Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive922

OtisElevatorCo

• Otis Elevator Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• OtisElevatorCo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 192.249.47.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

OtisElevatorCo (talk · contribs) made some edits to Otis Elevator Company removing some sourced negative statements about the company: [1]

I undid this edit and warned the user on his talk page. Then 192.249.47.203 (talk · contribs) re-did the same edit:[2] That IP address is registered to Otis's parent United Technologies. I undid the edit and warned the IP user. The IP is probably a sock of the user and should be blocked or topic banned. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:49, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

A third single-purpose user Jcaddonizio (talk · contribs) has now appeared and re-did part of the edit. I fear whack-a-sock may be next. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:49, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Blocked the Jcaddonizio account. If it turns out that this is an attempt by the first account to rename under {{uw-softerblock}}, I have no objection to unblocking. Katie^talk 20:19, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Vandal?

Special:Contributions/172.56.15.10

Seems to be changing dates, names, and a lot of other minor details interspersed with constructive edits. Are these edits verifiable? Cleanup may be needed. Pinguinn (🐧) 21:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Ayal HaNasi says I've violated the sanctity of the words of the High Priest of Israel, Minister of God

The following discussion is closed. 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 don't really think Ayal HaNasi (talk · contribs) is here to build the encyclopedia. The top of my talk page now reads "You have violated the sanctity of the words of The High Priest Of Israel, Minister Of God. You are out of your league. You think you are meddling in human affairs. Restore that which you have profaned. You are not a Jew and wholly uneducated and unqualified to even speak on the issue let alone to censor and entire contribution. Correct your mistake. Be aware. God Bless You." See also their edits, promoting themselves and another named person with no sources other than "The entirety of world history is referrence enough. You are insulting and offending The High Priest Of Israel. Cease you censorship and persecution of me and my people. God will judge all." I could probably block and no one other than him would object, but I'd rather it be someone else for obvious reasons. Doug Weller talk 09:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I blocked them indef. We are an institution which certifies true Judaic prophets.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Report a IP-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.

---

Hello there. I want to report an IP-user 86.58.36.235 (talk) who recently removed some neccessary contents at Valon Ahmedi. I re-added contents without reverting his entire edits (some edits were useful) but he reverted my entire edit. Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk) 17:17, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Eni.Sukthi.Durres - This IP has edited this page quite a bit. I am a bit confused by part of his/her edit summary here when the user states that "his position is wrong", but I'm not seeing any obvious or big red flags so far. Are there any specific diffs you can provide that can help me see your exact concerns here? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

@Oshwah: At first thank you for your collaboration. Ok I'll explain you where is the matter of his reverts and removals. Here is a cur. of my revision (I re-added his removals and I made also some corrections) and his latest edit. Step by step, at "Infobox football biography" it's almost ok expect "fullname" which contains just his name and last name (there is needed also his paternal/father name). At "Opening paragraph" he removed the text "and the Albania national under-21 football team" which is neccessary because the player has participated lately for the national side and UEFA prove it here, his name is on the bench, no. #16. At section "Celje" he has removed the last text which mention his participation with his club NK Celje in the 2015–16 UEFA Europa League - First qualifying round. Then at "International career/Albania under-19" he has removed the victory details of a international match in which he appeared. And last, he totally blanked the section of "Honours (with clubs)". This is the case, thank you again. Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk) 15:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

What I would do is communicate your concerns to this person. I checked out the talk page and I didn't see anything (unless I missed something) - have you tried expressing your concerns there? Also, I did not see an ANI notice posted as well (this is required - see the direction on the top of this page). What I would do is communicate with the person about your concerns if you have not already done so. This is proper dispute resolution, and the best solution to this situation. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:22, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@Oshwah: I warned him at this edit summary but anyway I'll communicate him the situation in his talk page, thank you. Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@Oshwah: We just agreed in a discussion between us in talk page, thank you. Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk) 16:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Eni.Sukthi.Durres - Awesome! You're very welcome! Happy editing! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Thank you.Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk) 16:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Editor of dubious competence throwing insults

A user called Joseph Setorius has been making a lot of edits to the druid article, despite having a very shaky grasp of the subject. I have attempted to steer him right, and he responds with this. Can somebody maybe have a word with him? --Nicknack009 (talk) 22:58, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, none of his edits after 27 March 2010 show up on his user contribution page, not sure what's going on there. --Nicknack009 (talk) 23:02, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Not an admin, not going to involve myself in this otherwise, but that'd be because the account making those edits at Druid is Joseph setorius, with a lower-case s rather than the capital-S in the username you link above. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 23:06, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Hm. Joseph setorius, lower-case s, redirects to Joseph Setorius, capital s. I hadn't noticed that. A little fiddling and I find the user contribution page for the lower-case s username. --Nicknack009 (talk) 23:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

There was an account at lowercase-s that was moved to uppercase-S. Now there's a new account at lowercase-s. Uppercase-S hasn't edited since 2010, so I don't think name collision is an immediate issue. Nor is the redirect anything suspect—though I have removed it. —C.Fred (talk) 02:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, redirect removed form User talk:Joseph setorius, and notice left there. —C.Fred (talk) 02:50, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Response was added after thread was archived. -- The Voidwalker Discuss 00:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I guess if you were really interested in resolving the a problem, or discussing an issue rationally Nicknack009, you wouldn't have titled this "complaint" as you did. "Editor of dubious competence throwing insults"? First off...as to my account C.Fred, some time ago...a few years ago now, an administrator named Diana help me change it. There should, of course, only be one page with "joseph_setorius" as the user. It should also all be in lower case with an underscore between the two names. Is there anyway this can be fixed to avoid confusion in the future? "I have attempted to steer him right" How? But what means? You just seemed to keep re-editing my edits without explanation. My main concern with the Druid page is that some time ago, a page entitled "Druidess" was present on Wiki. This page was up for at least two years, perhaps longer. (?) I am not sure when the decision was made to merge "Druidess" with "Druid", but I feel there needs to be some continuity between the deleted page, and the location of the current content of the old page. I have suggested that the term "Druidess" be added to the heading "Female-druid" to provide this continuity. This change does not affect the validity of the page, does not imply a fact that does not exist, and in no way diminishes the content of the page. The only thing it does is serve as a link between the now old deleted page, and the content in its current form. As I had previously cited the "Druidess" page in a paper, the original page having useful "External Links" as well, I wanted (not unreasonably) some link between the deleted page and the current article and it's contents. Corbie V and Nicknack 009, gave no opposition to this suggestion other than to state-- Nicknack009: 'I don't think "Druidess" is appropriate as a subheading. Subsections are not separate articles. The article is about druids, the subsection is about those druids who were female, so "Female druids" is the appropriate subheading.' AND Corbie V: 'I also strongly suggest avoiding the outdated, clunky term, "druidess" and instead just say "druid" or, if necessary, "female druid" or its Celtic language equivalents, such as the O.I. bandrúi.' AND LATER 'Joseph, there is no consensus for "druidess," rather, some stuff that no one had bothered to work on. I say we stick with "female druids".' I am not the only one that brought this up the problem of the previous page being deleted. "The Druidess (Celtic mythology) was on the See Also part of the Druid page for eons, CorbieV. It was not exactly hidden." AND "CorbieV, I fail to see the issue here. I created the Druidess (Celtic mythology) page because I was blocked from putting the info on the Druid page. Moreover, the Druidess (Celtic mythology) has existed for two years now uncontested. As to the new Gallizenae page, it is just an English translation of Gallisenae. Where is the problem?" --Bard Cadarn (talk) 18:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC) My response to merging the pages is...I feel it is fine if there is not enough independent material on "Female-druids" to warrant its own page. Corbie stated to Bard Cadarn that: "Don't you think the fact you were blocked from contributing this in the past might have been a hint to work with other editors rather than try to scoot it in elsewhere? Just because no one noticed a bad page in the past isn't a reason for it to stay up once it's found." But working with other editors means compromise Nicknack and Corbie...not just putting up what you want as a "two-man consensus". While these are all valid points...especially Corbie's point about Bard Cadarn not checking his sources, I offered a reasonable and logical compromise. My point is regardless of whether the term or links where legitimate or not, the page did exist. Whether it was a bad page or not is moot. It was up, it existed, and there needs to be some continuity of record when a page is deleted and it's contents are moved elsewhere. As I have already explained, and further discussion exists on the Druid talk page, Druidess is a word...or does qualify as a word and is an understood term for several reasons. The first being the title of the painting used on the very page ("The Druidess"), which establishes that the term has been in use for some time; and second, that the term well understood and defined. The word Druidess exists in modern song titles, websites, movies, and neo-pagan religion. At some point a "made-up" word does become a word...when people understand what it meant by its use. Sorry for "bloviating" on the subject...a Warren G. Harding made-up word that is now defined and used...but I think the word "Druidess" should be added to the sub-heading ==Female Druids== Perhaps I did not do a good job of initially making my point, and things then just steam-rolled from there. That being part of the case I offer apologies to CorbieV and Nicknack 009. But I hope you understand my reasoning to adding Druidess in parenthesis next to the heading "Female-Druid". It has nothing to do with "gender-neutral" terminology, outdated terminology, or the validity of the term itself. The point is that is offers continuity. Thanks -- joseph_setorius☊ ☼ 18:30, 15 May 2016 (UTC) Okay...Voidwalker or anyone else. This subject does not say "closed" anywhere, and I just spent a good hour making some constructive comments only to have them deleted!! I thought you weren't supposed to mess with other people's "posts" on a discussion page! Why did this happen? joseph_setorius☊ ☼ As this page is an archive, and I only saw your edits in recent changes, I've restored your response here in a collapsed section. -- The Voidwalker Discuss 00:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

IPv6 2601 range block

2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk · contribs) and 2601:CA:8100:E100:C59B:55F:7501:CB4 (talk · contribs) have both requested unblocks. They appear to be caught up in Gilliam (talk · contribs)'s range-block of all 2601:* IPv6 addresses. I lack the specific understanding of IPv6 to know if blocking this many addresses was appropriate. I'm bringing it up here so others more familiar with the vandalism in question and with IPv6 range blocks can look into it and comment. @Gilliam: --Yamla (talk) 13:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

(Please note, I'm not specifically claiming the block is inappropriate, only that it's very large) --Yamla (talk) 13:30, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I left a note for Gilliam regarding the former IP, but in their absence I think someone with a better understanding of IPv6 than I have should narrow this down to what's functionally necessary. —SpacemanSpiff 13:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, that is very large! It covers, I think, 17,592,186,044,416 /64 subnets. Does anyone know what IPs Gilliam was targeting? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

It's crazy large. It's too large to checkuser. This needs to be fixed quickly. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Just a quick note: while it is a very large range, functionally often a large range of IPv6 addresses are used by a very limited group of people. It *potentally* affects that many addresses, the reality is often only a small amount are used at any time. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:02, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

A quick look at Gilliam's edits show a total of three warning notices to 2601:* editors; one inserted the word "blueberries" into a non-fruit-related article; another inserted some gibberish a few times; another changed the word "whistleblower" to "self-promoter" in Linda Tripp. Hardly worth a massive rangeblock. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

From the past few days blocks I think it might be related to 2601:195:c002:6d60:dc9d:ee1a:d7e2:fce2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2601:5c2:8100:93ab:6099:574b:c04d:c203 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2605:6000:6405:4000:b1a3:6ef3:19a0:6fd (talk · contribs · WHOIS),fixed at 14:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC) and 2602:306:c444:e499:104e:580:dde8:59d4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). —SpacemanSpiff 14:15, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I assumed from the denied unblock request for the second IP listed above it was a significant history of abuse. That seems excessive. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:17, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• It looks like it also catches the 2601:188 editor commenting in a thread above who seems to be a regular good contributor [3]. Jbh^Talk 14:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
• The rangeblock has been vacated by Gilliam. —SpacemanSpiff 15:24, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

2601:: is assigned by ARIN to Comcast, and has 20110603 allocated addresses. So we're we were blocking over 20 million Comcast customers. [4] Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

As the IP who objected to this range block, I'm expecting that the vandalism coming out of multiple accounts had to have been awfully disruptive to merit this scope of disciplinary action. If not, there needs to be an explanation for measures this Draconian. I'm mad for the reasons I stated at my talk page, among them that it took so long to take appropriate action in protecting Rachel Roy on Sunday, while this, by comparison, looks like a case of killing a few mosquitoes with a warhead. It's the end of the day, and Gilliam hasn't offered me an explanation or an apology. I'm not angling for one here, but it would be nice for all of us to know what happened. If there's something I'm missing that admins understand, I'm open to learning. Thanks, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Apparently the block was 2601::/20, so only about million, not 20 million. Still seems like a large range to block. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I kinda want an explanation for this huge block too, particularly considering the unblocking summary Gilliam left. If it was a calculation error, that's one thing; if he isn't familiar with IPv6 blocks, that's another thing; and if it was done intentionally in anger or frustration, that's a whole other thing. Katie^talk 14:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

The block simply was intended to stop an IP-hopping vandal.– Gilliam (talk) 15:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Article talk page behavior at Talk:Ford Pinto

For a month now, since 26 March 2016, users NickCT and Springee and others have been using a long article talk page thread Talk:Ford Pinto#Pursue Topic Ban for HughD? to co-ordinate a campaign against a collaborator, and to discuss other articles. Multiple reminders of the appropriate uses of an article talk page WP:TPG and the availability of WP:ANI, including those of HughD and Serialjoepsycho, have been ignored. Respectfully request an administrative collapse of the thread, and an administrator reminder of article talk page guidelines WP:TPG and the availability of WP:ANI for editor behavior issues. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:53, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

It seems a pretty inappropriate place to have a discussion, but it was last edited 12 days ago, and nothing came of it in the end. I don't see any benefits from collapsing it at this point, as it seems to have run its course. Pinguinn (🐧) 18:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I now see something was moved from one section to another. While it concerns the article, that stuff really should go here on ANI, not the article talkpage. Perhaps we ought to discuss it here. Pinguinn (🐧) 18:30, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

For the record; as one of those who was "campaign[ing] against a collaborator", I'm already on the record as saying that section can be archived. It could be collapsed as well. Honestly I'm not sure who's opposing the archival/collapsing such that Hugh would feel the need to discuss the topic here. NickCT (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I think HughD was right to note that I put a notice to the talk page in the wrong place. I have since moved it. I have nothing against archiving the section. Springee (talk) 19:22, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

It seems a bit disingenuous to be publicly in favor of archiving the section here on ANI, when the last two sections on the page (not including the one in question) are primarily about HughD. It does seems like the talk has devolved somewhat into a forum on HughD (or a forum on Pintos generally, and HughD happens to be thoroughly involved). Neither are discussions directly related to improvement of the article, and should probably take place elsewhere. TimothyJosephWood 23:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment I don't know why I've been pinged here or why this was opened. I came to the article thru the RFC bot. I commented on those sections of the talk page and the ani after being summoned by the bot. Do I think that those that should have opened it should close it? Yes, but this is not a matter of wikipedia policy by own personal opinion. They don't not seem to understand that this type of behavior is escalating and the purpose for opening it they have suggested was to deescalate the issues. This here is also escalating. HughD, then close it. Per wp:talk it could have already been closed. Everyone stop using the talk page as a forum. Quit talking about each other. Please don't ping me to anything about the Pinto again.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

The section in question has been closed and archived by Serialjoepsycho. I have closed two additional threads not appropriate to the talk page. We can probably close this and move on with our lives, provided everyone on the talk can stay on topic, and keep off topic conversations where they belong. TimothyJosephWood 16:45, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Removal of information

This user is removing and completely changing information in articles and causing disturbances in articles. Can someone please check out their edits. Nocturnal781 (talk) 02:21, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

• You are required to notify the editor. There is not even a single vandalism warning. Can you point to an example? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:26, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

• All edits are related to the Azerbaijan / Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. There are endless reverts and counter edits between Nocturnal781 and Freedom Wolfs. Mtpaley (talk) 21:03, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

BLP issue - urgent repair work needed

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

---

There's a Jason Lai who's a British orchestral conductor - see this page, since renamed. There's a different Jason Lai, a San Francisco police officer apparently involved in a scandal. Please could an admin remove the scandal stuff f rom the conductor's article and restore it to its correct title? A garbled dab page has been created at the Jason Lai base name, which needs to be at "... (disambiguation)", if anywhere. There's a RM at Talk:Jason_Lai, but this BLP stuff seems urgent. Thanks. PamD 16:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Working on it. Katie^talk 16:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

• puts hands behind back* For future reference as a quick fudge I was just going to move/rename the scandal page to 'Jason Lai (conductor)', add it to the disambiguation page and remove the wrong person info from Jason Lai, which technically wouldnt have required an admin and would have resolved the immediate BLP issue, but Epic got there at the same time. I suspect given the marginal notability of all of the people involved, a primary target is going to be difficult to determine given the current news. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

• I have just now reverted the article to the last stable version. epicgenius (talk) 16:19, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

The only issue now is that Talk:Jason Lai is currently showing the talkpage history for Talk:Jason Lai (conductor) due to the original renames. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:23, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

(ec x 2) I think Talk:Jason Lai should be histmerged to Talk:Jason Lai (conductor) as the last fix. Unless there's objection, I'll do that shortly. Katie^talk 16:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

And never mind. ;-) Katie^talk 16:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

• I've created a redirect to correct a redlink from the disambiguation page. I don't think this is controversial, just noting it here. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:26, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
• Can I also now suggest that the page now at Jason Lai be moved to Jason Lai (disambiguation), and Jason Lai (conductor) moved back to Jason Lai? Or would it be better to go through WP:RM for this? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I cant see any reason anyone would object, since the only other two people are either redlinked or redirect. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Done. Might be some cleanup to do but I think I got it all. Katie^talk 17:07, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks, all, for sorting this out. Perhaps I should have been able to work out a non-admin fix, but it seemed better to bring it to you lot (not least 'cos I was short of time and due to go out). Looks good now. PamD 17:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

  To fix it some pages had to be moved over redirects, which only admins can do. If someone tries to move it again, ask one of us right away and we'll revert and move protect it. :-) Katie^talk 19:07, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

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

DUCK sockpuppet is repeatedly vandalizing

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

---

Thank you very much wiki (talk · contribs · blocks · count · rollback · admin · logs)

Is repeatedly vandalizing the SPA templates on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Prince, despite a warning [5] and a final warning [6]:

[7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14].

(Still continuing even after I filed this ANI, so that may not be the last of the spree.)

He has also vandalized/trolled the page in other ways: [15], [16].

He has also placed a spurious warning template on my talkpage [17], and when someone deleted that, a troll post: [18].

He appears to be a probable DUCK sockpuppet of the article creator, Whiskeymouth (talk · contribs · blocks · count · rollback · admin · logs), who previously did the same thing, twice [19], [20] before being warned: [21]. The apparent sock was apparently created to !vote "Keep" at the suspected sockmaster's two articles on the death of Prince.

Winkelvi also just mentioned to me: "I've actually thought they were all the same person/a sock of the article creator since the first one cropped up. Same attitude, behavior, same type of thoughts on the article(s), same manner of expressing those thoughts", so he can possibly provide further behavioral evidence of the sockpuppetry connection if needed.

-- Softlavender (talk) 06:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC); edited 11:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:SPI is that far away and not at this page.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm aware of that. The vandalizing is the main problem and he was on a spree that continued even after he was warned twice and I filed this. The sockpuppetry is the subsidiary problem and the probable cause of his vandalizing. The two issues are entwined, and therefore this case is too complex to bring up at either AIV or SPI; although SPI may be a stop as well if the block is not indefinite and if the other possible socks (the two or so other newbie SPAs who also !voted to Keep that article) also need to be investigated further. Softlavender (talk) 13:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree that something is off with the AfD, it is always a bit odd when a bunch of new accounts pop up with one sided votes. Sometimes this is nothing as our pages are linked through other websites, but more than once it has turned up at least one sock. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I do not see a single vandal edit among your diffs, as per WP:VAND. This can be trolling, insufficient familiarity with the policies, or even team-tagging, but I do not see vandalism. If you give me a diff demonstrating vandalism, I promise you to block them, but so far I do not see anything.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:22, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, whether one calls it trolling or vandalism, repeating the same behavior (removing or altering the templates necessary for an admin at closure) 6 more times after being warned, and then 4 more times after a final warning and now has done it yet again since he saw you said you wouldn't block him: [22] ... merits a block in my view. Especially since he then went on to troll and impersonate me on Knowledgekid87's talk page: [23]. And now posts another troll post on my talkpage: [24]. For all intents and purposes this is a troll-only account at this point. NOTHERE in the least Softlavender (talk) 14:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Softlavender should be banned

He is just a troublemaker and vandal. He wants to delete a useful article so attacks others. He insists on anonymously putting accusations after my AFD vote that are not true. If he disagrees, he should just write "disagree with your vote because....." The fact that he has lots of edits versus me should mean he has no excuse for bad behavior and should be banned on sight. I am sick of you. Thank you very much wiki (talk) 13:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

It is ironic that you would say that seeing that you were trying to say that you are Softlavender. [25] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

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

English politician talk page urging editors with criticism to email him first??

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

---

See section 'Updates' at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Mann_%28British_politician%29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by EverSince (talk • contribs) 11:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

While that is not at all how things work here, the post in question appears to have been added eight years ago by an anonymous editor at the House of Commons. If they have a problem with any additions or changes (potential or actual) to the article, they should monitor for them themselves instead of expecting us to contact them, and they can discuss them on the talk page like anyone else with a WP:COI. Not really seeing any actionable issues here. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:02, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have clarified my concern is the chilling effect on editors. I guess it's carefully worded not to be a legal threat but it's an official urging editors, in a way quite contrary to Wikipedia as you say, to check acceptability with Mann first. Eversync (talk) 12:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I guess I am reading the request a little differently. The post actually says "Criticism that follows the wiki guidelines is of course acceptable, but would urge that if constituents have criticisms they contact him first" They did not say do not post criticism here without contacting John Mann first, they said if the criticism follows our guidelines it is acceptable but would like to here he would like to here from his constituents prior to them posting the criticism in the article. But John Mann should know about any criticism of him that meets our guidelines because it to meet them the criticism has already hit been discussed in reliable sources. I d agree with you that there isn't anything to do with this here. -- GB fan 12:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Could you clarify this sentence please: "But John Mann should know about any criticism of him that meets our guidelines because it to meet them the criticism has already hit been discussed in reliable sources." Eversync (talk) 12:14, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I believe it's intended to mean "should already know" i.e., without Wikipedia having to inform him. TimothyJosephWood 12:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok so that supports the impression that Mann's official isn't asking for information in some neutral way, just to hear from people - but somewhat warning editors about adhering to guidelines (in terms of criticism) and urging them to check this with Mann's office first - but Mann's office is not an authority on Wikipedia guidelines. Eversync (talk) 12:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

No, the point is that the anon meant to inform that any constituents that Mann is representing who wants to add criticism to the article should seek to discuss with their representative rather than put it in to the article. Reason being the criticism is likely to be unsourced and potentially BLP violating. Furthermore, why are we discussing an edit from 2009? Blackmane (talk) 13:02, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Legacypac

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

---

This user has already been featured on this board on several occasions. In particular, they decided to start a crusade against what they perceive as overloading Reactions to the 2016 Brussels bombings with reactions of what they think are non-notable states. They nominated the article for deletion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reactions to the 2016 Brussels bombings. This AfD was closed as no consensus. Then they immediately re-nominated it for deletion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reactions to the 2016 Brussels bombings (2nd nomination), which was quite predictably closed as speedy keep with a trout to nominator. Today, they removed some of the reactions [26] (and were immediately reverted). I would not block them myself for consistently evading consensus, since I was involved with the article, but I think time for blocks has come. They were blocked earlier this month for overstepping 3RR in the same article.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:56, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support block or indef topic ban This editor has really stepped over the line. They have shown a constant refusal to WP:LISTEN to other editors and follow proper consensus-based editing norms. After being reverted, this editor immediately and arbitrarily removed two further entries from the list. They have no credible method for which countries to exclude, basing it solely on WP:GEOBIAS and WP:POV. The biggest problem here is behavioural. They disrupt Wikipedia to make a point and refuse to engage with and listen to other editors. This is despite being warned and blocked. AusLondonder (talk) 08:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
• 3RR on the afd, not the article itself. —Cryptic 08:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

  Indeed, I stand corrected on this point. (It does not matter for the rest of my argumentation).--Ymblanter (talk) 08:19, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment General sanctions apply to the article. Therefore "After being notified of the sanctions, any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to edit in accordance with the purpose of Wikipedia, the expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator. Sanctions may include blocks for up to one year, page bans, and topic bans". I think these two edits (1), (2) amount to a de facto violation of the sanctions as they are reverting the same principle, just with slightly different text AusLondonder (talk) 08:18, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

There are a number of problems with this report and it should be ignored. This is a content dispute on a 1RR article and I've not breached 1RR at all on it. I've engaged on talk extensively. The many editors that voted to delete the whole thing are being ignored in the claimed consensus to keep every single word on the page. Maybe someone can explain how the reactions of Togo and East Timor to the Brussels bombings have any bearing or notability.... Legacypac (talk) 08:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• I agree the re-nom 11 days after the "no consensus" was probably not a good idea, even though there was indeed support for what LP wanted (trimming) in the first nom, and even though the first nom was open barely a week (possibly should have been relisted instead of closed then), and even though "no consensus" closes generally have no prejudice against a re-nom. But the removal of low-RS or mundane/predictable reactions is a content dispute and should be settled on the Talk page, not here. I don't think this merits ANI. This is a content dispute; please settle it with the appropriate talkpage discussion or WP:DR. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:22, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

  Not really. If you check the edit history of the article, Legacypac is edit-warring against the whole world. They started the second AfD when one of their removals were reverted. This is not about the content dispute, this is about disruptive editing. I personally have no particular preference on whether the reaction of Thogo is in the article or not.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Ymblanter your statement "Legacypac is edit-warring against the whole world" is quite misleading considering User:XavierItzm, User:SwisterTwister, User:Chrisw80, User:EvergreenFir, User:Whiskeymouth, User:Reywas92, User:Peter James, User:Rwxrwxrwx, User:MrX, User:The Almightey Drill, User talk:Aircorn, and User:Jolly Janner all voted to delete or redirect the page during first AfD and User:InedibleHulk voted delete in the second AfD, and there is a whole discussion at [[27]] about doing away with all such articles. You brought me to ANi because I took out reactions from Togo and East Timor so you must care a great deal. Please explain to everyone why these reactions are not an indiscriminate collection of information with no relevance to anything? Legacypac (talk) 08:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that biased canvassing. Now please ping all other !voters, including keep ones. AusLondonder (talk) 08:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Your battleground behavior with regards to this article is absolutely unacceptable. Irrespectively of how other users voted they did not go and remove things repeatedly, and they did note renominate an AfD fr the second time two days after the first one was closed. Do not blame others for your own unacceptable behavior.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:27, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: I don't see any edit-warring. I see AusLondonder made one revert of one edit Legacypac made, and LP did not revert. I see WWGB, while agreeing with Legacypac that the article was a coatracky mess, reverted two separate edits of LP, and LP has not reverted. This is just a clear and very simple content dispute, and all LP has done is try to trim a coatracky article which is already of dubious notability. Rather than bring this to ANI, why not counsel him to start an RfC, or start one yourself? Softlavender (talk) 09:02, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Please look better, there are more removals and reverts in the history.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

And there was already an RfC, the fact they perfectly know about.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

(1) I did look at every edit LP made, and every revert of any of his removals, and posted the results above. (2) There has never been a single WP:RFC on the talk page of that article. You are making a lot of statements that don't bear out; you need to provide diffs to substantiate your claims (which you haven't done even in the OP). Softlavender (talk) 09:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

(1) If you did look at all LPs edits I am not sure why you missed this one because this was exactly the second attempt of LP to avoid consensus. When it failed, they opened the second Afd. (2) RfC was not a the talk page, it was elsewhere, and I am not going to search for it now. However, it was opened exactly in relation to that article. Thank you for your opinion, but you are not an administrator, and in this topic, I am interested in an administrative action, I think I was very clear on this.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Not a single person reverted or contested that edit. I don't see it as an ""attempt to avoid consensus" because at that point there was no consensus. There is no edit war. You stated that "Legacypac is edit-warring against the whole world" and have never given evidence of a single edit war. Moreover, in my opinion no admin is going to take action unless you prove your case and your claims with diffs, and you haven't. Softlavender (talk) 11:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

The RFC was at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 127#Proposal to do away with including world leader responses to terrorist incidents. —Cryptic 10:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Great, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Again, there has never been a single RfC at Talk:Reactions to the 2016 Brussels bombings. And the closing of that RfC on Village Pump says consensus is "that most reactions are not worth including. Very few editors supported indiscriminately listing all reactions from world leaders, and those who did failed to reconcile their position with WP:INDISCRIMINATE." The entire matter at hand is a content dispute about one article, and an RfC is needed on that one article. Softlavender (talk) 11:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

When did a No Consensus AfD establish Consensus? Maybe Admin action is needed against the filer here. Legacypac (talk) 10:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

The Village Pump discussion conclusion stated "there is consensus ... that specific reactions and condolences generally do not qualify for inclusion" under WP:NOTNEWS. Legacypac's edits are just following that consensus decision, and doing it in a mild way I think. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I see no edit-warring from Legacypac either, just (1) an AFD relisting which was not out of order as the first was closed as "no consensus". Then failing that, (2) admirable efforts to excise the most irrelevant trivia from the page, in line with the mentioned RFC, together with constructive discussion on the talk page. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 10:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree. The entire article is an embarrassment, and was especially before Legacypac made his first trim: [28]. Softlavender (talk) 11:37, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Meaning basically you are biased and therefore tend not to notice an obvious pattern of misconduct. Fine.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

What indication is there that I am biased? Softlavender (talk) 13:19, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support block or indef topic ban I'm sick of seeing Lp here for his POV pushing. The world doesn't revolve around the feelings of Sunnis.142.105.159.60 (talk) 19:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Does any administrator care to comment on the behavior of the user?--Ymblanter (talk) 06:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Ymblanter breaching ISIL 1RR Sanctions

Given the false accusations above, can Ymblanter explain their own blatant edit warring in violation of the 1RR ISIL sanctions on this same article [29] and [30]. Legacypac (talk) 09:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

At the time, it was not under 1RR.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:35, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Technically speaking, the note was added by an IP [31] and can be easily contested. However, my edits were before that moment anyway, and after the second revert (when I realized my opponent is not familiar with WP:BRD) I opened a topic at the talk page, and we came to a kind of consensus.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

All ISIL related pages are under 1RR automatically but you should know that. You actually made a third revert within 24 hours [32] so you went 3RR on a 1RR. Legacypac (talk) 09:47, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Nothing is automatic. Stop using ad hoc arguments and address your own behavior. The topic was about you.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:49, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

You started this, and you should know that your own behavior is open to analysis at ANi when you start a thread against someone else. BOOMARANG can hit you hard. SCW&ISIL DS apply the moment a page is created, not when someone gets around to adding a note about them. How the heck would you contest that a page about terrorism attacks by ISIL is not related to ISIL? Legacypac (talk) 09:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

It is not even a page about attacks, it is a page about reactions on these attacks, and it was not even clear whether it is ISIL in the beginning. Stop bullshitting and address your own behavior.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

For how many minutes was it unclear these were ISIL attacks? [33] It is your accusations and your own breach of ISIL DS that need to be addressed here. Legacypac (talk) 10:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Good, I am really tired. Let see who will be the first admin to block me for 1RR given the circumstances.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:11, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

A truly pathetic attempt to instigate a boomerang here. Dragging up (wholly mistakenly) this trivia in an attempt to besmirch. Have seen LP's POINTy agenda over many article Talk Pages and they are far from a stranger to these pages. No apparent willingness to collaborate or compromise with other viewpoints. Regrettably I think the time has come for some kind of stronger message. User:Ymblanter has shown great restraint here, but everyone's patience gets exhausted eventually. 92.234.211.200 (talk) 12:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Apparent behavioral problems/personal attacks involving anon IP on math 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.

---

This is to report seemingly unprofessional editing and abusive treatment of editor by a anonymous IP [34] . The violations of the rules of outing editors and the incoherent language are apparent here [35]. Visibly the person is not a mathematician (as per his own admission) and is asking editor to produce credentials. His editing and reverting is apparent here [36]. An administrator as well as other people involved in mathematical pages should take a look.Limit-theorem (talk) 20:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

You can see the IP 174.3.155.181 doing the same personal attacks on other editors.Limit-theorem (talk) 20:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• [We're all anonymous here, except for Jimbo Wales.] Drmies (talk) 20:11, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I've {{redacted}} a lot of their personally insulting comments and given them a warning for making personal attacks. Let me know if I missed anything. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 20:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

excuse me? i provided two links to my proficiency in mathematics, both of which demonstrate my ability. in contrast, you have not provided any information about your accomplishments. further, you've got a history of avoiding people when they confront you about your edits, as i demonstrated on the appropriate page. if you think that you can get away with alleging someone has no mathematical experience, when their body of work suggests otherwise, while refusing to show any of yours, you're delusional. further, i told you quite clearly that the concept of measure involves a measurable function, which requires introduction of, at the VERY LEAST, an "x axis" so that the areas can be calculated *relative* to it. the notion of measure was originally introduced as a systematised approach for integrating primitive functions.

Collapsed under Talk Page Guidelines. Using user's ethnicity as a basis for argument

so far, you've done what is commonly associated with hindu people. that is, you deflect, refuse to answer or provide justification for your basis. the fact you tried to use a financial mathematics textbook for a pure mathematics concept is only one part of your problematic edits. comparing my edit history to yours (i can even show other IPs), it is not even close who is more useful to this website. you edit minor grammar and proceed to act like you're a ramunujan (who is overrated).

mods, admins, may i ask how you allow people to hurl false claims in order to protect their integrity? look at what htis guy is saying. he's saying i'm not a mathematician and yet my body of work clearly shows i have *DEMONSTRATED* my ability to use nuanced concepts from probability theory. i have also done work in measure theory, so i have no idea where he gets off making this allegations.

lastly, i got a warning from someone because of this guy, but i think he's trying to scare me into accepting his incorrect edit. wikipedia needs to start prioritising correctness over feelings, because right now this guy got demoralised and humiliated. he thought he was a "math guy". i asked for credentials and i'll provide mine (again) so i can ask for his (again): http://web.archive.org/web/20150923213902/http://webdocs.cs.ualberta.ca/~gagans/ http://arxiv.org/abs/1407.8392

do you guys honestly think it's acceptable for this guy, who has provided no substantive edits, nor any information about his own accomplishments, to hurl allegations? say what you want about my "conduct", i have added way more than he has on this IP alone. nonetheless, i got the warning and i'll stick to the content (as i have here) 174.3.155.181 (talk) 20:18, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I warned you because you were discussing that a user's ethnicity governs their ability to edit, which goes against WP:NPA (a guideline on personal attacks (there should be no such attacks)). This has nothing to do with the content of your edits. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 20:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I guess an administrator should not need more evidence than this.Limit-theorem (talk) 20:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can see the IP's edits in the articles are correct, though edit summaries are sometimes inflammatory. The talk page edits including the one above are not really acceptable. I have a PhD in physics and math.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:23, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• I've blocked the IP for a month for spewing bigoted attacks after being warned not to. Discussion on who is right and who is wrong can be moved to the talk page; it's all Greek to me, so Ymblanter's participation there would be welcome. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

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

User Izac Cobain Johns.

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

---

This user, (Izac Cobain Johns. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to keep changing genres on various articles without giving sources for it. Has been warned multiple times in the past about this behavior and yet keeps doing it. Feinoha ^Talk 00:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps the two-week vacation from editing I just gave him will help. Katie^talk 01:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Bartoli family hoax and disruptive editing

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

---

This post is in regard to the falsifications in Bartoli family, Volterra & al. and the collateral disruptive editing and denial of misconduct.

Overview

• Knowing1900 (talk · contribs) creates the article Bartoli family and the verbatim identical, now deleted House of Bartoli, as well as Draft:Bartoli Family.
• Performing basic WP:V checks on Bartoli family I discover it is unverifiable and I send it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bartoli family per WP:DNCH.
• Eagleash and I investigated the edits made by Knowing1900 and 78.145.17.94 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): all their edits in other articles introduce unverifiable contents in an attempt to support the hoax in Bartoli family.
• Five images uploaded to Commons are quite obviously meant to have been used in the hoax, cf. my comments at User talk:Knowing1900#Discussions on Commons.
• Account Coralsnan (talk · contribs) has since been created. They have edited in Bartoli family only.

1. Main disruption

• Bartoli family states that "the younger [son] Fabio Bartoli resides in London, England"
• Geolocate on 78.145.17.94 points to London.
• Based on that observation and WP:IDART it may be presumed that 78.145.17.94 is Knowing1900 logged out.
• Similarly based on IDART it may be presumed that Coralsnan (talk · contribs) is a sock account.
• For the record: as editing includes cross-wiki vandalism on it.wiki that I have reverted, I have asked Steward and it.wiki Admin Vituzzu to look at the accounts and see if global locks are warranted.
• I ask for community opinion on whether or not local blocks for disruption are warranted in this case.

2. Collateral disruption

• Aoidh (talk · contribs) made an edit to Volterra in this diff. Instead of reverting to "last good revision", he selectively removed valid information such the mention of Volterra Cathedral in a bulleted list citing WP:V and WP:BURDEN as his reason. He also removed large parts of the fabricated material added by Knowing1900 and IP78.145.17.94. He failed to identify § French Invasion (Previous revision of Volterra q.v.) as vandalism despite the section being (a) void of sources, and (b) included terms such as Royal Assebly of Volterra [sic] and Gian Tullio Bartoli that returns zero Google hits. Apart from in Bartoli family.
• I went on a mopping-up round and reverted to "last revision prior to Knowing1900/78.145.17.94 edits" in Bartoli, Volterra Cathedral, and Volterra.
• Aoidh as his first subsequent edit Twinkle-reverted me in this diff citing Per WP:BURDEN, these need sources if they are going to be added to the article. With this revert Aoidh restores for the first time the unsourced section § French Invasion with the vandal's fabrications.
• Italian user Chiorbone da Frittole (talk · contribs) undoes Aoidh's edit in this diff.
• Aoidh again as his first subsequent edit reverts in this diff again citing See WP:BURDEN and WP:V. Provide sources for this material. With this revert Aoidh restores for the second time the unsourced section § French Invasion with the vandal's fabrications.
• Chiorbone da Frittole gets rid of the unsourced material by undoing Aoidh again in Diff of Volterra asking in her edit summary discuss on the talk page, you're deleting well-known facts as well.
• Aoidh instead of observing WP:BRD and enter into dialogue Twinkle-reverts in this diff again citing WP:BURDEN as his reason. With this revert Aoidh restores for the third time the unsourced section § French Invasion with the vandal's fabrications.
• He then immediately after gives Chiorbone da Frittole a standardised level three warning, {{uw-unsourced3}}, using Twinkle in this diff Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Volterra.
• Chiorbone da Frittole again gets rid of the unsourced material by undoing Aoidh in Diff of Volterra
• Aoidh follows up in his next edit on User talk:Chiorbone da Frittole giving her a manual warning saying Just so there's no confusion, if you hit "undo" again without providing a source, you will be reported at WP:AN3 and likely blocked from editing.
• Chiorbone da Frittole follows up in Diff of User talk:Aoidh saying Before deleting so many graphs, discuss it on the talk page. Or I will request for administrator attention. Stop threatening me, you have not motivated in the tak page your editings. Thanks.
• First then did Aoidh seize edit-warring in the article, and he and she have since had a dialogue on the article talk page, Volterra^talk. I'm not now going into details about Aoidh's misinterpretations of policies and accusations there.

Follow-ip:

• I followed up on User talk:Aoidh in this diff, and Aoidh replied in this diff with claiming that I haven't been trying to restore unsourced material that others have been trying to remove. As can be seen above he has restored unsourced material thrice.
• I then sourced Volterra with ~60 {{Cite book}} in Diff of Volterra to demo how walk-in-the-park'ish it is to source a subject like this instead of deleting contents.
• Aoidh revisited the article and Twinkle-slammed a {{refimprove}} onto it in this diff – only to revert himself moments later.
• My further follow-ups on his talk page have been futile: here he claims that it is I not he who restores unsourced material in Diff of Volterra. This displays that he remains unaware of the section § French Invasion being a fabrication.
• Aoidh has since repeated his denial in this diff saying that at no point did I add or restore any such passage to the article by any means. suggesting I was "very confused".
• Since Aoidh in this diff said bordering on WP:NPA at this point with accusations that lack evidence, do you want to try that again, and include diffs that back up your claim that I have restored "unsourced material that both she and I have tried to remove"? ...
• On his request I then followed up in this diff listing the diffs he asked for and demonstrating how easily it is to WP:SOFIXIT rather than deleting evoking WP:BURDEN. And offering my help with sourcing in the future.
• Aoidh's has not responded, but has reacted by deleting my post stating You've shown that you do not understand how diffs work which explains your lack of understanding. Do not comment here again until you gain of understanding of what it is you're doing wrong. I remain unaware of what I have done wrong, and invite Aoidh to respond here.
• Aoidh has then deleted the whole thread on his talk page in this diff stating I think I've tolerated this nonsense long enough. Baseless accusations made from a critical lack of understanding.

I see multiple challenges in a course of events like this. First and foremost the repeated denial of any mistakes. Many of us make mistakes; someone corrects us; we take the critique at heart; we move on. But not here.

Would other editors have a look at this? I also invite feedback on how I've handled the situation. Could I have done it more gracefully? --Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

This is quite a long read. Generally I suggest folks trim it down, but I think you've made this as succient as possible. User:Aoidh's edit summary here is ironic and their other edit summaries citing WP:BURDEN are even more ironic. I think Aoidh is displaying a level of incompetence. Someone is having trouble understanding diffs, and it's Aoidh. I suggest that Aoidh take a break from waving the heavy stick of TW at other editors for awhile and find an article to edit. This diff where they self-revert looks promising, but their denials and threats despite the diffs clearly showing that they continually restored "Bartoli family lost its control over Volterra and the ..." etc, and their denials are seriously concerning.--v/r - TP 00:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I love Twinkle and hitting one button to make pages change is awesome. However, as Aoidh is going to learn, it's not always the optimal solution. Doubling-down on a mistake is even worse. To re-address the main culprit, Knowing1900 needs to be blocked if not banned on en-wp for hoaxing. The socks can be blocked per WP:DUCK. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - I see the diff now, this. I don't know if it's the new computer I got or what, but this was not what I meant to do, and when I asked what diff they were talking about, this diff was the one given, as seen here. My mouse has been clicking multiple times on a single click, while also not clicking when I try to, that's the only explanation I can think of but I am positive that I went through the article and checked my diffs, and I am only now seeing content being restored (which was not intended). I apologize for the confusion on my end, but I assure you @TParis: it is not an incompetence issue, rather a user error that will not reoccur. When asked for evidence of what was being claimed, this was the only diff given, until this 28,486) byte edit that seemingly copypasted the entire article onto my talk page. Between the (admitted) issue where I unintentionally loaded content, Sam's lack of any diff that verified what he was saying, instead giving a diff that did not support what he was saying and my own (admitted) issue finding the diff in question, I could not find what Sam was talking about. This confusion was exacerbated by Sam simply providing a diff that didn't show what they were saying and not providing anything to verify what they were saying, until yesterday when they placed it into a wall of text larger than many articles. However, this could have been avoided by me paying closer attention to the edits I made, so this is ultimately on me. I apologize for the confusion. - Aoidh (talk) 02:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Removing tags on Time (Electric Light Orchestra album)

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

---

ilovetopaint has insisted on adding a storyline to the Time (Electric Light Orchestra album), even though I found a source with the author, Jeff Lynne, explaining that even he doesn't know what his songs are about and that he leaves it up to the listener, and gives no indication about there being a storyline beyond a guy either going to or imagining the future (Lynne says himself he doesn't know which).

I added tags for when this imaginative storyline directly contradicts the lyrics, the author or even sometimes his secondary non-authoritative source. ilovetopaint then started an RfC on the topic. So far so good, however, ilovetopaint then removed the tags I added. IMO he can't do that until the RfC is over in 30 days. Any input on that? --OpenFuture (talk) 10:46, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Attempts for rational discussion has failed. Sigh. [37], [38]. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

"Attempts for rational discussion has failed" — no kidding! [39]--Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

The RfC is about whether the section is even valid and should be there. I tried tidying up the wording to reflect what is stated in sources better and removing tags where they were excessive. As it turned out, every single claim tagged with "failed verification" was taken verbatim from source. OpenFuture is currently in dispute over Lynne's statements and refuses to cite specific sources, whereas I have numerous citations and direct quotations proving my case.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 11:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

The claim that everything is taken verbatim from the authoritative sources is untrue. Your citations does not prove your case, and often directly contradicts them. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

There are at least three instances in this revision where you have embellished on a source (will specify where on request). I've tidied up the section again but it'll surely be a matter of time before another unnecessary edit that either embellishes a source or serves your personal crusade to bury all notions concerning the album's indisputable conceptual premise.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Your claim of embellishment is patently incorrect. Also, the discussion is not about the conceptual premise, but whether there is a storyline. How can you not know that by now? Have you not read anything I write to you? --OpenFuture (talk) 17:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

No, I stopped here.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 20:27, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I simply deleted most of the things I tagged, and it seems like Ilovetopaint was OK with that this time around, so I guess this issue is done with now. It would have been better if he had discussed the issues in a rational and courteous manner, of course, but apparently not. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Or you could have done what I did and make an attempt to improve upon and copyedit what was already there [40] [41] instead of arbitrarily removing verified content with such insightful rationales as "No. Stop." [42] [43] [44], all while claiming that none of the reliably sourced information was supported by an online radio interview you conveniently failed to provide a link for (it turned out Lynne confirmed everything you were desperate to debunk).--Ilovetopaint (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

As usual, almost everything you say are falsehoods. Lynne confirmed only one thing: That the theme was time travel. That's all.--OpenFuture (talk) 21:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Anybody who cares is free to verify Lynne's statements for themselves (other sources: [45] [46] [47]).--Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Jun Hong Lu

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

---

Could someone take a look at this edit. I am certain that the editor concerned has acted in good faith and even wrote to me via e-mail stating that the edit had been made. Perhaps it may fall foul of WP:Recent and/or WP:Undue and WP:NPOV. I asked the editor via e-mail if he could provide a reliable source for the statement that has been included in the article, as all I could find was one on Facebook. My knowledge of Jun Hong Lu and Buddhism is minimal, and I am unsure of the 'true' connection between each party, and even if the parties named in the joint statement are significant/notable.

I am away from home and Wikipedia for four days from tomorrow, so would appreciate a note on my talk page if things are regularly purged here, so I can trace back to other editors thought processes on this issue.

Many thanks,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 14:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Help request with bulk undeletion of pages deleted under U1

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

---

Herro! I'd like to request a slightly complicated undeletion. Basically, I'd like a couple things that I can't do as a non-admin:

• Undelete previously-existing subpages of User:Crimsonmargarine (my previous account)
• History-merge User:Crimsonmargarine with what was there in its past incarnations, and (I guess?) with its past incarnations at User:Ecw.technoid.dweeb (the account was renamed)

Would someone be willing to do this for me? Thank you, and sorry for the trouble :)

If y'all are curious why: I deleted the old account's subpages when I got really fussy about privacy for a while, but I've stopped believing much in privacy, and would like to restore the pages for the historical record. Also, I'd like to look at my old CSS for my userpage :3

Goldenshimmer (talk) 00:20, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask this, but I couldn't really think of a better place, since WP:REFUND's form doesn't allow for complicated things like this Goldenshimmer (talk) 00:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, forgot to mention that some or all of the pages may have been deleted while they were still subpages of User:Ecw.technoid.dweeb, if that has any effect.Goldenshimmer (talk) 03:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, it looks like there are deleted subpages of User:Goldenshimmer; if these could also be restored that would be cool. Thanks :) Goldenshimmer (talk) 04:49, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Goldenshimmer, I think I've undeleted what you wanted. Fences&Windows 15:10, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Sweet, thank you so much, User:Fences_and_windows. :) Goldenshimmer (talk) 17:26, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz

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

---

I am not sure if this is the right place to bring this up. But User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has had a very long history of abuse and make edits without giving any reasons. If you look at his talk page you can see he is always rude to people and does not really care.

I would like to point out one issue. On the page Sal the Stockbroker there has been a discussion to not redirect and make it an article. User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz comes around makes this edit [48] and then gives no reason. He also did not discuss why he made this edit. There seems to be consensus to keep it, but he just came around and made that edit. He has a history of doing this without giving a reason for what he is doing.

Someone needs to get this guy in check. 72.81.238.120 (talk) 00:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Glancing over Talk:Sal the Stockbroker shows what appears to be 6 year old consensus for a redirect rather than a standalone article. Looking over the article history, I see many established editors and admins reverting it back to a redirect and what appears to be one IP editor restoring the article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz can't be expected to reinitiate a discussion every time he wants to restore the article to a state accepted by previous consensus. I would suggest that the IP initiate a discussion before replacing the redirect with a standalone article, to see if there is any change in consensus. As a side note, accusing someone of "super long term abuse" and then supplying one diff of one incident seems inappropriate to me. --Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 01:15, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

• I've reverted the restoration of the article, and semi-protected it. Rule of thumb: IP editors who come to ANI complaining about long term problems with other editors are trolls or banned editors 99.5% of the time. IP editors who meet this criteria plus are editing from an IP used by a racist a month ago are 100% guaranteed to be a racist troll. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

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

User threat

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

---

User Whitetararaj just messaged me with a physical threat (diff). Quoting him: "Ente Kayyil Ninnayirikkum ninte anthyam. This is a threatning. Kettoda Bullshit". He has written it in Malayalam Language with English spellings and alternate English words, probably for avoiding English users from reading it. It means "Your death will be from my hands. This is a threatning. You hear that bullshit". You can consult other Malayali users from Wikipedia:WikiProject Kerala for translating it. I don't know what provoked him to write it, I don't think he literally means it. It's more of a figurative threat. But not a normal threat for ignoring. --Charles Turing (talk) 15:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

The section heading ('Death') is also threatening. Pincrete (talk) 16:01, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I blocked the account. Please read Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm. If you wish to have the particular edits removed from the edit logs (that is, hidden except to admins), please request here and either myself or another admin will do so. I take no stance on whether or not you should contact emergency@wikimedia.org except to point you to that essay. --Yamla (talk) 16:49, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I have removed it from my talk page. No need to erase the log entry. I am considering it only as a spam. --Charles Turing (talk) 17:22, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Ovidwally

User:Ovidwally seems to be a single-purpose account with no interest in Wikipedia other than adding images of his own artworks to articles, which he has so far done in Ovid, Metamorphoses, Actaeon, Ariadne, and Daphne. Personally, I don't think the images are significant or illuminating enough to provide any useful enhancement to the articles, but that's neither here nor there. He has, however, insisted on linking to his Web site in the captions, repeatedly reverting my removal of the link in the Metamorphoses article per WP:ELPOINTS #2, even though I left an explanation on his talk page. And now I see that he's begun adding a copyright notice in each caption in contravention of WP:CREDITS, as well as forcing the size of the images to enlarge them. I realize that this is a new editor who may not even know that he has a talk page, but given his COI, I despair of changing his behavior. I thought about giving him a short block to get his attention, but since I may be thought involved at this point, I decided to bring the matter to other admins' attention instead. Deor (talk) 19:45, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd rather engage him than just block him at this point. The copyright notice is problematic, although (assuming he is the artist) he released the images under CC 4.0 when he uploaded them to Commons. I think it's a well-intentioned participant who isn't yet fully aware of the rules. Of course, future behaviour will indicate where to go next...and I've added his user talk page to my watch list to see what happens. —C.Fred (talk) 20:03, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, that's another problem: I'm not sure whether he's aware of the implications of the CC license he's released the images under (each page of his Web site does feature a copyright notice). Since it's not absolutely certain that the account is the artist himself, I suppose we could make him file an OTRS ticket showing that he indeed has the right to release the images. Anyway, I'll be watching, too. Deor (talk) 20:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I echo the concerns of Deor. I saw the license on commons, but I don't think the artist realized what they were doing when they selected that license as their copyright notice on the article seems to imply. What's also concerning is the link to their homepage which appears to be a form of link spam.--v/r - TP 21:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Disregarding the license for a second, this is a big COI. He's essentially using those pages for self-promotion. There are hundreds, maybe even THOUSANDS of painting that could be put on those pages that are far more notable than his.142.105.159.60 (talk) 04:18, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Persistent genre warring by Thijn23

Editor has been receiving constant warnings for genre warring without appropriate sourcing (or sometimes any at all) since October, and as recently as six days ago (see user's talk), but has continued to do so especially in the past week, particularly on Taylor Swift-related articles: see contribs, almost all of the recent ones are dedicated to this behavior. The only discussion from this user has occurred at Talk:Red (Taylor Swift album). Everything else is done without discussion, often without sources, and seemingly without any intention of stopping. A block is needed to prevent further disruption. Chase (talk | contributions) 20:11, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• Note: User just blanked a warning given in March from their talk, for some apparent reason. Perhaps to make it look like not as many recent warnings have been given. Chase (talk | contributions) 20:31, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• I deleted that because it was not accurate, I corrected the genre of Pills n Potions correct, added a note in the edit page and it is still up there today. However, those other warnings I discussed further with the people giving them. Whenever I make a change on an album page, it was based on the reliable sources listed in the critical reception. Example: Critics have noted country and pop to be the genre on the album Fearless. I changed the genre from Country pop - pop, to Country - pop, which is in line with the critical reception. Whenever I think a genre should be added, I start a discussion like I did at Red (Taylor Swift album) There is no reason to ban my account. I do not do anything against the rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thijn23 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• You did not start a discussion at Talk:Fearless (Taylor Swift album), where you changed the genres contrary to the citation that immediately followed them (which describes the album as a "country-pop [album]" and "one of the best mainstream pop albums of 2008"). You also didn't start a discussion at Talk:Speak Now for similar behavior. Chase (talk | contributions) 20:42, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• If you actually dive in to the history of both the Fearless and Speak Now page, you can actually see that I never changed the genre how it was, I changed it back to how it originally was. The genres on Speak Now were, Country pop - country - pop rock, which was in line with both the critical reception and the describitions of each indivual song based on reliable sources. When it was changed to Country - pop, I just changed it back. That's all. You make it seem as if I am making all types of changes to pages without a consensus but that is just simply not true. Thijn23 (talk | contributions) 23:05, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• Despite this discussion and Thijn23's arguments to the contrary, they are continuing to genre-war at Fearless (Taylor Swift album) – changing the infobox genre, which is immediately cited, from country pop and pop music (supported by the prose of the citation) to country and pop (diff). This is not supported by any prose currently in the album's Wiki article. This shows a blatant disregard for discussion, consensus, or sourcing, and is proof as to why this user needs to be blocked to prevent further disruption. Chase (talk | contributions) 23:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I continued because I am absolutely not doing anything wrong. When a reliable source says an album draws a line between commercial country and Top 40 radio, and you put Country and pop as the genre of the album with providing a direct citation, that is not disruptive nor against the rules, that is, actually, doing exactly what to you seems the foundation of me needing to be blocked: editing the genre in an infbox based on a reliable source, with a direct citation supporting that change. The change is based on a reliable source that is listed in the critical reception of the page, so the fact that you are saying that it is not supported by any prose in the article, is inaccurate. In this case, the changes I have made probably have come off more disruptive to your own point of view than to the actual page and for that I would like you to stop. It is exactly why you are giving me an extra warning on my page saying it is 'not smart to continue genre warring' when in reality all I did was making a (minimal, by the way) change to the genre of an album, based on reliable sources. I will continue doing so when necessary, so you can either go on keeping track of my activities on Wikipedia or accept the fact that I will only change or add something based on reliable sources. Thijn23 (talk | contributions) 02:10, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

"Draws a line between genre x and genre y" supporting genre x is WP:SYNTH at best. Not to mention you're removing a sourced genre (country pop). Chase (talk | contributions) 04:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

R2-45 (continued)

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

---

After about 10 days, the previous WP:ELNEVER question about R2-45 article was [archived here] -- without a an answer from an admin of sufficient volume to change the status quo. As soon as the question was archived, one of the local editors interpreted the (relative) admin silence as implicit permission to continue ignoring (here) Wikipedia policy WP:ELNEVER on linking to non-free content and recordings. The editor, as shown in the diffs, is Damotclese (talk · contribs). There are other serious issues in this article including WP:BPL, WP:REDFLAG that I will bring up as another issue. One issue at a time seems to be the best way to handle it. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Discourse 21:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm the only admin who ever commented in that thread so I hope you're not saying that my silence was interpreted as anything. Admins don't make content decisions. The issue you're describing in that thread never belonged on ANI in the first place. What it needs is a properly formatted RFC on the article talk page to form a consensus on whether a link is appropriate or not.--v/r - TP 21:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

TParis (talk · contribs) Really? I thought we were discussing whether this is violation of WP copyright policy -- not content. Please confirm. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Discourse 22:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion in the previous ANI seems to agree that a 3-minute clip of an hour long lecture is a reasonable length for a fair use claim. Scientology will claim copyright violations on just about anything that doesn't suit them. This is a matter on whether it's fair use or not and whether it fails WP:ELNEVER and WP:NFCC. Those are questions for an RFC, not ANI.--v/r - TP 00:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

There was no such argreement. An editor from the page made the argument you quote. You said you were not sure. Oshwah (talk · contribs) said, "If the document is copyrighted and the tonyortega.org source is violating that copyright, the source should be removed from the article per WP:ELNEVER." It was not a consensus. This is not a matter of Scientology's claims. This is Wikipedia policy. It either is, or it is not a violation of Wikipedia's ELNEVER policy. As the poster in this most recent discussion indicates, s/he will be adding links to other non-free material and lectures on Russian sites to circumvent US laws -- now that Wikipedia seems to be ambivalent about the ELNEVER policy. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Discourse 04:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• This is very odd, TParis. Your first comment said this was a content dispute and that you were the only participantant. Your second comment asserted it was a copyright consensus ruling. The contradiction does not engender confidence. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Discourse 15:35, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• Your personal attack doesn't engender confidence. Good luck, boss. The way you attack people isn't going to get you far.--v/r - TP 18:57, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@TParis: This is a copyright violation issue for Wikipedia, not my project, and not anyone else' personal cause or project. Noting your contradiction in handling this issue is the same you would do for me. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Discourse 19:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

You sound a lot like the church. The page linked is appropriately using fair use. The question is whether we can link to an article using fair use of copyrighted works and whether such links much adhere to our NFCC.--v/r - TP 20:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and WP:ELNEVER: Those questions are still open, and we need a definitive determination. I read your statement above -- is this consistent with all other fair use on Wikipedia? Is linking to a 3-minute unauthorized Youtube trailer of a Hollywood production permitted? If the lecturer speaks at 150 words per minute,[49] is linking to a 450 word unauthorized transcript permitted? Can Wikipedia import 450 words of non-free content? If linking to 3 minutes is permitted, can we link to 5 minutes? 10 minutes? How about recordings on Russian pirate sites, as the editor linked above has announced s/he will do? Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Discourse 22:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Althing edits to Icelandic PM page

• Whois shows that an edit was made from inside the Icelandic parliament (Althing). The edit was a clear vandalism of the page of the former PM who was involved in the panama papers. The edit attempted to remove information that portrayed the PM in a negative light. I think there should be more investigation into a possible IP ban from all addresses linking to the Althing to prevent future vandalism. Rhumidian (talk) 14:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

  Not sure about investigation, but the article was in bad need of pending changes, which I configured for three months.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

That wasn't vandalism. The source, which is abc news, and thus reliable, states that the i.p stated. I see no reason for the removal of that post, that said, I'll leave it out pending a consensus change. KoshVorlon ..Doves cried 04/21/2016 15:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I removed the IP Lookup info posted on the IP's page, as it could be construed as threatening and have a chilling effect on editing. I replaced it with a standard WP:COI template. Scr★pIron^IV 17:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

The IP didn't state anything, they removed content. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 10:57, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

IMO despite the fairly small size of Iceland, any block of that IP should still be treated as a Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses#Sensitive due to public relations implications i.e. notify the WMF. Nil Einne (talk) 16:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Unsure how to deal with an undoing IP

Special:Diff/717652753. Looking at the page history, I undid revisions by 63.92.230.201 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) on March 31. This user came back to day to restore the text. I can't say I have any negative feelings about the text, but I think it's not surprising at all that an Apple store will block certain site to maintain security, as do most stores in malls, right? Hence, it fails WP:GNG for me. I'm not 100% sure how to handle this, but I'm inclined to just leave this alone. — Andy W. (talk · contrib) 23:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Looks just to be unsourced trivia to me; plus, we don't need those external links. WP:ELNO covers quite a few reasons they shouldn't be there. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 23:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Good advice, that external link certainly doesn't belong here. Big banner begging for money on the front page, this may be spamming, but regardless, the site isn't a reliable source to link to, it is self-published. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

US Government Logo....isn't actually public domain?

I found this notice from the USDA Forest Service on eBay (for another thing on Wikipedia that was unrelated) that states that the USDA Forrest Service Logo isn't in the public domain which is different as stated on the commons. Now i'm not 100% sure where this should be brought up on Wikipedia, so I want a more experienced editor/admin here to look at this and see if this is of concern a/or requires further research. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 21:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

See http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-10851394 for a previous iteration of what appears to be the same issue. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

This is probably better taken up at Commons, though I'm not familiar enough with it to know where the proper noticeboards are. Commons:Village pump/Copyright probably. clpo13_(talk) 04:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Leprof 7272

Leprof 7272 (talk · contribs) has been told several times that he is showing page ownership or making personal style edits to this and other articles. A strong message that the editor needs to edit cooperatively. When he makes edits like this, reverting a correct change to formatting of references because he doesn't like it, he's stepping over the line. He also reverted correct date formats per MOS:DATETIES. Check the editor's talk page for additional complaints. While the editor is providing some constructive edits, his WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality is troublesome. Either a short block or a warning of some sort would be appropriate. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• From what I can see, this looks to be early in a content dispute. It's also not a great idea to template a regular at the beginning of a content dispute. Perhaps a better place to have gone first is WP:DRN. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:17, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry you think it's just a content dispute. It's not. I like the changes he's made. I like the additional sources he's brought to the article. I don't like that he's showing page ownership. I don't like that he's reverting correct changes to the refs because they're not in a format he likes. I don't like that he's applying the wrong date format because it's not a date format he likes, or at least isn't one he thinks helps him edit. I don't like that is treating the article (and as you can see from the comments below, almost every article he tries to improve) as a battlefied. If that's a content dispute, you have no clue and should stop commenting here, or anywhere. The issue is clear, the editor I am reporting is WP:NOTHERE at least when it comes to disruptive behaviour and having little or no interest in working collaboratively. Aside from that, the editor is a good researcher and has improved the articles he's worked on. I would like the editor to reconcile those two ideals.

As for tagging the regulars, he was clearly showing page ownership and I explained that to him, but he kept it up. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

• This user seems quite prone to tagbombing as well. The article Merlin Mann is a real piece of art after he marked the issues it had, and I also came across some rather obnoxious tagging on Fugu and Tetrodotoxin that he had done, and that I have since cleaned up. I asked him to clean up the Merlin Mann article some time ago on his talk page but he refused. The Scum of the Earth Church article earlier is also heavily tagged, not difficult to guess by whom. -- turdas^talk 12:52, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I also asked him to stop tagbombing after reverting this horrifying mess, and he's still doing it. There are many more complaints throughout his talk page history. KateWishing (talk) 13:05, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't really want to pile on here, but I've encountered this user's disruptive massive overtagging of articles as well (see history of Sodium dodecyl sulfate, for example). Common behavior involves tagging the top of the article for various issues, tagging each individual paragraph for the same issues, then tagging each sentence for the same issues - often putting multiple tags per sentence. The extent of the problem may be greater than what can be seen by looking just Leprof 7272's contributions because he often does the same thing while logged out as well (50.179.252.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), etc). ChemNerd (talk) 14:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• I have also has to same poor experiences with this editor as noted above. More examples of en-masse tag bombing can be currently found at; Chromosome conformation capture, Acetone peroxide & Villa Baviera. Leprof 7272 shows the same behaviour regardless of who they're interacting with, when challenged for more reasoning they then bombard your talk page (see here & here - they then get personal). XyZAn (talk) 16:43, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• Leprof 7272 hasn't commented here yet and he really, really should. Because I'm inclined to block for disruption. The article he's working on now is almost unreadable. Katie^talk 18:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• This serial tag bombing behavior from Leprof 7272 is nothing new. As is clear from their edit history, It has spanned many years. I have attempted to reason with this editor concerning excessive use of attention banners (for example here) but without success. Boghog (talk) 20:23, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Leprof 7272 (talk · contribs) knows this is here. He has been informed by three editors. He has been active since all three notices were placed on his talk page and has not come here to explain. It is safe to say that the editor does not care to do so? Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• The editor went through yet another day of editing without coming here to discuss. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I have encountered Leprof 7272 (talk · contribs) in other pages and indeed the behavior seems totally consistent with the present complaints, tag-bombing followed by road rage and expression of anger with bombarding your talk page. Limit-theorem (talk) 08:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

User:SwisterTwister's reviewing 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.

---

I wasn't going to be the one who opens a report but, with another new notice recently posted to their talk page, this needs to be resolved. The issue is being discussed here. Mlpearc (open channel) 03:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually, FWIW Mlpearc that last notice was because when two users click "Review" at one article. Even fellow NPPer Wgolf knows what I'm talking about. SwisterTwister talk 04:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Even then, your reviewing methods leave much to improve upon. Dschslava (talk) 04:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to explain, I'm the top reviewer at NPP, I have long experiences at AfD so I know what can be kept or not. I review articles often, clicking "Reviewed" and watch them. I have several pages at my watchlist and I look at them everyday if they have not been deleted yet. People may think I'm too quick but I also know that if something is not notable, chances are it should be deleted and everyone at NPP deletes it within minutes. I'm not the only one. SwisterTwister talk 04:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

It appears that you are under the impression that reviewing articles which are then placed on your watchlist allow for greater efficiency. No—most new page patrollers ignore reviewed articles—they trust that people like you have actually reviewed it and marked it appropriately-for deletion if need be. Dschslava (talk) 04:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

If you want to sit on an article, by all means, but you shouldn't mark it as "patrolled" when all you've done is add it to your future to-do list. That's not what "patrolling" means. Moreover, with literally hundreds of patrols per day—several per minute at times—your claim that you go through them all later is simply beyond belief. You are short-circuiting a crucial part of the encyclopedia's quality control, and on an unprecedented scale.

When I patrol, I typically spend at least two minutes per article: I evaluate for notability, verify facts, resolve any simple formatting issues, categorize (adding Category:Living people to BLPs is important), tag for any major problems (being careful only to tag the most prominent issues), and then add tags for any relevant WikiProjects on the talk page. If there's a CSD-worthy issue that can't be resolved with further editing from the initial contributor—blatant advertising, trolling, or silliness—I cut that process short; if I'm unsure about sending it straight to CSD or AfD, I'll tag it with {{notability}} and leave it unpatrolled for another set of eyes to examine. (Also, when I add a CSD or notability tag, I watchlist the article in case the tag is improperly removed.) This is what NPP directs us to do and what the NPP norm requires. Ticking the patrolled box is an assertion that yes, you have addressed all these simple issues.  Rebbing  04:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree his reviewing methods could stand some improvement (couldn't we all stand some improvement in one fashion or another?), but I'm not sure this has quite risen to the level of AN:I yet. Specifically, it seems people the concern here is that he is marking pages as patrolled without actually tagging them in some sense. He says he is giving the article an opportunity for improvement before actually tagging. I agree that he should probably not mark it patrolled if he's not ready to tag it or let it go on it's merry way. However, I should point out that there are some conflicting messages about disposition of new articles. Some say, tag immediately, others say wait before tagging (for potential improvements). I, myself, have been chastised for being too quick to tag a new article. Sure, obvious copyvio/spam/vandalism is obvious and should be disposed of quickly regardless, but it's not always that cut and dry. Perhaps if SwisterTwister agrees to just not mark as patrolled without actually leaving a visible review of the article in some sense (unless one simply isn't needed)? He can watchlist if he likes and follow up later if he wants (obviously). Chrisw80 (talk) 06:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

That's actually the approach recommended by NPP: "Do not be too hasty to nominate contributions by new editors for deletion if the content is marginal. If you are uncertain, leave the page unpatrolled, and another volunteer can review it later." That's all we're asking for—that SwisterTwister not mark pages without doing the work. He's rejected this reasonable request despite being asked explicitly by several editors, not to mention the steady stream of "unreviewed" notifications he receives, so it appears to me that further discussion away from ANI is unlikely to be productive.  Rebbing  06:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Rebbing Please give me an example of an "unreview" of my patrolling as the only one I see is Dschlaka above. Any others are routine usual collisions of multiple users reviewing at the exact same time. I hope you're not mixing others messaging with this as they are not related. I've said this and I'll say it again, I click it as reviewed because I've basically seen and reviewed it and will continue to notice it, thus reviewed. Any other disagreements are the choices of others. SwisterTwister talk 06:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Your "archiving" method doesn't make it easy to find adverse comments, but, in the last week or so, I saw these: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Perhaps these are generated by collissions (which would be a pretty sloppy bug in the system), but, like I said, I think these are neither here nor there. If you're asking for other concerns, I'm seeing them being raised here (AddWittyNameHere, 29 March 2016), here (Kolbasz and Samwalton9, 29–30 March 2016), here (Compassionate727, 24 March 2016), and here (thread from early February 2016).  Rebbing  15:00, 29 April 2016‎ (UTC)

No Rebbing, I'm repeating myself but I'll say it again, that happens when two users clicked "Patrolled" at the article at the same time, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GeoffreyT2000 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wgolf . It happens to anyone who has actually spent a longtime at NPP. Those are not explicitly stating any concerns because there are none, it's simply an "edit conflict". SwisterTwister talk 15:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I just want to certify that the one I unreviewed that sent the message to his talk page (diff #1 above) was not worthy of acceptance. I tagged it for A7, but the article was in decidedly bad shape in other ways (I cannot see it since it is deleted and was later deleted again, but an admin may. Even with a quick glance, it needed lots of work, to my recollection). And this is not the first one I have unreviewed of his. Fylbecatulous talk 16:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

User_talk:SwisterTwister is a very high volume new page patroller and even if the complaints against them on the talk page were upheld (which seems unlikely) I'm still pretty sure their accuracy is better than mine when I do new page patrol. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Not just "a" very high volume patroller, but either "the" highest or second highest, depending how you measure it and how far back. Some data I recently collected for a different purpose: page curation actions over 12 months, patrol actions over 24 months (slow to load). Asking him to slow down a bit is perhaps appropriate; chasing him away entirely surely isn't. —Cryptic 08:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I noticed some strange reviews at Ricky Clousing [50]. I was basically having a disagreement with another editor and occasionally the page was balnked. The last two reviews by SwisterTwister were performed while the page was blanked (i.e. marked as reviewed when the article had no content at all). It seemed strange at the time, but being unfamiliar with NPP and busy with other things just assumed it was an anomaly. They definitely need to slow down. AIRcorn (talk) 13:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Propose restriction

From reading the discussions at SwisterTwister's talk, this is recurrent, problematic behaviour that will not stop without an editing restriction. They refuse to listen to other editors about patrolling, and their current approach is too prolific and misses too many issues. Claiming that them watching all the pages substitutes for proper patrolling misses the point of patrolling. A similar fingers in ears approach was displayed in response to User:Cunard's correct objections to them both !voting and relisting at AfD.

I propose that SwisterTwister be formally restricted to work from the end of the new page patrol queue and not the beginning and that they must resolve issues or tag them as appropriate at the time of patrolling. If the problems persist after that restriction is in place, they should be banned from NPP/reviewing. Fences&Windows 07:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Withdrawing this proposal as User:SwisterTwister has pledged to review articles fully and there is no consensus for a formal restriction. User:DGG, there's no need to call my proposal to work from the oldest articles in NPP "absurd"; many problems at NPP are caused by over-zealous editors rushing at brand new articles. Fences&Windows 13:08, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually FWIW, I always start at the oldest but, when I have reviewed all of those or if is not busy, I start reviewing the newest, of which I have tagged and deleted vandalism, G11, etc. As I also said, Cunard was upset because I relisted a few simply to save the troubles and also voted to help the consensus, something of which should never be discouraged. It's fights like these that make people question why they continue here at WP. SwisterTwister talk 08:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, people may be concerned that my reviews "may never be seen afain" but that's not so, simply look at my nominations at AfD. I myself have to vote at all AfDs to simply get a clear consensus, therefore I know I can be trusted to look again at these pages. "Restricting" and limiting only damages the eyes looking articles. SwisterTwister talk 08:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

If at least one reasonable (not a troll) person signs this as "Support", I will certainly reconsider my time here at WP/and if it's worth these fights, as this is not the WP I'm interested to view. It's ridiculous that people even consider " banning " me without taking into consideration the amount of beneficial reviewing I've made. SwisterTwister talk 08:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

User:SwisterTwister, I'm reasonable, and my proposal was not trolling. I don't want you banned, I want you to slow down and be more thoughtful in your patrolling and editing. NPP can lead to poor habits, you are not alone in this. My intent was not to drive you off WP but rather to get you to focus on what a number of editors are telling you about how you're approaching things. Fences&Windows 21:38, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Exactly the kind of behaviour that causes the problem. Thinking some people's opinions are trolling or that they are sub-par compared to the some other people. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 13:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Questionable diligence. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Is that the questionavle diligence you have about everyone at MfD? SwisterTwister talk 14:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

No, it is a reference to your usual very shallow rationales at both AfD and MfD. Rapidfire and shallow is very questionable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

... if ST doesn't take this seriously. He appears to be taking it quite seriously. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:26, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose That's a step too far. I suggest SwisterTwister merely be asked to play nice here. It's hardly unreasonable that other reviewers might wish to have articles remain as clearly 'not reviewed' so they know that here might be issues to deal with, rather than SwisterTwister keeping all the judgement to themselves and removing the material from the other reviewer's purview. (Being asked for that should not be a toys-out-of-pram affront, either.)--Elmidae (talk) 10:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

@Elmidae: He has been asked, for more than five years, including three of us in the past three days. –Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:27, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Again, you're rehashing things you have no actual familiarity with. Sure, you may notice some criticisms about my NPP....4 or 5 years ago!! Certainly not relevant here, and, like with anything, that's not pertinent to today's moments. Frankly, I'm going to be honest, I never replied to your talk page messages, because they were heated and I was certain my saying anything else was not going to make things better. SwisterTwister talk 15:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

@SwisterTwister: But they are relevant. The fact that people have been raising the same complaints for long periods of time helps show that this is a real, long-term problem. –Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Not if they are no longer happening at this moment. I simply strongly believe you want to rehash things, something that you had never calmly talked to me about. May I note you were speaking in nothing but great at my talk page, something any reasonable user can say I've never done. You'll again understand why I was not i terestdd to comment, regardless of what you said. If it helps anyone, I can easily retire if it means less drsmatic VS around here. I eould eush everyhad ne well with tsking care of WP' something I've certainly done. SwisterTwister talk 16:59, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support. There are also other issues about this editor which were raised over the time by me and others about his AfD and prod record, his AfD votes were once described as "lazy rapid-fire", a definition which seems to apply to the current patrolling issue in the same way. Frankly I can't trust anyone with this Neelix-alike rate of editing, especially after it has been proved multiple times to be inaccurate, so I urge him to slow down his editing, replacing speed with accuracy. Wikipedia is not a videogame where you have to set some time records, on the contrary focusing in less things and spend a reasonable time in them would ensue a worthier contribution to the encyclopedia. Cavarrone 12:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Is that before and after you have hounded me including calling me " stupid" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bertinazzi? SwisterTwister talk 14:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks @SwisterTwister: for pointing out an enlighting example of your inaccurate "lazy rapid-fire" AfD votes. An excellent example of casting a vote without not even caring to read the AfD comments above yours and the multiple reliable sources about the subject which had been provided, including encyclopedias and monographic books, let alone commenting them or rebutting them or providing a minimally meaningful rationale. Unsurprisingly, you posted that AfD comment in the same exact minute you made 7 other edits, including starting an AfD and voting in other 2 AfD [51]. Sorry, I don't trust the accuracy of an editor who IN A SINGLE MINUTE starts an AfD and cast 3 AfD votes, one of them so spectacularly silly. And for the record, in the next minute you voted four more AfDs, 8 AfD votes in two minutes, WP:THEVIDEOGAME. Cavarrone 17:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Also worth noting I was not "hounding you", I had actually voted in that discussion three days before you. Also, I never called you stupid, what I marked as stupid was your comment there. Cavarrone 18:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the behavior you're being accused of here concerning AfD is the same behavior we are upset about in NPP. –Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:57, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: Is the AfD thing really a problem? I assume the regular closers easily recognize mass-produced, boilerplated, pile-on votes for what they are and give them the modest consideration they deserve: I'm a relative newcomer, and I noticed that pattern fairly quickly. I think common courtesy dictates that we give SwisterTwister credit for his harmless (if misplaced) enthusiasm.  Rebbing  18:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

@Rebbing: Yeah, I do agree that in AfD, the consequences are probably insignificant. –Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 21:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree that SwisterTwister's AfD contributions are problematic. Nearly all of them are very opaque as to what evidence the opinion is based on, and they often don't take account of the previous discussion. Several times in the last few days I have asked for clarification of comments but have not received any replies, so it seems that he treats AfDs as successions of disconnected statements rather than discussions. A particularly egregious example is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turane Jutu, where he suggests putting a blatant hoax that we have hosted for nine years into draft space. Anyone who had spent even a few seconds looking at the previous discussion would have realised that that suggestion is absurd. It's pretty obvious that this editor simply needs to slow down and start thinking about what he is doing, but I have no idea how that can be achieved when he refuses to accept such advice from many people over a long time. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 07:53, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - Premature. First, this thread is not [yet?] addressing issues outside of NPP, and this proposal is specifically about NPP, so I don't see why anything other than NPP activity should be relevant to this question. To the point, however, I'd want to see a great deal more evidence before supporting. I get the sense that what's going on here is several people are put off by ST's "don't worry about it" type of responses to complaints/requests for him to change his method. While I get that frustration of feeling like one's objections are dismissed (always a touchy thing on this, a collaborative project), I suspect given the volume of his patrolling that he, like me, would want to see a lot more evidence of problems that come of it before committing to making a change. I only see a handful of pages here, out of many tens of thousands of patrols. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: This small handful of pages is a large proportion of the amount of pages which have been sampled. Nobody has the time to actually review the sheer number of pages that he marks as reviewed: not even he does. If we wanted to sample all of them, I imagine there would be thousands of pages that should've been speedily deleted that weren't, and tens of thousands if we went back and checked all the pages that he's been marked as reviewed over the course of time he's been receiving these complaints, which is in excess of five years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Compassionate727 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 29 April 2016

I don't know what you mean with your first sentence. It sounds like you're saying that of the articles brought up in this thread (and the one on ST's talk page), a large percentage of them are problematic. If that's what you mean, then of course that's the case -- they were brought up because they're problematic. If, on the other hand, you mean that someone has taken a random sampling of some larger number of ST's patrolled pages (obviously nobody thinks you should go through all of them -- but I should think it would at least be in in the hundreds), then could you point me to it, because I've missed it. For now, I'm saying I don't see enough evidence in these two threads. The point is that "I imagine" isn't good enough [for me anyway]. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

He asks for more evidence, and your response is hypothetical scenarios you've "imagined"? I don't think that's the sort of "evidence" we're looking for here... Sergecross73 msg me 14:46, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

@Compassionate727, fueling again to your unknowing to my work, I have actually speedied anything I saw as needing even the slightest deletoin. I myself, as any admin who has deleted my pages, can say including AfD work such as Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion/Jack Robichaux. You also must be unaware of my AfD work. SwisterTwister talk 15:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

@SwisterTwister: I don't know anything about your AfD work, nor do I understand what that has to do with your ability to effectively identify speedies. That said, I don't doubt that you speedy every page you find that needs to be, but you're looking so quickly that you aren't effective identifying them. That's our main complaint. Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

@SwisterTwister: the reason that I got myself into this is because I and to speedy several of your patrolled articles that you failed to speedy. Dschslava (talk) 16:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites and Sergecross73: My point was misunderstood. He was saying (or at least I understood him to be saying) that only a few problem articles had been brought up, compared to the tens of thousands that SwisterTwister has reviewed, and that the number of problems was a very insignificant number compared to how many he's done in total. My point was that we've only checked a small number of his reviews, and that we'd likely find a lot more problems if we went through and checked a lot more of his. I can do that when I get home. –Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I seem to be following you correctly then. I was merely pointing out that, when Rhodoendrites said he'd need to see more evidence to warrant more action, your response was your musings on what you would felt was "likely" or "imagined" to be found, rather than, you know, actual examples. I suppose if you intend to provide examples on later on, then that's a bit better, at least... Sergecross73 msg me 16:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support Generally when people see 'reviewed' they expect it to have been reviewed. Until such time as SwisterTwister can actually fulfil that expection, they should be prevented from causing more issues. I find it telling that their talk-page has issues with their reviewing removed/archived much quicker than anything else recently. It gives the impression of being unwilling to take criticism or correction. Opinion of a reasonable non-troll. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• Just to clarify, I am supporting the restriction as proposed "SwisterTwister be formally restricted to work from the end of the new page patrol queue and not the beginning and that they must resolve issues or tag them as appropriate at the time of patrolling." not a total ban, as some of the oppose's seem to think that is what is being proposed here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - Way too soon for this. This all seems to boil down to. "Hey, I don't think you're being careful enough in the way you willingly volunteer your time to do a dull task." "Hey, I do think I'm being careful enough." Honestly, the headache of dealing ANI discussions like this is probably enough to slow him down a bit... Sergecross73 msg me 14:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: But this isn't too soon. He's been receiving complaints about this for more than five years, and received three within the past three days, and he refuses to even address our concerns. Nor is it simply a matter of we think versus he thinks. We have found plenty of instances out of a small sample of him not doing a thorough enough job. –Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:27, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Isn't this the first formal discussion on it though? I mean, people complain when I speedy delete their hoax articles they created too. Should that be held against me? Not all complaints are legit. How much has the community weighed in on this, and there been a consensus stating he's in the wrong, yet he refused to change. If there is no such example, then I would think a "final warning" would be the strongest decision we should be implementing at this point. Sergecross73 msg me 14:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Anything about my reviewing from years is a battleground behavior as that is not relevant here and you do not know anything about that. There is no need hash anything from the past not to mention yourbheated tone at my TP. SwisterTwister talk 14:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually one of the prime (if not the *main* reason) for topic bans is a pattern of unconstructive behaviour over an extended period of time despite correction attempts. Were your reviewing issues only recent, it would be less of a problem. As it is clearly an ongoing issue, it is more serious. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay, so can you link me to some of these discussions where the community had a consensus that was against SS's edits then? Sergecross73 msg me 15:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support: When a page is marked as reviewed, it should've been reviewed. SwisterTwister does not actually review them, and I question their ability to review them all again in the future, especially when he marks as many as 500 a day. He refuses to constructively work through this, as seen from the fact that he has been receiving complaints for more than five years without changing his behavior. I have no doubt that tens of thousands of pages that should've been deleted during this time have gone without being deleted. –Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

So you have completely ignored my comments? 3/4/of what Review is actually quite simple, with taxonomic animals, train stations, villages, etc. SwisterTwister talk 14:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Ignoring the fact that you don't typically apply routine maintenance tags such as {{refimprove}} to those articles, a 25% miss rate is way too high. –Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• • Edit: I agree with BethNaught's post below this one. A complete ban on marking pages as reviewed would be best here, since the issue is with him doing that doing that inappropriately, resulting in too much damage. –Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support per Only in death, but prefer a complete ban on marking pages as reviewed, since SwisterTwister does not actually review them and continues not to after reasonable requests. This would of course not prevent them from tagging problems or nominating pages for deletion, which is also valuable work. BethNaught (talk) 14:27, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

That simy is too far especially considering my work at AfD and AfC, which shows I clearly know what can and cannot be accepted. SwisterTwister talk 14:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Your knowledge of standards is not my concern. My concern is that you are marking pages as reviewed without having reviewed them, despite many requests not to do so. Your IDHT with regard to this issue is only further evidence why a stronger, ungameable restriction is needed. BethNaught (talk) 15:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support, and support BethNaught's proposed absolute ban on marking pages as patrolled. NPP needs to be done correctly or not at all, and SwisterTwister's response to these concerns—threatening to leave if he can't have his way—shows he's more interested in doing things his way than listening to community feedback. A backlog is far less of a problem than inaccurate patrolling.  Rebbing  15:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. While I have also raised concerns about one or two incidents of SwisterTwister's reviewing in the past (simply not checking the history to see that the page was previously redirected from an AfD), I think a complete ban is going way overboard. They should consider this a proper warning to pay more attention to the articles they're reviewing, but I don't think completely removing their ability to patrol is the right move. Sam Walton (talk) 15:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • @Samwalton9: To clarify: The proposal above wouldn't ban SwisterTwister from patrolling: it just requires him to start from the end of the (very short) queue and to mark pages as patrolled only after he's actually patrolled them.  Rebbing  15:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
    • @Rebbing: Sorry, yes, indeed, I misread. Is this actually enforceable? Sam Walton (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
      • @Samwalton9: I don't see why not. –Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 21:36, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is too soon for a ban, it's going over the top and making an example of him. He should be warned to pay more attention and slow down when he is reviewing, but should not be completely banned from patrolling. Tom29739 ^[talk] 15:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC).
  • @Tom29739: Same as Rebbing's comment above. While several of us support more harsh measures, the initial proposal would simply require SwisterTwister to actually review the pages before marking them as reviewed. –Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
    • @Compassionate727: I agree with something like that, that's what WP:NPP is all about. I don't agree with User:SwisterTwister (or any user) being made an example of though. Tom29739 ^[talk] 16:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC).
• Support: Neutral on end-of-queue VS front-of-queue, but the part of actually taking an action (if the page isn't fine as-is) before marking the page as patrolled must happen. Given the complete lack of response to previous complaints, a formal restriction seems like the only way to go. Kolbasz (talk) 16:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I responded and also included that I was not interested with heated moments regardless if anyone ng , and yet they continued even with Compassionate727 reverting my archive attempts, regardless of whether he and wanted to continue the thread. Even with hisbapparent 25% "risk" rate, AI certainly pay attention to those. It's this type of "toss the baby with the bathwater" that makes people go from WP. SwisterTwister talk 16:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Can you please point out where you responded to this, for example? Kolbasz (talk) 16:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

If Compassionate727 is going to start hashing the past, any regular admin at NPP can assure you I've had nothing but solid work, including DGG and Sphilbrick, both of them surely know that I take WP and NPP seriously and is not a game to me, something I've been tiringly repeating. SwisterTwister talk 16:46, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Your were basically you saying "don't worry about it". This didn't satisfy me, and when I provided reasons why I wasn't, you blanked the section entirely instead of addressing them. Although you technically have the right to do that, I felt (and still feel) like you were just ignoring me and considered that rude. As far as the 25% risk rate was concerned, that was a weak response to a weak argument. Had I had more time, I would've elaborated more. If you remove those articles—which aren't 75% of the total articles, I'd say 30-40% are related to music or television—then you still have a highly volatile 25% that you do need to pay more attention to. On another note, you can't just simply mark those types of articles reviewed like you are doing. Just because they don't qualify for deletion doesn't mean you shouldn't do anything. If that were true, the page curation tool would've have ~35 different maintenance tags built into it. –Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support: actually, I support a total ban as per BethNaught. I have one of the diffs (#1) above that he was notified about and the article was then deleted after I unreviewed. As an active NPPer I daily encounter music artist and album articles, especially, that he has patrolled that are in total messes and doubtfully notable. A lesser restriction will not work IMO, based upon the negatively toned retorts in argument SwisterTwister is making in this section to follow every support !vote. I think he will definately not be hearing or intending to attempt to improve his work. The defensive stance has continued even though we are at ANI. Fylbecatulous talk 16:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: Upon examining SwisterTwister's AfC reviews, their judgment in that sector has been spot on, in the very least. So, the claim that they are not actually reviewing pages that are up for review is inaccurate. That being said, could they slow down, so everyone may have assurances that they are being diligent? Sure thing. But, taking formal action like this is a tad bit excessive, considering that they have shown to have some success with their reviews- and I refuse to negate that. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 17:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

  This is not about AfC, this is about New Page Patrol. BethNaught (talk) 17:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm aware, and as I said, they've shown to be capable with their user rights in several regards, though slowing down the pace is necessary and more prudent than simply stripping them of their tools and telling them they should just nominate articles for deletion. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 17:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Even if I assure people I will examine closely, let me guess honestly, someone will either not believe me or also rehash the past to deepen their own stances? I would not see how that's any more defensive than what I'm saying, but I like to think I'm certainly calmly talking. SwisterTwister talk 17:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, let's just assure people now and see where it goes? I mean, even at a bit slower rate, I have a feeling you will cover a lot of ground efficiently. But I suppose it's a concern about the effectiveness, rather than efficiency. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 17:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

@SwisterTwister: I don't believe you're being calm at all. Above, you threatened to retire if anyone supported restricting you to marking as patrolled only pages that you had patrolled, and I see you've indicated your impending retirement on your talk page as well—all because you're unwilling to accept reasonable criticism. When that criticism reached ANI after you played "I can't hear you!", you maligned it as "drama" and a "fight." In my opinion, that's an unreasonable way to respond to community concerns.  Rebbing  17:40 17:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support: considering ST's practice of not reviewing what he's reviewed, I believe that consequences are in order. I certainly appreciate his accurate reviews, but I think that his error rate is too high to justify letting him off scot-free. Taking into account the fact that he has ignored several editors' voices by attributing them to WP:BATTLEGROUND and the like (see his talk page for more examples), I do not believe that a warning would suffice for damage control or cause a change in behavior—instead of considering what he might be doing wrong, he puts on his rose-tinted glasses and looks what what parts he did right, even as that percentage is far too low. I thus support a total ban per BethNaught. Dschslava (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
• FWIW, I completely agree with Chrisw80's comment. SwisterTwister talk 19:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose as overkill. What I see is a good faith editor who reviews a lot of articles and takes WP:BITE seriously. Chrisw80 says it best, I think. Swister's method of marking an article as reviewed and then adding it to his watchlist to give the author a chance is well-intentioned, but not the best strategy. Swister has just said he agrees with Chrisw80. I think that is sufficient. --Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 19:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - I would much rather turn SwisterTwister's considerable energy into a force for good without such restrictions. I do think that it's important that he listen to the feedback from other experienced editors and take it to heart. There's a pretty wide latitude in how page patrollers patrol new articles, but someone who's approach is far from the norm needs to consider altering their approach.- MrX 19:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC

  ETA: Weak support for "they must resolve issues or tag them as appropriate at the time of patrolling." This is common sense, but let's remember there is large gray area of personal judgement as to whether an article should have cleanup tags or simply be reviewed as acceptable.- MrX 19:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose: I think the original proposal (not the outright ban some are discussing) was well thought out and attempts to recognize SwisterTwister's constributions - but I think it's too early for it yet. This is the first formal attempt (that I'm aware of) to resolve these matters with him. Honestly, I think this should probably have ended up at another venue first (WP:DR has a wide variety of options before it ends up here). While I agree that SwisterTwister should try to resolve disputes more productively and that his patrols should be handled differently (as outlined above), I don't think restrictions are called for at this time. With regard to his talk page, he is welcome to handle his talk page as he wishes (within reason) and reverting his archiving is quite uncivil at best. SwisterTwister has agreed above to slow things down and to change his style of patrolling in relation to our suggestions - in my mind that is sufficient for now to be moving forward with. If he does not keep his agreement, then we can/should have another discussion on the matter. I think, however, that he takes this seriously and will keep his word. Chrisw80 (talk) 20:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree almost completely with Chrisw80. I thank ST for the good work he has done, but also encourage him to learn from some of the feedback here.--Mojo Hand (talk) 22:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - This is a tempest in a teapot. People are not perfect, and it's logical that the person with the highest processing rate would also make a few more mistakes. As someone who has spent some time at NPP, we do not have anywhere near the amount of people on that that are needed... not sure why, as a few years ago there were many regular patrollers. In any case, if you want to keep pissing off a volunteer doing an immense amount of work here for free and making a few mistakes along the way than by all means, proceed. Personally I think it should be dropped. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 23:56, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • @The Master: All due respect, but this isn't only about him making mistakes: it's about him going through the queue and marking pages as patrolled when he hasn't done anything but watchlist them—literally hundreds of articles per day—for eventual follow-up at some undetermined time. This defeats the purpose of the new pages queue; if all we wanted from NPP was for the patrolled links to get clicked automatically, we would write a bot to take care of it.  Rebbing  00:22, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Well, I think he understands that now. I'm just not seeing the need for restrictions or making someone grovel. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 00:59, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I'm very appreciative of the work ST does, especially at sparsely attended AfDs but there are clear concerns that are being dismissed. I'm not sure a ban is the answer though. But ST must consider the concerns of their fellow editors...if 5 or 6 or a dozen editors are saying they have issues with your cursory and rapid reviews, it is in your own best interests as well as the project's to consider they might be correct on some matters. Honestly, I don't know how you edit as fast as you do, how that is technically possible. But I support the view that NPP is a crucial step in filtering out content and tagging problem and it should not be done rapidly. This isn't a race and, as in most things on Wikipedia, quality is more important than quantity. Bottom line, you need to slow down and reconsider your approach to patrolling because given the complaints, it needs to be improved. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Liz! I don't think that the clear concerns are being dismissed. I believe there is legitimacy to many of them, once we get past the civility issues - as others have noted, some folks are being downright rude. A lot of folks are saying they'd like SwisterTwister to be a bit more thorough in his reviews, and to not mark as patrolled until he's done that. He's acknowledged that and agreed (although a bit less directly than I would prefer). SwisterTwister, would you please make a direct declaration of how you would like to improve/change following this discussion? Chrisw80 (talk) 04:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, of course, I am willing to change my pace and better examine these articles, tagging them for attention if necessary before marking as patrolled. As for DGG's comment below, I am active at other areas which I can move to if needed. Anything to alleviate this thread's heat ? SwisterTwister talk 05:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - I don't agree with SwisterTwister all the time, but we do see eye-to-eye on many topics. I got to "meet" Swister through the AfD process, and I feel his contributions there are invaluable (again, while I don't always agree with them). I don't do a ton of work at NPP, but will say that his work on the old stuff is almost single-handledy the reason we don't have frigging thousands of articles in the queue. That being said, I understand the viewpoint where the initial "review" might be held off on, rather than adding it to a watchlist. One of the reasons I don't participate in NPP is that I look at the new articles in the queue, and hold off for the most part, from clicking the reviewed (patrolled) tab. Usually, by the time I go back, someone else has offered their viewpoint on it. I want Wikipedia to be the best it can be. I think there's a lot of crap on here which needs to be excised. I also feel that there are quite a few articles which need nurturing about notable subjects which are either currently mal-referenced, or are very promotional. Swister does an incredible job at AfD, AfC and NPP. Could he improve. Yup. So could we all. There are other editors/admins who have commented on this who I also don't agree with all of the time, but I always value their input, as I do Swister's. The fact that this drama may cause us to lose a valuable contributor is sad. I mean, you have folks calling his editing "stupid", and then feebly attempting to justify that. Can Swister be more judicious in his NPP activity? Absolutely. A position which he seems to acknowledge. Should there be any action taken against him? Nope. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:23, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose There are some problems, but this sort of remedy is altogether excessive.

First, the complain about the part of the queue being worked on is absurd: checking new articles can be done in various ways, and it is good to have people working on different parts of the queue. I sometimes also work on the newest ones, because there are advantages in catching problem articles while the editors are still here to look at the messages. Second, the complaint about not marking problems is I think also misguided. Again, people work in different ways. When I do it, I think of it primarily a sorting job, to divide the articles into those that should probably be kept, and those that should probably be removed in various ways. I'll mark key problems, especially if something is borderline, but I do not usually bother with details. There are many people who do work on the various details, such as categories, and that sort of work is an ideal entry point for new users, while experienced users are needed for is to spot things like hopelessly lacking notability. Third, in judging acceptability, we all use different interpretations, or there would be no need for AfD. People check each others work. Nobody can be completely correct here, for nobody can correctly foretell the consensus of the community.

The actual problems are the customary ones with enthusiastic patrollers: going too fast, doing NPP for too long a period, and trying to do too many types of articles -- and the 3 often go together, like here. The maximum rate I can patrol is about one per 2 minutes, though Iwill sometimes do bursts if I happen to run across a group that is obvious. But extended work at 2/minute is too fast to consider all the aspects for most submissions. I also fin that the longest time I can work at NPP (or related things such as AfC patrol or checking prods or speedies) is about 10 to 20 articles at a time. After that , I find the high percentage of junk encourages me to be much too demanding; it can also cause people to be insufficiently critical. And I do not usually work on articles in fields about which I know nothing ,unless I happen to see something utterly obvious; I learned this in my first year, when I made quite a few really absurd errors. People told me about them, and I learned my limits.

So all that is necessary here is a reminder for ST to vary the sort of work he does,and, in particular , to intersperse tagging and the like with looking at existing articles and improving them. I think he's a sensisble person, and what has been said here is more than sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 04:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

• • CommentI became aware of this thread because I was pinged above. Unfortunately, while I have run across SwisterTwister literally thousands of times, I haven't been active at NPP, so my positive reaction to ST's judgment regarding CSD nominations is not directly on point in this discussion. However, I am commenting here because I think DGG's advice is spot on, so I urge ST to take the advice on board. SwisterTwister does an enormous amount of work, and I want ST to continue.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - ST's work in NPP and AfDs are remarkable, not necessarily perfect, but remarkable. He's not new, but a long term editor. He'll understand if this has come to this point (in ANI) he has to review his strategies. I'm sure he will. But I think it has not gotten so grave so as to lock him up from NPP, no TBAN. Regards—UY Scuti ^Talk 06:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment. Having closed quite a few MFDs in which ST has participated, I agree with SmokeyJoe's characterization. I also remember a significant number of declined AFCs that had obvious, unfixable problems (e.g. Special:Undelete/Draft:Canacintra USA), which were either not spotted or significantly understated. I have no opinion on the proposal but I recommend ST slow down, and focus on accuracy as opposed to speed. Yes, there's lots of crap out there, but there are also more people who deal with it than you think. MER-C 07:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: I am dismayed at a lot of the argumentation here. Of the votes, as many seem to be based on character witness statements for and against as there are judging the actual behavior, and what should be discussion on the latter is often discussion on a completely different issue. Furthermore, a lot of people seem to have weighed in without reading the actual proposal - instead arguing for and against some kind of complete NPP ban. So to reiterate: the issue is marking pages as patrolled that have not been patrolled. If that is acceptable, then that flag serves no purpose and should be removed. And what is being proposed is, at the harshest, a ban on marking pages as patrolled. Not on NPP itself. Kolbasz (talk) 07:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose There are some problems, but this sort of remedy is altogether excessive. Pincrete (talk) 09:35, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose The point has been made - do not mark an article as reviewed unless it has in fact been reviewed. There is no need to saddle an experienced editor with formal restrictions like some newbie who does not know better particularly with the dearth of evidence presented here. Those who support sanctions need to show evidence that ST is letting significantly more proplematic articles through than any other editor who does NPP. Jbh^Talk 12:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - Talk about overkill!....., Instead of handing out restrictions or bans how about someone you know .... help the poor bugger?!....., Anyway I'm sure he'll walk away from this and hopefully would rethink and change some of his actions, As I said I personally think the restriction/ban is overkill. –Davey2010^Talk 13:18, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose any editor that does a lot of work is going to make some edits that others disagree with. No need to saddle a productive reviewer with restrictions. Legacypac (talk) 15:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support. SwisterTwister's contributions to AfD are consistently mass-produced and low-quality. It's not a serious problem there because they are easily ignored, but if the same emphasis on quantity over quality is happening at NPP where a single prolific patroller can effectively lock out everyone else by running through the new pages more quickly, then it needs to stop. And in any case the proposal is not asking ST to do anything different than any NPP review should be done. If ST is objecting even to such a request, that the NPP be done properly, then there is a bigger problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support remedial sanctions - It seems obvious to me that NPP is not something that should be approached like a video game. David Eppstein's concerns in the !vote just above are worthy of note. It appears ST needs to be dealt with here and now. I suggest a year ban from NPP, but am open to other suggestions. Doing nothing would be foolish, in my view. There is indeed a problem here. Jusdafax 21:10, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Discredited as an IP

Obvious sock is obvious. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello. I'm being prevented from participating in the discussion on this topic. The admin had banned my ip and protected the page. He says that I'm a banned user. Based on what? Here's the explanation 89.164.218.214 (talk) 01:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC) This would be User:Asdisis continuing the same behaviour they were banned for. HighInBC 01:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC) Again, based on what? I seriously doubt anyone was ever banned for such "behavior", as you are calling it.89.164.218.214 (talk) 01:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC) I have told you before. Your particular style of debate and your single motive here makes you obvious. You posted pretty much identical complaints at ANI several times in the past and every time you are obvious to people. The sub-page Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity was created because you and your various identities would not stop disrupting the primary talk page. HighInBC 01:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC) WP:SPI. I'm done with this report. Here are all my edits: All IP posts in this RfC. All IP posts in this discussion, where I had help an user with his misunderstanding and suggested how he should change his edit so it is accepted. I find my effort here very helpful. All IP posts in this discussion. This is the same discussion as above where I had helped an editor understand why his edit was reverted. All IP posts in this discussion, where I had pointed out an edit done against a standing consensus. My request was accepted. I guess that pointing to an edit done against the standing consensus, helping an user understand why his edit was rejected and opening a RfC in the most proper way are nowadays considered a "behavior". 89.164.179.41 (talk) 09:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC) Looking at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Asdisis/Archive, it seems certain to me that the complaining IP address here is indeed the indefinitely blocked and chronic sockpuppeteer, User:Asdisis. Nothing to see here, let's move along. --Yamla (talk) 13:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I've been bitten by a troll

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

---

Winkelvi has gone after me with this loathsome attack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.107.58.140 (talk) 04:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

@107.107.58.140: My advice to you would be to remove the message immediately. A good idea would be to email Administrators in this category to request them to remove the message from the public archives. I am not an administrator, however I am helping you solve the problem. Look mate, any queries regarding non-admin work, don't hesistate to talk to me on my talkpage :) --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 04:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

How is it you even know Winkelvi? It does sort of seem like you are using an IP instead of a regular account to criticize another editor. Without engaging in name calling myself it is far from a brave thing to do, and certainly a violation of our sock puppetry policy. HighInBC 04:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for inappropriate use of an alternate account. It seems clear from this edit that they are likely a user logged out of their account for the purposes of insulting another editor and evading scrutiny. I have made it a hard block so that their account will see an autoblock. As always I am open to review of this action. HighInBC 05:03, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

HighInBC - Awesome, thanks for doing that. Personally, I wouldn't resort to such language like that to anybody, but it's clear that the IP was in the wrong and was logging out of his/her account in order to criticize Winkelvi. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:26, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

@Oshwah: You also got me to thank XD. I was the one who first responded to the incident and told the IP what to do. I would think these comments are not at all tolerated. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 09:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

EurovisionNim - Indeed. Your comment was also very helpful. Thanks for doing that! :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

You are most welcome Oshwah :) --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 09:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Proposed ban for Supreme Genghis Khan

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

---

Supreme Genghis Khan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked indefinitely in March for VOA, and has been persistently socking since then (see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Supreme Genghis Khan and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Supreme Genghis Khan). Their persistent disruptive editing, which includes severe vandalism to articles, user and user talk pages, page blanking, image vandalism, harassment of and personal attacks on other users, abuse of warning templates, malicious page moves, removal of others' reports on them at WP:AIV, creation of hoax pages and pages that attack other users, obscene edit summaries and unblock requests, usernames that disparage other users and other misconduct, shows they are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. For that reason, I think they should be banned as a formality. Linguist 111^talk 18:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support Their behavior gets their sock accounts blocked almost on sight, but a formal ban will allow for WP:RBI of any other actions by this editor. clpo13_(talk) 18:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support, yeesh. --Yamla (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support, this is getting old. GAB^Hello! 19:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support as a formality. De facto banned anyway, but there are *some* benefits to making it formal. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 19:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support, formally. BethNaught (talk) 19:19, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
• Strong Support, as BethNaught said above. KGirlTrucker87 (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Banning sockmasters is a good idea, of course. Jusdafax 20:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support - This degree of sockpuppetry and disruption is beyond the pale. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:27, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:50, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support Their actions since the block have earned a ban. MarnetteD|Talk 21:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support, clearly. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:59, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support Stop. Banhammer time. Quite an obvious one as their actions warrant it. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:20, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support - As formality. SNOW anyone? -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 22:26, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
• Strong Support - This user causes constant and blatant disruption using multiple sock puppets. I've been reporting and having them blocked constantly. I'm surprised that this person isn't banned already. Supporting to formalize the ban process, and make any process easier when it comes to quickly reverting disruption caused by the user. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
• This proposal is not only unneeded but counter-productive. Nothing will change technically, as all new accounts are already locked on sight, in addition to local blocks. At the same time, it gives the person even more attention through discussions like these and inclusion of their name on more lists. They have demonstrated an understanding of how wiki processes work, no need to give them further validation. WP:DFTT is good reading for cases like this. Ajraddatz (talk) 00:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support as warranted, and both needed and productive pace the above commenter. BMK (talk) 02:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
• Strong Support Please ban ASAP. This user is so disruptive. Just ban him so we can do RBI. TheCoffeeAddict talk|contribs 03:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support Given all of the trouble this user has seen to have caused I don't see why we shouldn't ban them. Feinoha ^Talk 03:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support - I'm tempted to argue that WP:SNOW applies in that we should just go on ahead and consider him banned. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:48, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

• While this has very little chance of failing the banning policy does require a minimum of 24 hours discussion. People have been known to claim their bans were not "legit" because they were closed early. HighInBC 05:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I know, hence "tempted to" instead of actually arguing. I don't imagine any real opposition so much as concerns over whether or not we're wasting time or giving him too much attention, yadda yadda. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

• Strong Support - If he is seriously considering evading his blocks and also using sockpuppets, then he definitely deserves a site ban. Looking by the edits and behaviours on the articles, I am surprised that the user has not been banned --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 04:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Although I can't see how this would change things technically, given his behavior I think we ought to do it as a formality. Passengerpigeon (talk) 09:03, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: That sock with a single edit tried to remove that ban proposal but now quickly blocked, and locked. AHA! That user is very unpromising and super disruptive. KGirlTrucker87 (talk) 14:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Month-old AfD requires closure

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

---

Can an uninvolved admin please close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skin-walker, which has been open for 1+ month, as other admins are clearly unwilling to, perhaps due to the controversial nature of the nomination. If kept, the article also needs to be moved to skinwalker, as that's the WP:COMMONNAME but there's a redirect with two revisions in the way. Yet another example of the upcoming WP:page mover userright being useful... Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 13:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Satellizer - This request is probably best handled on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure, rather than here. It's a more relevant noticeboard for your particular request (closure of a discussion), and it will be looked at by administrators who are looking or willing to perform closures that are needed :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I will close it. HighInBC 14:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Cool, well there ya go then :-)! Thanks, HighInBC, for doing that. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:32, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Done. Now I just sit back and wait for someone to tell me I did it wrong. HighInBC 14:48, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

HA! It's so funny, but so true at times :-). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:10, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Grayfell

The following discussion is closed. 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 asking for assistance in dealing with User:Grayfell ♝. This user appears to be overly-aggressive, and is making unfounded nominations for speedy deletion on a page I created. They have made accusations in an almost bullying manner to justify their action, even though the support for my page's existence, including news reports, is substantial while the user has provided no real reason why the page should be deleted. From what I can see on this persons talk page, aggressive communication is a fairly frequent occurrence. Request for administrative assistance. WalkOn75 (talk) 23:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Please note that there is an SPI open here. GAB^Hello! 23:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AnimationWhiz133, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Flood (animator), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Flood (filmmaker), Draft:Mark Flood (filmmaker), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Flood Animations, etc. Grayfell (talk) 23:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I am acknowledging the open SPI case listed here, and I don't see any action required as of right now (pending the closure of the SPI cases). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

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

64.114.204.66

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

---

Hi,

WP:AIV is currently protected so reports can't be added by non-registered users. With that said, can an admin please block this school IP? 64.114.204.66 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) They were previously blocked for 3 months. Thanks! 198.236.17.79 (talk) 15:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I requested it at AIV for you. -- ferret (talk) 15:50, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. 198.236.17.79 (talk) 15:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Edit summary

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

---

I am not sure whether this is the correct noticeboard for placing such a request, but can someone please redact the edit summary for this diff? It's an obvious griefing attempt by a bored anon. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 00:39, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Revision deletion requests should be emailed to the oversight team at Wikipedia:Oversight. However, looking at the edit summary for the edit you listed here, I don't see an obvious need to recommend that it be revision deleted. Unless I am missing something? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:42, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Just a quick correction. Requests should only be sent to the oversight team if they qualify for oversight (hidden from all but the oversight team). Requests for just revision deletion (only viewable by admins) should be requested through the means listed here. Mike V • Talk 15:12, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I think he's upset about the spoiler I guess? --Tarage (talk) 00:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

@EauZenCashHaveIt: Were you talking about the summaries over at Robert Sean Leonard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? Cuz that's where I see problems. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 00:51, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

@Oshwah:, it's an aggressive revelation of the death of a key character that belongs only in character description and plot summary. As I said before, this is done purely for trolling purposes. @The Voidwalker:, those are concerning as well, but I did mean the unwarranted spoiler. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 08:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

EauZenCashHaveIt - This edit summary does not warrant the need for the use of revision deletion. See the criteria for redaction -- Per the revision deletion guidelines, this edit summary does not appear to fit into any of the requirements listed. Edit summaries made for the purpose of trolling occurs all the time on Wikipedia, and revealing a spoiler to a TV show is not an edit summary that warrants revision deletion. I do not believe that this edit summary requires redaction per the rev del policy. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

There is no rule against spoilers. It's practically the opposite. This is harmless. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, otherwise every TV series/Film article would be stuffed. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I know Bruce Willis was a ghost. I learned about that here. It saved me the trouble of watching the move. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh no. I expect spoilers in articles, so I don;t read them, but at ANI? I was just about to watch that movie, but now I won't be able to. (j/k)--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Christian blogosphere

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

---

Hi, I am sorry to have to come back here again with the same issue, but I have just had Christian blogosphere speedily deleted under WP:A7 by Bbb23. I would like to request review by an uninvolved admin.

I contested the tagging which was done by a different user. I believe the article after my last edit prior to deletion was sufficient to make a credible claim of significance and so I feel the deletion was a breach of policy. Here are three specific reasons:

• (1) I referenced a number of examples of Christian blogging in the article, including its use in debate, and hence it is evident from the article that there is a definite Christian section of the blogosphere that is likely to be notable in itself. Therefore point 6 in WP:A7 applies: 6.Any statement which plausibly indicates that additional research (possibly offline, possibly in specialized sources) has a reasonable chance of demonstrating notability is a claim of significance..
• (2) In contesting the nomination on the talk page, I mentioned the Jewish blogosphere. The Jewish community is far smaller than the Christian one, similarly their related blogospheres. Whilst size alone doesn't necessarily imply notability, it suggests a strong likelihood of being notable.
• (3) Anyone with a basic knowledge of Christianity and the internet will be aware that there is a large community of Christian bloggers. I can't see how it is reasonable to speedy delete an article on the Christian blogosphere.

From what I've gathered, it does appear that WP:A7 is overused and this gives editors like me a very negative experience on Wikipedia. Speedy deletion bypasses the normal AfD discussions and also prevents the community from working on articles. I would respectfully suggest that some change is needed as the current policy is not serving the interests of the project.SmilingFace (talk) 15:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I disagree that A7 is generally overused. Speedy deletion is supposed to bypass AFD, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an appropriate deletion argument.In this case, I don't think this article qualifies for A7 because {{db-web}} is supposed to be used about a particular site or piece of work. Your article is mainly original research and synthesis, and I do not believe it would survive AFD. You can recreate it and take your chances, though, or I will userfy it for you so you can work on it some more. Katie^talk 16:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I suspect that it is a notable topic but the deleted article didn't make a credible case for it. Even in its final form it consisted only of links to individual Christian blogs. What would have been needed are sources about Christian blogging that are not themselves blogs. So I think the A7 was an ok decision. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I was going to suggest that the article be userfied as well, and I think with a little work and solid referencing, it would survive an AFD. I found these sources easily - Southern California university hosts U.S.' first `God blogging' conference (HighBeam Research) and Chapter 6 of this book (Online Community, Online Utilization: The Christian Blog). No opinion on the use of A7.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

• I'm going to start of by stating that last time you were here, you were pointed to WP:REFUND, as well as to discuss with the deleting admin before you get here. Might I remind you that ANI is not supposed to be the first resort? Now, since you are obviously having difficulty with the inclusion criteria, I will suggest that you create new articles in your sandbox/userspace, and only move it out when you are confident that it will survive. You can also submit it through WP:AFCP so that it can be reviewed by an experienced community member first. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 16:54, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I would also consider it a notable topic, but agree it should probably be done in sandbox space. Given the number of Christian bloggers, there should be many reliable sources available through the news and books. SmilingFace, try searching Google News and Google Books. (Somebody wrote a whole long book about the influence of religion in the Twilight series. There is sure to be somebody writing about religion as it applies in the real blogospere.) White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 19:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
• I do not consider that A7 even applies: this is not really one of the types of subjects intended by the criterion "web content". It is rather a type of content, and the impossibility of accurately predicting that there is no likely importance for such subjects is evident from the discussion above. Like others above , I think it probably notable, and I also think it made a clear claim to significance, which is much less than notability. The ed. who placed the speedy was certainly justified in considering the state of the article at the time too incomplete to survive, and the error in considering it "web content" is perhaps ambiguous for such an incomplete article; but at the time it was deleted, there were what appeared to be possibly acceptable sources, and the very experienced admin seems to have made one of their very rare errors -- which I consider perfectly excusable, as every active admin working with new pages, myself most certainly included, makes a few percent of errors--this is not an area where perfection can be expected. As has been pointed out above, the usual and proper response to such errors is to first ask the deleting admin to reconsider, and in case there is no response or the response is unsatisfactory, to take it to WP:Deletion Review -- not here. But our rules are so complicated that relatively new users can get confused and frustrated, even after the proper procedureis explained to them, which is why we have the principle of WP:IAR.

It would be possible to restore to article space, but Ido not think it desirable, for an AfD discussion would quite possibly decide that the sourcing is insufficiently reliable. The best course is indeed to put it in Draft space, and source it as White Arabian Filly suggests. In the spirit of IAR, I have just done so: the article draft is at Draft:Christian blogosphere DGG ( talk ) 23:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

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

AonoTsukune95 / DawgDeputy

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

---

• AonoTsukune95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• DawgDeputy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There appears to be an ongoing dispute between these two editors regarding content in general. What got my attention was this edit made here [52] which promted me to warn the user about the edit. AonoTsukune95 has responded on my talkpage, but I am concerned about the tone struck in his/her replies with things like "I CAN 100% ENSURE YOU that I WILL AND NEVER DO TRASH EDIT", and "THIS CAN GO ON FOREVER IF he do not be more understanding and he call himself a senior editor/wiki editor. cannot even recognise good edits and shit edits". [53] This comes after I responded that he/she should wait for a reply from the editor they had the dispute with before losing their cool. Any input would be helpful, hopefully this wont be ongoing going forward. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:57, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the contributions there appears to be more of a longer running heated dispute than I had originally realized. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

You're spot on , AonoTskukune95's edit summaries show shouting, and general ill-mannered comments directed towards other editors . KoshVorlon ..Doves cried 04/21/2016 15:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I feel the issue is a lack of communication hindered by a possible language barrier. The bothersome thing is that Aono doesn't appear to own up to any wrongdoing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Sigh, another shouty angry anime/manga superfan. Throw a rock and bounce it off the heads of 5 before it drops. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

The conduct of AonoTsukune95 is terrible and he should come attempt to explain himself. Plus he's edit warring on Strike the Blood, for which he just received my 3RR warning. Katie^talk 16:09, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

AonoTsukune95's talk page edits read like a trainwreck. This needs to stop now. --Tarage (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

firstly i do keep to my stand that i did nothing wrong. i am sick of terrible edits by others. i keep do the best i can and others keep make it worst. how can i be not sick?? trainwreck?? oh? sure..as you are to judge someone. i am here to say this only, i only get annoy when someone does this kind of edits. i do realise that perhaps my tone of clarification was rude and after thinking about it i should apologize. But i will never stand for any bad edits. call me what you want. it takes one to say another. But i am well aware of my weaknesses. If my work for wiki edits is that bad compare to tons of others trash edits i see then good job. this community is 'improving'. i may be an angry superfan or whatever like describe as above but i never do rubbish edits. very disappointed with this community and to those who judge me above all i can say 'job well done'. You are the best and i am the worst. No matter what i do for the wiki page and so i will never be appreciated and the credit goes to trash editors and people who judge a book by its cover. I have nothing to say anymore as i cannot believe how terrible here is. Well, i am not in a position to say anything either but generally i can say millions of trash page editors are out there that edit the way they like it and end up looking like a fool. and guess what when i do good edits? i never get a compliment. well yeah this is a page. but then 'someone' does a 'genius' edit to my edit and mess up the whole shit. JOB WELL DONE guys :) credit to all of you. well done. i am the wrongdoer here so i am not even shocked if any of you guys EVER get what i am trying to say.

to all those that commented on me above. well done. you are the great one. i do believe whatever i edit is of good or at least acceptable standard. if you guys have the time to judge me then do me a favor by taking a look into the millions'billons of rubbish edits made by others. ALL i did was get angry when my decent edits were remove and THOSE THAT MAKE 'fantastic' edits were remain . is it a joke or is it a conspiracy? well i do not know and i do not even wish to know

i end my explanation with a apology to dawg for my tone. since he is so 'understanding' on 'great' edits i wish him the best. continue on leaving out 'fantastic' edits made by others and removing mine. and that goes for others. you can say anything you want but i will stick to my stand. i will not tolerate rubbish edits. and whatever i edit i make it the best if possible. and i do have the right to undo whatever edit i made myself as the information was provided by me. if i did not provide it that info would not even exist. Provided by me and i cannot remove it?? WHAT A GOOD JOKE. that shows the community is how 'great'

i just remove all my edits i ever made for strike the blood regarding yukina. EVERYTHING i provided i removed it. now you can see the difference and what i provided. since i cannot EVEN HAVE THE RIGHT TO remove what i did so i have to take drastic action and remove all. so now it is almost back to where it originally was before i provided it more information. and as now i will remove all edits on that page. that informations was provided by me and i do believe i have the top right to remove it since i cannot reduce the information i provide then i decide to totally remove it.

suit you guys. i provided info for greater good and this happens. so ok i remove all on that page done by me. i will not touch others but only mine. so go and see what i provided and how 'good' it was before i added in. CANNOT BELIEVE THAT I DO NOT EBEN HAVE THE RIGHT TO reduce the info I PROVIDED. good joke. i cannot change my own information. i provided it and when i want to reduce the infos provided by me i get undo by others. what a joke. so i remove all. so now nothing on the page is mine. but if i do find out anyone who takes what i edited and put it as they themselve edited THEN i will undo it as i would not stand others taking my information for their own credit.

look this way..i do not have the right to reduce the info i provide WHEN THE FACT IS THE INFO COMES FROM ME. who is right?? you editors tell me. my info and i cannot reduce it? what is this ? job well done guys. well done all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AonoTsukune95 (talk • contribs) 08:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Tantrum and toys being thrown out of the pram aside, the only thing that belongs to you is copyright of the material you add to the article. However, whenever you hit the save page button you have released your contribution per the CC BY-SA 3.0 License. You are certainly free to remove your contribution, however, other editors are similarly free to revert your removal as they are free to copy, distribute, adapt and transmit your work. The link in the history page is sufficient attribution, per your agreement when you hit the save button. Feel free to remove your contributions, but be warned that other editors can and perhaps will revert your removal if the material is, in their eyes, good enough for inclusion. If you edit war with editors over this, be similarly prepared to be blocked. Blackmane (talk) 11:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Just for the record, despite being warned by @KrakatoaKatie: [54] for edit warring Aono went and undid the same content with this edit here: [55]. Aono please read WP:LISTEN, other editors are saying your edits are not okay so you need to discuss not click "save" or throw out a tantrum. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:11, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours for edit warring. I hope the block lets him settle down and get over his ownership issues. Katie^talk 14:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I hope so as well, a read up on some of Wikipedia's guidelines might help. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

AonoTsukune95 continues to engage in personal attacks

I suggest folks take a look at his talk page. His response to being banned was not optimal. --Tarage (talk) 18:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Someone's clearly WP:NOTHERE. If that block was indef'd it wouldn't be a loss for the project. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

So indef block per WP:NOTHERE? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:18, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I think so, but I don't think it should be me. Katie^talk 20:30, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, would an uninvolved admin then take a look at this user's conduct? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:54, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Look, I asked @AonoTsukune95: to stop making personal attacks on @Oshwah:. I tried my best to tell @AonoTsukune95: to stop harassing or placing personal attacks on other users. I think the best plan is to place an indef block on @AonoTsukune95: per WP:NOTHERE. If we don't do one, then we will still have him placing personal attacks on other users. Also revoke his talkpage access to prevent further attacks to other users. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 07:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I really hope an admin looks into this, he/she hasn't made any edits but personal attacks towards others since the block expired. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Just for the record the diffs are here: [56] [57][58] three days of insults/attacks. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Continued edit warring and disruptive editing on the subject of Scotland

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

---

Pablothepenguin (talk · contribs) is currently on a crusade against Scotland being listed as part of Great Britain on Coverage of Google Street View. This has gone on for 10 days now, despite a 48-hour block for edit warring. Since the block, he has:

• Started 3 different threads ([59], [60], [61]) on the subject on 2 different pages, despite clear unanimous opposition to his proposed change.
• Continued inserting the challenged edit under the false pretense of "repair" ([62]).
• Twice hatted a comment by User:RGloucester that he did not like, stating that it is "Unionist drivel" and "Unnecessary content" ([63], [64]).
• Edit warring to keep his hatnote ([65]).

He is now "demanding Scottish recognition" and apparently won't stop until he gets his way. Note that he has been calling out RGloucester over the issue of Scottish nationalism since november 2014, so this is not just a recent issue. Perhaps a topic ban is in order, or a longer block.--Atlan (talk) 14:27, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked for continued edit warring on Coverage of Google Street View. We can entertain a topic ban, but I would like for it to be proposed and discussed here; various options come to mind but I want to leave that to the community. Drmies (talk) 17:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Reading the user's unblock request here: [66], I'm leaning to believe that a topic ban might be needed. This is a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality I feel, and it might be best to nip this in the bud. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
• I closed the last RfC. If anyone thinks it's a viable and relevant discussion and should remain open, please feel free to undo that close. Drmies (talk) 17:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Great Britain is an island. Scotland is part of that island, until or if they decide to dig a canal all along their border with England. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Last time I checked, Scotland is politically within the United Kingdom & geographically a part of Great Britain. GoodDay (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

There is a weird understanding of geography going on here. Great Britain is not "an island", and neither is Great Britain a geographical definition. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Great Britain is the name given to the largest island in the United Kingdom, actually. (You may be thinking about the "British Isles".) — foxj 02:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I was intending to qualify my statement by adding "In the context of this discussion". For example, the Hebrides, or Isle of Skye, or Orkney, or the Isle of Man - they are all not part of an island called "Great Britain" - yet they presumably are all on, or partly on, or will be on at some time, Google Street view. All those islands are part of the British Isles. Thus, large parts of Scotland are not part of Great Britain if you are using that name to refer to an island. If you are using Great Britain to refer to a political entity, as in "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", then those islands are part of Great Britain. Given the confusion over the term Great Britain, and that its meaning varies according to the context of its usage, and that Wikipedia is meant to be functionally helpful, follow common usage of names, and not blindly follow political dogma, there are reasons why the issues brought up by Pablothepenguin are worthy of consideration, not rough dismissal. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

The description actually used on 'street view' is 'United Kingdom', one of the standard 'commonnames' for The UK of GB and NI. Therefore precise definitions of GB are irrelevant, although GB (also 'Britain') sometimes refers geographically to the 'easterly island/s', sometimes to the whole political entity. Anyone needing clarification of what UK is, need only follow the link. Pincrete (talk) 09:18, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Topic Ban Proposal

Since no one else has bothered so far - I am proposing a 6 month topic ban from the topics of Scotland & Great Britain/United Kingdom broadly construed. A quick look back at their editing history shows the Pro-Scottish independance view has caused their editing to be disruptive on more than one occasion. This MFD was a result of a series of edits annoying the ref desks. A pattern of editing that has resurfaced with his pointless arguments at the Google streetview page and the village pump. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Support as proposer. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Support topic ban. I was working on a proposal myself, but couldn't quite figure out how narrow/broad the topic ban should be. Perhaps this is too broad? I support a ban, but would like to change 6 month topic ban to an indefinite topic ban that can be appealed no sooner than after 6 months.--Atlan (talk) 12:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

There probably is a more narrow definition that *could* fit, but it would cause more headaches down the line for enforcement requests. From the edits made, someone who complains that Scotland are not listed as a separate country on a google streetview article clearly is willing to take nationalistic editing anywhere. Since the root cause is Scotland (and its inclusion/exclusion as part of the UK), thats the relevant problem topic area. Since that is actually only a small part of their editing, it should not restrict them elsewhere. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Easy call. Clear battleground behaviour. --Cavarrone 12:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support per inability to WP:LISTEN. TimothyJosephWood 12:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support Based on past history and the unblock request that shows the user's battleground mentality. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support, the right remedy for a WP:BATTLE editor we still have hope might contribute productively in other areas. Zad68 12:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose As stated at the outset, the editor has had a 48-hour block for edit warring. There are no examples presented showing Pablothepenguin edit warring since then. The recommended way to avoid edit warring is to discuss, and if discussion is fruitless to RfC - yet all of the above editors are actually proposing topic banning Pablothepenguin for doing exactly that, using article talk pages to discuss the issue and then to RfC the issue. And they are using non-arguments and non-evidence to support it. "Clear battleground behavior" - well if that is true give the diffs showing the " battleground behavior". "Inability to [[WP:LISTEN]"] - if that is true give diffs showing this. These diffs of course have not to be offenses already punished by the 48-hour block. Pablothepenguin is not the most eloquent at presenting a structured argument, especially when faced with and responding to deliberately crudely offensive political comments by RGloucester (a person who would probably still be using the phrase "North Britain" in everyday life if he could get away with it), but there is nothing there to support a topic ban as grossly wide or as long running as that demanded by the above. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • The ban proposal seeks to address the disruptive behavior in the Scotland topic area, not necessarily edit warring. I think I have provided a reasonable, diff-supported rationale for this. Also, you seem to suggest RGloucester has goaded Pablo. From their 3 interactions over the years that I can find on the subject, I disagree. Lastly, the only one that is "demanding" anything here, rather than suggesting, is Pablothepenguin.--Atlan (talk) 15:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

On a number of occasions he (RGloucester) has brought up ethnicity (his own) to suggest that means his opinion matters more [67], [68], and called the RfC "political nonsense", all of which seems to be intentionally personalizing the dispute. He has also made factually incorrect statements like "Scotland has no such status, and is self-governed at the will of Westminster, not because of constitutional guarantees" that seem designed to be deliberately derogatory and demeaning in order to goad Pablothepenguin. Pablothepenguin then predictably enough rises to the occasion and further personalizes things by attacking RGloucester, as he does in his "Unionist drivel" comment made in response to one of RGloucester's "I was born there" comments. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• To save others the trouble, seems Tiptoethrutheminefield have themselves been banned four times. So grains of salt may be in order. TimothyJosephWood 15:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

If that marks the typical level of your contributions, your supposed "support" is worthless. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:59, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Eh, I mostly stick around here to pick up new projects. If it matters, I've been following this thread since it was posted, just didn't have anything to say. TimothyJosephWood 22:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support – suggest from banning him/her for 48 hours to 1 week, and there is a policy about banning, though. 333-blue 14:35, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not really sure you are supporting the topic ban as it is proposed here.--Atlan (talk) 15:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support Clear inability to listen or dropthestick where this issue is concerned. I'm afraid that anyone who imagines the dignity and status of Scotland will be enhanced by being accorded seperate status on a 'street view' list, is living in a different universe from the rest of us. Even if this were not the case, WP purpose is neither to add or detract from Scotland's status. Pincrete (talk) 09:28, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment. Above, there is one reasoned Oppose, seven reasoned Supports, and one support that seems imperfectly aware of what the proposal is. I plan to close this discussion and institute the topic ban as proposed (six months, broadly construed) in another day, unless some compelling new arguments have changed the situation by then. That's not to prevent another uninvolved experienced editor from closing earlier, but three days seems about right to me. Bishonen | talk 10:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC).
  • I agree with your assessment, and support the topic ban. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
    • I've tried to figure out a narrower ban, as obviously nobody wants to prevent edits like this or this, but Only in death makes a good point above: "From the edits made, someone who complains that Scotland is not listed as a separate country on a google streetview article clearly is willing to take nationalistic editing anywhere." Well, yes, I found an illustration of this here, at Talk:2015–16 UK and Ireland windstorm season: Pablo can't resist mentioning in passing that "subject to the whim of myself and the people of Scotland, the 5.3 million strong country is expected to renounce its subordinance to the United Kingdom and become Independent". So I believe the ban needs to be Scotland and Great Britain/United Kingdom, broadly construed. I hope we can simply turn a blind eye to genuinely innocent edits and not play gotcha. Bishonen | talk 08:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC).
    • OTOH, playing gotcha is very popular in relation to topic bans, so I'm wording the ban as being specifically for Scotland in relation to Great Britain/United Kingdom, broadly construed. I believe it's clear that way, and that this kind of editing is what the people above wanted to stop. The "broadly construed" should prevent any gaming. Bishonen | talk 10:10, 2 May 2016 (UTC).

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

Conflict between myself and WilliamJE

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

---

Hi, AN/I. I've been in conflict with another user, and I'm rather afraid that I've seriously lost my temper. Anyone examining my recent edit history will find quite a number of breaches of WP:CIVIL, and I'll accept any knocks I've got coming for that. My only defence is that in ten years on-wiki this is the first time I've done it. I have a very long history of editing in conflict-rich areas without losing my rag, but this has finally done it. As well as examining my own behaviour, I'd also be grateful if AN/I could determine whether (as I maintain) WilliamJE is on a MOS-related crusade that is causing needless conflict, and give him advice on the number of reverts it's appropriate to make in a 24-hour period.—S Marshall T/C 23:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

S Marshall, in 10 years you've never had an outburst, and then that happened. Is there something else happening in your life right now that may be causing stress? Because, I just don't see how that issue escalated so quickly for you. WilliamJE's first removal of content was a bold edit, not a revert. The material he removed has existed for years. Calling it a revert would be calling every edit that changes or removes content a revert. If that were the case, only edits that add material could be defined as not-reverts. It seems to me, that WilliamJE is at 3 reverts. And your threat to wait 3 days and then make your change does look a lot like gaming the system. I just don't see any way in this that you come out looking well. I hope my outside opinion helps.--v/r - TP 23:22, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I have been looking at the Compulsory purchase in England and Wales article and I am a little mystified as to why S Marshall has self reported. I can see several prophanities (which I dislike but they are certainly not actionable). Am I missing something here. S Marshall, can I rather bizarrely remind you that postings here are supposed to be supported by diffs. Where have you violated WP:Civility? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrChrissy (talk • contribs) 23:42, 28 April 2016‎ DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• S Marshall has, on infrequent occasion, fallen through cantankery into outburst at another who has irked him. It is not terribly out of character, but a particular characteristic of a usually thoughtful and kind person who swims in difficult places. He has not lost his temper, but instead caught himself. If William can ride above this, and carry on, and all parties try to maintain civility, then all is well.

On WilliamJE, since this is a backhand request to investigate him... True, anyone connected with the MOS should be viewed with suspicion. I also note that I dislike his recent signature, I think it is a clever reference to something, but too clever for me. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• TParis is referring to another recent incident in which I lost my temper but without, I feel, breaching WP:CIVIL. From my point of view, the circumstances in that case were:- (1) An editor had removed a paragraph from child grooming about the motives of sexual predators. This paragraph was easily verifiable and anyone could have verified it with a thirty-second search on google, but it did not actually have an inline reference at the time. It was also an important part of the meaning of the article. (2) I was pinged. I came to the article talk page and posted a source for the paragraph. (3) A different editor started a conversation on WP:V about whether to adapt WP:BURDEN to stop this happening again. Editors concerned about child protection felt that WP:BURDEN should be modified to require editors to take some responsibility for their removals and to say that finding sources is everyone's job. (4) Others including TParis felt that WP:BURDEN should empower anyone to remove anything they disagreed with if it didn't have an inline reference to a source. (5) The consensus having gone with TParis' side of the argument, I collapsed the discussion with an abrupt note. I think TParis was wrong, and I think this decision was important and the outcome was detrimental to the encyclopaedia. I still hope he will reconsider and I don't think Wikipedia takes child protection anywhere near importantly enough. The crucial differences are (a) that I was able to maintain a sense of perspective and converse with TParis civilly on my talk page immediately afterwards, and (b) child protection is a bit more important than removing redlinks, so some heated debate about it is to be expected.

  In the more recent case none of these things were true. An editor came to an article I had started, and therefore watchlisted (because creating content on Wikipedia means you're sentenced to defend it for life). He removed a cluster of redlinks. Nobody disagrees that these redlinks are appropriate and justified for the article; the problem is that they did not comply with the manual of style because they appear in the "see also" section. I reverted, and we went back and forth, him removing the same content four times in succession. I left it after the third revert and went to the edit-warring noticeboard, where Ymblanter responded by protecting the page.

  The outcome is of course going to be that I put the appropriate and necessary redlinks back in, because it's a cinch that WilliamJE isn't going to, but I have to do so above the "See also" section of the article. This kind of thing has always made my blood boil and I started spitting profanities.

  In response to TParis' question, no, there's nothing difficult going on in my life at all; I'm a boringly domestic man with a stable home life, a supportive wife and adult son, I'm in stable gainful employment which is not more than usually stressful, and everyone I know is healthy. It's editor behaviour making me see red.—S Marshall T/C 11:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

  • I'll address a few things.
    • S Marshall still can't file a proper ANI with differentials to back up his claims
    • He's claimed the redlinks are important but has yet to say why.
    • S Marshall falsely claims 'Nobody disagrees that these redlinks are appropriate'. He forgets this edit[69] and this one[[70]] not done by me.
    • The issue of an editor putting redlinks into law articles was discussed last December. Click here[71] and here[72]. That editor was told to stop doing so. Just in case I'll ping the two administrators, Ed Johnston (talk · contribs) and Sphilbrick (talk · contribs) after I finish this post. S_Marshall was told about this discussion by me on his talk page[73]. His response to that and what WP:Seealso says about redlinks- Don't care[74].
    • S_Marshall yet again insinuates that he is going to put the links back into the article but in another section when T Paris that might be considered gaming the system. In fact he has done that already at another article just yesterday. Click here[75] and here[76].
    • SmokeyJoe (talk · contribs) My signature refers to a saying my late maternal grandfather used to use all the time. "The complaint department is on the roof."
      • I never met my maternal grandfather, but the saying is slightly familiar to me, but I can't source it. I think the version I heard didn't involve a roof, but some other place elsewhere. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
  • The consensus is no redlinks in see also sections. It is up to S Marshall or any other editor who disagrees to get the community to change their mind....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Could you clarify this for me please, WilliamJE? Are you saying that the redlinks you removed from Compulsory purchase in England and Wales should not appear anywhere in the article?—S Marshall T/C 12:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
• As I was involved in a couple of edits, I will just say just a few things:
  

1) S Marshall may have gotten a little cranky, but there is no reason for any action to be taken here. He clearly wants to improve the project, and nothing he said or did warrants sanction.

2) We do have a Manual of Style for a reason, and while exceptions can and should be made, there should be a reason for those exceptions.

3) As for the redlinks, they should not be indiscriminately removed. They just don't belong in a "see also" section, as there is nothing to see. Putting them in the body of the article is less problematic, but the person who inserts them should consider starting the article themselves. If they are unwilling, then they should not do it.

Scr★pIron^IV 12:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• Just with reference to your point #3:- You say redlinks shouldn't be indiscriminately removed but don't belong in a see also section. Would you agree with me, then, that an editor removing redlinks from a see also section should put them back in in another section before moving on? Or do you feel it's more appropriate behaviour for WilliamJE to bring the article into compliance with the manual of style and then leave the content creators to do the cleanup?—S Marshall T/C 12:56, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I would not agree with that. If the article is redlinked and is not mentioned in the body of the article, then its relationship to the article's subject is unknown. The editor who wished to add the link to the article would be the one who knows why they added it, and it should be incumbent upon them to refactor the article if they wish it to be retained. But that is just my opinion. Thank goodness for seeking consensus Scr★pIron^IV 13:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

What a fascinating thread. I've seen plenty of people accidentally shoot themselves in the foot before on this page. I don't think I've seen anyone deliberately try to shoot themselves in the foot and manage to miss. Anyway, there seems to be a consensus that no admin action is required - I suggest the discussion about redlinks continues elsewhere. WaggersTALK 13:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• In terms of admin action, it would be nice if the article could be unprotected to enable me to do all the work WilliamJE's edits have caused me?—S Marshall T/C 15:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Disruptive WP:SPA account edit warring against consensus

The following discussion is closed. 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 account Dijhndis's whole WP activity consists of WP:OWNing and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS Scandinavia to non-English usage. This isn't the place for the content dispute, but in one sentence: reliable sources in English sometimes include five countries, sometime three, in Scandinavia; there is not one English usage. This has been amicably discussed for a month on the talk page, with a broad consensus to say "In the Nordic languages, Scandinavia refers to the three kingdoms of Sweden, Norway, and Denmark; however, in English, the term sometimes includes Finland and Iceland. ". However, Dijhndis is adamant that this is just "confusion among foreigners" [77], "inaccurate usage among some foreign sources" [78], " fringe minority of foreign sources" [79]. As the user imposes its own version against talk page consensus through edit warring [80], [81] and insistence of following Danish usage over English ("foreign") usage regardless of any discussion, I take it here. There's nothing in the user's whole WP history to suggest they are at Wikipedia for any other reason than pushing their nationalist POV. Jeppiz (talk) 16:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Jeppiz, I've read most of the talk page, (including recent discussion) and I sympathise as I'm afraid it's the same argument going round and round since the year X. I'm afraid I don't see a clear recent consensus there which Dijhndis is violating, partly because only the two of you are currently engaged. Might I suggest that a WP:RfC is the best way forward here to establish a broader consensus, as this noticeboard will only examine behaviour, not article content.

For what it's worth, the sources I looked at on that page, confirm that 'Scandinavia' is a loosely defined term in English usage. CERTAINLY the article should inform that more defined use(s) exist within (parts of?) Scandinavia, but Dijhndis appears to be claiming that there is only one valid definition and everyone else is ignorant or wrong, which is PoV IMHO.Pincrete (talk) 20:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Pincrete I agree, Dijhnis's insistance only his version is true and all other usage is wrong is typical nationalist POV-pushers. Worse is the repeated edit warring, and Dijhnis first imposed their own version [82], then reverted me [83] and then reverted Thomas.W. That's three times in less than a day, and against several other users, on top of which Dijhnis's even claims that everybody else is disruptive and against consensus(!) ("rv disruptive POV edit, restore longstanding consensus", "Rv disruptive and unhelpful edit against the established consensus version"). Nobody can claim good faith when reverting several other users and claim to do it for consensus. Both the user's actions and comments in the discussion shows that Dijhnis either does not understand Wikipedia or does not care. The whole 5-year old history of the account is to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS by pushing their own nationalist POV against those "confused foreign sources". I must say I'm surprised the user is still on Wikipedia, disruptive nationalist SPA-accounts are rarely helpful. Jeppiz (talk) 21:27, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree in full. The lede of the article is very weird without a bref and concise desciption of what most readers of Engliah expect to find there. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

ANI isn't going to answer the content question. An RfC should.Pincrete (talk) 08:30, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

True, but this isn't about the content issue but about a highly disruptive user who edit wars, attack all who disagree, refuses to listen, and certainly isn't here to contribute. That's an issue for ANI. Jeppiz (talk) 09:54, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

You are probably right, but your case would be clearer if you could point at a recent RFC which had established a consensus. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:07, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Jeppiz, I endorse what Jonathan A Jones says. Until there is a clear consensus on both a neutral definition of the word and the limits of the article, (not necessarily the same thing), ANI isn't going to do anything. Pincrete (talk) 12:27, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

There is no RfC, and I'm afraid you're mixing the content dispute with this ANI report. I've seen countless of nationalist POV-pushing SPA accounts blocked at ANI for WP:NOTHERE, and I don't see a difference here either. Again, it's not about who is right or wrong about what Scandinavia is, it's about the long-term behavior on one problematic account. Jeppiz (talk) 12:50, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I've given Dijhndis some advice on their page, especially suggesting they start an WP:RFC to try to get consensus for their version if they have faith in it. I agree they have been uncollaborative on the talkpage. Bishonen | talk 16:32, 30 April 2016 (UTC).

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

This is...suspicious

The following discussion is closed. 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 removed a section from the DC Universe Animated Original Movies as uncited, porting it over to the talk page, since, if cited, it could be useful. Sulloa09 reverted it three times before myself and others tried to get them to engage on the talk page, where discussion had been initiated. We also advised the user of the 3RR rule. Then, oddly enough, this revert pops up from a user, dok95 - a user with a total of three edits, all within hours of one another. I suspect a duck wearing at least one sock, but perhaps my AGF is lacking. Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:51, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Notice of notification of AN/I complaint: (Sulloa09 and Dok95). - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Probably, although a sockpuppet investigation is probably warranted rather than admin action here. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

It looks like a suspicious coincidence, especially if you misread the contributions as having been made "within hours of one another" (actually this one was made ten days before the other two). If Dok95 had been created after Sulloa09 was warned about edit warring, it might have been blocked by any passing admin as a duck. But that's not the case; it was created on en.wikipedia more than a week ago,[84] "automatically", which means it already existed on another wiki. Sure enough, the account has been editing fr.wikipedia for a year.[85] (Sulloa09 isn't known on fr.) That's not very sock-like. Bishonen | talk 20:27, 2 May 2016 (UTC).

Fair enough. It looked pretty odd, like one of a possible number of supplemental accounts by a sockmaster for good hand/bad hand activity. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

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

ScrapIronIV and I

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

---

Was wondering if someone can help me out here so I know what's right and wrong.

So a few months ago I was editing Wellington College Belfast and User:ScrapIronIV reverted them as there was no sources. I reverted, as I thought the history of the principals tenure as important, for example as Hassard had overseen the building of a new school, and put in sources. It developed into a bit of a war as the user said it was excessive, I asked them to take it to the Talk page and not to break 3RR, instead they left it, then two week later, returned and deleted the content.

I'm guessing the user had a look though my recent contributions and decided that 'Town' is not another term for City centre as there was no source, so I got a source, which they deemed unacceptable, and they also left a warning for edit warring on my talk page. (User_talk:CDRL102#May_2016).

Also on Belfast city centre they reverted what the local term is, which looking back is fair enough, but our disagreement there is whether Bittles Bar stays or goes, after placing a source it was still removed.

I would just like to know what's right and wrong, I found sources and they weren't accepted, even though they say/confirm what I'm writing. Thanks, CDRL102 (talk) 18:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced past principals were deleted per WP:NOTADIRECTORY and the fact that none of the past principals was notable.

The term "town" was not in the supplied citation.

A non-notable tavern (Bittles) was removed, because the article was deleted by an AfD discussion.

This is purely a content dispute, where the filer of this report refuses to supply sources or comply with Wikipedia standards. Filer would be wise to read WP:CHALLENGE and supply valid sources to support their additions. Scr★pIron^IV 18:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

They weren't sourced at first, the second time they were.

I know Wikipedia is not a directory, one part of it states "1. Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote. Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are relevant because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic. - The part I highlight here is because the information that I added the the principals was relevant to the History of the school.

Another part states "8. Simple listings without context information." hence why I added information about each principals tenure. CDRL102 (talk) 19:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

And if you read above it, it specifies those lists as ...lists of links to articles within Wikipedia that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject." Not a single wikilinked article, not a single notable entry in said link. Please read the entire thing, and now we are back to a content discussion on ANI. This is about the behavior you reported, not the content of the article. Please keep this on topic; i.e., the horrendous behavior I have demonstrated which demands sanctionable action by the admin corps. Scr★pIron^IV 19:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

It's about both the behaviour and the content, I feel the content was fair and you deleted it. Your behaviour was unfair as you just waited a few weeks to evade 3RR, then reported me for reverting your edits, we're both at fault for 3RR, only difference is you gave me a warning for it. CDRL102 (talk) 19:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

The content is immaterial, except that what you added was either unsourced or a misrepresentation of the source. As for warning you, it was justified. I did not report you anywhere; I don't know where that is coming from. You reported me here, and that is not about what is "fair" or "unfair" - it is about violations of policy. Have I been WP:UNCIVIL? Have I dragged you to the public square to be pilloried? What action are you demanding of our administrators for my deletion of your unsourced additions, and for warning you about the consequences of violating 3RR? Scr★pIron^IV 19:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I just want other users to review the exchanges between you and I and to see if it was right of you to revert my edits after I had asked you to go to discussion and after I had provided a source. Even if my sources weren't good enough, a quick google and I'm sure you could have found a better source than the one I had. Also whilst talking about sources, you removed more content from the Wellington College Belfast page as unsourced, yet a quick google search showed a source. CDRL102 (talk) 19:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

AN/I is not about other users reviewing our exchanges, unless you are accusing me of something. It is not my responsibility to find your sources for you, nor is it my responsibility to find sources for others. If I am asked, I might do it - because I can actually be a reasonable human being. In the meantime, you are responsible for your own edits - as are those editors who put in wholly unsourced sections of trivial information about their grammar school. Scr★pIron^IV 19:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

CDRL102, Admins do not have any powers over content disputes and this page is not the place to discuss content disputes. If you have a concern about ScrapIronIV's actions outside of a dispute about the content then that can be discussed. Was ScrapIronIV uncivil to you? break 3RR? Edit war? If any of these are yes, provide diffs to back it up. If not, take it to the article talk page and discuss it. If you can't come to an agreement you need to try some form of dispute resolution. -- GB fan 19:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

After I added a lot of content to Wellington College Belfast, it was reverted (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wellington_College_Belfast&diff=next&oldid=711556078). It was reverted again, after I added sources. I asked ScrapIronIV to take it to talk page, which they did not, and reverted again.(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wellington_College_Belfast&diff=next&oldid=711565199). On the next reversion, I warned them of 3RR and the fact I asked for it to be taken to talk page, so it wasn't reverted again, but several months later they came back and reverted it instead. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wellington_College_Belfast&diff=next&oldid=715904595). I reverted that (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wellington_College_Belfast&diff=prev&oldid=715904825), saying I had asked for it to be taken to discussion, but my reversion was again reverted by ScrapIronIV.

Similarly, after I added Town as another word for Downtown, next to city centre, it was reverted as unsourced. I thought it was WP:UCS but they asked for a source. After providing a source it was still reverted as the source was from a .de website, though other websites gave the same response that the British English term for American Downtown was City Centre or Town. (See overall revision history here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Downtown&action=history) CDRL102 (talk) 20:16, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Your source said "Town Centre" not "Town" - a misrepresentation of the source. But, again, a content issue. I will ask a final time:

What policy or standard did I violate that warrants administrative sanction? Scr★pIron^IV 20:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Fine then, WP:3O is what we need. CDRL102 (talk) 20:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

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

216.226.127.10 & 173.220.191.218

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

---

These two IP's have a long history of vandalism. I would normally report them to AIV, but the page is currently protected.

• 216.226.127.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is a school IP, with the previous block being for 2 years.
• 173.220.191.218 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is probably a school or shared IP. Had a block in late January and has returned with only vandalism-edits.

Thanks. 2601:1C0:4901:2191:A14F:3638:7AFB:7EB0 (talk) 00:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I had to semi-protect AIV this afternoon but we've had a spree of redirect vandalism over the last 24 hours or so, and three hour protections were ineffective. It will expire soon. Meanwhile, your IPs are indeed both schools but with only two edits each today and none in the last five hours, I'd prefer to hold off blocking them. Katie^talk 01:11, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Received accusation of 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.

---

Today I received an accusation of harassment on my talk page, without any specifics. It's from a user whom I recently reported for sockpuppet violations. I was careful not to include any information from outside of Wikipedia, though it's easily found, since he was editing under a real name. Two accounts and an IP number were blocked, but the main account wasn't - I'm not sure why not. The main account has been dormant for the past five years, until today.

The user has previously accused another editor of harassment and attempted outing, in a COIN discussion, which also noted suspected sockpuppetry; and the same type of accusation on his own talk page. That editor didn't follow up on the sockpuppetry. The user hasn't taken steps to redact personal information (except for the use of sockpuppets). I understand that outing is a serious offence, which can lead to an account being permanently blocked. I imagine the accusation is an attempt at intimidation, but now I have to wonder if I might have done anything wrong.

In a current AfD discussion, I pointed out some information in a source that would question its independence; as a side-effect it might suggest a connection between this user and a person of the same name in real life. Could that be considered harassment or attempted outing? The same connection is also suggested by a trivial google search of his username, and by his own behavior. I'm a little worried that I could be blocked for outing someone who seems to have outed himself... I guess it's unlikely, but I thought I should ask for some advice. Have I done anything that could constitute harassment? What should I do about the notice on my talk page? I'm starting to worry that even writing this report might somehow be used against me...

I have no wish to interact with this person, who seems to have a long history of exclusively making covert promotional COI edits, and deceptive practices, with no attempt to improve his behavior, despite warnings and blocks. It doesn't seem like he's here to build an encyclopedia. For me to assume good faith and try to discuss it with him isn't likely to be productive. -- IamNotU (talk) 16:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

You don't appear to have done anything wrong or anything that constitutes harassment by bringing the quite justified SPI. More importantly, alledging harassment without clear evidence that the others' action is actually harassment can itself be a form of harassment. At the very least, it can have a chilling effect. The account of the editor in question was stale at the time of the recent SPI, hence no block this time—just those of the socks. However, now that he's started editing again (two days after the SPI closed), the account is no longer stale. Perhaps the SPI admins (Vanjagenije and Bbb23) could take another look and compare his account to the socks (of each other), The.sparrowhawk and Beaverbrookottawa to see if all three are the same account. Voceditenore (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

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

New woman

The following discussion is closed. 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 came across New woman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) after they made an edit at WP:Bot requests. The past edits from this user are very strange, and they clearly aren't contributing to the encyclopedia. They appear to be treating Wikipedia as a type of social networking platform, and their numerous edits include page creations, so it's not so easy to revert and ignore.

See the following edits for examples of edits before I ran into the user: [86] [87] [88] [89] [90]

I left the user a talk page notification explaining that Wikipedia is not Facebook or any other social network. The response was to make this edit and create User:Σ/Archive/2015/December. They also attempted to leave me an AN notice, although they didn't actually start a discussion at any noticeboard.

On the face of it, this user's edits are becoming numerous enough that action is necessary. I also have some trouble believing this is actually a new user given that they somehow knew about WP:AN and tried to leave me a notice. Additionally, the creation of the archive in a user's userspace despite never running into that user on-site makes it unlikely that they're new. ~ Rob^Talk 21:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• Liz deleted User:Σ/Archive/2015/December, but New woman has since recreated it. ~ Rob^Talk 21:49, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Blocked as NOTHERE. Katie^talk 22:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

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

MassiveLizard

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

---

It saddens me to be here and recommending an indefinite block against another editor, but I honestly feel that this is the only option left and that it's necessary. Over the last few days, MassiveLizard has engaged in uncivil behavior, disruptive editing, personal threats, battleground conduct, and harassment towards Mike Rosoft -- see 1, 2, and 3 just to name a few. I, as well as many other editors, have been extremely patient with him; I've done my best to be a mentor to this editor and help him, but it's becoming clear that such efforts are a waste of time and that the behavior will not stop without administrator intervention. My talk page conversations with MassiveLizard here and here outline all of the details; After giving him mentoring and assistance, he continued to be disruptive and repeatedly harass Mike Rosoft, and even went as far as creating an arbitration enforcement request demanding that Mike Rosoft be desysopped and the administrative right be given to him instead. I then gave him a final warning on my talk page, which he acknowledged that he read and agreed to. Since then, he has made these edits to Mike Rosoft's talk page, which consist of more threats, personal attacks, and battleground conduct.

It's a real bummer to be reporting him here -- I've done everything I can to try and help him, but it's clear that this editor only intends to push his opinions and continue his disruptive behavior. I'm sorry, MassiveLizard... I really am... but you've been given significantly more chances than most other editors would have been given, and I've been extremely patient and fair to you. You engaged in continued harassment after my final warning, and I told you that this would be the result if you violated it. Enough is enough.

I am here to ask for assistance regarding MassiveLizard, and to recommend an indefinite block be placed. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Austin disruptive behaviour-- where is your evidence: it is obvious that should provide that?

You should consider 3 things before my hemlock like Socrates-- if that's want the state wants then I suppose I can't.escape in this life time? Please edit this out if it isn't polite 1. I'm 17.2. I have aspergers 3. I am willing to learn

One editor and Mike, have I correspond with. I denounce.all.claims of harassement. A forewarning, but not a threat: this will public and everyone who listen-- I will start selling propaganda.No has even tried to understand me.thus why this? Huh no repsonse,.what I suspect — Preceding unsigned comment added by MassiveLizard (talk • MassiveLizard (talk) 13:12, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Reading the comments from the editor here, and Oshwah's EXTREMELY good faith attempts to work with the editor, this may be a case where WP:CIR applies. "I will start selling propaganda"? The battleground mentality is one that I don't think can be fixed, and sadly I would agree with Oshwah here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:21, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Huh, explain, are you guys not prepared for a war against.me.because i have a very popular website — Preceding unsigned comment added by MassiveLizard (talk • contribs) 13:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC) yes it can if please slow down direct.me towards.rules

The only reason I haven't indeffed this guy is because he seems to want consensus. If he makes another comment like the ones in this section, however, it will be his last here. Katie^talk 13:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

It saddens me am austin insided-- relatively new,.very new to Wikipedia( I welcome all intellects) Austin insided is a psydoneme--don't worry! As for others I will refer you to my website if you are interested in me and my philosophy: www.intellectualsanctum.com. As for again others, I only will respond to things that will be constructive to my personality; like hard criticism and.other things: just use common sense.

As for people, you should know I have aspergers and can be rude, insulting without being aware of it!! I'm roughly 17 understand this should be considered when commenting!.I recently had an iq test,

It was supposedly 130; but I denounce the validity of such tests! Read again on my website about it

"In my honest opinion, they don't evaluate intelligence fully; they evaluate the performance of the instincts, not intelligence; as it can observed, the emotions reared in instinct are fundamental to decision and therefore intelligent decision. This is my concern with the I.Q tests, I wish it measured behind the decision. Thus, it quantifies people of "all walks of life", as mensa expresses it, as intelligent; is it not odd that it has 21 century feeling of equality. "as long as they are equal", the ruling populace says"

Expect this page to be updated MassiveLizard (talk) 08:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)Austin Insided one last thing: I have a wiki, quora, Facebook, twitte-- account,.if you appreciate my ideas follow me!! I'm open to criticism on the validity of my interpretation.and idea; and offenses to Wikipedia "etiquette": wiki rules are much more massive than I realized; they will take time to digest properlu

ANI notice Edit

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. You were given a final warning not to threaten or harass Mike Rosoft and keep the discussion on my talk page. You have ignored my advice, my warnings, and my recommendations. Enough is enough. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm trying to follow guidelines and I didn't hurl accusations, therefore what is my offense. I didn't harass him again, it wasn't harassment under any US laws. You couldn't.report me.to

The police therefore why am I under review and can you send me url so can keep a.keen eye and all I've done is be nice to.you why are you betraying and our confidantes

wiki rules are much more massive than I realized; they will take time to digest properly" on my page!o be here and recommending an indefinite block against another editor, but I honestly feel that this is the only option left and that it's necessary.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MassiveLizard (talk • contribs) 13:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

MassiveLizard, are you the same person who previously edited as Kingshowman? Your interest in philosophy, especially Nietzsche, combined with your overwhelming verboseness makes me wonder. Favonian (talk) 13:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Uncivil 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.

---

Crovata (talk · contribs) calls people dumb (over 10 times), the worst, total ignorant, idiotic and stupid, idiotic, idiots and fools in discussions. Is this OK?--Zoupan 15:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

It is not OK. However, circumstances were such it caused my reaction as it was, and taking them out of context is pointless (for an example, first IP was just one of many IP troll socks, and the original user since March 2015 didn't want to learn how to properly edit Wikipedia after X amount of discussions - if that's not stupidity, what is?). Calling someone a "ignorant/fool/dumb/idiot" = "stupid", due to their basically unneutral and nationalistic POV and insulting behaviour (wasting someones time, breaking WP:NPOV) for me, sorry, it's not my problem to fix someone's personality. Everyone's tolerance for stupidity has limits. Your report was intentional and not in good faith, you know it too.--Crovata (talk) 16:11, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Crovata there is a difference between calling out someone's opinions and calling them names. "That idea is faulty because..." vs "Are you an idiot...". If you cannot understand this distinction then it is important that you know that repeated or egregious personal attacks can result in a block. We don't have an exception to our personal attack policy for special circumstances, such as people having a different point of view than you.

If someone's personality is a problem and polite discussion cannot resolve it then compile evidence and post it here, as Zoupan has done in regards to your personality. Since you have no history of personal attack blocks I think a warning will suffice. Consider this that warning. HighInBC 16:20, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

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

BLP revdel on the Gamergate Talk page

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

---

Discussion

I am asking for a review for a revdel made on the Gamergate Talk page. The edit was made by MarkBernstein, who has since been topic-banned (not for this edit or anything directly related to this). It is verbatim, a passage from the Washington Post article, so cannot be deemed "unsourced or poorly sourced", which is the criteria for BLP removals without consensus. Ironically, the passage which was redacted is debunking/casting doubt on the allegations. I am not even allowed to refer to what it was about, since my edit was also revdeled. The link to the Washington Post article is here. The relevant passage starts with: There is, to be clear.

Various rationales have been advanced on the talk page (see discussion here), but none of them stand up to scrutiny. IMO, this is a wild overreaction. The normalization of this kind of overreaction and weaponization of BLP on the talkpage has poisoned discussion and led to lots of strife, both pro- and anti-GG, for more than a year. Anyone who has engaged in discussion on WP knows how aggravating it is to have your comments refactored or redacted, by people who you don't particularly like. It's time this behaviour was rolled back. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• Why? Wikipedia is not an exercise in free speech or anything else unrelated to development of the encyclopedia. Is someone suggesting an article should include mention of the person named in the linked article? What is the purpose of posting the link other than because we can? Editors should stick to discussion of actionable proposals that might plausibly improve the article, not prolong the agony of gamergate. Johnuniq (talk) 12:37, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
• I am quite unclear on what criteria are used to determine when to delete a revision on that talk page. Further, the practice of deleting verifiable information about claims which are relevant to (or already in) the article from the talk page is infantilizing. Protonk (talk) 13:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
• WP:BLPTALK is quite clear that where potentially problematic BLP info is *being discussed for inclusion in the article* a link to the source that will be used as a reference should be included on the talk page. Pasting an except from the source is not required (or even recommended if it turns out it is an issue) likewise if the material is not actually going to be included in the article at all then there is no need to discuss it on the talk page. From looking (briefly) at the talkpage, it looks like this is a case of the latter rather than the former. Washington Times (a reliable source) excerpt pasted by Mark Bernstein, no actual discussion for anything to be included into the article, so its basically pasting BLP-sensitive material for no purpose. It probably should have been removed and rev-del' unless there actually is going to be a discussion about incorporating it into the article. Then a link to the material should remain. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I disagree that it is so clear. Here's what BLPTALK has to say "When seeking advice about whether to publish something about a living person, be careful not to post so much information on the talk page that the inquiry becomes moot." I cannot interpret that as an injunction against talking about it there, considering how much was on the talk page about the subject before. And given that amount of discussion, we shouldn't expect that the content would never appear on the page. If it were to appear, how would editors working on a contentious topic discuss the changes to the page, the author's meaning or the veracity of the claims without running afoul of that interpretation? Protonk (talk) 13:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Well its not an injunction not to talk about it. The point is that you talk about it *if you are attempting to work it into the article* - I cant see that anyone was. It was just Bernstein doing his usual soapboxing - which is why I support it being removed on that basis. If it was intended to be a proposal to incorporate it into the article, it should have been linked to and discussed. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
      • We're talking about this edit, correct? Sure, it's turned up to 11 and what-not, but the underlying ask seems clear to me. As I say below, they contrast it with an extant source in an ongoing discussion about how/if the subject should be portrayed in the article. How is that not a reasonable interpretation? Protonk (talk) 14:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
• The revdel was appropriate. The content included highly defamatory material about a living person. Just because some newspaper decides to publish unsubstantiated rubbish doesn't mean we can repeat it when not particularly relevant. Wikipedia era on the side of protecting the reputations of living people. Mark was trying to make a point, but in the process exposed this defamatory material. It would be sufficient to say Gamergqte tactics include opposition research and publication of unsubstantiated claims. It is not acceptable to repeat the unsubstantiated claims on Wikipedia. Our standards are higher than many newspapers. Jehochman ^Talk 13:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Horseapples. On what planet does that article contain defamatory material? I guess if we jumble the words in the article and re-arrange them to recreate the defamation the article was discussing that could work. Protonk (talk) 13:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Well technically the linked Washington Post article does repeat allegations about a living person *which if untrue* would be highly defamatory. However it would not be Wikipedia defaming the subject, it would be the people making the allegations. The Washington Post would probably get a free ride too given they are merely reporting said allegations. But I repeat, unless any of this is actually going to be incorporated into the article (which it could theoretically be, given the subject was fired from her job after allegedly a long period of harrassment by Gamergate) it shouldnt be on the talkpage at all. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
      • I edit conflicted w/ a reply above that might related here. There was and is talk page discussion about the subject, so inclusion of the material is not a remote consideration. And I'm not clear on your meaning about the Post. We make countless claims on this encyclopedia that if false would be defamatory. To justify this, we rely on sources like the post as a matter of course. I'm not saying quoting out the gate is the right route. BLPTALK (as you say) warns against it. But certainly redaction of the quotes is strongly preferable to deleting the material from history. Especially since if you read the comment from beginning to end it's clearly about including the material in the article and makes references to ongoing discussions about a different source they feel is inferior on the same subject. Protonk (talk) 14:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
        • Ah clearly I didnt read up far enough on the talkpage as I was stopping at Kingsindian's posts where he states that it wasnt about including it in the article. Since concensus already existed to remove the material from the article, revdel'ing what is clearly a BLP1E issue on the talkpage where no one is actually having a current discussion to include it still isnt that bad. (I get the feeling from the above talkpage discussion that the only person really for inclusion was Bernstein, and given his anti-GG viewpoint, unsurprising). Personally I would have just archived the lot which would be complaint with the BLP policy, but some people are more zealous about it. Re to Kingsindian below: If it isnt being currently discussed to go into the article, then it really shouldnt be on the talkpage. This isnt problematic in 99% of articles. It is potentially problematic with regards to living people. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

To some of the comments above. Nobody said anything about free speech, so that is a red herring. Also, the discussion is about discussion on the talkpage, not the article. I find the standard that "if it shouldn't be in the article, it shouldn't be on the talkpage" rather silly. Nobody uses such a standard: otherwise 99% of the talk page history would consist of revdels. And please don't make me laugh with the claim that Wikipedia's standards of defamation are higher than the Washington Post. Not to mention that there is nothing defamatory in the paragraph: it is literally the opposite of defamatory; it is debunking/casting doubt on the allegations.

The main point is that WP:BLP is not a micromanaging tool to get rid of stuff one doesn't like. The effect of such (arbitrary) redactions is to inflame matters and confuse people. The redaction was a tit-for-tat action against an earlier redaction. This kind of stuff has to end. Follow policy as written and roll back the new normal. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• I reverted your changes to the format. I doubt there's need for a poll like that in this discussion. Protonk (talk) 14:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@Protonk: In fairly adequate experience in the Israel-Palestine area, I have found that in most discussions, most people don't change their mind. This format of "Discussion" and "Survey" is routine in RfCs I have participated in. I have reverted to the format. I meant to do this from the beginning, but forgot. There is no harm in it anyway. The closer would take it all into account. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:38, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I have left notices at WT:BLP and WP:VPP. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 04:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose revdel. See my reasoning above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingsindian (talk • contribs)
• Oppose - any quote showing up in a reliable source, used in a discussion as evidence to your side in an argument, shouldn't be redacted. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:44, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose revdel if for no other reason doing so might cause, at some later point, the same thing to be discussed again. Having a record visible of exactly what was discussed, and, presumably, found not worthy for inclusion makes it less likely that similar discussion on the same topic will be actively initiated in the future. If the source were a more questionable or less reliable one, then, maybe, I could see some point in removing it, but I don't think that would necessarily be the case here. John Carter (talk) 15:07, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

  @John Carter: The first revdel removed a single word; the second a quote from an external source that was (and still is) linked in the discussion. I don't think those two removals make the discussion unclear—they simply avoid the allegations being repeated onwiki until a consensus is formed about whether it should be included in the article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:31, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not sure what question this is a survey of. Whether or not an edit is violating BLP policy is a judgment call by an administrator and shouldn't be a matter put to a vote. If an admin believes the specific content maligns an individual's reputation and has no place in an article, they remove it. If you have a specific complaint about this particular rev-del, I'd take the issue to admin responsible for the action. If you are interested in a meta or policy discussion about whether the interpretation of BLP these days is too broad, I'd go to the policy talk page or the Village Pump, not ANI. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

  @Liz: For what it's worth, it has been brought to me. I stand by the the revdel, and will not be undoing it myself (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gamergate_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=715839454}). I too was a little surprised to see this at ANI—for some reason I thought revision deletion was discussed at WP:DRV—but I suppose this works too. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:28, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

  The WP:revdel policy says that "They are subject to review by other administrators (who can see redacted material), and to reversal upon clear, wider consensus." Do you have a suggestion of another way of establishing clear consensus to reverse a revdel other than discussion and polling? Sperril (talk) 13:02, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• I can't view the deleted revision but I looked at the Washington Post article and it seems fine to me. BLP1E is about whether to write an article about a person, not about revdelling a link on a talk page. For one thing, BLP1E deletions are usually done after a week-long community discussion at AfD with the article visible during the discussion, not unilaterally by admins at their whim before anyone sees what happened. It's hard for me to understand how this revdel is justified. I'm open to persuasion but I'd appreciate a more detailed explanation from the defenders. As someone who likes to look at page histories, I get that revdel is sometimes needed, and it doesn't bother me too much if occasional inappropriate revdels get through. But if they're being done too casually and not being restored when challenged, it contributes to a perceived tension between admins and users that sometimes gets remarked on here and that could potentially escalate various ways. It doesn't seem good. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 06:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC) Added: I'll have to look at some of the diffs given later. I won't be able to post again for the next few days. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 06:36, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: The increasingly widespread belief that BLP enjoins us from ever saying anything defamatory about a living subject is a fallacy: Wikipedia has many things to say about tens of thousands of living subjects that I expect they would desperately prefer be censored, if they weren't backed up with the ironclad sourcing that is what BLP actually requires. Jehochman's airy belief about we have higher standards than most newspapers is very well and good (if both unsubstantiated and unwarranted), but we're not talking about the National Enquirer or the local supermarket free weekly. We're talking one of the half-dozen newspapers that constitute the gold standard for journalism in the hemisphere. Ravenswing 07:27, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose -- unquestionably reliable source and relevant to the discussion. No possible harm, since the original source is very widely read, and trying to keep it off WP is in contrast of minor significance to the individual. Had this been a miscellaneous blog, wheere it would be us that is primarily publicizing the matter, I would have said otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 21:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose This article and subject should not be given some sort of special status with its own rules because some people for some inexplicable reason continue to obsess over it. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 01:45, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support deletion. The allegation is damaging and perhaps false. The target is not notable, and editors on the page have agreed not to include the claim in the article. Therefore, there is no need to discuss it on the talk page, which is there to discuss article content. Insofar as it does need to be discussed, a link to the source suffices, per WP:BLPTALK: "When seeking advice about whether to publish something about a living person, be careful not to post so much information on the talk page that the inquiry becomes moot." There was no need to post the claim itself (I learned about it from that talk page, so leaving it there does spread it). There was certainly no need to start talking about it elsewhere, including here. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:51, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

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

• See Wikipedia_talk:Revision_deletion#RfC_on_Appeal_of_RevDel_usage, which attempts to clarify what should happen when editors disagree about the usage of revision deletion. This RfC is in response to the clarification the closer noted as being necessary in the close. ~ Rob^Talk 23:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

stalker/troll

Hey folks, I'd like to bring Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bolgitalianissimano to your attention. I have a long-term personal stalker (admittedly, the guy threatened me with "an eternal stalking, for an indefinite period of time, from me at your expense"). As you can see on the sockpuppet investigations page, the troll is typically operating with proxies. His favourite pastime is, as he told me personally on de.wikipedia (by vandalising my user page), bringing me to waste time for him.

Right now, he seems to think, that his glory days have come. Just recently, I added German IPA-transcriptions to a lot of German place names, making available the additions I made in the German wikipedia a year ago [91] -> [92]. He reverted them using various proxies (66.147.244.59 (talk · contribs),138.201.7.172 (talk · contribs), 2001:1A50:11:0:5F:8F:ACFB:340 (talk · contribs), 78.47.69.35 (talk · contribs), 5.9.87.205 (talk · contribs), 212.117.173.189 (talk · contribs), 109.237.138.24 (talk · contribs),134.119.244.251 (talk · contribs)) with the "explanation" overdetermined/asymmetric. Since I know the troll's behaviour (which consists in reverting edits as often as possible, using proxy IPs, in order to bypass sanctions against his IPs or accounts like User:Onegyrol08, User:Bolgitalianissimano), my recommandation is a semi-protection of all affected pages (just check my current contributions). Since I reverted all of the unjustified deletions right now, I'd like to turn some admins' attention to the case. Thanks in advance! --Mai-Sachme (talk) 21:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

 Remark: The proxy troll/stalker just announced to rollback all affected pages tomorrow: [93]. A semi-protection seems unavoidable. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 22:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

That seems like quite a persistent vandal but I don't think there would be much approval to protect every article you have worked on. If you have a more limited list of targeted articles, please make a request at WP:RPP. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@Liz: Hm, not sure about how to procede here now... The vandal has already reverted me on not less than 77 (!) pages. You can see the affected articles in my user contributions between 20:56, 27 April 2016 (Adige) and 20:43, 27 April 2016 (Altrei). Since he has just announced to do exactly the same tomorrow (that is reverting 77 times), I'm not able to give you a more limited list.

I have a suggestion: You could at least semi-protect a randomised selection of the 77 articles and see, how the troll will react. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 22:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Could we make an edit filter to catch removal of IPA transcriptions? Katie^talk 23:11, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

One option is to do a quiet WP:CLEANSTART. Let Arbcom know and the IP troll should find it a bit harder to find you. Blackmane (talk) 01:57, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I am the accused part. After you read what I am going to write you will not have the same opinion you have now about this issue.

1. About Mai-Sachme and his friend Bartleby08 both from South Tyrol. Watch Mai-Sachme's Italian talk page ([94]) and the only things you will found are: editwars, page protected from him, warnings and notices, improper use of discussions, tendentious points of view, and all about South Tyrol, notified by veteran Italian sysops such as Melos and M7. Besides, as you can see this is not the first time Mai-Sachme chooses to report a user as problematic to have him blocked unmotivatedly: an admin cloesd a discussion he started for that, and later another admin reproved his not cooperational behaviour because it was bordering on the problematic. Bartleby, instead, was even blocked for a month for SOURCE FALSIFICATION ([95]), in this case too about South Tyrol. They are not the candid souls he is pretending they are.
2. About Bolgitalianissimano. It is clear that this blocked user had a quarrel with Mai-Sachme and Mai-Sachme is still rancorous. But first of all I am not him. Second, he was not blocked for issues related to Mai-Sachme or his own edits, even if I do not know the reason for the block. Third, the edits he did were not at all vandalisms, but contributions to the encyclopedia. Last but not least, I want to repeat that I_am_not_him. Maybe Mai-Sachme is really conveinced about it, maybe he is just pretending to be in order to discredit me even more.
3. About the links Mai-Sachme brought here. The links about Bolgitalianissimano do not concern me. This link: if you do not speak Italian you have to trust Mai-Sachme's words, but what I said is that HE (Mai-Sachme) said that my favourite pastime is bringing him to waste time for me, and that he behaved exactly as he accused me to behave. This link and similars: here you have an example of hypocrisy, because when his comrade Bartleby08 did exactly the same edits and exaclty for the same reason but removing Italian IPAs instead of German IPAs and not once but three times, he did not report him for vandalism and supported what he had done.
4. About a few links I am bringing here. In Bartleby08's discussion I wrote four times, each time speaking civilly: here to explain the situation about IPAs and thank him for (apparently) stopping removing Italian IPAs, here to tell him I would not disturb him any more, here to ask him to stop removing Italian IPAs again and accuse him not to do it for en.wikipedia's sake but for personal issues related to his geographical origins (as proven by the reason he was blocked for), here to sincerely congratulate because he chose to solve his dilemma about asymmetry by adding German IPAs where there were Italian IPAs instead of removing these.
5. About my reasons to revert Mai-Sachme's edits. Not to troll or persecute him, first. As I told him, I wish this story had ended when Bartleby08 stopped removing Italian IPAs or had never begun if he did not start doing it. I have done it, once, for the following reasons. He inserted the German pronunciations only, the same thing Bartleby08 complained about when it concerned the few Italian pronunciations added by Bolgitalianissimano, but in all cities of South Tyrol, one by one, as to remark a sort of German-speaking predominance. The IPAs Mai-Sachme inserted contradict the very Help:IPA for German they link to, for example about the use of symbols such as: ̯ ˑ . The IPAs have no source, for how things are we do not know if they are standard German or local pronunciations, but in both cases there are no sources, and de.wikipedia is not a source for en.wikipedia if I well remember. Lastly, he has clearly not done it because he woke up and decided to contribute to the project, it is more likely he did it after Bartleby08's complaint and to take a sort of revenge against me, or he would not have spent almost 2:30 hours from 21:30 to midnight to insert all those IPAs, the obsessive troll is not me.

I hope that after reading all these not said truths he by chance forgot to mention your opinion about the matter would have changed. I am waiting for your reply before editing anything again. 190.14.37.133 (talk) 07:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

 Remark: It appears, as if the proxy troll (newest batch of IPs: 88.70.42.136 (talk · contribs), 5.9.43.137 (talk · contribs), 185.26.122.41 (talk · contribs)) has decided to avoid further reverts for now. Given the pending sockpuppet investigation and since his attempts to gather support for his deletion strategy brought only negative replies, I think there is a good chance, he won't continue with his mass rollbacks. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 17:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

 Remark: It appears as if the Italian germanophile separatist troll who accuses other Italian countrymen of being trolls (as proven by several sysops in his Italian personal talk page, it is not me saying it) is becoming conscious of not having been able to obtain a victory against the one he identifies as his archenemy. And the one he identifies as his archenemy (me, even if he has got the wrong person) is going to tell him one more thing: there is no way a troll from South Tyrol reproved by Italian sysops for trolling in articles about South Tyrol is going to gain an even trivial kind of anti-Italian vengeance here where Italian admins have no power nor interest, because I can simply add Italian IPAs to each article where you added the German IPA only. And you will not be able to accuse me of trolling or vandalising or anything bad at all. The only way you could avoid this and give yourself a sop is finding a city of South Tyrol which has only a German but no Italian pronunciation. Unluckily, there is no city in Alto Adige without an Italian name, since... They are all Italian. And you are Italian. As the source falsifier Bartleby08. And feeling accomplished in your wish of indepencence from the Italian Republic by vandalising a free on-line encyclopedia in English is very sad. But this is only my personal opinion, you clearly see it differently. That is all. 190.14.37.133 (talk) 18:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Having said that, he continues to stalk and revert me elsewhere... please note his deletions of my remarks on User:LiliCharlie's and User:Martin sv 85's talk pages: [96], [97]. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 18:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

We Italians use this expression to refer to people like Mai-Sachme: "avere la faccia come il..." ("having one's face like one's..."). "WHO" is stalking "WHOM"? Mai-Sachme himself searched those messages in those talks, am I wrong? And after finding them he joined, or am I being wrong? So, again: "WHO" is stalking "WHOM"? This is the typical situation when Italians use that expression above. 190.14.37.133 (talk) 18:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Q.E.D. I did not remove for the second time the German IPAs, unlike Mai-Sachme's friend Bartleby08 did with Italian IPAs 3 times, I just added sourced Italian IPAs respecting the Help:IPA for Italian standards; as far as I am concerned, I have nothing else to add, and everybody is free to watch over those pages to monitor that I will not make removals again, even better, I do invite you admins to watch over those pages as I will do because we have no way to be sure that either Bartleby08 or Mai-Sachme will not remove any IPA again, while my personal stalker is free to keep spending his time searching for editors he will identify as me (or the other Italian user who is not me, I have not understood yet whether he says it on purpose or he is really convinced about it, but it does not matter to me). 190.14.37.133 (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Potential legal threats at Lennart Poettering

Do this, this and this, which all come from the same IP range, seem to collectively count as legal threats, aside from being clearly WP:DISRUPTIVE unjustified massive blanking? LjL (talk) 19:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• I don't see it, and considering that this is a BLP we should look at the claims carefully. Drmies (talk) 20:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
• The first two qualify, the third is merely a personal attack. Suggest semi-protecting the article to fend off the IP's, and not restoring the material until it can be thoroughly reviewed (as Drmeis said). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Ha, I just semi-protected it for a good long while--there's plenty of disruption in the history. Thanks Bugs. The disputed section, I trimmed it a bit, but it's decently sourced and hardly libelous or harassy. In other words, the IP needs to stop complaining. I do invite other editors to have another look at that section. Drmies (talk) 20:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Jolly good. I have to say, those "controversies" are something only a dedicated computer geek would likely care about. And I don't see anything that looks libelous. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Content discussion, but, since we're here and it's being touched upon, I'll quickly mention it here: why do you think this one definitely needs secondary sourcing, Drmies? I reviewed WP:BLPPRIMARY and the subsequent couple of sections in that policy, and since this is material created directly by the subject (unless we have doubts about the authenticity of the interview transcript) and meets the conditions laid out by WP:BLPSELFPUB, I reckon it should be acceptable. LjL (talk) 15:55, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
      • It's in a section called "controversies". It therefore surely needs at least one probably more reliable secondary sources to establish it was a controversy and a significant one at that. I.E. one that enough people cared about to get a write up of the controversy in reliable secondary source. Even if the person described what they were saying as controversial or claimed they received a lot of negative feedback or whatever, we shouldn't be including it if no one cared enough about it to write it up in a reliable secondary source. In the absence of that, even if there's merit to include it in the article, it definitely shouldn't be in a controversy section. (And I always question the inclusion of personal viewpoints without reliable secondary source, why is this particular view significant compared to the many others the person has made public?) Ultimately, if something had no coverage in reliable secondary sources, it seems unlikely it's sufficiently significant to be something we should mention in the biography of the person. Obviously BLPSELFPUB says it's okay sometimes, but IMO that should be restricted to very limited fleshing out of existing viewpoints, or basic biographical details which we can find a RSS for but there is merit to include in the article. Nil Einne (talk) 20:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I hope the semi can be lifted at some reasonable point. Those diffs come from just 2 addresses. There were other problems further back (several revdels a couple months ago) but semi is supposed to be for more intense issues than that. Baseball Bugs is right that it's mostly computer geeks who care about Poettering's controversies, but Poettering's entire notability is with those same geeks, so the controversies are closely entangled with the main things he is known for. He's also been subject to tons of flak, death threats, etc. so I understand the need to handle his biography carefully. The article in its current state is actually not very informative either about Poeterring's work or the software community's reaction to it. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 04:45, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Regardless, I'm very much not comfortable with an edit summary like "Your criminal activity is reported to authorities in Mr. Poetterings jurisdiction" and I'm glad something was done about it. LjL (talk) 19:57, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposed ban for TV5Ozamiz

TV5Ozamiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked indefinitely in November 2014 for Abusing multiple accounts, and has been persistently socking since then obvious (see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of TV5Ozamiz, Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of TV5Ozamiz, Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/TV5Ozamiz and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TV5Ozamiz). Their persistent Vandalism, disruptive editing and Sock Puppetry which includes edit of Philippine Media Companies, Mindanao Stations and Philippine Movies severe as vandalism and hoax to articles, user and user talk pages, page are blanking on IP Address talk pages include vandalism on these articles, abuse of Multiple accounts, creation and edit of hoax pages and article include some Talk Page are removed those warning and the Sock puppet tag are those blanked the pages that User:TV5Ozamiz has been banned as a formality. LG-Gunther :  Talk  01:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

If their MO is so consistent, a de jure ban won't do much more than the de facto ban that they are already under. Blackmane (talk) 02:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Sure User:TV5Ozamiz has Edit of Articles of Philippine Media Companies, Philippine Movies and Philippine Radio Stations has Hoax and Vandalism Acting like User:Bertrand101. LG-Gunther :  Talk  02:24, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Mass account creation attempts

Dear Administrators,

Over the last few days, I have observed in the edit filter log recurring strings of filter log entries which I have screencaptured here: [98]. From what I can see, the sleeper account throttle is blocking the creation of accounts in rapid succession, under usernames which follow the same pattern. Could this be an automated script creating accounts? If so, are these spambots?

Thankyou, Passengerpigeon (talk) 09:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Looks like a spambot based on the username pattern. Blake Gripling (talk) 10:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

They don't show up on the logs though, nor are they registered at all. Blake Gripling (talk) 10:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I think it's because username creation requests are throttled to so many per hour (I think it's six) without need for a filter. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 16:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

From what I understand, it's 6 accounts in a 24 hour period. I've run into this limit several times in my work on ACC . ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Drop me a note} 20:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Assuming those times were in UTC, I'm not seeing any successful creations around the same time with a similar username pattern [99] Maybe the successful creations were earlier, unfortunately 24 hours is a lot of usernames and even assuming 76 were created more or less in a row, you'd still need to look carefully to spot those ones despite the obvious pattern to the human eye. Nil Einne (talk) 21:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Looking at [100] confirms it was UTC and they seem to be hitting every so often, sometimes they try to create a few sometimes just one. E.g. OmearaGryderNRxz, RorerWehmeierGfzz. Can a checkuser see what IP tried to create those failed accounts and then use it to find the 76 I guess they did create successfully? (More if it's been happening over multiple days.) Nil Einne (talk) 21:30, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I do remember seeing a few successful creations with a similar username pattern quite a while back now. Those accounts created their userpages with a block of incoherent text, in the middle of which was a spam link to a "Garcinia Cambogia Weight Loss" supplement or other similar snake oil product. I've always wondered why the spambots put random text on their pages - perhaps they are trying to fool automated anti-spam processes by making their spam look like an innocuous passage of text with a link in it rather than a spam link standing on its own. Passengerpigeon (talk) 09:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

It is indeed their intent to fill their spam with non-sequitur fluff to fool filters or moderators, though anyone with a good BS filter can weed them out on sight. I assume there are plans to do a rangeblock on the offending IPs, yes? Or would that be infeasible? Blake Gripling (talk) 03:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Harassment from user DMacks

The user DMacks is for some reason, following and stalking my every move on this website. Every time I try to make an edit to a page, he comes in and reverts every edit I make. He also has refused to stop this behavior after I emailed him about it multiple times. I would like to have an admin on this site take care of this and ban him from harassing me in the future. I've only been an active editor on this site for a few months now and I don't feel that this is something that a user like me should have to experience. No one should have to experience harassment like this on a website built to encourage community and help through constructive criticism and page editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LivingGuildpact (talk • contribs) 00:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

He's an administrator, you are edit warring, and your edits are unsourced and quite frankly nonsense. You aren't seeking consensus, you haven't made a single talk page edit after making changes, and you have made no attempts to engage editors about your edits. Drop the stick or you will be blocked again. --Tarage (talk) 00:50, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence of harassment. What seems to be happening is that you're adding information without any sources. The guideline WP:V deals with this, and it is one of the central guidelines of Wikipedia. When users make problematic edits, it's quite common for other editors to go through said user's other edits, it's not harassment, and it's not meant to be. Eik Corell (talk) 00:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) LivingGuildpact - You're required to notify all users when you open a new ANI thread that involves them directly. I've gone ahead and done this for you here.

Looking at your contributions, I see that DMacks has reverted the edits you've made to Mayonnaise and Miracle Whip. Each of his reversions have been explained in the edit summaries that DMacks left (see 1, 2, 3, and 4 (back in Feb)). He cited issues with consensus, not citing a reliable source with your changes, as well as edit warring. Looking at your talk page, you have been previously warned for edit warring as well as for causing disruption (and a block), but you since removed those warnings. It's clear that there are issues with the edits being made, but it looks like these are problematic because of the content you've been changing. I also see no evidence of you attempting to collaborate or even ask about the reversions in an effort to understand the reason behind them; you simply re-add the content back later, which gets reverted again. DMacks is not harassing you nor is he violating any Wikipedia policies. He's reverting your changes for proper reasons, and within his administrative role. I highly recommend that you discuss your concerns directly with DMacks so that he can try and assist you. I also suggest that you make no further edits to the articles until you've properly discussed everything in concern; failure to do so will result in further blocks. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I have been the victim of harassment from DMacks, even if he is an administrator, he shouldn't be abusing his power and privilege to harass an editor. Harassment is to be defined by the victim of the harassment, not the perpetrator or outside onlookers. I am now making a public announcement on an administrator page to let people know that I do not want DMacks involved with me, my edits, or any pages I have edited in the past. I do not want to be subjected to harassment from him anymore. If another admin can take action to block him from being involved with me, that would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LivingGuildpact (talk • contribs) 01:12, 2 May 2016

LivingGuildpact - Other editors here have already explained that DMack's reversions were appropriate and that he was not engaging in harassment towards you. I understand that you're frustrated and perhaps upset. One part of our job is to try and help you (of course! :-)), but another part of our job is to perform a logical, neutral, and level-headed examination of the evidence and information provided to us, and make a decision or provide feedback based off our findings. If you're going to file an administrator report here, you need to listen to the information and advice that is given to you. They may not meet your expectations or be what you'd like to hear or see happen, but our goal is to be fair and to everyone.

We can only help you if you want our help. Not acknowledging the responses that we've given to you and ignoring our advice makes us feel that we're wasting our time, and shows us that collaboration and achieving consensus is not your main objective. If you'd like, I'm more than willing to assist you with your concerns on my talk page and recommend to everyone here that this ANI be closed (under the condition that you allow me to assist you). It's your choice; if that is what you'd like, I'll be happy to make that recommendation for you. Otherwise, I'll leave things be and move on; I've done my best to try and help you, but I can't force you to be willing to be given appropriate help. Does anybody have objections with my offer to LivingGuildpact? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

If he gets mentorship and stops this destructive behavior no one is going to complain. The end result is he needs to stop the edit warring. That's all anyone cares about. Either by blocking or by becoming a contributing editor. --Tarage (talk) 01:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree 100%. My offer still stands. I'm more than happy to offer mentoring and assistance to LivingGuildpact, should he choose to accept it. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't have much to add here that hasn't already been said multiple times. Edit-warring against multiple editors who are asserting consensus and cited ref, not listening when editors say that those behaviors are a problem, etc...those are all problems compounded. I have no objection to any mentorship or any other process by which editors can move towards contributing in line with out editorial and behavioral standards. DMacks (talk) 03:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

• Re: "Harassment is to be defined by the victim of the harassment, not the perpetrator or outside onlookers": @LivingGuildpact: I'd urge you to stand back and think about that for a moment. When someone is accused of something, the accuser gets to be the judge? No system of dispute resolution could possibly work that way. If you want to work successfully here on Wikipedia, you have to accept that judgement in disputes can only be decided by what you refer to as "outside onlookers", ie: disinterested third parties (and for the record, I see no harassment either, just reasonable admin actions). That's the way it works here, and that's the way disputes are settled just about everywhere else too. I'd urge you to take the good advice that people have offered you here, and I'd also urge you to read about how Wikipedia decisions are made by consensus and how disputes are resolved. And finally, I strongly urge you to take up Oshwah's very kind offer of mentorship - it can be very discouraging when you're new here and you have your edits reverted, and mentorship can really help. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, but surely this is not allowed?

The following discussion is closed. 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:Doctor Papa Jones (who apparently also goes by User:Jonas Vinther) is allowing some unspecified number of random people to contribute from his account, according to his userpage (it's right at the top):

"I have some friends who occasionally make edits using my account."

This is not allowed -- in fact, it's so not allowed that I can't find the rule right off. It's kind of like "Users will be subject to gravity". Presumably an admin can find the rule, if that's even necessary.

There is this Meta page which states "To use [role accounts], consensus must be made". Roll accounts, though, would be for entities such as User:BritishMuseum (or more likely User:VBC_PR_Department etc.). I'm pretty sure that if roll accounts are allowed (which I'm pretty sure not, on the English Wikipedia), they're for properly constituted organizations and not for "me and my housemates and anybody else at the party" or whatever, with no prior OTRS permission required.

In fact, this is a copyright mess now, since the copyright remains with the contributor (it is released for use by others under CC BY-SA 3.0 by pressing the Enter button, but not waived entirely). It's impossible now to know who wrote what, and in theory all of contributions made by people using this account should be rolled back (I'm not advocating going that far though). This is even putting aside potential for the the whole "Well it was my housemate who called you an asshole, not me" sort of thing and so forth. It's just a mess.

(FWIW, I came this user's page after being directed to this ANI thread where it apparently has come that the user is a nazi sympathizer and a nasty piece of work generally, although the thread was dropped for whatever reason. This isn't directly related to my complaint, but it sure as heck does not incline me (nor should it incline anyone) to be of the mind "Well, yeah, but he's a nazi, so let's cut him a break")... Herostratus (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

THe policy you're looking for is WP:NOSHARE, and yeah that's an admission that their account is shared, which is clearly not allowed. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Herostratus I guess you didn't look at his user talk page where I posted a message to him about this earlier today. Ideally, you should talk to the editor about issues to try to resolve them before bringing a complaint to ANI unless there is active damage being done to the project. This problem could be resolved by Doctor Papa Jones stating that this was a past practice and he no longer allows other users to edit from his account and remove that statement from his user page. I would like to hear from the editor before passing any judgment. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Immediately starting an ANI discussion rather than simply going to my talk page is extremely dumb, to the point of embarrassing. In this particular case, Liz sets a good example, so thank you for that. And Herostratus, comments such as "a nazi sympathizer and a nasty piece of work generally" are obvious personal attacks. Refrain from making such untrue and rude remarks in the future or I will report you! You should instead use your time to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. Anyway, I have ensured that only I will edit from my account in the future and also removed the statement from my userpage. Best, Doctor Papa Jones • (Click here to collect your prize!) 21:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Discussion Continues

My closure has been called into question. So, by all means - discuss the topic further here. Sorry for stifling the discussion here. SQL^{Query me!} 23:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse close: The ideal situation would be that Jonas had a committed identity in place that he used to verify that he was the person who changed the password. Unless there's a pressing need to indef him and force him to start a new account, I don't think there's anything else that needs to be done. Except perhaps screaming "WHEEEE". —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

  What if I still feel like a nazi when I scream "WHEEEEEEEEEEE"? SQL^{Query me!} 23:33, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

In all seriousness - The rules were explained to this guy. He appears to get it. Fan-flippin-tastic. He says he made a change to comply with our rules. Is this an ongoing threat to the encyclopedia? Can you explain to me how a block would improve the encyclopedia in this case - without using the word 'nazi'? SQL^{Query me!} 23:36, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I second that. Let's not make a big fuss out of an innocent misunderstanding. Best, Doctor Papa Jones • (Click here to collect your prize!) 23:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

We are not a bureaucracy. Herostratus's complaints are both insulting and baseless. Referring to another editor as a nazi is a great way to get blocked. You said "this issue is not going to go away", well I think it is going to go away as it is really nothing to make a fuss about. HighInBC

Well yes but here's the deal. It turns out I was right, and WP:NOSHARE says (emphasis added):

"Sharing an account – or the password to an account – with others is not permitted, and evidence of doing so will result in the account being blocked.

Looks pretty straightforward to me.

And as a matter of fact it is regularly enforced. One editor -- an important and useful editor -- had to crawl through glass to save her career her just because another person was using her computer (not her account). She's not the only one.

There are very significant copyright considerations here -- orders of magnitude worse than copy-and-paste moves for instance -- and it's a WMF-level problem if the admin corps no longer cares about this.

But OK. Maybe the admin corps has decided it doesn't like this policy and isn't going to enforce it. Can't make 'em I guess. But it is very very significant and major policy change if you are going to stop enforcing WP:NOSHARE. We have to have an RfC, a CENT RfC I guess, and the copyright people are going to want to weigh in, and the WMF will probably need to have input. It the result of all this (as I would guess is likely) is "Well, no, we like WP:NOSHARE fine", I'm not sure what happens then.

Or you could, you know, enforce the policy, as you've supposed to do. I'm just saying.

As for the nazi thing... it's not related to the matter at hand, but I like to look at the whole situation: the person egregiously, incredibly stupidly, and for a long time, violated a core rule for which the required sanction is termination, and in addition he's a fascist (at the very least, and apparently a nazi sympathizer I gather), which we don't want and cant really have here (see Jimbo's take on the matter, if you care) so getting rid of him is win-win. I linked you the thread earlier (it's here. It was a ANI thread that was initiated by this person and should have boomeranged against him probably, but (losing badly; efforts such as ""But that's like me saying you should not edit such articles either because you're an anti-Nazi -- and that doesn't make any sense!" probably didn't help) he withdrew his complaint and was allowed to do so (a failure of diligence IMO) and so here we are.

Some excerpts:

• "editing has consistently had a Nazi fanboy tone" User:Nick-D (an admin FWIW)
• "self-identifies as fascist and pro-Nazi" (User:Maunus)
• "insists on his user page that mainstream history of the Nazis is wrong, and that only he knows the TRUTH about his hero Hitler." (User:Viriditas)
• "he quits Wikipedia, complaining that WP is 'anti-fascist and pro-democratic' and claims that '99% of all Hitler-related documentaries, in particular those made by the BBC and ABC, is pure anti-fascist propaganda crap'" User:Jeppiz
• (Addressed to this person): "I do hope you are aware that I quite openly self identify as Jewish around here. I think you should accept a period of mentoring in terms of the material and methodology you adopt in Nazi - related subject areas" ( User:Irondome)
• "I suggest that anyone checking his editing history, will observe his facist sympathies." (User:David J Johnson)

According to User:Nick-D, this (which just says it can't be displayed) shows that user self-identified as something -- a nazi or else a fascist, I gather, and complained about the Wikipedia being anti-fascist. Apparently some combination of deletion and page moves have made this material unavailable to view (the intent, obviously) but I would think an admin could restore that.

Apparently according to User:Drmies, speaking at at another thread, this user was issued a topic ban at some point... the thread ("User:Jonas Vinther ownership of content at the German SS") is here but I haven't read it, as this is getting above my pay grade -- I write articles. It's supposed t be you guys's job to handle people like this. Herostratus (talk) 05:56, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

You would do well to keep your issues separate. There is no call for a block for shared accounts because that has been addressed. HighInBC 08:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Given that Jonas was already close to exhausting the community's patience due to the previous stuff (in short, self-identifying as a fascist and adding large quantities of pro-Nazi material to articles concerning Nazi Germany, leading to a broad topic ban which was instituted last November, and a "not yet" conclusion to a simultaneous discussion of whether he should be blocked outright), a light touch response to blatantly violating a core Wikipedia policy here seems inappropriate. I also think that Liz may have erred in her reading of WP:NOSHARE: it states that shared accounts will be blocked on sight. More importantly, if Jonas has been sharing his account it has to be treated as compromised until proven otherwise - how do we know who reset the password and is currently operating it? WP:COMPROMISED seems clear on the subject. Nick-D (talk) 11:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Nick-D holds a deep personal dislike of me, and I of him, so any comments about my conduct on Wikipedia made by him carries absolutely no weight at all. He would be more than happy to see me blocked and I suspect it's the sole reason he participates in this discussion. And since we're playing a game of Godwin's law, you are a fascist and Nazi sympathizer too, Herostratus! Doctor Papa Jones • (Click here to collect your prize!) 12:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

You have self-identified as a fascist on your user page, where you also stated that "This user supports far-right politics", and "Make no mistake, 99% of all Hitler-related documentaries, in particular those made by the BBC and ABC, is pure anti-fascist propaganda crap and should never be considered anything else." So herostratus is well within his rights to call you a fascist. Do you have, on the other hand, any evidence that Herostratus is "a fascist and Nazi sympathizer"? Otherwise it would be best if you immediately removed those statements. Fram (talk) 13:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Fram, you live in your own little fantasy world; there is no evidence whatsoever that I'm a Nazi sympathizer and I have never made any pro-Nazi edits to any articles, yet I've been sanctioned for such. Also, bare in mind he called me a "nasty piece of work generally" which is pure horseshit. Face fact! Doctor Papa Jones • (Click here to collect your prize!) 15:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I dont see how one could expect more evidence for your being a Nazi sympathizer than the fact that you explicitly stated so on your user page. This is a fact. You may regret that now, but it is a fact you need to face with more integrity than you are doing now. I dont think you are "a nasty piece of work", but your lack of sound judgment and critical thinking in writing about Nazi related topics is obvious to any one who looks over your contributions.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:27, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

It sort of seems like the "shared account" thing was burying the headline here. If the user is being disruptive in other ways then the shared account is just a red herring. If there is a problem we should be blocking the user, not the account(people blocked for having shared accounts are often welcome to create another). HighInBC 16:57, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• Please see Wikipedia_talk:Featured_articles#Claiming_FA_contributions for other concerns about this editor. Drmies (talk) 17:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I have cleared up these so-called "other concerns" on the talk page. Case closed. And stay on topic. Doctor Papa Jones • (Click here to collect your prize!) 17:34, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• Re: premature archive, my bad. Somehow missed the subsection. Consider me self-trouted. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • No problem--thanks. Drmies (talk) 20:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Drmies, please confirm that the issue you referred to here is solved. I'd appreciate that. Doctor Papa Jones • (Click here to collect your prize!) 20:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
      • Sure, I think removing that star was the right thing to do. Drmies (talk) 03:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Doctor Papa Jones and I have been in contact throughout his Wikipedia career due to our overlapping interest in our suite of articles on Nazi Germany. There's definitely a pattern of him not taking the time to learn about our policies and guidelines ahead of time, and he's been in trouble several times because of that. In addition to the stuff already mentioned (sharing his account and the topic ban on Nazi topics), there was the following things, some of which are historical and are not being repeated, and some of which are more recent:

• quick-passing articles during the GA Cup in 2014. He withdrew from the competition. The best link I could find was Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/GA Cup/Archive 1
• Copyright violations at Leni Riefenstahl in summer 2015. Talk:Leni Riefenstahl/GA1. There may have been other instances of copy vio as well. I am pretty sure there were, but Riefenstahl definitely.
• Canvassing for votes for the RFA for GeneralizationsAreBad (March 2016). Diff of User talk:Doctor Papa Jones
• Most recently, he sent me an email on April 16 asking if I would like to work on User:Doctor Papa Jones/Nazi power, a planned article on material that is the subject of his topic ban. I never replied to his email, so he followed up on my talk page, User talk:Diannaa#YGM. I guess he was not aware of our policy against proxy editing, which this email was not quite but almost a violation of. So what we have here is an enthusiastic editor who is not taking the time to learn about our policies and guidelines, and is repeatedly crossing over the line. However, he is obeying policies and guidelines once they are brought to his attention. — Diannaa (talk) 20:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I think it is eminently clear that the discussion has digressed from the "shared account" question to general conduct issues. Not sure how much I can add to this besides asking for all involved to please remain calm and avoid any name-calling that will divert attention from the legitimate issues at hand. This has the potential to generate far more heat than light. My apologies for stating the obvious, it just needs to be said, especially since the last thread got very tense. GAB^Hello! 21:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, you're correct about that User:GeneralizationsAreBad. I'm entirely at fault for that. So, sorry. My reasoning was on the order of "Well, if you ever do want to bend this rule and make an exception, maybe this is not the person you want to do it for".

Anyway, at this point my main interest is just knowing what the rule is. I was blocked without warning or discussion for sharing much less than this person did (or anyway of having been thought to have shared, it was actually a misunderstanding), but that was some years ago, and if the de facto rule has changed, its changed, and fine. Just want to know. To that end I've opened an RfC, here: Wikipedia talk:Username policy#RfC: Is it time to relax a bit on WP:NOSHARE?. Herostratus (talk) 01:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I have blocked Doctor Papa Jones for 24 hours for his personal attacks against Herostratus higher up this page ("you are a fascist and Nazi sympathizer too"), after I had given him a chance to withdraw them (or provide evidence for them), which he didn't do. Attacking someone on his political or ethical beliefs is not the best thing to do here in general; but accusing someone of having such leanings or sympathies without any evidence for it is way out of line. Fram (talk) 07:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

That would probably be a block well-placed in both directions. "Do nazis get special consideration that admins don't?" SQL^{Query me!} 01:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I second that. Herostratus received no block or even warning for calling me a "nasty piece of work generally" or for being extremely rude to SQL on his talk page following his initial closer of the discussion. I smell favoritism! Doctor Papa Jones • (Click here to collect your prize!) 11:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

It seems odd, Fram, that Doctor Papa Jones received a block when Herostratus repeatedly called him a "a nazi sympathizer and a nasty piece of work generally" and repeated other editors' personal attacks against him. If anything, Herostratus' repeated attacks warrant a block. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

No one is stopping you, but I won't do it myself. I see quite some difference between calling somone "a nazi sympathizer" when that person gives everfy impression of being a nazi sympathizer, and calling someone a nazi sympathizer without any reasonable argument for such description. As for "repeating other editor's personal attacks", you mean things like

"Some excerpts: "editing has consistently had a Nazi fanboy tone" User:Nick-D (an admin FWIW), "self-identifies as fascist and pro-Nazi" (User:Maunus), "insists on his user page that mainstream history of the Nazis is wrong, and that only he knows the TRUTH about his hero Hitler." (User:Viriditas)"? Well, much of it aren't personal attacks but accurate reports of what he claimed on his user page, and the remainder are observations by multiple experienced editors of a general pattern in his edits. Finally; Herostratus above has apologised for his remarks: GAB said "please remain calm and avoid any name-calling", and Herostratus replied "Well, you're correct about that User:GeneralizationsAreBad. I'm entirely at fault for that. So, sorry." DP Jones on the other hand was also given the chance to retract his remarks, but choose not to. So one person was called out on his self-declared preferences, and later apologised for the name-calling. Another editor invented similar preferences for someone, and refused to retract them or provide evidence for them. The two are not comparable in my opinion. DP Jones has by the way still not given any indication that he sees any problem with his remarks. Fram (talk) 17:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, you know, truth is a defense. This is your David Duke moment, guys. You're blowing it.

I don't think the person should have been blocked for calling me a fascist, FWIW. This was obviously hyperbole and mere vulgar abuse because the person was pissed off. Everybody gets pissed off when fascism is involved which is one of the many reasons we don't want it here. I'm not saying the person should be here, just that in and of itself was not a good reason for a block, I wouldn't have done it for that specifically, and I don't expect to be blocked in turn on the basis of even-steven. You can if you want to. Do what you think is best for the project.

User:Liz et al, carrying water for this person to point of calling for the blocking of people who simply point out who the guy is.... this is not good. This is is business. It is a publishing business, specifically one engaged in publishing the world' greatest and most popular encyclopedia, ever. Anything that degrades that we have to look at very carefully. We're an Enlightenment institution and Fascism is not a part of the good mix for several reasons, both practical, moral, and political.... I can't really point them out to you because you either know them or probably never will.

Back on the merits, sheesh. Here's from User:Floquenbeam over at the RfC:

• "Once, many years ago, it was an old married couple who were causing no problems - who were just writing, helping, editing in peace - but made the mistake of saying in passing that they were sharing their account. They were immediately indef blocked, and when they said on their talk page they had been married 50 years and shared everything and didn't want separate ones, it was not looked upon as a harmless endearing quirk, instead it was explained to them in no uncertain terms that if they didn't want to get separate accounts they weren't welcome here. I suggested they just say they weren't going to share it anymore, but they didn't want to lie. They stopped editing."
• "Last week... a relatively new account (who appeared to be productive, though it wasn't my subject area) was instablocked when someone noticed the user page said it was shared... there was no "friendly template", no statement that they were free to create new accounts, just the typical "you have been blocked indefinitely..." template..."
• And of course I (this is Herostratus talking again) was blocked without warning for (mistakenly being believed to have been) sort of sharing my account (even though FWIW I was an editor of many years standing, and an admin).
• And similar for others.

So... If the deal is "Well yes, but User:Doctor Papa Jones deserves special consideration because __________", I'm just curious as to what goes in the blank. If the deal is "Well, yes, but the sanctions are purely random depending on what admin comes across it and what their mood is that day", fine, and that's exactly what I'm trying to clarify at the RfC. Yeah I was acerbic with the admin who said "Not only is this not a problem, its not worth discussing and why are you bothering us?" Maybe it's not a problem. Maybe a block was not called for here. I think reasonable people can disagree about that. Other people may not believe that reasonable people can disagree about these things. Herostratus (talk) 01:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

First things first Fram! The statements above are personal attacks, certainly not "accurate reports of what he claimed on his user page" as you claim. You should bare in mind that none of the editors who made those remarks included any links to diffs to support their claims—and thus it's pure harassment, nothing more. You would have known this is you'd read the previous discussion. And Herostratus, comments such as "maybe a block was not called for here" are not of much use now... Doctor Papa Jones • (Click here to collect your prize!) 02:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Well we can't point to the original diffs because they've been erased -- either oversighted, or a combination of a page deletion and page move the amounts to an oversight. But admins can see them. You are, essentially, claiming that the secondary sources I can point to -- e.g. "It says (or said) such-and-such on his user page" are false. Fine, this is easy to settle. An admin can view them. So who is being mendacious -- you, or the secondary sources I pointed to? Somebody ought to be in a trouble because lying in an investigation is uncool. So let's find out. Herostratus (talk) 04:02, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

YES! Let's have an admin find the userpage material that proves I believe "that mainstream history of the Nazis is wrong, and that only he knows the TRUTH about his hero Hitler". This will be interesting. Frankly, I'm tired of all this and I'm not going to argue with you forever. Doctor Papa Jones • (Click here to collect your prize!) 13:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Herostratus, first, I'm not sure what you mean by "carrying water for this person". What I can see are some editors calling Doctor Papa Jones a "Nazi", which is a personal attack, and no diffs or evidence where Doctor Papa Jones identifies himself as a Nazi. I edit articles about Donald Trump but that doesn't make me a Trump supporter or a Republican! It is ridiculous to assume that an editor shares the political stance of the subjects of the articles they edit.

I can see where editors have made the argument that Doctor Papa Jones didn't always have a neutral point of view and when they provided evidence of this, it resulted in a topic ban. But other editors' attacks against Doctor Papa Jones and calling him names does not make those attacks true and verifiable, I don't care how respected those editors are. I have had no contact with Doctor Papa Jones before this incident but I would make the same request for evidence when slurs like this are made, no matter who the editor was.

It goes without saying that I am just one admin and there are admins who clearly think differently than I. That's not just true in this case but in many situation where there is conflict between editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Liz, my quotes came from his deleted user page, you are perfectly capable of finding these diffs for yourself. Someone who self-identifies as a fascist far-right lover who believes that "99% of all Hitler-related documentaries, in particular those made by the BBC and ABC, is pure anti-fascist propaganda crap and should never be considered anything else" and who edits nazi-related subjects quite extensively (things like Adolf Hitler's 50th birthday or Columbus Globe for State and Industry Leaders, which needs a GA review as not meeting the GA standards by a mile); I don't see how describing him as a nazi is so amazing. Would "a nazi-fascinated fascist" (which is hard to deny, considering the above and the many other articles he made about Hitler and the people around him) be much better or different? Fram (talk) 07:52, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, Adolf Hitler's 50th birthday and Columbus Globe for State and Industry Leaders are good articles which nicely meet the GA-criteria. Secondly, there are fundamental differences in expressing yourself and your opinions on a userpage and editing mainspace articles. As I've repeatedly told you during this discussion, Fram, you will not find a single edit to any article that suggest I'm unable to neutrally edit. Doctor Papa Jones • (Click here to collect your prize!) 13:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I have no interest in discussing strawmen arguments. I have indicated why I blocked you, you have not given any arguments why that block would have been wrong. Your block was not for any article edits. The articles I mentioned were only to indicate the focus of your attention, which nicely matches your earlier userpage declarations and many of the negative statements made about you by others. Fram (talk) 13:50, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

As Liz pointed out, it's ridiculous to assume that an editor shares the political stance of the subjects of the articles they edit. You, more than anyone, escalated this discussion by blocking me during a debate in which name-calling was commonplace. As you know, I wasn't the only editor who questioned the fruitfulness of the block. That being said, I'm done commenting here. Doctor Papa Jones • (Click here to collect your prize!) 14:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

It's hardly ridiculous when that same editor self-identified as a far-right fascist and so on, of course. If you disclose your political stance on your user page and then edit very closely associated subjects, it can not be expected that people will look at these edits and this choice of subjects and not take your own declarations into account. While evidence-based namecalling shouldn't be condoned, it is much less of a problem than evidence-free namecalling, which is what you were doing. The block was a result of this escalation you started and which you refused to retract. Fram (talk) 14:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Personally I find it ridiculous that some people consider it a personal attack when referring to someones self-disclosed political views in the context of their politically-biased editing. If that was the case, no POV discussion about editors contributions would ever get off the ground as any evidence would be removed under NPA. The sanctions for people editing in the American Politics area would be unenforceable as any any attempt to call out their blatant partisanship would be shouted down. "Nazi-sympathizer edits articles to be more sympathetic to Nazi's!" Big shock there. News at 11. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

On the merits, see Wikipedia talk:Username policy#RfC: Is it time to relax a bit on WP:NOSHARE? where it maybe seems possible that rule will be changed. And that's fine. My understanding, based on experience and observation and then reading the rule, was that sharing an account was an extinction-level event, maybe for copyright reasons. It's quite reasonable to say that it shouldn't be, and in fact I've voted to change the rule (other observers are invited to go over there and jump in so's to create a quorum). (I'm assuming that sharing an admin account is a separate level of bad. I hope? It's probably not spelled out anywhere but wouldn't be allowed on general grounds, right?). Herostratus (talk) 16:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

How to finalize a consensus?

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

---

This is a procedural, not content issue.
Regarding building a consensus in an article: I've done the lengthy discussion, initiated an RfC and sought input on policy from two different policy pages; most of the folk in response to those actions are in agreement with one way to proceed. Still, one editor is resisting the significant (12/6) consensus to do so.
I can't just keep reverting in the consensus view back in, so what is my next step? Do I ask an admin to weigh the consensus and decide? I'm unsure how to proceed, and the one editor in question is growing more aggressive by the edit. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@Jack Sebastian: Has the discussion been closed? If the RfC has been closed, then you should probably name the editor here with links to them editing against consensus and not responding to attempts to discuss. That would likely require administrator intervention. If the RfC has not been closed and it's been 30 days, I'd recommend WP:ANRFC to get a neutral close. ~ Rob^Talk 23:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm involved in the consensus discussion. Just a couple of clarifications of Jack Sebastian's incorrect statements. "Most of the folk" are not in agreement. And it's more than one editor (referring to me) who is on the other side from Jack Sebastian. Nor have I grown "more aggressive". Nor have I not responded to attempts to discuss. Take at look at the discussion (Talk:Natalie Portman#RfC: Is the language biased?} for more details. And I'll also note that a significant portion of the discussion occurred prior to the RfC at Talk:Natalie Portman#Major roles, which should not be overlooked. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 00:00, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

It was brought up in several venues, and nowhere was it closed by an uninvolved editor, or was there agreement that consensus has been reached. You can find the discussions Here (still an open discussion), Here (still an open discussion - with only a single other editor contributing to the discussion), and here (which was closed on procedural grounds for being in the wrong venue). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Edit Wars at Payback 2016

There is a wave of vandalizm happening on the Payback (2016) page. Maybe it should be blocked to open edits — Preceding unsigned comment added by DinobotTM2 (talk • contribs) 01:35, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

• @DinobotTM2: Payback (2016) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) looks like it's protected and cleaned up. Did we miss anything? -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 01:42, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
• I tried a semi-protect, and that was an immediate failure. Article is now fully-protected for 1 week. SQL^{Query me!} 01:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm currently going through each edit one-by-one to start sorting out the mess and start warning/reporting vandals. This will take awhile...... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Good luck. (You'll need it) -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 01:51, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

There are now multiple edit requests posted on the talk page and there needs to be some consensus on which information is accurate before any content can be added. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:50, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Be weary; I reverted some edit requests immediately after the article was protected. They were blatant violations and vandalism. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Request for RevDel

I don't know whether it was directed toward another editor or the subject of a BLP, but evidently calling somebody a "(Redacted)" and a member of "(Redacted)" is not considered sufficiently libelous to spur Oversight into action. Hopefully an administrator will step in and do what Oversight refuses to do. (Redacted) Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Done.--v/r - TP 06:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 10:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Just out of interest, @Malik Shabazz: did you actually contact oversighters and did they actually refuse to redact those comments? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Would you like me to forward the e-mail message, from an anonymous member of the English Wikipedia Oversight team, to you? — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 10:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Common enough really, from my experience with them the best option is to wait 30 minutes and try again. You usually get a different response from a different person. Its a combination of the oversight team's lack of oversight/quality control, and all wikipedia's policies being open to individual interpretation. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz: Oh, not at all, no, I don't doubt you. I meant it as a genuine enquiry, and I'm disappointed that you got that response from them. Even if they thought oversight was not warranted, then I would have hoped they'd at least rev-del instead - I certainly would have. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:46, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Only about 1300 editors who have earned the trust of the community via Rfa can see rev-del'd stuff, so it really the right way to go for most inappropriate material. In my experience #wikipedia-en-revdel ^connect works well. I've found Oversight responsive primarily for privacy violations, and it is in the best of interest of the community if oversight actions are limited to what is necessary, as so few editors can review the actions of oversighters. NE Ent

Right, but even if an oversighter disagreed that oversight should be used, they still have the tools for a revdel.--v/r - TP 00:39, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely. To be honest, I was more than a little shocked that the shithead individual who replied to me could have looked at the edit in question and written, presumably with a straight face, "If you think this matter needs attention from administrators or editors, please visit the appropriate noticeboard." According to Special:ListUsers/suppress, every one of the Oversighters has administrative tools, so whoever it was, they were just being an asshole about it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:45, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Did the response you got look like a template? Previously, when I have had a declined oversight request, I got a personalised message specific to the circumstance. "If you think this matter needs attention from administrators or editors, please visit the appropriate noticeboard" sounds to me like something an oversighter might reflexively fire off without thinking too carefully about its contents (much the same way as some template warnings for vandalism). BethNaught (talk) 15:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it was almost certainly a template:

We appreciate you bringing this to our attention. Unfortunately, the edits associated with your request cannot be suppressed under our policy <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Oversight>. If you think this matter needs attention from administrators or editors, please visit the appropriate noticeboard (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Noticeboards>). Thank you for sharing your concerns and please contact us again if you have any in the future.

If the Oversighter who was monitoring the mailbox couldn't be arsed to look at the diffs I sent—which were sufficiently egregious that they've been scrubbed from this page's history as well as the original's—they shouldn't have replied at all. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:47, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

If oversighters rev-del'd revdelable but not oversightable material, over time editors would naturally migrate to sending all redactable material to oversight, shifting the rev-del work from 816 administrators who are not oversighters to 43

oversighters. This is not a reasonable division of unpaid volunteer time. NE Ent 22:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

You're right. It's much better to leave libelous material in Wikipedia.

Here's a suggestion (one that I made a month ago at WT:REVDEL): Why not make it as easy to request RevDel as it is to request Oversight? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) He's right you know. There's #wikipedia-en-revdel ^connect (which I've often used), but that's about all I know off the top of my head, besides contacting individual admins. Looking it over though, that's all there is. There should be a better way. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 17:24, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, I have found WP:Oversight very responsive to e-mails and RevDel requests. They always take care of the problem. I have also found that involving individual WP:Admins directly works. Of course, it may just be the subject matter of what I send them. YMMV. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

As an administrator who is willing to deal with RevDel requests, I am also frustrated that there isn't an easier way. I have had no more than half a dozen direct requests. I would lurk on IRC, but there it is difficult to protect one's privacy: to hide your IP address, you have to register a "cloak" with the channel operators, and even that can be overcome. Not to mention, you have to learn how to use a system which is too complex in proportion for the tasks in hand. I would love it if there were an OTRS-powered mailing list such as the oversight one. About a secret admin cabal being established on such a list: attempts like that might happen, but OTRS does leak and with >1000 sysops having access, I'm sure someone would blow the whistle. BethNaught (talk) 18:08, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

The related problem is the Streisand effect, particularly when it comes to WP:BLP and WP:Defamation issues. So using e-mail to oversight works. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Or email an administrator. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Karst keeps deleting accurate infromation

The following discussion is closed. 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 Karst keeps deleting accurate information, that comes directly from the source of the pages members. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Getmorechevelle (talk • contribs) 23:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Since they do not appear to have been notified, I have done so. GAB^Hello! 23:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Here is the revert in question: "Undid revision 718322847 by Getmorechevelle (talk) As a WP:COI editor please place your requests/suggestions on the Talk page." GAB^Hello! 00:12, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Seems like BS to me. The editor was bold and was reverted and asked to discuss. The word "keeps" implies that it has happened more than once. The sources that Getmorechevelle has removed is not invalidated by the band members' own promotional contents. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:12, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Walter. I indeed did not delete anything but restored. From the same diff is was clear to me that the editor had a conflict of interest, hence the message on his Talk page on CoI. Why I was hauled over to ANI is puzzling. Karst (talk) 06:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

We just missed you really. It's not the same ANI unless there's a thread here on you. TimothyJosephWood 12:12, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

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

User ChristensenMJ is summarily reverting an entire page merely to prevent clarity on uncomfortable issues for his church

I made many good faith edits to this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_of_the_Mormons%3F

and ChristensenMJ showed up not to edit anything in good faith but to merely revert the entire page back to the status quo WHICH INCLUDES reverting the page to a state where no references were in the reference section (a problem I had fixed in good faith).

ChristensenMJ falsely claims that I made personal opinions in the changes, when I did no such thing, yet he did not challenge any specific change, and he himself injected personal opinion in wholly reverting the page and undoing all my good faith edits, in a way that clearly denoted that he ignored ALL of my good faith edits. I consider what ChristensenMJ did to be a form of vandalism and CENSORSHIP of those attempting to update pages in good faith fashion. ChristensenMJ is clearly a mormon apologist who doesn't want pages updated that would provide any clarity on behavior by the mormon church. Protecting his church from being clearly and accurately described violates the rules of wikipedia and I believe his privileges should be suspended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.2.56.195 (talk) 02:52, 27 April 2016‎

• Yeah, I just reverted you: your commentary needs secondary sourcing. See WP:RS. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I have responded to the user's personal attacks made in postings on my talk page there, but to briefly respond here, I certainly don't believe anything inappropriate was done in reverting what I clearly noted were good faith edits. There is no protectionism taking place. Just looking for well written, appropriately sourced, npov edits - which these didn't seem to be. The lack of those traits and the writing style/content that seemed to imply some sinister effort on the church's part were all that made me "uncomfortable" - to use the IP's words. ChristensenMJ (talk) 04:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

The complainant is clearly over reacting, probably motivated by a predisposed view that Mormon-related articles are likely to be controlled by adherents. However, ChristensenMJ could have avoided the overreaction by fact tagging the added content. If no sources arrived within a reasonable time, it could then be removed. The reverted content also needs secondary sourcing. The "continued to be published" claim which constitutes the main difference in the two edits is just as unsourced as the removed material. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:21, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

This user went overboard. I have known ChristensenMJ for several years, almost during the entirety of my Wikipedia experience. In that time, I have found him to be an invaluable contributor to Church-related articles. His attention to detail has been appreciated by me. I have personal knowledge, and my experience with him backs this up, that he has never been selfishly motivated in any edits he has made to Church-related pages. I also know that some anonymous editors come to Wikipedia for the sole purpose of stirring up trouble. I was called into question once by an anonymous editor for the "bullying" way in which I edit Church-related articles. Best to let these nutjobs blow off steam and then contribute constructively to Wikipedia, if they choose to do so. I think, ChristensenMJ, that you would be fully within your rights to remove this whole topic from your talk page. Don't let the blustering of an anonymous editor keep you from doing the amazing job you continue to do in working on Church-related articles. In the meantime, if something like this ever comes up again, I would have no qualms about speaking in your defense. Keep up the great work! --Jgstokes (talk) 00:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Jgstokes - referring to an editor as "these nutjobs" is not helpful. There was nothing unreasonable or extreme in the anon editor's edits, they are just unsourced. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:21, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Problematic long-term IP editor

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

This user has an extensive history of unconstructive edits and adding content without any regard for sourcing or even correctness, and completely failing to engage in any discussion about his edits. He was blocked for 31 hours after this ANI thread, but he promptly returned with no change in behavior. He also edits from many other IP's (apparently from his mobile phone), but this seems to be his main IP, so a long-term block would at least help a little bit. Some recent problematic edits: [101] [102] [103] [104] [105] [106] [107]

Just a sampling of other IP's he has used lately:

• 2605:6000:1709:4009:D0A7:CBF7:417:6517 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 107.77.211.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 107.77.212.211 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 166.137.176.8 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 166.137.176.38 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 166.137.176.51 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 166.137.179.15 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 166.177.248.15 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 166.177.248.79 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 166.177.248.242 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 166.177.250.63 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 166.177.250.94 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 166.171.251.161 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Toohool (talk) 04:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

• Lack of communication is irritating and I was getting ready to throw some blocks and protection around--but what's wrong with this edit? Or this? Drmies (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I never said that all of his edits were wrong. Most of them, such as those two, I would say are neutral. But there are so many wrong edits mixed in with the OK edits, and he shows no sign of improving or listening when people tell him what he's doing wrong. Toohool (talk) 18:30, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

This is one of the problems with the admin tools set: it is incomplete. Problems like this are difficult to deal with. The editor covers a few different IP ranges, and I haven't checked the ranges for collateral damage because it wouldn't be effective anyway. Individual blocks are going to be spotty, particularly since he uses mobile edits. It seems most of the time, he does a bunch of edits in one day then disappears, so there isn't a chance for him to see the warnings, as he has a new IP by the time he comes back. I don't know of a good answer unless it gets to the point that protection is needed, at WP:RFPP. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed that a block of the mobile IP's would be ineffective, but I think a block of the IP I listed at the top would be helpful, as it has persisted for two months now. Toohool (talk) 07:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

107.77.212.211 is part of a /10 network, way too big to block. Admin literally can't. Cingular owns the block, so it is likely mobile phone as well. Maybe someone can, I've looked at a bit at the edits of the /16 network (the largest I can view without CU tools) and see lots of garbage, but not all of it. It would be cutting off thousands of IPs. It needs looking at by an admin or preferably a CU with more experience in range blocks. THe WP:SPI main page (bottom) is one place to ask, pointing them here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm talking about 50.184.105.58. Toohool (talk) 00:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

108.29.190.199

• Lenovo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 108.29.190.199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I'm not sure this is the right place for this. This IP keeps adding this content to Lenovo: [108] [109] [110]

I've removed it a few times and attempted to discuss: Talk:Lenovo#Promise for Cleaner PCs

Also tried to get the IP editor to discuss: User talk:108.29.190.199

But have been unable to get any kind of response from this editor. The various dispute resolution procedures seem intended for two editors who are in discussion but can't agree. I can't get this editor to discuss at all. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I find it incredibly frustrating to deal with edit warring, non-communicative IP editors, but this doesn't seem like it's worth battling over. A Google search turns up coverage in independent reliable sources ([111], [112], [113]), so I suggest you replace the press release with one of them and let it go. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Someone needs a nap

I am thinking that range-blocking - at least for a while - might be called for. After User:TJH2018a was indef blocked for impersonating TJH2018 and harassing another user, I let them know that their block was pretty darn justified. In retrospect, WP:DFT should have guided me, but cie la vie. The curious little guy then threatened me on his page and then vandalized my page. From the type of vandalism, I am guessing it's a kid (bc who else would think that a WikiCommons picture of a flaccid penis is actually insulting). With that in mind, I'd like to propose a range block for the summer; maybe they will find something shiny and be occupied with that. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

From that one edit, it appears it could be a sock of Nolantron as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

That seemed apparent to me. What led me to the idea of range-blocking was the apparent interest in disrupting the 'pedia, so I say keep them out for a while. Since it is most likely a kid, they are gearing up for Summer Break. Idle hands and all that. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• Jack Sebastian, did you ping me telepathically? Cause I do need a nap. Drmies (talk) 17:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Please do something about this guy, he is ruining my quiet evening with his vandalism including... pictures...-- Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

And he did it again this time on my usertalk.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• Yeah, that's a lot of penis. I blocked the IP, but I don't do range blocks (note that it wasn't a range of penises--it was just one, multiplied, in an act of narcissistic, penile overdetermination). I'm sorry it ruined your quiet evening; it also kind of ruined my happy thoughts about napping. Drmies (talk) 17:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Did they teach you the phrase 'penile overdetermination' in med school? Katie^talk 17:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Seminary. Drmies (talk) 20:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

That was below the belt.--Elmidae (talk) 08:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• Troll is still dicking around those two talk pages. I requested protection at RFPP but it's backlogged. Will one of you admins consider skipping the queue on this one? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I see what you did there. = Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Spoke too soon, Widr is on it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Might need to go to the talk page archives too as the vandal is hitting those as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Not my area of expertise, but can the file be deleted? It's not in use anywhere except for when this troll edits. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

The file is on commons, so good luck with that .... We could completely disable the image here by uploading something else as a local copy, but it's already been added to the MediaWiki:Bad image list [114] so I don't think that's necessary. Nil Einne (talk) 18:23, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Maybe I was a little unfair, the most relevant pages are probably Commons:Commons:Nudity, Commons:COM:PORN and Commons:Template:Nopenis which does suggest recent low quality images will generally be delete. What counts as low quality I'm not sure but the image does have little info which would be a concern. Anyway that would need to be dealt with at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests. Nil Einne (talk) 18:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Well I've nominated it for deletion, so we shall see what happens. Of course the wider issue is that even if it is deleted, there are plenty more (we have the same issue with the bad image list, with the minor advantage that I think adding images to it is easier than deleting them on commons). Nil Einne (talk) 18:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Yeah, we all know there are not enough flaccid penisse in the world to satisfy Common's desire for them.--v/r - TP 19:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

True dat, TParis. Drmies (talk) 19:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I'm here. Basically, the only way to combat this thing is to put the images on the MediaWiki list, and put in for an SPI. I took the liberty of creating a User:TJH2018b and User:TJH2018c, so hopefully that will discourage him for a while. If you take a look at my talk page, you'll see that some guy was complaining about him. But that's the gist. Nothing else we can do besides that. TJH2018talk 21:35, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the assistance; I'm sure the blocked user will eventually get tired of getting cock-blocked. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@@Jack Sebastian: He doesn't stop. It may seem like he's gone, but he'll be back. TJH2018talk 22:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Can we revisit the idea of rangeblocking? Even the IP troll dared us to make a rangeblock. Unfortunately, in my Orientation to Adminship they didn't cover rangeblocks so is there another admin who can look into this? These taunts and trolling have been going on for weeks now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Looks like 24.114.50.0/18 would cover it, but I'd need to confirm any crossfire or additional IPs it would miss. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 00:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Nope, too many good edits from that range it seems. *sigh* -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 00:19, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I think I got it: 24.114.100.0/21; 24.114.60/19; 24.114.45/20 I omitted the range around 24.114.99.0 since I saw recent good edits from around there. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 00:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

This situation has been going on for quite some time now. I (and basically anyone who has come to my assistance) have received personal attacks, vandalism, said unsavoury pictures, ETC, since as early as February 2016, and it's about to be May. There are brief periods of time where it seems like the user has stopped, but he quickly returns. Every time one of his IPs or accounts is blocked, the user finds a new one almost immediately.

The user shows no signs of any endgame. Quite the opposite, in fact. The user's vandalism is getting worse. He is now impersonating other users ([115]). This probably will go on for as long as it's allowed. At this point, I think more extreme measures need to be taken. DarkKnight2149 00:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

It looks as if the selected range block isn't working: ¹

On a side note, is there a way to check to see what doppleganger accounts I already have in place? It's been years since i started my account (and several dissatisfied customers, hence the dopps). - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• Can we taboo the name? Make it go away? -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 21:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I did not know that this was even possible. What an exceptionally useful too (in the right hands). - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Considering how everyone else has left this behind, I'll wait for the block to expire before posting at WP:EFR, or sooner if there is a good need for it. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 00:27, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Well the nap didn't work

In the overnight, the same anon popped up with a new IP and had more sparkling commentary to make on my page (1, 2, 3, 4) and Darkknight2149 (1). I only know about DK, because his page is on my watchlist; I am sure that others are also affected by this Canucklehead's behavior. This kid has managed to evade the somewhat ineffective range block set in place. Really, I don't mind the vandalism (especially when some really awesome patrollers catch it before I even log on for the day), but with the open SPI regarding the user (seen here), it would seem prudent to extend the range block in order to lower the noise/sound ratio. Maybe a community ban is more in order - washing our hands of the kid, so to speak. Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:12, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

He left a complaint on my talk page this morning[116]. :) Meanwhile I'm looking at another avenue. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:50, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and Coffee blocked the 24.114.x.x range for one week while I put that image on the naughty list.--Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

That challenge seems quite unrepentant, doesn't he? I think that, in blocking the range of IPs to keep him out, we point out to the good users that his specific behavior caused the block. Let the locals there sort him out but good. Short of that wishful thinking, perhaps its time to assemble the ban hammer? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm, he is de facto banned anyway. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Clearly, the user doesn't think so, and continues to promise further retribution. He's a legend in his own mind, but still an annoying one. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Would a community ban be viable, or is it unnecessary? I'd be willing to author one, if you want. I think I've had my fair share of experiences with this...--TJH2018talk 17:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

What would a ban do that we're not doing already (RBI)? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:45, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Dunno, but at least we know the (seemingly) anon user is watching the conversation. And, apparently, needs something of a love life. Trolling here might be his equivalent of spanking it.However you guys want to handle it is fine with me. Clearly, I'd like the semi-prot template to remain on my user and talk pages for unregistered users until further notice. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, if they don't consider themselves banned because there's no template, I'm sure they can be obliged. Blackmane (talk) 15:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

In the news: Whitewashing in Providence (religious movement)

Australian magazine Crikey today brings an article about whitewashing in our article Providence (religious movement).

Background: South Korean, Christian NRM. The organization's leader, a self-proclaimed messiah, is serving a 10-year prison sentence for raping female followers. Followers remaining with the organization are, not surprisingly, convinced of his innocence, and have a documented record in reliable sources for violently beating up Ex-Providence whistleblowers and, in a Wikipedia context importantly, violently trying to suppress negative press.

Wikipedia article history: The article (as well as the merged Jung Myung Seok) was for years the target of tendentious editing by church members. The community decided to indef block two editors in March 2014 (AN/I diff), and after a 1-year semi protection in April, all was quiet and calm. For a short while. The following accounts were created and have shown a keen interest in the article:

• GIOSCali (talk · contribs), reg. 29 June 2014, SPA
• Phoenix0316 (talk · contribs), reg. 21 July 2015, SPA in effect
• CollinsBK (talk · contribs), reg. 10 August 2015, SPA

Editing patterns as well as the talk page exhaustion soon looked a lot like it was pre-March 2014. A prolonged 2-year semi was applied in August 2015. Personally I had had it in the fall of 2015, and decided to step back. Looks like other regulars, Kiyoweap, Ian.thomson, Jim1138, Shii, Harizotoh9 did something similar. Since then new users have joined editing

• BourkeM (talk · contribs), reg. 12 September 2015, not an SPA, but same POV concerns
• SugarvilleMom (talk · contribs), reg. 14 January 2016, SPA in effect.

Comparing a before and after revision side by side shows you the whitewashing:

26 September 2015 — ° — 30 April 2016

From a decent 68k article (all incl.) with 90+ citations, it went down to 46k and ~50 citations. The nature of the contents changes are obvious.

For now I have restored a prior revision, and I suggest we take it from there. More eyes on the article, as well as active participants on the talk page, should the shenanigans continue, would be lovely. Advice on how to proceed in order to secure a more neutral future article would be great. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

For background, here is the closed dispute resolution case from spring 2015 although the only editor who was involved in DR who is mentioned here is GIOSCali. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Support the recent restoration. Not sure exactly what else can be done, other than perhaps restoring some level of page protection. One of the unfortunate problems relating to this group in particular is the comparative lack of English language sources available, at least so far as I have seen, and the occasional, sometimes reasonable, questions about whether those sources are what we would most like to use for our article. The Unification Church, its parent body, has gotten a lot of publicity, and is covered well in multiple sources, but this group doesn't seem to offer that much different for academic and/or western press to cover at length, so there is apparently less obvious reason to go into details regarding it except regarding specific events related to it and it alone. I guess page protection and/or discretionary sanctions might be the best way to go here? John Carter (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

P. S. I'm thinking the article in Crikey itself may merit some mention in the Providence article or some spinout article. The full article doesn't seem to be available on the net yet, but it appears to about some Australian Tax Office employee has been editing the article from a government computer. When it does become available, or when there is some follow up or response, it might not be at all unreasonable to create a wikinews article on the subject, which could be linked to in the article regardless of WEIGHT considerations, and which can serve as a bit of a reminder to others about possible problems with this article. John Carter (talk) 20:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

• As long as there's a consensus to go back to the full version, I'll at least aim to keep it at near there. Starting a job on the other side of the planet left me unable to deal with the continual civil POV-pushing from some of the SPAs. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:09, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
• My attempting to keep the whitewashing down was a major time sink. Especially since many of the refs are in Korean, Japanese, and other foreign languages. I finally gave up. The article needs to be protected from outright whitewashing in some way. Sam Sailor's revert to a pre-whitewash state is a good start. Jim1138 (talk) 02:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support restoration to version before whitewashing. Support topic-banning CollinsBK. She systematically deleted negative content which were well-sourced, and putting objections in Talk discussions by the wayside, reintroduced dubious claims that are poorly sourced/unsourced ("the sexual assault charges were dismissed by the prosecutors involved" cf. #YTN retractions or "900 million won in compensation" cf. #JMS sued SBS from broadcasting).--Kiyoweap (talk) 07:13, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• @Liz: Sorry, haven't looked at the problem in detail, but I thought I should point out that Shii (talk · contribs) unfortunately hasn't edited Wikipedia at all since July 2015. I really wish they were still around, but given that their 22nd-to-last article edit was to the article in question, it seemed a bit off to say they "decided to step back" from the dispute. I hope for the sake of the project's integrity in covering East Asian religion in general that what Shii intended was to "step back" from the project as a whole for a year or so and will decide to step back in at some point. Cheers. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Shit. Sorry Liz. The above was meant for Sam Sailor. The OP was so long and your sig so much longer than both your comment and SS's sig that I misread it as you being the OP. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• @John Carter: As for the restoration, bringing back reliable sources that have been deleted is completely reasonable. However, there are many appropriate edits among those that have now been overwritten by the restoration so these should not be removed. Since the content of the opposed removal of many sources outweighs the content of other edits, I can see why a complete restoration may seem like the best route. However, there are other versions of the article that are still well outside "whitewashed" that contains these edits. BourkeM ^Converse! 22:11, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Random comment: It seems that half the article is dedicated as a coat rack to Jung's activities versus the actual movement itself. Not having done due diligence/research on the research, I am not sure if the man and the "mission" can be separated but it seems that the stuff about him can be summarized more than it is. 129.9.75.192 (talk) 16:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

The existing page on Providence is also the target of an existing redirect at Jung Myung Seok, the name of the founder. That being the case, and the fact that SFAICT in a lot of cases there hasn't been that much mention of either the group or the individual independent of each other, it would make sense to have the one article cover both topics fairly thoroughly. John Carter (talk) 17:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

User:JaberEl-Hour

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

---

I am reporting User:JaberEl-Hour for violating NPA, CIVIL, and various other things. He is a Syrian Politician, and has resorted to calling editors concerned about his COI "western scum".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JaberEl-Hour https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:C.Fred&diff=prev&oldid=716499214

ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 20:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

This is someone clearly WP:NOTHERE. Jytdog approached them in the most polite way possible about their COI, and immediately was called "Western Scum" among other things. This is not an editor we really need here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that's enough of that. NOTHERE blocked. Katie^talk 20:10, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, the translations for his user page amount to "Crush the dreaded West, which prevents us from establishing our state democracy. One Arab Nation, with an eternal message" ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 20:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I blanked his (offensive) user page. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 20:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Removal of speedy deletion templates

The following discussion is closed. 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 article False Pro has been speedy deleted twice before. I tagged it for deletion for not asserting it's importance. The creator, User:Nathan398 removed the speedy deletion template once, and I warned them. They did it again, and since he was already warned for doing so in the past by another editor, I gave them a final warning. Alas they're still removing the template, even after having used the talk page per its instructions. Opencooper (talk) 20:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

And then they removed this thread. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 20:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I reported the user to AIV for repeated removal of the CSD tag after being warned not to do so and repeated creation of the page. The removal of this thread, and their other edits makes me think they need a time out. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

User's been blocked by Widr now. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Potentially connected IP editors

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

---

I noticed User talk:Huntster recently protected Brittany Byrnes based upon the edits of 70.212.44.85 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and other non-registered users. 70.212.44.85 has also edited Heather O'Rourke, which has also seen recent IP vandalism/unhelpful edits. I compared the edits of other similar editors and found a list of IP accounts that have edited at least two (some more) of the following articles: Judith Barsi, Heather O'Rourke, Nancy Allen (actress), Brittany Byrnes, Babe (film) and Mary Kay Bergman.

There are multiple similar edits to Judith Barsi by other IP users beginning with the 2600 prefix, and several edits by other IPs with the 70 prefix are made on the other linked articles. I recently requested protection on Judith Barsi, but (at no fault of the closing admin) based upon evidence presented at that time during the request, no action was taken.

Can someone please take a look at the edit histories of the linked IP users below as well as the articles? There is an uncanny coincidence of edit histories as well as styles of editing (adding days of week to dates, changing cause of death in infoboxes to "Complications from...", wikilinking common words, adding trivial details to infoboxes and article spaces, changing "child" to "little girl", etc.). Also, since the IP users are editing at least two or more of the articles linked above with the same styles, they are likely the same person.

Below are all the IP users I could find. For those who are only editing one of the articles listed, I included the IP because edits matched those of other similar IP addresses in the table below.

There are likely other articles involved and possibly more IPs. See related talk at User talk:Huntster#Protection on Brittany Byrnes and related IP editors. Let me know your thoughts. AldezD (talk) 21:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

(Note: I moved this request here from AIV, as this seems the best place to get it visibility without cluttering up a fast-paced board like AIV.) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

These are all Verizon Wireless IPs, so it's entirely possible this is the same user with a dynamic IP. I'm not sure what you want us to do about it. Katie^talk 00:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Can you apply a range block to the IPs? If not, can you protect the linked articles that are being vandalized? AldezD (talk) 00:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Wow that chart was a ton of work. So sorry you did all that. Way more simply handled through page protection. Jytdog (talk) 02:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Can these pages then be protected? AldezD (talk) 03:32, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) To respond to your original question, a range block is almost certainly out of the question because, if this is all the same person, they're rotating between IPs on too wide a range to effectively stop with a range block. We'd either have to not block most of the range (so they could still get through) or deal with excessive collateral damage affecting users who have nothing to do with the vandalism. Page protection is the way to go here. Try WP:RFPP. ~ Rob^Talk 04:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• Just filed for PP here Jytdog (talk) 05:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Not involved too much. If an IP range block is not possible due to collateral damage to non involved Verizon users - is there a way instead to "tag" all the edits of a range of IPs as possible vandalism (or similar)? Is there such tools? Caseeart (talk) 05:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Editing patterns can be recognized, and tagged, with the Wikipedia:Edit filter. --Jayron32 15:47, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Legal threat

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

---

Here [117]. Almost certainly a sock of blocked users 96.81.86.146 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 24.218.78.89 (talk · contribs · 24.218.78.89 WHOIS) Toddst1 (talk) 20:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

And again. GAB^Hello! 20:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd say they are block evading, as the other IP's have already been blocked for that. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I've blocked him, but keep WP:DOLT in mind with regards to the article.--v/r - TP 20:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Given the first thing they did was revert a specific users edits it seems clear this is a sock puppet. Even if the legal threat is withdrawn the block should stand. HighInBC 21:00, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Alansohn

Earlier today, an editor sought sanctions (both at WP:AN and WP:COIN) against Alansohn for WP:COI violations, including his actual name and place of residence as evidence. These edits were oversighted on WP:OUTING grounds, so I can't give any useful diffs, and at any rate, the substance of the COI allegations is totally irrelevant to what I'm addressing. Over at COIN, someone else provided a link to an old revision of the page where Alansohn had publicly posted on-wiki his actual name and place of residence. After going from the old revision to the page's current revision, I responded to this comment by noting that the original content was still present on the current version (Note that Alansohn has since removed the content, as is his right, so you won't find it there anymore) and quoting the OUTING policy. In response, I was told that I was aiding and abetting an attempt to violate policy, my actions were claimed to be "trying to find an excuse to legitimize these efforts to disclose personal information", and told that I was being offensive. No evidence whatsoever (as a matter of fact, I'm not trying to aid or abet anything; I'm merely trying to see that policy be followed and not misused), and WP:WIAPA considers "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" to be personal attacks. As WP:NPA notes that "Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor", I removed said derogatory comments and left Alansohn a warning about NPA, only to see Alansohn re-post the same content.

Given Alansohn's extensive history of NPA/civility blocks, he's clearly aware of project policies regarding personal attacks. It's time to enforce this policy firmly against someone who edit-wars to restore evidence-free accusations about personal behavior on the part of an uninvolved admin who's merely addressing whether the situation were the policy violation it was alleged to be. Nyttend (talk) 05:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

PS, in order to leave the required "you're at ANI" notice, I went to Alansohn's talk and observed both an additional unsupported attack on me and related hostility directed toward Jytdog, the individual who had provided the link that I mention up above. This is firmly the type of action prohibited by WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and plenty of ancillary standards. Nyttend (talk) 05:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, AlanSohn's already posted his name and his city and state on his Wikipedia page and at least one project space in Wikipedia, for example, he states his state of residence on his userpage , and he's also stated | his real name and city as well as state of residence on Wikiproject:NewJersey so someone else posting the same thing isn't outing, so if the content was removed because it stated his real name and city and state it needs to be put back, not to mention the fact that he already edits as his real name on Wiki (as evidenced above ). KoshVorlon 11:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand the complaint here. Nyttend dug up a 10 year old edit to a WikiProject introduction page, where Alansohn identified himself, and Alansohn was irked. I think I would be, too. I don't think his annoyance ranks as a personal attack. In a diff you provided, he stated, "That an admin would be trying to find an excuse to legitimize these efforts to disclose personal information is patently offensive." Saying that your action was offensive to him is an opinion, not an attack. And as far as his extensive block log, his last block was seven years ago, in April 2009, so I'm not sure of its relevance to this complaint. This complaint is just prolonging this case of faux outing. The COI discussion is occuring on the COIN board and I don't think this exchange of remarks ranks high as an incident that requires admin intervention. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• Blatantly not outing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• This COI notice seems like an attempt to attack User:Alansohn, not for the actual coi, but for other behavior. It's pretty much the way Alansohn himself operates, attacking other editors with unfounded WP:ASPERSIONS, so maybe turnabout's fair play, to some extent. In fact, he exhibits that behavior right here, accusing user:Wasickta of outing him when he posted his personal information (and then, typically for a.s. removed it, with a dishonest caption that it had been "inadvertently added", lol). But, is the encyclopedia really harmed by an officeholder making constructive edits to his jurisdiction? I'm more concerned by his other behavior, such as being uncivil, asserting ownership, bullying, use of ethnic pejoratives etc. The community has tolerated all this, so what's a little conflict of interest between "friends"? Jacona (talk) 15:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not commenting on the specifics of this case, but I want to point out that it illustrates the reality that there are significant differences in perceptions among experienced editors about what exactly does or does not constitute outing in the context of COI investigations. I've been told more times than I care to count that I must be a clueless imbecile for saying what I just said, because anyone with clue knows exactly what is and what is not outing – but I am convinced that, in fact, the community really hasn't figured out what our consensus actually is. I've been planning a community RfC intended to delineate exactly that consensus for some time, and I will be getting it underway at WT:Harassment soon. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Tryptofish I disagree and strongly. The claim of OUTING was hasty and once it was shown that Alansohn had self-disclosed their real world identity eleven years ago in this dif and that up until yesterday it was prominently displayed at WikiProject New Jersey any concern about OUTING vanished. There was confusion in managing the OUTING concern; there is no ambiguity in how the OUTING policy actually applied here once the facts were clear. Jytdog (talk) 20:00, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

????? Did you read what I actually said? I said nothing about this particular claim of outing. You are disagreeing with me about something that I never said. Unless you are either opposed to an RfC to determine community consensus, or you agree with those who have said that I am a clueless imbecile! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, my response was off-base. Stricken. As am I. You are very far from a clueless imbecile and the proposed changes to OUTING will help clarify the issues more broadly when dealing with COI here. Again, my apologies. Jytdog (talk) 20:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• Looking forward to that RfC. I also tend to agree that, in at least a few cases, it can be questionable whether for instance a comment which has since been deleted at the request of the editor involved might still qualify for indication of self-outing after the deletion. Simply saying what state you might be from is irrelevant to outing of a name, as many people use user names which could conceivably be those of multiple real life people. Establishing clear and unambiguous parameters for outing, how to deal with inadvertent self-outing and any subsequent comments based on that earlier self-outing, and so on might be very beneficial. John Carter (talk) 17:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• Note - there is now a thread at AN here about Wasickta's behavior and I think it would be best to deal with that there, and with Alansohn's behavior here. They did react emotionally and negatively to the inept COI accusations. That is unfortunate but human. I recommend that they be warned (again) to stay cool and that this thread be closed. Jytdog (talk) 19:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• I agree that this is likely the best course. It can be quite flustering to find personal information where you don't expect it. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 20:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Just want to add that I completely understand Nyttend's point in bringing this case, but as this specific incident is so messy, it is a mushy foundation from which to launch an examination of Alansohn's behavior more broadly. Based on their pattern of behavior I reckon there will be future incidents that provide a much cleaner springboard to do that, and this case will be one piece of the evidence (a weaker piece, but a piece) in that case. Alansohn really should take what folks are saying here to heart or that day will come. Jytdog (talk) 20:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• @Nyttend: I don't know Alansohn or give two shits about him, but I do take note that your "extensive history" is 7 years old.--v/r - TP 20:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
• TParis, you don't know Alansohn? Wow--you should go block him and get acquainted. Or get into a content conflict, which is a painful kind of thing. Nyttend, I love you like, well, a brother, but you know there was no personal attack in those comments, and not in that comment aimed at Jytdog either. Nice, no--PA, also no. I don't rightly understand: are y'all feuding?

  Either way, the COI discussion is a storm in a teacup, there is nothing to it. And I agree with Tryptofish that what seems so obvious in some cases isn't really always obvious in others. But that's another matter.

  In the meantime I urge the next admin strongly to close this as unactionable; again, Nyttend, I have great respect for you, but I think in this case you're wrong. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 23:12, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Repetitive requests to administrators to have me blocked

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

---

Hello,

I am having a problem with an editor and after the user continuously threatens me to have me banned and monitors and follows my editing history. He has recently threatened to bring me to this board. I am openly disclosing that I have previously engaged in sock puppeting and was unblocked a while back. I was temporarily blocked a few months back for edit warring. I have cleaned up my act and evolved as a editor. User:kapil.xerox has relentlessly accused me of endless things when it comes to Swaminarayan topics, and keeps going to the same administrator to have me blocked when all I am trying to do is properly edit Wikipedia and get a consensus. Literally any time there is any criticism, controversy or scandal with BAPS related topics, he shows up and gangs up with a certain group of users to get the information removed and then tries to block me and it hasn’t worked but the threats are getting cumbersome. I have gone overboard with my words in the past and I strongly apologized and have taken my work seriously but at this point, this user knows that there are more things that need to be incorporated and I have shown that all this user cares about is whitewashing all of the articles because maybe, just maybe, they are important to him outside of Wikipedia and he fails to see that he ALWAYS argue, debate and swindle any type of condemnation towards these certain topics. The case I present has examples of constant white washing, meaningless consensus with the same users who show the same bias that they cannot bear to see critical information about this particular religious group from academic & scholastic publications, verified books, news reports and many more sources. The user consistently moderates my posts on BAPS related topics.

Examples of the same group of users obsessing over any critical discussion regarding BAPS and related topics:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Transcendence:_My_Spiritual_Experiences_with_Pramukh_Swamiji
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pramukh_Swami_Maharaj#Sexual_Abuse_Allegations
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AShastriji_Maharaj&type=revision&diff=709809858&oldid=709809665
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Akshardham_(Delhi)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bochasanwasi_Shri_Akshar_Purushottam_Swaminarayan_Sanstha#RfC:_Is_the_doctrinal_origins_heading_in_the_History_section_relevant.3F
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Excommunication
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Swaminarayan/Archive_3#Problems_with_certain_version_of_the_article

There is no possible way that these editors have any good faith intention of presenting Swaminarayan articles balance and fair. They promote these articles in ways that violate WP:NPOV. They team up with each other but kapil.xerox is the ring leader and he constantly makes sure that their sect of this religion is portrayed in a positive only manner. They do not ever disagree on any cited and documented criticisms and are culprits in this matter as well. The COI policy states "Any editor who discusses proposed changes to WP:COI or to any conflict of interest policy or guideline, should disclose in that discussion if he or she has been paid to edit on Wikipedia." I believe that these people are members of BAPS because they only edit BAPS related articles but rarely to never do they edit any articles about: Swaminarayan Sampraday, Koshalendraprasad Pande, Rakeshprasad Pande, Gopalanand swami, Laxmi Narayan Dev Gadi and Nar Narayan Dev Gadi. This is significant to point out because Swaminarayan Sampraday branch of Hinduism-Swaminarayan is the main organization. BAPS is a group that was legally excommunicated from the parent organization based on different philosophies. This is extremely important to note because users Kapil.xerox and others have only expanded and "improved" BAPS articles and slowly manipulated them to be in favor and on terms with what they believe rather than Neutral. They do not know anything about the original group. Gunatitanand Swami is written like a book and Gopalanand swami article could be nominated for deletion. I do not believe they are paid members of BAPS because in religious groups you have to be a devotee and you get "spiritually paid" also know as seva, for doing work. This means doing work to make sure that your organization is only positively portrayed in the media. I conclude that these users belong to a team or group that advocates for BAPS online. "COI editing is strongly discouraged." They are Campaigning and not Declaring an interest. They are violating Paid advocacy, public relations, and marketing. In all the articles above the users know that they are "very strongly discouraged from editing Wikipedia in areas where those external relationships could reasonably be said to undermine your ability to remain neutral." I do not think they get that "Note that you do not control articles and others may delete them, keep them, or add information that would have remained little-known"I believe that anyone who engages in discussion or simply posts a controversial subject regarding this group will be systematically removed as the he will group up, report them, get the blocked and then revert all the changes. This in turn will never allow any user to make appropriate change due his mob patrolling of my edits.

Example:

Please see the BAPS main article summary introduction. The user has written it so poorly and it is highly misleading. I asked some people if they understand from the summary whether or not they under that BAPS was founded when Shastriji Maharaj (Tried to delete my talk page discussion please see [118]), the founder BAPS left the original group, swaminarayan sampraday due to a different interpretation. Nothing clearly states that for anyone looking for a high level summary. This admin has asked me not to edit that part but I have presented ten books stating the fact that the founder of BAPS left the original group (Vadtal Diocese of the swaminarayan sampraday) to create this organization forming a schism but since I have stopped editing that page, this user has manipulated it to what they want people to read and then accuse me of all sort of nonsense. Look at this misleading information from the BAPS article: “BAPS was established as a formal organization on 5 June 1907 by Shastriji Maharaj. It was formed on the founder's doctrinal stand that Swaminarayan had promised to remain manifest in the person of Akshar, a term used to describe his chief devotee and Swaminarayan's abode”

That introduction above is so poorly written and unclear with so much bias. There is nothing that shows that this is a separate break off group from the original group when the founder left to preach a new philosophy. Why are they allowed to present this on a large scale article as the header when the primary sources state that Shastri left the sampraday after forming a new innovation even though he himself didn’t think that? It is unbelievable that no one picks up on this assumed ownership of this article. This like government agencies that remove things on wikipedia so that the public does not find out about it. I feel that Kapil patel has such a strong conflict of interest by potentially being a member of this group because there is no way to argue that BAPS was formed after Shastri was expelled from the original group. I feel like it is this users duty to this group and the guru to do their part as an adherent to make sure that BAPS is only positively portrayed and since BAPS is a faction or split, he has make readers that BAPS is the right mode of worship and is the only correct group of Swaminarayan had when instead he himself created the Swaminarayan Sampraday and 100 years later a guy came along and interpretated something else. He does not even let readers know about the original group by linking it in the verbiage and let them know how this is a breakaway group. I presented my case here [119] and [120] only to have the same group of users keep ganging up against all of the cited materials to weasel out of having this information clarified. I asked bbb23 who was watching the discussion based on personal requests from kapil.xerox to chime in and tell me if I am going about things the right way and as an admin, he excluded himself when he could have clarified and do what’s best for Wikipedia. You can see all my sources and proof that the introduction is terrible and gives no explanation how the group was actually formed. The users wants to try to show this is the correct doctrine and this group is theologically right even though it is a break off group and the founder was formally expelled from the parent group and manipulate and contrive ways to force people to think a certain type of way. That is extremely wrong.

Where I am wrong, I have learned to admit and I proved it with my post above when actual consensus was reached. I have changed my working to use logic and reason and show remorse over past mistakes. I ask you to realize that this is not about you and your relationship with BAPS. That’s all I asked. I was blocked for awhile so I was not able to reach out to more users to give their input. That is why I opened up some older discussion but you’re lying here that I am conspiring about your editing patterns.

Further, according to Conflict of interest and advocacy, "While both critics and adherents of a movement may be drawn to an article on that movement, both should realize that Wikipedia is not a place for advocacy in favor of or in opposition to a movement. Editors should not attempt to turn the Wikipedia article on a new religious movement into a glowing tribute, or a cutting-edge critique, but attempt to create a neutral, balanced and careful summary of the existing literature on the movement. The same applies to articles on groups and individuals opposing new religious movements." The user contentiously edits any controversy and criticism regard BAPS and Pramukh Swami and even the talk pages. He ‘coincidentally’ always works together with the same group of users to agree on removing all cited work that may being "negative" press to this sect of Hinduism particularly BAPS. Also according to Biographies of founders: "In general, the private life of a person is not described in detail in Wikipedia, because it is often considered not very relevant. However founders of new religious movements may be believed by followers to be saints, gurus, prophets etc or claim to be so implicitly or explicitly. In these cases, depending on the beliefs of the followers and the claims by the founder, the private life of the founder can be very relevant and described in more detail in Wikpedia." After explaining this in specific detail on the BAPS talk page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ABAPS, not one response came from these users. Instead, he quietly reported me rather than engage in any discussion. He feels that he knows certain administrators that blocked me in the past and once, I get blocked, it will be simple to revert all the changes.

My reference point is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a vanity press, or forum for advertising or self-promotion. As such it should contain only material that complies with its content policies, and Wikipedians must place the interests of the clopedia first. Any editor who gives priority to outside interests may be subject to a conflict of interest. Adding material that appears to advance the interests or promote the visibility of an article's author, the author's family, employer, clients, associates or business, places the author in a conflict of interest COI editing is strongly discouraged. COI editors causing disruption may be blocked. Editors with COIs who wish to edit responsibly are strongly encouraged to follow Wikipedia policies and best practices scrupulously. They are also encouraged to disclose their interest on their user pages and on the talk page of the article in question, and to request the views of other editors. If you have a conflict of interest, any changes you would like to propose that might be seen as non-neutral should be suggested on the relevant talk page or noticeboard.

Example: Recently, BAPS head and four other Sadhus were accused of raping former sadhus and over a dozen news sources broke the story. When I attempted to add this information to the BAPS Wikipedia article under controversy, I was systematically attacked, blocked and removed without any further discussion about explosive allegation. The users even attempted to say "For the issue about "relatively unknown" I would assert, that is relative. Outside of the state of Gujarat, Pramukh Swami is relatively unknown. To say it another way, for Enlgish wikipedia users, Pramukh Swami is relatively unknown. Thus, WP:BLPCRIME should apply. That argument, of course, is open to debate, and I would like to see what other editors think about this. So, if a consensus of editors does feel that this should go into the article, then I think we need to make sure that it is correct before putting it up. Would love to hear what others think. A user actually said that this guru is not known outside of Indian and that makes no sense as it states on Pramukh swami's wiki page about global growth and BAPS Swaminarayan Sanstha is a charitable Non-governmental organization affiliated with the United Nations and the BAPS charities page shows world wide involvement. The organization is recognized as a Non-Governmental Organization that holds General Consultative Status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations. From BAPS.ORG Under Pramukh Swami Maharaj’s leadership, BAPS has rapidly grown into a global Hindu organization and has witnessed a significant expansion in many measurable parameters. Currently, BAPS encompasses over one million devotees, more than 900 sadhus, 3,300 mandirs and congregations, over 7,200 weekly assemblies, and a host of humanitarian and charitable activities. Futhermore BAPS responded to the allegations: On 22 Oct 2013, BAPS responded to the allegations made by two former sadhus, Sanjay Shah (Priyadarshandas) and Rakesh Bhavsar (Nishkamsevadas), that the claims made against Pramukh Swami and his sadhus are utterly baseless and false. http://www.baps.org/Announcement/2013/Message-for-All-5347.aspx The Indian Express reported that “Pramukh Swami, who heads BAPS, and four other top swamis, of alleged assault dating back to the 1970s when they were students at the gurukul.” This was a settled discussion on the talk page of the accused guru and this editor tried to delete the talk page discussion and another one on the Shastriji Maharaj talk page and got caught doing it.

I strongly ask that anyone reading this article please read the root cause of this recent dispute. It is on the talk page of user:bbb23's talk page. Here is the link [121] I have copied and pasted some points here.

Swamiblue (talk) 04:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Holy wall of text batman. Can you give us the tl;dr version please? --Tarage (talk) 07:47, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I didn't read that either. Given the lack of responses I imagine few people did. Please summarize your concerns concisely. HighInBC 12:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

TL;DR User has failed to reach consensus on multiple articles for proposed edits on various grounds. User does not seem to understand that it is fairly common for editors to be involved in topically similar articles, and so believes that there is a cabal of editors conspiring to block their edits. Something something, a few paragraphs about COI with no actual evidence. Something something content dispute. TimothyJosephWood 13:29, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh noes. The Cabal has returned. We must protect everyone from everything. Katie^talk 15:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Ahem, there is no cabal. HighInBC 15:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

That's what they want you to think. --Jayron32 15:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I once posted a 400-word OP comment on this noticeboard, and was told it was TLDR. This OP is six times longer. And now a bunch of users have posted here commenting more on the colossal size of the OP comment. I'm half-tempted to read through the whole mess and figure out exactly what is going on. Will I get a prize?

Unfortunately in Japan now it's coming up on 2 a.m. Tomorrow is a holiday so I can stay up as late as I want, but ... I really don't want to. I think the cake is probably a lie.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

("cake" refers to the theoretical prize for reading through the entire behemoth, by the way. Just to clear that up. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC))

@Swamiblue:, Give me one sentence - what specific action are you asking administrators to take here? Editors who have similar interests are going to edit articles in similar topics, that is a thing that happens - I assure you, we've seen it before. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• Editor seems to be shotgunning to add content and rather than have any actual discussion, just moves on at the slightest questioning. Of the links, the first looks like trying to add gossip such a translator not being invited to a book launch on a book article, and unsourced sexual abuse allegations. We have an editor reverting to restore your comment (I think, so I don't see an issue), Talk:Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha has an RFC that seems fair. And I can't even see where you edited the other talk pages. My suggestion is to do more than flood a page a page dump of links and instead to actual work the content into the articles sourcing it properly. There's opposition to the first two things you suggest, an RFC to get more views on the 3rd one and I don't even see what your issues are with the last two. If your complaint is that there is a pro-BAPS factions here, well I'd say no one will care or believe that absent a lot more evidence since we are talking about at least a half dozen different editors across a number of topics. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

And if the OP doesn't bother to respond, I say we close this and ask the editor on their talk page to provide a coherent, succulent description of their concerns. A number of these discussions go back to September and before so I don't think anyone will act on those. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be succulent, and long as it is succinct. HighInBC 22:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I have warned User:Swamiblue multiple times to stop making personal attacks. They have been doing this for several years now. I even asked the user if they have strong evidence that I have a COI then they can please take it to the Administrator's Noticeboard but to stop making further attacks. Even in this ANI, the user has ignored all of this and is again accusing me that I am a "ring leader", stating that my name is "Kapil Patel" (a dangerous attempt at doxxing), attacking other editors including an admin User:Bbb23. I feel these are sufficient reasons to ban the user. Do I create a new ANI for this? The user was even told by an admin [122] that if they were to continue any of their past activity they would be indefinitely blocked without second notice. Can admins act on this because I feel this is getting way out of hand now. The user was also handed out discretionary sanctions in the past.[123] Kapil.xerox (talk) 03:15, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

@ the admins that spend time reading my wall. Your comments are greatly appreciated and funny and I wrote so much because I was trying to explain everything thoroughly. It is very long and I should have made it to the point. The person that is constantly accusing me of making personal attacks and monitoring my edits has replied. I do not know how patel got there but I was typing Shantilal patel refering to pramukh swamis birth name but I must have not deleted it. My accusation of the ring leader comment stands and its not that I cannot reach consensus and I am making stuff up to post what ever I can but if any admins really read what I am saying, I am trying to explain every time something critical has come up in the news or through reading books, this user does everything to not have that information posted, reaches consensus with the same group of users to have nothing posted, questions the validity of all the sources and then asks the same admin over and over again to have me blocked and banned. Thats why my wall of text has examples because I don't now how else to prove that there is a conflict of interest. Every single time for those examples and above there is some type of manipulation to not have valid criticism documented and constantly told that no you are doing everything wrong and this religious group is only going to be portrayed a certain type of way on this site which for this user is only good, positive, clean and without any of the documented controversy. I am begging any admin to please try to read my examples and see that there is a agenda here by this user to make sure no critical cited information is posted. I have screwed up big time in the past and I apologized and accepted huge blocks but I want all the admins to take a look at this. I can made an edit now in good faith documenting an prevalent issue under a criticism section and then a few days later blocked, banned, reverted as usual.

One of the admins above pointed out that I accuse when I cannot reach consensus. So why when I tried to reach out to other users for help in the past, was I told by editors who edit topics about Hinduism that they do not get involved in BAPS/Swaminarayan because they get easily ban users who post anything critical in the articles? It is absurd that people are afraid of engaging on the talk pages because they do not want to potentially get banned based that they have seen.

In one sentence what I would like the admins to do: Please investigate the constant harassment that this user does to me by monitoring and patrolling my edits for BAPS and related topics that involve ANYTHING critical, controversial or constructive suggestions for improvement and are systematically (as described above) rejected, continuously asking the same administrator to block me and reverting all of my edits and citations. Swamiblue (talk) 05:56, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

@User:Ricky81682, you pointed out a translator not being invited to a book launch as one point where I lost consensus. Did you not see the 15-20 articles stating that protests broke out, women's rights group denounced the sect, and many people criticized the practices because the female translator was told not to step on stage? Is this something that should not be on wikipedia? Does it not fall under notable? I was blocked, as usual so I was not able to finish that but even the users that I reached out gave up because these users will fight it tooth and nail to not have this included in the article. You make it out that deleting talk page posts are okay and the RFC is fair but you are not realizing that I created that RFC and agreed to the consensus and reverted my own edit after some outside users gave me a different perspective. I learned how to do that as a result of growing on this site and learning how to use the tools. You stated that the sexual abuse allegations against Pramukh Swami are unsourced but I provided the websites and articles of the media outlets the reporting it and BAPS report denying the allegations from two former swamis. A guru or person with large following on such a global scale usually has allegations documented on wikipedia . See examples of all these people that have sections with there scandals and allegations. Why are you calling this unsouced gossip and all these are allowed: [124],[125], [126], [127], [128] and [129].Swamiblue (talk) 05:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

WOW, I just read some of the complaints on this noticeboard and everyone agrees with editing patterns of group of users on a topic in a certain type of way as white washing. See the post above [130] Only the critical stuff towards this group is attacked and reverted by this user. Odd? Swamiblue (talk) 06:28, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• When Kapil.xerox left the first post on my Talk page, I tried my best to ignore it. I'm familiar with the history of these users and the article, but it's been many months since I've been directly involved in it, and I didn't want to have to go back and revisit it and then look at subsequent events. When Swamiblue left the wall of text on my Talk page, that only reinforced my reluctance. Then Swamiblue came here and posted yet another wall of text, which provoked a negative reaction by several people (with a bit of humor thrown in). I don't think that all of Kapil.xerox's claims are well-founded, but I think there are plenty that are, and I figured I should stop being lazy. As a result, I have indefinitely blocked Swamiblue. The user has been given a lot of rope to comport with Wikipedia's policies and environment, and I see no hope they will ever be able to do so. Any other administrator who is brave enough is welcome to review my block.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:50, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Violation of WP:ELNEVER

The following discussion is closed. 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 concerns the article R2-45. The article links directly to a page on tonyortega.org that embeds 3 minutes 42 seconds of a recording of a lecture by L. Ron. Hubbard, most certainly copyrighted by the Church of Scientology, most certainly not released for reproduction by Ortega. This linkage by Wikipedia appears to be a clear violation of WP:ELNEVER.

(I do not know whether the recording is a spoof, a fraud, or satire. I bring this query on the presumption and representation within R2-45 that it is an authentic excerpt.)

I have brought this issue up twice before, here and here. In the first complaint, one commenter stated the link was a clear violation ELNEVER. Others went on to other issues and nothing was decided. In the second complaint, a non-admin IP closed the issue stating it was a “content dispute”, here.

Someone may say that bringing the issue three times is a case of WP:IDHT. Truly, I did not hear an answer to the question: Is this a violation of ELNEVER -- or not?

Many Wikipedia articles state that the Church of Scientology is highly litigious. Given that fact, I do not understand why Wikipedia is bating the Church on this issue. Why would any Wikipedia editor be willing to violate Wikipedia policy on this specific point and risk litigation with an organization that is said to be highly litigious?

Please, let's have a clear statement of decision that addresses WP:ELNEVER in this case and be done with it. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Discourse 22:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Likewise, Wikipedia is not restricted to linking only to CC BY-SA or open-source content. is part of the section that says limited use may be made of copyrighted material. Is the copyright holder asserting that they will have significant damage from this link? Or are you simply asserting that since the copyright holder is "litigious" that they will sue Wikipedia? Collect (talk) 23:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

The copyright holder is not asserting anything that I know, and I do not represent the Church of Scientology. If anyone, I represent Wikipedia, and I understand this link to be a violation of WP:ELNEVER:

• For policy or technical reasons, editors are restricted from linking to the following, without exception:

1. Policy: material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work, or uses the work in a way compliant with fair use. Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright might be considered contributory copyright infringement. If there is reason to believe that a website has a copy of a work in violation of its copyright, do not link to it. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work casts a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as Scribd or YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates copyright. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Discourse 23:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Are you sure the clip does not fall under a fair use claim? Keep in mind that the law allows for a much wider latitude for fair use than our local fair use policies. HighInBC 23:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Why are you bringing this here for the third time in three weeks when you've been told that we do not resolve content issues here? You are not going to get an admin (to) review this question and decide it one way or another. You were advised to start an RFC on the subject, which is where this discussion belongs. It doesn't matter that an administrator didn't close that discussion because it was closed correctly. You are indeed suffering from a severe case of IDHT. Start an RFC, let the community decide how to handle this link, and be done with it. Katie^talk 23:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• Answer the the question of "fair use": Wiki's standards of fair use are indeed narrow. We do not permit the copying of (150 w/minute x 3.7 minutes = ) 555 words of text into a Wikipedia page. We do not permit linking to a 3.7 minute Youtube unauthorized except from Hollywood production. We make our own fair use determinations -- does this comply?
• Answering directly the question of "content issue": A link is not content, and ELNEVER is not a content issue, as I understand it. None of the copyright pages suggest that copyright is a content issue, except in the most literal sense. That is why I bring it up again. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Discourse 00:09, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

My point is that our fair use standards don't apply to external links. We don't hold external links to our standards of licensing, we just expect them to be legal. This means sites we link to can be far more liberal within the limits of the law than we choose to be. I don't see an issue with this. HighInBC 00:15, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you.Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Discourse 00:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

You are welcome. HighInBC 00:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

References

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

Ylevental the Vandal

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

---

Hi. Ylevental is generally a bit difficult on autism topics due to advocacy issues but there is a recent behavior, that is intolerable, and has now been repeated.

He vandalized Wikipedia in this dif late on April 8, changing the name "Sanders" in a citation to "Hitler". He was reverted by another user; I saw it and warned him that this was not acceptable.

He wrote to me that he has installed an extension on his browser that changes "Sanders" to "Hitler" that he uses on other websites and forgot to turn it off when he came to Wikipedia. I told him "it's my browser not me" is a bad answer, and he should never do this again. That diff was on an autism-related article and I thought it was some kind of autism universe politics thing. Still unacceptable.

He has done it again, now changing "Hillary" to "Hitlerly". OK, so I get it now, this is plain old politics. Whatever.

He'll probably claim "browser extension" again. I don't care; he has vandalized Wikipedia in a particularly ugly way. Please block this person for a good long time. Jytdog (talk) 15:28, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Standard 31 hour vandalism block. If he can assure us that this browser extension is done causing these sort of edits - and will stay done - I have no objection to another admin unblocking. SQL^{Query me!} 15:38, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks - Jytdog (talk)

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

User:Scolaire

User Scolaire has shown a pattern of uncivil behavior and disruptive editing which I think requires an administrative response. This issue was raised in a previous Administrators’ Noticeboard incident discussion, during which I was asked for evidence of Scolaire's behavior. However that discussion was closed before my evidence had been reviewed. In the intervening time I have prepared the evidence more carefully and added more evidence. I am posting that evidence now.

This will necessarily be a long post, because it contains evidence of a pattern of behavior rather than being a complaint about one specific act.

To summarize my findings: Scolaire seems to regard himself as having the power of a judge or inspector over the pages he edits. He acts as if he were authorized to remove at will contributions made by other users, and from that perspective he makes frequent disruptive cuts. There is a quibbling and arbitrary quality to the intention behind these cuts, even though they may be backed by technical justifications. Sometimes this disruptive behavior escalates to uncivil comments on talk pages, often in an imperious and demeaning tone, and accompanied by stubborn reverts to the opposing editor’s changes. The clear intention is to intimidate and wear down the opposing editor rather than to achieve consensus. In short he seems to want to assert that he is always right, and that anyone who disagrees with him, or does not defer to him, is automatically less authorized than him to make edits.

Scolaire’s deletions and disparaging remarks often provoke other editors into heated replies, which he then labels “personal attacks” or “harassment”. This is not just a form of grandstanding, it is in fact a veiled threat, since the terms "personal attack" and "harassment" constitute punishable offenses in the Wikipedia rules. This move also provides Scolaire with a justification for removing (or "redacting") comments critical of him from article talk pages and from User Talk pages. But in spite of this alleged sensitivity, Scolaire himself has very often intimidated users critical of his edits, especially if they were less experienced than himself, or less adept at citing the rules of Wikipedia.

I think this constitutes disruptive editing (or more precisely disruptive deletion and tendentious editing) accompanied by a kind of incivility that violates many Wikipedia guidelines - including “Don’t bite newcomers”, “Wikipedia is not a battleground”, “Wikipedia is not compulsory”, and “Be bold” (the latter because Scolaire is preventing other people from being bold), and probably others I am not aware of. To put it simply, he is acting against the spirit of open discussion and constructive consensus which is the hallmark of Wikipedia.

Listed below are some examples of Scolaire’s disruptive editing and incivility, along with links to the relevant pages. Examples involving myself have been saved for last, because I want to make the point that this aggressive behavior has also been aimed at many other editors besides me.

Article: The Troubles
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
1.1. On the page called The Troubles, Scolaire systematically removed and undid changes made by other editors, without trying to reconcile differences or improve the text. (Examples here, here, here, and here.) On the article talk page, user Gob Lofa posted a comment protesting against what he deemed to be the politically biased nature of Scolaire’s edits. Scolaire replied that Gob Lofa’s criticism was “nonsense” and that his edits had all been simple reverts of Gob Lofa’s edits. (But by that very statement, Scolaire was conceding he had not tried to improve the content.) Scolaire also accused Gob Lofa of bad faith, saying he had introduced “a convenient line break” to “hide other edits”. And Scolaire added: “Don’t complain when somebody does a blanket revert rather than try to sift out the good edits from the bad.” Gob Lofa invited Scolaire to insert “citation needed” templates where he felt more citations were needed. Scolaire replied: “Adding templates is not necessary. You know where citations are needed and for what. If you do not add them, your edit will be reverted.” The discussion continued in this way for several days, with Scolaire adopting a high-handed and suspicious tone (e.g.: "If it’s not policy-compliant, it can, should and will be reverted” – implying that he Scolaire is the highest authority), while Gob Lofa attempted to appease him, but also argued quite reasonably: “Disliking one part of an edit is no excuse for deleting all of it, that’s just laziness. It’s good that you’ve retreated from your earlier hyperbole but with more care these issues wouldn’t arise.” Scolaire came back with this: “Wrong edits should and will be reverted, and there is no onus on the person reverting to sift out what may be good parts of the wrong edits. Calling it ‘laziness’ is just being provocative. ... Any of your disputed edits that you cannot explain and source may not be restored. Anything that you can justify and get agreement on can. ... Now, this whole business of recycling the same bogus arguments and haranguing me about stuff that I didn’t even say is verging on trolling. I have made my position crystal clear. Unless you have something new to say and you say it in a civilised way, I’m not going to continue with this any longer. Goodbye and happy editing.” 1.2. Still on The Troubles, user Lordofsharks added a new section, after having proposed it on the talk page. The material was well-referenced, but Scolaire deleted it wholesale. Lordofsharks wrote in protest on the article talk page: “I do not believe that you should speak for other editors as you were the only one that brought up this specific issue. ... perhaps rather than simply deleting this information you could provide some specific problems with my submission rather than just stating that it has too much information.” Scolaire replied: “If you could present the ‘take-home message’ of your sandbox page in 100 words maximum, I believe it would be a useful addition to the article, but it is up to you to do the editing down. Trying to re-add massive blocks of text will only result in the edit being reverted again.” The tone of this last remark is typical of Scolaire's talk page comments. His ire in this case is perhaps explained by the fact that he had earlier offered editorial advice to Lordofsharks, which it seems Lordofsharks had not heeded. “I recommend you start small,” Scolaire had advised, “with things like copyediting, correcting small errors of fact and providing citations, and get the feel of it before working up to more major edits. By the way, don’t forget to sign your posts to talk pages by typing '~~~~' at the end. Good luck, and happy editing.” Lordofsharks ignored this patronizing advice, and suffered the consequences. But after his edit war with Scolaire, Gob Lofa and Cliomania came to the defense of Lordofsharks on the article talk page. Cliomania made the following comment: “Scolaire, could you not try editing the text contributed, rather than removing it wholesale? You might disagree with the length or weight of the entry, but suggesting that all of it is unworthy of inclusion seems to go against the spirit of Wikipedia. I believe all editors are encouraged not to bite the newbies. The alternative to reverting is to make constructive suggestions about what you think is really wrong with LordofSharks’s contribution.” Scolaire replied: “I haven’t said that it is “unworthy” of inclusion. ... I have suggested what might be done: that if Lordofsharks (or you) could present the ‘take-home message’ of his sandbox page in 100 words maximum, it would be a useful addition to the article. So now, can we stop the criticism of my behaviour and start talking about the content?” – This last exchange is a good illustration of Scolaire's intractability: another editor gently reprimanded him for having an overly harsh attitude, but Scolaire was not willing to accept the criticism or work with it. Instead he recast the criticism as an ad-hominem attack, and stuck to his intransigeant position. 1.3 In the controversy outlined in 1.2, Gob Lofa defended Lordofsharks against Scolaire. Scolaire then took to Gob Lofa's User Talk page to accuse him of “abuse”. The supposedly abusive comment which Scolaire objected was this, from the talk page for The Troubles: “I find your summary of that discussion wanting, Scolaire.” Gob Lofa then replied, still on his own talk page: “I don’t come on article talk pages to abuse you, neither at the talk page you provided a link to nor anywhere else. ... I pulled you up on misrepresenting the views of others there and now you’re misrepresenting my actions. Almost as if you were concerned with scoring points.” 1.4 About a year before the above controversy, but on the same article page, Scolaire removed a whole section of the article. He had proposed the removal on the talk page about ten days earlier, but the section in question had been part of the article for about a year and a half. About two months after Scolaire’s removal, user Jxm remarked on the same talk page: “I obviously wasn’t watching when Scolaire removed this section!” Jxm went on humbly: “I agree that it probably doesn’t merit its own section, as Scolaire notes. Instead, I suggest that we think about reinstating some revised form ... perhaps a few sentences in a footnote or a reference entry directing attention to some suitable sources as appropriate.” In essence Jxm was politely suggesting a compromise where Scolaire would add back some of the deleted text. Scolaire refused this compromise, claiming his existing edit "ought to suffice".

Article: Derry
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
2. The talk page for the article Derry featured a vituperative dispute as to whether to change the article's name to “Londonderry”. Among the participants was a user named Dubs boy. Scolaire and Dubs boy took the dispute onto their User Talk pages for some additional sparring, which both immediately deleted (e.g. this, this, and this. Eventually Scolaire posted a comment addressed to Dubs boy on the Derry talk page, saying that he didn’t want to pursue the discussion with him; and he then immediately posted a comment to Dubs boy's User Talk page saying: “Once again, when I say I’m going to take no further part I mean I’m going to take no further part. Please don’t continue baiting me on Talk:Derry. Also, please do not respond to this by posting to my talk page. I don’t want to say anything more, regardless of whether you think I have engaged or not. Please respect that.” Dubs boy replied on Scolaire’s talk page: “You can’t tell someone to not post on your talk page while posting on theirs. The sort of hypocrisy that I have come to expect from you. I have not baited you, you have simply fallen into your own net.” Scolaire then initiated a complaint on the Administrators’ Noticeboard, which he titled “Harassment on my Talk page”. On the Noticeboard, no administrators made any comment, but Dubs boy posted many messages in his own defense, including one which resonates with the themes I have been highlighting: “Scolaire has been extremely dismissive of my comments at Talk:Derry, and demeaning of my opinion, without presenting any physical opposition argument, this along with claiming I am a minority in a phoney 11-4 RFC vote, would make anyone struggle to believe that I am the bully and oppressor. I think action should be taken against this user and his disruptive approach to dealing with issues and other peoples opinions.” Later on, Dubs boy posted a note to his own User Talk page asking Scolaire what the outcome of the Administrators Noticeboard discussion had been. Scolaire admitted that the case had been dropped by the administrators “for lack of interest”. A third editor then commented: “These guys [i.e. Scolaire and others] seem quite determined to block all opposition to their agenda. I don’t know what that editor [Scolaire] means by ‘opened ani’ but it is so indirect and avoiding of the important issues, that it must surely be a threat to comply.” - This exchange provides insight into the psychology of Scolaire’s pattern of objectionable behavior. The behavior seems to stem from willfulness, condescention, and over-sensitivity to criticism. These factors funnel into an aggressive use of Wikipedia rules and procedures against less educated or less experienced users.

Article: Guy Fawkes Night
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
3. On the talk page for the article Guy Fawkes Night there was a debate about whether to merge the page with another one called “Bonfire Night”. This led to a heated exchange between Scolaire and an editor named Cassianto, during which Scolaire complained twice of Cassianto’s “ad hominem attacks” (here and here). When the exchange died down, user SchroCat then took the whole text of the exchange and put it into a collapsible box with the title “Complaining about ad hominem comments while insulting others and being petulant isn’t constructive or vaguely sensible.” The implication of this title was that Scolaire’s own comments had been provocative, and therefore to construe the heated replies to such comments as “ad hominem attacks” was hypocritical. Scolaire then insisted on changing the title of the box to “Unrelated discussion”, over several reverts, and gave as his edit summary: “removed personal attack”. SchroCat reverted with the edit summary: “If you want to delete all the vaguely personal comments on this page, do so, but stop editing my signed text. Should I delete all your comments?” SchroCat then posted a message to Scolaire’s User Talk page which said: “Editing other people’s comments ... on the basis that you are ‘removing personal attack’ is laughable, unless you want to strip out all such comments on the talk page. Try that and see how quickly a block will descend.” Scolaire replied: “That was not a comment. It was a hatnote. Hatnotes should be neutral and not contain personal attacks. I seriously considered taking you to AN/I but I can’t be arsed.” The disupte was nonetheless brought to ANI by another editor, and the involved parties were told to calm down or face a block.

Article: Constance Markievicz
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
4.1 On the page for Constance Markievicz, a user giving his name as “Joe kearns” added cited material in support of a point. Scolaire meticulously removed his edits, though giving innocuous-sounding edit summaries for his removals. Joe kearns reintroduced his edits and there ensued a revert war (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, etc.) Joe kearns protested on the talk page; Scolaire then replied that he had added a few lines back in to please him, but “the rest of your post is nonsense. ... The ‘controversy’ ... is non-existant outside of the posts on this page by you and your alter-egos 78.18.211.113 and 78.16.86.228. Just peppering the talk page with your assertions doesn’t make it so.” Joe kearns replied: “I don’t have any alter egos, Scolaire. It would appear that more than one person disagrees with you, that’s all: it happens.” Not long after this Joe kearns was vindicated, because the point he had been defending was proved true and incorporated into the page. 4.2. On a related page (Casimir Markievicz), Scolaire removed an item added to the page by the same Joe kearns. Joe kearns protested on the talk page. Scolaire replied: “That’s all bluster.” Kearns then wrote: “You are using Wikipedia to perpetuate a falsehood, for reasons I can only guess at. ... I made my edits in good faith and backed them up with solid citations, and I want you to reinstate them. ... Instead of addressing the facts of the matter, you’re preoccupied with laying down the law on Wikipedia citations (as you see it). If you were interested in finding out the truth and making this article reliable, you would look at the evidence and address the questions it raises instead of quibbling over whether a source is primary or secondary.”

My own controversy with Scolaire
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
5.1. Over a three day period from 29 March to 1 April 2016, I did a large amount of work on the page for Francis Sheehy-Skeffington, adding a lot of material, but basing my additions on the framework that was already present – so that my modification improved the accuracy, style and referencing of the existing material without challenging it substantively. On 4 April, a user named CanK9 commented on the talk page that among my additions one fact was wrongly cited, and he then supplied better references. On 8 April Scolaire replied to CanK9’s post, confirming that the references I had provided were inaccurate, but claiming as well that the references provided by CanK9 showed that the mis-cited fact was “not of great significance anyway,” and Scolaire therefore concluded: “I’m taking the sentence out.” Which he did. About an hour later he also went on to cut several other passages from the article in quick succession (see here, here and here – in each case without attempting to improve the wording. Another hour later Scolaire posted a note to the talk page stating that the material I had added made the article “totally lopsided,” and suggesting that a related page could be created into which the added material could be parked. Another editor replied disagreeing with the creation of a new page, and Scolaire then replied: “What do you suggest, then? Just cut out the added content?” The casual tone and aggressive implications of Scolaire’s comment upset me when I read the comment on 10 April, two days after it was posted. I responded in a rather heated fashion on the article’s talk page: “ ‘Just cut out the added content’ - thanks a lot, a-holes, I actually put several days work into that added content that you speak so lightly of cutting. And the added content is most certainly relevant, given that [etc.]. If you’re so concerned about balance with his suffragist work then why don’t you ADD content to that section, instead of achieving balance by CUTTING good content??” I admit that the foregoing was heated language, but I think that given the context this was not so bad. A dismissive suggestion to cut large blocks of text can be provocative and even offensive. The term “a-holes” in particular was later dug up and used against me, but I don’t think that term is particularly offensive in the context of online discussions today. Nevertheless, I now admit that the above language was a regrettable lapse and distracted from my main contention – namely that Scolaire’s proposal to aggressively delete a large amount of material from the page was a disruptive misuse of editorial privilege. 5.2. At 08:09 UTC on 11 April I posted a comment about Scolaire to the talk page of an article about Sir Francis Vane, a person linked to Francis Sheehy-Skeffington. The comment read: “User Scolaire deleted material from this page which is informative and valuable. I am undoing his deletion accordingly. The material links this page to Francis Sheehy-Skeffington’s page, and one of Vane’s chief claims to fame is his righteous role in the story of Sheehy-Skeffington’s murder.” To understand this note it is necessary to add that in the course of my work on Sheehy-Skeffington I made several changes to the Francis Vane page on 31 March 2016. Then on 8 April, Scolaire removed a hatnote from the page which had been there since before I had begun editing, and which Scolaire himself had left standing on several previous edits (e.g. here). The hatnote directed readers to the Sheehy-Skeffington page for details on a murder Francis Vane had helped to expose. At 08:15 I then posted to Scolaire’s talk page: “User Scolaire, your edits to various pages related to the 1916 Easter Rising show alarming signs of political bias. In particular, you are removing material critical of the British Empire. Please cease from doing this and restore wantonly removed material!” Scolaire replied at 08:28: “Tone it down, man! I’ve responded at Talk:Francis Vane.” But the response Scolaire was referring to (made at 08:27) had nothing to do with my message to him, and was only about the minutiae of the edit to that particular page. 5.3 At the time of the discussion summarized in 5.2, and because of the rather heated exchange with Scolaire on the previous day, I had already begun to look over Scolaire's recent "user contributions" (i.e. the pages he had been editing recently). I noticed that they were mostly pages related to the Irish War of Independence. Later I noticed that on the page Partition of Ireland Scolaire had removed an info-box which linked the page to the series History of Ireland. Scolaire gave as his reason for removing the box: “Doesn’t belong here”. The box was in a subsection of the article rather than in the lead, so I presumed Scolaire meant that it didn’t belong in the subsection. Looking through the history of the page I saw that this info-box had been on the page for eight years, but at some point it had migrated from the lead into the subsection. So at 08:33 on 11 April, I put the box back in its original place in the lead of the article. Scolaire undid my edit, claiming the article was “not part of the series”. I wrote a note to Scolaire on his User Talk page saying: “On the page Partition of Ireland you removed a series box linking to other articles on the History of Ireland. You say you removed it because it did not belong in a sub-heading. Fair enough, but why did you not then paste it into the main title section? Instead you removed it completely. This type of edit is not justifiable - it would have been better to simply leave it there in its imperfect place, than to remove it completely. When your edits of this kind also have a political bias it is hard not to reach the conclusion that you are censoring Wikipedia to conform to your tastes.” Scolaire replied: “I’ve been editing Wikipedia for over ten years. I don’t need you or anybody else telling me what constitutes proper actions. If an article is improved by removing something I remove it, and if somebody disagrees they can make a case on the talk page. The infobox didn’t belong anywhere on the Partition article. It is specifically for articles in the ‘History of Ireland’ series, and that article isn’t one of them.” – Note Scolaire’s one-sided logic here: he himself can delete at will; anyone wishing to add material must make a case on the talk page.

Scolaire's removal of critical comments
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
6. After the above controversy had escalated to the aforementioned complaint on the Administrators' Noticeboard, Scolaire deleted most traces of my ever having criticized him from active pages where other users could see them. He deleted talk page comments of mine that were critical of him here, here, here, here and here – generally under the excuse that they were “personal attacks”. And he even “redacted” a comment of mine and then “replied” to the manipulated comment! The messages Scolaire described as "personal attacks" were clearly not personal attacks according to the Wikipedia guideline. The offending messages did not contain threats of violence or legal action, or insulting epithets, or any kind of insult directed personally against Scolaire. They were not taunting, jeering, malevolent, or in bad faith. They were not ad-hominem attacks, but substantive criticisms of his editorial behavior. In short my messages were aimed exclusively at his acts as an editor, not at his personal dignity or safety. I have encountered several other places where Scolaire also removed criticism in a similar fashion: in June 2015, Scolaire and another editor engaged in several rounds of mutual removal of criticism on their respective talk pages (e.g. this, this, this and this). In August 2015, another editor who had experienced Scolaire's mindbending "redaction" of his own talk page comments replied to Scolaire: “Editing other people’s comments ... on the basis that you are ‘removing personal attack’ is laughable.” In October 2015, Scolaire removed another editor’s critical comment from his own talk page and transferred it onto the critic’s talk page.

Conclusion

Scolaire’s practice of arbitrary deletion, and his aggressive reaction to criticism, constitute an unhealthy combination of factors which is both coercive and intimidating to come up against. When this goes unchecked, it creates around it an atmosphere of tension, suspicion and ill-will. I therefore request that some form of non-deletable caution be issued to him, which other users could see in the event they became involved in similar types of conflict with him. Given Scolaire's propensity to erase criticism, something like this is required so that future users are empowered to question his authority.

- Wwallacee (talk) 06:17, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@Wwallacee: This really needs to be condensed down. Anything more than a third of what you write here is likely to be ignored. Wall of text posts are not the way to ask for help. Blackmane (talk) 06:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty to hat all of the content for ease of reading. Blackmane (talk) 06:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

• I have not interacted with Wwallacee since his block on 12 April for harrassing me (see previous ANI case here), and he has not interacted with me. The fact that he has spent those fifteen days preparing this "case" against me shows that he did not, after all, learn anything from his block. I'll say no more, except to note that the whole "case" relates to articles that Wwallacee had no involvement in, with the exception of three consecutive edits to Francis Sheehy-Skeffington and one to Francis Vane. Scolaire (talk) 07:03, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Blackmane, thanks for "hatting" the content. I have taken the liberty of editing the section titles slightly. I agree this post is lengthy, but I am attempting to show a larger pattern of behavior, beyond the incidents that concern me directly.

During the last ANI discussion, I was asked by the administrators to provide evidence. I did provide some evidence at the time, but the discussion was closed before a proper discussion of that evidence could take place. In the meantime, I have considered the evidence more carefully and have provided additional evidence for my complaint against Scolaire. -Wwallacee (talk) 07:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Just a simple question, do any of these diffs happen after your ban on April the 12th?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:43, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho: The answer is no. The diffs concern Scolaire's behavior prior and up to the time of my controversy with him on 8-11 April. I have not done any research on Scolaire's behavior since the ANI complaint he filed against me on 11 April.

With reference to the block of my user account, I want to add that it was a temporary block for 48 hours. The administrator who imposed the block wrote on my User Talk page: "If you wish to persist in your case against Scolaire after the block expires, then do so with diffs and a calm, neutral explanation of why the edits are problematic." - Wwallacee (talk) 07:55, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

So he's preventing people from being bold by reverting them is your complaint or at least in part?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 08:08, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I've read thru almost all of the above and I went back to the talk pages of the article to review most of the conversations. What I'm seeing mostly is WP:BRD. What I'm seeing from you is really a complaint about WP:BRD. Be bold and make a change, if it reverts go to the talk a page and discuss it. This very much seems to be the case for Scolaire. This is not something that requires Admin action as it is the way it should be.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 08:57, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, he is preventing people from being bold. But that is just the beginning of it. Scolaire's pattern of reverting often involves large-scale deletion of material, and he usually does not attempt to compromise or improve the content. There is also intimidation on talk pages of anyone who questions this behavior, and then also removal of critical comments, justified by him with allegations of "personal attack" and "harassment". - Wwallacee (talk) 09:03, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Wwallacee, you posted to the talk pages of articles where you had no dispute with me, saying that my edits showed alarming signs of political bias, that my procedure was to remove and strip away potentially interesting content, and that my behaviour was wanton. None of that is about content. It is all personal, it is all adverse and it is all untrue. Hence, an unwarranted personal attack (which you repeated 21 times on pages where you had no involvement, hence harassment). Are you seriously saying I should have allowed that smear to remain on the talk page of every article I work on, just because you were mad at me for reverting you once? Scolaire (talk) 09:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Wwallacee, you need to go back and read WP:BOLD. you don't understand it at all. If you have a problem with people doing large reversions then make smaller incremental changes. The evidence you show, the discussions show that he actually is willing to compromise.. The main thing that I really question is if you are here to build an encyclopedia. JzG told you to come back in a calm neutral manner. Not really seeing the calm or neutral. He also suggested you simply drop the stick. The only thing I've seen with your wikilawyering is that you have an axe to grind with Scolaire. Wikipedia is not a battle ground.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 10:21, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

In reply to Scolaire's comment above: I don't think my own prior behavior, which has already been sanctioned, is fair grounds for discussion here. What is being discussed today is Scolaire's pattern of disruptive editing and incivility.

But for the record, let me give my own account of the messages Scolaire is referring to. On 11 April, I attempted to bring Scolaire’s disruptive editing to the attention of other editors by means of a naive and unorthodox tactic: posting warning messages to a number of article talk pages that I had identified as being Scolaire’s primary territory. These notes stated (with some variation in the specifics) that I thought Scolaire had been arbitrarily deleting material he disagreed with rather than make any attempt to improve it. I solicited other contributors to monitor this and restore wantonly deleted material. Here is an example. These messages were deleted by an administrator about 45 minutes after they were posted, and 30 minutes after Scolaire had opened an ANI complaint about them. I now regard this as an appropriate action, and I regret having posted the messages. A better forum for airing my complaint about Scolaire's behavior would have been the Administrators' Noticeboard, which is where it is now being aired. However, I don't agree that those messages constituted personal attacks according to Wikipedia guidelines: they did not contain threats of violence or legal action, or insulting epithets, or any kind of insult directed personally against Scolaire. Nor were my messages taunting, jeering, or malevolent in tone. Nor were they written in bad faith. In truth, my messages were essentially a kind of grass-roots attempt to raise awareness about Scolaire's editorial behavior without going to the Administrators' Noticeboard – however misguided that may have been (as I now freely admit).

That said, those messages are not relevant to the present discussion. What Scolaire was replying to just now was my allegation that he has deleted comments critical of him. He did this to a number of other messages of mine which are not among the offending messages just described. Examples: here, here, here, here, here, here and here. Scolaire removed (or "redacted") these comments on the grounds they were "personal attacks", which they clearly were not. Again, they did not contain threats of violence or legal action, or insulting epithets, or any kind of insult directed personally against Scolaire.

I am saying that this removal of criticism by Scolaire is a harmful pattern of behavior. Other examples can be found here, here, here, here, here and here.

-Wwallacee (talk) 10:38, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

From WP:NPA: "These examples are not exhaustive. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done" (emphasis in original). Any posts of yours that I deleted or edited were insulting and disparaging, and were not about content. Scolaire (talk) 10:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

In reply to Serialjoepsycho, I don't see how my comments here, or the evidence I am presenting, lack calmness or neutrality. I am just trying to present evidence that I was asked for by administrators during the previous ANI discussion (e.g. here). - Wwallacee (talk) 10:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

To get back to the question of whether the main issue here has to do with WP:Be bold... I want to be clear that Scolaire's disruptive editing goes way beyond this. For example, he stubbornly reverts other users when they want to restore material he has deleted (examples here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, etc.) He also engages in wholesale deletion of blocks of text (examples here and here - with talk page objection to his deletions here and here). He also has a pattern of interpreting other editors' critical comments as abuse, and thus shutting down productive discussion of his deletions (examples here, in reply to this; and here, in reply to this; and here and here, with response here). - Wwallacee (talk) 11:39, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

So he revets and they want to restore? how do you know they want to restore? Have the perhaps went to the talk page and made that known? This is all sounding alot like WP:BRD.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 14:09, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Serialjoe, there is an authoritarian quality to Scolaire's deletions and to his talk page comments - as if he does not admit the possibility of error, and so he doesn't think it necessary to compromise - ever. The pattern goes like this, in escalating order: (1) revert the opposing editor; (2) if the opposing editor objects, revert again as often as necessary without attempting to compromise; (3) if the opposing editor objects, intimidate and discredit the opposing editor on the talk page; (4) if the opposing editor objects, make insinuations of abuse; (5) if the opposing editor objects, report the opposing editor to ANI for harassment or personal attack.

In order to get a full sense of this you have to look at examples in context. For instance in example 1.1 above under the heading "Article: The Troubles", I've profiled a sequence of stubborn reverts, followed by a protest on the talk page, followed by a reply from Scolaire that is both dismissive ("nonsense") and attempts to discredit the critic, and this goes on for several cycles until Scolaire accuses his critic of "haranguing" and "trolling". Or look at example 4.1 under the heading "Constance Markievicz", for a similar story. And look at the example given under the heading "Article: Derry", for an example of Scolaire taking his critic to ANI over a critical comment which Scolaire characterized as "harassment". - Wwallacee (talk) 15:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

You have a narrative, but from my personal review of the diffs you provide, the early ones you provided that I reviewed I'm not actually seeing your narrative. MAybe someone else well look and see your narrative.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

• I would really like an admin, before this gets archived, to quietly tell this person it's time to stop. I want to be able to log on in the morning and not find that another "case" has been opened against me. Thanks. Scolaire (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

In reply to the above, Scolaire's interventions in this discussion have all had as their only point to avoid the substance of my allegations by trying to discredit me personally. There is nothing objectionable about what I have done here. I was asked to provide evidence and I have done so, scrupulously. Scolaire's latest comment again illustrates one of my main contentions, namely his need to control all criticism of his editorial behavior. - Wwallacee (talk) 06:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

• Again, I would ask that an admin tell Wwallacee that what he is saying is not so, that he has had it pointed out to him repeatedly that it is not so, and that it is unacceptable to continue to repeat these allegations. To ignore this campaign of harrassment is to send a message that it is okay to keep doing it. Scolaire (talk) 15:31, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Scolaire's attempt to label this discussion as "harassment" is another iteration of his well-established pattern of shutting down criticism by framing it as personal attack. I've already given many examples of this behavior prior to my own controversy with Scolaire, but since Scolaire is reiterating, let me also reiterate: [131], [132], [133], [134], [135], [136]. This kind of behavior is wrong enough, but to seek protection for it is even worse. What would be helpful at this point in my opinion, would be for Scolaire to acknowledge that a pattern of coercive editing has existed, and to commit to changing it. I welcome further comments from administrators. - Wwallacee (talk) 07:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

What would be useful would be for you to re-read what was said about me already. Guy: someone with a long career and who is apparently mainly known for scouting activities not his military career. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: he can edit (within policy and guideline) any pages he likes. OpenFuture: I can't find any edits of his that are objectionable, or even political. Onel5969: I can see nothing objectionable to Scolaire's edits, indeed their removal of commentary and opinion was necessary, in my opinion, Guy again: Anonymous editors adding unsourced POV material into the article. Scolaire seems to be doing the important and necessary job of rolling these back. Not to mention Mabuska on your talk page: Whilst I have often disagreed with Scolaire on many topics for years on Wikipedia I have to say I find Wwallacee's claims to be baffling and not characteristic of Scolaire. None of these people have modified their views as a result of this massive block of "evidence". Instead, Serialjoepsycho said above, "I've read thru almost all of the above and I went back to the talk pages of the article to review most of the conversations. What I'm seeing mostly is WP:BRD...This is not something that requires Admin action as it is the way it should be." And again here, "you need to go back and read WP:BOLD. you don't understand it at all...The evidence you show, the discussions show that he actually is willing to compromise." And again here, "You have a narrative, but from my personal review of the diffs you provide...I'm not actually seeing your narrative." When you were blocked, I said all this to you on your talk page. Jpgordon, in declining your unblock request, said, "Scolaire's evaluation below is correct." Persisting in your allegations in the face of a clear consensus that they are unfounded is unacceptable, and I again ask an admin to say so. Scolaire (talk) 17:12, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

In this disjointed panegyric to himself, Scolaire has quoted eleven comments, but of these only three are from the currently active discussion on ANI. However, only in the current ANI discussion have I been able to post detailed evidence about Scolaire's disruptive behavior. Of the eight older quotations Scolaire has given, five are from the previous ANI discussion, and four out of five date to before I was able to post evidence. The three quotations Scolaire has posted from the current ANI discussion are all from one editor (Serialjoepsycho). So I do think it would be good if some administrators would comment on the current evidence.

Again I ask for a considered evaluation of the evidence I have supplied here of Scolaire's coercive editorial behavior. - Wwallacee (talk) 18:13, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

So provide diffs of all the people who have said "oh, my goodness, you're right, Wwallacee, Scolaire's behaviour is appalling, thanks for pointing it out." Scolaire (talk) 19:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I've looked through the evidence that Wwallacee provided, and I can't find any sign of Scolaire doing any of the problematic behavior that Wwallacee accuse him of. As just one example, in the edit where Wwallacee claimed Scolaire had dismissed Gob Lofa's arguments as "nonsense", he did nothing of the sort, but in fact answered the arguments in a constructive manner. He did say it was "nonsense" to say such things like "as your edit implies", and although I disagree that it's nonsense, I also agree that those kinds of arguments are invalid. I'm obviously not going to waste my time on making a detail analysis of every edit that Wwallacee provided, I'm just going to state here that the edits he link to does not contain what he claims they contains. This *is* harassment of Scolaire, and I think this is only going to end if Wwallacee becomes indef blocked. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:21, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

OpenFuture has discounted the value of his opinion on this issue since he says he is "not going to waste his time" reading the evidence I have supplied. For the one piece of evidence that he has indeed commented on, he chose only the first in a chain of linked events that exemplify a pattern of uncompromising deletion and coercive talk page comments by Scolaire. For the benefit of those who are reading this for the first time, let me review the full sequence in question: On an article talk page, Gob Lofa posted a comment protesting against what he deemed to be the politically biased nature of Scolaire’s edits. Scolaire replied that Gob Lofa’s criticism was “nonsense” and that his edits had all been simple reverts of Gob Lofa’s edits. Scolaire then tried to discredit Gob Lofa by saying he had introduced “a convenient line break” to “hide other edits”. And Scolaire added: “Don’t complain when somebody does a blanket revert rather than try to sift out the good edits from the bad.” Gob Lofa then invited Scolaire to insert “citation needed” templates where he felt more citations were needed. Scolaire replied: “Adding templates is not necessary. You know where citations are needed and for what. If you do not add them, your edit will be reverted.” The discussion continued in this way, with Scolaire adopting an increasingly coercive tone (e.g.: "If it’s not policy-compliant, it can, should and will be reverted” – implying that he Scolaire is the highest authority), while Gob Lofa attempted to appease him, but also argued quite reasonably: “Disliking one part of an edit is no excuse for deleting all of it, that’s just laziness. It’s good that you’ve retreated from your earlier hyperbole but with more care these issues wouldn’t arise.” Scolaire came back with this: “Wrong edits should and will be reverted, and there is no onus on the person reverting to sift out what may be good parts of the wrong edits. Calling it ‘laziness’ is just being provocative. ... Any of your disputed edits that you cannot explain and source may not be restored. Anything that you can justify and get agreement on can. ... Now, this whole business of recycling the same bogus arguments and haranguing me about stuff that I didn’t even say is verging on trolling.”

As this example shows, careful and balanced evaluation of the evidence is what is required here. For OpenFuture to bandy about threats of an indefinite block to my user account, after barely skimming the evidence he commented, is not appropriate. I welcome a continuing discussion and reading, but I request that this take place in a responsible fashion. - Wwallacee (talk) 07:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Your statement about what I said is in fact the exact opposite of what I said. I *have* read your evidence. Also, I don't threaten you with a block, I'm not an admin, I can't block you. I'm just pointing out that I do not believe you will stop until blocked. I think the problem here is WP:COMPETENCE.--OpenFuture (talk) 07:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I haven't done anything in this discussion that could be construed as a violation of WP:COMPETENCE. But on the other hand I have carefully shown that Scolaire does have significant Competence issues, for example with the following guidelines which are listed as subheadings under Competence: WP:RANCOR, WP:THERAPY, and WP:DONTBITE. I quote from WP:THERAPY: "Overly focused editing on a single subject can be very detrimental to the collaborative editing process, and not infrequently leads to resentments and alienation that eventually spills over into overt incivility. ... Editors who focus edits extensively in a single area tend to invest their egos in the articles, which has resulted in problems with 'ownership' of articles." - Wwallacee (talk) 10:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I would like to have explained to me how the quote from WP:Therapy applies to an editor with almost 20 000 edits to more then 4300 different pages. --T*U (talk) 10:32, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

If you look at Scolaire's "User contributions" over the last month or two you will see that the vast majority of his edits are focused on the single subject area of Irish independence from the UK. The page "Flag of Northern Ireland" alone (with its Talk page) accounts for an appreciable percentage of all of Scolaire's recent edits. Then if you look at the resentful exchanges he's had with other editors on these Irish pages (some of which I've documented above), you will see that the bits I've quoted from the WP:THERAPY guideline accurately describe the problem I've been trying to diagnose and demonstrate. - Wwallacee (talk) 14:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I can not speak about the user's editing contents, but I really can see nothing wrong with the editing pattern. There is not any sign of any "focus edits extensively in a single area". Many edits to certain pages in certain periods, yes, but who has not done that? We all have our interests, and they guide our editing pattern. I think it is time for you to leave the poor horse in peace. --T*U (talk) 18:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, I've done an analysis of Scolaire's edits as of a year ago to verify. I looked at his last 500 edits prior to April 30, 2015. Of these 76% had to do with Irish pages (380 edits). And if you consider another 85 edits to Scottish and Welsh pages, that makes 93% of his edits having to do with Celtic nationalism in some way. Sure, it's OK to edit in a single area, but as the WP:THERAPY guideline indicates, this has been known to lead to difficulties with collaboration, such as resentments, alienation and overt incivility. Again, "Editors who focus edits extensively in a single area tend to invest their egos in the articles, which has resulted in problems with 'ownership' of articles." All of this applies explicitly to Scolaire, as I have shown.

In response to T*U's allusion to "flogging a dead horse" - I have done nothing to perpetuate this debate beyond its natural conclusion. I have replied to attempts to discredit me personally, and to vague refutations of my arguments - as I could be expected to do. The amount of disucssion has actually increased in the past couple of days, but that was due to other editors suddenly taking an interest in this thread. And yet, so far, not a single administrator has commented.

Let me add that I am fully willing to draw this debate to a close if others are. I think that whatever the outcome may be, I've raised general awareness about Scolaire's coercive editing practices. And I hope this will contribute to reducing their recurrence. - Wwallacee (talk) 07:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Request Close

This has been up since April 27. No real movement has happened to it. It doesn't seem to have a snowballs chance in hell at leading to any action. Well it may lead possible to another block or ban for Wwallacee, but if he hasn't dug the hole deep enough there's no point in letting him dig it further. Seems a good a time as any to close it. Thanks. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Serialjoe, why would you refer to my well-researched plea for administrative action here as "digging a hole"? I was asked during a previous ANI discussion to provide evidence of my allegations about Scolaire's behavior. I provided some evidence but the discussion was closed before that evidence was discussed. The administrator who closed the discussion told me on my talk page that I could reopen the discussion if I had more detailed evidence. And I did have more detailed evidence. So I reopened this discussion, and I did so in a measured and neutral way.

To any other administrators who may be reading this: Given Serialjoe's disrespectful tone in his close request, I request that my evidence be evaluated by other administrators, and in a more neutral fashion. - Wwallacee (talk) 18:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not asking for a block or ban on Wwallacee, only an unequivocal statement from an admin that what he's doing is wrong. To close it without that would be to send a message that he should just try again every few weeks. Scolaire (talk) 18:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

PS As far as I know, Serialjoepsycho is not an admin. But he is entitled to comment, and his comments are in line with everything that has been said by everybody else. It is Wwallacee who is disrespectful to the community in general. Scolaire (talk) 18:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Scolaire, you are once again deflecting the discussion away from valid evidence of your coercive behavior by making vague and unsubstantiated allegations. I have no intention of opening this thread again every few weeks as you keep saying - nor have I ever said anything to suggest it. What is notable here is your need to control the discussion by constantly having the last word, and personally disparaging your opponent. As you no doubt remember, you were admonished for this very behavior after a previous ANI complaint lodged against you: the administrator then told you that you had "a pride issue" and that your talk page harassment of another editor "served no significant constructive purpose," and that the only reason you did not let go was "because it requires you to swallow your pride." - Wwallacee (talk) 19:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:The_Troubles/Archive_2#Questions_about_recent_edits Here's the full discussion for the troubles discussion you want to Cherry pick from. Seems like a policy minded discussion and one initiated by Scolaire. All of the other items you list are like this and if not it's already resolved administrative matters. The only real problem I see is that you have an axe to grind with Scolaire. This is a waste of the communities time. Other than Blackmane condensing your comments and my comments, your comments,and scolaire defending himself, I'm the only one that's looked at it. 6 days of nothing. It's time for the dropping of the stick.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of what happens at this point, I am retiring from Wikipedia. There is no satisfaction in editing if any bold edit may lead to a relative stranger vilifying me at ANI and admins just turn a blind eye. I expected better. Scolaire (talk) 11:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Why quit? I've been through worst then what you're going through now & I'm still around. Be calm & carry on. GoodDay (talk) 18:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I think it would send a very bad signal if this is just ignored. I think it would be very good if an admin could look at this. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:34, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Userspace subpages issue

The page title of User:Legacypac/Godsygaming is a personal attack against me, alleging gaming (almost a WP:CSD#G10). I asked the user to rename the page and request the title be deleted. They created another page with the same content, User:Legacypac/Godsymoves, but left the other page untouched. The pages are polemic. Now, they've started linking User:Legacypac/Godsymoves in discussions: Special:Diff/718608736 of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White River Valley Museum. While the content of the userspace subpages only serves to draw attention to work the community has had to undertake because of content they've moved from userspaces other than their own that was not suitable for the mainspace, it is mischaracterizing and invokes my username. I would request User:Legacypac/Godsygaming be deleted as a personal attack and duplicate of User:Legacypac/Godsymoves. I would also request User:Legacypac/Godsymoves be renamed preferably to something neutral, but at the least, something without my username in it. Lastly, I'd request Legacypac be warned about and asked to stop linking to polemic pages/material in discussions. If Legacypac has a problem with my actions, there are appropriate forums to raise the matter.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 22:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

It looks to me that Legacypac is getting ready to initiate the dispute resolution process which is a valid exemption to WP:POLEMIC: "The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner." As this was created May 2nd, I think we're still well within "tiemly".--v/r - TP 23:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@TParis: My issue is not with the existence of the content, rather the inappropriate name and the linking to it in inappropriate places.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 23:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I've thrown a warning on their talk page.--v/r - TP 23:51, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

The linking of DR-preparation notes in AfDs for example was not OK. Can those links/references to these pages be removed? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• Legacypac is going through some turmoil, being slow to adjust to others' concerns, but he is adjusting, and this page appears productive in finding a compromise between him and others who have butted heads against him (including me). It is not overly negative, but factual and current. It is OK while current, but should be removed (or modified to reflect the hopeful resolution) in time.

User:Legacypac/Godsymoves - OK

User:Legacypac/Godsygaming - same as above, perfect copy, but provocatively titled, please delete it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I think an evidence page should not be titled in such a way as to assume bad faith. "Godsygaming" is needlessly provocative. I agree with SmokeyJoe that it should be deleted. As a duplicate of another more neutrally titled page it serves no purpose other than to disparage its subject, in other words a WP:CSD#G10. Unless I hear some compelling reason why it is not I think it should be deleted as such. More specifically it should be history merged to User:Legacypac/Godsymoves to retain its history. HighInBC 00:30, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Touchy stuff like that is best kept on the PC where only the user can see it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

At least I see a massive Streisand effect here... The Banner talk 09:44, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Response: I previously blanked the GodsyGaming page (or intended to blank, Wikipedia stopped working in the middle of the process) and copied the info to GodsyMoves in response to Godsy's demands on his talk page (before this ANi) GodsyGaming can be deleted as blanked by the author and with my permission. GodsyGaming was mirroring the title of an ANi about this behaviour, but I apologize for the word choice or any offense it caused.

The page content was copied from Godsy's own talk page [137], (look in now collapsed box near thread bottom) so it is pretty funny to see Godsy open an ANi complaining about a list of links Godsy himself assembled and continues to update even while in a collapse box. It is also humorous to see Godsy seeking deletion of pages in userspace when he is spending so much effort fighting deletion of pages in userspace and making personal attacks far and wide against me for working on stale drafts in userspace. Legacypac (talk) 14:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is going on but the pages have been blanked. I thought the problem was the title, not the content of the page. Can these pages be restored and just moved to a more neutral title? The page should only be blanked by Legacypac indicating that he no longer needs the content on the page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

The real problem here is not a descriptively named page like GodsyMoves - mostly copied from Godsy's own talk page - but Godsy's obsession with stalking my edits and screwing with my page moves and deletions. He is editing many of the pages I promote, and returning anything to userspace that he can for any flimsy excuse. I can produce a full ANi case, but at this point I've simply been trying to talk sense into him and taking steps to fix the mess he is creating. Evidently that is not working. Legacypac (talk) 18:34, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

User Page IP vandal

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

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:NewEnglandYankee&diff=718811146&oldid=718811091 This was made by 2601:481:C200:6E20:EC2D:261A:C6AB:5D10. He has been harassing User:NewEnglandYankee. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 19:44, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ANewEnglandYankee&type=revision&diff=718811271&oldid=718811199, and various other spam. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 19:44, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

This is 2601:481:C200:6E20:EC2D:261A:C6AB:5D10 (talk · contribs · 2601:481:C200:6E20:EC2D:261A:C6AB:5D10 WHOIS). They've also attacked User:Anythingyouwant. I've blocked the IP for now. -- The Anome (talk) 19:45, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

There's not much point blocking them singly, they'll get a new one every time they turn off the computer — or something — anyway, they'll keep getting new ones. There have been two of them already. A /64 range is usually assigned to a single customer, so I've blocked 2601:481:C200:6E20::/64 for 48 hours. Bishonen | talk 19:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC).

User:Bishonen, if that's true, can you semi-protect my user and talk page, because the IP goes after people who delete his edits. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 19:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll notify you again if I see another one. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 20:01, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Platypus, I'd rather not semi right now, because the rangeblock is supposed to mean they can't. That's what it's for. But I'll watch your pages and protect in case they return via a <struck per WP:BEANS>. Do notify me, yes please. Bishonen | talk 20:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC).

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

Reporting incident of bullying on wp:Merrick Garland by editors jonathunder, neutrality, and LjL

WP: Bullying states that editors should immediately report incidents of bullying on this page. I am doing so here. Initially, I wasn't aware of the existence of another page, WP:Merrick Garland Supreme Court Nomination, but that isn't directly relevant. I wanted to include material related to that nomination, but I wanted to start first by laying the groundwork on the Talk page, rather that going in to the main article first. I contend that's the better method in this case. I then added a new section to the Talk Page, NOT the main article, including a paragraph, attempting to explain what I was about to do. I was immediately set upon by rude editor Jonathunder, who did not enter a response; he merely deleted the paragraph that I wrote. Thus, his attempt was to ensure that no consensus could possibly be formed by other editors, which was clearly his intent. I immediately reverted his deletion, as he was obviously wrong at that point. Remember, this was on the Talk page, NOT the main article. Jonathunder was obvioiusly engaged in a WP:Edit War. He proceeded to further misrepresent what he THOUGHT I would be doing in the future, and he was quickly backed up by another thuggish editor, Neutrality. (Evidently, so that it wouldn't be quite so obvious that Jonathunder was continuing an WP:Edit War. Eventually, another thug, LjL came in, helping both Jonathunder and Neutrality continue to obstruct me. This is obviously a pattern of tag-team abuse.

My position is clear: Even if these guys thought that what they figured I was eventually going to do (later, on the main article) was going to be wrong, they had absolutely no business summarily deleting a new non-vandalism paragraph on a Talk page. THAT is bullying. At most, they should have stated their concerns on that same Talk page, arguably to correct me or at least allow a consensus to develop. They did not. They went to abuse, first. I assert that I am entitled to include (my) opinions on Talk page discussion, and the mere presence of those opinions can't properly be used to shut down the discussion and consensus-building, even before it starts. Sadly, I am well aware that WP actual practice has become atrociously abusive, and has been so for many years. Don't try to defend their abusive actions based on what they claim to have thought might eventually happen: The reason that WP has such a terrible reputation of bullying is because many of its editors and administrators are, indeed, bullies.

Note: I will be away for a few days. My lack of an immediate response should not be construed as an abandonment of this complaint and position. 174.25.48.161 (talk) 16:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Just some advice, 174.25.48.161, but when you come to ANI and refer to experienced editors, some who have been editing for more than 10 years, as "thugs", you better have diffs/evidence that points to the problems you are encountering. You need to point to edits that you believe are abusive not just provide a narrative that is your side of the story. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:50, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• Jonathunder would have done well to have written a better edit summary for this edit. And while that post is chatty, it's not entirely WP:FORUM-y. Having said that, Liz is absolutely correct in that coming out with guns blazing and personal attacks flying around ("bullying"--oh dear) is not a good strategy, or eve strategery. Drmies (talk) 16:52, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll agree I should have used an edit summary, not rollback. I was too hasty there. I also appreciate the good Dr. Fleischman's efforts to diffuse the situation. Jonathunder (talk) 17:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• Please allow me to provide my take on this as an involved editor. The first edit made by our IP editor--174.25.48.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 75.175.105.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)--was at Talk:Merrick Garland and appeared to four different editors (myself included) to violate WP:NOTFORUM. In fact, in subsequent discussion the IP explained that he/she did not intend that comment to be forum-y but was instead using the talk page in a sandbox-like manner to develop content that he/she wanted to add to the article eventually. I am willing to take him/her at their word. However, my suggestion to create an account and use a sandbox was not taken well to say the least. Since that first contribution the IP has been extremely disruptive and has appeared incapable of listening and communicating in a civil manner or contributing in any way beyond complaining about perceived slights and the shortcomings of Wikipedia. I do not think that a single comment he/she has made since that first one has been be devoid of some sort of incivility. In my view the IP believes that he/she must engage in battle, and if that belief is not quickly dispelled then I do not think he/she is capable of making a meaningful contribution. P.S. I'm not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• My one action in this incident has consisted in reverting what I deemed (like various other editors before me) to be clear WP:NOTFORUM content on the talk page, with an explanatory edit summary that I tried to make as clear as possible. After that, I've silently witnessed myself (like other editors) being called a "bully", a "rude person", purposely "obstructing development of the article", and a "thug". I contributed nothing further, until I was notified of this report. That is all I have to say. LjL (talk) 20:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Persistent abuse of categorization by IP

The IP 76.88.107.122 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been in a sustained effort to add certain categories to pages. While a number of their edits are moderately helpful, a great many of them constitute gross overcategorization. I have been trying to avoid requesting a block for this IP, instead trying to clean up after them and guide them to a better understanding of the principles of categorization (four notices over the last three weeks at User talk:76.88.107.122 § A couple of notes on categories), but they continue without a response to my notices or even a change in the pattern of their edits. The effort it takes to review their high volume of edits is getting to be too much for the handful of editors who have addressed this, myself not least of all. I'm hoping a temporary block, of at least one week, will encourage this editor to check their talk page, take the time to review the guidelines, and hopefully discuss the issue with other editors. Ibadibam (talk) 21:49, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Geonotice Attention

Hello, I have a Geonotice request that has not been responded to and it is now a few days after when I had wanted the Geonotice to begin. Would anyone be willing to take a look for me? Fpl-dmatzrott (talk) 14:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

@Deryck Chan: ^ --QEDK (T ☕ C) 17:51, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

On my way! Deryck C. 22:34, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Abusive content at IndyCamp Live

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

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IndyCamp_Live#cite_note-2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.98.58.130 (talk) 15:50, 5 May 2016 (UTC) — 2.98.58.130 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Aside from the annoying ad links on that reference, what's abusive about it? Are you griping about the "Camp Stupid" comment? Do they not allow satire in Scotland? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:01, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I've removed a lot of the article. Quite a few issues: Extraneous details, coverage of small developments(i.e the campers representing themselves), confusing language like "The organisers of the camp say they will remain there until one of them cashes a giro". The article just felt like someone came upon it and decided to turn it into not just an attack page, but a bad article all-around. Check out the last paragraph of the article before I edited it. It literally said "The campers have failed to get their eviction proceedings thrown out. They believe that their case will bring about the dissolution of the United Kingdom because they are delusional, self-centered fools." Eik Corell (talk) 16:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

A few characters aren't happy that they lost the referendum. How is this story even newsworthy? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:21, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Didn't even think of that angle, that's actually an equally big problem. Eik Corell (talk) 16:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• I just want to thank Wikipedia and all its contributors for reminding me of the word giro--a memory of a happier time. Drmies (talk) 16:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
• Problem solved. If there was one. Drmies (talk) 16:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Wasickta and repeated OUTING / 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.

---

Wasickta has been removing content from an article, most recently in this edit, where he claims "Discuss on talk page. Alan Sohn you are an elected official of the town of Tenack NJ. Why are you trying to lower house prices in Rumson NJ by scaring people?". The claim that I am able to use Wikipedia to influence home prices in communities 60 miles away from me as part of an effort to benefit myself is patently absurd.

Wasickta has been part of a rather malicious effort at WP:OUTING elsewhere and this only perpetuates this battle. Whether at User talk:Jytdog#COI, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Local Politician Shaping Views Using Wikipedia: Conflict Of Interest, or in any of his other edits at Special:Contributions/Wasickta, there is a rather clear vendetta here.

Can I please ask for a block and to have edits by Wasickta that mention me deleted from history. This harassment has to end. Alansohn (talk) 20:47, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Alansohn declared in his wikipedia introduction his name and his address: [[138]]. How can we label this an outing when Alansohn himself told everyone his name and address?! Alansohns personal attacks are outrageous! Wasickta (talk) 20:56, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Why are you constantly pinging him, anyways? GoodDay (talk) 21:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Wasickta, an edit summary like "Why are you trying to lower house prices in Rumson NJ by scaring people?" is not appropriate. You are imputing motives to an editor simply because of an edit they made on a local high school? This is not about Alansohn's identity, it's been a slow edit war between the two of you on including this negative information on the article. You should stop maligning Alansohn and move the discussion to the article talk page to involve more editors. Attacking the editor, rather than discussing the dispute over the edit, could easily lead to a block should you continue on this path. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• I saw all the brouhaha yesterday and assumed it had blown over. I guess not. @Wasickta:, you're now one-way interaction banned from mentioning, interacting with, reverting, or otherwise acknowledging the existence of, Alansohn. If you continue, I'll block you indefinitely. @Alansohn:, I don't think revdeling or oversighting Wasickta's edits from project space (the noticeboards, userpages, etc) is necessary, they're not being i-banned for outing, they're being i-banned from harassment, and there's no squeezing toothpaste back in the tube. I'll revdel where they've made that claim in article histories, as it's a particularly obnoxious place to say that, although I'm not 100% sure that's a completely kosher use of revdel i hope no one minds. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:49, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I mind. Would JimboWales consider this you covering up political corruption and trying to influence future NJ elections? Go ahead ban me. You are ending up in the paper just like your friend at University of Auburn is(probably your sock). Wasickta (talk) 23:47, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay, that's enough. I've blocked Wasickta indefinitely for harassment. If someone disagrees or wants to shorten the block, I have no objection, but I have a very low tolerance for this kind of harassment and threats. Katie^talk 23:53, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• Whoa, someone from Auburn is involved? That's revolting, Floq. Choose your friends/socks more wisely. Roll Tide, Drmies (talk) 00:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Violent threats

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

---

I have been receiving violent threats from User: Huldra and User: SeanHoy(Redacted) and I wanted to know if I can now involve the police? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.156.14 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you can. Simply report yourself to the police or a mental healthcare facility and provide the evidence of the threats of physical and sexual violence you issued. You can copy them from Special:Contributions/101.160.158.29. They should be able to help you. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:53, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Obvious block evader blocked. The is the Telstra vandal. Acroterion (talk) 12:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

<- The articles they touched should have extended confirmed protection. They should already have had extended confirmed protection. All of the articles covered by WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 should already have had extended confirmed protection applied. If extended confirmed protection had been implemented across ARBPIA, this charming Israel supporter would not have been able to disrupt these articles and all of the others they have disrupted or use them to issue threats of physical and sexual violence via edit summaries which then need to be revdel'd.

• If there is a server based method available that automates the ARBCOM authorized restrictions in ARBPIA why is it not being used right across ARBPIA?
• Why are ARBPIA articles still being disrupted by people who don't meet the WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 requirements and why are editors still receiving threats of physical and sexual violence via ARBPIA article edit summaries when stopping that is a simple matter of implementing the ARBCOM restrictions via extended confirmed protection? Sean.hoyland - talk 12:43, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Charming. More here: User:Huldra/Telstra-socks...and could some-one please rev-del this edit-line? Thanks in advance, Huldra (talk) 13:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I believe I have rev-del'ed the edit. This is my first time doing so; please check my work. --Yamla (talk) 13:28, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

-User:Yamla, yes, you have, thanks! And that something is still visible to admins does not bother me.....What bothers me is if "everyone" (including the Telstra-vandal himself) should be able to see it, Cheers, Huldra (talk) 13:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

You can always ask for my assistance as someone who can explain Wikipedia and ARBPIA to new Israeli users in words they understand.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Bolter21, thanks, but the Telstra-vandal is in Australia (presumably: that is where Telstra operates), and I consider the probability of turning someone who has made countless death and rape threats into a "constructive editor", well, that probability is equal to 0. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 14:25, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I see.. Well maybe I"ll reach into his heart by saying he advocates anti-Israelism among Wikipedians which really disturbs my work.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:28, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Not sure whether or to what degree this particular individual encourages anti-Israelism among Wikipedians, but I suspect they may not be a graduate of the Young Ambassadors Program. Rather than reaching into their heart, it might be more effective to throw a copy of Cleckley's very readable The Mask of Sanity at them from a distance and back away slowly. But for interest, I can certainly say that when I started editing Wikipedia I didn't support the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, and now I do, in part because of extensive exposure to a large number of badly behaved Israel supporters in Wikipedia and the contents of maybe thousands of RS I had to read because of all the sockpuppetry, armchair-activism and WP:NOTADVOCATE violations. Ironic, and I'm guessing that for any given rational agent with no connection to the conflict who spends a significant amount of time in ARBPIA (rare beasts) there is a high probability that they will acquire a net negative change in their opinion of Israel supporters in general and Wikipedia in general, regardless of whether that is fair or accurate. And if they make enough edits that faithfully reflect RS according to policy and revert disruption they will eventually be labeled pro-Palestinian. Eventually they may actually become pro-Palestinian, although it's never clear what that entails exactly or how it differs from being pro-human. I suppose setting a good example as an Israel supporter is the way to counter these things, but if everything was working properly here it should be impossible, or at least very difficult, to figure out anyone's personal views unless they explicitly state them.

Either way, I think a much more important issue is that there are allegedly 1307 admins for English Wikipedia, 552 of them active (as of 2016-05-06) but very few of them are here at ANI responding to requests and questions. They can't all be listening to the new Radiohead song. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:43, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

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

New and persistent block-evading spammer

I see we have a persistent new spammer who has now popped up under several different usernames, including at least these:

• Utpattiecom (talk · contribs)
• Utpattiecom12 (talk · contribs)
• Chaudharijp (talk · contribs)
• Amanseow (talk · contribs)

They are promoting more than one domain. Their current MO involves edit messages saying "I fixed dead link and deleted dead link" (or similar). They seem to be persevering in spite of multiple blocks. They have revisited some pages more than once, eg. Educational Policy Institute, sex education. -- The Anome (talk) 08:52, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• utpattiecom.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• seomadmax.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• onlinemartdeal.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

{{checkuser needed}}

Please take this to WP:SPI. It would be better handled there than at ANI. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Domains blacklisted. MER-C 13:09, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

When I came across Chaudharijp yesterday, the MO seemed familiar and I think it might have been additional editors besides those you have listed that made me think this. Therefore, I wouldn't be surprised if a checkuser found more connected accounts. I endorse your checkuser request. Deli nk (talk) 16:53, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

SPI opened: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Utpattiecom. MER-C 03:12, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Clarification please: DrChrissy and human anatomy edits

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

---

Clarification requested please, with this DrChrissy was Tbanned from "human medical articles and WP:MEDRS related discussions (in accordance with the previous close, and to reduce the possibility of conflict with the same group of users)." The entry at WP:RESTRICT says "DrChrissy is also topic banned from human health and medicine, and WP:MEDRS related discussions, broadly construed." DrChrissy has made edits to articles clearly focused on human anatomy, like [139][140]. This led to this conversation on DrChrissy's User Talk, where it became apparent that there's a bit of open ambiguity as to whether editing human anatomy topic falls under "human medicine... broadly construed". Could we get some clarification please? I am not looking for any further sanctions here, just clarity, as this is apparently good-faith disagreement. Zad68 2:18 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Human anatomy is not in and of itself health related. For example, as an artist I study and work with human anatomy all of the time and my work has nothing to do with health. There may be aspects of articles on human anatomy that relate to health or medicine, and human health obviously references the human being and his or her anatomy. but in and of itself no, not a health related area or areas.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC))

The particular disagreement we were having was whether human anatomy is part of "human medicine". To me it clearly is, it's a foundational element of medicine, and clearly would be included in the Tban when "broadly construed." To DrChrissy it isn't... thanks for your input. Zad68 18:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

The subject matter of the article is anatomy - to describe a normal human penis. There are other penis-related articles which are medically oriented such as Micropenis, Penile cancer and Penile fracture which I have not, and would not, edit. Zad68 directed me to Medicine#Basic sciences to support their argument. Please note that along with Anatomy, this list also includes sciences such as Histology, Biophysics and Cytology. As with anatomy, these all have large areas of study completely unrelated to health and medicine. Please remember that our Medicine article states "Medicine... is the science and practice of the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of disease." and our Anatomy article states “Anatomy is the branch of biology concerned with the study of the structure of organisms and their parts”. Whilst they are not mutually exclusive, they are very clearly, different. DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Yep it's exactly this that we're looking for clarity on. Zad68 18:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

The clarity is that one uses the word "disease" whereas the other does not. DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:57, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I think the important line on the topic ban here is "human health" (especially when "broadly construed"). Even though there are some non-health related aspects to the human anatomy, as suggested above, I think the two areas are so interconnected that the ban would apply. Brianga (talk) 19:02, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@Brianga, do you think the ban applies to Beard, Hair, Earlobe, Moustache...? DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I must say, this does look like a continued exercise in boundary-testing. Aren't there enough topics to edit which don't overlap with human health, broadly construed? And why did you even think to edit Quackery? Alexbrn (talk) 19:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

You critically forget to mention that I immediately self-reverted. Let's play nicely here. DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

You didn't "immediately self-revert"; you struck your comments after being reminded of your TBAN. More boundary testing? Alexbrn (talk) 19:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Just what point are you trying to make here? You are not even commenting on the subject of this thread. You are clearly trying to poison the well by bringing mistakes I made on another page to this one. Please desist. DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

The point is that it seems there is a wider pattern whereby you keep pushing your luck and wasting everybody's time in the process. Hasn't this come up at AE (and AN/I) before? Alexbrn (talk) 20:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

It is you that is wasting everybody's time with these spurious accusations. This thread is about whether Human penis is an anatomy article or a medical article. Please stick to the subject. DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

It's a false dichotomy to say "anatomy article or medical article", as if they were separate topics. The question is whether human anatomy should be considered to fall under "human health and medicine ... broadly construed". Zad68 20:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

It is your opinion that it is a false dichotomy. You are entitled to your opinion, but so am I. Medicine is about a process - largely, treating disease. The article Human penis is about a lump of flesh that hangs off the front of men. It is not about disease. DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

No its not Zad. I would disagree strongly. I use human anatomy in both art and dance, but none of what I am doing has to do with health. Human health is a possible subset of human anatomy, as is the knowledge of human anatomy to draw the human figure, and understanding of the anatomy to analyze a skill for example, a jump or turn. To deal with this issue we must clarify both the master topic area and the subsets and then determine which if not all or some fall under "health related". If this is truly a clarification then personal attacks only derail the discussion and delay clarification. This is a larger issue than one editor's ban and probably deserves greater community input. No one's opinion on this can be definitive, and we should have an understanding that all editor's can refer to .(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC))

That isn't the question here, is it? I would say, "maybe" - for hair, it would apply if you are editing about lice, but not a crewcut. But I'm loathe to give an advisory opinion and think we should stick to the issues at hand. Brianga (talk) 19:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

But this is the issue at hand. Zad68 is asking whether I should edit the Human penis page at all, not about the particular edits I made. Contrary to what you think, I can edit about lice at that page, but not on matters relating to human health. I would argue that I should not edit crewcut because that is a fashion and relates to human mental health. This is why topic bans are so stupid. DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

This is just my personal opinion based on university classes in biology but I don't think anatomy (and the general area of human biology) necessarily involves health or medicine. I took courses in anatomy and physiology and they had nothing to do with medical treatment or health issues. I think you have to look at the content of the edits, not merely the article title. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for this Liz - I totally agree. For many months now, I have edited animal behaviour and animal welfare articles such as Dog meat where there are (totally unfounded) claims of medical benefits. I have steered wide of making any edits to such material. I am not testing the Ban, I am trying very hard to adhere to this, even though it is sometimes to the detriment of articles. I am perfectly happy to discuss my edits at Human penis as to whether they are medical or not, but I would like to suggest this waits until we get consensus on the OP's clarification request. DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I understand the concern about boundary testing, particularly after the recent edit to Talk:Quackery, but personally I really don't see edits to articles on human anatomy with no health or medical aspects covered by the topic ban. I'm surprising myself a little here, because in the past I've been critical of DrChrissy's boundary testing, but I don't think that's what's happening here. And I think it's well on this side of the boundary anyway. I guess it's easier to make health or medical-related edits to anatomical articles, and I imagine admins (including me) won't be terribly forgiving if "accidental" health or medical-related edits are made on this type of article. So DrChirssy should exercise extreme caution. And, DrChirssy, the idea of topic bans is not stupid, it's just an understandable problem in execution; if you make them narrowly defined, then someone will always find loophole upon loophole. If you make them broadly defined, then almost by definiton the boundary is poorly defined. Better would be not editing in a way that required inherently imperfect topic bans to be imposed in the first place. But in this particular case, I don't see a topic ban violation. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I guess I'm a little late to the cockfight here, but I agree entirely with Liz and Floquenbeam. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

As do I. Katie^talk 01:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

That raises an interesting question, which I don't know the answer to. Is the "topic" by article, or by edit? In other words, can one edit any article so long as it doesn't implicate the topic at issue; or must one avoid each and every article that involves the topic? Somewhere in the middle? Brianga (talk) 04:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Its a topic ban, so any edits related to the topic are subject to it. Not pages. The key bit is 'broadly construed' - with some articles the subject matter is linked to the topic in such a way that any edits should be avoided. 2 years ago you could have happily made edits to Donald Trump while being banned from American Politics, now it would be incredibly unwise to even attempt it lest accusations of partisan editing come into play. Likewise someone banned from medical articles and human health should *not* be editing articles on human anatomy. Its deliberate boundary pushing and usually gets frowned upon at AE. The main problem with topic bans is that unless they are explicitly broad enough, people subject to them *always* attempt to keep editing in the same area and poking around the edges. Taking anatomy - someone who is making edits regarding human anatomy/physiology in the context of say artistic depiction, would not be falling foul of a human health topic ban. Someone who is making edits in a section about reproductive success, that certainly *is* a health issue, albeit the edits were correcting US-UK English spelling variants. Which is another *amazingly* silly thing to do, if the article is even remotely ambiguous as to if you are topic banned from it or not, you dont go in and dick around (ha) with UK/US spelling. It makes no substantial difference to the article and if it needs to be done, can be done by someone who is not banned at all from the area. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Sensible thoughts. Thanks. Brianga (talk) 13:27, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

However, it is my experience that administrators interpret topic bans in whatever way they like. As a extreme example, Rusavia had a topic ban on editing anything Russia-related, Sandstein pronounced that under that topic ban he could not add to an article about Cuba some pd photos of Cuba because they had been taken by a photographer who was Russian. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:49, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Anyone who is banned from the topic Russia who edits Cuba is on thin ice anyway given the involvement of the two countries over the years. I assume you have heard of the Cuban Missile Crisis? Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:51, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

What a surprise, topic banned person decides to be edgy and edit in a gray area because they know that there will, at worst, be some giant multi page bureaucrating hair-splitting discussion on ANI before anything happens to them. Why isn't this person banned yet? I blame society. Here's a lil tip: widely construed means WIDELY CONSTRUED. Instead of editing medical articles, go copyedit articles about creeks or anime or something. Jtrainor (talk) 23:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I have been spending most of my time on WP copyediting animal welfare articles and creating new articles. You might like to take a look at Theory of mind in animals and Kype (anatomy) which I created during the last few days. Happy editing. DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Jtrainor, those are outrageous bad faith comments to be making. It is not the topic banned editor who has initiated this report. And the report is asking for "clarification", not some backdated ban on DrChrissy. My opinion is that evolution is not "human health and medicine" broadly construed, and neither is anatomy. Editing restrictions are meant to prevent damage to Wikipedia, to prevent damaging actions by editors, but not to be punitive and vindictive just for the sake of being punitive and vindictive. What damage has been done that that justifies an expansion of the subject areas covered by the topic ban? The two cited edits at the start of the report unquestionably improved the articles in question. For example, "Another evolutionary theory of penis size is female mate choice and its associations with social judgements in modern day society" is obviously superior to the badly phrased and unjustifiably absolutist claim that "Female mate choice has resulted in the evolution of penis size through its associations with social judgments in modern day society". The question of whether to go for UK English or US English in science related articles has nothing to do with the topic ban. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:49, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Rampant deletionist game playing

WP:DENY
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Deletionist game playing continues with an abuse of AFC. Look at Draft:Best Article. Despite knowing that it is not subject to G13, Feinoha wrongfully submitted it to AFC before immediately rejecting it. The IP's work will now be deleted under G13 even though it was never intended to be. This is a block worthy offense. We already had enough characters doing that before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.120.1 (talk) 19:39, 8 May 2016 (UTC) No, that isn't right. It's always been my understanding that an editor can work on a draft or sandbox article as long as they want, unless it contains child porn or copyvio or something else wrong. It might eventually get deleted if it's not notable, but at least the editor has a chance to try to get it into acceptable shape. Submitting a draft and then rejecting it instantly, before the creator has a chance to improve something that is obviously a rough draft, isn't the way to keep newbies. White Arabian Filly Neigh 20:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC) The user behind this range of IPs (166.x.x.x) is banned from Wikipedia for disruptive behavior in areas such as AFC, draftspace, and MFD. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive277#Ban time? and User:Blackmane/166 Ban proposal. clpo13(talk) 20:27, 8 May 2016 (UTC) Despite this, I removed the {{AFC submission}} from the draft. It was never submitted, so it need never have been reviewed. -- The Voidwalker Discuss 20:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC) Agreed. I think this is worthy of no more a {{trout}} and an explanation of how AFC works. Unless this happens repeatedly, a block is overkill. clpo13(talk) 20:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Editor continually removing my comments from a talk page.

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

---

I shall try to make this as short and sweet as possible.

User:RexxS followed me from a (heated) discussion to an article he had never edited before (or discussed before) and reverted me. I warned him on that article's talk page about following me and requested that he stop following me.

I also discussed my edits with another wikipedian (I had mistakenly removed a reliable source, while removing an unreliable source and explained that it was my mistake and that of course I had no problems with that reliable source remaining on the article)

User:RexxS, however continued to delete my comments (both those directed to him, and to other editors) and edit the title of the thread from my initial title, to something else. I have commented on my talk page, his talk page, the article's talk page, to request that he leave my edits alone. This editor seems to think that my legitimate claims of him harassing me are grounds to call my edits personal attacks and delete them. (why he was deleting my comments to other editors, I don't know) I tried to appease him, and asked him really nicely to stop. He even posted "you are now under legitimate scrutiny. I'll be checking your edits for other examples of you damaging the encyclopedia and I will take action if I find them" I just wanted this guy to leave me alone and he thinks he can delete messages to other editors from me, and explain that I am "under legitimate scrutiny"?

I wouldn't have minded so much if he was just changing the thread title, I changed it myself to something a little more neutral, but he was removing half my comments. I started the thread to discuss his conduct, and he wants to change the title to make it about me? He's completely changing the meaning of what I'm trying to communicate, by changing the thread title.

below are the diffs from him removing my talk page comments.

[[141]] [[142]]

and this is him explaining how he will follow me...

[[143]]

this is my attempt to calm things down.

"I don't wish to fan the flames and increase the drama, but please don't change my comments on talk pages - this of course includes thread titles. If you don't follow me to other articles, our paths are unlikely to cross again, and there will be no need for further unfriendly interaction. Thanks and have a lovely day. "

hmmmm that didn't seem short or sweet, but it's about the best I can manage. I don't need this guy blocked from editing. I don't care about the article he reverted me on, I don't plan to edit it again. I would just like someone to explain to him to leave me alone, don't follow me and don't touch my comments, please. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:18, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

No attempt to notify me as required. The timeline below shows clearly that Spacecowboy420 has repeatedly engaged in personal attacks and removal of reliably sourced content from articles. It is astonishing that he should accuse me of WP:WIKIHOUNDING after I justifiably reverted him once. Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. My emphasis on repeatedly.

• 2 May 2016 - Spacecowboy420, in his first edit to Rodeo, deleted reliably sourced material , in particular content sourced to the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association in an apparent attempt to remove content that doesn't reflect his views on "animal cruelty".
• 3 May 2016 - MontanaBW, a regular editor of the article, reverted him (edit summary:Reverted good faith edits by Spacecowboy420 (talk): Unwarranted deletion)
• 4 May 2016 07:59 - Spacecowboy420 made a section on MontanaBW's talk page titled "WP:WIKIHOUNDING" where he drew attention to her revert.
• 4 May 2016 10:22 - Spacecowboy420 edit-warred to remove the sourced content again.
• 4 May 2016 12:59 - I saw the comments at MontanaBW's talk page and looked at the edits to Rodeo. I restored the sourced material that Spacecowboy420 had twice removed.
• 4 May 2016 13:03 - I left a warning not to edit-war on Spacecowboy420's talk page.
• 4 May 2016 13:42 - Spacecowboy420 removes the warning with edit summary Do I want an ignorant template on my pretty talk page? Nope. It can fuck off.
• 4 May 2016 13:42 - Spacecowboy420 left a template on my talk page telling me "not to template the regulars", edit summary: Don't template me, bro
• 4 May 2016 15:32 - Spacecowboy420 creates a new section on my talk page, titled "WP:WIKIHOUNDING", where he accused me of stalking him.
• 4 May 2016 15:34 - Spacecowboy420 creates a new section on the Rodeo talk page, titled "User:RexxS WP:WIKIHOUNDING, where he accused me of stalking him.

It is well established that baseless claims of WP:WIKIHOUNDING are considered personal attacks and I've used that exception to WP:TPO to refactor the personal attack at Talk:Rodeo, despite Spacecowboy420 restoring the attack twice more. His personal attacks on me are the only reverts I've made on that talk page. The talk page discussion currently has the neutral title that I provided.

This ANI report is a frivolous attempt to deflect blame from Spacecowboy420's unacceptable conduct. It is clear that he is not here to build an encyclopedia. All of his edits now require scrutiny from uninvolved editors. I am an experienced editor in good standing and I ask for admin intervention to ensure that I am not subject to further personal attacks from Spacecowboy420. --RexxS (talk) 13:32, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

You followed me from MontanaBW's talk page, to an article you had never edited before and reverted me.

I explained more than once that the removal of the reliable reference was a mistake. I even posted on the editor in question's talk page and apologized for the removal, again explaining that it was a legitimate mistake.

You removed comments directed to three different editors from the article talk page. If you had only removed comments directed to you, I might not have care. There were three different comments, for three different editors.

If you don't want people to make "personal attacks" by suggesting that you followed them from a talk page, to an article, and reverted them, then don't follow them and revert them. Leave me alone. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Spacecowboy420, just two days ago, you accused Montanabw of wiki-hounding and now RexxS. I think you are a bit quick on the trigger to accuse editors of hounding you. All of these edits occurred over the space of a few days. While both you and RexxS have been a bit uncivil, if you read WP:HOUNDING you'll note that it states there are legitimate reasons for checking another editor's contribution history if "fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." I don't believe RexxS's aim is one of "creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:49, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Accusations (legitimate or not) about another editor's motives are not appropriate for an article talkpage. They either belong on the editor's talkpage or a relevant noticeboard - so your talkpage edits at Rodeo were ripe for removal/refactoring to remove the personal attacks. TPO is quite clear on this. Likewise Hounding is quite clear that checking another editor's editing history when they have a pattern of related problematic editing is not hounding. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd agree that perhaps I was a little too quick to make "hounding" accusations (I put that down to one of RexxS's buddies following me from article to article.) And while I wouldn't really mind if RexxS was only removing my comments regarding hounding from the article talk page, I find the editing of my thread title to be misleading (people will think that I made that title) and the removal of my comments to other editors to be unacceptable. My comments to other editors were not related to any interaction that I was having with RexxS and certainly not something to be removed. An "experienced editor in good standing" should not be changing thread titles in order to mislead people, neither should an "experienced editor in good standing" be removing article talk page comments clearly addressed to other editors. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Surprisingly enough, after looking through previous ANI reports, I came across this: [[144]] Equally surprising is the fact that the other editor who was stalking me (Montanabw, the editor who's talk page RexxS followed me from) is on that ANI report against RexxS, supporting him. Excuse me if I don't assume 100% good faith in the action of these two tag-teaming editors. They turn up to support eachother on ANI, they tag revert me, they both follow me around and act all offended when I call them out on it? I don't care about their silly horse related articles, I am happy to never edit another horse related article again, all I would like is for these two to please leave me alone. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:23, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Are you still insisting that your talk page thread title of "User:RexxS WP:WIKIHOUNDING" is an appropriate title, and that refactoring that is unacceptable? If so, you ought to be taking an enforced break from editing Wikipedia. --RexxS (talk) 14:27, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Do you think that when you changed it to "== User:Spacecowboy420 WP:VANDAL ==" it was more appropriate? If so, you ought to be taking an enforced break from editing Wikipedia. Actually, RexxS there are two things that I was curious about. When I changed the title to "== unacceptable editor conduct==" why did you have to edit the title again? Was that title also inappropriate? Also, why did you remove comments clearly for two other editors, that didn't mention you? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Do you not think that if you had've conducted yourself in a better manner, and not made such poor edits, RexxS might not have felt the need to adjust a title which was designed to harass and then go around clearing up your shoddy edits? I suggest you go and get on with your life somewhere else and not give people the need to have to monitor your behaviour. That includes refraining from posting personal digs at other editors on an article's talk page, unrelated to the editor you have a problem with. No case to answer here as far as I'm concerned. Cassianto^Talk 14:46, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

It was also inappropriate, and for that I apologise, but I'm glad it gave Spacecowboy420 a clue about what is inappropriate in a title. I changed that to "Removal of sourced material" once I'd made my point. Twenty-five minutes later Spacecowboy420 chose to make the title "unacceptable editor conduct" - a title unrelated to the Rodeo article (the purpose of the article talk page). --RexxS (talk) 14:58, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

edit conflict... apologize if this cmt is now redundant

Simplify. Spacecowboy, you removed RS content. Best way to deal with that is simple. Just apologize and move on. The heading to a thread that is blatantly not neutral, that attacks another editor, by WP standards, can and should be removed. Rexx cam be forgiven for responding to your attack and perhaps you could be forgiven for the initial heading had you apologized and not edit warred. People become upset. However, you were edit warring to keep in place a personal attack on an article talk page and pushed that agenda to a notice board attempting to implicate an editor further which extends the initial attack on the talk page. Time to acknowledge that behavor and back away. (Littleolive oil (talk) 15:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC))

Action is needed. He's now back to his "animal cruelty" agenda and edit-warring at Eight Belles - another of the articles mentioned at MontanaBW's talk page. Let's be clear: MontanaBW is a well-respected editor of horse topics, with tons of GAs and FAs. She has every right to have horse-related articles on her watchlist. --RexxS (talk) 16:28, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours for edit warring. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:47, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

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

IP hopping troll back?

A troll who has been hopping on IP range 86.187.x.x (last discussed here) seems to have returned on 31.55.89.19 (talk · contribs). Can somebody investigate and see if a new/revised rangeblock is appropriate? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Yep, same chap. See also 31.55.127.56 (talk · contribs), 31.55.93.53 (talk · contribs) and he reverted Eik Corell, his other m.o., using 31.55.112.2 (talk · contribs) [145] last week. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

That's a big range, but there's only about 100 contributions from it since April 1, and a significant plurality of those are disruptive. I'll block 31.55.64.0/18 for one week. ACC is always available. Katie^talk 17:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I haven't come into contact with the 31. range, rather, it's still the 86.187 range for me, with the latest being 86.187.161.103 (talk · contribs). Eik Corell (talk) 02:53, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

They're both BT ranges, Eik. We realised that the 86.187 range meddles with airline articles as did the 31.55 range who also reverted one of your edits. I've blocked the latest IP as straightforward block evasion and will look into this a bit more later today. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I just remembered: One of the first IPs this year doing edits in the style of the 86.187 range was indeed an IP in the 31. range. Eik Corell (talk) 03:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I think that pretty much confirms that it's the same person. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:46, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

This editor also edits under 31.50, 31.54, and 31.49 I believe, as well as other closely numbered 86.15x IPs. Tends to focus on video games and television from what I can see, and deliberately ignores establish project guidelines and edit war with any editor that reverts, including walking through contribution histories and mass reverting. Talk page messages are undone with no reply. It's a constant back and forth. I haven't been gathering a full list but some of the more recent Mar/Apr ones have been 31.54.6.123, 86.155.134.8, 86.158.232.106, and 81.158.219.34 ... Those four just from Quantum Break. The unfortunate thing is the editor would be making solid contributions if they wouldn't fight against various project guidelines.... -- ferret (talk) 15:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

• Latest IP, only one edit so far but it was to revert @Eik Corell again... 86.187.161.15 -- ferret (talk) 12:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
• Now on IP 86.187.162.253. -- ferret (talk) 15:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
• And now on IP 86.187.167.37. What can be done about a range block? @KrakatoaKatie and Malcolmxl5 -- ferret (talk) 16:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, ferret, I've blocked and semi-protected pages. I'll have another look at all this and the range block.--Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

• And now 217.38.96.72 (talk · contribs). My, does this guy have nothing else to live for? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

And now 217.38.179.4 (talk · contribs). This is another BT range. Not much we can do with those at the moment except block the latest one. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

The possibility of contacting their ISP remains. I have contacted them about this user twice. They did respond the first time, after an incredibly long time, but at that point, I was being asked to provide server logs, which I didn't and do not have access to, and the user had stopped their disruptive behavior, so I let it go. With the recent editing, I contacted the ISP again with any and all details I could, including AN/I reports, all IP's used from the beginning of 2016, all the way back to some of the IPs used by the user over 6 years ago to establish that this was a recurring problem. No response so far, but maybe you guys will have more luck if you swing around some big words and phrases when you contact them; Adminstrator on Wikipedia, entire ranges of their dynamic IP's being blocked from editing if they don't act, etc. Oh by the way, new IP. Eik Corell (talk) 18:41, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

The most recent IP addresses are BT Wi-fi ranges so they may not even be a BT customer. If they are, it could be that without server logs the IP addresses are not enough to identify the user. Peter James (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

And 217.38.81.161 (talk · contribs) — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:24, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Curiously, this one: 78.145.31.100 (talk · contribs), just came back to edit the same article it had edited a few days before. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

109.156.64.61 (talk · contribs) — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

These look like two different editors - one undoing edits by Eik Corell on video game articles, the other editing airline articles. This one looks likely for the airport editor (although this time on BT Broadband) but the 78.145 (TalkTalk) IP may be unrelated. Peter James (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Latest with aircraft is 217.38.126.10 (talk · contribs). The guy now uses each IP in short bursts for a few pages, then moves on. Previously, the reverting of Eik and the fiddling with aircraft were done by the same IP while it was in use. Another IP editor with a momentarily coincidental editing pattern could easily be mistaken for them. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 06:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I thought so at first, too, but immediately after I reverted some of of the 217. IP edits, this happened. Circumstantial I know, but quite a coincidence. Eik Corell (talk)

I haven't found any IPs that connect them (although I've only looked at the 86.187 range) but haven't found both editing at the same time either so a connection looks likely. Peter James (talk) 00:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

There are several articles which this editor returns to war on again and again. Can I suggest that we semi-protect them for a while, until other measures can be refined? Happy to compile a list of the aero ones if asked. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:46, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Here we go again in the guise of 217.38.148.252‎ (talk · contribs). Pages re-abused this time include:

• Rossiya Airlines
• Thomas Cook Airlines
• Thomson Airways
• TUI Airlines Netherlands
• EgyptAir
• Air Transat
• Jet2.com
• List of airlines of Cyprus

So please, can we do some damage limitation and semi-protect while the negotiations drag on. This is a hot edit war not a UN negotiation. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Hot war now

• Jet2.com [146][147]
• Rossiya Airlines [148]
• China Eastern Airlines [149]

Can somebody PLEASE semi-protect the worst afflicted pages! — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Calm down. I'm working on it. I've blocked 217.38.0.0/16 for ten days (which is a big freakin' range but there's 150 edits in last month with lots of disruption), and now I'll look at this guy. Katie^talk 18:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay. I've blocked 86.187.160.0/21 for three months - I've blocked this range before, in February, and Future Perfect blocked it previously as well. I've blocked 86.163.94.157 on its own for now and I'm going to leave your articles unprotected because I want more data from the range. I can't rangeblock him with the other /21 because that's an ISP-level block. Katie^talk 18:47, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I guess being in the front line makes one nervous. Meanwhile I made a request for page protection, you may wish to close that - or should I simply withdraw it myself? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I made a note there. The bot won't archive it until an RFPP template is added so it will stay up until we act. Katie^talk 19:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Today it has been 86.163.94.37 and 86.157.42.20 across Thomson Airways, Jet2.com, TUI Airlines Netherlands, TUIfly and Air Côte d'Ivoire, all abused before. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC) Today, 109.156.65.250 (talk · contribs) at Air Transat] and Jet2.com. 85.150.133.234 (talk · contribs) made similar edits to Turkish Airlines, but that is a fairly busy IP so may not be connected. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Seems a bit quieter now. There is a random scatter of single edits in similar vein across aviation-related articles by one IP or another, but then there always has been. I don't know how it has been lately for Eik Corell (talk · contribs). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh-oh, back today as 86.157.42.66 (talk · contribs). Edits and return to warring at:

• Titan Airways
• Jet2.com
• Thomas Cook Airlines
• Eurowings
• TUIfly
• Flybe
• CityJet

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC) [list updated 17:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)]

I have blocked 86.157.42.66 (talk · contribs) for one week. EdJohnston (talk) 15:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Steelpillow asked "does this guy have nothing else to live for", I ask "do you guys have nothing else to live for?" There would be no warring if you were to just stop automatically reverting! Aside from curious decisions on formatting, the IP content edits seem to be just about aircraft types and fleet numbers, and they do not appear to be senseless edits done for content disruption. Just fact tag the questionable content, then delete them if no sources arrive. Maybe all articles concerning businesses or organizations still operating, and BLPs, should be editable only by named accounts. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:09, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

That was then, this is now, and since when did a little wry humour hurt anyone? You are a bit late to the party. We do get a constant trickle of such edits, fingers crossed the blocks are persuasive and this particularly OTT guy has now found a life so we can return to ours. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

"Public password Wikipedianism"

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

---

Behold Citizens for a democratic Wikipedia. There are obvious copyright issues associated with the idealistic notion that anyone can edit using this account. I ran across this by way of monitoring the somewhat promotional WaterSafe Installers Scheme (an article re: what seems like a fine idea in principle to my subjective/irrelevant mind; I have no truck whatsoever with the idea), and I surmise that my UAA inquiry regarding the potentially shared nature of the username led to this. I reckon I'm The Man for "tattling" to "the principal" about this, but there you have it. The argument at [150] against deletion of the article may provide some context. I apologize in advance if this turns into a septic poopstorm but, again, there you have it. - The Woman (aka Julietdeltalima (talk) 21:33, 6 May 2016 (UTC))).

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

E.M.Gregory

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

---

It would be good if an admin or two could try to get User:E.M.Gregory's BLP violations under control at some point so that they can't make anymore without getting blocked e.g. [151][152][153][154] (the last diff is also an example of blatant source falsification by the way). Just in case anyone thinks this is simply a decent human reacting to racism, it's not. This is someone who said of Regavim (NGO), an Israeli organization whose raison d’etre, according to Israeli newspaper Haaretz, is to force the Israeli state to speed up/increase home demolitions and forced relocations of Palestinians in the Israeli occupied West Bank and Bedouin in the Israeli Negev[155] - "This is, after all, an organization that has as its core mission such activities as filing lawsuits over illegal Arab construction on park lands and in forest reserves, and illegal Arab grazing of flocks in nature reserves". So, E.M.Gregory's ability to perceive and react to what they regard as racism seems to be dependent on the ethnicity of the target and the degree to which they criticize the actions of the State of Israel. There is no point in me trying to get them to stop because they regard me as one of "Wikipedia's most POV editors", well, that and the fact that I think they should have been topic banned from making ARBPIA related edits long ago because, to put it simply, their personal views mean that they will do harm. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Their recent contributions to Talk:Ken Livingstone, which have involved repeatedly making potentially libellous accusations against the individual in question, have similarly been pretty unconstructive. I'm not sure if that warrants action but if it is part of a wider problem then maybe it does need to be dealt with. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• All these diff are related to a couple of notable controversies that are already described on the corresponding pages [156]. This is something well sourced, and discussion on article talk pages should not be a problem. If anyone has BLP concerns, please post it on WP:BLP. My very best wishes (talk) 16:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

The issue is not whether these controversies should be mentioned in the article, but whether it is a breach of BLP to say of someone described by the local Rabbi as "a friend of the Jews" that she is motivated by "aggressive race-hatred of Jews". RolandR (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Is she? I do not know, but there are multiple publications about it (like here) and a notable controversy and resignation. Not an obvious BLP violation. My very best wishes (talk) 17:07, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

That is the very article in which Rabbi Leavor describes Shah as "a friend of the Jews". Whatever one's view of her reported comments and actions, it is a far (and BLP-breaching) stretch from that to "aggressive race-hatred of Jews". RolandR (talk) 18:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

With respect My very best wishes, I don't think this is good advice or an appropriate and effective response to BLP violations. I'm not here for advice anyway, I'm requesting admin action. These diffs appear to be unambiguous BLP violations by a Wikipedia editor that accuse living people of "race-hatred of Jews" and "advocacy of violent attacks on Armenians". The source is E.M.Gregory's mind and they are expressing their personal views. My understanding is that an editor is allowed to hold any view they like and regardless of any of our opinions about the merits of the views the editor is not allowed to violate BLP by expressing it on talk pages or via article content. When an editor makes a habit of violating BLP something should presumably be done to prevent it happening again. What is going to be done? Something or nothing? If nothing is going to done, that's okay, but I would like confirmation from one or more admins because they are the only people who can ensure that a BLP violation has a cost for an editor who violates BLP. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:20, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I think that relevant portion of the policy is Public figures. The essence of the claim was reliably sourced, belongs to the page and already included. The only question is about wording used during the discussion. My very best wishes (talk) 17:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

This is about the behavior of editors, one in particular. It's not about what should or should not be included in the articles based on reliably sourced information. If you ignore the fact that the editor accused a Swedish politician of "advocacy of violent attacks on Armenians" in an article apparently based on nothing, then sure, it's then just about wording used during discussion and whether it's okay for editors to use talk pages to refer to a living person's "race-hatred of X" as a statement of fact because to them it is a fact, while to RS-world it is an opinion. If that kind of behavior is acceptable then let Wikipedia say that it is acceptable and we can all benefit from that freedom of expression. If it's not acceptable then there should be a cost associated with it. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with Sean here. It is important that admins make it clear as to whether measures will be brought against E. M. Gregory or not. At present we are simply left in limbo, unsure of quite how to respond to their recurring BLP violations on a variety of different pages. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

If this user makes "BLP violations on a variety of different pages", one should provide a lot more diffs to prove this point. I can agree that four diffs in the beginning of the thread do not look good, however given that people he mentioned have been accused of antisemitism in multiple RS, retired because of the public scandal(s), and that antisemitism can be viewed as a variety of racism, these four diffs do not really look convincing. My very best wishes (talk) 23:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

My understanding is

• the acceptable number of BLP violations for any given editor is precisely zero
• it is not possible to provide a number that represents the limit that separates an acceptable number of BLP violations from an unacceptable number of BLP violations or a valid method to derive that number that remains consistent with policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what should be done. I agree that these are (a) BLP violation and (b) pointless and largely useless comments made on talk pages. It's basically the equivalent of saying "there's a POV problem with the article" on each talk page. Now misrepresenting a source is another big no-no. Would a topic ban on the I-P issue be appropriate? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Excuse me? My edit about Regavim, made on the talk page of Susya, here: [157] is a paraphrase of the organization's mission statement. It is not a "misrepresentation" of any source. The discussion amounts to a difference of perspective, as is true on the talk pages of many human rights organizations. Frankly, what I remember about that particular, extensive, warlike debate over a minor article is that I walked away from the topic out of distaste for the aggressive POV-pushing. Sadly, the article is still tagged for POV a year later, probably because neutral editors are driven away from the topic area. Nasty, aggressive, POV editing of the type exhibited on that page is one of the most serious problems Wikipedia has. Dragging editors who dip so much as a toe into the Middle East to this page is part of the problem.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:10, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

The error I did commit was in regard to the resignation of a Swedish cabinet minister who was forced to resign not, as I misstated, because he called on Turks to murder Armenians, but, rather, because he was linked to a militant organization (Grey Wolves (organization)) that advocates (and acts) on such such calls. Error now corrected. Error-free editing is, of course, impossible, but I think my record can stand up to scrutiny.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

It is fine to say "the allegations of anti-Semitism against X deserve space in the article", but not "X's aggressive race hatred of Jews deserves space in the article". You may think that X is anti-Semitic - that is fine - but keep such thoughts to yourself. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 03:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Exactly, well said.

• E.M.Gregory, if you had kept your personal views off the talk pages and edited more carefully to avoid accusing a living person of something they did not do, there would be no ANI report. The cesspool-like nature of anything remotely ARBPIA related in Wikipedia is caused by people doing things they are not supposed to do, things that are more easily not done than done. I reported you because you are part of the problem, you are making things worse not better, you don't seem to care and you need to stop. If you had said something about a vile human being like Eustace Mullins having a race hatred of Jews no one would care apart from delusional neo-Nazis. But what you are doing will always get someone's attention because your actions will look like BLP violations to many people. It's good to see that you corrected your errors at Swedish Muslims for Peace and Justice about Mehmet Kaplan to switch from direct guilt to guilt by association, which I suppose is an improvement, but I think you are targeting those articles because of Kaplan's views about the Israel-Palestine conflict and that your edits are colored by your views. Is that not the case? Wikipedia is just an encyclopedia.
• Can you and will you make an effort to ensure that your personal views do not color your selection and editing of articles so that your actions are consistent with WP:NOTADVOCATE?
• Can you and will you keep your personal views about the real world to yourself when participating in discussions to the extent that you do not violate BLP? Sean.hoyland - talk 06:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Outsider Note: I will comment later on the concerns brought up - but I want to point out that the few times I crossed lines with the nominator Sean.hoyland it did appear to me that he/she edits articles very pro Palestinian. I especially noticed this when a disruptive IP randomly canvased the nominator Sean.hoyland (among others) into an article in order to assist in posting negative material on a Pro Israeli minister. At one time (a while back) I remember the nominator was repeatedly advocating (Changed to:) appeared to be siding with a group of users who were dumping negative material (in my opinion undue) on a BLP - all while the subject of the article was undergoing court proceedings and a trial. I must point out that the nominator is much more civil and honest than many other users in this area. However this should be taken into consideration if the motive behind this is to mute and remove an editor due to conflicting POV - especially since both of these editors have been edit warring reverting against each other. Caseeart (talk) 02:41, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

It would have been better to include the diff where I told the IP they were not allowed to edit the article[158], told you that that it is not possible to violate 1RR by reverting the IP because of the 500/30 rule (User_talk:Number_57#Canvasing) i.e. the edit warring report the IP filed was merit-less and did not edit the article or participate in the discussion to which I was canvassed. I don't know who or what "At one time the nominator was repeatedly advocating dumping negative material (in my opinion undue) on a BLP" is referring to. If you make statements like that about editors you should have the integrity to include evidence. The only BLP related discussion I have been involved in recently is Talk:Boycott,_Divestment_and_Sanctions#Extended-confirmed-protected_edit_request_on_20_April_2016 which doesn't match your description. Also, I don't edit war, I stop edit warring. Almost all of my edits are reactive nowadays. If they look "pro-Palestinian" that's because most of the disruption is by editors who presumably consider themselves "pro-Israel". Almost every edit I make nowadays is to a) enforce the 500/30 rule because extended confirmed protection has not been implemented across the topic area or b) address the actions of socks/editors who are making things worse rather than better or c) ensure editors follow WP:BRD in ARBPIA. When the disruption stops or when it is all handled by extended confirmed protection and smart bots, I will stop editing. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Let me clarify - I do not mean to say in any way that you violated any rules. I thus did not feel the need to leave any diffs. On the contrary when the IP "tried" to canvass you to assist in posting negative material on an Israeli minister, you (unlike others) fully followed the rules and even warned the ip which shows a degree of integrity. I just counted that incident as additional evidence that non involved users also view you as pro Palestinian. (I won't go off topic introduce diffs of an old BLP discussion, and I also changed "warring" to "reverting").

Now, in the Israeli Palestinian conflict it often it ends up that whichever side has the majority of votes gets their way - a concern was brought up in one of the arbitration committees (I can't seem to find it) that Pro Israeli editors are routinely banned or topic banned thus leaving the Pro Palestinian side with the majority. (Assumingly because pro Israeli editors don't follow the rules or as I experienced - also because they are strictly scrutinized and more often reported by pro Palestinian editors - [I rarely edit this topic but I encountered a case where no one bothered investigating or blocking an (alleged) pro Palestinian editor who edited under an ip (sock puppet) to call E.M.Gregory a "fucking moron" [159] [160]- Just imagine if this sockpuppet ip instead would have been a pro Israeli editor.......]). I am pointing out that this may be the motive here. CaseeArt (^Talk 17:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

<- I see. Thank you for the clarification. What is my motive? Actually it doesn't matter. What matters is whether a rule has been broken by an editor, and if so, what can be done to prevent it being broken again. My intention is fully described in this ANI report and I have tried to ensure that my personal view of this editor, my bias in other words, is included because I'm not an uninvolved observer by any means. Rules are being broken all the time so why report this editor now? The BLP violations were the last straw. To see why they were the last straw, here are all of my interactions with E.M.Gregory since they started editing. I have limited patience with editors who bring what I regard as divisive ethno-nationalist irrationality and aggressive edit warring to articles and talk pages because they just don't seem to care about WP:NOTADVOCATE.

• The first time I noticed the editor was when they made the statement about Regavim (NGO) that I mentioned in the initial comment[161], one of the more extraordinary statements I have read on a talk page in ARBPIA. My immediate impression was that a person who expressed support for an organization whose activities seemed indistinguishable from ethnic cleansing-lite, as far as I could tell, was probably going to start fires.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 Rosh HaShanah death by stone-throwing - [162][163] - Commented at AfD because, in my view, E.M.Gregory used "a fatally flawed and fundamentally unethical approach to sample information spaces in order to frame and spotlight (or perhaps curate is a better word in E.M.Gregory's case) specific cases, but ignore others"

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of deaths and critical injuries caused by Palestinian stone-throwing - [164][165] - Commented at AfD because of E.M.Gregory's apparently unhealthy focus on ethnicity and "willful disregard for mandatory neutrality by using indefensible methods to frame and build articles". That article started a fire in ARBPIA.

• Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions - [166][167][168][169] - intervened to stop E.M.Gregory edit warring their view into an article and enforce BRD.

• B'Tselem - [170][171][172][173] - intervened to stop E.M.Gregory edit warring their view into an article and enforce BRD.

• J Street - [174][175][176] - intervened to stop E.M.Gregory edit warring their view into an article and enforce BRD.

Sean.hoyland - talk 20:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• Those seem to be mostly edit disagreements between E.M.Gregory and Sean.hoyland. CaseeArt (^Talk 01:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why someone brought up motives, of users, but yes, I know Sean Hoyland is 100% pro-Palestinian, but I haven't found him to be posting against policy. I've dealt with him in the past and when facts are brought up, it's Okey-Dokey, not an edit war. So we should stick to what is on hand and not about users. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• Asking why motives are brought up? Once it's established that the possible motive behind this ANI is that a pro Palestinian editor is advocating to ban another pro Israeli editor from editing Palestinian Israeli conflict articles (in order to maintain a majority lead), now we could assess the validity of the case.

  Now in response to the case: When one of the most respected editors on pro Palestinian side was blocked for serious personal attacks, and soon after they sockpuppted under an ip to call E.M.Georgery a "fucking moron" (see my diffs)- and many many more such instances - this seriously disrupts Wikipedia but no one bothered to take action. On the other hand, a few times of E.M.Gregory's choice of wording on the article 'talk page' "Article needs coverage of X's aggressove, race-hatred of Jews." without using words like "alleged" or "possible" - is a lesser problem that does not need ANI - You could respond on the article talk page. A warning at most. (Note: I just moved this comment up because previously I did not realize that Ricky81682 is an admin comming to resolve issue) CaseeArt (^Talk 01:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• Can we stay on point here? E.M.Gregory, can you understand why (a) it's not helpful; and (b) it's a BLP violation to go to a talk page and say (without including a source) "hey, why aren't we calling this person this in the article"? It doesn't even matter if the name-calling is appropriate, if your only comment is to suggest name-calling without citing a source, it's inappropriate and frankly a useless comment on a talk page. Is the possibility that no one has found a reliable source for the subject possible? I know so much of the joy of the IP conflict is that everyone assumes the opposing side is busily working to do whatever but if you came to the talk page and said "hey, we are missing this issue, here are some sources about it, people would care a lot less (assuming we are talking good quality independent reliable sources). You want to fight about whether that representation is true, good, take it to the talk page but I don't care about that, I first care if you are going to be going around to talk page just posting "hey, why don't we talk about X in this article?" as if that is a useful use of other people's time. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• The diffs shown in the OP are totally unacceptable and the solution is simple—an uninvolved admin should topic ban E.M.Gregory per WP:ARBPIA. That particularly applies now that the editor has had an opportunity to show they understand the issue. The fact that an IP has been trolling an editor is unrelated to the diffs, and there should be no further dodging of the issues raised in the OP. Johnuniq (talk) 05:53, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

You completely misunderstand what I wrote about the IP. I was presenting evidence that the motive behind the nominator reporting "pro Israeli" editors may be so that Pro Palistinian editors remain the majority, and that it would be unfair and nonconstructive to the articles of this topic if you topic ban this editor (there are almost non Pro Israeli editors left). The user being reported has completed over 12,000 edits and has a clear history with no blocks. I also hope the administrator understands that E.M. Gregory has not got a single warning on his/her talk page about this whole issue, and that a "topic ban" is similar to a full ban from from wikipedia because most of E.M.Gregory's edits are on this topic. Give a warning and it will probably not continue. In either case E.M. Gregory has not logged in yet and has not even had a chance yet to respond to Ricky81682. CaseeArt (^Talk 08:44, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• This restored a blatant BLP violation, claiming that a named living person advocated violent attacks on Armenians when the source said no such thing. Calling it both well-sourced and significant when reverting a removal that specifically calls out WP:BLP, which I note says When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. is a violation of both WP:BLP and basic common sense. This is typical of this users work here. nableezy - 18:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

• I can confirm that it is indeed an outrageous BLP-violation; E.M. Gregory writes "due to his advocacy of violent attacks on Armenians" ...which is absolutely not in the source. However, the source is in Swedish (yes; I can read it), can E.M. Gregory even read the source? (Not that it is any excuse if he cannot.) Huldra (talk) 23:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Request Admin Support at Move Discussion

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

---

I request Admin support or comments at a Move Discussion at Talk:Hafþór Júlíus Björnsson#Requested move 2 May 2016, in which it is requested that Hafþór Júlíus Björnsson → Hafthór Júlíus Björnsson – Reason: There is no letter [ þ ] in the English language or on the keyboard. Article title should be in English letters, as per WP:TITLE, and WP:ENGLISH, and WP:UE. While I have provided three Wikipedia policies in support of the move, opposing editors have not supported their position with any Wikipedia policies. The Discussion has been open for six days. Thank you. - Boneyard90 (talk) 16:12, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

No; you haven't got a chance with that one. Sorry- consensus, as well as, conveniently, logic, is firmly against you there. 151.230.93.81 (talk) 16:24, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Boneyard90, this board (and adminstrators in general) do not intervene in content disputes unless there is a specific accusation of editor misconduct. Clearly there is none here. It was ill-advised for you to bring this here. WP:DRN is the place to go for help resolving content disputes. It would be equally ill-advised for you to take this there. There is no content dispute at the article under discussion. Your position simply is not being accepted (unanimously at this time). You are just going to have to accept that. This thread should be closed post haste. John from Idegon (talk) 16:56, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I disagree in minor detail with User:John from Idegon. This is not the sort of dispute that is appropriate for the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN) because DRN does not take disputes for which there is another forum for handling the dispute. This appears to be a move dispute, and the procedure for dealing with them is a Requested Move. A Requested Move normally runs for seven days. I haven't looked at the talk page, but, if the move has been open for six days and is against the OP, the Requested Move will be closed with consensus against the move. It is true that this is a content dispute and that this noticeboard is for conduct issues, but this content issue has its own resolution mechanism and so does not go to DRN. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:11, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Thread still should be closed. John from Idegon (talk) 20:36, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Sock Master

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

---

Master Of The Socks (talk · contribs · block user) - Proposed Guide for Newcomers on Proper Evasion of Detection of Sock Puppetry at the village pumps, but now disrupting article space. [177] - NQ (talk) 01:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:59, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Random non sourced bad faith edits

The user IP address 118.148.186.56 & this is changing the birth place and origins of articles, for the ANI's information, that seem to be disruptive more than anything.

Nürö ^{G'DÄŸ MÄTË} 10:54, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Notified. May want to keep WP:AIV in mind. Usually better with run-of-the-mill vandalism. TimothyJosephWood 11:31, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

OK cheers will do.

Nürö ^{G'DÄŸ MÄTË} 12:16, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

For the record

This is to let you know that I have issued a formal warning to Py0alb in respect of his general conduct on the site, specifically a blatant personal attack. I am not requesting any administrative action at present as I would like to see if the warning has the desired effect first, but I would like it noted that I have felt it necessary to take this action. Thank you. Jack | ^{talk page} 08:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Is this in relation to something else here? I don't care but a little context would be helpful. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I think its in relation to this unprovoked personal attack here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HappyWaldo&diff=718296213&oldid=708946288

to which I responded with support for HappyWaldo in a constructive manner:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HappyWaldo&diff=next&oldid=718296213

This followed the makings of an edit-war, in which Black Jack refused to follow BRD protocol and left aggressive and threatening edit summaries, see here for an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cricket&diff=718298414&oldid=718281906

Happy Waldo then attempted to diffuse the situation by opening discussions on the talk page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cricket&diff=718345167&oldid=718244463

He also requested my input on my talk page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Py0alb&diff=718416782&oldid=702399308

So I commented in a constructive manner here, addressing Jack's refusal to follow protocl: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cricket&diff=718424370&oldid=718422779

and tried to move the discussion onto more constructive ground here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cricket&diff=718424979&oldid=718424370

In response to this, BlackJack then posted an unwarranted and unprovoked "warning" on my talk page here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Py0alb&diff=718566617&oldid=718416782

and I replied patiently and constructively on his talk page here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BlackJack&diff=718573957&oldid=718040219

For the record, the motivation behind this attack on myself may be related to a previous disagreement over the validity of the term "major cricket", in which BlackJack lost the argument as the consensus view agreed with my post. I will let you judge for yourself whether that is or is not relevant.

See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Major_cricket_(2nd_nomination) and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Major_cricket

Also note that this isn't the first time he has started an ANI against myself (the previous time he repeatedly begged for me to be blocked, but admin sensibly ignored this), see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=701294918 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Py0alb (talk • contribs) 10:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

It is also very much worth noting that at no point has BlackJack alerted me to the presence of this ANI against me despite the big "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page" sign above. For an editor of his experience, it would be surprising if this was an accidental oversight.

Py0alb (talk) 10:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@BlackJack: You are the one who made the personal attack, not Py0alb. And you need to try to explain your edit-warring at Cricket, because the boomerang may be about to hit someone. Katie^talk 16:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Wow--if this is the edit that started all of this, yeah, that's a pretty blatant personal attack on the part of BlackJack. Drmies (talk) 19:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Katie and Drmies. Yes, I'm very much aware of the WP:BOOMERANG risk when reporting a problem and I accept that my initial message to Happy Waldo could have been worded better. Drmies, you need to go back a bit to this substantial edit by me which was the beginning of a, shall we say, WP:BOLD initiative to improve the key article in WP:CRIC which has fallen over the years from FA right back to start-class. In short, "Cricket" is in a bit of a state and needs a complete overhaul, preferably by an experienced editor who has a thorough knowledge of the subject. If you check my contribs history, I think you'll agree that I qualify, although there are some people at CRIC who are even more qualified, given that my speciality is cricket history rather than cricket the game. You will see in the edit summary that I said: "extensive revision commenced", which means exactly what it says. Anyone who was curious about my intentions for this long-neglected article, or anyone who doubted my credentials, had only to visit my talk page and ask me what I was doing. I would have happily explained.

Instead, Happy Waldo summarily reverted a large chunk of my input without discussion. He is not a very experienced editor and I think this is the only cricket article he has previously edited, and then not much. He said in his summary that my changes should be "discussed per BRD". I disagree with that as reverting an obviously genuine and extensive piece of work is not the first course of action. He should have contacted me directly or via the article's talk page to ask what I intended, especially as by then I had already made considerable changes to the article. In his next edit, a minor one, he said in the summary: "some of these recent edits are troubling". Okay, so ask me about them. When I came back to the article, I restored my work and commented that it is "Work in progress; later sections will be edited out", given that he seemed to be concerned about temporary duplication of some content. Again, if he had a problem, he should have consulted me but he chose to revert everything again and said, somewhat rudely, I thought: "then work on it in a sandbox". Well, sorry, but with my knowledge and experience I know what I am doing and I would soon have finished the initial phase of my task, which would have included editing out the temporary duplication (i.e., existing sections and sub-sections which largely need removing or at least drastically reducing). I was annoyed about being summarily reverted twice without any polite enquiry as to my intentions and so I "had words" with Happy Waldo who, for all I knew, might have been a troll. Subsequently, it became apparent that Happy Waldo is a bona fide editor with good intentions but perhaps misguided due to his relative inexperience. We have had talk page communication since then (noticeably ignored by Py0alb above) and we have agreed a way forward for the article's rescue: see this from him to me and this from me to him which were the last contacts we have had as I have been unavailable for the last couple of days. So, yes, we had a bit of a row and I perhaps over-reacted but I could see my genuine attempt at rescuing that article lurching towards a 3RR fiasco if Happy Waldo had reverted a third time. Anyway, and again this is omitted from Py0alb's "description of events", I had already apologised to HW and things have been fine since then.

Right, I accept that my first post to HW was out of order because the "red mist" descended and I retaliated to a double revert that seemed to be based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT and possibly trolling. You now have the full story which provides you with Py0alb's omissions. Taking a step back, however, I would accept that I deserve a warning and maybe even a short-term suspension. In football terms, a yellow card or a red card. If it's a yellow, then please place a suitable warning on my talk page. Unlike the numerous warnings posted to Py0alb's talk page, it will not be summarily deleted and ignored (see below). Any such warning will stay on my page. If you choose a red card, then I'll take that on the chin and come back whenever the suspension ends. Please let me know.

Now I come to Py0alb. This individual has made only 670 edits in over five years and yet he has been hauled before ANI on more than one occasion before this; he has been reported to ANEW and given a formal warning about his conduct; he has been found guilty of blatant copyright violation and given a final warning about his conduct; he has had several warnings posted on his talk page and has summarily blanked and ignored all of them; and, interestingly, he has even been reported to SPI on the basis of certain sock-like comments and behaviour but no sockmaster could be identified.

There are two things I would say about his above input: he is "always the victim"; and what he doesn't say is rather more significant than what he does say.

I did report him to ANI in January for his confrontational and disrespectful attitude before and during the major cricket AfD. He has not mentioned above that he breached process more than once: e.g., reinstating a prod that had been challenged and refusing to proceed to AfD; blanking the article he wanted to delete and making a ridiculous "ban" threat; edit warring; trying to mislead inexperienced contributors in the AfD by stating that only online citations are relevant and not those in "some book that someone once read"; voting twice in the Afd; and generally failing to observe AfD protocol and due process such that, at one point, the admin Bbb23 felt bound to remove a personal attack by him. Py0alb says above that he won the AfD but that is a lie because it was, rightly enough, a "no consensus". He fails to mention that, afterwards, three or four of us in WP:CRIC agreed that "major cricket" is a term not really used widely enough as yet because, unlike "first-class cricket", it is not officially defined. We effectively decided that the article was premature, a bit like creating an article about the 2036 English cricket season, so we decided to do a merger with another article. Py0alb also fails to mention that I fully acquiesced in this decision and performed the redirect, despite my support for the article hitherto, and I personally went around all the articles with links to major cricket and altered the links: see my contribs or check the links and here is one example. As for the ANI in January, the admins made their decision not to block him, despite some significant criticism of him by certain admins (which he has not mentioned above). I accepted the ANI decision, I did not make any protest and I moved on.

After I got annoyed with Happy Waldo and sent my angry message to him as explained above, I was astonished to see Py0alb intervening with what amounts to incitement and at the same time a personal attack directed at me. This was obviously done out of spite after the ANI in January because the issue was none of his business and he is not an admin who would have had the right to step in and calm things down. Instead, he attempted to inflame the situation by inciting Happy Waldo into raising an ANI about me. That would have been for Happy Waldo to decide and it is not for Py0alb to try and push him into something he might not wish to do. Py0alb adds: "I think the majority of the cricket portal (sic) would support you". Would they, now? Can he name one single member of WP:CRIC who would come forward and denounce me, which is what he means? Of course not. I accept that some of them might have suggested to me that I talk to Happy Waldo and, as I mentioned above but Py0alb did not, I have already apologised and we have moved on. I would say that two members of CRIC at least are close friends, in as much as you can have online friends, and with virtually all the others (i.e., the ones who contribute often and whom I "know" reasonably well), my relationship is cordial and, often, co-operative. Py0alb's "opinion" of my standing at CRIC is a lie deliberately intended to damage my reputation on the site, which is why I see his post as a personal attack directed at me, clearly out of spite because I justifiably raised an ANI about him four months ago.

There is also this message to Happy Waldo after I had issued my warning to Py0alb. You will see that he is effectively repeating (and twisting) what I have said to him, which is interesting for reasons I won't go into at this stage and it is nonsense. His idea of a "polite comment" is hardly normal given that it directly attacks another person; he talks about my "constant aggression and antagonism" and says I am not "WP:competent". Can I please see some examples of this constant aggression as there must, perforce, be thousands of them given that I have done way over 60k edits; and, as I'm always willing to learn, can I please see some examples of my incompetence too? Py0alb has himself been told both here and here, for example that he is incompetent in matters of WP standard procedures and protocol.

Am I justified in issuing a warning to Py0alb? I think so, not just because he has made a personal attack on this occasion but because it is yet another incident in an ongoing saga. Remember that this is an account with only 670 edits and yet there have been several complaints about him. A superficial look at his talk page doesn't reveal anything because all the warnings have been blanked out, but they are there in the history. Here are some examples: [178], [179], [180], [181], [182], [183], this, which was effectively a final warning, this, which was a final warning following an ANEW case and this immediate removal of the final warning by Py0alb.

Isn't that rather excessive for someone with only 670 edits? Is he "always the victim"? Is there smoke without fire?

Let me know if you have any questions but please note I am not available much nowadays. I did "retire" a couple of months ago but have found I can still spare some time for WP so I am actually "semi-retired". Jack | ^{talk page} 19:18, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Holy wall of text redux. Conciseness. Find some, please, 'cause this is waaayy too long. Lemme see if I get it: you did the 'bold' part of WP:BRD, you were reverted, and then you wanted the reverter to be the one to initiate and do all the discussing. It doesn't work that way. The burden is on you as the editor who added the content to source your edits. Then I get something something about the absolute audacity of someone with "only 670 edits" to participate in these discussions because he was warned for edit warring three years ago and something something else 670 edits. Oh, and 670 edits. Would somebody else read this and correct me, because my eyes are glazed over. Katie^talk 21:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Unless another admin wants to get involved, I suggest we just forget the whole thing and move on. In fact, I will move on. What a waste of time, as usual. Jack | ^{talk page} 13:19, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editing in Russian soldier's article

Alexander Prokhorenko meets notability rules. Another editor who is very disruptive and was obviouly wikihounding Mhhossein nominated the article for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Prokhorenko.

I can't assume any good faith about this nomination, as FreeatlastChitchat is experienced user who have seen this. According to the nominator's ideology The only fault in this article is that the article was edited by Mhhossein, so I will take it to AFD as I am Free to do anything with Chit Chat.

The article was created by a new user from Sri Lanka. FreeatlastChitchat had no right to harass a new user to satisfy his long term goal to harass Mhhossein. Thank You for reading. --2A03:4A80:7:441:2066:60ED:1134:1A99 (talk) 06:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• There is no disruptive editing going on in the article. If you wish to bring a behavioural issue to light, you will need to provide Diffs. Till then, goodbye. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:46, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I had checked yesterday that your last block was due to an WP:AE request filed by Mhhossein. Do you want to waste other editor's time by such reckless nomination? You assumed that Mhhossein created the page, but the page was actually created by a new user. Another question is, do you know what a user should do before nominating an article for AFD? Others check for notability, search for reliable sources if the new editor missed something, while you check your rival editor's contributions. If you don't know the process of how to do google to check for references, then you have no right to make any AFD nomination. 2A03:4A80:7:41A:49BF:DD9C:3BF5:686E (talk) 07:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: The problem here is not regarding your 'disruptive editing' on that article rather the OP is mentioning your hounding behavior. I can provide diffs showing your blatant harassment and hounding on multiple pages in spite of being warned against that, at admin's request. --Mhhossein (talk) 06:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

The AFD was closed as Keep with no Delete votes. It was an unsuccessful proposal and Mhhossein was just one editor who was working on this article. Do you have other evidence of harassment because this isn't very convincing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

The article was nominated as Mhhossein edited the article. If such behaviour is allowed then I have no problem . User A can hound user B and nominate for AFD. Then we have to clap. Do you care about the type of introduction User talk:Muvindu Perera got in Wikipedia?2A03:4A80:7:41A:C133:7604:7EE8:C2D8 (talk) 08:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Of course there is convincing evidence. Of course there is convincing evidence. Admins must always believe the statement of an unregistered editor that another editor is disruptive. Oh, wait a minute. On the Internet, no one knows that you are being sarcastic. Just filing an AFD that was closed as Keep isn't harassment. You say that you can provide diffs. Then do so, or a boomerang block is in order for disruptive claims or disruption.

The page creator, who is a new editor from Sri Lanka was not harassed? There was not a single delete vote in that AFD as the nominator didn't check the notability before nominating the article. Sorry, I forgot, "Registered users can make trigger happy nomination to scare new editors like Muvindu Perera." And nobody actually cares whether this new editor will ever get any welcome message. As he hasn't got till now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Muvindu_Perera 2A03:4A80:7:41A:C133:7604:7EE8:C2D8 (talk) 08:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Dear Liz: Thanks for your intervention. Freeatlast's behaviroal issues are more than just hounding and I can show you this at your request. Anyway, regarding his hounding, on same cases he was disguised as a normal and good faith editor such as here and here where he was using a very bad language and was clearly hounding me (see the article talk page history), or here where he jumped into the discussion after his seven day block. You can clearly see his clear hounding here where he caused harassment. See his edit here and tell me if it's anything other than hounding and harassment. You can also add his harassments here where he hounded me and got a warning for his bad tone from an uninvolved editor. Also his awkward AFD nominations of my articles had been a question for other editors (see [184], [185], [186]) and I had asked him to be careful about his nominations. These where what I remembered. Thanks --Mhhossein (talk) 10:54, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@Mhhossein you have presented like 12 interactions in past 6 months (The majority of which are those where other editors agree with me). This equates to like 2 interactions per month, which is infinitesimally small for editors who are editing in the same genre. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 11:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Then it shows you had been hounding me at least for past 6 months. --Mhhossein (talk) 07:41, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• Ping @Liz: to see if she is willing to let us know about her feedback. --Mhhossein (talk) 13:47, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Disruption by TrumpErmNo et al.

• List of LGBT members of the United States Congress (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• List of American state and local politicians convicted of crimes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• TrumpErmNo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 86.1.1.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 147.226.87.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

So there's a lot going on here. I met this editor on the congressional LGBT article above. There may be more IP's. These are just the ones that converged on that article. I did some work there to remove the refimprove and apparently they take issue with it, and also some content that was there prior, which they attribute to me. I haven't re-revd because it would be basically 3RR entrapment, and this thread needs to happen anyway. Apparently I didn't discuss on the talk, which I created yesterday when I revd their edit.

Five warnings on the registered talk page not including mine today, and an apparently unheeded one from Drmies regarding their username. Two additional warnings on the talk for the 86 IP.

They seem to be centered on politician related pages almost exclusively, lists and bios. There's a lot of unexplained removal of content and a bit of addition. Admittedly, some edits seem to be either neutral or maybe productive(?), but there's a lot of disruption. I figured initially I would history surf a bit, revert, and move on, but given their edits...its gonna be a chore. User has 619 article edits on the registered account alone.

I can't say totally that this is intentional socking without further evidence. May just be forgetting to log in. At any rate, this needs addressed. (Notifying user and IPs of ANI post haste) TimothyJosephWood 21:58, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Edit... Should have done this prior (mb). One IP geolocates to the UK and one to the US, so it may likely be coincidence. 147 is at Ball State U, and only has five edits. Probably followed the LGBT article to David Dreier. On the other hand, the 86 IP has 347 edits, geolocates to the UK, and also has a history of editing articles on UK politicians, as does TrumpErmNo. TimothyJosephWood 22:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I think a username block of TrumpErmNo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is warranted. Jonathunder (talk) 22:13, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Disagree. It does not violate the username policy. It has a political sentiment, but is not offensive or disruptive. No comment on other behavior though. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• Well, what to say. I am going to block TrumpErmNo for that user name; they just need to change it. I see no evidence of intentional foul play, let's put it that way. EvergreenFir, I hate to disagree with you, but a Trump lover will have a hard time saying "Hey TrumpErmNo, not to get personal, but I really think that the edit you made to the Earl of Hupsaflups's categories is not so great". We want to be a big tent, inclusive of everyone. With a kinder, gentler machine gun hand, so to speak, which is why I made it a softblock. Drmies (talk) 22:39, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I would appreciate an uninvolved undo on the LGBT page. But I can do it myself if need be; I'm only at two. The real issue is the crimes page. There has been a lot of content removal. TimothyJosephWood 22:48, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Nothing impedes your fixing it. Drmies (talk) 23:23, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Is true, but per Caesar's wife, is always best to avoid the appearance of impropriety. As the user is banned, probably not an issue, and over cautiousness on my part.TimothyJosephWood 00:59, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Hypocrisy. Its not okay to have username titled 'TrumpErmNo' but it is okay to refer to Trump as Drumpf? A name John Oliver dug up and described as "Drumpf is much less magical. It's the sound produced when a morbidly obese pigeon flies into the window of a foreclosed Old Navy.". Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:53, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Struck per below. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:06, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Only in death does duty end, well this is embarrassing. So apparently the John Oliver app installed on the browser I was using changed the comment above. Good thing I don't really edit politics articles. Many thanks to DHeyward for catching. TimothyJosephWood 14:31, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem is on List of American state and local politicians convicted of crimes, some of the edits are just removing unnecessary headers. As far as List of LGBT members of the United States Congress, it looks like an edit war which is a content dispute. You've started a discussion on the talk page which is the next step, not coming to ANI. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure I disagree, but I have things happening, and will try to respond in more detail in the morning. TimothyJosephWood 01:04, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I will agree that it looks a lot like a content dispute at first glance, but in detail it's really just disruption.

• Removal of a {{cn}} on the only uncited person on the list.
• Removal of the content sure, but removal of the sources serves no purpose. The article had been tagged with {{refimprove}} for two years.
• Keeping in mind all this started because I initially reverted this edit, where the user added a slew of politicians who were not out, but rather were involved in various sex scandals. (They had a similar conflict on this edit, undone twice on another article.)
• My revert there led to two attempts to simply remove the sentence stating the list only included out people.
• Refusal already to discuss, after I began the talk page when I revd their extensive sex scandal edit coupled with the demand that I "should ask the talk page before making these edits," (edit summary) when again, at the time, the talk consisted of one post by me. The content removal may have been bold, but the onus is on the remover to discuss, as I attempted to do.
• Indication that the removal of the content may have had more to do with me than the content:

"Can I point out that the unnecessary information wasn't there until you edited the page, so clearly all the countless editors before you didn't think adding such trivial stuff was important" (edit summary)

• Notwithstanding that some of the content removed wasn't added by me.

So in a nutshell, user with a penchant for trying to label not-gay politicians as gay gets their edit reverted, and decides to be disruptive. As I said above, my first impulse was to just clean up the mess, but after looking at their history, and seeing that they've garnered eight different warnings on two accounts in a little more than a month, I figured a report was appropriate.

I'm going to look into more detail on the other article. But this is getting long. TimothyJosephWood 12:58, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I...don't even know what is going on with List of American state and local politicians convicted of crimes. TimothyJosephWood 15:16, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• I thought the Trump reference sounded familiar, did dome digging in the archives, might want to check out Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CaptainYuge/Archive. The end/start dates for the 2 accts fit. Rgrds. --64.85.217.48 (talk) 15:27, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

There seems to be quite a bit of overlap between TrumpErmNo, the IP, and banned user Huge456. Not sure about CaptainYuge. I'm not really sock-savvy, and someone who is may want to look into the whole ordeal, maybe request a check.

I do notice that Trump was unblocked today by Yamla, and has made it a point to remove warnings from their talk, but not to request a name change. The IP is also continuing to edit, which is an issue if they actually are the same user. TimothyJosephWood 16:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Reference spam

39.37.116.188 (talk · contribs) seems to be only here to add references written by one Muhammad Aurang Zeb. Anyone think this is worth a mass revert? They've stopped and may not be around again or for a while. Doug Weller talk 18:25, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I did a quick search of Muhammad Aurang Zeb Mughal and found some valid academic sources online (see 1 and 2). It might be a student or scholar who is very familiar with his work. I'd select a few references and judge them based on their merits rather than do a mass revert. I looked at a few and they seem legitimate to me. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:51, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

See his profile at the Durham University where he appears to be a post doc, profile says that he's in Pakistan on a research project. The IP is a mobile IP in Pakistan, not at Durham. I have no idea about this area and don't know if the sources are good or not. —SpacemanSpiff 18:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, this is clearly inappropriate WP:REFSPAM. So many references to one individual's work across such a variety of articles like this doesn't occur without persistent self-promotion. Deli nk (talk) 19:09, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure. If the references are useful and pertinent to the statements they are cited to, I don't think it is critical to know who contributed them. I was a graduate student in two different programs and I can easily see myself adding references to the work of one of my professors or advisers to the relevant Wikipedia articles. I think we have to evaluate the references on their own. One I looked at was from a Routledge anthology and they are a well-respected publisher in academia.

Mind you, I am not arguing that all of the reference need to stay, I was just arguing against a mass revert. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

It's refspam. 40-50 links added? All to same author's work, even in some places where a ref wasn't really needed? That's a shotgun, not a well-aimed approach, and should be mass-undone pending individual decisions by non-coi editors. Note: I had manually undone/rollbacked a few before I saw there was an ANI; will stop for now pending discussion. DMacks (talk) 20:41, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

User:119.158.13.23 went on a similar spree for the same author, at the time inserting the apparent PhD thesis. User:DVdm undid them at that time. Now we have a different IP from similar geographic area adding the followup work or replacing the thesis with that later work. That's a few patterns that seem too coicidental. DMacks (talk) 20:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Adding huge numbers of citations here to papers that, although they are published, have received few or no citations in the actual scientific literature? Definitely WP:REFSPAM. Wipe them all. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:03, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Kov 93 on 2016 Magyar Kupa Final

On article 2016 Magyar Kupa Final there is simulated match done and copied from Romanian Cup by Kov 93. Results will be avalaible after last whistle of this match. --37.248.254.159 (talk) 19:09, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

There did not seem to be sources provided for the information recently added, so I have reverted it. But, surely the final whistle has now happened? MPS1992 (talk) 21:55, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Los Osos High School

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

---

• Los Osos High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An incident at a high school, suggesting racist vandalism in the school's yearbook, has received some press coverage. I removed a good faith addition of the item as WP:NOTNEWS [187]. It has been added several times, though, with less commendable tones [188]; [189]. I'm not sure if there's enough activity to justify page protection, but mostly I'd appreciate more eyes on this. Thanks, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the page and have redacted the poorly-sourced content in question. Nakon 03:27, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Nakon. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:29, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Vandalism and personal attack

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

---

User:69.112.141.14 should be blocked for vandalism and for making a personal attack on another editor (me).

I ran across the first vandalism at Feminism and equality. After reverting the edit, I checked out the user's talk page, where I noted several warnings for vandalism over the last couple of months. After checking all the user's edits, I decided to use a single-warning template, since nearly every edit by this user had been a particularly harsh form of vandalism.

Today, the same user left me a personal attack (which I deleted) on my talk page.

I don't think this person is planning to help the project much; a block would be appropriate. — Gorthian (talk) 06:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support it seems like this IP shouldn't only be blocked for Personal Attacks. He has only made POV vandalism in his six edits in the last two months. It seems the user is not hiding a very strict anti-third-wave-feminism agenda and there is no reason to assume he is WP:THERE. I support an indef block.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 09:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• IP anonblocked for 3 months. Widr (talk) 09:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. — Gorthian (talk) 16:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Proposed topic ban for User:Alvyray

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

---

Alvyray has been editing articles about or related to Pixar, and nothing but those articles, since he registered an account on Wikipedia in 2011. Thing is, he co-founded Pixar, which effectively makes these edits WP:COI. So for this reason, I am proposing a topic ban that would prevent him from editing any Pixar-related articles. Anyone agree or disagree? ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 21:31, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

COI editing isn't against policy (as much as many of us would like it to be), but there are resources available for dealing with COI editors. You can add {{connected contributor}} to the article talk pages and user warnings such as {{uw-coi}} at Alvyray's user talk, and if you need help you can post something at WP:COIN. You might be surprised by how many COI editors start cooperating after being educated. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree that this should be the beginning of a discussion not a topic ban. Some of his edits are making corrections about the origin of the company which I would assume he would know well. There is a clear COI here, but I think if the claims are supported by references, his information could enhance the article. He just should be making editing suggestions on the talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Can probably close as a teachable moment. TimothyJosephWood 15:10, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

• i've left Alvyray a message about managing COI. This posting was an over-reaction. Jytdog (talk) 01:04, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

And he responded very nicely here. I don't anticipate trouble going forward - seems very reasonable. Jytdog (talk) 06:58, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

There are no mistakes, just happy accidents. TimothyJosephWood 02:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Rangeblocks for the 166 animation hoaxer IP

If you're not familiar with this LTA, you can check out User:NinjaRobotPirate/Animation hoaxer#Copycat. Basically, the editor vandalizes animated children's films by adding fake credits, crossovers, and music tracks. For example, changing the Genie in Disney's Aladdin to say that Liam Neeson played him, then adding Rugrats characters to the cast. And, for good measure, maybe changing Liam Nesson's article, too.

While investigating which IP ranges to include in this report, I was pleasantly surprised to find that several ranges have already been blocked, including 166.137.104.0/21, 166.173.48.0/20, and 166.177.96.0/19. So, here are a few more listed by /24, dated by activity, and including links to obvious uses of that range:

• 166.137.216.0/24: 67, 71, 186, 245 (April)
• 166.137.217.0/24: 38, 48, 90, 147, 204, 213, 218 (March, April, and May)
• 166.137.218.0/24: 29, 68, 81, 107, 179 (March, April, and May)
• 166.173.184.0/24: 36, 73, 100, 123, 125, 252 (February, March, and April)
• 166.173.185.0/24: 0, 23, 41, 65, 148 (April and May)
• 166.173.186.0/24: 23, 25, 90, 133, 234 (April)
• 166.173.187.0/24: 4, 7, 44, 48, 50, 72, 106, 166, 188 (February, March, and April)

Thanks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm a little busy today but I blocked 166.173.184.0/22, which covers the last four ranges on your list. I'll look at the others when I have time later. Katie^talk 18:52, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Also blocked 166.137.216.0/22 - there was more disruption from this range than the first one. Katie^talk 23:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, this is a prolific vandal, and I got a few more limited rangeblocks applied in the past. I had proposed a few /21s and /22s before, but the disruption hadn't yet boiled over enough, I suppose. I think this covers pretty much every IP range used to date. Hopefully, the the vandal will find a new hobby. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:58, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

wWhat is with the 166 ranges? There seems to be an unusual concentration of bad editors banned/blocked from this range. Blackmane (talk) 23:41, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

The range belongs to AT&T Mobility. Most likely it's people using their phone's cellular connection instead of their home ISP to avoid identification or blocks. clpo13_(talk) 23:47, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Several 166 subranges are also home to a long-term problem on many articles related to The Weather Channel. That editor is usually in the 166.170 and 166.171 vicinity, and I have blocked a few /24 there. DMacks (talk) 03:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Mayor of London

Page requires protection as a matter of urgency to prevent the addition of pre-emptve information as the election is ongoing and the results have not been announced, the page is have information added, which should not be added until the result is announce. There is a high likelihood of an edit war to keep the pre-emptive information off of the article. Sport and politics (talk) 18:43, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the page for one day. The results should be clear by tomorrow, right? If not, we can revisit the issue. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

The results should hopefully yes, but the page is now having pre-emptive information added by auto confirmed users now as well. Sport and politics (talk) 19:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

It looks like full protection was needed, at least for the next 24 hours. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

The result has been declared [190] DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:43, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Wrong Wrong Wrong, only the first round has been counted see London Elects, the only reliable source in this case here. Sport and politics (talk) 20:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

With respect, if I read "Sadiq Khan has secured victory as London mayor...", from an RS, I was not wrong to make the post. It is verifiable, even though it might not be the truth. DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

If you read to the end, you'll see that that's just the first-preference votes, and because no candidate has more than 50 per cent, the second preferences are required. Khan will win, but it is not yet confirmed. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:56, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

The final result will appear here. Sport and politics (talk) 20:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

...at around midnight UK time, according to BBC Radio 4. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I must say it's kind of nice to see another country besides mine with election angst. Not that angst is good. Just sayin'. It's Friday. I need wine. Katie^talk 21:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

And now this edit war has itself made the news (remarks at 20:46). ‑ Iridescent 21:06, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

This was all entirely predictable. Out of interest, do articles relating to elections ever get pre-emptively protected? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

AFAIK no, and I'd be opposed to us doing so if we do do such a thing. As with sporting scores, election results are one of Wikipedia's most reliable recruiters of new editors, as they're something that require constant updating and are very easy for people without Wikipedia-writing skills to fix. ‑ Iridescent 21:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps a bit too easy, as this shows! If the editors stay and start to make constructive edits, though, then I suppose it's worth the short-term disruption. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:30, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

If there's not actual voting still going on, how can the WP article affect the election outcome? It sounds like voting has stopped and they're now trying to figure out the results. I don't see anything for us to pre-empt. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 00:10, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

The results have been officially announced (see e.g. [191]) so I have removed the protection from the Mayor of London and Sadiq Khan articles, and made very basic updates to them. More work needs to be done and it would be good to keep an eye out for vandalism, but I'm off to bed now. Thryduulf (talk) 01:15, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

lol @ the yanks, "Londoners elect Muslim"... They elected a fucking lawyer actually :D 151.230.93.81 (talk) 06:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

It's not about us affecting the outcome, 50.0.121.79, just about us being accurate. The rules state that the mayor's term doesn't start until the second day after the results are in, anyway, so Khan isn't officially the mayor until Sunday. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:17, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure that an M.A. really counts for that much nowadays, in any case. 151.230.93.81 (talk) 08:05, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

It turns out that, due to delays with the results, Khan doesn't officially take office until Monday (the relevant legislation states that the mayor's term of office will "begin on the second day after the day on which the last of the successful candidates at the ordinary election is declared to be returned") - see here, here and here. The Mayor of London, London and Sadiq Khan articles keep being edited to say that he took office yesterday, though. I'm not going to edit war over this, but someone needs to step in to correct things. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Wheel-warring by template editor

Back on 4 May, template editor Jonesey95 decided that the template-protected {{Infobox NRHP}}, with tens of thousands of tranclusions, needed to have an error-tracking category added (no problem there), a change only announced at the relevant wikiproject's talk page yesterday. Because the majority of transclusions included a deprecated parameter (the parameter had previously been included, but a discussion concluded that the parameter's information was trivial and simply removed its functionality), we suddenly had tens of thousands of error pages with no real problems. I therefore restored the parameter with its contents commented out, the goal being to prevent this parameter from producing an error without displaying the trivial information. Within minutes, Jonesey reverted me and announced that he was enforcing project consensus. This is wheel-warring.

With this in mind, I'm asking that this user's template-editor right be removed. It's normal for wheel warring to result in an immediate request for arbitration, with a desysop often being the result even in first-time cases; in the same way, violating the firm statement at WP:TPE, And never wheel war with other admins or template editors, is grounds for immediate removal of this right, especially as this editor added this significant change to the template without even attempting to seek consensus beforehand. Nyttend (talk) 01:28, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Could you link to a page that displays the error, for everyone's benefit? Ibadibam (talk) 01:34, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

All or virtually all pages in Category:Pages using infobox NRHP with unknown parameters alphabetised under "G" are relevant (they're nearly the entire contents of the category); A. B. Leavitt House is one such. Please remember that I'm giving the details about the parameters merely as context for the wheel-warring, not as a fundamental part of the complaint. Nyttend (talk) 02:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I do not see how WP:WW applies to this case. I am not an administrator. I did not "repeat a reversed administrative action". Please help me understand what the problem is here. Nyttend restored the unsupported (not deprecated) parameter without discussion, against WikiProject consensus.

This abrupt escalation of a simple revert to ANI, without meaningful discussion, is uncalled for, as far as I can tell. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Please note that I started the good-faith discussion about this parameter at the WikiProject talk page, specifically noting that one unsupported parameter in particular would cause a large number of articles to be placed in a hidden error-tracking category. Nyttend added the parameter back to the template against WikiProject consensus before contributing to that discussion, and Nyttend reported me here on ANI while that discussion was ongoing and on its way to an amicable outcome.

I have engaged in good faith during this entire process, as I always do here on Wikipedia; I don't have the time or energy for drama. In an effort to extend an olive branch (unrelated to this ANI report), I have removed the parameter in question from the error-checking that the template performs, with a comment in the template code that explains this unusual situation. Readers of this section who visit the "G" section of the category linked above may not see the error message while the job queue catches up with this change. To see an article affected by this error-checking, visit Agat Invasion Beach, which has the unsupported parameter |address= in its infobox. The error is noted via a hidden category and in a red message that appears when you preview your edit, as is the case with most infoboxen that use this error-checking module. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:07, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

The wording of WP:WW is not applicable, but the principle certainly is—people with advanced rights should not use those rights to revert each other. Nyttend's edit summary in diff is "Restoring the governing body (but as a hidden parameter) so that the thousands of pages with |governing_body= won't show up as template errors" is crystal clear. If it were the case that Nyttend was wrong, the procedure would be to post on the template talk page with a ping to Nyttend, and ask to have the edit summary explained. Wikilawyering about "consensus" is fine for edit warriors pushing some line in articles, but the technical side of Wikipedia is supposed to proceed in a more measured fashion, with technical explanations (not "I've got consensus so I'm reverting"). If there is a technical fix for the problem, that shold be explained on the template talk page. After waiting for any responses, then install the fix—do not revert and patch, particularly on a template that is apparently used in over 57,000 pages. Anyone who doesn't have time for drama should not be reverting other editors without due discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 09:43, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand here. In WW, I'm seeing this:

Wheel warring is when an administrator's action is reversed by another admin, but rather than discussing the disagreement, administrator tools are then used in a combative fashion to undo or redo the action. With very few exceptions, once an administrative action has been reverted, it should not be restored without consensus.

It describes two reverts. I definitely understand the principle that there should not be back-and-forth reverting; the WW policy describes a sort of 2RR, similar to 3RR for normal editing. But in the incident described above, there was only a single revert.

The WW page also says:

Wikipedia works on the spirit of consensus; disputes should be settled through civil discussion rather than power wrestling. There are few issues so critical that fighting is better than discussion, or worth losing your own good standing for.

That's exactly what I was doing on the talk page, as you can see. In lieu of discussion, Nyttend made an abrupt edit that short-circuited the good-faith discussion and went against the established consensus of the WikiProject. And then instead of following the WW page's advice to "Seek constructive discussion, and aim to cool the situation and bring it back to normal processes, if able," Nyttend escalated the situation by posting here.

Please help me understand what part of this policy I allegedly violated, whether it is found in the strict wording or in the spirit of the wording, so that I can avoid doing so in the future. If this situation is truly wheel-warring, then I believe that the policy's wording is in need of clarification to explain that (1) a single revert can constitute wheel-warring and (2) template-editors, not just administrators, are subject to this policy. Thanks, everyone. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:54, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Let's see. (1) WP:TPE says They [template editors] are also permitted to enact more complex or controversial edits, after those edits are first made to a test sandbox, and their technical reliability as well as their consensus among other informed editors has been established. If you decide that a change won't be controversial, only to find that it is, it's a mistake (but notice that you "should be aware of what kind of changes require gathering consensus beforehand and which don't"), but if you find your changes undone, it's controversial. (2) TPE says This is, fundamentally, an administrative-level right, and you are expected to behave with the accountability and stability that entails. You're subject to admin-type policies when editing template-protected pages. (3) Have you read the "editing disputes" section of TPE? This right should never be used to gain an upper hand in editing disputes. You have a privilege that most people do not have. The normal BOLD, revert, discuss cycle does not apply because those without this right are unable to perform the "revert" step. Therefore, if your edit is or may be controversial (see the "When to seek discussion" criteria above), avoid making unilateral decisions, and instead propose the change on the template's talk page, and then make the change if there are no objections after a few days. Do not change the template to your preferred version when consensus has not been achieved yet to resolve the dispute. And never wheel war with other admins or template editors. You changed the template to your preferred version when there obviously wasn't agreement, and "wheel war" is here used to describe this kind of action. (4) Wheel warring is when an administrator's action is reversed by another admin, but rather than discussing the disagreement, administrator tools are then used in a combative fashion to undo or redo the action. John protects a page, it's reversed (i.e. unprotected) by Jane, and John undoes the reversal (i.e. reprotecting). The policy is clear that a single revert can constitute wheel-warring. You caused the template to display an error when it included certain text, I caused it to stop displaying that error, and in a combative fashion, an administrative-level right was used to redo the action. If you revert me on a basis such as "that didn't work like you thought it would", or "this does the same thing more easily", etc., that's different, because you're fixing a technical error, but this wasn't that at all. Nyttend (talk) 14:26, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for being willing to engage.

(1) I understand this. The change I made was supported by the January 2016 consensus on the project's talk page. The change has been responded to with gratitude by editors who understand that it is highlighting errors in the infoboxes that would otherwise be hidden. I have received similar thanks for editing other infoboxes in the same way. In this case, because a single parameter was causing so many articles to appear in the error category, I started a conversation to let affected editors know and to offer some suggestions about how to address potential problems.

(2) You did not undo my change. The edit you made did not remove the articles in question from the category. If you had tested your change in the sandbox, as is suggested above, you may have noticed this. As you did in this case, I have made edits to templates that did not work, and I have been grateful when other editors have modified or reverted those changes in order to correct my errors. I have never reported those editors for helping me in this way.

(3) It was your edit that had the potential to be controversial, since it went against the project consensus and it was the subject of an ongoing discussion. You are the one who "change[d] the template to your preferred version when consensus has not been achieved yet to resolve the dispute."

(4) In your John/Jane example, there are two reverts. In our situation, there was only one, after which I reimplemented the spirit of your change, but with code that actually worked. You claim that your edit caused the template to stop displaying the error, but that is not true. You would have needed to edit the template's error-checking code in order to stop the affected articles from displaying the error. I reverted your edit in part because it did not achieve what you wanted it to achieve. As I said above, when other editors have done this for me, I have been grateful, not belligerent. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:50, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

• Perhaps I'm missing something, here, Nyttend; wouldn't a better solution have been to edit the affected pages to remove the now-meaningless parameter (or, more likely, use AWB/ask someone who can to do so)? I guess I don't see how the original change to add error tracking is broken.
• As for the charge of wheel warring, my personal $.02 is a distinct "meh". If we're being super lawyery about it, WW specifies "admin", not " people with advanced rights"--it's not entirely fair to judge someone on a policy that does not really indicate it applies to them.

  Only slightly less lawyery: it's commonly accepted that it's the third mover that starts to violate WW, but given that Jonesy's first edit was several days before, and the edits were not a straight "edit revert revert" sequence, is enough for me to say that it's not so clear-cut that Jonesy's action was in fact a third move.

  Significantly less lawyery: it seems to me that WW is a thing because wheel wars generally do a lot more collateral damage than simple edit wars on an article. Unblocking/reblocking is an obvious and canonical example; undeleting and redeleting is another. All these actions cause significantly more disruption to other editors than a simple edit war, and thus we have WW to prevent that. In that sense, it's easy to see why template editors should be included in WW in general--such a war on heavily-trafficked sites would be similarly widely disruptive. But in this specific case, there was actually very little disruption: the reader of the affected articles would not notice it at all (the added cat is hidden, after all), and the editor would just get an error message that isn't really incorrect.

  So, all these things considered, I'd personally call it a wash. Go, and edit-war on templates no more. We should probably look into expanding the scope of WW to include template editors and the like, but this is not a good case study for it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:07, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Writ Keeper. I was trying to make these same points. I think it might be worthwhile to start a discussion on the WW policy talk page to decide whether template editors, who have a newly minted permission that did not exist when the WW page was created, should be included in this policy. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Are you disputing the basic facts of what Nyttend said (that thousands of pages were blocking a category due to your edit)? Are you disputing that Nyttend fixed that problem by reverting your edit? Are you disputing that Nyttend left a very clear edit summary explaining why the revert had been done? What is the urgency that your edit must be restored right now? In the future, please do not use advanced rights like that. There is no need to make this place more of a bureaucracy because if an editor cannot understand the situation once it has been explained they should not use advanced rights at all. Johnuniq (talk) 02:49, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I dispute all of the above, because they are not facts. I have explained the sequence of events above. I will respond concisely to your individual questions below.

• It is not true that "thousands of pages were blocking a category". I created an error-tracking category that added articles to an error category. Once I saw that the category had been populated with a popular but unsupported parameter, I posted a notice to that effect at the WikiProject's talk page, suggesting that the project's editors notify me if I had made a mistake: There are 53,000 articles in the error category, which makes me think that there may be an inconsistency between how the template is commonly used and how the template is coded, or that I missed some parameters when I added the check. If the latter is the case, ping me here and I will fix the problem ASAP.
• It is not true that "Nyttend fixed that problem by reverting your edit". Nyttend did not revert my edit, and Nyttend's edit did not fix the problem, as I explained above.
• I dispute that Nyttend left a clear, factual edit summary ("Restoring the governing body (but as a hidden parameter) so that the thousands of pages with |governing_body= won't show up as template errors"), because Nyttend's edit did not have the described effect – the pages continued to be listed in the error category, as I explained above.
• Your next question, "What is the urgency..." does not make sense. My edit was never reverted. This is why I am so confused about how this sequence of events was referred to as a wheel war. Writ Keeper explained my confusion very effectively above.
• You say "There is no need to make this place more of a bureaucracy because if an editor cannot understand the situation once it has been explained they should not use advanced rights at all." I assume that this is addressed not to me, but to Nyttend, who escalated a good-faith discussion to the bureaucracy of ANI and does not seem to understand what a wheel war is, at least as the policy is currently and clearly written, even after I explained that this situation was not a wheel war. It is possible that the policy has recently changed and that this particular sequence of events used to meet the wheel war criteria, in which case this is a learning opportunity for many of us.

Thank you for your questions. This experience has been educational. I hope that we can all move beyond this unfortunate misunderstanding. I am willing to let it rest, as Writ Keeper has suggested. If there is a discussion about expanding the wheel war criteria to include template editors and certain types of single reverts, which seems like a sensible discussion to have, please ping me, and I will participate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:03, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about my imprecision. By "revert" I meant that you had made an edit, and that Nyttend had changed the template in a way that you did not like (and which you undid three minutes later giving no reason other than consensus). I have not examined the edits in question because who is right and who is wrong is irrelevant. If Nyttend's edit broke something, by all means revert giving the technical reason why the edit had to be immediately reverted. Editing templates (particularly those transcluded on 57,000 pages) should not be done with the same approach taken in articles where it is standard procedure for the usual suspects to revert each other using any excuse they can dream up. If Nyttend's edit needed to be reverted immediately, give the reason in the edit summary. Otherwise, discuss it and explain what you believe was Nyttend's error and what you proposed to fix it. It appears you have never edited the sandbox—using the sandbox would avoid the need to make three edits to fix one problem. Johnuniq (talk) 07:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Harassment by Drmies at their talk page

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

---

@Drmies:, with whom I have had a dispute with regarding Cheryl Fernandez-Versini, is harassing me at their talk page. Their content removal at Cheryl Fernandez-Versini didn't appear constructive to me, and the edit summaries seemed quite vague. I restored the removed content and left a {{Uw-delete1}} on their talk page, and left me a sarcastic reponse ("Linguist, thank you for the nice template.") I removed that, but they reverted me, telling me to "buzz off". I understand that I may have made a mistake with the reverting of the content removal and the warning, but I will NOT tolerate being harassed or attacked on Wikipedia. Linguist 111^talk 19:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@Linguist111: First off, Drmies is an admin and on ArbCom, so any accusations you make are taken seriously. Second off, don't template the regulars. It's your fault that you didn't take it up with him yourself. TJH2018talk 19:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough on the article, you disagree and revert. This wasn't a mistake yet, just a dispute. Your first mistake, you template a regular breaking WP:DTTR. Then you delete content from Drmies on their own user page in violation of WP:USERTALK. You claim you're being harassed by them when it's YOU going to THEIR talk page. That's like claiming to be harassed by someone every fucking time you ring their doorbell. QUIT GOING TO HIS FUCKING HOUSE. You're the cause of your own problems. Then you create this thread which is going to WP:BOOMERANG hard on your ass. Best advice: run far away from this issue and never speak of it again. (This was the toned down version, the original version would've easily earned me a WP:NPA block).--v/r - TP 19:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oh, admin and all that has nothing to do with it. User thinks they can impose etiquette on me when they can't find the proper words to apologize for a silly template, that's all. Close with no admin (boomerang) action needed, please. Drmies (talk) 19:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

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

DTTR is merely an essay. There's no reason to not template if someone's done something wrong and also, it's easier. It also depends whether you want to interact or not. I'm not saying anything about this dispute but DTTR in general. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 17:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• True. And some regulars need to be templated every now and then. Drmies (talk) 18:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
• The only clearly questionable action here is Linguist111's removal of content on Drmies' page. The only person who gets to remove content from Drmies' page is Drmies, unless you're self-reverting. pbp 18:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
  • "Self-reverting" And even then, the editor whose page it is can decide to un-revert, if they so desire. BMK (talk) 20:22, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
• I personally prefer Do Template the Regulars (By DESiegel) as a justification why you should template regulars, but only do it when the next stop if they continue the disruptive behavior is a noticeboard or seeking sanctions. Hasteur (talk) 17:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

User Galassi at Khazar theory of Ashkenazi ancestry

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

---

I'm finding it impossible to work with User:Galassi. I started re-editing the the page on the Khazar theory of Ashkenazi ancestry on 21 April 2016‎, correcting some recent edits and giving my reasons in extensive detail on the talk page The long list of problems was ignored for some days.

• Since in the meantime Galassi kept reverting, I opened a talk page section with his name calling his attention to the problem of him reverting without answering the issues on the talk page.

• Several long discussions ensued, but only with other editors. See this section, this section and this section, for several attempts I made calling on reverting editors to discuss the issues.

• The sum of Galassi’s comments, despite him being the main reverter, consist of one liners that ignore the technical problems and issues, are void of content, except flag waving. Seehere, here, here, here, here, here, and here

• While ignoring repeated requests to him and other editors to answer the objections on the talk page Galassi has persistently reverted the article ever since, whenever I touch it. here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here
• All of these reverts restore several pieces of material which the talk page argues either fail WP:RS, or do not reflect the source, or push a non-neutral POV, such as saying a theory whose scientific status is uncertain, has been ‘refuted’ etc. The edit summaries are obscure, and often specious, as in this morning's Reverted good faith edits by Nishidani (talk): Per WP:SYNTH. This cannot be true because the passage he reverted out is a straight quote from a source. I didn't synthesize anything. My impression is the editor is just reverting me at sight without examining the talk page, the sources, or anything else. I found this exasperating and told him so, without mentioning WP:HOUND, and asked him to stop telling me to 'cease and desist', as if he were dictating surrender terms. This morning he saw me edit anew, an innocuous inclusion of another quote from a source already accepted, and reverted it, and then posted the same 'cease and desist' nonsense on my talk page. This looks very much to me like an attempt to needle away and fish up a reportable response.

I think, since he just engages in blind reverts, and refuses to use the talk page, that he should be asked to stay away from that particular article.Nishidani (talk) 14:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Please, ignore. THis is a RETALIATORY motion. USer Nishidani alone battles against multiple-users' consensus, in violation of WP:OWN, WP:ILIKEIT, WP:POV, WP:FRINGE, WP:POVFORK etc., all of which has been repeatedly pointed to him.--Galassi (talk) 15:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

• A browse of the article history indicates that a number of editors take exception to your substantial article-changing edits. Given that your high-handed talkpage pronouncements and the personal attacks in edit summaries have generally failed to convince other editors, I dont think Galassi is the one who needs a break . Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

High-handed? I have twice intervened to stop that editor whom you say I used a personal attack against, from almost certainly getting a topic ban, once quite recently. She uses the talk page, so though she edit wars, and is plainly trying to push a POV, she's amenable to collegial discussion. In that case, I never, never raise an objection to such editors. Galassi refuses to use the talk page, and has consistently edited in execrably bad material the talk page shows fails WP:V. I get pissed off, sure. It took me several months of research to try to master a difficult and controversial topic like Khazars, which I basically wrote, only to find editors frigging about with lazy revert edit-warring to establish a 'truth', while ignoring the scholarly literature. Nishidani (talk) 15:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

"Which I basically wrote"... So no ownership issues there at all then. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

No, no ownership problem, a statement of fact. I write articles - it's time-consuming, and hard work; editors like Galassi revert what's done, whatever, on sight. He effectively by his blind and blanket reverts (he never looked at what he was reverting back to) banned me from that article. If you take the example of just the last revert listed above, he cancelled a direct quotation I introduced from the same source used directly above, stating in the edit-summary WP:SYNTH. A direct quotation, as he knows, cannot be an instance of synthesis, and therefore the edit summary was sheer prevarication, and the revert animated by personal enmity without regard to content. I never even scoured Galassi's history or practices, but in the context of his prior bans, for exactly the same kind of nuisance reverting, this seems to be a consistent pattern of abuse. His revert rights should be restricted to vandalism and IPs: if he wants to challenge constructive editors with 10 years of experience and 45,000 edits, he should be asked to note his objection on the talk page (and not just 'vote' there).Nishidani (talk) 15:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Galassi has been indefinitely topic-banned from Ukraine-related material since April 2013 for failing to adhere to a personal restriction on the frequency with which reverts could be performed. Galassi's talkpage shows that conflicts have occurred with other editors over editing of Khazar-related material, or that other editors have intervened (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). The justification Galassi gives for reverting in example 2, "It is common sense, you see. Elhaik is a charlatan, as he is bent on pushing a theory that proposes that a Caucasoid ethnic group descends from a Mongoloid one. 'Nuf said," is foolish: he libels a research scientist based on his own basic ignorance of who the Khazars were, a level of ignorance that raises questions about whether any of Galassi's contributions on the subject can be beneficial.     ←   ZScarpia   17:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

That is IRRELEVANT here. User Nishidani failed to secure a consensus for his POV, and he is pushing his anti-zionist envelope elsewhere.--Galassi (talk) 03:20, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

No. You were reverting me on every edit I made, with no talk page discussion. You never spoke of 'consensus' in your revert edit summaries, but of ostensible policy issues, which I addressed on the page and you ignored.Nishidani (talk) 08:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Geven your history of antiZionist edits elsewhere: you're nowhere near WP:GOODFAITH.--Galassi (talk) 16:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS: "When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion. Here editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns." Galassi and other editors appear to have failed to engage in the consensus-building process, instead simply relying on the fact that they outnumber Nishidani to insist that he doesn't have consensus.

Galassi: "User Nishidani failed to secure a consensus for his POV." Wikipedia articles are supposed to outline the significant points of view contained in reliable sources. Perhaps Galassi is confusing properly sourced points of view with what he calls Nishidani's POV?

    ←   ZScarpia   10:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment Of Galassi's last 500 edits in the main space (since January 13, 2015), 270 have had edit summaries beginning "Reverted". During this same period, they have only made 86 talk page edits, and almost none of those are substantial original comments. In their entire edit history they have made more than eight times as many article edits as talk page edits. Propose 1RR. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: Place Galassi under 1RR

I propose placing Galassi (talk · contribs) under a one-revert rule, indefinitely, until they can demonstrate that they are willing to engage in constructive discussion on talk pages instead of edit-warring. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support as nom. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support if duration is to the end of 2016. The restriction should not apply to reverting clear vandalism and block-evading edits by sock puppets. Hijiri88 makes a good case for this. But I do not want this to turn into a first step towards a long block for Galassi. Many of Galassi's reverts are the best thing to do in the circumstances. If the restriction were indefinite, sooner or later he/she would forget and break the restriction, just like he/she did with the more complex revert restriction on Ukraine-related articles. If the restriction were to the end of 2016, he/she would probably remember and obey it.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@Toddy1: My above-cited "last 500 edits" was a random number determined by my account preferences. The problem was even more pronounced in the previous 500 edits (327/500 article edits are blank reverts, and only 58 talk page edits, most of them related to Jewish Bolshevism). This is a very long-term problem going back more than three years, so limiting the 1RR restriction to seven months is not productive. And speaking as someone who is himself subject to 1RR (a restriction placed on me because of three brief edit wars that took place almost a year before the restriction, mind you), I can tell you that reverting obvious vandalism and block-evasion, etc. are not affected by 1RR, any more than they are affected by 3RR. Additionally, to demonstrate that an indefinite 1RR would do more harm than good, you would need to demonstrate that Galassi has repeatedly made multiple constructive reverts on the same page in a period of 24 hours. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:11, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposals for restrictions need to be clear.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Not if they follow the standard definitions as laid out on the PAG pages related to the restrictions. There's a reason I linked WP:1RR above. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is useless. Galassi rarely makes more than one revert per day on a page, at least during last year. His reverts are usually reasonable, or at least justifiable. My very best wishes (talk) 16:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: Whether he "rarely" makes more than one revert per day is immaterial. On the article under discussion here, he has very clearly been edit-warring, and if he had been under 1RR he would have been blocked three times in the past week. 1RR is not meant to create excuses to block people; it's meant to prevent edit wars, and in this case it clearly would discourage Galassi from edit-warring. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

If someone was engaged in edit warring on a certain page, he/she should be reported on WP:3RR, not here. Then admins would definitely look at this, including other editors who also reverted on the same page. I interacted with Galassi on a number of occasions and agree that he makes a lot of reverts, however most of them were reasonable in cases I know about (no, I did not check this Khazar page because this is something beyond my interests). Hence I do not really see a pattern of recent and malicious edit warring by him. My very best wishes (talk) 23:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Not really. If 60% of a user's edits are automatic reverts (not including possible manual reverts), then clearly something is very wrong. Your claim that "rarely makes more than one revert per day on a page" is not backed up by empirical evidence. Other articles on which he has indisputably edit-warred in the past month (read: made more than one revert in under 24 hours) include Muammar Gaddafi, Aristo and Anti-Zionism. In Aristo the edit-warring led to page protection. Whether Galassi was on the "right side" in any of these edit-wars is irrelevant, because edit-warring is disruptive in and of itself. (Please note that reverting a user who isn't using the talk page while you are desperately trying to use the talk page is not, in my opinion, edit-warring; but I'm not a reliable source, because no one disputes that this is what I was doing in my "edit wars" of over a year ago, and I was still placed under 1RR.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Even if someone makes 100% reverts, that might be fine. His reverts are usually like that. Of course I can only tell about my experience of interacting with this user. It was not usually a problem to interact with him. It did not mean we agreed. And no, I do not think his recent editing on page Muammar Gaddafi (for example) was in any way problematic because it was another red-linked account who edit war against multiple users. My very best wishes (talk) 12:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment. Perhaps the measure proposed should be reformulated. What is obvious is that on the article in question, Galassi repeated exactly the approach, in regard to any edit I made, for which he has been sanctioned or banned from articles twice in the past. On the article in question he made three reverts on April 23 (here, here and and here). On May 1 two (here and and here, the second involving a patent prevarication as an excuse to again block my editing there. He refused for a over a week to use the talk page, and ignored all evidence on that page that what he was on each case restoring was defective (source misrepresentation etc.). Personally, I just think he should be banned from any article regarding the Khazars, something quite specific. If no one can see a problem in his targeting an editor to effectively ban his participation in editing a page, then of course he can get off scot-free and continue the polite but persistent harassment.Nishidani (talk) 17:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Hang on - in the period Nishidani speaks of, three editors were reverting him/her: @Ferakp:, @Monochrome Monitor: and Galassi. So basically, Nishidani was edit-warring with three editors....-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Nishidani, Ferakp and Monochrome Monitor all know how to use a talk page. If you discuss on a talk page in between reverts, and new factors emerge to justify reverting, then it is ... still an edit-war, but it's "less" of an edit-war. Users who don't use the talk page (or use the talk page, but only post inane, irrelevant nonsense) are the ones who tend to "poison the well", so to speak. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment I made some edits, others kept reverting to them. I haven't been keeping track. I do think it's bad to single out a single editor if a bunch of editors are doing it... majority rules, no? Right now the majority is a mob, but mob rule is better than chaste autocracy, in my opinion. If he broke 3RR it would be different.--Monochrome_Monitor 03:32, 4 May 2016 (UTC) But Nish isn't edit warring either. I think the word "edit warring" is overused personally. I think of war as aggressive. This is a disagreement that should be resolved on the talk. Not with a vote necessarily, but simple dialogue is nice. I did this because X.... why did you do that? --Monochrome_Monitor 03:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

This is a disagreement that should be resolved on the talk. Not with a vote necessarily, but simple dialogue is nice. I did this because X.... why did you do that? That appears to be what Nishidani is trying to do, and Galassi has been responding with one-line "No, you're wrong"-type non-replies. Of the latter's talk page posts, only two have been more than nine words each: one was 18 words and was extremely hostile and used ... "questionable" terminology; the other was 36 words and not much better. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Toddy1. Both Monochrome and I use the talk page. I have no objection to being reverted if the revert is rational and explained. Ferakp just jumped in to revert me, in a tagteaming fashion, without reading the talk page. He at least had the decency to use it when I protested, and what was the result,? He altered several parts of his revert to conform to the very real objections I outlined. Galassi did not use the talk page, repeatedly reverted anything I added, used false edit summaries, and tried to provoke me on my talk page. This is why I reported him: he has banned my work on that article, something he had no right to do, and secondly his behavior in my regard repeats a pattern he had been, as emerges here, admonished and sanctioned for twice on Wikipedia. Nishidani (talk) 14:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Due to the ownership issues displayed above and what is clearly a blatant attempt to remove someone with whom they are having a content dispute from the article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@Only in death: You posted the exact same thing under Nishidani's proposal below. By "displayed above", do you mean in the main thread opened by Nishidani? Or to Nishidani's brief aside immediately above your own post? Or to my opening this proposal? Because if it's the latter it's a pretty bizarre accusation -- I have never edited the article in question even once, nor expressed any interest in it. Even if it refers to Nishidani, how is trying to make edits and seeing them all reverted "ownership"? If anything, the user demonstrating ownership is Galassi -- apparently reverting every edit to the article he/she doesn't like. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose clearly a bad faithed WP:BATTLEGROUND request and the proposer could use a WP:BOOMERANG.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Woah. Dude. What the hell? Them's some pretty violent accusations, there -- am I really the one with the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality here? If an editor makes almost no edits that aren't reverts, then clearly we have an edit-warrior. Proposing 1RR as a way of dealing with such a poblem is a pretty normal solution. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:12, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

There really is no basis for your proposal. It's spurious. Hence the "accusation" (violent? what?). And removing bad material from articles does not make somebody an "edit warrior".Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:15, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Very strong evidence has been presented that Galassi has been edit-warring in the past week or so on the article in question, and pretty compelling evidence has been presented that this is a recurring problem going back at least three years. On the other hand, your accusation that I have no basis for my proposal is itself, ironically enough, a baseless accusation. An editor whose Wikipedia activity focuses almost exclusively on reverting other users' edits is not the same as an editor who "remov[es] bad material from articles" -- please refrain from putting words in my mouth, as I never said "removing bad material from articles" makes somebody an edit warrior. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:38, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Also (just noticed this), VM placed the exact same words under Nishidani's proposal below.[192] So did he/she misread the thread and think that Nishidani opened both proposals? Because accusing me of a "battleground" mentality for coming across a random ANI thread, reading through it, coming to a conclusion about what has been happening and proposing a solution accordingly is pretty hypocritical, when VM is doing the exact same thing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

This is getting really weird. I gave detailed evidence, which is being ignored. In no edit did I, as Galassi did, (a) restore material that is known to falsify the source (b) nor did I provide false edit summary (c) nor did I accuse someone of WP:SYNTH for copying a key passage from a source which another edited copied only partially (and which Galassi accepted as fair), to complete the picture (d) nor have I a history of mechanical reverting for which sanctions have been twice applied, as does Galassi (e) nor did I tagteam as did Galassi (f) nor did I go ahead and revert without any rationale being provided on the talk page, as Galassi did. Because I exercised judgement (actually reading each source, which Galassi patently didn't),collegiality and restraint, editors are now tending to give Galassi the right of veto over any edit I make to that page. If this is the way Wikipedia operates, well, it's pointless editing further here. All we have is a quick glance at a column of the page edit record, seeing both reverting, and then accusing myself of having no grounds for my reverts, and indeed the major blame because I made a formal complaint against the other reverter. Everything is collapsed to identical behavior, and all distinctions are lost. What I am being told is that care in editing counts for nothing, that prevaricating reverts in silence by the disattentive are on a par with close source control-based reverts. If this kind of slipshod oversight is allowable, there's no point editing here.Nishidani (talk) 06:52, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: Ban Galassi from editing Khazar-related articles

Support. This is highly limited, but reflects the fact he broke all the rules to disallow another editor's work on that page.Nishidani (talk) 15:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Look, you made numerous reverts on this page [193]. You reverted edits made by several contributors. If you are trying to make a point that Galassi and others did not talk with you, that was not the case, as anyone can see on this article talk page [194], [195]. Why it is Galassi, rather than you who should be topic-banned from editing this page? My very best wishes (talk) 17:22, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Elementary error, equivalent to saying the Chinese and Eskimos have 5 fingers on each hand, therefore their behavior is identical. Look at the differences, there are at least five, listed above.Nishidani (talk) 18:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I do not know much about the subject, but speaking about behavior, I do not really see how this is different: [196],[197],[198]. There is indeed one difference in behavior: Galassi or anyone else did not reported you on ANI, but you did. My very best wishes (talk) 19:55, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

He's welcome to report me. In the 3 diffs, I have edit summaries giving my reasons which I then elaborately extensively on the talk page, where they were systematically ignored. That MM is being ideological and violating both WP:NPOV and WP:BLP is clear from the page as it stands-she even had the rash hide to use a man convicted in an Israeli court for libel against a respected scholar, Steven Plaut,as an authoritative source for evaluating what tenured academics theorize about: a theory espoused even now by several scholars, and by dozens of Jewish scholars in the past, is in wiki's supposedly neutral voice, dismissed as a baseless fantasy, and those who propose it are implied to be anti-Semitic or fringe lunatics. MM sits round, Galassi does the dirty work, and then she adds in crap which I cannot correct or modify. All of the generalizations made there cannot be sourced reliably, but are WP:OR, written to disprove a theory, not describe it.Nishidani (talk) 12:32, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Due to the ownership issues displayed above and what is clearly a blatant attempt to remove someone with whom they are having a content dispute from the article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@Only in death does duty end: How is trying to edit an article a demonstration of OWNership issues? Surely the one who reverts every edit he/she doesn't like is the one demonstrating OWNership issues? Also, same comment as below applies to you.[199][200] Did you seriously analyze both proposals and decide that both proposals should be opposed for the exact same reason? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose clearly a bad faithed WP:BATTLEGROUND request and the proposer could use a WP:BOOMERANG.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Please note that Volunteer Marek copy-pasted the same !vote into both my proposal above and this proposal, as indicated by the repeated misprint.[201][202] It's not clear whether he/she actually read one of the proposals and copy-pasted the same response into both, and if so which one he/she actually read. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. Nishidani edit war on this page for years [203] and requested here to topic ban an "opponent" to gain an upper hand in a content dispute. My very best wishes (talk) 12:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC) I am not sure because I do not know this subject. My very best wishes (talk) 05:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support. I don't have much time right now, but thought it important to register my support now for this proposal. I will expand in detail this evening (UK time). --NSH001 (talk) 13:18, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

  (now on another computer) Sorry for the delay. I composed a long comment and then lost it due to an intermittent and unpredictable fault on my main computer. In the meantime I see Nishidani has already covered the main points. --NSH001 (talk) 15:46, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Galassi has been topic banned by ArbCom, and also blocked several times by different admins. By continuing to behave disruptively, Galassi's actions now show that he does not understand, or he does not accept, the reasons for his topic ban and blocks. Perhaps a topic ban from Khazar-related articles (a ban covering only a relatively narrow range of WP articles) can convince Galassi to begin to listen to what others are trying to tell him. Ijon Tichy (talk) 17:52, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Both Nishidani ant IjonTichy are a part of an antiZionist cabal, so this is way beyond the WP:GOODFAITH.--Galassi (talk) 18:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Ouch! Irondome (talk) 18:49, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

So, in short, Galassi has admitted why he persists in reverting my every edit to that page. He has imposed his ban on my presence there because he is convinced I am an anti-Zionist, i.e. an anti-Semite (anti-Zionist is in many quarters now a code term for antisemite). I won't trouble to challenge the lie -my views on the problem are identical, if any one is curious, to those of David Dean Shulman (a Zionist, since he made aliyah), eloquently if distressfully outlined recently here in the New York Review of Books. Nishidani (talk) 12:18, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose on principle Involved parties have no business proposing sanctions against editors with whom them have a dispute. Blackmane (talk) 10:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

A sanction has already been imposed informally, and I am asking for it to be removed. The sanction consists in Galassi reverting every edit I make to the page. Find a solution, whatever. Unless his Pavlovian revert behavior changes, I am denied the right to edit there, since he erases everything I add. If nothing is done to resolve this, then editors here are saying that Galassi has acquired a unique privilege in Wikipedia, the right to target one editor, impose a page ban on him, without having to explain what he is doing, other than saying I am an anti-Semite activist in an Antizionist cabal (a mirror image of the Protocols of Zion bullshit), and which, please observe, is itself a deep violation of WP:AGF.Nishidani (talk) 12:18, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Here ([204],[205],[206]) you recently revert edits on this page made not only by Galassi, but by two other contributors. Why Galassi? It seems that you guys are having a content dispute on the page. Try dispute resolution. Or was it tried already? Sorry, I never edited this page and do not know.My very best wishes (talk) 16:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Please actually read and study these diffs. Nishidani is editing constructively here, with detailed edit summaries and extensive reasoning on the talk page. Galassi is just editing destructively, trying to push his own view with the absolute minimum of effort on his part, and serving only to waste other editors' time. --NSH001 (talk) 17:43, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I do not know the subject, but judging from the diffs, some sources are questionable and possibly not RS. One way forward would be to agree about using only the most reliable sources (per MEDRS), as suggested during this RfC. My very best wishes (talk) 18:13, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

It’s fine that you expect of me to respond to questions about my editing behaviour. So far, I have outlined substantial evidence concerning Galassi’s record, yet none of those arguing I’m to blame, or that I am doing exactly what he does, have shown (apart from yourself in the edit above this) a willingness to examine my evidence of Galassi’s behaviour, or pose queries to him. Perhaps that’s useless. He never explains himself. To answer you:

• (1)I’ve told editors why I reverted Galassi. I gave him a large list of things he was ignoring in his reverts, and he ignored them.
• (2) User:Ferakp came out of nowhere, made a revert, then when I remarked on the talk page that he was introducing known errors, had no read the talk page, he made one correction, added Steven Plaut who is not an acceptable source for wikipedia, which certainly don't count here since he has no competence in the area, being professor of business administration and a convicted libeler. Ferakp just disappeared after accepting on the talk page at least 2 of my objections were legitimate.
• (3) User:Monochrome Monitor

(a)A premise re policy:WP:NPOV.

All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

(b) To understand what follows, this is how I crafted the line, in accordance with a strict reading of WP:NPOV, on the main Khazars article. Regarding the theory

Several scholars have suggested that the Khazars did not disappear after the dissolution of their Empire, but migrated West to eventually form part of the core of the later Ashkenazi Jewish population of Europe. This hypothesis is greeted with scepticism or caution by most scholars.

Regarding the genetic evidence:

The evidence from historians he (Elhaik) used has been criticized by Shaul Stampfer[294] and the technical response to such a position is dismissive, arguing that, if traces of descent from Khazars exist in the Ashkenazi gene pool, the contribution would be quite minor,[295][296][297][298][299] or insignificant.

Those two formulations have stood for some years, defended by several main editors to that page from POV and IP challenges. It doesn’t take sides: it suggests to the reader this is a theory that most competent area scholars dismiss or regard with diffidence.

So it is reasonable to assume that I am not POV pushing for the Khazar thesis, or as Galassi now proclaims that I edited as some antisemitic/antizionist ideologist jumping at this theory, since in both cases I firmly noted that it is a quite minor position within the respective academic fields.

As to User:Monochrome Monitor I reverted her because of the violation of WP:NPOV. You mention the diff

(c)Blind ideologically- fixated reverting (a) refusing to address page (c) restoring known errors (d)adopting POV Language etc

• Monochrome Monitor came in with a swag of convictions, beware the true believer (mirroring true believers in the Khazar theory): She had announced on the talk page that one of the scholars, was a ‘crank’, endorsing Galassi’s view that Wexler has been exposed as a ‘fraud’. Both of these are serious WP:BLP violations, of an emeritus scholar still living and still reliably published, and still widely commented on in the secondary literature. As to Eran Elhaik, she said he too was a known ‘crank’. If that were so, it is difficult to understand why after a Phd from John Hopkins University, he obtained a an important research post in genetics at Sheffield University, and regularly published in the top genetics journals in his highly specialized field.

MM believes this historical issue, which to me is a total mystery, has been definitely resolved. I.e. she is passing off as an established fact what is a majority view in a contested field, giving the wiki guernsey to the winners. Worse still she attributed to both the idea that "Jews don't exist",-i.e. she is implying that they have psychiatric problems, leaving in phrasing that connects them sotto voce with anti-Semites, when actually she made a wild concoction of an overheated fantasy, as I explained in detail to her mentor on User:Oncenawhile's talk page. Wexler doesn’t believe in a Jewish ‘race’ (people): Elhaik has nowhere stated that Jews don’t exist. Both are Jews. Another proof that we are dealing with an editor who intervenes on a complex topic with her mind made up, hurling wild accusations at scholars, and editing the page.

In line with the ‘truth’, she has repeatedly written into the article that this theory has been refuted. Well, not quite. The last scientific article supporting a variation of the theory was published just 2 months ago, and no scientist has yet to publish any close analysis of its defects. The finest scholar of the Khazars,Peter Benjamin Golden, has an open mind on the issue and gives Wexler the hearing MM won't tolerate. MM and Ferakp are both preempting scholarship by insisting a still-open issue in scholarship has already been closed. This is a direct subversion of one of the 5 pillars of this encyclopedia. I don't complain of her - I spend a lot of time trying to get her, not to agree with me, God forbid, but to drop the air of certitude, and the idea she must defenda patriotic national cause.

Now that I have given exhaustive explanations as to why and how I do certain edits, can some neutral editor look at the evidence for what Galassi is doing, and suggest an arrangement to allow me to return to editing this page without having to suffer from his automatic reverts, i.e. return to me the right to edit, without an inexplicable pattern of consistent harassment-by-revert?Nishidani (talk) 19:29, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

You're disingenuous Nish. If you think whether the khazar theory is true or not is a "total mystery", you obviously haven't informed yourself on the issue nor read the vast genetic evidence refuting it. Arguing it's mostly settled is very different from arguing it's totally settled in the other direction. That's like saying the position that global warming is caused by humans (in light of the vast scientific evidence) is just as crazy as saying it isn't. You're not arguing in good faith. You read books even the New York Times calls antisemitic, "The Holocaust Industry" case in point. I'm not saying you're a jew hater, you're not, which is why it's so upsetting to me that you're fond of reading books like "The Invention of the Jewish People" and "Ashkenazi Jews: a Slavo-Turkic people in search of a Semitic Identity". It's a blind spot you need to address. You're a very smart guy, well-read, worldly, a veritable bibliophile. But your reading comprehension mysteriously fails you when it concerns the State of Israel. On your userpage you offer a netanyahu quote which you interpret in the exact opposite way it was intended. If you were taking an SAT, that's -1 point. You need to do some soul-searching. I certainly did. I used to think "From Time Immemorial" was meticulously researched scholarship and now I read Amos Oz (albeit with a healthy dose of cynicism). Try reading a book like "Jews, God, and History" for a change. --Monochrome_Monitor 20:49, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Look at his last edit on the Wexler's own article. He takes a direct quote, and misrepresents it in his edit into 180degree opposite of what it means. That is more than disingenuous. More like sneaky tendentiousness.--Galassi (talk) 20:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Jews, God, and History by Dimont?? Oof! Would that be as reliable as a People Magazine article on Jennifer Aniston? Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Discourse 21:04, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually it's a critically acclaimed classic of Jewish studies. What's wrong with you?--Monochrome_Monitor 21:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@Galassi I don't think he'd be deceptive deliberately, it's not his character. But I agree the Wexler article needs a bit of fine-tuning.--Monochrome_Monitor 21:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Stepping aside of the personal attack, the book is feel-good patriotism, not serious history. It is a puff piece. Americans are familiar with fact-free Americana, and that book is of the same order. Spoiler alert: George Washington did not confess to chopping down a cherry tree. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Discourse 23:37, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

(Says the person who thinks "Zeitgeist" is serious history.) The book is meant to summarize 3000 years of history in a way readers can relate to emotionally. That's why it's called "popular history", that extra pathos gives it a broader appeal. In that regard it's more similar to Wiesel's Night than the Vrba–Wetzler report. It's disgusting to compare it to the cherry tree nonsense. I don't want Nish to read a book that takes a detached approach to its subject. It's written from a pro-Jewish perspective, that's the whole point, I want to expand his horizons. --Monochrome_Monitor 00:40, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

With your second personal attack, you are definitely out of line. I will not be provoked. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Discourse 18:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• Ban Nishidani: The anti-Israel activist Nishidani is the one who should be banned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:FD0B:CA00:8D81:106:7F36:6C1C (talk) 17:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose banning Nishidani Someone has gone nuclear over a content dispute. (This comment is not related to the original complaint.) Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Discourse 18:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• Questions: Galassi, first are you still topic banned from Ukrainian topics? If not, please see where the topic ban was lifted. Second, isn't Khazar theory of Ashkenazi ancestry a violation of that topic ban? Talk:Khazars is clearly related to Ukraine. I'm not seeking to start an ARE report right now but if it's a topic ban violation, then this topic ban is superfluous since Galassi is already banned from the topic. It would be better to be honest and acknowledge this first. From there, we can have separate discussions about the conduct of other people and how to proceed so that the editing on that page is done in a productive manner for all. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• The question is almost rhetorical. Most maps show the Khazarian Empire overlapping the modern nation of Ukrainia. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Discourse 23:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• I would say the answer is definitely "no": that was a completely different country, with a different territory, different in time, and populated by Turkic peoples who were also very different from Slavs in culture and language. The dispute is actually more related to ARBPIA. Of course Calassi could violate his topic ban by editing some other pages, but even if he did, no one objected per WP:IAR. If anyone considers his edits on Ukraine-related subjects disruptive and deserving a complaint, they should submit a request to WP:AE. However, this is moot at this point because I do not really see any recent and clearly disruptive violations by Galassi. P.S. A connection certainly exists (this country was at war with Kievan Rus'), but it would be too tentative. This is like sanctioning someone who has a topic ban on editing Russia because he edited Germany. My very best wishes (talk) 23:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually User:Ricky81682 and Grammar's Li'l Helper are certainly correct. Galassi is banned from Ukraine-related articles. The History of Ukraine Template has been on the Khazars page for a decade, since every history of the Ukraine deals with the Khazars in the formative age. Both the articles on Ukraine and History of Ukraine dedicate space to the Khazars since the Khazar empire’s northern wing gave rise to the ‘powerful state of Kievan Rus' forming the basis of Ukrainian identity’. Any history of the Ukrainian capital Kiev will include extensive discussions of the Khazars. User:Sandstein confirmed Galassi’s original ban stating:’ I am of the opinion that an appropriate reaction to this violation would be to ban Galassi indefinitely from editing anything related to Ukraine.’ Anything related to the Ukraine includes its early history. The Khazars are a key theme in standard academic descriptions of the early history of the Ukraine. E.g.

• Paul R. Magocs, A History of Ukraine: The Land and Its Peoples, University of Toronto Press 2010 pp.37ff., 48ff.p.50.

‘Living in the protective shadow of the pax Chazarica, the Slavic tribes on the Ukrainian lands were spared for a while the worst nomadic invasions from the east,m and, as a result, between the seventh and ninth centuries they were able to expand their agricultural and trading activities.

‘The appearance of the Khazars in the seventh century proved to be of great significance for the developments in eastern Europe and in Ukraine in particular.p.37

• Alexander Basilevsky Early Ukraine: A Military and Social History to the Mid-19th Century, McFarland, 2016 pp.83ff.
• W. E. D. Allen The Ukraine, Cambridge University Press, 2014 pp.9ff.
• Serhii Plokhy, The Gates of Europe: A History of Ukraine, Basic Books, 2015 pp.18ff.
• Anatoly M. Khazanov, ‎Andre Wink (eds.) Nomads in the Sedentary World, Routledge 2012 p 90, pp.86ff.

The Germany/Russia analogy doesn't work. Germany existed independently of Russia:Germany didn't form out of a prior 'Russian' empire, and neither did Russia develop from a prior German empire. All sources note that the Khazar empire extended into Ukrainian lands, whose polities took over some Khazar institutions. There is a nationalistic rift in the way Russian and Ukrainian scholars interpret the 'identity' of the Eastern Slavic peoples under the Khazars, and as they emerged to defeat the latter. But neither school denies that the Khazars foreshadowed the emerging Slavic states, and influenced them.

As to behavioural patterns, with regard to these two contiguous article

• Khazars

I made 408 edits (8.43% of the total edits made to the page). I basically rewrote it top to bottom over 4 years, after finding this mess. The result has found consistent consensual backing by several other editors on that page. Extensive talk page comments.

40 edits by Galassi on Khazars (0.83% of the total edits made to the page). 35 of these are reverts or mass removal of material. No notable talk page presence.

• Khazar theory of Ashkenazi ancestry

I made 62 edits over 2 and a half years, overwhelmingly consisting in the building up of sources and content. Extensive talk page comments.

Galassi has made 19 edits over 1 year 4 months of which 16 are reverts. Virtually no content added, only endorsements of prior versions. No relevant talk page comments.

I don’t own the page. But, given the construction of the history of the page, it is difficult to see how, now that Galassi has begun to revert everything I add or tweak to the page in the last month, I can ever return to that page confident that I have a right to be there. I repeat: his blanket reverting constitutes an effective ban on my presence there. By what authority? and, given that the Khazar story is related on all wiki Ukraine articles, why has Galassi been given permission to evade his ban, and edit here?Nishidani (talk) 12:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• If that's the case, why did you report Galassi here, on ANI where there is no consensus for any action right now, instead of reporting this to WP:AE where you have a significant experience? No, I do not think this subject is actually covered by the Eastern Europe, ARBPIA or Armenia-Azerbaijan. Just to clarify, would editing the Roman Empire be a violation of a topic ban on editing Germany? My very best wishes (talk) 12:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

That's simple. I had absolutely no knowledge of Galassi's Ukraine ban, until a few editors who looked into his background raised this. I don't examine editors's records except when they affect pages I work negatively. I'm a content editor, not an expert on wiki's Kafkian redtape bureaucracy. So far, there has been no consensus to examine the complaint. There is a general trend to ignore this, and focus on me. I was once permabanned for making 8 reverts over several pages in 44 days (2009), seven years ago. The reverts I made then became mandatory policy, as against the 27 reverts made by 2 sockpuppets. Go figure. Bureaucracy. After thast bizarre affaire, I decided only to resort to these oversight forums in emergencies. I don't know why someone who has a solid record for not reverting must be the focus of queries when he has effectively been banned from a page by another editor whose career is basically one of reverting, and reverting me at sight on the page in question.Nishidani (talk) 14:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

That presupposes that editors have not examined the complaint (newsflash, some of us did) and found it lacking. Perhaps you should have linked to the findings where you were found (amongst other issues like incivility, personal attacks and edit warring) to repeatedly make assumptions of bad faith. A behaviour that appears to have continued to this day. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

No editor here has examined point by point the edit problems I raised, Galassi's repeated at sight reverting of any edit I made, regardless of evidence on the talkpage that the prior version had known sourcing defects, and regardless of my requests on the talk page, addressed to him, to explain why he was objecting. I don't know why you bring up 2009. For each of those charges examine the analysis here, my incivility diff related to a joke to an editing friend, which I was suspended for, and the suspension was immediately cancelled; my bad faith related to accusing editors of tagteaming: User:Canadian Monkey and User:NoCal100 here NoCal in this dual role has proved to be one of the most persistent and noxious sockmeisters on Wikipedia. I knew that, the Arbcom people are too overwhelmed by a mass of details to follow these things closely. Bureaucracy.Redtape. Looking at diffs and not context. I didn't whinge: I wore the permaban until I was invited by ARBCOM back. Why you think this incident 7 years ago telling against 7 years of editing without rebuke, is beyong me. Nishidani (talk) 15:11, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• Every comparison you propose -- Germany with Russia, Germany with Rome, etc. -- is in truth incomparable. Unlike your comparisons, Khazaria and Ukrainia have overlapping lands, overlapping histories, and overlapping populations. Ukrainia still includes a large contingent of the Khazaria gene pool. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Discourse 16:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
• Above, you state, "I am not sure because I do not know this subject." I suggest we leave it with that statement. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Discourse 16:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay, this is now complete and utter tripe. Ukraine and the Khazar theory are not related in any way pertinent to a topic ban. Contriving such a fallacy is wikilawyering at its most Machiavellian. If the analogy to Germany and Rome doesn't suit your hypocritical fancy, how about Turkey and the Hittites? The United States and Native Americans? The Khazars have nothing to do with modern Ukraine aside from the circumstance of historical migrations. They did not contribute to the modern culture, language, etc of the Ukrainian people. Case in point the article "Ukraine" mentions Khazars only once in passing, in the same breath as Greece, Rome, and the Byzantine Empire. In conclusion, stop bullying Galassi.--Monochrome_Monitor 18:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Wow. And to really be convincing, an bucket of in-WP:CIVIL-ity. I guess that would win the argument -- if this were Usenet. A person banned from Native American articles would be in violation if found to be editing articles on American history or the Spanish conquest. These bans are designed to help an individual cool off and resume a rational approach to a subject. If an editor gets all itchy and aggressive over Tel Aviv, the Arab city -- and gets topic banned -- we don't let him/er edit an article on Tel Aviv, the Jewish city. And it doesn't matter what languages are involved. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Discourse 19:15, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

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