense, as the fact that other users may violate a policy is never an excuse. While other users also used inappropriate language at times within comments about the article, No More Mr Nice Guy seems to be the only user with several comments that only are aimed at other users. Jeppiz (talk) 23:08, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Let me help you out here: my "It's news to me" comment was a reply to this comment. Kindly explain why you thought the comment I was responding to is relevant to the Jews article, why you don't consider it SOAP and why you didn't remove it and warn the other editor on his talk page, like you did with me.

My "self-serving anecdote" was in reply to this comment. Can you see the self-serving anecdote (SOAP) in there? Can you explain why you didn't remove it or warn the editor on their talk page? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I can explain it. I read it, considered it, didn't think it added much of value, but thought it at least addressed the topic. I never remove talk page comments unless they are obvious violations, like yours. The whole reason I, as an uninvolved user, filed this report was because I noticed you treat WP as a WP:BATTLEGROUND and you deliberately seek to provoke arguments, as shown in the diffs I posted. Your repeated insinuations here that I have some hidden agenda only strengthen that impression. You're reported here not because of your views ( the last two users I reported related to the Middle East were Pro-Palestinians so I really think I'm neutral in this matter) but because you're behavior is disruptive. Worse, it's deliberately disruptive, you continue to engage in it even after being warned. Jeppiz (talk) 23:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Really? The "it's news to me" comment addressed the topic? How very interesting. I think we've gone about as far as we can go here. Let's see what other editors think. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not a sensitive topic. What ARBCOM protection? Not seeing any indication that this article is under any sanctions, general or otherwise.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Due to the content of the discussion it would seem that WP:ARBPIA would apply to the discussion.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

NMMNG's antipathy to Nishidani is widely known and long-standing. Even in unrelated discussions, he will bring them up. Nishidani has at times snapped at NMMNG but the vast majority of their comments are content based. If Nishidani is not involved, NMMNG can be sometimes reasonable. Otherwise, all reason goes out of the window, with WP:ABF being the default. I see that editors on the WP:NORN page are being referred to by NMMNG as "all these anti-Zionists", which probably refers to me, since after Nishidani, I wrote the most number of comments there. Apparently, suggesting that the lead should summarize the article, in particular that the definition of a Jew should summarize the section "Who is a Jew" can only be done by someone with an ulterior agenda of destroying Israel. Kingsindian ♝♚ 18:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Kingsindian; WP:ABF seems indeed to be the default option, which I find problematic. Jeppiz (talk) 20:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Three days on ANI, not one admin commenting, and the problem goes on

I find it surprising that a report can be on ANI for three days without even one admin commenting. If the situation had calmed down, fine, but it just goes on. As I pointed out in my initial report, and as Kingsindian confirmed, No More Mr Nice Guy is constantly going after Nishidani with endless comments that are just snide remarks in violation of WP:SOAP. I posted some in the original post three days ago, here are some further diffs from today. [167], [168]. Just as with the diffs I first reported, these comments have nothing to do with how to improve the articles, just one user endless commenting on another user. Jeppiz (talk) 20:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Consider the topic, and the intractable history of the I-P dispute both IRL and here. Compare and contrast with an IP scrawling profanity on an article. This will be on the final.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Long-term disputes in a contentious area with the unclean hands defense being deployed? Far fewer are willing to touch that compared to a nice open-and-shut IP vandal case. WP:AE is probably a better venue for this. I predict the result being all parties enjoined to grow up, but I can see a case being made for an interaction ban. Rhoark (talk) 21:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps. I'm not involved, I don't claim to know their history, I just saw a user being entirely focused on another user rather than the subject, and across several articles. I'd say it's a rather clear WP:TPNO. Jeppiz (talk) 21:40, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll ask again why you aren't reporting the obvious SOAP and personal attacks I'm responding to. Your concern about TPNO seems very one sided. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:57, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Three things. (1) I don't find anyone else violating TPNO even close to as much as you're doing it. (2) Even if others were violating it just as much, it would still not be an excuse for you to do it, so it's completely irrelevant here. (3) Your repeated insinuations I have some hidden agenda only underlines the WP:AGF-accusation Kingsindian made against you. I've answered you're "why" already; I reported you because of your frequent violations of policies, I didn't see others violate it nearly as much. That's why. Do you have anything to say about your behavior? This is a report about you, and this far you've only confirmed it. Jeppiz (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Repeating yourself doesn't make your case any stronger. You seem think the fact I said "yawn" at someone's SOAP+NPA violation is more a TPNO violation than the actual SOPAboxing and personal attack. I disagree. I really don't have anything to add at this point. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

So you think your behavior is correct and you intend to continue with the same behavior? Jeppiz (talk) 22:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I think this report is deliberately one sided and that you're now following my contribs to articles you never edited before, which is a form of harassment. Like I said above, I think you and I have gone as far as we can go on this subject. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I've been editing I-P related articles for years, nothing to do with you. I notice you did not answer my question about whether you will continue, nor did you address your own behavior. You just keep avoiding the subject to discuss me, just as you discuss other users' on article talk pages instead of the topics there. Thanks for so vividly illustrating the problem! Jeppiz (talk) 22:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

• I'd close this, but as I commented, I had better not. Could someone else please oblige? There's nothing useful being generated.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

User:RHaworth saying redirect creation is not constructive

The following discussion is closed. 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 created a series of redirects which could have been seen as implausible, which I have stopped doing. RHaworth deleted several of these, without tellimg me which ones, and replied a day later to my queries telling me to look at his deletion log, which I do not know how to do. He is now telling me to stop creating redirects completely. I failed to notice the section in WP:Redirect which says not to create redirects. Frankly I haven't got time to waste on this and am unsure of how to deal with such blatant misconduct from an administrator who refuses to cooperate. Thanks, --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 12:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

"Frankly I haven't got time to waste on this", but creating ~30 redirects per article isn't wasted time, gotcha. To check an admin's deletion log, visit their contributions page, and click "logs" right at the top. It works for any user but for an admin it'll list deletions as well. For the admin in question, here is their log history, here is it filtered to show only deletions. If any of them seem like actual misconduct, do come back. GRAPPLE ^X 13:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@Grapple X: Thanks for the links. He told me, specifically, not to create redirects. In what way is that correct? Furthermore, creating redirects clearly improves the encyclopedia. When constructive contributors are insulted, mocked and never thanked it's no wonder so many of them leave. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 13:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I find this admin's attitude to be nothing more than appalling. He's very bitey and terse. Here's a previous encounter I've had with him recently. Looking at his RfA this was done more than 10 years ago when the threshold for admins was much, much lower. It's not up to him to judge if your redirect is worthy or not or telling you to "find something more constructive to do". We have redirects for deletion if any of them need a challenge. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

It is unaccceptable to tell somebody not to create redirects. Where is the part in WP:redirect that says "Do not create redirects"? Perhaps he should delete every redirect on Wikipedia. Fair enough deleting implausible ones, though. There's no "Oh, but thanks anyway for all the work you put in here for hours every day". Again, I see why people leave, and unprofessional, insulting responses like Grapple X's aren't helping. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 13:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• Without evidence, there's no way for anyone to informatively opine on this. Excessive redirects can be misleading, obtrusive, spammy, prejudicial, etc. I've definitely seem all of the above happen. So please provide a list of which redirects were deleted, and what they were re-directing to. And provide diffs or links of the various pertinent communications to and from RHaworth. These are all things that are required for an ANI filing. Softlavender (talk) 13:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@Softlavender: I don't disagree with the deletions. In this diff, Rhaworth says I should stop creating redirects. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 13:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The redirects were List of people called Nancy Sullivan, List of people called Nancy, List of people called Albert Thomas, List of people called Frank White and List of people called James Robinson Junior, as far as I can see. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 13:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, if those were redirects, I agree they should have been deleted, per what RHaworth said in the conversation on their talk page which you still haven't linked to (you haven't even linked the username for us). And I happened to count the redirects you've created recently -- approximately 4,000 in the past 30 days alone, which does seen extremely excessive and downright unnecessary and potentially problematic. So if I were you I'd take a self-imposed break (aka voluntary topic ban) from creating redirects for the foreseeable future. I think that would solve everyone's problems/issues. Softlavender (talk) 13:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, here is your own deleted contributions, which will show the redirects (and any other edit you have made) that has since been deleted. As to the "Please stop creating redirects" comment, I don't read that as a command or order from RHaworth, but as a rather strongly worded request to cease creating unnecessary redirects. As Softlavender notes, you have created an excessive number of redirects, most of which carry negligible value. For example, six distinct redirects to Tim Collins (baseball). Not a single one of which was necessary or aids navigation, and would only create a lot of clean-up work if a second notable baseball player named Tim Collins were to arrive - as instead of modifying one page title to improve disambiguation, we would instead have to modify seven. I would personally ask that you take a step back and contemplate whether it is useful to create redirects to any permutation of a dab you can think of. Resolute 13:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Small note to Resolute: Only admins with their magic glasses can see what's on that page of deleted contributions. Softlavender (talk) 14:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Umm, I knew that too. BRB, need more coffee. Resolute 14:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Short answer RubbishComp is that no other admin will step up to say anything bad about Haworth. You'll be made to look like the bad person in this and this will be closed faster than you can say Cumbrian taxi driver on a shooting spree. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:47, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Long answer is that I (and other admins) have a long history of saying bad things about other admins when they deserve it, but not simply to please another editor. Fram (talk) 13:55, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Now go and close the thread. Chop, chop. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: Will they even give RHaworth a chance to talk here? --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Probably not, as I fully expect the token "closed" box any moment now. You're basically wasting your time. The admins wont allow you to bad mouth another of their kind. Haworth is in need of some social skills, but no other admin will even bother addressing this. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: "Stop creating redirects and do something more constructive". Absolutely no way of twisting the meaning of that, and closing the discussion will never change that, although this activity does drive away constructive contributors in their droves, and with reason. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• I don't want you to "say bad things about RHaworth", as such. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 13:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Redirects should be logical and unbiased. In particular, they should be things that people are likely to enter in the search box. Most of the redirects I've created (which aren't many) are alternate spellings of words that I'm more likely to use. "List of people called Nancy Sullivan" is not likely to be a phrase someone would just come up with out of thin air. More likely they would simply enter "Nancy Sullivan" in the search box, and be led either to a unique Nancy Sullivan or to a disambiguation page for multiple Nancy Sullivans. "List of people called Nancy" is not even an appropriate article, let alone a redirect, as there are gazillions of Nancys. There is an article Nancy which discusses the name in general, and which might have a few notables named Nancy. Redirects are fine, but there needs to be some reasonableness behind a given redirect. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)So, he didn't say that redirect creation is not constructive, he said that your redirect creation is not the most constructive to do. When you create about 37 redirects to Tim Collins (British Army officer), 26 to Tim Collins (politician), and so on, then you shouldn't be surprised when people start asking questions and don't believe this to be constructive. Most of these aren't needed, as the search box (or internet searches) will pick up the right result long before you are at the end of your search string, while other ones are highly unlikely anyway (like Tim WG Collins CBE, he doesn't seem to ever be adressed or mentioned as Tim WG Collins). Fram (talk) 14:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::"Stop creating redirects" does not mean "stop creating unnecessary redirects" or "be more careful about creating redirects: make sure you avoid implausible typos", it means "Stop creating redirects", and no way of twisting it changes its meaning. As I have said before, which resulted in an administrator openly mocking and insulting me here, rules do not appear to apply to administrators; it seems they can single-handedly decide Wikipedia policy> I suggest Fram Resolute Softlavender RHaworth you open a request for comment at Wikipedia talk:Redirect, proposing that no redirects be created and all existing redirects be deleted, which is exactly what you are all implying. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Or, maybe, just maybe, it was a direct request for the person being addressed (you) to stop creating redirects, not for the project as a whole to stop. Or is hyperbole definitely the order of the day here? GRAPPLE ^X 14:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

On a side note, I see the point about having to modify redirects but I already categorise existing redirects as I find them and create disambiguation pages where they are needed. In case you are wondering, I just go to Special:Random and go to a dab if the title disambiguates. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

No, Rubbish computer, that is not what we are implying. Please take a step back from all of this and answer me a question: Why are you creating up to 37 redirects to individual articles? I don't think any of us - even RHaworth - is actually saying "don't create any redirects", but we are asking you to consider whether the redirects you do create is valuable. As basic examples, creating a redirect like "2015-16 foo season" to point to "2015–16 foo season" is useful, since few readers are going to type in the endash. Creating a redirect that points a person's name without diacritics to the version with diacritics is useful. Redirecting "Tim Doe" to "Timothy Doe" if they are referred to as "Tim" is useful. And if you created such redirects, nobody would have a problem. But the issue that Rhaworth identified and which a few of us here agree is that your creation of dozens of redirects to single articles covering every remote permutation of a search term, disambiguation, post-nominal, etc, is only going to create unnecessary work. It's not a good use of your time, and it will only increase maintenance. Resolute 14:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, what I think RHaworth is asking, and certainly what I would ask, is this: if you can't make a better distinction between useful redirects and redirect overkill, then it would be best in your case to stop creating redirects alltogether and stick to more constructive edits. No "everyone should stop creating redirects", not even "all you redirects are unconstructive", just that the signal-to-noise ratio of them is unsatisfactory. Oh, and "drop the stick" is not a personal attack. "Trolling" is an uncivil way to describe your editing and could better be kept for the real trolls though. Fram (talk) 14:56, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Resolute for talking sense and responding professionally and politely. While this may not be what you are implying, it is exactly what Rhaworth said, which you cannot change the meaning of. Thanks, though, I will refine my redirect creation to the more likely search terms. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@Resolute: As an example, for 2004-05 Foo seaston, would Foo Season 2004-05, Foo Season, 2004-05, Foo Season of 2004-05 and foo Seasn (2004-05) be plausible redirects, and if not which would and which wouldn't? --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

If you have to ask, you probably know the answer already. Resolute's comment above is an excellent summation of my opinion on this. -- The Anome (talk) 14:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

None of those would be necessary in my view. In all of those examples (I used variants of "2004-05" and "Calgary Flames season"), the search engine produced the correct article high up the results list. In general, I would suggest limiting redirect creation to the most common spelling issues, which I outlined above. We don't really need a "Calgary Flames season, 2004-05" redirect, even if there is a slim chance that some singular reader might choose to use that search term. The search results page will capture those really extreme searches. Resolute 16:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Rubbish computer, I personally don't think you're taking on board what some people are trying to say or point out here. It's not just those "List" redirects that were problematical. I (and others) don't believe that the majority of the 4,000 redirects that you created in the past 30 days were either helpful, necessary, or appropriate. And they are potentially problematic for various reasons even beyond those already mentioned here. You seem to be a capable Wikipedia editor. I for one feel that your skills can be much better used doing something other than creating unnecessary redirects. At best it's starting to feel like blatant WP:EDITCOUNTITIS, which you seem to admit to on your userpage. For instance, yesterday you created four redirects to I Want to Spill the Blood of a Hippy, which couldn't possibly even need one redirect. I'm concerned that if you do not modify your behavior and change course that you will be hit with a boomerang here, which would be unfortunate and uncomfortable. Better to be proactive and prove that you can edit Wikipedia productively doing something else. Softlavender (talk) 14:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Amen. I suggest to you that you should drop the WP:STICK now. -- The Anome (talk) 14:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

And admins throwing (pardon the pun) the boomerang card. Ladies and gents, we have the full set. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Is Lugnuts expressing anti-admin sentiment part of the set?--Atlan (talk) 14:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

If combined with a low-level lurker's sycophancy, then, yes. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

No shortage of sycophants if you are the cut-off point.--Atlan (talk) 15:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay. There was really no need for The Anome to chip in with a personal attack when I was asking for clarification. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Where is the personal attack?--Atlan (talk) 14:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@Atlan: I consider "drop the stick" to be a personal attack, as regardless of how respected the essay is it is clearly an insult. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

"Drop the stick" is not an attack, personal or otherwise. It's merely good advice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

This is a textbook example of WP:GOAD, to which I will not be replying.--Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 15:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

This case seems eerily similar to the case I opened above about User:TX6875. There seems to be a rash of users creating mass quantities of redirects lately. Is this a new way to troll Wikipedia? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:47, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@WikiDan61: Are you seriously calling me a troll? --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@Rubbish computer: I'm saying it's odd that there are three simultaneous cases open at WP:ANI all involving excessive creation of redirects. An odd coincidence. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Fascinating. I've just mass-deleted User:TX6785's redirect farm. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. -- The Anome (talk) 14:56, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @WikiDan61: I blame the obsession with an edit count, as if the sole purpose of Wikipedia is to "score" as high as possible. It's not a viewpoint I personally subscribe to, but it is one which has begun to affect me. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

It appears Rubbish Computer has retired from editing, at least for now. I've cleaned up the most implausible of their most recent redirects, hopefully leaving all the more reasonable ones in place. As far as I can tell, they were editing in good faith, and genuinely thought they were helping. But we can't inflate the database with every possible conceivable redirect. -- The Anome (talk) 15:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey, well done, admins! Big pat on the back to all of you. And a big fuck you to WP:AGF! We couldn't have done it without you. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 15:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

You do realise that OP was just as willing to throw AGF out the window as anyone else here, don't you? GRAPPLE ^X 15:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The Anome, in the 11 months since Rubbish Computer started editing he/she has created 16,516 redirects. I would imagine most of them went under the radar, e.g. The January 2014 Rawalpindi suicide bombing. Like that one, there are literally hundreds of them which simply added "The" to the names of various entities, buildings, and even people. It's a pity it wasn't noticed sooner, as some friendly advice several months ago might have prevented it getting out of hand. Voceditenore (talk) 15:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Holy crap, I didn't even know there was a counter. Thanks for that, VDT. That's nearly half his edit count. Softlavender (talk) 15:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I can have a look at tidying some of the worst ones of those up, but it would be a massive effort to track down and delete every single one by hand without over-deleting. Which is one of the reasons why creating them was such a bad idea. -- The Anome (talk) 15:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The Anome, can you take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Programmatic_Media, specifically, all of the redirects to Programmatic media? I've already deleted the most implausible but I don't think 197 redirects to an article that is at AfD is warranted. I think there were originally around 230 redirects to this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The Anome, it's definitely one of the reasons why creating them was such a bad idea, and I don't think its worth trying to fix Rubbish Computer's redirects, frankly. I was just pointing out the scale of the problem which only came to light now. In most cases, they also created talk pages for each redirect and redirected them as well, doubling the work. Voceditenore (talk) 16:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• Guys, Rubbish computer is (was?) a new-ish editor but one of our most active at redirects for discussion; it's natural that they take (took?) an interest in creating redirects. If some of them were inappropriate, well sometimes that's what happens with inexperience, the best you can do is learn from it and carry on. We can try to educate the user to do better, or we can come down on them like a ton of bricks until they get pissed off and leave. Which one do you think we did here? Hint: [169]

Regarding RHaworth, if you have even a basic look at his user page you can see he deals with a lot of angry, clueless users whose pages he's deleted for perfectly sound reasons, who come to him to whine about it. His page is busy enough, and the arguments always weak enough, that I don't blame him for being short with most of those users. Especially when they're rude to him in the first place.

And regarding the redirects, yes the advice is not to needlessly create them, but equally once they are created not to needlessly delete them, because someone may find them useful even if you don't; Wikipedians browse in different ways. If you'd like to mass-list them at RfD, we're happy to offer opinions. Indeed it's pretty much all we do.

Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@Voceditenore: Much as I loathe this website and hate to come back at all, I can't just sit and let false accusations be made about me yet again. I redirected the talk pages of about 5 redirects: I also never added "The" in front of a person's name. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 16:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I believe Voceditenore was referring to your creating lots of "The Reverend" and "The Honorable" redirects, plus adding "The" to some animal names. Softlavender (talk) 16:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Softlavender, that's what I was referring to. As for the talk page redirects, my sincere apologies, Rubbish computer. There were only about five that were previously red-linked. I should have checked this list much more carefully. Voceditenore (talk) 17:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually Voceditenore I was just getting angry with you about nothing. Sorry! --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 17:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the redirects, but Ivanvector, this is a user with over four times as many edits as you, who as of yesterday was the 1416th most active editor in Wikipedia's entire history. When in your view does someone stop being a new user? ‑ iridescent 17:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Never. We're all n00bs. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Rather, we're all at a point of experience where we can occasionally benefit from an assumption of cluelessness. If anyone has interpreted "new-ish" as an insult I will happily re-word. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:48, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@Iridescent: You are completely right. I simply think I didn't get taught which redirects were and weren't valid, which I should have asked about.

If I ask here I'll be accused of not "dropping the stick", an excellent non-argument to avoid helping anyone involved in a dispute. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 17:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Guess who's back? --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 17:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm very glad about that, Rubbish computer. It would have been a pity to lose you over a kerfuffle like this. Voceditenore (talk) 17:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@Voceditenore: Thanks: I'm kind of addicted now. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 17:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The Anome (Plz don't bite me) Is this okay? --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 17:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Well is it? --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 19:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

No, it is totally superfluous. If you type "Spring Township" into the search box, the fourth entry in the dropdown list is Spring Township, Boone County, Illinois; no-one in their right mind would continue after that to type the full name with brackets rather than commas. RolandR (talk) 20:26, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I think the consensus is that you should quit creating redirects altogether, and find some other, more productive, way to contribute. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Redirect spam - why is this suddenly popular?

Right now, there are three open incidents on AN/I involving large numbers of redirects:

• WP:AN/I#Programmatic Media
• WP:AN/I#User:TX6785 appears obsessed
• WP:AN/I#User:RHaworth saying redirect creation is not constructive (this issue)

This hasn't been a common problem in the past. Is there some commonality here? All three incidents are in totally different areas; it's not subject-matter related. Is there some new tool for creating bulk redirects? John Nagle (talk) 20:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

With my cynical hat on, I'd say this is the likely suspect. Redirects aren't counted, but I suspect a lot of people don't realise that. ‑ iridescent 20:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, God, no. The 5M page can't be a redirect. They aren't counted, are they? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

It's clear either way it's a form of editcountitis. Softlavender (talk) 01:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• Proposal: I'm going to request again that Rubbish computer take or agree to a voluntary topic ban from creating redirects. This has obviously gotten way out of hand and it's very clear he lacks perspective on it. If he does not voluntarily agree to this, I think we are going to need to come to a community-agreed-upon sanction. As I mentioned before, RC is a skilled and valued Wikipedia editor, and it's clear he can do a variety of things on WP besides create redirects. In fact, I have to say from personal experience that the more varied one's editing gets, the more rewarding time spent on Wikipedia becomes. Perhaps mentorship from someone, if desired, might also give him ideas and increase his awareness of the options open to him. Softlavender (talk) 01:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Yes, I will stop making them. --Rubbish computer (Trick: or treat?) 01:51, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@Softlavender: "Skilled and valuable Wikipedia editor" Utter poppycock, token weasel words. I apparently lack perspective now, and need mentoring, as well as being called a troll, a spammer (thanks Nagle!) and somebody who needs to do something constructive (by an admin, the irony.) Why don't you push to get me blocked, along with everyone else with "editcountitis"? --Rubbish computer (Trick: or treat?) 02:01, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

What did I do to cause you all to have a grudge against me? --Rubbish computer (Trick: or treat?) 02:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and the link to WP:NOE with "DO MOAR EDITTINGG" piped over it was a light-hearted joke; apparently everything on my user page is going to be put under a microscope as evidence. Perhaps you'd like to search my other WMF user pages? Or Uncyclopedia, I've got an account there: why don't you make up a reason to get me blocked there as well? --Rubbish computer (Trick: or treat?) 02:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure where this reaction came from, or why you are assuming bad faith. Yes, you lack perspective on redirects, but you have editing skills and I've seen you do good work elsewhere. Thank you for agreeing to avoid creating new redirects. Yes, it's aggravating and painful when our wiki editing gets challenged or corrected (we've all been there, believe me), but no one here has assumed bad faith about you; we're just trying to do what's best for the project. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 02:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Apologies, everyone else assumes bad faith, especially in the entire of the above thread about me. --Rubbish computer (Trick: or treat?) 02:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I realize you are frustrated, I would be too; however you're taking words out of context and misinterpreted people's meaning and intention. "Redirect-spam" is just a shorthand for mass redirects; it obviously does not and could not refer to spam as it's usually meant. Perhaps redirect-cruft would convey the meaning better but I guess it doesn't have the ring of massive excess that is happening lately around redirects. Everyone on this thread agrees that mass unwarranted creation of redirects is not constructive and is in fact the reverse. And nobody has called you a troll; WikiDan explained that. Please try to get perspective on terms that are being thrown around as slang and not specifically referring to you -- this thread has turned into a discussion of a site-wide problem concerning redirects. Yes, it's dreadfully painful when a thread on ANI starts to boomerang, and I can understand your venting .... however no one has or has shown any ill-will towards you or assumed bad faith. We've all had to adjust our editing behaviors regularly ... join the club. Best of luck, Softlavender (talk) 02:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Rubbish, I suggest you listen to Softlavender. You're going to fall into ANI's vicious circle: the more people accuse you of being disruptive, the angrier you get; the angrier you get, the more disruptive you get called. The only way to escape it is to walk away. You said you won't create mass redirects any more. That's good enough for me. I don't think we need a formal topic ban. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Alright. Leaving this discussion per WP:GOAD: it is safe to say I now have a more thorough understanding of what kind of "enyclopedia" this really is. --Rubbish computer (Trick: or treat?) 03:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry this has been so stressful for you. Though the redirects don't strike me as particularly useful, I think you're a constructive editor who creates articles in good faith, and I don't think a boomerang should have been brought against you. But, seriously, no more about cabals, please. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:47, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Please stop trying to perpetuate the discussion. --Rubbish computer (Trick: or treat?) 06:00, 31 October 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:Myo007 violation of WP:V

The following discussion is closed. 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:Myo007 edited the article Visa requirements for Australian citizens. He added some unsourced information (diff) and I thought it's just an ordinary troll (as the Visa requirement articles are under immense pressure by trolls and vandals) so I undid the edit because there were no sources provided. But he reinserted the information (diff) saying that he has "been to these countries". As that had shown me he has zero understanding of the WP:V I reverted for the second time but this time I tried to give a lengthier explanation and I also posted one of those welcome-warning templates on adding to the articles without a verifiable published source on his talk page. He didn't get the message but just added the information that lacks a source once again (diff).

I can't act on this anymore or else I would violate the 3RR rule so I seek administrator intervention. Thank you.--Twofortnights (talk) 17:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Might be one for WP:AIV as disruptive editing? samtar ^{t} 18:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Nope. I assumed the user had been warned multiple times and continued. samtar ^{t} 18:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks.--Twofortnights (talk) 19:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

1. Australians can enter into Singapore with Visit pass for 90 Days, that's is true. 2. Myanmar Business Visa on Arrival or eVisa Business both 70 Days are also true.

• • Those Cites web links all are from Government websites, those are immigration Laws that currently Legal and easy to find out reliable and verifiable sources.
  • I did NOT violate anything in editing except i point out the truths about entry Laws and also that is not a troll but i just helping people with on good faiths only. If you won't accept it then be it , i won't edit that again and it is unfair to brought the matter here and complaining things and clearly wrong accusations.

i showed you one government website on each is enough and more info pls find yourself.

On Singapore visit pass: that's from Australian Government site from Australian High Commission for Singapore Look at below on the page at: http://singapore.embassy.gov.au/sing/home.html

it has mentioned that Australian passport holders do not usually require a visa for visits to Singapore of up to 90 days.

It is by Subject to Immigration Regulation . 12 (7) of Singapore Immigration Law that's Australian passport holders are entitled to get Visit pass for 90 Days on each entry, it will be just stamped but no sticker unless one was granted eIACS then (30 Days limit on each Visit)

I have been entry into Singapore for 8 times already with Aus passport and same type of pass each issued for 90 Days.

Depend on government and immigration policies , Laws may be changed time by time, those are up to date Law today and current happening.

For Myanmar Visa issue:

http://mecanberra.com.au/visa-on-arrival

That's announced from Myanmar Embassy at Canberra, Australia, those arrival Business Visas are really issue 70 Days for each entry. Those are real strong evidences, do you have any Cite better than mentioned from Government websites?

You can discuss in talk page for the matter if you have an issue until meet true answers and solutions and don't bring this Admin page for unnecessary without having proper researched about those Laws, everyone has to share their previous times for that act and we have things to do too.

Australians can have 90 Days Visit Pass to Singapore, that's truthful information.

It is really unfair to accuse me for violation and warned for my editing, it was just good faiths editing and helping.

• I will not Edit that article again. Myo007 (talk) 09:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Below are more about 90 Days Social visit Infos if you want more reliable cities.

https://www.austrade.gov.au/Australian/Export/Export-markets/Countries/Singapore/Visiting/Visas http://www.expatarrivals.com/singapore/visas-for-singapore http://www.ausbt.com.au/how-to-get-fast-track-passport-clearance-at-singapore-s-changi-airport

Please note both Australia and Singapore are commonwealth countries, normally rich commonwealth each other easier to enter and longer stay permit granted more than 30 Days and we have good Diplomatic relationship ties, also a lot of Australia products are transporting into Singapore, Australia is one of major overseas trade country, As per Visa waver program for Australian passport Social visit pass 90 Days is current ongoing Law and also as being special there has been introduced with eIACS pass system for Australian passport holders already.

http://www.ausbt.com.au/how-to-get-fast-track-passport-clearance-at-singapore-s-changi-airport On above link: " As you can see on that page as together with photo for both 90 Days visit pass stamp as well as eIACS pass stamp after that". The Stamps Photo and web link are clearly shown for solid evidence by proving that with Australian passport can remain as 90 Days.

You can see the stamp as " PERMITTED TO ENTER AND REMAIN IN SINGAPORE FOR NINETY DAYS FOR SOCIAL VISIT ONLY FROM DATE SHOWN ABOVE. "

• • Note: He must have been 3 times visited in within 12 months then he was eligible to apply eIACS pass and then he went to apply eIACS in same day after entry and it will valid for 2 year once granted but entering with eIACS from another gate only limit to 30 days in each entry. And the one who wants 90 Days pass then go for normal long queue in Changi airport and get it.

As for Myanmar Visa it was direct proved from Myanmar Embassy, Canberra site so you no need to seek any further for cite.

• • • Please remove that warning notice from my talk page since i did all with good faiths and good soul to share knowledge on people.

I have been proved enough verifiable sources as per above. Myo007 (talk) 11:28, 31 October 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.

ßlaïsi Furstqurzel

The following discussion is closed. 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 indefblocked ßlaïsi Furstqurzel (talk · contribs) without giving a warning, in light of this edit and the fact that the entire contributions of Special:Contributions/ßlaïsi_Furstqurzel consists of trolling. If anyone thinks this is out-of-process, feel free to undo it. ‑ iridescent 20:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Jumping right to WP:RFA as a new account? I'm curious who's sock this is. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

As Huon said in an unblock request response: "Obvious troll is obvious". Good block. BMK (talk) 20:50, 30 October 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.

MaranoFan

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

---

How many more times do we have to go through this kind of thing with User:MaranoFan? When he took a script-enforced break back in May 2015, he left this edit summary: "-F-U-C-K--Y-O-U--W-I-K-I-P-E-D-I-A-". This script enforced break wasn't his first, he took one prior to that when being brought to AN/I for a proposed topic ban (uploading unfree images) [170]. When shown leniency and reminded of his topic ban just a short while ago [171], he responded with this: "OMG!! HA GURL< YOU AINT SLICK grrrrrr. byrolbdohfjdbfmdnd.ksyiudgdfzcbb such a b*h"; and this: "F-UCK YOU ARMBRUST, -b-itch" and once again taking a script enforced break to try and beat the "heat" (as he has done every time he gets in hot water). So, my question is: how many times does MaranoFan get to come back after a script-enforced break so as not to be sanctioned or blocked for violating his topic ban and not facing the music for personal attacks and destructive behavior? It's getting pretty tiresome. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Maybe it's best to just ignore the editor instead of continuing to give them negative attention. Viriditas (talk) 05:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

The wikibreak expires on January 1, 2030. -- Diannaa (talk) 06:29, 31 October 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.

resolve edit-reedit war

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

---

"Theredpenofdoom" is not letting me to add an important aspect of "Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh "s life .

check the following link https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gurmeet_Ram_Rahim_Singh&action=history

Zqxwcevrbtny (talk) 05:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

OP is forum shopping. This is at ANEW, already, and I just reverted yet again a BLP issue edit by the OP. TheRedPenOfDoom has reverted BLP issues repeatedly by OP all day. Suggest immediate block for OP to stop disruption. Btw, no notification was given by OP as required here. Will do so. John from Idegon (talk) 05:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, definite forum-shopping after being repeatedly and exhaustively advised of policy on their talk page. Time for a goodly block. Softlavender (talk) 06:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

By the way here's the ANEW report: [172]. Softlavender (talk) 07:04, 31 October 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.

Legal threats by Kitatom (talk)

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

---

This isn't really one of the most serious legal threats in the world, but they seem to have something against the subject of the article and seem to dislike the subject of the article. The AfD is here. I wouldn't normally post here because I prefer to avoid ANI etc, but I'd rather it not escalate. I do have a sneaky suspicion that Kitatom may be a sock of ElNuevoEinstein but I'm doubtful it's enough to take it to SPI. --  Kethrus |talk to me  16:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@Kethrus: It would be helpful if you link the diff of the specific threat. But I believe it is this one that you are referring to. Not sure if I would call it a legal threat, but it is very much a borderline case. What is clear is that the editor is attempting to push a particular POV that isn't represented in the sources on the article and hasn't presented any reliable sources to back up their POV. —Farix (t | c) 16:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@TheFarix: That's the diff, thanks for linking it. It's a bit borderline, and does have the potential to escalate. It's a bit borderline - I agree, but it seems they're wanting to push it in some form of legal manner (although I'm unsure how they'd succeed as the only source is that video on Vimeo). It's clearly a SPA created after the AFD was opened, too. --  Kethrus |talk to me  16:56, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Briefly looking at the previous AFD discussion, there apparently was an issue with sockpuppets making similar arguments (specifically Ebcidic and Grockeds). Based on behavior alone, it is very possible that this editor is just another sockpuppet. Suggest taking it to WP:SPI. —Farix (t | c) 17:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done: I've taken it to SPI, I wasn't aware of the blocked user so I opened it up with Grockeds as the master. --  Kethrus |talk to me  17:15, 31 October 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.

Copyright violation by Ritsaiph

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

---

Ritsaiph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The above user persists in adding a copyrighted photo of Jesse Ventura to pages associated with Ventura. The photo has already been deleted from Commons here. The recent upload of the file to Wikipedia appears to be a backdoor attempt to add the image despite its copyright status. --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The user has now attempted to remove this report. --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:36, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

User has been blocked per persistent copyright violations. This thread can be closed. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:24, 1 November 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:Portals & Templates

Portals & Templates (talk · contribs), an account created today, has repeatedly (four times) reverted my edits on Portal:Rihanna and Portal:Rihanna/Topics. I have told the user multiple times to discuss the issue instead of edit warring, but so far this user has refused to discuss. This account does not look like a WP:NOOB. Admittedly I am new to portal editing, but I looked at portal guidelines and did not find anything opposing the use of navboxes (correct me if I am wrong), and this portal is seriously out of date (looks like circa 2010). What should be done in this situation? sst✈^discuss 18:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Templates do not belong in Portal sections. That is what templates are for. Don't believe me, check out other portal topics. Changing it back as above editor needs consensus for brand new changes like this. --Portals & Templates (talk) 18:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I've been here 4 years and didn't know that. One has to be curious as to how you got here today and do. John from Idegon (talk) 18:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Unless someone wants to point to an existing policy, I would see the use of the template as beneficial more than detrimental, as it means changes to it are reflected in the portal automatically, stopping the latter from growing outdated. GRAPPLE ^X 19:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

If this is what the community wants, go ahead and undo my edit then. I will not interfere on the matter anymore. --Portals & Templates (talk) 19:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)--Portals & Templates (talk) 19:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Soapboxing/Edit Warring on the Uncyclopedia Article

User Shalir Salim (talk · contribs), has been edit warring on the Uncyc article. They claim that Uncyc is not a part of Wikia anymore, and has removed any reference on the page of there being two wikis, despite the fact that UncycloWikia is still active. Despite being reverted by multiple editors, Shalir keeps trying to claim that there is only one site. In addition to this, they don't seem to take a hint that they're in the wrong, and goes as far to accuse another editor of vandalism. --DSA510 Pls No Bully 19:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Dittoes. Bottom line (which can be studied on Talk:Uncyclopedia), there is the original website, operated by Wikia and administered in part by me; also a fork begun in January 2013 favored by DSA510 who posted above. The Wikipedia article, after several rounds of drama and discussion, documents both websites and the schism with a careful effort to avoid favoritism. Shalir Salim has recently edited this article to remove all references to the original website. I have told Salim on his talk page that this view is counter-factual. It can be argued that the fork is the "real" Uncyclopedia based on the personalities that assemble there; it can also be argued that if the patrons of Joe's Pub rejoin in the basement of one of them, it is not Joe's Pub. In any case, the Wikipedia article reflected a careful balance of these perspectives, which has been broken for reasons I presume are self-serving. The facts have not changed since that balance was struck. Spike-from-NH (talk) 04:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

PS--Shalir is back on with a new round of revert plus warning/threat on my talk page, while deleting my response from his talk page. Shalir created the account 4-5 days ago, evidently for the primary purpose of vandalizing the Uncyclopedia article in order to promote the fiction that his preferred fork, of the two forks, is not just the better website but the only one. It is annoying having to continue revert the page to the consensus reached earlier, in the aftermath of a new editor who is spending a remarkable amount of time joining and generating drama versus factual editing.

Shalir's account had few other edits (usual Summary: "Improved"), but did find time to edit Wikia, inserting a paragraph containing: "Wikia has also received condemnation for forcing unwanted features on their community." The controversy is chronic and is one reason the editors there parted ways, but the declaration that something is unwanted is subjective and would at least need citation, and the edit reveals a motive: an animus against the (PS: host of the) Uncyclopedia fork to which Shalir is removing references. Spike-from-NH (talk) 00:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

The editor has cited me at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, comment removed by Materialscientist citing "unactionable." Edit summary of my edit of Uncyclopedia as "spam" was reverted by Clpo13 with a request to take it to Talk:Uncyclopedia, which with luck Shalir will read in its entirety before posting. Spike-from-NH (talk) 01:27, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

The issue is resolved. Theres nothing wrong with the Uncyclopedia aritcle. It refers to Wikia site as a fork of main site. All social media links and official Uncyclopedia links link to Uncyclopedia.co not Wikia. I think a topic ban is in order if it carries on. Mr Salim made the good edit himself. 5.151.197.195 (talk) 13:33, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Anon, the issue is not resolved by reverting to one of the two alternatives that favors one website over the other. Spike-from-NH (talk)

The fork is branched off of Wikia, NOT the other way around. --DSA510 Pls No Bully 17:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I think a topic ban for DunegonSiegeAddict510 and Spike-from-NH is in order if this keeps on. They are clearly favoring the Wikia branch. Mr Salim added references to Wikia and maintained it was an alternative site but Spike and Dungeon keep removing them. Mr Salims edits were neutral. 5.151.197.195 (talk) 17:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@Diannaa, David Biddulph, Jayron32, and GiantSnowman:request oversightMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 17:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

• What do you want me to do? --Jayron32 17:36, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

None of the 4 people whom you have pinged here are oversighters. The criteria for oversighting are very strict, see WP:Oversight, and it isn't clear why you are requesting it in this case. In general requests for oversight should not be made in public, because that further draws attention to the problematic material. Use one of the methods explained at the top of WP:Oversight. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@Mahfuzur rahman shourov: please stop pinging us, unless it's something we're actually involved in. GiantSnowman 09:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@Jayron32, GiantSnowman, and David Biddulph:admin can block unblock user, protect page, topic ban so ping admin past time. pinger apologizeMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 16:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Like I said, please STOP pinging us! GiantSnowman 16:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

De-prodder

• 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:F07A:973D:2CFD:EEE6 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:A1D2:FA71:366F:B03E (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:E52A:8C67:E2A2:B864 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This SPA has de-prodded about 20 articles in 15 minutes (as of this moment), the ip has no prior editing history... Vrac (talk) 00:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I know anyone can remove a PROD for any reason, but I think mass-removals like this should be considered vandalism, especially since they haven't justified any of their PROD removals. clpo13_(talk) 01:08, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I had already asked them on their talk page, but it doesn't look like they're gonna respond. Vrac also reverted one of their edits, and they immediately reverted it without comment. Rchard2scout (talk) 01:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Now they've moved on to adding {{old prod full}} to the articles they removed PRODs from. clpo13_(talk) 01:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

This SPA doesn't look much like a SPA. Deprodding has a set of requirements. One of which is giving a reason for your objection either in the summary or on the talk page. Absent this it can't be considered deprodded I feel.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#Objecting which says, in part, "You are encouraged, but not required,..." It may be annoying but there is nothing wrong it what they are doing. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Technically, they're not breaking any rules, but that doesn't really matter. Removing PRODs from such a high number of articles without any explanation is clearly disruptive. And while we're on the subject, I strongly disagree with the fact that an explanation is not required. Just like you can't place a PROD without a reason, you shouldn't be able to remove one without a reason. JDDJS (talk) 16:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP 48 hours for disruptive editing. Since the removals of PROD were not in good faith, in my opinion anyone who believes the PRODs were justified can restore them. A brand-new IP who knows how to use the Template:old prod full is presumably a sock. EdJohnston (talk) 16:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

The user hasn't been active since the question was first put to them. They're clearly an experienced user, but there's no evidence that they're a sock, rather than just a user who doesn't use an account (which is not required). This block is wholly baseless in policy, and appears to be vindictive. The user isn't doing anything, and hasn't been online since questions were first put to them. Absolutely inexcuseable. WilyD 16:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

The user did over fifty-prod related edits after the question was put to them and they were informed of this thread. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, yes, I was confused by the timestamps in the userpage posts being in a different time-zone from the edit history. My rhetoric in the first place should've been somewhat toned down (although the block is still bad, and re-adding PRODs is still unacceptable.) WilyD 16:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I remember back when the Prod process was first implemented, a number of editors went around mass deprodding articles because they opposed the entire process itself. Nothing was ever done to those editors dispute repeated reports to ANI as those editors were within their rights dispute any prod. So why should this be any different? What evidence is there that the deprodding wasn't done in good faith? —Farix (t | c) 16:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

That thing you describe seems very very WP:POINTy to me, and the fact nothing was done back then doesn't necessarily mean it was right, or that circumstances haven't changed due to the fact that PROD is now a much more established process. LjL (talk) 17:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

@LjL: While it may seem POINTy at first, the rational for not issuing blocks for mass removes for pods was that it was simpler and less disruptive to start an AfD using the same rational rather than arguing over whether a prod removal was valid or not. Also, a disputed prod is still disputed no matter what the circumstances are. The only exception were cases of pure vandalism. —Farix (t | c) 21:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Wikipedia:Proposed deletion explicitly states that even bad faith removal of prod tags is allowed. Any editor who reads Template:Proposed deletion/dated will quickly discover Template:old prod full. I do not see any policy-based reason for this block. —Kusma (t·c) 16:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:Proposed deletion can say what it wants (although condoning things done in bad faith seems like a very strange policy), but how does that make admins suddenly not allowed to block someone who's disrupting Wikipedia in bad faith? WP:Proposed deletion merely states that the template can't be re-added, anyway, not that administrative action can't be taken if it was removed inappropriately. LjL (talk) 17:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

There are two issues here. One, is the removal of prod tags without giving any reason allowed? Yes. Two, can editors simply ignore good-faith concerns from other editors and simply continue on their way? In my view, no. Some response, however brief, is needed as Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I've undone the block per objections here. EdJohnston (talk) 17:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think that there is an ARBCOM ruling that says making mass edits against consensus, or when you have reason to know that they are objected to and do not discuss them, is itself disruptive editing. (I would have to search to find the exact ruling.) Other than that, I think TheFarix and Kusma are correct, there is no evidence of socking here, and not much of bad faith, IMO. But that ruling might be the basis of a block. DES ^(talk) 17:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. I note that not so long ago, a user who dePRODded articles in a particular subject area with no explanation or with a clearly spurious explanation, was allowed to continue. The editor disagreed with the applicable SNG and was attempting to disrupt the deletion process to frustrate enforcement of a consensus guideline. If that was OK, there shouldn't be a block here. There is a prehistoric ARBCOM case that said that you could be blocked if enough editors disliked your dePRODding criteria, but that goes back to the days when ARBCOM was infested with sockpuppetteers, impersonators, and other bad actors, and should probably be disregarded. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
• I think that this shows we need to have a discussion about the current policy dePRODing articles. It does not make sense to even have PROD if an IP address can just massively remove them from articles without offering a reason. You can't PROD an article without a reason, so you shouldn't be able to de-PROD without one. Can somebody steer me in the right direction to start this conversation? JDDJS (talk) 20:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Probably Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion, but I wouldn't be surprised if a similar discussion is buried in the archives. clpo13_(talk) 20:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I believe the logic of being able to remove PROD tags is that PRODs are supposed to be for uncontroversial deletion. If the deletion is contested, the discussion has to go to AfD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Define "contested" though. One thing is "contesting", as in, being against the deletion of a particular article; another thing is "contesting" the idea itself that articles can be PROD'd; yet another is mass-dePROD'ing likely so that you can grab popcorn and watch admins and others wikilawyer over policy at ANI. LjL (talk) 20:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Removing PRODs for no reason is usually fine, but mass removing is clearly disruptive. Good block. GiantSnowman 13:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• Good block- a quick spot check satisfies me that most, if not all, of the deprodded articles are completely hopeless. The IP can not have done any kind of actual evaluation on these articles before deprodding them. This is just pointy nonsense. Reyk _YO! 14:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• Perhaps instead of arguing over if the block was legit or not (under current PROD/DEPROD it is clear and unambiguous that no reason is requried to DEPROD at all.) people should do something useful and go change PROD/DEPROD so that it states a De-prodder is required to leave a reason. If you can get consensus for that change, then you will have solved the issue. Then you can all get started on what constitutes a valid reason for deprodding of course... Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
  • It would be much easier and less disruptive to simply start AfDs on the individual articles rather than argue over whether a deprod or series of deprods are legitimate or not. —Farix (t | c) 21:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I completely disagree with your statement. The entire purpose of the PROD process is to lessen the burden on editors and admins when it comes to articles that are obviously deleteable. Given how few editors are even involved in AfD discussions these days the burden is even heavier for the few active there. There is nothing "easy" about creating and administrating a significant uptick of unnecessary deletion discussions should one editor take it upon themselves to start stripping the PROD template from articles with no explanation or discernible concerns raised. If there is a loophole allowing for this type of disruption then suggestion the process be reviewed is sensible.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

• Another IP editor (2602:30A:2EFE:F050:E52A:8C67:E2A2:B864 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) has cropped up. This time, they're linking to WP:CONTESTED and notifying the original PRODder. Still removing PRODs faster than they could possibly evaluate the article. clpo13_(talk) 09:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • There really isn't anything actionable here. While the prod removals may be seem "unfounded" to some, the editor are well within without the policy to remove them as the prods removals are not blatant vandalism. If an article truly fails the inclusion criteria or WP:NOT, then removing the prod tag merely delays the inevitable instead of preventing it. That really isn't disruptive at all. —Farix (t | c) 09:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Variety of issues with editing

I had a look at the Fritzl case, checked a few refs and found they all did not contain the info as claimed. I tagged the ones I'd checked as failed verification, and tagged the article accordingly. I left a note on article talk explaining that the refs I'd checked were all wrong, and that I'd marked those before giving up in disgust (this is the worst article I've seen for a long while). User:Harry the Dirty Dog seemed to be the main named editor of the article, so I checked his other contributions. The first two articles I found he'd added text to were pure copyvio [173] and [174]. Then I found that (just minutes later) he'd already removed all of the tags from the (very long) Fritz case article, with the "explanation" on talk diff (edit sum "What exactly is wrong with it?") and diff. This example edit by Harry the dog (reverting an edit) restores wrongly cited info, with the somewhat ironic edit summary "Not what the refs say". I would guess this editor's history needs looking into. Cheers zzz (talk) 06:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I explained on the article TP. You don't tag a whole article because of a couple of duff refs. One of the tags was incorrect. Some refs have multiple pages, e.g this one [175]. You need to click through all the pages before you decide something isn't there. It took a few minutes but I was already going through and fixed the unsupported assertions. If there are any more errors, please tag them or better still fix them. Thanks. Harry ^{Let us have speaks} 06:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I just counted, it was five refs that I tagged individually. As I explained on talk, those were just the ones that I happened to check. Not "a couple". zzz (talk) 07:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

And two of those tags related to the Spiegel article were incorrect, as the information was on page three of the article. So that leaves three which I have fixed. Feel free to look for more, but as I said, you don't tag a whole article as being factually dubious because of two or three duff refs. Harry ^{Let us have speaks} 07:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Assuming (for the sake of argument) you're right that 2 out of the first five refs I randomly checked were actually correct, that indicates a problem: a BLP that is at least 60% wrong. I have no idea why you would remove failed verification tags before correcting the content. As if the tags are the problem. zzz (talk) 07:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

No assuming needed. Look more closely at the refs. In any event that's three out of 65 (and one of those, the Spiegel ref, was actually accurate in two of the three instances you tagged). You cannot extrapolate that 60% of all the refs are problematic based on your sampling. As I said on the article's TP, there will inevitably be slippage in refs. Links go dead, and the content of refs can change since they were first used. So it is good to be vigilant. In removing the tags I have fixed the issues that you highlighted. If you find more, either tag them and someone will look at them or better still fix it yourself. Harry ^{Let us have speaks} 07:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

That is precisely how sampling and extrapolation work. 60%+ out of 65 refs. You do the maths. Tagged refs should at least be fixed before tag removal, without the need for ANI, as a matter of courtesy. The copyvio is another issue: 100% of a sample of your last two content additions. zzz (talk) 08:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I simply restored the article to make it easier to work with. You need a representative sample to make an extrapolation. If you had found problems in all the sections then I would say that is representative, but as I said, a few problems in an article that old is not unusual. To tag a whole article you need to be sure there is a major problem, not extrapolate from a few duff refs that as I say are not uncommon in longer, older articles and I am grateful that you spotted the errors in the refs so they could be fixed.

As for the copyvio claims, there is nothing wrong with using a small part of a ref verbatim (or nearly verbatim) especially when you are quoting a public statement that is itself quoted in the ref. And I wonder how you can claim that:

In July 2015 Asker was found guilty on all charge and was sentenced to over four years in prison and ordered to pay $2.5 million in restitution. The other four pleaded guilty. Maher Bashi, the pizza chain’s chief operating officer, was sentenced to two years in prison and ordered to pay $620,297. Two franchisees were given prison sentences and a third received three years probation.

is a copyvio of:

Happy Asker, president and founder of the Farmington Hills-based Happy’s Pizza chain, was sentenced to more than four years in federal prison Friday and ordered to pay $2.5 million restitution for tax fraud. Asker, 38, of West Bloomfield was convicted of more than two dozen crimes, including filing false federal individual tax returns aiding and assisting the filing of false returns and engaging in a corrupt endeavor to obstruct and impede the IRS code. Maher Bashi, the pizza chain’s chief operating officer, was sentenced to two years in prison and ordered to pay $620,297. Yaldo, a franchisee, was sentenced to 18 months and ordered to pay $314,078. Summa, also a franchisee, was sentenced to 18 months in prison and ordered to pay $199,847. Tagrid Bashi, a franchise owner, was sentenced to three years’ probation.

The one sentence that is verbatim a) comes under fair use and b) is simply a statement of facts. My addition is otherwise a rewrite of what the source says. But again, if you feel that the whole sntence is a copyvio, why not just rewrite that one sentence rather than a wholesale removal of sourced information that is pertinent to the article. Harry ^{Let us have speaks} 08:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

First diff:

Your text: "On 24 October Talk Talk issued a statement saying that the amount of customers’ financial information stolen by hackers was “materially lower” than first thought and would not allow money to be taken from bank accounts."

Ref:"Firm says customer data stolen ‘materially lower’ than thought and would not allow money to be taken from bank accounts"

Second diff:

Your text: "In July 2015 Asker was found guilty on all charge and was sentenced to over four years in prison and ordered to pay $2.5 million in restitution."

Ref: "...was sentenced to more than four years in federal prison Friday and ordered to pay $2.5 million restitution"

Followed by:

Your text: " Maher Bashi, the pizza chain’s chief operating officer, was sentenced to two years in prison and ordered to pay $620,297. Two franchisees were given prison sentences and a third received three years probation."

Ref: "Maher Bashi, the pizza chain’s chief operating officer, was sentenced to two years in prison and ordered to pay $620,297. Yaldo, a franchisee, was sentenced to 18 months and ordered to pay $314,078." zzz (talk) 08:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The Talk Talk quote is from a public statement so perfectly OK to use. The Happy Pizza addition is a fundamental rewrite of the source with one small part quoted verbatim, as shown above in the block quotes. As I say, both fall under fair use as they comprise a tiny part of the text in the ref. If you disagree, rewrite the text rather than deleting wholesale sourced pertinent information. Harry ^{Let us have speaks} 08:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with all of what you just said. I disagree with everything you've said, in fact, here and on the article talk page. These are just your last two content additions, I haven't checked any more. I'll leave this for admins to look at. zzz (talk) 09:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Let me get this strait. You found two edits that may have copyright issues on one article and a possible source issue on another. So instead of fixing the issue, then opening a talk page section saying you fixed it, and explaining the problem, you open up an AN/I section? I will point out on the Happy pizza talk page there is not one discussion. [176] On the Fritzl page you made one comment and when the other party responded, nothing from you. [177] Looks like a fish is headed your way. AlbinoFerret 16:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• I should have been more specific: I'll leave this here for administrators and not AlbinoFerret to look into. zzz (talk) 00:59, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Members of the community commonly respond to sections here. I am uninvolved with either of you or the topic. But we will wait for others to chime in. AlbinoFerret 16:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

"Uninvolved": 24 October 2015, 25 October 2015. (This page, this week) zzz (talk) 18:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

To tell the truth, I didnt know you made those posts. They happened long after I stopped paying attention to that section. AlbinoFerret 19:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, you opened a new section and then immediately stopped paying attention to it. Fair enough. zzz (talk) 20:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

The section was just getting out of hand, and looking at it now, the lack of community involvement shows that I was right. AlbinoFerret 21:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm fairly confused what "The Talk Talk quote is from a public statement so perfectly OK to use" means. The fact that something is a "public statement" doesn't mean it was released under a free licence that is compatible with the CC. If it isn't under a free licence that is compatible with the CC, then copyright concerns arise. (And even if it is, you need to make sure you comply with any possible terms, such as attribution.). If copyright concerns arise, then you need to be very careful with copying verbatim. If you believe the content can't be reworded, while it may sometimes be acceptable to leave it, you should consider whether direct quotation is a better alternative. Note that whether or not the content comes from a public statement or something else is not that relevant to copyright concerns. If you didn't already know any of this, you probably should take a more careful read of our copyright policies and guidelines, and any parts you don't properly understand, try asking somewhere appropriate. 19:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

A public statement is de facto in the public domain. Also many articles use small parts of the source verbatim. You cannot copyright facts. I am sure that somewhere you can find a source that says "Barack Obama is the 44th and current President of the United States". That does not preclude the Wikipedia article from using exactly those words. Because it's a fact. And fair use: "Non-free content can be used on Wikipedia in certain cases (for example, in some situations where acquiring a freely licensed image for a particular subject is not possible), but only within the United States legal doctrine of fair use, and in accordance with Wikipedia's own non-free content criteria as set out below." wp:Non-free content

In the Happy Pizza example I have shown how I created a substantial rewrite of the source text. A single phrase appeared as it did in the source, but it was a factual statement. In the Talk Talk article, as I said, because what was quoted was a de facto in the public domain as a public statement, the same way an open letter is, I saw no problem using it. In any event, both cases were very minor excerpts from the sources and easily covered under fair use/no copyright over facts.

My concern is that having identified what he believed to be copvios zzz simply deleted sourced content that was pertinent to the article and opened this AN/I rather than fixing it and/or contacting me or putting a note on the article talk page. In the mean time, I have fixed what people feel is a copyvio and in future I will put all such direct quotes from sources in quotes if there is no practical way of rewording the text. Harry ^{Let us have speaks} 19:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Those two flagrant copyvios above are just your last two additions to articles (I have no idea how many more there are). Apparently you don't recognise them as copyvios, and you expect others (me) with no interest in the subject to "rewrite the text rather than deleting". zzz (talk) 19:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

As noted, Wikipedia does allow for use of non-free content, including fair use which I believed this falls under. You disagree. I have no particular interest in either Talk Talk or Happy Pizza but in reading the articles I saw gaps that needed filling and sought refs in the interest of building an encyclopaedia. If you didn't feel like fixing it, a note on my TP saying "Hey, I think there is a copyvio in what you added to that article" would have been a lot more constructive (and collaborative) than simply removing a block of text and returning the article to a different kind of unsatisfactory state. Harry ^{Let us have speaks} 19:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok. "Hey, I think there is a copyvio in what you added". I suggest you go back through all your contributions and fix them. Unless you think they are all "fair use", of course, in which I suppose case someone else will have to. Or failing that, just delete them. zzz (talk) 19:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

• General comments: A public statement is not automatically assumed to be in the public domain. If it was delivered from prepared remarks, then there's a copyright on the sheet he read from, and if you watched a recording of the statement, there's a copyright on the recording. It is true that you cannot copyright facts, but if a factual statement has creative elements of presentation, which can include word choice and word order, then the statement can itself have a copyright. Since WP's copyright policy is deliberately tighter than copyright law, the best approach to take is to assume anything is copyrighted unless you can find a positive release under a free license. Crow^Caw 20:57, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough but under Wikipedia policy an article will only be deleted "if substantial content is duplicated". That means it is acceptable for a small portion to be duplicated when re-writing would result in convoluted prose. Credit is given by citing the source. As noted the problem phrases have been rewritten to alleviate the concerns and I will be more careful in future. Harry ^{Let us have speaks} 21:09, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

• Out of the edit "On 24 October Talk Talk issued a statement saying that the amount of customers’ financial information stolen by hackers was “materially lower” than first thought and would not allow money to be taken from bank accounts.", the 2-word phrase “materially lower” is a direct quote from a public statement, and is fine. The remainder is just words copied verbatim from an article in The Guardian. zzz (talk) 21:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Yes, the article will only be deleted if there is so much copyvio that it is unsalvageable. And also yes, if the content cannot be worded any other way without venturing into absurdity, that suggests that the text in question was not creatively worded. "A is the first letter of the alphabet." Not much you can do there. "Among all letters, only the majestic A stands alone atop the list." Well.... you get the idea! I do agree with ZZZ that the Talk Talk statement could have been paraphrased without losing any meaning, and equally without extraneous circumlocution. Crow^Caw 21:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Granted but in the context of both the Wikipedia article and the Guardian article that phrase does not constitute "substantial" duplicated content. WP:Non-free content only prohibits "Excessively long copyrighted excerpts". So it is acceptable to quote verbatim. My mistake was not to put it all in quotes. As noted, I have now rectified this. The Happy Pizza excerpt is clearly a substantial rewrite of the sources with one factual statement which I didn't bother to rewrite as fair use. Again fixed. As I said, this hardly needed an AN/I. A simple heads up from an editor who felt I had not sufficiently respected copyright on a given edit would have been sufficient. I am sure that if any admin has any other problems with my specific edits they will let me know. Harry ^{Let us have speaks} 21:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

When discussing whether someone is a regular copyright violator or nor, often the best method is to look at some large article contributions they made, obviously. So, looking at Harry the Dirty Dog's contributions, I noticed this from 30 September.

Added text:

"Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Marzieh Afkham on 28 September 2015 referring to Saudi media reports that say have no official record on the entry of Ghazanfar Asl Roknabadi to the kingdom, described the reports as "incorrect" and "hasty", saying the ministry has documents showing that Riyadh had approved an ordinary Hajj visa for the missing diplomat."

Source ([178] given in the article):

"Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Marzieh Afkham on Monday described as “incorrect” and "hasty" reports claiming that Saudi authorities have no official record on the entry of Ghazanfar Asl Roknabadi to the kingdom for performing Hajj rituals, saying the ministry has documents showing that Riyadh had approved an ordinary Hajj visa for the missing diplomat."

A clear and obvious copyright violation. The fact that they added the source indicates that this is probably more caused by not understanding our copyright rules and/or laziness, and not malice. A final warning to change their approach to using texts is sufficient. Fram (talk) 11:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I clearly changed the word order there, but again facts are facts. so of course there may be the odd matching phrase, as the phrases used in the source are the best way of stating those facts, and are indeed quotes. I doubt you'll find many longer Wikipedia articles that don't have some matching phrases from sources. It's pretty unambiguous that "have no official record on the entry of Ghazanfar Asl Roknabadi to the kingdom for performing Hajj rituals, saying the ministry has documents showing that Riyadh had approved an ordinary Hajj visa for the missing diplomat." is a quote not from the source but from the ministry spokesman, so if it is a copyvio here then it is a copyvio in the original source. In any event I have now rewritten it a bit to show good faith. We all work in a hurry sometimes and we have lazy moments (as the editor who opened this AN/I did when he didn't read sources properly and decided that they didn't support what was in the article on at least two occasions when they actually did) so it's good that other editors are vigilant. As I said, I will put such future quotation in quote marks to ensure that they are not seen as copyvio. Harry ^{Let us have speaks} 11:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Probable trolling

User:Jamiebijania has a history of leaving nonsensical notes and warnings on people's talk pages (I got one before in 2011), and s/he appears to be at it again: [179], [180], [181], [182], [183]). It may also worth checking if this user is a sock; I've been back on Wikipedia for only a week, and am surprised to again be this user's first target. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'm not quite sure what to make of it. WP:AGF seems to be unclear, as is WP:DEADHORSE, but giving someone a barnstar can hardly be called trolling. WP:NOTHERE is not applicable, since the users history includes quite a lot of useful contributions. All that remains are two (civil) requests top refrain from vandalism, which is odd, since there's no history of that, but not really actionable. Simply ignoring him/her seems the best policy. Kleuske (talk) 14:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, the user previously received a 48-hour block for leaving fake warnings on others' talk pages, and then created a sock to continue doing so. But s/he appears to have gone silent following this report so perhaps no action is needed until their next appearance. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Jamiebijania has a strong history of trolling, as such, it surprises me that User:Khazar2 is making a mountain out of a molehill. Apologies, grain of sand into a mountain. This user has also made several constructive additions and edits to Wikipedia, and has made no unconstructive edits to Wikipedia pages for a period of 5 years. Jamiebijania (talk)

Jamiebijania, the positive contributions you made between your last block for trolling and this round of trolling are appreciated. That said, I'd appreciate it if you didn't ping me again or post further on my talk page; we don't seem to have any real business with each other, so let's just get back to building an encyclopedia... -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:55, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Khazar2, thank you for your kind words. Here's wishing you and your family good health and a great year ahead. Would like to award you a barnstar one day. Jamiebijania (talk)

User:TX6785 appears obsessed

A quick look at Special:Contributions/TX6785 will show a pattern that can be considered unusual at best. When asked about his obsession with creating redirects to Schutzstaffel, TX6785 responded by querying whether there was a limit on the number of redirects. Now, I know that redirects are cheap, but this seems excessive, and might simply be a ploy to up his edit count. Most of the redirects appear to be rather useless. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I guess that's where you and I disagree. I think they are all plausible search queries. We're talking about the most notorious organization that ever existed. Could you please give an example of one that is "useless"? You didn't really talk much on my page before resorting to a report. - TX6785 (talk) 18:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@TX6785: To pick just one, I'd go with Heinrich Himler's Nazi Shutsztafel. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, Himmler was sort of the head of it. I think that a German surname and a German name are often misspelled in the English-speaking world when searching for the most notorious of organizations. - TX6785 (talk) 19:03, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@TX6785: I find it extremely unlikely that a user would search for an article about the Schutzstaffel under the specific search term "Heinrich Himmler's Schutztafel". And if they did, lacking a redirect, Wikipedia's search function would very likely suggest Schutzstaffel as the first result anyway. You can argue all you want for the usefulness of these redirects, but with the excessive number, it just looks like your gaming the system for some reason. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Since the user asked for the limit to the number of redirects to one article, the answer is 586. The user has created 587. (Seriously, this is really excessive and not constructive.) General Ization ^Talk 19:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

There was an editor last week who had created over 200 redirects to the article they were working on...I thought that was a record but I guess not. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

This is the third episode I have seen this week about redirects that include every conceivable phonetic, grammatical or typographical combination of linking. I'm thinking that WP:Redirect could do with some additional guidance and explanation about how the search system picks up the vast majority. Nthep (talk) 19:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

This, Special:Contributions/TX6785, is really insane. I think it's crazy to have that many redirects. Can they be mass-nominated to RfD? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:44, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@Liz: It's not clear that the redirects need to be deleted. As pointed out at WP:CHEAP, a deleted redirect actually takes up more disk space than an existing redirect. I just think TX's motives need to be examined in creating so many redirects. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:52, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I personally think that TX is highly misguided. Firstly, as a corollary to Assume good faith we should not assume that our readers are idiots and that we need to predict and accommodate every possible misconstruction of a search term, or that this accommodation is really helpful in the long term versus using consistent naming conventions and training new users how to search properly. Secondly, even the correctly spelled "Heinrich Himmler's Nazi Schutzstaffel" makes it sound almost like a theatrical production (think "Woody Allen's Blue Jasmine" or "Mel Brooks' Blazing Saddles") rather than the murderous criminal organization it was. I think this is highly unencyclopaedic. General Ization ^Talk 20:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree it's a lot but at least we aren't seeing "Heimlich" for "Heinrich". JohnInDC (talk) 20:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

That's actually one redirect I might support (though not with this target), but even without it if you search for "Heimlich Himmler" the correct article Schutzstaffel is the first listed in the results (though currently by way of one of TX's redirects). General Ization ^Talk 20:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

A look at User:TX6785/sandbox indicates that TX has many more redirects in mind before they're done. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

• This behavior is nearly identical to another recent user. Compare: [184] Crow^Caw 21:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

It reminded me of this case, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Programmatic_Media. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:38, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@Liz: In what way did it remind you of that other case. I see no similarities. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Probably in that the editor there had created a couple / three hundred redirects to that one page. JohnInDC (talk) 22:49, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, JohnInDC. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I've now cleaned up their excess redirects to the best of my ability, leaving articles and plausible redirects alone. -- The Anome (talk) 15:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• User:TX6785 has been blocked per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TyrusThomas4lyf/Archive. Rgrds. —64.85.216.248 (talk) 13:15, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:IDHT

Having a problem at the Kyle Abbott (The Young and the Restless) page. User:MrKing84 really likes that character and is known for coming to the page whenever he logs on to wikipedia and, if he doesn't like something, regardless of being told where the conversation happened that what he doesn't like is the correct way, he just reverts and reverts until we end up here or somewhere else.

His newest thing is not liking the characters last name in the photo caption:

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4

It's silly, really, but... it's not going to end. That page has had to deal with him before.Cebr1979 (talk) 02:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that something should be done, especially since MrKing84's talk page contains related warnings from various other ediots. But Cebr1979, be careful; both of you have exceeded WP:3RR. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

No, we haven't.Cebr1979 (talk) 03:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I have two reverts for today, one from two days ago, and, prior to that, I hadn't been to that page since July.Cebr1979 (talk) 03:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't "really like" the character. I made edits to this character's page in the past because his last name needed to be updated and a few other editors (Cebr1979 being one of them) for whatever reason didn't what the characters last name to be updated. After a long process, the name was updated because of Wikipedia's WP:COMMONNAME policy. Now Cebr1979 for whatever reason seems to have a bad attitude (from looking at his history he's attacked other editors and left snide remarks on the talk pages of other editors), and now tells me I have "a problem" apparently and that I need to "deal with it." Now I ask is this the proper and civil way for an editor to act? Telling another editor that they have "a problem" and they should just "deal with it" (it being Cebr1979's edit). Cebr1979 is attempting to cite some "decision" made on some other page. But he gave no link to the page where this "decision" was made. I went to Talk:Phyllis Summers and found no discussion about the name underneath a picture on another character's page. Plus if you look at the picture itself it is listed as "Garrett_Ryan_as_Kyle.jpg". So the picture in dispute here doesn't even have the character's last name on it. --MrKing84 (talk) 03:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

If you go to that page's talk page, I was actually on your side for the whole last name thing and... what a picture is named, does not a caption make (and you know that). If you go to the page's edit history, I also agreed with you about the caption. However, a decision was made and we have to live with it... including you. That's just how things work.Cebr1979 (talk) 03:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

It was in the Phyllis edit history, not the talk page (and if you really wanted to know that, you could've asked). Go look. It's right there.Cebr1979 (talk) 03:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

You said "the Phyllis page" not "the Phyllis edit history". How am I supposed to know what you're talking about? When somebody says go look at a discussion on a page on Wikipedia, it's only natural to think that this discussion happened on the talk page. But why is it even necessary to have the last name in the picture's caption? Especially considering there was much dispute about the character's last name as a child when Garrett Ryan was playing the role. --MrKing84 (talk) 03:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not getting into a content dispute with you. The fact is, others have deemed it necessary and just because you don't like that, doesn't mean you get to throw your edit wars around and try to make the page your way. Can I go put it back now and we can call this done or do you need this to be dragged out longer?Cebr1979 (talk) 03:54, 30 October 2015

There is nothing in that discussion about the character's name in the caption of the picture. Which is why we are here. That discussion is about the relevance of the photo itself. Again that discussion says nothing about why the caption on the picture must have the last name and not just the first name. So I will be reverting it back, just so you know. Again there is no discussion about the character's last name being part of the picture's caption. Which is what the problem (and a ridiculous one at that) we have here. --MrKing84 (talk) 06:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, my goodness. Guess I spoke too soon about you giving up. The edit summaries at both the Phyllis and the Kyle pages state, "caption should match the common-name to avoid confusion within article."Cebr1979 (talk) 06:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not even going to bother looking at pages and pages of edit summaries on the Phyllis page, it's irreverent and they are two different characters with two different histories. The edit summaries on the page at issue here say nothing about picture captions last names. Now when it comes right down to it, to "avoid confusion within the article" the picture of Garrett Ryan should be removed from the article all together. There is no reason for it to be there anymore anyway. And the discussion on that only ended on the talk page because the editors on the page who wanted to get rid of the Ryan picture dropped out of the discussion. But we can continue that discussion about that (removing the Ryan photo) over there as well. You know, in an effort to avoid confusion within the article. --MrKing84 (talk) 06:56, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

There are no "pages and pages" of anything: you're just being difficult because you don't want to look. Here and here. Both were easy to find, I even gave you what to control-F to get to them. As for your starting over a conversation just 'cause you think it's gonna upset me, go ahead. There were no "editors" who wanted to get rid of the picture: there was one. Myself and the other one both agreed the picture should stay... and we both still will. But, if you wanna go and start something just 'cause you're mad that I won't let you continue to own the page (like always), start it. It'll end... again. And please don't re-hash this "it doesn't say anything about the last name" nonsense... it says it should match the common name and the common name has the last name. You know that.Cebr1979 (talk) 07:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

You are the only one here making this personal (for whatever reason). You're constantly referring to me, but this has nothing to do with me. I will say though that your personal attacks and snide remarks against the posters at Wikipedia should really stop. You appear to be the only person around here that takes edits that you don't like personal. It would probably be in your best interest to relax and take your personal feelings out of your edits. For someone who is accusing somebody else of trying to "own the page", maybe you should ask yourself if that is what you are trying to do. --MrKing84 (talk) 07:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't need to be asking myself anything. I'm stopping you from having your way because your way isn't the right way. It's time to drop it.Cebr1979 (talk) 07:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Once again this isn't about me, or about somebody "having their way" as you put it. No you are making this too personal and attacking another editor (again). The only thing those links you provided show is you in an edit war with another editor (again). It doesn't show any official Wikipedia policy. You can't really cite a previous edit war you were involved in as a reason why the last name should be listed in a picture's caption. Nothing in those two links gives a reason why the last name has to be in the caption. Your own words are not a credible source.--MrKing84 (talk) 07:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Uhm... first of all: there was no edit war between me and anyone else? I agreed with that other editor once he explained himself. It's you who now doesn't agree. Second of all: you really need to read Wikipedia:Consensus, especially this section where it states: "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached." When myself and that other editor came to an agreement while editing, we reached a consensus on the matter. Your edits have been disputed. So... I actually can "really cite a previous edit I was involved in as a reason why the last name should be listed in a picture's caption." Everything "in those two links gives a reason why the last name has to be in the caption." Like I said, it's time to drop this.Cebr1979 (talk) 08:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

See what you are not getting is those previous disputes you are trying to use as examples do not apply here. Which last name (Jenkins or Abbott) is not what is at issue here. The reasoning as to why the last name is needed in the caption at all, is what is at issue. You continuing to bring up that "consensus" you had with that other editor has nothing to do with the topic here. There is no reason why the character's last name has to be in the caption. The character's first name is sufficient. Just like the first name is sufficient in the Hartley Sawyer caption. Again just to make in clear for you, unlike in the Phyllis edit history and Kyle edit history you cited. The issue is not what the characters last name is (that's been resolved). The issue is the relevance of the the last name being in the caption. --MrKing84 (talk) 08:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Here you go with more of your "*insert whatever suits you today* doesn't apply heres." Everything always applies and you've been told that before. I've never said anything about the Jenkins last name. I've told you what the current consensus is and the current consensus is that the caption should include the common name and the common name is Kyle Abbott. First and last name. Quit changing things to make the conversation say what you want it to say. The only one "not getting" anything: is you.Cebr1979 (talk) 08:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

You really need to stop with the personal attacks. It's really uncalled for. I can't explain it any better than I already have. Nothing you have shown is a real Wikipedia policy stating that a picture's caption has to have the last name in it. Kyle is his common name. Believe me I know the common name policy. I was the one saying it was the reason the page's title should be changed. When you and others disagreed. His common name is Kyle and that is in the picture's caption. --MrKing84 (talk) 09:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

There have been no personal attacks. You're attempting to create sympathy by attempting to create drama. It's an old tactic and most see through it. I've shown you what the current consensus is and I've shown you where it states that is how a consensus is reached. I've also mentioned stopping with the "nothing you have shown is a real Wikipedia policy stating that a picture's caption has to have the last name in it" nonsense. I've shown you what the caption consensus is and I've shown you where it states that is how a consensus is reached... making it a real wikipedia policy. Couldn't be more real, in fact. I've also stated you need to quit changing things to make the conversation say what you want it to say. You haven't, though. You're still doing it.Cebr1979 (talk) 09:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

No attacks? "Stop doing that! This discussion was had at the Phyllis page. You weren't a part of it, that's your problem" also A decision was made, deal with it. So those are the condescending remarks. Your constant claims that I'm trying to do this or that are attacks. I've said before that this is not about me, but yet you continue to try to imply that I'm trying to "own the page". That isn't necessary. Now you are trying to say I'm am trying to create "sympathy" for myself. That is just a ludicrous accusation and is beyond ridiculous. Why would I even care if somebody here had sympathy for me. You are REALLY making this way too personal and I wish you would stop. The consensus you and the other person came to was which last name was the correct one, NOT whether it belonged in the picture caption. It's just not there no matter how many times you want to claim that it is. --MrKing84 (talk) 09:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going around in circles with you. I've shown you two different links where the current consensus for photo captions is to use the character's common name. I'll show you again: here it states "Captions should mirror the common-name for consistency" and here it states "caption should match the common-name" and I've shown you where it states that is how a consensus by editing is reached. A consensus that you are refusing to follow because you don't think you have to which is an example (a BIG example) of attempting to own a page.Cebr1979 (talk) 09:35, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes and as I've said before that you came to consensus on which last name was the common name (Jenkins vs. Abbott). NOT on whether the common name was "Kyle Abbott or Kyle". THAT is the problem here. The common name is in the caption. But there is no reason why it is relevant to have the last name in the caption. There is no dispute over the common name being in the caption. The dispute is over whether the last name is required and needed in the caption. The last name is neither required or needed. This is not me "changing the conversation," that is what I've been saying from the very beginning. I've been consistent on this from the beginning of all this. --MrKing84 (talk) 09:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I have to ask: Are you trolling? Is that what's happening here because there's no way a reasonable editor could be making these arguments you're making. What the character's last name is... whether it's Jenkins or Abbott... is not what we're discussing. That's not what we were discussing when we were discussing photo captions. That's not what was being discussed in the consensus links I gave you. His common name is Kyle Abbott. We know that. You spearheaded that campaign! The consensus for photo captions is to use the character's common name and the character's common name is KYLE ABBOTT! First and last name!!!! I have said that... I don't even know how many times now??? Do not make a personal attack claim, that's not what I'm doing. I legitimately want to know: are you trolling? Because there just is no way a reasonable editor could continue making these ridiculous statements! I show you this, I show you that, and you just come back with nonsense. Every time. I'm just at a loss. You say, "there is no reason why it is relevant to have the last name in the caption..." The last name is part of the common name and the common name needs to be the caption! You answered your own question and then you still come back with nonsense! Cebr1979 (talk) 09:55, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

No from looking at some other edits you've made, you appear to just like to argue with people and try to use Wikipedia as a forum to do so. Now you want to imply that I'm trolling. Really? I've been here for almost 10 years, but apparently I've just been a troll in reality and waited 10 years to become one. As I've said before and I'll say it once again, there are multiple articles all over Wikipedia where the last name is NOT in picture captions (like in the Hartley Sawyer picture for example). So once again, there is not a policy that states that the last name must be in a person's/character's picture's caption. I don't know how you can't understand that after all this. This is beyond ridiculous now. --MrKing84 (talk) 10:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

If you've been here ten years, you should know that what happens at one page can't be used to influence another. I've shown you the Kyle Abbott photo caption consensus. That's what it is. It applies. It's real. And I'm not going around in circles with you. I've shown you everything you need to see. Everything. So continue on with your "such and such doesn't apply here" and whatever else. I've shown you everything. That's it.Cebr1979 (talk) 10:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

You have shown nothing but the discussion about which last name was the correct one NOT if the last name needs to be there at all. You just want to argue (yet again) that is really what this is all about. You can talk about that "consensus" all day, and I will continue to point out there is nothing in there that says the last name needs to be in there. Kyle is his common name. Other pictures (on that article and many others all across Wikipedia) have just the person or character's first name. You just want to make a big deal out of keeping the last name in there.--MrKing84 (talk) 16:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

K, so it's been a half hour and he's disappeared so I'm gonna go put it back (which still won't put me past the 3RR, Erpert) and I think this can just get closed (hopefully not) until next time.Cebr1979 (talk) 04:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

MariaJaydHicky's sneaky IP or user behavior

The banned user is possibly from the UK as on the talk page of Beyoncé: Platinum Edition which posted by his/her sockpuppet user Rihanna-RiRi-fan. He/she contributed four years so far and focused on Mariah Carey, Beyoncé, Rihanna, Jennifer Lopez, Kanye West (notably 808s & Heartbreak), Stevie Wonder (notably Hotter than July), and others. His/her currents IP was 86.158.65.115. Has everyone call the police or lawyers? If he/she would release from bail (and again, and again...), may the same behavior repeatedly. 123.136.111.27 (talk) 07:35, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I was following you until the last two sentences; what are you talking about there? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:15, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Implied legal threat by 24.235.196.182

24.235.196.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Made an implied legal threat on their talk page. Anon stated here s/he is a paid employee and a student at Trent University and is editing the Trent article. (The edits I reverted as unsourced.) Hence my COI / Paid editor notice on the Anon's talk page. Jim1138 (talk) 08:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

So where is the NLT, violation? John from Idegon (talk) 09:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I don't see a legal threat. Can you provide a diff? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The "My mother is a lawyer so I understand fraud"[185] part is what Jim1138 is probably referring to. Right? I can see how that could be construed to be a possible implied legal threat, but it doesn't seem like an actual threat to me. Doc talk 10:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

If that's a legal threat, then since my dad's a mechanic, I'm going to win the Indy 500. John from Idegon (talk) 10:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Borderline. Context would be important. Like if he's responding to someone saying he doesn't know what fraud is - vs. - if he's claiming someone else is committing fraud. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I was also getting rather upset by the Anon's apparent misinterpreting most of my fumbling advise or whatever you might call it. Jim1138 (talk) 16:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the IP's attempt to censor this section[186] is probably sufficient reason to give him the boot. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Re creation of Vadym Troyan

This time by Konsyltant (talk · contribs). BLP page is aka Troyan Vadym (WP:SALTED), Trojan VADIM and TROYAN Vadym , maybe others.

• LOLI-ANA111 (talk · contribs) (blocked for sockpuppetry) created one version, and
• Иванов Олександр (talk · contribs) has been indeffed for recreating this page under several variant of the current name.
• Lilka 777 (talk · contribs) also recreated it.

FYI. 220 of ^Borg 09:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

*Comment: I have taken the article to AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vadym Troyan) to be able to use G4 for any future name variations after it's deletion.--Crystallized C (talk) 09:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Rkaplan

Rkaplan (talk · contribs) insists on adding a pseudonymous ("Tyler Durden") blog post as a source to Elizabeth Holmes, in addition to his/her personal commentary on why that source should be considered acceptable.

The user previously made similar changes from three different IP addresses (not sockpuppetry: the user has acknowledged that it's him/her). I undid the change, citing WP:BLP and WP:RS issues. But s/he is bent on adding the content back.

I'm posting this here, because of the WP:INVOLVE / edit warring concerns; and also because this is a combination of WP:BLP, WP:RS and WP:OR issues (not sure which of these noticeboards should I select; posted at WP:RSN, but no response there).

Can someone please intervene?

utcursch | talk 22:35, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I am open to suggestions on how to edit this more neutrally. Wiki rules ask that references be reputable "in context." The problem is that the usual "credible" financial references (Forbes, WSJ, Bloomberg) may have made a huge error - WSJ itself broke the story about potential fraud at Theranos. In that context, a hedge fund analysist is a valid quote - that may be the canary that hints Theranos is another Enron. How do we include that information in the Wiki article? It's a truly valid viewpoint that should be possible to share. rkaplan | talk —Preceding undated comment added 01:02, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

There was a long article on this subject in the New York Times yesterday, "The Narrative Frays for Theranos and Elizabeth Holmes".[187], and another in the Washington Post today.[188] Using those as a source, rather than something from a blog, would be a clear improvement. Both Elizabeth Holmes and Theranos might be tagged with a "current event" template; this is an ongoing story with active press coverage in major media. As for the net worth issue, Forbes gave a figure for a moment in time, and that's cited. Next year, that figure might be quite different. Remember WP:NOTNEWS; we don't have to track a controversy day by day. (I looked at this from a WP:COIN perspective, but this doesn't look like PR spin control. If you're getting intensive press coverage in the NYT. WSJ, and Washington Post, Wikipedia editing is somewhat irrelevant.) John Nagle (talk) 05:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the article already includes that NYT link as a reference. It also cites WSJ to say that the valuation is questionable.

But Rkaplan is not happy with that. S/he is bent on mentioning "$0" as a possible valuation, citing ZeroHedge as a source (actually even ZeroHedge doesn't mention $0 as the valuation; it says the investors will not invest any more money in Theranos whether it's valuation is $9 billion or $0).

Anyway, I've received a couple of responses at WP:RSN, and they all agree that this is not an acceptable source, especially for a BLP. utcursch | talk 23:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

remove admin rights

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

---

• Ian.thomson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 202.107.226.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 112.17.242.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

can someone please block Ian.thomson help? i am asking for some admin to remove his admin rights or block him--Usvruefktpi (talk) 10:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: why? samtar ^{t} 10:24, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

• he made unlawful block [189]--Usvruefktpi (talk) 10:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
• he deleted two times articles that i created [190] without consensus or even talk like Origins of Abrahamic religions--Usvruefktpi (talk) 10:52, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect - each deletion was explained, such as "Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic, Abrahamic religions -- again." samtar ^{t} 10:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, those WP:POVFORKs were nominated for speedy deletion by another user (and rightly so). Ian.thomson (talk) 11:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

This very new user knows how to look through the public logs? Odd.. quack samtar ^{t} 11:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, WP:PRECOCIOUS applies to a number of his responses and actions. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:16, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

• he used a sock here [191] and again accused me of doing so--Usvruefktpi (talk) 11:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
• plus i do hear some serious quacking here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usvruefktpi (talk • contribs)

That doesn't even begin to resemble my phone's IP. Still, it does locate to Hangzhou (though there's the issue that if I was going to do that, why I wouldn't use one of the many VPN servers I have). I mentioned you to some new friends to explain why I was late for lunch, guess I'll have to give them the rundown about watching me. Course, since it was reverting you while you were evading a block, it's kind of a moot point. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:16, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2)Background: OP edit warred at Abrahamic religions, technically skirting WP:3RR by engaging in different edits against consensus instead of direct reverts. After he was reverted several times and warned about edit warring by three editors, I blocked him. I later unblocked him on a technicality, even though he obviously socked under this IP (which hasn't responded to my messages since OP logged in), including reverting one of my edits while calling it vandalism. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Looks like it was a good block from my pov, especially with all the quacking I can hear samtar ^{t} 10:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (Non-administrator comment) Appears to be a good block based on what Ian is saying, and what I've taken a look at. --  Kethrus |talk to me  10:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

"Unlawful block"? Is there such a thing? GoodDay (talk) 10:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

• I've restored the article to the last known good version before the edit war and requested page protection of the article. Usvruefktpi previous block should be restored if he reverts again, either through his main account or an IP. —Farix (t | c) 11:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I believe that the block was justified. This ANI thread has no case whatsoever to assert that the blocking admin was in the wrong. I'm going to mark this ANI as prematurely resolved. Please remove the tag and ping me if I overlooked anything and jumped the gun too soon. Otherwise,

Resolved

. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) With multiple attempts to remove comments from this discussion,[192][193][194][195][196] Usvruefktpi has clearly WP:NOTHERE and very much deserving to have the block reinstated. —Farix (t | c) 11:36, 1 November 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.

like to make a complinet about a 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.

---

Moved from AN as an incident. BMK (talk) 20:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

there is a user who has been reverting my stuff I had an Assyrian census on the page and images of Assyrian kings on The Assyrian people page and this guy kwami I believe has reverted it and has called me a fraud on the Arab people page when I have brought evidence and sources that are reliable he has called me incompetent and has started stuff before with me this is not Wikipedia user behavior we need this to be resolved im tired of my work being reverted on the Assyrian page I work hard sometimes hours on it this isn't acceptable to meArabAmazigh12 (talk) 19:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

And your apparent inability to write in standard English, with proper punctuation, is not acceptable to me for a person editing English Wikipedia. BMK (talk) 20:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, if you're referring to User:Kwamikagami, I do not see any discussion with him on his talk page, nor do I see any notification from you about this thread. BMK (talk) 20:08, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: ArabAmazigh12 has a long history of falsifying data. It's perhaps due to incompetence rather than anything malicious, but regardless few of his edits pass muster. Every once in a while I review his contributions to see what damage he's done lately, and end up reverting a large chunk of them. Sometimes he may have made improvements together with the misinformation, but I'm not going to try to winnow the wheat from the chaff. (E.g. I could care less which pictures of Assyrians are in the info box, and have no basis to evaluate his choices anyway. Besides, in a controversial article like that where people have had difficulty reaching consensus, it's probably best to discuss them on the talk page to see if others even like his changes.)

A lot of his edits involve population inflation, a perennial problem on language and ethnology articles. Today he added 100,000,000 to Arabs with no source or edit summary. (I don't often use edit summaries either, but that means I have no way to evaluate the basis for the number.) One of his figures was reverted by another user citing a source that contradicts him, and I just now reverted the other.

Please ping me if this goes anywhere; I once got in trouble for not paying attention to a thread I thought too trivial to follow. — kwami (talk) 20:32, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked by Future Perfect at Sunrise. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) ^{may the force be with you} 21:51, 1 November 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.

Disruptive editing and further harassment by user Iryna Harpy

The following discussion is closed. 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 Iryna Harpy (IH) [197] has made this disruptive edit here [198].

User IH has also continued to harass me by falsely claiming that I was engaged in soapboxing here [199] when I was not, and also falsely claiming that my talk page edit was not within the Wikipedia talk page guidelines here [200] when it was within those guidelines. 96.24.75.223 (talk) 22:38, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything disruptive in the first two edits, nor in the warning. Legacypac (talk) 22:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

If you're calling user IH's edit to my talk page falsely accusing me of not being within talk page guidelines a "warning" then that explains why you're also not seeing "anything disruptive" in their first two edits.96.24.75.223 (talk) 22:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Here's the edit made by the OP that started this sequence: [201] GAB^Hello! 22:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

96.24.75.223, talk pages should be focused on ways of improving Wikipedia content and not used as a forum or for soapboxing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@Liz:, I was using that talk page for improving Wikipedia content and not as a forum or for soapboxing.96.24.75.223 (talk) 23:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

In fairness, I think the IP was objecting in their original edit to what they saw as a "disimprovement" of the article by inclusion of the content they mentioned. I don't agree, for the reasons explained by another editor in the linked Talk page discussion, but even so I think the accusation of soapboxing by the IP is misplaced. However, I don't see that the IP has made any real effort to discuss with IH and I don't think there is really any issue to be dealt with here at ANI.General Ization ^Talk 23:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

removing a tag is arguably less disruptive than inserting a POV tag without much justification. Legacypac (talk) 23:09, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@Legacypac:I specified the necessary justification on the talk page. Removing a POV tag without much justification is disruptive.96.24.75.223 (talk) 23:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

General Ization, you don't think this is soapboxing? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

No, I think the IP was objecting to what they thought (mistakenly) was soapboxing by another editor. General Ization ^Talk 23:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@Liz: So can you explain objectively how you think this is soapboxing?96.24.75.223 (talk) 23:52, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Given that the editor has actively edited the article before (see this, this, this, this, this and this labouring under the illusion that their changes made to the content were WP:NPOV), I find myself unable to assume good faith to a piece of WP:ADVOCACY posted on the article's talk page and trying to turn this into a personal vendetta against me immediately after a two week block for being disruptive. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

What is are "alleged Palestinians" in those edits? Legacypac (talk) 23:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I asked for an objective explanation of the accusations against me, I got back a new bucket-load of accusations. This is not how Wikipedia should work.96.24.75.223 (talk) 00:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Addendum: Please note that the IP is carrying on a vendetta against me as I was responsible for a WP:BOOMERANG coming back at them after a previous ANI accusing me of harassment. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

It is true that I have been blocked by various admins sympathetic to IH in retaliation for my previous ANI report regarding IH. However, IH was not really responsible for that block, as it would not have happened if Wikipedia had enough fair and honest admins. I was actually glad I was blocked, as that only exposed the proliferation of biased Wikipedia admins. I do not have a personal vendetta against IH, just against their harassment, which is mildly annoying. The biased admins are the much more serious problem, and I'm doing this as part of my research project into the viability of Wikipedia as an unbiased source of information and how its systems could be improved to minimize bias.96.24.75.223 (talk) 00:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Would that be your own independent project? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia has repeatedly been shown as a poor source of accurate information. It should be treated as only a starting point for finding good information. Legacypac (talk) 00:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

For IP 96.24.75.223's edification, it's known as WP:WINARS. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

IP, my problem with that explanation is that if you are engaged in any kind of scholarly research project, you do not engage in activities (such as posting on the Talk page, and here) that have the potential to influence the results of your study. If you are engaged in a study, you are doing it the wrong way. General Ization ^Talk 00:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't call IP's edits soapboxing per se (that to me would entail much more verbiage) but there's little doubt they are here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. If it keeps up, a WP:ARBPIA topic ban would be more than warranted. Rhoark (talk) 02:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

In all honesty, given the IP's editing history, I believed myself to be courteously assuming good faith when I left the simple missive under his/her comment on the article's talk page, plus left a gently worded template on their talk page. I don't know how the comment can be read as being constructive as it's an assertion that the article is evil and the product of calculated bias that no one should trust in any shape or form. If the comment isn't intended as a call to arms against corrupt content, I'm stumped as to how it's designed to improve the article.

As regards the IP's research project, I don't of any institution that would even consider such methodology for gleaning data viable. No Ethics Board would give it so much as a look in. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• I haven't read through this entire thread, but I'm having a bit of a deja vu. Less than a month ago the same IP brought Iryna to ANI over the exact same article. Drmies ended up blocking that IP for two weeks. Is the IP a glutton for punishment? Softlavender (talk) 16:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: The IP has basically admitted they are not here to build an encyclopedia. They are here to experiment with editing, gather some sort of damning evidence about Wikipedia, soapbox and edit war over their preferred POV version of one article, and argue endlessly on talk pages and noticeboards. Out of approximately 43 edits, I see exactly three NPOV edits to article-space. I think it's pretty obvious this disruption has got to be stopped somehow. Softlavender (talk) 08:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Wow! The more I try to defend myself against all these unfounded accusations, the more they are trying to twist my own words to use them against me and to throw more dirt at me. They are obviously not here to be fair. They are accusing me of not being here to legitimately contribute, but their own hollow arguments show that whatever they contributed to, it wasn't to the articles about the Inquisition, or the Salem Witch Trials, or the Communist purges. Maybe these people are good at fixing punctuation, but it is yet another tragedy that they ended up as admins. Thinking about how many more "witches" these "do-gooders" will burn at the stake before they're finally stripped of their power makes me angry. And any other decent person out there should be angry too.96.24.75.223 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Just noting that Softlavender (the person you replied to)) is not an administrator, but they do appear to be an experienced and trusted editor. See User list. --  Kethrus |talk to me  21:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Kethrus for the observation regarding the fact that Softlavender is, indeed, a long time, trusted and respected editor. In fact, all of the editors who have commented here are long time, experienced, trusted editors (possibly myself included). For the purposes of this ANI, however, the issue at stake is that the IP has demonstrated ongoing behavioural patterns identifying their POV editing as being WP:NOTHERE. This is someone who adopts a battleground approach towards anyone who deigns to revert their WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS because their only objective is to WP:WIN.

How many more times is this IP going to tell us that Wikipedia is corrupt; that admins are agenda-driven conspirators; that s/he is suffering at the hands of corrupt bullies and fools? I think Rhoark has hit the nail on the head with his suggestion of any repetition/continuance of this behaviour as meriting a WP:ARBPIA block. In the meantime, I think it would be wise for someone to pop an ARBPIA notification template on their user talk in case they're not aware that their area of 'interest' falls under ArbCom discretionary sanctions. I would have done so myself were I not convinced that the IP would overreact to anything instigated by me. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done Rhoark (talk) 03:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

"...How many more times is this IP going to tell us that Wikipedia is corrupt..."

Now that I think about it, this problem is not specific just to Wikipedia, but a problem that typically occurs with any kind of a centralized authority. In fact, had things turned out any different, it would have been very surprising.

At least these people aren't running an actual country, and don't have an army of stormtroopers. But "the pen is mightier than the sword", so they're still indirectly hurting lots of people by passing inaccurate and / or misleading information as the de-facto central "truth" that scores high in search results, because today there is no better alternative.

In any case, I'm looking forward to the age when hopefully there will be a decentralized global encyclopedia system, on which the edits would be evaluated solely on their merit rather than on who made them and the POV of the people for or against. Obviously such technology does not yet exist because of the numerous non-trivial technical issues, and it's going to take a long time to get there, but it is good to see the exciting developments in the distributed blockchain technology which might serve as a cornerstone for such a system. I'm glad I experienced this unpleasant incident as it gave me this insight.96.24.75.223 (talk) 00:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

So in this decentralized model, who decides their merit? NE Ent 00:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps each concept would likely get split-up into numerous sub-concepts, and each sub-concept would be independently evaluated for its validity by a random user, and in such a way that the evaluators would not know what the "parent" concept was. So the human tasks would be divided-up and crowd-sourced. The results of independent evaluations would be stitched together by algorithms using logical and linguistic formulas to generate the wording of the actual articles. So the readable text of each article would just be the surface of a big matrix of underlying supporting data and logic. Some portions might even have parallel passages for issues on which the system was not able to determine a general consensus. Perhaps the underlying data could even be used to generate a "probability of accuracy" rating for each sentence. Something like that...96.24.75.223 (talk) 01:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like Semantic web, which documents some of the criticisms of the concept. NE Ent 01:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

(ec} Er, the ombudsman/ombudswoman representing the socialist-anarchist hierarchical structure that should obviously be developed in to accommodate a rational devolution of any centralised state... I mean encyclopaedia... Um, what does the IP actually mean? Is the point of this ANI supposed to go WP:OFFTOPIC in order to accommodate the fascinating(?) theories of an IP who's evidently ready to nominate himself as the ombudsman for all Israeli-Palestinian related issues? The IP is WP:NOTHERE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Valid point, probably time to close this. My talk page is open if anyone wishes to continue the conversation. NE Ent 01:25, 2 November 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.

CENSORSHIP WITH NO POSSIBILITY TO DISCUSS

The following discussion is closed. 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 would like to have an answer,

Why the administrator Eumolpo blocked my account and erased all my contributions after I added a video-critic about Italian ´Political Religious Economical business´ organization called "Comunione e Liberazione"? I have contacted him but I didn´t get any reply. Is it not legitimate to add links to videos on Wikipedia maybe? His reasoing was simply: ´...vandalism´ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keilchattiero (talk • contribs) 22:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but we can't help you with events that happened on the Italian wiki. They're totally separate. -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:49, 1 November 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 vandalism at Fred Thompson in the wake of the individual's death

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

---

The IP address 71.54.172.153 is making persistent unconstructive edits to the Fred Thompson page in the wake of Thompson's recent death. Specifically, the IP is undoing all efforts to update the page to reflect that Thompson is deceased. I made a request for page protection but am also posting here as the issue is immediate and ongoing. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 00:31, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Issue has been resolved thanks to a block of the IP. Thanks! Safehaven86 (talk) 00:40, 2 November 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 review this block of a teacher

The following discussion is closed. 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 block I did was considered "ludicrous" by another editor. The user Wangenra (talk · contribs), whom I blocked is a teacher who periodically makes test edits to show her students how easy it is to vandalize Wikipedia, and she states she will do so again. I've explained and I stand by my block, but perhaps I'm being a bit draconian. Thanks. Valfontis (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I am the other editor named above. Her stated reason was to show students why Wikipedia is unreliable. I had engaged her prior to the block to direct her to other uses of Wikipedia in the classroom. Think that will go far now? There are better ways to handle the situation. Valfontis should have engaged her, although I am not convinced Valfontis's position reflects the values of the community. I am asking for an immediate reversal of the block. This block does not do anything to advance Wikipedia in the world, nor does it do anything to protect Wikipedia. It is worth noting that the only page she has ever done this on is the page of the high school that employs her. Her statement that she had the principal's permission is a bit troubling, but that would have been better dealt with with words, not buttons. John from Idegon (talk) 23:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

What stops her from showing them what she did before? Doing it live seems a bit dramatic. Maybe refer her to the people who oversee the school and university programs and let her have it out with them? Not saying one way or another whether an unblock immediately is a good reason, but certainly if she agrees to be guided by their advice, no need for a block after that.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Here are Wangenra's contribs. This would normally be considered a vandalism-only account. It may also be a case of disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. Does WP:AGF cover exceptions to these guidelines or is there another one? Valfontis (talk) 23:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

She can still appeal her block. Also, she was templated with welcome, warning and {{welcome teacher}} back in the spring, so it's not like she lacked info about this. Valfontis (talk) 23:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Good block - she has taught them how easy it is to vandalize, and has taught them what the consequences are. Vrac (talk) 23:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• Good block - She can be unblocked when she agrees to stop disrupting live articles. - MrX 23:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Has anybody bothered to get in touch with the school itself to notify them that an instructor is disrupting Wikipedia as part of their curriculum, and that it is not acceptable at all? --w^{L<speak·check>} 23:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The WMF has paid employees, who have official status. Suggest they deal with school bureaucracy, they might be listened to, whereas we might not be.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Someone has made her a sandbox copy of the school article. I'd absolutely support an unblock if she agrees to use that instead. Valfontis (talk) 23:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Maybe. But ball is in her court. The school does not own its Wikipedia article. We cannot have her doing this on a live article. I'd rather she did not teach kids to vandalize Wikipedia, a teacher doing it sends a certain message I don't like. A school for vandal we do not need.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• Good block. Only edits are disruption to prove a point, no indication of being here to write an encyclopedia. If the teacher wants to show how easy it is to vandalize then they can also teach that the result is getting blocked. The teacher can asked to be unblocked once they agree not to disrupt out project. HighInBC 23:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• I support the block. Teachers vandalizing Wikipedia to "prove" that it's unreliable is highly counter-productive, and it can't be said to be in good faith. GAB^Hello! 00:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• I think she should be unblocked. She has done it only on the article about her school, and each time she reverted herself within a minute. There's no harm done. Sarah ^(talk) 00:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• This looks like "disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point", and begs for a block. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• Wangenra is a teacher at Aloha High School. At issue are eight edits she has made since May 2014 to the article about the school. She changed some names and reverted herself within a minute to show the children how easy it is to edit, and distort, Wikipedia (see her explanation here). What matters is that she's immediately undoing the edits, she's not doing it often, and she's sticking to that page only. I can't see why we would need to interfere. Sarah ^(talk) 01:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• Getting blocked also teaches the kiddies something. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:14, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I understand SlimVirgin's point, but intentional breaching experiments are still not acceptable, particularly when the user indicates an intention to continue. Still, I think an indef block is too much for 8 edits. A week, or perhaps a month, with a warning that repetition of such edits would result in a longer block, would be sufficient. I urge modifying the block, plus an attempt to engage on this user's talk page. DES ^(talk) 01:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

If Wangenra agree to use the provided Sandbox? then we should unblock. Otherwise, keep blocked. GoodDay (talk) 01:14, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I support keeping the block until this editor makes an unambiguous promise to stop vandalizing encyclopedia articles forever. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

DESiegel, I regularly see new accounts or IPs vandalize and immediately revert themselves. Someone is experimenting, dipping their toes in the water. Of Wangenra's eight edits within 18 months, only four were "vandalism" and the others self-reverts. There's no reason to block her. Sarah ^(talk) 02:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Superb block. If the teacher wants to demonstrate the potential for vandalism on Wikipedia, there are thousands of available page revisions available to support her point. Vandalizing Wikipedia herself is both disruptive to the project and a bad example, verging on academic dishonesty, to her students. If vandalism is as much a problem as she seems to be saying, there should be (and, in fact, is) ample evidence available for her to draw attention to. There is absolutely no excuse for her to be creating more of it. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• Bad block. Thiskind of thing happens dozens if not hundreds of times a day, by actual vandals who want to get their preferred text into article history so they can show it off to their friends, or embarass people they don't like. 99+% of the time, nothing gets done about it. Blocking somebody whose purpose is legitimate, whose statements are honest, and who inflicts no more than utterly trivial damage just makes Wikipedia look like an idiots' game to reasonable outsiders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk • contribs)

Is she here to build an encyclopedia? And showing kids how easy it is to vandalize (presumably as part of a lesson, don't use or rely on Wikipedia) is an incomplete lesson because we more and more efficiently react to vandalism. Exhibit A.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Wehwalt, she was showing the children how easy it is for anyone to change text and insert false material. Not only how easy it is to vandalize, but how easy it is to create something that looks authoritative. That's a lesson in critical thinking, not a lesson in vandalism. Sarah ^(talk) 02:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

At the teenage level, the difference may be purely, er, academic. We have channels through which Wikipedia may legitimately be used for education. There is some chance a reader may happen on it at that moment and rely on it. She needs to work through us. It's our playground.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:56, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

At what point did using Wikipedia for legitimate educational purposes without getting permission in advance become a blockable offense? Doesn't blocking someone under WP:DISRUPT require some likelihood of actual disruption, if not actual disruption? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 03:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Wehwalt, she chose the school article and inserted her own name as principal. [202] That's not something a casual reader is likely to rely on in those 60 seconds. If it were a BLP or high-traffic article, I'd accept your "someone might rely on it" point. But this is too minor, and was only done four times in 18 months. Valfontis, it would have been better to let her get on with it, or simply ask her to stop. Sarah ^(talk) 05:01, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I've lessened my block to one week. I'd like to know that she understands why she was blocked before lifting it sooner, but I won't contest a consensus to unblock here. Valfontis (talk) 02:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that what this teacher was doing fits with the spirit but not the letter of WP:IAR. Isn't that ironic? Anyway - unreasonable block. Rhoark (talk) 03:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This is ridiculous; If the lesson to be taught here is we're collectively a bunch of self righteous assholes, this is the way to go about it. Of course test edits aren't allowed, but it's hardly a crisis that couldn't stand some action -- actual human interaction / conversation, for example, as opposed to robotic template messages. Did it ever occur to ya'll that "test edit" isn't exactly standard English and it may not have been registering that's what the wiki-jargon templates were yakking about? Or explain why permission from her principal isn't applicable here? So let's lessen the block to zero and actual like real world human beings. NE Ent 03:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Please try to understand this.....she was not teaching kids how to vandalize. She was demonstrating the inherent unreliability in Wikipedia. There is a huge difference. AGF??? I see little here. Look anywhere above this section. We can debate for three weeks and not figure out what to do about something that is obviously a problem, but for this non problem, we block in two seconds flat, in the midst of an uninvolved editor trying to work with her. This is appalling. That this could even be a debate is massively disappointing. John from Idegon (talk) 03:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, she was teaching kids how to vandalize, whether it was intentional or not. And a block teaches the lesson that there can be consequences for vandalism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, in the same way those damned sex education classes teach high school girls to go out and get themselves pregnant. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• (non admin observation) Clearly WP:NOTHERE and while the purpose may be different than the effect, showing kids its easy to vandalise WP is a problem in itself. Its like teaching kids how to make a pipe bomb and then telling them this is only for instruction. I doubt she could rely on that excuse if something was destroyed by one made by a student. That she got banned completes the lessen she should be teaching, the consequence for actions taken. Good block. AlbinoFerret 04:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
• I can see a number of aspects to this:

• The teacher was showing her students that Wikipedia should not be used as a reliable source, because of how easily it can be changed. That's a good thing -- as we know ourselves since we disallow it being used as a reliable source as well -- because kids should be discouraged from using Wikipedia directly in their research.
• However, the teacher appears to be missing the fact that Wikipedia is very good for getting a quick handle on a subject, which can help guide the student in their research, and that many articles also provide good reliable online sources that the students can use to further their investigations.
• Unfortunately, by showing them how easy it is to alter Wikipedia, she is also showing them how easy is to be vandalized. However, most students who have any interest in valdalizing WP will find that out for themselves very easily, so I'd say no harm, no foul there.
• The teacher made a tactical error in making her changes to a live article, instead of to a sandbox or a draft. I presume she probably didn't know that these things existed - now that she does, I would hope she would choose to use go about her mission using them.
• Many, many new editors make test edits in which they change things and then change them back almost immediately. Nothing much happens to these editors, except perhaps a uw-test warning. They certainly don't get blocked for it. I'm not even sure an editor who did a number of them would get blocked without a series of warnings, since the edits essentially did no damage -- no more than the "damage" done by a long-time editor making changes who has to go back and fix typos etc. in their previous changes.
• Given all this, I think a block was an over-reaction, and that the situation should have been handled with a more delicate hand - a block is a very blunt instrument, after all. Clearly the blocking admin had concerns about the block, or they would not have brought it here for comment. I wish they had thought through their concerns before making the block.
• Despite this, I don't think the blocking admin should be sanctioned in any way.
• My suggestion would be to unblock the teacher, and allow interested editors, such as John from Idegon, to interact with here and get her on the right track. After all, if they're unable to do so, and she insists on doing what she was doing before, she can always be blocked again - although this time it might be a good idea for the admin considering a block to ask for comments on it before blocking, rather than after. BMK (talk) 04:54, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure how we would sanction them, even had they done anything wrong. But I imagine the teacher's gotten the message loud and clear at this point.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:24, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• The short block, after the escalating warning templates on the teacher's page, is an excellent example to students of what happens if you try to vandalize Wikipedia. This is a teaching moment. The teacher now understands how Wikipedia resists vandalism. Before, they were misleading their students into thinking anyone could put anything into Wikipedia. Now they know better. Good job. There's policy on this, at Wikipedia:Student assignments. John Nagle (talk) 05:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• That is also a good point. BMK (talk) 05:12, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
• Given the immense quantities of crap I've removed from articles, I'd say this position is significantly more misleading than the teacher's is. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• Small point of order: For future reference these types of discussions/reviews belong on WP:Administrators Noticeboard, not ANI. AN is for "General announcements, discussion of administration methods, ban proposals, block reviews, and backlog notices" (emphasis mine). ANI is for "reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors". Softlavender (talk) 11:15, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• We require someone to intervene and unblock the teacher. NE Ent 12:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• Presumably without consulting with the blocking admin? Bits, and if not that, reputations, are lost for that kinda thing. To unblock an account which has not been used properly, and will be unblocked in less than a week? I don't think it's worth it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:15, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• The editor was self-admittedly engaged in WP:POINT, so the block is justified. Let the block be an example to her students that repeated vandalism and other forms of disruptive editing will eventually lead to a lose of editing privileges. —Farix (t | c) 12:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Y'all do understand, without putting too fine a point on it, that at some point we will all stop editing Wikipedia, right? If you would like to see what you've started continue, we need to be recruiting new editors younger than ourselves. Demonstrating to a high school class that we put rules over people, treat minor accidental trangressions as something to be punished rather than gently corrected is detrimental to that effort. (This is where someone unblocks the teacher.) NE Ent 12:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see that she's being punished. What's been asked for is a reasonable undertaking to conform with the terms of use and policies, as she has not to date. If that causes her some mild embarrassment among colleagues and students, well, it may head off the next twelve. We've kibitzed a lot about teaching methods, but all we are asking for is her word. Kids are familiar with "promise me you won't do it again, and that will end it".--Wehwalt (talk) 13:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Why was warning #3[203] and #4[204] issued 1 minute apart for essentially the same test edit... and then the account blocked indefinitely five minutes later after the account had made no further edits at all?! That's quite a heavy approach to take. Doc talk 13:23, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

The above is tl;dr before I've had my coffee so forgive me if I'm covering something that's already been covered. Look folks, I'm a content editor who doesn't spend much time on ANI. Maybe I made a bad block. You don't have to consult me if you unblock, it won't hurt my feelings.

Here is what I did: Warned the user last spring about test edits. Issued a 2nd level warning about test edits yesterday, noticed they'd actually done the same thing (vandalized and self-reverted) a second time in the same day, so issued a level 3, then I read their statement on the talk page that they intended to vandalize again and keep doing it. Based on that, I blocked them as it seemed pretty clear they weren't here to actually contribute to what we do here: build an encyclopedia.

Someone called the block into question (a bit rudely but apparently they felt strongly about it so I listened) so I immediately brought it here. If this was the wrong place to report it it could have been moved elsewhere earlier.

I understand that my actions may have been hasty and bitey, but honestly in my years of work on the project, I've only seen one editor who started out as a teacher using Wikipedia in class become a productive member of the encyclopedia (and a damn good one at that). I wish that were not the case. I'm glad John from Idegon (talk · contribs) (who initially protested the block) works in the realm of encouraging teachers to work with the project.

I notice there is talk of sanctions. This conversation has been very instructive in how good faith admin actions are handled so thank you all for that. If someone wants to drop a note on my talk page pointing me to which guidelines and policies I need to read up on, I'd be grateful. Cheers, Valfontis (talk) 13:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

P.S. I'm going to go back to improving the high school article in question, so ping me if I'm needed here. Thanks! Valfontis (talk) 13:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd recommend some time working WP:AIV cases. Normally after the fourth properly applied warning for vandalism, if there is continued disruption, you then block to prevent further damage. If an editor had filed an AIV report on this account it would have been dismissed since "the vandal has been insufficiently warned or has stopped after the final warning". Doc talk 14:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Stupid, meaningless block. For all the reasons stated by NE Ent, Sarah, and John from Idegon. I'm a rule follower by nature, but the reasons for staying the block in accordance with named policies by various editors actually made me laugh. They are all about punishment and teaching the teacher a lesson. Which ends up being that Wikipedia is full of self-righteous assholes. It seems most of you are pissed that someone from the "outside" dared to come here and defiled what you see as a sacred cow, therefore, they must be punished. The edits did no harm whatsoever. This is a clear case of over-the-top if ever I saw one. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Observation If the teacher wanted to give a lesson on the use and influence of WP, why not find a site that needs improving (I think there are some out there!), and make a good faith edit that does not need reverting. Surely that is a more positive message to send to the kids. What she has done is teach kids about negative editing/actions. The lesson needs to be finished with her accepting the consequences of her actions.DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

This is just my opinion when I stumbled across this issue. I personally think the block is appropriate simply as a means of showing the way Wikipedia can respond to those that vandalize or insert incorrect information. Sure, she is showing how easy it is to edit Wikipedia, but the lesson should also include the consequences to misusing Wikipedia. This is not a punishment but a useful addition to the lesson that demonstrates how Wikipedia works. We have means of defending or protecting against what she is demonstrating, and there is no reason we can't show these means to her. It is only a week block right now. Scarlettail (talk) 15:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

It's interesting how WP:Test edit links to a certain section of WP:VAND, namely [205]. "Such edits, while prohibited, are treated differently from vandalism... Editing tests are only considered vandalism when a user continues to make test edits despite receiving numerous warnings." The warnings escalated too quickly and a block was issued too early - disproportionate to the damage being caused. This woman is teaching her students how to edit Wikipedia, not actually encouraging them to vandalize it! Why would she immediately correct the "mistakes", with edit summaries, if her intentions were negative? I haven't seen a lot of vandals do that. Why wouldn't she just randomly vandalize the site and not correct it if she truly was showing them negative editing/actions? I can't see an admin blocking this account were an AIV report filed; a process which should be some sort of standard for dealing with vandals for the vast majority of editors. Doc talk 15:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Bad block. For all the reasons stated by NE Ent, Sarah, John from Idegon, and WV. On the other hand, I really can't find fault with the admin who blocked her as s/he did what seemed to him/her to be the right thing to do and s/he was more than willing to change his/her mind if there was a lack of support for the action. But I find some of the advise s/he received nothing short of astonishing. One editor that agreed with the block thought it was good "punishment" even though it may cause "some mild embarrassment among [her] colleagues and students." Embarrassment!? The only people that should feel embarrassed is the Wikipedia community that thinks changing the principal's name for one minute equates to vandalism so severe that the teacher needs to be blocked. I actually thought that it was a great way to help the students understand how and why one should never trust what they read here but rather to look up information on their own. Of course, I now know better and understand how my thinking threatened the very integrity of this encyclopedia where I have spent so many hours trying to make it better. *Gandy shakes her head in wonderment* Gandydancer (talk) 15:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Gaudydancer. As you quote me, and I have not used the word "punishment", yet you put that word in quotes in the same sentence you use a quote from me, I will ask you to withdraw that. That material misrepresents what was said. Please understand that the style of argument used may well fly well on comment boards, it is not welcome on Wikipedia.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC) Oops, meant Gandydancer.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

In fact, the entire quote is: "I don't see that she's being punished. What's been asked for is a reasonable undertaking to conform with the terms of use and policies, as she has not to date. If that causes her some mild embarrassment among colleagues and students, well, it may head off the next twelve. We've kibitzed a lot about teaching methods, but all we are asking for is her word. Kids are familiar with "promise me you won't do it again, and that will end it"." Your way of characterizing it is totally misleading.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

You are correct and I am sorry. I should have been more careful and thanks for correcting me. Gandydancer (talk) 15:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

No problem. And I will say what I said may come across as "it serves her right" and I regret that and it is not fully what I intended. But can we please understand something here? Despite the title of this section, there is no teacher blocked. If she edits, she is as free to edit as she ever was. The only thing that is blocked is a demonstration account that isn't used for anything except what is discussed above. And yes, what she did was minimal and it is unlikely that anyone was misled. But we have no good way of drawing the line. So I'd rather argue that it shouldn't be done by anyone, than have to argue that Case B is worse than Case A, where we tolerated it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the teacher was using Wikipedia to teach about its unreliability, the bottom line is that she vandalized an article multiple times and has given no indication that she would not continue to vandalize Wikipedia in the future. In fact, she stated that she will continue to vandalize the article in the future to illustrate her point.[206] She has yet to receded that statement. In order to protect Wikipedia from further damage, there is no other choice but to block her until she recognizes that her behavior is not acceptable. —Farix (t | c) 17:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it vandalism, per se. She edited it to add unreferenced and incorrect information while leaving an edit summary and self-reverting. I'm not condoning her behaviour, but I refuse to label it in extreme terms as well. I do believe that a block was in order though, just to round-out the lesson that she should send her students. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm a woman. Feel free to use "she/her" or "they" pronouns. Valfontis (talk) 15:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• Good block - If you're going to show a classroom how easy it is to vandalize then I guess you're also showing them how easy it is for your arse to be blocked!, Clearly WP:NOTHERE to contribute, Had she been willing to drop the moronic testing and actually contribute constructively here then I would perhaps reconsider but as it stands she deserves blocking. –Davey2010^Talk 16:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• Good block, the teacher is evidently not here to build the encyclopedia. --  Kethrus |talk to me  17:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Whether a vandalizing edit that is quickly reverted is malicious or altruistic it is WP:DISRUPTIVE and is not useful in article space. In fact there is a warning Template:Uw-selfrevert for just this kind of thing and blocks can be issued for ignoring it. There is no reason that the lesson that she is trying to teach cannot be done in a sandbox (as has been mentioned be others) and an agreement to do that should allow the block to be lifted. MarnetteD|Talk 17:54, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• Good block. I suggest the next one should be indefinite. There are other ways to demonstrate how to use our resource than by vandalising it, even briefly. This person is not here to help so blocking is the best course of action. --John (talk) 18:15, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• Good block. Anything else sends the signal that it's perfectly acceptable to play around with articles so long as one self-reverts within a minute. Stick to a rule. Why is it acceptable to allow this to happen on a seldom visited site that still has the potential to mislead the reader who accesses the article during that critical minute, yet it wouldn't be acceptable to allow it on a highly visited article such as President Obama? A mischievous edit has the potential to mislead, no matter how many hits the article gets. Akld guy (talk) 21:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• Good Block - The sandbox exists for this very reason. Disrupting live articles is not an appropriate way to demonstrate to others that articles can be edited. It would be like demonstrating that an admin can delete a page by simply deleting a live article. Not appropriate. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
• Good block. If the vandalism was intended for some educational purpose, then the consequences of said vandalism, such as a block, are perfectly in line with the intended lesson. Giving particular groups, such as teachers who are doing so for demonstration purposes, a free pass for intentional and repeated disruptive editing, especially when they state they intend to continue doing so, sets a bad precedent. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
• Good block. The teacher can point to their own diffs and edits to demonstrate the exact same point. There's a page listing the oldest vandalism that exists, point out vandalism that stayed for years here if it's an actual teaching lesson planned. Otherwise, there's nothing ot stop an actual vandal from claiming it's a breaching experiment next time (WP:BEANS). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment To add a further comment, while the recent edits are very clear with edit summaries stating the intention and are corrected within the next minute, the first vandalizing edit (back in May 2014) was done without an edit summary and is frankly not that obvious to anyone and was fixed but after an hour and fifteen minutes. While this is a minutia amount of time, people shouldn't be told to go on the assumption that if she wants to make her point in May 2016, that she will fix it when she fixes it and that the rest of us should let it go. Frankly, if anyone here saw this edit, no one would know what to do except probably revert it. No one would keep it there on the guess than someone is going to return to fix it because it's a teaching lesson. On that basis, we shouldn't be saying that someone who is teaching someone else to make a point gets a free pass to create more work for other people. She could have made the same point with the front page article and I doubt many people here would have been so ok to let that go. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

• Good block. - Somebody needs an object lesson, and it is not the kids. Carrite (talk) 03:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
• Good block To prove that you can die from jumping off a building, you do not go and do it yourself. To prove that Wikipedia can be vandalized, you do not go and do it yourself. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 03:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
• Ill advised block. The lady is doing this site a service, because she is teaching her pupils source literacy. Vandalism of the type she has demonstrated to her students occurs quite commonly and regularly misleads not just children, but even high-ranking officials like Lord Justice Leveson (see [207] [208]) as well as journalists and scholars ([209] [210]). Wikipedia has a problem with circular referencing and citogenesis. We tell people that checking references is vital, to mistrust unsourced statements in Wikipedia, and so forth. That's just part of exercising social responsibility for this project. If Wikipedia is committed to spreading knowledge, then that teacher is an ally and should be welcomed as such, because spreading knowledge includes spreading knowledge about Wikipedia. That it was done in good faith is evident from the fact that she used the article about her school, and self-reverted immediately. Andreas JN466 04:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
• Good block. The teacher violated WP:POINT. The teacher also evidently does not understand that nobody WP:OWNs articles. sst✈^discuss 05:36, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

• So many panties wadded over one tiny edit to an article no one reads. You know why the teacher didn't think it was a big deal? Because no one takes Wikipedia seriously except you. You waste hours of your of your lives, days, years! so you try to justify it. Tell yourselves it's "serious business." It counts for nothing. Maybe middle schoolers think it's smart. Certainly no one with any knowledge of the various topics you mangle. Go back to your knitting or dungeons and dragons or whatever else it is 20-something nerds with no social life do. At least you won't be as cranky. 107.107.59.160 (talk) 06:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

  I don't know who the heck you are, but I must note that it's really sad that so many seasoned admins chimed in on this being not only a good block, but that the user should be blocked per NOTHERE. Absolutely pathetic. See WP:NOTVAND when looking to policy on vandalism blocks (esp. indefinite) for dangerously damaging editors like this. Doc talk 07:49, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

  Cute from someone who obviously has the time and wherewithal to know this obscure little place. What if she tried to make the same point by blanking half the front page article? Difference is, that would have been reverted within a minute. Isn't the fact that it's a completely obscure article that no one even sees more of a concern? No one is going to know to fix that article. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

  So she's not only showing her students how to vandalize, she's showing them to be even more nefarious by editing the obscure articles instead of highly visible ones like the main page? So that they get caught less easily and the vandalism sticks around? How fiendish! That really is one bad teacher! I think her comment about how the students get a "good giggle" has been extremely misinterpreted into her commanding, "Fly, my pretties! Go! Wreak havoc on Wikipedia! <evil laugh>" Doc talk 11:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Guys, too late now, but WP:RBI. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

• Good block - Vandalism is vandalism, and vandals will sometimes claim to be teachers. We don't know if the blocked user is a teacher or a troll, and it doesn't matter either way if that user is behaving like the latter. Vandalizing Wikipedia to show kids why it isn't acceptable as a source is like teaching racial sensitivity by addressing the kids by their ethnic slurs. I say this as a teacher. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

  The woman gives her real name and place of employment as a teacher. Do you seriously think is an impersonation troll? This is supposed to be about this case only, not generalizations. But as you said above, it's too late. So please close this disaster. I agree 100% with this. It's a Bad block. Doc talk 13:09, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

• Bad block Val went from a level 1 warning to a level 4 warning to a block, all after the user's last edit on the page. If you look at the timestamps of Val's warnings on Wangenra's talk page compared to the timestamps of Wangenra's edits on the subject page, you'll see that all of Val's interactions with this user came after their last edit on the page. The first warning was sufficient; no further action needed to be taken in the absence of further disruption. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

(I don't really like being called "Val".) I explained my reasoning for the block series above. My reasoning may have been flawed. Is it time to have an uninvolved admin perhaps summarize the discussion and close this? Because although it has been a valuable discussion for the community, I think we're beginning to spend too much time on this. If the conclusion and consensus includes an unblock and admin sanctions so be it, but I'm not entirely sure anything new is being said at this point. I for one have "learned my lesson". Again, ping me if I'm needed here. Cheers, Valfontis (talk) 13:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

You opened the thread not even 48 hours ago. People are still commenting on it. "Threads will be archived automatically after 36 hours of inactivity." Cheers :> Doc talk 13:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

• Note to everyone See Wikipedia:Teachers can be vandals too; the intro is silly, but it discusses a real case. Nyttend (talk) 13:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I've unblocked. See WP:DEADHORSE. Feel free to do whatever damage control you see fit. I'm done here. Thanks! Valfontis (talk) 16:24, 1 November 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.

Continued disregard of no original research and addition of social media links as "sources"

Soapfan2013 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has persistently been adding original research to the articles of Kristen Alderson and Chad Duell, despite being told of the policies for Biographies of Living Persons. Their continued persistence in addition information, which was mere speculation and not confirmed, despite warnings (and multiple attempts to discuss) from myself and Clpo13 went unnoticed and ignored. User has long displayed this behavior for years, and it's completely troubling. User also believes social media links are acceptable for whatever purpose, even if they do continue information of third-parties, which per Wikipedia standard says that they cannot be used if it deals with subject matter that is not for primary topic. Their excuse is that "they know the truth", showing signs that they are not here to edit in a collaborative manner, and that there might be slight ownership issues of actors they appear to like (as evident of their user page). Their use of slightly inappropriate edit summaries is also uncalled for — which user has a long history of providing. User has history of owning things "cuz I said so" where social media is concerned, despite being warned and told about such information before. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 23:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Since when is Soap Opera Digest a third party resource, see your making stuff up about me again, I'm not the one that's adding sources from FB and Twitter. P.J. (talk) 03:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the edits made to Chad Duell, this appears to have started when livelikemusic removed a duplicate reference to twitter here and changed the paragraph to say that the living person is still currently dating Kristen Alderson. Soapfan2013 then reverted this change made by LLM and modified the duplicate twitter reference to include another source, which does not discuss their relationship's status - just her decision to move to another city. LLM then removed the reference added and reverted the paragraph, stating that they are currently still in a relationship. He then added Kristen Alderson as his partner in the article, and changed it back when an IP modified the start and end date (note that this is the IP's only edit - whether this edit was made by Soapfan while logged out is something I cannot prove). Afterwards, the paragraph was modified and another source added, which uses the twitter reference to speculate their relationship. LLM then modified and reverted the change to again reference the first source used by LLM earlier.

WP:TWITTER states that "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves" (which the twitter source does appear to meet). However, the twitter source does not directly state that they ended their relationship, and the "soap opera" sources use the twitter message as their only reference. I don't believe that these references are reliable enough to assert (with the certainty that BLP articles require) that they have broken up. Aside from the sources themselves, I believe that an edit war is slowly cooking between you two. I see no talk page discussion between you two about the BLP and the sources provided.

This very ANI discussion looks to show a "he's poking me!" or a "at least I'm not like this!" kind of attitude, which is not constructive towards the project and coming to a consensus. Both of you need to stop making edits to the BLP articles in question and reverting each others' changes, and discuss the dispute on the articles' talk pages. This back-and-fourth editing counts as reverts to me, even if they were done manually and without the use of automated tools. I think that further edits in this fashion can result in blocking for edit warring.

I'll review the other article as well, but my position and response here stands unless I run across different behaviors or policy violations that are worth mentioning here. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Google Doodles, George Boole

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

---

George Boole is the Google Doodle of the day and the article has become the subject of recurrent IP minor vandalism. Do we sprotect it to prevent minor vandalism or use this as an opportunity for anyone to improve the article? -- Samir 05:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

It's not a yes/no answer. Alexbrn (talk) 05:59, 2 November 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.

INCORRECT AND BIASSED INFORMATION ON PAGE - LIVING PERSONS

The following discussion is closed. 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 Jeffrey Hoad - lead singer and co founder of Australian Rock Band Kings of the Sun. The page in question is Kings of the Sun (band).

This page has been live for several years and has an extreme amount of non-factual data and is in no way an accurate record of the bands history, trajectory and current data/performances/published articles etc, and reads in an extremely biassed fashion. It also contains non-relevant and non-existent links which are sited in the references section.

As this page is a protected page - it appears that it is unable to be corrected. Are you able to offer assistance/guidance as to how to remedy this situation?

I look forward to your response.

Regards

Jeffrey Hoad JeffreyHoadKingsoftheSun (talk) 06:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd either take it up on the BLP noticeboard or on the talk page of the article. Though I'd read WP:COI before you do much more, as it's generally frowned upon for people to edit their own articles or articles which they have a major stake in pbp 06:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

This is being discussed at BLP/N where Tokyogirl79 has taken the lead by (1) deleting much of the article as copyvio, and (2) blocking the OP as a sock puppet of a banned user. Looks resolved to me. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:26, 2 November 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:Owxbyktav

The following discussion is closed. 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 is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia and is repeatedly vandalizing pages despite multiple warnings. He should be blocked immediately.--Cahk (talk) 10:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

it is just a mistake and i clearly told him that --Owxbyktav (talk) 10:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

You have made 8 edits to my user page, despite being told you are vandalizing. You need to be globally and IP blocked.--Cahk (talk) 10:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Helloooooo? Anyone here?! Please rev delete the antics of this troll Owxbyktav (talk · contribs) when you get a chance, first admin who notices this thread on this admin board. Thanks for stopping by. Doc talk 10:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• Would soomeone please indef the troll now: Special:Contributions/Owxbyktav. For the lazy, just check the edit summary and comment at 10:23, 2 November 2015. Johnuniq (talk) 10:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• Some admin's noticeboard. No admin is even watching it! Doc talk 10:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

It took 36 minutes from the time of reporting this troll until it was blocked, all the while vandalizing one of the most highly viewed pages here.[211] SpacemanSpiff (talk · contribs) is my new hero. Thanks for being there for the project! Doc talk 10:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

There are not enough admins, and no one is willing to do anything to remedy that problem. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Half an hour between report and action doesn't seem like that long a delay ... -- Euryalus (talk) 20:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe Doc9871 can run to be an admin, and then fix all these really long waits? ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

This event happened at 3 AM MST. We need more admins that are not in North America, and/or more that are insomniacs. :) -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

As the original reportee, I thought I should clarify that I made a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism well before I made the post here. I had to make the post here as a last resort after failing to get any response on the AIAV.--Cahk (talk) 03:41, 3 November 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.

IAR article restoration against CSD G5?

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

---

I was looking on the showcase of WP:X and I noticed that Christ Church, Newton was listed as a GA yet had been SD'ed under CSD G5 for being created by a banned user. I listed it at WP:UND because I felt that Wikipedia shouldn't lose something like that when it was the editor who had done wrong, not his work. I questioned it and @JohnCD: asked the deleting admin @Sphilbrick: about it, which Sphil argued that it renders a ban toothless if it was allowed to stand but did state he wasn't aware of anything preventing it being retained on an individual basis. In my view because it had been independently reviewed and passed as having the quality required for a GA (and as pointed out by @Gerda Arendt: was well on the way to becoming a FA before the deletion) then in this case we should WP:IAR and restore this article while possibly changing the name of the creator to indicate that he was blocked for wrongdoing.

I am opening this discussion here for comment as had been suggested at UND. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:18, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support restoration, - quality content, verified by an independent reviewer, should not have been deleted, imho. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support restoration. I get the point of deleting contributions of editors who are caught with a sock puppet account. But, as far as I know, this case is being appealed and some editors leapt on deleting content as soon as the block notice was posted. There is no hurry to eliminate all evidence that this editor contributed as a writer. If an editor who socks has created decent, GA level content, it only hurts Wikipedia to blow it up and remove it entirely from the project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:36, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

  I think maybe we should consider altering G5 or BMB to state that each contribution of a banned user must be done on a case by case basis so that the nonsense articles or low standard ones get removed while the quality ones remain so we don't get the blanket "delete all" situation we got here. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I think it is also absurd to G5 delete images/files (like here) that a blocked editor has uploaded. What if the images are being used for other articles? How does it help to delete images contributed by an editor if it causes problems on pages they haven't worked on? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

There are several issues to consider:

1. Is the allegation well-founded? (Note that the editor disputes it and it is in discussion among the functionaries)
2. Handling of articles, especially GA
3. Does the Drmies contribution mean it isn't substantially from one editor. (The G5 rule states "which have no substantial edits by others" — is the contribution by Drmies enough?)
4. Categories (G5 Has an exception for categories "that may be useful". Why is this? Is it acceptable to delete the category created by the band editor and replace it by an identical category created by another editor?
5. Photos - The editor in question has a number of photos tagged as G5. Do we think photos ought to be handled differently than articles? e.g. File:Kittatinny Mountain near NJFFS Catfish Fire Tower.jpg

I have a knee-jerk hatred of the concept of deleting a good article. On the other hand I am very sympathetic to the argument that if we retain articles created by man uses what on earth is the point of the ban. We are literally encouraging them to circumvent the ban. For those who argue in favor of restoring this article, are they essentially arguing that G5 should be eliminated? If not what tools do we have to address edits by banned editors?--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

If you check my comment above, I am not advocating abolition. What I am proposing (merely as a future preventative suggestion which i'm not strongly behind) is a minor alteration so that pragmatism on individual cases is the main focus rather than a blanket mass deletion. Specifically on the image mentioned, it isn't used in any article except his sandbox so I would see no problem with treating it as an article. If its used in an article and contributes to quality then keep it. If its not used in an article or is just window dressing then delete. That in my opinion should be the focus not "it's by a banned user, delete it". The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

My concern is it converts the ban message from "because of your inability to contribute within the rules we request that you stay away from Wikipedia" to "because of your inability to contribute within the rules we request that you stay away from Wikipedia, unless of course you can add some really good content". Is that the message we really want to send? I think the best option is for an editor to start with the sources (which are not subject to copyright) and rewrite the article from scratch. I fully realize this is easy for me to say as I'm not stepping up to offer to do it. I equally realize that writing a good article which is on the cusp of a featured article is a fair amount of work. However, dealing with banned editors is also a substantial amount of work, and this proposal to reinstate the article if enacted, may result in even more work for those trying to keep band users at bay, thereby harming the development of the encyclopedia overall. Of course, some of this is speculation. I don't know how many person-hours are expended in tracking down and discouraging banned uses, but I'm sure it is considerable and I do not wish to make it worse.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

In my view, the percentage of banned users who create really good work is in a very small number. JacktheVicar may have done wrong with the socking but I highly doubt that its going to become common knowledge that GA level articles created by banned users will be retained as I am not aware of any others where that has happened. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) (oh man) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triadenum fraseri, which I closed, is relevant here: if we decide to keep this deleted we should probably delete that one also. For what it's worth, I support keeping these articles around. G5 has its uses, but deleting good content that is CC-BY-SA-licensed should not be one of them. These articles have evolved beyond the point of being the work of just one editor. — Earwig ^talk 21:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
• I've restored the article for now, so that non-admins can see it while this section is in discussion, in addiion to the fact that I don't think it meets CSD G5. G5 requires "...no substantial edits by others." To me, in spirit if not in letter, the fact that a well respected community member went through all the effort to perform a GAR and to fix up the missing ends means that this article has been significantly contributed to by other editors than JacktheVicar/ColonelHenry... In general, well, I guess I'd just like to point out that perhaps a closer inspection of the actual reasoning behind me last block of JtV by me by the unblocking admin and commenting community members instead of a completely inapproproriate unblock of JtV (that actually broke NPA in the unblock message) would have detected this problem months earlier. If others don't agree that Drmies GAR (which includes a citation check...) is a contribution enough to make the article not G5able, once consensus has been established, I invite any admin to implement that consensus with no threat of WP:WW. But until that consensus has been established (and so that non-admins can even see what we're talking about,) I feel comfortable enough stating that @Drmies: GAR is a significant enough contribution to the article as to disallow G5. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

It was rather rude to do so without checking with me first.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

You're right that I probably should have done so, and apologize for not doing so. However, I stand by my statement that I think this falls well outside of the intended scope of G5, and that even if it is G5able, it should absolutely be restored for purposes of discussion even if eventually redeleted. A GAR isn't a cursory onceover on the part of Drm, but a non-zero committment. Kevin Gorman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring the article so non-admins can contribute to the discussion, Kevin. I agree with the reasoning that a GA review represents a significant contribution to the article, so would support its permanent restoration. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

On the general subject: Admins should continue to delete articles on the basis of being created by a banned user, but only if there has been no significant editing on them by legitimate editors. Then, if any legit editor has a cogent argument for why the deleted article should be retained, it should be undeleted as a matter of course, without concern for admin social niceties. In the best of all possible worlds, the deleting admin would undelete without prejudice for their previous action, but if not, it's much more important to retain good articles than it is to shelter admins from having their actions reverted. Similarly, it is important to say "banned is banned", but not at the expense of the encyclopedia.

When editors revert the edits of banned users, they are expected to take on the responsibility for those edits, and the same thing should apply here: the editor who asks for a deleted article to be undeleted should bear the responsibility for that article. BMK (talk) 23:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

• I have no objection to restoring this page on an IAR basis, but I am strongly opposed to The C of E's suggestion of watering down WP:CSD#G5 and WP:BMB to say that deletions should only be done on a case by case basis. That would amount to saying to a user who is banned (which is not done lightly): "you are no longer welcome here, if you create socks they will be blocked (you can always create more), but volunteers will trawl through their contributions and they will all be kept unless we find problems... " On that basis a ban is completely toothless, and the banned user has no incentive to change his ways or seek an unblock. JohnCD (talk) 23:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I was just throwing an idea out there, I wasn't intending for it to be a strongly serious suggestion unless there was support for it, which there isn't so I will not pursue it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 23:31, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Agreed, thanks Kevin. Most likely audited content should be generally non-G5-worthy. (FWIW, I do think G5 is often more trouble than it's worth; ill-judged, disputed G5's are the opposite of WP:DENY.) In this case it's fair to be cautious given that the purported sockmaster was involved with hoaxes, but since the "behavioral evidence" for socking apparently did not include any current hoaxing, there's no reason to make more work for ourselves by not waiting till the matter is resolved. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
• Quick comment: I'm familiar with the editor's audited content, and from what I've seen it's problematic. Have a look at Talk:When Lilacs Last in the Dooryard Bloom'd, the GA review there, and the tags I had to place in the article. In other words these articles need to be checked. We can't assume that reviewers checked each and every sentence against sources, and when that was done for other content this person wrote, problems were uncovered. A lot of those problems still exist in mainspace because fixing them requires time and work. Victoria (tk) 23:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Just to be clear: this article was edited by ColonelHenry, not by JackTheVicar. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Ah... herein lies a likely issue. Looking at the sources in the article I restored, a lot of them are the exact type of sources that would be used to support hoaxed content. I don't have access to solid academic databases right now (what was intending on being a very brief gap has turned in to a much longer one,) and thus can't gain access to most of the sources involved. G5'ing content with hard to verify sources when there's been documented past hoaxing is a much easier thing to support than G5'ing otherwise high quality content that had at least some outside review. I'll do what I can to verify the sources in the individual article I restored past what might have been done by Drmies, but would suggest that any confirmed hoaxing as JtV may necessitate nukes, even on pages he's been involved on that other editors have also been involved on, unless the content added can be verified. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Hmmm. When I posted the above, I just assumed that the overzealous deletion of this user's contributions had to do with the purported sockmaster's known history of hoaxing, and intended to point out that there were no current hoax allegations to warrant such haste in clearing these articles out of mainspace before the appeal was considered. On re-reading I see that I was the first person to even mention hoaxing. So, self-trout for me for thinking an ANI thread had considered the context of a topic under discussion.
      FWIW, I looked at Triadenum fraseri - the only one I know anything about - and it seems fine. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support restoration If someone broke into my house and left a Ming vase behind, I might be very concerned about how the intruder got in, but I certainly wouldn't throw away the gift, no mater how bizarre its appearance may have been. We need to find far more effective ways to identify those who violate Wikipedia bans, but we'd be harming ourselves by tossing out useful content. I had looked at most of User:JackTheVicar's articles before he was identified as a sock and the only reason I didn't edit more of them is because they didn't need much work; They were good articles -- literally and figuratively -- backed by ample reliable and verifiable sources. As with my hypothetical home intruder, I would be very careful about changing the locks and I would double check that there was nothing wrong with the Ming vase left behind, but I would aim to do that as non-destructively as possible. Alansohn (talk) 01:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Let's pursue that analogy. If the intruder left a vase behind, which look like a Ming vase, would you display it in a position of honor, and let all your visitors know you are now the proud owner of a Ming vase, if you knew that the intruder had a history of creating fake artifacts?--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

In my analogy, as in the reality that we're dealing with, the intruder has a bad habit of breaking and entering, leaving behind a string of diversely beautiful Ming vases. All the porcelain works examined so far have been found to be genuine. As with any putative Ming vases, I'd be careful to check, but I certainly wouldn't toss any of them into the trash or smash them into pieces. In Wikipedia terms, the fact that so many of these articles, after careful examination by some of our top judges of such content, have been identified as, or are well on the road to being, good articles should let us conclude that the works should indeed be placed in a position of honor. Our real problem is that our locks are broken and can be easily picked or bypassed. Alansohn (talk) 02:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The whole point of G5 is to enable us to get rid of obvious junk and possible junk: we don't have to spend time examining questionable content and obviously bad content that's been added by a banned and/or block-evading user. When it's obviously good content, or when someone is willing to check questionable content to see whether or not it's junk, using G5 to delete one or more pages is cutting off our noses to spite our faces. Since it's currently at FA, it's obviously going to be experiencing extensive checks for veracity and consistency with its sources. Given the fact that nine different humans had contributed to the article (Jack plus eight other accounts, ignoring bots, vandals, and vandal-fighters) before it was tagged for deletion, it's also a big stretch to say that this was a page that had no substantial edits by others. Nyttend (talk) 02:31, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The point is the good of the content versus the bad of the likelihood of disruption by the banned editor. As I discuss below, we are now using ANI to confirm an IAR justification when we have another system with a little more checks and balances, namely DRV. A stub written by an atrociously bad sockpuppet may not survive DRV (and someone else can write it later) while a GA written and re-written extensively by many editors with a sockpuppet having created the first version would be a snowball restore, which would provide cover to any admin who wants to restore it while reducing admin discretion in favor of a consensus that one based upon ANI questioning an IAR. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose using IAR as a justification. I say we use the way we resolve pages that were deleted under other CSD issues for which people want it restored: Deletion review. If someone creates an article and it is properly deleted under G5, then someone who wants it restored should make a petition at DRV for restoration. This system works for articles deleted under A7, A9 or other criteria where people haven't created a new draft or other reasoning or generally dispute the deletion (even CSD deletions) so I don't see why it shouldn't apply to the G5 deletions. Otherwise IAR gives no criteria on when a G5 should be restored (any other editor? substantive edits? what if the edits were all possible sockpuppets?), too complicated. It is almost carte blanche to wheel war as admins argue over whether or not IAR is appropriate. DRV allows for a snowball restoration and there's less of an argument between admins about when IAR is appropriate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

There's no wheel-warring going on here, and if there was, we'd be quickly stripped of our tools. Sphilbrick is right that I should've consulted with him directly first (I've made similar complaints myself,) but one admin action was made and reverted - no wheelwar. I am strongly of the opinion that a GAR by the respected Drmies means the article isn't G5able, but since this may have been made by someone with a history of source issues does mean the sources should be checked out. I'll check some out myself, and JtV has on his talk page offered to provide me with scanned copies of any sources I doubt in this article. If he actually follow through on that, then between that, source verification being done as it can be, and Drmies GAR, I don't see that as any way a G5able article. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I said it is almost carte blanche. This situation doesn't seem that way but the point is. rather than a "IAR is a justification for G5 article that is also a GA", I'd prefer a discussion with some other people. IAR can be a justification for anything and I'd prefer we try to minimize all possible uses for it. A process will provide cover and ensure that it's resolved. Besides, I know I'm basically advocated WP:BURO by asking to have a DRV started that I know full well will result in speedy keep but that doesn't mean I as an admin should go out there and just restore pages that without question have been deleted in line with the current CSD policies. The reason I see that RFA is miserable is because we argue to give more discretion to admins so the standard for being an admin must be raised. I'd prefer we keep IAR to a bare minimum because the more it's used, the less power it ultimately has. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• The creations of banned authors are eligible for speedy deletion, for obvious reasons. As always, though, we should treat these situations with common sense and we are not mandated to delete any such content. Blind deletion of positive, constructive content for a strictly-technical reason does not help the project in terms of building an encyclopedia or undoing the fact that a ban was evaded. Just because you're allowed to delete an article doesn't mean it would be the best decision. The claim that not deleting the article would "render a ban toothless" is laughable. I hate to break this to you, but a ban is toothless. It's just a social decision kicking a person off the site. You can try to enforce it all you want, but it is not hard to evade and some banned editors who properly start over may well never be detected. Literally all we can do is block them if they reveal themselves and revert any damage they've caused. Beyond that, deleting good content from the project we're building doesn't actually do much. Swarm ♠ 07:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

It's a balance. The extent to which we allow for "good" content depends on the nature of the user. Editors who have personality conflicts aren't always given free reign, regardless of their content contributions. Similarly, a user who is banned shouldn't automatically have their work restored just because the content is good. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 17:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. One could easily argue that keeping content created or added by a sockmaster who has been determined to be a long-term abuser is encouraging sock activity, therefore, would be the antithesis of that stated in IAR ("If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it"). Looking at the history of the community ban of ColonelHenry via the links below does show, in my opinion, that there is a certain risk of more sock activity in the future as a result of said encouragement through keeping these articles, images, and edits alive or having the banned editor's sock as the article creator. G5 policy and the essay WP:DENY were written with prevention of further socking in mind.

I encourage editors to read the following (which is six sections long) as having a complete picture regarding the long-term history and depth of ColonelHenry's history and reason for the ban is important: [212], [213], [214], [215], [216], [217].

• Strong support, per my comments on WP:AN (the articles I linked to over there should be restored also). --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 19:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
• Ah ANI, how have you been? Funny: if my edits were substantial G5 is disallowed but the GA review would have been non-kosher. I don't think my records were that substantial, but, as do many others, I hate throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I don't have much of an opinion on the case itself; it's pretty obvious to me (and it was already) that JackTheVicar is not a new editor, but I didn't know who they might have been or why (frankly) I should care (I've been called an enabler of bad people before). They wrote a good article and I put "Good Article" on it. I don't know about the hoaxing--you can look at the GA review to see a few notes about the sources, but I accepted them, sure.

  As for the larger point, that disallowing G5 circumvents the whole idea of the ban in the first place, well, some of you are familiar with my ideas about rules and bureaucracy. Spirit above letter. Drmies (talk) 19:20, 2 November 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 has closed a contentious AfD Improperly

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

---

Please review this. 15:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Consensus was far from a given on that AfD for one. Two that appears to be an IP that is in a range which has been blocked for edit warring and vandalism related to articles about gerontology articles, specifically super-centarians. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. David in DC (talk) 15:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

AFD close reverted. Topic banned editor blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:39, 2 November 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.

Attack against User:Doug Weller

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

---

95.153.32.3 posted [[218]] on User:Doug Weller. S/he has already been warned once not to attack specific edtiors. Eteethan (talk) 19:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

FYI: The IP was blocked over 3 hours before you posted this. But thanks for posting. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:02, 2 November 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.

Not sure how to deal with this

If this is not the correct place for this, please point me in the right direction. A user, 75Indians75 (talk · contribs), has taken to adding information about an album by an American musician, Deuce (singer). Said musician has recorded an album, Invincible (Deuce album). For whatever reason, that album has not been released. An account on the social media site, DK.COM, has been either releasing or leaking songs from that album. On October 30, 2015, the full album was released, without cost, on that site. 75Indians75 interprets that as a release. The album article is not reliably sourced, and it's up for AfD (not my nomination).

Now the problem,> It has been pointed out several times, here here and here, that the social media site is using the name "Deuce.com". That site is not about a singer and is empty. The singer's official website is "http://deucela.com/". The fact that Deuce is American and the "official" page on the social media site is written in Russian is another problem. The singer's official Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/DeuceLA/) and Twitter account (https://twitter.com/deuce9lives) don't mention it. There's no entry for it in the iTunes store or Amazon.

I understand that musicians and their labels may have fall-outs, and if that is the case with the singer, and if the singer has set-up this alternate social media site, why such an obscure one and not another one that would be familiar to his "market"? Why is it written in Russian? Are his fans that eager to run it through Google translate to see what's being discussed? Regardless, the editor doesn't seem to want to relent, going so far as creating a draft article and posting it to the subject's talk page.

So my reason for coming here is that I believe we need an administrator to intervene. Again, if this is not the correct place for this, please point me in the right direction. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I believe I was involved in an AfD or the speedy deletion of Invincible (Deuce album) not long ago, and noted how there were no references, and that a (potentially fake) YouTube account (I came to that conclusion because of the use of AdFly was used to link to twitter/social media/etc) was the only indication that said album was legitimate, as I was unable to find anything relating to said album on his official social media. --  Kethrus |talk to me  20:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

The deletion discussion I was referring to above doesn't appear to have finished yet (I thought it had, and was recreated). The discussion is located here. --  Kethrus |talk to me  20:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism on Georgia TV and radio articles

• 74.127.86.0/23 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) (blocked 26 October for 2 weeks)
• 38.66.208.0/22 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 72.29.32.0/23 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) (blocked 13 September for 2 weeks)
• 72.29.38.0/23 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 207.171.196.0/23 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) (blocked 25 September for 1 month)

This editor has been vandalising numerous articles related to TV and radio stations in the area around Macon, Georgia, and lists and templates that include these; recent contributions are at Special:Contributions/207.171.196.122. Edits include Template:NPR Georgia ("Macon WOSU-FM", but WOSU-FM is in Ohio), WPEZ and list of US radio stations by call sign (both obviously incorrect) and WGXA (unverifiable, but probably vandalism as the other edits are). The first range is currently blocked, blocks on two others have expired, pending changes protection has been applied to at least two articles (WRBV and WGXA), and one article (List of Sirius XM Radio channels) is semi-protected, but the vandalism continues. Are blocks for the other ranges possible? Peter James (talk) 21:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the range contributions for 38.66.208.0/22 and 72.29.38.0/23, both ranges have made edits almost exclusively on articles and other pages involving TV and radio. The edits appear to be made to a very wide range of articles, none of which warrant a change in protection (not that I can see, at least). Their recent contributions do appear to be vandalism; if someone else agrees with me that they are so, then I see no problem with a temporary range block. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I feel sort of uneasy about this

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

---

Yesterday I moved the article Peter Kuttner for a newer user. Today I looked back at the talk page of it and saw that three users had posted comments on the article. What is weird about it is that they are all new users, and their userpages are almost identical. Their comments and writing styles were very similar as well, as were their usernames. I'm wondering now if they are sockpuppets of the article creator or socks of another user. I decided to open this here rather than at SPI because I'd like for others to look at the page and see if they notice the same similarities I did: I don't want to start an investigation on a false alarm or get these people in trouble if they are not socks. I just want to get some other, more experienced opinions on this issue. Thanks, White Arabian mare (Neigh) 00:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare

They appear to be students of Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/School of the Art Institute of Chicago/New Histories of Chicago Media (Fall 2015) and Peter Kuttner shows up as one of the pages being worked on and reviewed. I'd say the talk page comments are peer reviews of a page written by another student or group of students. clpo13_(talk) 01:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, thank you. It just seemed sort of fishy to me, and I wanted a second opinion. I was probably just thinking about socks because one of the pages I received from SuggestBot (and have put on my private to-do list of articles to improve) appears to have been written entirely by a sockpuppet of a user is now indefinitely blocked. Thanks. White Arabian mare (Neigh) 01:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare

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

"Barnstars" from User:Jabberwock2015

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

---

Jabberwock2015 has awarded a series of barnstars, almost at random to my eyes, which seems like a friendly thing to do until you read them - e.g. the "Jimmy Savile Barnstar", "for having short eyes and busy hands". See diff as one example. I'm coming here rather than taking it to AIV because the vandalism's obvious and running through four warnings the expense of User Talk pages seems almost as disruptive as the vandalism. JohnInDC (talk) 01:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

AIV still might be quicker. Most admins patrolling there don't require 4 warnings for a vandalism only account. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. You beat me to it. JohnInDC (talk) 02:08, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Eh, AIV's pretty backlogged, not sure which will be faster. Someone will get to it eventually. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Immediate block needed

Please block this joker asap. He's modifying this discussion as well. Have already emailed oversight for cleanup. John from Idegon (talk) 02:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

And vandalized Floq's page after his posting here. If I still had the bit I would block him myself. This is the first time actually that I regret giving it up. John Carter (talk) 02:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) J has also removed this thread. A check of their editing shows a clear WP:NOTHERE pattern. This goes beyond simple vandalism as these are violations of WP:NPA. The items should be rev/del from the various talk pages as well. MarnetteD|Talk 02:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Materialscientist has done the honors. Thank you, Materialscientist.John Carter (talk) 02:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Looks like HJ Mitchell is removing the offensive items from the edit history. Thanks to all involved for the quick action on this. MarnetteD|Talk 02:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Indefinietly blocked by Materialscientist for disruptive editing. Closing. -- Chamith (talk) 02:23, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Apologies for editing a closed thread. Just wanted to add a note that J also vandalised my user page, which was presumably oversighted or revdel'd. Thanks to Clpo13 for the timely revert. Blackmane (talk) 11:09, 3 November 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:Aj8815647

The following discussion is closed. 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:Aj8815647 has made six edits in his/her 20 hour existence here. In one article, he/she removed a paragraph with the edit summary "Fixed typo" diff. In a second article, he/she removed another paragraph with the summary "Added content": diff. I will take care of reverting these edits, but I'm wondering if an admin can keep an eye on this. Thanks! - Location (talk) 21:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this up, Location. I also noticed issues with Aj8815647's edits. I reverted changes that were not improvements. That was before you reverted his/her subsequent edits, so it looks like this could (although it's technically not yet) turn into an edit war situation. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 21:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

The user was given a temporary block. Likely nothing more than a fly-by vandal. - Location (talk) 23:02, 1 November 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.

Bad Faith, Bias, Self-serving Bullying editing by User User:DrFleischman. Please Review,

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

---

Hello This editor has reverted/changed this article over 30 different times. He also has been bullying other editors acting as if he is the owner of wikipedia. In a particular instance where he told user Markos200 that he has 24 hours and he will change the article back to his satisfaction. See this article talk page of bullying towards another editor. Another edit war between him and user Brian Dell (talk), see the previous edit war before User:DrFleischman deleted it from his talk page. See this.

It appears when someone makes an edit to an article and User:DrFleischman does not like the edit, he will check your IP or User Editing history to try to find issues on articles you have either created or edited and tag your article and cite that it is not Neutral and needs citations and or he would request that it be deleted. He has moved to get numerous articles deleted. One recently whereas he cited that an institution called Atlantic International University does not have any Notability in Wikipedia, see this article's deletion page. The AFD clearly states

• Schools are frequently nominated for deletion. The current notability guideline for schools and other education institutions is Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) (WP:ORG). This section is not a notability guideline, WP:GNG and WP:ORG are.
  • Most elementary (primary) and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability usually get merged or redirected in AfD. Schools that don't meet the standard typically get merged or redirected to the school district authority that operates them (generally North America) or the lowest level locality (elsewhere or where there is no governing body) rather than being completely removed from the encyclopedia. 'Redirect' as an alternative to deletion is anchored in policy.
  • Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are usually kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists.
  • Schools that are being planned or built, except high schools reliably sourced to be opened within 12 months, are usually deleted.

There were sources provide that proved the institution exist.

Please review all User:DrFleischman's editing history as it seems that he has a lot of Bias opinions and a little over the top as to enforcing Wikipedia's procedures. He seems to be acting as a representative or some what an owner of Wikipedia. This article was created 7 years ago and as you can see, User:DrFleischman has chopped the article down to his personal liking. He will revert any meaningful edit with sources that someone makes on this article. This editor needs to understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that provides extensive information as to organizations, so chopping the article down to predominately nothing seems to be a self-serving.2605:E000:6009:9700:3448:B254:BF69:A47E (talk) 01:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I notified the editor than an ANI discussion was taking place. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The OP has already brought this up at ANEW -- it was dismissed ("This is not the place to continue your content dispute with DrFleischman. Their reverts are few and far between.") They then brought it up at the Disruptive Editing talk page ([219]), where I advised them to try ANI instead. GAB^Hello! 02:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• Seriously dude, you wikilinked Selfishness in your thread title? And you haven't provided a single WP:DIFF of evidence? And your sole contributions to Wikipedia have been to file three different reports on this user? I'm smelling some flying eucalyptus wood. Recommend an admin close this down before we waste any more time on it. Softlavender (talk) 06:11, 3 November 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

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

---

Users User:KennyBoyLonghin and User:Joshverburg777 might be sockpuppets made for SPD Discussion as the only edits I have seen them make are on the now deleted Talk:Josh verburg and seem to have been created around the same time as that article. Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 18:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

User:KennyBoyLonghin made an edit to User:Joshverburg777 which I deleted. Giving the sense that these 2 are related. An SPI is needed. 146.200.163.2 (talk) 19:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• WP:SPI is thataway → . Softlavender (talk) 07:35, 3 November 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.

HughD

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

---

Will someone set User:HughD free? See User talk:HughD. As it's clear, HughD was misled by the admin who told him the page wasn't in the topic ban and then was blocked anyway for violating the ban. This is a ridiculous abuse of process and his unblock request has been ignored repeatedly without discussion. 166.170.47.98 (talk) 22:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Um... GAB^Hello! 01:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, a 166.170.x.x IP! Been a little while since we saw these socks. Blackmane (talk) 01:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Extra comment. Of course, this IP would have a problem with the block since it was Ricky81682 who made it. IP's in this range, known to be used by the indef'd KochTruth, have been harassing Ricky81682 for quite some time. Blackmane (talk) 01:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Any admin want to do the honors? GAB^Hello! 01:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I may as well. 12 hours for block evasion but the editor seems to have moved on. As to the unblock situation, the request is open amid a lengthy (and I mean lengthy) 30k argument about it. My annoyance is expressed there, contact me on my talk page if anyone thinks it's excessive. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:30, 3 November 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:Czoal and WP:Personal attacks

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

---

Czoal (talk · contribs) is an editor a few others (including Beyond My Ken and myself) have noted is not a WP:Newbie. Once confronted with the notion again that he is not a WP:Newbie, he engaged in an egregious personal attack against Montanabw and then reverted my post commenting on the matter, including that he'd just committed a personal attack. Minutes later, he restored my comment. I'd ignored Czoal's non-newness, but I decided to comment when seeing his personal attack against Montanabw. If we are to apply WP:Assume good faith without common sense in this case and state that Czoal is indeed a WP:Newbie based solely on his word, despite all evidence to the contrary, then he is a WP:Newbie who needs to know that the WP:Personal attacks policy should not be taken lightly. He is also involved in a heated discussion with Montanabw at Talk:American Pharoah#Content about "going-away" party and where he'll stay in November 2015. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

His latest attacks can be seen here. He only restored my comment so that he could make more attacks, as expected. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Czoal said this to Flyer22 Reborn, and he said this to me. Whoever this is, they took what was a dispute over nothing and became increasingly hostile. Montanabw^(talk) 04:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The user doth protest too much. clpo13_(talk) 04:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

If anyone chooses to come to my talk page and make rude and baseless personal allegations instead of focusing on article content, like Flyer22 and his good friends Montanabw and BMK did, I will reply in kind. Montanabw was very nice in her initial post on my talk page, but then returned solely to lodge her baseless conjecture instead of talking about the disputed content issue. Maybe Flyer22 should've considered minding his own business instead of involving himself in a thread that had absolutely nothing to do with him. And the "heated discussion" Flyer22 alluded to is old news; it reached resolution many hours ago. I wonder how many other "newbies" he's taken to noticeboards like this one. Czoal (talk) 04:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

We are not fools, Czoal. Your edit history is the evidence that you are not anywhere close to being a WP:Newbie. And if you want to see some of the cases where I've uncovered WP:Socks here at WP:ANI, all you have to do is ask. Furthermore, as various administrators have stated, inquiring whether an editor is new or not is very much allowed, especially when there is ample reason to believe that the editor is not new. There was no valid excuse whatsoever for your personal attacks against Montanabw or against me. But by all means, continue to claim you are a WP:Newbie and defend your responses. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

And I'm female, by the way; surely you already knew that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest that Czoal may not have realized how hostile and aggressive his/her tone had become in the debate over the article content; I made my comment that he/she was clearly not a newbie upon noticing that this user had other hostile interactions on his/her talk page. But no matter how surprised they were, it is never appropriate to engage in the "FU SOB" outburst Czoal made at me. Montanabw^(talk) 05:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

And he's thrice removed from Talk:American Pharoah a URL link to this noticeboard discussion, the second time with a threat to report me, which he's now made good on. Sigh. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 06:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

And he is now at 4RR for removing the link: [220] so that's a part of this. He was also 4RR for removing the material we were trying to discuss too:[221] Montanabw^(talk) 07:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Czoal is correct that it is not usual to place such a link on an article talk page, and I note that those restoring it are also edit warring, if not as much. I agree with Montanabw's comment above that (perhaps) Czoal did not realize how aggressive his or her tone had become, but I also agree that Czoal's attacks are not acceptable. DES ^(talk) 07:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, DES. I apologized on my talk page for the FU SOB comment to Montanbw on my talk page, even though I still disagree with her about the now-resolved content dispute we had. But Flyer22 - based on her user page, editing history, and clashes with numerous editors - seems to clearly be on a mission to harrass any editor she believes to be editing illicitly, evidence be damned. Apparently, she sees herself as a high-ranking officer of the Wikipedia Sock Police. Czoal (talk) 07:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect. My numerous clashes with editors mainly concern WP:Disruptive editors. And since my track record for catching WP:Socks and putting an end to disruptive editors speaks for itself, including the latest section on my talk page, I gladly accept your "high-ranking officer of the Wikipedia Sock Police" award. Thank you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Flyer, perhaps you are the "disruptive editor" in many of those situations. And the fact that you actually have "sections" devoted to your sock-hunting obesession speaks for itself. That's rather disturbing. And apparently you missed the key words "sees herself"; it's by no means an award. Those who covertly edit to avoid sanctions need to be caught and removed, but people like you who go around "hunting" (your term) for them and making wild accusations with no evidence can be more dangerous to this project than they are. I read the sock noticeboard and it makes clear than anyone accusing an editor of being a sock without providing reasonable evidence to back it up can be blocked themselves. Maybe you should spend more time trying to improve articles than accusing people of wrong-doing based solely on your hunches. If you believe someone is really a sockpuppet, then gather your evidence and take it to the sock noticeboard. Czoal (talk) 08:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

•  Checkuser note: Czoal has been blocked as a  Confirmed sock of Lootbrewed (talk · contribs · count).--Bbb23 (talk) 08:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Czoal, what a predictable response. Yes, I am sure that those who keep disruptive editors, including child molesters, off Wikipedia are the disruptive ones. Oh the horror. What a dangerous type of editor. I don't need to go around hunting for socks; if you paid even a decent amount of attention to the "disturbing" section that used to be on my main user page, you would know that WP:Socks trip themselves up, with their silly mistakes. I cannot help it if they make such silly mistakes, which result in it being easy for me and others to recognize them. I cannot help it if a good number of them stalk me, and expect me not to notice them. None of my WP:Sock accusations have been wild and/or without evidence, which is why a variety of administrators trust my word on such matters. WP:CheckUser evidence is not the only evidence. And asking a person if they have a previous Wikipedia account is most assuredly allowed. If it were not, I would have been blocked ten times over by now. Instead of trying to get a rise out of me, because you are threatened by me, perhaps you should work on your people skills; you clearly need it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Note: I was typing my "08:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)" reply before I saw that this thread had closed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:30, 3 November 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.

LenovoTest01 (talk · contribs)

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

---

Above user is blocked per checkuser. Just reverted an edit where he redirected his talk page to Lenovo. Please revoke tp access. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 06:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk page access has been revoked by MaxSem. -- Chamith (talk) 08:17, 3 November 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 highly offensive personal attacks

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

---

Unbuttered Parsnip first engaged in extensive edit warring with mildly insulting edit summaries ([222], [223], [224], then launched a series of bizarre WP:NPA violations when Hertz1888 and I informed them of 3RR. I'm used to lack of manners, but outbursts like "You are so fucking stupid." [225], "Big fucked red error messages from your stupid fucking editing" [226], "You're are too fucking stupid, all of you." [227], "Are your friends as stupid as you are – rude and dumb?!" [228] seem highly inappropriate. Jeppiz (talk) 16:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, arguably he's allowed to rant and cuss on his own talk page, but it's all the other stuff he's in trouble with past and present that may cumulatively do him in, especially if he continues. Softlavender (talk) 16:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't seem 'personal' to me. I started by in Pages with incorrect ref formatting because this article had red error lines. I correct lots of errors every days, correcting articles. Mostly people aren't really aware, a few sometimes thank me. Occasionally someone gets annoyed, that their article is their person article, and no one else can touch it. They don't know how a perfect article could have any error, or know how to correct it. They think it's my fault for there being an error. Four different editors think it's my fault for emend the article. The article still waits on the error lists Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting. Yes, they're stupid, and ride. They are without manners. Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Wed 01:12, wikitime= 17:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@Unbuttered Parsnip: pleaese consider this your final warning for personal attacks. It appears to be a long-term problem, and it must stop immediately. No "someone else did something too", no "I'm doing something good along the way"...I see no reasonable excuse for your behavior. If others are behaving poorly, let's deal with that also. But you are making it as difficult as possible to see any other problem, and dragging yourself down even lower. Making an unpleasant atmosphere for everyone will not accomplish your goals because you'll simply be blocked and we'll all go on editing more happily without the benefit of whatever good you might have otherwise accomplished.

"You are stupid", just like all the other examples, is a direct and personal insult and exactly what WP:NPA instructs not to do. DMacks (talk) 17:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Intemperate language should be avoided. However one can sympathise with the Parsnip, having good edits reverted many times, with relatively hostile and inaccurate edit summaries is frustrating.

I would suggest that User:Unbuttered Parsnip compose some standard responses to be used when such events occur. For example:

"Thanks for your notice, the references I removed were unused and causing a cite error. If you check the versions of the page you will see the error was restored when you reverted me. Please restore the page to the good version."

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC).

All he had to do was explain why he removed the sources in his edit summary, and all of this would have been avoided. If four other editors didn't understand why he was doing what he did, maybe they're not the problem? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Indeed a better edit summary than "ce" would have helped. And it is the same vein that I offer my suggestion above - this scenario precisely parallels a previous case with BetaCommmand where many editors did not understand what was happening and Beta (who was doing the right thing) could not cope with the level of complaints. Sadly suggestions which would have taken him out of the complaint loop and enabled the good work he was doing to continue were scotched by a pre-emptive ban from ArbCom. I would not like to see us loose another editor who can be given strategies to deal with their frustration, other than intemperate language. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC).

Indeed. The best explanation given in one article's edit summaries was "Removing rubbish", making the removal virtually indistinguishable from vandalism. My suggestion is that rather than immediately removing references causing a cite error, a message calling attention to the error could bring a constructive response (such as fixing syntax or reusing references) from editors involved with the particular article. Let's not be so quick on the trigger. In any case, clear and polite edit summaries will help everybody. Hertz1888 (talk) 18:58, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Regardless of whether the use is right or wrong, and what the purpose of the edit was, responding to a standard 3RR template by saying how "Fucking stupid" the "stupid fucking editing" of all others who "are too fucking stupid, all of you" is hardly called for. Jeppiz (talk) 20:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The original point of this discussion. I agree completely. There is no excuse for such behavior. It is contrary to both WP:NPA and WP:COLLAB and poisons the atmosphere. Hertz1888 (talk) 21:16, 3 November 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.

Remove celebratory "5000000 articles" logo from common.css

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

---

Dear administrators. It's time to remove the celebratory "5000000 articles" logo that appears on all pages of en.wikipedia. This logo was added on 2015-11-01T12:54:28 UTC, more than two days ago. In User_talk:Mdennis_(WMF)#A_temporary_logo_celebrating_5_million_articles, Mdennis has relayed the opinion of the Wikimedia Foundation that the logo should preferably stay up only for a short duration, "a matter of hours or a day than days." The Foundation is involved in first place because it owns the trademarks for the Globe logo, whose use is controlled by the foundation:Trademark_policy, which is a policy binding to all Wikimedia projects.

The logo was also discussed in Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/5_millionth_article_logo#Arbitrary_break and Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#5.2C000.2C000_articles_logo_needs_to_be_put_in_place.

I am writing here on the noticeboard because removing the logo requires editing MediaWiki:Common.css, and only an administrator or interface editor has permission to do that. Sadly, it's not a simple rollback anymore, because there's a following edit. – b_jonas 16:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

It looks like Jakec made the edit although I wish the logo had stayed up a few more days. Milestones should be celebrated! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I know. I did want to see it up for a week or so, but the Foundation does have the final say in such matters and they only wanted us to keep it for a day. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 17:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I can still see the logo, but also see that common.css is edited, so maybe it's stuck somewhere in a cache. – b_jonas 17:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

It's gone for me, now. And that's a shame, since it was a really good opportunity to highlight a milestone achievement in what is supposed to be our core function - writing articles. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

It seems some style is loaded by some javascript thing, and that's what's putting the logo back. I'm still trying to debug it, but if someone knows how mediawiki works, he may have more success. – b_jonas 18:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

It should be put back for a while, even if the ITN guys don't like it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

It should stay up until and unless the number of articles falls below 5 million. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC).

I give it up. Some javascript installs the CSS rule that puts the logo there, and I don't know enough about client-side web debugging or mediawiki gadgets to figure out the details. I hope someone else will be able to help. – b_jonas 18:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

It's now gone & thank goodness. GoodDay (talk) 18:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

As the technical problem of why the logo still appears is not an admin problem, but a technical problem, I've posted that to Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Javascript_puts_logo_with_banner_back. If fixing it requires an admin, then we might get back, but until that, I'm marking this as

Resolved

Thanks, – b_jonas 18:51, 3 November 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.

Proposing indef blocked users to get another chance

The following discussion is closed. 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 noticed alot of drama being going on lately. I also saw that the amount of blocked (indef) users or banned accounts on the Wikipedia have seemed to rise. Back in 2006, there was not nearly any.

I'm making a proposal: Read below.

Banned and indef blocked users on the Wikipedia have increased since ages ago. This is a proposal to give them another chance. You will vote on this and decide if it should be allowed, this is a community consensus. There will be a vote section and a discussion section, please take the time to read this whole proposal, not just the bold bits.

This is a proposal, to give banned and indef blocked users another chance. Obvious sock accounts will probably not get another, MAJOR CASES OF ABUSE by a user would not be considered either. Some people on here, have likely been blocked for the wrong reasons, and may have done nothing at all. Some admins are quite strict and are not polite with their actions. I've been here for ages as an IP, IP's are no different than accounts. We edit, we source, we comment and we discuss. I know some excellent users on this Wikipedia, like User:NeilN, one of the greatest admins here. 146.200.163.2 (talk) 17:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to read this.

Vote

• Agree As filer. 146.200.163.2 (talk) 17:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
• Disagree There is already an unblock process, and users are almost never indeffed as their first or second block. So if users already have to be rather disruptive to be indeffed, and they can still appeal after that, I don't think more is needed. Jeppiz (talk) 18:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
• Strongly disagree if I understand, but I probably don't understand. There are more blocked and banned users than there were nine years ago because there have been more users, and a few of them are disruptive. Does the proposer really just want to unblock all of the indeffed users, or what? Maybe I don't understand. If the proposer has a specific suggestion about the unblock process, they can propose it. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
• Disagree - If editor wants to be unblocked they can use the Unblock template, Pointless proposal. –Davey2010^Talk 19:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
• Strongly disagree. A small percentage of blocked editors may deserve another chance, so let's unblock everyone? Terrible idea. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
• Vehemently disagree. Primetime. JarlaxleArtemis/Grawp. Runtshit. Mmbabies. SummerThunder. I could go on, but I will just point to WP:Long-term abuse and call it a day. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
• Do we still have that facepalm template? Because it would be clearly applicable here. Resolute 19:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
• 146.200.163.2, please see WP:VOTE, and why we don't. —Sladen (talk) 19:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
• Disagree. Instruction creep. Indefinitely-blocked users already have the ability to request an unblock and the WP:Standard offer. Banned users have recourse elsewhere—besides, community-banned users have already had a consensus reached by the community that they should not be allowed to participate further, and if a user is banned by office actions, they shouldn't be unbanned by user actions alone. —C.Fred (talk) 19:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
• 20 mule team disagree. as C.Fred points out the "standard offer" exists for those who truly want to return and edit in a constructive manner. MarnetteD|Talk 19:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
• Strongly disagree. Doing this will unleash a flood of problems. There is already a perfectly good process in place and each case should be treated on its merits. Akld guy (talk) 21:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Discuss

• Uh, how is this different than the current unblock request process? --Kinu ^t/_c 17:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Well maybe it's proposing a near-general amnesty. The current unblock process seems nice, but actually it can be very hard to negotiate, especially for people of high integrity. I'm sure there are many indef. blocked editors who would have come back chastened after a short block.

  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC).
  

  If it is indeed a near-general amnesty, then it's as bad of an idea as I thought it was in the first place. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

  Rich, if anything needs to be reconsidered, maybe it's the use of indefinite blocks. It certainly feels like I see fewer and fewer durationed blocks these days; most of them are for edit warring. The kid-playing-around type of account seems far more likely to get an indefinite block for the first block, where a few years back, they might have gotten a timed block or two before getting the indef. A timed block does send the unwritten message of "try again, if you're willing to play by the rules"; the immediate indef just says "go away". —C.Fred (talk) 19:51, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• It would be interesting to know which blocked/banned user the IP/OP is fronting for. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• Have you heard of WP:AGF? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC).
  

• Yes, I have. I've seen it referenced frequently - most often cited by block evaders. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• Sounds like a good idea, but in my opinion the unblock request process is enough. Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 18:29, 3 November 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.

Unblock before its moot

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

---

Can someone consider User:HughD's unblock request? The block is due to expire in 60 minutes so he deserves a response after six days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.121.146 (talk) 02:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Process for the sake of process? BMK (talk) 02:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

It would take an hour to properly review such a complex issue. Let it expire. HighInBC 02:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Hugh, everyone has seen your six unblock requests in the past 3 days. If they had wanted to unblock you, they would have. Softlavender (talk) 02:59, 5 November 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.

Realskeptic

The following discussion is closed. 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 read this for background on the current behavior of Realskeptic (talk · contribs). The user is edit-warring on numerous pages related to the anti-vaccination movement and using Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. (who believes there is a connection between some vaccines and autism) as a source in multiple articles.

Examples:

• 2000 Simpsonwood CDC conference (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Andrew Wakefield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Trace Amounts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Joan Walsh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The user is claiming newspapers like The Washington Post and Los Angeles Times are "trained to report on this by CDC - ergo they're not journalists. They are simply fronting a federal agency's agenda." So organizations that do not adhere to this user's discredited view are ignored. The user is also claiming Congress will investigate Wikipedia editors and subpoena them for "assisting CDC in denying vaccine dangers."

I suggest someone give this user a final warning about promoting fringe theories or block them for edit-warring and disruption. APK whisper in my ear 04:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, this is what I wrote on my talk page:

"Look at this, LA Times is trained to report on this by CDC - ergo they're not journalists. They are simply fronting a federal agency's agenda.

http://healthjournalism.org/about-news-detail.php?id=64#.VjlVIrerTIU

And of course the Salon editor who pulled Kennedy's piece showing evidence of CDC and IOM collusion is now a senior editor at WashPo https://www.washingtonpost.com/pr/wp/2014/06/04/kerry-lauerman-joins-the-post-in-senior-editor-role/

I'm sorry, but having a newspaper logo above your name does not make you a journalist - your independence from government agencies make you that.

Realskeptic (talk) 00:47, 4 November 2015 (UTC)"

A current WaPo editor deleted material potentially implicating federal officials in a cover-up, while an LA Times reporter is taking tips on reporting on vaccine safety directly from CDC itself. I would appreciate a redressing of my concerns instead of personal attacks. Thanks. Realskeptic (talk) 04:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

This is a good example of why your edits are problematic. By removing "now discredited", you're implying there's a link between autism and vaccines. APK whisper in my ear 04:31, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Journalists being taught how to properly report on medical news? Must be a conspiracy. Couldn't possibly be anything benign. Of course, if you assume that the CDC is out to get you, of course it looks suspicious. Anti-vaccers are the very definition of WP:FRINGE on Wikipedia. You're going to need a very, very good source suggesting malfeasance on the CDC's part, not simply that they work with journalists. clpo13_(talk) 05:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Realskeptic has now been blocked by User:EdJohnston for edit warring, and given the fringe nonsense they were peddling, I endorse the block. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC).

Resolved

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

Vandalism on Cannabis (disambiguation)

The following discussion is closed. 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 appears to be quite a bit of vandalism on Cannabis (disambiguation). I would suggest that someone would patrol it and semi protect it. Cannibas is a touchy subject anyway so it will always be subject to vandalism.

Thank you

Eh eh eh oh oh (talk) 16:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Other than the move problem two months ago, there hasn't been any vandalism since December of last year. I don't think that protection is warranted at the moment. Deor (talk) 16:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

(ec) The last edit was a page move in September and before that December 2014. That's quite a few redirects you've created eh? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 16:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Anyone smell socks? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:36, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

While you're at it, can you move Dat 1 french cety back to Toulouse where it belongs? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

And WP:BOOMERANG Eh eh eh oh oh (talk · contribs)? Thanks! WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:25, 3 November 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.

Vandalism on basketball pages

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

---

Anonymous IP (79.167.110.166) has been reverting all my edits on Liga Sudamericana de Básquetbol article with no valid reasons. His last edit summary was this insult to me that does not need further comments.

I suspect this is the same user that had been reverting edits on several basketball pages with another IP (see here). According to his modus operandi, there is no chance to reach an agreement with this user. - Fma12 (talk) 20:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Relatively sure WP:AIV would resolve this. --  Kethrus |talk to me  21:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Seconded. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:11, 4 November 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.

Nonfree logo posted to dozens of talkpages

Due to what I presume was an oversight, the nonfree logo for the New York Academy of Sciences (File:New_York_Academy_of_Sciences_logo.gif) was mass-posted to more than 60 user and Wikiproject talk pages as part of the invitation to the Women in Red World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Science. Is there any way to clean this up without having to edit the pages individually or roll back the invitations en masse? (I've fixed the invitation file, so if rollback is necessary the invitation should be easy to repost). The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 04:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

There's an unlink feature on Twinkle that I've used in the past, but I can't seem to activate it now. Maybe someone else can check that. —SpacemanSpiff 05:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Twinkle's unlink searches for page backlinks (presumably), which doesn't include images. Perhaps worth filing as a bug with the Twinkle people? — Earwig ^talk 06:08, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

While an AWB run could do the individual page edits: the text part of that logo is free, so if we upload just the text-version of the logo at this image, and recreate the graphic version at a new file which only affects the NYAoS page, that would automatically reflect in the notified pages. --MASEM (t) 05:08, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

And the use of File:Women Science.png with a link= to make a click on that image not go to its image-description page might violate the licensing of that image by failing to provide attribution. DMacks (talk) 05:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I have commented out the New York Academy of Sciences logo using Twinkle and had to remove a few instances manually. -- Diannaa (talk) 06:49, 1 November 2015 (UTC) Forgot to say, you can set Twinkle up to do this task by going to Wikipedia:Twinkle/Preferences. -- Diannaa (talk) 06:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, there we go, it was a namespace thing. Thanks. — Earwig ^talk 07:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Why didn't Hullaballoo Wolfowitz just kindly ask Rosiestep to remove the logo? Why the ANI report and templating of a regular. It just looks plain nasty reporting it here like she's a vandal or something.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Just for the record, one reason is because I thought it would be less pleasant for Rosiestep and Ipigott to be greeted today with a message asking them to clean up dozens of pages than with a message showing them other editors were helping resolve the problem. This is a board for discussing matters that "require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors", and this was resolved through the intervention of an experienced editor. I've brought a few image-related matters here before, generally caused by mistakes/oversights by good faith editors, and no one commented they were inappropriate, and I've noticed other editors bringing technical glitches up here occasionally. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 02:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm the vandal, not Rosie. It was indeed simply an oversight. At least the image was not included in articles in the main space and was only posted on the editors' talk pages. Anyway, thank you all for saving me the trouble of cleaning up the invitations individually.--Ipigott (talk) 07:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I have not had my first sip of coffee. Looks like the logo in question has been removed. What else needs to be done with this? --Rosiestep (talk) 15:24, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

For proper attribution, clicking on the image File:Women Science.png should go to the file description page for that image rather than to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women scientists. I can't find the policy page though I know it is true -- Diannaa (talk) 18:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Extended image syntax includes this detail in the lede explanation of linking, and Wikipedia:Images linking to articles includes it as well. DMacks (talk) 18:32, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

While that is a hard rule in article pages, I don't think it's strictly needed for copyright purposes on project pages, or at least linking to something other than the file description page is very common on official WMF-curated project pages (on meta, for example).--Pharos (talk) 18:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Request to stop WP:HOUNDING by editor

Hello, under the advice of [[229]] on my [page] I am starting a request here (*note...not at all urgent/an emergency) to ask that [[230]] refrain from WP:HOUNDING. This began when I ran-into her initially on 28 October editing the "Council of American Islamic Relations" page, wherein we had a disagreement on my editing addition. Since this point she followed me to this page [[231]] (although she had not visited it for years prior), then finally went to a page I created personally [[232]] here. She would never have known this page existed had she not been following me/WP:HOUNDING. She has undone edits, specifically regarding a photo which has already been deemed as an unsourced photo uploaded by a wikipedia user [[233]] She continues to undo my edits (on the photo as a specific example) regardless of the fact that the issue was already settled on the talk page here [[234]] It is not at all a fair or pleasant experience to be stalked or WP:HOUNDED specifically on pages I am just starting. I welcome additional opinions, but in the case of this user it is obviously meant to be counter-productive and harassment.Trinacrialucente (talk) 16:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

You had not notified the user of this discussion, so I've done that for you :) also, for clarity Trinacrialucente is referring to the user Roscelese. samtar ^{t} 16:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@Trinacrialucente: As far as I can see, you seem to be involved in a content dispute, rather than a WP:HOUNDING. Please see WP:EDITWAR for how to resolve this. If you feel that another editor has crossed the line into abusive behaviour, can you please post some diffs here of individual edits that you believe show this? -- The Anome (talk) 17:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I believe this has crossed into WP:HOUNDING as it is not a singular content dispute...which is how it began. This user has followed me to two separate boards, undoing any edits I do (including on the page I created). Thus WP:HOUNDING.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Trinacrialucente (talk • contribs) 17:38, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@Trinacrialucente: Can you tell us which articles this relates to, beyond the Anglican Church sexual abuse cases and Council on American–Islamic Relations articles? Or is it just those two? -- The Anome (talk) 17:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I will spare other users the time commitment by pointing out that I have been a frequent editor on Council on American–Islamic Relations and Sexual abuse cases in Brooklyn's Haredi community for years. Trinacrialucente's claims of hounding are - at best - lazy and paranoid, and at worst, intentional lies. In general, the user doesn't really seem to understand how Wikipedia works, eg. insisting that no one could revert his/her edits while s/he was waiting for "third-party admin" intervention [235] and slinging around all sorts of abuse to see what sticks [236][237][238]. If the user is willing to change their behavior from what it's been until now, and accept guidance, it's possible that s/he could be productive in the future, but that's entirely dependent on their good faith. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:15, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I mostly concur with User:Roscelese, although I would have preferred that she not characterize User:Trinacrialucente's claims of hounding as "paranoid". That isn't civil, but the greater civility violations have been by Trinacrialucente. There is a content dispute. Trinacrialucente added a controversial paragraph to Council on American-Islamic Relations. Roscelese reverted it. Trinacrialucente re-added it, and then requested a third opinion, apparently thinking that is a request for binding admin arbitration in a content dispute. User:TransporterMan, the Third Opinion coordinator and an extremely respected and experienced editor, replied to the third opinion request not as a third opinion volunteer but as an editor, and removed the questionable material as WP:BLPCRIME and synthesis amounting to original research. Trinacrialucente engaged in personal attacks against both Roscelese and TransporterMan. A boomerang warning to the OP is in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Trinacrialucente has now asked ArbCom to look at the case.[239] I think a mercy block is needed. Rhoark (talk) 18:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I am not "forumshopping". As mentioned I put the request here first then was told by an editor that it would be in my best interest to move it to this location. Were I to engage in the same mischaracterizations as the poster above, I would call it a "lie" to say I was forumshopping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trinacrialucente (talk • contribs) 19:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

A clear case of WP:FORUMSHOPPING as part of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Rhoark's suggestion is a good one. MarnetteD|Talk 18:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

For the record I think it is worth noting that I was in fact the person who advised the OP to post here, as can be seen by this edit here, which was made before this thread was started here, as can be seen by the existing discussion on my user talk page at User talk:John Carter#Verification request.John Carter (talk) 02:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Seems like this may be a case of CIR. The OP needs to reel it in and perhaps needs a mentor if they are going to continue editing here. Dave Dial (talk) 19:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I hadn't seen the arbitration filing when I posted above. I have never heard of a "mercy block", but this editor is being disruptive, and I would support a boomerang block. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

What I meant by that is that a short block to cool down could be kinder than the ensuing spectacle otherwise. Rhoark (talk) 23:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that a block is in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Noting that it looks like Trinacrialucente demonstrates a pattern of personalizing disputes, reacting harshly to criticism, and acting aggressively while wielding a relatively poor understanding of Wikipedia policies.

• Exchanges with Epeefleche: [240] [241] [242] [243]
• Carl Henderson left a detailed explanation trying to help and provide guidance, which Trinacrialucente did not take kindly to.[244]
• accuses Laszlo Panaflex of stalking [245]
• [246] Floquenbeam creates section with title "I'm not going to spend a whole lot of time here if all you're going to do is be aggressive with every single person who disagrees with you", which Trinacrialucente responds to by "empt[ying] the trash"
• In these and most of his/her other talk page edits are accusations of pov-pushing, racism, bias, stalking, and general claims to persecution accompanied by a pervasive aggressive tone and sarcasm. Most, if not all, of the accusations look to be exaggerated or based on an incorrect understanding of policy (e.g. the present section, which seems to be based on an overlap of two pages in an area Roscelese frequently edits).
• Trinacrialucente looks to be very passionate about the subjects he/she works on, and it's possible that enthusiasm could be used to improve the encyclopedia -- but Trinacrialucente, please take the advice of all of these people to heart regarding the way you interact with people or it's quite likely you'll be blocked from editing (and at very least you invite additional scrutiny of your own edits/behavior). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Rest assured, I do take the feedback from other editors very seriously, but that does not mean I always agree. I'd like to make two corrections to your statements above: 1) there are three (3) page "overlaps" now where Roscelese has sought to undo or criticize my comments; the initial "CAIR" page where we had our first interaction on Oct 29, then very shortly thereafter on the Heredi and MY page contribution, Anglican church abuse 2) you point out that this "overlap" occurs in 2 pages Roscelese "frequently edits"...which should be past-tense: while it is true Roscelese edited the Heredi page frequently in the past, it has been months (if not years...I don't have the energy to look back that far in her history) since she made her last edit prior to our exchange (once again, it was initially on Oct 29 then after a long hiatus felt compelled to edit after I did (Oct 31 to be precise). Lastly, if you or anyone feels my past interactions are relevant to this discussion as opposed to simply looking at the facts/timelines of the incident in question, don't you think it is also worth looking into past interactions that Roscelese has had as well? You will find similar accusations of bias and blocks from wikipedia staff for behavior. I personally do not find that relevant as I am only interested in THIS incident here. But if you are going to "go there" then I would think it would apply to both of us. The tone here is absolutely not meant to be sarcastic or persona, I'm simply stating facts and my observation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trinacrialucente (talk • contribs) 20:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Per a message just left on my talk page, it appears this incident will not be resolved here...and I'm fine with that as I believe the point has been made re WP:HOUNDING given the timelines and facts I outlined above. I think the user is "on notice" not to stalk/hound me at this point as any future incidents outside of the 3 pages identified above where the editor in question has no recent history nor motive to edit will be seen as indisputable proof to my accusation. Trinacrialucente (talk) 20:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

@Trinacrialucente: On the contrary, the general feeling seems to be that you need to adjust how you interact with other editors. No hounding has occurred and Roscelese is certainly not "on notice". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I can't believe this ridiculous thread is still open and the filer hasn't been admonished yet. Is someone going to look after this person, or are they just going to keep on decreeing that other people aren't allowed to edit their article, accusing people of supporting child abuse, etc. indefinitely? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Trincrialucente continues to edit war on Anglican Church sexual abuse cases reinserting claims that are not found in the sources. I don't know if there's a pattern of hounding across multiple pages, but it's no excuse for OR. Rhoark (talk) 23:24, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not "edit warring". I cited two reliable sources which support my statement...AND the issue of the "graffiti photo" has already been resolved in this article [[247]]. If you or anyone disagrees or wants to discuss, I welcome any/all input on the Talk page, as opposed to a unilateral edit (of course I never decreed anyone cannot edit...that is beyond ridiculous). And once again, no one here seems interested that the editor in question, Roscalese undid my edits on the Heredi page just today...the user removed an entire section that the user in question CREATED YEARS AGO simply because I edited it. Still not seeing a pattern?Trinacrialucente (talk) 01:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Could you provide diffs for these accusations? The section removal you appear to be referencing was made by Epicgenius, not by Roscelese ([248]), after discussion of the issue here. Roscelese does not appear to have removed any content from the page today ([249]). Trinacrialucente made similar accusations against me some time ago -- see the diff linked above. I responded to remarks he made on his talk page regarding a discussion I was involved in, and he accused me of stalking him. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 01:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm only clarifying this so no one can accuse me of "lying"; after MONTHS of not touching said article, less than 1 day after our interaction the editor in question comments on the talk page, then subsequently suggests to the editor, Epic Genius, that the same section Roscelese added once upon a time now be deleted...right after I edited it. Epic Genius complied and deleted the entire section, upon which Roscelese continued editing today. So, technically Roscelese simply continued editing ON TOP OF/AFTER the section I edited had been deleted by Epic Genius...after the suggestion by Roscelese. As you point out, it's all there on the Talk page and history. I would also like to point out that I tried to resolve this issue TODAY with Roscelese by suggesting that user take a break from following me/editing the page I created and in return I would not edit the Heredi page since I am VERY tired of dealing with this as it is disruptive and not at all constructive. There are certainly many MANY more articles and topics that might benefit from that user's opinions than a page I just created.Trinacrialucente (talk) 02:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I deleted it on my own accord. As I stated on the talk page, you can feel free to re-add the content provided, that it does not violate BLP rules. I am re-adding content gradually, without adding any names. epic genius (talk) 02:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Completely understood. No one is accusing you of anything. But the conversation with you and the editor in question only took place after I added my edits. And it had been months since that editor even visited that page. One can draw their own conclusions.Trinacrialucente (talk) 02:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Conclusions like "when someone edits a page all the time, it is probable that they have it watchlisted"? Those kinds of conclusions? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• Can someone who knows what they're doing at Commons speedy-delete File:Anglicanpriestchasingchildren.jpg? Trinacrialucente has literally just ripped off someone else's photo about Catholic abuse in Lisbon and renamed it "Anglican", claiming it's an "unsourced wikipedia photo" from an "unknown and unsourced Wikipedia user." It is a CC-licensed photo by Commons user Milliped with clearly stated context, but I don't have the Commons savvy to deal with this. Why has this user not been blocked yet? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
• For clarification, the file uploaded by Milliped in February, 2011 is here, and is their own work with extended description of the picture and where it was taken. While editor 'Trinacrialucente' seems to have downloaded the same picture, and re-uploaded it here, claiming it is of a different denomination depicted taken by an 'unknown and unsourced Wikipedia user'. Clearly false and copyright violation. Dave Dial (talk) 06:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Trinacrialucente, this kind of source falsification is serious and could easily result in a block. Do you have an explanation? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

This was not source falsification. I stated clearly when I reuploaded that it originated from another wikipedia user and was thus free to use/download/put on other pages. Per the comments on the Catholic Abuse Forum, it was stated also clearly that this picture was NOT verified and thus could NOT use the word "Catholic" in the title...and was thus removed. Yet, everyone persisted in saying it portrayed a "catholic priest" when there is nothing but the title of the photo to say so. Since the title of the file could not be changed, I changed the title of the file for my page to be more relevant. Once again, I stated clearly this photo came from another wikipedia user. I would point once again to this discussion of the photo regarding ambiguity here Talk:Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases#.22Graffiti.22_photo where Anglicanus states: "I've removed the speculative commentary since we do not seem to know anything about what it is trying to actually depict." Trinacrialucente (talk) 07:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

No, that is not how copyright violations are dealt with. Nor is it in any way acceptable that you believe a 3 person discussion on some article Talk page discounts the picture and description by the copyright holder. I won't get into how this picture is used by reliable sources as a depiction of a Catholic Priest chasing children, but they do. Because that is not the point. The point is that you downloaded the picture, then re-uploaded it claiming it was something that it is not. That not only violates our guidelines, it's disruptive and deceptive. Dave Dial (talk) 07:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Trinacrialucente, saying "I changed the title of the file for my page to be more relevant" shows you have little regard for what sources (however questioned they might be) actually say and will make up content to suit your aims. Do anything like that again and I will block you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Ignoring these warnings, the user continues uploading non-free material and lying about its source and copyright status. File:Anglicanabuseapology.jpg –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:48, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Blocked until they show an understanding of Wikipedia's copyright policies. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

---

References

Personal Attacks

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

---

An anon user was recently using different IPs to edit war on the Ben Affleck filmography, insistent on adding unsourced rumour material. During one of the reverts, the user vandalised the article with this uncalled for message that seemed to be directed at me. After the article was protected to avoid further disruption, the user proceeded to pay a visit to my Talk Page in order to insult me in an obscene manner. Although I have warned the user against edit warring in the past ([250]), this attack was entirely unprovoked. The user clearly isn't interested in any sort of discussion aside from juvenile insults. DarkKnight2149 05:47, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Pretty clearly unacceptable, blocked for 31 hours. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:53, 4 November 2015 (UTC).

This looks to be resolved and ready for closure. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

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

User:SundayRequiem, part three

The following discussion is closed. 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 apologies for returning to ANI so soon again. This is probably the third ANI thread regarding SundayRequiem (talk · contribs) (first case, second case), and I sincerely hope that this will be the last, because I frankly am getting tired of dealing with the same issues over and over again.

Background information

• On 17 October 2015 I reported this user to ANI, under the complaint that the user had been disruptive on a few articles, and that he did not seem to be someone who is here to constructively build an encyclopedia. The result of the ANI thread was that a warning was issued to the user by User:JzG.
• On 17 October 2015, User:Codename Lisa filed a 3RR report against the user for edit-warring on Microsoft, and the user was formally warned.
• On 24 October 2015, User:Darx9url reported the same user to ANI, under the complaint that they had been hurling abuses and personal attacks at other editors ("go fuck yourself", "fucking idiot", et cetera). It was also noted that he created an attack page against administrators which was swiftly deleted. The result of the ANI thread was that the user was blocked for one week by User:Swarm.

Recent events

• After his most recent block, this user has continued to edit war on Chengdu J-20, Alcohol and health and EBay. Not to mention, even after his earlier warnings, he continued to edit war on Phoenix (mythology).
• He has harassed User:BilCat on his talk page, after BilCat reverted one of his edits.
• He refuses to acknowledge WP:Manual of Style/Trademarks and makes blanket reverts out of spite without any reasonable explanation, refer to the edit history for EBay.
• He refuses to acknowlege WP:MEDRS and laughs at me for linking it to him, refer to Talk:Alcohol and health#Criteria and the edit history for Alcohol and health. Earlier on there was a similar issue with WP:MOS-ZH at Chinese aircraft carrier Liaoning.
• He has attempted to chase away IP editors for the sole reason of being IP editors. He was warned for WP:BITE-ing, and this warning was dismissed.
• He has made a personal attack against me, labelling me as "Chinese" within his edit summary in an effort to discredit my edits. This is not the first time.

Additional information

• His very first edit made on 7 June 2015 is a blatant vandal edit; not much has changed in his behaviour within the next 371 edits. Between June and November, he has attacked editors that he does not agree with, edit warred on various different pages, and has generally been disruptive overall.
• I also find this edit suspicious. Dark Liberty (talk · contribs) was indef blocked on 9 October 2014 for edit warring.

Based on this editor's refusal to engage in proper and civil community discussion, non-adherence to MoS guidelines established by community consensus, and confrontational behaviour, I honestly believe that this user is not here to work cooperatively and collaboratively on an encyclopedia which is built upon mutual collaboration. This editor causes more harm than good for the project, and until this user can learn how to respectfully communicate with other people, I am not convinced that they should continue their activities on this project. --benlisquare_T•C•E 09:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I considered an indef the last time and regret not keeping a better eye on him since his last block expired. Thank you for taking the time to compile this report, I think it speaks for itself and serves as more than sufficient justification for an indefinite block, and I will be implementing the block presently. Swarm ♠ 09:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I do support an indef block, pending a satisfactory explanation from SundayRequiem for the edits listed above. There does seem to be a clear pattern of antisocial behaviour and unhelpful edits to articles that would mean that a satisfactory explanation would probably also have to be an extremely good one. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 15:18, 4 November 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:ParamountFanatic2001

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

---

Extremely likely to be a block evasion of sock Caidin-Johnson. The same gibberish articles as other previously blocked socks.--Cahk (talk) 18:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

The place to report socking is WP:SPI (with supporting evidence). And if you report anyone here you must notify them, as clearly highlighted in the edit notice when you edit here. Please do so immediately. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:42, 4 November 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_talk:Jimmy_Aneja

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

---

constantly removes encyclopaedic information from pages without any consulting or writing on the talk pageYatan-verma (talk) 20:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Diffs? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:53, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Lets wait for what the complainer wants to say more with differences. But I just happened to notice that they themselves have removed International Phonetic Alphabets from one article; which isn't encyclopedic either. Please read WP:BOOMERANG §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't know how to show diffs, u can go and check this person's edits though, they constantly remove encyclopaedic paragraphs from people's wiki pages without any reasons, as for me removing those alphabets, i can revert that back, that doesn't compare to the chucks of information that user removes without no reason Yatan-verma (talk) 05:53, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Showing differences is quite basic. If you don't know that I doubt you understand more difficult polices and guidelines of Wikipedia. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:14, 5 November 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:Dharmadhyaksha

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

---

biased editing and removal of content without using the talk page or consensus Yatan-verma (talk) 06:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Please provide diffs and links for evidence, thank you. sst✈^discuss 08:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

You should also notify User:Dharmadhyaksha. - Supdiop (T🔹C) 08:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

He did notify me; I just removed it as it was placed on top of my talk page disturbing the chronology.
And in above section Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User_talk:Jimmy_Aneja he says he doesn't know how to show differences! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:39, 5 November 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.

182.74.182.130

The following discussion is closed. 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 check the special:contributions/182.74.182.130. --CiaPan (talk) 07:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

That looks like vandalism. - Supdiop (T🔹C) 08:18, 5 November 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:SFCTID

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

---

Please block this user, who is being an idiot at Sepp Blatter.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:16, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• He's gone. Bye.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:18, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
• The article has also been move protected. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:23, 5 November 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.

Bethel, Alaska

The following discussion is closed. 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 this edit be reviewed, please? [251] This editor reverted seven edits I made, even though I left the new information in the article very well referenced. The reason given, "not encyclopedic", is specious at best. Thanks for the help. Juneau Mike (talk) 11:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Michaelh2001, ANI is not the venue to review single edits. If you disagree with an edit, you need to open a discussion about the content on the Talk page of the article. If you cannot come to an understanding, then investigate WP:DR for further options. Softlavender (talk) 12:15, 5 November 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.

Wurst Büldzimmer

I am very concerned about a speedy deletion tag slapped on a page about myself: Wurst Büldzimmer. A certain user, User:Largoplazo, is denying my existence by claiming that this page is a 'hoax', even though I have provided references for the article. There is now an ensuing talk page argument. Please, I need mediation from a neutral body. Regards. --Bulb-und-Büld (talk) 21:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

You created, and have been editing, an article about yourself. That is strongly discouraged. BMK (talk) 21:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

This method is not forbidden however, and it does not address the fact that this is apparently a 'blatant hoax'. --Bulb-und-Büld (talk) 21:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Clarification: purportedly about himself. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

None of the three web pages to which you gave references gives any hint as to the existence of a Wurst Büldzimmer. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes they do. There is an actual video of me on YouTube from a street lecture I was performing. Look at the video, and then look at my photo. Clear evidence. Can an admin please remove the deletion tag? Thanks. --Bulb-und-Büld (talk) 21:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

You mean, the street lecture being delivered by somebody identified right there in the caption as Rüdiger Klasen? —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Quick, someone hand someone a boomerang! LjL (talk) 21:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

(ec x2) The photo is the property of Getty Images, http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/cross-eyed-nerd-man-15675166?st=d2dae93. I have deleted the article. -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, I sold my own photo to Getty a few years back, so it is also my own photo. Secondly, the video is incorrectly labelled. Thirdly, the article has been deleted even though a discussion was taking place on the talk page. I am considering contacting Jimbo Wales over this. --Bulb-und-Büld (talk) 21:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

We're clearly being trolled. A block per WP:NOTHERE is in order. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Admin action needed

Please enact WP:DENY (and also delete userpage). Softlavender (talk) 21:49, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Done. If there's a Commons admin watching this, please delete the image mentioned above. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Done. -- Ed (Edgar181) 22:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

not know how describe

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

---

OP post update reply to question in refdesk archive, not know rules before, but suddenly find mentions and accusations+veiled threat of being other user OP not know. OP raise complaint in ANI cause OP think admin attention needed. OP believe want good faith practice. ruleset of editing refdesk archive OP not knewMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 16:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Have no idea what you're saying, but I'm thinking it's related to this note on your talk page KoshVorlon 18:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

This editor edited the Reference Desk archives in order to ping other editors and was cautioned that editing the archives for that purpose was disruptive editing. Some of this editor's posts to the Reference Desk have a troll-like character to them. I would advise this editor to read the boomerang essay, as well as reading the competence is required essay as to a minimum level of English. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Is everyone here now just too scared to say "troll", even with a weight of evidence, and deal accordingly? Because I've looked and looked at the contributions here, and I see nothing that says "not troll", whilst every edit says "troll". That we turn this obvious nonsense into an issue, rather than just quietly and firmly blocking and dealing with it, demeans us, and gives them the audience they crave. Begoon ^talk 12:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Given the mere fact that he can communicate perfectly clearly, but chooses instead to pepper wiki pages with only nonsense-speak, I'd say yes, it's time to quickly block and ignore and DFTT. Softlavender (talk) 13:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm amazed we are so stupid. There's a lesson here, but I'm damned if I know the right place to go to hammer it home. Have we blocked the troll yet? Begoon ^talk 13:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

As the saying goes, never ascribe malice to that which can be adequately explained by, in this case, a poor command of English. I don't think we need to treat this editor as a troll. He edited the RD archives in error, and the admonishment he received for doing so was probably unnecessarily harsh, and he may have interpreted it even more harshly than that, and brought it here. I would say:

• to Mahfuzur Rahman Shourov: it wouldn't hurt to phrase your questions in more conventional English, if you can.
• to other refdesk contributors: if you don't like this person's questions, just ignore them. —Steve Summit (talk) 14:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC) [revised 15:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)]

I'd agree with As the saying goes, never ascribe malice to that which can be adequately explained by, in this case, a poor command of English, if I had not reviewed the contributions. I have, so I don't. This is a troll. Blocking should be automatic, and immediate. Anything else leaves me disappointed.Begoon ^talk 14:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I have to admit, while I was originally somewhat AGF about this editor, when I looked in to the history a few days back I began to have doubts. While I know people's commenting and English level can vary depending on stuff like how much effort they put in, how they're feeling etc, it does seem to me some of the OP's comments seem to show a fair amount better level (although still not perfect and with the occasional similar signs). See e.g. [252] [253] [254] [255] [256] [257] [258] [259] [260] particularly the later posts. Nil Einne (talk) 15:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@Begoon, Scs, and Softlavender:what happen to AGF? I new here, not remember all rule, can just warn person, but go outright accusationMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 15:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Admin action needed here

Please enact WP:DENY. -- Softlavender (talk) 04:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I've indef blocked this editor as disruptive. The net effect of their editing is a negative and this may be due to serious competence issues. That is the AGF version...the alternate is that we are being trolled.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 05:34, 6 November 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.

Diego Grez-Cañete, yet again

• Diego Grez-Cañete (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diego Grez-Cañete is edit-warring to keep his own non-admin closure at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/El Marino (online newspaper), an article with which he has a clear and admitted conflict of interest. More to follow I'm sure.... Vrac (talk) 02:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

That editor, active on Wikipedia since 2006, has now "retired". See his final, frustrated, edit comment.[261] Certainly there's a COI, his non-admin closure of his article's AfD was out of line, and he's had similar problems before over the years. The real problem is that he puts up articles related to a small town in Chile, and, of course, there are few third party reliable sources on those subjects. So his material gets thrown out of Wikipedia, and he gets frustrated. He added many articles related to Chile, some of them good, some of them not so good. A prospect for WP:Editor retention, perhaps. John Nagle (talk) 19:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately he acts out quite inappropriately when frustrated. I had recently defended him a couple of times [262] [263] myself, but enough is enough. Recommended reading for anyone considering a retention effort. Vrac (talk) 21:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, long history there, mentoring was tried, and didn't work. So be it. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 06:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• Editor has numerous socks (see the current thread about him on COIN for a few). Every article that links to Pichilemu has probably been created or edited by him (sock or no). Softlavender (talk) 05:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Tunisian Arabic

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

IP 88.91.62.28 is apparently trying to make a point about Tunisian Arabic being a dialect and not a full language by removing mention of it in favor of Arabic on various Tunisia-related pages ([264], [265], [266]), despite Tunisian Arabic being the de facto national language of Tunisia. clpo13_(talk) 23:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I'm not an expert on the matter, but while it seems per the article itself that Tunisian Arabic is spoken in Tunisia, per that article and per the article on Tunisia the official language of Tunisia is Standard Arabic, and as such the Arabic scripts of the names of Tunisian biography articles should point to Arabic rather than the unnecessary colloquial subset of Tunisian Arabic. While the IP's edit-summary rationale is flawed, I personally agree with the edits in the biographies -- we should use the official language of the person's country. Softlavender (talk) 07:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

IP legal threat

2602:306:c819:20e9:13d:3b1f:61dd:58fa (talk · contribs) has just made a "Listen, shithead..." legal threat over some original research, following up with a suggestion that if we block them for making a legal threat, they'll sue us for violating the first amendment. The editor is now asking an editor if they've "considered an attorney yet". --McGeddon (talk) 13:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Clear legal threats, blocked for 72 hours. -- GB fan 13:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd wager that 2602:306:C819:20E9:9100:21AB:6D85:8817 (talk · contribs) is the same user. And 2602:306:C819:2529:39C0:28D1:5E44:DD7C (talk · contribs). And 2602:306:C819:2529:9505:6A21:4551:9FE3 (talk · contribs), and 2602:306:C81A:9EE9:65DE:13EA:FD3D:553F (talk · contribs). All of these accounts happen to geolocate to the Raleigh, North Carolina area. Doc talk 13:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, undoubtedly. They're now block-evading as 2602:306:C81A:AC99:2D7E:656:2A3C:DC9D (talk · contribs) to restore their edits and legal threats. (I'd already put the Sanal Edamaruku article that they're targeting up for protection an hour ago, but it's not gone through yet.) --McGeddon (talk) 14:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

That one is blocked and the article is protected for a month. -- GB fan 14:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Reads like one of the IAC loons, has anything riled them up recently? Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

When someone starts throwing "First Amendment" around, it's important to advise them that there is no constitutional right to edit Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The First Amendment does give the WMF the constitutional right to operate its servers. The principle of private property, also in the United States Constitution, gives the WMF the right to control its servers. Agree with Bugs. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Doc, if you think some IPs are the same, I suggest we set up an SPI. Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 18:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

That would be a waste of time. Checkusers don't do anything with IP's. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Not entirely correct; Checkusers are the ones who need to sign off on larger rangeblocks so as to limit collateral damage. Besides, a CU would very likely know the range all the disparate IPs fit into. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll believe it when I see it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:RANGE, anyone? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 20:12, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The IPs show they are under AT&T Internet Services ... and my range calculator shows that to cover that entire range would take an extremely large range (according to my cheat-sheet, a /46 would cover 4,835,703,278,458,516,698,824,704 individual IP numbers). As they use more IPs, we might eventually be able to narrow that down to a handful of smaller sub-ranges ... but given the provider, I would anticipate quite a bit of collateral damage. For now, playing whack-a-sock using WP:RBI may be the best route. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Please remember, it's IPv6. "host identifiers (the least-significant 64 bits of an address) can be independently self-configured by a host." I think the damage will not be that bad. Kleuske (talk) 09:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

2602:306:C819:2529:C5EA:BED:6C61:465E (talk · contribs), also. I've never filed a SPI on an IPv6 hopper. And I don't think I want to if it concerns the potential blocking of septillions of IP addresses. Facepalm The behavior of each IP I've mentioned here points to them all being the same user. I stand by that, and if a SPI would do any good I'd happily help with it. Doc talk 13:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

IP-editor trying to determine my IP address

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

---

107.150.94.9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) oh-so-cleverly tried to determine my IP address by posting a polite, hidden link to BVOG.com, which is a site used by script kiddies for that purpose: [267] This relates to edits to A Voice For Men, a men's rights website. The point in question was previously contested by at least a couple of socks on the article's talk page, and there are also a lot of comments from proxy using IPs. Not sure what the protocol is here, but hyper-aggressive behavior like that seems like it might be worth a closer look. Maybe adding BVOG to the blacklist would also be a good idea? Grayfell (talk) 06:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I've notified an admin, who has blocked the IP and suppressed the edit with the URL in question. Situation has been resolved. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

Note that I've also added the URL to the blacklist; there's no good reason for people to be linking to it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 07:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

diff is here. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:51, 6 November 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.

Gibberish edits by disruptive but well meaning 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.

---

User:MetlifeWP writes nothing but incoherent nonsense. All his edits to articles, without exception, have been swiftly reverted. He has submitted several of his own articles, all of which have either failed AFC or have been speedied as gibberish. He was given three final warnings in September but that didn't stop him and after a short break he's resumed - attracting more reverts, deletions and warnings.

Trouble is, it's not deliberate disruption. He genuinely seems to be trying to say something and occasionally you can glimpse what it is. But it's uneditable, irredeemable crap. I tracked down his Facebook page and his personal website and they're just the same.

I think he's not here to build an encyclopedia but to tell the world about his loopy ideas. Given that he's received stern warnings and friendly advice and is still soldiering on, I'm reluctantly suggesting that he should be blocked for long enough to make him realise he shouldn't try to edit WP.

Andyjsmith (talk) 13:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I have had dealings recently with another editor in a similar condition (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive900#Tendentious and disruptive editing by User:DynEqMin). In a case like this, I think we have to look to WP:CIR. If the user is unable (or unwilling) to write comprehensible English, then they really have no place editing at all. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

That fits the bill extremely well. I was unaware of WP:CIR - thank you. Andyjsmith (talk) 15:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I have blocked the user. -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:28, 6 November 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.

Immediate MOVE request

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

---

News just came out there was an explosion on the plane. Hitting global news now. Need an Admin to do an uncontroversial move now. [268] Legacypac (talk) 20:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done Sensible and uncontroversial — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:19, 6 November 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.

Continued disregard of no original research and addition of social media links as "sources"

Soapfan2013 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has persistently been adding original research to the articles of Kristen Alderson and Chad Duell, despite being told of the policies for Biographies of Living Persons. Their continued persistence in addition information, which was mere speculation and not confirmed, despite warnings (and multiple attempts to discuss) from myself and Clpo13 went unnoticed and ignored. User has long displayed this behavior for years, and it's completely troubling. User also believes social media links are acceptable for whatever purpose, even if they do continue information of third-parties, which per Wikipedia standard says that they cannot be used if it deals with subject matter that is not for primary topic. Their excuse is that "they know the truth", showing signs that they are not here to edit in a collaborative manner, and that there might be slight ownership issues of actors they appear to like (as evident of their user page). Their use of slightly inappropriate edit summaries is also uncalled for — which user has a long history of providing. User has history of owning things "cuz I said so" where social media is concerned, despite being warned and told about such information before. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 23:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Since when is Soap Opera Digest a third party resource, see your making stuff up about me again, I'm not the one that's adding sources from FB and Twitter. P.J. (talk) 03:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the edits made to Chad Duell, this appears to have started when livelikemusic removed a duplicate reference to twitter here and changed the paragraph to say that the living person is still currently dating Kristen Alderson. Soapfan2013 then reverted this change made by LLM and modified the duplicate twitter reference to include another source, which does not discuss their relationship's status - just her decision to move to another city. LLM then removed the reference added and reverted the paragraph, stating that they are currently still in a relationship. He then added Kristen Alderson as his partner in the article, and changed it back when an IP modified the start and end date (note that this is the IP's only edit - whether this edit was made by Soapfan while logged out is something I cannot prove). Afterwards, the paragraph was modified and another source added, which uses the twitter reference to speculate their relationship. LLM then modified and reverted the change to again reference the first source used by LLM earlier.

WP:TWITTER states that "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves" (which the twitter source does appear to meet). However, the twitter source does not directly state that they ended their relationship, and the "soap opera" sources use the twitter message as their only reference. I don't believe that these references are reliable enough to assert (with the certainty that BLP articles require) that they have broken up. Aside from the sources themselves, I believe that an edit war is slowly cooking between you two. I see no talk page discussion between you two about the BLP and the sources provided.

This very ANI discussion looks to show a "he's poking me!" or a "at least I'm not like this!" kind of attitude, which is not constructive towards the project and coming to a consensus. Both of you need to stop making edits to the BLP articles in question and reverting each others' changes, and discuss the dispute on the articles' talk pages. This back-and-fourth editing counts as reverts to me, even if they were done manually and without the use of automated tools. I think that further edits in this fashion can result in blocking for edit warring.

I'll review the other article as well, but my position and response here stands unless I run across different behaviors or policy violations that are worth mentioning here. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• I've checked into this and livelikemusic, your edits and edit summaries are childish and uncivil, not to mention incorrect. I suggest you withdraw this ANI filing before it WP:BOOMERANGS on you. There is clear evidence from reliable sources that Kristen Alderson has broken up with Chad Duell. Also, Soapfan2013, you need to stop with the snarky edit summaries as well. Softlavender (talk) 09:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Seconded regarding the editors' behaviors, edit summaries, and WP:BOOMERANG. I don't have any input regarding the sources or the BLP's relationship. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by User:Batmacumba

User edited the article on LGBT rights in Greenland. I reverted their edit and later edited the article myself.

There is currently a bill pending in the parliament of Denmark regarding an amendment to its marriage laws in respect of Greenland.

My edit was supported by several sources - including a pdf of the bill.

Regarding the matter we disagree on you only presented one source - the pdf of the bill. I asked if you had additional sources for that claim and you didnt reply to that.--Batmacumba (talk) 12:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

User took to the talk page and criticized the alleged unsourced "claim that it [the law] could take effect on April 1, 2016" [269] and claimed that "the bill itself says April 1, 2015 (so retroactively)" [270]. I copy-pasted the bill's relevant section (regarding its entry into force) to the talk page [271]. Still user doesn't get tired to claim the bill itself (my source) states it'd take effect retroactively in April 2015 instead of 2016.

Please see: article's talk page [272], article's revision history [273] and my talk page [274].

I left a note on user's talk page, asking them to read about disruptive editing - but that only made them call me "arrogant and destructive" [275]].

Doing this instead of entering into a dialogue was an entirely unnecessary escalation.--Batmacumba (talk) 12:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I decided to neither start an edit war nor an endless discussion on a crystal clear fact. Everybody who is literate can see it's 2016 - not 2015.

You should have assumed good faith (if it was "a crystal clear fact" it wouldn't have been challenged) and entered a dialogue - obviously not started an edit war.--Batmacumba (talk) 12:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

This is the source in question. It's a pdf of the bill. Please see its §5 - it reads: "Loven træder i kraft den 1. april 2016"176.0.104.36 (talk) 22:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

That's on page 2. What is it on page 35 that says: "§5 Loven træder i kraft den 1. april 2015, jf. dog stk 2" BMK (talk) 02:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Pages 1 and 2 are the actual 'law proposal' ("Forslag til lov").

Pages 3 to 26 are 'comments on the law proposal' ("bemærkninger til lovforslaget") - on past legislation, on changes to be made and their effects, on why those changes are proposed etc. etc. etc.

Pages 27 to 35 form an annex ("bilag") comparing the laws' wording as currently applicable ("gældende formulering") with the law proposal's ("lovforslaget") wording. Page 35, which includes the typo, forms merely part of the explanatory notes.

The actual law proposal, members of parliament will vote on, is made up of pages 1 and 2 only.176.4.137.39 (talk) 08:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

You never made this clarification in the discussion on the talk page. This would have formed a sensible point of departure for a discussion.--Batmacumba (talk) 12:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Btw: User hasn't edited since I started the discussion on this board. Instead another user, User:Renard98, popped up shortly thereafter, made a disturbing edit to the same article regarding a date[276] and copy-pasted User:Batmacumba's wording of the section to another article [277] - followed by another disturbing edit [278] regarding a date. (Now it's "retroactively from 1 April 2016")176.4.137.39 (talk) 10:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

It seems two sections of the bill contradict each other. I was going by the final section "Lovforslaget sammenholdt med gældende ret", where it is compared to the present legal status and it says 1 April 2015 there. This may be an error, but we can not just assume so. The complainer ignored several messages to his talk page and the actual content of my messages on the articles talk page. Instead he was being very dismissive and arrogant in his replies (needlessly so). As I stated on the talk page there is no ban on retroactive legislation in the Danish Constitution, so one need to be sure whether 1 April 2016 (a long implementation time since the previous identical bill had already being prepared and the Folketing approving this is a formality) is correct. There was no need to take this to the admins board, the complainer could just have entered a good faith dialogue assuming there was substance to my claim instead of being so dismissive. I was also unsure whether he could read Danish, since he seemingly assumed there was substantive changes, whereas its content is similar to the previous. Stating whether he can read Danish would have been constructive (I had already told him I was Danish).--Batmacumba (talk) 11:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

There really is no reason to involve an admin in this trivial matter. It should be perfectly possible to solve it on the talk page of the article assuming good faith on both sides.--Batmacumba (talk) 12:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC) @Batmacumba:wikipedia not crystal ball. until bill pass confirm, not mention bill in articleMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 16:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

The bill is a formality, the Danish Folketing always accepts Greenlandic opt-ins on realm laws. So the "crystal ball" element is not in play here. We have to mention that the Greenlandic parliament has approved same-sex marriage and therefore also where the process currently is - anything else would be odd.--Batmacumba (talk) 17:12, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Your "You never made this clarification [...] on the talk page" - referring to one of my edits to this board [279]... - well, you don't grow tired spreading the information that you're a Dane [280] [281] [282] [283]. Still you are reliant on someone else - for them to give you some "clarification" on a Danish-speaking text ?!?

"Stating whether he can read Danish would have been constructive"

How is that ? Because knowing you're confronted with someone who is able to understand Danish ... would make it more difficult for you to fool them, huh ?176.4.137.39 (talk) 17:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Anyway ... as said: Document is divided into three parts. Parts 2 and 3 (pages 3 to 35) are explanatory notes, comparative tables etc. etc. etc. Only part 1 (pages 1 and 2) is the actual law proposal (forslag til lov). In section 5 the law proposal says: "Loven træder i kraft den 1. april 2016". Simple as that176.4.137.39 (talk) 17:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Programmatic Media

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

---

Programmatic media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The following contribution to the programmatic media page has been repeatedly reverted by Macrakis and JohnInDC.

"It has been suggested that the interactive media division of WPP Group's Ogilvy and Mather (now known as Neo@Ogilvy), has the deepest roots in terms of exploring mechanised media. Their 1981 venture, known as Teletext, entailed the broadcast of print material on television sets equipped with a special decoder that utilised binary code. Programmatic media has built on this digital framework with an algorithmic method of transacting cross-media."

The last revert came with the following warnings on my talk page unsourced verifiability. It was suggested that the fact about "Teletext and Oglivy & Mather" was "nonsense" and the "1981" date is inaccurate.

After lengthy conversations, the following link was shared by User:JohnInDC https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=950&dat=19790516&id=DwEMAAAAIBAJ&sjid=21gDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6334,14832&hl=en here

It was suggested that I "Forget Joseph & Turow and Yale" (my Joseph Turow citation), which I believe is the integral part of the paragraph.

Following another lengthy conversation, the following link was shared https://books.google.com/books?id=rK7JSFudXA8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22the+daily+you%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAGoVChMI-fXXp8DRyAIVDJWACh345w5n#v=onepage&q=teletext&f=false this link

This links to the page referred to in my Joseph Turow citation (which was apparently non existent and also the reason that a warning has been placed on my talk page).

I would be grateful if someone could confirm whether the reverted item contained citations or not. If so it would also be useful to gain an opinion on whether citation about O&M being involved with a teletext venture in 1981 is in line with the book.

If The above can be confirmed, it could be suggested that the other editors removed a perfectly relevant paragraph without a reasonable justification and also added unnecessary warnings on my talk page (on numerous occasions).

The users Macrakis and JohnInDC continually revert any content that I add to this page and refute anything that I add on the talk page. The administrator User:Jbhunley does not appear to have a neutral approach, and has been known to use expletives in conversations with me. I am now at the point where I am simply receive deletion threats (sometimes based on make belief rationales).

Please advise. Regards, -JG (talk) 17:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

References

Not an administrator. Used one (1) expletive. And for the last time stop copying my signature. Jbh^Talk 18:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The problems with the page, Programmatic media, and Jugdev's unrelenting resistance to any changes or improvements to the thing, were previously raised here at ANI, at this link. Macrakis, Jbhunley and I (among others) have spent quite a bit of time trying to improve the prose, clarify the concepts, and generally bring the thing more in line with what a Wikipedia article should be. Our concerns, and edits, have been extensively discussed (almost literally one by one) on the article Talk page. Jugdev has reflexively resisted all of these efforts, and in response routinely - and persistently - simply restores the text that he authored. Indeed he has been blocked at least twice in the past two weeks for edit warring. I invite interested editors to review the prior ANI filing, and the article Talk page, Jugdev's Talk page, and the current version of the page up against one of the earlier iterations, to permit them arrive at their own conclusions about where the problematic editing & behavior here in fact lies. JohnInDC (talk) 18:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

While I'm here, I'll take a moment to comment on the single substantive issue that Jugdev raises above:

The passage that Jugdev would like to re-insert (he has done so by my count 8 times already - hence the blocks) is factually incorrect, inaccurately reflects the cited source, and is of no articulable relevance to the article subject. Ogilvy & Mather did not invent Teletext. Teletext was not invented in 1981, but well before that; and Teletext (involving the rote reproduction of ad copy text on TV screens) is not a precursor of programmatic media, which is the real-time purchase and sale of customer-specific advertising space based on computer algorithms. Indeed the cited source says none of the these things, but rather notes that O&M by virtue of a two-year stint in creating marketing material for a Teletext undertaking by Time, Inc., may have had the “deepest roots” in persuading wary clients to purchase ads in the nascent 1990s field of “interactive media”, including CD-ROMs and on line services such as Prodigy.

Every one of these issues was extensively discussed on the Talk page (search for “1981” to see a sample). JohnInDC (talk) 18:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

As this is a content dispute I'm not sure the discussion belongs here. Nevertheless - Jugdev, per WP:DISCLOSE, would you like to advise us of any conflict of interest in matters relating to Ogilvy & Mather? RichardOSmith (talk) 18:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

There are two aspects to this matter: procedural and substantive.

Procedural: Jugdev does not appear to respect the consensus judgment of three other editors that this particular paragraph is both irrelevant and misleading. He repeats arguments he has made before (many of them generic rather than specific) and which have been answered before. He flatters his own contributions as "technical" and questions other editors' literacy. In general, he acts as though he owns the article, presuming that if he feels his concerns haven't been addressed, there is no consensus. He deploys absurd arguments, like "Are you suggesting that Yale University [Press] would allow the publication of inaccurate facts?"[284]; not only are presses generally not responsible for the contents of books they publish, but the issue here is his (mis)interpretation of the text.

On the substance: Multiple sources (including WP itself) show that Teletext was not invented in 1981, and not by Ogilvy and Mather. His paraphrasing of the source (which two editors have checked) is incorrect. The connection between Teletext as "mechanised media" and programmatic advertising is tenuous at best, since the core defining characteristic of programmatic advertising is targeting, whereas Teletext was broadcast, showing the same content and the same ads to all users. Adding weasel words like "It has been suggested that..." to questionable statements doesn't make it OK to add them. Puffery like "has the deepest roots in terms of exploring mechanised media" (even if sourced) doesn't belong in WP.

Finally, I feel that Jugdev is beating a dead horse, wasting our time, and discouraging other editors (User:NinjaRobotPirate and User:RichardOSmith are no longer editing this article). I have no idea whether this is intentional (WP:AGF), but it is certain disruptive. I only bother to respond at such length because I hope it will keep me and others from having to waste more time on endless, pointless discussions with an editor who refuses to listen to consensus. --Macrakis (talk) 18:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• Jugdev's response to the above

We must not digress from the items that have been noted in my original request to the administrators. We should address any other items in turn so that things do not get lost in translation. All of my contributions to Wikipedia contain citations from the industry and academia. -JG (talk) 19:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

When you bring an issue to AN/I, all aspects of it are going to be examined, not just the ones that serve the purposes of the reporting editor. This being the case, you need to respond to the comments of the editors you've complained about, and of uninvolved editors. For instance, a specific question was asked about your connection, if any, to Olgivy & Mather. You need to respond to these things - stonewalling will not serve you well. BMK (talk) 19:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

That article is a mess. How advertising networks and intermediaries decide what ads appear on a displayed web page is important and complex. The article does not provide much understanding of the process; there's real time bidding, multiple layers of intermediaries, and tracking going on behind the scenes. Here's a Gizmodo article which does a far better job of explaining this.[285]. The article tree which starts at Online advertising addresses the subject better, and has links to over 40 other articles about the details of online advertising. Those links do not include the article in question. This is almost an orphan article; it's linked from Online Target Advertising, which itself is an orphan article. Deletion is starting to look like a good idea here. Comments? John Nagle (talk) 20:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I have put a lot of time into trying to get my arms around the subject, and in trying to clean up the article, but I have never been comfortable with where we collectively have got with the thing and I have no objection at all to deleting Programmatic media if the topic is already covered, better, elsewhere here. JohnInDC (talk) 20:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Please address the items noted in my original request. anything else in my opinion are another conversation - happy to discuss once we move on from this particular case. -JG (talk) 20:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of both Programmatic Media and Online Target Advertising, per WP:REDUNDANTFORK. If the articles are deleted, this dispute becomes moot. As for the Teletext/Prestel/Ceefax issue, those were one-way systems which broadcast data by piggybacking it on TV signals, similar to the way closed captions work. Such broadcast content could not be targeted at all, and hence is irrelevant to "target advertising". Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Deleting makes sense to me. We should also delete the 240 SEO-like redirects that Jugdev has made, pointing to this article as I suggested a few weeks ago. --Macrakis (talk) 20:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Jugdev has removed the template from Programmatic media, so that'll require another avenue. JohnInDC (talk) 20:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agree. The article has had a whiff of PR/SEO about it from the beginning, those redirects to everything under the sun have been an issue from the outset. Even the term itself does not seem to be widely used. JohnInDC, Macrakis and all of the other editors who have worked on it have done a yeoman job cleaning it up but it should go. Jbh^Talk 20:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Programmatic media Jbh^Talk 20:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

-JG, WP:BOOMERANG is worth a read. Despite your accumulation of multiple sanctions, you chose to raise the matter here. Editors will look at what all sides are saying and past history and determine who is really causing the disruption. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

NeilN Thank you sir. -JG (talk) 21:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Adding all the redirects (Programmatic media inventory Programmatic media suppliers Programmatic media agency Programmatic media company Programmatic media uk Programmatic media us Programmatic media france Programmatic media germany Programmatic media spain Programmatic media italy Programmatic media netherlands Programmatic media india Programmatic advertising inventory Programmatic marketing inventoryProgrammatic advertising suppliers Programmatic marketing suppliers Programmatic media owner Programmatic marketing agency Programmatic advertising agency Programmatic advertising company... and over 100 more) to the AfD. That's blatant keyword spamming. Nobody does that on Wikipedia. Now someone has to clean up the mess. John Nagle (talk) 21:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

John Nagle, its in good hands. The administrators will instruct as required.-JG (talk) 21:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

As an aside, is it just me or, while all/most of those terms make grammatical sense in themselves (and some, like "programmatic media buying", the first one mentioned in the Programmatic media lede, even have some 100 hits on Google Books), "Programmatic media" itself - the article's main title - doesn't really mean anything? LjL (talk) 21:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Deep in the Talk page there's some discussion about renaming / moving the article to something a bit more descriptive but I think we figured to attack the substance first. (In short, you're right.) JohnInDC (talk) 21:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The talk page is long and tedious to read, but it really does help understand the situation. A clear consensus emerged among several editors for various changes, all of which Jugdev opposed. He seems to see this consensus-building as an attempt to hijack his article. I don't know what to think about the 100+ redirects or the repeated insistence to include certain corporations in the article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:10, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Boomerang Topic Ban for OP

I propose a boomerang topic ban on the OP, User:Jugdev, from the Programmatic media article and from the Programmatic media topic area, broadly defined, both for ownership attempts at the article, and as a vexatious litigant, whose use dispute resolution raises competency issues. As NinjaRobotPirate points out, there is a consensus on the article talk page, and the OP continues to oppose it. On 5 October, the OP filed a request for moderated discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard, but failed to identify the other editors. The request was closed by the coordinator, stating it was the responsibility of the filing party both to list and to notify the other editors. On 6 October, the OP filed another request for moderated discussion. This request was even more malformed, failing to identify the article at all, although it did list the other editors in the text of the request. This request was likewise closed. The OP was warned that future incorrect use of dispute resolution, after having the procedures explained in detail, might be considered disruptive editing. On 22 October, the OP filed a third request for moderated dispute resolution, this time listing the other editors, but still failing to notify them. Now on 23 October the OP has filed this request at ANI. It isn't clear what administrative action the OP is requesting, but it is clear that the administrative action to be taken should include a boomerang topic-ban. (A block might be in order, but that is another question.)

• Support topic-ban as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support, also because I don't know if we can talk about a WP:COI here as it was denied by the editor, but there definitely is something fishy (see Search Engine Optimization) going on. LjL (talk) 23:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - I was about to strike this request for two reasons. First, the article has been nominated for deletion, and its deletion will render the topic-ban moot. Second, the subject editor has been blocked for two weeks (longer than the period of the AFD). I won't object to an uninvolved administrator archiving this whole thread, including the topic-ban proposal, as a case of the OP being blocked by his own boomerang. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support site ban. Jugdev has edited other, related articles and indeed his first edit-war block came in connection with another, related article. I'm skeptical frankly whether he will be able to observe the limits of a topic ban, and would be surprised if it turned out to be anything but a rest stop on the way to an indef block, but that's a discussion for another day. JohnInDC (talk) 01:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Changing to support for an indef site ban in light of apparent block evasion and his apparent inability to comprehend even the most basic instructions and advice (evidenced by, e.g., his repeated pointless unblock requests). JohnInDC (talk) 13:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment As mentioned above, the article is at AfD and headed for deletion, mooting this specific issue. I can't figure out what Jugdev is trying to accomplish. At first it looked like a COI issue, but it doesn't seem to benefit anybody. All those redirects look like search engine optimization, but why drive traffic to Wikipedia for an article on a general subject? The insistence over a bogus claim about Teletext, a dead technology, remains puzzling. I dunno. In two weeks, their current block expires. WP:ROPE may be appropriate. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 03:06, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - It is a bit of a mystery. I don't think it's a COI, despite the fixation on this Ogilvy & Mather / Teletext issue. I literally think that issue became the focus of discussion because it was toward the beginning of the article and it was the first change he wanted to re-introduce after returning from his prior block. I believe ultimately it's a competence issue - with Exhibit One being his decision to press here at ANI an issue that was linked directly to - and directly contradicted by - a reviewable source. So, yeah, I agree about ROPE. JohnInDC (talk) 17:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support I think this editor should be fully site banned. They clearly aren't here to contribute accurate information to the project. Any ban in any area of the project gets my support.--Adam in MO Talk 20:10, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on all advertising related topics. site ban. The obvious block evasion and continued attempts to deflect blame on his talk page tell me this user is unlikely to ever become a positive contributor. More ROPE will lead to more disruption and we will be right back here. I have tried to get through to this editor multiple times. Their behavior is intractable. Jbh^Talk 20:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC) Changed to support site ban. Jbh^Talk 22:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support. The author seems destined for a permanent block and this may be moot, but if they can still edit at all they must not be allowed to continue making such a negative net contribution to Wikipedia. Several well established editors have spent a considerable amount of their time attempting to clear up the article already, a task that is made far worse whilst this editor continues to try to reinstate meaningless and/or factually incorrect content into it. I too cannot fathom exactly what is going on with some of the content issues but I'm pretty sure that if we assume good faith and take it that the editor is actually here to build an encyclopaedia, they lack the WP:COMPETENCE to do so. RichardOSmith (talk) 20:21, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)Support topic ban, and also indefinite if there's a "majority" for that. Both because of suspicious/fishy editing (possible COI, 200+ redirects pointing to their pet article to make sure that as many readers as possible are led to it...) and because of extreme ownership behaviour. Thomas.W ^talk 20:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support after this obvious block evasion. Jugdev is never going to drop the stick, and I see no evidence that he's ever going to listen to the advice that's been given to him. Also, the retaliatory accusations of COI are silly – and they follow previous accusations of vandalism when people attempted to make copy edits. See his talk page for details. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support Site-Ban due to disruption of AFD by COI accusations and socking accusations made by a sock. (As proposer of topic-ban, I have already !voted for that.) Robert McClenon (talk) 00:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban but should the SPI come back positive, I'd support an indefinite block. Zero tolerance for sockmasters. Blackmane (talk) 01:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support site ban - previously I suggested WP:ROPE. Then came the AfD disruption, after three rejected unblock requests declined by three different admins. Enough. On a related note, this mess impelled me to try to clean up the online advertising tree of articles, which has good info but is a bit too specialist-oriented. I've added some graphics and indicated that online advertising is the main article. This area could use help from more editors. See Talk:Online_advertising#Article_set_improvement. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 20:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The SPI was closed for lack of evidence. Not how I would have closed it, but I'm not an SPI clerk. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

7 days have elapsed for WP:Articles for deletion/Programmatic media, a consensus has emerged, and the AfD is ready for closure. John Nagle (talk) 06:15, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

AfD closed by admin; result was "Delete and salt." All related redirects have been deleted. Some useful content from the deleted page was moved to online advertising. All content issues have now been dealt with. John Nagle (talk) 19:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Now that the article has been salted, the topic-ban is moot. I suggest that an uninvolved administrator close this thread. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Problem dealt with. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 06:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Disagree. The article is deleted and salted but Jugdev is only on a temporary block and will shortly have editing privileges restored. Their edits on media/technology have been problematic both in terms of the content (suggesting this is an area they poorly understand or, at best, cannot elucidate well), and in their WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. However, their earlier edits were music related and there is no sign of such problems there. I maintain my view that Jugdev should be compelled to stay well clear of media-related topics and will hopefully find an area where they can contribute well. RichardOSmith (talk) 06:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for "... broadly defined", including e.g. "online advertising", "teletext", "hypertext", "visual media", ... DavidLeeLambert (talk) 11:24, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, as a minimum, after reading and following this saga. This should not be allowed to slip into the archives with no remedy enacted. RichardOSmith elucidates well, just above, exactly why, and I concur. Begoon ^talk 11:53, 5 November 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.

Disruptive editing by User:Hungrygyhhbgftygv

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

---

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

User:Hungrygyhhbgftygv has been repeatedly inserting dates into infoboxes in articles on Australian TV shows, despite template documentation, embedded notes in each article being edited, and escalating warnings to the contrary. They have yet to engage on any talk page (including their own). Example diffs [286] [287] (and pretty much their entire contribution history). Borderline as vandalism, but since the information may well be accurate and is just being inserted badly and out of process I figured I'd bring it up here instead. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 21:18, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• I left a warning. If they continue doing this they should be blocked--so if it does, point an admin to that warning. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I just logged back on to check a couple of things and found [288] and [289]. So yep, that should probably be addressed now. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 02:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Hungrygyhhbgftygv is now blocked 3 days by User:Drmies. EdJohnston (talk) 12:51, 6 November 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:Naqsh-e hJahan

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

---

Naqsh-e hJahan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This very new user has become abusive and threatening on their talk page. Several messages have been deleted leaving a polite conversation I had with him earlier plus the threats mentioned. I do not think they are aimed at me but at those who notified the user of speedy deletion of pages they created (messages deleted). However, the language etc. is entirely inappropriate. Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 21:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Since I started this section. it appears that the user has already been blocked. Apologies for any confusion. Eagleash (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@Eagleash: No need to apologise at all, thank for taking the issue here. I'm sorry you received that abuse, which nobody deserves. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 21:11, 6 November 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.

More IP attempts at harassment

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

---

User_talk:107.150.94.2 claims to "know something" about me. Relates to the above incident, #IP-editor trying to determine my IP address (diff) Otherwise pretty self-explanatory. This is the same proxy server as the other IP. Is it too wide for a range-block? Grayfell (talk) 23:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked the individual IP as well as the range 107.150.94.0/28 (covers only 16 IP addresses, so I wouldn't be surprised if they come back). -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:26, 6 November 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.

New sock of User:Futurewiki

The following discussion is closed. 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 104.243.169.127 (talk · contribs). Other socks have included 104.243.167.109 (talk · contribs), User:Futuristic21, User:Dragonrap2, User:Futurewiki2, User:Mega256, User:Futurewiki The Third, User:Mega257, User:Mega258, and User:Futurew.

As with previous socks, the IP address is located in Natchitoches, Louisiana. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:52, 7 November 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.

Very disruptive 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.

---

A user, Pitcroft (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has been very disruptive on the Spectre (2015 film) and Talk:Spectre (2015 film), edit-warring, deleting content and unnecesdarily adding maintenance tags. He has been doing it as he has not been getting his way; he wanted to move the article from "Spectre (2015 film)" to "SPECTRE (2015 film)", but when it was rejected by a community consensus, he started disrupting the article. Pitcroft has already received a short block for his previous actions, but it has clearly had no effect. Here is some of his recent activity:

• https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/689359407
• https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/689361313
• https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/689364591
• https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/689375803
• https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/689391544
• https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/689362113
• https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/689373153
• https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/689373494

SchroCat can probably provide more insight. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• Note: Pitcroft was already previously blocked for this same thing. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• Yep, he promised to return from his block and carry on, and that is exactly what he has done. The diffs above show him edit warring, deleting sections of the talk page tagging the article and being disruptive. His deletion of this thread this morning shows his contempt for anyone's actions or opinions above his own, and I think this is only going to get worse. – SchroCat (talk) 09:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• Indef Block - So then he tries to delete his ANI thread to boot? Indef, enough is enough. Jusdafax 10:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• His edit warring in removing sources continues. (And on the talk page too. – SchroCat (talk) 10:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I have indef blocked the user. Sarah-Jane (talk) 10:57, 7 November 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 sockpuppet

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

---

I know that the above discussion is closed, but a possible sockpuppet has emerged, SolentMan has started posting on the talk page almost as soon as Pitcroft was blocked. He's playing the "hey guys, I'm new to all of this" card, and he is being as civil as Pitcroft was aggressive, but the substance of his comments thus far is almost identical to Pitcroft's contributions. SchroCat has already voiced suspicion about it on the article talk page. Given the disruption that Pitcroft has caused, I thought Sarahj2107 and Supdiop might need to know sooner rather than later. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• Worth noting that Pitcroft keeps deleting his talk page - including the block notice and review request. – SchroCat (talk) 13:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
• Thank you for your concern, but I wouldn't interest myself overly with petty disputes over a fictional story. - SolentMan (talk) 14:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• And yet your first edits were all on the same point as the blocked editor.... – SchroCat (talk) 14:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• Must be a coincidence. - SolentMan (talk) 14:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• @SchroCat: & @Prisonermonkeys: from an outsiders POV, is this ongoing or is it worth going to WP:SPI? It looks like a pretty obvious sock though samtar ^{t} 14:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Samtar: — thanks for the tip. I completely forgot about SPI. It's been ages (years, maybe) since I have has cause to go there. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

• No this is not an ongoing subject and is going nowhere at all. It seems to me a fruitless discussion anyway, as no consensus has been reached between the participants. A majority perhaps is in favour of one view, but the discussion is certainly not a unanimous consensus. - SolentMan (talk) 16:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oddly playing the same broken record as the blocked user.... – SchroCat (talk) 17:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• From what I can discern reading the pages, that was a general problem! I must admit I'm very impressed with the way you all closed ranks and bludgeoned this poor guy into silence! You all have very good computer skills and a good knowledge of Wikipedia mechanics! -- SolentMan (talk) 18:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• No, actually there was an established community consensus until Pitcroft showed up and started trying to delete references and add maintenance tags to try and misrepresent the state of the article. And then weirdly enough, you showed up within hours of being blocked and started making exactly the sane argument, and have displayed an unusually detailed knowledge of wiki markup for a new user ... Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

• The usage on the film's official website indicates that both the movie and the organization are styled as "Spectre". Its capitalization on the movie poster is an oft-used mode for movie posters. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:49, 7 November 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.