Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Request confirmation of WP:ANI statement by TParis

Administrator TParis, closing a WP:ANI incident last year related to calling a BLP subject a "denier" or "skeptic", said:

Use what the sources say. If the majority of sources call a subject a "skeptic" then they are a skeptic. If the sources calls them a "climate change denier" then call them that. We use what the majority of sources use. Single partisan sources that are used in opposition to the majority of sources will be considered POV pushing and sanctioned under WP:ARBCC. Mass changes of any material without discussion is disruptive.--v/r - TP 23:01, 3 January 2014

TParis has retired so we cannot turn to him for confirmation or retraction. The issue has resurfaced for another BLP subject, Anthony Watts (blogger). TParis's instructions have been questioned, for example on the talk page. The majority of recent editors of the article are upholding a quote of "denial" in the lead (for example here referring to Watts's blog), and some editors are insisting on keeping sentences containing "skeptic*" in the body (for example here). Currently we know of more "skeptic" than "denier" sources but that could change. I am asking for a statement now equal to "TParis was right" and the statement was meant to apply to BLPs where future skeptic-versus-denier fights arise. I will put a note that I have asked for confirmation, on the article's talk page. Peter Gulutzan (talk)

Watts is a very prominent source of climate denial propaganda, he is associated with the engine of climate denial, the Heartland Institute. There is a great deal of motivated reasoning on that talk page, all of which boils down to people trying to neuter the fact that climate denialism is bullshit and Watts' blog is probably the most visited source of climate denialist talking points.

For the avoidance of doubt: TParis was right. This is not remotely controversial as a statement of policy. Guy (Help!) 15:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

He's a skeptic. "Denial" is a smear term (calculated to bring up equivalence to Holocaust-denial). It is dishearening to see pretenses to neutrality so cavalierly thrown over the side. Pax 19:09, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

No, he's not a skeptic, any more than the Australian Vaccine Skeptics Network are skeptics. He is not skeptical about material that supports his agenda, and he is engaged in a peudoscientific attempt to prove a pre-defined conclusion. At best this is peudoskepticism, but in fact his activities are part of the cottage industry of climate change denialism.

Meryl Dorey is not a vaccine skeptic, she is a vaccine denier. Vincent Reynouard is not a holocaust skeptic, he is a holocaust denier. Anthony Watts is not a climate change skeptic, he is a climate change denier. The fact that sources historically permitted the self-applied label "skeptic" does not change this.

As Christoff noted: "Almost two decades after the issue became one of global concern, the 'big' debate over climate change is over. There are now no credible scientific skeptics challenging the underlying scientific theory, or the broad projections, of climate change." Guy (Help!) 08:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@Peter Gulutzan: Whether he is retired or not, TParis should have been notified about this thread, so I have done so. As it turns out, he has been around a bit since his retirement. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• TParis might not be around any more (alas), but WP:V and WP:NPOV haven't much changed in the meantime. It seems tendentious to pretend that this article's wording was the result of one admin's whim rather than core wikipedia policy. bobrayner (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
• Watt's is a classic climate change denier, i.e. http://grist.org/article/2011-03-30-wattsupwiththat-attack-on-berkeley-temperature-findings-was/ More on the topic see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial prokaryotes (talk) 20:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
• This looks like a content dispute. It would be better resolved at WP:BLPN. ANI is not the place to hold a vote on whether someone is skeptic or denier. If someone is editing disruptively or hurling personal attacks, then it would become a matter for ANI. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:57, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, though TParis is disillusioned with Wikipedia at the moment, the editor is still paying attention. I had a nice chat with TP on their talk page just a couple of days ago. Friendly words might help motivate them to return. Just a hint. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
• This thread is not about the content dispute. It is about whether TParis was right to say that such a dispute should be settled by counting the sources, and TParis said it on WP:ANI. It was brought up on WP:BLPN long ago and went nowhere. Actually I believe edit war is happening (a sign is that the article's revision history for the last month has "rv" or "Revert*" or "Undid" in 68 edit summaries), but maybe some editors will be pacified if it's stated firmly whether the majority of sources matters. I'm reading in: reliable sources that wouldn't violate wp:blp. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

As you mention, it went "nowhere" at BLP/N, because consensus is against you, and only activist editors support the BLP claim. You forgot to mention the there was (still open) a related thread at the FRINGE noticeboard as well, and that the attempts to appeal to WP:WTW has not worked, and has resulted in a move to rewrite the Guideline.

That would seem to raise the question of WP:FORUMSHOPPING, because the opinion an admin stated in a previous close is not a legal precedent, for starters, so maybe this is also a bit of [[WP:WL|lawyering], too.

Accordingly, if anything, a BOOMERANG would be in order here, but it bears mentioning that the fact that some editors think you are flirting with AE has already been raised, on your talk page as well, I believe.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Ubikwit is wrong about wp:blpn (there was no consensus), half-right about wp:ae (I was threatened but the canvassing against me went nowhere), wrong about wp:forumshopping (if it were true then everybody who goes to wp:ani would be guilty). Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

This is not the place to settle a content dispute, which should be done by going through dispute resolution. It's one thing for someone to be blatantly violating BLP, but in this case it's a difference of opinion between calling him "skeptic" and "denier." I would vote "denier," as that is clear from the sources. (see subsequent comment re strikeout) But administrators don't run one-person tribunals adjudicating such disputes, so it doesn't matter if the admin in question is here or not. They are not super-users with superior powers of judgment. Sometimes quite the opposite is the case. Coretheapple (talk) 19:01, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

When an admin closes an AN/I thread, s/he does not create some kind of binding principle. Cardamon (talk) 09:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. S/he may, however, articulate a settled consensus interpretation of policy, as TParis did here. Guy (Help!) 09:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

As may any editor. Admins don't have any special role in terms of deciding what is the proper way to apply policy. Coretheapple (talk) 15:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Right, but my own opinion is that we should have firm policy against that sort of descriptor in the infobox of lead sentence. Even if the person calls himself such, it shouldn't be in the first sentence. That we permit otherwise is in my opinion a perversion of the policy of WP:NPOV, and the two supporting guidelines on WP:OR and WP:SYN. We'll still have to argue about how to say it, but it won't have the same focus. DGG ( talk ) 02:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

The proposed use of "skeptic" is a case of quote mining, neglecting the context.

The first sentence of the lead of the Wikpedia article on climate change denial reads (underlining added)

Climate change denial is a denial or dismissal of the scientific consensus on the extent of global warming, its significance, or its connection to human behavior, especially for commercial or ideological reasons.

The second sentence of the Watts BLP reads

He operates Watts Up With That?, a weather and climate change blog that focuses on the global warming controversy and his opinion that the human role in global warming is insignificant.

This sentence has a citation with the quote, "One of the highest trafficked climate blogs is wattsupwiththat.com, a website that publishes climate misinformation on a daily basis".

The Wikipedia article on environmental skepticism clearly distinguishing it as not being scientific skepticism, and there are other sources for that. Non-specialist mass media cites that use "skeptic" are not as reliable as a notable climatologist published in book for by an academic press.

Mann's opinion represents the scientific consensus on Watt's blog, as he appears to be the only RS scientist bothering to publish a comment; there isn't any SYNTH or OR involved in citing his statement in the lead as representative of the mainstream view. The only point of contention is whether or not Mann's view is the mainstream view.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 09:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• In most cases we should refrain from descriptive hotbutton terms unless virtually all sources use such a descriptor and then we must attribute it exhaustively. I would prefer that in the case of Watts, we not follow the lead of news sources and instead say that he (his blog) disagrees with or contests the scientific consensus on climate change.--MONGO 12:44, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I endorse completely what MONGO said above, and I meant to include this point in my comment. Cherry-picky descriptors of this sort is very common, and illegitimate. For anyone sufficiently controversial, you can pretty much find a short quotation or phrase that says almost anything. It's another reason for graat caution and for avoiding such characterizing phrases. Complex positions on issues cannot be fairly reduced to one word, and anyone who tries -- however good their intentions -- is likely to be inaccurate. As for the question in the headline here, if the quote given is representative, then I (and MONGO) would definitely not endorse the 4th sentence of what TParis said as being proper NPOV policy. DGG ( talk ) 03:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• MONGO is correct. "Denier" is a known pejorative with no other purpose than to link him to holocaust denial. We have an alternative term that is widely used in sources called "skeptic" which avoids the BLP violation of linking Watts to the Holocaust (any link, no matter how slight is unacceptable). --DHeyward (talk) 06:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• Would wish to clarify that my amateur opinion of the blog whatsupwiththat is that it has presented inaccurate data to support the premise that the scientific consensus on climate change is not fully accurate. I do not think that that blog is always wrong as some information posted there is accurate, but not enough that it could be used ever as a source to discredit the scientific consensus. Even given that, the bottom line is that in a BIO and especially a BLP, hotbutton descriptors are not needed to convey the appropriate message that the blog is not a reliable source, regardless of what other sources say about that blog or the blogger himself.--MONGO 13:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

DHeyward It is patently false that editors characterizing Watts' blog as a "climate change denialism" blog are trying to "link him to holocaust denial". WP:NPA

Making recourse to "holocaust denial" in this context is WP:OR, at best, as not a single RS that characterizes him as a "(climate change) denier" engaged in "(climate change) denialism", or running a "(climate change) denialst blog", etc., does so. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

The point is the use of the term is not needed to convey the knowledge needed to have an informed opinion on the blog.--MONGO 21:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Ubikwit, I am quite willing to AGF that you are unaware of the connection that is made between the two. Now that you are aware, however, it is with complete disregard to BLP to continue endorsing "denier." It is well established that there is intent to link the two whether or not that is your intent. "Skeptic" is just as valid a description as "denier." After being told that it is offensive to both climate change sceptics and Holocaust survivors to use that term, you should stop. It's like using the term "National Socialist" to describe a political position. No matter how strong your case is that the two words are accurate, it will never escape the stigma and will never pass the BLP test unless they self describe as that. Sorry, but that's reality. Please stop calling living people "deniers" now that you are aware of its pejorative context. And here's just one of many sources [1]. --DHeyward (talk) 23:17, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

What's the name for this rhetorical maneuver? Not Godwin's Law, but the assertion that if your opponent uses a particular word, *they* will violate Godwin's Law, so they'd better stop? Whatever it's called, it's stupid. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

It is Godwin's law and the people that started using "denier" lost when they invoked holocaust language to describe their political opponents. That's how stupid it is. There is no doubt where "denier" began and what its purpose was. Why cling to the word if it didn't bring such visceral emotions? This tactic is common in politics, not so common in pure science and academia unless they are politicized. At least in the last Arbcom when editors used the word "septic" instead of "sceptic" we didn't have ideologues trying to feed us a shit sandwich as if it were chocolate cake. It's a shit sandwich. --DHeyward (talk) 07:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

That is nothing but rhetorical bluster, and it seems that you have some irrational bias against the common terms "climate change denier"170,000 hits and "climate denier"133,000 hits.

The scatological rhetoric in your post borders on a personal attack. It definitely is a personal attack to call editors ideologues that are using reliable sources or invoke "holocaust denial" against them; furthermore, consensus is clearly against you and others railing against Mann's and others' characterization of Watts and his blog.

If you have an irrational bias against the terms "denier", "denialism", etc., which are applied by WP:RS to Watts and his blog as cited in the article and available for the counting on the Talk page, perhaps you should read Any external relationship – personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal – can trigger a conflict of interest.

As I said above, it seems that the only issue is whether Mann's (and the others') characterization is the mainstream view; i.e., an NPOV issue. That makes it a content dispute, and WP:CONSENSUS is against you, I repeat.
--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

References

No, I think this is a case where consensus in support of "denier" cannot be reached, with a plausible argument identifying it as a BLP violation (due to the similiarity with "Holocaust denier"). "Denier" is unnecessarily inflammatory, the term "skeptic" is more neutral and, in the absence of exhaustive proof demonstrating that a clear majority of RS describes him as a "denier," Watts should be described as a "skeptic." Feel free to invest the next three days posting that exhaustive proof, or accept the word "skeptic." Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

So, consider this quote from a 2010 article in Nature Medicine, by Megan Scudellari [2]: "in the public sphere, a different type of dissension is spreading through media outlets and online in an unprecedented way--one that challenges basic concepts held as undeniable truths by most researchers. 'Science denialism' is the rejection of the scientific consensus, often in favor of a radical and controversial point of view." I read this and think that the term "denialism" stems from the idea that "undeniable truths" are being challenged--some examples of denialism from this article are the idea that vaccines cause autism and that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. According to DHeyward's argument above, though, Scudellari's actual motive is to associate these ideas with Holocaust denial through the use of hotbutton language! How dare Nature Medicine and publishers such as Routledge, Oxford University Press, and Springer (see Ubikwit's list of sources above) spread such calumny? --Akhilleus (talk) 18:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Scudellari's actual motive is to associate these ideas with Holocaust denial ... There's always that possibility. The term "skeptic" is less inflammatory, in widespread use, and entirely adequate for this purpose. I suspect that at least some of those editors pushing for it are also pushing a POV. We have no need to go there. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:43, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

"Denial" is a normal, everyday word. It has a normal, everyday meaning which is not tied to the Holocaust. That it was also selected to refer to a group who rejects the academic consensus on a totally different issue does not mean it can't ever be used in the future for its normal, everyday meaning. If you want to claim "climate change denial" is a reference to the Holocaust, provide sources. In the meantime, it is an exceedingly common label for this movement. And no, "skeptic" is not some totally neutral term for the same thing: it is inaccurate, less widely used in academic literature, and heavily promoted by those in the movement as PR. Lastly, this doesn't belong on ANI. Admins don't supervote or singlehandedly define policy, and no sanctions are being requested. This section should be closed.   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

TParis wasn't really correct on this. There is no principle at all on WP that we use the exact terminology preferred by a flat majority (i.e. even a hair over 50%) of sources. If usage is split, with some sources using one term and others using another (here some preferring "skeptic", others "denier"/"denialist"), the very fact of this labeling dispute among the authors of the sources is a clear indication that we cannot neutrally favor one over the other, but must report that views of the subject are mixed. I agree entirely with Mann_jess, that "denial" and its derivative words like "denialism" are normal, everyday words, and not magically tied somehow to the Holocaust. Denialism affects many topics and disciplines, and climate change is certainly among them, along with vaccine safety. We have an entire article, Denialism, about this, and it notably has a whole section (with sources) about climate change denialism. If we have reliable sources that identify this particular biographical subject as a denier/denialist, we have to allow for that terminology in the article, though the reasonable thing to do is note which or at least what sorts of sources use it, vs. those that use "skeptic". The idea that "denier" is some kind of loaded, scapegoating pejorative that triggers Godwin's law simply isn't supported by any evidence from dictionaries, usage guides, etc. Some people believe the same thing about the term "revisionist", but it's not true of that word, either. Idiosyncratic personal redefinitions of terminology are not something ANI should be using as any basis for making decisions.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• Just catching up with this discussion, which I'm a little surprised to see is still ongoing. I've been convinced by subsequent commenters that in fact "skeptic" is more appropriate. The good arguments made for "skeptic" underline my initial concern about an administrator making an interpretation of content policy as happened in this instance. These sorts of things should go through DRN if they are not resolved, and administrators should not be resolving them. Coretheapple (talk) 17:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

IBAN violation by Catflap08

NOTE that this thread was copied from AN as this seems to be the more appropriate place. JZCL 07:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Catflap08 (talk · contribs) and I were made subject to an IBAN a few weeks ago. Last week, Catflap08 showed up suddenly in a discussion I had initiated, and commented on some of my edits; I reported this, but it was borderline and there was no result.

A few weeks before the ban, I had removed some references from the Kokuchūkai article that didn't back up the statements that were sourced to them, and I also (a little before the IBAN) removed an inappropriate primary source and the claim that was referenced to it.[3][4] Catflap08 the other day manually reverted these edits. If suddenly showing up and commenting on an edit I made (he did that again too, BTW) is not a violation, then surely reverting my edits is? He also admitted both then and now on the talk page that the refs he re-added are unrelated to the article content, so please don't respond by saying that even though it does violate the IBAN it's a harmless improvement to the article.

Sturmgewehr88 (talk · contribs) reverted the edits as an IBAN violation that was also in violation of NOR and V, Catflap08 re-reverted, while copy-pasting text that I had previously removed and attaching a source I added to the article that (1) he clearly hasn't read and (2) doesn't back up the claim.

Could someone please tell him that he is not allowed revert my edits under the terms of the IBAN?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

He also stated on the talk page before the IBAN that he was aware of my edits and was opposed to them, meaning he waited until the IBAN was in place to revert me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

He has since copy-pasted the article (Including signed comments by me) into his userspace and started drafting further additions and subtractions to make the page look more like it did before I edited it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Catflap is continuing to devote his on-wiki activity exclusively to undoing my work on the Kokuchukai article, including large chunks of text either not relevant to the subject or not directly supported by the sources. He has also altered a sourced statement to say something that the source doesn't say, apparently solely in order to fan the flames (the point is one he argued with me for months, ultimately leading to the IBAN). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

So, if you add or removed anything, ever, to the article, at any time, you think its a violation of the IBAN to have it undone? Even weeks or months later? AlbinoFerret 14:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

He expressed opposition to my edits, waited until an IBAN was in place so that I couldn't effectively defend them, knowingly reverted these edits, and continued to do so even after told to stop. How is this remotely appropriate? Am I allowed go around reverting his edits as well? or is there a time limit, and I'm allowed go around reverting his edits as long as they were made more than a month ago? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that an admin needs to clarify about the time. You might also seek clarification from the admin that enacted the IBAN. AlbinoFerret 18:17, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

When the violation took place I went straight to the enacting admin, and was told he didn't want to deal with it, so I should go to AN -- I got no response whatsoever on AN, so the thread was moved here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• WP:IBAN states "if editor X is banned from interacting with editor Y, editor X is not permitted to ... undo editor Y's edits to any page (whether by use of the revert function or by other means)". It makes no mention of time frames. So AFAICS Catflap08's reverts are indeed in violation of the IBAN. I'd welcome more input by other uninvolved administrators. Black Kite (talk) 21:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• I had always understood it to refer to reverting edits made after the institution of the IBan. If not, then on any article whatsoever, each party would have to research to find out if the other party had ever edited there, then read all of the edits they made to see what material changed, then find out if any intervening changes to the material were made by any other editors, and only then, once all those hurdles had been cleared, could the first party alter the material. I think that's extremely unreasonable, and much too broad a reading of the intent of the IBan. BMK (talk) 22:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@BMK: It's pretty hard to revert a particular user's edits without knowing who that user is. You are referring to accidental good-faith new edits to the article, not reversions. The problem here is that I made specific edits to the article before the IBAN (not long before, mind you) and now Catflap is directly reverting those edits. And it's all academic, since Catflap directly stated that he knew which edits were mine, and continued reverting after being told that his edits were reverts of mine. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:14, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The statement " Catflap directly stated that he knew which edits were mine" and the diff do not match. There is no admitting that he know what edits are yours, the diff says they dont want to discuss your edits or statements because they are problematic. That is not the same, its a generalized statement. I also agree with BMK that researching every edit in the past is unreasonable, even new edits after a week to a month depending on how active the article is. After say 50 to 100 edits or so unless you have one hell of a memory its going to take a lot of research.AlbinoFerret 03:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

He stated that he had looked at the edits and considered them problematic -- how on earth could have done this without also knowing the edits were mine? He even called them "Hijiri`s ... edits"! Also, given that in the last sixteen months the only two users who have substantially edited the article are Catflap08 and myself, and the fact that the conflict on that article (and over whether the Miyazawa Kenji article should call him a nationalist) was a major reason contributing to the original call for an IBAN, your "50 to 100 edits or so" comment is pretty irrelevant. Also, how do you explain his joining in a discussion I started, a discussion of an edit I made? And the fact that he mostly stopped editing while the last AN thread on his IBAN violations was open, waited until it was archived without result, and when he came back he immediately started reverting me again? It's inconceivable that all of these were just good-faith mistakes. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Here is the statement he made " I`d rather not comment too much on Hijiri`s comments or edits as I personally find them to be problematic." Nowhere in there is a statement about specific edits. As to your thoughts on the 50 to 100 edits, you do realize that if there is no limit in the past, that you are going to have to look at every edit ever made before changing anything to make sure your edit does not revert something he did right? So if he changed a few words here or there, your going to have to check if a word you want change was changed by him in the entire history of the article. AlbinoFerret 12:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

He was answering another user's (User:Snow Rise's) query about the specific edits he would later revert. He referred to these as "Hijiri's edits". What is the question here? Additionally, Catflap does not need to go back and look at every single edit to know that the edit he is specifically going out of his way to revert is mine. I do not need to be concerned about being accused of violating the IBAN in the same way because (as much as it would benefit the project as a whole) I am not interested in going around tracking down Catflap's old edits and reverting them. And in this case the edits aren't even that old! Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Umm... hello? Feels like I'm shouting into an echo chamber here. User:Sturmgewehr88 pointed out to Catflap on the article talk page that his edits constitute IBAN violations and User:Black Kite agreed but asked for more objective input. So far the only two other users who have weighed in have either (a) apparently not recognized that Catflap went back through my edits to the article in order to revert specific portions of them and reinsert the exact text that was there previously (and therefore couldn't possibly have done so by accident) or (b) failed to recognize that Catflap specifically acknowledged that the edits he was reverting were made by me before he reverted them, and was also directly reminded that they were mine afterward, before re-reverting them (and therefore couldn't possibly have done so by accident).

Anyone else wanna weigh in? Maybe warn or block Catflap? Revert to the better version of the article before the IBAN-violating/OR-infested edits? If this thread gets archived with no result I'm just going to have to un-archive or reopen it, so...

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Non-admin comment Umm, no, you're not "going to have to" do anything of the sort. You have brought something here that you felt was an incident requiring community (in general) and administrator (in particular) attention. During the three days since there has been all sorts of activity on this board, so you can be sure that administrators and editors within the community have looked over your issue and have, fairly clearly, decided that currently it does not warrant their attention. You may not be happy with that decision by the community; it may be a poor outcome for you; it may even be a poor outcome for the community; none of those points, however, mean that you "have to un-archive or reopen it". That would, in mine opinion, be close to a disruptive action, ignoring the consensus that you don't agree with.

I suggest you scrupulously adhere to the IBAN, work with others in the community to improve the article and as many others of the two million (or whatever it is now that there are) that you feel like and wait. If this Catflap is as evil and Machiavellian as you seem to think, we'll discover it soon enough; if not, yay! Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 08:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@User:LindsayH: Please read the note at the top: I did not post anything here three days ago. I posted this thread on the much less active WP:AN (on the specific advice of an admin). In several days of the thread being open there was not a single response (presumably because that page is not as active as this one); I posted more as Catflap continued violating the IBAN again and again. After several days, confused, I asked what had happened and if I had misplaced the thread, and apparently I had. Another user moved it here for me, but I suspect that by then it had already passed the IDHT threshold. That, presumably, is what confused both BMK and AlbinoFerret, and AlbinoFerret's further questioning and my answering pushed this thread even further into IDHT territory. So far one admin has unambiguously stated that they believe the IBAN was violated and some others have found holes in my complaint that I have readily filled for them. Prematurely-archived threads do not count as "consensus to do nothing", and de-archiving or reopening them is quite common practice. Last time I had an IBAN discussion about 20 people agreed the other user had violated it and deserved to be further-sanctioned (and my IBAN should be lifted); the thread was prematurely archived, so I posted on the talk page of one of the admins who had posted and they de-archived it for me.

I would be happy to continue to comply by the mutual IBAN -- I have been doing so for close to a month now. But by letting this direct reverting of my edits fly you are now telling me that you think the IBAN is not mutual, because Catflap08 is allowed directly revert my edits and I am apparently still not allowed revert his. It's not "Machiavellian", though -- Catflap has been quite flagrant about his reverting my edits, even continuing to do so after being told by a third party to stop. I suspect what happened was that two weeks into the IBAN he showed up and joined a talk page discussion I had started, and evaded sanctions for that, which emboldened him do go and directly revert my edits.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I cannot speak for anyone else, but I don't believe I was "confused" about anything, as I read both AN and AN/I. BMK (talk) 15:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I can echo your post BMK, I am not confused and also watch AN/I and AN. AlbinoFerret 18:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh geez, who could have ever predicted this? I'll get to agreeing adamantly with those who have already responded here with regard to how inappropriately Hijiri approaches these situations and to detailing how the "boy who cried wolf" effect might explain, at least in part, why he is not getting the response he is seeking. But let's start by recognizing another fact: the reignition of this drama represents a failure on the part of those of us who took part in the last discussion. This IBAN was never going to work; both editors work in overlapping and fairly niche areas with little buffer between them and neither showed the least suggestion of backing down from any of the content disputes between them that were the proximal cause of the ANI discussion that lead to the IBAN. Add into that battleground attitudes and personalization (to some extent two way but increasingly represented by the inability of one party to just let things go) and its clear this approach was nothing a but guarantee to rubber-band this issue back at the noticeboards in short order. It's pretty silly to recommend as a resolution to an issue that the two incolved editors simply disengage from one-another when the matter in question was that they could not be disengaged. The truth is, after years of watching it in operation, I'm increasingly dubious that an IBAN ever does anything but prolong disruption connected to grudges between editors, but it certainly needs to stop being used in cases like this where the deeper issues are not addressed first.

Now, as to your complaints, Hijiri, I can form that what was suggested to you by others here is true with regard to at least one would-be contributor; I just couldn't see this thread or the matters you raised as urgent, or even necessarily and community oversight, being all to familiar with the context and particulars of your feud. I wouldn't be surprised if other editors saw the names involved and just skipped over it, and I certainly wouldn't blame them. As it happens, I saw both new threads well before you pinged me, and was about to reply several times before being distracted by other issues (on-wiki and off) that undeniably warranted the attention more. It's not the first time you've pinged me into this feud and it's surprising each time because I've been increasingly clear with each iteration of the battle that I view your behaviours to generally be more problematic and disruptive than those of Catflap, especially with regard to seeking out the fight, but at this point I take these actions as part and parcel of your WP:IDHT way of selectively reading what others have tried to tell you about this contest of wills. I've seen so much of it with regard to how your view (and represent) the comments of others who have tried to separate you two that when I see you say something like "Last time I had an IBAN discussion about 20 people agreed the other user had violated it and deserved to be further-sanctioned (and my IBAN should be lifted)" I don't for a second suspect that I am getting the full story there. Because I have seen you distort the positions of other commenting parties before (my own included) to suggest thorough support for yourself where it did not really exist or was limited to just a minor point. And for the record, I'm not even saying that you're lying; in most of these cases, you seem to genuinely believe the spin that you put on these events and the perspectives of those involved, which is part of what is making this ongoing battle such a particularly intractable mess.

Whether Catflap pushed the edges of the IBAN with any edit, I don't know, though I do know that the particular edits I looked at did not violate it outright. Contrary to your assumption, the IBAN does not guarantee that he can not edit that page in a direction that is contrary to your vision for it, nor is the reverse true. Otherwise IBANs could be gamed to try to force preferred version. All of which is exactly why this IBAN was such a foolish notion in this case, because clearly neither of you wanted to give way on this article and related content, so it was inevitable that you would be lobbing broadsides at eachother in one manner or another. For this reason I'm going to propose that the IBAN be dissolved, that we ask you two gentlemen one last time to try to find a reasonable compromise path forward and, if you fail and the issue becomes disruptive between the two of you, we look at which of the two of you is more deserving of a page or topic ban regarding this subject the two of you cannot let go. Whether or not I am successful in convincing others to follow that approach though, I highly recommend that you let this issue go for now, before you get smacked with the biggest WP:BOOMERANG this side of the Blue Mountains. Because the situation doesn't even warrant discussion of whether you or anyone thinks Catflap is Machiavellian; he wouldn't nearly need to be when all he has to do is what he's doing now -- hang back, say absolutely nothing and let you torpedo yourself. But look on the bright side here, you've got at least one detailed response now. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, all but one user (the only admin, and the only one who didn't previously express support for Catflap's position, I might add) seems to here be ignoring the fact that I presented specific evidence that Catflap reverted my edits after explicitly acknowledging that they were my edits. It has nothing to do with "editing the article away from ny preferred vision". The fact that a single previous AN thread (not two) got archived with no result after one user agreed that Catflap had violated the IBAN and one disagreed is not evidence that I have been "crying wolf"; if anything, it is evidence that the latest, more serious violation should be taken more seriously. Why is Catflap allowed revert my edits but not I his? Can someone please explain to me how this IBAN is mutual if one of the parties is refusing to abide by it? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

An IBAN does not just mean that who ever got the last version in before it went into effect can therefore force their preferred version from that date forward. Even if that were the case, it's clear (as could be seen at the time) that neither of you were really going to back down on this issue. Those are two of several reasons why it was ill-advised to have instituted an IBAN without those issues first being resolved and it locked us with certainty into a new thread AN thread in short order. As to the "crying wolf" comment, you seem to have misread it -- I was referencing your past battleground behaviour in these matters as the reason why you were not getting the overwhelming flood of interest in this drama you clearly think it deserves. Despite the repeated direct efforts of (and warnings from) both an admin ([5][6]) and the community broadly about following Catflap from page to page looking to re-engage with him and other generally tendentious, combative, and disruptive behaviours, you persisted well past any sense -- and often while citing the "shared" perspectives of other editors who were themselves surprised to learn of their unwavering support for you. Frankly, you more than earned the block Silk Tork had implied was forthcoming if you didn't back off, and if it had been dolled out, likely we'd never have gotten as far as the poorly-considered IBAN.

Look, I'm not even sure how much I disagree with you that Catflap violated at least the spirit of the IBAN and should be called out for it. But these are your chickens come home to roost, my friend. You courted sanction and then only avoided a block for continuing down the path you were on (which you surely would have, as you always have on this issue and with regard to this "opponent") because we instead got steered into this IBAN which was certain to impose itself on the rest of us as soon as you two (inevitably) refused to edit in collaborative fashion on one of the issues neither of you can just let go of. And then you want to cry foul when enough editors don't flock to this nonsense and immediately agree that he should be blocked? Well, I can only say that I think you need to look at this situation again from the perspective of the community volunteers here and in the context of your past behaviour. Snow ^{let's rap} 09:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Umm... I don't think "an IBAN just means that who ever got the last version in before it went into effect can therefore force their preferred version from that date forward": I think that WP:IBAN means what it says, that Catflap08 is "not permitted to ... undo [my] edits to any page (whether by use of the revert function or by other means)". I provided clear and concise evidence that several of my edits (specifically, removing the Stone article as a reference for a piece of information she actually contradicts and stating in the text that Miyazawa Kenji rejected the group's nationalism) were directly undone by Catflap (here and here, respectively). The other edits are all problematic in their own ways, for reasons I painstakingly explained to Catflap on the talk page months ago, and completely undermine my earlier hard work on the article (hard work which you earlier praised and for which Catflap earlier expressed a dislike), but those problems are secondary to the direct reverts. So far every user who has checked these diffs has acknowledged that they are reverts and constitute an IBAN violation by Catflap. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• Alright then. Catflap08, apparently you violated the iBan between you and Hijiri. Don't do it again. Drmies (talk) 15:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to go into this circular argument with you for a third time. Several community members here have already explained why the IBAN can't just be a rubber stamp on the last version of an article put forth in a dispute before an IBAN, and I explained that is exactly why the IBAN should not have been insittuted in the first place and have suggested a path forward to resolving that conflict of principles (which you have since !voted in favour of). But even if we take it for granted that Catflap violated the IBAN, you are still missing the larger picture that others have tried at length to impart to you. Because you can argue (and even be completely right about) the technicalities of a particular action taken by another contributor you are in conflict with, but if you bring the matter to AN/ANI, the community members here are going to look at the whole context of the dispute, consider how the IBAN came into effect and why it was deemed necessary and finally ask whether the contributions of either of you are presently worth the disruption you create between you.

Frankly, the truth is that you owe Catflap a huge debt of gratitude for proposing the IBAN. Because without it, you would certainly have been blocked for blatantly ignoring the warnings of an admin (and the recommendation of the community broadly in multiple spaces) to back away from him. If all he wanted was truly to win that content dispute, then he went about it in about the worst way possible, since all he had to do was wait for you to recieve your well-earned block, revert you, and then have the procedural high-ground once/if you were unblocked. Instead, he pushed for an IBAN, seeming to genuinely want to just be through with you. And yeah, you know what, having made that decision and set us down that path, he should have lived with the consequences and not pushed for his version in that article again, if it meant undercutting your edits. And the editors here will probably find cause to see disruption in those actions. But his poor behaviour does not absolve you of your past disruption and WP:BATTLEGROUND outlook that helped set all of this in motion, especially if you are going to keep insisting we put this situation under a microscope...

You keep re-presenting the technicalities of Catflaps edits and whether the constitute reversion, putting up the same evidence again and again and taking any lack of resulting and immediate support for you as evidence that other editors here are either "confused" about these points or that they just aren't looking closely enough. But I assure you, a greater number of us have looked through the edits you keep reposting than you seem to think. Actually, it was while looking through those edits that something occurred to me, something concerning the fact that that you now have explicitly stated that you think it is unacceptable for Catflap to revert your edits on articles with content contested between the two of you. I remembered how you opposed the IBAN at first but then suddenly embraced it, and I can't now help but suspect that the reason is that you recognized that (at least by your own interpretation of the rules) that your version of the disputed content would be the one that would exist in perpetuum. So it seems to me that you believed in the IBAN to the extent that it protected your edits, but you didn't believe in the overall goal it was meant to serve (reducing disruption) enough to abide by the spirit of the community decision and just let this one go past.

But now we have an opportunity to take things in a different direction. If we get a consensus to dissolve the IBAN, and if both you and Catflap still view me as neutral in your content dispute, I will volunteer some time on that talk page to provide a third opinion and hopefully try to bridge the differences of perspective between you two over the sources, to find a compromise solution that is also consistent with policy. If you don't like me in that role, then I recommend WP:DRN, or you could try another RfC. But whatever you do, you're going to have to find a radically different way to approach one-another in the spaces you share in common. Because the only sanctions we have left are blocks and article/topic bans, which I don't think anyone is going to hesitate to consider next time these issues come back here and one or both of you has not been mindful of the amount of rope you have left. And aside from the possible consequences of failing to finally get along and collaborate, it's worth noting that it is just so much easier to reach a middle ground solution that to conduct a months-long campaign of policy battles that draw in and consume the editorial/project energy of your fellow contributors. And yet in addition to being easier, the collaborative approach is also vastly more rewarding.

Please consider what I am saying to you. Having taken an absurd number of paragraphs to make one last effort at making these points explicit, and to draw a distinction between A) what you view as unimpeachable evidence that Catflap is in the wrong in this one instance and B) the whole context that the community will consider when trying to decide what is the most practical and realistic way to stop this disruption once and for all, I know have exceeded the amount of time I was determined not to expend here by a factor of about twenty. But we can all consider our energy well-spent if, when the IBAN is dissolved (if indeed it is), both sides come to the table prepared to compromise and embrace the kind of collaborative approach that serves the encyclopedia best. You two are not meant to be opponents -- you're partners in a project here, and partners of the rest of us, as well. Keep that in mind and you will hopefully never have to worry about the word "ban" coming up in the course of your editorial work again. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: dissolve IBAN, find a more realistic solution to this conflict

See my last posting in this thread (as well as the previous comments diffed at its beginning) to see exactly why an IBAN can accomplish nothing here except to recycle this feud through the noticeboards endlessly. Neither editor has every voiced any interest in letting go of the content issues which brought about the acrimony between them and there is insufficient third party oversight (or even involvement) in the affected pages to keep them from stumbling over eachother's edits and directly butting heads immediately. This was an ill-thought-out community solution (to which I admittedly took part, despite reservations) that needs to be recognized as untenable here, given the circumstances and attitudes of the involved parties. As a first step to finding an actual solution to this conflict, I think the IBAN needs to be dissolved. After that, the best (if still quite underwhelming) suggestion I can give on the next course of action would be to give basic dispute resolution processes one more try. I believe WP:DRN has not yet been explored, for example. If uncivil, non-collaborative, and disruptive behaviours persists, one or both editors should be page/topic banned from the relevant articles/subjects. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• Megasupport (as nom) Snow ^{let's rap} 04:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support First off, @Snow Rise: there is no evidence that I am trying to continue the underlying content dispute; I just don't a user with whom I am mutually IBANned reverting my edits. The only reason I initially agreed to the IBAN was because no one ever told me how hard it was to report IBAN violations. I can choose to assume that if I reverted a bunch of Catflap's edits and he reported me he would het just as poor a hearing as I have. But I have no interest in reverting Catflap's edits. So as is this is a de facto one-way IBAN, which no one agreed to.

I would, though, like to hear back from @Sturmgewehr88: and @Black Kite: first, since they appear to have taken the time to go through all the diffs and recognized that Catflap reverted me, not the other way round.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support - I honestly think Catflap violated the IBAN when he manually reverted Hijiri88's edits. If he's not going to face any consequences, then the IBAN seems pointless. The IBAN should be lifted and both editors given WP:ROPE awaiting further disruption, at which point TBANs will be in order. As an aside, @Snow Rise: I've heard of "strongest support possible" but "megasupport" is a new one :) ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 09:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Well I did just mean it as a one-off effort to combine humor, exasperation, and emphasis, but now I'm thinking it could be a thing; it could certainly get some mileage in this space! ;) Snow ^{let's rap} 10:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support Removal of the IBAN, and may I suggest a path forward, instead placing them both under a 1RR rule. That should end edit warring at least. AlbinoFerret 07:49, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

That's the best idea I've seen since this discussion began, AF. Of course, it requires they have a third party editing the page, since otherwise they will each really only be able to add content to the page -- meaning that with an inability to remove content there is a risk of it getting glutted with large amounts of often contradictory information as each party tries to drown out the other's message. But then, my impression is that these two could use some outside perspective and a buffer for the present time anyway. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes they will need an outside editor, one who has some idea of the topic other than a quick read (like me). Should we start a section on it? AlbinoFerret 00:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Umm... could I ask if either of you know what exactly the "underlying content dispute" between me and Catflap actually is? Because as far as I am aware, the dispute is solely about whether a source should be attached to a statement it doesn't directly support; not a content dispute, but an issue of one user simply not understanding WP:V and WP:NOR. Before asserting that both Catflap and I (rather than just one of us) are incapable of talk-page discussion without an intermediary some recognition of this point would be appreciated. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

For the record, though, I'm not opposed to an intermediary. @Shii: would be great: he knows a lot about Japanese religion, is diligent with sourcing problems, and he and I have rarely agreed about stuff in the past, so there would likely be no cause to call him biased (contrary to popular opinion, I don't follow Catflap around, so I don't know if they have any kind of history of interaction, though). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I am familiar with both Catflap and Hijiri and consider them both valuable to the project, although that hardly means I agree with them a lot. I also hate IBANs and would happily mediate if some kind of arbitration will take place. But I'm not going to be online 24/7 these days. Shii (tock) 10:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Neutral I am not willing to deal with editors who use insulting language (no matter if they strike it afterwards or not), (to my mind) bad faith edits on articles I concentrate on, childlike comments within their edits on articles about my home. I do hear that the ANI is an IBAN free zone. I also do not want to deal with editors who wish that the “opponent” to be blocked from en.Wikipedia. If an IBAN is that easily lifted then it will speak for itself. I would also welcome if admins do have a clue on the matters they get involved in and decide on.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC) If an editor finds it to be necessary to underline his/her edits with swear words and insults (strike or not) on a regular basis I do not find it to be a need to seek any consensus but to rather ignore such an individual. And for the record I am not spending my time here to be called names – not having that, not in real life nor in here. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Catflap, you had a golden ticket to keep Hijiri out of your life in the form of the IBAN (which we should obviously have never considered granting you, given your obvious lack of intention to avoid the other party). You chose to violate the sanction and the reason we are now prepared to do away with it is because it is never going to work (and never could have) if you two were not prepared to abide by it. And let's be clear, you are the party which violated it, not Hijiri. You knew (or certainly should have known) that this would cause him to fly here immediately to impose this onerous issue on the community at large once again, just weeks after we last discussed it. And frankly, the only reason you haven't been blocked already for this violation is that the editors here recognized Hijiri's own long-standing contributions to this feud. But for you complain about the weakness of our dedication to an IBAN which is causing problems rather than solving them is incredibly obtuse, since the only alternative was that follow protocol and block you for the violation immediately. Regardless, you cannot continue to contribute on the contested articles unless you are willing to collaborate with all parties there, including Hijiri.

Frankly, I've seen enough of the approaches of both you and Hijiri to this problem, and of your mutual lack of will to reach for a collaborative approach that might keep us from having to recycle this discussion endlessly. I was prepared to propose the only solution that now seems plausible to me, given the intractability and behavioural issues of both of you on the articles you contest between you, namely that you both be page banned from both Kokuchūkai and Kenji Miyazawa. But now I find that proposal awkward and ill-suited, since Hijiri has said he would be willing to consider mediation and a third (apparently neutral) editor who has worked with you both has agreed to try to facilitate that attempt. I have a hard time proposing that Hijiri be page banned before that effort, since there was a specific call for him to do so. But if you refuse to mediate, and insist continuing to edit war in violation of an IBAN you asked for, then maybe the solution is to page ban just you. Or page ban one of each of you from each of the two articles in question. In any event, if you won't come to table, I'm afraid one of these options will have to be implemented, since you cannot just refuse to work with other editors on an article you wish to remain active on. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed with the last sentence especially. Shii (tock) 02:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: Could you explain what you mean whwn you say I have been unwilling to edit collaboratively on those two articles? On the Kokuchukai article, I have been struggling for months to try to figure out what Catflap's problem with my edits is, so I could work to accommodate him and edit collaboratively, and have been met with nothing but misquoting of sources and accusations of personal attacks and tendentious editing.

As for the Kenji article -- clearly you have not even looked at that talk page or thr edit history of the article. Just look at Talk:Kenji Miyazawa/redraft to see me, User:Nishidani and User:Icuc2 (two users with whom I rarely agree all that much when it comes to article content) to fix the problems that have plagued the article for years.

I would ask that you kindly refrain from any further assertions that I have trouble editing collaboratively, especially since further down this pahe you are currently still supporting a page ban against me proposed by a user who does refuse to edit collaboratively.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Woah. Just realized my above comment sounds unusually petty/grouchy given that two users have finally offered to help put this problem to rest and I finally got recognition that the IBAN was violated and not by me. I had not read SR's comment as closely as perhaps I might have, and I was perhaps also frustrated by the still bubbling-up shitstorm downstairs (hopefully the Wikipedia equivalent of Mack from Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. will be around to talk some sense into that debate soon...). Anyway, I apologize for the above gruffness. I am deeply appreciative of finally getting recognition that I was not the one violating the IBAN. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

First of all Snow Rise, correct me if I am wrong and DO NOT take this personal, but I find it hard to see that any sort of consensus has been made here. I am unwilling to deal with an individual who seems to find no other way to underline his case without an abusive language and to go hysteric. I have found valuable references to have been deleted and decided to reinsert them into the article in question. Other editors seem to have meanwhile taken up the job to bring the article up to agreed standards - thanks for that. A job that I would have liked to have seen being done by admins. I have been called names in this process just because I hinted and referenced the somewhat dubious religious/political background of some editor’s favourite poet. The editor in question then decided to edit the article which I created (and delete references) on the poets religious affiliation. In due process I have been called names by the editor in question, I have been insulted, smearing comments about me while editing an article on my home town and this is a reoccurring pattern by the editor in question on other issues even without me being involved. As soon as the ice gets thin he calls for his cronies including Sturmgewehr88 (being banned from a number Wikipedias for obvious reasons – in many European countries just like Germany the number 88 is a code for a fascist background – based on edits). So go ahead IBAN, TBAN or block me from en.Wikipedia if you like. I did my utmost best to supply Information on Nichiren Buddhism in a non-partisan way, in doing so it might hurt some faithful individuals and this involves a conflict. For some admins there is a piece of advice – get involved on issues you are familiar with otherwise stay out. There is no need to show me the exit sign anymore as the project seems to be preoccupied with many issues but referenced facts – I cannot and am unwilling to deal with some editors mental issues. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone find it concerning that despite posting the above "neutral opposition" (for want of a better term) and despite the IBAN not being officially dissolved yet, Catflap08 requested further down this page that I be "topic-banned" from ... Japan-related articles, I guess, which for me is the same as a siteban. Is this appropriate behaviour? Does anyone seriously think Catflap08 is genuinely willing to engage in constructive discussion, even with a mediator? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

My contributions to Emmanuel Lemelson and Lemelson Capital Management

Would appreciate your assistance. I have been an editor for a year and created the two articles above last year. I recently moved both to my sandbox so that I could make some modest improvements to both, including potentially restoring some content that was deleted for reasons largely unexplained and to potentially make other improvements, such as possibly adding new information in the year since I created both articles. Almost as soon as I moved both articles to my sandbox a few days ago, however, User:Smalljim began criticizing my involvement in the pages and saying that my contributions should be confined to the talk page. He has alleged that I have a conflict of interest, presumably because I dived into these two articles pretty aggressively and really have not had time yet to contribute much else. In reading Ignoring all rules--a beginner's guide and be bold, however, my approach seems permissible and encouraged. I have no conflict of interest and nothing about my edits has been unjustly critical or embellishing of the subject. In fact, despite review of both articles by multiple editors, the changes to my original drafts have been very modest and mostly cosmetic.

A lengthier exchange regarding all of this exists on my talk page. I am requesting that I be permitted to continue (time permitting) to make the modest modifications and additions to both articles in my sandbox and then, when I am comfortable that I've written them well and consistent with all guidelines, to move them live. I fully anticipate that my edits will be reviewed by others, and that's fine by me. I claim no ownership to the pages and am just looking to perfect what I believe to be two decent article contributions.

I first attempted to resolve this with User:Smalljim on my talk page. I guess we did not see eye to eye. I then referred it to DRN and COI. Neither of them felt it belonged on those pages.

Thanks very much for your attention and assistance. Orthodox2014 (talk) 22:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I looked at the DRN page and it seemed like the discussion was getting started. I don't know why the page was archived but I didn't see anyone saying that this was the wrong forum. Maybe @TransporterMan: can explain?

In general though, I think it is a bad idea to copy whole articles into your sandbox and replace the actual article with your new version of it. For one thing, other editors can make changes between the time you've copied the article and the time you replace it with your new version and while those edits would be recorded in the page history, they wouldn't exist in the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

The DRN thread was closed by TransporterMan, not because it was the wrong forum, but because it was filed manually, rather than using the template for the purpose. The editors can refile using the template, or can continue discussion at the conflict of interest noticeboard, but the discussion at COIN should be closed if DRN is started, to avoid conflicting discussions and forum shopping. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have 2 things to say on the matter, both of which aren't key to the actual issue.

Firstly, I felt it wasn't appropriate for WP:COIN because they said they didn't have a COI- so the issue didn't appear to be COI.

Secondly, when you report someone to noticeboards, you are obliged to inform them- in this instance, I informed User:Smalljim about this thread, and the other ones at DRN and COI too. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I did notify him on his talk page at 22:10, 12 May 2015, prior to your posting this. You must have missed it. Orthodox2014 (talk) 21:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I was drafting the following, but I see I've been pre-empted. Posting now without full check, so E&OE !  —SMALLJIM 

Emmanuel Lemelson is a hedge fund manager and, unexpectedly, also a Greek Orthodox priest. We have two articles: one on the person (EL), and one on his company, Lemelson Capital Management (LCM). Both have been extensively edited by Orthodox2014 (talk · contribs), whose only other edits have been to an AfD on the company, an AfD nomination of another fund manager, and a few edits to some related articles (example) and some other Greek Orthodox religious figures (example). This narrow focus has continued despite my suggestion in July last year that he could do something else to avoid the appearance of only being here to promote Lemelson.

In the two articles he has employed promotional wording designed to puff up the subjects (see this version for example), and has packed them with excessive references, on which he has been called out several times (see User_talk:Orthodox2014#Failed_verifications, Talk:Lemelson Capital Management, Talk:Emmanuel_Lemelson#Too_many_references and the LCM AfD). In July 2014 the LCM article was trimmed down to under 10kB in accordance with these opinions [7]. But on 8 Oct, after working on a pre-trimmed version in his sandbox, Orthodox2014 pumped it up again to 23kB with the edit summary "update new references/developments, remove a category", which in fact added only a little new info, and substantially reinstated the removed references.[8]

On 29 April this year, I got round to cleaning up both pages again – a task that had been on my back burner for some time. Soon after, Orthodox2014 started editing a copy of his last version of the EL article in his sandbox,[9] suggesting that he intended to replace the live version with his preferred version again. His response to my enquiry indicates a strong sense of ownership. This is not the behaviour of someone who has WP's best interest as his first priority.

Orthodox2014 has firmly stated that he does not have a COI. Four editors have expressed concerns that he does, as I set out on his talk page, and I think the minimum we need is a topic ban on these articles. He has at least recently expressed a willingness to edit some other articles.[10]  —SMALLJIM  22:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• Perhaps this should have stayed at COIN. The heading for the noticeboard states This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor does not meet a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline . The question here is covered by the first part of that, whether the denial of COI by an editor who has only substantially worked on these two very closely related subjects should be accepted as settling the matter. DGG ( talk ) 23:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Coincidentally, DGG, in 2013 you deleted an earlier version of one of the pages. I don't suppose this could be connected?  —SMALLJIM  16:32, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

It was deleted as G5, Creation by a banned or blocked user (MooshiePorkFace or Morning277). I shall therefore not be restoring it. DGG ( talk ) 16:11, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

The question I meant to ask – sorry if it was unclear – is do you think this editor could be related to that paid editor farm.  —SMALLJIM  17:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I referred this incident to this page seeking assistance in resolving a dispute I have with User:Smalljim on the two pages referenced in this entry's heading. I am asking that he cease projecting ownership over not just these two articles but also my own sandbox, where I had begun work on some modest revisions to these two articles. His insistence that he has free range to edit both articles but my edits must be restricted to the talk pages is clearly a projection of such ownership and a policy violation. He also is violating good faith in projecting baseless, false allegations and additionally violating be bold in developing apparently his own editorial policy that new editors not be permitted to create articles (the policy of boldness suggests the exact opposite) and do not bite the newcomers in asserting his ownership, assuming bad faith, suggesting his edits hold more validity than my own, and in mass removing content and references (developed in full accordance with the citations guideline) without as much as an explanation. When he first complained that the articles had excessive references (never seen that as an editorial policy) a year ago, I even went back and reformatted all of them so they aesthetically appeared limited to three (as suggested in the citation guideline when more than three references are used in substantiating a fact).

I reiterate my initial request, which initiated this discussion, that I be permitted to continue working on both articles in my sandbox and then move over edits when I feel comfortable that my revisions are improvements and consistent with all policies and guidelines; I have not yet reached that point. I also ask that User:Smalljim be instructed to treat me and my page edits with the civility required. Orthodox2014 (talk) 19:41, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

This case ought to be closed. It's evident, Orthodox2014, that the community is not interested either in your report or mine. I think the best resolution would be for you to refrain from editing these articles and (time permitting) work on something else, as you said you would – and I'll carry on fighting the vandals.  —SMALLJIM  20:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I also agree the case should be closed. I do not agree, however, that there is any reason that I should not be permitted to edit the pages. It was exactly that sort of page ownership (I will make my edits then falsely accuse you of having a conflict so you can't make revisions) that prompted my posting here. As I said I would, I intend to make some modifications and possibly additions that are consistent with Wikipedia policies and standards and then move them live when I am comfortable with them. In the meantime, my sandbox should not be stalked and scrutinized. I am, of course, willing to work on consensus edits with User:Smalljim or any editor, and I made that clear before referring this here. Thanks. Orthodox2014 (talk) 15:55, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

@Orthodox2014: My primary reason for being on Wikipedia is to further the interests of the encyclopedia. Despite your persuasive words, the evidence shows that you have a higher imperative. But as an involved admin, without community support I can't do anything, and I'm not willing to spend any more time on this. You should, at least, heed the advice given you by User:Liz above: don't replace a copy of an article that's been worked on by others with one based on an earlier version of your own (as you did in October last year). That's not "work[ing] on consensus edits", that's ownership.  —SMALLJIM  20:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Mass bio creation without establishing notability by Philafrenzy

It all started innocently enough.

1. On 15 April, Philafrenzy linked Romie Tager to a BLP I created on a autism researcher, Helen Tager-Flusberg. [11]
2. The first version I viewed [12] looked like a political hit job (those are going around these days in UK bios) or WP:BLP1E issue based on sources that did not rise to the level required for a BLP. It used sources like:
   • Gordon Ramsay: I was a performing monkey while father-in-law had a cushy office job, that had a passing mention of Romie Tager.
3. Not being familiar with UK law, I asked Bencherlite to look in. [13]
4. On 24 April, Bencherlite submitted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romie Tager, and the article was deleted on 8 May.
5. On 8 May, Philafrenzy submitted it to Deletion review, where the discussion is now about four times as long as the article and twice as long as the AFD.

   Now, where my concern about WP:POINTy mass creation of bios begins:

6. On 9 May, in that Deletion review and in response to a statement that Romie Tager was as notable as Helen Tager-Flusberg, I pointed out PROF, the notability guideline for academics. [14] (It is a mystery to me why some editors can spend so much bandwidth arguing notability for a lawyer, when lawyers so frequently get passing mention in newspapers, rather than developing a guideline for notability for the legal profession. The equivalent for academics would be to claim a researcher is notable because they have ten articles published in PubMed. They aren't. We have a standard for academics.)
7. Today, 14 May, since I still have Philafrenzy's talk watched, I noticed another editor querying him about notability for academics, which led to me discovering that:
8. In the last few days, Philafrenzy has been mass creating bios on academics where no notability is apparent, nor is it established in the articles.[15]

   Just a few samples can be seen at:

   1. John H. Arnold (historian)
   2. Judith Colton ‎
   3. Catharine Edwards (historian)
   4. David Feldman (historian) ‎
   5. Vanessa Harding (historian)
   6. Julian Swann ‎
   7. Frank Trentmann ‎
   8. Sonya Rose ‎
   9. Dominic Rathbone ... and there are more.

9. WP:POINT-- Here is the conversation about the matter on Philafrenzy's talk: [16]

So, he appears to understand PROF and is creating mass numbers of bios of academics that don't seem to be notable anyway. Reviewing my past discussions with him, it is unlikely that any further attempt by me to converse with him will yield anything productive. If he is creating these bios to make a point, there are an awful lot of them that need to be dealt with-- I have tagged only some of them, and another editor has indicated they won't likely survive speedy deletion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

This is a bit of a mad conspiracy theory to be honest. There is absolutely NO connection between the creation of bios for professors of history at the University of London and the Tager article. Tager is a lawyer, not an academic. I do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. What point would I be trying to make exactly? Each of these historians would survive an AFD in my opinion. They are stubs that need to be expanded. What's wrong with that? Every article has to start somewhere. Sandy has never forgiven me for using the Daily Mail in the Tager BLP and I seem to have earned Sandy's eternal enmity for it. This has overtones of stalking. And what is a "political hit job"? Just to be absolutely clear, I have never had the slightest doubt that Helen Tager-Flusberg as a professor at Boston University is notable, nor have I ever suggested she isn't. The matter has never even been discussed as far as I can recall. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:29, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

P.S. of the linked articles one is a full professor at Yale, another the director of the Pears Institute for the study of Antisemitism and another president of the Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

P.P.S. I see the Colton article has just been expanded by another editor (not at my prompting), she won a prize for a book apparently. It will be interesting to see what other expansions are made. Stubs are not spam, they are a gift to the editing community. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:50, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

The issue with most of the articles is not whether or not the subject is notable, but whether the article makes any claim of notability. Most did not. X is a professor of Y at the university of Z is not a claim of notability. WP:CSD#A7 is relevant here. Guy (Help!) 08:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

At least two noted that criteria 6 of WP:PROF was met. I could easily have revised them to make the claim stronger but they have been deleted overnight it seems when I was not around to comment further. Can they be restored to my user space and I will work on them a bit. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

These were:

Dominic Rathbone, president of the Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies.

David Feldman, director of the Pears Institute for the study of Antisemitism. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Carlo Monticelli has also been deleted (who wasn't even mentioned above) and is a director of the European Investment Bank and one of the lead negotiators in the Greek debt crisis (stated to be such in the article with coverage in third party RSs). Could that one be restored too please? (see Sky News article "The Men Who Hold The Euro's Fate In Their Hands" Philafrenzy (talk) 09:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I think Carlo Monticelli could have gone through an AFD process. It makes no sense to delete articles overnight--there needs to be a basic discussion, even with one-liners. We don't want to discourage article creators, just make them more discriminating.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I can see the misunderstanding. Notability is not inherited. Holding an office ina notable institution does nto confer notability, and is not even a credible claim of notability. Perhaps if the articles were longer than a single sentence there might be less of an issue. Guy (Help!) 11:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

What about Rathbone, Feldman (WP:PROF 6 "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society") and Monticelli? Philafrenzy (talk) 11:39, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTINHERITED (and indeed WP:NOTDIR). You need an actual claim of individual notability. Guy (Help!) 11:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but WP:PROF clearly says "Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable." See point 6. And you haven't commented on the random deletion of Monticelli. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Subject specific notability guidelines are indications of the kinds of people who are likely to be covered by reliable independent sources and thus be considered notable. They do not mandate a list of bodies whose officers are inherently notable. The onus is on you, as author, to write an article that actually makes a substantive claim to notability (not just one which is obvious to you in your own mind). I have limited time for people who insist on an article being allowed to exist, but who can't be arsed to put in the minimal amount of effort necessary for the casual reader to understand why we should care. Several people have accused you of WP:POINT. I am inclining towards their view. Guy (Help!) 16:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I see more evidence of WP:POINTy mass deletion of bios. WP:PROF is not always very helpful; we have thousands of academic bios we probably don't need, but in most fields lack say 50% of the actual leading figures - as usual fewer than 50% of the List of Fellows of the Royal Society elected in 2015 had articles when announced, though again as usual the redlinks are going fast. At least those are specifically mentioned in the policy so safe from zapping. I can't see most of the list above, now red - I suspect zapping them was over-hasty. Use AFD, Guy, don't patronize very experienced editors by explaining basic notability policy to them. Johnbod (talk) 14:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• Something is definitely wrong with an encyclopedias inclusion criteria when it is so much easier to be considerer notable as a porn star, a fictive character, or CEO of a minor company than as an academic.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
• I have always considered as assertion that someone is a professor at a University a sufficient claim to possible importance, sufficient to the extent that speedy is unjustified. It does not have to show notability. It does not even have to show that it probably will be notable (which is criterion for accepting an AfC). We deliberately don't use the word "notable" at A7. We can not tell whether they are an authority in their field without further checking, and we need to do that checking before deletion--and also before nominating for AfD. We use speedy when it is clear there is no reasonable basis for an article, and that the consensus of good faith editors would certainly agree with us. Such is not the case here. That does not mean that all professors at universities are notable, though I have observed that we have almost never deleted an article on grounds of notability for a full professor at a major research university unless there were some specific problem . In other cases we have certainly deleted articles, and I have !voted delete and closed as !delete when notability is not demonstrated.

Guy, you made these deletions without prior nominations. That is not a direct violation of policy, but in A7 situations it is not a good thing to do, because A7 is not black.white and all of us, including myself make errors. I have as much experience at deletion processes as anyone, and at least 1 or 2 % of my speedy nomination turn out to be errors. I know of nobody working there extensively who has a perfect record. (I would also support making this an absolute requirement for A7 and G11, both f which require sometimes disputable judgment)

I am reluctant to summarily reverting these deletions myself, especially if JzG continues to justify them, because my general views on notability are so different from his that I'm not sufficiently neutral. But if he or someone does not do so, they will be at DelRev tomorrow, with a copy of this as the rationale, where I expect speedy reversals.

It is however also true, that the rapid creation of stub articles on people in a single department of a university as in similar situation does invite scrutiny, & I always look very carefully if I see it at NPP. People who wish to do such article creations should make sure the articles are clearly sufficient before leaving them. But that does not apply here. All of them had quite sufficient information--including information addressing the fundamental criterion for WP:PROF, demonstrating notability by being an expert in their subject as judged by their publication record. Every one of them had books by the most important academic publishers, sometimes multiple books. That makes these deletions totally unjustifiable.

And I regard as assertion that a person has published a book by an established publisher as generally sufficient to pass speedy A7 (tho in some cases not speedy G11) . The reason is basically the same--it is an indication of at least plausible importance, and the possible notability can not be judged without further checking. Now, the case of NAUTHOR and NBOOK are two of the fields where I think our standards are too low. I have frequently nominated articles on authors and books for deletion at afd when I don't think that a reasonable interpretation of the criteria would justify an article, and I would also definitely advocate raising the requirements in NBOOK at least. But none the less I go by the accepted standards, not those I would like to have accepted.

Since every one of these people have written such books, and the publishers (usually CUP) are not in any sense marginal, there is certainly an indication of notability. DGG ( talk ) 16:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

University presses (with the possible exception of OUP) have a pretty low bar when presented with an MS by someone within the institution. Of course there would be no problem if the article's creator could have brought himself to write more than a single sentence. Guy (Help!) 16:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that is utter nonsense. Respectable University Presses (of which OUP, Cambridge, Duke, Harvard, Chicago, UCP, MIT, are some but there are many others) do not look at the authors affiliation at all when considering a manuscript. And they most certainly do not have a lower bar than comparable academic publishers - because that is what they are, they have to make profits on the books and cannot afford to publish bad books by local scholars (nor do they have any reason to).·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

All of them had quite sufficient information--including information addressing the fundamental criterion for WP:PROF, demonstrating notability by being an expert in their subject as judged by their publication record. We have very different understandings of what WP:PROF says then, which is partly why I brought this here for other eyes (after seeing concern raised by one other editor on Philafrenzy's talk).

Separate from the notability issue, though, is the other issue of established editors who know (or should know, as opposed to newbies) how to write articles, but put up bios they expect others to fix (as in, working too fast and expecting others to do the cleanup). During all of this, Philafrenzy made this post which reinforces my concern about the quality of his work relative to editcountitis/speed.

It would be good if Philafrenzy understood-- considering his longevity here-- that this is not a good thing to do, specifically when the subject is a living person. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• WP:TEXTBOOKS does give more weight to books from academic presses than from general ones; but in general, notability of books comes from published reviews, translations, awards, and other secondary sources about the books. When listing books to document notability for a biography, I think it's best to find some external notability evidence for the individual books and cite it in the list. See e.g. Rubén Gallo#Books for a book list with some citations like that. Philafarmer, please consider that approach. The one-line articles sound like WP:KITTENS and deserve more care before being turned loose in article space. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 19:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

DGG, now that my original concern requiring admin attention has passed (that the OP had gone on a pointy article creation spree after the rejection of Tager at AFD and Deletion review), I need to make sure I'm following the rest of the discussion and your reasoning on notability. As of now, your reasoning isn't clear to me (dumber than the average bear). I am at a disadvantage that I can't discuss specific examples, since I don't have the tools to see the deleted articles. Nonetheless, I think I understand so far that:

1. You are drawing a distinction between two separate issues: 1) establishing notability (which can be challenged at AFD); and 2) when there is sufficient cause for an admin to invoke speedy deletion criteria. I think you are saying that I correctly tagged the articles as needing to establish notability, but you are disagreeing with JzG's interpretation of the speedy deletion criteria.
2. And also separately disagreeing with my interpretation of WP:PROF ??
3. You are saying that in some cases if WP:PROF isn't met, WP:AUTHOR may be instead.
4. You are saying that (in your opinion) usually profs at major universities will meet either PROF or AUTHOR, and when those cases are debatable, that is challenged via AFD, but rarely with speedy deletion.
5. Even if the version of the article put up does not establish that notability, and even when (as in my case) separate google searches do not reveal notability ???
6. But you are not saying that so strongly as to suggest that JzG abused the tools-- just that the use of speedy deletion is open to different interpretation???
7. And then you're saying you disagree with the speedy deletion, which you will challenge, so the articles can be reinstated. At which point there may or may not be separate AFDs to establish notability.

Do I have those parts right so far? If I do, here is the part where you lose me: in this post, you encourage Philafrenzy to continue creating these bios, even before they are established as notable via AFD. So, then, I'm furthered confused by your reasoning on PROF and AUTHOR (again, at a disadvantage that I can no longer see the articles, but I know what I saw when I tagged them).

1. WP:PROF has 9 criteria that I didn't see met in any of those articles. Just being a prof at a university doesn't mean notability is met. Even a "major" university.
2. But I think you are basing notability then on AUTHOR, and I'm not seeing that either, because:
3. WP:AUTHOR lays out 4 criteria that I didn't see met on any of those articles, and establishing that one of those four is met would require additional investigation, possibly at AFD.

So, to help me understand your interpretation of either PROF or AUTHOR, not in terms of whether they meet speedy criteria or would pass AFD, but which would justify advising that anyone should continue creating these kinds of bios, please help me see where/how they meet AUTHOR. Or which part of the discussion I'm misunderstanding. We turn down bios like this that are at AFC and brought to WT:MED on academics all the time. If every academic who has written a book gets an article, that is a significant departure from business so far in the medical realm.

If this is better handled on user talk, no problem, but I didn't want to split the discussion unnecessarily. But what I'm getting is that :

1. JzG is saying if an article doesn't establish notability, and others can't find it, then it can be speedied, while
2. You are saying it's OK to continue writing bios that don't establish notability, and require others to do the work to try to discern or establish it (like uncovering book reviews), even if that means unnecessary process like AFDs.

Which I don't think can be what you are advocating, so ... ??? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

First, I was indeed dealing with the immediate question of whether these articles should have been speedy deleted-. Being a professor at any university or writing any reputably published book is a sufficient indication of plausible notability, and these articles each had considerably more than that minimum,. I din't explicitly raise the issue, but since you asked, I am indeed saying that in my view JzG's deletions were not just misjudgments, but unqualified errors (tho I do not pretend to understand why he made these errors). If a candidate for Admin had made speedy nominations for articles like those, I doubt they'd be promoted nowadays.

Second, I also think they are notable beyond reasonable doubt, though all the evidence is not yet there to prove it. (the books , for example, need the reviews to be added) I think there is essentially zero % chance that any except the one I mentioned will be deleted at AfD. For the one I mentioned, I think it's about 20% possible there might be a delete. We'll see if I'm right, if anyone nominates them. My accuracy at predicting these is by no means perfect. The discussion of whether they meet the requirements should be better done at another place, normally the afds. /certain we don't decide on notability at AN/I. To avoid confusing the issue, I'll respond to you objections there if necessary. (I will only here clarify a few misunderstandings. in point 4, . Not all profs, but only full prof, or profs in the traditional UK sense, at major research universities are always notable. You left out the qualifiers. I think that very few Assistant end only some Associate professors even at major research universities are notable; I think most professors of any rank at predominantly teaching institutions are not notable. The full p@mru are notable as a matter of actual practice here, because we have always held so in the last 5 years: No full professor at a major US or European research university has every been deleted at AfD in the past 5 years, except for cases where there is prejudice here against the person's field (e.g. education, agriculture, business for example) or where the person is also known for fringe views either in his subject or in something else. I may have missed a few, but I challenge anyone to find 5 in the 5 years. The place to discuss it further, besides the individual AfDs, is WT:PROF) You raised the question, but I do not know where you get the idea that university presses are unreliable, or of relatively high quality. I think in the academic world with respect to the humanities, it is just the other way round: the only respected publishers that count for tenure are the major university presses, plus the academic divisions of a few commercial publishers. But this would be question at RSN, and I don't want to argue it further here.

with respect to your tagging. If you had added speedy nomination tags, I would have said say you did as incorrectly as JzG, except that his was an administrative act and should be held to higher standards. But you merely placed notability tags, saying additional evidence is needed. Additional evidence and referencing is indeed advisable, as with almost all WP articles. I would not have placed the tags, because in a case like these it is so easily corrected, and I consider there is no real doubt. But it you thought there was a doubt, you are in the right to say so. It is perfectly correct to place a problem tag if you think there;'s a problem, whether or not it turns out that there actually is. A problem tag is only marking an article for a further look, and unless it is done abusively or utterly absurdly, it's almost never wrong. We disagree, but it's expected people disagree. I don't see this as needing further discussion anywhere. I don't think anyone is challenging your tagging. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 21:34, May 15, 2015‎

Thanks, DGG, for the clarification on full prof in major universities, which helps. One other clarification: it was not me who said that university presses are unreliable. My concern is that I saw the bios created rapid-fire, saw that notability wasn't established on any of them, did a google search for more info on the subjects, found nothing, and tagged them (knowing that meant someone else would have to clean up Philafrenzy's work).

I understand your views on notability now, respect that JzG's may be different, but I'm still not quite sure why editors should be encouraged to create bios without establishing notability, and I'm wondering if your library access means that you are seeing articles which make these people notable that I am not able to see. If that is the case, we again have bios being created that someone else has to finish. I have no interest in taking any of these to AFD as long as the underlying concerns (the pointy concern) have been addressed ... but what I still am seeing is that an established editor is creating articles without establishing notability, leaving work behind for others to finish and setting up the possibility of extra time-consuming process (AFDs).

I also see some disagreement expressed throughout this discussion about notability, so I'm left with the conclusion that ... if every historian is going to get an article, I am going to stop holding the line on every researcher who comes up at WT:MED, because I apparently am missing something.

Anyway, thanks for explaining your reasoning, Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

just one point--the reason it is easier to determine this in science is the usability of citation indexes to show notability, and the fact that this is a measurement that essentially everyone working on here agrees with. And if you'd like to join me in my forthcoming proposal to restrict notability of routine academic books, I'd be glad of it. DGG ( talk ) 02:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I would contest that, and say that any academic regardless of academic post and place of employment is notable if their work has been reviewed and referred to by their peers. If there are published reviews or other articles discussing their work, any academic should be considered notable per GNG. I do agree that making large amounts of contentless stubs is not helping anyone. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

That amounts to an assertion of inherent notability. In science at least you will not get a job unless you have peer-reviewed publications, and I doubt if that's much different in other fields. Guy (Help!) 09:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Could part of the problem be that WP:PROF is a wee bit too restrictive? ·maunus said it best, something might be wrong in our criteria for academics. I never understood the logic behind a football (soccer) player in a fourth tier English team being automatically notable while an associate professor at a prestigious English university and with ten peer-reviewed publications in ranked international journals is disqualified by current WP:PROF criteria.Full disclosure of heavy bias: I'm an academic myself with a number of peer-reviewed publications in ranked international journals. I claim no neutrality in this matter - but I think it merits discussion. FT Reader^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I think one way to get around WP:PROF is to go by WP:GNG. We could do this if we were to consider book reviews and summaries of an academics' work published in peer reviewed journals as "non-trivial third party sources" that would to go towards satisfying the general notability. I don't see any reason that a review of an academic book should not give the same degree of notability as a press release turned into a news article for a CEO biography, or a press conference turned online news article for a minor celebrity. Academics are notable for their work, so any published source, including reviews and summaries in other people's research articles, should count toward academic notability.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

That route, like citation indices, is certainly available (criterion 1) but not that often seen argued in detail at AFD, where most participants lack access and awareness of what they mean. Plus all these measures are subject to massaging that only those close to the field really appreciate. Johnbod (talk) 00:27, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it does require expert level familiarity with the topic to use this approach. But I have used it with success myself, in specific cases where notability was contested in spite of an academic being a major figure in the field. (Not all important academics ever become distinguished or named professors for example).·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Manus, That approach using GNG is one reason we have WP:PROF. In my earlier years here, I showed a few times that by using WP:GNG, every academic who had published papers that had been cited could be technically shown to be notable--which amounts to including all postdoctoral fellow in most scientific fields , and everyone further along. The result was obviously contrary to common sense, and I never really advocated we use it. But it shows the need for some more realistic standard. The best approach to a standard in general is the same as we use for WP:RS--to accept what people in the relevant field accept as notability, on the basis that they are likely to know better than us. I think the clearest example of this is our use of specific charts for notability in music--I may think it leads to overcoverage, but it is a comprehensible & determinable standard, and that's what is really important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 02:47, May 16, 2015

Ping only works if you spell the username right. WP:PROF does not override GNG. If an academic or her work can be shown to have been subject to non-trivial third party coverage, then they are notable. And yes that will mean that some postdocs are notable, and most academic. As long as we are as inclusive as we are on other topics, there is no valid reason to enforce a more restrictive standard for academics.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

This batch of A7 deletions was really poorly thought through and JzG who made them deserves a trout. Essentially, "X is a professor at [good university]" is already a claim of notability that should be enough to prevent A7 speedy deletion. To become professor, you have to have done something significant in your research area — maybe not enough for WP:PROF, but definitely enough for A7. Arguably that's true even to finish your Ph.D. And in the case of e.g. John H. Arnold (historian), we had not only that but five published books; as noted above, some of the others included society presidents etc. We do not need (and do not want) wording of the form "X is notable for..." in an article in order for the article to have a claim of significance. And these articles did have loud and clear claims of significance. If you don't understand that, you shouldn't be in the business of deleting articles about academics. And if you're applying the same standards for A7 that you would in a full AfD, you're doing it wrong. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with them being restored to Draft space and expanded to include some assertion of notability, but the articles themselves were a maximum of two sentences. More effort has already been expended by the creator in arguing the toss here, than on all of the content in all of the articles, put together. Think about that for a minute. All the reasons advance din this discussion as to why they are notable? Pity they weren't in the articles, because then we would not even be having the discussion. See my point? Guy (Help!) 08:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Apparently you didn't read what I wrote. The articles already included an assertion of notability, even in so short a state, that you were apparently not competent to read. It was not necessary to expand them to include an assertion of notability, because that assertion was already there. That is why your A7 deletions were wrong. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Really? So simply being an academic is now a claim of notability? You live and learn. One of the articles ran to two short sentences, one sentence was the norm. Creating articles where you can't be arsed to even describe why the person is supposed to be important is a bad idea, and as I noted above this discussion is by now many times longer (and has been given vastly more work by the article creator) than all of the deleted items put together. Remember WP:BLP? I don't think creating tiny articles with no substantive content is a great idea. Apparently I am alone in this, though, so I will walk away. And I do hope that Phila will actually take the trouble to write at least a properly formed stub in future. Guy (Help!) 09:51, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Or you could have just not abused A7 in the first place and this would have been a lot shorter.. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:20, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

On creating stubs

• Guy, you are not being fair. It takes a long time to produce a decent stub if, as I did,

1. You check whether it already exists in some other form of name
2. Consider what the best article name would be (it's not always obvious)
3. Create redirects from variants of the name (I did)
4. Add the article to the disambig page for common names (they often have these)
5. Add incoming links
6. Do a Google search and read the sources
7. Create offshoot articles (the Pears Institute)
8. Write the actual article
9. Format the content, particularly the books and add wikilinks
10. Add relevant categories
11. Create the talk page with project(s)

I took a lot of care with these - they were not thoughtlessly spat out as one line stubs at all and to be honest I resent the belittling of my work. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Our coverage of academics, particularly women is very poor on here. If philafrenzy could create them at a minimum length like Judith Colton, but with a few sentences also explaining what her work involves and why she is noteworthy of mentioning here, I'm sure Sandy wouldn't object. There does need to be a few facts given to make them worthwhile I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:37, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

That's fair comment, I could have done more, but I had already done everything mentioned above. Colton was then expanded by others as a result of my creation of the stub. Nobody else had got round to creating it in the last decade had they? Who knows how large any of them will get if someone will just start them? Philafrenzy (talk) 09:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I understand the exasperation with the extent of missing content. But to really make the stubs worthwhile I do think if you could at least say, for example: xxx is an American scholar and archaeologist, Professor in Linguistics at xxx university. A xxx graduate, she is particularly noted for her research into Mayan petroglyphs. In 1987 co-authored a book on the ancient practices of the Yucatan, after extensive of study of the xxx site in the mid 1980s. Since 2001 she has been a member of the American Linguistics Association, with whom she has published several textbooks for students. That sort of length with an understanding of why they are included in the encyclopedia is fine and productive IMO. They don't have to be meaty stubs, but really need some bare facts to work with for the readers I think. I made the mistake years back of "sub stub" creation, and in the long term it's not a good idea. There has to be a compromise. I find sub stubbing say 3-5, and then quickly going through them adding a bit of content and sources is the best way to be efficient on this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:06, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

That's good constructive advice. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

You can also quickly draw up book citations here which makes stub creation much for efficient. Sometimes you have to be careful with some of the google listings though, as occasionally errors are produced.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:15, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree, I use that app constantly but you have to check the content against the scanned page very carefully. The problem is in the underlying Google database. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Catching up, thank you Dr. Blofeld for making some headway here on what the serious, underlying problem is with this kind of (what I characterize as disruptive) editing.

As a content editor, I'm dismayed to see that what was once standard adminning (articles that don't establish notability were deleted, and editors who continue to put up articles that don't establish notability-- after being told of the problem-- are subject to being blocked for disruption) has changed to actually encouraging an editor to continue doing the same. This isn't the place for that discussion, but where this will lead in articles related to medicine will create boatloads of extra work for the rest of us, which brings me back around to the disruptive editing factor involved here.

Philafrenzy, you spent how much time laying out the amount of work it takes to create a bio stub above?? I'm sorry, but I do it all the time, I do it right (including cats, etc), and it takes me about 20 minutes to put up an article that establishes notability and won't require other editors to do MY work for me.

Here's the rub-- all the work that you are NOT doing is then work that others have to do when the new article pops on new article watch lists. How is it that your time is more important than the time of others? Is it just about quantity over quality? And if you were the subject of a BLP, would you be happy if someone put up a crap article on a highly trafficked website that became the first google hit and was riddled with maintenance tags? That is what you are doing to people.

You already knew the sources, you claim these people are notable, but you couldn't take the time to put that info in the articles so that I didn't have to expend time on searches, when I have no access to a university library?? Your argument that putting up a stub is time-consuming is bogus-- I do it, and I'm not even a good writer, so can you-- but your further argument that it takes too much time for you to do it right (followed by your query about editcountitis) is an insult to the rest of the editors who then have to take even MORE time to clean up after you.

Good on the old style admins like JzG-- who know what the standards once were in here-- and I say if you take the advice to continue doing more of same, you are engaging in disruptive editing. Establish notability on bios (not DGG's "presumed" notability) when you put them up. Your time is not more valuable than everyone else's here, and please ... take some pride in your work, at least when you are writing about living people. Please consider the quality of your work: if you can't do it for pride in your own work, then do it so you won't disrespect the rest of us (who have to clean up after you), and the subjects of the bios (who will find themselves with a first google hit to an article riddled with big ugly maintenance tags). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

@Philafrenzy: I recreated Julian Swann. If you can aim to produce them at the very least about that sort of length and comprehension, not even a meaty stub but with the bare essentials which are informative to the reader it really makes a big difference. I presume he's English, I'm not certain though so if you check I'd be grateful. It could really use some more independent sources though, the university and book are acceptable, but needs more third-party sources to really demonstrate notability, I couldn't seen a abundance of material about him initially, mainly references, but he does meet WP:Academic. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Dr., how long did that take you? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

About five-ten minutes I'd say to do a quick search and compile some basic facts and start it. Most of the later edits were tweaks/minor additions, checks/link corrections etc so maybe 20-30 minutes in total. When I'm editing though it really feels like five or 10 minutes at most. Well put it this way, if I quickly stubbed 3 or 4 or them, I reckon I could have them all up to a bare minimum acceptable stub, each with at least two sources in about 45 minutes, something like that. The problem with a lot of academics is that while they're undoubtedly notable authors of books/papers, a lot of them really lack biographical coverage and the "meat" you get with a lot of the really notable figures and lack an abundance of material written about them. In some cases I wonder if we'd be better off having articles on the Faculties of certain universities and bio summaries of the professors in them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know that there is any need to change the way we do business (bad cases make bad law, and I'm not sure we gain anything by using these samples to suggest there is anything wrong with our notability pages-- there is I suggest a problem with the message we have sent that the kind of editing evidenced in this thread is acceptable. Establishing notability should be the minimum acceptable threshold, and it is just not that hard. THEN, avoiding attack bios and BLP issues is another threshold, but I hope that message has been received by now).

But what I'm getting at here is that the first version someone puts up is then scanned and viewed by multiple other editors who review new pages, and it just doesn't take that long nor is it that hard to put up something that doesn't need maintenance tags, establishes notability, and then can be expanded without leaving a real, live person with a crap bio as the first hit on google. Ten to twenty minutes is not too long to spend on a bio of a real person who is affected by sloppy editing; anyone who can't take that time shouldn't be writing bios. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I just did a test Sandy and timed myself. It took between 10 and 11 minutes to create the initial stub for Sonya Rose, and about 3 minutes checking links and typos. Obviously I haven't looked further afield in google books or whatever yet but for that really bare minimum stub yes, little more than 10 minutes work.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your effort here, Dr.! (But add a few minutes for WikiProject and BLP tagging on the talk pages :) Of course, those can be done after the bio is put up, because the absence of them does not require article tagging ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:16, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Finished Sonya Rose, ideally that is the sort of new article would like to see, borderline start class, took 35-40 minutes in total, a lot of that time was reading/research too rather than actual writing. Something which makes it look like we understand who she is. But the 10 minute minimum stub is acceptable and quite manageable if you've got a few to create Phila, if the others are as notable as Sonya they would never have got deleted if you'd added some bare facts. If you want some assistance feel free to ask me, but I'm not going to recreate all of them!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:34, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Why, Dr., you deserve a barnstar! (Except an editor I respect told me that barnstars are for barns, and collecting them is Not A Good Thing :)

Now maybe you are just the person to explain to Philafrenzy that if he digests the message, I will have forgotten our differences a few days from now :) All the best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

• Phila, Adding a "linkrot" tag to an article that you just created yourself and on which you are the only editor seems kind of weird to me... It was removed 7 minutes later by somebody who made the (small) effort to run Reflinks. Now why couldn't you do that yourself, that only takes 30 sec... --Randykitty (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Romie Tager deletion review

A related admin question while we're here ... Romie Tager was closed at Deletion review about 12 hours ago, but it's still there. What's the next step, who does it, why hasn't it been done, etc? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

 Done Re-deleted. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Ooops, my bad. I closed the debate and didn't notice that it had been restored for the debate. Thanks for covering for me. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, David Eppstein. Would it be appropriate for someone to close this thread now? It looks like we're done here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:38, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Never mind; it looks like Philafrenzy would rather continue this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• I think we await your apology Sandy for sending us all on a wild goose chase. You seem so far to have escaped criticism for your mad conspiracy theory. No wonder you want this thread closed as quickly as possible. Will you apologise? Philafrenzy (talk) 14:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• I see your concern; I am so anxious to have the thread closed that it took me two days to come back here.

  Have you thanked all the editors who have cleaned up those articles after you? I just checked Dr. Blofeld's talk, and didn't find anything. In fact, all I find anywhere is a discussion between you and DGG indicating something would be better addressed in a phone conversation-- that's odd. [17]

  Did you learn anything about the quality of your contributions, Philafrenzy? I hope so. I learned a lot about speedy deletion criteria, which were never engaged by me, but by JzG. I suggest your wild goose chase wasn't mine, but someone else's. As a result of this, should you adjust your writing, you could gain my respect, and maybe even a recognition of the value of your contributions. As it stands, I suspect you are infected with the DYK-inspired "quantity over quality" issue. Based on that latest post, I don't hold out any hope that your contributions will improve, but please do surprise me! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• I see it's everyone fault but your own. Even JzG. You should apologise for wasting a huge amount of volunteer time based on nothing but a mad theory from your own feverish imagination, but it's clear you won't and, sadly, I am not surprised by that. Philafrenzy (talk) 15:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• You make an excellent point. Perhaps next time, rather than raising a valid concern at the appropriate forum, I'll pick up the phone and call an arb. You may have the last word. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Deletion reviews

I have just brought 6 deletion reviews for the articles that have still not been restored.

• Wikipedia:Deletion review#John H. Arnold (historian)
• Wikipedia:Deletion review#David Feldman (historian)
• Wikipedia:Deletion review#Frank Trentmann
• Wikipedia:Deletion review#Dominic Rathbone
• Wikipedia:Deletion review#Katherine Edwards (historian)
• Wikipedia:Deletion review#Vanessa Harding (historian) DGG ( talk ) 05:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I would be grateful is some other admin would restore the histories for discussion. DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Tendentious editor threatens editors with mentioning them on external attack site

• No, it's not resolved, please see below. Bishonen | talk 00:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC).

AnnalesSchool is a long-term tendentious editor who is chronically attacking his perceived opponents. In his latest outburst he mentions that an external website which is probably connected to him is going to mention us and is calling his opponents "nuts" and "off our rocker": You two are off your rocker! You are both nuts! I suggest you visit www.comandosupremo.com/. Your article is mentioned there and there may be a few comments about you two pretty soon. The last thread on Talk:Greco-Italian War is littered with his attacks and crass sarcasm and I have given him level 4 NPA warnings on his talkpage in the past and in the latest thread at Talk:Greco-Italian War. His incivilities are too numerous to mention. The project is littered with the his widespread atacks. But I will provide another example of his vile attacks: He had told editor Cplakidas at Talk:Greco-Italian War: Sounds like you actually admire the Germans a lot more because they were more brutal and efficient. Do you happen to have a masochistic bent?. I ask that this editor be blocked for serially violating NPA, CIV, AGF and being tendentious as well as threatening other editors with mentioning them on external attack sites. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Details about the external attack site

The external attack website AnnalesSchool maintains and uses to attack Wikipedia editors is called www.comandosupremo.com and his attack article is here: What is wrong with many Wikipedia articles dealing with war-time Italy? in which he mentions: This particular article is held hostage by a small clique of Grecophiles with Greek-sounding usernames who have simply confiscated the entire article and laid claim to all editorial rights to it (which is against Wiki policy) so that it is well nigh impossible to actually improve and cleanse it of its many defects. It would better to delete such articles entirely and start again. But what is really sad is that these so-called “editors”, who are obviously amateurs with little idea how historical articles should be structured and presented in a balanced way, are not even aware of the damage they are doing to Wikipedia’s reputation. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. I've seen AnnalesSchool's editing in Military history of Italy during World War II (e.g. [18] , [19]). He is very set on focusing on the specific school in history that "rehabilitates" Italy's military reputation. He does use sources, and it is a historical school that deserves to be mentioned and discussed on Wikipedia, but it's also a school that self-admittedly portrays itself as the "underdog" against the "established history", which implies that Wikipedia should still focus on the mainstream historical assessment, which all sides can agree is less kind to evaluating the effectiveness of the Italian military. I think AnnalesSchool is still potentially a valuable editor so long as he or she is reminded that the "revisionist" claims are not necessarily right and shouldn't be included as a new revealed gospel truth, but merely as a notable alternate view. SnowFire (talk) 00:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• But this report is not about AnnalesSchool's adherence to a particular school of historical thought. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

This report also shouldn't be about what an editor says on an off-Wikipedia website. The only time I've seen off-Wikipedia posting considered is if the editor outs another editor on their blog or website but that is not the case here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

So an editor is allowed to threaten other Wikipedia editors with on-wiki comments like this: Your article is mentioned there and there may be a few comments about you two pretty soon. which use an external attack site as the threat? And this report is not only about the external attack site but also about the serial incivility of AnnalesSchool. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Before looking at the comandosupremo page, I questioned your conclusions — why would you allege a connection? Without a connection, this kind of statement is basically "look what an idiot they think you are, and what idiots they think the Wikipedia community is". But when the article's written by someone called "Annales" who, from his first sentence, is obviously involved as a Wikipedia editor, I see no reason to doubt the connection. It's not an attack page, or anything else prohibited by our policies, but I see this as playing into a general pattern of disruption. I see one clearly bad edit (the diff immediately after "AnnalesSchool's editing in") and lots of warnings on his talk page, but what about other problems? Given the warnings, if he's really being disruptive, there's no reason not to block if he keeps on going, but I don't want to block unless you can show me that this really is a pattern of behavior, either long-term or just recently. Nyttend (talk) 01:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I've alerted User:TomStar81 to this post: he's followed up on previous problems with AnnalesSchool's editing. As a comment, the problems with this editor's POV pushing, personal attacks and misrepresentation of sources have been long running. Liz is mistaken in saying that conduct such as what's being reported here isn't actionable: using off-Wikipedia websites to attack other editors, and threaten those editors personally, has a significant chilling effect and any number of previous instances have been treated as the harassment for which it is. This has included arbitration cases and bans. Nick-D (talk) 01:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd welcome his input. I don't see this as harassment, per se, but simply as a significant example of disruptive, non-collegial behavior. If this statement had instead been posted here on Wikipedia, we wouldn't sanction him for that alone: we'd give him a stern WP:NOTFORUM warning (not applicable for anything off-wiki), but we wouldn't block him unless it was part of a pattern of problematic editing. Why should his careful and repeated use of his off-wiki webpage be treated any differently? It's not something that needs to be considered especially bad or considered irrelevant, since he's repeatedly referring to it as part of his arguments. If Tom (or someone else) can establish a pattern of Annales having been uncoöperative and causing general problems, the use of the external website will be an example of why a block for general disruption will be a good idea. Nyttend (talk) 01:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

The comments on the external site are disparaging for the Wikipedia editors describing them as ...so-called “editors”, who are obviously amateurs with little idea how historical articles should be structured and presented in a balanced way. He also mentioned on-wiki that ...there may be a few comments about you two pretty soon.. If that's not harassment and intimidation I don't know what is. He also called Cplakidas a "masochist" for not agreeing with his POV. His pattern of abuse, harassment and incivility is very loud and long. Also if an editor kept a similar page on wiki disparaging editors that way the page would have been deleted as an attack page and the editor warned or blocked. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

So, should every editor who posts disparaging comments on Wikipediocracy forums about users also face a block? WP:ANI doesn't police the internet and block editors based on critical comments they make about Wikipedia unless they "out" other editors. Such conduct might be considered in an ArbCom cases which examines a wider variety of evidence among involved parties in a case but it shouldn't be considered here. This blog entry that is linked to doesn't even identify editors by name! It should be considered free speech or else WP is going down a rabbit hole that would allow sanctioning many editors and admins here for comments made off-Wikipedia about Wikipedia matters. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:11, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

How many editors have you witnessed here where they threaten another editor on-wiki that they will go to Wikipediocracy to attack them? Plus he is describing editors' usernames in such detail (Greek-sounding etc.) and also the article involved which makes it easy to identify the users involved. Also don't forget he has directly threatened us that he will mention us by name. Again, I don't know of any Wikipediocracy member who has directly threatened someone on-wiki that he will be mentioned on their website externally and after calling them "nuts" and "off their rocker". Do you not see his use of that website in addition to his personal attacks as a means of intimidating his perceived opponents? Because for sure he does. I remind you of what he said: You two are off your rocker! You are both nuts! I suggest you visit www.comandosupremo.com/. Your article is mentioned there and there may be a few comments about you two pretty soon. The bolded part is an unmistakable threat and he uses his website as part of that threat during a discussion on an article talkpage as a form of intimidation and, more ominously, to gain advantage in the discussion. He knows that and that's why he uses it. Can you not see it? The website and his connection to him are also relevant because he has used a sockpuppet to promote it. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 13:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• The editor should be indeffed until the threat is withdrawn and an understanding of the need for collaboration is shown. The above comment about "what an editor says on an off-Wikipedia website" is totally invalid because a glance at the first link above shows that AnnalesSchool was making an on-wiki threat that certain editors would be attacked off-wiki. Johnuniq (talk) 02:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
• <sigh> @AnnalesSchool:, we discussed this issue before, have we not? That there is, and there ever shall be, two sides to the coin that we call "truth": the truth as you see it (or I see it, or any of the above editors see it), and the facts as they are. Did I not caution that adherence to the truth as you saw it would cause more problems for you in the long run? We are here because you heard what was being said, but you did not listen to what has been said. Despite the fact that you are editing the encyclopedia and doing so on a cluster of articles concerning Italy in World War II you have not absorbed the message left by Benito Mussolini's fascist party: any group that attempts to impose an iron will without regard for the traditions of the people or the system they come from will eventually be ousted by the will of the people. Consequently, for the second time in recent history, we are left the issue of isolationist edits to the articles and declarations by you of a small group of editors who will not permit your edits in the article, but such a declaration, stripped of all disguise, is surely the mere primitive doctrine that justice favors the strongest of the two parties in a conflict. Just as I had prophesied, your own edits are now causing the public opinion here to turn against you.

In you hands, my dissatisfied editor, and not our, is the momentous issue of an edit war. Wikipedia and Wikipedians will not support you. You have no warrant issued by any school of historical thought to rewrite our articles for the sake of correcting a perceived slight against your subject on our serves, while I as an administrator am called to meet the challenge of a most solemn oath to preserve, protect, and defend the material on this site that others may share in and learn from the knowledge gathered here over these last fourteen years. I am burdened by the weight of the summons to this forum. We are not enemies, but editors. We must no be enemies. Though our approaches to a common problem may differ, anger and resentment must not replace discussion and consensus. Maturity on Wikipedia is therefore reached at the moment when one can recognize this system and work with it to achieve the goals they set for themselves. End this immature behavior here, before others taken action to end it on your behalf. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Is the website in question really an "attack site"? Well, this is how the editor in question criticizes a fellow academic at that website, who writes an article about the performance of the Italian military in a specific World War II battle: "Oh how I wish I could have tied this boy-wonder naked to a mule and promenaded him through the mountain passes for mine-clearing duties with the Italian troops laughing behind!" AnnalesSchool is an editor who openly yearns for the death of those he disagrees with, and threatens Wikipedia editors with comparable online attacks. Not cool for either the victim or the mule. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Omg. Can we indef this creep now? There is no doubt in my mind that if I took this to WP:AE (as Greco-Italian War) falls under WP:ARBMAC, thisuser would be indef topic banned in short order. The problem with that is that it would only cover Greco-Italian War and he would continue his crusae to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS in other topic areas, such as the North African campaign. Athenean (talk) 04:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Er... um... ouch! I'm compelled to !vote indef. There's something very wrong with the 'contributor' in question. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Annales is, sadly, a missed opportunity. There is no question that the basis of his argument has merit: there is a bias against WWII-era Italy, and it should be corrected so that a fuller and more accurate picture can emerge. The problem is, he is not interested in simply adjusting the historical narrative, he is interested in overturning it altogether and make the Italians victors and victims at the same time, absolving them of any mistake or guilt. In his period of activity here, he has been engaged solely on this one topic, and has come into conflict with pretty much every other editor involved in these articles; he has used sarcasm, thinly-veiled insults, baited other editors with offensive remarks, used self-published sources, distorted the basic chronology of events, etc ad nauseam. And now it is shown that he is an active member of a website that suspiciously tends to emphasize the Fascist element in WWII-era Italy (I happen to know the site before its redesign, and its pro-Fascist tendency is much clearer when one looks at older versions, e.g. March 2006), and where he engages in heaping pejorative adjectives on any scholar who disagrees with his POV. His comment at the diff given above by Dr.K really sums up his attitude: "better to be occupied by a more humane and honorable enemy like the Italian Army". Ergo Italians=good, all others either bad or stupid for not surrendering to them first rather than the Germans, who were worse. The myth of the "good Italian" driven to its extreme conclusion, mixed with not a little nostalgia for Mussolini and his regime... Whatever good might come out of his contributions is not worth the drama it generates. Constantine ✍ 08:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

"THere is a bias against World War II Italy" - You mean that we are determined to call Mussolini a fasscist dictator? .... or what? If Italy didn't want "negative" articles in Wikipedia perhaps it shouldn't have put the Fascists into power and then, just as things were going as badly as they could possibly go, conveniently switched sides to the Allies. Unfortunately for the consciences of the Italiian people, their decisions were at every instance a day late and a dollar short, and their motivations were about as base as they could be. BMK (talk) 10:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

There is a clear pattern by AnnalesSchool to try to attack the "psychology" of his opponents cf. the quote above where he calls us "off our rocker" and "nuts" and also consider this attack from 23 January 2015:

What were his motives, and the motives of wiki editors like himself who feel it to be their moral duty to denigrate and belittle the Italian war effort at every turn?; who continue to cherry-pick quotes and information designed to put the Italians in a bad light, come what may? The psychology of such people is interesting, to say the least.

Please see also the link above where he asks Cplakidas "if he has a masochistic bent". It is a clear case of WP:NOTHERE. In no collaborative project that I know of, editors engage in deliberate and longterm campaigns of psychological warfare against those they perceive as their opponents. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 11:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Here he is modifying straight quotes from inside RS citations with edit-summary: toning down some of the gratuitous rhetoric. While here he is the exponent of WP:TRUTH: Please put aside your strident Greek nationalism and start to accept reality and historical truth for a change. and also here: What in heaven's name are you actually objecting to? The truth?. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 11:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: The bias is that a large chunk of literature portrays the Italians as blundering, incompetent fools, and that this portrayal often descends to stereotyping and even caricature. The problem with Annales is that instead of taking an opportunity to rectify such cases with reference to more nuanced sources, he uses the prevalence of this portrayal as an excuse to dismiss everyone who dares to suggest that Italy's war effort was more than somewhat mismanaged at the strategic, operational and tactical levels, and that they had to be carried to victory by the Germans in France, Greece and North Africa. Constantine ✍ 11:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked. Come on, Liz. Dr K wasn't talking about what an editor says on an off-Wikipedia website (other than to give background = showing the kind of off-wiki comments Dr K and Athenean are being threatened with), which is indeed not our business, he was talking about what the editor was threatening, on Wikipedia, to say on an off-Wikipedia website. To say about two specific editors, note. Now that people have pointed out the difference, is it so hard to back down? We all read too fast sometimes, and for you to double down with non-sequitur nonsense questions like "So, should every editor who posts disparaging comments on Wikipediocracy forums about users also face a block?" is disappointing. I agree with Johnuniq that the editor should be indeffed until the threat is withdrawn and an understanding of the need for collaboration is shown, and I have so proceeded. Blocked indefinitely for threats and intimidation, as here. They can be unblocked, just as John says, if they withdraw the threat and show understanding of the need for collaboration, also for avoiding personalisation of conflicts. I think User:Dr.K.'s description of "vile attacks" from the user recently is overly colourful, considering that all the users on Talk:Greco-Italian War speak rather angrily — the subject is clearly sensitive — but there's certainly inappropriate personalising: ""Do you happen to have a masochistic bent?" — "Fellas fellas, calm down. … What have you to fear? … Are you really that insecure?". And there's clumsy sarcasm too, as "the greatest of great Greek victories… I do not wish in any way to "tarnish" the great and magnificent victory of the Greeks … So, perhaps we can reach a consensus here and change the wording to include the above phrase by Stockings so that the reader is absolutely clear that it was and will forever be the "great victory" of the Greeks over the Italians, but perhaps explain to the reader that this greatest of great victories did come with a certain cost to the greatest army in the world, which as we all know, is the Greek Army." Note @ User:Dr.K., I haven't studied the matter of the purported sock, could you take it to WP:SPI please? Bishonen | talk 16:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC).

• Bish, I clearly was a lone voice making an argument to a larger group of editors asking for a block. I was merely voicing an apparently unpopular opinion that you discounted. I think it is important for editors to be able to speak up against the tide of a conversation and dissent from the call for editors' heads on a pike. I thought a lot was being made of of an off-Wikipedia blog post when I seen so much worse things pointedly stated about editors, that is how I read the situation. I'm just one editor and I don't expect other people to agree with me! I don't know what to make of you saying you are disappointed in me. I have only heard that said to me by my family. ;-) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Liz, I think you're actually remembering a more heroic, more classic, narrative, where your lone voice stands up for the unpopular opinion, holds back the tide, than can actually be seen above.

Dr. K. posted a report actually asking for a block, yes, but then SnowFire said AnnalesSchool was a valuable editor, albeit they might need reminding of some things. And then you nailed your colours to the mast. There was no reason to think your position unpopular at that point, and I don't think there had been any calls for editor's heads on a pike either. (But thank you for not mentioning pitchforks, always appreciated). The larger group came later, and with them, possibly, a little neap tide.

If you're interested, take a look at AnnalesSchool's talkpage before I removed tpa — chiefly, look at the history— and see if you feel like defending them some more. My disappointment probably wasn't much like your family's: I was disappointed in your logic. I've never met a family who cares about that. Bishonen | talk 23:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC).

For the record: I said potentially a valuable editor. As is I'd have been fine with all of AnnalesSchool's edits being immediately reverted, to be clear, but he didn't strike me as totally irredeemable. SnowFire (talk) 16:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Potentially yes. But, he spent a year here arguing with editors and screaming about bias, yet inserted his own bias into articles. For an editor who claimed to be a professor of history, he lacked critial thinking abilities, an understanding that you have to support your arguments with sources, or how how "trivial" incidents are linked together (his comments about Sica critizing the Italian army lacking decent uniforms, socks, and boots for fighting in the Alps are very illuminating about this point, since he decided to omit the several thousand dead troops who died due to the elements and the few thousand frostbite victims!). He had a problem with anyone who wasnt Italian, since they were corrupt or had been corrupted by "Anglo" writers (two exceptions: his hypocrtical use of Weinberg - good when he suppprts him, another terrible Anglo when he wasnt, and the other was a revisionist historian), but has his slander article on Commando Supremo show, even Italian historians were not safe.

The only potential this racist nationalist editor had was to help highlight areas to improve or provide access to underused Italian sources, but he didn't do either of these: he caused fights, attempted to take credit when articles were improved, and now he has been blocked is using an external site to attempt to get his own way.165.166.215.220 (talk) 18:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Use of sockpuppet

• Here sockpuppet Csupremo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) promotes links to , you guessed it, AnnalesSchool's website "commando supremo.com". He does the same here with edit-summary: An extensive well researched article on the operation. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 11:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • As the last outstanding issue has been appropriately raised at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AnnalesSchool, I've marked this thread resolved. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Ncvm, it is resolved, I've just got a coda: I think I was too optimistic about AnnalesSchool being unblocked any time soon, as he has posted further insults and threats against fellow editors on his page in response to my block notice. Bishonen | talk 19:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC).

Issue for the foundation arising out of this

I really have to go to bed now, but the blocked AnnalesSchool, using an IP on my page, has made some further threats that perhaps the foundation should know about:

"I have decided to expose and name (with links) these miscreants on the ComandoSupremo site, and other wiki editors who have demonstrated a track record of heavy bias and non-neutrality, which will include their entries in the articles themselves and talk pages. I regret having to do this, but my colleagues and I see no other way forward. Until you admin people wake up and actually read the articles dealing with Italy more closely and critically, then this whole issue will not go away. The problems of sockpuppery, vandalism, having to protect pages, and a whole raft of other problems will continue."

"Expose and name". Maybe there's something WMF can do — contact the website's service provider, get it taken down? I've blocked the IP, but the text remains on my page (at least at this moment). It seems to me that the foundation should try to protect out editors against this kind of thing. I'm really asleep at this point. Bishonen | talk 00:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC).

Just FYI, the last time I tried to contact WMF Legal, I got a form e-mail (which didn't even fit the circumstances I described) in return. I don't count myself on their list of admirers -- but isn't Moonriddengirl an ombudsman or something like that? BMK (talk) 00:57, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

@Moonriddengirl: Anything we can do here that we are not already doing? TomStar81 (Talk) 06:35, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

BMK, well, yes. I've written to User:Philippe (WMF) just in case he can do something, but I don't expect much. He's on vacation, too, per his userpage. I've reverted the stuff on my page, where AnnalesSchool's IP tells me what admins are going to have to do to stop ComandoSupremo from toppling Wikipedia. Bishonen | talk 08:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC).

Hmmm, I'll check, but honestly - I'm not really hopeful. We don't have great luck in getting sites to remove things of this nature. Usually complaints from one of the named parties go a bit farther, but I'll see what I can scrounge up today. Also, just as a note: Moonriddengirl is her personal username. For work things, it's often best to ping Mdennis (WMF). Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 08:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I just had a look at the site in question but see nothing there that goes beyond the limits of normal criticism and legitimate free speech, so I really think trying to take off-wiki action against that website would be useless and ill-advised. Nothing against the block for aggressive on-wiki behaviour, of course. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:16, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

FYI, the former user has now started "naming and shaming": taking quotes out of context alongside usernames. He concludes "I believe it is important to keep a record of such “fair and balanced” editors like Dr K, BMK and Alexikoua. But there are others (also with Greek-sounding usernames) who should be exposed for the frauds they really are." and "But stay tuned, because there will be more to come. I have only exposed a few of this miscreants. Others will follow". Surely this is crossing a line in regards to free speech? Not to mention seems to be inviting harassment for wiki users, cyber bulling comes to mind.

If any of his readers actually read his edits to the wiki they would see that he is pretty full of it, but I digress.2600:1015:B108:1B8A:24F7:5F5D:6E26:65E8 (talk) 15:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Geez, if only he wasn't highlighting a comment of mine that, in its raw form, was described as deserving an "award for 'worst written post by an experienced editor'." (I agreed). Even with the grammar and spelling cleaned up, it's hardly my best work -- and now, here it is, in the spotlight, under the hot white scrutiny of disambiguated media. Such is life!

(BTW, I don't think I've ever edited any articles on Italy in WWII, so it's all pretty irrelevant anyway. I should hop to it and get to work making unfair and unbalanced POV edits to live up to my new reputation.) BMK (talk) 20:57, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Battleground behavior by user Hijiri88, proposing topic ban

The user Hijiri88 posted this message today on the talk page of the article Korean influence on Japanese culture. He says that he will not speak to me anymore regarding an on-going content dispute and will instead ask for me to be topic-banned. However, my edits are constructive and it's hard to see what justification there is for Hijiri's attitude here. There is good reason to believe that the greater problems lie with Hijiri. Therefore, I am in turn requesting a topic ban for Hijiri from the article "Korean influence on Japanese culture" as a result of problematic behavior over the past year, including a very long-term pattern of incivility and battleground behavior. Although Hijiri has exhibited similar behavior in some other articles, cataloging it all would take too long, so I'll keep it relatively short and stick to issues relating to this one article.

Recently the user TH1980 began to make some reliably-sourced additions to the article Korean influence on Japanese culture, but Hijiri immediately began edit warring with him without consensus to delete the material. He reverted the same material TH1980 and I were adding five times in a 24-hour period. While reverting, Hijiri made uncivil and false claims in his edit summaries, repeatedly accusing TH1980 of being a sockpuppet despite having no evidence to support his claim. Hijiri also made uncivil comments to him in the talk page, including asking TH1980, "Who are you, and which other accounts have you used?"

If Hijiri was just having one bad day it would be different, but this has actually been going on for months and months. To see how long this has been going on, consider that way back in June of 2014 Hijiri created an attack page in his sandbox. The page had no purpose but to defame other Wikipedia users who had edited the article Korean influence on Japanese culture as being "POV pushers" and "sockpuppets". This attack page still exists, and now TH1980 is also on the list, who Hijiri claims is an "anti-Japanese" sockpuppet. It needs to be stressed that Hijiri has offered no proof for his nasty accusations and none of these users were ever proven to have engaged in sockpuppetry.

I imagine TH1980, as a Wikipedia user in good standing, wanted to play a productive role in editing the article, but how can he work with Hijiri when Hijiri assumes bad faith so openly that Hijiri repeatedly accuses him of being a sockpuppet to his face? I joined the conversation later and after making one constructive comment Hijiri immediately threatened me, telling me, "you need to be blocked per WP:CIR immediately". Hijiri continued to speak to me in an uncivil manner, including his comments like "learn to speak frickin' English" and "Please learn to speak English". I know how to speak English, so how many times is he going to tell me that? He also said, "I was about to close this comment with "you bloody buffoon"". By saying this, he actually did close the comment with "you bloody buffoon". He told me, "Why can't you get it through your thick skull" that Yamanoe Okura was not a Korean, in spite of the fact that numerous reliable sources, including the Cambridge History of Japan and articles by Roy Andrew Miller, do describe him as "a Korean". When I thanked TH1980 for his edits, Hijiri left a threatening message on my talk page and told me to "grow the hell up". He then made a completely fallacious statement and told me "if you are too stupid to understand that ... well". He openly assumes bad faith when he tells me, "I am only agreeing to post this here... so that constructive discussion can take place on the talk page. You have already demonstrated that you are incapable of this."

Now take a look at this clearly-disruptive comment he posted directly into the article. Hijiri deleted a reliable source while claiming that it was "twisted to say what the Korean ultranationalists who still seem to be running this page wanted it to say". Actually, Hijiri seems to accuse everyone who disagrees with him of POV-pushing or having a hidden agenda. Hijiri claimed that the reason why a "Chinese influence on Japanese culture" article does not exist is because "Chinese nationalists are apparently not insecure enough that they need to go onto English Wikipedia and denigrate another country's culture". At the same time in a related article he again called TH1980 a "Korean/anti-Japanese POV-pushing SPA" and called me an "incompetent user". He constantly accuses people who disagree with him of racism. He has accused both TH1980 and myself of "borderline racism". However, as the user Andrew Davidson said to Hijiri in one discussion about the article, "As for righting great wrongs, you seem to be the one on a mission".

On top of all this, perhaps one of the most serious problems with Hijiri's conduct on the article is his constant use of intimidation and threats against people he disagrees with. I myself have been threatened by him with administrative action literally over a dozen times in this particular article, including on these two occasions among others... "you would probably need to be either banned or blocked. You managed to avoid this result last time", and "I would take you to ANI and ask for a topic-ban, but on what topic would such a ban be? ALL Wikipedia editors are permanently banned from "original research" to begin with. Is it a block you want?" What is notable about these two threats is that they were issued against me BEFORE I had even edited the article in question. I was threatened with administrative action only because I commented on the article. I have never been blocked from Wikipedia before, so there is no reason why I should have been threatened this many times. Incidentally, Hijiri was warned by another user about making threats against me on a different article, but despite this Hijiri can barely make a single post nowadays without threatening me with administrative sanctions.

Hijiri also has problems with using sources, which he often does not read before citing. Perhaps most egregious of all was a whopping 1,000 word post he made rebutting an article which he admits at the beginning "I haven't read". It's a waste of others users time when Hijiri spends so long critiquing sources he hasn't even read. Unlike Hijiri I had read the article in question, so I quoted a relevant section to him. Surely a normal user would have thanked me for verifying the source, but Hijiri just launched into a long tirade against me. Again he accuses me of original research just for quoting a scholarly work in the talk page. Even when I told Hijiri that he should only criticize sources after reading them he responded "the only legal way I can access most of these English-language academic sources from American and European publishers is by ordering them off Amazon... how may I ask do you expect me to judge these sources on their own merits?." Why does Hijiri delete and criticize sources he has not read? Well, once recently the user Nishidani added new information into the article on Yamanoe no Okura and Hijiri immediately began to delete portions of it. After being questioned about the matter by Nishidani, Hijiri admitted that he had deleted the sourced information because he had mistakenly believed that I was the one who had added it to the article. Hijiri notes here he was aware that it "violates AGF to assume Curtis has misread and misunderstood a source I haven't myself read". I think it's natural Wikipedia policy, however, that sources cited should be read and judged on their own merits. One shouldn't delete reliably sourced information just because one doesn't like the editor who puts it in the article, as Hijiri fully admits to doing here.

As you can see, a large percentage of the comments Hijiri made in the talk page, and even in the article itself, are hostile and abusive. Furthermore. Hijiri has done very little to improve the article. Virtually all his edits to the article are just reckless blankings and deletions even of sourced text. Sometimes he is so eager to delete things that he cuts sentences right in half making their meaning incomprehensible. Wikipedia is supposed to be based on collaborative editing, but Hijiri spends more of his time trying to intimidate other users than collaborate with them. I would like the admins to review the above evidence and ask the question as to whether this uncivil and overly confrontational behavior is actually constructive to the goal of improving the article rather than being disruptive.

• Support topic ban as the proposer.CurtisNaito (talk) 20:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, I read your entire argument which is well constructed. My question is, how broad or how narrow is the topic ban you are proposing? Is it only for this article or are you arguing for a topical area that would contain multiple articles? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

When I was reading the page, it didn't have Snow Rise's comment and your response posted but that is what I was trying to address with my comment. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I think he should be page-banned from the article Korean influence on Japanese culture. To be honest, I considered asking for something broader, but I was worried the admins wouldn't read it all, because there was an awful lot of dubious behavior to document. Therefore, I decided to stay focused only on issues relating to this one page. If you look below, user Snow Rise says, "I would have supported a topic ban on subjects relating to Japanese history and culture, broadly construed". Therefore, I am proposing only a page ban, whereas Snow Rise appears to be proposing a wide-ranging topic ban. Which of these two ultimately occurs is something that I will leave to the discretion of the relevant admins.CurtisNaito (talk) 22:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support While the above is a tad TLDR, it builds a convincing case that Hijiri is not here to work with others, but has major WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:OWNership issues. It does look like he's deliberately making it impossible for others to contribute to the article, and the unsubstantiated accusations and rude, dismissive comments, as well his behavior in the actual article text itself, indicates to me that he needs to be removed from this topic so quality work can commence. As someone who has never edited the area before, I don't have a pony in this race, but the behavior outlined above, as evidenced by the diffs, is unacceptable. --Jayron32 20:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, if you want I can shorten it down. What parts are most pertinent?CurtisNaito (talk) 20:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support I am not a Korean/anti-Japanese POV pusher. Edits like this suggest Hijiri is not editing constructively. A topic ban would be the right solution here.TH1980 (talk) 21:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I assume you are aware now that Hijiri88 has attacked you directly in his sandbox as well. My belief is that that whole page is an attack page which should be deleted.CurtisNaito (talk) 21:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

@CurtisNaito That is just deplorable on Hijiri88's part. I agree that his sandbox page should be deleted.TH1980 (talk) 02:41, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I should add that, in spite of Hijiri's constant threats to have me topic-banned, it seems to me that Hijiri is more prone to dubious behavior than I am. Just within the last few months Hijiri has been described by other respected Wikipedia users as an editor who does not demonstrate "basic competence as per WP:CIR"(John Carter), who displays "gross incivility"(John Carter), who makes statements exhibiting "a powerful confirmation bias on this matter or, at worst, a willful misrepresentation"(Snow Rise), who adopts a "WP:BATTLEGROUND outlook" to editing(Snow Rise), who insults other users and degrades their nationality(Catflap08), who makes "tendentious" edits(Erpert), and who was told, under threat of sanctions, to "adopt a more collaborative approach to editing."(SilkTork) I have not verified the accuracy of all of these allegations, but even so Hijiri's threats and personal attacks against other editors are surely not collaborative behavior.CurtisNaito (talk) 21:24, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Those quotes from John Carter should be stricken out. He himself was demonstrating CIR issues and "gross incivility" in that dispute, and using his disruptive tactics as "evidence" only hurts your case. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 04:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support Technically this is a pageban, not a topic ban. Personally, I would have supported a topic ban on subjects relating to Japanese history and culture, broadly construed, since this is obviously an area where Hijiri cannot edit collaboratively with others and I suspect we shall be seeing him here again soon on a similar topic. But I agree that CN has made his case here, and I have now seen enough content/personal disputes involving Hijiri on the noticeboards and elsewhere to know how willing he is to misrepresent the record to try to shoehorn in his preferred approach to content, sometimes seemingly without fully realizing that he is spinning the facts. A message needs to be sent here, since Hijiri has a tendency to pretty much universally reject or rationalize away any criticism of his behaviour. Snow ^{let's rap} 22:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking of proposing that, but I didn't largely because I think the admins, in accordance with TLDR, often stop reading a post when it becomes too long. I think Hijiri has engaged in the same sorts of battleground behavior in other articles, but documenting that would take so long that no admin would want to read it all.CurtisNaito (talk) 22:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the noticeboards have already seen an abundance of evidence of Hijiri's tendentiousness in this area. But as he is facing a pageban here and the possibility of two more in a thread above, I hope he will take the message with whatever narrower sanctions he might receive (or narrowly avoid, if that proves the case) and try to reach towards consensus and middle-ground solutions instead of the type of approach that has brought him here repeatedly. If he doesn't, I'm sure someone will propose a broader TBAN next time he is back here (as it will probably be for issues in the same content area). But as to the TLDR, yeah, I would definitely work on streamlining your presentation next time you might have to post here, even if you have a lot of evidence to provide; I very likely would not have slogged through all of that if I had not been pinged and was not familiar with the editor in question. Snow ^{let's rap} 22:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, I could delete or box some of it now if you want. You said before that you support my proposal, so what was it from the above post that convinced you? If there are some parts which are not relevant, I can take them out now if you want.CurtisNaito (talk) 22:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support Topic Ban (non admin) After reading what CurtisNaito wrote, and looking at the diffs, there is no question that an Topic ban is needed, and it should be an indef one. After reading a few sections dealing with Hijiri88 behaviour I believe a indef topic ban broadly defined is in order, but the op didnt ask for it. Violations of WP:CIVIL, WP:HARASS and WP:NPA by Hijiri88 have clearly been shown. AlbinoFerret 23:46, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
• Note My "battleground behaviour" has been limited to telling CurtisNaito he is misusing sources and pointing out that many of the other editors he agrees with are obvious sockpuppets. I have spent almost two years trying to explain Wikipedia's sourcing policies to CurtisNaito, and he still doesn't get it. If anyone needs a topic ban it's CurtisNaito from ancient history articles. He has been wasting a massive amount of time on the part of other, more constructive editors like me, User:Nishidani and User:Sturmgewehr88. It's also worth noting that several of the other editors supporting a TBAN for me (Snow Rise and AlbinoFerret) clearly haven't read the talk page discussion in question and are only here as revenge for another dispute currently at the top of this page.because they have made a radically inaccurate assumption about my "disruptive behaviour" on other articles (they were both radically wrong there too -- Ctrl+F this page for "underlying content dispute") and assumed the same is true here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:06, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me, "revenge"? Would you care to strike that comment, please? I have never been in any kind of content or personal dispute with you anywhere on the project, and every single time I have taken part in a community discussion involving you, it has been because A) I was pinged there -- and three of those pings were made by you (1,2, 3), apparently because you thought my support for the content argument you made would extend to support for your behaviour broadly, which it did not and which I kept telling you well past each of those pings and your efforts to imply to others that my perspectives supported yours) -- and B) the discussion was taking place in a central community forum anyway. To the best of my knowledge AlbinoFerret has also never been in a content dispute with you for which he would be seeking revenge, nor do either of us have the least bit of history of developing content or policy disputes into personal grudges (ironically the very behaviour that has brought you to these noticeboards repeatedly and which you have been warned about by administrators (I have never in my time editing on the project been accused of such behaviour and certainly never received an administrative warning of that nature, nor of any sort, ever). Contrary to your statement (which is predicated on a claim to knowledge you could not possibly have) I did read over the discussions and evidence presented here in detail, and issued my opinion accordingly, which is the sum total of any "involvement" I've ever had with you anywhere.

This kind if behaviour (misrepresenting the perspectives of other editors and the motives of the community members that try to rein you in) is exactly the kind of thing that has made you the subject of so many different community discussions and administrative efforts to control your tendency to needlessly personalize discussions and adopt a battleground perspective to those who don't agree with you or are have concerns about the amount of editorial energy that gets sucked up by your combative behaviour -- and threads on that topic are essentially the full extent of my experience with you. So, what exactly am I meant to be seeking "revenge" for? Please be advised that making accusations of bad-faith actions for which you cannot provide evidence in the forms of diffs is considered a WP:Personal attack under policy, so if this is really the road you want to go down, feel free to see where it gets you; I guaruntee you that it's not going to help your case in this thread...

In the meantime, your efforts at misdirection and misrepresentation of other community members, which grow increasingly thin in general, have in this case devolved into outright lies about the degree and nature of my involvement with you on this project, so I would very much appreciate a retraction. And if you don't want my honest opinion of your behaviour, stop pinging me into discussions that review your behaviour as someone who supposedly will corroborate your positions! Snow ^{let's rap} 02:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Fine. Maybe not "revenge". You radically misread the Kokuchukai dispute as being a content dispute between two users with opposing POVs (as has the user you think has a POV opposibg mune) and the exact same thing has happened here. CurtisNaito thinks @Nishidani:, @Sturmgewehr88: and I believe Korean influence on Japan is minimal, but none of us have ever actually said we believe that. We believe CurtisNaito has WP:COMPETENCE issues regarding how to read and cite sources and have grown incredibly frustrated trying to explain WP:PST and WP:V (among others) to him. (Ironically, this is exactly the same as the Kokuchukai article.) Please actually read the discussion in question before supporting one party's request that another be page-banned. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you feel so confident repeatedly asserting that I did not follow up on that discussion, but -- saying this once again -- I did. But the content issues debated there are only so germane to why I !voted in support of the ban; what drove my decision was primarily concerns about WP:C and WP:NPA. I don't care how frustrated you are as a result of the fact that you feel you've had to repeatedly explain a policy argument to someone on the other side of a content dispute, it is never alright to resort to name-calling here. If you feel your ire rising to that point, you should back away from the discussion until you can make your argument without talking about your opponent's "thick skull". That's the real competency issue I see at work here. And it seems to be a part of a broader pattern, which is part of why I felt confident in supporting the measure proposed; it seems that when it comes to topics concerning Japanese nationalism and cultural identity, you just cannot keep your cool -- nor avoid developing grudges against those who oppose your approach, whose positions you often malign and discredit on the basis of the supposed prejudices of the other parties, rather than keeping the discussion fixed on the policy argument -- and that's very problematic. There have been a number of times (while I've reviewed the talk page discussions for the various Japanese history-related content disputes you've been involved with lately) where I agreed fully or in part with the content argument you were making but found the way you made that argument completely unacceptable and indicative of a lack of collaborative spirit in your approach to those topics.

Civility and cooperation are as essential to competence as understanding of content policies, and it's not an either/or situation -- you need to be able to know how to parse community consensus and do it without resorting to insulting those who see the matter differently -- argue the point, not the traits of the other editor, no matter how steamed you get. You make this all way too personal, and way too fast. If yours is the perspective that truly aligns with consensus (broad and local), then in the vast majority of cases, your approach will be adopted in the long run, provided you keep your cool and argue dispassionately. My support for the topic/page ban stems from the fact that questions of Japanese cultural identity seem to set your fuse short, and I believe in utilizing the minimally-effective sanction -- otherwise I would recommended a block for incivility, personal attacks, and inability to assume good faith. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose until underlying issue examined It is clear that Hijiri88 is using the wrong tactics (do not discuss editors on article talk pages, and do not use excited language), but I am concerned that the diffs might show that Hijiri88 is exhausted from dealing with problematic editors, and the proposed topic ban might be aimed in the wrong direction. For example, the "learn to speak frickin' English" diff looks like an "omg he was rude" moment, but the substance of the comment seems to be entirely accurate—Hijiri88 had commented on a source and its use of "Korean" as a noun to refer to a person; the response from CurtisNaito offers several items to reject Hijiri88's view, but each of the items is not what Hijiri88 had referred to. I clicked a few more links and did not see anything that could not be argued. Apart from raging at ANI, what dispute resolution has occured regarding the underlying issue? Johnuniq (talk) 01:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

That issue was already dealt with. At the time I hadn't checked the same source as Hijiri was using, but after I did it became clear that Miller does refer to Yamanoe Okura as "a Korean" using a noun, see here.CurtisNaito (talk) 01:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

The point is that you posted a diff showing someone using strong language, but on investigating the context it turns out that the language was provoked by blather that misrepresented the situation. That took place at the edit warring noticeboard, and what happened 24 hours later on an article talk page is irrelevant. Looking at the noticeboard again I see that Nishidani posted a very convincing statement (diff of tweak, search for "He was the descendent of a Kudara refugee who fled to Yamato" to see the comment) showing that, regardless of what Miller said, the above claim about Yamanoe Okura is absurd. Obviously the issue involves nationalistic POV pushing, but it is hard for those at ANI to determine whose removal would benefit the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 03:27, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

In regards to the original statement, I don't think there was cause for such controversy. The original source accurately noted that, "Another significant literary accomplishment of this period was the compilation of the Manyoshu... The Korean influence is also present in the anthology. One of the three main poets of the Manyoshu, Yamanoe Okura, it is now believed, was a Korean immigrant in Japan." The original text being put into the article said, "The poetry of Yamanoe Okura, a Korean who lived in Japan, demonstrates Korean influence on Japanese literature." There was no grounds to claim that any factual inaccuracies or misrepresentation occurred here.CurtisNaito (talk) 03:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I am seconding Johnuniq. I oppose one-sided ban for either side & I also support sending to ArbCom I am an uninvolved editor with some passing knowledge with this topic. This really should go to WP:ARBCOM. There is bad behavior on both sides here (have you read some of the edit comments?) - what the sanctions for that should be need to be carefully examined. The fact finding for this topic area is non-trivial (e.g. determinations of POV pushing, reverts based on good/poor RS, etc). One of the problems is that in this area of scholarship there are at least two major factions with regard this topic with two disjoint bodies of scholarly RS. There is a "maximize Korean influence" faction, and there is a "minimize Korean influence" faction. (There is a "no influence" faction, but it's FLAT.) This leads to a major division in the RSs WRT this area - what one off-Wiki scholarly community considers reliable, other off-Wiki scholarly community considers poorly sourced, if not fiction. And vice versa. There is WP:BATTLEGROUND happening here which needs addressing, but this is carry over from the battleground in the scholarship in the area of Korean influence on Japanese Culture - some mechanism for allowing at least these two max/min POV needs to devised. Any resolution needs to find a way for both sides to have their say without the other side trying dismiss it out of hand. There needs at least needs to be at least a section in the article that describes the conflict between maximizing and minimizing. I wouldn't normally say "both sides" about any given topic area, but here the RS are divided into at least two clear camps; POV balance is going to very hard here. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 05:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support A 6 month ban on ALL Japanese related articles would be acceptable, Hijiri88 has made editing certain Japanese related articles so difficult by his bullying tactics that many editors will no longer edit those articles for fear of being dragged into this type of administrative action. It is not a matter at this point whether Hijiri88 is actually making constructive edits, the constant fighting that accompanies so many of the articles that Hijiri88 edits shows that there is a substantial problem with the manner in which Hijiri88 edits. Many editors have been dragged into prolonged, protracted debates which never should have happened in the first place......unless Hijiri88 is deliberately trying to cause problems which seems to be the case. Now Hijiri88 is running to other editors talk pages trying to drum up support when all of this could have easily been avoided. Using brute force to get your way even if you are right is not how editing is supposed to be done. Hijiri88 seems to get some sort of enjoyment out of drawing unsuspecting editors into one of these types of administrative actions. Even if the other editors are not as knowledgable about a subject it is not acceptable to constantly show how superior your knowledge is. What I do not understand is why Hijiri88 was allowed to continue doing this type of thing for so long. 119.94.99.143 (talk) 04:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC) — 119.94.99.143 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Hijiri88 here. Note that while I do not knoe for certain who the above Philippines(?)-based IP is, the repeated meme of "I don't know why Hijiri88 has been allowed get away with xyz" bears a close resemblance to what the site-banned user JoshuSasori and the indef-blocked user Kauffner have been repeating for the past two years in the attack site the former keeps on me. (I won't link to the blog itself because it gives my real name and, even more disturbingly, my parents' home address, but if anyone wants the details they are free to email me.) 182.249.3.142 (talk) 06:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

• • Typical response by Hijiri88, everyone is a sockpuppet out to get you, why would it matter were my IP is based, and if you did "knoe for certain" who I was what would you do, try to drag me through some sort of extended administrative action, and lacking that info your plan of attack is to try and convince other editors that I one of the large number of banned enemies from your past so that what I have to say here should be ignored. I am simply stating the obvious, that the type of editing that Hijiri88 uses is the cause of much of the problems being discussed here and on the many other administrative actions that Hijiri88 has been involved with. Hijiri88 is an experienced editor and knows exactly what not to do in order to keep this very thing from happening. Constantly giving Hijiri88 a free pass to ignore the rules and procedures of proper editing will pave the way for the next administrative episode.....im just saying....119.94.99.143 (talk) 10:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - while Hijiri88 can get carried away with CAPS/underline/bold/italics/etc, he shouldn't be topic or page banned. CurtisNaito, who has been misrepresenting sources, should. It was only a few weeks ago that CurtisNaito and TH1980 intentionally baited Hijiri88 to revert them, then turned around and reported him for breaking 3RR. That is battleground behavior. I also second what User:Johnuniq said above. However, I do agree that Hijiri88's current sandbox should be deleted, as it violates WP:POLEMIC. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 04:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

@Sturmgewehr88: Actually, most of my use of bold typeface on the talkpage in question is to demark quotes from other users with my own responses, and I very rarely use underlining in violation of WP:SHOUT, but to indicate that I have altered my own comment post facto. I say this because other users have interpreted these the wrong way before. I have violated WP:SHOUT in this case, and probably in past interaction with CurtisNaito, but only because (as Nishidani alluded on his talk page) I have a tendency to take AGF too far and assuming that if I keep trying and trying (no matter how frustrating) I can eventually get through to Curtis and he will learn how to follow our guidelines and actually read sources before citing them. Longshot, I know.

Blanked the page myself, but I have no real problem with it getting deleted. I put my "search for the smoking gun" on-wiki to be transparent and encourage collaboration with my fellow non-sockpuppets. I'll keep the search up off-wiki anyway, since the two SPAs who showed up in February were/are almost certainly engaged in sockpuppetry and/or off-site collusion and still haven't been either CUed or blocked. The textbook SPA who made an account, created the article, and disappeared after a month was also super-suspicious.

TH1980 is admittedly much less of a certainty than those three --hence CurtisNaito constantly accusing me of AGF-violation by making sockpuppetry allegations being far out of proportion to the maybe three or four times I directly stated that I thought TH1980 was a sockpuppet -- but at the very least he/she is a tendentious editor who doesn't know how Wikipedia sourcing is supposed to work.

But I'll keep my sleuthing and record-keeping off-wiki from now on, I guess.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC) (Edited 06:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC) )

If Hijiri broke 3RR then that is at least as much evidence of his battleground behaviour as is it is evidence of same for parties which supposedly "made" him do it; he knew what he was doing and knew the rules of conduct involved, so any rebuff he got at 3RR he earned. But what concerns me more are the issues with civility and the fact that when Hijiri gets into these types of situations, they invariably seem to escalate to the point where community discussion becomes necessitated. You took part in the same discussions with CurtisNaito and managed to not to call anyone any names, opine on the hidden ulterior motives of other parties, threaten administrative action in combative terms, or otherwise needlessly inflame the situation. You and other editors managed restraint in the same context, so why should we permit a lower standard for Hijiri? Snow ^{let's rap} 05:57, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

@Snow Rises: I technically violated 3RR, just barely, once, almost two weeks ago; TH1980 made two more reverts in the same 24-hour period than I. All of my reverts were in accordance with WP:BURDEN and WP:BRD as I was trying all the while to discuss the changes with TH1980 on the talk page and was being largely ignored. CurtisNaito reported me on ANEW and not TH1980 because he was more interested in getting me blocked than in complying with policy. If technically and just barely violating 3RR counts as page-ban worthy BATTLEGROUND bahaviour when I do it, what about TH1980's much more flagrant violations? Does he/she deserve a page ban as well? What about CurtisNaito's own BATTLEGROUND behaviour, let alone the chronic WP:COMPETENCE and WP:IDHT problems regarding sourcing and talk page etiquette? Does CurtisNaito deserve a block or ban for these? If the answer to any of these is "no", I would ask why not? Why would you be in favour of applying a (much!) lower standard to them than to me? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:14, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

This is a POV clash, and Naito's second attempt to get rid of Hijiri. It has the following elements.

• Curtis likes to add stuff that upsets Japanese national amour-propre, while Hijiri is defensive about Japan.
• In terms of POV, I am almost invariably on Naito's side, when I have the patience or masochism to follow these threads, and I disagree with Hijiri.
• When it actually comes to discussing edits in terms of WP:SYNTH, WP:RS WP:OR, etc., i.e. the fundamentals of policy, I come almost invariably down on Hijiri's side. This is somewhat paradoxical.
• The reason why, while sharing Naito's POV, I almost always agree with Hijiri, is simple. In my experience over several articles of the two interacting, (Battle of Shigisan, Emperor Jimmu,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Korean influence on Japanese culture ) I have found it impossible to edit with CurtisNaito. He gets almost everything wrong, and in trying to persuade him to see the error of his ways, one has to wade through endless WP:TLDR prevarication or sidestepping. Hijiri, on the other hand, understands (somewhat too obsessively at times) policy, and knows what good solid sourcing for an encyclopedia consists of. Curtis's knowledge of Japanese topics looks like that of a high school enthusiast with no sense of critical method. So, if the board wants to get rid of the graduate and promote the teenager's cause, there's little I can do, other than saying I am quite prepared to document Naito's consistent overwhelmingly tedious obtusity, mendacity and prevarication. He is, as demanded, extremely well-mannered, and is, excuse the violation, wholly incapable of understanding the simplest technical objections to his approach (i.e. dumb to all remonstrance). He is totally innocent of any contact with scholarship, which deals in hypotheses and complexities, and is never, as he is, confident that a statement in a source can, ipso facto, be used regardless of its status (dubious or challenged) in the subject's history. I have corrected Hijiri on several occasions, and he, on each occasion, steps back, apologizes, or reflects. No such luck with Curtis. He repeatedly asserts he has read sources he clearly has not (see here, here, or here. The last was particularly memorable: when I cited a scholarly article to rebut his statement, he replied in 20 minutes saying it was good but not long enough. Well, the article is behind a paywall, is 19 pages long. Only a genius with megabucks could pony up, download, read closely the source, and then make a cogent reply in that exiguous time-span. He even went on to justify his original point citing 植村清二's 神武天皇(1957) and 門脇禎's 神武天皇 (1957) while admitting he hadn't read them, as 'biographies'. Neither work is a biography of that emperor). He's a prevaricator, who reads google snippets fished up as he searches for confirmation of his POV, and then creates an inimitably urbane ruckus when challenged. Hijiri is evidently ueber-exasperated. Nothing will wear out a passive-aggressive temper on the other hand. If you want to keep Curtis, while dispatching Hijiri, get CN a masochistic babysitter who knows the ABC, however, and is ready to keep cleaning up CN's messes. He is a massive waster of other editors' time.Nishidani (talk) 09:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Hijiri88 has seen a lot of misconduct on these pages and those who have been opposing him they have been also involved in tag-team. I don't get if Hijiri88 should be topic banned. So many of these allegations have no links to actual discussion, and there is misjudgement of his actions. I am not going to support this topic ban. VandVictory (talk) 09:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I must agree with Johnuniq here. If you just look at the diffs provided in the opening statement, Hijiri is clearly rude, dismissive and incivil. But if you look beyond Hijiri's comments and look at the entire talk page, you will see several respected editors who are beyond frustrated with Naito's inadequate use of sources. He is unfailingly polite which is remarkable given the hostile exchanges but according to those who are knowledgeable about the subject, he lacks competency. So, while I don't think a page ban will resolve the dispute on this article talk page which is really about WP:RS and Hijiri's bad behavior seems to arise out of frustration with having the same discussions over and over again. That doesn't excuse the personalization of the dispute and rude remarks. But while a limited civility block might be in order for Hijiri, the dispute on this talk page needs to head to WP:RSN or WP:DR if it is going to be resolved. Giving Hijiri a page ban won't resolve other editors' dispute with Naito's sourcing problems. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:37, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

How can you tell who is "knowledgeable about the subject" though? I have contributed to the article far more than anyone else, so why don't I qualify as "knowledgeable about the subject"? I have contributed more "good" rated articles on Japanese history than all my critics combined.CurtisNaito (talk) 15:27, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Curtis, I found your above assertion that you have contributed more toward Japanese history articles than the rest of us combined, based solely on the number of pages (heavily contributed to by other users, mind you) that you happen to have nominated for GA status (!), somewhat offensive. Please name a single article on Japanese history that you created and/or were the main contributor to that is superior to Ono no Komachi, Koshikibu no Naishi, Talk:Kenji Miyazawa/redraft, Shinsen Man'yōshū, Asukai Masatsune, Utsunomiya Yoritsuna and Fujiwara no Kiyosuke combined -- and that's just my work (and a little of Nishidani's) over the past month or so. No, wait: your mention of "Japanese history" is completely off-topic -- name a single article on Japanese history before the eighth century that you created and/or were the main contributor to that is superior to those articles, please. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I was the main contributor to both of the articles relating to Japanese history that I successfully nominated for "good article" status this year. They didn't deal with issues before the eighth century, but I don't believe you have successfully nominated any good articles from that period either. I'm not so sure any of the articles you just linked above would pass "good article" status review, though if you disagree you could try nominating them.CurtisNaito (talk) 10:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

@Liz:In regards to expertise on the subject, which version of the article is more professionally written and sourced, my version, or Nishidani's version?CurtisNaito (talk) 17:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I think we should distinguish between allegations and evidence though. So far no one has managed to find even one concrete case of me ever misusing sources. Every time these allegations are made I have to time and time again quote directly from the original citations to prove my case, and not once has the original source not lined up with the text being put in the article or mentioned in the talk page.CurtisNaito (talk) 14:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

'So far no one has managed to find even one concrete case of me ever misusing sources.' See. Curtis can't grasp that editors have shown time and again that this is mainly what you do. You cannot read sources in context, and anyone who has the patience to click on any of the pages I cited, and review how you respond, will see that you misuse sources constantly. It's not an allegation. I believe Hijiri and yourself should be sanctioned for different reasons: you are a living exemplar of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and Hijiri's exasperation has led to several sanctionable instances of consistent WP:AGF. Perhaps I should be sanctioned also, since your resilent deafness in the fact of proof you cannot understand the subject has led me, twice, to tell you to 'piss off'. Son, you are a disaster on any Japanese article requiring sensitive or sophisticated use of sources, as most of these historical topics demand.Nishidani (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Could you please mention one example of me misusing sources? So far you haven't been able to cite even one specific incident.CurtisNaito (talk) 15:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I could give you dozens. But I am reluctant to get sucked into talking with you, because you simply ignore what others document, and keep focused on what interests you. See this thread where you are cited for repeatedly restoring the phrasing 'ancient phrase' to the text, by (a) misreading the very sources you cite and (b) by ignoring the fact that the phrase was coined in 1904. To make you understand this abuse or misuse of sources took donkey's ages. You don't even understand the point I made above. So I will have to repeat it and bold it.

(Curtis) is confident that a statement in a source can, ipso facto, be used regardless of its status (dubious or challenged) in the subject's history.

This means that if you've fished up a source then, regardless of other sources that show it is dated, wrong or misleading, you keep on harping on that source. No one with a smattering of a university education does that knowingly, and it is certainly obstinate to persist as you do over numerous threads, in defending your 'sources' when the problem with their selective use has been repeatedly deocumented. This is puerile obstinacy in the face of complex evidence, and is everywhere characteristic of selective source abuse.Nishidani (talk) 16:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

That was primarily a dispute over whether the phrase Hakko Ichiu was attributed to Emperor Jimmu. Analysis of the original Nihon Shoki and of more recent reliable sources left no doubt that the statement was correctly attributed to him. David Earhart's book Certain Victory: Images of World War II in the Japanese Media says "Emperor Jimmu... was said to have the phrase". Japan Encyclopedia defines Hakko Ichiu as "an expression attributed to the mythical emperor Jimmu". Kenneth Ruoff's book Imperial Japan at its Zenith says that Hakko Ichiu "was a saying attributed to Emperor Jimmu". Even one of the books you cited merely said that Tanaka Chigaku "popularized" it. Hijiri deserves more criticism here, because he insisted that Hakko Ichiu was not correctly attributed to Jimmu, while citing a source in the article that said close to the opposite, "When Emperor Jimmu founded the Japanese state 2,600 years earlier, the Japan Times and Mail explained, the land was inhabited by at least five different races. Jimmu declared that they should unite under 'one roof', and in obedience to that command the races became 'as brothers of one family'. Although the newspaper did not press the point, it was the same account of Jimmu extending his sway over the diverse peoples of ancient Japan, based on a passage in the earliest written chronicles of Japan, dating from the eighth century, which inspired Japan's World War Two slogan about the country's divine mission to bring all races and nations of the world under 'one roof'."CurtisNaito (talk) 16:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

You are using the usual stratagem of repeating yourself at length to blindside the simple fact, i.e. that you thought the phrase, coined, as many sources, plus an elementary knowledge of Japanese history should have told you, in 1904, was 'ancient'. Just let independent minds review the evidence, advice also I have given to Hijiri.Nishidani (talk) 17:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

• Okay, finally got off that bus and can post a full response to all of the completely bogus claims and misrepresentations made by CurtisNaito at the top of this thread. Be warned, this is a big one.

Quotes from CurtisNaito's OP, put in their proper context (don't open unless you want the horizontal screen dimensions of the page to expand -- I don't know why -- and want to read through a VERY long response to a very long collection of half-truths and misrepresentations)

He says that he will not speak to me anymore regarding an on-going content dispute and will instead ask for me to be topic-banned. Yes. because I was merciful and waited much, much longer than I should have to ask for CurtisNaito to face consequences for his passive-aggressive actions against me, Nishidani and others. Before posting the above-linked comment I endured far more TLDR, IDHT nonsense than any good Wikipedian should be expected to bear. It's not my responsibility to give up my valuable time explaining how to read our core content policies or WP:V and WP:NOR to users who have clearly indicated that they will not listen even when I try. After two years, on-and-off, I've had just about enough of it. Other users expressed the exact same unwillingness to coddle CurtisNaito, before I did, so why I am being singled out is confusing. However, my edits are constructive and it's hard to see what justification there is for Hijiri's attitude here. Yeah. Right. I have yet to see someone other than CurtisNaito himself and a small group of other users with equally poor editing ability make this claim. Every single editor who has commented on the edits in question has agreed with me that they were problematic and showed a complete lack of understanding of proper sourcing principles. Nishidani, Sturmgewehr88 and I (and I can only assume countless other users who have interacted with CurtisNaito but not with me) have been forced to waste far too much time on the present talk page and others trying in vain to explain Wikipedia policy to CurtisNaito. I have been patient, taking WP:AGF too far in assuming that eventually CurtisNaito would cop on and come to understand, but to no avail. (Nishidani actually recently called me out for taking AGF too far in this matter.) There is good reason to believe that the greater problems lie with Hijiri. And what good reasons are these? Therefore, I am in turn requesting a topic ban for Hijiri from the article "Korean influence on Japanese culture" as a result of problematic behavior over the past year, including a very long-term pattern of incivility and battleground behavior. Actually, as I have said above and Nishidani has called me out for, I have been showing far too much patience with CurtisNaito. CurtisNaito has some nerve talking about "incivility" when he has been behaving in a manner that indicates he hasn't even read my comments, but rather spouts so much passive-aggressive nonsense that he knows it will push me over the edge, then he Ctrl+F's the page to see if I have used any foul language or made any "threats" against him. Although Hijiri has exhibited similar behavior in some other articles, cataloging it all would take too long, so I'll keep it relatively short and stick to issues relating to this one article. Yes, because on those other pages Curtis was entirely alone in his tendentious editing and misrepresentations of sources, but here he can selectively canvas the one other user who has agreed with him while carefully misquoting other users who don't (see the discussion below of "Incidentally, Hijiri was warned ..."). Recently the user TH1980 began to make some reliably-sourced additions to the article Korean influence on Japanese culture, but Hijiri immediately began edit warring with him without consensus to delete the material. (The first, "gugyeol" edit was total bullshit so I'm going to focus on the second, "Okura" edit.) This is turning WP:BURDEN and WP:BRD on their heads; consensus is not needed to revert a potentially controversial, and dubiously sourced, edit (which TH1980's edits most certainly were). But I even had a consensus, a very clear consensus on the relevant talk page last February to keep discussion of the Okura Immigrant Theory to a minimum. The consensus was formed by me, User:Shii, User:Sturmgewehr88 and a Japanese neto-uyo ultranationalist or two, one of whom was later indeffed for constant personal attacks he made against me because I actually accept the Okura Immigrant Theory. I did not like this consensus -- as I have stated countless times, I consider Okura to have almost certainly been the son of an immigrant from Kudara. The scholarly consensus is that Okura was the son of an immigrant from Kudara, but he wrote in Japanese and was "a Japanese poet", but on the main Wikipedia article on the topic I have already (over a year ago) become resigned to not being able to discuss this in detail. But at the same time as consensus decided that the main Yamanoue no Okura article should give only one line on the Okura Immigrant Theory and maybe cite some of the counter-arguments, someone was maintaining a WP:POVFORK over on the Korean influence on Japanese culture article that described him as "a Korean". This is a very complex issue, and one I have probably spent more time mulling over than anyone else on this project; CurtisNaito and TH1980, both of whom clearly lack the scholarly common sense to understand the problem, should not have tried to unilaterally override last February's established consensus. They also cited a general historical study written by a specialist in 20th-century Japanese history (if I recall, Miller -- a specialist in the relevant area -- was not brought into the discussion until after Nishidani and I brought him up). The opinions of a scholar of 20th-century Japanese history, no matter how well-regarded said scholar was, do not belong in a discussion of Yamanoue no Okura. As an aside, note CurtisNaito names and pings the users who agree with him but when he (mis)quotes the users who don't agree with them he carefully avoids mentioning their names lest they call him out for his misrepresentations (see the discussion of "Incidentally, Hijiri was warned ...", below). He reverted the same material TH1980 and I were adding five times in a 24-hour period. No. The fifth time was not a revert. And at the time CurtisNaito joined the fustercluck in question, TH1980 had already revert four times in 24 hours, I three. Immediately after my previous revert TH1980 and I were both at four reverts in the previous 24 hours (in other words, he had broken 3RR first and my fourth revert -- the only time I had legit violated a WP rule in this case, and then only technically -- was to revert an edit that itself was a 3RR-violation). And yet, despite this, Curtis chose to template my talk page for "edit-warring" and brought only me to ANEW to be blocked. Such blatant wikilawyering and battleground behaviour should have brought consequences, but I remained patient. My patience has since worn thin. While reverting, Hijiri made uncivil and false claims in his edit summaries, repeatedly accusing TH1980 of being a sockpuppet despite having no evidence to support his claim. Admittedly, I may have been wrong in these assumptions, and I have already stated that if I am wrong I apologize. But there is a confirmed history of sockpuppetry by Korean-nationalist POV-pushers in this area in general (and this article in particular), and several obvious sleepers have shown up suddenly in the past few months, to reinsert material that was removed from the article months before they ever edited it; when another account who has never edited the article before shows up suddenly and restores material that was removed months before they ever edited it, I have every right to be suspicious. And when I ask point-blank how they came across the article and they dodge the question, my suspicions are hardly allayed. Hijiri also made uncivil comments to him in the talk page, including asking TH1980, "Who are you, and which other accounts have you used?" Again, per the discussion in the paragraph immediately above this, when a user who looks very much like a sock and/or meat puppet shows up suddenly on a page and restores material that was removed months earlier, when other obvious socks have done so in the recent past, asking them to their face if they are a sockpuppet or if someone told them about the page off-wiki in order to artificially inflate "consensus" for their edits is completely acceptable, and in fact probably preferable to shooting first and immediately starting an ANI thread (DRN and the like are inappropriate places to bring up SOCK and MEAT concerns). If Hijiri was just having one bad day it would be different, but this has actually been going on for months and months. Yes. Nishidani, Sturmgewehr88, Phoenix7777, Ubikwit, Curly Turkey, Nihonjoe, Oda Mari, Canterbury Tail, User:SamuelDay1, User:Hipocrite, Eurodyne, probably several others I am forgetting, and I have all been pointing out for months (years?) that the article in question and related articles are a cesspool of sockpuppetry and POV/OR/TE. The fact that the article has been edited by CU-confirmed sockpuppets and recent activity is highly suspicious and probably meriting an SPI seems to constantly go over CurtisNaito's head even though every other long-term Wikipedian who has commented has agreed with me on the issue. To see how long this has been going on, consider that way back in June of 2014 Hijiri created an attack page in his sandbox. The page had no purpose but to defame other Wikipedia users who had edited the article Korean influence on Japanese culture as being "POV pushers" and "sockpuppets". This attack page still exists, and now TH1980 is also on the list, who Hijiri claims is an "anti-Japanese" sockpuppet. It needs to be stressed that Hijiri has offered no proof for his nasty accusations and none of these users were ever proven to have engaged in sockpuppetry. I have blanked my sandbox. It was not really a violation of WP:POLEMIC, since my goal in putting my findings on-wiki was to allow collaboration with the other users above-listed to help find the "smoking gun" so a CU can be requested. I have, thus far, failed to find any such smoking gun, and I have no problem with the page being deleted. I have copied its contents off-wiki, and I will continue my search in private. As demonstrated above, sockpuppetry has obviously been taking place, and 90% of users who have commented have agreed with this assertion, so trying to figure out who is whose sockpuppet and who contacted who off-wiki is an endeavour I still feel is worth pursuing. But I will keep future sleuthing to myself unless I am ready to open an SPI (or maybe an ANI if the evidence is good enough but I can't find the sockmaster). I imagine TH1980, as a Wikipedia user in good standing, wanted to play a productive role in editing the article, but how can he work with Hijiri when Hijiri assumes bad faith so openly that Hijiri repeatedly accuses him of being a sockpuppet to his face? He can tell me how he suddenly came across the article and restored material removed months before he ever touched the article -- during one of his long periods of absence. Additionally -- "a Wikipedia user in good standing"? He has made less than 500 edits, almost all of them in areas of international dispute between Japan and some other country. He has had an account for three years but has been editing in brief spurts before "going dark", the same as the other users who suddenly showed up on the page recently, who everyone else seems to agree are sockpuppets. I joined the conversation later and after making one constructive comment Hijiri immediately threatened me, telling me, "you need to be blocked per WP:CIR immediately". I'm surprised CurtisNaito has the courage to post a diff here, since he has blatantly hidden the conditional clause if you don't see how this is a misrepresentation of the source. Blocking users who don't know how to read sources per WP:CIR is quite common, and pointing out that if a user doesn't know how to read the source he is citing then he needs to be blocked is no more a "threat" when I say it as when Sturmgewehr88 and Nishidani say it. Also, "joined the conversation" is a very euphemistic way of describing this virtual declaration of war. Hijiri continued to speak to me in an uncivil manner, including his comments like "learn to speak frickin' English" and "Please learn to speak English". I know how to speak English, so how many times is he going to tell me that? He also said, "I was about to close this comment with "you bloody buffoon"". By saying this, he actually did close the comment with "you bloody buffoon". I challenge anyone on this board to engage CurtisNaito in a discussion of whether his sources are appropriate and whether they back up what he is saying for as long as I have and limit themselves to calling him something as polite as "bloody buffoon": User:Nishidani can back me up (has backed me up) on this point -- search the current version of the article talk page for "bullshit", "you can't read for nuts", "I'm fucked if I'm going to waste hours on this", "you're evidently having problems with elementary arithmetic", "for chrissake", "boorish googling", "I see crap", "for fuck's sake", "you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia", "I'll just revert", "talking to you is pointless", "consistently stupid or thick-headed", "piss off"... Of course none of this is to imply that sanctions need to be placed on anyone for reacting the same way I have, the same way all good Wikipedians would, on dealing with CurtisNaito. Place the sanctions where they belong. He told me, "Why can't you get it through your thick skull" that Yamanoe Okura was not a Korean, in spite of the fact that numerous reliable sources, including the Cambridge History of Japan and articles by Roy Andrew Miller, do describe him as "a Korean". When I thanked TH1980 for his edits, Hijiri left a threatening message on my talk page and told me to "grow the hell up". He then made a completely fallacious statement and told me "if you are too stupid to understand that ... well". He openly assumes bad faith when he tells me, "I am only agreeing to post this here... so that constructive discussion can take place on the talk page. You have already demonstrated that you are incapable of this." Per the above paragraph, this is quite a common, reasonable reaction to CurtisNaito's behaviour. Now take a look at this clearly-disruptive comment he posted directly into the article. Hijiri deleted a reliable source while claiming that it was "twisted to say what the Korean ultranationalists who still seem to be running this page wanted it to say". Leaving comments in the article source code to allow for (to encourage) further improvement is quite common. Please see WP:COMMENT. Actually, Hijiri seems to accuse everyone who disagrees with him of POV-pushing or having a hidden agenda. Another accusation made with no evidence whatsoever. I accuse the people who are POV-pushing and appear to have hidden agendas of POV-pushing or having a hidden agenda. I do not accuse Nishidani, Ubikwit, Sturmgewehr88, Shii or any of the other users I almost never agree with of POV-pushing or having hidden agendas. Hijiri claimed that the reason why a "Chinese influence on Japanese culture" article does not exist is because "Chinese nationalists are apparently not insecure enough that they need to go onto English Wikipedia and denigrate another country's culture". Well, CurtisNaito, why do you think there is no Chinese influence on Japanese culture article? Chinese culture has undoubtedly and indisputably had a much greater influence on Japanese culture over the past 1,500 years than has Korean, so how do you explain this discrepancy? At the same time in a related article he again called TH1980 a "Korean/anti-Japanese POV-pushing SPA" and called me an "incompetent user". Yes, I brought the discussion of whether Wikipedia should cover the Okura Immigrant Theory in more detail to the appropriate venue, the Yamanoue no Okura talk page. There, I gave my reasoning for suddenly showing up and starting another discussion of a topic that has been dead for over a year -- a POV-pushing SPA and an incompetent user were trying to cite a warped version of it in a separate article. He constantly accuses people who disagree with him of racism. He has accused both TH1980 and myself of "borderline racism". "Constantly"? I don't recall ever making this argument anywhere but where you, apparently a westerner of Japanese ancestry, and TH1980 were saying that a Japanese poet born (or at least raised from when he was a toddler) in Japan whose father had happened to come from an extinct Korean kingdom, who was naturalized in Japan to the point of receiving the title Omi and bring granted governorship of a province, was "a Korean in Japan". However, as the user Andrew Davidson said to Hijiri in one discussion about the article, "As for righting great wrongs, you seem to be the one on a mission". Again, why the selective pinging of the rare user who happens to agree with you, Curtis? When you quote (misuote, rather) Sturmgewehr88 below (see "Incidentally, Hijiri was warned...", below) you don't ping him. On top of all this, perhaps one of the most serious problems with Hijiri's conduct on the article is his constant use of intimidation and threats against people he disagrees with. I myself have been threatened by him with administrative action literally over a dozen times in this particular article, including on these two occasions among others... "you would probably need to be either banned or blocked. You managed to avoid this result last time", and "I would take you to ANI and ask for a topic-ban, but on what topic would such a ban be? ALL Wikipedia editors are permanently banned from "original research" to begin with. Is it a block you want?" What is notable about these two threats is that they were issued against me BEFORE I had even edited the article in question. I was threatened with administrative action only because I commented on the article. I have never been blocked from Wikipedia before, so there is no reason why I should have been threatened this many times. Incidentally, Hijiri was warned by another user about making threats against me on a different article, but despite this Hijiri can barely make a single post nowadays without threatening me with administrative sanctions. The "threats" he keeps referring to were actually warnings that if he kept up his pattern of passive-aggressive disruption there would eventually be consequences. I have been far too patient with him; now by shooting first he has forced my hand. Incidentally, Hijiri was warned by another user about making threats against me on a different article, but despite this Hijiri can barely make a single post nowadays without threatening me with administrative sanctions. This is a gross misrepresentation of User:Sturmgewehr88's attitude to this affair. Sturmgewehr88 agrees with me that CurtisNaito needs to be sanctioned for his behaviour here and elsewhere. At the time Sturmgewehr88 "warned" me, I had already grown terribly exasperated from interacting with CurtisNaito, while Sturmgewehr88 had only joined the discussion and wasn't at the time aware of the background of my "threats". CurtisNaito, it also should be noted, cunningly avoided using Sturmgewehr88's name or pinging him because he knew Sturmgewehr88, if notified of this discussion, would agree that CurtisNaito needs to be somehow sanctioned, while at the same time posting a preemptive notification on the talk page of the one other tendentious editor who has been misreading/misrepresenting sources right alongside CurtisNaito this time. Hijiri also has problems with using sources, which he often does not read before citing. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Perhaps most egregious of all was a whopping 1,000 word post he made rebutting an article which he admits at the beginning "I haven't read". It's a waste of others users time when Hijiri spends so long critiquing sources he hasn't even read. Pointing out that non-specialists with absolutely no training in the relevant fields should not be cited on Wikipedia articles does not require that one reads the work of said non-specialists. Ridiculous. Utterly ridiculous. It's a waste of others users time when Hijiri spends so long critiquing sources he hasn't even read. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. After being questioned about the matter by Nishidani, Hijiri admitted that he had deleted the sourced information because he had mistakenly believed that I was the one who had added it to the article. Hijiri notes here he was aware that it "violates AGF to assume Curtis has misread and misunderstood a source I haven't myself read". I think it's natural Wikipedia policy, however, that sources cited should be read and judged on their own merits. One shouldn't delete reliably sourced information just because one doesn't like the editor who puts it in the article, as Hijiri fully admits to doing here. No, by this point it is not at all a violation of any Wikipedia policy or guideline to assume that if CurtisNaito is quoting a source, he must be misquoting it, as Nishidani agrees.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

*Comment* Hijiri's conduct is a massive violation of the third principle (or "pillar") Wikipedia has for editing conduct: [20]. His conduct is also extremely childish.TH1980 (talk) 17:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

• 'Support topic ban for Hijiri 88. BMK (talk) 17:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Please note that the above has been demonstrated below to be a bad-faith accusation by a user who by his own admission is basing his actions in this thread not on the evidence presented -- he clearly hasn't read much of it -- but on his own gut feeling that I "must" (his emphasis) be engaged in BATTLEGROUND behaviour based on some unrelated activity that I allegedly engaged in over the past month or so (he hasn't been forthcoming with the details). Take from this what you will. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:24, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. It's difficult for a non-expert to judge the appropriate weight on this subject, but the latest revision by CurtisNaito gives the impression that Japan had no culture before looting it from Korea, with extreme statements like "According to Professor Song Bang-song, it was not the case that Korean music influenced Japanese music, but rather than Japan simply adopted Korean music in toto." I suspect the sources have been cherrypicked. Another silly line: "Korean K-pop and K-dramas have become popular in Japan and some Koreans even see Japan's veneration of Korean K-pop idols as being an acknowledgement by Japan of the dominant role Korea has played in influencing Japanese culture since ancient times." The (Korean) source for this states: "Thus, when the Japanese were showing their utmost adoration and respect to Yon-sama, it was felt as if the Japanese were finally accepting the fact that South Korea was a superior culture, as it was historically Korea that gave Japan its royalty, and passed on Buddhism, ceramics and so on from China often with a distinct Korean rendering as in the case of ceramics." I wouldn't say Curtis misrepresented the source, but why include such ridiculous nationalism about South Korea's "superior culture" at all in a serious historical study? We need editors with expertise to keep a check on this apparent POV pushing. Civility is a secondary concern. KateWishing (talk) 19:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, I figured since it was good enough to be mentioned in a peer-reviewed academic journal written by two scholars then it was good enough to be mentioned on Wikipedia. I thought it was useful because it tied in the history of Korean influence on Japan with modern-day events. A good chronological narrative should have a fitting conclusion indicating the on-going relevance of the issue.CurtisNaito (talk) 20:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support 6-month topic ban for both editors These two individuals are disruptive, one way or another.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 20:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

But surely my version was an improvement over the old version. My version had far more citations and better organization.CurtisNaito (talk) 20:27, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose 6-month topic ban for both editors

CurtisNaito has always been reasonable with those who disagree with him and seeks to compromise, whilst Hijiri 88 resorts to personal attacks or just plain childish behavior to try and ram his - and only his - version of the Wikipedia page through. Only Hijiri's conduct is worthy of a topic ban here.TH1980 (talk) 23:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Boomerang for CurtisNaito

Okay, I have had just about enough of this, as have User:Nishidani, User:Sturmgewehr88 and probably plenty of others. Every uninvolved user who has gone through the diffs and the context behind them (User:Johnuniq, User:VandVictory and User:Liz) has observed that I am not deserving of sanctions here, and the users who are actually involved (User:Nishidani and User:Sturmgewehr88) have all agreed that sanctions should be placed on CurtisNaito instead. He has proven himself completely incapable of examining sources again and again on Talk:Soga–Mononobe conflict, Talk:Emperor Jimmu/Archive 2,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Korean influence on Japanese culture and Korean influence on Japanese culture. He is incapable of examining sources, and his constant whining on talk pages and refusal to listen has been the cause of far too much wasted time on the part of me and other productive users. This pattern is especially blatant when it comes to articles on ancient (8th century and earlier) Japan; while a brief inspection of his other edits would indicate it seems to be a problem there as well (cf his recently defending a "respected scholar" who appears to be an infamous denier of the Armenian genocide), but that's not really my concern. He has wasted far too much good time on the part of far too many editors. Believe it or not when I posted this I still sincerely hoped it would not come to this. Curtis is a courteous and enthusiastic editor, and I suspect he and I share a lot of common interests and would be friends if we met in a pub; but he has wasted far too much of my time and energy on these talk pages, driving me far enough to use profanity (something I don't enjoy), and now he is actively seeking sanctions against me with only the flimsiest of reasons, so my hand has been forced.
So I'd like to propose a TBAN for CurtisNaito on articles related to Japanese history of the 8th century and earlier. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC) (Edited 14:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC) )

Also, since this discussion started turning against CurtisNaito, he and TH1980 have started edit-warring to include a massive amount dubiously-sourced and/or unsourced material into the Korean influence article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Damn, I totally forgot! I meant to cite the incident that pushed me over the edge and say "See you on ANI, buddy": A few hours before opening this thread, CurtisNaito quoted a Wikipedia article and, accidentally or deliberately, misrepresented it as a Wikipedia content policy, and when challenged on this (twice) he dodged the question. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:24, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support as nom. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Hijiri's accusations are ridiculous. Anyone knowledgeable on the subject of Korean influence on Japanese culture can see that CurtisNaito's use of sources is impeccable.TH1980 (talk) 16:20, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • • LOL. This impeccable judgement from someone who recently added: Edo Neo-Confucianism was based in substantial measure off Korean writings, especially the works of Yi Hwang,' which both screwed up the source, distorted English grammar, and grossly twisted a single thesis into a specious factoid about the actual scholarship on neo-Confucianism and Korea.Nishidani (talk) 17:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Consulting the original source made it clear to me that there was no problem with TH1980's addition. The original text said, "Neo-Confucian learning had made much progress in Korea, where the Yi dynasty had adopted it as the Korean official philosophy. Such leading Japanese philosophers as Fujiwara Seika (1561-1619) and Hayashi Razan (1593-1657) based their neo-Confucian learning on Korean writings, particularly those of Yi Hwang..."CurtisNaito (talk) 17:49, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment This has already been thoroughly analysed and rebutted on the page, and you had no answer. Further proof that Curtis knows nothing of the topic. The statement, as phrased, is fatuous, and only goes to show that neither Curtis nor have the slightest knowledge of the topic, since the thesis was rebutted in 1982, the rebuttal endorsed by other scholars. Even after that, he persists in repeating, as above, the meme he's googled. Maruyama Masao's groundbreaking 日本政治思想史研究 (Studies in the Intellectual History of Tokugawa Japan,) has no mention of Korea in its index. When the English version was published (1974) he, in the wake of Abe Yoshio ( 阿部吉雄)'s thesis, admitted this Korean Yi dynasty connection had been a blind spot (1974:xxxvi). In 1983 Willem Jan Boot substantially deconstructed the theory Curtis is still pushing. This illustrates my point. Curtis looks at a quote, and if he likes it, copies it, from a poor source, or out of context, as proof of a thesis, ignoring every consideration of context. Relieve him of his misconceptions by adducing later sources and corrections and he still keeps harping on it. He has a serious behavioural problem. He won't listen.Nishidani (talk) 20:17, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I strongly supported putting Willem Jan Boot's point of view into the article, but it's hard to believe that the theory of Korean influence on Japanese neo-Confucianism has been debunked. Ha Woobong's 2009 article "Kang Hang and Confucianism in Modern Japan" supports the theory of Korean influence on Japanese neo-Confucianism. Edward Chung's 1995 book "The Korean Neo-Confucianism of Yi Tʻoegye and Yi Yulgok" supports this argument. Marius Jansen's 2000 book, "The Making of Modern Japan" support this argument. The 2013 book "A Korean War Captive in Japan, 1597 1600" supports this argument. These books were all written after Willem Jan Boot's book and it's hard to believe that all these authors are really so ignorant.CurtisNaito (talk) 20:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

CurtisNaito posted the exact same non-argument as above on the article talk page four days ago, and was quickly rebutted by Nishidani.[21] This is an excellent example of CurtisNaito engaging in IDHT behaviour that causes the conversation to run in circles until the other user gives up in frustration and lets CurtisNaito have his way just to shut him up. Countless hours of labour have been expended trying to talk sense into CurtisNaito over these issues, but he just doesn't listen. These countless hours of labour should have been devoted to building an encyclopedia. How many more hours are going to be wasted on this problem user? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

My argument here is fairly sensible, and it is that we can't take the opinion of a few books written in the 1970's and 1980's and say that they have debunked the arguments of equally reliable books written in 1995, 2000, 2009, and 2013. Why not include both the 1970's/1980's viewpoint and the more recent viewpoint. There is no reason to not mention both equally.CurtisNaito (talk) 05:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose as retaliatory, also as an example of Hijiri88's WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. BMK (talk) 17:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose as BMK said this is retaliatory. This section is a further reason of a need for a topic ban of Hijiri 88. Something needs to be done to protect WP from the numerous WP:CIVIL violations of Hijiri 88. Failure to act now will further embolden bad behaviour as there is no reason to stop the bad behaviour if nothing happens. AlbinoFerret 18:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
• Strong support - per Nishidani's comments and my own experience. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 19:14, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support 6-month topic ban for both editors These two individuals are disruptive, one way or another.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 20:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
• Both need to rethink what they are doing here, There is far too much litigation between the two over multiple articles. Naito knows nothing of the subjects or policy. Hijiri is far too sensitive, and must acquire some serenity. Curtis's tagteaming sidekick should be banned from the Korean article (see the recent edits of TH1980)Nishidani (talk) 20:26, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Please read the discussion that has taken place above, or at least my OP remark in this subthread: if I had a BATTLEGROUND mentality, wouldn't I want to continue wasting time arguing with Curtis? I'm tired of arguing, as is everyone else who has had to deal with CurtisNaito (note Nishidani's apparent regret at having been driven several times to say "piss off"). Also, it can't be "retaliatory" when even Curtis's OP stated that I have been telling him this boomerang is coming this way for months (Ctrl+F the main thread for "threat", but do so after opening my above collapsed comment). It's time to end this the only way it can be ended without a block.

Sorry, your attitude problem is manifest in the inability to compromise or work to arrive at a consensus. In the past month, I've seen threads here about conflicts between you and at least four other editors, possibly more, and, according to you, it's always the fault of the other editor. That simply cannot be the case, you must have contributed to those conflicts in some way. I'm tired of seeing your name in report after report after report. BMK (talk) 03:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Would you mind linking to those other threads so the casual reader can judge for themselves whether your assumption that I was responsible for all or even most of those incidents is right or wrong? Otherwise, merely assering that I must be a problem editor because I have had conflicts with other editors is pretty meaningless, since the same logic could be applied that they must be problem editors because they have had conflicts with me, Nishidani, User:Sturmgewehr88, etc. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, in fact, I would mind quite a bit, as I have no intention of being your marionette. Those who have followed your history will know exactly what I mean, others can at least take it as given that I believe what I say, even if I might (in their view) be mistaken, and others are, I assume, capable of doing their own research if they doubt me so intensely as to have me proved wrong. In the meantime, please do not ping me again, I will participate in this discussion at times of my choosing, not at your beck and call. BMK (talk) 04:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I ping as a courtesy to let other users know when I am replying to them. If you want me to stop offering you this courtesy, so be it. As to the substance: You opposed my proposed solution because you thought it was based on a battleground mentality; I pointed out to you that it clearly was the reverse, as it is meant to prevent future endless talkpage fusterclucks; you responded by admitting that you were not actually posting based on an unbiased analysis of the evidence presented, but based on your gut feeling that since I have been involved in x number of ANI threads in the past y number of weeks, I must have a battleground mentality. You also clearly didn't actually read those other ANI threads either. Given that I spend significantly less time on ANI than you do, I don't see how your logic could possibly be interpreted as making sense. !Voting based on your own gut feeling that such-and-such user must have a battleground mentality and ignoring all of the evidence actually presented is a gross violation of AGF and is borderline BATTLEGROUND behaviour in and of itself. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

@AlbinoFerret: Same as above: if I had a BATTLEGROUND mentality, I wouldn't want to stop wasting my time arguing with Curtis.

@Ubikwit: A 6-month TBAN from what? If you mean the originally-proposed "Korean influence" page-ban on me but to apply to both CurtisNaito and myself for six months, how do you propose CurtisNaito's previous disruption on the "Emperor Jimmu" and "Soga-Mononobe" pages, let alone everything else, be addressed? If you mean some broader TBAN, how do you justify TBANning me when pretty much everyone here agrees that the only sanctionable behaviour I have engaged in was some aggressiveness and foul language brought on by CurtisNaito's own passive-aggressive BATTLEGROUND mentality (as seen in his opening this thread in the first place) and his constantly ignoring everything everyone who doesn't agree with him says. Your recent edits to the article indicate you agree with me and Nishidani that CurtisNaito has been the one behaving disruptively, so ... what gives?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: Right, I should have specified the originally-proposed "Korean influence" page-ban.

The personal dispute between you two is a time consuming distraction, and your confrontational manner doesn't help, even if CN does misuse sources.

A 6-month break from a single article for the three of you would help others (basically Nishidani and me at this juncture) to not have to police the content, and hopefully give you some perspective about how not to engage.

I have a number of quality academic sources on the topic, but don't have time to contribute to the article, and there are probably other editors out there in a similar situation.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 04:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

@Ubikwit: Okay, I understand that. Your solution is reasonable, and I would be happy to accept it. In case I haven't been clear enough, I don't much enjoy editing that page to begin with, and a set-term break would definitely do me some good.

But your proposal is not really relevant to the topic at hand, since I would happily take such a page-ban even if it had been raised on the article talk page rather than here, and the propsed TBAN on CurtisNaito would de facto ban him from 99% of that page's content anyway.

The problem with your proposing a bipartisan page-ban within this subthread makes it look like you're specifically opposed to the proposed broad TBAN on CurtisNaito, but ... would I be right in guessing that you're actually neutral on whether CurtisNaito should banned from anything outside the "Korean influence" article?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Oppose per my comment above. Bad behavior on both sides. Also should go to ArbCom. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 05:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

6-month page-ban on Korean influence on Japanese culture for CurtisNaito and Hijiri88

Ubikwit brought this up above, and his reasoning is pretty solid. I don't enjoy editing the article to begin with so I'm not opposed to taking a break from it. This is not a replacement for the above-proposed broad TBAN for CurtisNaito; it is supplementary.

• Support as ... I'm not really the proposer, but ... yeah ... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban for TH1980

This editor has been supporting CN's edits, etc., without adequate participation in the content creation process, and should be included if these articles are to be freed from the present disruption.

• Support, as proposer--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 20:13, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Nothing worthy of a ban is evident. AlbinoFerret 22:40, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - This is one of the weakest rationales for a topic ban I've ever seen, and there's been absolutely no evidence presented to support it. A mini-trout to Ubikwit for this poorly-considered proposal. BMK (talk) 23:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support - per previous comments about this user. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 23:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. No way. You said Th1980 didn't have adequate participation in content creation? Evidence suggests otherwise. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

@OhanaUnited: OK, perhaps I should have said "Content building process". Please check the Talk page. At present, for example, he is not participating in Talk discussions per WP:BRD and is instead engaging in a revert war for a substantial revision of the article that does not have consensus and is based on substandard, partisan sources. He has added other similarly biased material in an UNDUE manner fitting the disruptive partisan pattern described by Nishidani. If he isn't topic banned along with CN and Hijiri88, the disruption will not stop, and the goal of preventing disruption not realized. I see the 6-month period as possibly enabling the article to be built up a little using scholarly sources without partisan disruption.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 05:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, what scholarly sources are you referring to? When I rewrote the article I believed that I had consulted most of the relevant scholarly sources available in English on this subject. Among the various books and articles dealing with this topic, it seems to me that the article "Korean Contributions to Agriculture, Technology, and State Formation in Japan" and the book "Sacred Texts and Buried Treasures" are the most comprehensive. They were the most significant sources I used for the rewrite. If you can tell me of additional sources, but you don't have time to add them, then I might have some time this week to do it.CurtisNaito (talk) 05:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

It appears that you don't seem to understand that there are books about various specific, narrowly defined topics that also address aspects of the article. One would be the Frellesvig book I added recently on the history of the Japanese language.

Meanwhile, I have a copy of the original 1993 edition of a book (The Rise of Civilization in China, Korea and Japan, Gina Barnes) that is being re-released in an updated edition Archaeology of East Asia: The Rise of Civilization in China, Korea and Japan, Gina Barnes. That is a source that takes an integral approach to East Asia, so the new edition should be worth waiting for, and I probably will instead of working from the 1993 edition, which I read years ago.

There are other sources, but that is enough to answer your question.

No one that is competent in the field wants to argue with you or anybody else about substandard sources, including generalist infotainment pieces the likes of the Discover piece by Jared Diamond. He is an academic that is known for his popular books--so he has marketing appeal--but his field is not East Asia and he has not been published by a scholarly source on the topic. Thus, it seems that you are cherry-picking substandard sources that fit your 'pro-Korean influence agenda'. The fact that you introduced a single article in English by some Korean academics means very little, as it does appear that you lack competence in this field.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 12:04, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't aware Jared Diamond or William Wayne Farris were known for being "pro-Korean influence agenda". It's true that I consulted them because they discussed the topic of Korean influence on Japanese culture, but I figured that when possible it was better to consult specialist sources rather than generic ones. An article called "Korean Contributions to Agriculture, Technology, and State Formation in Japan" and a chapter of a book entitled "Ancient Japan's Korean Connection" (by Farris) seemed like more pertinent sources than a generic work covering archeology in Korea, China, and Japan. Even so, I will take a look at the source you recommend and see what it has to say about Korean influence on Japanese culture. Regarding the article "Korean Contributions to Agriculture, Technology, and State Formation in Japan", it is a peer-reviewed article dealing with this subject that states at its beginning that it represents the general scholarly consensus on many issues. Although most of its authors have Korean names (except C. Melvin Aikens), many Japanese language sources and scholars were consulted when writing it.CurtisNaito (talk) 13:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

@Ubikwit: I don't care what happened between the parties or whether one side is "more wrong" than the other. Topic ban proposals should be considered phrased carefully with seriousness, not to be made at the spur of the moment. There has been far too many wikilawyering and drama involved for the interpretation of loosely phased or poorly implemented topic bans. Given that you haven't done enough due diligence when proposing this measure, I will continue to oppose on procedural basis. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

@CurtisNaito: Your editing evinces a tendency toward trying to introduce a radical reframing of the scope of the article by integrating a couple of otherwise reliable sources into a POV pushing revision. Nishidani has show, in the past day, that Farris is reliable and can be integrated in a policy-consistent manner. This is why I have asked you to address each point severally, but you have refused.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 10:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I cited Farris several dozen times, each time accurately. It would take a terrible amount of space in the talk page to quote literally every single page of Farris' entire chapter on Korean influence on Japanese culture. I think it would be more convenient if other users would just read the book. That way it would be clear to them that everything was cited properly. I repeatedly asked other users what they objected to in what I added, but no one is answering. I don't think it's appropriate to remove reliably sourced text without giving a reason for it.CurtisNaito (talk) 14:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• Interim support per above-demonstrated TE, EDITWAR, LAWYER, BATTLE, etc. etc. But I question whether a TBAN is really the best long-term solution here -- with all the tendentious SPAs/near-SPAs who show up suddenly and edit-war on that page, are we going to flood the already-bloated WP:RESTRICT list with TBANs for all of them? A block might be more appropriate. I also think arresting the small-time street thugs while ignoring the godfather he works for is probably not the best idea and Ubikwit's proposal there seems to be to give the godfather what he wants by shutting down this one shipment but consciously overlooking 90% of the other drug-trafficking operations going on. (Sorry for the somewhat obtuse metaphor. It broke down something bad at the end there.)

I would also like to ask BMK, AlbinoFerret and OhanaUnited why they are posting here when they clearly haven't read the above discussion? BMK and AlbinoFerret indicated above that they think trying to resolve a dispute in the most peaceful and restrained manner possible is "BATTLEGROUND behaviour", and OhanaUnited immediately above asserts that blindly reverting numerous times to a version of the article that was discontinued months before one ever edited counts as making a significant contribution to building the article; it's not a good-faith misunderstanding, as it was all discussed in great detail further up this same thread.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:04, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, is it not mandatory that the editors who participate in these discussion agree with your assessment of what it is and isn't important, nor do you get to choose who comments.

I suggest that you refrain from additional commentary, as your recent posts have only demonstrated the confrontational behaviors that you have been charged with. BMK (talk) 03:39, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose I think TH1980's edits have been quite constructive. The information TH1980 was adding was reliably sourced and relevant. Hijiri's comparison of TH1980 and I to organized criminals is an inappropriate assumption of bad faith given that our objective has only been article improvement.CurtisNaito (talk) 05:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Curtis, going out of your way to interpret other users' comments in the most offensive light possible is a pretty textbook violation of AGF. I did not "compare" your "motives" to those of a crime syndicate; I didn't even mention your motives. My metaphor (not a comparison) was much more a critique of Ubikwit than of you and TH1980, and even then it was not a critique of Ubikwit as an editor but of his very-roundabout proposal for solving the problems at hand, which I was trying to compare to treating the symptoms rather than the disease. It's a solution aimed solely at solving one particular content dispute on one particular article, and so would be more at homeon the article talk page or on DRN, since ANI is for discussing user conduct. The topic at hand is that you have spent the last two years wasting a whole lot of other editors' time by engaging them in never-ending arguments over your own inability to read sources, and Ubikwit's solution, while a good proposal that will not make the problem worse, also completely fails to address the problem. Like a police officer going around filling up his rap sheet arresting small time dealers and ignoring the kingpin (no doubt because it would be too difficult, rather than because of any malicious intent). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:04, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose This proposition is being done out of spite by Hijiri 88, pure and simple. He is part of a clique which seems to think they "own" certain Wikipedia pages, a massive violation of Wikipedia principles. I will not be shoved off this page.TH1980 (talk) 20:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

@TH1980: um... Hijiri88 didn't propose for you to be tbanned, User:Ubikwit did. And what "clique" are you refering to? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 21:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

@Sturmgewehr88: I oppose User:Ubikwit's proposal then, but it all doesn't really matter, because any sane person who reviews the Wikipedia page in question will see that a select group of users acts if it is "their" page and is hostile to outsiders like me. And they constantly violate Wikipedia standards by their behavior.TH1980 (talk) 22:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Send to Arbcom?

Any assessment of this situation hinges on the correctness of Nishidani's claim that CurtisNaito has displayed a long-term pattern of incompetent or irresponsible dealing with sources. That's a serious allegation, but it requires in-depth review and I'm not confident that we can competently judge it here in the atmosphere of a "!vote" at ANI, especially in a topic area most of us probably know next to nothing about. At the moment I don't see how a competent informed consensus could be formed on any of the several proposed outcomes listed above. Wouldn't it be better for this to be reviewed at Arbcom? When filing, it will be crucial to point out to the arbs that what they should review is not just the superficial signs of conflict such as edit-warring or incivility, but the root causes of conflict that lie in peoples's dealing with sources (and that judging this is not "just a content dispute" either). Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Whatever, no one need take my word for anything. I know the topics fairly thoroughly, through primary and secondary sources in Japanese and Western languages. I try however to avoid the topic area because of the need to WP:AGF, and all I can see is puerile bickering and dumb-ignorant edits based on an inability to see good sources and evaluate reliable evidence. I see only POV passions, googling for evidence to support them, and above, all, the tolerance on the page of sheer bad edits or nonsense that anyone with the slightest BA competence in Japanese studies would find laughable (I'm thinking of CurtisNaito in this regard). There are massive corrections to be made, but, as Ubikwit says, one simply doesn't have the time (at least for now), except to note that the litigants who do edit those pages, can't see the obvious (citing outdated sources like Fenellosa et al. from a century back,etc. I gave details a year ago why none of them are reliable, and suggested how to fix the sourcing: almost nothing done, and my edits are invariably to replace bad edits by giving several good sources, which, however anyone could do, if they had the foggiest idea of what Japanese scholarship knows). If there is competent area specialists available to review these messes, by all means get a third opinion from her, them. Nishidani (talk) 09:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, I also know this topic very thoroughly, and so far no specific or concrete example of my alleged misuse of sources has yet been given. If this were to go to Arbcom the lack of evidence for this claim would be readily apparent. Nishidani has sometimes been replacing the sources TH980 and I have been adding with different sources, but in most cases I would hardly call them higher quality sources. Regarding Fenollosa for instance, Nishidani's preferred version of the article cites Fenollosa four times. By contrast, my preferred version of the article cites Fenollosa only twice, each time only to provide a reinforcing quote for a statement already cited to a different source. Nishidani apparently favors citing Fenollosa to a greater extent than I do. Between the two versions Nishidani also deleted a quote in the introduction taken from a 2007 article, "Korean Contributions to Agriculture, Technology, and State Formation in Japan", dealing expressly with the issue of Korean influence on Japanese culture, and replaced it with two tertiary sources which barely deal with issues relating to the article at all. "Encyclopedia of Historians and Historical Writing" only mentions the horserider theory and the mimana theory, neither of which are dealt with in either version of the article, and the other, "Korea: A Historical and Cultural Dictionary", only briefly mentions the Japanese colonial period, which again is not mentioned in the article.CurtisNaito (talk) 10:15, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Going to Arbcom with this issue might be good. CurtisNaito you are sure about never misinterpreting any references? VandVictory (talk) 10:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely. Not one single specific case of me misinterpreting sources has yet been presented.CurtisNaito (talk) 10:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Same here, no problem with the proposal. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

'Well, I also know this topic very thoroughly.' Sigh. I've had to correct virtually every edit I've seen you make, or revert every revert. True, you eventually accept nearly all of these improvements, after persisting on the talk page in justifying the trash you added, but, had you known the material, you wouldn't have dumped in the trash in the first place. I can document this at great length, but suffice it to read the relevant talk pages, and examine each time you've been reverted by a knowledgeable editor.Nishidani (talk) 13:25, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

You didn't have to do that. I think the edits were fine the way they were. I accepted many of your changes, not because they were particularly better, but because they were in most cases not a lot worse. For instance, TH1980 wrote, "Edo Neo-Confucianism was based in substantial measure off Korean writings, especially the works of Yi Hwang" and you wrote "Yi T'oegye had a high repute among many neo-Confucian scholars of the Tokugawa period". There is a slightly different nuance there, but I don't see version one as being substantially better or worse than version two. They both work.CurtisNaito (talk) 13:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

@CurtisNaito: "not one single specific case... has yet been presented". Dude, have you not read any of Nishidani's comments? Or half of Hijiri's? This WP:IDHT crap needs to stop. Someone really should bring this to ArbCom, preferably User:Nishidani. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 17:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

The only example of misrepresentation of sources which you have ever cited was this one involving two sources which I never mentioned in the talk page and never cited in the article. You have not explained to me how this is even possible. I'm not opposed to going to arbcom because it's hard to imagine that the arbs will accuse of misrepresenting sources which I never mentioned in the talk page and never cited in the article.CurtisNaito (talk) 18:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Well. Thanks for the leg-in. No better example of what you are doing, or rather, failing to understand, could be given. This for the record is what happened re User:TH1980's edit.This is the one, which you still insist is fine, and not incompatible with the several sources I have since introduced.

• (a) It is ungrammatical/unidiomatic (based . .off)
• (b) The statement is absurd
• (c) It is sourced to a Korean political scientist Chong-Sik Lee, whose academic record shows no familiarity with the topic.
• (d) it misrepresents the source. That two Japanese thinkers (ca.1600 CE) are by TH1980's source, Chong-Sik Lee, said to have ‘based their neo-Confucian learning on Korean writings, particularly those of Yi Hwang’

TH1980 twisted this into the generalization ‘Edo Neo-Confucianism (1600-1868) was based in substantial measure off Korean writings, especially the works of Yi Hwang’.

This is source misrepresentation, and WP:OR bundled up in one. The putative influence of Korean scholars on two early neo-Confucians in Japan is distorted into a substantial dependence of two centuries of Japanese neo-Confucian thought on Korean writings.

It was a gross nationalistic caricature and displayed a total ignorance of the state of studies on this particular theme.

So I reverted it, perhaps too verbally brusquely, but out it had to go. I was in turn reverted by the same editor.

I explained in detail on the talk page why this edit was fatuous. You, Curtis, did not revert me, but still wanted to retain the original source, and two others, all, as my edits showed, irrelevant because ignorant of what the scholarship on the question now accepted. Even now you maintain that the complete rewrite doesn't substantially differ from the bizarre one line edit User:TH1980 made.

Any neutral eye can compare his original contribution, and its content and innuendoes, with the corrective expansion I had to make to fix it, which reflects the state of scholarship by experts on Tokugawa thought and elidews the nationalist one-upmanship in the original edit to secure NPOV. Your behavioural problem is an inability to read assess the quality of, and understand the content of sources, esp. in any premodern topic area. Nishidani (talk) 18:00, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

The original source said, "Neo-Confucian learning had made much progress in Korea, where the Yi dynasty had adopted it as the Korean official philosophy. Such leading Japanese philosophers as Fujiwara Seika (1561-1619) and Hayashi Razan (1593-1657) based their neo-Confucian learning on Korean writings, particularly those of Yi Hwang..." It's hard to imagine that "Edo Neo-Confucianism was based in substantial measure off Korean writings, especially the works of Yi Hwang" was a misrepresentation. Fujiwara Seika and Hayashi Razan were certainly the founding figures of the ideology. Your idea that the text implies "two centuries of Japanese neo-Confucian thought" is rather unusual as it appears nowhere in that text. Basically, my belief that we should interpret sources based on what the sources say and not based on what we imagine the sources to say.CurtisNaito (talk) 18:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• TH1980'"Edo Neo-Confucianism was based in substantial measure off Korean writings, especially the works of Yi Hwang"
• Nishidani:'The putative influence of Korean scholars on two early neo-Confucians in Japan is distorted into a substantial dependence of two centuries of Japanese neo-Confucian thought on Korean writings.'
• CurtisNaito:'Your idea that the text implies "two centuries of Japanese neo-Confucian thought" is rather unusual'.
• Edo Neo-Confucianism:'Although philosophical competitors, Kokugaku and Neo-Confucianism would co-exist as the dominant philosophical thought of Japan until the arrival of Western philosophy during the Meiji period.' I.e.(1600s-1867 =more than 2 centuries)

Failure to read again. Implicature Sigh.Nishidani (talk) 15:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

It's not failure to read. Again, I think this is hyperbole on your part. You called it "falsification", but it's easy to extrapolate the idea that, because the founding fathers of Japanese neo-Confucianism were influenced by Korean writings, that in turn means that Japanese neo-Confucianism was influenced by Korean writings. The expression used was "based off". When something is "based off" something else, then the influence might not necessarily have extended beyond the "base". If you want to take a different angle on it, you could accuse TH1980 and I of under-stating the influence of Korean writing on Japanese neo-Confucianism. All that TH1980 said was that the base bore signs of influence. I suppose you could say he is a biased anti-Korean editor for refusing to acknowledge any influence beyond that. However, if TH1980 wanted to emphasize what you are implying, then he would have written in "two centuries of Japanese neo-Confucian thought" instead of not writing that.CurtisNaito (talk) 15:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Well gentlemen, the evidence is there, and he keeps repeating his position in the face of it. This is one of the things that made Hijiri get to the end of his tether (and I do not say that in mitigation. He was wrong to lose his temper). There is no way that one can reason with Curtis. It's pure WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.Nishidani (talk) 18:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

There's a difference between disagreeing with you and not hearing you. I heard out your complaints, but it's hard to imagine how anyone can say that such a basic summary of the material presented in the original source is somehow a falsification.CurtisNaito (talk) 18:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Man! I gave specific evidence, listed the policy violations, WP:OR etc., poor sourcing, erroneous judgement, and you still avoid replying to the substance of my complaint. You just ignore it, as you do on talk pages on all issues. If this goes to Arbcom, you are on your own. I'm, fucked if I'm going to waste more time on documenting what is obvious. The point I wished to make from the outset is this: Curtis's complaint against Hijiri has merit, as independent arbs have recognized. What was missing was the subtext, the inordinately deaf WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT passive aggressive behavior of the plaintiff. Any judgement sanctioning Hijiri must also pass judgement on Curtis Naito's unacceptable attrition of several editors' patience.Nishidani (talk) 18:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I did respond to your concern about the misrepresentation. About the other points, I already answered them above and in the talk page. In the talk page I said, "Citing Lee has the strong advantage of being more on focus in regards to the article as a whole, because the topic of the page cited is listed explicitly in the book's index as being 'Korean influence on Japanese culture'." Therefore, while Lee might not be an expert in philosophy, citing him was relevant to the bigger issue of Korean influence on Japanese culture, which is what Lee was talking about in that part of his book. Furthermore, the statement was not "absurd" because it's the same thing many other recent sources also state. Such highly reliable sources as Ha Woobong's 2009 article "Kang Hang and Confucianism in Modern Japan", Edward Chung's 1995 book "The Korean Neo-Confucianism of Yi Tʻoegye and Yi Yulgok", and Marius Jansen's 2000 book, "The Making of Modern Japan" say the same thing. In cases like this when reliable source disagree, we're better off just putting in both views equally. There was no falsification, we were all just dialoguing in good faith in order to find the right wording to use.CurtisNaito (talk) 18:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Sigh.Nishidani (talk) 20:00, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. This should be treated simply as problematical behavior by two editors, either by an interaction ban, or a topic ban for from 3 to 6 months for both. An Arbcom discussion will simply repeat what is documented here. Unilateral action against Hijiri would be improper because several editors concur that, notwithstanding Naito's politeness, he is impossible to edit with. Nishidani (talk) 20:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Oppose What is happening on this page is extreme partisanship at best, at worst, the actions of a clique which seems to think they "own" the page, a massive violation of Wikipedia principles. I strongly object to the claims that me and talk use sources poorly. We are both well versed in research. What is happening on this page is anarchy, pure and simple.TH1980 (talk) 20:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, I hope you all see that so far no admin is inclined to dive into this dispute and hand out topic or page bans or blocks. And this ANI discussion is beginning to resemble the article talk page which is maddening to read as someone unfamiliar with the subject and probably even more insufferable if you DO know your way around Japanese history.
The suggestion has been made to pose this as a case request to ARBCOM and that suggestion has received a mixed response. You can take this advice or continue to argue with each other here until this thread gets archived or gets closed by an admin or editor who wants this conversation to be over. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose You know, on second thought Nishidani is right, as usual. This is a conflict between me and CurtisNaito. We have both been disruptive on the talk page of this one, low-traffic, barely-worth-even-the-effort-that's-already-been-wasted-on-it-much-less-meriting-more-fuss article. An admin doesn't need a PhD in Japanese Studies to see that. A fixed term (six-months or a year would probably be enough), two-way page-ban from the Korean influence on Japanese culture article is in order, to allow other editors to improve ny ArbCom case would almost certainly bring about the same result, just slower and more troublesome-ly. I also would be not averse to an IBAN with CurtisNaito, although past experience has taught me that unless CurtisNaito also agrees an IBAN would not work. Both of these can be accomplished quite readily right here, especially since no one, not even CurtisNaito and I, has actually opposed them. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppopse Per Nishidani, this is not an Arbcom level matter.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 04:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Support for topic ban. I find the editor’s behaviour in underlying his case to be out with any given standard within Wikipedia. My comment is not objective as I had quite some trouble with the individual.--Catflap08 (talk) 18:52, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Catflap08 There are three editors with a suggested topic ban, and you did not specifically mention any of them. Who were you referring to? AlbinoFerret 20:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• Catflap should not be commenting here at all, because as far as I can tell, the interaction ban between them and Hijiri has not been dissolved yet. There is a consensus for it, but I don't see where it was actually repealed. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

@AlbinoFerret: Catflap intentionally left out Hijiri's name because mentioning him would violate the IBAN that is still in place. In fact, I'm pretty sure that him commenting here at all (which is in the wrong subsection btw) is a violation of said IBAN, or at the very least inappropriate. @Catflap08: you should withdraw your !vote. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 04:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Oppose This matter has been discussed at length with no consensus has been reached. I therefore vote it not be sent to Arbcom.TH1980 (talk) 23:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Support sending to ArbCom per my comment supporting Johnuniq. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 05:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Both editors need to cut it out

CurtisNaito is quite obviously POV pushing in this article, and his lame defense is that he's quoting "academic" articles. I have background knowledge of two of the subjects being discussed in Korean influence on Japanese culture and it is apparent that he is misusing sources and intentionally adopting POV language for those subjects in particular; and when you check the references he added to this article, you see a surprisingly small number of sources being used for such a complex topic. Clearly CurtisNaito can't read Japanese or Korean, but I think this is a much bigger problem than that: he's not actually familiar even with the English language scholarship on the subjects he discusses, despite his obnoxious grandstanding. I agree with Nishidani here: "Curtis's knowledge of Japanese topics looks like that of a high school enthusiast with no sense of critical method." His edits shouldn't be allowed to remain.

But meanwhile, Hijiri88's conduct within this ANI discussion leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

• Hijiri always admits he's wrong when a source has been misused or countering theories have been found, but he almost never admits he's wrong on conduct issues. Wikipedia is not an ivory tower. A lot of clueless volunteers will always be editing here, and the only reasonable ways to handle their ignorance are to remain polite or absent yourself.
• Rather than starting a new section like "Let's talk about CurtisNaito's conduct" for him to vent about CurtisNaito's POV pushing and aggravating behavior, he instead makes a punishment proposal called "Boomerang for CurtisNaito". There are a lot of editors who do this and I despise it every time. If an ANI discussion is about you, it is not your place to try to deflect and get someone else punished. Admins will decide that.
• He also started another section called "6-month page-ban on Korean influence on Japanese culture for CurtisNaito and Hijiri88", once again in order to deflect criticism of his editing into something that would get CurtisNaito removed from the article. Again, I personally think CurtisNaito is POV pushing and degrading the article considerably, but this is not how to handle conflict.

I would personally have supported a boomerang for CurtisNaito, but I have no doubt that the way this ANI was approached -- that is, a conduct, not a content issue -- has made all solutions impossible. Shii (tock) 13:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support pretty much everything Shii has written above, oppose everything else. The introduction of flawed arguments from previous ANI threads simply served to weaken this one from the very start. Hijiri is combative and stubborn and opinionated. But as with a great many arguments about their conduct in the past, there are large swathes of editors to confirm that, factually, Hijiri is on the right side of the argument (again). Piggy-backing onto flawed complaints about conduct in an attempt to get the upper hand in a content discussion where you've played a weaker hand is fairly futile. St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• Agree, but with a couple of notes on Shii's mostly-well-reasoned and certainly-well-intentioned comment. "Both editors need to cut it out" was actually what I (and User:Ubikwit and User:Nishidani) meant with the suggestion that both CurtisNaito and myself be placed under a six-month page-ban. I opened a new subthread on the subject because Ubikwit's mention of it in several other threads implied that he was opposed to those suggestions, when (it at least appeared that) he was technically neutral with regard to at least one of them. It was not "in order to deflect criticism of his editing into something that would get CurtisNaito removed from the article". I also only used the wording "Boomerang for CurtisNaito" instead of "Let's talk about CurtisNaito's conduct" because I thought this was standard. I didn't realize there were users who didn't like it, and I apologize for any offense this may have caused. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

(Final?) Proposal

• Prediction - no one's going to close this, no sanctions are going to be issued; therefore...
• Proposal - take all the subject editors, put them in the Wikivault (the old one, with the ripped leather sofas and the broken air conditioner), and lock the door for 1 hour; no talking is to be allowed; (make sure the refrigerator is plugged in and stocked with water)
• Shame - when the door is unlocked, and the participants are on the way out, each of them is to be gently stopped, held lightly by the shoulders and looked at piercingly in the eyes; only when the subject's eyes drop away are they to be hugged and sent on their way
• Party - the participants may have a party afterwards if they wish to; Wikipedia will pay for the pizzas.

BMK (talk) 02:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

No takers on this? OK, what if Wikipedia picks up the bill for ice cream and cake, as well as the pizza? BMK (talk) 11:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't need them, because this kind of bickering gives me a run of the Jimmy Brits, but I'd suggest suppositories, administered before incarceration for an hour in the wikivault.:)Nishidani (talk) 11:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Lachlan Foley genre warring

• Lachlan Foley (talk · contribs)

Leading up to March, the editor was making disruptive edits to music articles, genre warring specifically, and after this revision to an album article, they were blocked. I noticed a few days ago they had continued genre warring when a number of album articles I have on my watchlist showed similar changes, including some of the same articles they had been warned for disrupting in the past.

• 01:08, 12 May 2015 at Daydream Nation
• 01:11, 12 May 2015 at Sister (Sonic Youth album)
• 01:12, 12 May 2015 at Sonic Nurse
• 01:12, 12 May 2015 at Murray Street (album)
• 01:12, 12 May 2015 at The Eternal (album)
• 01:52, 15 May 2015 at Human After All
• 01:56, 15 May 2015 at Discovery (Daft Punk album)
• 00:00, 16 May 2015 at The Fat of the Land
• 03:33, 16 May 2015 at Blow Up (EP)

I suppose because these articles receive little-to-no attention, the editor's changes were not noticed by anyone else. Dan56 (talk) 15:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

The only diffs that truly bother me are the last few. The first five are petty genre warring that I would probably just ignore unless they were part of a long-term issue. The sixth and seventh ones removed a reliable source and replaced it with original research. The eighth looks like edit warring to maintain original research. The last one looks like it removed a dead link in violation of WP:KDL. The review is archived at the Internet Archive, which he should have checked before removing it. Although WP:INFOBOXREF discourages citations in infoboxes, that does not mean that you can strip out citations and replace them with original research. Personally, I'd be satisfied with a statement that he's not going to genre war any more. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate:, the first few are part of a long-term issue; see "general update" to Daydream Nation on 5 December 2014, this revision to Sister (Sonic Youth album) on 19 March 2015, "general update" to Honi Soit (album), "general update" to Helen of Troy (album), "general update" to Vintage Violence, "general update" to HoboSapiens... there are numerous instances of providing a false edit summary while genre warring. Dan56 (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Disruption of AFD discussion

There's an AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diploma in Homoeopathic Medicine & Surgery, started by the original creator of the article, User: AKS.9955, who has apparently decided that a community decision on whether to delete or keep it is appropriate - I am aware of no policy reason why an author should not do that with their own article. User:Wikimandia has decided that such an action constitutes a G7 speedy deletion request, and has argued that at some length in the discussion. I have pointed out that he/she is wrong and have asked for his/her policy basis for insisting that it is a G7, and even the author himself has clearly stated that "My personal opinion is not to delete the article". Even after all that, User:Wikimandia tagged Diploma in Homoeopathic Medicine & Surgery with a G7 speedy deletion request, despite that clearly not being the wish of the author. I reverted and warned User:Wikimandia not to put the G7 tag back, and he/she promptly went ahead and put it back again. It's clearly not a G7, and User:Wikimandia appears to be deliberately acting tendentiously. I request admin action against User:Wikimandia to stop the disruption and allow the AFD discussion to progress. Mr Potto (talk) 11:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and he/she's calling the article creator a moron too. Mr Potto (talk) 11:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

And he/she's edit warring to reinstate the G7 tag. I've reverted once more but I won't revert any further as I don't want to risk 3RR. (I guess it might be a valid exception even if it's perhaps not blatant vandalism, but I don't want to risk it.) Mr Potto (talk) 11:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree. This person is wikilawyering tendentiously. I don't understand why someone would nominate an AfD if they don't want the article deleted, but since that's what they've explicitly said it does not qualify for G7. Reyk _YO! 12:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Lame. User: AKS.9955 nominated two of his own articles for deletion at the AfD but does not want them deleted (??). According to others, he is doing this to prove some kind of point because he thinks someone else should have nominated them for deletion (?). Nobody is discussing the actual articles but it's full of petty arguing. AfD is not the appropriate forum for this. If nobody is sincerely nominating these articles for deletion, they should not be on AfD. Either speedy delete per WP:G7 or withdraw the nomination. If MrPotto is so concerned about being polite, note he called me stupid. —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you Mr Potto, I am the creator of the article and also nominated it for WP:AfD. I did that simply because the discussions were turning into argument, with both of us trying to prove our points (we both might have valid reasons also). If the articles fails WP:GNG or WP:SPAM, then they should not be on Wikipedia and hence I nominated it (although this action should have been taken by the editor who was discussing the matter with me). In any case, just because the creator nominated the page for AfD does not mean been it should be speedily deleted. I did not open the AfD for discussion and I sure you read there that I raised an objection to the other editor for starting a discussion there. I also noticed that User:Wikimandia abused me there when I was not even talking to her. I have posted a caution on her TalkPage and also a message on the AfD discussion. If she does not put an apology forward, I am going to report her. Thanks for your time. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

@Wikimandia: Whether or not the AFD is valid and whether or not is it pointy, it is still *not* the equivalent of a G7 speedy delete request. You might think that's what the author should do, but the fact is he hasn't and has clearly said he doesn't want it deleted, and you do not have the right to force a G7 on his behalf. (As for my "stupid" remark, you will see that I struck it soon after I made it, and I apologize for a moment of frustration with someone who clearly wasn't listening.) Mr Potto (talk) 12:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• And User:Wikimandia is escalating the personal attacks. Mr Potto (talk) 12:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
• I really fail to see how that's a personal attack. Additionally, I couldn't care less that you called me stupid, as 1) I'm not 12 years old and 2) I'm not stupid. Kindly take your drama off AfD and discuss it elsewhere. As you have not made any contribution toward a discussion of deleting or keeping the article, it's unclear why you are there. —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:24, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • At the moment I'm there to try to stop your tendentious disruption of the AFD request so that people who wish to discuss it can do so in a calm and peaceful manner, as that seems to be a necessary precursor. Mr Potto (talk) 12:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Well this is certainly entering (or is already at) WP:LAME territory. Wikimandia, I really suggest you drop the stick and walk away here. AKS.9955 has clearly stated he doesn't want the article deleted, therefore, it's not G7. The personal attacks are unnecessary as well. only (talk) 12:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, this is new levels of WP:LAME. The claims of personal attacks is also fail as far as I'm concerned. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• And the trolling continues. If there are any admins around, do those of us who wish to address the AFD intelligently and in line with policy really have to put up with this disruption for much longer? Mr Potto (talk) 13:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the claim that there is something amiss with nominating your own article for deletion and then !voting against deletion. If I create an article and other editors are of the opinion that it should be deleted but don't know enough to list it at AfD, I might very well list it myself to give the opinion of the newbies a fair hearing. Nothing wrong with that. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Guy Macon That's what the discussion page is for. Additionally, you will commonly see people creating an AfD and then adding another vote to delete it; that vote is struck out and they are told, "you don't need to add that second vote. Nominating counts as your vote." Would you nominate something for a WP:GOODARTICLE or WP:DYK and then claim you were NOT actually nominating it, you just wanted to see what others thought about it and if it should be nominated? Seriously, does that make any sense?

• By the way, to any admins reading this, I'd like to point out that Mr Potto has had an account for about three weeks, but half of his contributions to Wikipedia are related to this stupid AfD conversation today and most of the others are on talk pages or other administrative stuff. He's not a sock and I'm the queen of England. —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer a new user who comes up to speed quickly over an old user who's still so confused about policies that he or she thinks that "long-term coverage" is required for notability [22]. EEng (talk) 19:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

When the nominator explicitly says "My personal opinion is not to delete the article and have merely nominated this as an editor "feels" that this article fails WP:GNG and is WP:SPAM (promotional) in nature. Please don't take my nomination OR comment as the recommendation (either way) and use your own judgment", then you either have to be exceptionally stupid or a troll to keep insisting that they're asking for it to be deleted as a CSD:G7. I have to say I'm surprised that someone with your years of experience could understand AFD and CSD so poorly, could have such an apparently weak understanding of plain English, and could apparently be so unfamiliar with the old adage about holes and digging, Wikimandia. Also, your Majesty, if you believe you have evidence that I am abusively using multiple accounts, I believe you are supposed to provide it at WP:SPI rather than throwing around unsupported accusations. Mr Potto (talk) 17:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

"Your Majesty" -- good one! EEng (talk) 19:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

"I must make a note about this shocking proposal!" Martinevans123 (talk) 19:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

@Wikimandia: Your personal attack on Mr Potto (accusing of sockpuppetry, especially with no evidence whatsoever) aside, Wikipedia does allow multiple accounts. Your claim of WP:CSD#G7 and attempts to edit war over it is an absolute farce. G7 says "If requested in good faith" It wasn't requested in any faith at all. It was requested unknowingly. G7 is for when an editor created an article, is the sole major contributor to it, and says something along the lines of "I f'd up, its my bad, feel free to delete". I see nothing of the sort here, regardless of whatever implied consent you think is given by bringing an article up for discussion at WP:AFD. ― Padenton|✉   18:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

The nomination-counts-as-your-vote-so-you-mean-G7-even-if-you-say-you-don't argument is perhaps the most perfectly distilled example of wikilawyering ever. EEng (talk) 17:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Particularly so since an AfD is not a vote. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I think it's useful to point out here that AfD originally stood for "Articles for Discussion", and at heart that's what it still is, really. EEng (talk)

 Comment::- Articles for deletion (WP:AfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted or not. I think Wikimandia misunderstood the WP:AfD process, that it is not a place where articles must be deleted at all cost but where Wikipedians determines the faith of articles after a period of policy-based arguments and the consensus there determines the faith of the article. It's usually not a good idea to assumed that a nominator of an article for deletion is doing that in bad faith and such assumption is usually frown upon. Having said that, I think Mr Potto is too hasty in bringing the issues here, it would have been better to resolve the issues with an univolved admin rather than ANI or better still Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. I think am familiar with AKS.9955 and Wikimandia and what I can deduce from my experience with both editor is that they need some behavioral guidelines on how to interact with fellow editors if they are really here to build an encyclopedia. @Padenton: I actually thought it was a duplicate, thanks for reverting my edit. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 01:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

@Wikicology: I brought it here because Wikimandia was repeatedly adding a blatantly incorrect G7 tag to the article and refused to stop doing it when asked, and was clearly not open to a constructive dialog. That needed to be stopped, and I think this is an appropriate place to ask for help with that (and, I would have thought, an ideal place to find an uninvolved admin as you suggest). And the Dispute Resolution board would have been wrong, as that is for content disputes and this is not a content dispute. Mr Potto (talk) 08:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• Wikic¤l¤gy; Firstly you should know what is being discussed here and why this issue has been brought here by Mr Potto. Secondly (and as I cautioned you earlier); be careful of using strong language against me. You have a habit of putting others down just to prove how smart you are; go do it somewhere else. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:52, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Personal attacks and repeated abuses by Wikimandia

An AfD discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diploma in Homoeopathic Medicine & Surgery is going on. During the discussion (and without any provocation), Wikimandia abused me. To this, I raised an objection there and also posted a caution on her TalkPage. She not only continues to be unapologetic, but increased her attacked on her TalkPage. There is another ANI (this) open against her. Whilst I am posting this on the notice board, I am issuing another caution notice to her for personal attacks. I hope that the user will be dealt with accordingly. Many thanks, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:25, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

There's no need for a separate section for this; you can add the comments in the section above. only (talk) 12:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• only, honestly I was thinking the same too but then still decided to start a new topic as both subjects are related but still different. I hope this will be in line. If you still want, I can delete this OR ask for an admin to merge this request with the one above. Please let me know. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• How about we just change the heading level to make this a subsection of the above section? (I've been bold and done it, so I hope that's acceptable to all.) Mr Potto (talk) 12:48, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with Mr Potto. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:LAME WP:LAME WP:LAME WP:LAME WP:LAME WP:LAME WP:LAME WP:LAME WP:LAME WP:LAME WP:LAME —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• Mr Potto, I suggest that we create a separate section for "Personal attacks and repeated abuses...." as the user not only refuses to listen but has not started mocking everyone. I have taken the liberty to re-create the section. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 13:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• Sure, entirely up to you. Mr Potto (talk) 13:51, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment: None of this mess would have occurred if those involved had followed Wikipedia guidelines and discussed issues on the article talk page, rather than edit-warring, starting an AfD with an invalid deletion rationale ("I don't want the article deleted" isn't a rationale for deletion, obviously), and engaging in endless sniping at each other in the AfD and here. I suggest trouts all round, along with instructions to use article talk pages for debates in future. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:51, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

This would not have happened had one editor not been edit warring to add a blatantly incorrect G7 speedy deletion tag to the article, and trying to divert this from that simple truth is not, in my opinion, very helpful. If someone (article creator or other) believes that a discussion should be held on whether an article should be deleted, then AFD seems to me to be precisely the place to conduct it. Mr Potto (talk) 19:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• AndyTheGrump, That's NOT what is being discussed here now. Issue here is that an editor is being abusive and has been reported. What you are trying to do is reduce number of WP:ANI reports against her from 2 to 1. Don't do it again. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 19:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• AndyTheGrump, apologies if I was curt. Its just that I am lost in-between too many abuses and bad comments - it was an honest WP:AfD nomination and God only knows why people started getting personal rather than a simple keep or delete. Back on the subject of this report, I originally had started this a separate topic and would intend it to stay that way. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 19:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

No less than Administrator Chillum edited this to be a subtopic of the above, and several of us editors agree with him. There is no need to make it a separate topic – Administrators can walk and chew gum at the same time: they can figure out what's going on here. So there is no need for a separate topic for this – please leave it as a subtopic. --IJBall (talk) 19:22, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that Arun Kumar SINGH needs to understand that once an issue is raised on WP:ANI, the broader background is very much open to discussion if relevant. And that AfDs are not votes... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:28, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• AndyTheGrump, I never said AfD are votes - you perhaps confused me with someone else. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:52, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

 Comment::- AKS.9955's edit history and the way they often interact with other editors does not shows they are here to build an encyclopedia and they often want to attack and insult any editor who disagree with them. I strongly believe that any editor that is not here to collaborate with other editors is certainly not here to build an encyclopedia. I want to give the chronology of my experience with them. I noticed that User:AKS.9955 usually gives wrong rationale at AfDs and I left a note on their talk page here, they responded by accusing me as "fault finding editor" [23]. I responded to that comment [24] with clarification. They solicited for my help [25] and I rendered it. Few weeks later, I notify them of the nomination of one of their non-notable article [26] and they responded aggressively here, I responded [27], they responded with an attack here and on my talk page here and I responded [28]. They engaged in off-topic discussion and this was removed by Stalwart111 [29] and they accused User:Stalwart111 of WP:GANG against them here the discussion was closed as Delete. Before the discussion was closed, they also left an insulting wording on my talk page [30], I removed it here, they re-posted the same content I removed again from my talk page here. The way they also react to Jeffro77 on their talk page for example here and the editor's own talk page [31] does not show that they are here to build an encyclopedia. I point out all this simply because of my experienced with them and am not sure of what they might have done with other editors too. Their response to my initial comments in the above speak for itself. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

 Comment::- Wikicology: Its nice to see how much time you spend on proving how right you are and how to frame someone else. Before you say anything else, you should look at your own AfD record and the lame reasons you have given there. In any case, I have no inclination to talk to someone like you or Jeffro77 and have made it very clear to both parties. What you are doing here is instead of staying on the subject of "disruptive editing" and "personal attacks" by another user in question (for which this ANI discussion was started), you are trying to settle some past scores and also trying to prove to everyone how "wise" you are. In any case, I will NOT respond to any further messages from you unless you have something constructive to say. Stop dragging my name into matters when I am trying to work on more meaningful things. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 09:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's any "framing" there. The discussion that included me did include a lot of back and forth that could have been avoided if there hadn't been an obvious language barrier. Arun, you jump to conclusions without understanding the policy background and you tend to assume to worst of people (like the suggestion I was ganging up on you and the suggestion you are being framed). The diffs speak for themselves in many of the cases cited. If nothing else, you need to take a step back, breath and read what has been written before shooting from the hip. St★lwart¹¹¹ 10:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• Folks, as far as I'm concerned this thing is settled, and the AFD discussion is progressing just fine. There's been some heated disagreement, but I'm happy to see all sides as having done things in good faith -- good faith editors can very easily get into disputes like this in this unforgiving medium (and it only takes a brief reading of this very page to see that). I strongly suggest we all drop this now and move on, and I'd be happy to see this whole section closed myself. What do you say? Mr Potto (talk) 14:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Troll editor operating on proxy IPs and possible hacker

See this discussion. A user who I knew, AHLM13, was blocked recently as his account was used for random vandalism twice (more on ANI here and here). AHLM13 denied he did the vandalism and claims his account was hacked. There is an anonymous user operating from proxy IPs who for the past few days has been trolling on people's talk pages while acting as AHLM13 (see the whole army of socks and IPs abusing Anna's talk page; many other user and talk pages have also been abused, including mine). While I had expressed my concerns over AHLM's account being hacked right when he was blocked for his first vandalism spree on 3 May, a couple of users and I have gone over some recent evidence at my talk page and we are becoming more than convinced that this is indeed the case. One thing common with all these socks and proxies is the repeated racist and religious slurs on talk pages, and random messages (usually profane) written in Bengali (AHLM accused a Bengali editor of hacking his account). An involved user, User:CosmicEmperor has expressed concerns on my talk page how his account has been mysteriously 'logging off' and that he may be about to get hacked. Just now, I have also received a threat. If something happens to my account, I would like to make it clear in advance that it should be blocked immediately. It is possible we are dealing with a notorious and vicious hacker. I would really like admins to look into this matter ASAP and uncover who this editor is and what are his motives. Mar4d (talk) 14:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Also pinging other involved editors: Lukeno94, @Ravensfire:, CosmicEmperor, @Favonian:, @Anna Frodesiak:, Mike V, AsceticRose, Jpgordon. Mar4d (talk) 14:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• I'm only tangentially involved from giving a couple of comments in passing, but there is definitely something weird here. We have two possible options, in my opinion; either AHLM13 has gone completely off the rails, or they're telling the truth. I also believe that there may well be an opportunist vandal who is tagging along for the ride. What we do know is that IPs from a wide range of countries have been posting threats, insults and other pieces of vandalism in various places - but the most common country appears to be India. Meanwhile, I believe AHLM13 is supposed to be a Pakistani - so something's wrong here. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

We need to look at the latest socks of User:Undertrialryryr and user:AHLM13. I don't like AHLM13 but some user is using sock ip against all those Users who were part of collage discussion on Bengalis and User:AHLM13's talk page. My account is behaving strangely. All those personal attacks on Babitaarora was not made by Undertrialryryr. Even AHLM13 can't make such comments against Anna Frodesiak . Every Non-English socks of Undertrialryryr and other socks which came after that may not be what we think. AHLM13's socks and Undertrialryryr's socks are tagged, but they belong to someone who is posting nonsense in my talk page, Titodutta's talkpage, 115ash's talk page. I am also commenting here: I don't want to be responsible for any vandalism from my account. And don't allow anybody to change my E-Mail address please. The E-Mail that I am using for past one month is mine and should be kept unchanged.C E (talk) 14:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• Those of you still discussing this amongst yourself and engaging the socks on various pages are being trolled. Read Wikipedia:The motivation of a vandal & Wikipedia:Deny recognition. Do nothing other than report future instances to WP:ANI, then use {{hat|Per [[WP:RBI]]}} ... {{hab}} to enclose his trolls. JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I think everyone's been ignoring the troll for quite a few days but it is getting to a point where it is irritating. Also, I would not like to take the veiled hacking threat lightly. If AHLM13 could get hacked, there's no guarantee of who could be next. Mar4d (talk) 15:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

AHLM13 was not hacked. It is just another excuse for good hand/bad hand behavior. His use of proxies will likely make CU results not helpful. Its just one big game. Stop obsessing and get back to editing the encyclopedia. JoeSperrazza (talk)

• The fact that there is a threat to hack other people's accounts is a big concern, particularly with CosmicEmperor (who could hardly be called a AHLM13 supporter) saying that something's wrong on their end. Joe, stop being so flippant - you're not the one being threatened here. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

yes i was happy to see AHLM13 blocked and Undertialyryry's socks blocked. But try to understand AHLM13 can't speak in Bengali slang language. AHLM13 can't say Bengali swear words.

ZORDANLIGHTER never abused a female editor before. AHLM13's account was hacked. My account is logging off the moment a sock IP came. I am not asking for AHLM13 and Undertrialyryr to be unblocked but try to find this hacker. Undertrilayryr's non-english socks were not technically matching with him according to Dord and vangajenie but due to behaviourial; evidence they wre tagged. I am typing in a hurry as i am constantly logged off. I am making spelling mistakes due to that.C E (talk) 16:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi everybody. Thanks that you have moved this to ANI, as administrators can help me and you as well. User:Mazca blocked ip 49.156.159.82 by writing that it is me, without giving any proof. Also I ASK TO ADMINISTRATORS TO warn (or maybe be block) User:JoeSperrazza, who is labelling in all accounts that I am a sockpuppet of them. I admit that i create only ahlm85, so that i could explain to everybody what is going on and that those sockpuppets and ips are not me. User:JoeSperrazza tagged all of them as my sockpuppet, by giving no evidences. I asked if a checkuser can proof this. Those accounts pretend to be be, in order to spoil my credibility to other users. Moreover, right now I just got a strange email. I ask ADMINS and CHECKUSER if they can unblock me and do something with this hacker or vandal. I asked an appeal to unblock through email, but they told that I have not any proof to show that I am AHLM13, so now I am alone and i do not know what to do. Please help me. Thank you. --2.96.180.236 (talk) 17:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

You shouldn't have commented here. Checking his English I know which one is your account and which is not as he is using Bengali slangs in nafsadh's talk page. Don't comment in WP anymore. You are going back to your previous attitude by asking Joe Sparazza's block. I will not try to unblock you as you AHLM13 is very offensive, but we need to find this hacker who created fake socks which looked like the socks of ZORDANLIGHTER/Undertrialyryr.C E (talk) 17:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

User CosmicEmperor' language is strange. Maybe even his account his now hacked. in fact he said that "And someone is logging me off, even if i am signing in. I think my account is going to be hacked. So if today or tomorrow i post offensive comments,. it's not me.". 2.96.180.236 (talk) 18:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Mar4d and CosmicEmperor' concerns that they experienced unusual log off, clearly this needs admin attention. Also it now appears that a notorious person is playing behind the screen. We still don't know who it is. But probably a rigorous CU checking is needed to discover whether AHLM13 was a victim of hacking. Also those proxy/VPN sites should be brought under block.

User:JoeSperrazza is not helping here. I think you are not a party to this and should leave. You can't close a running discussion at your sweet will. You should not impersonate as an admin which you did. -AsceticRosé 00:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

@AsceticRose: As i edited the page Baby (2015 film), i came across a new user Aceticrpose mard aurat. The name is like combination of your name and Mar4d's name. in your talk page something is written in Urdu/Arabic or some middle eastern language. Can someone translate what is written there.The one who posted is tagged as AHLM13's sock.C E (talk) 06:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you redact your comments, which border on a personal attack. I impersonated no one. Not only can anyone edit this page, but I have been involved with this situation (see my talk page, for example). Per WP:CLOSE, I archived the discussion once the IP was blocked, which was the only likely admin action that could be taken here (see WP:SPI for more actions that can be requested). I don't dispute your right to re-open, but reiterate that this discussion of hackers is only feeding the trolls and is not based on anything rational. Finally, can anyone here answer the question "What admin action are you requesting"? JoeSperrazza (talk) 00:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

@Nafsadh: has expressed concern that his account was going to be hacked here

This is similar to those problems faced by me and Mar4d.

And also read what i wrote here

Past connection

C E (talk) 06:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Let me say something. Although I'm not so familiar with AHLM13, but a sockpuppet investigation were made against me, I can assure that "the so-called" hacker is perhaps "Undertrialryryr". @Joesperazza, none is attacking you, but AHLM13's Ip is fully right, you don't possess any right to tag this, this, this, this this and more as AHLM13's sockpuppets, seen that there is no strong evidence (like CU or SPI) which demonstrate that most of them belong to him. Now assume that I utilise my Ips in order to obtain carefulness of other contributors, by swearing to them and stating that I would be you. Would this be any testimony? I believe that AHLM13, notwithstanding his behavior, needs to be provided another chance.--115ash^→(☏) 10:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• • 115ash I was the one who made that SPI. And right now after reading your comment i wanted to login and reply to you but two times my login failed. The problem is that Joesperazza thinks AHLM13 is behind all this and now 115ash thinks that Undertrialryryr is behind this. If both of you look at the details, there is a third one involved who is taking advantage of AHLM13 and Undertrialryryr's past behaviour, and everywhere he is just abusing everybody posing like them.115ash is right. Some socks are not correctly tagged by Joesperazza. Even during SPI against Undertrialryryr i had doubt whether these foreign language socks belong to Undertrialryryr .I posted the same thing else where but as some people won't go through them, i have to put it here

I don't want AHLM13 to be unblocked but lots of proxy IPs and socks are launching personal attacks posing as Undertrialryryr socks and AHLM13 socks. Three times my account was logged off even though i didn't click log out. I changed the password and disconnected my net connection;after that it stopped.

I am telling you: if in future, I post offensive derogatory messages on people's talk pages,then please make sure that my E-Mail address that i have registered is not changed.That's the only way i can regian my account .

AHLM13 claimed he was hacked or he had BROTHER. I don't know about him but even @Mar4d: and @Lukeno94: is doubting about this hacker in ANI.

I have reasons to believe all these cases mentioned below are inter-related:

A)- In this SPI DoRD mentioned "ЗОРДАНЛИГХТЕР, plus a bunch more, are almost certainly the same as the ones I listed above, who may or may not (I'm leaning not) belong to this master."

Technically they were not matching with Undertrialryryr. And i found their editing very different from the previous accounts.Vanjagenije accepted he was not sure but they were tagged "Based on the behavior".

B)- AHLM13's account abused Babitaarora in the same mannerকসমিক এম্পারার attacked her, {私はあなたにを愛し did the same thing, unknown ip, another Undertrialryryr sock

C)- Now today these three proxy IPs disrupted talkpages claiming to be AHLM13, but AHLM13 doesn't speak like that. AHLM13 is Pakistani. How can he use Bengali swear words and Bengali colloquial language.

I- 27.34.251.164

II- 49.156.159.82

III- 14.139.56.13

Now check the last line of this offensive comment on Titodutta's talk page by কসমিক এম্পারার which is very similar to this edit made today by 14.139.56.13 . Those who can read Bengali will understand that they are same.

All three are proxy IPs, as i checked them on internet IP Location finder and they must be blocked indefinitely, not for few hours or one week.

D)- Same guy who removed Babitaarora's complain on Materialscientist's talk page about Undertrialryryr socks. I am sure this is not Undertrialryryr.

E)- Unblock request by 115ash is the same comment he made on Ged UK's talk page with IP-78.149.203.69, and this IP is similar to this IP-78.149.127.141 which we believe is AHLM13 as we found that his English is similar to AHLM13.

F)- If we check the contributions of Undertrialryryr, ZORDANLIGHTER, Blackwizard2000, Enterths300000, Whistlingwoods, Championkiller and vandal account BLACKIEHINDU

They don't match with the contributions and editing style of these sock accounts in other languages.

• • কসমিক এম্পারার (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • ਬਬਿਤਾ ਅਰੋਰਾ (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • زوردانلگهتر (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • זאָרדאַנליגהטער (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • ლანგუაგეხპერტ (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • 私はあなたにを愛し (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • ДфтпгфпуЧзуке (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • หทหฟพทฟก (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • ਜੋਰਦਾਨਲਿਘ੍ਟਰ (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • ЗОРДАНЛИГХТЕР (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • জোর্দানলাইটার (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

later on few socks whose names were in Punjabi language attacked Babitaarora. Their offensive comments and edit history were deleted by Materialscientist,Yunshui and Albertsquare. They were tagged as Undertrialryryr socks. I don't know whether the Ips were same or most obviously the same reason previous socks were blocked due to behavioral evidence. Once DoRD told me that personal details of any user can't be made public which includes IP address, but Check user should at least tell whether these latest sockaccounts : ਬਬੀਤਾ ਦੇ ਪਤੀ, Lundbaaz King Shaan Shahid, Pakistani girl's breasts, ਬਬੀਤਾ ਦੇ ਪਤੀ and ਕਾਸ੍ਮਿਕ ਏਮ੍ਪੇਰੋਰ matches with the IPs of

Undertrialryryr, ZORDANLIGHTER, Blackwizard2000,

or they match with unconfirmed socks written in other languages.C E (talk) 18:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• I have to say that my account was randomly logging off yesterday as well (did so about three times, I think), but it's possible that was just due to the fact I'd just changed my password as a precaution, and I haven't seen it do so since. Regardless, Joe, you're dismissing out of hand the entire issue by only considering a small part of it - and when multiple editors are saying that something screwy is going on with their accounts, then the discussion should stay open, as it isn't solely about AHLM13. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
• Couple of things worth noting; I've received a "you're next" threat, and there's a village pump thread on a potential technical issue that an unrelated user has been experiencing. So there is still, of course, the possibility of Wikipedia being glitched, or we could be dealing with someone who is not the most stable of people. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

There is one more 110.78.155.74C E (talk) 13:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion, if it does turn out to be a hacker: use a much stronger password that cannot be easily guessed/bruteforced. In a case such as this, the blame generally lies solely with poor security practices (i.e. an easily-guessed password). —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 18:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

History of the WWE - Long-running edit war

• User:RealDealBillMcNeal and User:Rebelrick123 have been engaged in an on-and-off edit war on this article since February. The general gist of it seems to centre around the names of the "eras" involved. The first revert in this long-running sequence came on the 6th of February, where RealDealBillMcNeal (henceforth referred to as RDBMN) reverted a bunch of edits from Rebelrick123 (henceforth referred to as R123) with the edit summary of "Removing waffle." This edit war lasted another two days before the page was fully protected for a week. Since this rime, R123 has been blocked thrice for edit warring and personal attacks, whilst RDBMN has been blocked twice for exactly this kind of behaviour (both times ending up with their talk page access revoked). It's hard to say who is "right" in terms of the content war; both editors have had people intervening on their behalf as more than just reverting to the status quo (the latter is all I've done), and I've seen sources support both sides of the story. But it's not just the edit warring which has been problematic, it's been the language and attitudes used by both editors - be it in edit summaries, talk page threads, or user talk page posts:

• R123: There's no Reality Era but Authority Era? Lol keep acting like you run this page, man., "Quit putting BS paragraph titles:", Must've been a good few weeks of this false nonsense., "RealDealBillMcNeill is a fool."
• RDBMN: Removing steaming pile of unnotable garbage and unsourced shite, Banned LOL, "who are you?", "Imagine defending a professional paedophile-enabler?"

• I think there's little question that RDBMN's attitude has been worse, but then again, the vast majority of R123's edits were done with either no edit summary at all, or were just "undid revision X by editor Y", which is no more helpful. It's also worth noting that, since February, R123 has barely touched any article that is not the History of the WWE article; and most of those, if not all of them, were to related articles (ie articles on wrestlers). RDBMN also has a history of being incredibly combative on other articles; four previous blocks for 3RR violations are a pretty good sign of that.
• Just a further note to say that R123 has reverted twice more since the start of this ANI thread, and probably should face an immediate block on that basis. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed solutions

• I think we have to look at a few potential solutions to this problem. Short-term blocks don't work, and that's been proven. It's also been proven that neither editor is going to stop and discuss at this point. I can think of three solutions:

1. Both RealDealBillMcNeal and Rebelrick123 are indefinitely topic banned from editing the History of the WWE article, due to the long-term edit war.
2. Both RealDealBillMcNeal and Rebelrick123 are indefinitely banned from interacting with each other, under the standard terms of an IBAN.
3. Both RealDealBillMcNeal and Rebelrick123 are indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia, for persistent battleground conduct, including long-term edit-warring and severe incivility.

• I would support all three of these solutions in equal amounts, and personally think that option 2 should be enforced if option 1 is. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
• Definitely support #1 – an article ban seems like it's definitely necessary in this case. No opinion (yet) on #2 and #3... --IJBall (talk) 19:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Imagine banning somebody from editing a page for trying to stop continuously disruptive editing that has marred this article for a long long time. Great patter. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 20:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• You've edit warred so heavily on it that you've been blocked twice for your actions on the article, and both times your behaviour was so out of line that you found your talk page access getting revoked. Neither of you is any better than the other. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support #1 and #2 (in the hope that we won't need #3). Neither party has clean hands in this dispute. Miniapolis 22:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support #1 and #2(uninvolved non admin) The behaviour of both surely warrants the actions. AlbinoFerret 22:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support #3 I have only had the honour of interacting with RealDealBillMcNeal and the behaviour extends beyond the article being discussed here, one I've never edited. The trash-talk was unacceptable. Treating Wikipedia as a battleground is not particularly enjoyable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support #1 and #2 as option 1, but would not oppose #3 if the consensus became the two should be indef'd. Blackmane (talk) 02:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support #1. The two editors have only banged heads in the context of this article, so if they stay away from it it should make #2 moot. #3 is overkill. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• The reasoning behind #3; this is far from the first article that RDBMN has been problematic at, or their first edit-warring block; they have four priors, as well as a long history of extremely uncollaborative behaviour, and R123 is, at this point, essentially an SPA. Perhaps it could be argued to be overkill for R123, but RDBMN's history more than deserves such a sanction IMO. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support RealDealBillMcNeal being topic banned from editing the History of the WWE for a time period such as a year. Rebelrick123 should be kept under surveillance. GregKaye 04:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• Question: how can you support a topic ban for one party and not the other? Both have been equally as bad as the other, regardless of who is "right" content-wise. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Kheider Adding stuff to WP:Notability (astronomical objects) to point to at AfD

Kheider has been attempting to go against consensus in AfDs for minor astronomical object articles. After several AfDs failed to go his way, he made these changes to WP:Notability (astronomical objects) So that he could point to them at this AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/1775_Zimmerwald in this edit here, less than 30 minutes after adding the 'support' to the notability guideline. There is no consensus on the talk page and little discussion.

Kheider also has been attempting to characterize Boleyn's attempts to cleanup the articles that failed notability as "genocide" at multiple AfDs: 1 2 3

Edit(Added this numbered list for clarity and organization: 18:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)) In summary, these are the policies that have been alleged that Kheider violated:

1. by me: Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines#Substantive_changes "Editing a policy to support your own argument in an active discussion may be seen as Gaming the system, especially if you do not disclose your involvement in the argument when making the edits."
2. by me: Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack? "Comparing editors to Nazis, dictators, or other infamous persons. (See also Godwin's law.)"
3. by Boleyn(evidence included below): Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Others'_comments "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page."

(end list and edit ― Padenton|✉   18:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC))

At 20:45, 17 May 2015 Padenton reverted all 9 of my good faith edits to NASTRO and then called my edits disgusting and assumed bad faith on the NASTRO talk page. Then at 23:53, 17 May 2015 Padenton posted on my talk page accusing me of edit warring. I then explained my edits on the NASTRO talk page at 00:25, 18 May 2015. Then at 00:39, 18 May 2015 Padenton further harassed me by posting this unnecessary (assuming bad faith) ANI complaint. On the NASTRO talk page, Padenton replied back suggesting that the Astro wikiproject is not a proper place to discuss Astro guidelines even though NASTRO itself suggests taking such discussions to the project page. None of my edits to NASTRO were done in bad faith and the ongoing harassment and character assassinations by Padenton need to stop as he has failed to demonstrate how any of my NASTRO edits resulted in a change of outcome for any AfD. Boleyn, was aware by May 6th that "I am working on NASTRO as we speak". -- Kheider (talk) 15:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Also Notifying users who have been involved in the deletion discussions: Praemonitus, David Eppstein, Boleyn ― Padenton|✉   00:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Wow, you like forumshopping. Take it to Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(astronomical_objects)#Changes_without_consensus. I would say you are the one out of line that can not support reverting my edits. -- Kheider (talk) 00:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

If you look at the 29 April 2015 version of NASTRO, it says to "redirect" asteroid stubs, not delete them. If you were paying much attention you would also note that I am not supporting many asteroids in the AfDs. But I do have a right to express opinions and hope that users do not to throw out the baby with the bath water just because an article was created by a bot. -- Kheider (talk) 00:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

"it says to "redirect" asteroid stubs, not delete them." Show me a single one that has been deleted in violation of that. "But I do have a right to express opinion" You do. What you don't have the right to do is unilaterally change a notability guideline to support your opinion. ― Padenton|✉   00:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

"Wow, you like forumshopping." Feel free to read WP:FORUMSHOP. If bringing the incident to WP:ANI was forumshopping, this noticeboard wouldn't exist. ― Padenton|✉   01:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't have any heartburn with those edits to WP:NASTRO by Kheider. Those just appear to be adding clarification and refinement. Lower numbered asteroids generally have more sources available, and so they are worth checking more closely. I've also had to ask the poster to limit the number of AfDs so we have a chance to investigate properly, and he was kind enough to do so. Praemonitus (talk) 02:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I would be inclined to agree with Praemonitus. I don't see Kheider's edits as drastically changing the guideline; rather, I see them as editing the guideline to reflect the current practice of not unilaterally redirecting the low-numbered asteroids. However, the diffs provided comparing Boleyn's actions to genocide are unacceptable, however, and were I uninvolved I would have already issued a strong warning for such behavior. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I concur. It has been the result of discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy and simply clarifies the policy. --JorisvS (talk) 12:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Kheider is clearly very emotionally involved in this. My main concerns have been about him rewriting my AfD nominations (changing 'delete or redirect', which was my nomination, to just 'redirect', although he stopped when I warned him, I could easily have not noticed these changes being made. Although Kheider stopped, he didn't seem to acknowledge he had done anything wrong. There have also been a range of bad faith comments aimed at me by Kheider in the discussions which I have tried to just ignore and leave the discussions to be about the notability of the page in question. The comments about my actions being 'genocide' shows that Kheider has lost perspective on this (to say the least!). However, his opinions on the notability of the pages are of course very welcome. Boleyn (talk) 07:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

As I mentioned on your talk page User_talk:Boleyn#A_barnstar_for_you.21_5, " I re-wrote 2 of your AfDs because you were asking for numbered asteroid deletions when NASTRO makes it clear you should be asking for a re-directs when dealing with asteroids." The problem was quickly solved and I have noticed you have changed your wording since then. Thank you. For the record, I was comparing the act of re-directing 15,000+ bot created asteroid articles to genocide which may be not the best comparison, but 15,000 is a large number. I am disgusted with Padenton attacking me at NASTRO, my talk page, and here without actually having a conversation about the content of NASTRO. -- Kheider (talk) 13:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

If an editor changes a policy, to support their argument in other pages citing that policy, it is very bad practice. Policies must be about «What is best for Wikipedia», not «How can I win my argument?» Spumuq (talq) 09:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I fail to see how any of my edits to WP:NASTRO favored my argument for Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/1775_Zimmerwald as claimed by Padenton. This has simply become character assassination by Padenton since he is a deletionist and took a strong dislike to the use of the word genocide. Padenton should NOT have reverted my edits at NASTRO and he is the one harming Wikipedia. Do we need to revert every edit to NASTRO since it was accepted in 2012? I know other people made minor edits to it without approval of a committee. -- Kheider (talk) 13:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• The big difference between most of those edits is that they weren't being made by someone taking a position at AfD that is generally against consensus. When you are debating a series of articles in an AfD debate, you should not be making any changes to the relevant notability guideline, unless you're fixing spelling errors/typos. It is also COMPLETELY inappropriate for you to be editing any AfD proposal in the way you did. And, to compound matters, you're trying to blunt-force in your own views as being Wikipedia guidelines, and edit warring in the process. If you keep this up, regardless of any "good" previous history in this area, you will have to be topic banned. Claims that you haven't drastically changed the guideline (by you or by others) are clearly wrong, when the passage of text Asteroids numbered below 2000 should be discussed before re-directing as they are generally larger and have been known longer. Editors should not nominate more than 10 asteroids a day to AfD for discussion. was not previously in there in any form, and is obviously bullshit in part (you have no right to place arbitrary restrictions on how many things editors can nominate at AfD whatsoever). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• And those edits are being explained and discussed on the appropriate talk page at Wikipedia_talk:Notability (astronomical_objects)#Changes without consensus. I was not available during March or April when Boleyn started hundreds of AfDs. -- Kheider (talk) 14:32, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• The fact they are being discussed now does not change the fact that you tried to force your change in TWICE after being reverted. Also noteworthy is the fact that both editors who have cast a !vote have opposed your changes. Wake up and smell the coffee - your viewpoint isn't the same as the majority of other editor's, and you need to recognize that ASAP. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• As being discussed below, do not confuse my 50km asteroid proposal that is being opposed with my clean-up of NASTRO that has received support from Praemonitus, StringTheory11, JorisvS, and has been general consensus for quite some time. If anything is new, it would be the 10 AfDs a day rule, which Boleyn found reasonable when Praemonitus made the request. -- Kheider (talk) 15:32, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Two thoughts:

1. Kheider should probably be topic-banned from this area for a month or so until he calms down
2. WP:NOTABILITY and its subpages aren't gold-locked WHY exactly? There's no need for anybody but sysops to edit them, particularly when editing them causes problems like these.

pbp 14:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Wow. Even the editors against me say my edits to NASTRO were good. -- Kheider (talk) 14:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Some editors say that. I don't say that, nor do several other editors - your claim above is a barefaced lie (as can be seen from Padenton's comments on the NASTRO discussion which are staunchly in opposition to your actions, whilst David Eppstein has directly rejected your numbers-based change). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

You do realize that they (including David Eppstein) are opposing my 50km asteroid rule, not the changes I made to clean-up NASTRO? -- Kheider (talk) 14:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

You do realize that is not an entirely accurate analysis of their position? "A number is not a source and does not convey notability." rejects your attempts at arbitrarily defining notability for multiple sections with numbers you came up with yourself, not just the "50km asteroid rule". Padenton was also opposing your ownership of the guideline and associated articles - and it is pretty hard to come to any other conclusion. You are way too personally involved in this, you need to back right off and let other editors have their say. Just because you created something does not mean you can rule it with an iron fist. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Can you name a change that I made to the actual NASTRO guide that I do not have any consensus for? I never inserted my 50km proposal. There is a basically accepted consensus on the Astro project for treating numbered asteroids below 2000 differently. I am not aware if anyone is even against even that change. -- Kheider (talk) 15:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I just pointed to a comment that is rejecting your arbitrary numbers, which, yes, includes that "numbered asteroids below 2000" thing. And besides, you're talking about a discussion for automatic redirecting, not one where asteroids below a completely arbitrary number are automatically assumed to be notable. Chalk and cheese. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Where did I write all numbered asteroid below 2000 are notable? The general consensus for years has been to discuss the ones below 2000. -- Kheider (talk)

I misread who made the post on the discussion thread with the laundry list of arbitrary numbers, so I apologize for that. However, the whole point of an AfD debate is to have a discussion - so there's nothing wrong with nominating it whatsoever. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

That's right, there's nothing wrong with that. Kheider's version says that below 2000 that's exactly what should happen, on an individual basis. Above 2000 has already been discussed and decided that, if they meet certain criteria, they can be redirected without further discussion. Of course, if someone would like a discussion, that can still happen. --JorisvS (talk) 08:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I suggest archiving this thread as it is out scope of this board. Anybody can edit any page in Wikipedia including any guideline. There is nothing here that requires administrator attention. Ruslik_Zero 21:01, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

@Ruslik0: The allegations made against Kheider in this ANI are (Redacted) (See top instead, list has been moved to initial statement)

Evidence for all these is in the arguments and links above. I could be wrong, I am not an admin, but I believe these are certainly within the scope of WP:ANI. If not, by all means show me where it should go and I will happily apologize and take it to the rightful location. ― Padenton|✉   03:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

ANI is only for reporting specific incidents that require immediate administrator attention. General dispute resolution is outside the scope of this board. Ruslik_Zero 13:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

@Ruslik0: Sorry, but WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE seems to say that the place would still be here unless I'm misreading it: "If the problem is with the editor's conduct, not their position on some matter of article content, then you may ask an administrator to evaluate the conduct of the user. You can ask for an administrator's attention at a noticeboard such as the administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI)." This is an issue about user conduct in this disagreement, and as much as a few editors may have chosen to respond to only say "I liked/didn't like kheider's changes" that isn't what this ANI was brought up for. Rather it was brought up for the allegations I made above. ― Padenton|✉   13:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• There is nothing to be done here. If it draws some attention to Boleyn's mindless attempts to redirect some asteroid articles instead of consolidating the information in those articles into comprehensive list articles and a rational organizing scheme, all the better.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

AfD is the place for that claim. However, I am still unsure how stubs with less information than JPL's completely free database with less organization would be more helpful in constructing the comprehensive list articles you want. ― Padenton|✉   05:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

AfD is not for cleanup, however. There are lots of better free websites than Wikipedia, but none nearly as comprehensive nor as able to be continually improved. Thus the 10 minutes I just spent on 504 Cora will better serve humankind than mass AfDs which are effectively deleting content.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:14, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

"AfD is not for cleanup" refers to WP:CLEANUP, not articles where the issue is the subject's notability, as you were told in AfD. See Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. Cleaning up articles of questionable notability by deleting them or changing them to redirects is exactly what AfD is for. ― Padenton|✉   14:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

No one is debating that the information contained in these stubs could not be retained in list articles, yet it is being effectively deleted by stupid AfD drone behavior. The slavish devotion to whether a subject has a "page" vs. whether that content is available on Wikipedia in a digestable way to benefit our readers is ridiculous. It may well be that a ton of stubs is not the best way to display information. E.g., having stubs on every member of AKB48 is not a good way to present information. All I am demanding is that editors improve this encyclopedia if they wish to edit it.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The presence of indiscriminate information on minor planets of no significance whatsoever in separate articles doesn't improve this encyclopedia. It improves this encyclopedia to follow consensus, and that consensus is that most of these articles shouldn't exist. There is absolutely nothing lost here, this is complaining about nothing. Feel free to expand the list articles with the various numbers, all of which can be seen from the history of any of the articles (all of which were redirected, I haven't seen a single one deleted), or you can just use the JPL database (which is where all the information was scraped from in the first place). ― Padenton|✉   14:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I demand that Boleyn rewrite List of minor planets: 1001–2000, etc. to include a collapsible box with all the data content in every asteroid article they are sending to AfD, which number in the hundreds. If this is not done, I vote that Boleyn be deleted from Wikipedia. I am not Boleyn's slave.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

If you are the one who wants to see the information, it is on you to make the table; you get to demand nothing. Boleyn is simply following the notability guideline WP:NASTRO, which was approved by community consensus. If you want to see a change, perhaps you could actually go to the appropriate forum (the talk page) and propose such a change, to see if it gets support, instead of here and on AfDs. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Wrroooonng. I am not making any tables, you are not making me a slave. I am demanding that Boleyn make these changes and expect them to be followed. If not, I will demand that an asteroid collide with Earth. At some point an admin will close these thread and my demands will certainly be fulfilled.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Milowent interaction ban

I hate to propose sanctions against somebody who is clearly usually a productive member of the community, but I must here. Milowent seems to have taken it upon themselves to oppose every recent AfD started by Boleyn (see contribs here; search for AfD nominations). That alone would constitute some wikihounding and is subpar behavior, and then I saw Milowent's comment in this thread that was obviously a personal attack on Boleyn here, referring to himself as a slave to Boleyn and "demand"ing that Boleyn be "deleted" from Wikipedia in the most condescending way possible. I thought it was an isolated incident, but then noticed that Milowent has been plastering the same comment on multiple AfDs regarding asteroids, see [32], [33], and [34]. When queried by me here and MrX at one of the AfDs, Milowent's responses were not encouraging, saying that his "demand" is rational [35], and that he, again, was not going to be a "slave", and that he wishes an asteroid would collide with Earth to stop the nominations [36]. It is clear at this point that Milowent cannot constructively interact with Boleyn, and I propose a one-way interaction ban preventing Milowent from interacting with Boleyn. (I also recommend that no further action be taken against Kheider for the time being). StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:12, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support as nom. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:12, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support one-way interaction ban with Boleyn and a topic ban from AfDs on astronomical objects, and a timed block for WP:NPA, WP:HOUND, WP:CTDAPE, and WP:INCIVIL: for Wikihounding, repeatedly !voting "procedural keep" with a rationale that does not assume good faith (calling this an "abuse" of the system: [37] and others) and without linking to policy or a consensus, and incivility including trying to drive out a productive contributor (i.e. Boleyn) by suggesting to (figuratively) "delete Boleyn", which also constitutes disruptive editing. Milowent obviously can't work well with Boleyn, because of strongfeelings (implicit incivility) and sneaky personal attacks, and even wishful thinking (e.g. If not, I will demand that an asteroid collide with Earth.) Esquivalience ^t 02:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support This behaviour is upsetting me. I started AfDs as per general consensus, to solve a notability issue several years old - and the majority of those I have nominated have not been kept, but redirected. Nevertheless, I've felt hounded and intimidated by people opposing them being discussed, including around 30 notifications from Milowent of comments which have all been personal attacks, including 22 in one go. I'm fine with someone disagreeing with me, but we can't have this sort of behaviour. Boleyn (talk) 05:47, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose as accused. More to come later, on the night shift at the moment. Suffice it to say, I've had my say and only commented in a few of Boleyn's mass of nominations. I have no intention of going further with my efforts to draw editor attention to my concerns, if that was not sufficient.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 10:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Additional comments from the accused: Oh lord people. I must disclose an important fact. Despite my frequent claims of omnipotence, I do not have the power to make an asteroid collide with Earth to influence AfD outcomes I do not like. I commented in about 10-15(?) of maybe 200 asteroid AfDs started by Boleyn (far from "every recent afd") in the past month. My initial comments about it being a misuse of AfD to do this (no AfD references the others, cut and paste nominations, no real evidence of WP:BEFORE occuring) went unheard, as they are trying to use AfD to develop policy, which really never works like this. WP:EFD (nominating editors for deletion you are frustrated with) is a joke as old as wikipedia. One really shouldn't propose interaction bans and blocks the first time you have a complaint about another editor, without even talking to them. I am the most reasonable person in the world. I didn't ask that Boleyn be banned from making AfD nominations for asteroids for a month (though it would be a good idea if they voluntarily let the prior AfDs run and then propose some consensus rules, but they completely ignored my suggestions). What am I primarily taking my time to do? I spent time timing improving 1700 Zvezdara, currently at AfD, to show it may indeed be notable, instead of being subject to a cut-and-paste nomination. I also improved 504 Cora, which isn't at AfD, but on a hitlist Wikipedia:Minor planet articles that might fail NASTRO, and which appeared notable to me. Boleyn, as with my perfectly friendly comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uthai Thani F.C., I simply ask you to consider if you are going about this the right way, and when you get negative reactions that is not a terrible thing, it is something to consider.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose: Boleyn, this whole Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia is one of Wikipedia greatest problems and one of the reasons people leave Wikipedia never to return. This is also why I had asked to spare borderline asteroid candidates so there would be wiggle room for some growth, thus still giving the inclusionists something to expand. Newbies simply will not know how to undo a re-direct to a list page. Hell, after editing Wikipedia since 2006, I have not run around memorizing every policy, guide, or essay that can be thrown in someone's face by the Wiki-police. I only got involved in the NASTRO guide because I thought it was important and to combat extremists such as Chrisrus. Personally, I hate working on policies and making rules, but I also know very few have my knowledge or willingness (foolishness?) to work on NASTRO. After reading all of this crap, do you really think anyone else from the Astro project page will want to step-up and put serious effort into NASTRO any time soon with the risk of some wiki-cop coming around and attacking them? -- Kheider (talk) 15:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support per nom, Esquivalience, and Boleyn. No objection to no further sanctions on Kheider provided he agrees in the future to:

1. Allow the discussion of his changes to policy/guidelines at the proper venue (which is the talk page of said policy, not a wikiproject talk page)
2. Be up front about edits he makes to policies/guidelines by alerting discussions he is involved in that are affected by those changes
3. Cease personal attacks against other users, including but not limited to:
   • Comparing actions fully justified by policy to genocide
   • Characterizing the edits of other editors as gang rape
4. Refrain from editing the discussion comments of others, especially when he disagrees with them.

I really fail to see how any of these are 'obscure policies' being thrown at Kheider by the 'wiki-police'. It's simple common decency, honesty, and integrity. But apparently fair, reasoned discussion is a little too bureaucratic for "one of the creators of WP:NASTRO" as he introduced himself in some of the AfDs. ― Padenton|✉   16:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

"Common decency" is not how I would describe your bad faith assumptions, calling my edits to NASTRO disgusting, posting edit war comments to my page "before having a real discussion at NASTRO", and then taking me to ANI so you could have your way with me. -- Kheider (talk) 17:20, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

It's not a bad faith assumption to bring this issue to WP:ANI, the proper venue for it, when you allege Boleyn has committed Genocide, allege I gangraped you by starting this ANI, and edit Boleyn's AfD nomination to change its meaning. "so you could have your way with me" Seriously? Right after your 2 day block ended for comparing my actions to gangrape? You talk about scaring newbies away from Wikipedia. Are you sure you're not more of a problem than I am? You changed WP:NASTRO by "adding clarifications" that would support your argument in an AfD and then pointed to the new text as you had modified it to support your claims in an AfD. You still don't seem to realize how dishonest that is and how dangerous that is for consensus in Wikipedia. ― Padenton|✉   17:33, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

You assumed my edits to NASTRO where in bad faith and still may think that for all I know. Not one of my changes to NASTRO caused a change of outcome at an AfD and am not sure how any of those common sense changes to NASTRO would. -- Kheider (talk) 17:57, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I grow tired of repeating myself. Your edits to WP:NASTRO here again implied a size cutoff for notability, in support of your previous arguments in the AfDs. They also implied that any number of light curve studies or occultation studies would support notability. You also imposed your own personal opinion of how many nominations should be made a day. All of these were in support of arguments you have been making in numerous AfDs for the past couple weeks. ― Padenton|✉   18:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

See if you ask a question instead of attacking me, I can better explain. The main-belt asteroid 1999 XF255 is 5km in diameter and that is mostly why it is NOT notable in anyway shape or form. In no way was I suggesting asteroids larger than 5km are notable be default. When doing a search for asteroid info you will normally come across light curve studies or occultation studies, again that is does not automatically grant notability, but should be considered. You obviously know that the text can be edited vs completely reverting everything a single editor has added?-- Kheider (talk) 18:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Personal attacks by Kansas Bear on the talk page of the Tipu Sultan article

Following a revision of an edit I made by user Kansas Bear on the Tipu Sultan article and a subsequent discussion I made to try and justify my edit, Kansas Bear has unleashed a significant amount of Personal Attacks aimed at me that do not make for an effective discourse on the matter.

I was trying to explain to Kansas Bear that it is too general to say that the entire Mysorean Army of Tipu Sultan was French trained, as the source (on page 77) that he referenced [38] goes into detail about the role the French played in relation to the Mysorean army. The source mentions training of Mysore’s Infantry but no statement is given to suggest that the entire Mysorean army was French-trained. user:Kansas Bear, quoted a variety of sources that make note of Mysore’s “French-Trained Army” however I believe that these references are taking for granted the concept of an “army” and I believe that the more detailed sources he referenced state that segments of Mysore’s infantry (not entire army) received French training. I believe that the infantry should not be representative of the army as a whole, as there are many sectors and divisions within an army and the infantry is one aspect of it. I tried to explain to him that the Mysorean rocket division of Tipu Sultan was largely trained by the Sultanate of Mysore and that the rocket technology and techniques were indigenous to the Sultanate of Mysore. According to this source [39] the Sultanate of Mysore maintained its own indigenous force and utilized new and innovative technologies that neither the British or French at the time had.

During this discussion, Kansas Bear has unleashed a barrage of personal attacks against me. He states:

"If I were you, I'd watch your tone. You've already been blocked for edit warring and as I have told Ghatus, editors that are here with an agenda eventually end up blocked or banned." [40] <--Clearly a threat.

"Clearly, after the presenting sources showing French trained army, you just don't like the fact that the Mysore army was French trained." [41] <---Clear personal attack.

"Since you are having problems understanding English" [42] <---Clear personal attack.

I would like to discuss this matter in a professional manner, however, Kansas Bear’s personal attacks are a hindrance to effective discourse on the matter. Xtremedood (talk) 05:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

"If I were you, I'd watch your tone. You've already been blocked for edit warring and as I have told Ghatus, editors that are here with an agenda eventually end up blocked or banned."

Xtremedood has a history of speaking to other editors in a derogatory fashion(calling edits vandalism, mentions of ethnicity("It is sad that many users who have a long history of Wikipedia but are of Indian origin will resort to such dirty tactics.")[43][44][45][46][47]

Telling Xtremedood that editors that are here with an agenda eventually get blocked or banned, is not a threat, since I can not block or ban anyone.

"Clearly, after the presenting sources showing French trained army, you just don't like the fact that the Mysore army was French trained."

Personal attack? LMAO! I have listed 6 sources that state the French trained Haidar Ali and/or Tipu's army. Xtremedood made the edit summary, "Did not find reference stating his army was French trained", I found a source, later 5 more, then Xtremedood started making statements, "whole army", "rockets", "elephants", none which appear in the sentence in question.(ie. moving the goal posts)

"Since you are having problems understanding English"

After a continuous dialogue with Xtremedood, I was not convinced he/she understood what the 5 6 sources stated. Xtremedood appears to either portraying willful ignorance or did not like what the sources stated. So I chose to walk him/her through one of the sources.

"however I believe that these references are taking for granted the concept of an “army” and I believe that the more detailed sources he referenced state that segments of Mysore’s infantry (not entire army) received French training.."

I believe this shows Xtremedood's attitude about the entire "discussion", that his interpretation of an "army" should be used and not that of reliable sources. --Kansas Bear (talk) 11:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• Not personal attacks. He described your behavior. I don't see any ad hominem and harassment. Just another typical discussion on talk pages. Instead of ANI, it's better to call third opinion. See WP:THIRDOPINION. --Zyma (talk) 17:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Given the red herrings and strawmen Xtremedood threw into the discussion, Kansas Bear was pretty much calling a spade, a spade. Blackmane (talk) 02:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment None of them are personal attacks, Kansas Bear is not even sarcastic but only trying to alert Xtremedood. Xtremedood is edit warring across many articles,[48][49][50] misrepresenting sources,[51] violating biographies of living people,[52] making personal attacks, often refers non-vandalism as vandalism,[53][54][55] since April 2015. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

"Chicken fucker" vandalism

Just a heads up to all admins, the blocked user Fullthrottle523 (talk · contribs) is going round vandalizing BLPs with statements calling the article's subject a "chicken fucker" or variations thereof. I have semi-protected a few articles already, but I suspect there may be more. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:32, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

John Oliver's fault, he implied on his HBO comedy show that people should add "chicken fucker" to the Wikipedia pages of people who voted against certain farming regulations. See video for the complete list of people he mentioned (it is near the end). Winner 42 Talk to me! 15:38, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, but it's hard to stay mad at John Oliver when he has the smartest and funniest show on television. MastCell ^Talk 15:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Kids eh? Without wishing to sound like a grumpy old fart, 40 years ago people thought Bernard Manning making racist jokes was funny and Jimmy Savile was a harmless eccentric .... how times change. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

"Fat? fat? Mother-in-law"? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:00, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I just indeffed Lildeal223 thinking it was block evasion.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

The list is the members of the House Appropriations Committee. The previous week Jon Stewart called for vandalizing the Warren G. Harding article. Might be worth filing a WP:RFPP ASAP when anyone sees a show recommending editing WikiP articles in the future. MarnetteD|Talk 15:52, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

There is a long list of targeted articles at the biographies of living persons noticeboard and comments that they should be semi-protected. I agree with User:MarnetteD that when a television personality refers to Wikipedia articles, pre-emptive semi-protection might be a good idea. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Here is a direct link to the thread at BLPN Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Potential for some abuse in the next month or so on multiple pages. I don't know if anyone wants consolidate the two threads or not. MarnetteD|Talk 16:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Having actually alerted the admin to the Harding abuse and doing this thread, I didn't know if RFPP would be appropriate due to the fact that it would have been speculative in nature. At the same time, I am wondering if we should ask someone to pen an e-mail to HBO (and even Comedy Central) to ask that they abstain from encouraging mass-vandalism, because it causes a lot of trouble on our end. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I am afraid that they will just laugh at a letter like that. In fact it is likely that will encourage them to suggest new articles to hit. When a show (high profile or otherwise) asks viewers to edit WikiP articles there is no speculation about what will happen. Having said that please note that I said "file" a RFPP not "preemptively protect" - the mere filing will alert admins to the situation and then they can add any articles to their watchlists and protect it when things get out of hand. MarnetteD|Talk 18:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• (a) I agree someone should write to Stewart and Oliver. They are both responsible people of good will, and while I'm disappointed no one on their staffs is apparently enough of a WP editor to have warned them off, I wouldn't be surprised if they took our concern to heart, or even apologized.

(b) I do not think preemptive protection is appropriate just because an article is mentioned on the air. It's hard to predict what factors will cause a mention to turn into vandalism, just as it's hard to predict what factors will turn a mention into a new editor or two for us. We should always wait and see. EEng (talk) 18:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

They are entertainers and both of mentioned Wikipedia articles before. They and their staff could care less about what happens with Wikipedia articles. Remember that they both specifically asked their viewers to hit the articles in question because it helped them get their point across in a humorous fashion. But hey, look on the bright side, the fact that WikiP was mentioned on those shows puts paid to the "WikiP's demise is imminent" rumors. MarnetteD|Talk 18:52, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, plus Wikipedia deals with vandalism all the time and this probably isn't going to lead to any very significant increase in the problem. Just deal with it in the normal way if you feel so inclined. But remember to check the sourcing - we don't want to end up whitewashing anyone's article if they actually are a chicken fucker. Formerip (talk) 19:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Larry Flynt actually bragged about it. I don't know if it's in his article. Randy Kryn 19:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, very good points. This incident shouldn't blind us to the fact that, statistically, at least a few of these people probably are chicken fuckers in the privacy of their own campaign-contribution counting rooms, of course. See WP:CHICKENFUCKER. EEng (talk) 22:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I've just blocked TimRyan ChikenUcker (talk · contribs). Another aspect to consider.  —SMALLJIM  19:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

A nice shortcut for checking these pages is to use Related Changes on the Appropriations Committee page - click here to check -- Fuzheado | Talk 19:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I've just thrown an edit filter together to help with tracking this, see Special:AbuseFilter/689 which will flag additions of "chicken fucker" to articles. Sam Walton (talk) 21:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the vast majority of those adding this to articles are not adding the exact phrase "chicken fucker". See the diffs here for a sense of the creativity being used to introduce this concept in articles. Be prepared to look for "sexual conduct", "sexual congress", "fornicator", "intimate relations", "trysts with chickens", etc. Dwpaul ^Talk 23:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

"Crimes most foul"? EEng (talk) 23:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Pretty sure egging them on is a bad idea. Blackmane (talk) 01:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Egging them on? EEng (talk) 04:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

You heard me. :D Blackmane (talk) 04:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

You crack me up. EEng (talk) 05:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Stop being foul, you @#$%!en $%^#ers. Epic Genius (talk) 17:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The attempts at spelling "fowl" have been poultry. Blackmane (talk) 00:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

On a serious note, I think that all of these terms should be flagged as well. Epic Genius (talk) 17:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

PSA: Vote and make your voice heard

Hi all, on the off chance you've overlooked the banner at the top of your page, the election for the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees is open. Determine what candidates fit your views and make your voices heard—these people could make some significant decisions for the future of the movement. I personally used the Signpost's 1-5 rating scale because it was quick and easy; more detailed questions and answers are available. Bottom line: go vote! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Human_Chlorophyll and Talk:Jesus

• Human_Chlorophyll (talk · contribs)
• Talk page thread

Human Chlorophyll started a discussion with "I know that it is impossible for a Muslim like me to reach consensus with anyone of you, since most of you are Christians or from Christian background" - a clear failure to assume good faith, and a sign of WP:BATTLEGROUND (if not WP:SOAPBOX, because why make such a post if you truly believe that the discussion is pointless from the get-go?). He wants the article to describe the crucifixion of Jesus as just a Christian religious belief, citing "Muslim scholars" out of one side of his mouth while denying out the other side that he wishes to present the Islamic belief that Jesus wasn't crucified as fact. All of the sources in that article, in Crucifixion of Jesus, and in Historicity of Jesus indicate that the crucifixion about the only thing relating to Jesus that can be agreed upon, and is agreed upon by anyone who thinks Jesus existed. There was and is a clear and firm WP:RS-based consensus to state the crucifixion to be as certain as whether or not Jesus existed (and moreso if that were possible). This is a behavioral issue, not a content one; or rather, it is only a content issue insofar as a user is disrupting a talk page because the reliably sourced content does not support his personal POV. Human Chlorophyll's argument makes as much sense as arguing that the articles on Jesus, Enoch, Elijah, and Muhammad al-Mahdi should be treated as WP:BLPs.

The majority of Human Chlorophyll's activity is to advocate the use of Islamically-biased sources, dismissing mainstream secular academic sources as being "from Christian or ex-Christian background," dismissing their findings as just their "opinions" (and not their professional assessment of academic consensus), and saying that the likes of John Dominic Crossan and Bart D. Ehrman are "not historians". As shown in this post, he also:

• simultaneously tries to argue that he's not pushing an Islamic POV while asserting that the article should reflect the perspective of Muslim scholars
• misrepresents cherry-picked sources (using sources that admit they're discussing a different figure, or that argue that there was no historical Jesus to crucify)
• advocates his original research over the cited and published reliable sources by accredited mainstream academics

Here he demonstrates crippling incompetence by (as Paul Barlow explains) confusing the editors of the book with the author of the cited essay within it, and completely missing the point of the source he cited. Here he also makes bad-faith and unevidenced accusations of sockpuppetry.

The rest of his posts are pretty much repeats of the above. Human Chlorophyll is WP:NOTHERE when it comes to topics relating to Jesus. And that's assuming he's not just here to push an Islamic POV. We need Muslim editors. We don't need POV-pushers, regardless of their worldview.

He might be useful in other topics. I'll leave it to the community to decide whether a topic ban would be more appropriate than other actions. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

There are many ways to address content disputes per WP:DR, and topic banning a user is something that requires some kind of proof of disruption. Just because a user disagrees in talk, that is not enough for a topic ban IMO. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:52, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Human Chlorophyll needs to focus on content and not editors. When they do that, the results can be positive, speaking from experience. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This isn't simple disagreement over content. The academic consensus clearly states one thing, and only religious sources state the other, but Human Chlorophyll is fighting against that consensus using biased and/or misrepresented sources. His presence is a waste of everyone's time, as much as a die-hard young earth creationist's at Talk:Evolution. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban Human Chlorophyll is definitely WP:NOTHERE to contribute, and I'm getting a bit tired of all the repeated accusations I'm a sock [56], [57]. The problem is that the user refuses to WP:HEAR anyone else, which has nothing to do with content. The discussion is not going anywhere, at this point it's getting tendentious. The behaviour, the repeated personal attacks and the assumption of bad faith from the very start of the discussion [58] all show a battleground mentality. It seems the only options to a topic ban is to keep the discussion running indefinitely even though it's not going anywhere, or every other user involved getting worn out so Human Chlorophyll gets his way.Jeppiz (talk) 21:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• I've warned the user about the ridiculous sock accusations. Bishonen | talk 22:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC).

• I don't really care one way or another, but All of the sources in that article, in Crucifixion of Jesus, and in Historicity of Jesus indicate that the crucifixion about the only thing relating to Jesus that can be agreed upon, and is agreed upon by anyone who thinks Jesus existed. is not agreed upon by those who believe that Jesus existed. See:

1. Norman L. Geisler & Abdul Saleeb, Answering Islam: The Crescent in Light of the Cross 282 (2002).
2. Abraham Sarker, Understand My Muslim People 258 (2004).
3. Harold G. Koenig, Health and Well-Being in Islamic Societies: Background, Research, and Applications 84 (2014).
4. Juan Eduardo Campo, Encyclopedia of Islam 397 (2009).

All of these sources state the widely held Muslim belief that Jesus was not crucified. Just because Christians believe that Jesus was crucified, does not mean that everyone who thinks that Jesus existed believes that he was crucified. This is a content dispute and should be handled accordingly. GregJackP Boomer! 23:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Those sources support the already included statement that Muslims do not believe Jesus was crucified. That is not the issue. Those sources have nothing to do with the history of first century Roman Palestine, but with a religion that started several centuries later. They do not have anything whatsoever to do with what mainstream secular historians think on the matter. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Works for me. If there is already coverage and he doesn't understand, I can support a topic ban unless he repents. GregJackP Boomer! 05:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

What is the problem of adding a sentence or two to describe the Islamic view on Jesus? Again, this seems to be a content dispute, so take it to talk, and maybe use WP:OPPONENT as a tool. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

The article already says that Muslims do not believe Jesus was crucified. Human Chlorophyll has been calling for downgrading mainstream secular academia's assessment to being just a Christian belief, despite the sources saying otherwise. The idea that Jesus existed but was not crucified is pretty much just Islamic doctrine, not the assessment of mainstream secular historians. The sources cited in the aforementioned articles are clear on this. Human Chlorophyll started off making it clear that he does not believe consensus was possible (indicating a failure to assume good faith and a battleground attitude), he has shown that he do not regard any source as acceptable if it does not fit his POV, and he repeatedly misrepresented sources. If someone came onto:

• Talk:Evolution, said that the Bible says God made the world in six days, insisted that the article present evolution as just an atheist belief...
• Talk:Global warming, said that some random politician doesn't believe in climate change, insisted that the article present climate change as a socialist belief...
• Talk:Vaccination, said that Jenny McCarthy thinks vaccines cause autism, insisted that the article present the efficacy of vaccines as advertising by "big pharma"...
• Talk:September 11 attacks, said that jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams, insisted that the article present what happened as government propaganda...
• Talk:Holocaust, said that Hitler didn't have any plans for wiping out the Jews, insisted that the article present the deaths as a Jewish belief...

...and followed it by citing sources for the exact opposite point of what they actually said while accusing regular editors of being sockpuppets, we wouldn't call it a content dispute -- we'd tell them to stop POV-pushing and block or topic ban them when they don't. It's the exact same deal here.

Ian.thomson (talk) 00:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Cwobeel: we already have a whole section in the article exactly on the Islamic view on Jesus. That section mentions that Muslims don't believe Jesus was crucified. So nobody is opposed to saying that, and the article said that already before HC turned up. The question is whether the section on the academic view on Jesus, obviously different from both the Christian and Muslim view, also should mention the Muslim belief. And if it were a content dispute, it wouldn't be here. It's an issue of WP:HEAR, not going anywhere.Jeppiz (talk) 00:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok, let me explain this without mentioning what the article is, since that seems to be confusing people. If we ignore what the article is, ignore the content, we're left with this:

We have an article where mainstream secular academia has arrived at an almost unified conclusion regarding the status of the subject. There is some religious disagreement that has to split hairs and calls the mainstream account an illusion, and that belief is noted for what it is. We have multiple sources cited in the articles supporting all that.

A user has come in stating that they do not believe that their posts will not lead to article improvement, before suggesting changes based on religious sources or cherry-picked misrepresentations of mainstream sources, fails to heed anyone's explanations as to why their edits will not go through, and makes bad faith accusations of sockpuppetry against some of those who explain this. Furthermore, this user has tried to push their POV onto other articles. -- Those are behavioral issues, and this is the sort of thing topic bans are meant to deal with, users who might be useful elsewhere but whose presence in specific articles is a waste of everyone's time.

If this was any article but Jesus, we'd at least tell that user to back off, instead of telling the filing user to go through basic steps that he usually goes through with elsewhere. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban per Ian Thomson and Jeppiz. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 12:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• Reluctant support topic ban. When this discussion thread was started on the talk page, I was relatively sympathetic to Human Chlorophyll. It is, of course, important to include the information that Muslims have traditionally argued that Jesus did not die on the cross. However, this is not the same as saying there was no crucifixion. The Quran is clear that it appeared that Jesus was crucified. The most common interpretation is that God miraculously lifted Jesus to heaven and simultaneously transmuted Simon of Cyrene into Jesus's physical form, so that he would be crucified instead. This, of course, is a completely unfalsifiable "body swap" argument. Perhaps JFK was miraculously transported out of his body before his death and subsituted by Sam Giancana. We can't prove it didn't happen, but it doesn't alter historical events. So even the mainstream Muslim view does not deny the crucifixion. It just adds an unfalsifiable miraculous element. But Human Chlorophyll does not want to discuss this. He fills the page with utter irrelevancy and obfuscation. The last straw has been my attempt to explain his citation error (alluded to by ian.thomson above). It was an easy mistake to make; not a big problem. As long as it's acknowledged we can move on in the discussion. The problem is the endless stream of abuse, sneering, denial and constant IDIDNTHEARTHAT that makes sensible discussion impossible. Paul B (talk) 13:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• Reluctant support topic ban, and only because he continues to edit after ragequitting. He should be allowed to apply somewhere to get it released. Shii (tock) 14:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support timed topic ban(uninvolved non admin) In hopes that Human_Chlorophyll comes to a better way of editing. Learning how talk page disccusions can sometimes show us where we are wrong is important. I suggest up to a 6 month topic ban so they can grow as an editor, the account is less than a month old. AlbinoFerret 15:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I think a timed topic ban would be the best, yes. At the moment, the WP:HEAR issues make the user's editing a problem. If they remained on Wikipedia and edited other topics, they might learn, so a timed topic ban is probably the best solution.Jeppiz (talk) 15:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you for the clarifications, I see now how problematic this is, so I Support a timed topic ban. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
• Looking at his sources, his Voorst book claims that the Jerusalem Talmud mentioned stoning, and then that the Babylonian Talmud mentions hanging. It gets worse from there. Does he want to say that Jesus was nailed to a pole instead of a cross with his Telegraph reference? I scrolled a page down from his "Muslim scholars" keyword search, HC landed on a right-hand page, and it showed the name mentioned on the top-left corner on the next page, rather than the ones on the sidebar. Clearly a bad POV-push, but he assumes other users are too irrational for consensus. I think there is a problem with his refusal to pay attention to editors he disagrees with. Timed topic ban (scope?) Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 17:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• Time to close? The discussion seems to be more or less over and the support seem unanimous, so perhaps it could be closed?Jeppiz (talk) 12:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
• support topic ban - WP:NOTHERE Jytdog (talk) 13:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

 Comment: by Human Chlorophyll: I will summarize what exactly happened in few lines:

1. The infobox in the article Jesus presents the opinions of 4 "biblical scholars" (3 of them are preachers & none of them is a scholar of history) who claimed that "the crucifixion of Jesus commands almost universal assent" & that "non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus is now firmly established". For me, a person who has been in the Muslim world for 20 years, I know that this is nothing but a blatant fallacy. There is no such universal assent as long as 2 billion Muslims are living in our planet Earth.
2. So I went to the talk page, opened a new thread, and cited the Global Arabic Encyclopedia which was edited by 3000 scholars from the Arab world. It utterly denies the crucifixion and consider the Islamic beliefs about Jesus to be the ultimate truth.
3. I said to them: just as scholars from Christian background have approved this Christian story about "the crucifixion of Jesus", scholars from Muslim background have disapproved this story.
4. I was very natural and maintained a natural position. I didn't make mention of my beliefs at all. I simply said to them that "the crucifixion of Jesus" doesn't belong to history. It only belongs to faith "to the Christian faith". Why? because it isn't based on any historical evidence. It is solely based on the Christian religious tradition.
5. I cited this online easy-to-check source in English for them and it says it in clear English words: "Muslim scholars have overwhelmingly rejected the crucifixion".
6. I cited this article in the Telegraph also which is under a broad title "Jesus did not die on cross, says scholar" (it is referring to a Christian scholar "Gunnar Samuelsson" - Assistant Professor in New Testament Studies - who denies the crucifixion) saying that: The legend of his execution is based on the traditions of the Christian church and artistic illustrations rather than antique texts, according to theologian Gunnar Samuelsson.
7. I also referred to the Talmudic claim that Jesus was stoned rather that crucified: Voorst states: ["the earlier traditions given above from the Jerusalem Talmud say that jesus was stoned". Jeremy Hugh Baron states: "the Talmud assumed that Jesus was stoned to death". John Relly Beard states that this what the Talmud itself says.
8. I also cited this source which specifically states that "Jesus in the Talmud is himself the historical Jesus"

What did I get in in return from the cabal of Christian editors?

1. Virtually nothing but ad hominem. They didn't make any effort to respond directly to the points I raised. Instead of that, they started to attack me in person. They called me "religiously biased", "POV pusher", "incompetent person", "disruptive editor", "we will delete your thread", "we will block you".. etc
2. Per the Hierarchy of Disagreement, they have only shown me how weak they are.
3. All of Jeppiz, Ian and Paul accused me repeatedly and falsely of being an incompetent person (i.e. ad hominem) in spite of the fact that I am far more competent than them. Why? because I can read in both Arabic and English. I can read both the works of Muslims and the works of Christians. On the other hand, they can not read the works of Muslims. I know both Islam and Christianity. I know both the Qur'an and the Bible, while they don't know Islam. In addition, they are alcohol consumers while I am not. This gives me an advantage since I don't lose my mind while writing as they do.
4. What else did the cabal of Christian editors do? nothing aside ad hominem. Their only defense against me was this. They proposed to ban me because they can't tolerate the views of others (even when they are only mentioned in the talk pages). They can't tolerate Muslims in particular. Why? because Islam is growing much faster than Christianity and they wish to suppress Muslims in any possible way (but the fate of those Christians is to fail).
5. The funniest one, in my view, was Jeppiz, who wanted to delete the thread since the time it was opened, and contacted Ian on his talk page asking him to propose to ban Human Chlorophyl, and promised him that he will give him his support. (like a cabal or not?)--Human Chlorophyll (talk) 15:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: "Virtually nothing but ad hominem"? I found some responses & defenses to your points by Jeppiz & Ian, as well as interaction to the post from Kww, Skyring, Richard-of-Earth, and Paul Barlow before Ian closed the thread. All of the comments appeared to be written by fully sober (not inebriated or drunk) editors. Also, this may not have been what you wanted, but Jeppiz felt the question was irrelevant. You got many responses. Ian's opinion of this discussion included a defense of his points. Here is an opinion about your Talmud sources from Johnbod

That's a lot more than "ad hominem". As for the hierarchy of disagreement, they are generally within the 3rd-5th (not the 6th) quadrants, given that I've shown they've "addressed the substance of your argument". Jeppiz decided that your comment about you deciding some kinds of editor won't be neutral was not conductive to discussion. It implies you have a battleground mentality rather than a collaborative one. Also, if you think Jeppiz and Ian are sockpuppeting and therefore one and the same, why not go to [[WP:SPI] and file a report? Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 17:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I really must protest at this "they are alcohol consumers while I am not. This gives me an advantage since I don't lose my mind while writing as they do." This is how Human Chlorophyll describes Paul B, Ian.thomson and myself [59]. I'd dare say HC knows nothing about our lives and possible alcohol consumption, and the accusations that we are drunkards who "lose our minds" is quite frankly outrageous and completely irrelevant to any discussion. I've argued that HC is WP:NOTHERE and I think he just made this case himself better than I ever could. Rather than a topic ban, I'd consider an outright ban. If ANI decide for a topic ban, I'd suggest it cover any article related to religion, and this user shows over and over again that they won't even try to contribute in a constructive way. From their first post insisting we cannot be neutral because we're not Muslims to this insulting post claiming we are drunk, the user consistently takes a battlefield mentality to the project.Jeppiz (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: And I really must protest at Human Chlorophyll's referring to their post above as "a few lines". Bishonen | talk 17:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC).

• Comment No WP policy prohibits editing while comfortably numb or just plain drunk. And not that I do it, but WP policies also do not require one to be wearing underwear while editing.  :) Ok, this has gotten crazy now. I support Jeppiz in just outright banning him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill the Cat 7 (talk • contribs)

One indication that I've been sober for all this: my posts lack a sanguine charisma. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• I've just indef blocked this editor. It might make sense to finalize a topic ban discussion on the off chance that they are unblocked. But there's no rush anymore. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Drinks all round then? Paul B (talk) 17:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

None for me, thanks. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 17:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

New Task: Finding more non-Christian scholars who concede the crucifixion. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 19:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Editor making bulk changes against consensus (redux)

Serpren (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) has for some time been making bulk changes to UK placenames. I informed him [60] on his talk page that per this consensus, it's very clear that bulk changes of this type should cease. This was in many cases mopped up by an admin (User:Redrose64), but Serpren has continued. I reverted him in a number of cases, but he has just reverted back.

This consensus was designed to stop this kind of thing, i.e. editors changing UK placenames to suit their own preference, for example removing "UK" or adding it, or swapping "UK" for "England" and vice versa. There's no consensus on which format to use and it is unconstructive to keep switching between them. I have encountered several editors engaging in this practice (usually adding or removing "UK") and showing them the consensus has always stopped them, until now.

Please advise on how to resolve this, thanks. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I now see he actually reported me for vandalism [61] although it's not showing on that page. He did not notify me of this report and even accused me of editing "for political motivations", a clear violation of WP:AGF, let alone being utterly wrong. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The consensus Bretonbanquet refers to is "no consensus" as to style (therefore no mandate for bulk changes). However it does refer back to an earlier discussion and straw poll which showed a split consensus (once socks and meatpuppets were removed) between "England, UK/United Kingdom" and "England" (and similarly for Scotland, Wales, N Ireland) in geography leads. (In both discussions it was widely stated by those who usually know about these things that using both the home country and UK was redundant.) Consequently Serpren has some grounds for making their changes, though they would be well advised to stop and seek fresh consensus, since the strawpoll was a long time ago, and not well attended. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC).

Yes, as you say, the straw poll is from 2006 and consensus was split. The 2014 discussion to which I linked above also found no consensus as to style and that bulk changes shouldn't be made. This is my complaint; that Serpren is not abiding by that. Nearly all of his edits are changes of this type. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

If I may add, Serpren's haste to make these changes has introduced geographic or grammatical errors into at least a couple of articles ([62] [63]). Being so eager to add their bulk changes that they fail to spot any collateral damage is a fairly good indicator that their intentions are not necessarily honourable. QueenCake (talk) 17:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the consensus was "Cornwall, England, UK/United Kingdom" and have been assiduously working to ensure conformity across Cornish pages. However, should the consensus be "England, UK/United Kingdom" or "England", I will happily stick with that. My profound apologies for any grammatical errors I have caused, that was certainly not my intent. Maybe an adjudication, or new consensus, could be reached? Serpren (talk) 01:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

You say that, but at no stage have you been applying this convention of "Cornwall, England, UK" to pages that say "Cornwall, England". You've only been changing pages which say "Cornwall, UK". Perhaps you could explain why that's the case. The consensus you're talking about is here, but as it says, "Although no-one actively changes articles that don't comply with this format unless making other substantive edits to the article, members of the Cornwall Wikiproject do ensure that where it has been used, it remains in place." In other words, and combined with the other consensus about not making bulk changes to UK placenames, don't change the placenames unless you're making other substantive edits to the article. There is no consensus to enforce this placename format across all Cornish articles, particularly as you're being somewhat selective in your choice of articles to change.

There's also the point about inappropriate use of "Cornwall, England, UK" when the sentence already mentions England or the UK, or "English" or "British". That just amounts to repetition and makes the sentence read very poorly. Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Well where I have added "England" inappropriately, you should feel free to edit it. However, I can see no refutation that the agreed consensus is the term "Cornwall, England, UK/United Kingdom" and will continue to add England where it is deserved/needed Serpren (talk) 00:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC).

I will. So you are saying that you will ignore the consensus about not making bulk changes and you admit to openly editing against that consensus. You also ignore the point in the guideline about the "Cornwall, England, UK" consensus not being enforced unless making other substantive edits to the article, and you also ignore my question as to why you do not add "UK" to articles that say "Cornwall, England" in your supposed quest to fulfil this consensus. At the risk of failing WP:AGF, that looks very much like editing with a political POV, quite apart from editing against one consensus to wrongly enforce another. Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

There are a potentially-unlimited number of beneficial edits that a user could choose to make to Wikipedia. However, Serpren has elected to spend months making the same unhelpful edit to hundreds of pages, ignoring all opposition, frequently damaging the flow of a page's prose in order to stamp "Cornwall, England, United Kingdom" repeatedly.
It would be naïve to the point of foolishness to assume good faith when a user is so devoted to deliberate disruption and announces his intentions to carry on causing further disorder. Surely a block on the editor is justified to prevent further wilful disturbance of the project. 82.41.197.51 (talk) 04:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Discussion retrieved from archives as issue was not resolved
This discussion demonstrates opposition to Serpren's insistance on altering all articles mentioning "Cornwall" (and variants) to "Cornwall, England, UK". However, Serpren has continued (as he stated he would) making mass changes.
I have reverted a series of his edits, as they are obviously generally opposed, only to be hit by the usual threats and inaccurate templates that are part of the joy of editing from an IP address. Therefore, I would politely ask that issue be looked at again and some kind of final decision be reached. 82.41.197.51 (talk) 17:24, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The edits by Serpren that 82.41.197.51 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been reverting today were done two months ago and were already dealt with above. Furthermore, the IP has falsely accused me of vandalism and politically motivated edits. Re-opening this thread is just a waste of time. DuncanHill (talk) 19:40, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

There were edits made yesterday by the IP that followed the pattern of what Serpren was doing, but I do not believe that IP is Serpren. Serpren himself does appear to have stopped editing in a problematic fashion. The IP above, as well as the other IP, as well as everyone else, needs to cease making multiple changes to placenames; this practice is not in line with the Cornish project consensus. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:32, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Harold Bellagnome // User:Camelbinky

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

---

Seriously, can someone block this User:Harold Bellagnome, once again someone is playing off the trademark of TSM LLC's Henry Bellagnome and playing games, per his/her comment on User talk:Jimbo Wales. I'd like someone to also do a checkuser and see who is doing these socks. [ Unacceptable attack on a sysop/checkuser redacted. BLP applies on the AN board too. If you have evidence of this submit it to the foundation, untill then, it's redacted per NPA and BLP ] This has escalated into harassment offline and against my work as well, it is hard to do legal action against individuals who are harassing me in real life and affecting my workplace if I can't find out who. Please help.Camelbinky (talk) 17:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Am I misunderstanding, or are you asking that the real-life identity of this sockmaster be disclosed to you so you can take legal action against him/her? If you are, I think you should be dealing with the WMF directly... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Right now I'm asking that this sockpuppet be blocked and the IPs associated with this now THIRD sockpuppet be blocked indef. I don't think that's unreasonable, though I'd ask that we'd also take the step that any actually username associated with the IPs also be blocked for sockpuppetry (probably not a word but I'm pissed this is happening constantly and nothing is being done). This one was made within minutes of me posting on Jimbo's talk page, so it has to be a user who has it watchlisted or constantly keeps tabs on my contributions, which means it's a current user. I can have a lawyer contact the WMF directly regarding what, if anything, the WMF even allows itself to do without a court order.Camelbinky (talk) 21:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Anyone (registered user or not) can keep a browser link to Jimbo's talk page - or to your contributions history for that matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

A couple of points; I don't appreciate your oblique reference to myself, nor your veiled accusation of impropriety. I have never "cover[ed] up for Wikipediocracy users" nor, to my knowledge, have I been credibly accused of it. Please provide evidence or strike that. Also, why not name me by name, or at least do me the courtesy of notifying me that you're badmouthing me around the place? That way, it saves me having to find out via Wikipediocracy. Thirdly, you are, of course, free to involve lawyers in whatever you like - that's your prerogative - but I have to draw your attention to Wikipedia's policy on same. Also, Checkusers on WMF are bound by checkuser policy, WMF privacy policy and the access to non-public data policy. For that reason, if you wish to obtain IP information, you will need to check with WP:OFFICE unless there's an egregious abuse which would warrant its disclosure, and I believe there is not. In this case, I did check, and there are no other accounts visible under its IPV6 address, nor are there any others within a reasonable CIDR range. I have tried, but I cannot link any of these accounts to another, or even reliably to each other apart from their useragent. Feel free, however, to ask for a second or third checkuser opinion - Alison ^❤ 01:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not cool. Alison is a highly trusted user on both websites. This is true. And frankly, fairly impressive. She manages to do it by being fair and scrupulous, and it's shitty to be badmouthing her for it. And you are required to let someone know if you are discussing them here, even if it is out of the corner of your mouth. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

And again AN/I becomes the place to badmouth and find what is wrong with the person being bullied instead of just doing something to solve the problem. Lovely. You're all a bunch of hypocrites for claiming to be here to solve the problems and yet you allow the "bloody the witness" mentality that is prevalent here. You have problems with what I say? Fine, take care of my problem and then we can discuss it in a separate thread. But obviously you don't want to do anything. I'll contact the WMF regarding the direct attack upon my businesses online and offline by a user who started with Wikipedia and that Wikipedia continues to do nothing about stopping the proliferation of names based off a trademark of a registered corporation.Camelbinky (talk) 13:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I love that the sockpuppet still hasn't been blocked. And that the only ones commenting are those who have harassed me or bullied me in the past.Camelbinky (talk) 14:01, 20 May 2015

If the sock has been blocked where is the template or ANYTHING on the page to let anyone know? I'm not an admin and there is no way I would be able to tell by going to that sock that the sock has been blocked! PLUS why is it that these socks are ONLY being blocked? Um, I'm pretty sure being copyright violations they need to be completely removed and I don't know why this isn't being done. The names are allowed to remain in existence making it look like TSM LLC has something to do with them and the corporation itself has done something wrong through editing and has been blocked.Camelbinky (talk) 14:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. I tried to close this, and was reverted. Camelbinky, anyone can look at block logs: [64], you don't have to be an admin. It is literally impossible for an admin to get IP information; Checkuser Alison has already provided background IP info (twice), and stated that there is no link to an account here, but it is directly against the privacy policy to provide the IP range directly to you. And it would do you no good. Again, in spite of your casual smear against her, she is also the one who blocked the accounts. So no matter how many times you delete the suggestion, you should thank her.

It is also literally impossible for an admin or checkuser to "delete" an account,I suppose you could ask a "Global renamer" to rename them to something innocuous, but the problem is, every single time someone helps you, you treat them like dirt. So I don't know how successful you'll be in getting someone to make an effort. Plus, as several people have advised you now, by making a big deal of this in public, you are giving the troll exactly the attention he wants. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I love that the sockpuppet still hasn't been blocked. And that the only ones commenting are those who have harassed me or bullied me in the past. Camelbinky, I redacted your reference to a check user and have asked for it to be RevDel'd and I certainly have not attacked you in the past. While I won't ask you to strike it, I will request a block on Camelbinky at this time for:

• 1 Posting a remark that violates BLP and NPA and further maligns a sysop and checkuser by outright stating they protected sock.
  
  
• 2 Has done nothing but attack users on this section , in a show of ABF as well as IDHT
  
  
• 3 Reverted an administrators close of this topic.
  
  
• 3 I general is out-of-control about this user over his username.
  
  

Obviously this user is not a good faith user, however, Camelbinky is out of control about this. Hate to reccomend a block for anyone, but I do in this case KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 16:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Blocks aren't what's needed here, stick dropping is what's needed here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:18, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Let's just move on. All socks checked / blocked. If Camelbinky wishes to bring this up with OFFICE, he can go ahead and pursue that - Alison ^❤ 21:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• And in other news, I've gone ahead and deleted all the userpages created by the socks, as they were starting to appear on the first page of a google search for "Bellagnome". Let's not recreate them, nor add "marks of shame" to the pages, or it'll just end up looking bad for Binky, as his trademark gets sullied by his own demands - Alison ^❤ 07:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• Camelbinky still owes me and Drmies apologies for ridiculously false allegations levied at Jimbotalk [65]. The legal threats in this thread are also obnoxious. I suggest a boomerang block for personal attacks and violation of NOLEGALTHREATS. Carrite (talk) 07:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Let's make that formal:

• Support - Indefinite boomerang block of Camelbinky for a stream of out of control personal attacks, bad faith insinuations, and legal threats. Carrite (talk) 07:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
• Nope - just let it go, and allow Binky to cool down and move on with things. There's nothing served by blocking the guy, other than fueling his sense of injustice - Alison ^❤ 07:33, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per Alison. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per Alison (smooches from the motherland) though I appreciate Carrite's comment. As a side note, holy moly Camelbinky, what a bunch of assholism. Still, "acting like a total asshole" is not a blockable offense until it becomes severely disruptive, and you're not up to snuff yet. One day you'll look in the mirror, I hope. Drmies (talk) 08:19, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support sadly. He's a good editor, but he's more or less gone off the deep end (check his contributions and you'll see that he's been on a tear about H* Bellagnome, and per Carrite, he's issued outrageous personal attacks here and on Jimbo's page. I'd say enough's enough. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 10:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

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

User:drmargi

Page: CSI: Cyber (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
List of CSI: Cyber episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I'm new to this reporting thing so I hope I'm not too choppy in my explanations. Recently, it was announced that Peter MacNicol was departing CSI: Cyber. Sourced from dozens of media outlets including deadline, an amendment to the CSI: Cyber page was made to note he appeared in season 1, whilst a note was added to the List of CSI: Cyber episodes page, that I created, to note that he departed the regular cast at the end of the first season (emphasis on 'regular' due to the minute possibility he may reappear at some point), which, I believe to be unlikely.

user:drmargi then began an edit war noting that deadline was not a reputable source, nor were Irish sources, or any source noting their personal confirmation of deadline's original report. A discussion was started on the talk:CSI: Cyber page, and many editors agreed it should be noted that MacNicol has departed, as his last episode has already aired. Drmargi withdrew herself from the discussion but has continued to revert edits, although has not yet breached the 3RR rule. Today, what I believe to be a consensus was reached between those still discussing, and as a result I re-inserted the hyperlink referencing MacNicols departure. Since then, drmargi has reverted this edit several times on both pages:

Cyber

1. [66]
2. [67]
3. [68]

Cyber episodes

1. [69]
2. [70]
3. [71]

I have countered these reversions, each time adding notes such as - "Consensus has been reached on the talk page to include this piece of information. Please join the discussion before deleting again - everyone is welcome to give their two cents" - "Edit warring isn't helping anyone. Please cease and desist. Discuss like an adult. I don't want to see anyone break the 3RR rule and get themselves into trouble." - "Join the discussion. The only person being disruptive is you. Please don't do your reputation a disservice by edit warring and breaking 3RR"

This was met by threats on my talk page, stating that my accidental omission to login would next time "result in further action that may result in your being blocked," later adding "Having reverted once logged out (as you acknowledge above) and three times logged in, you have now violated WP:3RR, and refuse to abide by WP:BRD, which requires an article be left at status quo during discussion (if you can call that squabbling session on the talk page a discussion.) You also refuse to abide by WP:NPA not only with me, but with other editors. This is going to the 3RR noticeboard. Your "logged out" editing is always just a bit convenient." This statement is in fact false as I had not reverted any edit whilst logged out, but instead made the original edit myself, noting immediately on the talk:CSI: Cyber page that U "couldn't log in - sorry."

I'd like to note that prior to making the original edit I posted a message stating "I think that's the consensus arising. I'll make the edit, and hopefully instead of reverting it straight away the editors in question will discuss any further changes if they still disagree," so no harm was meant.

user:maticsg1 summed it up perfectly, I believe, when stating on the talk page of Cyber that "drmargi reverts the edits, pointing to a start of a discussion about them, after discussion starts she states that she finds sources unreliable. After her statements are challenged by multiple users, using valid arguments, the user - seeing all this - goes behind multiple editors' back to the Wikipedia Director saying that we "don't have a year's experience", "don't understand WP:RS or WP:VERIFY, two of them are basing their edits on a gossip site reporting rumors" and that we "need a firm hand". When the discussion comes to a point when everyone currently involved agrees about the reliability of the forementioned source and trying to implement changes, once again, changes are reverted pointing to this discussion. It is imposible to reach a consensus that way, and I don't know, maybe that's the whole point as in that it can be said that the consensus was reached if someone is not involved in the discussion anymore, I don't know and I won't speculate, but the fact is, and I have been refraining myself from saying that for a few days now, because it may be a little "inpolite", but "reverting justified article changes by different editors repeatedly over an extended period to protect a certain version" is an action of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Maticsg1 (talk) 16:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC)"

Any assistance in this matter would be greatly appreciated. It seems like such a big fuss for a post script note stating MacNicol departed the regular cast after the first season.

Unframboise (talk) 18:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC) Thanks, unframboise. 19:09, 19.05.15, GMT.

If I may add, it is not the first time user:drmargi has been doing this. On the same article, a few days ago (May 14) the same user was "reverting justified article changes by different editors repeatedly over an extended period to protect a certain version" about a cast member that has been confirmed by CBS (Ted Danson, can also be found on the Talk page) which is against WP:BRD and is an action of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Maticsg1 (talk) 18:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

OP has knowingly used an IP edit to breach WP:3RR. See filing at: [72] The go amuse yourself with the squabbling match/insult-fest that passes for discussion on the CSI: Cyber talk page. This is one of three very inexperienced, aggressive editors who cannot resolve this issue civilly and in a collaborative manner. It's regrettable they lack the judgment to separate rumor and speculation from reliable information, per WP:VERIFY, when a little patience is all that's needed. That's all I have to say on the matter. --Drmargi (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Just adding a quick post-script to thank maticsg1 for their input, and also to note that user:drmargi has now followed through on her threat to lodge a complaint with the Edit Warring board here [73] despite me not being in breach of the 3RR rule. I would appreciate if this situation could be resolved quickly and comfortably for both parties. unframboise, 19:19, 19.05.15 (GMT).

If you are 148.197.152.197 then you did breach 3RR. Even if you aren't, you were still edit-warring. You made 3 reversions in 10 minutes as Unframboise. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

3RR states that you have to revert four times in order to breach. I reverted three times, as did user:drmargi. Both of us in the same amount of time. The original edit was an edit upon which a consensus was reached upon, and not a reversion of a previous edit. user:unframboise (talk) 18:57, 19 May 2015 (GMT).

Reverting 3 times in 10 minutes is still edit-warring. There are only 3 editors involved so there is no strong consensus and the sources that you're using are fairly weak. I can certainly understand Drmargi's frustration, seeing edits forced into the article while there is an active discussion underway (which goes totally against WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO), but edit-warring by anyone is inappropriate. There's enough guilt to go around here but this is essentially a content issue. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I will certainly take responsibility for my part in this and apologise. It's definitely a content issue, but when drmargi insists on reverting, her refusal to discuss at this point is also an issue. The participants of the active discussion all agreed that the content should be included, if drmargi feels that she needs to argue the opposite, it should be done via discussion and not edit warring. It may be helpful for an outside user to decide whether this content should be included once and for all. Thanks for your input, Aussie! -- user:unframboise (user talk:unframboise) 20:15, 19.05.15 (GMT).

3RR aside, this complaint is about content dispute. I occasionally edit this article, as it is on my watchlist. I am quite honestly shocked by this. First off, Deadline is a source used by many articles (yes, I am emphasizing). For example, Dirty Grandpa. Deadline is a trustworthy and reliable source when it comes to entertainment news for movies, music, TV, etc. I honestly don't know how Drmargi is questioning a rather every-day source used by many well-experienced users on this Wikipedia. It doesn't matter what kind of experience you have on Wikipedia; a user is encouraged to edit when they have found new information on the article with proper sourcing. The user in question's statement is rather biased and unjustified. Their behavior looks rather WP:OWN if you ask me. Reverting a well-trusted source used by many users... I totally agree with User:Drovethrughosts with their statement on the talk page: "I'm confused as to why Deadline.com is being questioned as a reliable source. As far as I'm aware, they're a top tier source for entertainment news. This isn't coming from someone random blog or person, it's from Nellie Andreeva, a professional entertainment journalist, it's her job to have "insider scoop" and knowledge. This isn't hearsay from someone on the street or someone running a personal TV blog from their basement, it's from a highly reputable source, so I don't understand why it can't be included. Several other reliable sources have reported on it such as Entertainment Weekly ("Now, EW has confirmed the Deadline report") and TheWrap ("TheWrap has learned"); they're not just sourcing Deadline, they're independent reports or confirmations." And Drmargi's comment on their talk page is, in my opinion, WP:NPA: "That guy is in the UK, and doesn't know the first thing about American entertainment media, or he'd never have said what he did about the Hollywood Reporter." I'm sorry, but does it matter where you're from to edit the English Wikipedia for whatever reason? Unframboise followed WP:SOURCES and WP:VERIFY, so no. I'm from Canada. Do I qualify for not knowing anything about American entertainment media? Exactly. This is very unfair for an argument to revert a person just because you personally think the source is bad or doesn't meet your policies or just because you're from America you know everything American. Plus, Drmargi, you were more than welcome to participate in the discussion, but you chose not. Way to resolve a dispute and avoid unnecessary blocking, page protection and edit warring. Per WP:DISPUTE, you were ought to discuss with other involved editors about the matter. You refused to continue to discuss the matter. Look at what it has turned into: unnecessary edit warring. Aside from my "complaint", I agree that the content should be added (but should be introduced in a different matter) based on many articles (main one from Deadline) that have in fact confirmed what Deadline wrote. Callmemirela (Talk) 00:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Allegation of sockpuppetry leads to legal threat

There is a content and conduct dispute at Le Sage's theory of gravitation. Normally this could be handled under WP:ARBPS, since this theory is now considered pseudo-science, but the reply by User:DoNotGod to the allegation of sockpuppetry was: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADoNotGod&type=revision&diff=663065825&oldid=663059563

I haven’t filed an SPI at this time, but threatening to sue another editor for malicious defamation is a very clear violation of No Legal Threats.

Robert McClenon (talk) 21:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

It reads like a hypothetical rather than a blatant threat. Nevertheless, someone with some clout needs to tell him to recant and disavow it, or be blocked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

It's not a hypothetical. DoNotGod has posted a video to his YouTube channel saying that he will "sue Wikipedia" if he is blocked under WP:NLT. [74] I would also like to point out to any admins reading that this guy has two other videos on his channel full of vulgar insults towards editors involved in the relevant dispute, and has also made false accusations of slander multiple times. Insidiae (talk) 22:01, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Note: There are some disturbing off-wiki legal threats as well:

• "Wikipedia Junk .... DVdm is a petty fucktard"
• "(1) Wikipedia editors: just petty fascist propagandizing control freaks"
• "(2) Wikipedia editors: just petty fascist propagandizing control freaks".

I don't think that listing this is against our wp:outing policy, as user DoNotGod seems to have no objection—on the contrary—so I thought I had to mention this. - DVdm (talk) 22:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

His comment on Wikipedia reads as a hypotheticals, i.e. "How about if I..." rather than "I will..." He needs to know that he's free to sue, he just can't edit Wikipedia at the same time. And unless he actually outed himself by giving his actual name, I don't see how he can claim he was "defamed". Of course, there's the old adage, "Never sue - they might prove it." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Yet he remains unblocked. Go figure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Blocked. Hypothetical threats can create a chilling effect intended to influence the actions of other editors, which seems clearly to be the case here, and that is just as bad as a direct threat. My block is only for the on-wiki threat, so feel free to discuss whether it was justified, and whether more than the on-wiki conduct needs to be addressed in any potential request for an unblock. Monty₈₄₅ 01:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for block. Blocked editor is continuing to threaten to sue in unblock request. Suggest blocking talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest going ahead and filing an SPI case between this editor and Snowwhiteunger. —Farix (t | c) 01:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

SPI filed against DoNotGod, Snowwhiteunger, and 192.155.217.202. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Follow-up: SPI report filed here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DoNotGod --IJBall (talk) 05:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

And it came up  Unrelated – so apparently those three are not socks of each other. --IJBall (talk) 06:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I, for one, would appreciate an apology. The Wikipedia:Consensus was damaged by launching SPI against only those editors who supported including DoNotGod's link, especially since the allegations were proven false. I'd also point out that I lost the password to my preexisting account, which can be seen here: Special:Contributions/Snowwhitefan1 thus laying to rest "meatpuppet" allegations, as well.Snowwhiteunger (talk) 13:57, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

DoNotGod uploaded this video today, his reaction to getting blocked. Looks like he won't be rescinding his legal threats (in fact he made more of them in the video), so I don't think he'll be coming back any time soon. Insidiae (talk) 06:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The three are not sockpuppets, but they do appear to have been acting in coordination. He may have hangers-on. Wikipedia's policy on so-called meat-puppetry might apply, but I don't claim to understand fully exactly what is and is not meat-puppetry. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:48, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Says he's gonna sue for "malicious deformation". I guess that's like when you dent someone's car on purpose? EEng (talk) 12:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I will note that his threats are to sue Wikipedia, which is not permitted because of its chilling effect. He isn't threatening to sue individual editors, which is far more intimidating, because the individual editors don't have the resources to defend themselves aggressively that the WMF does. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:48, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd appreciate an apology, as I have not acted in coordination with anyone. What you've done here is undermine Wikipedia:Consensus which is even more serious than your false allegation of sock-puppetry. Snowwhiteunger (talk) 13:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Taking into account the unrelated outcome of the SPI, perhaps my apologies would be appropriate at user talk. But then, what to think of this and this, where the entire article is replaced with a link to DoNotGod's personal web page? To be ignored? Meatpuppetry? In any case, an apology would make any kind of legal action moot, and easy to retract by user. Advice would be welcome. - DVdm (talk) 14:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Request semi-protection for the page then WP:RBI this person any sock/meat-puppets. Ravensfire (talk) 14:55, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

You've offered an apology here and if he has the wit to come and see it, fine. Otherwise leave it alone. No possible good can come from further interactions with this person. EEng (talk) 14:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Which "this person" are you referring to? DoNotGod, the anonymous IP, or myself? I do expect an apology. Again, Wikipedia:Consensus has been undermined here, pretty blatantly in fact, by taking action only against the people who were in favor or including DoNotGod's link in the non-mainstream link section of a theory considered "pseudo-science" by many. A discussion needs to be started imo, on how to move forward. Snowwhiteunger (talk) 13:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm referring to DoNotGod. EEng (talk) 14:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

No apology, in my opinion, is required, your actions are absolutely suspicious enough to warrant an accusation. Nearly all your edits were toward defending DoNotGod on a talk page, which is very unusual for a newbie.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 13:47, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

As pointed out, I'm not a newbie, unless the term "newbie" applies to users who started editing on Wikipedia in the year 2013. This is mine: Special:Contributions/Snowwhitefan1Snowwhiteunger (talk) 13:57, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

One edit, long ago reverted, and two years later you come back to side with the blocked user? Yeah, suspicions are granted.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• One argument against the idea Snowwhiteunger's a sockpuppet of of DoNotGod is that he's not batshit crazy the way the guy in the video is. However, that's only in the full light of day. Just on Snowwhiteunger's contributions, puppetry suspicions were warranted. Now we know you're not one. Fine. Get over it. EEng (talk) 14:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Once again, thanks for pointing out my first edit was made "long ago" which necessarily means I'm not a newbie. The mental gymnastics in use here by editors attempting to justify suspicions now proven completely false by the SPI are impressive. Also, you are suggesting that I "sided" with a blocked user, when in fact I merely agreed that the link in question was appropriately posted to the "Non-Mainstream" link section of a pseudo-scientific theory article, and this occurred well prior to the blocking of that contributor. I felt the previous links included in the "Non-Mainstream" section were appropriate as well, so by your logic I "sided" with all of those contributors (whose contributions incidentally sat undisturbed in the "Non-Mainstream" link section until DoNotGod attempted to post his link). I'd suggest focusing on the content, not the contributors. In fact, I've been suggesting that all along. Using language such as "batshit crazy" is wildly inappropriate, in any context. Why not respond to me with proper decorum, just as I've responded to you (and everyone else) here. Snowwhiteunger (talk) 14:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Using language such as "batshit crazy" is wildly inappropriate – it would seem you haven't seen the videos. EEng (talk) 15:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Read the boomerang essay before continuing to make angry posts here. Also, please explain why you are using multiple accounts. Your argument that you are not a newbie editor because you made edits under a different name in 2013 appears to mean that you are a sockpuppet of yourself. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

These posts are not angry, Mr. McClenon. A well-respected editor (DVdm) suggested apologies might be in order, and I am speaking up to express my belief that yes, apologies are in order. In no way can that be construed as inappropriate or angry. Snowwhiteunger (talk) 15:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

He already said he lost the password to his earlier account. As long as there's no attempt to deceive there's nothing wrong with creating a new account in such cases. EEng (talk) 15:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Appreciate you pointing that out, thanks. Snowwhiteunger (talk) 15:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with EEng's past comment, get over it. You were suspicious so they checked to be sure. By dragging this on Snowwhiteunger, you are just be uncollaborative and it may WP:BOOMERANG on you.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

But now that the allegation has been shown to be conclusively false by the SPI, an apology would be appreciated despite the origin of the suspicions. Let not forget that every conversation held on Wikipedia serves as an example to others. Snowwhiteunger (talk) 15:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

As to the characterization as a newbie editor, having made one edit in 2013 doesn't make one an experienced editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) He made a single edit with the 2013 account (Special:Contributions/Snowwhitefan1) and that was just a revert. That barely even counts as a contribution. Someone who has never added any new content is, in practice, a newbie. They have no experience of Wikipedia editing. It's not an insult. Paul B (talk) 15:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Per the advice (and/or warning) posted on my talk page, I'm going to disengage from this conversation. The "anonymous tip" if you will, disturbed me greatly, and I don't think that's the way Wikipedia wants to lose potential editors. I was called a newbie, and by strict definition (definitions are supposedly important on an encyclopedia website) I was not, because I have in fact edited a Wikipedia page prior to this dispute. Never did I claim to be a very experienced editor. As already stated, I attempted to log in under Snowwhitefan1 but failed to find the correct password, but I didn't attempt to track down my previous edit until today, when I became aware of the SPI for the first time. The previous meatpuppet allegation combined now with the sockpuppet and newbie allegation provided the impetus to take the time to track down that 2013 edit. Combined with the dismissive, unfriendly tone with which the allegations were hurled at me, I don't think I was in the wrong to come back and try to talk it out. Look at how all of my posts have been worded, then tell me where I've said anything inappropriate or counter to the spirit of discussion that Wikipedia encourages. I was told flat out that Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith would not be afforded to me almost immediately after I joined the conversation, likewise meatpuppet and sockpuppet allegations were thrown at me very quickly--despite my reasonable tone. If you really think I've been treated well here, then Wikipedia's standards of discourse leaves much to be desired. Only DVdm has even broached the possibility of an apology, and I give him credit for that much. I'll wrap this up with a few points. Throughout all of this, most of the editors have focused as much on the contributor as the content, and from what I can tell that runs counter to Wikipedia policy. Also, keep in mind WP: CAI and WP:CRED. Also, by focusing things like SPI, BOOMERANG, and similar measures entirely on one side of a dispute, wp:consensus is seriously damaged and serious questions arise. Hopefully you'll think about that. I'm done here. Peace. Snowwhiteunger (talk) 17:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Restoring Talaash (Colors TV series) and than redirecting it

A person with a same IP address first restores the Talaash (Colors TV series) page and within one minute, that person redirects the article. I don't know what's wrong with this person? KunalForYou ^☎️📝 15:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Admin User:AntonioMartin repeatedly adding unsourced information on a BLP

The admin User:AntonioMartin is repeatedly adding unsourced information to Xavier Serbiá's BLP, while still reverting many (if not all) of other unrelated edits I did (like formatting references, adding sections, adding wikilinks...)

He failed to reply at his talk page. --damiens.rf 16:19, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

That's some rather awful edit-warring from both sides. AntonioMartin is trying to add obviously unsuitable material (trivial and with unreliable sources, though not an obvious BLP violation that would justify violations of otherwise bright-line rules to remove it); both sides are blatantly revert-warring without using the talkpage; Damiens is making wrong accusations of "vandalism". Can somebody give me a good reason for not blocking both parties? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Well I'll give you a reason (not necessarily a good one, YMMV etc) - since nobody else appears to be working on the article, full-protect it for three days or so and tell the pair of them to thrash it out on talk. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to go with Ritchie's suggestion. While a block would be hard to argue with for AntonioMartin, Damiens is a slightly trickier call (I wouldn't block, but wouldn't complain very strongly if someone did). Some of his edits at the article aren't reverts, and he's not blind reverting like AntonioMartin. Still, the false vandalism claim always sticks in my craw, and things are out of control there. I'm going to go ahead and full protect, and if blocks are handed out by others the protection can be removed. I'll leave a note for AntonioMartin so he understands editing through full protection will be considered a Very Big Deal. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Do we let users put a long autobiography on their talk pages now? WP:USERBIO suggests AntonioMartin's is far too detailed. Ah, looking at it again, it also has information about other living people, some not flattering. I'd say his userpage is a BLP violation itself. I note he became an Admin 16 September 2002 - things were rather different then. Dougweller (talk) 16:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Yes, all of these things, together, personally make me concerned about this person having "the bit" – is there an Admin review process (aside from ARBCOM)? Should that be pursued in this case?... --IJBall (talk) 17:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I've never understood the issue with long biographies; the guy's been around for 13 years and made 23,600 edits, why not cut him some slack? The unflattering info about other people using their real names is an issue, and should probably be dealt with. By someone besides me, as I've got to leave. But start with discussion, not outright removal. I'd say it's far too early to talk about "admin review" (which means "ArbCom", there is no other process), wait to see what he says first. No need to go off half-cocked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Believe me, I have no desire to go off to ARBCOM on my end, if that's the only avenue here! --IJBall (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

If an admin is making page edits that violate policy, nothing prevents them from being blocked like anyone else. Arbcom is only needed if you think they are misusing their admin powers. User:AntonioMartin's logs show hardly any use of admin powers in the year 2015, a few routine moves and deletions. EdJohnston (talk) 17:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

It's probably worth remembering that there's been a rather long history of clashes between Damiens.rf and AntonioMartin (and his father, Marine 69-71 (talk · contribs)) over Puerto Rico topics. One such clash last year involved a rather blatant case of misuse of admin tools on Antonio's part (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive843#Admin undeleted an article); others have included wikihounding accusations against Damiens. On the present article, interactions and problematic editing by Antonio and/or Marine go back to at least 2011. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

If that's the case, then if the protection ultimately doesn't work then an interaction ban might be the next step? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:55, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm reluctant about interaction bans in cases where a pattern of (possibly) mutually bad behaviour is overlaid on a pattern of (unilaterally) bad content edits, which might be the case here. If Antonio has a history of making poor content edits of the type shown here, and nobody except Damiens has been cleaning them up, then to impose an interaction ban, however much it might be justified on behavioral grounds, would have the effect of preventing necessary cleanup of content, which must be the highest priority. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

In a discussion at the top of this page, we have an admin making a questionable and probably incorrect call re content policy, which was accepted by some as gospel because it was by an admin. Here we have an admin behaving the way an admin shouldn't be behaving. What are the "red lines" that admins are not supposed to cross before they aren't admins anymore? Are there any? Are they pretty much in the clear as long as they don't abuse their tools, or should they be removed because they simply aren't qualified? Coretheapple (talk) 18:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

That, in a nutshell, is my concern as well. Thanks for putting this into words, Coretheapple! But I am definitely concerned here, on my end, as we have an Admin who got 'the bit' when Wikipedia was in its infancy, and who has subsequently behaved in a such a way that they certainly would not get through a RfA if they applied today. To me, a "they don't use their tools much" defense isn't really enough of a comfort – we potentially have someone who is "under-qualified" to have tools, and has over an over 10-year period not displayed the type of behavior we expect in an Admin. Fut.Perf.'s points above are especially disquieting. (FTR, I am not in the "cabal" that likes to push for every Admin to lose privileges at the smallest perceived "infraction" – this is literally the first case I have even seen of someone who has Admin privileges who I am starting to wonder if maybe they shouldn't...) --IJBall (talk) 18:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The only options are voluntary resignation or Arbcom. An admin is unlikely to have the bit removed by Arbcom without tool misuse, or really series violations not involving the tools. Monty₈₄₅ 18:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

He last blocked someone in 2009, last protected a page in 2012. He's used his ability to delete this month. Dougweller (talk) 18:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

So what is the point of him having tools? What Monty845 says is an accurate statement of fact, and I hope that it is kept in mind the next time someone laments about the so-called admin shortage, or why RfAs are such a difficult hurdle to pass. It's for that very reason: because an inept administrator can't be removed on that basis alone. There have to be serious violations or tool abuse. As long as the hurdles for removal are very high, the hurdles to become an admin will be equally high. Coretheapple (talk) 18:35, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

As long as there isn't serious tool misuse that would cause a desysoping, tools can only be given up voluntarily or taken away after three years of complete inactivity. I've seen "active" admins who had 7 edits over three years time and they are still admins and have the tools should they want to return to editing. As long as this admin is making edits, the tools won't be removed. It just takes one edit every three years to retain the mop. If you want that changed, go to the Village pump! But it might be a perennial proposal. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, Fut.Perf.'s link to the earlier ANI thread shows that there was tool misuse, last year. And the only reason a WP:RfC about that wasn't held was apparently due to a technical mistake. Now, no one took that situation to ARBCOM at the time, which in retrospect may have been a mistake. On my end, I'd definitely feel more comfortable if this Admin turned in their bit voluntarily (esp. since they don't even seem to be using their tools now), but I suspect that won't be happening... I think this situation does point up an obvious flaw in the current system. --IJBall (talk) 21:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

An admin(!) is putting unsourced info into an article and is edit warring. He doesn't answer for his actions in his talk page, as required of all admins. The same admin has misused his tools in the past. There's no big moral dilemma here - block the admin for whatever seems an appropriate time. If the other edit has been edit warring as well, block him for a time appropriate for *his* actions (not necessarily an equivalent amount of time). What's the big discussion? BMK (talk) 02:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

At the time of writing, AntonioMartin's contributions show that he has not edited Wikipedia since 11:11 on 20 May, which is before this thread was created. Let's see if he plans to respond here. EdJohnston (talk) 03:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that maybe a review of AM's adminship is in order now. An edit warring admin who has a past history of abusing his tools? And man does his blocking log confuse the hell out of me. Given how inactive they are with their tools, I don't think it would be much harm if they lost adminship anyway. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 03:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

How many times can a guy get "accidentally blocked"? BMK (talk) 04:17, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Heh. In AntonioMartin's defense, a lot of that "accidentally blocked" stuff in his log happened in 2006. So that part, at least, doesn't seem relevant to the current discussion... --IJBall (talk) 04:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, maybe, we'll see, but first I really want to know how it is even possible to get "accidentally blocked" 16 times in six months? Was he caught up in IP range blocks? Was there a six-month wheel war with a (hopefully) non-deposed admin? Was he doing to to himself? Was there then, and is there still now, a CIR problem with this editor? When ArbCom looks at desysoppings (and I am not advocatng that this should go to ArbCom on the basis of the information here), they look for a pattern of behavior, but a pattern of behavior is impossible to look for if one throws out old information as being too stale to consider. BMK (talk) 05:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Before July 2006, an IP block caused an autoblock of *every single* user on an IP address, no matter their status, so admins regularly got caught in IP blocks; there was no way to disable autoblocks in those days. See the infamous bug 550 (the link to Bugzilla is intentional). Graham87 14:25, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

The Xavier Serbia article was done during my infancy at Wikipedia. I think I should just try to find references on the information in there. BUT ALSO I have to note, the information which made Damiens start this with, is actually referenced. I know the link is a YouTube video, but if this YouTube video, in which we see the act ACTUALLY HAPPENING, is not a reliable source, then I do not know what is.

Also note that Damiens calls this vandalism when if you look at MY particular history, you will see that I clearly do not. Damiens' attitude towards me and my father borders on obsession. He keeps an eye on everything we do, our history and even my dad being awarded by the Puerto Rican government for his work at Wikipedia notwithstanding.

As far as the other thing, I have from time to time used my tools the right way and the one time I used it the wrong way was without the intention of hurting Wikipedia. Only one time in 13 years, I think that record speaks for itself. The main reason i am at Wikipedia, however, is because I love informing people, and sometimes I admit that I forget about doing other things I should do more often. There was in particular one time when I thought everything was written about at Wikipedia and I admit I only visited to read and learn myself during that time but generally my passion has been in writing and informing. But i understand what you all say and am trying to remember carrying on the other things administrators are supposed to do. Antonio Macho Macho Macho Martin (haw haw!) 05:51, May 21, 2015 (UTC)

Ooops...I wasn't signed when I wrote that. I apologize. Antonio Nacho Nacho Nacho Martin (haw haw!) 05:57, May 21, 2015 (UTC)

Antonio, you can still contribute as much as you want to Wikipedia, but you don't need to be an Admin to do that – most of the people posting on this board are non-Admins, and we do just fine. If you aren't really using your Admin tools anyway, maybe it would be best to voluntarily resign them, and focus on content creation... --IJBall (talk) 05:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I think we should steer away the discussion from the use or non-use of admin tools, as that wasn't involved in this latest incident at least (it's only a matter of background regarding the wider-ranging situation). As far as the present situation is concerned, Antonio, I'm much more worried about your reaction to the charge of edit-warring. You have reinstated that "Caracas" bit 12 times in the course of a month, without a single posting on the talkpage and without a single comment in an edit summary, misusing the rollback feature at least three times in the process (incidentally, that in fact is an abuse of the tools – if you weren't an admin, I would take away your rollback bit now, but since you're an admin I technically can't). You also made at least two large-scale blanket reverts of multiple positive article improvements at once, again without any kind of argument or justification. Surely you realize that simply saying "but it was sourced after all" isn't a convincing thing to justify yourself in this situation? Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:20, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah, the guy admits to his "using tools the wrong way" once, you admit that his use of rollback (an admin tool in his circumstance) was incorrect, and that rollback would be removed from a non-admin editor. How, then, can be "steer away" from his use of tools when it enters into this very incident?

I admit that going to ArbCom over this seems like making a huge fuss over nothing, but considering the amount that AntonioMartin actually uses his tools (very, very minimally) the percentage of misuse is disturbingly high. Given his lack of use and his stated goals, I don't see where he really needs the tools, and would suggest that perhaps the easiest course would be for Antonio to give up the bit voluntarily, under a cloud. BMK (talk) 06:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

It's not really over nothing. Arbcom appears to be the only solution when admins shouldn't be admins. The current system, as has been made clear, makes it easy for admins to stay admins even if they shouldn't be, even if they don't use their tools very much and misuse them when they do. It's as if being an admin is an irrevocable privilege, like being an federal appeals court judge, and not just a regular Wiki user with added tools. Rather than throw up our hands in situations like this, perhaps Arbcom should be deployed more often than it has, and employ broader criteria than the really narrow and extreme circumstances that it utilizes. Also I just looked at his user page. WTF? Coretheapple (talk) 14:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

We expect admins to at least understand the rules. When an admin engages in edit warring we are justifiably alarmed. How can they take part in enforcing the rules if they don't follow them themselves? It seems to me that Antonio should make a blanket statement that he intends to follow policy in the future, both WP:EW and WP:BLP. He should promise to follow the requirements for use of Rollback. If we don't get a satisfactory answer, that is prima facie reason to go to Arbcom. EdJohnston (talk) 16:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I still think it's a waste of time to go to arbcom given that the misuse of tools seems to be minimal (and a lot of that seems to be rollback) even if it may be a fairly high percentage. Perhaps if there was continued misuse of admin tools (including roll back) after repeated warnings, but I'm not really seeing that. The wider behaviour is concerning but we don't need arbcom to deal with that. There's nothing stopping us warning, topic banning or plain banning or blocking an admin if it becomes necessary. If the admin unblocks themselves then we can go to arbcom or more likely just request an emergency de-sysoping but I doubt that will be necessary. Nil Einne (talk) 19:00, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Advice requested

No More Mr Nice Guy Notified of this discussion.

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

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

• this
• this
• this
• this

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nishidani was the one who brought the whole thing up in the discussion he linked to above [75], and now he's complaining that I replied to him. All he had to do is leave it be. And maybe not make off color jokes about being lynched on a page about people who were actually lynched and mutilated. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

By the way, in the same post I mention just above, he accused other editors of having "ethnic-exclusive" "sentiments" [76]. That's an accusation of racism. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

You then jump in and an insult to injury.

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

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

I don't appreciate Nishidani's WP:personal attacks against me by saying that I edit in an "ethnic exclusive" fashion[77]. It's laughable for Nishidani to say it's not a personal attack. S/he should strike it as an act of good faith. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

StudentQuery

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

---

StQuery2 (talk · contribs) is a sock of StudentQuery (talk · contribs). [78]

Please block, and hope, for the love of God, after the massive attempts at explaining wikipedia rules [79] [80], they'll finally get the message and appeal in the appropriate way. Or CIR. 88.104.21.80 (talk) 22:14, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The appropriate place to file this complaint would be at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations, following the instructions there. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 22:20, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

No need to further burden our overworkd SPI board: I have blocked as an obvious duck sock and will explain to the user how to post an unblock request on his original acct. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Abuse of blocking policy by User:Ritchie333

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

---

At 13.10 on 18 May, User:Ritchie333 said "I'm not intending to block the Best known for IP as I'm WP:INVOLVED.[81]

Two days later (not long after he deleted an edit summary with the absurd claim that the word "idiot" was "Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive", see above):

• 19:18, 20 May 2015 Ritchie333 (talk | contribs) blocked 186.9.131.35 (talk) with an expiry time of 72 hours (anon. only, account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) (Best known for IP)
• 18:39, 20 May 2015 Ritchie333 (talk | contribs) blocked 186.9.135.203 (talk) with an expiry time of 1 week (anon. only, account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) (Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP)

186.9.128.182 (talk) 02:41, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I can't help but think this is the same person, under yet another IP, misusing the word "abuse" in efforts to get Ritchie in trouble. Are you the same IP that called someone an idiot in an edit summary? I can't imagine anyone else but that IP who wrote it knowing about it or caring about it (it was only active for a few hours), let alone feeling that the removal of a personal attack was somehow detrimental to the website. Sergecross73 msg me 02:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

The revision delete policy is very clear, and Ritchie333 violated it. The blocking policy is equally clear, and Ritchie333 violated it having already shown that he understood it. I note that you have blocked someone you were involved in a content dispute with and made personal attack against as well. Perhaps it's no wonder that you don't understand what "abuse" means. 186.9.134.98 (talk) 03:12, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Three IP editors from the same wireless carrier in Chile, using similar idiomatic English and posting on the same topic. Obviously these are three completely different and unrelated individuals. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

This just screams WP:EVASION. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:19, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

And do Ritchie333's actions scream "abuse", or do they merely whisper it? 186.9.134.98 (talk) 03:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I see now, maybe you should just create an account? The problem is the IP you are using enables anyone to edit Wikipedia from it. There has been a history of abuse with the IP address you are using so as I said account creation would be best. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Frankfurt School Article and right wing brigading

Hi, I've been embroiled in the lengthy process of Welcoming and then explaining Wikipedia policies to a new user on the Frankfurt School page. The user goes by the handle Second Dark and consistently ignored policy suggestions related to their changes to the page. After which they went on to WP:CANVAS conservative right leaning areas within Wikipedia and possibly outside as well (note: I'm not attempting to WP:OUT anyone, and the external link which can be found on the Talk:Frankfurt_School page remains anonymous as to any user's identity). Since then I've noticed within the edit history of the Frankfurt School page a series of users who seem to have been making disruptive edits across Wikipedia, inserting the term "Cultural Marxist" into biographic pages (although no WP:BLP pages) and trying to insert ideas like that Einstein didn't come up with Special Relativity. These users seem to consistently lack a user page, some also lack a talk page, some have a very short edit history, or seem to consistently be involved in contentious claims. Anyways, I was wondering what could be done about all this, is there a page protection setting that can stop this sort of interference? At what point is a SOCK investigation in order? I'm not that familiar with the higher level controls on wikipedia, so am seeking others who can help (the users there are doing a good job of protecting the page, but it seems like quite the level of vigilance is becoming required, and like the problem might stem across multiple pages). Thank you for your time. --Jobrot (talk) 05:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

For reference this was the recent ANI on Cultural Marxism that resulted in a close where admins were free to apply range blocks. For convenience: The two ranges are 172.56.xxx.xxx and 208.xx.xx.xx and are considered open proxies. SPI would be useless when dealing with such a large pool of dynamic IPs. Perhaps a CheckUser, such as @DoRD:, @Alison:, @Yunshui: or @Bbb23: could comment. I think page protection would depend on the number of pages involved. Blackmane (talk) 06:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if an edit filter might help here. Black Kite (talk) 07:57, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• I just closed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rymmen.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Possible legal threat in Alfred W. McCoy

Alfred W. McCoy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm not sure if this should be mentioned here or in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard.

On February 5, User:Memccoy44 removed material from the article with the following in the edit summary: "Deleted libelous text to avoid possible litigation"(diff). A few minutes later, additional material was removed: "Libelous and inaccurate content deleted to avoid litigation."(diff) Today, User:96.41.231.196 removed the material again with the following explanation: "Section headed 'Hmong Controversy' contains allegations and undocumented assertions that I regard as libellous. I have deleted this section in the past, and it has reappeared. Please do not let this sectoin reappear. (Signed) Alfred W. McCoy, the subject."(diff)

I reinserted the material as it is cited and appears only to be critical of the subject, but not libelous. Given that this is a BLP, I believe a second opinion regarding the editor's concerns — as well as the possibility of an implied threat — is warranted. Thanks! - Location (talk) 08:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I have only just quickly looked at the article, and it appears this edit has the questioned text. A glance at that shows it is the usual kind of gumph that gets added to articles by an opponent of the topic—someone does not like what the author wrote, and the result is undue silliness posed as fact. I have put a comment on the user's page hoping to engage with them and guide them through the maze of dealing with Wikipedia (per WP:DOLT). My quick inclination would be to delete the "Controversy & Hmong Demonstrations, Opposition to Writings on CIA in Laos" section as WP:UNDUE. Johnuniq (talk) 09:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Hash Tag 444

It's clear from their talk page that this new user has problems with adherence to guidance and policy. Discussions have already taken place on their talk page, and I'm now having problems at La Bamba (song) - and potentially at Emmerdale, Vince Cable, and other articles. Not obvious vandalism, but a clear inability to respect other users and policy. Examples of problematic behaviour here and here. Some admin input would be appreciated. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I suspected Gmythtre of playing the proxy for a banned editor. Compare [82] with [83]. The rest of the edits I believe I was improving the articles. --Hash Tag 444 (talk) 11:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment). I note that this edit is permissible under WP:BLANKING and the summary - though not totally WP:CIVIL - is in response to the threat of being reported at WP:3RR. This I see as an explanation as to why the user was behaving as he or she did at Emmerdale, so not problematic there either now that is understood. Given so, if I have to be fair, I must state that the conditions of WP:ROLLBACK were certainly violated here. --Phil Copperman (talk) 11:21, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the history at Emmerdale, but reinstating a section that included words like "...the core of the viewership is among the more intellectually challenged members of the public" seemed to me to be clear vandalism. But, If my edit is deemed to violate WP:ROLLBACK, I apologise. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

[84] This edit by Hash Tag 444 is nasty and abusive, insulting millions of people is not the purpose of wikipedia. Spumuq (talq) 11:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, look at this [85], Hash tag injects obfuscated Javascript into an article, it is not readable and not useful, but Hash Tag's has a defiant edit summary, "no consensus". Spumuq (talq) 11:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

It is clear that Hash Tag 444 was attempting to include irrelevant information, and a user with much more experience reverted for the betterment of the article. Hash Tag 444 than placed them back with uncivil summaries and accusations. There is a pattern in his/her edits, that the user knows are not helpful to the encyclopedia.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 11:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

To understand what Hash Tag 444 is up to it is necessary to look quite closely at their edits. Further, to understand what has been going on at Emmerdale, it is necessary to look VERY closely at its history. In particular, this stuff about the renaming, the European Court of Human Rights, the stupidity of viewers etc is not new, and is not a content dispute. Hash Tag 444 is not, in my opinion, trying to help. Oh yes and if you think I misused Rollback, please, for goodness sake remove the bit. Clearly someone like me does not need it and will only disrupt the encyclopaedia by its use. DBaK (talk) 11:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

More problematic edits to a BLP. [86], [87], [88], [89] The edit summaries are largely unacceptable. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

He don't know what is vandalism? Noteswork (talk) 12:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

They're quite aware of sourcing requirements. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• Looking at the editing history of User:Hash Tag 444, I see, among other problems, edit-warring on several articles, sometimes outright vandalism (including creating at least one hoax article), repeated attempts to evade the result of a deletion discussion by re-creating a deleted page (using a different title after his or her first attempt was reverted), an attempt to derail a deletion discussion by removing an AfD template from an article, an attempt to hijack an article by replacing its content by content on a totally different subject, contemptuously dismissive responses to messages from other editors, creating blatantly promotional articles, and so on and so on ... Some of the problems may have been initial failures to understand how Wikipedia works by a new editor, but some of them have continued following messages about the problems, and the editor's general attitude to anyone who expresses disagreement is dismissive and discourteous. Also, there are things like this, which are presumably accidents rather than vandalism, but if such accidents continue too frequently, they constitute an inability to edit properly, which can be every bit as disruptive as intentional vandalism. If there is no change fairly soon, I see a block on the editor as pretty inevitable. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree it is disruptive, but how can this [90] be an accident? An editor who knows what "consensus" is, must know that edit is wrong, and that there is no "consensus" to inject javascript in an article. «AGF is not a suicide pact». Spumuq (talq) 12:52, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

In my humble opinion there are no accidents here. Someone is 'avin a larfff. Oh and this, and this? Pure coincidence. DBaK (talk) 12:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

And this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

These examples should be plenty reason to the block the user, perhaps not indefinitely as of now, but long enough to show this kind of activity is not tolerable. If he/she does not improve thereafter, than I would support an indefinite block. This is being generous, since the user shows a long line of disruptive editing.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 13:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked 31 hours to try to get them to realize this is serious. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I hope it works, Floquenbeam, but I doubt it. This user is not here to build an encyclopedia. He came to my attention when he was edit-warring to remove an rcat from a redirect with no other reason than "why wreck it will all that R for this R for that clutter". His edit summary of "Drop it and have a shave you bearded baboon" seems to be typical of his attitude towards other editors.

I checked his recent contributions and found him inserting the words "Spotted Dick" into an article he had recreated after deletion Memory for future - admins will be able to see this diff and judge whether he is just trying to cause mischief.

There was also his renaming of "Alice in Wonderland" and adding a spurious birthdate to Hope Alcocer. My attempts to warn him were removed with the edit summary "rv thread of frivolous crap from RexxS". --RexxS (talk) 13:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it. I encouraged the block to this limit, so I will warn AN/I if he continues to vandalize articles. However, feel free to extend the block as I would prefer to avoid vandalism outright.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 13:57, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there's a decent chance I've just postponed the inevitable by 31 hours. If so, I'll reblock. Or if anyone else wants to do it sooner, you don't need to talk to me first. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Has the user in question posted any actual useful edits in his few days here? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:52, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, certainly. here is an example; there are others. The trouble is, though, that quite a lot of what the user is doing is disruptive in intent or effect, and it's difficult - without making insulting assumptions - to see how the balance works between the innocent and, er, less-good edits. DBaK (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

There have been some good edits made by them, and we had a nice semi-Wiki related conversation about football, but there have also been some really bad edits too, and aggressive edit summaries. I remember an argument with this user about WP:CRYSTAL edits at AFC Bournemouth and 2014-15 Football League Championship.

IMO, they could be a good editor with a bit of help, maybe get a mentor to help them and tone them down a bit? Joseph2302 (talk) 17:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Redirects

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

---

We have a user, Human3015 (talk · contribs), who nominated the following redirects related to the Kashmir dispute for speedy deletion. The redirects were deleted under WP:G3 (which is for "pure vandalism and blatant hoaxes"), although none of the redirects meet this criteria. The nominations were made by an editor with aggressive nationalist motivations and no logical rationale has been given as to why these redirects, which are entirely valid, have existed for years and qualify under WP:RNEUTRAL, were nominated. There is for instance no reasoning behind the deletion of Indian occupied Kashmir which is a commonly-used alternative terminology for the disputed territory of Jammu and Kashmir (there is currently a redirect on Pakistan occupied Kashmir), neither was there any logic behind deleting Kashmiri independence movement which redirected to a page on Kashmiri separatism. I'd like someone to review these nominations, as they are faulty, were made single-handedly without input, don't appear to violate WP:REDIRECT and most importantly, none of them meet G3.:

• Occupied Kashmir
• Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir
• Indian-occupied Kashmir
• Indian occupied Kashmir
• Indian Occupied Kashmir
• India occupied kashmir
• Jammu and Kashmir independence movement
• Jammu and Kashmir freedom struggle
• Kashmir independence movement
• Kashmiri independence movement
• Kashmiri Independence Movement
• Kashmir freedom struggle

Note: This was brought to the attention of the deleting admin, but that admin has suggested this be brought to the attention of a noticeboard. Mar4d (talk) 14:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• Restore all The deleting admit does not object; they felt they had their reasons to delete them; IMO an honest mistake, but must be reverted. -M.Altenmann >t 14:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
• Restore all I was notified of one such deletions at my talk page. It is plain out disruptive to mass nominate redirects from different POVs as per WP:RNEUTRAL and this just appears to be a WP:TROUT case for the deleting admin. Redirects are not always neutral because the standing title is neutral. Non neutral terms redirect to the neutral one so that those searching it by their own perspective are taken to the neutral article. Terms such as "Indian Occupied Kashmir" are largely used in Pakistani media and are hence valid POV redirects. Moreover, these redirects, or some that I saw, were deleted per G3... (hoaxes?). --lTopGunl (talk) 15:25, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
• restore and trout Someone needs to read up on NPOV as applied to redirects. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:33, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

They are all restored and earlier I declined two more that the same editor nominated under the same criteria. They do not appear to be vandalism and there is o way that G8 would apply to them as they all have valid targets. -- GB fan 15:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I have also restored a couple of more that had been deleted. One of them was merged to another article after an AFD and then redirected. -- GB fan 15:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

@GB fan: Thanks for the restorations, it's appreciated. However, we now have another problematic editor, CosmicEmperor, who seems to have not read this discussion and is re-adding the speedy tags and using the edit summary "Let administrators decide, don't go into edit war" [91]. Could you look into it? Cheers, Mar4d (talk) 16:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• I don't know whether this is in blind support of the previous nom or disruption per se, but the edit is restoring CSD template that was declined by me as a third editor. That's not under the scope of CSD at all not to mention that it was once restored. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
• Topgun is suggesting as if he took a very neutral stand as an unbiased third editor. Both Mar4d and topgun comes from Pakistan and they will support each other. When I visited Mar4d's page, it looked as if the redirects were created recently, as only newly created pages are nominated for deletion and the user named human who looked like a good faith editor, nominated them for speedy deletion. The redirects are one year, even more older than i thought.C E (talk) 16:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Being from the same region does not mean support. My edit was made in my own right (and as I said, any one can decline a CSD). You seem to decide at your own discretion who is and is not a good faith editor. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Problematic editing by IP 198.147.202.124

198.147.202.124 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been making inaccurate and/or incomplete stats updates on New York Yankees player pages for a while now. I have addressed this is on his talk page four times [92], [93], [94] and [95], but the disruption has continued. Examples:

• After my final request for the user to update all of the stats, the user made these incomplete updates (in some cases, he also introduced data that was incorrect): [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], [103], [104]. Keep in mind that these are only the ones that happened after the final request to stop. The user has also changed a couple of statyear fields to read '2015 season', even though I explained that this was not supposed to be done until after this current season ends.

• The user has made unsourced claims that article subjects are devout Christians at least three times: [105], [106], [107], despite a warning by another user.

I have gotten tired of repeatedly having to fix the articles this IP has messed up. Having been unable to even get a response to my requests on the IP's talk page, I am bringing this here for admin intervention. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• I agree the block is due. The IP does not respond in talk page, adds unreasonable texts, even blanks pages, i.e., IMO basically disrupts wikipedia . -M.Altenmann >t 15:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Request for admin to repeal 3RR warning against myself, user:unframboise

Hi, I'm looking to repeal my 3RR warning on the grounds that I didn't make 4 reverts, a statement that the person issuing the warning agrees with and I was not the instigator of an edit war (another user who disagreed with an edit that I'd reached a consensus to make was in fact reverting). User:EdJohnston suggested that I start a WPI:ANI thread, so I've linked the 3RR discussion below:

-- [108]

and also a discussion pertaining the same user that reported me, as evidence of her unilateral reversions:

-- [109]

I hope this can be rectified.

Thanks, --Unframboise (talk) 18:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Meh. Warnings do not carry official weight, and have no purpose except to remind you about the existence of policies. We can not make you unaware of policy, can we? If we recind the warning, will you forget that edit warring is not allowed? If you go on continuing not to edit war, you will go on continuing not to be blocked. The existence of the warning has no practical effect on your ability to contribute positively to Wikipedia. --Jayron32 18:20, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what there is to be rectified. You made three consecutive reverts in a 10-minute period on each of two different articles. You were then warned not to make further reverts. While you didn't violate the three-revert rule, you certainly were edit warring—and any subsequent reverts would have put over over the bright line of the 3RR; a warning was valid and justified. Go forth and sin no more. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Dan9122: problematic?

Dan9122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor has been concerning me for various reasons: some of their edits seem like legitimate copyediting, but most of them involve unsourced changes to minute details, most prominently years that logos/slogans were first introduced and stylizations. Additionally, the user has been making inappropriate claims on their user page that they are an admin and are affiliated with other websites (one of which was the subject of one of their edits), and has been pushing this non-existent "Google Day" on other users' talk pages with varying comments. Could we have someone look at this? ViperSnake151  Talk  19:20, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree- it's a strange opener for a new account. Since there's no specific Walter Mitty policy, it would be interesting to hear other opinions. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 19:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

QuackGuru and Electronic cigarette

Someone uninvolved rein him in, please. Doesn't need to be very heavy-handed.—S Marshall T/C 20:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)