Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to the incident noticeboard

This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors.

  • Please include diffs to help us find the problem you are reporting.
  • Before posting a grievance about a user here, please consider discussing the issue with them on their user talk page.
  • Do not report issues requiring oversight to this page - email oversight-en-wp@wikimedia.org directly with your concern.

Sections older than 36 hours archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

Shortcuts:

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page.

You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Centralized discussion

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Possible quick violation of i-ban[edit]

Extended debate threw up the following options:

  1. A topic ban - which would end the conflict but deprive the encyclopedia of some high-quality editing;
  2. Zero tolerance of I-ban breaches - with escalating blocks robotically applied. This would also end the conflict, but encourages gaming and is likely see both parties swiftly blocked;
  3. Agreement to stay away - the parties agreeing to divide articles up and each keep to their own as suggested in this thread;
  4. Mediation - ideally by someone with the NJ knowledge and interest sufficient to follow these sets of edits through at some length;
  5. Refer to Arbcom - which really just kicks the whole thing down the road for something that should be able to be resolved here;
  6. Do nothing - the potentially unworkable default state.

No option garnered many supporters. However option 2 is presently closest to having community endorsement as an implied outcome from the previous I-ban discussion. So, FWIW outcomes from this entirely unsatisfactory debate:

  • No consensus in this thread for any modification of existing sanctions
  • Final warning to Alansohn and Magnolia677 that absent any further community decision the I-ban will now be strictly enforced and blocks applied for any breaches, including of the "intervening edit" rule and/or any interaction or reference to each other on talkpages;
  • Suggestion that future ANI reports on this topic seek a specific !vote on one or more of the above options, to better gauge community views.

The above is not a great outcome, but its what we have at the end of this thread. Happy to discuss, ideally on my talkpage. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Restored from archive for closure. BMK (talk) 03:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Restored from archive for closure again. Someone please close this. John Carter (talk) 17:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

With this edit only a few days ago an i-ban was placed between User:Alansohn and User:Magnolia677, and I offered some advice to the latter party. I have recently received this message, only two days after the i-ban was put in place, regarding how the former party has behaved since the ban, which can be found in the second diff I have provided here, as well as information regarding the comments made since the ban was enacted at User talk:Alansohn#Magnolia by Alansohn, particularly the comments made here. It seems to me that Alansohn has rather obviously violated the i-ban, and also perhaps behaved in a way rather obviously attempting to GAME the ruling. I request review by uninvolved administrators, blocks if they deem it required, and, if possible, some input from administrators for Magnolia677 regarding how he should react to the recent developments. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 22:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The ink isn't even dry yet and that's twice this IBAN has come back to ANI. Perhaps the two need to be just plain topic banned from all articles relating to New Jersey. Blackmane (talk) 02:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
The previous report, filed about 24 hours ago, is above here.
I'm done with these two. The next time someone proposes topic bans or site bans for both of them, I'll be voting in favor. I don't know about the community, but they've both certainly exhausted my patience. BMK (talk) 03:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • It's pretty clear that only one person has violated the topic ban, and that's Alansohn. He's violated the article editing restrictions multiple times, as shown in the previous thread, as well as leaving a screechy tirade of personal abuse against Magnolia on his talk page. Although I initially agreed with the substance of Alansohn's article edits, and Magnolia wasn't exactly blameless, it's pretty clear which of the two is primarily responsible for prolonging this dispute. And that ain't Magnolia. I support a block of a few days to put a stop to the disruption. Reyk YO! 09:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment(non admin observation) The post by Alansohn is against the iban imho and is bad. With no surprise at this point, assumes bad faith on the part of another editor. I support a block of a short duration for Alansohn to impress on them the importance of keeping the iban, and to put an end to the conflict, at least for a short time. Warnings have apparently not done much good after the iban was put in place. The disruption this conflict is causing is rather sad. As for Magnolia677, I see less of a problem. He is simply asking for advice from an experienced editor on how to deal with a bad situation, but it would have been better to ask an uninvolved admin. AlbinoFerret 12:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I am striking my comment for a short ban. The section he started below with WP:OWN arguments shows that a short block may not be enough to stop this ongoing problem. A block of at least a month, and perhaps three if not more is probably better. AlbinoFerret 05:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support block on Alansohn - I have strick out my emotionally-based "a pox on both their houses" comment above, and after looking more closely, I believe that Alansohn has now violated the I-ban sufficiently -- after being warned for an initial incident -- to receive an appropriate short block - short, since the editor's last block weas in 2009. BMK (talk) 16:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support longer block on Alansohn. Not necessarily long, but it is more than worth noting that although he hasn't been blocked for some time, it seems that part of that may have been because people didn't want to block a productive editor. His conduct has, however, been one of the more frequently discussed topics on the noticeboards, and there is more than sufficient cause to believe that he has maybe at best narrowly avoided being sanctioned repeatedly. So, while I do not necessarily believe he should be subjective to what might arbitrarily be called a "long" block, his pattern of conduct is such that I think a "short" one will be insufficient to prevent further misconduct once the block is lifted. John Carter (talk) 17:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

See my response below, with specific explanations and documentation showing that the problem here is with deliberate violations of the interaction ban and wikhounding by the other editor. Alansohn (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

No, the problem is your abusive commentary on an individual whom you have been banned about directly or indirectly interacting with or discussing at all. The fact that your commentary would probably qualify as a violation of conduct guidelines even if you weren't in rather obvious violation of the interaction ban makes it just that much worse. John Carter (talk) 17:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Persistent violation of IBAN and malicious stalking[edit]

User:Magnolia677 has been deliberately stalking my edits, in violation of the interaction ban and in rather clear violation of WP:HARASS. Let's look att the edits in question, which can be followed at this link of a number of articles for census designated places in New Jersey, all of which I've edited and most of which I created:

After I had started editing a sequence of articles, and described exactly what I was doing here at ANI, the other editor magically started editing three articles just down the same list -- Robbinsville CDP and Seabrook Farms -- and then suddenly edited Zarephath as I moved down the list. These actions appear to me as the deliberate and intended result by the other editor of manufacturing a phony violation of the interaction ban.

Above at ANI, I described how I took every precaution to look through the articles I would be editing to avoid conflict, both in the letter and spirit of the interaction ban. This does not appear to be the case with the other editor, and so I lay out these specific claims:

  • Charge 1: The editor in question has failed to comply with the IBAN clause 4 guaranteeing "wide berth" and appears to have acted in deliberate bad faith to manufacture potential violations of the IBAN by purposefully editing articles on the List of census-designated places in New Jersey just an article or two ahead in alphabetical order, all of which I had edited previously or created and all of which he had never edited before.
  • Charge 2: The editor in question has repeatedly stalked my edits in violation Wikipedia's Harassment Policy, which states at WP:HOUND that "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. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia." as evidenced by announcing a talk page discussion in which I was one of two involved parties and in editing the articles for Robbinsville CDP, Seabrook Farms and Zarephath which he acknowledges he knew I would be editing in alphabetic order.

Am I angry about this; You bet I am. My goal remains to avoid conflict here and my rather clear perception based on the evidence is that the other editor is trying to create conflict, provoke a response and obtain a negative reaction from me. Sadly, I have fallen for his bait and I accept responsibility for allowing my anger and frustration at this ongoing abuse to get the better of me.

I'll ask someone uninvolved to provide the necessary ANI notification to the other editor. My sole goal is to see this end and to be allowed to edit articles in peace, and be given "wide berth" as mandated by the ban. Alansohn (talk) 17:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Move to close subthread as one of the more frankly ridiculous and transparent attempts at misdirection I have seen for some time. It is worth noting that this originally separate thread was first posted several long hours after the above editor was given his notification of the thread above, but started as a separate thread, for no readily apparent reason. The fact that he chose to do so, at least to my eyes, unfortunately, reflects only on him, not on the conduct of others, and, unfortunately, reflects very, very poorly on him. John Carter (talk) 17:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Just for transparency's sake, I moved the thread up here, since it never should have been opened as a new thread. BMK (talk) 18:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Since this initial thread was opened, I have been tied up in my real life with a series of meetings and other issues related to my personal medical history. I've done no other editing and this was my first opportunity to edit. I appreciate the bad faith assumptions you have made, offering no evidence other than your supposition. Why not take a look at the evidence and address it? It goes a long way to demonstrating, with diffs, the underlying cause of the problems here. Deal with his claims and deal with mine separately or together, but the claim that they should be ignored because I didn't post them soon enough is utterly unfair and demeans the entire process here. Alansohn (talk) 18:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
There is no bad faith in my statement, although there is rather obvious bad faith in your own. If you are saying that you haven't had a chance to see the comment I made on your user talk page before posting this scree here, I think that few if any reasonable people would find the "co-incidence" of your, entirely on your own, starting a separate thread on the same page as the one I indicated had already been opened on this same page incredible in the extreme. And the obvious assumption of bad faith in your statement that your comments might be someone had made a "claim" that your comments here should be "ignored" frankly just compounds the existing questions regarding your credibility. Unfortunately. John Carter (talk) 18:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
JC, I get it. In addition to being prosecutor-in-chief, you're also judge, jury and executioner. You've made up your mind a while ago, but maybe other editors might be willing to overlook your prejudgement and consider the actual diffs provided as evidence. Alansohn (talk) 18:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Noting that Alan continues to engage in his persistent habit of engaging in insult and derogation of anyone who disagrees with him. Noting that he continues to engage in denial of his own misconduct, or apparently attempting to assert that his misconduct is in some way acceptable under the circumstances. Noting his continuing to ignore the fact that the first comment here was posted several hours after the ANI notice on his user talk page, and that he has refused to address the fact that his starting a separate thread several long hours after being notified of the discussion above, apparently indicating he was somehow unaware of the previous thread. Also noting that the claim for "medical issues" is an apparently new one, which might in some cases be acceptable, were not the long-standing, seemingly regular, derogation of anyone who disagrees with him were not as obvious as his history on the noticeboards is. It might, however, be seen as a possible indicator of regular or ongoing medical issues of some sort. If that is true, he might well deserve our sympathy, but it is not in any way a justification for his own long-standing history of at best dubious conduct. John Carter (talk) 19:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I acknowledge my actions, but point out that I was rather brazenly provoked here. The diffs provided here establish the necessary context. Are you going to evaluate the diffs or just ignore them? Maybe we can get an explanation from the other editor for the edits in question. Alansohn (talk) 19:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment(non admin observation)This section should be closed. It is a prime example of ABF. The very act of editing now seems to be a problem to this editor, and only he is allowed to edit articles about places in New Jersey. The other editor is supposed to know that articles in the subject area are off limits because Alansohn plans on editing them soon. That screams of WP:OWN issues. AlbinoFerret 19:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
    • No. There are tens of thousands of articles in New Jersey, none of which I own. The other editor stated above that he knew that I was editing articles from the List of census-designated places in New Jersey using AWB, which lists them in alphabetical order. We are supposed to believe that the other editor had never edited articles for Robbinsville CDP or Seabrook Farms or Zarephath, but magically chose by pure coincidence to edit these three articles from that list. The diffs show that the other editor read down the list and deliberately edited articles in that same sequence in blatant violation of this IBAN and in violation of WP:HARASS. Just yesterday, he told JC that "The other party spent the day editing hundreds of New Jersey articles in alpha order, leaving his name as the last editor. When a few of my edits interfered..." His edits didn't just passively interfere, there was what appears to me to be active and deliberate interference here, violations of the IBAN and of WP:HARASS. Anyone want to look at the diffs? Any explanation from the other side for these edits? Alansohn (talk) 20:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
No, what the diffs show is that he did not edit articles you have. There is no proof of why or how he selected those articles. If he uses the same software, when he went to edit some articles from a software generated list, then noticed that you have edited some articles by looking at the histories first ( a good idea if your not supposed to follow another editor), and went further down a list to edit articles you have not, he is following the iban. You cant place articles on some kind of "Im going to edit some articles so you cant list". No one owns the articles, everyone is free to edit any article on WP. What the ban states is that neither of you can edit after the other until a third editor has edited it. This section reeks of WP:AGF and WP:OWN issues. Perhaps a Boomerang should hit you for starting it. AlbinoFerret 21:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Wrong again. The IBAN specifies giving "wide berth" and forbids manufacturing confrontations. WP:HARASS prohibits following another editor from page to page to stalk his edits. The best case is that the editor in question is rather deliberately gaming the system. He does not use AWB, and the evidence here, based on his own remarks, is that he did exactly what you ascribe, deliberately anticipating an edit to provoke a violation. If this is "wide berth" this IBAN is completely useless. No editor should have to put with this kind of stalking. Have you ever used AWB before? Alansohn (talk) 21:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Your whole argument above is that somehow by editing articles you haven't he is creating confrontations. You seem incapable of recognizing that there would be no confrontation in such cases unless you were yourself to start it after his edits. This apparent flaw in your reasoning regarding this matter once again seems to raise the repeatedly referenced WP:OWN problem you have regarding the content in question. You do not now, and never have had, the "right" to edit everything. If someone else has edited articles you intended to get to, and by so doing, reduced your possibility of editing it immediately, well, too damn bad for you. I'd love to create the Jesus article among others myself now, but, well, it's no longer an option for me. No rational person would say that by not attempting to avoid articles you haven't "gotten to" yet, particularly as you have no implicit right to "get to" all articles, is somehow manufacturing a confrontation. He is simply abiding by the terms of the i-ban by editing articles in the field that he you have not yet edited. You would be as well if you were to avoid the articles he has edited. The only way there would be a confrontation would be if you started it after his edits, and there is nowhere in wikipedia an explicit or implicit statement that Alansohn has the unrestricted right to edit every last page in a given topic area. To even attempt to argue such a point raises I believe serious questions of an unfortunate nature about the person making such arguments. It basically seems to be an attempt to argue that, by editing articles you haven't, he is misbehaving because your ability to edit everything is the top priority. It isn't, and you should realize that. John Carter (talk) 21:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Before I started, I looked through the entire List of census-designated places in New Jersey and removed from the list every article that the other editor had edited in the past 30 days; I missed a few edits from 2014, but I made a rather deliberate effort to remove the articles and the edit history shows it. He, while subject to an interaction ban, deliberately looked ahead at the list and edited the same articles to manufacture a confrontation, but it's my fault? He edited Robbinsville CDP, which was just two articles ahead of where I was editing on the list. That's fucked up. If you were driving on the highway and someone jumped in front of your car, you wouldn't be responsible; he would. Someone who is deliberately manufacturing confrontations, editing articles because he knows that I might not notice that he had edited after I started a process is violating the interaction ban and is deliberately stalking my edits. I don't "realize that" it's my fault because he is the one going out of his way to stalk my edits. "Wide berth", my ass. He's deliberately creating conflicts here. Alansohn (talk) 22:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps you will care to explain why you havent given the topic area a wide berth, but expect another editor to. Looking at your contribs you appear to be a WP:SPA that only edits New Jersey articles. AlbinoFerret 22:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I regularly edit about 5,000 to 10,000 different articles, including writing about 2,000 new articles and 800 DYKs, and I'm an SPA with a few hundred thousand edits. Do you expect me to edit articles at random now? "Wide berth" means endeavoring to avoid each other, not avoiding editing articles in the state. With that in mind before I started using AWB on Saturday evening, I looked at List of census-designated places in New Jersey and checked for all recent edits over the past 30 days generating this list. I removed from the AWB list all articles that the other editor had edited, including Manahawkin, New Egypt, Lopatcong Overlook, Marlton and Cherry Hill Mall. Take a look at my edit history and I didn't touch those articles. That's "wide berth", which Wiktionary defines as "considerable or comfortable distance from a person or object, especially for safety or deliberate avoidance." Every once in a while, I checked to see if the other editor had made any new edits to articles that might be on the list. While I was doing that, the other editor ran down that same list and jumped about two or three articles in front of my edits on that list. I worked to stay out of the way; He worked to jump in and create a confrontation. That's not "wide berth"; when it's deliberate, that's an IBAN violation, that's stalking, by definition. Let's hear from the other editor what his intentions were here. Alansohn (talk) 22:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Just because you edit a bunch of articles dose not mean that you are not editing in "one very narrow area", articles on places in New Jersey. Imho it has caused some of the problem, along with WP:OWN issues. If your not going to go to another area, its not really a wide berth. You knew what the focus of the other editor is, cities in the US, yet you decided to create a list of cities. Exactly how wide a berth is that again? AlbinoFerret 14:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I've created and edited articles for tens of thousands of articles for people, places, schools, school districts, museums and events around the world, including around 900 WP:DYK articles. My counterpart has a rather unhealthy obsession with cities in the US, a rather limited focus. The last DYK article I created, for Battin High School, is a school that closed a few decades ago, yet my counterpart was stalking the article just hours after its creation with repeated edits to an article well outside his narrow topic of interest, even after warnings about his stalking (see here). Since then he's stalked me to Scotch Plains, and now with the Iban in place he's apparently rather creepily working diligently to figure out which articles I'm editing and then jumping ahead on the list to manufacture a confrontation. I've gone out of his way to stay out of his way; He's gone out of his way to stalk and harass my edits. Whether it's a place I'm editing or a school, he's done anything but exercise any definition of "wide berth". With him persistently stalking me to articles of any kind, be it place or school, I'm not sure what is unclear about the concept of maintaining "considerable or comfortable distance from a person or object". Even after rather clear warnings of wkistalking, made at both articles, he's persisted with the harassment. These edits violate the IBAN and clearly violate WP:HOUND and its prohibition on "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." I don't know what on earth I can do when an editor works to stalk my edits wherever I go. Alansohn (talk) 03:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
If I understand the evidence correctly, you're essentially accusing him of pre-stalking you, going where you intend to go before you actually go there. I don't think there's anything in the IBan that covers him apparently reading your mind. Why don't the both of you post on each other's talk page a polite short list of articles you intend to get to in, let's say, the next week. Then you can avoid the articles on his list, and he can avoid the articles on yours. (And I mean literally "short" and a list of articles, not categories or types of articles.) Once the week is up, and you've managed to avoid each other, do it again for another week. Rinse and repeat. BMK (talk) 04:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Pretty sure WP:AN/MINORITYREPORT isn't a blue link. Blackmane (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

If someone regularly follows his victim from place to place, showing up each time after the victim arrived at the bakery, the bank and the bowling alley, we'd all call that stalking. If someone studies his victim's habits, and shows up at the bakery, the bank and the bowling alley 20 minutes *before* the victim arrived, that would be an even more demented version of stalking. No sane person would blame the victim for showing up *after* the stalker; any rational individual would see an even bigger ick factor of a creep who is so preoccupied with his victim to go to such lengths. What BMK calls "pre-stalking" is far worse than merely following someone around; it demonstrates a level of obsession and harassment far above what is acceptable.

The other party has usually stalked me in the traditional, creepy version, at Battin High School (a brand-new article) and again at the same article, but also at Scotch Plains, with some more stalking at the same article. Far worse, he's gone out of his way to study what I'm editing and then jumped ahead on the list. This isn't a case of "apparently reading [my] mind", this is stalker who sat down, reviewed my edits and saw that I was editing the List of census-designated places in New Jersey. This isn't my supposition; In this talk page edit he describes how "The other party spent the day editing hundreds of New Jersey articles in alpha order, leaving his name as the last editor. When a few of my edits interfered...." He knew what I was doing and deliberately edited Robbinsville CDP, just 15 minutes before I would get there, followed on that list minutes later by Seabrook Farms and Zarephath.

Be it Battin High School and Scotch Plains or be it Robbinsville CDP, Seabrook Farms or Zarephath, he had *NEVER* edited any of those articles before. The only way he would come across those is to deliberately stalk my edits, either imposing his changes on articles I had just edited, or -- even more disturbingly and downright fucked up -- looking at my edits, checking the list and jumping a few minutes ahead to deliberately manufacture a violation of the Interaction Ban.

In real life, a stalker who persistently follows his victim after being warned would be given a restraining order. Someone who starts stalking his victim after a restraining order has been issued, and then starts showing up in advance after guessing the victim's next steps, would be tossed in jail. Whether you look at our definitions of Stalking or read WP:HARRASS or you look at the IBan clause 4 re "wide berth", we are each obligated to make our best efforts to stay out of each other's way. I've tried my best, as described above, to avoid even touching anything he has touched. The other editor has been persistently stalking my edits, at articles he has never edited that aren't on his watch list, and now resorts to maliciously looking ahead to jump a few articles ahead on a list. In Wikipedia, we have ways to deal with this kind of messed up behavior, and a block combined with a meaningful interaction / topic ban are needed, above and beyond the present IBAN that he has been gaming from day one. Alternatively, an apology by the other party, combined with a genuine commitment to avoid further stalking may be a legitimate alternative before taking further action. Alansohn (talk) 17:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

A lot of words, but what it still comes down to that you want first dibs on articles on places in New Jersey, and expect Magnolia677 to back away entirely from that subject area, on the mere possibility that you will edit an article within in. Unfortunately, that was not part of the IBan, which set up specific rules for editing in the same subject area: i.e. whoever edited an article first, the other editor couldn't revert their edits until a third party had edited articles first. There was a clear mechanism for complaints about the contents of the others edits, if it was felt that they were wrong or harmful to the article, but there was and is nothing in the IBan which forbids either of you from editing in the same subject area, and certainly nothing that requires the other editor to read your mind. I made a suggestion that you both post a short list of srticles which you intent to edit, and you (both) ignored that. You have instead returned to making the same basic complaint. Unfortunately, by acting on what you want to be the case about the IBan, you have actually broken the real, specific conditions of the ban yourself -- which is why all uninvolved commenters who have expressed an opinion have suggested that you should receive a block for your behavior. BMK (talk) 22:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Looking into the future[edit]

For an interaction ban to work, both parties have to want it to work. They both have to dial down their sensitivities, they both have to turn a blind eye to perceived slights from the other party, and they both have to make an effort to stay out of the way of the other, especially immediately after a ban is put in place, by going to different parts of Wikipedia which the other doesn't frequent, and editing there until things cool down sufficiently for them to, perhaps, edit in the same area without getting on each other's nerves. Frankly, I haven't see that behavior from either of these parties, hence my initial "a pox on both their houses" comment above.
It may well be that these two editors are just not capable of fulfilling the requirements of an interaction ban, that the community may have to force them to disengage with mutual topic bans, and then with mutual site bans -- but neither editor appears to take these possibilities seriously. It is true that in this particular instance, Alansohn appears to be at fault, and it is true that in the last instance before the IBan was put in place most editors (not including myself) thought that Magnolia677 was in the wrong, at least technically, but in reality, neither has behaved like two editors who want to disengage would behave. They are each still trying to pin blame on the other, only now it's for violating the IBan instead of other perceived problems.
I think that however the community deals with this particular instance, it needs to start thinking about where the line is across which topic and site bans are warranted. It may not be now, since the IBan has just been put in place, but my evaluation of the behavior and attitudes of both the editors leads me to believe that the line, wherever it is, will be crossed at some point, perhaps even soon. BMK (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I believe that there is a lot of possible, if unfortunate, truth to this statement. I would prefer to avoid site bans in the cases of both individuals, and tend to think that perhaps some sort of mutual topic ban from New Jersey might be sufficient. That might also include putting at least some of the NJ-related content under discretionary sanctions, because there may well be a chance that the content might suffer if the scrutiny the material receives from these two individuals were removed. I am not in any way proposing anything here, I want it understood, just expressing some personal, possibly poorly-founded, opinions. John Carter (talk) 18:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree with John, this is very well-stated, BMK. I-bans aren't created as a way of drawing a line in the sand, in order to catch the other person crossing said line. If the two editors really want to abide by the I-ban, you need to ignore each other, not focus your efforts on where the other person might have violated the letter of the ban. It seems like the I-ban has only increased the conflict brought to AN/I, not decreased it and so admins might eventually seek stronger solutions. I think it would be a loss for Wikipedia if you received topic bans for New Jersey articles but it might come to that. Liz Read! Talk! 18:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I have to agree. Alansohn I know to be a passionate supporter of the concept of free knowledge and a Wikipedian of the old school. He pretty much drove the de facto acceptance that every high school is "inherently notable" in the notorious school wars, years back. He did this because he believed it to be right, not just correct. I have a lot of respect for his patience, persistence, ethics and commitment. I really wish the two of them could just disengage. It is a very sad state of affairs.
Looking into Magnolia's edits, I am drawn to much the same conclusion that Alansohn presents above. If Magnolia can't show a long-standing interest in this subject area, then I suggest a block for at least 48 hours for gaming the system. Guy (Help!) 22:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Looking at this I think he's just trying to work through the US Cities stuff he has been working on all over the 'pedia. He saw a chance to make the edit on those two particular articles and did it without drama. I think the problem is Alansohn is so prolific in his edits it may be hard to work on certain articles without interacting with each other. 24.236.232.136 (talk) 22:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Looking at Alan's rant, I think he's perturbed as he is committed to the project and working in the area he works in; however, it was uncalled for and should not have been done per the IBAN. I think M77 was doing his thing independently (USCITIES stuff), Alan was doing his stuff, and there was a little overlap. Alan should be waiting like M77 does until there is an intervening edit to make his edits. That's how most others seem to deal with their IBAN and it seems to work with little to no issue. 24.236.232.136 (talk) 22:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
(e-c) Tend to agree with the IP, somewhat to my surprise, 'coz I generally have reservations about IP at the noticeboards. But Magnolia's subject area of interest does seem to be US cities, apparently including NJ cities, while Alansohn's is New Jersey, including New Jersey cities. If a way were found to restrict the head to head editing in the overlap somehow, that would probably work, but how would one do it fairly, and also take into account that both seem to (presumably) have some sort of knowledge or expertise in their particular topic area, and that the articles in the area of intersection would, frankly, probably be best if both of them could work on it without problems? Both could, presumably, leave the area of intersection alone, and, I dunno, maybe some sort of "month off, month on" approach might work. So, that might allow Magnolia to edit other cities articles for a month, while Alansohn does NJ cities, and then ask Alansohn to edit other areas of NJ content, while Magnolia edits the NJ cities. Maybe. Sounds ridiculous, though, doesn't it? John Carter (talk) 22:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. They clearly contribute well but put them together is similar to elemental sodium and water together. Topic banning them from something they are clearly good at individually would be a net loss. How about Odd days/Even days? Uncommon solutions are rarely tolerated and rarely work but it may in this case. And to address the IP issue, I edited long ago and lost the passion as I found myself perusing the drama boards more than editing and I realized I was here for the wrong reasons. Instead of becoming part of the peanut gallery here I decided to leave and just edit anonymously whenever I feel the urge and avoid the drama boards mostly. 24.236.232.136 (talk) 23:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
No problem about the IP address - I was just being a smartass, which is an unfortunate tendency I have to make some sort of attempt to control one of these days. John Carter (talk) 23:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Someone want to wrap this up somehow?[edit]

The thread seems to have been inactive for a while now, and I think that there is enough of an indicator that there should be at least some form of action taken upon it. So, before it gets archived, would some admin either want to review it and do whatever is required, or, alternately, offer an !opinion as to how to resolve it? John Carter (talk) 19:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Two things I think bear repeating, since this discussion is a bit fractured. The first is that several editors have now throroughly debunked Alansohn's complaint about Magnolia677 "stalking" him. (Pre-stalking, really, since Alansohn expects Magnolia677 to avoid editing articles that Alansohn intends to edit.)
The other is that all uninvolved editors who have expressed an opinion about sanctions based on these reported incidents have recommended a block for Alansohn. (It's a long, convoluted thread, so if I missed someone who thinks that Magnolia677 should be blocked, my apologies, and please say so here.) BMK (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
This was archived, but as the first serious incident in a brand-new interaction ban (the previous incident having been written off as a probable accident), it really should be closed by an uninvolved admin. BMK (talk) 03:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
The thread has been quiet for around 5 days. If there's been no recent disruption then it sounds like a block isn't really preventive. That said, my eyes glazed over. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 05:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, you can think of it that way, but I can practically guarantee that if something isn't done by way of a sanction, or at the very least a final warning, this issue will appear again, and soon.
As for MEGO, yes, I totally agree. Walls of text seem to be the communications methodology of choice of both subjects of the IBan. BMK (talk) 06:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • To prevent that, why don't we have both of them now, on this page, come to some very specific (not vague like "wide berth") mutual agreement of their own devising that will have a zero-tolerance of exception to. In other words, if either of them demonstrably violates whatever the agreement is, even once, they will receive a block of X amount of time. It's time both of these individuals started taking responsibility for their actions and for the solution to the problem, instead of dragging the whole thing through endless discussions on ANI. I think the only way for them to do that is for them to figure out the plan and the consequence, and set it in stone. Right here, in a neutral centralized place. The other option being either a TBAN for both of them on NJ articles, or Arbcom. Softlavender (talk) 09:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
@@Softlavender: Good idea. Why don't you suggest this on both of their talk pages? BMK (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I don't think it's my place to post on their talk pages, but perhaps John Carter would like to, or another neutral but knowledgeable person. And we can ping Alansohn and Magnolia677, as I did just there, if pings are working properly. I'd rather someone else curate the convocation and agreement, as I have no understanding of the details (other than observing the length and repetitiveness of the situation on ANI). Softlavender (talk) 21:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
A neutral mediator would be good, but it can't be me, I know I'm not on good terms with one of the two, and I'm not sure how the other is feeling about me at this point. Medeis negotiated the IBan, but that's what seems not be working -- or maybe it is, and the fact that we haven't heard from other editor in the last few days is an indication of that. I do know that I, personally, have no intention of rescuing this thread from the archive again if it's archived for a second time without being closed. BMK (talk) 23:46, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
My personal desire is never to see this issue come up on ANI again. How can we effect that, or create a proposal for the community !vote on, to effect that? I believe we probably do need a mediator to help the two of them establish the zero-tolerance ground rules, here on this neutral public space. If they are adults and acting in good faith, they can establish ground rules, in my opinion. And I do believe that, as stringent as it may be, the only other way to prevent this issue coming up at ANI again, short of a workable and very specific agreement between them, is NJ topic bans for both, or ArbCom if it ever even verges onto ANI again. ArbCom deals with things the community cannot or has not been able to handle, and thus far it seems like the whole dialogue is always so incredibly lengthy no one wants to get involved to decipher it. Can you think of a next step? Or a proposal to headline? All I know is, I'm developing a zero-tolerance for this ever showing up here again, and if it does, I personally (if I see it) will propose a NJ topic ban for both. Softlavender (talk) 00:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I think I'm neutral (I'm basically unfamiliar with the editing habits of both Alansohn and Magnolia) but I do agree with Alansohn's analysis that if Alansohn is editing with a predictable pattern and Magnolia is using the pattern to anticipate Alansohn's edits and interfere with them on purpose, that constitutes gaming. I haven't examined the article histories myself, so I won't take a stance for now about whether such anticipation and gaming has actually happened. Magnolia, if you were doing that, it's not good faith editing so please stop. Magnolia's complaint on the other hand was that Alansohn was editing such large numbers of articles as to leave a "footprint" almost everywhere. Alansohn, would it work for you to slow down some, e.g. don't edit more than 50 articles a day? Magnolia could have a similar speed limit.

I unfortunately have too limited availability to be able to mediate this (I'm away a lot of the time). My take on the existing agreement is that it's so legalistically written that it almost asks to be gamed. The only thing missing was "Hear ye, hear ye" at the beginning. Alansohn and Magnolia, could the two of you just divvy up the articles somehow? E.g. Alansohn edits NJ articles from A to M and Magnolia gets N to Z, then switch after a while? Or Magnolia stays away from direct edits on NJ articles (talk page suggestions are fine) and Alansohn stays away from some other state(s) nominated by Magnolia? Does anyone understand the nature of the conflict between Alansohn and Magnolia in individual articles (maybe it's somewhere up there in the tl;dr)? I think that info is needed to get a sense of what kinds of agreements can work. Anyone mediating will have to spend a while looking at older disputes and examining diffs. But the basic idea is reasonable. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 00:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

1) Zero-tolerance anything generally doesn't work on Wikipedia, especially when there's a lot of room for gaming. 2) If Alansohn is focusing mostly on NJ while Magnolia is working on all 50 states, why topic ban both from NJ? That stops almost all of Alansohn's editing but only 2% of Magnolia's. Unless I'm missing something we might do better to restrict Magnolia from NJ and Alansohn from the other 49 states or some subset of them. I guess either proposal would require some diff-counting to see how equitible it was. But I think it's better to figure out the root of the conflict if that's possible. Alansohn and Magnolia, could you each name one specific article where you think your disagreement was especially bad before the IBAN, and give your side of what happened in it, with diffs? Maybe we need an arbcom-style presentation, either on an ANI sub-page or by the actual arbcom. Or is there still such a thing as the mediation committee? It looks like MEDCAB is dead. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 00:57, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Tolerance hasn't worked, and has only gotten us these 200,000-byte ANI threads. My zero-tolerance plan (see up above [1]) is for them personally to establish a very specific agreed-upon protocol in which if either of them provably deviates even once, they receive a block (say 24 hours for the first instance). If they both agree, and the plan is very specific, I don't see how that is gameable or unfair. And in terms of mediator, I mean an admin, not an IP; and the agreement should include at least one or two very specific admins to whom either can turn if the pact is transgressed and who will institute the agreed-upon block. (By the way, comments by Liz and BMK below are noted, thank you.) Softlavender (talk) 06:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
It might be a sign of progress that neither Alansohn or Magnolia have returned to discuss this issue so they very well might have gotten over it all. There is no sense in imposing bans and blocks if there is no longer any problem. Liz Read! Talk! 01:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I think this part of the discussion has been worthwhile, and not that I don't agree with Softlavender that I would be happy not to see the problem arise here again, but I think at this point I'm with Liz and 50.0's earlier comment. Maybe it's best to wait and see if they've somehow fallen into a functional pattern of editing both can live with. I'd be interested in hearing what @John Carter: thinks. BMK (talk) 02:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I think that I've been clear as to the issue here; I want to be able to edit in peace without having this editor riding my ass out of what appears to be nothing more than spite. Whether before, during or after the implementation of this interaction ban, the other editor seems to be persistently stalking my edits as part of a consistent pattern of harassment. There are multiple examples in the recent past of this deliberate stalking / harassment at articles he has never edited before and which would never appear on his watchlist, such as at Battin High School, Scotch Plains, Robbinsville (CDP) and Seabrook Farms. I have worked over the past few months since he started editing these articles and creating conflicts to stay out of his way, to provide warnings when he appears to be engaging in harassment and to provide the "wide berth" required by the interaction ban; I haven't seen any corresponding effort by the other editor. We've heard BMK, JC and other editor's versions of his story, but without hearing directly from the editor in question with explanations for his recent edits and his plans to avoid further conflicts over the next 360-odd days left in this interaction ban, it's hard to make any substantive suggestions to tighten or modify this Iban. Alansohn (talk) 17:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

In response to BMK above, I think Alansohn's last comment above has to be weighed in, and I regret to say that what I see in it tends to indicate that at least Alansohn is exhibiting the same problems that he did earlier in his opinions, which leads me to think that the behavior is likely to return to form unless something is done to change that. John Carter (talk) 19:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm afraid that you're right, but I'm also afraid that my patience to deal with this issue is very low at this point. BMK (talk) 00:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Believe me, I understand. I just hope someone else closes it, taking into account everything said here. John Carter (talk) 00:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I just had a little laugh after seeing again the overall title of this thread: "Possible quick violation of i-ban." Well, the violation may have been quick, but the resolution certainly hasn't been.
At this point, I doubt that many admins are even going to consider diving into such a deep pool of words, claims and counter-claims. I thought we were on the track to at least starting to clear things up with Medeis' IBan (which, any admin reading this, is still logged, and still remains in effect), but I guess that was an illusion. It's been said many times before that AN/I is not well suited for dealing with complex issues, and my feeling now is that this is going to have to end up at ArbCom before all is said and done. BMK (talk) 04:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I've seen childish WP:POINTy edits before, but this edit where the editor in question added an entry to the list of notables in the article for Trenton, New Jersey adding "Chris Christie, as governor, he is closely associated with the state capitol city." I'm not quite sure how I provoked this disruptive edit. It's this kind of bad faith edit at an article this editor has never edited before, that demonstrates the nature of the problem. I too am afraid that my patience to deal with this issue is very low at this point if the other editor is unwilling to edit like a mature adult. Alansohn (talk) 01:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

  • I'm willing to see this closed, if we can't get the two of them together here to agreeably work out a detailed deal without casting aspersions and making accusations -- on the understanding that if it comes to ANI again (from either side), a proposal for a NJ topic ban for both of them, of whatever length, is likely going to ensue; or ArbCom. Cheers, Softlavender (talk) 04:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • It's not clear to me, at first glance, what is so childish and disruptive about that edit. If Bill Clinton is listed as a notable person from Little Rock, Arkansas because he was governor, why should Christie not be listed as a notable person from Trenton, New Jersey? Or is it just that you don't like Magnolia677, so every edit they make to your area of interest is automatically disruptive? Reyk YO! 06:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
That is an easy one to answer, and if you do not know the answer, a little research would tell you the answer. Clinton lived in Little Rock before he was governor, that is why his presidential library is there. Christie has an office in Trenton as governor, but the official governor's mansion is in Princeton, New Jersey. If we are going to add every politician and civil servant associated with state capitols, that has a Wikipedia article, the list is going to be long. We have governors, state assembly members and both state and federal judges, as well as notable civil servants. We generally do not list people based on where they work, but where they have their residence. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I'm no expert on American politics and took it for granted that a governor's residence would be in the state capital. One has to wonder why, instead of a civil and polite explanation like yours of why an edit is erroneous, Alansohn has to scream and make personal attacks. Reyk YO! 08:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
If we are going to add every politician and civil servant associated with state capitols. We aren't talking about "every politician and civil servant" -- we are talking about state governors [notable residents by definition]. The list is for "People who were born in, residents of, or otherwise closely associated with Trenton". Christie has been governor of the state since 2010, and has been hugely in national and international news as NJ governor because of Hurricane Sandy, etc. Additionally, his firm had an office in Trenton since 1999. I'm not seeing why Christie would not be one of "People who were born in, residents of, or otherwise closely associated with Trenton". Beyond that, even if someone were for some reason to disagree with that quite rightful-by-definition addition, to call the addition "childish" "POINTy", "disruptive", "bad faith" and "unwilling to edit like a mature adult", after being asked to come here and resolve matters, pretty much speaks for itself. Softlavender (talk) 08:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Additional note/question: There seems universal agreement on this thread, by those auto-confirmed editors that have investigated the matter (four uninvolved editors here), that Alansohn is the disruptive and/or gaming party. Rather than demonstrating an interest in resolving the matter, immediately above he posted an aspersion. Up above in the thread there was support for a block of Alansohn; but it didn't get put into an organized subtitled proposal, so various lengthy intervening discussions have ensued. My question is, should we: (1) Make a subthread now titled "Proposal: Block of Alansohn"? or (2) Let this thread be closed with a warning that if it comes up again, either ArbCom or a NJ topic-ban will ensue? Softlavender (talk) 07:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't agree that it is all Alansohn's fault so there isn't universal agreement. And it's hard to resolve this dispute as long as Magnolia677 stays away and doesn't help address the problems. I do agree that this case should be closed and next time the participants appear at ANI, a topic ban is proposed at the beginning of the discussion, before the conversation has grown cold. Liz Read! Talk! 12:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Isn't it the point for M77 to disengage as much as possible in order to not interact? 129.9.75.247 (talk) 18:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Agree that part of the IBAN is for the two editors not to use each other's names, etc. At the very least, when asked (or at least pinged, assuming pings are working and that they are checking this thread) to come resolve the matter and hammer out an agreement, Magnolia77 has not come in here and attacked the other party again instead, like Alansohn did above. I'm not taking sides, as I haven't reviewed all of the evidence at hand. I'm just saying that four out of four editors who !voted above supported a block for Alansohn. I was just asking a question. If no one wants to put it to a formal and organized !vote, I suggest that an admin close this thread with a stern warning (and also a warning against gaming by e.g. editing every single NJ article in existence so that the other party cannot "touch" them). Softlavender (talk) 01:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

A note was left on my talk page asking me to write something here. My biggest concern about Alansohn is that he is a bully. He name calls, he makes accusations of stalking and disruptive editing, he intimidates other editors, and looks for battles where there is only good-faith editing (see Battin High School). Owning a US state on Wikipedia is not always a bad thing. Look at the wonderful contributions of User:Coal town guy to West Virginia. My real concern is that bullies--even hard working ones like Alansohn--at some point become a liability, as we've seen in many of our workplaces, and on our kids hockey teams. Their squeeze isn't worth the juice. When there is ownership of a large part of Wikipedia--such as a US state--but no support for new editors, no goodwill, and no open-mindedness to alternative editing styles, you end up with countless articles which all pretty much look the same. How different would those New Jersey articles look if their government sections were trimmed, if other sections were permitted to expand, and if new editors to New Jersey were welcomed and supported? Personally, I feel bullies and mean-spirited editors are a liability and should be kicked the heck off Wikipedia--even if they've made a million edits--but that's just because I dislike bullies (and love Wikipedia). Thanks for listening. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Close with no action[edit]

I think closing this with any type of action will require examining more diffs than anyone so far has had the time or masochism to do. So it should probably be closed with no action. Some remarks:

  • The thread was originally opened by John Carter, not by Alansohn or Magnolia, so they can't be directly blamed for bringing it here.
  • Magnolia's complaint to John Carter was about Alansohn griping on his own talk page about edits that he described as stalkerish, which do seem stalkerish based on the discussion above, though confirming this would take independent investigation that hasn't happened. I note that JzG suggested a block against Magnolia over this, so it's not the case that commenters unanimously sided against Alansohn.
  • Magnolia, if you were looking at Alansohn's contribs to decide what to edit, that was stalking. Please don't do that. It suffices for the interaction ban to decide for normal editorial reasons what article you want to edit, then check that article's history to see if the most recent edit was from Alansohn. You don't need to follow Alansohn's edits and doing so is a bad idea. Interaction ban means ignore the person completely, to the extent that you can.
  • There was no evidence given that Alansohn's AWB run was an attempt to game the ban. Alansohn is an AWB user who does a lot of those bulk edits, so WP:AGF unless there is actual analysis saying otherwise. He actually did create the original versions of the articles mentioned, that I checked. But, if the number of articles affected is enough to make itself felt via the ban, slowing down could be helpful.
  • I agree with Alansohn that the Trenton edit about Chris Christie was of low quality (no idea of its motivation). Clinton is listed as a notable from Little Rock mostly because he became US President. I doubt he'd have been mentioned if he'd only been Arkansas governor, since the AR governor always works in Little Rock and the governor's official residence is there; plus Clinton lived and worked in Little Rock for many years before serving as governor. NJ's official governor's residence is in Princeton, as RAN mentions, and Christie actually resides in his family home in Mendham Township, according to his WP biography. Also, a nitpick: Trenton is NJ's capital, not its capitol. The New Jersey State Capitol is the building in Trenton where Christie's office (and the state legislature) is.
  • IMHO Magnolia comes out looking worse than Alansohn in this. I'd ask Alansohn to try to adopt a more straightforward and calmer dispute resolution style but I don't see evidence of misconduct, since Alansohn's original post that Mangolia complained about was a plausible assertion that Magnolia had breached or gamed the ban. It also claimed substandard editing on Magnolia's part, which combined with the Trenton example makes me think the quality of Magnolia's edits is a relevant topic of discussion if this dispute flares up again.
  • In any case, further disputes should be presented more concisely, identifying concrete problems being complained about, and documenting them with diffs. Part of the hassle of this thread was having to find the relevant edits because they weren't linked to. As an example, Magnolia claims Alansohn engaged in bullying at the article about Battin High School. A quick look at the article history didn't make this obvious, so diffs are needed to specify exactly where the problem is.
  • Overall I don't think there's much more to be done here. So I'd suggest closing with no action. Yes we may end up back here--that's no big deal, many recurring disputes make repeated occurrences here. People who don't wish to read them are not required to do so. But try to do a better job spelling out the problems, as described above.

Sorry this is so long but the thread has been unarchived twice now, unnecessarily both times in my opinion.

50.0.136.194 (talk) 07:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Unless you are somehow trying to redress the balance of opinion here, I find it odd that an IP with next to no viewable editing history (no matter what the explanation for that is, and all IPs tend to have one) comes down so clearly on the side of one editor in a two-sided dispute. There is no reason that Christie should not be listed as a person associated with and residing in Trenton, much less any reason to call that edit "childish" "POINTy", "disruptive", "bad faith" and "unwilling to edit like a mature adult". There is evidence of bullying on Battin High School -- the addition of a photo of the high school to the article was immediately reverted twice, even after talk-page explanations and citation that the opening date of the school was incorrect in the article. As to who is stalking who, or who is gaming who, well that's a matter for ArbCom if they aren't willing to come here and discuss without name-calling and accusations. Softlavender (talk) 10:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Softlavender, 1) Christie does not reside in Trenton and apparently never has, as has already been explained twice. So he can't possibly be a notable resident of Trenton. He works there but resides in another town, so at best he is a notable commuter. 2) Even if he did reside there though, that would not make him a contributor to Trenton's notability (and therefore worth mentioning as a notable resident in the Trenton article) any more than Barack Obama is a contributor to Washington DC's notability (Obama is not mentioned in the DC article). Obama is, however, mentioned as a notable person from Honolulu in the article about that city: do you understand the difference? So the Trenton edit really does come across as a childish and pointy. 3) Seems like your own comments have also clearly come down on the side of one editor. 4) Some specific diffs of the Battin High School bullying would be appreciated. I took a quick look at the article history as Magnolia suggested and nothing jumped out at me. I'm not saying nothing happened but if you know anything about Wikipedia dispute resolution, you know that to make a case for sanctioning someone you really need actual diffs. I didn't see any right away and it's not my job to go around digging if none have been offered. But I'll take a look at that photo issue. 5) I do share the concern raised by Alansohn about how Magnolia found his/her way to that article in the first place. If it was by examining Alansohn's contribs, that's not in the spirit of the IBAN that should be weighed against the stalking allegations being made at the time (the IBAN was not yet in effect). 5) See the unblock request on my talk page for my old address and feel free to check its edit history, as it was somewhat more active than the current address. I don't see the relevance though. I looked at the facts of the dispute currently under discussion, and reported what I found. 6) I doubt Arbcom would take this case (which is contained and basically nonsense) but even if they do, they won't sanction anyone without a bunch of diffs presented as /Evidence. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 21:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I've looked at the edits regarding the photo and there's some historical unclarity (conflicting sources) that should have been discussed more on the talk page. It looks like Joseph Battin donated a residential mansion to the city in 1889, that is shown in the picture and that was opened as a school at that time, but the Newark Star-Ledger article that Alansohn cited indicates that the mansion was later replaced with a new building that served as Battin High School from 1913 to 1976. This photo apparently shows the newer building and it doesn't appear to be the one in the 1907 picture. So I think some more research is needed to straighten out the history. In any case, Alansohn's first reversion of the photo was perfectly fine given the sourcing available at the time, but the second one was after Magnolia's talk page post mentioning the 1889 booklet, so it should have been discussed. Given the conflict that already seems to have existed between Alansohn and Magnolia, interpreting the reversion as bullying would have to be supported by further analysis. It all doesn't seem worth it.

I also forgot to mention, the thread was originally started after Magnolia complained about a post Alansohn made on his own talk page. Magnolia and Alansohn: IBAN means stay away from the other editor: don't study their contribs or hover around their talk page--just check article histories before editing, to avoid crossing paths, but otherwise act as if they don't exist. So that makes the whole thread even less legitimate. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 23:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Here is some more info about the school, from its official site (it is now a middle school, grades 6-8). 50.0.136.194 (talk) 01:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


FreeatlastChitchat yet again[edit]

Only a day after the Rape jihad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article came off lockdown, this editor has resumed section-blanking: [2]

In addition to continuing this disruptive behavior which prompted the other incident report submitted earlier this month, I shall add another charge: brazen lying in edit-summaries. For example, in this edit he claims "No mention of rape jihad Anywhere in the sources given" (even as the very edit he was making was eliminating one such source,[3] and his immediately prior edit eliminated more).

And all after claiming he was walking away from the subject (in another associated ANI submitted earlier this month by @Softlavender:):

"...I have decided to forget that rape jihad article exists for the next 4 months, after which I will push for its deletion. I have removed it from my list and will not be contributing to it anymore..."
(Lack of action stemming from these other ANIs has apparently emboldened him to renege).

Could someone please implement Esquivalience's topic ban proposal from the first ANI? Pax 05:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

'RESPONSE' I was not going to bother with a response as crystal clear consensus on the talk page shows that section should be removed (98% supporting removal, with only PAX and one other guy whom PAX canvassed disagreeing), but this has gone on for long enough. It is clear that this is a clear case of pushing pov on part of pax. To be honest PAX makes it looks as if he owns that article and anyone who touches it should be banned and no one has any rights to edit that article, he even reverts any edits which have nothing to do with section blanking(I removed links to articles from a quote and was reverted without any explanation). His only explanation of why Consensus established at 'SIX' (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ) occasions on RS/N is not good enough is directed at me and is as follows
"You're new here. Let me tell you how it goes: would-be fact-censors go to the RS board, inquire about a source, some politicos come out of the woodwork to gas "right-wing" and "Islamophobic"....and then the rest of us get to ignore them because it's not binding because those are piss-poor criteria for dismissal."[4] and more recently his reply to said consensus has been
"I know partisan censorship-hunts when I see them, and discount them accordingly. Meanwhile, you're on record above thinking that a Russian front-group is a worthy source of information, so I'm seeing little reason to consider your argumentation credible."[5]
Furthermore he launched a false accusation of sock puppetry against some of editors who removed the section that backfired ,and it was noted that statements by PAX were "blatantly inaccurate". PAX then went into the archives and edited the archived SPI removing his inaccurate statement and was reverted immediately.
Even more damning is the fact that the user Раціональне анархіст has a history of being topic banned. As you can see from this Topic ban that more than ten users reached the consensus that Раціональне анархіст is not here to build an encyclopedia, rather he is here only to create disruption. He was recently topic banned for 30 days, with a high consensus saying that he should not nominate articles for AFd, but even then he has been continuing to do so again. I can ping those ten here and they will agree that this user should now be perm banned, but as it may appear to be a canvass I will refrain from doing that.
Add to this the fact that user Раціональне анархіст is highly, highly uncivil in his comments and generally derides others and accuses them of, sockpuppetry, meat puppetry and general vandalism even when there is no such thing going on as a recent SPI proved. He has made my experience of editing wikipedia a highly unpleasant one, he replies to me every comment even if it is not directed towards him and uses insulting and sarcastic language. He started a new section on the Rape jihad TP labelled as Pattern of vandalism so far, which I had to changeto a more neutral heading. To him everyone who disagrees with him is a vandal or a sock.
Раціональне анархіст has also been blocked recently due to his continued edit warring and for being highly uncivil to others. The blocking admin noted that Раціональне анархіст was being blocked for "Modifying other editors comments" and then "for edit-warring in an effort to preserve his editing of other's comments". This to be honest is the most uncivil thing that a person can do on wiki, i.e edit another person's comment when one is involved in a dispute with him and then edit war to preserve one's own version of anothers comments.
Therefore, seeing this kind of behaviour where I am following consensus and even then coming under attack from a person who was topic banned for 30 days and blocked for another (i.e Almost 20% of the time he has been on wikipedia he has been banned in one form or another). I would like to recommend a Boomerang for PAX with topic ban on rape jihad.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) (Respose created 28 April, Last Modified May 4)
FreeatlastChitchat has significantly enlarged the comment above since I replied to it on the 28th. His new material references a temporary ban placed upon me several months ago in nominating porn articles for deletion. FreeatlastChitchat demonstrates continued malfeasance by falsly implying that my limited activity in that area since then amounts to a violation, which it does not. Pax 18:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
You mean the SPI that you requested starting? (My final reply in that) Regards the composition of 2% and 98%, I shall leave it to others to determine whether or not your misrepresentational counting is a matter of WP:BADFAITH or a troublesome inability to handle basic arithmetic. Pax 07:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Раціональне анархіст(Pax) should first discuss this thing at the talk page, he has not yet discussed the recent developments, before dragging this to ANI. I don't see what disrupive behaviour Раціональне анархіст refers when he too is engaging in the edit war without bothering to discussing their grievances or differences. Per this I doubt Раціональне_анархіст's ability to distinguish vandalism from content disputes. One can put a level four on his tp for restoring the content back, but that's is not the way to go about doing things. If a user states that they want to walk away and eats their words afterward, it is a silly reason to bring them to ANI.
This is more of a content dispute than diruptive editing, if a t-ban is warranted, it is more so for Раціональне_анархіст from ANI. --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 07:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I have twenty (and counting) posts on the TP this month. Section-blanking to remove massive numbers of RS while lying in the edit summaries in order to support spurious argument on the TP that the castrated article is then applicable for merging (in violation of the spirit of a recent AfD's closer's (@Davey2010:) suggestion to leave the article alone for at least five months) is not a "content dispute"; it is vandalism with an ulterior purpose. The editor has been warned of vandalism on previous occasions, warned specifically about section-blanking on previous occasions, been a subject in at least three ANIs over the last two months, not counting this one, and has been blocked twice during the same span for edit-warring. Pax 07:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

This should be a very clear case of WP:BOOMERANG. The only disruptive editor on this article is Pax. His behaviour has been deeply problematic for a long time. Other editors who disagree with him have attempted discussion and had asked for input at other venues, notable WP:RSN. Pax merely dismisses views he does not like, stating that the consensus at RSN doesn't count because editors there are "politicos" (what on earth does that even mean?). There has also been clear consensus at the talk page for removal of the section, which Pax simply ignores. The article itself is a mess, thanks in large part to Pax's kneejerk edit-warring. Paul B (talk) 14:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Paul B has also sectioned-blanked the article.[6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Раціональне анархіст (talkcontribs)
Of course I did, because consensus at all pages in which was discussed was to remove the section, as has been explained. This disingenuous attempt to make a consensus-supported edit look like vandalism is typical of Pax's tactics. Paul B (talk) 20:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Drawing in a number of one-shot !voters with no history in the article, and swayed by discredited albeit voluminous repetitive blather to bury other commenters under mountains of text, does not constitute establishing a solid consensus for deleting the article by alternative means (the clear ulterior objective of the section-blankers). Pax 21:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
You mean discussions do not count when they go against you. I'm glad we cleared that up. Paul B (talk) 21:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Agree with WP:BOOMERANG. Instead of justifying their sources in the face of consensus that they are unreliable and/or improperly used in the article there is only edit warring and dismissal. An overwhelming majority on the talkpage have agreed that the paragraph is unsourced and unrelated to the topic. This is ignored. WP:RSN have disqualified the sources used in the paragraph. This is ignored. At no point has the user attempted to justify their sources by anything other than assertion. I have been dragged to a frivolous WP:SPI case, which Pax continued to flog even after it had been thrown out for being without merit and archived [7]. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 16:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
RatatoskJones has also sectioned-blanked the article,[8][9] and was a subject in a prior ANI regarding it.

Comment I do not recall having had anything to do with either of the editors in question, so cannot comment on the appropriateness of a topic ban for either one; but in treating an Islamophobic slur as if it is fact, that article is a disgrace. That article has no more reason to exist than would, for example, Christian babies in Jewish cuisine. Get rid of it. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

2 cents (involved)[edit]

(Non-administrator observation) I got involved. I'm not happy with the title, which fails WP:NPOV in my view. I have made an argument that sexual violence in Islamic culture (proposed new title) is worth an article or rather, should have an article in much the same way as Catholic Church sexual abuse cases. This cannot only cover atrocities by cookoo cults like ISIL and Boko Haram, but also the accepted violence agains women in (for instance) the Pakistani community in Britain. I have cited several sources quoting Muslims explicitly acknowledging the problem and without any exception these were either ignored or deemed not reliable without any explanation of why they are unreliable. I do not think that the goal of my esteemed opponents is reaching some kind of consensus, but rather that their main goal is to obstruct improvements as much as possible by simply opposing anything and everything. With respect to FreeatlastChitchat I have reached the conclusion that WP:IDHT is applicable and I'm beginning to wonder about WP:NOTHERE. Kleuske (talk) 12:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

  • I agree with all of that that Kleuske wrote above, including the fact of NOTHERE and so forth. I agree that the title change would solve every problem the article (which has survived recent AfDs) is experiencing. I also would like to state that the level of disruption and SPA partisanship and intransigency on the article talk page (and in the edit-warring) has long been at the level of unconscionability and unworkability. I would like to see obvious partisans held off of the article for a good length of time while neutral parties cleaned it up, titled it something neutral and verifiable as Kleuske has suggested, and then keep the warriors and SPA partisans out if possible. (PS: I'm not involved in editing the article but I have reported some of the tag-team edit-warriors.) Softlavender (talk) 12:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
'Sexual violence in Islamic culture'. Yes that sounds neutral enough lol. On a serious note, there is already a merger on the table which has been proposed with Slavery in 21st-century Islamism. If you want to rename the article, why don't you support the merger? After all, what you proposed is all but a merger. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 17:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I would strongly oppose that, since sexual violence against women in Islam is (sadly) not restricted to 'islamism' nor the 21st century. See, apart from the sources I already mentioned this listing of 20 fatwa's. You are, of course welcome to suggest a title you think is better suited, but I kindly request you do it on the appropriate talk page. The above just makes my point. Kleuske (talk) 17:32, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
There is an article Islam and domestic violence which is 'exactly' 100% related to you listing of 20 fatwa's. I don't get it, why are you proposing making new articles about something which already has an article on wikipedia? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 17:43, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Kleuske, thank you very much for the input, and I am more receptive to this title proposal than the other you posed on the TP (even though the current titles is in actual usage by sources, and thus my current preferred), but to be honest it should wait until after this ANI is resolved, because no serious work can be accomplished until the disruption ends. Pax 03:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed ban[edit]

Since Раціональне анархіст is refusing to accept the consensus, (•RSN: 1 2 3 4 5 6 •NPOVN: 7 •TP: 8 9) the following remedy is proposed:

  1. User:Раціональне анархіст (Pax) is banned from editing the article Rape jihad for a period of six months.
  2. In case of breach of the above ban, the ban is reset and the user may be blocked by an uninvolved administrator for a period determined by them.
  3. The user is encouraged to contribute positively to the discussions on the talk page of the relevant article and suggest changes.

--Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 17:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Fauzan has a prior ANI history of edit-warring and apologetics. Pax 08:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
RSN1: Seven years old; does not concern the writers or topic involved. FPM's claims were otherwise supported by reporting in the Washington Post.[10] RSN2: Does not concern the writers or topic involved. Spurious listing by an editor self-identified as a Marxist on his user-page. Discussion result was that the author was notable. RSN3: Does not concern the writers or topic involved. A muslim editor gets a few bites complaining about Islamophobia. RSN4: Seven years old; does not concern the writers or topic involved. RSN5: Does not concern the writers or topic involved. A single question with a single response consisting of a red-herring argument. RSN6: An RSN posed by the subject of this ANI. A few participants (one overtly partisan) attempt to impugn author Kern (who it turns out is entirely correct regarding the other subject they were pillorying him for).
These RSN arguments are at best tenuous, do not cover all of the sources involved, and the secton-blankers have been reverted by at least seven different editors. It is clear that they lack consensus to do so at this point, and the article has been locked twice now in a state which preserved the material they sought to delete. Pax 19:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Did you mean I have no interest in collaborating with other editors except @Softlavender:, @Esquivalience:, @Guy Macon:, @DawnDusk:, @220 of Borg:, @Kleuske:, @Helpsome:, @BengaliHindu:, @KrakatoaKatie: and @AlbinoFerret:? (That's a list of editors who've reverted the section-blockers, sided against them on the TP, and/or voted to topic-ban FreeatlastChitchat during the last ANI, or assisted in writing the article. I am not counting one IP and the two who both locked the article in a state not preferred by the section-blankers.) Pax 20:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Do not invoke my name as supporting something that I have never offered an opinion on. The edits in question[11][12] do not in any way refer to your behavior, and it is rather insulting to assume that just because I reverted some section blanking done by someone you are having a fight with that somehow translates to me collaborating with you. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I apologize in advance for any misunderstanding. "Collaborating" was Soldier of the Empire's choice of term, not mine. Pax 02:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Pax cannot engage constructively in this topic. His comments are typically sneering and dismissive in tone and he regularly demonstrates that he has no intention of engaging with actual arguments, just repeating assertions ad nauseam. None of the editors he claims to be "collaborating" with come close to Pax's dogmatic POV, though some have supported specific claims of his (and rejected others). Paul B (talk) 20:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose (uninvolved non admin) Nothing here rises to the level of a topic ban, this appears to be a content dispute. AlbinoFerret 21:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
So ignoring consensus, constantly misrepresenting evidence and rejecting out of hand the opinions of independent editors, unrelenting edit warring, constitute a "content dispute". Nonsense. Those are behavioural issues. Paul B (talk) 21:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the opinions of an involved party. AlbinoFerret 21:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I became involved because of the evidence I saw of Pax's behviour (which includes disingenuosly canvassing support by pinging you in a 'list' of his supporters, contrary to Wikipedia:Canvassing). Typical of his 'sneaky' tactics, to use one of his favourite words. Nothing to do with content dispute, everything to do with gaming the system. Paul B (talk) 22:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I commented on the last AN/I section on this. I also watch this page and comment on it. If you do a find on it you will see 18 or so posts, so the so called canvassing isnt really canvassing. If you read the words after the list above, it explains why they are all exceptions to the canvassing rule. AlbinoFerret 22:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
If you don't think he was canvassing, I think you are being very naive. Your other edits here are irrelevant to his motivations. I've no idea what you mean by invoking the "words after the list above", They simply demonstrate his disingenuousness. Paul B (talk) 01:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
That comment shows how involved you are and that you have lost objectivity. That post is close to a personal attack and likely violates AGF. AlbinoFerret 01:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Attack on whom, you or him? I stand by my statements about Pax's disingenuousness. There is a mountain of evidence for his misrepresentations. This board is for discussing misbehaviour, so pointing it out with evidence is not a "personal attack". If it were, we would never be able to assess editor misconduct at all. Paul B (talk) 12:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Silence at this point does not indicate consensus. AlbinoFerret 18:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
If that's supposed to mean something, I've no idea what it is. It's not a response to anything I've just said. Paul B (talk) 21:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
It means that this little conversation is going nowhere, and I if I dont respond, it does not indicate that I somehow agree with whatever points you may raise in additional comments. WP:SILENCE AlbinoFerret 21:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Both sides of the equation are problematical here; one side (Freeat lastChitChat and Xerxes...[sp?], etc. [sorry, it's early here and I can't be bothered with getting that username right]) with tag-team POV edit-warring and section-blanking on more than one article; the other side (Pax) with (possibly) ignoring consensus. I'm not sure a ban on one side, or one side only, is going to help matters or is equitable. Softlavender (talk) 01:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't want to deride you, as I said earlier. However I would like to ask if a consensus is reached on a talk page and numerous debates that a section ought to be blanked then someone blanks the section, how does that equate to "tag-team POV edit-warring and section-blanking". FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 01:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
This has all been discussed and well-documented on previous ANI threads. It's all a matter of public record; I'm not going to discuss further. Softlavender (talk) 01:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • SupportFor the simple reason that this is 'The only' article where Pax makes any contributions and has grown to think of it as his own property. He thinks everyone else is wrong even when consensus has been reached. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 01:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Pax's contributions dont show any real unhealthy focus. link He has made more combined posts to Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa and its talk page. AlbinoFerret 02:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Quite wrong. The combined green numbers in ebola pale in comparison to his activity in Rape jihad.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:49, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
No; you're wrong. Look at it again. Pax 05:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I have looked at it again and again, and furthermore it is not my opinion that you are obsessed with rape jihad. According to x's tools. 49 edits were by User Раціональне анархіст on Rape jihad (36.57% of the total edits made to the page) while 28 edits were by User Раціональне анархіст on Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa (0.31% of the total edits made to the page)
You are being willfully blind and evasive; The Xtools link provided by AlbinoFerret reveals as of this post 49 edits by me to the Rape jihad article and 71 to the two Ebola pages, and 36 versus 63 to the associated talk pages. In other words, I am half as interested in this subject as opposed to the other one by that metric. Even less so if, of the 49 edits, we discount the 16 which are straight reversions of vandalism by you section-blankers. Lastly, since I entirely rewrote the article from the original, and it's relatively new, it stands to reason that a high percentage of the edits to it would be mine. If you ran that tool the moment after I created it and before the earlier version had been linked, it would show that 100% of the edits were mine. Yes, it's shocking that editing is going on in here. Pax 07:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per Paul B. Ignoring WP:V and WP:OR as well as consensus from talkpage and WP:RSN because they don't agree with it is not productive. I had hoped that Pax would start to defend their sources or find ones that actually can be used, but they have spent more time opening WP:ANI and frivolous WP:SPI cases. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 04:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
A section-blanker wants a vandal-reverser out; nothing surprising there. Regards your falsely-asserted talk page consensus, a new arrival (Kleuske) is doing a wonderful job of demolishing various nonsenses. So, you can't even claim to hold that ground now even with lessened participation from myself and other previous participants who are awaiting administrative assistance in curtailing the disruption. Pax 05:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Removing sections that consensus says should be removed is not "vandalism". You are being dishonest again. None of your disputed edits constitute "vandal reversing". Paul B (talk) 13:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Kleuske has not even attempted to justify Rotherham's inclusion in this topic (with the exception of a single source, found unreliable at every turn at WP:RSN), which is what this is all about. Nothing has been demolished. Personally, I hope that people go to the talkpage and check it out for themselves. There is a barrage of WP:V, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH issues that would benefit from more eyes and voices, and could help with the WP:OWN issues. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 14:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Classic WP:IDHT on display right there: Kleuske is exactly the "more eyes and voices" you clamored for, and are receiving, and he has addressed your RSN argument at length on the TP (as I did here before he arrived) while you pretend no one has done so. Pax 05:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
So you ignore all the other editors who have commented on the talkpage because you found one other similarly ignores clear consensus from WP:RSN that you do not like? There is a great majority in favor of merging whatever can be salvaged from this article into Slavery_in_21st-century_Islamism, a majority that only grows with each day. As for the comments from Kleuske, they're running afoul of WP:SYNTH, which anyone who looks at the talkpage will see. None of the sources provided (except the Gatestone, which is unreliable) have anything to do with the topic. Even Kleuske wants to move the page, which you object to for reasons of, and I quote "What I seek to avoid during any potential move to a new seemingly "neutral" name is the WP:WEASELWORDED WP:COATRACKING then sure to smother the article, as it has Chitchat's preferred Islam and domestic violence (whose very first sentence reads "The relationship between Islam and domestic violence is disputed")." which I personally find very telling. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 07:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Don't change the subject. In your comment immediately above this one, you claimed "Kleuske has not even attempted to justify Rotherham's inclusion in this topic." That's not true, as his dispute with you over the Gatestone source expressly concerns Rotherham. In fact, he's making solid arguments for extending article scope well beyond that. Dissembling like this is why I've amended the proposal to include you in the topic ban. You've sectioned-blanked the article, have the same WP:IDHT and WP:NOTHERE problems, and present false narratives to this noticeboard. Pax 08:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Strong Support In my very brief interactions with Pax I have seen him use the Rape Jihad article as a WP:POVFORK for the Rotherham article. He then attemped to justify his actions by misrepresenting sources, and claiming an article about an Oxford abuse case was about Rotherham[13]. The other source he linked to was so dubious it was laughed out of RSN the only time it came up. He has demonstrated a clear inability to use sources responsibly in this topic area, that combined with his itchy trigger when it comes to proposing topic bans makes it very clear that he needs a break from the topic area.Bosstopher (talk) 20:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Another involved editor weighs in with a non-defense of FreeatlastChitchat's lying in edit commentaries. The topic-ban to be applied to him is a relist of someone else's proposal, so let's not imply it were my idea initially - he's generated a lot of noticeboard attention over the last several months. Regards the content issue, replied to Pax 23:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Relisted Proposal[edit]

(As originally submitted by Esquivalience t in the previous ANI concerning FreeatlastChitchat.) Pax 19:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

  1. The community forbids FreeatlastChitchat for six months from making edits to articles related with Islam, especially to Rape jihad, any articles that Rape jihad has been merged from or spinoff articles, and historical articles involving Muslim armies or political entities, broadly construed.
  2. Any uninvolved administrator may, at their own discretion, block FreeatlastChitchat from editing for a period of up to one year, enforce a longer topic ban (the period can be chosen by the administrator) from articles related with Islam, and/or enforce an indefinite topic ban from articles related with Islam, if he/she finds FreeatlastChitchat has violated the topic ban.
  3. If a block or lengthening of the topic ban under section 2 is enacted, then FreeatlastChitchat may appeal the block or lengthening of the topic ban by:
    1. discussing it with the administrator that enacted the remedy; or
    2. appealing it to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, Administrators' noticeboard, or the Arbitration Committee
  4. If the community or ArbCom does not wish to vacate the block or lengthening of the topic ban, then FreeatlastChitChat may appeal again in six months and every six months thereafter.
  • Comment: There are also votes in the previous ANI, anyone closing this proposal should take them into account. Esquivalience t 20:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Might be a good idea to rescue the section from the archives. AlbinoFerret 21:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Previous participation is here - vote below - Esquivalience t 01:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC):

  • Support: six months is reasonable. Recommend proposal be amended with "...broadly construed, including historical articles involving Muslim armies or political entities" just to make things very clear that old Pakistan/India/Bangladesh bio and war articles are off-limits. The editor is fresh off a new (acquired same day as Esquivalience's proposal) 24hr block for committing five reverts in a twenty minute span. Given level of impulsiveness, suspect he'll hang himself long before the duration expires, but we'll see. Pax 23:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have added an amendment that places an emphasis on articles related with Rape jihad, any articles that Rape jihad has been merged from or spinoff articles, and historical articles involving Muslim armies or political entities, broadly construed. to make it crystal clear. <note: removed extra ping when moving previous discussion here.> Esquivalience t 01:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Thumbs up. Pax 04:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • support He's causing a ridiculous amount of problems across a wide swath of pages. It has to stop. KrakatoaKatie 16:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support (uninvolved non admin) Edit warring in one topic area is never a good idea. Consensus is how articles are edited. The actions linked to show he has is acting as an advocate, removing negative things that have some relation to Islam. AlbinoFerret 20:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
If you take some time to read the talk page at Rape jihad you will find that most editors (i.e 95%) support my actions of blanking the sections due to reasons ranging from synthesis to lack of RS and OR, this includes editors with good standing such as Fauzan, User:Paul Barlow and User:Nawabmalhi. Also if you see this opinion by an uninvolved editor, you will see that all edits on the Mughal wars made by me and Xtreme were rational and according to policy. At the talk page of rape jihad you can see that User:RatatoskJones, User:Rhoark, User:Fauzan, User:Blueboar, User:Paul Barlow, User:Nawabmalhiand four others 'support' the exclusion of rotherham from the article and merging the article or redirecting it. While there are only 2 people who say that rotherham is included.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
95%? You personally reverted a sum total of more editors (5) than were ever on your side during the blank-out war at the article page, or who've shown up to support you during the lockdown on the TP. Pax 10:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as currently worded. Looking at the history, both the sides have crossed the line. General sanctions need to be implemented that encompass the editng of the said article. And yes, BRD is an essay, not a policy. If the content is not suitable, you can't cite BRD to retain the content. --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 16:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
WP:BRD is not a policy, but WP:TALKDONTREVERT certainly is. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Moment of Truth[edit]

I think this has dragged on long enough. It seems clear that PAX will not agree with what I am saying(Lets just say that taking out rotherham is not based on consensus and it is my own, personal, POV, biased action). And I am not going to agree to rotherham being in the article, to be honest I would like to delete the article, but for now rotherham should be deleted in my opinion. Therefore being mature adults, I propose that we let the community decide what should be the content of the article. To this end I propose that

  1. Both me and PAX, voluntarily remove ourselves from the Rape jihad article for the period of one month, to commence after the page is unprotected.
  2. We both waive our rights to comment/participate on the talk page of the said article and/or mention the said article on any other page in English Wikipedia.(except an admins TP).
  3. We both agree to voluntarily submit ourselves for speedy checkuser if an IP/anon is found to be editing the article in a way deemed "unconstructive" by more than 5 other editors.
  4. We are both allowed to participate in editing the article by placing our suggestions on the talkpage of an admin(preferably the admin who closes this debate).
  5. We both volunteer to be subjected by 1 revert in 24 hrs sanction even after this period is over.
  6. We make at least 300 major edits to wikipedia articles in general (excluding nominations and tagging) during the 1 month period. So that others can assume good faith that we are not here just to fight, rather to build an encyclopedia.
  7. We both voluntarily submit ourselves to an indefinite t-ban(non-appealable) if we are found to be editing the said article during this period of voluntary cool off, or if we do not comply with any of the conditions mentioned above.

FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

You reneged on your last non-binding declaration (quoted in italics at the top of this ANI) to leave it alone, and came back in to lie in edit-summaries. The only "truth" I see above is finally a stipulation on your part that securing the article's deletion is your primary desire, not its improvement. Since your presence in the article at this point is one of bad faith, my proposal (already submitted by myself and others) is that your removal from the subject be made binding in the form of the submitted topic ban. Pax 01:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't know what is going on here, but the tinypic image of a "diff" labelled a "lie in edit-summaries" presented by Pax does not correspond to the actual diff in the page record [14]. The so-called lie is nowhere to be seen. Paul B (talk) 11:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, you have made it absolutely clear that you "don't know what is going on here" and aren't making any attempt to listen or learn. As anyone can easily see by clicking your own link (which exactly corresponds, contrary to your claim above, to the picture -- which I created to preserve a permanent record of this malfeasance in the Incident archives should the article ever be deleted in the future), FreeatlastChitchat has removed a source whose title is "title=ISIS and the Rape Jihad" while including in his edit commentary: "No mention of rape jihad Anywhere in the sources given", which is a patent falsehood (you'll note that Chitchat has not denied it despite the charge occurring multiple times in this ANI). Are you blind? Were you hoping no one would click it, or that you would not be called on it?
At this point, it really doesn't matter as this nonsense from you three is obviously not going to stop, So, could we please get some administrative action in this notice? The section-blankers have richly earned a topic-ban from this subject. (Please see Amendment to the Relisted Proposal below.) Pax 06:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
If you read the article you will see that it does not mention rape jihad at all. Rather it mentions slavery. Hence my summary. But it is almost impossible to argue with you. You are highly uncivil to anyone who has a different opinion and therefore I try to keep my contact with you to a bare minimum. This reply is for any admin who is looking through and your further comments will not be replied to. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:17, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
So "it does not mention rape jihad at all" except right in its VERY TITLE? Good God, please make this person go away. Pax 07:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
There is no need to create a tinypic, as the diff is a permannt record. THe fact that byou have linked to an image you created rather than the diff indicates your disingenuousness. Paul B (talk) 12:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Amendment to the Relisted Proposal[edit]

For multiple reasons expressed elsewhere in this notice, I propose including Paul B and RatatoskJones (who have also section-blanked the article) in the topic ban restrictions to be applied to FreeatlastChitChat in the Relisted Proposal above. This would also address an unresolved separate ANI over the issue.

Pax 05:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

So let me get this straight, you want to topic ban three editors Me, Paul B and Ratatosk Jones? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
What kind of fantasy world are you living in Pax? This proposal is utterly frivolous, or rather it is a disgrace. Paul B (talk) 09:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Ridiculous. I've removed the poorly-sourced section twice, the last time on April 16th. Since then, my edits to the article mainspace have been solely to insert a citation-needed tag, which Pax removed twice (once directly, once by reverting FreeatlastChitChat's removal of the section one revision too far) without consensus. I'll WP:AGF and assume the second one was a mistake by Pax, but since I've edited and commented on the article, I've gotten nothing but attacks by Pax. I have been falsely accused of vandalism and sockpuppeting, of being "sneaky" [15] and "disingenuous" [16], and this nugget [17] where asking for comments from uninvolved editors is met by: "RatatoskJones canvassed unrelated-topic RFC forums, transparently gaming to build up a war-chest of support for article disruption once the one-week lockdown expired), convince me that WP:BADFAITH and WP:NOTHERE problems are not going to stop." Ratatosk Jones (talk) 13:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm incredibly tempted to propose a topic ban that bans Pax from proposing topic bans at this point, because at this rate 90% of the ANI page will be Pax proposing topic bans for people. Bosstopher (talk) 20:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Humorous WP:ADHOM duly noted. But can you offer any defense of FreeatlastChitchat's lying in edit summaries? Pax 23:14, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Another incident, May 4:[edit]

No editor has any right to brand another editors actions as 'Vandalism' in a Talk Page section. If you think something done in accordance with consensus of the majority is vandalism you should go open a case somewhere and 'PROVE' it as vandalism. Just branding something as vandalism on an articles TP is highly uncivil. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 15:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I see you; you're a section-blanking vandal. You've section-blanked the article well over a dozen times:[18],[19],[20],[21],[22],[23],[24],[25],[26],[27],[28],[29],[30],[31],[32],[33]. You need to go away, and since you won't do it voluntarily, administrative assistance is sought to help you find the door. Pax 20:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Removing content in accordance with consensus is not and never has been vandalism. There is nothing magical about content that happens to have been stuck under a sub-heading, so that removing it becomes some offence of "section blanking". People add and remove sections all of the time for legitimate reasons. Paul B (talk) 10:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
But you didn't have consensus. FreeatlastChitchat lied in edit commentaries. That's why you need to go away for an extended duration. Pax 16:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Editor Concerns: Technical 13[edit]

Technical 13 has a history of permission removals and temporary blocks resulting from problematic behavior, often undone with the idea that he is doing "good work." The continuation of problematic behavior is a strong indication that previous situations have not been properly dealt with. It should be noted that "good work" is not a sufficient reason to allow a user to get off easier when they violate a Wikipedia policy, disruptive behavior and other policy violations inhibit other editors from doing their own work while they deal with the situation and it is quite easy for several editors to do more "good work" than any single editor.

Past behavior[edit]

This section is not meant to be a complete list, it is meant to briefly list some past problematic behavior.

  1. Discussion related to removal of TemplateEditor right as a result of edit warring [34]
  2. In a frivolous request for arbitration, Technical 13 makes accusations against a sysop in what seems to be part of several responses to having his TemplateEditor right removed and, when he notices the boomerang, appears to attempt to appeal to the emotions of the arbitrators before saying his original concern didn't matter and dropping the case.
  3. ANI posts by Technical 13 created after the removal of TE: call for removal of TE from another editor and a request for reinstatement of TE
  4. Evidence of another poor response to critisism/resistance [35], ending with the block being endorsed later undone on the condition of it being the "last chance"
  5. Unblock disussions related to the above block
  6. Modified 02:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC) Edit warring related block information can be found [36] and a related ANI thread [37]
  7. Added 02:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC) Here Technical 13 is confronted in relation to suspected canvassing. Additionally, in the thread starting "With another view," T13 is confronted about marking edits as minor and blames the tool.

Recent issues[edit]

Though I've tried to include as much as possible, most of the things here have some connection to me, that's how I'm aware of them, and so this should not be considered a complete list and others may wish to add onto it. Deciding between putting something here or in the section above was not based on a fixed date but more on if any actions were taken in response to the incident with some consideration for how long ago "ignored" incidents happened so the line may be a bit fuzzy when it comes to slightly old incidents. I've tried to keep the incidents here somewhat brief to prevent people from not reading due to length, I am, of course, willing to provide more information on request.

  1. Another unnecessary appeal to emotion [38]. While I don't have a reason to doubt the truthfulness of these claims, Technical 13 was made aware in his request for arbitration that he should not attempt to use these sorts of "excuses." Regardless of the truthfulness of his statement, continued use of these appeals to emotion appears to be evidence of an attempt to sway the opinions of others by making them feel bad for him.
  2. Here a side discussion confronts Technical 13's marking of edits as minor where he claims that the only way he can not mark certain edits as minor is to revert them as vandalism, as the other editor points out this is not true and appears, to me, to indicate that Technical 13 feels that other editors are required to work around him and what he wants
  3. In relation to [39], Technical 13 recklessly reverted a fix to a template, even after being explained that the change was a fix and created a RFPP where one of his comments indicate that a reason for protection was to gain an advantage in the content dispute. Technical 13's reverts reference and misrepresent WP:BRD by saying that it "doesn't apply to highly transcluded templates and this kind of behavior could result in you being blocked." WP:BRD is not a policy and states that it can be used on "high-profile" cases. The RFC was created and so far no one except Technical 13 has considered the change as anything more than a fix. On the RFC, Technical 13 even says he does not object to the change, despite all the previous occurrences where he insists it would break all transclusions. Technical 13 quickly goes back to saying it would break transclusions, only giving an explanation of what exactly is broken a few days later and, to be honest, the reason seems to be whatever random difference in behavior he could find to avoid admitting he was wrong by dressing it up as an issue.
  4. Technical 13 again demonstrates recklessness when he indicates that he either did not read the proposal or that he intends to mislead other readers by claiming issues exist that do not here, the issues are explicitly accounted for in the proposal. In the same post he references a change he made to nicks after this one had be proposed, his change appears to have been made without any consensus or discussion. Technical 13 also attempts to use his status as "Editor of the Week" to give his opposition, which is based (almost?) entirely on false or questionable information, more weight. His idea that the truth of his claims is self evident does not seem to be isolated to this incident and is not a mindset anyone on Wikipedia should have.
  5. Technical 13 seems to often only reply to parts of replies directed at him. An example is here where hardly any of my concerns about his opposition are addressed, he even completely ignores my statement about fixing any technical issues with the code, simply reiterating that they exist after implying that the code creates a privacy and security issue without explaining what the issue is. This sort of behavior unnecessarily delays and complicates the consensus building process.
  6. Edits that appear to be POV pushing at Template:Centralized discussion, best demonstrated by [40]. The edit summary is "Misleading. This is about adding global javascript, claiming it is "just about a disclaimer" is deceitful and dishonest." however the edit reverted makes no indication that the proposal is "just about a disclaimer" it, in fact, mentions the sitewide JavaScript and so it appears that the intention of the revert is to include the phrase "add an extra step for new users to get live IRC help" in the link which, though accurate, is not neutral. There is a discussion related to the change here and was one here.
  7. Technical 13 made a controversial and major change with no apparent consensus to IRC nicks. Some of the templates edited were template protected. The change effectively tricks users into linking their username and IP address by prefilling the nick with what looks like a random number but is actually a revision ID. This was all done while a proposal on the village pump, that Technical 13 is aware of, that conflicts with the change Technical 13 made was active and editors have expressed similar concerns with the change as I have here.

Suggested remedy[edit]

I'm not entirely sure what should happen to Technical 13 as a result of this behavior but, as the very least, Technical 13's TE rights should be removed indefinitely per WP:TPEREVOKE. (1) Number 7 in the section "Recent issues." (2) Number 3 of the "Recent issues" section above indicates that Technical 13 does not always exercise sufficient caution when making changes to templates and (3) his RFPP shows an intent to use the right to gain an advantage in disputes. Removal of his TE right has already been tried, and as shown by the information in this post has be ineffective so to do just that would be ineffective. Regardless of what is done, if anything is done I feel that it should require community consensus here if anyone ever wants it to be undone to ensure that the community agrees it is appropriate. I ask that those who discuss this resist any urge to recommend minor remedies since it appears that the community has already put quite some effort into resolving issues with this editor and it is not in the best interest of Wikipedia to have the community continue to deal with the same problems. Since many of Technical 13's problematic actions can carry on without any "special" rights, I feel the only effective solution would be one that, somehow, limits or completely blocks Technical 13's ability to interact with Wikipedia and the community. Though this would restrict or completely prevent any further "good work" done by Technical 13, the fact is, his poor behavior burdens the community and takes away time that others could devote to do their own "good work". PHANTOMTECH (talk) 02:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • No to put it simply. I really think you are pulling at straws and digging through very old issues, remember we all make mistakes sometimes. More importantly, in my opinion T13 is one of the most productive and active template editors we have around here, and always is the one to answer my Template Protected edit requests. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 02:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
None of the 7 points in the "recent behavior" section are what I would consider old, (with a quick look back I don't think anything there is older than a month) and quite a bit of it is unarguably recent. Everyone does make mistakes but opposing a change based on what appears to be, at best, a complete lack of understanding of what the proposal does (though that doesn't explain the fact that he still seems unaware even after being specifically told) is evidence of a serious issue with technical skill, if Technical 13 interacts with other editor's proposals in the same way he has interacted with mine then a high number of answered edit requests is a bigger issue than a low number. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 03:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This seems a bit trumped up. If there were a repeated pattern of very recent transgressions, that would be one thing to possibly bring to ANI. But I'm not seeing that in this. Softlavender (talk) 02:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Neutral I currently, due to recent events, need to be neutral on this, but I feel as though the community should look through the diffs and past edits of T13 that PhantomTech posted, as they might pose a serious question on T13 usage of his Template Editor permissions, and should not just dismiss the claims outright due to T13 doing "good work" in the past, rather dwell on the fact that some of his edits currently might be viewed as breaking policy by other editors. The fact that they have done good work before, should not used to keep an editor that might be disrupting the community, and it should not be excused outright due to that fact. Thanks, TheMesquitobuzz 07:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per above. Mlpearc (open channel) 07:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Cause for concern? While I'm not exactly sure about the remedy here, the user did breach 3RR through POV-pushing (diff above). While I have mostly interacted with Technical 13 on IRC, and I agree he does good work in templates, there is also a net negative that I see some users like PhantomTech concerned about. Additionally, while I understand that IRC is off-wiki, the user has been particularly argumentative and disruptive in IRC over the past few days in my opinion, templating newbies to the point where they are confused, repeatedly insisting on continuing arguments there ad nauseum, etc. For me to recommend a remedy would probably impose IRC bias. However, TheMesquito and PhantomTech have made perfectly valid points.
  • First of all, it is, in my opinion, unacceptable to use Editor of the Week in an oppose as a basis for your argument. We are all editors here, and in the end, admins do not say "My argument is better because I am an admin."
  • Secondly, while Technical 13 is indeed knowledgeable about templates and other technical know-how, it is imperative that he explains his technical rationales for supporting or opposing a change clearly and without the effect of the "technical walled garden" so that the community at large, not just Technical 13 and other template editors, can understand his rationale. In templates such as Template talk:Freenode, he should not simply say "It will break all these transclusions" yet fail to provide a single example of a template that it will break, expecting everyone else to be technically knowledgeable and able to find an example to support his argument instead of supporting it himself. This is also evident in the RFC for global javascript/disclaimer (diffs above), where he claims that it is against WMF code, but drops that bomb without elaboration.
  • Finally, one should not expect a buried proposal/suggestion comment without any replies on WT:WPAFC to construe a consensus. A widespread policy, involving the use of Revision ID to link them to IP addresses, should have been resolved by RFC, not unopposed edits to template-protected pages where editors in opposition of the change and concerned about their privacy are unable to oppose or revert. Seven days is not a very long time. In fact, while this is all a very recent trend and may not be a trend at all, Technical 13 did not seem to find it necessary to notify people about this widespread change, but rather actioned it in the morning while several users were asleep and unable to comment. On the other hand, he has been notifying, violating 3RR people about a change that he vehemently opposes. In another IRC change he opposed, he insisted on using the channel's bot welcomer to welcome everyone who came to the channel in an effort to ensure that every single person was able to comment on the proposal, often spamming the channel when multiple users entered or quit and reentered in a short amount of time.
  • While I do not see this as a support or oppose situation, I do see some cause for concern, and recommend that editors here carefully take a look at PhantomTech's diffs and avoiding the "editor X is too valuable, it doesn't matter what else they do" argument. — kikichugirl oh hello! 18:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Statement: I agree with PhantomTech and KikichuGirl above. However, my interactions with Technical 13 has been almost entirely, if not entirely, on IRC, making it impossible for me to accuse him. I don't make a habit of keeping IRC logs. I dream of horses (T) @ 19:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - a discussion probably would have remedied this whole issue. I don't find him to be unreasonable or uncooperative. Quite the opposite is true. AtsmeConsult 01:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
    • It may very well be that he's reasonable and cooperative most of the time, but he appears to suffer from frequent bouts of terribly bad judgment - which would've been fine if he'd ever fess up, but he doesn't. This has to stop. In addition to the diffs provided by the OP:
      1. Here's where I asked him not to flag his reverts in content disputes as "minor" and he responded with, 'I'll have to click on "Vandal Rollback". Your choice.'
      2. Here's where he was casting aspersions in all directions out of the sweet blue.
      3. Here's where he threw a tantrum about being reverted once, requesting admin assistance and sanctions. Alakzi (talk) 01:53, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
    • This is far from a single issue, I alone have listed a significant amount of concerns and other editors, like Alakzi, have brought up more. Additionally, some of the issues are related to cases where editors attempt to discuss with Technical 13. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 03:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • +1 to kikichugirl and I Dream of Horses. Ironholds (talk) 04:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Well if it can't be resolved at this level, it's pretty obviously going to be escalated through WP:DR, so it's probably in everyone's interests if some sort of voluntary agreement can be reached to move forward - but I don't think anything is going to result here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Urge caution when using tools and understand that technical issues are often subjective. T13 is bright and very enthusiastic. More consideration needs to be given to opposing viewpoints. I ask T13 to understand that working in a collaborative technical environment has all the pitfalls of working in a collaborative environment and a technical environment. Just slow your roll and understand that your actions need to be copasetic with the technical workings of Wikipedia and the community. Things break fast when you don't work well with others. I don't think any action is called for at this point. Chillum 17:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
    • It is true that technical issues can often be very complex and cause disagreement based on many different aspects. T13 does seem very enthusiastic but he has a history of assuming all opposing viewpoints are wrong and this has been pointed out to him. While your advice to T13 would likely resolve many of his issues, he doesn't know how to take a hint and I don't see a reason to believe he will take the advice this time as similar concerns caused him to lose his TE right the first time. I do not believe it is sufficient to let off a user, who has a history of problematic behavior, with a warning. It is an unnecessary burden on the community to allow editors to behave in this way and does nothing but encourage others to do the same. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 20:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I have found some more relevant past behavior, it has been added to the original post as a modification to Past behavior #6 and the addition of Past behavior #7. The latter is related to the information provided above by Alakzi as it contains T13 being confronted with their behavior marking edits as minor where T13 blames the tool, as he did in the interaction with Alakzi. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 02:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Darkness Shines, again[edit]

Darkness Shines (talk · contribs), only recently returned from an indef-ban through a BASC appeal, is back to permanent edit-warring. He feels that I am "hounding" him, despite having been told only last week that this charge is groundless, and has been meeting each and every edit I make to articles of his interest with immediate, indiscriminate blanket reverts.

Now, it is true that I have been touching quite a few articles of his. While he was indef-banned, I noticed he had recently created a series of articles on medieval philology – undoubtedly a laudable idea, but unfortunately riddled with so many factual errors I saw myself compelled to fix or rewrite most of them. (Obviously, there can be no "hounding" of an indef-banned user, who isn't supposed to be on Wikipedia in the first place.) Last week I noticed he had again become embroiled in an edit-war elsewhere, at Female infanticide in India, so I did what I would always have done in such situations: intervened (in his favour!) to get a disruptive sock out of the way [41], found that the sock was wrong about most things, but that DS was also wrong about a few others, so I ended up challenging his poor use of sources on a number of counts [42]. This article is an exemption from an area he is otherwise topic-banned from, to allow him to get it up to GA status, but the points I raised will, I believe, make that aim difficult to reach [43]. Since I know from multiple prior occasions that DS has a persistent record of pushing poorly used sources through review processes such as GA, DYK or FA, I finally went to check up on another article that he got through GA last year, Rape during the Rwandan Genocide, only to indeed find yet more of the same kinds of problems [44]. Of course, per WP:HOUND, this is all perfectly legitimate: it doesn't constitute hounding to check a user's contribs history to clean up persistent patterns of unambiguous errors and clear policy violations on related series of articles.

DS has reacted to each and every attempt at cleaning up behind him with the same tactics: immediate, repeated reverts, often abusing Twinkle rollback; in almost every instance indiscriminate blanket reverts including entirely uncontroversial, trivial cleanup edits; combined with an utter refusal to meet any of my challenges with substantial arguments on talk.

This has affected the following articles:

This is precisely the same disruptive pattern that earned him his topic ban from the India/Pakistan area last May [58], and it needs to be stopped.

Note that Arbcom members were discussing part of this issue last week [59] but dropped the ball again and took no action [60] – but then, it doesn't seem they took any notice of how his hostile behaviour was still continuing on several articles even after they began their review. Fut.Perf. 16:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I just looked at a few of the diffs but they didn't appear to be vandalism to me and seemed to actually add sources to articles. There are over 4 million articles on the English Wikipedia...could you take your focus being DS' unappointed monitor and have faith that if he makes mistakes other editors can deal with it? There is no shortage of work that needs to be done and I think your interest in policing another editor is misplaced and I can see how it feels like stalking to DS.
You could also view ArbCom's taking no action not as dropping the ball but the fact that they didn't view DS' edits as disruptive. Liz Read! Talk! 16:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Who said anything about "vandalism"? Please read again what I said those reverts were, rather than creating red herrings. Yes, they "added sources to articles" – misrepresented sources. And other editors aren't taking action on these things. The errors in the Rwanda article had been in the article for a year, and they had slipped through a GA review unnoticed. The errors in the India article were about to slip through a GA review unnoticed (at least the reviewer didn't spot them in their first pass). And the medieval articles are on such obscure topics it would be madness to hope that any other knowledgeable editor would even chance across them to fix them. Fut.Perf. 17:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
If the topic ban on "all pages related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed" imposed on DS is still in place, why is he editing our article on Human rights in Pakistan? [61] AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that happens to be a violation of a topic ban too (though the edit as such would be justifiable on its merits.) Fut.Perf. 17:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, you are probably right - it would be a bit harsh to block someone for reverting the deletion of sourced content. Though DS might be well advised to take such articles off his watchlist, and let others deal with problems. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
The edit that DS reverted would count as disruptive, if not vandalism, in my book; surely BANEX applies in the circumstances. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Not really, no, let's keep clear about what the rules are. WP:BANEX exempts only "obvious vandalism". The edit DS reverted [62] was tendentious, I agree, but there's no indication it wasn't made in good faith, hence it wasn't vandalism. Fut.Perf. 21:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Darkness Shines' edits are problematic. The edit to Human rights in Pakistan would be fine if he weren't topic banned, but he is, and I do not think the edit he reverted qualifies as obvious vandalism. Unconstructive, sure, but not vandalism. I don't think DS should be blocked for his edit, but he should not be involved in this article at all--so he should take the article off his watchlist, he should not revert any edit to the article, even the most obvious vandalism, so he doesn't raise any suspicions of having violated the topic ban. Any further edits in the area should result in an immediate block.

The edits to other articles are also problematic. Take Prophecy of Melkin as an example: DS created this article, but clearly misunderstood the sources he used, to the extent that he didn't realize that Melkin is a legendary character, about whom no real biography can be written, and who is only known because of the text transmitted under his name. So Fut. Perf. rewrote the article and changed the title to better reflect the sources, and DS reverted these edits, without any substantial attempt to discuss matters on the talk page ([63] doesn't count, because Fut. Perf. explained at some length how the cited sources didn't support DS' version of the article). I haven't looked into Darkness Shines' history or the reason for his ban, but if behavior like this was the reason he was banned, he doesn't seem to have learned much. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

And it goes on and on. I gave him 24 hours time to respond to my challenges on talk at Talk:Rape during the Rwandan Genocide, which he failed to do; yet he immediately reverted my reapplied fix within minutes just now [64]. I also found that the same misrepresented source was present on several other articles; there too I was immediately reverted, all with rapid-fire, blanket "undo" without even an edit summary [65][66][67]. Fut.Perf. 10:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

When is this constant hounding going to be fucking stopped? Since my unblock FPaS has stalked me to five articles, as soon as I said I would no longer edit Female Infanticide in India because of his harassment he has since gone to two other articles I created for the sole purpose of pissing me off. This hounding has to be stopped and I insist an IBA?N is put in place. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

And now it is six articles he has stalked me to. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, are you going to finally bring forward some argument why you think it's legitimate to take a statement made by one author about one historical event and present it to the reader as if it was by a different author and referred to a different historical event? Some might think that's a rather serious form of source misrepresentation, you know. Fut.Perf. 11:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
How many times must I tell you, I want nothing to do with you, so leave me alone and stop fucking stalking me. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
On Wikipedia, you don't get the luxury to choose who is or isn't allowed to fix your bad edits, as long as you keep making bad edits. Fut.Perf. 11:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
It is not the first time he has disregarded his topic ban, see here. --Calypsomusic (talk) 12:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Calypso, that AE case was closed with the decision that there had been no violation. Fut.Perf., that edit was not very different from the one above; the meaning of the content was completely reversed, and a misleading edit-summary given. This is not to say that DS' conduct is perfect, but violating his topic-ban is not one of his sins. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Vanamonde , it's not clear whether you are supporting DS, or opposing him.C E (talk) 17:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
CosmisEmperor, I am neither "opposing" nor "supporting" DS. I am pointing out that two of the edits linked above are not problematic, or certainly not as problematic as they are made out to be. I've worked with DS before in the one topic area that both of us edit (or used to, in his case) and he can be brusque, abrasive, and so forth; but on the articles I have worked with him on, his knowledge of the source material is far superior to most other editors, particularly those who turn up with a political POV to push. The articles that brought the matter here I have not sufficient knowledge of, and not the time to look into, so no comment. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I do not believe that Darkness Shines requires rollback, and should be asked to forfeit the right. He's only used it twice over the past week: once to mistakenly revert me, and the other to revert Fut.Perf., for no immediately apparent reason. I've looked far enough into his contrib log; he uses rollback only sparingly, sometimes on - admittedly - clueless non-vandals. I have no opinion on any of the rest of it. Alakzi (talk) 17:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I've been able to look at some more of Darkness Shines' edits and I agree with Fut. Perf. that there are serious problems that DS is refusing to discuss. Something that really jumps out is a quote that DS is edit-warring over at Rape during the Armenian Genocide [68] [69], Rape during the Rwandan Genocide [70], and Rape during the Congo civil wars [71]. Notice it's the same quote in all three articles. If that quote is to be used in each of these articles, it should be about each of these three historical incidents. But it's not--the quote is from a 1994 article by Catherine MacKinnon, "Rape, genocide, and women's human rights", which precedes the Congo civil wars. Now, DS seems not to realize where the quote actually came from, because he cites a 2010 article by Lisa Sharlach that quotes MacKinnon. So he's not only misusing the quote, but mis-citing it as well. From a quick look at the MacKinnon article, it's clear she's discussing the wars in the former Yugoslavia, not the Armenian or Rwandan genocides, nor the Congo civil wars. So there is strong reason for this quote to be removed from these articles, and Fut. Perf. discussed these reasons on the talk page of Talk:Rape during the Rwandan Genocide, and DS has made no real effort to justify the quote's inclusion—he just accuses Fut. Perf. of hounding and edit wars against him. I think this calls for a block of DS (who, remember, has just returned from an indefinite ban through an appeal!) and perhaps a further topic restriction. Of course, the simpler solution is just to ban him again... --Akhilleus (talk) 19:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I also do not see any wiki-hounding by FPAS. The topic ban on DS was put for a reason and there is no improvement. It is evident on this page too, instead of adressing the concerns raised DS goes on swearing and alleging wiki-hounding. --AmritasyaPutraT 07:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Unarchiving this thread; it still needs resolution. At the moment, DS is lying low and has ceased reverting on this set of articles, but that doesn't mean the issue is solved structurally. At the very least, somebody will need to get the message across to DS that automatic edit-warring is not a legitimate reaction to other people's edits, no matter how much he dislikes them. Fut.Perf. 05:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I am finding it difficult to assess the situation as several diffs have been presented but without commentary as to what in particular is meant to be wrong with them. In many cases, while the content may not be of a style that I would present, I tend to use lots of refs, in many cases the contributions seem quite valid. If any of the editors here can specify perceived problems then this would be appreciated.
This is not to say that there aren't problems but my first thought when seeing the names "Future Perfect at Sunrise" and "Darkness Shines" was that perhaps these two were bound to clash.
Darkness Shines Can I please ask you to make every effort to deal with others here with the highest level of respect possible. Swearing about situations may not be a biggie as long as people are not being attacked. Wikipedia needs to work together as a cooperative group and, in the same way as has happened in other situations, if it is not already happening, I'd ask you to do what you an to play your part here.
Again I would be grateful to know what edits have been a problem. GregKaye 12:13, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
All the problems (source misrepresentation, misattributions etc.) are outlined in detail at the talkpages of the respective articles. Akhilleus explained two of the issues quite clearly just above, too. Please follow the "talk" links at the end of each entry in the list of articles above. I'm afraid explaining all the issues in a way brief enough for inclusion here at ANI won't be possible; there are many of them, and it's in the nature of such issues that explaining them takes up some space and understanding them requires some reading. – That said, the objective quality of the edits is not really the main issue here anyway. The issue is the behavioral pattern of meeting challenges to them with mechanical blanket reverts and refusal to discuss. Fut.Perf. 12:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I have not been laying low, I have been busy. Greg, I have no intention of editing collaboratively with someone who hounds me, forum shops to get me banned, and has wanted me off the project fro years. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:32, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
DS, We do not always have that luxury in the Wikipedia community. It is down to all editors to work effectively with all other editors and, if paths legitimately cross on issues relevant to the improvement of content, then we have to work together. If another editor is hounding you on issues that have no valid point that seems to go beyond issues of accidental mistake then you can file report and get them banned.
In regard to the edits mentioned by Akhilleus the problem I have is that they are references from books that I don't have to hand and regarding a topic with which I am unfamiliar. It creates difficulties when books are not on line for verification. Its an author who only one piece of published material accessible and not the book in question. The content of the citation is also problematic, ""It is also rape unto death,... It is rape as an instrument of forced exile,... It is rape to be seen ... It is rape to drive ... It is rape as genocide..." yes but what is "it"? In effect the citations present stand alone contents expressing a conclusion that there has been rape as genocide but giving no more detail than that. Worst: it is sitting on the mat. Better a cat is sitting on the mat. Best: the cat is sitting on the mat. GregKaye 12:23, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Since DS has stated he has no intent of editing collaboratively, I think it's time to renew the ban. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:34, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


Isaid I will not cooperate with one editor, hardly grounds for a ban. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

When you are reverting an editor without providing a reason related to article improvement and refusing to cooperate for the purpose of improvement of the article, you are disrupting wikipedia, and this is a ground for a ban. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I did a spot check of some material DS added during a past AE request. See AE archive and my talk archive. Although DS provides sources/authority for edits, those sources were misinterpreted and/or misrepresented. Misinterpreting sources can do substantial damage to WP. Many editors will AGF and presume that a cited source says what is claimed; offline sources may be difficult to verify. When material is challenged, DS does not undertake a careful or thoughtful review of the challenge or the underlying sources. I haven't examined the above edits, but comments above suggest that misinterpretation is a continuing problem. A ban would be appropriate for misusing sources. Glrx (talk) 20:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

... And now this thread is about to sink off into the archives unresolved for a second time. Why is it that despite mounting evidence of a long-term, persistent pattern of source falsification and other forms of disruptive content creation, ongoing blatant edit-warring, a history of disruption stretching over five years marked by literally dozens and dozens of blocks, and an explicit point-blank refusal to behave in a collaborative fashion, not one administrator can be bothered to do the obvious thing here? Fut.Perf. 21:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I would take care of this except that I've posted on the talk pages of some of the articles DS has edited, so someone could say we're in a content dispute. I do think a block is in order, though. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:37, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
@Darkness Shines, can you improve your language please? How come that you are a senior editor, and still use fucking stalking me. Your language has been below standard for long. Please improve it. -AsceticRosé 00:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
This post really requires admin attention, whichever way the admins intend to act. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Vanamonde and FPAS. Note that DS is already subject to a number of sanctions. Calypsomusic (talk) 11:52, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Rangeblock genius wanted[edit]

Hi admins. A bunch of us have had problems with someone I've dubbed the Marhc Vandal. He's almost a daily annoyance. Anyhow, I'm hoping that one of the more technically-minded admins can help set up one (or twenty?) range blocks, or figure out something that will help suppress the disruption for a while. List of some of the IPs used are here. Please feel free to add notes to that document as you wish. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:18, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Alternatively, how about we start getting serious about eliminating this kind of crap once and for all with real name registration and sign-in-to-edit? Carrite (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Nobody can help take a stab at this? Nobody? Anybody? Will this be another ANI report that gets archived with no action or reply? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I guess you could try Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to make range blocks. I've never had good luck with requesting range blocks. As a result, I briefly considered an edit filter, which eventually struck me as unworkable. Maybe you could try that route if the range block is declined. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
@Cyphoidbomb: Is this who ThePhantomBot's been detecting with LTA-10? Check the LTA-10 detections at the debug log and if it's the same person I'll try to expand the filter, otherwise I'll see if I can make a new one. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 02:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Even Handed[edit]

Please see my comments here re the recent warning against me for edit warring. I believe the adminstrators have not been even handed nor strict enough on the editor that made a personal attack against me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EdJohnston#Even_handed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robynthehode (talkcontribs) 20:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

For the WP:3RRN discussion, see here. [72] AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Are you referring to the personal attack that was struck through and for which an apology was offered? Tiderolls 20:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
How many times is it allowable to ask someone "what the fuck are you doing", call them an "asshole", a "jerk" etc, just to be threatened with being blocked, say "sorry about that" and strike it out? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I dunno, what do you think would be fair? Tiderolls 20:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Once? After which recurrent and overt personal attacks should be dealt with with short shrift and lame, artificially crafted apologies should be treated as such. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Personally I find the most problematic thing about BMK's posts to be the initial assertion that because he's been editing Wikipedia longer, he's got the right to determine content [73] The swearing was uncalled for, but the WP:OWNing here seems to me to be more significant - it is entirely contrary to the Wikipedia ethos. Having said that I don't really think that further sanctions would be justified, given that BMK apologised. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Both are equally problematic. BMK shouldn't have just been ticked off, he should have been sanctioned for his overt personal attack and ownership claims. The apology was pure "theater". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Nice job not notifying the party being talked about, everyone. Anyway, Robyn, per the discussion that unfolded, BMK apologised for what he said, was warned to be more cautious with his words, and both of you were warned for breaking 3RR, as would be expected when you both reverted 4-5 times-- what now? What else would you want an admin to do? Furthermore, based on your comments at the end of the AN3 thread, you give the air that you don't think you should have even been warned for editwarring, at least not to the same degree, and that's going to seriously undermine a request for further sanctions, especially against the opposing party in the edit war when the affair is over and done with. It doesn't matter if you're doing it in good faith-- if you're not reverting obvious vandalism, you don't revert more than 3 times, end of story. I'd think further sanctions against BMK would be warranted if he showed further behavioral infractions, and as an uninvolved/neutral party I don't know if he has a history of problematic behavior (or from an unbiased standpoint would constitute problematic behavior). BlusterBlasterkablooie! 20:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Apologizing for a series of shameless personal attacks doesn't excuse the 3RR violation here, and BMK's long-running combination of offensive personal attacks and blatant 3RR violations / edit warring is one that needs to be addressed. A look at BMK's block log lists four separate blocks for edit warring / 3RR violations, including two in the past 18 months:

  • 02:21, 10 March 2015 Swarm (talk | contribs) blocked Beyond My Ken (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 24 hours (account creation blocked) (Violation of the three-revert rule: on Little Syria, Manhattan -- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=650725160)
  • 10:02, 22 January 2014 Dpmuk (talk | contribs) blocked Beyond My Ken (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 24 hours (account creation blocked) (Violation of the three-revert rule: on No Other Woman (1933 film))
  • 21:30, 5 December 2010 Tariqabjotu (talk | contribs) blocked Beyond My Ken (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 24 hours (account creation blocked) (Violation of the three-revert rule: on The Limelight)
  • 10:28, 15 November 2010 SarekOfVulcan (talk | contribs) blocked Beyond My Ken (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 24 hours (account creation blocked) (Edit warring)

The warning given here for a blatant violation of the 3RR rule is entirely unjustified, especially from an editor who has regularly reported other users for their violations and is more than aware of his obligations under 3RR. Furthermore, BMK has received an inordinate number of such warnings and non-blocks in the past two years, in situations when blocks of mounting lengths would be amply justified based on his record (including in November 2013, here in January 2014, February 2014, October 2014 and here in April 2015, last month) for serial offenders such as BMK. A bright line violation here resulted in yet another mere warning. It's well past time for a block here. Alansohn (talk) 22:17, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Maybe someone should ping @Beyond My Ken: to let him know about this thread? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
He was pinged and acknowledged the thread, in his own unique way. Alansohn (talk) 23:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support indefinite block on BMK for a long, persistent pattern of false accusations without evidence, a history of personal attacks, and assumptions of bad faith. Just recently, BMK accused me of being a sock puppet with no evidence. He's repeatedly been asked to provide evidence, and I'm asking him now to submit an SPI. Put up or shut up, BMK. More recently, he made additional bad faith accusations without evidence when I participated in an RfC about images on a page he claimed ownership. It's impossible to edit any article or participate in any discussion where he shows his face. Viriditas (talk) 03:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • And for the record, even after my comment above, BMK is still persisting in making paranoid, bogus sock puppet accusations.[74] Please block BMK for repeatedly making false claims to malign other users. BMK repeatedly refers to some kind of interaction we had in 2008. At that time, the only major editing we were involved with together took place in the Philip K. Dick article. As you can see from the page statistics, approximately 956 IPs have edited that page.[75] According to BMK, I apparently used one of those IPs as a sock, a sock which according to BMK only made two edits. As you can see from the page history during that time, there is no connection between me and that IP (wherever it is supposed to be, as BMK wont specify who or what it is). For the record, I have not engaged in any sock puppetry. However, for the record, BMK has.[76] I'm wondering if another SPI should be done on BMK at this point due to the continuing disruption. Viriditas (talk) 04:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Ah, Viriditas...it's nice to know that you have not been socking as one of you is more than enough. Screeching for a site ban because an editor of your stature has been afronted has a certain laugh factor at least, and we thank you.--MONGO 07:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • So you think it is acceptable for an editor to continue to make false accusations without evidence? That's a direct violation of our policy on civility and personal attacks. Your comment makes it clear why the community, in a rare display of their best judgement, chose to desysop you. For that, I thank them. Viriditas (talk) 08:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I read BMKs comments on his talk page and its obvious you're misleading the evidence as usual. Not to disagree with valid complaints made above your idiotic screeching for a site ban, considering your block log and history of personal attacks about all you deserve is indeed the door so it's truly laughable that you'd have the arrogance to demand anyone here be site banned.--MONGO 08:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Wrong. BMK's comments pertain directly to my request for evidence, which he deleted, which in turn refers directly to his accusation about sock puppetry made on this board. Since he deleted those comments from his talk page, you couldn't have "read" them, and since you didn't know about the comments he made here, you weren't aware of them. I'm sorry, but I don't speak MONGO-ish, so I can't parse "misleading the evidence", but if you meant "misreading", yes, that's exactly what you are doing. BMK has a long history of making baseless accusations and attacks and you defend this behavior. Why? We'll never know, because all you offer is tu quoque as a response. Viriditas (talk) 09:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • No one in their right mind is going to adhere to your arrogant demand that the editor in question be given an indefinite block. The only thing your demand does is reduce the validity of the more rational side of the complaint that was presented before you showed up screeching like a wacko.--MONGO 09:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Viriditas...you were blocked for three months for doing the exact same things you are accusing BMK of doing, yet you give no proof that BMK has done the things you claim. Earlier comments by others regarding BMK's editing issues have validity but your accusations are actually things you have done yourself, and received multiple blocks for them.--MONGO 09:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • BMK has most certainly done what I claim and the diffs are freely available:
1. But such lack of judgment and perception are perhaps to be expected from an editor who created a sockpuppet in the attempt to win a dispute. 08:35, 4 February 2015
2. Uh-huh, you deny sockpuppetry. Well, you could knock me over with a feather. Unfortunately, I was there, and I know better.08:55, 4 February 2015
3. And that sockpuppetry? ... Well you and I just put on a show for the kids, right?, using puppets made out of socks -- Yeah, I remember it all now, just as if it really happened!! 09:19, 4 February 2015
4. BTW, any admins want to advise me on what the chances would be on getting a block on a puppetmaster whose sockpuppet made two edits in 2008 and then disappeared? ... Yeah, that was what I thought. 03:23, 2 May 2015 (edit) (undo) (thank)
  • The false accusations are there and continue to be repeated without evidence. No amount of fallacious tu quoque distractions from MONGO will change it. The reason BMK can't produce any evidence of sock puppetry on my part is because it in fact never happened. When BMK is losing an argument, he has a tendency to make paranoid, false accusations to distract others from the discussion. This is quite unlike MONGO, for example, who will instead resort to fallacious tu quoque arguments and distorting block log entries. I really can't thank the community enough for desysopping him. Viriditas (talk) 10:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so it's become glaringly obvious that people with laughably gargantuan snarling packs of dogs in this fight are beginning to coatrack this thread into something quite ugly and likely to be closed as no action by the admin least willing to wade through this garbage, so if this is going to go anywhere anyone wants it to go, I'll recommend we look at the following facts about this specific situation and only those facts:

  • BMK has been blocked for editwarring twice in the last 18 months. Bringing up issues from a gap of five bleeding years ago seems a little excessive, so let's keep it recent if this is going to be about addressing his behavior now and not nursing some unrelated wound. But why block him and not the editor, or why not both, since they both editwarred and equally should know better?
  • BMK has also been, in this case, using his editcount and tenure as reasoning to undermine another editor's contributions, which is needless to say not acceptable. He should be striking that comment out and apologising for that if anything else, and I'd consider it blockable if he made a habit of pulling that card.
  • However, I don't see how blocking him is going to actually address the behavioral issues. I'm new, but I'm not stupid; I know that it's all going to become irrelevant in face of all the gravedancing that's sure to come of a temp block, and indeffing him is needless to say excessive. But if you want his behavior to change, coming at him at any given opportunity with an army's worth of axes to grind ain't gonna persuade him, so grow the hell up and get back to editing if your own little snits with him from years ago are getting in the way of contributing neutrally to a discussion of his actions.

Warning him for this incident is all that's really actionable from an administrator's standpoint, as far as I can see. Past that, I'd say his actions certainly were obnoxious in this case, but unless he obviously isn't going to work on playing more nicely with the other kids and says as such, I don't see what else can be done. The piling-on by unrelated editors who've had past bas blood with him is more obnoxious to me, but hey, par for the course on ANI. BlusterBlasterkablooie! 10:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

The most recent diff related to the continuing false accusations of sock puppetry was dated today.[77] However, I can refer you to another recent interaction, this one having to do with an innocent RfC on Talk:William Street (Manhattan) that took place last month. Here are some highlights from that discussion:
  • Since you clearly know nothing about the street, or what's on it, and since you failed to suggest an alternative from the Commons image pool immediiately available to us, or do any research about other possible CC images which we might use, there's no particular reason to take your comments into account at all, except, of course, that your obvious superiority to us lowly peons requires us to get on bended knee and kiss your ring. Since we actually live in a democracy, however, and since Wikipedia is more of an anarchy than anything else, I'll just ignore your bullshit and wait for the comments of other editors more interested in improving the encyclopedia, and less involved with the aggrandizement of their own egos.[78]
  • Is that something that you're able to understand, or shall I rephrase it in words of one syllable so you can understand it more easily?[79]
  • Thanks so much for your comments, but since you seem to be unable to follow a simple set of instructions, I'll just file your input away in the circular file, where they can keep the majority of your Wikipedia comments company.[80]
This exchange was then followed by BMK's collapsing of my response to the RfC,[81] which of course, defeats the entire purpose of an RfC and illustrates the same ownership problems listed above. If that's a representative sample of the kind of interaction one can expect with BMK, then as they say, Houston, we have a problem. Viriditas (talk) 10:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm seeing this as a representative sample of how BMK interacts with you, and in that RfC I'm seeing problems with how both of you approach the issue-- from my view, if you had a problem with the photos, instead of riffing on the photographer's skills you really should have suggested a better photo from Commons or something, but that aside, the both of you needling each other turned the thing into a dramafest. As for the sockpuppet accusations, they seem be some back-and-forth thing you have with him over some sockpuppet dispute that was over and done with in 2010-- and I'm pretty sure he wouldn't be bringing it up if you wouldn't keep bringing it up, and vice versa. My suggestion? I think I speak for many when I say to both of you, grow up. BlusterBlasterkablooie! 11:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. For the record, I was not involved in either of the two disputes you mention. In the former, I responded to a random RfC (from the listing page) and in the latter, I had nothing whatsoever to do with either the SPI or discussion about BMK's use of multiple accounts in the past. There's no back and forth here at all. BMK's behavior in both instances listed here, to make false accusations about sock puppetry, and to make personal attacks during an RFC, are exactly the kind of behavior under discussion. The point in me bringing them here to this thread is to show that the behavioral pattern has remained consistent. Viriditas (talk) 11:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Uh... correct me if I'm misreading what you're saying, but responding to the RfC (especially one that he started; how did you imagine that would turn out considering your history?) and in turn getting embroiled in a spat with BMK means you are most definitely involved with that conflict-- you're one of the belligerents in said conflict, how could you not be involved? As for the sockpuppet thing, you're the one who brought up BMK's old SPI in this very discussion. I'm certainly not saying he should be implying you were socking way back when if he can't back it up, because that's just him continuing the utter timesuck of a tumultuous history you two have, and he ought to cut that the hell out at this point. But you have some responsibility in all this, too; he's not going to quit being acerbic to you if you don't quit responding in kind. Be the first to take a deep breath and stop responding, even if you don't think you're wrong for doing so. Something about taking the high road. And moreover, try to be considerate about how you phrase things, if that RfC post you made was any representative sample of your own conduct--if you're trying to make yourself seem spotless in comparison to him, it's not really working. BlusterBlasterkablooie! 14:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
This is the second time you've implied that I have a "history" with BMK, and this is the second time that I've told you that I don't. BMK apparently participated in a dispute with several editors on the PKD article back in 2008 in which discussion on the talk page went against his position. Several editors participated. Other than participating in the same discussion about a topic that was not about BMK seven years ago (before your time, it seems) I have no "history" with him. Yes, he is the type of person who believes he has a "history" with anyone who disagrees with him, so I'll give you that. Our policies on civility and personal attacks make it clear he is engaging in unacceptable behavior and that's why I've brought it up in a thread about the same subject. Viriditas (talk) 19:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Out of a list of open Rfc's you just happened to pick the one he opened? This was done for the purpose of.....what exactly? I suppose your purpose of picking that Rfc had nothing to do with prior animosities of course.--MONGO 20:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your interest in my extensive contribution history, particularly in regards to my participation in community processes. I was drawn to the list of open RfCs during the second week of March after opening an RfC myself on the naming of Cypress Hills Massacre in the history topic area at 03:19, 13 March.[82] While watching the RfC queue for Cypress Hills Massacre to see when the bot would list the RfC, I watched Legobot get its knickers in a twist as the bot posted both the RfC ID I posted and William Street to the same history queue at exactly 4:00 UTC [83][84] You can see it for yourself.[85] Legobot's page history looks like this:
04:00, 13 March 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+1,850)‎ . . Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography ‎ (Added: Talk:William Street (Manhattan) Talk:Cypress Hills massacre.)
04:00, 13 March 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+14)‎ . . Talk:William Street (Manhattan) ‎ (Adding RFC ID.)
04:00, 13 March 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+14)‎ . . Talk:Cypress Hills Massacre ‎ (Adding RFC ID.)
This allowed me to watch the listing of both the Cypress Hills Massacre RfC and William Street RfC in real time in the same exact history queue, allowing me to comment on it seven minutes later at 04:07, 13 March, William Street RfC (History and geography); I then made my way to two additional RfCs: 04:12, 13 March, A Fine Frenzy (Biographies), and 05:57, 13 March, Kokuchūkai RfC (Politics, government, and law; Religion and philosophy). I hope this simple, prosaic explanation doesn't ruin your complex conspiracy theory. Viriditas (talk) 21:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Let me be clear (I have said these things before). I accept that I broke the 3RR rule. I accept that there is a sanction for this. I accept the warning given. I do not accept the way Wikipedia deals with editors that persistently are uncivil or break the rules and guidelines (or the way some administrators interpret the rules). Editors who persistently are uncivil or break the rules as seems to be the case in my brief look at BMK's editing history should have stronger sanctions than repeated warnings and requests to apologise. Its a bit like parenting really: constant warnings don't change behaviour, clearly defined sanctions that are enacted do. My request for further sanctions for BMK is not motivated by anything personal even though I received a personal 'attack' from this editor. Rather it is motivated by improving the process of Wikipedia editing. I think temporary bans enacted earlier in these situations are a possible way forward giving any editor time to reflect and change their behaviour. I am happy to accept any consensus about this and do not want this to drag on. I just needed to make my views clear. Robynthehode (talk) 11:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
I understand where you're coming from there and I appreciate you clarifying your stance on the matter, but at this point what complicates matters is that your call for further sanctions is getting completely railroaded by editors who are pursuing the same thing out of spite, due to prior interactions with BMK that went sour, and it really risks admins not taking your request seriously or the issue being closed as "no consensus". As for improving the behavior... blocking him is probably not going to teach him much, if it's already been done. I'm obviously not privy to his thoughts and I can't speak for how sincere his apology was (some seem happy to, though), but I doubt he's going to be preoccupied with thinking about what he did wrong if he gets blocked, especially with all this lot waiting to dance on his grave the second it starts. I'm not entirely sure what the best route would be at this point, but since there's a chance that he'll learn from this and tone it down, it seems likely that he'll be given the chance to do so. A lot of it has to do with the space of time between his edit warring/civility infractions, I think-- he doesn't do it often enough to be considered a net negative for the project which is common in these cases, and it's not generally clear to judging admins that he truly thinks he's in the wrong for doing what he did, apologies and redactions notwithstanding. His meeting of others' immature behavior in disputes with more of the same and his constant potshots about stupid stuff that happened years ago is very telling, as much as I'd like to take his withdrawal of his comment against you at face value. BlusterBlasterkablooie! 14:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
To summarise the above, BMK has been given a pass to swear at and bully editors because he occasionally improves the encyclopedic content of Wikipedia. Sorry, Robynthehode, you had to be on the receiving end of one of his periodic outbursts. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
...That's putting a really hyperbolic spin on my words. I've already said that getting dramatic about wanting him sanctioned is making it less likely he will. BlusterBlasterkablooie! 16:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
No, I think I've summarised your position precisely. The idea that a self-proclaimed experienced editor can tell another more experienced and more productive editor "To expect me to treat you as a colleague under those circumstance is asking too much, so this is how you'll be treated instead, like the pest you have become." is fine in your opinion. Or the "Hey, asshole, stop fucking around" charm to a new editor? Apologist barnstar awarded. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Hooray, and it's my first one too! Confetti all around! Lmao, what? Did you not notice that I said his actions are immature and deserving of address, or are you 'trying to pick a fight when I'm not opposing you? I wasn't excusing his behavior, I was saying that based on the circumstances the other admins probably won't do anything-- and that's not to say I agree with that outcome. Moreover, you're just proving my point-- the original reporter's complaint is not going to be heard if it's getting drowned out by others deafeningly grinding their axes, being combative and melodramatic about this whole thing. I suppose I could argue that you made a personal attack and are assuming some catastrophically bad faith in me by saying what you did, but I'm honestly more amused than anything, so it doesn't matter. It just obfuscates the issue at hand. BlusterBlasterkablooie! 00:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Robynthehode has a valid complaint and it would be nice if Beyond my Ken might chime in briefly but that is unlikely it appears. Meanwhile, I think regardless of what may or may not happen, I'm going to award him a barnstar for his interactions with Virditas.--MONGO 15:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Done. Although, try as a I might, I cannot understand the edit summary. Viriditas (talk) 19:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks to the above editors for their positive words. It still, however, begs the larger question as to what is to be done about editors who are repeatedly uncivil, distruptive etc. Are there not advisory guidelines for administrators in such cases or does it all come down to discussion and consensus? As there is a 3RR rule which usually results in a brief block why not a 3 x uncivil rule which results in a much longer block? The actions of these types of editors is not random. There are clear patterns of behaviour which can receive reasonably rapid sanctions without endless discussion. Bullying editors (whether they 'intend' to bully or not) are a reason for new (ish) editors to stay away from Wikipedia or other editors to leave. This leaves Wikipedia the poorer and may be the result of not dealing with these issues quickly and decisively. I am not trying to suggest that administrators do not try to deal with these issues (dispute resolution of this kind is nearly always difficult) only that maybe we should review the process of dealing with such editors as has prompted this discussion. Robynthehode (talk) 17:21, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't get the point of all this. BMK and robybthehood were edit warring, BMK withdrew their 'personal comment', both were warned by an admin. The matter should be done with. If you have complaints about the course of action adopted by the admin, then take it up with the admin. If you think BMK has been getting away with murder, then open an RfC/U. this sort of pointless "how come he gets two lollipops but I get only one" carping is a complete waste of time. --regentspark (comment) 17:24, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • RfC/U is closed, and ANI is supposedly the place to post what used to be posted in RfC/U. It remains to be seen whether the admins at ANI are actually willing to take on this new workload, but you cannot fault a user for posting what amounts to an RfC/U here. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Agreed. The complainant has the right to voice concerns and while I would prefer to see no action taken, the diffs provided do indicate that corrective measures may be needed.--MONGO 20:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
You might all be right. But on ANI lately, the straight-forward cases get closed fairly quickly and more complex cases get archived, unresolved. Liz Read! Talk! 20:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, we probably need more admins. Thinks... Hey, now you mention it Liz, I don't suppose you'd consider standing? Begoontalk 15:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, we need more admins, and we need at least one who can stand up to this kind of bullying and offensive behaviour. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support blocking Beyond My Ken per the diffs provided. His frequent incivility is quite worrisome. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose block of BMK. Needs a warning for incivility, certainly. The rest seems to be dredging up old grudges and things from 5 years ago. Softlavender (talk) 01:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Privatization in Croatia[edit]

Based on a RFPP request from User:AlbinoFerret (conduct not at issue) I came across a rather large bout of edit warring at Privatization in Croatia. From the edit summaries, article talk page, and user talk page messages, its clear that some of the editors there just cannot get along with each other. All three also have past edit warring history. As such, I would like to ask for discussion on what we should you about the following 3 editors:

Timbouctou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) WP:ARBMAC discretionary sanctions notification: [86]

Tuvixer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) WP:ARBMAC discretionary sanctions notification: [87] (Didn't link to the case properly)

Tzowu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) WP:ARBMAC discretionary sanctions notification: [88]

There is an AN/3 report against one of the editors Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:.E2.80.8ETzowu_reported_by_User:Tuvixer_.28Result:_.29 but I think this goes beyond mere edit warring, and that the community needs to take a broader look at the issue. As an interim measure, I have full protected the article for 3 days. If this is resolved in such a way that removing the protection before then would make sense, please do so. Monty845 15:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Monty845. I was canvassed into this on my talk page link1 link2, I have never edited the article. I did attempt to add Timbouctou to the existing edit warring dispute but I agree moving this here is probably better. Timbouctou reverted 9 times today [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97]. Mixed in on the edit comments are civility issues. Tuvixer is not innocent in this as he was involved in at least as many reverts as the diffs in this comment show he was reverting Timbouctou's reverts. AlbinoFerret 15:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, a broader look is definitely merited as this is not the first time User:Tuvixer is displaying paranoid trolling behaviour, mixing hysterical edit-warring with rants about him being stalked and/or politically persecuted. Timbouctou (talk) 17:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
I am sure everyone will be looked at. But lets take a look at WP:CIVIL. Name calling is wrong, but you repeatedly call Tuxixer a troll on the talk page [98] [99] [100] [101] and in the edit comments I added diffs for in my last post. Article talk pages are not the place for such comments. Comment on content, not other users WP:TPYES. AlbinoFerret 18:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Not another case of rude and hostile editors in a Balkan article! Personal attacks and other violations of talk-age guidelines in a subject area that is subject to discretionary sanctions, in this case under WP:ARBMAC, can be dealt with at arbitration enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
If this starts looking like its not going anywhere thats the next step. A day or so at most. AlbinoFerret 13:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
For the record, this is what talking to Tuvixer looks like at LGBT rights in Croatia, or Economy of Croatia or Privatization in Croatia or Social Democratic Party of Croatia or Ministry of Culture. He simply starts by edit-warring, then starts asking everyone who does not agree with him what is "wrong with them", calls everyone names, accuses everyone of political bias, rants on and on about him being stalked and then abandoning discussions started by himself at his whim. With all due respect, if that does not fit the definition of a troll, I don't know what does. Timbouctou (talk) 17:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Scholar081504 repeatedly reverting a copyright violation into Shelina Zahra Janmohamed[edit]

Issue being discussed on Scholar081504's talk page. Dianaa has it well in hand. Blackmane (talk) 02:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Back in March, I found a copyright violation in this article and removed it. This is documented on User talk:Scholar081504.

Scholar081504 (talk · contribs) reverted it back into the article, and I posted a copyvio notice on his page. He reverted it again today and disputes that it is a copyright violation on his talk page. It is a complete book review from a paper posted on Academia.edu. User does not seem to get that freely available is not the same as public domain. Skyerise (talk) 15:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

@Skyerise: After copying-pasting the content that the user added into Google search, yes it is WP:COPYVIO, from more than one source. The user also does not have mcuh experience in proper <ref></ref> techniques. I will add my own comment on the user's talk page, and hopefully an admin will do something about this. Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 18:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Callmemirela! That's usually what the violators need, a second opinion.... Skyerise (talk) 18:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
I have added them to my list of people to watch. Any further copy vio will result in an indef block. Thanks for reporting. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:27, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


Sir, I respect the copyright law and regulations that wikipedia has. I tried to edit the contribution to Shelina Zahra Janmohamed for several times, to make it suitable for wikipedia. You may check the editing history. You are talking as if I am adding info to a fake person or fake information. I have not provided a single word of info that is wrong. I gave reference to every single sentence I added. I thought this is the authentic way to contribute at wikipedia. I have seen in many other places at wikipedia, where people added info from an website/article/newspaper and acknowledge the source. If you kindly notice, you will see that I cited at least 5 sources. In some places I tried to rephrase and, in many places, I copied and acknowledged. As I know once we acknowledged, it's not plagiarism or copyright violation. I have been alleged that I copied the whole info from an article published in academia.edu, which is completely false. That particular article is simply one of the 5 sources that I added info from. Should I simply write/rephrase info as I want without citing the source. That would be a much more easy job. If I provided any wrong info, you could take legal action against me. I am just lost. I don't know what to do. To contribute to wikipedia, I had to go through many materials. Now I realize that it is wrong to cite the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scholar081504 (talkcontribs) 15:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Scholar081504#Response to your concern. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Pushing POV and "Serbianization" of Articles by User:Yerevani Axjik/AnulBanul[edit]

I don't know where to put this, so I'll just put it at general ANI. User:Yerevani Axjik pushes POV in their contributions. Not so long time ago, he/she started editing articles about some places in Bosnia, putting in them this photo and putting changes like this one. There is list of affected articles on this Commons-picture. Thanks in advance. --Munja-x86 (talk) 19:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Are those places in Republika Srpska? --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 19:27, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
So what? Sarajevo is in Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. What would be if we put it on the separate map, and not in Bosnia? This is clear POV pushing. --Munja-x86 (talk) 19:32, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Clear POV pushing? How come? Is linking to the municipalities of Republika Srpska article problematic as well? All articles clearly state that those geographical places are in Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as in Republika Srpska, a federal unit of Bosnia and Herzegovina, same as the states of the USA. To me, this isn't a problem at all. --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 19:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
You stated that you like Serbian nation. That's fine. But editing in disruptive manner is not, which you are working on. In Bosnian map there is currently entity line, so what is the reason to change map to the new one? You are just making mess by involving new map. --Munja-x86 (talk) 19:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
I really don't remember that I said I like Serbian nation or anything similar. The truth is, I do, I studied in Serbia and lived there for some time. Regardless, Republika Srpska location map seems fine, all articles using this map contain a very visible information that they are in Bosnia and Herzegovina. However, who here likes whom or hates whom is clear from your edit where your edit summary was "Fuck Republika Srpska (RS)", or literally translated from Serbo-Croatian - Republika Srpska fucks you. I do not know to which user you referred to, but it's clear that you're the one pushing your own POV, and a very interesting one. --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 19:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

It seems the user "Yerevani Axjik" was renamed to user "AnulBanul" in the meantime, so I amended the section name.

The location map is a moot issue as far as POV-pushing, because it's rather subtle. It's reasonably fair to tell the readers that there's both Republika Srpska and Federation on maps of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Perhaps the POV indicator is that the color of the Federation and of surrounding states is the same. This may give the readers the mistaken impression that these are all sovereign states, which they are not. But you can trivially fix that issue by editing the image file on commons. Only if such edits were e.g. reverted without explanation you might have a case of abuse.

Perhaps a more egregious example of POV pushing would be what seems to have transpired at Talk:Emina (poem) recently. The first edit was tagging the 1902 poem article with Republika Srpska, which seems bizarrely anachronistic on the face of it, and then there was the flamewar about whether it's Serbian or Bosnian.

Another admin should have a look. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Just to make things clear. The WikiProject Republika Srpska has both, Republika Srpska and Serbs of Bosnia and Herzegovina in its scope. --AnulBanul (talk) 15:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
That's because you yourself invented it on 17 February 2015‎. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Is there something wrong about that? Yes, I have invented it, which means it's not limited to the territory of Republika Srpska only, but also Serbs of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and it is wrong to see it as a Republika Srpska-only project, since it's not that. --AnulBanul (talk) 22:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Actually user is not the person who is pretending to be. He used name Wustenfuchs with same nationalistic agenda, and has been banned on hr.wiki for sockpuppeting. His native language is Bosnian, not Russian nor Armenian! User is trying to imply he is some other person, while pushing POV "from behind". I will change all maps on affected files. Image map (on commons) of RS is fine to keep if used in right context. Thanks Joy for the insight. P.S. I don't know how renaming passed, because person is blocked on hr.wiki. --Munja-x86 (talk) 21:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Err, User:Wustenfuchs? But, that person is a Croatian? Munja-x86, please take a moment to stop and think about WP:AGF. You can't go around blaming people for serious abuses so aimlessly. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
@Joy: yes, that user! Whatever, same language, Bosnian, Croatian, but he is from Bosnia. Please check this out [102]! (hr.wiki part) I know what I'm saying, I have a good faith ;) --Munja-x86 (talk) 22:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, I was blocked at hr.wiki, but have no connection to the said user whatsoever. Croatia admins are group of 19th century nationalists, so they ban you for whatever the reason. Also, you should wait with your agenda of reverting the map where ever it's used. We should finish the discussion here or elsewhere first. The map of Srpska is used in the right context. All those geographical places where it's used are in Republika Srpska, and it is clearly noted they are all in Bosnia and Herzegovina. --AnulBanul (talk) 22:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I have several things to add about User:Yerevani Axjik/AnulBanul since she is already being discussed. This user has had issues with several editors and has been called out on it by a couple, including me. User:Surtsicna confronted the user about the same issue discussed here. Yerevani Axjik/AnulBanul has a history of denying Bosniaks of an ethnic identity, language, etc. You can look through the users edits. The user has been on an edit-spree, removing the term Bosniaks or replacing it with with the Yugoslav-era Muslims. On Emina, Yerevani Axjik seems to believe that those 24 years of Communist propaganda (1968 to 1992, when Bosniaks were called ethnically Muslims) should rule all of history, even Ottoman times. The user replaced the term Bosniak to describe the subject of the poem, Emina Sefic, with Bosnian Muslim and linked the Bosnian part with the Bosnia Eyalet... a division of the Ottoman Empire which lost control over Bosnia in 1878 -- Emina was born in 1884. The user has also made it a hobby to replace the Bosnian language translations on articles with either Serbo-Croatian or Serbian, and has called the Bosnian language a "political term", and not an actual language. To say that the Bosnian language is a "political term" rather than a linguistic term is yet another attempt to deny Bosniaks of an identity. If that's the case then Serbian is also a "political term" and not a language. Emina was written by the Bosnian Serb poet Aleksa Šantić in the dialect of the Bosnian language in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The user also has been moving pages unnecessarily. For example, the user moved several pages like Petrovac, Bosnia and Herzegovina to Petrovac, Republika Srpska. That particular move was reverted by another user. Yerevani Axjik/AnulBanul has resorted to accusing me of being a sockpuppet of a user that was blocked two years ago because I, like that user, say that Santic was a Bosnian Serb rather than Serbian. Because he WAS. Yerevani Axji/AnulBanul literally went onto Santic's wiki and replaced "Bosnian Serb" with "Serb" to prove her point. Everybody else agreed that this man was born in Bosnia-Herzegovina, raised there, spent his entire life there, and died there... he was a Bosnian Serb, it's fact, not an opinion. You explanation for your removal of "Bosnian Serb" on his wiki was "Šantić contributed greatly to the whole Serbian culture, therefore canot be exclusively described as a Bosnian Serb poet, since he was a member of the Serbian Royal Academy and was active in Serbia as well." So if Barack Obama joined the Serbian Royal Academy, he would be Serbian and a Serbian politician? Logical. User:Munja-x86 hunch that User:Yerevani Axjik/AnulBanul is a sockpuppet of User:Wustenfuchs should be looked into. Wustenfuchs became active 31 October 2008 until 20 September 2014. Yerevani Axjik/AnulBanul became active TWO DAYS later 22 September 2014. Coincidence?--Dragodol (talk) 06:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
You're saying it's anachronistic to apply the term Republika Srpska (made official in 1992) to Emina, but don't see the exact same problem in applying the term Bosnian language (made official in 1993). To an innocent bystander, both of your positions will be seen as nationalist.
Nobody has explained the correlation between Serbian nationalist positions held by AnulBanul and Croatian nationalist positions held by Wustenfuchs. How and why would one make such a transition?!
In any case, this discussion seems way too intricate for ANI, if you want to argue a WP:ARBMAC violation, please follow the procedure at WP:AE instead. And for any sockpuppetry accusations, use WP:SPI. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Раціональне анархіст[edit]

I came across User:Раціональне анархіст when I initiated a deletion discussion concerning The Myth of Islamic Tolerance. I am not a Muslim and I have no conflict of interest. Yes, I may seem like a slightly advanced editor, but I am not a sock. I learn fast, already know a lot about computers and programming, and have read up heaps. I unfortunately would like to raise the following issues about the user's conduct:

  • Breach of WP:GOODFAITH and deletion discussion guidelines. Of the approx 80 words they used at WP:Articles_for_deletion/The_Myth_of_Islamic_Tolerance_(3rd_nomination) around 60 were aimed at making false accusations against me, claiming without evidence I have a WP:COI and am a sock.
  • On their talk page, the user repeated their claims and uncivilly alleged I have an 'impulse-control problem (reinforcing my suspicion that you are a new sock of a previously banned editor)'
  • Placed a template accusing me of canvassing for votes on 'sympathetic forums'
  • Constant edit warring at Rape jihad, an article the user created (few credible sources use the term). The article absurdly lists the Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal as an example of rape jihad
  • Writing at Talk:Rape jihad#Proposed_title 'Britain, Nigeria, et al, aren't "in the Islamic World" (well, at least not until they're conquered)' and 'True, that. (The arguable clear intent of "rape jihad" is demographic conquest. Several hundred captured schoolgirls sold off to jihadi husbands have a thousand holy warrior babies, not a thousand babies brought up another way.)', exposing possible bias and Islamophobia. Countless other examples of aggressive and unpleasant conduct, edit warring and unacceptable behaviour are demonstrated on the talk page of Rape jihad
  • Breaching WP:3RR at Rape jihad
  • Removing speedy deletion tags I place, not just contesting them ([103]), including spuriously
  • Following me and reverting my edits, [104]
  • Closing an adminstators noticeboard discussion I started with no responseshttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=660463129 Corrected, see below

The editor seems to be engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour, and trying to make WP:POINTs. I now also see their is a discussion concerning his conduct. AusLondonder (talk) 20:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

P.S. I accept I have made mistakes - but that is precisely because I'm a new editor. AusLondonder (talk) 20:28, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Response[edit]

  • 1. On my talk page replying to you, I wrote: "Your willingness to fight over a clearly lost cause at the nomination suggests an impulse-control problem (reinforcing my suspicion that you are a new sock of a previously banned editor)" You are doing everything to confirm and nothing to dispel that initial impression. The current !vote at the AfD is presently 7-to-1 in favor of Keep (with you-the-nom being the 1), so this is a lost cause more so now (when you filed this notice) than yesterday (when I cast the 2nd Keep !vote). Regards your request that I "file a sock complaint to clear the air", as far as I know there is nothing preventing you from submitting yourself to a sock-puppet investigation. (Strike that part, as informed otherwise.)
  • 2. Your accusation of a WP:3RR breach is false (not that vandalism reversals count toward 3RR anyway...and not that it matters in this case because it didn't happen).
  • 3. Regards WP:Battleground, it is you who have chosen to escalate WP:ADHOM in new venues such as here and here. Prior to this, my comments were confined to my one AfD !vote and two replies to you on my TP. You will note that I have not participated further at the AfD (while you have hassled nearly every voter).
  • 4. Spending a hour removing a mass of Speedy delete tags and PRODs with poor rationales generated by a new editor who brought himself to one's attention is not stalking; it's housekeeping.
  • 5. As is plainly evident, Chillum closed your noticeboard query, not I. Pax 22:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Boomerang Topic Ban Proposal[edit]

In order to stall the flurry of inappropriate deletion nominations, incorrect tags and battleground behavior over them by this admittedly inexperienced editor, I propose that...

The community forbids AusLondonder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) from adding tags to articles of any type and from creating or participating in deletion discussions (save concerning his own created articles, if any) or of move or merge discussions (broadly construed) outside of his personal talk page for a period of thirty days. Any uninvolved administrator may, at their own discretion, block AusLondonder from editing and/or impose longer ban if he/she finds they are in violation.

Reformed based upon suggestion by Bosstopher below:

The community forbids AusLondonder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) from starting deletion, merge and move discussions for a period of thirty days. Any uninvolved administrator may, at their own discretion, block AusLondonder from editing and/or impose longer ban if he/she finds they are in violation.

Pax 22:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-oppose Preventing the editor from participating in discussions will make it more difficult for him to learn. Would be better if he was simply banned from starting deletion, merge and move discussion.Bosstopher (talk) 23:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Works for me. (Proposal rewritten.) Pax 00:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Usually a topic ban pertains to a subject where there is conflict. Also, CUs aren't run to clear people's name so, no, you can't propose yourself as a candidate in a SPI. And you shouldn't accuse another editor of being a sock account unless you have evidence to back up your assertion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
I did list a duck-like indicator (account's first edit was creation of a large article with advanced formatting). I didn't go to SPI because I hadn't any hunch on who the master might be, and I don't like submitting single names. Pax 00:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Complainant response[edit]

When I first read the response by User:Раціональне анархіст to the issues I raised, I thought he must be having a laugh! How could someone have such a hide to fail to address the issues I raised and instead propose a ban on me is truly breathtaking. Unresolved issues: 1. Continued misleading inferences that I am sock - the editor cites my first edit as evidence (I used 'complex forms they said here and claimed during this discussion I 'created a large article with advanced formatting) - this is false. Please see my first edit here to disprove these claims

2. Acting in bad faith by continuing to falsely accuse me of being a sock, without a shred of evidence, and refusing to withdraw those claims. Suggesting I should nominate myself for investigation, and declining to put forward a single piece of evidence

3. Acting in a disruptive manner during a deletion discussion against me, by engaging in WP:PERSONAL attacks against me and making false allegations against me without a shred of evidence here and failing to assume good faith

4. Engaging in personal attacks against me on his talk page, by stating I suffer from an 'impulse-control problem'

5. Constant edit warring at Rape jihad, an article the user created (few credible sources use the term). The article absurdly lists the Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal as an example of rape jihad, as discussed at Talk:Rape jihad

6. Breaching the WP:3RR rule at Rape jihad, as discussed on the talk page.

7. Battleground behaviour at articles, talkpages and discussions relating to Islam

8. Disturbingly, writing at at Talk:Rape jihad#Proposed_title 'Britain, Nigeria, et al, aren't "in the Islamic World" (well, at least not until they're conquered)' and 'True, that. (The arguable clear intent of "rape jihad" is demographic conquest. Several hundred captured schoolgirls sold off to jihadi husbands have a thousand holy warrior babies, not a thousand babies brought up another way.)', exposing possible bias and Islamophobia. Countless other examples of aggressive and unpleasant conduct, edit warring and unacceptable behaviour are demonstrated on the talk page of Rape jihad

9. Removing speedy deletion tags, for example at Anshul sdr, now prodded and numerous other articles now deleted

10. Calling for a discussion I sought to begin regarding book notability to be closed. (I earlier stated that User:Раціональне анархіст closed it, however they only called for it to be closed)

11. At the same time as accusing me of having a 'master' and being a sock, the editor has called for me to be topic banned because I am 'inexperienced' despite the fact virtually all of my speedy deletion nominations (other than those removed my User:Раціональне анархіст) were supported by admins.

12. Arrogantly attempting to muddy the waters by proposing that I be banned from proposing articles for deletion, even though the vast majority of speedy nominations have been approved and the fact the editor is not an admin. If I were so arrogant as to make any ban suggestions, I would suggest the editor banned from articles relating to Islam

13. Referencing the WP:COMPETENCE essay towards me

AusLondonder (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, here are some examples of articles I nominated for speedy deletion now gone:

From memory, at least some of these deletions were opposed by the editor in questionAusLondonder (talk) 16:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Replies:
1. Repeatedly bringing up a subject (the Rape jihad article) whose associated disputes (two AfDs and three ANIs over the last several months) considerably predate your new account creation is not a good idea (someone else might get the notion that you're a sock). You're simply not up-to-speed, don't know the material, haven't participated in the discussions, and haven't met the players. Twice now you've accused me of violating 3RR without evidence (and it's a charge not even the section-blanking vandals made in during the ANIs, one current ongoing).
2. You need to provide "difs" when making serious accusations, such as the aforementioned 3RR breach claim. For the purposes of your bringing your deletions in here, nobody in the gallery cares about your "good" nominations that I was not involved in (they're the definition of irrelevant); what's important are the ones I was involved in, such as these:[105],[106],[107],[108],[109] Those are articles with PROD or Speedy tags. Any editor (except the article creator) can remove those; hell, they don't even need a reason in their edit commentary (although they are always appreciated). Your not knowing this, but jumping to drag me in here over it, supports my competence and "impulse-control" assessments, suggesting that the proposed temporary ban is appropriate.
3. I've submitted the Anshul sdr article to general AfD. Pax 18:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
It really is ironic that you have the brass neck to ask me to provide evidence of 'serious allegations' - you've provided no evidence for your constant allegations of sockpuppertry and WP:COI. However, the evidence for WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour and WP:3RR breaches is discussed at Talk:Rape jihad. I became aware of your conduct regarding Islam when I tried to discover what prompted your aggressive input at the deletion nomination - I then discovered your history WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour regarding articles and discussions related to Islam. I have today continued important work on the encyclopedia including speedy deletion nominations. It is entirely relevant to bring in my other speedy deletion nominations I have made given your accusations of incompetence towards me. I think it is right to raise your removal of speedy deletion tags at articles subsequently deleted, because it smells of WP:POINT. AusLondonder (talk) 19:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I've just found this. Just look at the editors conduct here - more WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:UNCIVIL. Any other editor would have been banned by now. AusLondonder (talk) 19:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
"...I became aware of your conduct regarding Islam when I tried to discover what prompted your aggressive input at the deletion nomination..."
I'm curious: what did you find out about the other seven ten editors who likewise voted to keep the article (that being all of the editors who've cast votes at the AfD you proposed)? Pax 20:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
May 5: Speaking of brass, what on earth prompted you to unload this vitrol upon another editor, GuzzyG, at your deletion nom? He was the ninth Keep !voter (versus only you) in your nom, absolutely a lost cause at that point. So, more confirmation of battleground/competence/impulse-control issues in the inability to recognize a lack of equine vital signs. Pax 01:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
What prompted it, you ask? Didn't you read his malicious accusation against me? Am I expected to take it but not give it? Indeed he was a 'voter', failing to actually discuss the matter and simply casting a vote. 'So, more confirmation of battleground/competence/impulse-control issues in the inability to recognize (sic) a lack of equine vital signs. Wrong on every count. Your battleground behaviour regarding Islam is illustrated above. I've got nothing else to say on that. Impulse control? Don't make me laugh? Equine vital signs crap? I know you have some weird obsession with that essay, but I have given up, so I don't quite know what your point is. I didn't realise the standard book review counted as a published source, but I do now. Humility and accepting a mistake - do you ever do that? Competence - my contributions say otherwise. AusLondonder (talk) 01:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
You were wrong about the 3RR, wrong about who closed the noticeboard query, wrong in assuming that the removal of improper-rationale speedy tags represents "spurious" wiki-stalking, wrong about everything regarding the Rape jihad article, wrong to nominate The Myth of Islamic Tolerance for deletion, and wrong to accuse another editor of an undue fixation with Islam when it's apparent your fixation is not at least equal if not greater (given that several of your declined PROD/speedy tags involved other Islam-related books). Quite simply put, you do have obvious competence problems, and lack the ability to cool your jets and back down from lost causes. Pax 03:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
You are having a great deal of trouble understanding this, I know. But I did back down. What more do you want? Blood? However, I was right about WP:3RR at Rape jihad. It is there in black and white on the talkpage. I was right in suggesting you encouraging closing of the noticeboard query, as I made quite clear. I was right in nominating articles for speedy deletion (at least one article you removed the tag from where speedily deleted later). Your conduct at Rape jihad has been a textbook case of WP:BATTLEGROUND. AusLondonder (talk) 03:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
No you aren't right about 3RR because you either don't really understand what that policy is or you can't count. You have failed to provide necessary difs proving your case, and you can't. What's going to happen now: you'll head off to that article's history to recheck your count, then visit the 3RR policy page to bone up, and realize with a sinking feeling that you were wrong. Pax 05:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Additional note[edit]

Onlookers may wish to examine a concurrent ANI for additional examples of the AusLondonder's combative, escalatory approach to discussion. Pax 05:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Urgent page protection needed[edit]

PROTECTED:

Article semi-protected by Chillum. (non-admin closure) --IJBall (talk) 15:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Floyd Mayweather, Jr. vs. Manny Pacquiao is being spammed with links to illegal streams for the boxing match approximately every 2-3 minutes. No response from WP:RPP, it really needs protecting urgently. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Seconded. 24hrs should suffice, as the fight is tonight IIRC. Pax 00:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
It looks like the previous semi-protection expired. I have semi'd it for another couple of days. If it turns out to need full protection due to sleeper accounts you can let me know on my talk page. Chillum 01:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
It appears that the semi-protection did the trick. An admin might want to go through the history and block the usernames used by the spammers before they become autoconfirmed and cause trouble on the page of some future pay-per-view sporting event. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Mizzou Arena (3rd round)[edit]

The issue with the Mizzou Arena article has already been brought up twice before, and the editor who has saw fit to OWN the page has once again started the dispute. Basically the arena was named for a Wal-Mart heir's daughter just before it opened, it opened under the daughter's name, but then said daughter's school discovered she was using her roommate to commit academic dishonesty and the school and Wal-Mart heir who were rightfully embarrassed quickly pulled her name off the building and went with the neutral Mizzou Arena title it has today; this has all been well-sourced in the article and many, many other sources outside.

However, Eodcarl (talk · contribs) has been on a long crusade to remove all mentions of the arena naming, no matter how much article editors try to minimize it. The editor's entire history since December 2013 has been devoted to removing the arena's naming history against all consensus. I thought it was settled the first time, but they came back in July of last year to continue to remove it. Again, we established consensus and thought they moved on. Then at the end of February when nobody was really paying attention to the article, they removed it anew. I came upon it last night upon checking my article history, re-added the sourced information and warned the user. They came back on my talk page to call me a bully and call the sourced info 'libelous', and then asserted OWN by removing the team's 2014 record they edited in through the 2014-15 Mizzou basketball season, as if they are the only one who can edit information on the article; their response was to call me a 'facist'. I ask for some kind of action to be taken against Edocarl, as it's obvious trying to come to some kind of consensus with them would be fruitless. Nate (chatter) 03:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

24-hour block levied. If he resumes, report for a long or indefinite block. Nyttend (talk) 03:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Has this been discussed at WP:BLPN? At first glance, it looks like the blocked user might be correct, although unaware of how they should proceed. The disputed text appears to be a classic misuse of an article to permanently record stupid behavior by a living person in a way that is totally unrelated to the content of Mizzou Arena. At BLPN I would argue that if the event (someone cheating at school) is notable, there should be an article on the incident. Failing that, and assuming there is no ongoing discussion in reliable sources, all mention of the living person's problems should be removed from the article about a building. Johnuniq (talk) 07:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Seeing as the building's history is deemed noteworthy and this incident is the explanation for an important part of that history (name change), I don't see how one could avoid some mention.-- Elmidae (talk) 17:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
The detail in the article at present is startling and seems WP:UNDUE. It would be quite enough to say that the stadium was to be named after the donors' daughter but they renounced naming rights following an unrelated scandal, and even that might be - as Johnuniq points out - more than enough. NebY (talk) 18:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
They don't seem to be contesting the naming detail (which with the cheating scandal and the revocation of naming rights, is related; there's only so much reducing you can do when the two are intertwined but if you want to give it a shot I won't be in the way at all), but that they played under the first name for three home games, which were mainly the usual early season college basketball cannon fodder opponents, but it still was under the original name for those games until Mizzou announced the termination of the deal. Seeing as in the past they were needling editors on articles related to the Kansas Jayhawks with negative details about that team's history, this seems to be a Tigers fan who doesn't like that we aren't going to be able to make Mizzou look golden at all times but we also have to be balanced. Also, since this is an arena and not a person, I felt BLPN would be an awkward venue. Nate (chatter) 00:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I've done that.[110] The wrongdoing led to the stadium renaming but the naming didn't play a part in the wrongdoing, so they were hardly intertwined. The material does fall within the scope of WP:BLPN (WP:BLP begins "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page." - emphases in the original) and Johnuniq's comments above have merit, so we may still need to discuss it there. NebY (talk) 08:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your edit at the article which I am watching. I repeat that if anyone wants to list the faults of the doner's daughter, they should do so in a separate article on that incident. Johnuniq (talk) 09:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)As for team partisanship, I've left the section Mizzou Arena#Men's basketball record at Mizzou Arena in place but its inclusion is surprising. Such sections aren't part of the basic structure recommended at Wikipedia:WikiProject Event Venues/Sports task force#Structure and I could only find one such table in Category:Basketball venues in Missouri and Template:Southeastern Conference basketball venue navbox. NebY (talk) 09:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I made a similar point, as did others, for a long time. The editor who got me blocked claimed there was consensus to give the Paige Sports Arena name prominent first billing at the top of the page, when no such consensus ever happened. It was nothing more than editors who liked the idea of highlighting embarrassment for Mizzou. It was certainly embarrassing, but it is a footnote. I never removed all mention of the naming controversy; Like you said, I always thought it appropriate to include it in the article, just not as a redirect and IN BOLD prominence at the top of the article. It has been over 10 years since the arena opened, and the original name is already an obscure footnote, and Wikipedia should treat it that way. Eodcarl (talk) 13:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Quick point on the side. You should pay attention to the text above the save button "By clicking the "Save page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL with the understanding that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient for CC BY-SA 3.0 attribution." You can't revoke permission for other editors to work/edit/delete/use it since, by hitting save, you have irrevocably released it. Blackmane (talk) 02:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't really care about minor points like that. It is this sort of Pharasetical stuff that makes Wikipedia so irrelevant. This incident has convinced me to leave Wikipedia. The page in question is still a farce because of your point of view. I'll leave it to you and the others who make Wikipedia a joke. Eodcarl (talk) 03:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

List of Presidents of Croatia, again[edit]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive875#List_of_Presidents_of_Croatia. Again.

Will any admin object if I implement the measures I suggested earlier? Nothing has changed and Director is still engaging in a clear and unambiguous WP:OWN violation.

--Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:45, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

A user made an edit, two other users opposed that edit and reverted him. There were two reverts. There is no OWN. The only thing that's "clear and unambiguous" is that you're trying to push a POV over there. Joy, if you have a content issue to discuss, take that to the talkpage. This is no way to voice grievances about the article's state, its disruptive and frankly suspect (not to mention you didn't even notify me).
For the record, Joy is heavily involved over at the article, his general position is opposed and and he's (rather transparently) trying to push a topic ban on me in order to have his way against clear consensus.
My summary: a while ago user Timbouctou attempted to push certain changes, but was opposed by participants on the talkpage. As a kind of "consolation prize" he posted a POV tag. After weeks of no discussion, the tag was removed. Yesterday Timbouctou re-introduced it, and I reverted him twice and posted a thread, wherein another user (Tuvixer) expressed opposition to the tag. There is no OWN here. There isn't even an edit-war, and I have no intention of entering one. But I personally think Timbouctou doesn't give a damn he has no consensus and is opposed on the talkpage - he'll probably re-introduce his unwarranted consolation tag and edit-war for his edits in general. At that point I don't think there's much more I can do besides post a thread here myself and lay out what I believe is a pattern of disruption exhibited by the user over the past several weeks.
As regards Joy, frankly I feel he might justifiably get BOOMERANGED for trying to push his POV through successive disruptive ANI reports, rather than, say, reporting Timbouctou (given how many edit wars the guy was in only in the past week). He agrees with Timbouctou, though, you see... -- Director (talk) 10:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Can somebody tell us what this freaking dispute is actually about? I would like both Timbouctou and Director to summarize, in exactly two brief and neutral sentences each, what their own position is and what they think the other side's position is. "Director feels that the article should… Timbouctou feels the article should…". Nothing more, no comments, no ridicule, no accusations, no justifications, no reasons. I will support a topic ban for either party, should they fail to provide this simple summary. Fut.Perf. 11:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I feel the article should pretty much stay as it is, as it has been basically since its inception. I can't say what Timbouctou wants to do at the moment, but he started with demands to delete more than half the article (basically rendering it pointless) on grounds that he's really really sure the constitutional heads of state weren't heads of state - if they served that function during the Yugoslav period. He has very interesting personal views about what is or is not a "head of state". Personal views contradicted by scholarly sources. His motion would also necessitate the creation of about two or three additional, completely pointless articles.. and all for the same basic office of the same exact country (mind you, the current Croatian republic is defined, in the preamble of its constitution, as being the exact same country as was part of the Yugoslav federation).
Its a politics thing, Future.. A right-wing candidate just recently became president in Croatia, and its not fitting to have good solid Croatian! heads of state be sullied by the presence of yugocommunist traitors in the same list! As if the Presidents of the Presidency of Croatia have anything to do with the Presidents of Croatia!... -- Director (talk) 11:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
OK, Director, you failed my easy little test, so yes, I will support a topic ban for you. Let's see if Timbouctou fares any better. Fut.Perf. 11:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Brilliant method, @Future. Truly thou art the Solomon of the Internets :). Only one who can say "how he feels" without explaining why he "feels" is the just party! (reasons are for idiots).
Except I'm a busy man, at work, glancing over your post, and didn't read the last few words of the Socratic exercise you devised. Instead I stupidly made the effort of replying to your request, as opposed to simply ignoring you - and/or pointing out that the content itself has no real relevance to this ANI thread. I sincerely hope you're joking. I've seen arbitrary, but this would be a new low.
Seriously, though, I have no idea why the content dispute is being discussed here. Its not just between me and Timbouctou.. there are many participants with differing points of view - on the talkpage. Is this an RfC...?? -- Director (talk) 12:37, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment from completely uninvolved editor: If the title of the article is List of Presidents of Croatia, then the article should begin with Franjo Tuđman and exclude anything before that, since he was the first President of Croatia. If someone wants to re-title (move) the article to List of Croatian heads of state, then that's another matter entirely. Alternatively, there could be two articles, one that lists all past Croatian heads of state, and one that lists only Presidents. Softlavender (talk) 12:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
@Softlavender: its not that simple, or we wouldn't even have a dispute. On a basic level, a "president" is defined by the OED as "the elected head of a republican state", which is a definition all these people fit. Moreover, they were all formally titled "President" ('of the Presidium', 'of the Presidency').
More importantly: every single Prime Minister and Presidents list article for every one of the six (ex-)Yugoslav republics lists all republican heads of state (presidents) in this manner, and has for years and years, since its creation. This is because they all had the same republican history, and the alternative would logically necessitate the creation of at least two additional articles for each of the states, each with just a couple of entries. Its pointless.
The trouble with an article titled List of Croatian heads of state is that there were many, many kings of Croatia. -- Director (talk) 12:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
You are conflating "elected head of state of a republican state" with "President". Per the OED, all Presidents are elected heads of state of a republican state, but not all elected heads of state of republican states are presidents. Case closed. If you want to include the other heads of state, figure out a way to re-title the article, such as List of elected Croatian heads of state. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid argument. Softlavender (talk) 13:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Can we please not delve into an in-depth debate over the content here? This belongs on the article talkpage. If this trivial editorial decision is in dispute, why hasn't there simply been an RfC? Fut.Perf. 13:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, I totally agree, Fut.Perf. But it's apparently the second thread on this article in two months. Suggest they all be reprimanded and told to solve content disputes via WP:RfC(s) or other WP:DR, and keep this off of ANI. Alternatively, since Director seems at a glance to be a significant source of the problem, suggest possibly topic-banning him/her from all articles on Croatian heads of state, as suggested in the former ANI. Softlavender (talk) 13:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
There hasn't been progress at resolving the content issue, rather only a deterioration (removal of valid cleanup tags), and you already observed the root cause - this is almost too ridiculous to actually be a content dispute. It's a behavioral problem, and it has to be addressed with precise and fair administrative sanctions. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
There was a proposal - it was rejected. Just because something isn't resolved to your satisfaction - doesn't mean it isn't "resolved". Your dissatisfaction with the resolution is further no justification for the nonsense tag staying there in perpetuity. The rationale behind it is patently ridiculous and rejected on the talkpage.
And yes, I agree that repeatedly attempting to use this board to resolve your content disputes - is a behavioral problem. It must be very comfortable WP:GAMING the system in this manner - just ignore discussion when it isn't going your way, and post cockamamie reports over and over again. -- Director (talk) 15:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


  • Comment from a disgruntled former editor: We're talking about Croatia. I mean, Croatia. Why is everyone getting worked up about Croatia? INSANO! Robtransit archdurbar (talk) 12:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
By the way, can someone please block Robtransit archdurbar as a troll? Softlavender (talk) 13:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Done. Fut.Perf. 13:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • #1 The user proposes changes.
  • #2 Four users end up opposing him, myself included.
  • #3 In spite of having no consensus - he edit-wars to push his edits in.
  • #4 After a month of no discussion, his tag is removed.
  • #5 He restores his tag (and other edits!) twice, and is opposed once again by two users on the talkpage.
  • #6 I get reported by Joy, who openly supports the other guy's position, in an (extremely transparent) attempt to shift the consensus. I get on report - rather than the guy pushing his edits by revert-warring, against consensus (he just reverted for the third time; does he give a damn others disagree with his edit? - not on your life). Yeah, I get on report. For reverting the guy twice. Under a stupid, arbitrary rationale of "OWN" - in spite of my position being shared by three other participants, and being the status quo of virtually ten years both there and on all twelve comparable articles! Why is it OWN? Because its very convenient, my having written most of the article - and for no other reason at all: not a single argument or elaboration was posted for the rationale at any point. I can't see a violation of any policy here.
  • Finally, #7 - instead of ignoring this farce of a thread for the transparent attempt at "strategizing" that it is, my respect for the participants leads me to make the mistake of actually investing time and effort into responding, thus making myself the "cause of the problem at a glance".

Do what you will, guys. Topic ban me for twice restoring the consensus version of an article against right-wing nationalist POV-pushing, by a user who by rights should be on report here instead of me, and has no qualms shattering Wikipedia's coverage of a topic into absurd little fragments for the sake of a political agenda. I will appeal any sanctions - on grounds of not having done anything. As regards the article, that's simply the best way to list those officeholders, which is why its present everywhere in all of the twelve comparable articles. Anyone who doesn't want to split it into three or four non-WP:NOTABLE stubs, listing maybe two people(?) - should agree. Now I think I'll stop playing into Joy's hands. -- Director (talk) 15:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment (non admin observation) This is the second section on this page that Timbouctou is involved with. The other is Privatization in Croatia where they got involved in a massive edit war. AlbinoFerret 15:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
If you check the user's contributions, you'll find he was active in revert wars on about a half-dozen articles just in the past week, pushing various Croatian-nationalist edits. -- Director (talk) 16:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I guess I've just grown too old to tolerate utter imbeciles who come here with the express purpose of political soapboxing and trolling around talk pages. Direktor's editing pattern shows clear signs of pyschopathic behaviour and User:Tuvixer has serious WP:COMPETENCE issues. I guess I would need to spend 16 hours of my time collecting evidence to prove that to admins who earned their stripes editing articles on Pokemon, but guess what - I value my time too much for that crap. Timbouctou (talk) 16:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
God knows what we might find if somebody took to time to check your "contributions". Also, I don't suppose you have an example of a "Croatian-nationalist" edit I made, do you? Timbouctou (talk) 16:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Its not like my contribs are hidden somehow, feel free to have a look.. not much to see, I'm afraid.. just created a new article a day or so ago, nothing much else. In regards to Croatian right-wing agenda-pushing, it'd be harder to find exceptions than examples. And your "getting too old"? I'm sorry to say we all are, Timbouctou. But don't try to paint your extreme incivility and apparent annoyance with everyone on this project as something "new".
Also - this is ANI, I hope at least here you'll try to make an effort not to modify or move around other users' posts. -- Director (talk) 16:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
So I guess we'll be seeing no examples of my alleged "Croatian-nationalist" edits from you then? You'll just resort to slanderous accusations? Yeah, this is ANI - the place which spent years buying your bullshit, never questioning how is it that you seem to have issues with someone at least once a week. A new admin born every day I guess. Timbouctou (talk) 16:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Right. At this point, the way I see it, it is little use trying to figure out who is originally to blame for this impasse – it seems pretty clear to me that there is no objective "right" or "wrong" on this matter (whether or not one wishes to list both sets of politicians on a single page or not is a matter of legitimate editorial discretion, and whether the one set were "presidents" and in which sense is a matter that could be easily explained and hedged appropriately in the text, if needed. There are clearly reasonable arguments to be made on both sides.) What is abundantly clear though is that neither of the two main parties involved is currently willing to work reasonably and constructively with the other. In this situation of dispute resolution breakdown, what we need is to get both parties off the scene. Could some uninvolved admin colleague please do the obvious thing and apply WP:ARBMAC? (I would do it, as being completely uninvolved in matters of Croation history, but I happen to have had disputes with Director on some other unrelated topics not too long ago, so I'd rather not be the one to act here.) Fut.Perf. 16:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

While this discussion has been going on, a new round of edit warring has taken place. I am asking for page protection while we wait. AlbinoFerret 17:34, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I have fully protected the page for three days. --kelapstick(bainuu) 17:45, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Mark: whether his position represents a legitimate point of view or not, its been discussed and shown to lack support. But its not his position that causes the problem - its his disruption in pursuit of it. His edit-warring against status quo and consensus. I am perfectly willing to discuss with Timbouctou (in fact I posted a thread), the problem is he doesn't want to discuss - and quite logically. He doesn't say what he needs "verified" - because there is nothing to verify. The matter is one of editorial discretion - and his position was rejected on the talkpage: four users oppose it. His argument (about heads of state supposedly needing to be 'sovereign' before they can be called such) is both unsourced and debunked with sources. He. Has. Nothing. Which is why he doesn't discuss, just provoke with typical disdain. And I can not agree that anyone besides him should be sanctioned for his disruption.
Its your decision guys, but I will appeal any sanctions to ARBCOM. Like I said - I reverted someone twice, restoring the consensus status quo version, and disagreed with him on the talkpage. I don't see myself as having done anything warranting bans of any sort.
P.s. I consider you quite uninvolved, FPaS.. I don't even remember what disputes you're referring to. Do what you feel is best. -- Director (talk) 17:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't suppose you can name the "four users" who "reject my position", can you? And I don't suppose you have actual diffs for anything you claim, do you? And I suppose you conveniently fail to register an admin reported you (not me) for owning the article in question? Interesting how these details always somehow slip your mind whenever posting at ANI, isn't it. The amount of wikilawering you use to disguise an editing career that has been nothing but disruptive is mind-numbing. And the fact that there are always suckers at ANI willing to buy your shit is the most depressing thing about this project. Timbouctou (talk) 18:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Whats depressing, is after edit warring on one article, and getting involved in an edit war on this one, while this discussion was ongoing YOU edit warred again. Breaking the WP:3RR rule [111] [112] [113] [114] [115]. Its time to look at your own behaviour and not at others. No matter what anyone else did, you acted in a way that is unacceptable. Pointing a finger at others is not a defence. AlbinoFerret 18:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I suggest forwarding that to WP:ANEW. I would do it myself, but it probably makes more sense for the editor that looked in to it do the filing. It's clear that a "cooling off" period is needed here, for at least Timbouctou. --IJBall (talk) 18:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Timbouctou is pointing fingers at others because he is trying to hide what he has done, and as you said, he has broken the 3RR. He has engaged in a edit war and ha ignored the talk page. He has started all of this and the page is protected because of his edits and unwillingness to stop the edit war and engage in a constructive debate. He has done all of that because he has no consensus and he has no valid arguments to back his position. In three days we will again see a edit war because without arguments and a consensus that is all what timbouctou has to push his political or better to say insane agenda. Everyone can see that he is mean and insults other users, he calls other users trolls but we all can see who the actual troll is. I don't have to say his name. --Tuvixer (talk) 18:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
IJBall there is already a section he is involved with on WP:ANEW. What I'm thinking is perhaps a 6 month topic ban broadly defined. AlbinoFerret 18:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I think the problem there is that the filing against Timbouctou was simply "appended" on to a pre-existing filling, rather than being put in as a separate report. As a result, both ANEW filings seem to have gotten lost in the shuffle there, as the Admins probably don't want to tackle that wall of text. I think I'd suggest breaking the Timbouctou report out into a separate entry... --IJBall (talk) 20:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
The point of view that advocates an wholly unreferenced list is not actually an argument that should be entertained as reasonable because it's against a core Wikipedia policy of verifiability. This has been fairly clearly articulated at the talk page already, but it has been completely drowned out by the surrounding flamewar. It's rather similar to this discussion - Director grew a forest of text and now most people can no longer see the trees. It had the effect of dissuading most people from participating, and making Timbouctou start one of his revert binges. Make it stop... --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
"Wholly unrefrenced list" - now that's manipulation. Nobody (you and Timbouctou included!) ever challenged the basic fact that these people served in those roles as laid out - because if that were the case sources can be found instantly for each of them, and for the fact that their offices were those of the head of state. The only thing that's been challenged is placing them in the same article - which is fundamentally a matter of editor discretion, and not sources. Asking for sources over and over again and tagging the article for no reason - is disruptive, and nothing more than a red herring. -- Director (talk) 03:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
WP:IDHT... --Joy [shallot] (talk) 06:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
On the contrary, its you who's not listening.. and I think that's pretty obvious. You: "I want sources". Me: "This is editor discretion, it doesn't have anything to do with sources". You: "I want sources! You have no sources!".
And I think its pretty clear from all the reports and edit-warring going on even at this time - that Timbouctou doesn't need anyone's help to go an a binge. His attitude of dismissive disdain and condescension is standard for him. -- Director (talk) 06:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Article titles have to be based on facts. You can't waive that requirement by asserting some magic of editorial discretion. If someone wasn't called a President of Croatia, they shouldn't appear on the list of Presidents of Croatia. This would be a trivial WP:COMPETENCE issue if it wasn't accompanied with 4 years of bullheadedness ([116]). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm not going to respond, I'm only going to quote Future from his post just above: "whether or not one wishes to list both sets of politicians on a single page or not is a matter of legitimate editorial discretion, and whether the one set were 'presidents' and in which sense is a matter that could be easily explained and hedged appropriately in the text, if needed". A position shared by participants on the talkpage. All this, all your gaming the system and that troll's edit-warring - is just a hissy fit that you didn't get your own way.
And the article is most certainly based on facts. It has been, in this form, for nigh on ten years. All those people are listed in precisely the function they had. As for the title - propose an RM and seek consensus! But up to this point, neither you nor Timbouctou ever challenged the title: because the point is to push a right-wing political agenda and remove the Yugoslav-era officials from the same list - not any concerns over accuracy. -- Director (talk) 08:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, do you really agree with Director on this content matter? That it someone who wasn't ever referred to as the President of Croatia, and whose characteristics didn't match those who were, can freely appear in the list of Presidents of Croatia? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Oh will you stop trying to mislead already?! Is bold-faced deception all you've got on this? Could you once try to frame this issue in honest terms?
Anyway, I'll take your inquiry alone as a concession that this is indeed a matter for user consensus - otherwise why ask around? To that end, if you need users disagreeing with you, you can find enough of them on the talkpage. I think it should be pretty clear by this point that this thread is just a manipulative attempt to solve a content dispute by WP:GAMING the system. In a month or so we'll see another.. -- Director (talk) 17:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Don't flatter yourself. I was simply curious to see whether you actually managed to convince a neutral person that your content argument has merit. The same neutral person who already agreed that your behavior in presenting said argument was in sufficient violation of policies that you should be sanctioned. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Observation: Director and Timbouctou engaged in an astonishing 102-round edit war on February 17, all within 5 hours, which must be a world record. And nobody stopped them, talk-page warned them, or blocked them. Something is broken on how that page is being handled, and yes administrative oversight and WP:ARBMAC need to be enforced, in addition to probably removing one or more of the main combatants from the field. Softlavender (talk) 03:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
It was a stupid thing to do, I lost my temper there, and I apologized profusely. Markedly - Timbouctou (the party introducing new edits against talkpage consensus) did not at any point condescend to even admit he did something wrong. And, as I promised, I did not revert war again - nor will I (while he just broke 3RR again). The matter was up in April, and I don't think anyone should be sanctioned for it now. -- Director (talk) 03:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Hahahaha, I'm just infinitely amused with Director's bullshit artistry. It's amazing how none of the admins ever bothers to take a look at what actual discussions with Director look like, how belittling and insulting his posts routinely are, the scope of his WP:OWN issues are, the years he has spent abusing the project, etc. There must be a userbox for that somewhere lol. Has it ever occurred to the geniuses at ANI that revert-wars happen precisely because of the complete uselessness of reporting anything at ANI? Timbouctou (talk) 07:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Timbouctou, edit wars get reported at WP:AN3, not ANI. It's a simple quick process, and gets immediate and guaranteed results. Softlavender (talk) 08:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Balkan editwars often get results at AN3. Certainly not guaranteed; it depends on the topic and on support from the editwarrior's allies &c. bobrayner (talk) 11:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Is this ([117]) a constructive discussion? As I said, when the protection ends timbouctou will again engage in a edit-war. And again, as many times before, break the 3RR. Please, you have to stop him. You all can see his attitude and what kind of language he uses. Nothing can be achieved with him, he only attacks and bullies other users and that is all. It is horrible. Tnx. --Tuvixer (talk) 14:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The amount of venom between both of the main parties here is so great I am quite convinced now we need a topic ban for both, and I was just about to impose one myself (given that the party I thought I might be seen as "involved" with said that he himself didn't consider me to be), but I'm just not quite sure what the exact scope of the topic ban should be. Everything related to Croatia, just the issue of Croatian officeholders, or something in between? Any ideas?

In the meantime, I warn both participants that they are definitely going to end up topic-banned from the specific article and dispute in question, and should therefore stop fighting over it immediately, both on that talkpage and here, at the risk of getting blocked. Fut.Perf. 20:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

At least or Timbouctou, I would recommend Croatia topics since this is the second article dealing with Croatia he has edit warred in and the Privatization in Croatia section on this page is still open. AlbinoFerret 23:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Croatia in general is too wide and would be unnecessarily punitive. I previously proposed a topic ban on Croatian heads of state, but was ignored. Croatian politics seems like an appropriate compromise. I'd support that for Director because his behavior is the root cause of this mess; I'm not sure I support a broad topic ban for the latter two at this point because I haven't reviewed all the other evidence yet. I do support an 1RR for all three in the topic area. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:52, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
My behavior is not the root cause of this mess, the root cause is Timbouctou's (and your own) refusal to accept the rejection of your proposed changes by talkpage consensus. You've made that clear yourself in this very thread (by claiming opposition to you "isn't a legitimate position"). And since I still haven't really been told even what I've done - I will appeal any topic bans to ARBCOM as possible (and I think obvious) abuse of ARBMAC discretion. I dare say I've written extensively on that topic and should not be excluded from it unless actually necessary. An IBAN, on the other hand (as I said below), is something I'd probably do myself..
I will also repeat that topic bans seem only to be under consideration due to their proposal by a heavily involved and biased party - Joy, and that because they fit his agenda in terms of the content dispute. -- Director (talk) 05:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

When there's "venom between two users" (and I don't dispute that there is) - isn't an WP:IBAN the solution? Rather than a topic ban? The "venom" is hardly topic-specific, the tban only seems to be discussed here due to Joy's preference in the content dispute. And, in actual fact, Timbouctou and myself were interaction-banned in the past [118] - with good effect.. its just that it expired, unfortunately. -- Director (talk) 04:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Account hacked; block ASAP[edit]

This account seems hacked. Unexplained reverts and vandalism-type edits in the past couple of minutes. Please block ASAP. Mar4d (talk) 15:06, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Concur, what just creating a section about this. AHLM13 seems to have lost control of their account or is going on a rather odd vandalism spree. They're reverted a fair number of recent edits I've made which effectively restored vandalism ([119], [120] and [121] for example). They've made some odd changes to other editor's user pages] and just recently asked for a block. This is not their typical behavior from my experience. They are a difficult editor that doesn't handle criticism and disputes well, but not something like this. Ravensfire (talk) 15:12, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Does indeed look that way. The account has been blocked indefinitely. Favonian (talk) 15:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. And thanks to those that helped clean up from the short spree of vandalism, appreciate it! Ravensfire (talk) 15:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Ditto. Cheers for the prompt action Favonian. Mar4d (talk) 15:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 CheckUser note: The account does not appear to be compromised remotely. Thus, it possible the user performed the actions or someone gained access to his or her computer. Mike VTalk 15:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
It looks just like an opportunistic spree by someone who's gained access to his computer - e.g this edit to the account's own userpage - and quite unlike AHLM13. NebY (talk) 15:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I actually agree with Mike V with what he is saying, there is a possibility that the editor did this all himself. I don't see if he had full consensus from Mar4d or AsceticRose on any of the matters. Ravensfire was his opponent, the way he has used TW rollback on a few of the recent edits is similar to the way he did that before. Well, there are no hurries, we can wait for unblock request. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 15:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I'd say it would be too early, premature and also unfair on AHLM13 to point fingers until he returns and has the chance to clear himself. With edits like these, I certainly don't think, neither find it convincing to believe that it would be him. There is a high possibility the account was abused by someone who gained access to his PC. Mar4d (talk) 16:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Either scenario is possible and I've seen both in the past. Sometimes it's someone who gets burned out and goes on a quick vandalism spree before leaving. Other times the user left his or her computer unlocked and a friend/relative/random person decided to do it. Checkuser can't see who's behind the screen, but I can confirm that the account wasn't remotely hacked. Mike VTalk 17:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
As you say, Checkuser can't say who is behind the screen. In fact, that is the whole point to the little brother essay. There is a type of "remote hack" that Checkuser can't identify, and that is the use of a trapdoor that has turned the computer into a spam zombie. What Mike V. presumably means is that the password hasn't been compromised. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I think the account has been misused by someone else. I have the impression that if it had been AHLM13, he would not have vandalized my user page at least, because I see no reason to do so. The whole thing came to me as very bizarre and shocking.
I think AHLM13 should be given one chance. However, AHLM13 should come up with more convincing points. -AsceticRosé 23:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
AHLM13 states that no one in his office knows how to use Wikipedia in his unblock request.But the edits appear to be from someone who is familiar with Wikipedia using Twinkle from his first edit and editing pages like Washiqur Rahman Babu in which AHLM13 was involved. Refering to the edits between 14.55 to 15.09 May 03 .It clearly fails WP:DUCK.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Previously blocked IP now falsifying sources for medical information[edit]

IP BLOCKED:

IP user blocked for 2 weeks for Disruptive editing by Zad68. (non-admin closure) --IJBall (talk) 14:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

64.222.173.126 (talk · contribs · logs), recently blocked for a 72 hours for adding unsourced information following this AN/I complaint, has now started falsifying sources for medical information. The source given does not support the information added. 173.252.16.206 (talk) 19:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Falsifying sources? Which source has he falsified?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
The cited source contains very little of the information they added. Therefore, the IP has misrepresented their source. It looks like they picked a random source already in the article to avoid scrutiny. 173.252.16.206 (talk) 19:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm looking at this and I see that the ip banned for disruptive editing. The disruptions seems to be that they were adding stuff without a source repeatedly with multiple warnings. Here they have provided a source. A source that you say has been misrepresented. If may be that is the case. However this seems to be a content issue. This content issue does not seem to reflect their prior disruptive editing. I notice that you made no actual attempt to discuss your content issue with them. ANI is for conduct issues. Take it to the articles talk page or the users talk page and discuss it.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Is adding a fake source supposed to be an improvement upon no source at all? I see this as a continuation of the behavior they were blocked for. 173.252.16.206 (talk) 19:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Before they did not add sources. They have multiple warnings on their talk page for doing so. They have now added a source. Is this source bad? I have not checked. This is a content issue. When they start misrepresenting sources, ignoring warnings, and not attempting to discuss the issues there will be an issue. That would be conduct issue. You have not tried to discuss your content issue with them. There is nothing for ANI to do here but send you to the talk page to discuss.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps you should check - the source cited does not in any way support the material added. Misrepresentation of sources is not a 'content issue', it is a behavioural one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Andy is correct. This is not a debate about what a reliable sources is, this is, if true, about making stuff up. Lying is a behavioral issue, it doesn't matter what is lied about it's the fact that false information was knowingly included in an article. Liz Read! Talk! 20:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
A good faith mistake by a new editor is acceptable. The source is about the same subject as the article. There has been no reason presented to believe that they are attempting to misrepresent the source. If it was clear they are lying this would be a conduct issue. However all there really is evidence of is that there is a mistake common to new users.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
IP is continuing to add unsourced claims.[122][123][124] 173.252.16.206 (talk) 04:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
If this is all some big misunderstanding then we have a competence issue, because the IP has been warned, many many times, about his/her behaviour. If not this is just a person who is screwing around. Either way, a long block is in order. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
An indefinite block would be a good call at this point. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

[125], [126] it continues. Can we indef an IP? I mean I am sure it is possible, I am more wondering is it something that is done I guess. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Can't indef an IP but I did block it for 2 weeks. Let me know if it pops up again. Zad68 17:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Disruptive editing at Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)[edit]

Adminstative attention is really needed on this article. A new account, NPOV Ninja, as well as multiple IP’s, have been removing sourced content and vandalizing the article. One of the IP’s, 2601:84:C801:6529:30DD:8C06:907E:A9EA, is apparently NPOV Ninja. He admitted this on article talk page: [127].

NPOV Ninja apparently just joined WP yesterday, yet he is familiar with move discussions [128] and speedy deletion tags [129]. After removing large chunks of content on the article Dominant-party system, NPOV moved to Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight), deleting large chunks of sourced content. Account appears to be WP:NOTHERE. Ninja was warned about his editing on talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) by Sarah(SV) [130], but instead of heading the warning, NPOV Ninja deleted Sarah(SV)'s warning from the talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=Talk:Mattress_Performance_%28Carry_That_Weight%29&diff=660537239&oldid=660535206] and continued to gut the article, changing the title, and rewriting the lead to an incoherent version. [131]

Read the lead here prior to NPOV's changes: [132]

Verses here. Where NPOV rewrote the lead to be incoherent:[133]

There’s more. Just go to the article history. Granger has been diligently trying to deal with the disruption, which also includes various BLP violations from IP’s such as [134], but the disruption is really getting too much for good faith editors to manage. Looking over NPOV Ninja's brief editing history, it seems he should probably be blocked as a WP:NOTHERE, but at a minimum it seems they should be topic banned from Mattress Perfromance (Carry That Weight). SlimVirgin already tried warning them and they just deleted the warning from talk page and continued the disruption. It would also probably help if the article were semi-protected. Because there are multiple IP's that edit similarly to new registered users, but the IP keeps editing, and there is also ongoing IP vandalism/BLP violations.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:34, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Ongoing? I said I would stop. So many unanswered questions. I don't get it. You're only proving my point more. The same people every time enforce the consensus rule. That is not a consensus. Read my own talk page. I was forgiven. I said I would never do it again and I wont. Having an outdated article on an ongoing topic. Before I'm automatically blocked take a look. Really. There's a reason I haven't been blocked yet. NPOV Ninja (talk) 19:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
It appears that just a few minutes ago you were edit waring with Sergecross73 [135] regarding deletion tag. Sarah(SV) warned you to stop yesterday and it's just continued.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
You identify yourself as Exposer of NPOV of all political or ideological orientations...you should probably read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Liz Read! Talk! 19:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • There's a fast-track solution here in that this is BLP material and subject to sanctions that can be imposed by any admin. I have just posted a BLP sanctions alert on NPOV Ninja's talk page. If their disruption continues we can escalate to topic bans and/or blocks without the need for a prolonged discussion here. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
    • For reference, this user has tried to delete the article in question via prod, which got removed (and thus could not be attempted again, although not for lack of trying). Next was trying to get it deleted via deletion review, which is obviously not the correct venue for that discussion. When I tried to explain that, it was not well received. The Ninja states he or she will be going to arbitration review on the subject. --kelapstick(bainuu) 20:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I have just blanked the article, as a clear violation of WP:BLP policy - if this is restored, I will contact the WMF, and ask that they take action themselves. An article concerning allegations of rape masquerading as an article on 'performance art' is simply untenable, and I am frankly astonished that this has been permitted to exist for so long. Has everyone else gone batshit crazy? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, I predict that edit will be reverted and I expect you'll need to write WMF then. Liz Read! Talk! 20:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, if it is reverted, I will not only contact the WMF, but consider contacting the male individual concerned, advising him of the appropriate manner to begin legal action against the editors responsible - the article as it stands contains at least one clear libel, and probably more (and for the benefit of anyone about to cite WP:NOLEGALTHREATS, I don't give a flying fuck - this article is a disgrace to Wikipedia, and if I end up being permanently blocked for drawing attention to the gross misuse of the encyclopaedia, I don't really care). AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
After seeing the article I have to agree with Andy that it is a disgrace to WP. Violating BLP policies, NPOV and just about everything else, and full of slander/libel. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not a gossip rag. Thomas.W talk 21:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

User:AndyTheGrump just removed my warning on his Talkpage with a PA in the edit-summary. He might not even have read the warning to the end. I stated that I agree with him, but he should not undermine NLT to make a point. Andy is totally over the top. 80.132.93.228 (talk) 22:45, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Get real, dude. There's no legal threat in what Andy wrote a couple of steps up in this section, if that is what you mean, so your warning was totally inappropriate. He's also free to remove any warning of any kind from his talk page. Seeing an IP issue a NLT-warning as their first ever edit, and then run to WPANI and complain about Andy as their second edit, also makes me wonder if there's socking involved, because the IP is clearly not a new user. Thomas.W talk 22:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I know that it's no creditable legal threat. The point is that it is a slippery slope to allow such things because someone is right. Regarding the PA: so I gather it's free for all, User:Thomas.W? 80.132.93.228 (talk) 23:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
What personal attack? Thomas.W talk 23:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
@User:Thomas.W: See the edit summary, as i wrote above. 80.132.93.228 (talk) 23:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Wasn't it obvious from Andy's post just above in this thread that he has heard of NLT and doesn't care right now? No need to post a mealy-mouthed template, 80.132.93.228. Don't poke, please, and use your account. Assuming it's not blocked, of course. Bishonen | talk 23:06, 3 May 2015 (UTC).
@User:Bishonen: I knew that he knew it. That makes it a violation of WP:Point. So it is free for all, or not? 80.132.93.228 (talk) 23:12, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
"Another form of trolling can occur in the form of continual questions with obvious or easy-to-find answers." You only seem interested in one particular part of what people say to you, and ignore all suggestions that you use your account. If you're here in the hope of getting Andy blocked for a minor explosion when removing your annoying template, no rational admin is going to oblige. But I've fed enough. Bishonen | talk 23:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC).
@User:Bishonen: I said nothing about blocking. AGF much? You are asuming a lot of things about me. More important you are not feeding the trolls but the drama, by again allowing certain editors to be "above the law" because they are right. 80.132.93.228 (talk) 23:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

It should probably be noted that after the article was completely blanked, it was restored and frozen at a much earlier version, which omits all mention of the accused student's lawsuit, making it seem more one sided in that respect. This has been objected to by multiple users on article talk page [136].--BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Here is the situation right now as I see it:
  • I have indef blocked NPOV Ninja for edit warring, personal attacks, disruptive editing, and general incompetence. I do not expect that block to be lifted anytime soon.
  • If they show back up under another identity, contact me, or another admin, or file at WP:SPI
  • I have repeatedly asked those alleging libel to either email me or use WP:RFO so it can be suppressed out of existence. So for nobody has done so, for reasons that are not all clear to me. If it is there, the oversight team will get rid of it, completely and permanently.
  • The underlying issue here, whether this young man's name should be in this article, can continue to be debated, but I would note that his lawyer spoke with national news outlets about it and his name has been in the banner headline of nationwide news sources, so that ship has already sailed regardless of what we decide to do and it is clear his lawyer is not trying to keep his name out of it.
  • I'm not sure there's much more ANI ca do here, but the more admins watch the article and its talk page the better. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Canvasssing and probable socking from a Comcast IP here. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I've started another BLPN discussion regarding whether or not to name the accused student: [137]--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
The only thing that has really changed since the last BLPN, is that the accused student filed a lawsuit against the school, arguing that approving the mattress performance for school art credit constitutes the university engaging in sexual discrimination against him in violation of Title IX. He filed suit under his real name, not as a John Doe, so the press has been reporting it using his name.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Persistent edit war on Ultraman[edit]

User:Medeis continues to revert new edits back to his edits. The focus of these edits are of a picture (which he uploaded personally) which he keeps re-adding to the article's infobox, always referring to wiki's MOS (never specifying which rule) as his justification. WP:TVIMAGE clearly states this, The image presented in the infobox of the main article should ideally be an intertitle shot of the show (i.e., a screenshot capture of the show's title) or a promotional poster used to represent the show itself. The user has ingored these rules and the issue continues to persist. The user has a history of restoring his photo back into the article, shown here and here, and keeps deleting new pictures claiming that they are not in fair use or so. I've tried discussing the problem with the user on the article's talk page but never recieved a response. I believe it is now only fair to get an unbiased opinion from a third party. Armegon (talk) 21:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

FTR, I think I prefer User:Medeis' version, rather than separate Japanese and English title cards. --IJBall (talk) 21:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes but his picture is not an appropriate spot for the infobox, per WP:TVIMAGE. And given what the guidelines say, the English title card is appropriate and it is subject for commentary. Armegon (talk) 21:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
First, it's a style guideline – it's carry the "force of law" or anything. Second, two title cards seem like overkill. Perhaps the best solution is to put one titlecard (probably the English one) in the Infobox, and move the Japenese titlecard, and Medeis' image, out of the Infobox and into the article itself. --IJBall (talk) 22:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Seems fair. However, I recommend leaving the Japanese title card, since the show is Japanese. I tried moving Medeis picture into the "Heroes and Monsters" section of the article because I thought the picture itself illustrates the subject of the section but once agaain, Medeis moved it back to the infobox, claiming that the "named character belongs in infobox". Armegon (talk) 22:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I did not remove the Japanese title card, I retained both the card and the image so they were visible without scrolling to find out what Ultraman looks like. μηδείς (talk) 00:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Medeis

The version IJBall has said he likes was a long term compromise showing both the character and the Japanese logo which only a small minority of English speaking readers can understand. Indeed, according to policy, only one version of a stylized trademark logo may be used in an article, not two, and no rule prevents showing the title character of a show in the info box:
  • The television infobox template says: "A suitable image relevant to the show. ... Typically the image will be the series' title card, although this is not mandated." Obviously a picture of the main character is quite relevant, especially when many readers will be unfamiliar with the name and unable to read the Japanese text.
In addition to those two points, I'd like to formally request an WP:SPI of the recent editors and in comparison with the recently arbcom-blocked Ryulong whose last edit summary removing the picture of Ultaman was edit summaried: you know what, we're not going to use either efing photo.. (If I need to do so elsewhere please let me know.) The last four reversions of the article removing the character from his infobox have all been by anonymous single-purpose IP users, one of whom has himself been blocked:
  1. diff Special:Contributions/2601:A:1700:516E:A49C:E96B:123E:FA6A "stop getting rid of the English title card in favor of that screencap" (user has one edit to Kamen Rider and remaining three edits to ultraman)
  2. diff Special:Contributions/85.194.75.18 "this is about the show, not the character" (user blocked as proxy for two years by Zzuuzz)
  3. diff Special:Contributions/189.18.36.204 (user's sole editing was to revert image, no edit summary
  4. diff Special:Contributions/2601:A:1700:516E:9015:C39E:5C31:E615 "stop putting that ugly screencap in the infobox" (user has three edits, solely to Ultraman)

In summary, (1) we cannot have two stylized trademarked logos in the same article one of the logos (I say the English) must go. (2) We apparently have socking insisting on enforcing the position Ryulong held. And (3) a picture of the main character supplementing a Japanese language text with no picture is a reasonable, permissable compromise that had stood for a long time.

μηδείς (talk) 00:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Again, WP:TVIMAGE clearly states this, The image presented in the infobox of the main article should ideally be an intertitle shot of the show (i.e., a screenshot capture of the show's title) or a promotional poster used to represent the show itself. The article is about the show, not the character, so an image of the character is not the ideal or appropriate image for the infobox. User:IJBall and I have agreed to limit the infobox image to one image and move all other images down the article. Like I've said, the article is about the show, so the Japanese title card should be the only image in the infobox, per WP:TVIMAGE guidelines. Armegon (talk) 02:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I think the important thing at this point is that any further discussion of content issues like the Infobox image should go back to Talk:Ultraman (if that happens, I may even head over there to offer my $0.02...). But the only issue that should be discussed here at ANI is the slow-burn edit war that's been going on at Ultraman. If both of you commits to not revert the other for a while, and take the discussion to the Talk page, then I think then we can close this as an ANI matter... --IJBall (talk) 02:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. The issue about the infobox image is clearly still not settled, so User:IJBall, your input at the talk page would greatly be appreciated and beneficial. I hope we can kick this off from my original post on the talk page, "Edit war of the page" rather than create a new section. Armegon (talk) 02:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I want the issue of the socking on that page to be addressed. That's not a content dispute, it's someone gaming the system. Four separate anonymous and single IP users make the same edit over three days, and only when I mention SPI is this issue brought here? There's something going on here besides a content dispute. If I should file a separate report, let me know. μηδείς (talk) 04:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Scalhotrod --Outing efforts[edit]

Scalhotrod and I don't get along, but this goes well beyond what's acceptable. Earlier today, due to a glitch involving the incognito browsing function on the tablet I was using, a single edit I made at Commons appeared under an IP address. Although I corrected the edit signatures immediately, Scalhotrod later posted an accusation of sockpuppetry, associating me with the IP address, which, since I'd acknowledged the edit, just reeks of bad faith. He's lately made talk page posts summarizing what he thinks he's figured out about my identity and personal info (eg, [138], which have no legitimate purpose, and he's also made strange posts insinuating that editors who associate with me are likely to be blocked [139]. Some of these seem to be laughably crude attempts at chilling discussion, but gratuitously identifying an editor's IP address is reprehensible, given the tracing tools that are out there -- some giving rather pinpoint information via Google Maps (so I'm not linking to Scalhotrod's post, to avoid republishing the information, but it's easy enough to find in his global contributions.) This is serious misconduct, deserving a sanction with teeth. There's no excuse for doing something like this to spite one's opponent in a content dispute. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Uninvolved editor comments: The possibility of having your real life identity outed is worrisome, but I just don't see how this incident equates Scalhotrod outing you. Stating "From statements he's made in the past, he lives in the UK and is an older gentleman since he talks about his grandchildren. I've wondered if he is of Indian descent given some of the articles he works on" isn't outing -- especially since part of what he said was gleaned from information you provided. The rest is just noting editing habits. As far as the IP address: you made the mistake of editing with your IP address exposed. The tools to identify the IP are provided on the editor's contributions page, so looking up the IP isn't a violation. I honestly don't see a violation or an outing attempt, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. -- WV 23:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
But it certainly isnt a behavioral standard we should condone, or which is in line with the policy of focusing on the content not on the editor. Taking advantage of an ditors mistake in that way at least runs afoul of WP:DICK.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, yes, there is that, Maunus. I just don't see how this is quite as egregious or drastically horrible as the filer seems to believe. But, yes, it's not okay to take advantage of an editor's mistake. -- WV 00:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Until you've been outed, you cannot appreciate the damage that this can do to an individual. Dancing around the outskirts of the policy is not acceptable, and if Scalhotrod can't restrain himself on this, he should be blocked. Nothing he can say can excuse a veiled attempt to out another editor, he is compiling information and opining on who BBW may or may not be. GregJackP Boomer! 03:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, when you put it that way, I guess there is a possibility that more is going on. That said, you seem to be making a judgement/assumption that may or may not be true. Only Scalhotrod knows for sure and we've only heard one side of the story. -- WV 04:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Then you block him until you hear his side, but you do not play around with someone's real life identity. I was outed and lost my job over it. It changed my entire life, and it is not something that should happen to anyone else. This isn't a situation where you take any chances on what his motivations are. You block him, and he can explain how it is not outing in his unblock request. GregJackP Boomer! 05:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Since the second diff is a comment to me by Scalhotrod, I think I should comment: Scalhotrod simply shouldn't be discussing these matters at all, unless he believes it is strongly relevant to Hullaballoo Wolfowitz editing, and then do it on an appropriate noticeboard or the like, while closely following our behavioral policies and guidelines. Granted, I work with COI-problems a great deal, which I believe requires an extremely careful avoidance of WP:OUTING violations. --Ronz (talk) 00:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - For the record, from my perspective I think that I get along just fine with HW. Generally I consider them a conscientious Editor that makes a lot of valid edits in their perceived role as a "watchdog" or "gatekeeper" of a great many BLP articles. And I mean that in a positive light, HW's steadfastness is something that I respect about them. That said, while I make the effort to WP:AGF about any Editor's efforts, in light of my experiences and various interactions on WP I do not take some things for granted. Thus, I tagged an IP User page with my concern about Socking. Sock-puppetry is also a very serious issue. Again, experience has shown me that new as well as seasoned Users who I had no reason to believe would Sock, have done so. And as has been mentioned already, I have only commented about information that was revealed by HW.
With regard to my linked comments above about HW, this is coming from a User who likes to refer to me by my first name for whatever reason such as here (same User page mentioned above) and here (HW's own Talk page). It's always used in a somewhat odd context, but I get the impression that HW gets some vicarious thrill from announcing to all of WP that they dug far enough back into my User page history to see that I had it posted there. I took it down quite some time ago because almost no one called me by it, it was always "Scal" or "hotrod" or "rod" etc. I've considered just posting my identity as many others do, but it would seem that the temptation to misuse that information is too great for some. In as much as I do not wish to be outed any more than I already have, I have no interest in doing so to anyone else. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 15:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Don't play the ingenue, Scalhotrod. You didn't have any legitimate concern with sockpuppetry. You didn't post until after I'd acknowledged the edits, and put my signature in place wherever I could. You only knew I was responsible for the edit because I'd acknowledged it. And rather than admitting your bad behavior, you're doubling down on it, making up a story about me digging back into your user page history, when you certainly know perfectly well that you used to sign that name to your talk page posts regularly. There was no justification for your actions. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 02:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
You know what, after I made this comment[140] on Sue Rangell's Talk page in July of last year and then got called on it[141], I never in my wildest dreams would have imagined that it would come to fruition, but 4 months later it did[142]. After that, I became convinced that anyone can become a Sockmaster. As much as I respect your overall editing efforts, you've demonstrated that you are capable of spiteful and vindictive behavior as well as making your arguments personally directed. In other words, I don't feel I can trust you to just leave well enough alone so I have to be on my guard around you. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 05:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring over Martin Garrix articles[edit]

I don't know where to turn because the problem I am seeing is a little bit of this and that. There are violations of WP:MULTIPLE, a lot of edit warring, and likely a problem of conflict of interest. So rather than choosing SPI or ANEW or COIN I am bring the problem here:

Timothe8872 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Timothe8872 appeared last December to work solely on articles related to the young Dutch DJ Martin Garrix. No other topic interests him, so that makes Timothe8872 a single-purpose account. SPAs are often suspected of WP:COI, fairly or unfairly, and it appears that this case may have such a problem, since Timothe8872 continually adds unreferenced text about future works by Martin Garrix,[143][144][145][146][147] and even unreleased tracks.[148][149] (Unreleased tracks should not be of any concern to Wikipedia unless they have been discussed by reliable sources.)

Timothe8872 is accompanied in his edits by a handful of IPs from northeast France:

The intertwined edit tool shows that Timothe8872 and 90.40.46.221 both edited the Garrix biography on 26 April, demonstrating the pattern of a registered editor getting logged out, then logging back in. Same with IP 90.40.163.44 on 20 April. Same with IP 90.40.158.162 on 22 March.

90.40.46.221 went silent on 25 April in concert with the 24-hour block of Timothe8872. I would have to ask blocking admin MusikAnimal whether the IP range was blocked along with the registered account. If not, the user was adhering to the block.

The big problem here is edit warring to re-insert unreferenced information over multiple articles in the topic. The latest round is all of the following reversions/re-insertions which were made in a 15-minute period.[150][151][152][153][154][155][156][157][158][159] On all of these edits, the previous concern was that the information was unreferenced. Timothe8872 did not address this problem, he just reverted to his preferred version.

What should be done here? Binksternet (talk) 01:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I unfortunately don't have time to look this over in detail, but I can say I did not perform a range block on the said IPs. Best MusikAnimal talk 02:49, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Elindiord's reverts, again[edit]

BLOCKED (AGAIN):

Editor resumed his/her disruptive use of Twinkle despite a final warning. Reblocked for a week.  Philg88 talk 06:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

After a 48-hour block stemming from a report here at AN/I, Elindiord has resumed Twinkle mass-reverts of constructive IP editors. Again, they've given no edit summaries or reasons for the changes, and evidently don't understand what they're doing wrong, as demonstrated by their unblock request and failure to respond to yet another warning after the block expired. Conifer (talk) 07:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Conifer (Non-administrator observation) Please read the top template on this page "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page." Please do so.
But yes, this is disruptive, and the user in question seems to think that as long as an edit isn't vandalism they aren't going to be blocked. They appear to be fairly familiar with editing though. Banak (talk) 08:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, my bad. I made the report right before going to bed and failed to notify in my haste. Conifer (talk) 14:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Seems to have stopped for now. I have left an abundantly clear warning of the risk of a further block on the editor's talk page.  Philg88 talk 09:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Bright line violation of Interaction Ban[edit]

This edit to the article for Trenton, New Jersey blatantly violates the term of the interaction ban mutually agreed upon by me and Magnolia677, having been made immediately after an edit I made to the article without any other edit having been made. And we're back. Quite sadly.

The terms of the Limited Interaction Ban proposed on April 16, and adopted two days later are rather clear in stating "that neither party shall either directly revert the other's edits, or edit the same article until at least one third party uninvolved with either of the two has made an intervening edit."

The other editor is clear that he understands and supports the interaction ban, stating "Do what you want. I'll agree to an interaction ban" and that "I now completely agree with the IBan. All this feuding doesn't move the project forward, and wastes everyone's time." Yet, before, during and after the implementation of this interaction, similar harassment has been ongoing. All I ask is that this persistent pointless feuding and abuse be stopped, once and for all. May I please ask an uninvolved editor to notify the other party. Alansohn (talk) 13:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

  • I have notified Magnolia667. Do you seriously have a problem with them adding in something innocuous to the article that is unrelated to their edit? How does having another editor make an unrelated change in the middle make that edit suddenly acceptable? Spartaz Humbug! 13:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm uninvolved in this, and I get an IBAN is an IBAN, I've seen you two having what, three ANI topics? Anyhow, Magnolia's edit is almost a day later, and while yes they should have waited for someone to edit as per the IBAN, there isnt need for much more than a slap on the wrist here it looks like. cnbr15 13:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oh FFS, again? It's obvious now that both of these extraordinarily annoying people are only interested in gaming the topic ban and infuriating each other with petty sniping. Block both for a few days because otherwise we will be here every few days until the end of time. Reyk YO! 14:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
    • This Interaction Ban was imposed in the wake of persistent harassment and WP:HOUNDING, be it at Scotch Plains or Battin High School, with the persistent pattern continuing here at the article for Trenton. If this Interaction Ban is to have any value, it needs to be respected by both parties and it needs to be enforced. All I want is to get this editor to stop riding my ass. Alansohn (talk) 14:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Yes, if the interaction ban is to have any force it does need to be respected by both parties. But you broke it first, and repeatedly. I don't doubt that Magnolia is winding you up on purpose and I think it's blockable. But if I voluntarily agreed to a topic ban that the other guy then immediately broke with impunity I would no longer consider it to have any force. Also, a lot of the problem is because of your ownership issues about New Jersey and your tendency to immediately go to Defcon Screech at the tiniest provocation. Reyk YO! 15:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Perhaps the only solution which is equitable and reasonable here is to topic ban both editors from the articles they both frequent. If neither is allowed to edit any New Jersey related articles at all, problem solved? They can go on editing topics that the other doesn't edit, but neither gets to "own" New Jersey... --Jayron32 14:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Block of both (non admin) The gaming of the IBAN seems to be an ongoing problem. An edit that is unrelated to the edit by the other party, while technically a violation, should never have been brought here. Block them both for a week. Perhaps that will end this endless nonsense. AlbinoFerret 14:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Block both - I'm all for assuming good faith and all that but they've been here what 3 or 4 times.... if neither of them can even stick to an IBAN then I think blocking is in order till they both get the hint and stop interacting with each other. –Davey2010Talk 15:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Troutarang. This edit? Do my eyes deceive me? This edit is what you're coming to ANI to complain about? How did you manage to get a trout so firmly attached to your boomerang this morning? HiDrNick! 15:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Block Magnolia677, ping Euryalus, possibly trout Alansohn but I don't see the justification for a block against him. Magnolia677's edit looks to me like an intentional and pointy breach of the iban. It followed almost immediately on Euryalus's closure of the earlier thread, saying that the iban was going to be strictly enforced, and specifically naming the "intervening edit" rule as a target of enforcement. I'm never big on the zero-tolerance thing but that edit appears to just be asking for it. Besides breaching the intervening edit rule, it's a crappy edit that exactly echoes a similar crappy edit (regarding Chris Christie) in the same article. I agree with Reyk's statement "I don't doubt that Magnolia is winding you up on purpose". That winding-up is harassment and battleground editing all by itself. Yes there were earlier incidents, they were discussed and resolved, putting us at a place where the editors were supposed to drop the stick and observe the iban. That didn't happen, Magnolia677 breached apparently on purpose, Alansohn might have handled it a bit differntly, but it's not a symmetrical situation. Only one of them breached the ban. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 21:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • My apologies for this edit. When 406,256 edits have been made to New Jersey by just one editor, it's hard not to let one slip by. I'll try to be more careful. My edit had no impact on him though; any good faith editor would have recognized that and turned the other cheek. A few days ago, when he went onto a talk page here to denounce an edit I made, I didn't run here in a hissyfit. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Boomerang There's clearly an established context of disruption here, and there may very well be an argument for blocking both parties, but Alansohn has brought a complaint to ANI that can be best summarized as "Mooooooooooooom, Daaaaaaaaaaaaaad - Magnolia has his knee on my side again!" Interaction bans are meant to restrict (yes, that's right) interaction, and Magnolia's edit made no alteration to (nor was it in any way particularly connected with) content added by Alansohn. I did not see the previous discussions which lead to the IBAN, so I can't comment on what justification was given for its implementation, but I will say that the community does not support the tool broadly as means of providing peace of mind to the sanctioned editors but rather to decrease the amount of disruption caused by their personal grudges while retaining their useful edits. Alansohn seems to have missed that distinction in bringing this particular edit to this particular space as evidence of something that supposedly requires community attention. And being the immensely experienced editor that he is, he really ought to know better. If he's lucky enough to avoid a block (or a TBAN, yikes) then he should at least take the comments here as a firm warning about what the purpose and spirit of an IBAN are, whatever the specific wording of his and Magnolia's particular sanction. Snow let's rap 00:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: It's a clear violation, and in this case I agree it is WP:POINTy. I don't think this ANI thread is necessary though; I think notifying Euryalus and having him institute the IBAN block would have been sufficient, since he closed the relevant thread yesterday. Softlavender (talk) 01:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • It took 4 hours and 6 minutes from the closing of the very long previous thread by Euryalus to the opening of this thread. One gets the impression of runners in their starting blocks, just waiting for the first action that could be reported as a violation. BMK (talk) 02:17, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the ping, am keen on letting this community debate continue awhile so we get a clear consensus for action, if possible. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • In passing, the IBAN breach that kicked off this thread predates the thread above, and so cannot be held against Magnolia677 as a breach of the final warning. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - Recommend both editors see their doctors for a prescription for tranquilizers, nothing heavy-duty, just some "happy pills" to take the edge off. In other news: Magnola677, you must work harder not to piss off Alansohn violate the IBan, and Alansohn, you really have to get over the idea that you own New Jersey, because if you don't, people are going to start coming to you to solve their problems instead of to Chris Christie. As to who should be blocked, or topic banned, or what, I dunno. Perhaps all the rest of us should be banned from reading these threads and commenting on them. Then we'll find out what happens when a tree falls on AN/I with no one around. BMK (talk) 02:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Boomarang for Alansohn I've just realized that the edit Alansohn reported Magnolia677 for was the addition of Jon Corzine, former governor of New Jersey, to a list of notable people of Trenton, New Jersey. IBan are IBans, but we're not expected to throw our common sense in the trash can when enforcing them. This thread is an egregious violation of the community's expectation that both parties to the IBan actually do a little work to avoid exacerbating matters. BMK (talk) 02:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I personally disagree. The edit came after an edit by Alansohn, with no intervening edit, which is a direct violation of the IBAN. Not only that, the edit was a direct provocation in that the wording and profession mirrored Magnolia77's contentious attempt to add incumbent governor Christie to list, which Alansohn criticized in the just-closed ANI thread; even the wording of it is the same. It appears to me that the edit is a blatant attempt to get Alansohn topic-banned from NJ (along with him/herself) by baiting him to take this to ANI less than 24 hours after the previous thread which threatened such if this appeared here again. In my opinion, Magnolia77 needs a violation block and possibly a NJ topic ban, but not Alansohn in this case. Softlavender (talk) 02:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Sure, I don't deny that there's a possibility that M677 made the edit to needle Alansohn, but, at least in my view, that's not been shown to be the case. In looking at the situation in general Alansohn's proprietary attitude towards New Jersey articles is a much more significant problem, and he's already received two passes for violating the IBan himself. At this time, I'd be agreeable to a trout of Magnolia677, but I still believe the boomarang for Alansohn is the most appropriate sanction in this case. If there's a next instance, and there's any possibility of it having been provoked by M677, I'll be supporting a topic ban for both, as the net value to the project of both of these editors, which has been so far the reason they haven't been blocked, goes down with every disruption of the peace of the community they cause. BMK (talk) 03:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, he had to report it somewhere, and chose to report it here (just as Magnolia77 hoped he would, it seems). If Alansohn has "already received two passes for violating the IBan himself", that was before the last ANI closed. Since then the only one who has violated it was Magnolia77, and it was nearly instantaneous and blatantly provocative. As Euryalus said in their close last night, "Final warning to Alansohn and Magnolia677 that absent any further community decision the I-ban will now be strictly enforced and blocks applied for any breaches, including of the "intervening edit" rule and/or any interaction or reference to each other on talkpages". I'm not denying Alansohn may be gaming by editing lots of NJ articles, but he didn't break the IBAN today, Magnolia77 did. Softlavender (talk) 06:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
No, the last ANI was Alansohn's second pass. He opened the thread, but the (loose) consensus was that Alansohn was the responsible party, not Magnolia677. I know it's long and tedious, but you should read the thread again, especially the earlier parts.
In regard to this current one, yes M677 made the edit without an intervening edit, so it was indeed a technical violation of the IBan, but the edit itself was totally innocuous, as multiple editors commented above. The parties to an IBan have something more than an obligation to report every possible violation, they have the responsibility to reduce disruption to the community -- that's why the IBan is in place. Given his ownership issues regarding New Jersey articles, it was rather unlikely that it would happen, but Alansohn's highest responsibility was to just let the edit go by, without comment, and give M677 the benefit of the pass that he got when he first broke the IBan (and that, too, was a technical violation, very much on a par with M677's in this instance). To throw the book at M677 for the edit he made in this instance is pretty much killing a flea with a tommy gun. BMK (talk) 07:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Block Magnolia77 for blatant, immediate, and pointy violation of the IBAN, which seemed to be designed to entrap Alansohn into receiving a NJ topic ban along with him/her. Please let's not let the blatant gaming succeed. Quite obviously NJ is Alansohn's expertise; there's no reason for him to be punished for Magnolia's violation. Softlavender (talk) 09:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Lightly Boomerang Alansohn, Super-Mega-Ultra-Trout Magnolia. Alansohn is trying to nitpick the editor, and while yes the possibility is that Magnolia was gaming, I'd like to AGF here. Very easy for someone to not check the edit history and just go straight to the article. While irresponsible on Magnolia's part should that be the case, they weren't trying to poke and prod anyone if that is how it happened. Should it be revealed that Magnolia was intentionally gaming, immediate support of a block for Magnolia only and a trout for Alansohn for the ANI.cnbr15 12:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Topic-Ban[edit]

  • Support topic-ban as per Jayron32, as an alternative to repeated blocks. If they won't respect the TBAN, then they need blocking. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Topic Ban I previously supported both of these editors, as they have both contributed prolifically to Wikipedia. However, Alansohn's ownership of New Jersey is an ongoing problem for everyone who dares venture to that topic. As for Magnolia677, I'm not so sure...While it appears he may be challenging Alansohn to take his bait, the root of the problem lies in Alansohn's combative ownership of the topic. I think Jayron32 has the right idea Jacona (talk) 16:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban This has passed way past tedious and is sucking attention away from other activity. Spartaz Humbug! 18:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I still don't see how this is even slightly justified. I'll hold back on outright opposing since some sensible and apparently uninvolved editors are supporting. That's unlike the earlier thread, where the supporters either (IMHO) either hadn't examined the situation, or else had crossed the border into involvement. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 21:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Topic Ban I think the frustration of uninvolved editors is leading to thoughts of draconian solutions. Both editors have contributed a lot to Wikipedia and I think it is better to dole out limited, but increasing, blocks for violations of the I-ban than topic ban either editor from ALL articles or parts of articles that involve the state of New Jersey. The problem isn't that they don't make constructive edits but that they don't get along. An I-ban was created to try to resolve this feud and if either party has violated it, at all, they should get blocks of increasing duration, not a ban from a primary area of the project they contribute to. Liz Read! Talk! 22:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose topic ban(s) at this time. BMK (talk) 02:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support This is getting ridiculous. Blackmane (talk) 02:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban for both sides. It's clear that nothing else will stop these two from constantly butting heads and wasting everyone's time. The iban has turned out to be useless, since neither editor is interested in abiding by it, and we already know at least one of them can break it with impunity. Reyk YO! 08:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose topic ban(s) at this time. Both have plenty to add to the article, they just need to stop hounding each other like school children. cnbr15 12:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose topic ban, at least not for Alansohn. Block Magnolia77 for blatant, immediate, and pointy violation of the IBAN, which seemed to be designed to entrap Alansohn into receiving a NJ topic ban along with him/her. Please let's not let the blatant gaming succeed. Quite obviously NJ is Alansohn's expertise; there's no reason for him to be punished for Magnolia's violation. If anyone needs a topic ban, in this case it's Magnolia. It also seems that this would eliminate the problem altogether, since NJ seems to be the place where they overlap. Softlavender (talk) 02:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Note: Softlavender, this section is about a possible topic ban. Your !vote to block M677 has already been cast in the general discussion section above this. Because of this, I've removed the bolding you put around "Block Magnolia77" (and it's "677") in the comments above, since the bolded text is generally seen to be an indication of a !vote, and you can't !vote on the same issue twice. You can certainly support or oppose a topic ban, and at the same time support or oppose a specific sanction for either editor, but you can't do either of those things more than once. BMK (talk) 02:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Not a problem; you didn't need to explain your action here; I understood it from the edit summary and that's fine and to be expected. No worries. Softlavender (talk) 02:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
OK, I only explained because I wasn't sure you would read the edit summary. Thanks. BMK (talk) 03:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Self-reporting[edit]

I'm under an ArbCom 1RR, and I wanted to check that two reverts I made fell under the "obvious vandalism" exemption - if not, I'll self-revert. A user at Curtis Culwell Center attack is removing merge tags for an ongoing merge discussion because they personally don't want to merge the article - it seems to me that this, like the removal of AFD tags by users who don't want the article to be deleted and see "make sure no one knows about this conversation" as a better choice than "try to convince others of my position", is the sort of vandalism that's exempt from RR rules. But, as I said, I'll self-revert if that's not the case; what do people think? –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 15:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I do think that self-reverting would be a good idea. Looking at those 3 votes, all oppose, it would be a better idea to try it out but later. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 15:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
The discussion has been going on for less than an hour. It doesn't mean that consensus against a merge won't still develop, but what I'm asking here is whether attempting to unilaterally end a discussion you don't like by removing tags, like AFD tags, constitutes vandalism that is exempt from RR - not whether or not you think the article should be merged. Similarly, you can't repeatedly revert the addition of AFD tags just because you really want the article to be kept - you need to wait for the discussion to be closed, even if it's a snow close. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 15:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Disruptive indeed, but not really vandalism, you can make a call on the talk page. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 15:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I think the tag was removed a bit too quickly, so I restored it. Per this amusing essay, I think the merge discussion deserves more than two hours to find consensus. I'm hoping people will avoid edit warring over a tag. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Repeated creation of Eastern News Agency,(ENA) and similar articles[edit]

Hello, editor SpokesManBD has been repeatedly creating articles such as these, several of which contain copied material from [160]. The editor has been warned that they should probably not edit this article due to COI. Moreover they are continually updating copyrighted files such as Eastern News Agency.gif (which has just been deleted). I would go to RPP and ask for a create protection, but the articles appear to have a variety of names. JZCL 15:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I got an email from them when an OTRS reference (Ticket#2015050410008377). I deleted it as a copyvio, and am unable to verify the OTRS claims. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 15:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I've protected Eastern News Agency,(ENA) since it was repeatedly created at Eastern News Agency plus since this wouldn't be the proper place for the article anyway. I know that there is a request to restore some of the content at REFUND, but there is somewhat of a problem with this since the copyrighted material (OTRS ticket or no) is too promotional to restore. We're waiting for some confirmation on the ticket before restoring an edited version of the article at Enanews that does not contain promotional or copyrighted text. I'm mildly worried about someone trying to restore the promotional content since User:Enanews and User:SpokesManBD have been pretty gung ho about doing this. I don't see where he's been explicitly warned about reposting promotional content, so I'll give him a formal warning about this and let him know that he can be blocked for repeatedly posting promotional content. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 06:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm thinking that a block may be inevitable here. SpokesManBD doesn't seem to be understanding any of the issues that people are bringing up on his talk page and he's insisting that the pre-OTRS ticket content wasn't a copyright issue and that none of it was promotional. I'm trying to stress to him why this was incorrect and that the article content would have to be re-written, but it's not really going through. I don't want to block him before he has a chance to redeem himself, but so far I'm not really seeing where he's going to do anything different than what he already has. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 08:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

"Factchecker at your service"[edit]

Block request for two weeks for overly antagonistic notes like this on Talk pages, plus user name "Factchecker at your service" differs from signed name ("Centrify") on article talk pages which he justifies on basis of nobody calling him out on it for 2 years. Recently this. Thanks--A21sauce (talk) 19:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Strong support - Enough is enough. This editor has been warned many times before about personal attacks and general disruptive behavior, yet it continues.[161] [162] [163] [164] [165] [166] [167] - MrX 19:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Don't know that I'd describe it as "calling him out", but the editor's confusing choice of display name vs. their username was discussed with them just last month here. Dwpaul Talk 19:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator observation)(edit conflict): While this user does seem to have had plenty of warnings for PA/disruptive behavior, I don't believe the signed name should weigh into this as A21sauce suggests since the actual signed name is "Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs)" which does meet the requirement of giving some indication of actual username with the "Factchecker_blah_blah_blah" part. Any block here should be for PA, not for username/sig and A21sauce should be admonished for attempting to invoke unnecessary additional drama here in this section IMHO. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 19:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Plenty of examples of PA, thanks Mr.--A21sauce (talk) 19:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Very confusing. Regarding the diffs that MrX posted above, I see some warnings made to Factchecker, but I don't see any instances of the bad conduct he is alleged to have done. Also, one of the cited postings includes a statement by Cwobeell to "Go fuck yourself." Exactly what is Factchecker supposed to have done? Can we see some evidence of that? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support some sort of sanction The conduct of this editor--whatever he calls himself--at the Arbcom case has convinced me beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is an activist editor with an agenda who is disruptive.
--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 20:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I do not believe that there is any policy/guideline requiring or even suggesting that a user's signature should have their actual username, and can think of a couple examples where this is the case. If there is, could someone point me to it? No opinion on the rest. ansh666 21:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Found it: in WP:SIGFORGE, While not an absolute requirement, it is common practice for a signature to resemble to some degree the user name it represents. So that's no reason for a sanction. Again, no opinion on the rest. ansh666 21:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - The signature is a side issue: very annoying, but not a blockable offense. What's blockable is to be a disruptive POV-pushing editor, and the nickname is indicative of what that POV is: Wikipedia is dominated by a cabal of left-wing editors, and saviors like Factchecker_atyourservice must edit in a right-wing fashion in order to "Centrify" it. He will now, most assuredly, post here to totally deny this, and comment on my mental disconnection from this corporeal plane, but it's what makes sense and accords completely with Factchcker_atyourservice's behavior, editing and commentary. This person is not actually here to improve the encyclopedia, whatever he thinks he's doing, he's here to push a specific political point of view, and that is blockable. BMK (talk) 02:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
So the editor has user names emphasizing that he wants to check facts, and that he likes to limit sources to the mainstream. If you really want him blocked or banned or whatever, I would suggest keeping the weird argument about his usernames to yourself.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: it appears that the OP is here continuing with another ANI thread that the OP started recently on the same subject.[168]. Nothing necessarily wrong with that, but it is worth noting.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
The OP's first diff above [169] shows the OP making an accusation of "yammering". So it seems the incivility was not unidirectional.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
The OP cited this diff at the conclusion of the original post of this thread (above). The diff shows Factchecker basically asserting that certain accusations against one editor (Collect) would be more appropriately made against another editor instead. I see nothing remotely blockable in what Factchecker said there, even if his assessment was mistaken.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Regarding this 2014 edit to which Mr. X objects, not only does it seem rather stale at this point, but it also shows FactChecker removing BLP material that apparently did misrepresent the cited source. Does anyone dispute that the material was unsupported by the cited source?Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose for reasons stated.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The signature is confusing, but I'm just a not very hip old man so I'm probably just behind the curve on style or whatever. Hum...MrX, one of your diffs is actually from from December and shows Cwobeel saying "go fuck yourself" to talk:Factchecker atyourservice. Another isn't even a diff of an edit made by the defendant.--MONGO 05:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your helpful observations. I will be happy to clarify why I think admin action is required by providing more detailed examples of Factchecker at your service's personal attacks as soon as I have a little more time.- MrX 10:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose , first there's nothing wrong with his signature, second, almost all of your diffs don't show any personal attacks, they show you warning Factchecker about personal attacks, the links within the warnings also don't lead to any personal attacks. There are at least two that I found that are personal attack (near the end) but they happened back in 2014, 2011, etc..... So oppose , and beware of smooth, throwable returning objects. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 10:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Using a different signature is not against policy or guidelines and is the reason I changed mine because that is what the consensus of editors was when another editor began using a signature that was not their username to sign his posts that was very close to my old username. We have a consensus on the name thing. Mr.X's links aside (I haven't looked at them) the original complaint is without merit and I can't see supporting a block.--Mark Miller (talk) 15:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Evidence
May 3, 2015 "With all the hours upon hours that editors here spent compiling diffs against Collect, half of which don't show anything, claiming to be motivated by pure non-partisan Wiki-Concern, yet not a single person posted a single diff against Cwobeel's virtually identical but much more extensive conduct in that regard, just shows what a politically motivated witch-hunt this is."
May 3, 2015 "Learn to read plz kthxbye"
May 3, 2015 "Are you even trying to make sense? "
May 3, 2015 "Cwobeel behaves much worse, right in your face, and none of you says a word. In fact nobody even bats an eyelash when he stands up here at ArbCom, and says, completely without irony, that someone else has problems hearing that and gaming the system. Nope, it's all kosher so far as you're concerned. And why is that? Because he's on your team."
April 28, 2015 "Given your clearly expressed hostility to one of the article subjects and your stated assumption that he must be guilty, you probably shouldn't be editing that article at all. I request that you stop."
April 28, 2015 "since you made reference to an internal mental struggle you were having trying to comprehend this, perhaps the above will clear things up for you a teensy bit. Cheers! "
April 24, 2015 "Because it's soooooooooooo unreasonable to expect that you not beat on this article like a POV drum."
April 24, 2015 "This is a frankly ridiculous position which you can barely articulate in English in the first place because it doesn't make sense."
April 8, 2015 "I don't know, maybe he suspected that you were still on the prowl for an opportunity to hound him off WP."
April 6, 2015 "MastCell: at Joni Ernst you engaged in left-biased editing at a political article, misrepresenting sources in the process, lobbed uncalled-for personal attacks against at least one non-admin who merely disagreed with you on a question of fact."
January 9, 2015 "So you're content to deliberately mislead readers in a racially charged case, unless I initiate an admin action to stop you."
December 8, 2014 "Rm. deliberate source misrepresentation and spin; track what source actually says, not what Cwobeel wants it to say" (edit summary)
October 12, 2014 "You can spew hogwash all you want, but it won't make a non-existent "BLP violation" magically materialize where none actually exists. Or if one existed, you could say what it is. But there isn't one. So you can't say what it is. Again, such meaningless posturing has no effect on WP, and at this point your comments are an abuse of this talk page because all you're doing is saying "nuh uh"... over and over again."
October 12, 2014 "If there is an identifiable BLP or other violation, please identify it and we can talk about it, otherwise shut the hell up.If there is an identifiable BLP or other violation, please identify it and we can talk about it, otherwise shut the hell up."
October 12, 2014 "Saturday night, Cwobeel's got a partisan axe to grind and he's real surprised no one else wants to play. Shocked, shocked. This idiot doesn't understand WP policy, merely sees it as a tool for attacking conservatives. OH, NOTE ALSO SMART GUY, the article was LOCKED UNTIL LESS THAN 24 HOURS AGO — in no small part due to your histrionics and anti-policy editing crusades."
October 12, 2014 "NOTE ALSO that there was no actual edit to discuss — since this was merely a childish partisan rant by a relentlessly axe-grinding editor who's just mad that his dumb AFD failed and now wants to argue vacuously over the result"
October 3, 2014 "Comment. Let's cut through the crap. Cwobeel wants this particular wording because he wants to portray Ernst as a nobody who was magically transformed into a politician by evil campaign money."
October 1, 2014 "Cwobeel constantly goes about violating policies that he already knows about, and he's violating content policies, not procedural policies."

Interweaved amongst these examples are many similar comments directed at various users. Anyone with the time or motivation may find FCAYS's contributions at the following pages to be quite illuminating: Talk:The Federalist (website), Talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight), Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown, Talk:Joni_Ernst, and the various project and talk pages at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others.- MrX 19:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Mr. X, just looking at the item at the top of the list, I am puzzled. Isn't it correct that Cwobeel was (or is) an involved party in the ArbCom case that factchecker was discussing there? So there was nothing inherently wrong with mentioning Cwobeel, right? Could you please explain why exactly the following statement to ArbCom (that you quote in your first item above) is now blockable at ANI? "With all the hours upon hours that editors here spent compiling diffs against Collect, half of which don't show anything, claiming to be motivated by pure non-partisan Wiki-Concern, yet not a single person posted a single diff against Cwobeel's virtually identical but much more extensive conduct in that regard, just shows what a politically motivated witch-hunt this is." Are you saying that politically-motivated witch-hunts never happen at Wikipedia, and that is why we should now hunt down Factchecker and burn him at the stake, so to speak? I'll get to your subsequent diffs if you can explain that first one.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I didn't claim that the first diff was a blockable offense (which is why I provided a non-exhaustive list from roughly the last seven months. FCAYS presented no evidence against Cwobeel, just aspersions. WP:NPA is quite clear that accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence are personal attacks. If you want to explore the topic of Cwobeel's conduct, start a new section and present diffs to support your assertions. As to the rest of your comment, I find your characterization of this discussion as a witch hunt to be especially unsavory, not to mention illogical.- MrX 02:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Mr. X, you are correct that policy says accusations about personal behavior lacking evidence are never acceptable, and serious accusations require serious evidence. However, in the first of your latest series of diffs, factchecker merely said that Cwobeel's conduct is "virtually identical but much more extensive" than Collect's behavior, which strikes me as rather inoffensive if one admires Collect's editing, as I think Cwobeel does. Anyway, there's a serious side-issue here: if a group of editors only compile and present evidence or purported evidence against one segment of Wikipedia (adversaries), while deliberately avoiding doing so for another segment of Wikipedia (allies), then that is a legitimate systemic problem worth pondering and discussing out in the open, especially if the adversaries do not counteract such tactics by mimicking them. One of your own diffs in this thread shows Cwobeel telling Factchecker to "go fuck yourself", so I'm sure you could manage a word of criticism about Cwobeel if you wanted to.[170] The rest of your diffs similarly lack context and apparently are designed to overlook provocation, which I find kind of unsavory.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
The point is that this was in the context of a arbitration case, where anyone who wanted to, Factchecker_atyourservice included, could have presented evidence against Cwobeel, and not a single editor did so -- and yet Factchecker_atyourservice still felt free to cast aspersions against Cwobeel on the talk page, with no evidence to support his allegations. This appears to have been done on the theory that the best defense is a good offense, so that by accusing Cwobeel of behaving in a similar manner to Collect, Factchecker_atyourservice was, I suppose, hoping to undermine the charges against Collect – even though those charges were supported by evidence from multiple editors, and Factchecker_atyourservice's charges against Cwobeel were supported by nothing whatsoever. BMK (talk) 02:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
The big aspersion being that Cwobeel is a lot like someone whom Factchecker admires?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
No, the big aspersion being that Cwobeel, according to Factchecker_atyourservice's unsupported allegations, was doing the same kind of thing that Factchecker_atyourservice was concerned that Collect was going to be sanctioned for -- and, in fact, is on the verge of being sanctioned for even as we communicate with each other so delightfully. You can't evaluate the purpose of the actions of a POV warrior like Factchecker_atyourservice without looking at them in the context in which they occured -- but, you knew that, didn't you? This is all just circling the wagons, innit? BMK (talk) 03:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I discussed the first of Mr. X's latest series of diffs. I could proceed and consider the second too, but its just another instance of decontextualizing, as the remark was in response to a charge of "yammering". It's just too tedious to go through the rest of Mr. X's diffs one by one, especially since I am already dismissed as a wagon circler, or something. Do you have evidence of wagon circling, BMK, or is it just unsubstantiated, because my family hasn't circled the wagons since about 1850, and I am not quite that old. :)Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I'm willing to bet that you've metaphorically circled the wagons once or twice in your day -- haven't we all? But I'll readily concede that my "evidence" for wagon-circling consists entirely of my behavioral observations of the... let us call them "The COLLECTion" ... of editors who share a similar political POV as Collect. Please be clear, I am not accusing the members of The Collection of behaving badly in general, I'm sure that most of you are true assets to the encyclopedia, and it indeed "takes all kinds", as long as we're all working towards the same goal of a truly balanced, factual encyclopedia. But, I'm afraid, that some of your cohort are somewhat less than dedicated to that proposition, and I would number Collect and Factchecker_atyourservice among them. The fact that The Collection may be circling the wagons is quite understandable, and reminds me a bit of FDR's remark about the Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza: "He may be a bastard, but he's our bastard". BMK (talk) 03:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure no amount of wagon-circling by me could protect anyone at Wikipedia for long. Anyway, my comments above are sincere. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
As I'm certain must be obvious to you, wagon-circling is a collective activity, not one undertaken by an independent individual, but each person serves their purpose, as you have here in attempting to take some of the heat off of Factchecker_atyourservice. Unfortunately, the circumstances made that somewhat difficult to do but it was an honorable try. BMK (talk) 04:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I barely started, but you dismissed it as wagon-circling so I stopped. If you'd like me to keep going, I would throw Monsieur X's last seven diffs in the bonfire, as they are from last year. That still leaves a bunch I haven't mentioned yet.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Malware link removal request[edit]

On KMPlayer I tried to remove a Download.com malware link, but another contributor was unconvinced that at this time rather old or on CNET#Download even unsourced warnings are still applicable. Meanwhile I've added two referenced statements in this section, updated the fresher "bare references" on Download.com#Adware to {{cite web}} style with authorlink= where applicable, added new references for the years after 2011, and a video while at it. Could somebody please remove the offending section from KMPlayer, the link can't be a good idea (IANAL). As SoFixIt-fan I am already at three attempts to get rid of the crap. –Be..anyone (talk) 19:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Download.com/CNET is not a "malware site". I have no idea what the issue with this user is, but they seem to be on a very mistaken crusade. Download.com is perhaps the biggest website of its type, and is most definitely not a malware site... there was some speculation of issues with an installer in 2011, which are completely irrelevant four years later, and the source used as an explanation for the last revert was still a year old, and was far from calling Download.com a malware site... it simply stated that there was an issue with AVG (a well-known anti-virus provider)'s search tool where it wasn't secure, and it was included in the Download.com installer. Note please that this user, who as far as I can tell is failing terribly at WP:CIR, hasn't once tried to discuss this, despite me pointing out BRD twice in edit summaries (even if I mistyped it in one of them), and has simply marched off here. Quite frankly, I don't think this user understands what malware or adware are... because the things they've added to the Download.com section are either dubiously referenced, not calling anything adware/malware, and are still old. "In 2013 a groovypost editor explained how to uninstall the potentially unwanted programs left after an installation opting-out from additional offers." - seriously? Where's the evidence they're a reliable source? Random mailing lists certainly aren't, and those are being used as references as well. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
JFTR, I informed the user on his talk page about this thread after starting a thread on Talk:KMPlayer with a {{ping}} four hours earlier. So far for not once try to discuss anything, the edit history of KMPlayer with some kind of discussion in the edit summaries is pretty mild in comparison with Download.com. –Be..anyone (talk) 22:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • You notified me about the ANI thread, yes. You did NOT notify me about the talk page discussion, which is what I said - so don't try and flip my comments to be something they're not. And not only did you never notify me about the KMPlayer talk page discussion... you ran here with a content dispute just four/five hours after making the initial post. That's lame. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oh, and note that any attempt at cleaning up the unreliable sources in the Download.com article - which I also intend to try and sort out with ones that are actually known as being reliable - is reverted with the "revert vandalism" tactic. Yep, User:Be..anyone fails WP:CIR clear as day. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
"Most of those sources are either obviously unreliable (mailing list, teacher's blog, random websites with no oversight whatsoever), or of dubious reliability" in this edit about Brian Krebs (Krebs on security), Ed Bott (ZDNet), Scott Hanselman (Microsoft blogger), insecure.org, howtogeek.com, The Register, US-CERT, twit.tv, Gordon Lyon, etc. in six fully referenced links and a video. Three of these links actually as they were as stated above, i.e. converted to {{cite web}} and now reverted, the newer references + video removed. After the user claimed that everything is old, as it in fact was (2011, only The Register/US CERT was 2014.) Interpreting that as request for fresher references was plausible, resulting in 2012+2013+video (also 2013)+2014+2015, five good new references from notable sources. Removing referenced on topic statements is vandalism in my book. –Be..anyone (talk) 21:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I did say most, not all. ZDNet is good, yes, but I fail to see where that was actually being used in any way as anything other than just a video. There was certainly no justification for dumping it in the article in that way - use it as a reference by all means, but not like that. That's not how Wikipedia works. The Register was already in there, and remains in there. In the meantime, there were things cited to mailing lists, blogs of random teachers, and sources that have no evidence of being reliable. Howtogeek.com is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. There's no evidence for insecure.org being a reliable source for Wikipedia. Etc, etc. Even if I'm wrong, then I'm misguided, not a vandal, and THAT is why you are failing CIR. Please note how I have used reliable sources to tidy things up a bit, whilst fixing various formatting issues myself. Such a great vandal, aren't I? But by all means, continue grinding your axe with unreliable sources and things being added in badly. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • It is also worth noting that CNET/Download.com is owned by CBS Interactive, who are owned by CBS Corporation - hardly the sort of place that would actually be deliberately, and consistently, providing a "malware site" now... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oh, and as a further note, it's such a dangerous site that the likes of PC World Magazine are more than willing to provide download links that use that site - and that was from last year as well. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
google:download.com+malware to find more potential links, only one is "teacher" Scott Hanselman. The issue that CNET used to be a trustworthy site before 2011 is addressed in almost all references, removed by you or still there—actually I haven't checked anything older than Brian Krebs+Gordon Lyon. –Be..anyone (talk) 21:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Only one was a teacher, yes, but that is an example of the multiple sources that are either blatantly unreliable, or do not comply with the reliable sources policy. Whether you added them in or they were already there, we had information cited to a teacher's blog and a mailing list. And yes, I've been Googling the information to see if there's anything out there... there's a fair bit of discussion of the 2011 issue (again, four years old), and basically nothing bar The Register's piece that is a properly reliable source since then. The fact I've been Googling the issue should be obvious by the fact I've added in a couple of actually reliable references myself... And I've even left in something with an unreliable source tag, to give you a chance to prove that it may be an acceptable source for use on Wikipedia - since a lot of that section is dependant on it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • You don't even understand that policy! I made three reverts, not four, which I would need to have made to violate the rule... meanwhile, given that you were removing things from the KMPlayer article, it could be technically stated that you made four reverts there - and I've seen that definition used before. But by all means, continue to destroy your own case. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
The blatantly unreliable teacher Scott Hanselman is quoted as expert on 21 articles about Windows topics on enwiki, because that's what he really is, after all MicroSoft employs him, and he published various often quoted articles on his blog. Interpreting policy is the job for an admin, that's why we are on this page. –Be..anyone (talk) 21:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • ANI is not for content, it's for user conduct anyway. He may be a reliable source for some things, but there is 0 evidence that he is a reliable source for this particular topic. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Most issues are obvious for somebody trying to figure out what happened, but this edit summary was not on one of the three directly affected articles or their talk pages. –Be..anyone (talk) 22:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • And I stand by it. You don't understand what vandalism is, you don't understand the 3RR policy, you're relying on sources that are at times blatantly unreliable, and at others are dubious at best, and you're edit-warring content that is inappropriate into articles in defiance of general practice. You also completely failed to allow any discussion to take place before running here... five hours is nothing, and without any ping, I didn't even see the discussion at first. WP:CIR is a thing, and I'm seeing a striking lack of competence here. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
WP:6RR field trial in 4, 5, 6 by a user who has serious problems with a "howtogeek.com" reference, a site quoted on nineteen Wikipedia articles. –Be..anyone (talk) 23:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Any policy you do understand? 3RR applies to individual articles, and at no point have I broken that. Making up statements like the above is ridiculous. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
The one EMSISOFT link you added tested the top ten downloads individually with both antivirus programs. The Howtogeek test published two months earlier tested the top ten downloads in a row skipping the 2nd antivirus program for obvious (and explained) reasons. IOW they tested the same nine downloads + one different program, and arrived at the same results, EMISOFT with a summary that 62% of the programs while avoiding "voluntary" add-ons were bundled with PUPs. One of the links you conveniently avoided inventing a new term "potentially unwanted software" for the issue. EMSISOFT didn't bother to count minor issues like modified browser homepages.
Their definition of PUP is close enough to the definition here to be considered as in essence the same thing. So removing references totally agreeing with what you later added using another source might be also some bad case of WP:OWN. There's still a missing good recipe how to get rid of one "opt-out everything but" PUP, a missing video interview with an expert published two years before the EMSISOFT pages, the missing howtogeek now confirmed by your research, the missing Microsoft expert Scott Hanselman, and the missing criticism on CNET—apparently a point where we actually agree, one page for this cesspool is enough, but my merge suggestion failed. –Be..anyone (talk) 05:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • How can I be "owning" a page I'd barely edited before yesterday? HTG isn't a reliable source for that kind of thing, and the comments within the article only prove it. There's a big difference between a PUP and malware, a very big difference. It's also complete bollocks to say that I'm "owning" a page by replacing unreliable sources (and, yes, pieces in usually reliable sources that draw solely from an unreliable source, without doing anything of their own, are therefore unreliable) with reliable ones, not to mention using more neutral wording. You have presented 0 evidence for Hanselman being an expert in malware, and the piece he did was so far from being neutral and balanced that it's untrue - and HTG were just as bad. Also, Download.com is not a "cesspool", but thanks for showing your true motivations - to slander the company no matter what. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment There's a more recent claim I've found that adware can be installed like Superfish which installs a root certificate in the user's computer to extend adware to SSL sites (google encrypted search). (howtogeek - copied in Forbes blog NDTV churnalism The Guardian Technology) Lifehacker writes that Wajam is adding Superfish-style SSL root certs, and Wajam is accused of being one of the companies that has a deal to install additional software though wrapped installers. This might not be RS. Note, CNET admits that they bundle Wajam software, see this interchange from 2013:

    We sincerely apologize for the inconvenience here, and we have shared your feedback with the appropriate site managers. It sounds like you may have inadvertently accepted this offer in the CNET Download.com Installer.... You should be able to uninstall any offer(s) via your computer's Add/Remove Programs panel, but if for some reason that does not work, you might want to try one of the programs listed in our uninstaller software category (keeping in mind that some do use the CNET Installer too)... And instructions for resetting your browser(s), if you need them, are here: http://download.cnet.com/2701-2023_4-2107.html... Should you need any further assistance, please feel free to contact our support team directly by filling out the form ... In the "Description" section of the form, please include a link to the Download.com page from which you downloaded when Wajam was installed as well. - Jen

    Yes, CNET bundles Wajam and a range of other "offers" that provoke user frustration, some of which which break internet security by forcing an SSL root cert into the system. I don't have an RS for this, but Facebook is accused of making an "evil interface" that allows them to claim that users have choices, when in fact the users haven't chosen their own privacy settings. I'd argue the average technical competence of the average user is why they accept "offers" that they later, in frustration, find difficult to remove, and didn't understand they were getting in the first place. -- Aronzak (talk) 21:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for providing a useful response. The Guardian piece is a reliable source, as is the Forbes blog; not certain about Lifehacker or NDTV. How-to-Geek does not seem like one. I'll read those pieces and put something in the article that fits. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Hmm. The Guardian piece would normally be a reliable source... but it references this article, which relies heavily on How-To-Geek without verifying anything itself. So that one is out of the window. The Forbes piece does exactly the same thing. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, it may be churnalism. Note, see here.

    The Download.com Installer securely delivers software from Download.com's servers to your computer. During this process, the Download.com Installer may offer other free applications provided by our partners. All offers are optional: You are not required to install any additional applications to receive the software you selected... The Download.com Installer may show offers for other free applications. All offers are optional: You are not required to install any additional applications to receive the software you selected. We screen all application offers to ensure they are safe and can be uninstalled. No offers are ever automatically installed without your acceptance.

    Note that these kinds of vague statements are usually highly mendacious - "choice" is a euphemism - most users lack the technical competence or patience to read warnings and "click though" dialogs to the default option (Browsers now offer bright red warning pages to tell people SSL certificates are not safe, after studies showed that small yellow triangles were often used in harmless/meaningless boxes that pop up on a user's computer with out of date/misconfigured software). -- Aronzak (talk) 22:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • As to why I don't believe HTG is compliant with Wikipedia's RS policy; I don't see any evidence of a proper editorial process that a reliable source would require, and as the name suggests, this is primarily a How-To site, not a journalism site. It's also worth noting that they're criticizing all free download sites, but only mention CNET/download.com by name as it is, well, the biggest and easiest target. HTG even admits that Note: the installers are so tricky and convoluted that we aren’t sure who is technically doing the “bundling," Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The paper on browsers, by the way is here - 70.2% of Google Chrome users clicked though SSL warnings in one trial. I think there's a peer reviewed study or at least a professional survey asking people if they have software on their computer they didn't install. -- Aronzak (talk) 22:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd be surprised if there wasn't one, to be honest. In fact, I'd expect there to be a few of them. That number sounds about right; too many people do things like that, due to either laziness, or not knowing any better. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • TLDR, but if it helps anyone, I've found an article in German at Heise Security about Superfish-y adware certificates referencing CERT. From the news article: "These applications will embed the dangerous root certificate in your system: <bullet list>."De728631 (talk) 22:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Interesting pieces, but sadly not directly relevant to the articles in question by the OP - if they're not in the Superfish article, they may be worth adding in. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Should note that the reporting user is still making bogus claims of vandalism, and edit-warring to keep content in place that is neither appropriate for that particular article (belongs in the main one), is not neutral (directly linking to a criticism section of an article for no good reason) and contains the dubious HTG source. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Emsisoft blog? 1 2 - note that the prase "potentially unwanted program" which wiki links to Malware#Grayware -- Aronzak (talk) 22:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • That one looks good to me. I'll add in a comment with regards to that, making sure to note that every other site tested had an issue as well. I'll use the unwanted program term rather than malware, because most of the programs are obviously reputable, and there are multiple ones I'd vouch for myself. Still don't see how this would justify axing CNET as a reference in other articles, but it's certainly worthy of note. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't, the CIR issue still stands and the user should be warned sternly. It just raises the question here of a content issue, where on the CNET page there is a need to educate users. And forgive me for being sentimental, but the content issue just rankles me - in the early days of the internet it was run by academics wanting to make useful software that would open up a community of free inquiry and exchange, and now the top results for open source applications are scam links that bundle PUPs that track their online activity. -- Aronzak (talk) 23:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Absolutely, I couldn't agree with you more - the number of PUPs loaded in is just a pain in the backside. It can be a nightmare trying to find obscure drivers, for example, without hitting these sites. But I do recognize they have to make money somehow... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted the user and have given them an edit warring template on their talk page. I told them to wait until the issue has been resolved on ANI. I'll wait for an admin to take action. Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 23:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

  • For what it's worth, I recognize my part in the edit war fully, and hold my hands up to it; I just don't like things being removed for poor reasons, and I really object to being called a vandal for no good reason. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Warning/block needed for user User:\\'arrior 786[edit]

Hello. Could any awake admin drop another warning or perhaps another block for this user? Apart from adding unsourced additions, and spreading some ethnic nationalism, there is virtually no single use for his edits. Though he got blocked on the 10th of April for disruptively editing, which is very recently, he still hasn't understood it. It's rather quite annoying for other users who have to rv, rv, rv his edits. Some of his disruptive edits we had to revert these days [171], [172], [173], [174]. Regards.

- LouisAragon (talk) 01:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: You need to notify editors you report to AN/I that you have done so. Best practice is to use {{subst:ANI-notice}}. Monty845 02:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Ah, check! Had forgotten to do so. - LouisAragon (talk) 02:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

vandal copy/pasting edit summaries to fake an ip block[edit]

Some random IP User:10.68.16.57 marked User:103.251.65.66 as blocked by User:Gillam, although I cross-checked the block log and vandal's talk page that User:Gillam didn't block them. That admin says somebody is faking ip blocks. Could you guys please take care of that? purely bizarre. See also Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism's history. thanks --Fazbear7891 (talk) 01:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

This is User:HBC AIV helperbot5 logged out. I've temporarily blocked the IP until the bot owner can correct the issue. Please note that any IPs in the 10.0.0.0/8 range will be from Wikimedia internal servers and are not random editors. Nakon 01:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
@Nakon: Not sure it makes sense to block the bot now that its logged back in, which would suggest the problem is resolved/resolved itself, and even if its not, the bot would then be editing logged out and unaffected by the block. Monty845 01:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
The IP has now been unblocked. All seems resolved now. Nakon 01:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Did you mean blocked Nakon? FWIW part of the problem was that the wrong template was used in the original AIV report. The template used read {{vandal|User talk:103.251.65.66}}. It should read {{IPvandal|103.251.65.66}}. The bot might have been kicking the report out since there is no User talk:103.251.65.66 (talk · contribs). MarnetteD|Talk 02:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Oh - Nakon I see that you mean the IP that was running the bot - not the one that was performing the vandalism. MarnetteD|Talk 02:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
My apologies if my statement was confusing. The 10. IP was the bot editing while logged out. This IP has been unblocked as the bot has been fixed. Nakon 02:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

← It (they) seem to be logged out once again. --kelapstick(bainuu) 11:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Propose topic ban User:Studentcollege at the Teahouse[edit]

NAC: User:Studentcollege indeffed as WP:NOTHERE. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Propose topic ban for the Teahouse. The editor has made more than 40 posts to the Teahouse and has ignored all requests to stop, see here, here and here. Editor is not here to contribute to the project Flat Out talk to me 03:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

In agreement on the topic ban, but it is my feeling this is more a CIR issue and as such would also support a competency block. I'm afraid a topic ban would just shift the problem elsewhere. He had yet to make one single actual main space edit. A couple to user talk pages, all the rest at teahouse, Over a month of repeated questions that are far from clear. John from Idegon (talk) 05:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support with reluctance and a heavy heart. The Teahouse is supposed to be a friendly, welcoming space to assist new editors, and I have made over 2500 edits there to advance that goal. But the goal is always to assist new editors in improving the encyclopedia, in even the smallest way. I have tried friendly, helpful answers with this editor, and I have tried chastising. Nothing has worked. This editor has contributed nothing so far that I can see to the improvement of the encyclopedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't consider that a topic ban will stop this editor trolling, I have blocked indefinitely as they are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia.  Philg88 talk 06:38, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
He has admitted having more than one account on my talk page so we haven't seen the last of him! Theroadislong (talk) 07:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, he's no doubt knitting a sock as we speak.  Philg88 talk 08:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Every time they have a question they ask there, and they repeat the same/very similar questions constantly- like they've asked similar questions about multiple accounts/sockpuppets about 3-4 times there, every time being directed to ask it at their talkpage, or where the discussion involving it was. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Long term disruptive editing by User:Eshwar.om[edit]

Can some admins look into the disruptive editing and POV pushing by Eshwar.om (talk · contribs) at a large number of article over several years? Frankly I believe he is editing in good faith, but is hindered by issues of:

  • competence, which makes his talkspace posts, which are very rare, often incomprehensible (sample at random). Article space contributions are even more troubling and detailed below.
  • Bad faith (see posts here and here)
  • POV pushing of Tamil language, history and literature.

Some examples from week, although the problem has persisted for years

Let me know if any clarification is needed. And thanks in advance to whoever looks at the volumnious evidence and the users longer editing history, which in earlier days would have belonged at RFCU. Abecedare (talk) 04:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
PS: Should have mentioned that Eshwar.om has been amply warned/advised about his edits as a quick look at his talkpage will show (and that's just since April 2015). Abecedare (talk) 04:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


Oops.He given wrong information about my contribution.my edits and his Edits are visible for all in wikipedia.Every one will look on that.but i dont know why this editor saying like this?!but yes i will look on that. i will give diff and page links.thank youEshwar.omTalk tome 04:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid this is a competence issue and the competence seems not to have improved in the slightest over time. I do not question that they mean well but the level of disruption is pretty extreme. It has, by the way, included unfounded accusations that I was editing while drunk, seemingly just because I disagreed with something that had been done. A topic ban from Hinduism articles isn't going to achieve much: they have exhibited problematic behaviour all over the place, as demonstrated by the sample diffs provided by Abecedare. We are at the stage of a parting of the ways, unfortunately. I'm guessing that English is not their first language, so perhaps it would be more useful if they were directed to a native-language project. - Sitush (talk) 05:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • July 2014 ANI discussion: "User:Eshwar.om disrupting" that led to a one week block by User:Bbb23 (the user has had other 30 and 59 day blocks). Note that the main issue at that ANI was disruptively adding large number of (often copyvio) images to several articles, which as I noted in my post above are both still a problem. Also note the problems are also seen in the user's edits related to Indian history, languages, and geography. So any edit-restrictions limited to a few months or Hinduism-related articles alone are likely to result in a recurrence and us being back here sooner or later. Abecedare (talk) 06:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


Abecedare saying Long term disruptive editing by User:Eshwar.om.it is not true. he is saying that iam pushing POV pushing in the name of one particular language.i will not agree that.see the article which is created by me recently List of Hindu Female saints .it covers all languages and literature from india.if i like only one language then why do i create this article?!.India and Hinduism covering more information.my contributions are based on that. even i used to provide more Reliable source too.also i am wondering he showing almost all my edits.oops.Eshwar.omTalk tome 06:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Even i used to talk with senior editor likeSitush while create an article ..click here.but he is saying points against me here :) .i know He is not polite with other users in his talk page.some time he uses angry and vulgar words.click here.i dont know whether the two users joining together and dominating others ?!if it is true then how the new editors may contribute in future?!Eshwar.omTalk tome 07:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

And also i remember one thing that is user Abecedare left a warning message on my talk page once.in that he said "I don't usually leave templated warnings for experienced users, but in this case I don't think the message is getting across"click here. And now he is saying" Long term disruptive editing by User:Eshwar.om ".it makes to think how it is?!.he only said , discuss the issues on articles talk page.but he is not discussing in talk page click here.instead of talking in relevant talk page he is reporting me here .wont i feel surprise ?!.Eshwar.omTalk tome 08:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Source misrepresentation by Xtremedood (and section blanking)[edit]

(non-admin closure) Complaints about Xtreemdood's editing related to India-Pakistan should be made at WP:ARE#Xtremedood, where OccultZone has lodged a complaint. (reclosed as uninvolved editor) BMK (talk) 18:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Xtremedood: is adding source misrepresentation in articles

In Muhammed bin Qasim he writes about other scholars:

Elliot who hated Islam
U.T. Thakkur, a staunch Indian nationalist

Elliot is a mainstream pillar of British historiography on medieval India, so the claim that he hates Islam is absurd. Xtremedood is claiming that this source "Maclean, Derryl N. Religion and Society in Arab Sind, Brill Academic Publishers, 1989 ISBN 90-04-08551-3 pg.22-29" says that Elliot "hates" Islam.

But the source says nothing of the sort: [190]

There is also a series of unexplained edits by him with blanking of sections, for example here and here He even marked one of those edits as Minor in the edit summary. [191]

His disruptive editing has been brought to his attention by @Kautilya3: @FreeatlastChitchat: @OccultZone: @Kansas Bear: @Ghatus:, and at DR and at ARE but as these edits show, nothing has changed.

I'm not sure if this is the correct place to report source misrepresentations. --Calypsomusic (talk) 12:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

PS. Maybe this should have been reported to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, it falls under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan. Don't have the time right now. --Calypsomusic (talk) 12:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Calypsomusic There is already an Arbitration Enforcement case for Xtremedood. So, your complaint can be added there. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Outing[edit]

IT IS DONE:

Not outing, but the page is deleted anyway, as a "courtesy". Happy Cinco de Mayo. Writ Keeper  19:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Marknutley this] violates wp;outing please delete it.Darkness Shines (talk) 18:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

No it doesn't; you admitted the connection yourself. As WP:OUTING says: Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person had voluntarily posted his or her own information ... on Wikipedia (emphasis mine). I'm sorry, but the genie's out of the bottle on this. Writ Keeper  18:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
We usually do try to respect the wish for privacy in cases where an editor in good standing has previously disclosed their real name but then asked for a rename – to the extent this is practically possible. But then again, DS is hardly an editor in good standing. In a case like this, where DS' previous record of disruption, under both the accounts in question as well as others, is of immediate relevance to currently ongoing dispute resolution processes, the wish for privacy must not be let to stand in the way of legitimate scrutiny. I have no problem with avoiding to mention his prior account name, but the records of prior dispute resolution processes are full of references to the name, including legitimate links to the SPI page under its original title. I'm not sure those links should be redlinks, because that would make it more difficult for uninvolved editors to reconstruct the history of socking. Of course, even clicking on the redlinks will bring up a page with the move log, where the connection to the present page is also shown. As far as I can see, the presence or absence of the redirects won't make the connection either less or more visible (in terms of privacy problems), while its absence will hinder navigation rather unnecessarily. Fut.Perf. 19:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Whether an editor, in your opinion, is of good standing or not, it doesn't negate thier right to privacy. CassiantoTalk 19:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Hehe, there must be an echo here. As well as the Streisand effect...
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I wrote this before seeing your post to his talk page, so the parallel language is pretty funny. But yeah, nothing good is going to come out of this thread, so I'ma close it. Writ Keeper  19:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
There's something I'm not understanding here, so perhaps one of the admins can clear it up for me. If someone opened an SPI with new allegations about socking by the ediotr currently known as Darkness Shines, but opened it under the editor's old name, why wasn't it moved to his current name, or the name under which old SPIs are now filed, DarknessShines2, as opposed to being deleted? BMK (talk) 19:52, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
There wasn't any new SPI or new socking allegations. Somebody merely recreated a redirect from the original SPI title to the current one. Fut.Perf. 19:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
OK, that clears it up. Thank you. BMK (talk) 20:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Need an IPv6 rangeblock, STAT[edit]

2600:1017:B013:4B9F:4C28:74E4:CEB6:BCA8 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2600:1017:B02A:504:6F:2117:2A1F:5D17 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2600:1017:B00C:4:6C4C:5563:993C:726E (talk · contribs · WHOIS). MO: rapid total blanking. Drmies (talk) 18:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

No idea how to calc IPV6 rangeblocks, sorry. If I tried I'd quite likely block half the world :( I can keep on blocking as he pops up, for a while.  —SMALLJIM  19:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, it seems to have tapered off. I hope I didn't miss any of the preceding ones... Drmies (talk) 19:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Ame123ojfish - repeated edit warring and CSD tag removal[edit]

(non-admin closure) Pages creation-protected. This may need to be reopened if there's more trouble. JZCL 21:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

That's not right , i have made the article in the encyclopedia and i am adding more and more info in it day by day i have added references in it and attached about info too but a user name " mike " is still adding it for deletion so before deleting it tell me the reason of that so that i make it verified and good so that no-one delete it thanks Ame123ojfish 20:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

The issue is (as explained on your talk page several times now over the last few months) not that the article is incomplete - a lot of articles start small and grow - it's the lack of non-primary reputable sources to verify notability (see WP:NOTABLE) Mike1901 (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment A create protection for the page seems appropriate. I will ask at WP:RPP. JZCL 20:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The page is now creation protected. Yes check.svg Done. JZCL 21:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll consider this matter closed on here (added a follow-up request on WP:RPP for alternative case use) - happy for the discussion to be archived. Mike1901 (talk) 21:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Just one thing, Mike1901, the article had a worryingly high number of views on a couple of days - any idea what we can attribute this to? JZCL 21:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Can't check now as it's been deleted, but fairly sure there were several tens of edits on the day in question by only one or two people (one being the creator) - I'd put it down to that - the tool linked to is total views, does not track unique visitors. Mike1901 (talk) 21:17, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Trappist the monk and Monkbot[edit]

  1. Old discussion about Monkbot altering citation style in medical articles (including Featured articles) from November 2013
  2. Old discussion about Monkbot altering the citation style on Venezuela articles from November 2014
  3. Current discussion about Monkbot editing citations at Trappist the Monk talk page

In spite of unresolved concerns, Trappist the monk continues to operate MonkBot in ways that interfere with editing. The current issue is not unlike past issues: the bot is introducing convoluted parameters that affect ease of editing ("overengineered" and "unreadable in general" according to KateWishing) and Trappist the Monk has a communication style that is difficult.

Monkbot resumed running even though the concerns I raised were not addressed. In its current iteration, as one simple example shows, it:

The notion that Trappist the Monk can push through his individual preferences, via a bot, that then other editors have to spend hours reverting is problematic. The recurring pattern is even more problematic. The bot has introduced this parameter, which takes chunks of characters to simply say et al, in thousands of articles already. This is reminiscent of past discussions of bots and editors altering citation style and other formatting without consensus, and I am concerned that Trappist continued to run this bot even while discussion was unresolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The link to the "over-engineered" diff above shows the following citation style for reference #28 before Monkbot's edit and after Monkbot's edit:
  • before: Pagon RA, Adam MP, Ardinger HH et al. (1993). "Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome, Hypermobility Type". PMID 20301456
  • after: Pagon RA, Adam MP, Ardinger HH et al. (1993). "Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome, Hypermobility Type". PMID 20301456
What is the objection? I see no difference. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
The objection is that Trappist and his Monkbot have a style/personal preference that ignores ease of editing. As you notice in this one simple example, the difference resulting from the chunked up template parameters is insignificant to our readers, so why do editors trying to write content have to work around convoluted parameters that take overengineering to simply say, et al? The bigger concern, of course, is that Monkbot continues forcing his personal style into templates even after concerns are raised. There is no reason for such convoluted syntax to be replacing et al, which chunks up articles in edit mode-- and many editors have told that to Trappist in multiple discussions about his template choices. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  • My understanding of the situation is as follows. Trappist is splitting "et al" into a separate parameter, so that it doesn't get shoved with the author's name in the metadata. For example, whereas previously the metadata output might've been { ... "author3": "Ardinger HH et al." ... }, it now is { ... "author3": "Ardinger HH", "other_authors_omitted": true ... } (this is all hypothetical; I've no idea what the actual output is). The latter is semantically correct. Though splitting out "et al" in post-processing is a possibility, it is also confusing that it should be part of the |last= parameter - or any other numbered author parameter. The fact that you've made a habit out of this does not make it right, or intuitive, or easy for newcomers, as it's been falsely asserted elsewhere. Perhaps Trappist should attempt to explain the inner workings of CS1 and its toolset to other editors in a plainer language. Perhaps a better name could be found for this parameter. Your claim that he has changed the citation style, in contravention to CITEVAR, appears to be incorrect; as has been demonstrated above, the text is unaffected. Finally, it appears to be true that there is a general lack of consensus for this change as concerns medical articles, so it might be best to hold off applying it to any more until an understanding can be reached. I do not see an immediate need to revert any of the bot's edits. Alakzi (talk) 01:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Past discussions were about CITEVAR; in this discussion, it looks like you are confusing WP:CITEVAR (how a citation renders to our readers) with unnecessary template clutter (how a citation is seen when an editor has to work around all of that unnecessary clutter). Please spare me from any more discussions of the inner workings of CS1, and respect the inner workings of editors trying to write content. Bots should not be used to force preferences on content writers, and should stop running when issues are raised. (Meaning, this is not a CITEVAR issue-- it's a behavioral issue.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree that the bot should stop for the time being, but you're gonna need to find a common ground. You have a point; Trappist has a point. Will you not try to compromise? Alakzi (talk) 01:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The style of many medical articles is to place all authors in a single parameter, such as authors = Landes AM, Sperry SD, Strauss ME, et al.. The "ideal" style for metadata purposes would be last1 = Landes | first1 = AM | last2 = Sperry | first2 = SD | last3 = Strauss | first3 = ME | display-authors = etal. The former is obviously more intuitive and less confusing to everyone except bots. KateWishing (talk) 01:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Yep, and even if Trappist didn't favor adding even worse and longer convoluted names to replace five letters (which he did in this case), all those parameters create a mess to edit around in densely cited medical articles, and chunks up article size, too. Perhaps those bot operators who are so concerned about "metadata" can write a bot to get it. My concern is what processes we have in place that allow bot operators to go around ... chunking up and over-engineering templates in articles without consensus. I think they probably talk amongst themselves off in some technical space, but when their product hits "the real world", and editors complain, they should stop. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  • OK, that's sensible; the diff you linked to in the OP had |last=Wenstrup et al.. I presume this is - in fact - not compatible with the medical article style - and it shouldn't be expected that it should be parsed correctly by {{Cite journal}}, either. I see that {{Vcite2 journal}} exists for the purpose of parsing the comma-delimited authors list, so why isn't the bot replacing Cite transclusions with Vcite2? Was any of this discussed? Alakzi (talk) 02:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Is there any particular reason why you are here speaking on Trappist's behalf, while he is not? I think he knows what discussions have been had. If the communication issues from the way he writes are part of the impasse, we should get to the bottom of that, because I can't follow most of what he writes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  • How is it that I'm speaking on Trappist's behalf? What if he knows? I'm asking as a member of the community, for the benefit of the community. I'd appreciate it if you stopped treating me like an enemy, or worse. Alakzi (talk) 02:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Horologium, for fixing that; [192] I have always wondered why we have a sysop with a red-linked username, and I may have even inquired about that once, since that problem was likely to happen. Considering that the 'crats granted Trappist sysop rights after a marginal RFA specifically for template purposes, it is disappointing to see these kinds of issues recurring. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I saw this at WT:MED also, and while it'd be a good idea to hold off the bot till things get figured out, I have to admit I'm lost on this one. Cleaning up bad metadata sounds like a good idea. The underlying problem that the current suite of cite templates puts a giant glob of wikisnot in the edit window is IMO insignificantly improved by truncating the author list. (Recognizing that I haven't been around for prior discussions on this, I'd argue that it's worse to lop off the last authors in this context.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Opabinia regalis, imagine the number of citations in a Featured medical article like schizophrenia (166 citations, mostly journals) or Alzheimer's disease (283 citations, mostly journals), and the template clutter and article size that result if we don't use the Diberri preference of listing all authors when there are five or less, and truncating to three when there are six or more. (I know I don't have to tell you after your cleanup of Enzyme :) The discussion of the concerns of those who favor metadata issues over content writing (remember the infobox wars) has been had many times, in many places, but we have a behavioral issue here because template/sysop rights were granted by the crats to an editor who doesn't seem to respect the needs of content writers. As the links above show, I've discussed with him several times over the years, and in this case, he simply resumed running the bot.

And again, for those bot operators so concerned about metadata, the Diberri/Boghog format (as explained many times) always links to the PMID (PubMed identifier), and any metadata anyone wants can be had by using that PMID to access PubMed-- freely and forever. We needn't have well cited articles chunked up to an enormous size and with long load times because they are clunked up with templates to parse out 15 author names on a journal source, when et al suffices for those that have six or more authors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I should've replied on one of the other threads instead of in the drama pit on AN/I, since my interest is in the data and I haven't been paying attention to the behavior angle. It seems that the bot is stopped, so probably this should continue elsewhere. Ideally clean metadata is a useful thing for content editors to have available, though at present it doesn't seem to be used very effectively. (This template-clutter problem is why I liked {{cite pmid}}, but that's another thing. As a total side note, improvements in the wikEd 'simple' view with collapsed references would make the author-list-bloat much less of an issue.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Samples to illustrate what the whole discussion is about:

Style preferred in medical articles for at least the ten years I've been editing:
  • author=Borchelt DR, Thinakaran G, Eckman CB et al |title=Familial Alzheimer's disease-linked presenilin 1 variants elevate Abeta1-42/1-40 ratio in vitro and in vivo |journal=Neuron |volume=17 |issue=5 |pages=1005–13 |year=1996 |pmid=8938131
Same source, in style of Monkbot change discussed in this thread-- no reason to add a separate template parameter to separate the et al, because that has no effect on ability to get metadata on all authors):
  • author=Borchelt DR, Thinakaran G, Eckman CB |display-authors=etal |title=Familial Alzheimer's disease-linked presenilin 1 variants elevate Abeta1-42/1-40 ratio in vitro and in vivo |journal=Neuron |volume=17 |issue=5 |pages=1005–13 |year=1996 |pmid=8938131
Same source, in style preferred by metadata advocates:
  • |last1= Borchelt |first1= DR |last2= Thinakaran |first2= G |last3= Eckman |first3= CB |last4= Lee |first4= MK |last5= Davenport |first5= F |last6= Ratovitsky |first6= T |last7= Prada |first7= CM |last8= Kim |first8= G |last9= Seekins |first9= S |last10= Yager |first10= D |last11= Slunt |first11= HH |last12= Wang |first12= R |last13= Seeger |first13= M |last14= Levey |first14= AI |last15= Gandy |first15= SE |last16= Copeland |first16= NG |last17= Jenkins |first17= NA |last18= Price |first18= DL |last19= Younkin |first19= SG |last20= Sisodia |first 20= SS |title=Familial Alzheimer's disease-linked presenilin 1 variants elevate Abeta1-42/1-40 ratio in vitro and in vivo |journal=Neuron |volume=17 |issue=5 |pages=1005–13 |year=1996 |pmid=8938131

I have really had to edit around pages full of citations like this, where the citation is literally many times larger than the text it is citing. If metadata advocates really must have every single author, a bot can get it at PMID 8938131, so can bots please stop messing with long-established citation methods? (That there exist faulty citations with other errors in articles, as raised above by Alakzi, is a red herring.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Editor violating guidelines[edit]

AusLondonder's initial edit could have been in good-faith, and some of the responses could have been less bite-y. But time now to to drop the stick and move on to something more productive and pleasant. Abecedare (talk) 03:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I placed a single-line sourced addition to the Moors murders article. A number of editors disputed this edit, and took it to the Talkpage. Unfortunately, two editors, one in particular seriously violated Wikipedia policies and guidelines in their conduct as a result of the disagreement.

User:Cassianto[edit]

1.This user undid my edit, with an edit summary 'no I don't think so' which seems to breach WP:ESDONTS namely don't 'Make snide comments' or 'Be aggressive' 2.I tried to discuss at User talk:Cassianto but the user was again rather condescending and seemed to be ganging up on me with other users he already knows 3.When discussion began on at Talk:Moors murders, I simply put 'I think it is notable enough for a single line' - however, Cassianto replied 'Then you need to look up the definition of "notable", clearly.' (Ignoring WP:NNC) I believe this breaches WP:CIVIL - when I indicated the editor should read WP:CIVIL they replied 'I did once, and I vowed never to read it again' 4.It is breathtaking the way some editors feel policies don't apply to them. I was not rude to the editor, but I was treated in a condescending and arrogant manner over a very minor matter

  • The user then preceded to launch a very abusive and malicious attack on me. He linked my 710 contributions [193] and entirely falsely wrote 'Not so ridiculous when you look at his contributions which seem to be all geared around the May elections. This user seems to be on a campaign trial on behalf of UKIP'. This is called blatantly misleading other editors, surely in violation of policies such as WP:AGF, WP:BITE, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. I have nothing to do with UKIP. I am not a member of any political party. I am not enrolled to vote in the United Kingdom. So these are ludicrous allegations. I have created 21 pages, 16 non-related to the elections. Articles I have created such as Endorsements in the United Kingdom general election, 2015 are very important and been widely edited and viewed. I have also created articles such as United Kingdom general election, 2015 (Wales) in accordance with precedent. I have worked hard on the project for good and in good faith. Examples: List of European Union member states by GDP growth and Mr Galloway Goes to Washington. I have successfully nominated dozens of articles for speedy deletion. As a new editor, I am deeply upset by how hard it is to edit this site without abuse and being treated like a moron (WP:BITE). It certainly is not encouraging for those wanting to make a difference in good faith.

Nothing at WP:SPA points to me. 5.The editor has breached multiple policies.

Editor still going. He has written now 'What makes you think I give a fuck about your political leanings?' (despite questioning them) and removed the ANI notification remarking 'what a waste of time'. What is the point of WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:BITE? AusLondonder (talk) 01:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  • AusLondonder (talk · contribs) is a three-week old account so general lack-of-clue is understandable (ANI should not be used for every minor disagreement, and no one was abused). However, using Wikipedia to post smears just before a general election is not desirable, and anyone who cannot understand that it is a smear to highlight which political party a notorious murderer supports just before an election should not be editing (see WP:CIR). Johnuniq (talk) 01:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I cannot understand why everyone is whitewashing my 710 contributions, 21 pages and pretending I'm incompetent, it's perfectly fine to use the words 'fucking' and 'bullshit' whenever you disagree, ignore every policy in existence, and throw around false allegations whenever you disagree. I'm not even going to bother anymore. You guys can't stand new editors who quote policy.AusLondonder (talk) 01:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I want to 'smear' them (in your eyes), you want to censor and willfully withhold accurate sourced information you feel will damage a party. AusLondonder (talk) 01:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
When will you start listening? The revert had nothing to do with the source, ownership, the fact that you're a new editor, or anything else. It was reverted because it has fuck all to do with the Moors Murders and stinks of political smearing on the upcoming general election. CassiantoTalk 02:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
It would have been so much easier if you had reverted it and been civil about it. But you just couldn't manage it, could you? Please stop your paranoia about UKIP. Why do all UKIP defenders think their is some great 'stinky' conspiracy to 'smear' the party? 'These bloody editors coming ere taking our jobs and following the rules'AusLondonder (talk) 03:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I was civil. I told you that it wasn't notable. You then asked me "why I got to decide that". Clearly I don't, which makes your question to me uncivil. CassiantoTalk 03:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Eric_Corbett[edit]

  • This editor, who I've never met before then preceded to write at Talk:Moors murders 'Make that six against; this is just fucking ridiculous'

This is extremely uncivil, especially because I had given up. It was a minor issue, I couldn't really care less. AusLondonder (talk) 00:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if Eric's behaviour is important enough to bother about, just thought I'd add to show the way new editors are treated over one disagreementAusLondonder (talk) 01:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  • AusLondoner, I think you need to get over yourself. I reverted your edit which I'm entitled to do as I do not believe that Brady's political allegiance is in any way relevant to the Moors Murders. I don't fall for this bullshit about you being "deeply upset" and how you think my opposition to your edit was "malicious" or "very abuse" [sic]. I think this post has more to do with the fact that several editors have opposed you and that you now feel aggrieved at having had to resign to the fact that your edit has not made it into the article. CassiantoTalk 01:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
You really can't help yourself can you? You just cannot accept that being civil is not that hard and it helps the process. Again, I couldn't care less, I haven't 'resigned to the fact' - I just don't care. After seeing a couple of comments, I left it. Despite swearing at me again, let me tell you I am upset by your attitude, it has taken me by surprise. I don't think your opposition was malicious, I think your allegations and attitude was. I'm not aggrieved with the editors who calmly and respectfully expressed their views. Stop misrepresenting what I am saying and what I think. AusLondonder (talk) 01:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  • While the incivility is never really necessary, Adding the political affiliation of a murderer, whose sole claim to notoriety is their murders, and whose murders were not politically motivated, reeks of partisan politics, and his totally encyclopedic. As its clear that the editor is primarily editing about the election, and related political topics, its not hard to figure out the likely reasoning behind the edit in question. Considering all that, I think the responses were proportionate, even if uncivil. Monty845 01:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Why do policies like WP:AGF, WP:BITE, WP:CIVIL etc exist if people are free to ignore (and enforce) them as they please. I have made significant positive contributions. But the nastiness is really shocking. The article has lots of details about their past and lives post-crime. I simply added it, according to WP:BOLD. It wasn't malicious. All it needed was calm talk. I don't see how it is partisan. I am not editing primarily about the election - how can you honestly write that given the contributions and page creation link I added? Astounding. AusLondonder (talk) 01:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying this won't end well, and you'd best let it go. Be content to know that you're in the right, and that knowledge should literally be all you can expect from this. --Jayron32 01:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Yep, their is a protection racket at work here. AusLondonder (talk) 02:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Can you back that claim up with evidence, or are you only here to make baseless accusations? CassiantoTalk 03:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I cannot understand why everyone is whitewashing my 710 contributions, 21 pages and pretending I'm incompetent, it's perfectly fine to use the words 'fucking' and 'bullshit' whenever you disagree, ignore every policy in existence, and throw around false allegations whenever you disagree. I'm not even going to bother anymore. You guys can't stand new editors who quote policy.AusLondonder (talk) 01:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree with the new editor here. Are we trying to welcome new editors? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
You're full of surprises Knowledgekid. That's unlike you to side with an editor who files an ANI report against Eric and I. Have you even bothered to look at the case, or are you just siding with him for the sake of it? CassiantoTalk 02:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Sadly, no. They don't want anyone who questions their little rule-breaking community, that ignores policy. They think breaking every policy is 'appropriate'. They think I'm incompetent despite 710 contributions and 21 new pages. I'm not even going to bother with this site anymore. I can't put up with this. I've got better things to do AusLondonder (talk) 01:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Again, as I noted before, it's not everybody. It's just one person. There's 25,025,198 - 1 which aren't this way. If you do what everyone else does, and ignore his comments as though they were never made, and then just pretend he doesn't exist, it would work much better. He's long ago proven he isn't worth listening to. --Jayron32 02:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Have I really? Perhaps that makes two of us then? Eric Corbett 02:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't know Knowledgekid87, but I know what you're trying to do, despite your promises to reform. Eric Corbett 02:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
'That's unlike you to side with an editor who files an ANI report against Eric and I' - happens a lot does it? Despite your paranoid conspiracy theories, the reason Knowledgekid might be siding with me is because you are highwaymen who act like bully-boys and spit in the rules of this project. How can you be surprised when others complain about you? AusLondonder (talk) 02:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
If KnowledgeKid has any opportunity to oppose Eric at something, he will. I suspect that him siding with you has little to with him actually agreeing with you and more to do with him seizing the chance to stick the knife in. CassiantoTalk 03:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Have you got any evidence to back up that allegation? Or just failing to WP:AGF and be WP:CIVIL? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AusLondonder (talkcontribs) 03:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Look through the archives as this discussion isn't about providing diffs on an unrelated matter. KnowledgeKid would be the first to admit that there has been a history between him and Eric. CassiantoTalk 03:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  • AusLondonder, if you bring something to ANI, you need to post WP:DIFFs of every single infraction that you claim has occurred. Posting usernames and making unsubstantiated claims is not going to get you anywhere here. All of the editors involved here (including yourself) have voluminous recent edit histories. You can't force editors watching ANI to read your mind or to search through those histories to figure out what you might be talking about. Post the diffs that back up your case, if you have one. Otherwise, it's just another unsubstantiated rant/complaint, and will be ignored. Please read the guidelines at the top of this page entitled "Welcome to the incident noticeboard". Softlavender (talk) 02:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Actually, AusLondoner's 771 contributions is in no respect "voluminous", although it's certainly more than respectable for less than a month of editing. Let's just keep things accurate, or the next thing you know all sorts of people will be blowing all sorts of things totally out of proportion.
    As for AusLondoner: You've been here about a monthor so, if you think the place is going to change the way it is to accommodate you, you're totally mistaken. That has nothing to do with welcoming or not welcoming new editors, it's completely about mass and intertia. Try adapting yourself to the folkways of the place instead, you might find that you'll be less frustrated and more productive. As it is, you're titlting at windmills, banging your head against a wall, pushing a rock up a hill, [insert your favorite analogy here]. BMK (talk) 02:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  • With respect, Cassianto is the one trying to change the rules and move the goalposts. The editor is pretending sensible, mutually-agreed policies he doesn't like don't exist. Policies that are essential for the functioning of any online community in harmonyAusLondonder (talk) 02:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  • OK, I tried. Apparently, you'd rather be "right" then be productive. (You do know that we're here to build an encyclopedia, yes?, and not to be a new model online community.) I've given you a pathway to getting some work done, your choice is just going to lead to more and more frustration on your part. Maybe, after you've got a little more experience under your belt, you'll understand what I'm telling you and move in that direction. Until then, I guess I'll be seeing your name on the noticeboards. BMK (talk) 02:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Note to BMK, I meant recent edit history. Edited to reflect that. Softlavender (talk) 02:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC) // Thanks for the explanation. BMK (talk) 02:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Again, AusLondonder, this ANI thread is possibly going to boomerang on you, or at best be speedily closed, if you don't back up these claims with diffs. Last warning. Softlavender (talk) 02:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Ah, yes. I'll be the one to get in trouble. Wouldn't surprise me... I was going to post this, I was eating (I'm not a robot) Here are the diffs

1. WP:ESDONTS breach

2. Talk page discussion a, Another allegation against the editor of [[WP:NPA]] Cassianto then replied 'hit the road' title=User_talk%3ACassianto&type=revision&diff=659714939&oldid=659714697 here and also go bother someone else, to a polite request for civility

3. Conduct at Talk:Moors murders here

5. Allegations against me of WP:SPA Breach of WP:AGF, WP:BITE, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA here with an edit summary entitled 'You've been watching a part political broadcast by AusLondonder' in breach of WP:ESDONTS here and more swearing here with more false allegationshere Please read this in conjunction with the actual points I made above at 1,2,3,4,5AusLondonder (talk) 03:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC) Above, during this discussion the editor also posted this 'AusLondoner, I think you need to get over yourself. I reverted your edit which I'm entitled to do as I do not believe that Brady's political allegiance is in any way relevant to the Moors Murders. I don't fall for this bullshit about you being "deeply upset" and how you think my opposition to your edit was "malicious" or "very abuse" [sic]. I think this post has more to do with the fact that several editors have opposed you and that you now feel aggrieved at having had to resign to the fact that your edit has not made it into the article', another blatant breach of policies illustrated above. AusLondonder (talk) 03:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

My desire for justice and my desire to fight inequality makes me frustrated over this. If I behaved like this towards other users (I wouldn't I don't set out to be awful) wouldn't I get blocked? Every day people get blocked for their incivility. Why are these editors protected? Or are we setting a precedent and abolishing WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:BITE? AusLondonder (talk) 03:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  • You write "My desire for justice and my desire to fight inequality makes me frustrated over this." Please read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. We're not here for "justice" and "equality" for anyone, we're an encyclopedia. We state the facts as reported by secondary and tertiary sources (and occasionally primary ones), and that's it. You want "justice" and "equality", start a blog, join a political party, march in the streets, vote in an election, but don't try to get your jones here. BMK (talk) 03:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


  • The diffs you have provided have bugger all to do with your complaint. Or are you now fishing in my history to bolster up your "case"? CassiantoTalk 03:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Ah, they absolutely do. They are the exact issues I'm raising.....AusLondonder (talk) 03:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
The second diff doesn't. It has about as much to do with this case as point number "5" (as you only have 4). CassiantoTalk 03:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Guess what smart alec, the initial complaint did have 5 points if you read it. But only 4 points need diffs. It is important to add diffs which let the mask slip on you and your editing behaviour. I haven't gone fishing. Should I? AusLondonder (talk) 03:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Im all for WP:AGF but at this point I feel you just let it go. You are worked up over this I know but Wikipedia is a big place okay? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Yet more incivility with the "smart alec" comment. You should really practice what you preach. CassiantoTalk 03:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
That seems to be a surprisingly common feature of Civility Enforcement requests. Monty845 03:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm blow away. You've seen a catalogue of incivility and abuse including 'fucking', 'fuck all', 'bullshit', false accusations, snide remarks, abuse of edit summary, and you have a go at me for saying smart alec. Is this satire?AusLondonder (talk) 03:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
User:Monty845 How much abuse should I put up with? How much do I have to cop before I say something back? AusLondonder (talk) 03:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Legal Threat[edit]

User:2602:306:3644:13a0:702c:3d49:8ed9:7ca5 made a legal threat here: [194] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winner 42 (talkcontribs) 02:44, May 6, 2015‎

  • Before seeing this, I blocked 24 hours for the edit warring after a 3rr warning. If any admins want to increase the block length on account of the legal threat, I have no objection. As for the substance of the claim, the text in question is cited to a clearly reliable source, and as such, there is no compelling policy reason to justify its removal, though of course whether we want to keep it is a matter of normal editorial discretion open for discussion. Monty845 02:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The text in question is the article Pamela Geller. A shooting in Texas recently occurred, and now the Pam Geller article is getting a lot of views because people think she was targeted in the attack. Geller has anti-Islamic views, and some editors have been trying to remove or whitewash this info. Epic Genius (talk) 03:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Now a 1 week /64 range block for block evasion. NLT block duration in an IP is always tricky, but that may suffice for now. Monty845 03:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

seems to be consensus that removing afd comments is ok?????[edit]

Deepavali 2014 blocked for 72 hours for disruption and admin shopping. Several admins have already discussed this issue with the editor and provided ample warnings. See User talk:Diannaa#So confused and User talk:Kuru#help and User talk:Davewild#big error. Mkdwtalk 06:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There is an editor, name is unimportant, that removed my afd comments and vote to try to make his opinion win. I asked maybe three admins and none of them tell me that it is wrong or right. Common sense would be that it's wrong and admins would say so. I also see that this editor is a troublemaker because he is the source of valid complaints in ANI only 3 days ago here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive883#Reporting_Davey2010

Why do we allow such vandalism or is it ok to occasionally, not daily, remove afd comments that you don't like??????? Is wikipedia just a pack of wild wolves? Why is this happening?Deepavali 2014 (talk) 05:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello User:Deepavali 2014 and welcome to this Noticeboard. You said; "There is an editor, name is unimportant, that removed my afd comments and vote to try to make his opinion win." Actually, if you want people here to help you, we need a diff of the removal. Can you supply the diff please?Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FBrattleboro_Free_Folk_Festival_%282nd_nomination%29&type=revision&diff=660063825&oldid=660006392

Deepavali 2014 (talk) 05:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

First of all name of the user is important because you need to ping him about this discussion. I assume you are talking about this reversion done by Davey2010. Am I right? --Chamith (talk) 05:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The AfD discussion in question is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brattleboro Free Folk Festival (2nd nomination). In your first edit to it, you voted "delete", and put your vote at the top of the page. [195]. This was not the correct place for it, it should have gone at the bottom of the page. Editor User:Davey2010 then did the wrong thing, he deleted your edit instead of moving it to the bottom of the page. [196]. Your next edit to the AfD was to close the discussion as "delete". [197] This was improprer as you were involved in the discussion (albeit you vote had been deleted) and therefore should not have closed it. Your deletion was overturned by LibStar, on the correct grounds that a non-admin cannot close an AfD as "delete" because the non-admin does not have the ability to delete the article. You reverted LibStar's action, which you should not have done because it was edit warring [198], and he reverted back.
That, as far as I can see, is the end of your involvement. Your behavior was not exemplary, Davey2010's behavior was not exemplary, and LibStar could be trouted, I suppose, but I probably would have done the same thing, since you were in the wrong.
In short, your complaint here has little to no merit, and I suggest you drop it. BMK (talk) 05:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I completely agree with BMK here. Even though Davey2010 didn't do the right thing he was kind of right about your rationale for the specific afd. Just because you don't like doesn't mean it has to be deleted. And here on Wikipedia we don't vote, instead we make consensus. And from what I can see you don't know how to comment on talk pages either. In the case where you provided the link above your formatting is incorrect and you forgot to sign your comment (Well, now you have).--Chamith (talk) 06:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Deepavali 2014, if someone deletes your comment on any page except their own talk page, then simply re-post it, but in the correct location. That's all that needs to be said here, except do not ever try to close AfDs you are WP:INVOLVED in; in fact, do not ever try to close AfDs at all, because you clearly do not have enough experience on Wikipedia to know what you are doing. Softlavender (talk) 06:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.