Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Take a look at 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

Competence and civility issues with Koala15

• Koala15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

My latest encounter with Koala15 was on the Ted 2 page, where I fixed a fairly simple grammatical error [1] and was blankly reverted on sight [2]. I reverted back with the summary "Unexplained" [3] and he kept edit warring with the summary "Go home, your [sic] drunk" [4]. This happened again, until General Ization issued an EW warning on my talk page, and a civility warning [5] on Koala15's page. Koala15 repeatedly refused to apologize or even acknowledge that he was edit warring, dismissing General Ization with sentences such as "Have a sense of humor" and "There is no need for you to get so worked up over this", assuring him that he matter had been resolved, when in fact, it was not - and still is not. I explained very clearly on my talk page why I performed said edit, which prompted Koala15 to respond with a guideline that directly contradicts his edit - which I also explained. However, he refuses to "get it", while writing replies on the grammar level of a twelve year old - which I extensively tried to explain within the same discussion, examples being seeing him "use patently incorrect expressions like "more clearer", open a sentence with "hence", miss punctuation, or consistently not capitalize "I" as in first person", not to mention his first reply to me via edit summary: "Go home, your drunk".

A quick look on Koala15's talk page will reveal that he has been taunting other editors for a while, in an abrasive and unapologetic manner. A few select examples: User talk:Koala15#Reversions... [6], User talk:Koala15#July 2015 [7], User talk:Koala15#No [8], User talk:Koala15#Redirecting [9]. Another example of insisting on edit warring and being rude is here. I would like to finish this nuisance on the Ted 2 page and move on, but I would like to ensure that he doesn't spite revert me again. Please take care of this matter. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be about this at all. Thank you very much. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 20:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Well i tried to work with you, but you don't seem to wanna work with me. Most of the things you are linking from my talk page are simple misunderstandings. And i don't think you can report anyone for a 'lack of competence". Koala15 (talk) 21:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

How ironic... you have just given another dismissive and offensive reply. You are either not realizing it or deliberately insulting me, and neither case is welcome on Wikipedia. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 21:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I have had my own run-ins with Koala15, which can be seen at Talk:Penguins of Madagascar and Penguins of Madagascar. Koala15 had initially participated in WP:OWNBEHAVIOR over a copyedit tag about the article with a reason saying "And i do think an IP's suggestion is less valid, cause the majority of them are vandals.". Not all IPs are vandals. Some contribute with no issues at all. I find that comment uncivil and rather a POV statement. They persistently removed the tag until they reached 3 reverts. They stayed quiet on the article, but they removed it again but this time with reasons but not valid ones. There was still WP:Consensus going on in the talk page, which Koala15 dismissed. Instead of participating in WP:Discussion and ask for opinions, they removed the template again. I reverted them, stating that they weren't the user who added the template and to remove it from a user who disagreed with it in the beginning is very questionable. They started edit warring, making 5 reverts within a span of 12 hours, I believe. If they reached the 6th revert, I was going to report them. My warnings can be seen on the user's talk page and PfM's talk page. In terms of Koala15, I do think they make good edits and they help the community, but my only concern is the way they act. Upon disagreements they edit war and so on, it seems. I do agree that saying a user is drunk is uncivil as much as saying to a user they need help. It seems they have had run-ins with other people, excluding me, EauZenCashHaveIt and General Ization. I would suggest a warning about continuing disruptive editing but I'm not sure. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 21:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Well i apologize, i shouldn't have removed those maintenance templates without asking. And i don't think its fair to say i participated in WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Koala15 (talk) 21:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Per one of the bullets, "An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental." You removed the template with this reasoning: "Uhm, yeah no." which certainly counts as you saying it's unnecessary without valid reasons and follows on of the statements "I can see nothing wrong with the article and there is no need to change anything at all." which you've given the impression (not even at this point) since the beginning and on the talk page. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 22:10, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• Note for reviewing admins: here's the last "clean" version of Koala15's talk page, before he panicked and blanked it in order to invalidate the links I brought up earlier: [10]. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 21:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, it was time they cleaned their talk page (no offense, Koala15). It was so long, over 200 posts. They kept some stuff, so I don't think it would really matter since it's their talk page. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 22:10, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

The timing though... anyway, I've said too much already. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 22:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• First, 200 posts going all the way back to 2012 probably needs archiving (and no, archiving isn't just blanking all the warnings) but that's not the issue here. Second, Wikipedia:Competence is required which includes social competency. Koala15's edits are problematic. Insulting and being uncivil is a concern. Individuals who cannot corroborate effectively have been shown the door before. I'd say there's civility here but I'll let some others chime on what they think should be done. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
• Having had run-ins with Koala15 before, some of which have been referenced in this post, I thought I'd also chime in. While their edits themselves are not disruptive or problematic, aside from a lack of edit summary usage, Koala15's conduct towards other users is condescending, patronizing and downright rude in some cases. On multiple occasions I have been told by the user that I don't understand Wikipedia, ("You don't understand the guidelines") and that I'm a newbie who interprets policies wrong ("I understand that you are new here, but you seem to lack a simple understanding of the rules of Wikipedia."), which if anyone else has been on the receiving end of, would know that it's incredibly frustrating. Initially I thought I was the only one to be scolded as deluded by Koala15, but apparently I'm not the only one. A quick CNTRL+F searching for the word "understand" on an old revision of their talk page shows three distinct immediate instances where Koala15 downplayed other editors, brushing them off as not understanding some aspect of the project: I'm not even gonna bother responding to this nonsense, cause you clearly don't even have a basic understanding of Wikipedia., "Once again you show that you don't understand the guidelines." and "It sounds like you don't understand Wikipedia." and "You are possibly the most clueless editor i have ever met.". While Koala15's talk page only showed a few instances of their incivility, I imagine I wasn't the first to be insulted on their talk page or via edit summaries. A block doesn't seem appropriate to me, and would quite possibly chase Koala15 away, given how bitter and angry they already come off with a near-clean block log, but an assurance from the user that the'll try and be more civil and get off their high horse would be nice. Azealia911 _talk 10:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Koala15 care to respond? Azealia911 _talk 10:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Well its easy to take my quotes out of context and try to me make me look bad, but in the context of the conversation they were more or less facts. Either way you seem like a good editor, it just took you a while to fully understand the guidelines. Which is fine, it took me a while when i first joined Wikipedia. Koala15 (talk) 15:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh Koala15, you really are being serious aren't you? You're not even trolling, sigh. I guess that means no chance of an apology for being rude and condescending? (the latter of which is ironically displayed in your most recent reply). Azealia911 _talk 17:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Well its definitely not my intention to be "rude and condescending" that's just how I talk. I think its really a matter of how you choose to interpret my words. In the future, i will try to be more thoughtful with my reply's since it bothers everyone so much. Now hopefully we can put this whole thing behind us and move on. Koala15 (talk) 18:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

No, we can't... at least not while you maintain these dismissive and unapologetic replies. Each and every one of those reinforces the incompetence claim. You've been told the same thing by everyone here: apologize, show genuine regret, and we will move on. Your telling everyone to move on while sarcastically dismissing every concern raised on this page is nothing short of offensive. Notice that it's you who keeps brushing off every opportunity to make things right. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 23:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I second EauZenCashHaveIt's comments, completely accurate. Koala15, your replies just demonstrate what everyone here is trying to tell you, you just seem to not be hearing us, replying with the behavior and tone that landed you here. Back handed comments like "Either way you seem like a good editor, it just took you a while to fully understand the guidelines" don't do anything but frustrate me, and "I think its really a matter of how you choose to interpret my words" is absurd, so it's our fault for getting offended at what you say? "i will try to be more thoughtful with my reply's since it bothers everyone so much" you say, acting as if we're burdening you with actually being...nice?! Maybe take responsibility for your actions, genuinely apologize (which you have yet to do) and maybe then we can move on. Azealia911 _talk 18:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I thought i did apologize. But yes i apologize if i offended anyone, that was definitely not my intention. Hopefully we can move on now. Koala15 (talk) 18:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for apologising Koala15, yep, that's all I needed, take care. Azealia911 _talk 19:06, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

slightly-off-topic discussion on grammar

jeez a bit hypocritical to talk about incivility when you're saying he has the grammar of a 12 year old. and why would you care about grammar on the internet anyway? poli 19:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC) I was wondering when the usual devil's advocate would make their appearance. This is an encyclopedia, grammar is a basic requirement here. And most importantly: while Azealia may or may not have gotten their apology, the general issue is still unresolved. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 19:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC) obsessing over grammar is so pretentious. i promise you're not smarter than anyone else here so chill. poli 22:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC) Would you like your name to be added to the report? EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 00:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC) that's so petty. smh poli 02:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• EauZenCashHaveIt, what exactly are you looking to happen? Koala15 has apologized and said that they will be more thoughtful with their conduct. I say leave it, we've given them the rope, its their choice to hang themselves with more rudeness, land back here, and ultimately be blocked, or lasso their next edits with both hands (yes, that is literally the only analogy I could think of for positive things to do with rope). What else would you propose? Azealia911 _talk 19:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

@Azealia911: I am looking for a more permanent solution than an obviously insincere apology with no indication of any behavioral change. But hey, if there are no takers then I guess we both have better things to do than bark up that tree. If you are satisfied then I won't say anything, at least until something new happens. Sadly, I have a feeling I am not mistaken. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 19:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

EauZenCashHaveIt I can also see us returning here, but that's up to Koala15. If required, bring it back here and I'll be the first to recommend implications. Azealia911 _talk 16:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• To me, Koala15's contribution to this new discussion on their Talk page suggests that Koala15 has learned nothing from this process. Still arbitrarily removing maintenance templates from articles without participating in the discussions they reference, a behavior just recently discussed with them here. General Ization ^Talk 18:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Christ, didn't take them long, I really did think they'd be more considerate. General Ization what do you suggest doing? Azealia911 _talk 18:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I really don't know. I know I spent more time than I could really afford to trying to explain to them why this is a problem on their Talk page and here, and what mostly comes back is from the editor is I didn't hear that. I really think it's a competence issue. General Ization ^Talk 18:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Definitely seems like the case, considering their edits aren't specific to one or one set of pages, perhaps a short term block would be appropriate. Azealia911 _talk 19:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, i make mistakes like everyone else, Jeez, i didn't realize my every edit would be under a microscope. Its also strange that you have my talk page watchlisted. Koala15 (talk) 21:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Everyone whose edits cause them to be brought to this page will find their subsequent edits to be "under a microscope" for some period of time, especially while the case is unresolved. Most at least make an effort to not engage in the same behaviors during that time. And it's not strange at all – your Talk page was placed on my watch list when you and I discussed the matter above. General Ization ^Talk 21:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

It was my bad, i didn't know what the statute of limitations was on page a split discussion that had no responses. I realized it was a mistake after i did it. I will refrain from making edits like that in the future. I go on Wikipedia for fun, and i'm not here to start trouble or anything like that. I'm gonna try to stay out of things like this and mind my own business. Koala15 (talk) 21:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Since the template was just placed this month (and says so within the template as any reader sees it), you might reasonably have assumed it had not expired; if you were unsure, you could click the Discuss link and ask. Your "No need for a discussion" comment linked above shows either a lack of understanding or contempt for editing processes here, not confusion over an expiration date. General Ization ^Talk 21:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Since Koala15 has decided to play possum, I am asking the patrolling admins to make the appropriate decision here. This discussion cannot simply vanish as stale. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 20:38, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm definitely seeing Koala15's edits as problematic after going through the diffs. No specific action has been proposed yet, but there may be some lingering hope Koala can improve. My first thought was to just close this with the closer stating that if this kind of issue happens again, that would expedite a block by linking back to that decision. A short term block could be used instead of essentially a warning, but both would take a WP:ROPE approach. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Kingofaces43 EauZenCashHaveIt, I'd be more lenient to go with a short-block, maybe as short as two weeks. Earlier on this post, I urged nothing to happen, giving Koala15 the rope, and within two days they were removing merger notices and playing the old apologetic "I'll never do it again" card, when it had been discussed with them before. I'm not sure how many times Koala15 expects us to take their fake apologies before doing anything. The block may be the wake-up call they need to understand their attitude and actions won't be at all tolerated. Azealia911 _talk 17:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Azealia911. In fairness, Koala15 has in fact seemed to "stay out of things like this and mind [their] own business" (as they put it above) for the past week or so, but without a real understanding by Koala15 of why their (past) behavior is a problem, all it will take is one editor to object to/revert one of their edits (rightly or wrongly) and I expect we'll be right back here again. I haven't heard or seen anything here that makes me think that understanding exists as yet. General Ization ^Talk 20:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 23:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

My experience with Koala15 at Penguins of Madagascar was similar to User:Tokyogirl79's [11] in February. This wasn't a controversial topic or sensitive BLP. The article's about a movie that features talking commando penguins. After copyediting and cleanup edits, I later added a tag regarding prose issues and a thousand-word quotefarm plus explained the tag on the Talk page. Koala15 reverted with a derisory summary. Days later I restore the tag due to the encyclopedic text and non-free content concerns, and post on his talkpage. He responded dismissively and immediately undid my edit as vandalism. Only after multiple other editors become involved did he finally visit the Talk page.

He then engages in IDHT--continuing to say he doesn't see the problem ("as far as I know this is how the majority of reception sections are written") and asking for suggestions on to how to fix it--despite multiple editors having already provided them, edit-wars over the tag, plus adds quoteboxes making the quotefarm even more glaring. We all assume good faith and spend time explaining. ...Only later to discover it's all happened before. –146.200.32.196 (talk) 14:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed short-term block for Koala15

I'll repeat a comment I made above, earlier in this post, I urged nothing to happen to Koala15, giving them the "rope", and within two days they were removing merger notices and playing the old apologetic "I'll never do it again" card, when the same issue had been discussed with them before. I'm not sure how many times Koala15 expects us to take their fake apologies before doing anything. A block may be the wake-up call they need to understand their attitude and actions won't be at all tolerated. The amount of said block can be determined by whoever closes the post.

Pinging all past contributors who may not keep track of the post: EauZenCashHaveIt, General Ization, Callmemirela, Ricky81682, Kingofaces43, Politoed89, and most importantly Koala15.

• Support as proposer – recommending a 2-4 week block. Azealia911 _talk 01:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Striking my support, may sound odd considering I'm the proposer. I've decided to give Koala15 one last chance, their recent behavior has seemed less aggressive and more open to discussion. Weather that lasts is up to them, but I firmly believe they'll reduce their negativity on the site for the foreseeable future. But this isn't an oppose, I'm staying neutral, I think comments from both sides are equally valid. Azealia911 _talk 22:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Support Anddd I switch again. As a result of IP 146's overwhelming evidence, showcasing that Koala15 not only breaks rules over and over after being warned, but doesn't seem to care about the ramifications (apparent from the fact he's hardly contributed to the discussion even trying to defend himself and given that the only response to 146.200.32.196's CCI report was whining that he's a victim and trying to get him blocked is a "trend") A six-month block at the least seems appropriate in my eyes. Azealia911 _talk 02:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support per preceding thread. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 01:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support per proposer's comments (thanks) and my comments above. General Ization ^Talk 01:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I don't see why you guys are so against giving me another chance to redeem myself. I admit I made a few mistakes, but I don't think we should overlook all of the good work I have done on here in the past few years. I genuinely promise to have a better attitude when communicating with other editors. I look forward to working with you all again in a positive way. Koala15 (talk) 02:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

No one's against your having, or denying you, a chance to redeem yourself. If we were, we would be proposing an indefinite block (which none of us think is appropriate at this time). You will hopefully redeem yourself in any case. But it's precisely because you're thinking of this matter as so trivial that a block is appropriate. Many editors who produce good edits but cannot collaborate constructively with other editors have been blocked before you and many will be blocked after you. Assuming our proposal is implemented, please spend at least some of the time actually reading the many Wikipedia policies and guidelines we have tried over several weeks to get you to consider carefully. General Ization ^Talk 02:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why a block is necessary, I'm not gonna learn anything that i already haven't. I am gonna make a change in my behavior on here from this day on. And if you catch me breaking any rules, than block me. Take me at my word on this one. Koala15 (talk) 03:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

To me, this attitude right here is the epitome of your problem. You don't get to tell us what is necessary and what is not necessary. You can ask, you can argue your case, or anything else that is genuinely collaborative. You are still trying to take the lead and dictate the outcome. This is why the block is proposed. Azealia911, General Ization and others - I am not sure how else I can put it. @Chillum: this should address your concern. Nothing has changed. Literally, nothing. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 06:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• Neutral. I have no preference on a short term block either way. It's clear that this editor will be back to editing in awhile even if they were blocked, so the the important thing for this conversation is to show that they are sitting on their last chance per WP:ROPE if the issue comes up again. Sometimes ANI closures aren't clear on this, so as long as that point gets across, I'm content with just closing this as such. A block will demonstrate that as much as a well-worded close (and may be warranted given the continued behavior that popped up, but I'm not digging further into this to evaluate that), so I'm fine either way. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose The block would not be preventative at this point in my opinion. If anyone can explain how it would be preventative I will gladly reconsider. Chillum 03:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

My hope is that it will give the editor some (enforced) time, if they are so inclined, to actually learn how to be a better and more collaborative editor, rather than just editing in a vacuum. A "time out" if you will. We've been hearing a lot of I didn't hear that from Koala15, and my personal opinion is that it's because they won't stop editing long enough to actually read policies and guidelines and learn how to and why they should avoid this kind of issue. If they were not so inclined, then indeed all it would do is give them a reason to remember that incivility and disruptive editing have consequences. General Ization ^Talk 03:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per Chillum, it sounds more a punitive than a preventive block. Also, while Koala certainly had been sometimes rude, most of the differences above just document talk page discussions, but not the actual "incidents", or at least not the whole picture, so it is hard to judge who is really innocent here. Eg, it was linked at least three times (if I have not missed some other links) this talk page discussion as a proof of Koala's problematic behavior, yet it all started by an editor boldly redirecting a Koala's article a few hours after it had been created and then edit warring with Koala to have it redirected without any community discussion. The dispute eventually ended in an AfD, where the article was kept with no votes for deletion outside the nominator. The same with the Ted 2 incident, where the opener of this ANI discussion just showed some incompetence (he, not Koala), first battling to add a bizarre and non-standard "Elsewhere in the United States" in the infobox-date of release [12], then, after being explained why he was wrong, still trying to remove the premiere date with a poor rationale [13]. Rudeness is not excusable, and Koala should be more collaborative and use the edit summaries to immediately explain his actions and not to attack other editors, but the context is important, and so far the "incidents" do not rise to a level requiring a block IMO. Cavarrone 07:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: it's a shame that the devil's advocate sometimes wears an admin's hat. In their opposing statement, Cavarrone seems to have turned the wheel around and accused me, Koala15's victim, of incompetence, having completely ignored a discussion which I cited earlier. There is a considerable difference between sheer unprovoked rudeness and a stern reaction to sheer unprovoked rudeness, but apparently, to them the two are one and the same. This doesn't look very neutral to me, but I will be more than happy to be proven wrong. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 23:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
• Neutral, as stated in my intial comment above. Whilst I do believe Koala15 has good editing-related intentions, discussion-wise is a mess. I do believe that they are aware of the issue of civility and so on. They are being watched and if any further comments that are deemed uncivil, inappropriate, and so on, they will be reported once more and consequently blocked as they were given chances. And I will take their above comment "If I break the rules, block me." (not exact) seriously. I expect them to learn their mistakes and choose their words carefully instead of being rude and uncalled for. I choose to believe they will stop edit warring and stop engaging in OWNBEHAVIOR and start discussing in good matters. And that their competence here will improve. The way they type and what they say are supporting that issue. Thank you for the ping, Eau (I really don't know your username that easily) Callmemirela {Talk} ♑ 20:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support short term block up to a month (uninvolved non admin) Clearly preventive block to stop the ongoing problems that resurface in no time. Perhaps the time off will also bring about a change for the better and prevent this from happening again. AlbinoFerret 19:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support a block, oppose short-term. I don't think a short-term block would do anything a previous block and about 85 warnings & interventions did not. Then there's a further 15 or so copyright etc. notices. How many warnings does he get? His response to the CCI notification was typical: brushed off as "old news" (I'm positive the blatant copyvios hadn't been mentioned on his talkpage) and a "trend" of trying to get him blocked. The usual way we deal with those who create long-term copyright problems and refuse to mend their ways despite warnings is an indefinite vacation from editing. In this case I think an indef block is necessary. –146.200.32.196 (talk) 22:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
• Strong oppose (uninvolved non admin) A suitable warning is sufficient. If this is Koala15's first ANI report after three years of editing, 75,000 edits and creating an incredible 1,713 new articles [14] (the only one that was deleted has since been recreated), this is NOT a competency issue. With those numbers, 15 copyright warnings are really not indicative of a real pattern of violation. If there is a long-term plagiarizing or copyright issue then that needs to be examined as such with actual diffs. Koala15 has genuinely shown good faith by admitting mistakes were made and asked for another chance.[15] "Go home, you're drunk" is a common Internet meme [16] and only shows humour that should not have been used in this case. Additionally, reporter proposer has graciously accepted apology and opposes is neutral on block. —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: I'm not the actual original reporter, if you were referencing me with "reporter has graciously accepted apology and opposes block" which I have a inkling you were per the civility barnstar you kindly just awarded me with (thanks for that by the way!). I also don't oppose the block, just as I don't support it, staying neutral, however 146.200.32.196's slew of evidence isn't pushing me in the opposing direction to be frank. It should also be noted that you reference their article creations, however most are blank film stubs that list a cast list and minor details, with Koala15 even leaving the plot blank with a "section expansion" tag, leaving someone else to do the work after he's quickly filled in the blanks. I may be mistaken but I swear I'd read somewhere that they'd been warned for this in the past under WP:MASSCREATION grounds. Azealia911 _talk 16:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, oops, hah. Struck through. You still very graciously accepted the apology and went neutral, which is still very nice to see. I don't think this [17] is really a blank stub, just a stub lacking plot, as it's referenced and has a good introduction and everything. Mass creation of blank stubs to me is like that obnoxious sock puppeteer who created hundreds of fish stubs that consisted entirely of the species infobox only and an external link to a Thailand university database in order to linkspam. —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support a block, oppose short-term. This editor refuses to abide by WP:COPYRIGHT despite warnings stretching back years. This calls for an indef block. Thanks to 146.xx for compiling such a detailed history. Lagrange613 01:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Long term disruption and copyvios

Мандичка, I think we're at crossed purposes on one point. The 15 or so (ineffectual) copyright cautions he received isn't the extent of the copyright problems. There're more; here's just one, from February. Better yet, let's look at a fresh example:

 · Pixels (2015 film) (+6,390) [diff] at 05:16, 26 July 2015 UTC

 · Source: http://themoviespoiler.com/2015Spoilers/Pixels.html | comparison

 · Lets see who copied whom. Go to the source's page on Facebook, linked on the review

 · It shows the publication time: 10:39, 24 July 2015 – that's in PDT (notice the matching text as well)

 · To be absolutely sure, view source of that bit to get the precise posting time: data-utime="1437759592"

 · Lastly, convert those numbers to human-readable GMT/UTC: 17:39:52, 24 July 2015. TWO DAYS BEFORE HIS EDITING THE ARTICLE.

This was done after this thread began! In short, Koala15 continues to post copyvios and he will NOT stop of his own accord. –146.200.32.196 22:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

_{originally posted further up. mv'd for readability}

collapsed/non-essential discussion
The following content has been placed in a collapse box to save space.
Hi, I'm the editor who User:Callmemirela indirectly referred to above. I want to put this one to bed so we can all move on, too. Having looked into this a bit more, however, there're some additional aspects that should be taken into consideration. Unfortunately, it'll take me just a little while longer to put the details into a neat orderly manner, dot the i's and cross the t's so to speak, ready to post here. I'm pretty sure I can do so within 24hrs. –146.200.32.196 (talk) (formerly 146.'115 / 146.'207) 02:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC) While we wait, or to help us/admins decide whether we should, it would be helpful to understand your relationship to the case (since you are currently an IP with only this edit in your history). Are you the editor who formerly used IP 146.198.28.207 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 146.199.67.6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (see contribs)? General Ization Talk 03:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC) Yes. (Powercut last night.) Incidentally, thank you for your application of meatball:DefendEachOther at the talkpage. Looking into this took a while (complexity and depth of the edit history among other factors) and, as we can see, a poll began in the meantime. It's preferable that reports here don't stay open for extended periods, so I can understand why Azealia initiated it. 146.200.32.196 (talk)(formerly 146.'115 / 146.'207) 03:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC) @146.200.32.196: Did you plan to provide us with some additional insight concerning this matter, as your post above suggested? If so, please do so quickly or if not, please let us know, so that either way we can move this case toward closure. It's unfair both to the subject editor and the rest of us watching this section to leave it in limbo any longer. General Ization Talk 16:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC) I apologise to the community. In hindsight my 24hrs estimate was over optimistic. I misjudged the time needed wrt the large quantity of edits. Fortunately, having worked through the night, twice, things moved right along. I do intend to provide some additional material facts asap, so we can wrap this up. I'll come back here later today. Thanks. 146.200.32.196 (talk) 09:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC) Seemingly the IP's 72 hour estimate was also unrealistic. Move for closure, as at this point I can't imagine what revelations they could bring to the discussion that would make it worth our waiting any longer. General Ization Talk 18:29, 1 August 2015 (UTC) I see now that the IP has added to the open discussion above today, though they do not offer a closing recommendation. So I again move for closure, but now because it appears all who have an interest in commenting on this matter have done so. General Ization Talk 20:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC) The IP's entry only reinforces the view of Koala15 as ill-faithed (not sure if this is a good antonym for good faith) and a repeat offender that has not shown any signs of real regret for their actions. As far as I see it, they are a ticking time bomb. Closure without action is precisely what they are hoping for. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 09:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC) List of Warner Bros. films - Hello. I'm having an issue with the same user. He's deleting information that has been proven with citations from reliable sources. He's doing so on the basis of what he thinks is necessary on the page, whereas it's not entirely up to him. StephenCezar15 (talk) 18:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC) Final note to closer: An IP who commented on this post has seemingly been working on an account of Koala15's disruptive behavior, a very detailed account of it to be exact. After checking on it every couple days, work on it seems to have stopped. It may be worth giving it a full read through before making a formal decision on how to proceed with actions upon closure. The account of their behavior can be found <redacted: mv'd to thread inside green {{cot}}s> . Azealia911 talk 23:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC) That is a very interesting and very detailed log. It hasn't been worked on in two days, and the penultimate edit summary is "kinda done with this", so I hope he or she posts it here in the next few days. Especially since this ANI has been here for going on one month at this point, and the IP said a week ago s/he could have it for us "within 24 hrs". Softlavender (talk) 02:55, 8 August 2015 (UTC) Thanks, Softlavender, although I didn't say quite say that. I said I hoped to add additional info and did post a comment (on their recidivist edit-warring). I overran by a day or so on that and apologised for the delay. I do agree the thread's gone on a while, though I only came across it more recently. –146.200.32.196 (talk) 19:27, 8 August 2015 (UTC) @Azealia911: In future please ask or notify a fellow editor before linking their notes (esp. if edited in the last 48hrs) on a highly-watched page and inviting everyone to go look. Please read this. Thanks. 146.200.32.196 (talk) 21:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC) My linking to your notes was a move of panic, not one of ignorance. You'd seemingly finished with the notes, and forgotten to link them here, and had been offline for a couple of days. Myself and another editor had requested this be closed and I didn't want to take the chance of waiting days for you to respond, to only have this be closed while waiting. Yes, in hindsight, I should have, I apologise. I should add though, I gravely resent your request that I read WP:HUMAN. You know full well that I respect you, as I do with all editors exactly the same. I suggest if you don't want something seen by the community, don't save it for the community to see, perhaps write, preview, and copy/paste to an offline document in the future. Best, Azealia911 talk 22:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC) I intentionally worked on it in plain sight, rather than solely offline, so others might see what I was working on. That's not the same as pointing folks to my rough notes on a high-traffic page without so much as a talkpage note (much less 'will you be posting your notes or would you like a hand perhaps?'). And these had after all been edited within the last 48hrs. I wasn't seeking an apology only that you learn what may be learnt and move on. On reflection, if there were do-overs there'd be several things in this whole saga I'd do differently myself. Like you pretty much say, hindsight's a wonderful thing. Best, 146.200.32.196 (talk) 04:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

It's been nearly four days since somebody commented on this, and nobody else seems interested to comment, what's been said seems to be all that'll be said, can this be closed please? With the closer doing what they see fit? Azealia911 _talk 21:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Detailed evidence ~ personal attacks, incivility, and the uncollegial

reverts saying "i wrote that myself. We don't take IP's serious." told it's unacceptable by a second editor, he tries to downplay it claiming he "didn't mean it literally" [18] July 2014 reverts saying "Go home, your drunk" [19] a second editor brings it up and he brushes it off as "just a joke", "have a sense of humor" [20] July 2015 [21] [22] warned (template:uw-tdel2) tells another who added a maintenance template "i'm not a lazy editor that just places tags so someone else will do the job", then replies "i didn't call you a "lazy editor" you just assumed i was talking about you". February 2014 puts ==hypocrite== on an editor's talkpage in a content dispute because otherstuffexists [23] 13 October 2013 "its been a pleasure not running into the most stubborn editor on Wikipedia for a while, until now" "You are possibly the most clueless editor i have ever met" tells a ten-year editor he won't respond as "you clearly don't even have a basic understanding of Wikipedia" objects to an admin's page deletion so awards barnstar "for most clueless admin" [24], warns him "It better be reinstated by the next time i log on" [25], that he's "lucky I'm being this polite" [26], and "should be more professional" [27] May 2014 (later, another admin touches on volunteers, attitude of entitlement, and civility; Koala berates him for being snippy and tells him he expects admins to fix their mistakes promptly) "You just sit in your basement and destroy other peoples work?" [28], "just another random know it all editor" [29] and "extremely unreasonable person that i would never want to meet" [30] for over 3hrs, August 2014 "Random IP's do not decide if we keep articles or not" [31] compare with him redirecting: "Theres nothing that makes this page notable. Message me before reverting again" [32] 18 May 2013 "that you think you can revert an article like this is ridiculous." 22 February 2015 (incident led to AN3 warning: you even refused to discuss them here at your talk page, saying that the film is "of course notable") "Quit being a hurt iranian" [33] "This tag is unnecessary, and hiding under ip's i see?" [34] "redacted may be the most difficult editor on Wikipedia and i have met alot of difficult ones" [35] "you are nothing but a WP:GWAR" [36] January 2014 falsely reverts with "poorly written." [37] August 2013 all existing reviews on page are negative. was correctly-formatted cited quote of a positive review (disliked album?) "Your writing is horrible, We can't use it in this article" [38] May 2013 reverts addition restored after he undid it as vandalism with "The grammar is awful" [39] September 2013 editor spends over an hour on wikignomish edits. reverts with "awful fixes" [40] January 2014 "your writing is awful" [41] January 2015 “On at least two occasions it's significantly likely that his hostility drove editors off Wikipedia altogether.” tells a user who'd templated him with uw-genre [42], that'd posted on article talk, "You are a joke for sending me that message" [43] (didn't join discussion) (Nov 2013); user complained, replies: In what why did i insult you? [44]. Other user never edited again new users worked for days on improving the Shrek article [45] and added a themes section using impeccable peer-reviewed scholarly sources. wiped out in two edits with: [46] "very poor" and "The Themes section is very poorly sourced we can't use it"[47] February 2014 baseless and extremely unkind. the users never edited again

Detailed evidence ~ Copyvios and NFC issues, quotefarms, and related

Copyvios and NFC Copyvios and non-free content warnings go from April 2013 to present. Typically copypasted plots, long and/or excessive quotes, and close paraphrasing. Copyright-related Warnings April 2013 Warned. [48] June 2013 exact copying and pasting, overquotes, close paraphrasing at DYK [49] | Warned: [50] (template:uw-copyright-new) [51] August 2013 restores "plagiarized content" inserted by user since indef-blocked for copyright violations, with "these summarys are not plagiarised." [52]. user that removed it responds: "In spite of what Koala15 asserts, some of these episode synopses represent unambiguous copy/pasting from unattributed sources" February 2014 Warned. added copy/pasted synopses then reverts removal saying otherstuff exists "Feel free to reword them" [53] April 2014 [54] revert-warring Moonriddengirl over template:copyvio (copyviocore) [55]/[56] "in the meantime, as the [copyvio] template indicates, it should not be removed" May 2014 CorenSearchBot warning [57]. silently removes warning May 2014 Warned. replies "I don't know how words can be copyrighted, I don't think I'll ever understand why we can't copy a plot". [58] July 2014 reverted "removal of copied tvguide.com plot summaries and then altered only one of them" [59] August 2014 CorenSearchBot warning September 2014 Warned. replies "So your trying get me blocked for this?" says he still doesn't get how sentences can be copyrighted and tells them to "Rewrite the summary's then". The warning user refers to his POV edits, edit-warring reversions, lack of collaborative editing and says attempts to explain to him have proved "unfruitful". [60] 19 October 2014 Warned, again. replies "My bad, that was an error. It won't happen again". [61] An insincere apology and empty promise. 23 October 2014 CorenSearchBot warning [62] re article composed of stitched together quotes. silently blanks warning December 2014 undoes CorenSearchBot warning [63] page creation, large quote [64]. notified re copyvios by CorenSearchBot again, January 2015 June 2015 editor had tagged a quotefarm "Needs copy editing" - reverts saying he made it and in his eyes there's no problem [65] page composed of quotes July 2015 Warned (template:uw-copyright) copypasted episode summaries False claims of having written copyrighted content edit-warring to keep in copyrighted & non-free content, on one occasion deleting a url to conceal the original source then falsely claiming to have written it himself. User:Psychonaut rv's "copyvio of official episode summaries" added a month before episodes air [66] 20:37, 15 June 2014 They're subsequently re-removed as plagiarism/copyvios. Koala15 reverts that as vandalism again and again [67], [68] Finally he removes the source url, re-adds part of the copied content (matches text inserted by another user one month earlier and official site [69] website), without a summary, [70], and repeatedly lies that he wrote it himself [71], [72], with a passing dig at the other editor Quotefarms articles and sections composed entirely or primarily of quotes, and excessive quoting "The Life and Times of Jonny Valiant" [73] composed of brief proseline+quotes May 2013 now has more quotes "Kiss Land" [74] composed of brief proseline+quotes July 2013 now has more quotes Underground Luxury" [75] October 2013 composed of quotes; quotefarm album [76] created page with two thousand words of quotes. promptly speedied; self-removes csd tag, says "they are only quotes". swaps two extensive quotes [77], [78] [79], [80] adds quotes to around 600 words. July 2014 composed of (fewer) quotes "Directors of Photography" [81] August 2014 composed of quotes; quotefarm "Cadillactica" [82] October 2014 composed of quotes; quotefarm "Frankenweenie (2012 film)" [83] February 2014 critical response section quotefarm "Tomorrowland (film)" [84] May 2015 critical response section quotefarm "Fly International Luxurious Art" reverts user trimming quotefarm [85], added more later "American Dad! (S10)"[86] plagiarizing, close paraphrasing Dec 2013 (IP editor fixes it [87]) December 2013 "Shrek" [88] close paraphrasing January 2014 Large copyvios "Aloha" matches synopsis on IMDb [89] 3 June 2015 It flows well. It uses 'there' correctly. It's a copyvio. "Toy Story of Terror!" Here he adds a 1,231 word plot for a 22 min film. [90] 24 December 2013. Example: “Mr. Pricklepants states, á la classic horror films (which he, apparently, believes this to be), "And so it begins."” Note: use of parentheticals, commas to separate clauses and use of French loanwords. It's a copyvio. [91] Two weeks earlier, Koala answered a query about an unexplained revert saying "the plot was at 699 words and has to be under 700 words" 9 December 2013. It wasn't. 661 word count (or 639 with prosesize tool) - with the change it was still under 700 words. [92] and to a later query February 2014: "a lot of editors add to the movie plots and the plots are supposed to be under 700 words" (was 701 words before, 730 after) "The Yellow Badge of Cowardge" [93] 19:45, 19 May 2014 "added a plot feel free to add to it" (comparison) Matches article on Thecelebritycafe.com by regular writer May Chan. Publication date is the same day it was added here. Again the language style is different from Koala15's e.g. "The fireworks go awry". Another recap of hers [94] bears no resemblance to ours. [95] Recurring source matches include IMDb and TheMovieSpoiler.com. Evidence: Source: TheMovieSpoiler.com. Its Facebook page [https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Movie-Spoiler/158384470875779] announces newly published reviews in timestamped entries (mouseover date or view source for 'utime' (converter)). The announcements include 'read the rest at themoviespoiler.com' snippet text that matches Koala's additions. All times given as UTC. "Tomorrowland (film)" [96] 18:57, 23 May 2015 Added to original source: 17:30, 23 May 2015 comparison "Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2" [97] 23:12, 19 April 2015 (sought semi-prot 00:31, 19 April 2015) Added to original source: 06:37, 19 April 2015 comparison "The Age of Adaline" [98] 01:47, 1 May 2015 UTC Added to original source: 07:45, 27 April 2015 comparison "Hot Tub Time Machine" [99] 19:43, 21 February 2015 UTC Added to original source: 14:02, 20 Feb 2015 comparison There are several authors here: prolific TheMovieSpoiler writer "Jeremy" and first-time author "Elizabeth", plus IMDb contributor "mep1019" and regular Thecelebritycafe.com writer May Chan. Punctuation differences e.g: The Age of Adaline uses a spaced ndash and “curly quotes”; the Toy Story one uses double hyphens and "ascii quotes". Grammar is at odds with Koala's, such as the use of 'whom' in Hot Tub Time Machine 2. Koala15's own writing tends to be short phrases used to stitch together quotes, and 'on date released/interviewed in' proseline sentences. The writing style is pretty different between, say, The Age of Adaline plot (Elizabeth's) and Tomorrowland or HTTM2 (Jeremy's). http://tools.wmflabs.org/contributionsurveyor/survey.php?user=Koala15

Detailed evidence ~ warnings received ∘ diffs/dates  (excludes image-related)

Note i: Excludes image-related warnings. Does not include level 1–4 warnings received for edits while logged out Note ii: Over a hundred warnings and pleas over unexplained removals, edit summaries, wrongly claiming vandalism, ownership, edit-warring and disruptive editing (plus a couple for gaming the system), and copyright violations. At: levels 1–4 Note iii: warned & asked to use edit summaries and not edit/revert-war around 85 times. pretty much every month since he got here [100] unexplained removal, no edit summary <!-- template:uw-delete2 --> 19 October 2012 [101] edit warring 21 October 2012 [102] multiple articles <!-- template:uw-delete3 --> & images <!-- template:uw-nonfree --> 24 October 2012 [103] Let me be a little more clear this time: repeatedly creating articles on non-notable subjects is disruptive 4 November 2012 [104] please use an edit summary 10 November 2012 [105] <!-- template:uw-unsourced2 --> 22 November 2012 [106] <!-- template:uw-unsourced3 --> 4 Dec 2012 [107] "if you continue to make disruptive edits, i.e. edits you know are against policies and guidelines, you may be blocked" 10 December 2012 [108] <!-- template:uw-editsummary --> 16 December 2012 [109] <!-- template:uw-unsourced1 --> 17 January 2013 [110] unexplained content removal <!-- template:uw-delete1 --> 21 February 2013 [111] please fill in the edit summary 15 March 2013 [112] original research 18 March 2013 [113] <!-- template:uw-delete2 --> 14 April 2013 [114] copypasting copyrighted content 19 April 2013 [115] "without edit summaries, then when reverted by another editor using an edit summary, you keep reverting back. Images have to be orphaned for seven continuous days to be deleted. Once the tag has been removed, you cannot simply revert because the process would have to start over again. You are clearly trying to game the system as can be seen in your edits to [[:File:David Banner - Certified.jpg]]. You re-orphaned the image on April 25 after three days of it being back in the article, so you should have tagged it for that date. You clearly tried to speed up the deletion today by changing the date to the 17th, then to the original 20 and eventually to the 18th. These are very disingenuous edits that are not acting in good faith. In summary, I hope that you discuss these edits here instead of reverting back to your preferred versions. 28 April 2013 [116] sarcasm, assuming bad faith ... can lead to blocks 10 May 2013 [117] sourcing, excessive snark in edit summary 19 May 2013 [118] "you've made nominations that barely apply to the articles at all, at times (naming individual musicians as groups). you've nominated far too many, far too quickly. If you didn't have so many edits, I'd think you just didn't understand what notability means, but your long tenure here makes me wonder about your motivation. ...On one AfD you state, "Regardless of the sources, he still does not meet notability guidelines." That simply doesn't make any sense ...hard to AGF here, because I explicitly said, just above, that "--" is clearly notable, as she has received multiple instances of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources" 25 May 2013 [119] queries unexplained revert [120] 25 May 2013 [121] no edit summary, content removal <!-- template:uw-delete2 --> 11 June 2013 [122] <!-- template:uw-editsummary --> 23 June 2013 [123] maintenance template removal <!-- template:uw-tdel1 --> 23 June 2013 [124] <!-- uw-copyright-new --> exact copypasting, overquotes, close paraphrasing [125][126] 23 June 2013 [127] <!-- template:uw-nor2 --> 1 July 2013 [128] edit summaries 1 July 2013 [129] <!-- template:uw-disruptive2 --> 2 July 2013 [130] please stop reverting, WP:3RR warning 14 July 2013 [131] restores "plagiarized content" inserted by user since indef-blocked for copyright violations, with "these summarys are not plagiarised." [132]. user that removed it responds: "In spite of what Koala15 asserts, some of these episode synopses represent unambiguous copy/pasting from unattributed sources" 2 August 2013 [133] queries unexplained revert 8 August 2013 [134] reverting an edit in whole when I fixed other mistakes is kind of disruptive, if you do not agree with one part of an edit, fix that one part 11 September 2013 [135] "Unless you have a source for the deal being "fake" or a "rumor" or incorrect at all, I consider your reverts without discussion pretty disruptive" 17 September 2013 [136] unsourced genre changes 4 October 2013 [137] <!--uw-genre3 --> ([138] 'start a discussion' 'no you') 4 October 2013 [139] personal attacks, refusal to take part in consensus-building 7 November 2013 [140] <!-- template:uw-own1 --> 8 November 2013 [141] unexplained removal of content next time ... blocked from editing 8 November 2013 [142] "could you please explain why you have undone three of my edits on the plot section of [article], even when I had explained my edits the second and third times. 7 December 2013 "As a third party ...I would also appreciate it if you would explain your edits. many of the edits you're reverting were made in good faith, and it's courteous (and considered good practice, especially in this case) to provide some reason." 9 December 2013 [143] "you simply reverted all my changes without an edit summary and without any kind of comment on the talk page of the article" 9 January 2014 [144] edit summaries, reverts 14 January 2014 [145] "you reverted my edit to the Shrek article, with the comment "Not a Universal film.", which leaves me confused as to why you would revert my changes rather than just removing the references and links to Universal Pictures. please explain?" 30 January 2014 [146] edit warring <!-- template:uw-3rr --> January 2014 [147] removal of maintenance templates <!-- template:uw-tdel2 --> 7 February 2014 [148] 3RR warning 8 February 2014 [149] add summaries to your edits 10 February 2014 [150] edit warring and ownership 13 February 2014 [151] warned, added copy/pasted synopses then reverts removal 18 February 2014 [152] edit warring, lack of edit summary 19 February 2014 [153] undid me, no edit summary; my edit wasn't vandalism 23 February 2014 [154] edit-war; unexplained reverts 25 February 2014 [155] undid without non-default edit summary. why was edit considered vandalism 2 March 2014 [156] idontlikeit, idontknowofit; original research. "This time you have deleted the section created by the other user and you said in your comment that it is unsourced material. ... this other contributor gave a source, namely the BBC article. article thread [157] 8 March 2014 [158] revert-warring Moonriddengirl over <!-- template:copyvio --> (copyviocore) [159]/[160] "in the meantime, as the [copyvio] template indicates, it should not be removed" 5 April 2014 [161] CorenSearchBot warning 2 May 2014 [162] maintenance template removal "prose needs improvement so fix it if you wish the tag to be removed" 3 May 2014 [163] <!-- template:uw-3rr --> 25 May 2014 [164] copypasting copyrighted content 25 May 2014 [165] <!-- template:uw-delete3 --> 10 June 2014 [166] "been told several times, and have never given a reason for the removals. You do not own the article, it's not up to you to decide what is or isn't hip hop. Stop trying to covertly delete entries" [167] <!-- template:uw-delete3 --> 23 June 2014 [168] no edit summary, content removal <!-- template:uw-delete2 --> 28 June 2014 [169] <!-- template:uw-delete3 --> 28 June 2014 [170] removing sourced content without reason <!-- template:uw-delete4 --> 4 July 2014 [171] reverted "removal of copied tvguide.com plot summaries and then altered only one of them" 22 July 2014 [172] reverting w/out edit summaries 24 July 2014 [173] <!-- template:uw-delete3 --> 31 July 2014 [174] CorenSearchBot copyright warning 18 August 2014 [175] repeated reversions, ownership, claims otherstuffexists 30 August 2014 [176] copyright warning. replies says he still doesn't get how sentences can be copyrighted. warning user says attempts to explain to him have proved "unfruitful". 23 September 2014 [177] "may I demand an explanation as to why you would remove Carl Thiel as co-composer" 15 October 2014 [178] copyright warning. 19 October 2014 [179] copyright warning, CorenSearchBot 23 October 2014 [180] <!-- template:uw-ew --> 19 November 2014 [181] copyright warning, CorenSearchBot 7 December 2014 [182] edit warring 15 December 2014 [183] why did you revert 19 December 2014 [184] edit warring 8 January 2015 [185] copyright warning, CorenSearchBot 15 January 2015 [186] <!-- template:uw-3rr --> 31 January 2015 [187] Reverting without explanations 1 February 2015 [188] please stop reverting + not discussing + WP:AN3 & warned 23 February 2015 [189] asked to explain sourced edit undone as vandalism (genres) 27 March 2015 [190] <!-- template:uw-genre1 --> 5 April 2015 [191] queries unexplained revert undone as vandalism 11 April 2015 [192] "I obviously looked up the information. I even included the references and he still undoes them" ([193] silent removal). I'm just so angry and frustrated [by] it" 22 April 2015 [194] adding unreferenced material [195] to BLP 24 April 2015 [196] <!-- template:uw-unsourced2 --> 7 May 2015 [197] querying revert undone as vandalism 14 May 2015 [198] or/pov/genre-warring revert on film 18 May 2015 [199] asked to explain revert of edit undone as vandalism 21 May 2015 [200] "wondering why you undid my revision, as you didn't provide an explanation" 5 June 2015 [201] OR, WP:CRYSTAL 24 June 2015 [202] re revert of redirect of an unsourced article, failed general and subject-specific notability guidelines - no it's notable now - not without sources enabling it to pass guidelines it isn't - you don't understand the guidelines 4 July 2015 [203] <!-- template:uw-copyright --> 5 July 2015 [204] persistently reverting 7 July 2015 [205] quotefarming, persistent reverts [206] unexplained content removal <!-- template:uw-delete1 --> 10 July 2015 [207] edit warring <!-- template:uw-ew --> 10 July 2015 [208] ANI notification for edit warring, unexplained reverting 12 July 2015 [209] queries unexplained revert undone as vandalism 14 July 2015 [210] unexplained removal of content <!-- template:uw-vandalism2 --> 15 July 2015

(←) Koala15's been persistently disruptive since he started here in 2012. Despite over a hundred warnings and reminders,[211][212] and a past block, he continues to be uncollaborative, and engage in disruptive behaviour with edit warring and personal attacks. On at least two occasions it's significantly likely that his hostility drove editors off Wikipedia altogether.

Editors' legitimate concerns are routinely met with deflection and gaming. They're fobbed off on a string of pretexts,[213] downplayed to others as "misunderstandings" or "simple disagreement", ignoring his refusal to discuss it (exactly my experience), or met with insincere apologies[214] and empty promises.[215]

Pleas and warnings for edit summaries have been ineffective. Once you discount tool-appended automatic ones, his mainspace edit summary use is around 7%, and those are often uncollegial or deceptive.[216][217]
Policies and norms seem to be used as weapons. He'll caution others to adhere to the very ones he refuses to,[218][219] cherrypick from guidelines;[220] or use one to belatedly excuse a revert, such as falsely claiming the edit pushed the plot over 700 words[221][222] yet he copypastes huge plots from copyrighted sources. Not only has he outright lied that he wrote copyrighted material, he edit-wars to keep it in while accusing editors who try to address it of vandalism.[223]

The community's treated him with kid gloves because it appeared he was also doing good content work. It turns out this consists of serial copyright violations, quotefarming, and plagiarism—see CCI report. Due to the long-term disruption and copyright violations, in my view an indef-block is appropriate. –146.200.32.196 (talk) 19:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Well I admit I'm not a perfect editor, I don't think its fair to take edits from 2-3 years ago out of context to fit the narrative that I'm only here to be disruptive. They are from a time when I was less experienced. I know we got started of wrong but I hope you guys can forgive me. I have good intentions and from now on I'm gonna try to follow guidelines more closely. Koala15 (talk) 15:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The narrative is not that you are only here to be disruptive. The narrative is that you have continued to engage in unconstructive and/or prohibited behaviors that you engaged in 2-3 years ago and have been warned about multiple times since then, and that you either are unable to or don't care to learn, despite two to three years of OJT, what is and isn't appropriate under Wikipedia policies. As you yourself put it earlier, "[you're] not gonna learn anything that [you] already haven't", which is what's causing us to look at this from the standpoint of competence, not just arrogance. General Ization ^Talk 23:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Ideloctober refuses to read or learn about Wikipedia Policy over on the Frankfurt School talk page.

Once again there's an obtrusive editor over on the Frankfurt School talk page causing problems. The user is Ideloctober (talk) - all the usual symptoms are present: Brand new account. Demands the article be changed without providing any sources for their arguments or referring to any Wikipedia policies. Refuses to even visit the talk page guidelines. Has decided Wikipedia is part of a Marxist conspiracy, and is now putting in repeated edit requests and generally refusing to work with others (resistant to all attempts at explaining the purpose of Wikipedia's policies, even from editors more sympathetic to their personal viewpoint). Any aid in restricting this uncooperative editor from further disrupting the talk page would be appreciated. --Jobrot (talk) 08:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, cool, you went here too. I never said Wikipedia was a "Marxist conspiracy", I said that you being given sole editing privileges on the article, while being an outspoken pro-Marxist Liberal who stated that Capitalism would not be permitted to be discussed in a positive way, is extremely biased and unfair. Calling the article a conspiracy theory has caused mass amounts of mockery and jeering by other groups and forums, as it's one of the most blatantly biased and skewed viewpoints I've ever seen on this website in my 10+ years of anonymous or accounted editing here. You, a Marxist, are the only one allowed to make changes to a section about Cultural Marxism, and forbid anyone from calling it more than an anti-semitic racist conspiracy theory. Your bias is sickening, and I suggest your editing privileges on said article be revoked, and that you be required to follow by the same rules you preach to the others. Your personal attacks (calling me and another anti-Semites for requesting a title edit?????) as well as your overt bias are both not permitted on Wikipedia. You are accomplishing nothing by attacking me and making fraudulent edits other than proving Leftist-Marxists as yourself are entirely opposed to free, unbiased speech and, as Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol, Che, Castro, Sung, Jong-il, Jong-un, and every other Communist leader in history did, you too prefer censorship and false sources in order to promote your own agenda. That much is obvious. Ideloctober (talk) 09:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I remind you that On the Internet, nobody knows you're a Marxist and you're not helping yourself attacking other editor's alleged bias. For both sides, diffs would be helpful. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Ideloctober, without citing any sources, your arguments on the Frankfurt School talk page simply come across as whining. You say you have been on Wikipedia for years, so one would hope you're familiar with the concept of verifiability. And you use the phrase "neutral", so one would hope you understand that neutrality means reflecting what is written in reliable sources. Since you have provided no sources of your own, and given no serious comment on sources currently used, all you've done is expressed your personal displeasure with the viewpoints present in the article. Continuing in this manner will inevitably lead to your being blocked or banned from Wikipedia, although continuing to assail Jobrot on a personal level may lead to that even sooner. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I never called you an anti-semite. I have in fact explicitly stated that the conspiracy theory doesn't always boil down to anti-semitism (diff of that). Also I've said specifically that I don't have any special privileges here on Wikipedia (diff of that). I was certainly never given "sole editing privileges on the article" and that's not something likely to happen on Wikipedia. Please learn to respect Wikipedia's policies and processes if you wish to contribute.

As for Wikipedia inhibiting your free speech - Wikipedia is not a SOAPBOX for your free speech. Speech on Wikipedia is restricted to what adheres to Wikipedia's policies and sourcing requirements... which are there to ensure accuracy and verifiability. NOT to facilitate your personal opinions - or for that matter, MY personal opinions. --Jobrot (talk) 10:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Someguy1221 and Ricky81682 hit the nail on the head. The rhetoric and unsubstantiated claims made by Ideloctober here on this page are troubling. When you accuse someone of making racist (or other types of slurs) comments, you should really provide the links to back that up. I personally could not find that. And when incredibly incorrect statements like an editor being given "sole editing privileges on the article" are made, that really hurts your credibility. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• I was contemplating coming here too about "Ideloctober"(who probably also edits logged out with 74.129.76.107. The edits at the George Lincoln Rockwell(An American Nazi) are also problematic. The sources used and edits there are definitely not compatible with Wiki policies. I don't believe any amount of discussion will persuade this editor. Dave Dial (talk) 14:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Problematic? Are we on Tumblr now? Never use the phrase 'problematic' unless you want to appear as a stereotypical eFeminist. My edits to Rockwell following a friend editing on the same local IP are sourced with one influential blog and two books both published by Universities. I know how to cite, I know how to source, and I've used them. There are articles with claims far less sourced than mine, and with all this evident Liberal backlash I'm beginning to doubt Wikipedia's true neutrality. There is no solid source that Cultural Marxism is nothing more than a conspiracy theory, considering many other sources from the Right or Radical Right back it up. But you won't use those sources, will you? No. It's laden with Left, Marxist, and Progressive sources, which are all fine, but the Right is "too biased". Again, with the Liberal bias you allow to run rampant, perhaps this is why thatm ore than ever people don't take Wikipedia seriously. Sure, I think your "Progressive" agenda is the definition of backwards and wrong, but I'm not arguing to attack your ideas or include sources or comments attacking you, I just want neutrality, and you know as well as I do that passing Cultural Marxism off as a pure conspiracy theory by virtue of pro-Marxist sources alone is extremely biased, and it's befitting the agenda you're attempting to impose, Jobrot.

"Base and Sperstructure in the Marxist cultural Theory", Raymond Williams http://www.marylandthursdaymeeting.com/Archives/SpecialWebDocuments/Cultural.Marxism.htm The Free Congress also has many discourses on the topic.

But those are probably much too unfavoring of Marx for you to accept, Jobrot. Ideloctober (talk) 22:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE. The accusations of bias and personal attacks are out of control. GAB^Hello! 22:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Stop focusing on Jobrot, start confining your comments to content and sources. You can do this, or abandon the topic area, or you can leave Wikipedia. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll abandon the topic area. Please wipe this section out whenever possible. I didn't mean to cause such a fight. Ideloctober (talk) 23:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

This user has continued to take it upon themselves to make personal commentary/attacks against me elsewhere (specifically on their talk page). --Jobrot (talk) 00:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• The editor continues to use blogs(anthonyflood.com) for sources on the George Lincoln Rockwell article. Using blogs to claim that the US Government assassinated the American Nazi leader here(noncounterproductive.blogspot.com), same here, adds more conspiracy claims with another blog here(anthonyflood.com) and keeps adding again and again. Claiming that JFK and MLK get conspiracy theories, why not an American Nazi(edit summary). This editor is not here to build an encyclopedia or not competent. Dave Dial (talk) 03:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• The sources were from two University press books. If you believe Rockwell being a Nazi means he shouldn't have the same treatment other assassinated politicians and political activists do, then that does seem a bit biased. However, I've stated I'll cease editing the articles in question and have said nothing else on the matter. I'm not entirely sure what the continued ganging-up will accomplish here. I'd be lying if I said I didn't suspect this is due to my anti-Liberal views on a site where Liberal bias has been accused for over a decade. Quite like going to a baking convention and stating you despise bakers. That's not to say it's the reason or only reason, but I do have a feeling anti-Liberals aren't looked too highly upon here. That being said my edits and wished changes have had nothing to do with politics, but simply establishing neutrality where I feel it isn't present. It's very hard to collaborate in good faith when off the bat it seems you're being told your opinions on a subject are wrong, and when you're outnumbered as I am now. Lastly, I have indeed stated I won't make any more edits to these articles, and apologized to Jobrot for making him feel I was personally attacking him. This really has no further purpose. I didn't intend on being disruptive or causing conflict, and admittedly I got a bit heated on the topic. Ideloctober (talk) 10:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: In addition to Ideloctober's problematic editing, he is clearly a WP:Sock. I support indefinitely blocking the Ideloctober account. Flyer22 (talk) 11:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• • I've apologized and stated that I will let it go. I think this has been resolved. Ideloctober (talk) 01:14, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• • • Comments like this do not lead one to believe that you are letting it go. Rather the opposite. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Health and Welfare ‖ 02:56, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• • • Am I not allowed to talk to other users? Am I not allowed to tell someone to not let people get them down? It didn't even pertain at all to this situation. I deleted my comment, if that fixes things. Ideloctober (talk) 03:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for you to conduct a personal political witch-hunt. You've been brought here for accusing others of promoting a political bias (whatever the bias may be, but in this case for having a Marxist and/or Liberal bias) your response to this has been to accuse others of calling you antisemitic which you've absolutely failed to prove. You've been warned several times in several places and claim to have changed your ways - yet you are still conducting an anti-marxist witch-hunt and making accusations of political bias. Wikipedia is not a battleground WP:BATTLEGROUND - yet you continue to use it as one despite the best efforts of your fellow wikipedians to coach you against this behaviour. I believe you will continue to have difficulty understanding what the problem is with YOUR actions in favour of perceiving a Marxist bias everywhere and editing for political interests rather than for the interests of creating neutral encyclopedic content. I think a ban would be appropriate. Please keep your political views OFF Wikipedia. --Jobrot (talk) 05:14, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I did. I already apologized to you and have several times stated I will refrain from editing the article any further. This is the only time I've ever gotten political on an issue, and it's only because it is indeed a hot-button topic for some, and I shouldn't have let that get the best of me. I'm sorry, really, although I just don't see why this has to continue. Ideloctober (talk) 05:30, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, a Non-apology apology (in that you apologized for my perceptions rather than your actions), and as of today (the 9th of August) you're still using Wikipedia for political purposes WP:BATTLEGROUND, as exampled in the comments Ebyabe has brought up. This process will end when the admins make their decision. --Jobrot (talk) 13:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

By the way are you ever going to produce evidence that I called you antisemitic? --Jobrot (talk) 13:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, if you have really learned your lesson, please edit some different articles so you can demonstrate this. Actions speak louder. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - General Health ‖ 14:54, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Still fighting the good fight. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 20:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I deleted any and all politically charged comments. I don't have to apologize for calling you a Liberal, because that isn't an insult. I thought you were one, and whether you are or not, it isn't meant to be an insult whatsoever. I would appreciate it if people could stop nitpicking comments I removed on my own accord as ammunition here. Whether or not I think the site has a Marxist-Liberal bias or not is just that, thinking, my opinion, and you have no right to dictate what I'm allowed to think and not allowed to think. I apologized for bringing in political bias, I removed my comments, and now I'm quite curious as to what else I've apparently done wrong that requires this report to be kept open while snarky contributors come in with jabs and comments unrelated to anything else that's going on. Ideloctober (talk) 20:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

If you don't understand why personal politics and ideological accusations of your fellow editors should be kept away from Wikipedia and out of the editorial process (hint: WP:GOODFAITH exists for a reason) - then perhaps Wikipedia is not the place for you? I hope level heads (and policy) prevail, and that the WP:DEADHORSE of explaining WP:SOAPBOX to you can be given a rest. --Jobrot (talk) 03:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support block - WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR seem to be serious issues here. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support block - Given the issue stems across multiple pages and the editor claims to have been editing anonymously for 10+ years now, yet still hasn't learnt the basics of Wikipedia policy and conduct (let alone how to perform citations diff) - I'd say a ban of both the user and their IP is in order. WP:NOTHERE WP:LISTEN WP:SOAPBOX WP:BATTLEGROUND. --Jobrot (talk) 05:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

As stated before, I will no longer edit said political articles nor make any contact with said users that have been involved with this. From what I read in the guidelines this is the best way to let it go and move on, and it's what I'll do. Ideloctober (talk) 06:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Given that you've edited a couple of Nazis pages (adding your own positive spin that didn't meet WP:RS and has brought you up for edit warring), the Administrators notice board, and the Cultural Marxism/Conspiracy section of The Frankfurt School page... I'd say the bulk of your edits are political articles... the only other edit you've made was for McClintic Wildlife Management Area. Even though the sample size is small - it still suggests you'll gravitate back to your interests here - which are political in nature. --Jobrot (talk) 21:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support block - Editor seems to think wikipedia is a ideological WP:BATTLEGROUND and not certain as to why that is an issue in creating an encyclopedia. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 07:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose block - Seems wrong to silence certain voices. Isn't freedom of speech preferable?Jimjilin (talk) 18:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

As stated earlier, Wikipedia is not a loud speaker for personal views. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of facts, not opinions. Free speech here is, and should be limited, held captive by policy. Particularly WP:RS. --Jobrot (talk) 03:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia contains many opinions. And who decides which facts are valid, which facts are included? Wikipedia needs a variety of viewpoints, don't you think? Not everybody in the world is a white male atheist pretending to be neutral. lolJimjilin (talk) 18:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose block "Blocks" on users with under a hundred edits sounds more like "He annoys me" more than "He will not follow wikipedia policies and guidelines" at this point. Nor do I even see sufficient angst to warrant a topic ban here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment - It indeed does. However, core content policies should be always followed by editors. Similar to laws and regulations implemented by a government of a country, here on Wikipedia policies govern what's appropriate for an encyclopedia. WP:RS is the specific policy which helps us decide which sources are valid. -- Chamith (talk) 18:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment - There is a hierarchy of sources with peer reviewed academic sources being at the top, then credible journalistic sources with good quality verified editorial oversight, then experts and institutions, then the wider web. By now you should have known this, and the fact that you don't speaks to your incompetence as an editor and the importance of WP:CIR in deciding your case. --Jobrot (talk) 21:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I linked to many quality sources. And don't forget, bias and conflict of interest can undermine even the most august sources: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/Jimjilin (talk) 02:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I would argue that the site you've linked to is known to conduct "post-publication peer review" and for that reason can't be considered a high quality source in of it's self (although any papers that appear on that site AND have other peer reviewed credentials may be quality sources, but that website alone - due to the nature of post-publication peer review - isn't necessarily indicative of quality). Post-publication peer review differs from standard peer review as it entails the academic findings being uploaded (published) FIRST, and then "reviewed" on a web 2.0 user generated content basis... compare this to the traditional academic peer review system (of reviewers being verified anonymous experts in their fields), and it's pretty obvious why post-publication peer review has come up for question: [224] [225] [226] [227]. Anyways, Post-publication peer review has all the problems of Wikipedia essentially. Take this example of a "researcher" who is solely targeted at having an anti-gay agenda (and even goes to the irrational lengths of reviewing news stories for some reason and claiming that has some sort of scientific validity): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Cameron%20P[Author]&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=14723445

However this is all fairly irrelevant to your consistent failure to meet Wikipedia policy (note: you don't get to pick and choose which policies you follow). If you want to attempt to dismantle wikipedia's WP:RS standards, you won't find any help here.

Also, please visit the Talk Page Guidelines and format your comments on talk pages properly by indenting your comments. You have been here too long for basic formatting issues like the nesting of replies to STILL be an issue. I believe this demonstrates your consistent failure to WP:LISTEN. --Jobrot (talk) 05:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Long term pattern of POV edits and edit warring by User:Jimjilin

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

I started to post this to a current thread about Jimjilin at 3RR (opened by David Gerard), but it's really more appropriate for ANI.

Jimjilin and I have some overlapping interests it seems, because I keep coming across a reliable pattern of POV edits followed by edit warring over those edits, sometimes over the course of many months. Though he's been blocked for edit warring in the past, he's a relatively experienced Wikipedian and rarely breaches 3RR. Airborne84 opened an ANI thread about him in December, but other than a comment from Xcuref1endx it did not attract attention or result in any action.

The current 3RR report concerns Jerry Coyne. Here are some other examples:

• At Promiscuity: sustaining multiple edit wars. One is over adding a statement about promiscuity and health: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Another (related) is edit warring to downplay a source which that says the opposite of the claim he wants to press, adding poor sources to contradict one that passes WP:MEDRS, and alleging it's other people mischaracterizing the source: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
• There are other examples in many, many articles Jimjilin has edited: Paul Singer (businessman), Thomas Piketty, Criticisms of Marxism, Michel Foucault, Moral panic, Cecile Richards...
• An edit war at Michael Kempner led Mosmof to open this thread at RSN a couple months ago. In that article Jimjilin added the same thing 12 times between October 2014 and June 2015: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

I believe Jimjilin has some productive contributions to some articles, and I truly hate bringing people here (it's only happened a couple times before), but POV and edit warring constitute a shockingly high percentage of his edits and, judging by past blocks and the long, long list of warnings/comments at his user talk page, there does not look to be any indication of the behavior stopping. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

That...are a lot of warnings. Copyright violation, edit wars, POV edits...

The diffs and contributions show extensive disruptive editing, and the talk page shows a complete ignorance of warnings.

How did that user get so many warnings without being blocked?

I'd say infinite siteban for long-term disruptive editing, including copyright infringements, ignoring a total number of fourty warnings...--Müdigkeit (talk) 20:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I've had limited interaction with Jimjilin because of a content dispute. I think what complicates things is that the user is actually operating in good faith and doesn't seem to see a distinction between POV and fact, so like Rhododendrites, I don't want to see a long-term block. That said, Jimjilin has been blocked before and all the warnings and friendly links to guideline pages are obviously not making a difference. Mosmof (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@Mosmof: No, I no longer believe he is acting in good faith. He has made some productive contributions, yes, but the reason I brought the issue here is because of an egregious extent of edit warring despite being warned/advised many times; persistent WP:IDHT as displayed through editing, edit summaries, and talk page posts; [less frequent] misrepresentation of other people's arguments or [claiming/feigning] ignorance as an excuse to continue edit warring (e.g. ~"this satisfies your concern" or ~"let's just go by what the source says" while changing the text to a POV interpretation of the source); clear POV nature of a large percentage of his edits (often tacking on a line of "criticism" based on a single/poor source after well-sourced content); and having to be told everything repeatedly every time, just for him to do the same thing months later. As I said, I hate bringing people to ANI, largely because I can usually find cause to assume good faith on some level or because the issues are compartmentalized in some way, but after months/years of the same, Jimjilin has exhausted that AGF. It's possible something like a 0RR could solve the biggest problems (not 1RR as he's shown a willingness to continue an edit war over long, long periods of time), but I think that would just delay the inevitable. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: I've come around and support a long-term block precisely because I think he's editing in good faith (no really, work with me here. There are obvious blindspots when it comes to partisan topics, and there's simply no awareness that he's doing anything wrong. If the user was willfully pushing POV and trying to get around policy, then I think there's a chance for change in behavior. But with all the warnings and friendly advice he's received and he still doesn't get it, then there's no hope. Mosmof (talk) 19:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I am an uninvolved editor. See: [228][229][230][231][232] GAB^Hello! 22:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

... or this.--Müdigkeit (talk) 22:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

A quarter of the warnings received would still be grounds for sanctions. GAB^Hello! 22:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• I don't know what you are proposing, Rhododendrites, but I support whatever block or ban that will stop this editor from editing WP:Disruptively. He is a prime example of a WP:Edit warrior and someone who disregards WP:Policies and guidelines too often; if he had valid WP:Ignore all rules reasons for acting the way he does, things would be different. And even if he were to have valid WP:Ignore all rules reasons, that is not a policy to invoke on every whim or in most cases. For the record here in this thread, I'm one of the editors who has dealt with Jimjilin's problematic editing at the Promiscuity article. Flyer22 (talk) 23:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• @Flyer22: The main reason I didn't explicitly propose a block/ban is because I'm involved and wanted to bring it up here to see what other people thought the best way forward would be. Maybe it's better to be specific about a suggested course of action, though. So for the record, I see no indication whatsoever that Jimjilin is WP:HERE. Countless warnings and words of advice over the course of years has made no apparent difference in his editing patterns, so barring a credible expression of a radical change in perspective, I think that if we're thinking about preventative rather than punitive measures, an indefinite block is the only option. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, yes indeed. Support. GAB^Hello! 00:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support whatever it takes to stop the misuse of Wikipedia for POV pushing—I saw the five virtually identical edits (1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5) at Jerry Coyne and it is clear this editor will continue for months. Those five edits occurred on 6 and 7 August 2015. Adding WP:DUE encyclopedic information is fine, but adding fluff criticisms is not helpful. I picked another article from Jimjilin's contributions and saw two virtually identical edits to again add fluff criticism (1 + 2). Something like WP:1RR could be tried, but that may just draw the process out because it can be used to repeat an edit once a day or once a week. Johnuniq (talk) 01:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Rhododendrites seems to follow me around constantly deleting my additions. It appears he wants to silence opinions that he doesn't like. In the Kempner article Rhododendrites claims I "added the same thing". He is mistaken. I made many changes to my additions. I usually respond to comments from other editors even when these comments (in my opinion) lack merit. I did disagree with Rhododendrites in the Promiscuity article, but disagreeing with Rhododendrites does not = disruptive editing. Rhododendrites seems to be breaking Wikipedia policy, he was not honest in his criticism of me, he is not treating other editors respectfully.Jimjilin (talk) 01:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Johnuniq, a thoughtful article by two Phds is "fluff criticism"?! This seem absurd! Here are the authors: Dr. Alex B. Berezow is the founding editor of RealClearScience and co-author of Science Left Behind. He holds a PhD in microbiology from the University of Washington. Dr. James Hannam is the author of The Genesis of Science: How the Christian Middle Ages Launched the Scientific Revolution. He holds a PhD in the history and philosophy of science from the University of Cambridge. Looks like great qualifications.Jimjilin (talk) 01:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

My contributions at Paul Singer (businessman), Thomas Piketty, and Criticisms of Marxism I think were well-sourced and they eventually were accepted. In the Paul Singer article I linked to a NYT article amongst other sources. In the Piketty article I linked to another NYT article and a study Piketty wrote with Emmanuel Saez. In the Criticisms of Marxism article I linked to books by Thomas Sowell and Bertrand Russell and an article by Mikhail Bakunin. Can Rhododendrites tell me why he feels these sources are inadequate? Perhaps Rhododendrites is POV pushing and he doesn't like my well-sourced additions because they conflict with his agenda.Jimjilin (talk) 01:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Laughably, Jimjilin just got blocked 5 minutes ago for exceeding 3RR. The block is just a routine 24 hours. Meanwhile, based on the overwhelming evidence above and the incredibly long rap sheet of warnings, I Support a block, length to be determined by community consensus or closing admin. Could be anywhere from two weeks (escalating in length if problems continue after it expires) to indefinite. Most folks here, and those who have dealt with him all these years, appear to favor indefinite. Softlavender (talk) 02:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC); edited 02:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I checked the user's talkpage and saw our past discussion regarding his POV-push on an article. I was struck by the fact that he wouldn't budge from his POV despite evidence to the contrary from reliable sources that I provided to him. The sources were easy to find but he refused to check further once he had made up his mind. This rigid stance coupled with longterm POV editing and edit-warring is very disruptive to a collaborative project. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment An assumption of good faith isn't applicable, and if for some reason it is, the other issue then is an incurable competence issue. Evidence of this: Here Jimjilin attempts to add a POV and decontextualized Piketty paragraph in the Karl Marx article. Here an editor puts the Piketty comment into context, pointing out that Jimjilin ignored or missed the context of Piketty's opinion and was decidedly POV pushing. One month later Jimjilin then moves on to Marxism and attempts to add this, the same exact thing, proceeding as if his attempts to pull the comment out of context in the other article never happened. The same editor essentially had to repeat what they wrote before. Jimjilin responds as if this was the first time this came to his attention. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 05:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support block. Enough is enough. Indef seems suitable as they have not improved with warnings. They continuely add poor quality sources that support a specific POV and they have tried to remove high quality sources that don't.[233] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Honestly, it seems several of you are more upset about Jimjilin's personal views rather than his conduct. I haven't been involved enough to comment fully, but it's just an outsider's observation. Ideloctober (talk) 10:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the level of cluelessness and disruption displayed in that statement says a lot more about the reason you should be sanctioned in the above ANI about you than it says anything at all worthwhile about this case. Softlavender (talk) 10:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I think you don't really know what you or he is talking about. Ideloctober (talk) 01:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support any increase in block length. Jimjilin has contributed good content before, but he seems to have a serious ideological ax to grind here. The fact he spent nearly a year at Michael Kempner adding the same disputed content over and over again I think shows a complete disregard for dispute resolution and consensus building. Given this sort of behavior is very old, and still occurring, I think it may be time to show Jimjilin the door. Though I would support his continued presence under strict conditions. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• I propose this: An indefinite topic ban from political ideologies, broadly construed, an indefinite 1RR restriction, as well as an indefinite allowance for uninvolved adminstrators to use blocks or bans of any necessary length or type for further violations, including indefinite blocks or bans, warnings about copyright as last warning from the community, and a block of sufficient length to ensure that this user reads the warning, this time.--Müdigkeit (talk) 10:52, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• The problem with this is, admins don't have time to babysit individual editors, and the problem/pattern is intransigent, years-long, resistant to a multitude of warnings, and completely unheeding. At this point, it's a NOTHERE situation, and the only remedy is a long long block or a site ban. Softlavender (talk) 11:04, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• @Müdigkeit: I hope you don't mind; I've added a bulletpoint and unbolded your post above. I did so just for clarity, because by not indenting and bolding everything it could give the impression that people below are specifically supporting what you've framed as a "proposal". If you would really like to propose something specific like that, it may be most clear to open a sub-section. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Actually it occurs to me that since I'm not sure which "this editor" Xcuref1endx means, he/she may indeed have been supporting what Müdigkeit proposed. Pinging to make sure I didn't make this more confusing rather than less :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support What this editor has said. I believe competence to be a serious issue here as to which I am not certain what a temporary ban will achieve. Despite the constant warning over and over again, the editor is still under the idea that if "someone wrote something somewhere" it is a valid secondary source and its existence provides it with enough weight for inclusion. Those that suggest otherwise he interprets as having some sort of conspiratorial tendency to censor information or trying to "suppress information". The editor probably suspects that is what this ANI is about, note how he chose to defend himself here above, he still is working under the assumption he is doing things correct and Rhododendrites is attempting to "silence opinions" he doesn't like. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 18:50, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

The first idea I had was also "siteban". However, the user has not been blocked since 2012(ignoring the recent block that is still in effect). Most of the warnings came later. The user has probably ignored further warnings because no action was taken. I also mentioned a block of sufficient length, that doesn't have to be a short block. Probably at least a month.--Müdigkeit (talk) 11:12, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support long-term block. I recommend at least six months. I would hate to see someone permanently blocked, but conversely a block of a few weeks or a month or two doesn't send a strong enough message of "change your behavior to align better with Wikipedia's policies". I spent some time on Jimjilin's talk page suggesting better ways to get results at Wikipedia, but it appears that he or she is fairly intractable. Jimjilin could potentially contribute in the future, but without a strong message, his or her actions will not change. Jimjilin's talk page shows that clearly enough. --Airborne84 (talk) 14:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Xcuref1endx writes: "the editor is still under the idea that if "someone wrote something somewhere" it is a valid secondary source and its existence provides it with enough weight for inclusion." This kind of vague blanket criticism is of course silly and unhelpful. Xcuref1endx and I have differed many times in the past and he is anything but neutral, see my Talk page. Xcuref1endx has made many accusations against me, most of which lack any merit. At times, for example in the Criticisms of Marxism article and the Piketty article, I think Xcuref1endx has been less than cooperative - he has engaged in what appears to be disruptive editing, deleting well-sourced facts which did not suit his agenda.Jimjilin (talk) 04:18, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Ideloctober, I think the extreme hostility of a few editors is driven by their eagerness to cover up facts which fail to buttress their ideology.Jimjilin (talk) 04:18, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry I broke the 3RR rule in the Jerry Coyne article. Editor David Gerard kept insisting on a point for which he offered no proof. I should have been more careful.Jimjilin (talk) 04:18, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I think we are past the stage of trying to determine if there is a problem or not, however, since Jimjilin has claimed that I have made many meritless accusations against him and points to his Talk section as proof, for clarity, here are my edits there: 1, 2, 3, 4,5, 6. These have all been responses to the editor ignoring conversation in article talk sections about controversial additions, engaging in edit-warring over contributions that consensus was clearly against, and many instances of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT (see my post above for an example). The editor often interprets demands to proceed along the lines of wikipedia guidelines (such as gaining consensus) as ad hominem attacks against him or attempts to "suppress information" along ideological lines. Though, other editors already pointed that out. Being an involved editor, I will not participate in determining what the appropriate way forward is, the evidence has been put forth, some uninvolved editors should take a look and determine the best course action. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 19:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• support long term block i looked at Jimjilin's edit history - their focus here is politics (including social conservative politics) - a topic ban from politics is essentially all of WP for them. Politics is hard enough without this kind of non-collaborative POV-pushing. Jytdog (talk) 23:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Xcuref1endx: "Jimjilin and I have some overlapping interests it seems, because I keep coming across a reliable pattern of POV edits followed by edit warring over those edits, sometimes over the course of many months." Note Xcuref1endx's dishonesty at the start of this discussion. He tries to cover up the fact that we have argued for a long time. He didn't "come across" edit warring he constantly made inappropriate accusations of edit warring against me. Please note our discussion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Thomas_Piketty) where Xcuref1endx proclaims an addition is "cherrypicked" and then refuses to say why he feels that way or provide evidence for his belief. I think he has been less than cooperative. As always Xcuref1endx accuses others at the drop of a hat of starting an "edit war". lol In this discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Criticisms_of_Marxism Xcuref1endx again refuses to answer straightforward questions, proclaims without evidence that well-sourced additions are "cherrypicked", accuses others of engaging in an edit war. In this same discussion Xcuref1endx dishonestly claimed I "responded to no concerns of any editors". He also resorted to ad hominems. Perhaps Xcuref1endx should be honest, seek consensus, stop making baseless accusations, and stop POV-pushing. In both the Piketty article and Criticisms_of_Marxism article I listened to other editors and changed my additions which were eventually accepted.Jimjilin (talk) 14:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

So...If anyone wanted a prime example of the WP:CIR and WP:DISRUPT that is at play here, the above response is typical. Editor attributes a quote to me, that was really someone else. Has completely ignored the concerns of EVERY editor here. Still doesn't get the fact that accusations of edit warring against them are in fact legitimate. Forces editors to repeat themselves over and over again. Misinterprets being told to comply with wikipedia standards as ad hominem attacks against him. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 18:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Additionally, when jimjilin says I accuse others at the drop of a hat of starting an "edit war". Here is the hat dropping: 1. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 02:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block this user clearly doesn't understand the purpose of Wikipedia (to expound on whatever THE SOURCES say) nor the method (collaboration with OTHER EDITORS) and I'd say they're abusing the site and the goodwill of fellow editors. In my opinion they should be banned permanently. WP:CIR WP:NOTHERE WP:SOAPBOX WP:BATTLEGROUND --Jobrot (talk) 08:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose all Draconian sanctions as a general rule, and noting that having multiple noticeboard complaints on the single editor is pretty much a poor idea. Also noting that I do not see any strong consensus here - other than in the Dodge City vein. Let this go now - if the editor is a real problem, he will show that soon enough. So far, IMO, he hasn't. Collect (talk) 23:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• Move to close and enact the consensus. There's a clear consensus that this years'-long intractable behavior pattern despite numerous warnings merits a long-term block. Move for an admin to close this thread and enact the consensus, if their perception agrees with this summation. Softlavender (talk) 12:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Xcuref1endx doesn't seem able to understand that I made many changes to my additions in the Piketty article. I responded again and again to the concerns of editors. Xcuref1endx's dishonesty, as when he claimed I "responded to no concerns of any editors" in the Criticisms_of_Marxism article and his constant inappropriate accusations of edit warring are only part of his hostility towards those who fail to push his agenda.Jimjilin (talk) 18:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I have made some valuable contributions to Wikipedia and I haven't violated the 3RR rule in some time (since 2012). I hope Wikipedia is hospitable to editors who have a point of view not shared by the majority of Wikipedia editors.Jimjilin (talk) 18:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Indefinite block I know I said I wouldn't vote but I kind of had to. However, it should be noted that I am an involved editor. I say indefinite because there is a WP:CIR issue that I do not think an extended amount of time away will fix. I second Softlavender's move to close and enact consensus. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 19:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Jimjilin is not getting the purpose of this encyclopedia. Are there any admins there that can wrap this up? -Xcuref1endx (talk) 21:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• Requesting closure - It doesn't seem like this thread is drawing any additional participation. To me, consensus seems pretty clear, but either way this could use a close. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Is my show trial over? Am I guilty of thoughtcrime? lol I'm guessing the admins understand that disagreeing with Rhododendrites/Xcuref1endx does not = edit warring.Jimjilin (talk) 15:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• Indefinite block This editor has engaged in extensive edit-warring, despite warnings and blocks and has not changed. And their comments above about a "show trial" and "thoughtcrime" show a derision for other editors. TFD (talk) 00:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Call for a Close

Nothing new is being added, an Admin should take a look at it and enact consensus. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 18:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I need more context before I can make an informed decision. Can someone please explain to me in detail what the problem is? I read the above discussion and it sounds very confusing. It probably seems similarly confusing to other editors who are not directly aware of this story. Thank youZigzig20s (talk) 21:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

As a thread that's been open for several days, awaiting closure, which includes the opinions of 16 editors (excluding jimjilin and me) and references a lot of diffs, a request for more context kind of needs more context (not trying to be difficult ... I just don't know what you could want). Can you be more specific about what you don't understand about the claims made (or the claims themselves)? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh. you were canvassed. Jimjilin found a back-and-forth between Zigzig20s and I on my talk page over the White genocide article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Harrassment, Race-Baiting Personal Attacks, Edit-Warring and NPOV Violations

• Binksternet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Roscelese (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Binksternet and User:Roscelese are tag-teaming me, as retaliation for an edit I made at SPLC that they hate.

After I added a one-sentence, NPOV edit to SPLC, “In a 2010 book-length issue of exposés devoted entirely to the SPLC, the journal The Social Contract dubbed the SPLC, “Profiteers of Hate”[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Southern_Poverty_Law_Center&oldid=675227514), User:Roscelese immediately reverted me, with the highly POV explanation, “The fact that this is the journal of a white supremacist group is just a coincidence, of course.” (Roscelese, while vandalizing SPLC.)

I undid his revert, whereupon he got his crony User:Binksternet to threaten and intimidate me on my talk page.

“Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Southern Poverty Law Center, you may be blocked from editing. Binksternet (talk) 05:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)”

I responded,

“(Warning: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Southern Poverty Law Center.)” (Binksternet)

“The fact that this is the journal of a white supremacist group is just a coincidence, of course.” (Roscelese, while vandalizing SPLC.) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Southern_Poverty_Law_Center&oldid=675227077 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Roscelese

“The foregoing is an example of blatant, POV editing. I did nothing of the sort. I also added no ‘personal analysis’ whatsoever. I simply added NPOV material that contradicted the SPLC advertisement that you and your cronies seek to maintain. You are clearly bullying and threatening me (not to mention projecting like crazy!), in violation of numerous WP rules, on behalf of your political ally, Roscelese. How many times have you already been blocked, for just such unethical behavior?2604:2000:9061:3800:F4C4:E64B:61B1:60B4 (talk) 05:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)” https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ABinksternet

User:Roscelese also insinuated that I am somehow a “white supremacist.”

I would appreciate if User:Binksternet and User:Roscelese would be ordered to cease and desist in their harrassment, edit-warring, vicious, personal attacks and blatant NPOV violations.2604:2000:9061:3800:F4C4:E64B:61B1:60B4 (talk) 07:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, IS it a white supremacist journal? You left us hanging. Parabolist (talk) 07:46, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

No. But don't take my word for it--read it yourself.2604:2000:9061:3800:F4C4:E64B:61B1:60B4 (talk) 10:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• See this post by Doug Weller at WP:AE. That confirms that a very banned user is currently active, and it is likely that throw-away IPs will post rants at various articles and noticeboards for a few days (example). Johnuniq (talk) 07:48, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I do not appreciate your insinuation that I am a banned user’s sockpuppet. Either say it openly, or retract your insinuation.2604:2000:9061:3800:F4C4:E64B:61B1:60B4 (talk) 10:48, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I've just deleted the IP's personal attacks at Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center with an edit summary saying that it is ok to mention, in an impartial manner, that an issue has been raised here. Roscelese's removal of content was of course not vandalism. Doug Weller (talk) 08:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I just double-checked what the “personal attacks” were that Doug Weller claimed to have deleted. The entire section he deleted was nothing but a verbatim re-posting of the AN/I complaint I posted it here. And of course, Roscelese vandalized my content. But what do you expect someone to say about his own tag-team/stalking partner?

Suprise, surprise, surprise! In saying that he deleted “personal attacks,” DougWeller was lying, in order to mislead readers of this AN/I complaint into thinking that I had done something very different than I had. Lying anywhere at WP is bad enough, but in response to an AN/I?!2604:2000:9061:3800:F4C4:E64B:61B1:60B4 (talk) 12:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Of course they were personal attacks - you were using a talk page to accuse other editors of being vicious, bullying, etc. That's an inappropriate use of a talk page. ANI has a lot more latitude, but you still post stuff like that at your own risk. Just as it's a personal attack to suggest you are being stalked or that I'm tag teaming. Not a very clever claim either. And you just reinserted text at Talk:John Derbyshire with a section heading "In opposition to racist soapboxing" which makes unsubstantiated claims that blacks are dumber than whites. Doug Weller (talk) 12:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted race-baiting soapboxing on Talk:John Derbyshire by the complainant which has little to do with the article [234], and the IP has restored it [235]. I don't, however, think this is a sock account, it should be judged by its own actions and should probably be subject to AE sanctions. Acroterion (talk) 12:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Again, I ask a fair-minded reader to countenance what Acroterion is saying, and what he actually did. As far as he is concerned, anyone he disagrees with is guilty of "race-baiting soapboxing." But if anything, he's projecting. I did not express any opinion, but only scientific fact. This may come as a shock to him, but psychometrics is a rigorous science, probably the most rigorous one in the social and behavioral sciences.2604:2000:9061:3800:F4C4:E64B:61B1:60B4 (talk) 12:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

We have The Social Contract Press which includes the sentence "In response, the Social Contract Press devoted its Spring 2010 issue criticizing the SPLC, calling them "profiteers of hate"." added as a 1-off edit by an IP 4 years ago. Searches for this publication only pull up a very small number of hits, suggesting it is WP:UNDUE even in its own article and obviously in the SPLC article. Doug Weller (talk) 13:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• The fact that this IP took Bink and me to ANI after one revert each strongly supports the idea that this is a sock, actually. I didn't think it before, but I'm thinking it now. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
• Sock or not, this guy is hateful and WP:NOTHERE. Nothing to do but block him. Binksternet (talk) 15:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support NOTHERE block for the IP. BMK (talk) 01:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

It is a white supremacist group, according to the SPLC. The SPLC describes hundreds of such groups. Recommend this request be closed and the IP be blocked. TFD (talk) 08:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• The IP has reverted again [236] at Talk:John Derbyshire. I'm about to leave on travel and don't have time to take action or do the necessary follow-up. Acroterion (talk) 08:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  • And yet again [237]. Acroterion (talk) 12:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

CIR at Bhumihar

Please can someone review the efforts of Chrishitch (talk · contribs), in particular at Talk:Bhumihar. While this is underpinned by a content dispute, the real problem seems to be one of competence and tendentiousness. They seem unable to comprehend what our article says regarding the various theories of origin for that caste. We're getting long screeds and after Bgwhite closed the first discussion, Chrishitch began all over again. They still do not understand what our article says and seem to think that the source is giving one theory when in fact it is examining several.

They've had an explanatory note from Bgwhite on their talk page and also formal notification of WP:GS/Caste. They're the latest in a long line of people who have tried to change this reliably sourced article, most apparently being members of the caste in question and several being socks.

We're well into WP:CIR territory and I'm likely to lose my temper sooner rather than later, having kept a lid on it thus far. - Sitush (talk) 20:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there are certainly problems of competence, and at the same time some indications that they're not a new user. I've asked about those indications on their page. Just take it easy, please, Sitush. Sit on the lid. Bishonen | talk 22:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC).

Oh, the indications were there from an early stage and I am gratified to see that someone else has spotted that they might exist. But even without those, this is something that probably should not have required me to raise the issue here. By my standards, which I realise some people think are not that high, I'm sitting remarkably firmly on the lid. It does look like I need yet another break, during which the rubbish will continue to flood umpteen caste-related articles and be accepted by experienced contributors who tinker round the edges with gnomish edits etc, making it harder to spot the real issues that underlie their well-intentioned efforts. They mean well but we really do need to clamp down in this area, especially regarding WP:V - if an addition is not reliably sourced then bin it.

We've lost several of the few admins who take an interest in that area and I'm afraid that it means WP:GS/Caste will lack the support that it should have, sans frequent referrals here. - Sitush (talk) 23:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Be more specific than "please review his efforts." The talk page is over 100k, incomprehensible in many places and there's IP addresses, and numerous unsigned comments. Please do a little more than say "look at the talk page" and pointing to a discussion that was closed (without a single link in the discussion to the source in question) and reopened again. Did you ask User:Bgwhite (an administrator who seemed to have forgotten a signature to the close) about it? I still have no idea in all the edits all over the place what is the problematic article edit at issue here (if any). I have zero idea of its a legitimate issue with both sources or just nonsense all around or what. The editor's conduct at Patna seems fine so I don't know what's going on and what sort of ban or block or protection if any is appropriate. As someone who deals with plenty of this caste idiocy, other admins aren't going to jump in if you don't make the discussion easier enough to follow than "here's an editor editing an caste issue, please help." It may be obvious to you what are reliable sources and what are people spouting unsourced dogma about every caste being kings and whatever nonsense de jour but ANI is basically fly-by-screen admins requests. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that useless commentary, Ricky81682. You clearly cannot see the wood for the trees; for example, the incomprehensibility is a part of the CIR problem with their edits. Please don't bother responding to me in future. - Sitush (talk) 06:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Don't be a dick to your fellow contributors. Someone asked you for some helpful followup information and you told them to piss up a rope. How does that help resolve anything? Protonk (talk) 16:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• That attitude is why reports like these goes straight into the archive without a comment and why admins don't care to get into the caste articles. The ones who do get attacked equally for asking for an explanation as much as they do from the trolls. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• Think whatever you like. I'll always think better when it comes to caste stuff. If you cannot see the blindingly obvious then that is not my fault. - Sitush (talk) 23:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• Think what better? Think that just naming people and saying "it's another caste issue" is going to get these things resolved? Were my questions so ridiculously out of place or offensive or something? I just asked if you spoke with the admin who closed the discussion and what is the actual source at issue (literally not one person once linked to it in the entire discussion section). I read the entire damn discussion, it was nutty as hell, but I don't know who Kumar is, I couldn't find the actual source everyone is arguing about (the entire argument is about a single word so it would be actually helpful to know what the hell everyone is complaining about). Another admin closed the discussion and didn't block Chrishitch which should mean something. You expect someone to just say "hey if Sitush says there's a caste article issue, well let me block him right now, there's no point in even seeing what the actual source anyone is talking about or asking what the admin who was involved there before did or didn't do or if anyone spoke to him, just go right in and be the bull in a china shop because no one should have to provide background information"? If those are the kinds of questions that require too much work to respond to, make you need to take a break from the subject matter. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• "I'm likely to lose my temper sooner rather than later, having kept a lid on it thus far." Sitush, how would we tell the difference and why should any of us give a rip if you do? Protonk (talk) 13:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Ricky81682 asked if I'd comment as I was the one who closed the discussion. I don't think a block is warrantied, yet. Chrishitch does have competency issues. Currently, Chrishitch is correcting grammar on multiple pages and causing the same amount of problems as they are correcting. When I closed the discussion, on Sitush's talk page I left, "I've closed the discussion as it was going nowhere. I'd highly suggest not to respond to them anymore." There is obvious meatpuppet or sockpuppet issues on that page which is why I did page protection. When it comes to Bhumihar, I think the best option is continued page protection if problems resume when current PP is lifted. As for Chrishitch, will need to keep an eye on them. A block will probably warranted if they continue down their current path. Bgwhite (talk) 23:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring, violation of sanctions, BLP violations

User:JudgeJason has been involved in edit warring at the BLP of British politician Jeremy Corbyn, by repeatedly inserting statements without consensus, using excuses such as " no reason given to exclude". The information is not relevant as it relates to unsubstantiated claims that Corbyn has received financial benefits from a legal charity. I have not reverted his most recent change to avoid a permanent edit war. I have repeatedly asked the editor to take the matter to talk. User:JudgeJason has already been warned by User:John over his edit warring and also advised of the WP:ARBPIA sanctions.

• User:JudgeJason is repeatedly inserting disputed material without consensus, such as here and here, despite this matter having been taken to talk with no consensus to include.
• These matters relate to WP:ARBPIA, and his conduct is in violation of those sanctions
• The information being inserted is a possibly violation of WP:BLP. The High Court has found claims that the legal charity support Hamas are seriously libellous. The Court found the Sunday Express guilty of libel for the same allegations now being made in a BLP.
• User:JudgeJason has used edit summaries such as "stop censoring inconvenient facts" and "and supports Hezbollah. don't censor", in further violation of BLP, when refusing to discuss this matter with other editors
• User:JudgeJason has a history of edit warring and politically-motivated edits, as his recent edits prove
• In addition, despite the High Court judgement, User:JudgeJason initially sought to link the charity, and Corbyn by association, to Hamas in Corbyn's BLP. AusLondonder (talk) 23:58, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, I have already sought to discuss this with JudgeJason on his talk page, however he has refused to revert his edits. AusLondonder (talk) 00:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for the ping. I have warned the user for continued aggressive editing. If he continues there will be a sanction. Should it be a topic ban or just escalating blocks? I lean towards the latter but I am open to others' opinions. --John (talk) 20:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not so sure. As far as I can see, AusLondonder is on a whitewashing exercise, repeatedly removing negative but well-sourced content ([238], [239], [240], [241], [242], [243]) and adding unsourced positive statements ([244], [245], [246] (source doesn't support most of the added sentence), [247], [248] (not supported by the source), [249], [250] (all apparently to a primary source, may be okay for this use I guess but RS would be much better), [251] (first part of sentence), [252] (UNDUE, and the Islington Gazette is, at best, on the very border of RS), [253] (last para unsourced), [254], [255] (marked as minor!), [256] (several portions not supported by the source, though probably all true enough)), not to mention one of those really, really WP:LAME slow-motion edit wars over whether it is necessary to mention that England is in the United Kingdom. I'd suggest that, at the very least, this complaint is brought with unclean hands, if not grounds for an outright WP:BOOMERANG. GoldenRing (talk) 10:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

User:GoldenRing, what an extraordinarily dishonest and disingenuous exercise in abuse.

• The first four of six items you mention as "repeatedly removing negative but well-sourced content" relate to this very issue being raised! No consensus had been found to include. With regards to the last two issues of "repeatedly removing negative but well-sourced content", that related to sensationalist wording taking the source out of context.
• Regarding "unsourced positive statements" I fail to see how #83 is unsourced - it is an article written by Corbyn himself! #84 was a reinstatement of removed content that I did not originally post, and not unsourced. #85 was, as my edit summary made clear, simply a revert of unexplained removal of content that I did not post
• With regards to #88 and #89 they are sourced per WP:ABOUTSELF and come from Corbyn's website. I cannot understand how #90 would need a direct source, as it is a summing-up of existing content.
• The Islington Gazette is a reliable source, and the local newspaper for Corbyn. Many MP articles have commentary on their expenses. The "parsimonious " comment was widely used in other sources. #92 is not unsourced, it comes from the interview cited in the paragraph directly above.
• Regarding #94, I think that was an encylopedic sentence putting the views into context. Not every single word needs a source directly next to it.
• I'm wondering whether #95 is a mistake, all the issues are clearly sourced. The "lame war" regarding England/UK relates to the repeated unexplained removal of UK birthplace without consensus and against convention
• Your personal attacks on me are very disappointing, given your misleading statements here. Other editors have clearly supported my position. I am not seeking to whitewash anything, the article contains details of his support for Sinn Fein and Argentine sovereignty over the Falklands. I'm seeking to ensure the article remains neutral and meets the policies of WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. I have commented regarding this on the Corbyn talkpage.
• The issue here is not about inclusion or not - it's an editor violating sanctions to push for the inclusion of material AGAINST talkpage consensus. AusLondonder (talk) 10:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• I'm glad you brought that up. What talkpage consensus? I see two editors (including yourself) arguing against inclusion and three (including myself) arguing for inclusion, but that discussion is a loooong way from 'consensus'. Or did you have something else in mind?
• To respond to your specific points:

• Since when did we need to seek consensus before including material? |This is what WP:BOLD is about, and reverting on the sole grounds that it lacks consensus is disruptive.
• 83 was a copy-paste error - should have been [257]. "however Corbyn opposes nuclear weapons in all circumstances" is unsourced. 84 ("Corbyn opposes segregation at such a young age") is not supported by the source cited, whether you inserted it originally or not.
• 88 and 89, well I think we more or less agree on this, though a secondary source would be better for someone who is going to be contentious.
• I'll cede the Islington Gazette, I'm not going to get into an argument here about whether it meets WP:RS. 92 - fair enough. It looks unsourced, my apologies.
• 94 - it seems a pointlessly positive addition to me. If it was on its own, I'd say meh, but as part of a pattern it's worrying.
• Your defence of 95 is a doosy - the source cited does not call him a socialist, does not mention poverty, does not state that he voted against introducing tuition fees, does not mention railways, and does not discuss taxation. What's left in your insertion that is supported by the cited source is that he voted against increases in tuition fees and supports nationalisation of some sort. If this is your approach to sourcing BLPs, we have a problem! Whether to mention that England is in the UK is one of those issues that has me saying, "Why do either of you care about this???" but I'm sure it has its place.
• I'm sure you are very disappointed - pointing it out here wasn't enough, apparently, and you felt the need to repeat your disappointment at my talk page - but, given the above, I'm happy to disappoint. Criticising your approach to sourcing is not a personal attack. GoldenRing (talk) 11:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Another deliberately misleading series of statements. "What talkpage consensus? I see two editors (including yourself) arguing against inclusion" - you didn't come until after I posted this issue at ANI!

• Consensus is required when a change is opposed by other editors - several editors including myself opposed the addition of this material. That is not disruptive.
• "Corbyn opposes nuclear weapons in all circumstance" is paraphrased from his article and his stance is well documented anyway in other sources at his BLP.
• Regarding 95, all the statements are important and factual and discussed in other sources. Most importantly, it is not libellous or in violation oof sanctions. AusLondonder (talk) 08:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Trivial issue - in what specific way are the edits which are presumably about Iran related to ARBPIA? I note the Raed Salah BLP has mentioned Corbyn for some years now, so the claim is not apparently regarded as contentious there. If the claim were that contentious, I would have thought someone would have removed it years ago. Nor does the editor at issue appear to make vast numbers of edits - surely the "problem" is not very great - nor does it appear to relate to ARBPIA with regard to the claims about Iran. By the way, by using the term "libellous" are you in any way implying that a lawsuit could or would be filed? I trust you have read WP:NLT which some might unfortunately applies whenever the clarion cry of "libel" is made. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

User constantly revert my edits...

Dear Administrators,

Recently I took care of few wikipages. I started to edit information on Mad Max (band) and Roland Bergmann (draft) pages. Unfortunately, constant interruptions and re-editing page by Walter Görlitz, is not allowing me to keep the pages valuable. I wrote in a comment of editing that a source provided by the user is not reliable, contains wrong and incomplete information. However, the user is keep putting the reference to the page. Please, do something with this!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_Max_(band)

Kind regards, WikiSilv

This is a request that's best made at the edit warring noticeboard. --w^{L<speak·check>} 05:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Not really. The issue is that the editor insists on removing what I believe to be a RS for a specific fact, the band's date of establishment. I have taken that up at WP:RSN as I requested of the other editor. WikiSilv has been drafting an article and put it up for acceptance, but the sources are poor and I have been notating the errors, and the article has improved, but the subject still fails WP:GNG. It appears that the other editor doesn't want help so I'll stay away from the draft article, but the other article, which was unsourced until recently, when I added sources, is a different problem. If I interpret correctly, WikiSilv wants to own the pages and not accept help from others. Not likely fodder for ANI, but the editor isn't a native English-speaker either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Seems like a normal ANI discussion. The solution may be full protection so that the editor has to work out sourcing things properly via talk page edit requests. Sounds more like a situation where the article should have been started in draftspace (doesn't solve WP:OWN but does keep it downplayed for now) and then brought here. Perhaps suggest that to User:WikiSilv? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the editor has tired of my suggestions and notices. Feel free to try. Might be a better case for WP:DRN? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:RFPP may be better. Is the band notable? Only this one seems like a reliable source. I was thinking AFD. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I would support an AfD there. A polite decline of Draft:Roland Bergmann might also be appropriate at this point. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:COP-related CfD closure review

Per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE I'd like a closure review on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 May 25#1st to 5th century BC births:

1. Trying to sort it out with the closer, to no avail: User talk:MER-C#Problem with closure of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 May 25#1st to 5th century BC births
2. Prior to that I had attempted to stop the bot implementing the closure, but the bot already had completed the task [258]

Problem with the CfD as closed: overrides WP:COPDEF and WP:SEPARATE by adding categories like Category:15 BC to biographical articles. I'm OK with merging BC "birth by year" categories in BC "birth by decade" categories, and recategorizing the affected biographical articles along these lines, not with the "dual upmerge" of "birth by year" categories in biographical articles to both a "birth by decade" and a "by year" category (e.g. [259]) while this is undesirable overcategorization ("birth by date" categories are covered by WP:COPDEF, "by year" categories are not), and makes the BC by year categories mixed people/non-people categories (not allowed by WP:SEPARATE).

I started removing "by year" categories (diff), which is uncontroversial per WP:COP, but there are too many and any cooperation of bot operators seems to be impossible as long as there's no apparent consensus this is indeed what should be done. Also Wikipedia:Bot policy#Categorization of people proved to be ineffective in this case (see Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval#ArmbrustBot 4)

@Marcocapelle: pinging initiator of the CfD to know their view whether they were aware about the COPDEF/SEPARATE issues when submitting the CfD, and if not, whether it would have made any difference when being aware? Same question to the others participating in the CfD: Peterkingiron, Vegaswikian and Ricky81682.

Tx for considering this. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Agreed that "dual upmerge" of "birth by year" categories in biographical articles to both a "birth by decade" and a "by year" category, would be highly undesirable. The non-birth year categories would be flooded with birth trivia, when they're suppose to contain other events, and have the births in a subcat.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
• I wasn't aware of any issues, for what it's worth in this stage. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Similar

The closure at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 May 30#1st to 6th century BC deaths has the same problem, I notified bot operator [260] and closing admin [261] of the topic being discussed here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Too late – contents already merged, see WP:CFDWM. At least we can hold off deletion of the old categories. – Fayenatic London 17:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Forward

Are we in agreement about these points:

1. The closures of MER-C on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 May 25#1st to 5th century BC births and of Fayenatic london on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 May 30#1st to 6th century BC deaths are undone, in view of the WP:COP incompatibility;
2. The recategorizations and (partial) category deletions resulting from the now suspended closures are undone by bot
3. Marcocapelle or whoever thinks this a good idea are of course at liberty to resubmit a similar CfD that keeps within the provisions of WP:COP.

I'd agree with a simple removal of "year" categories on biographical articles by bot, but as this may lead to other issues, I think it best to fully retract our steps to the situation "ante", and take it from there. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• I would have no objection against removing them from "year" categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The consensus was a double upmerge. If the bios may not be categorised in the year categories, the other contributors may prefer to revert to the old births-by-year categories, rather than remove biographies from the year hierarchy altogether. Removing the bios from the year cats may make it harder to revert, as we would then not be able simply to reverse the contribs of Armbrustbot – which would be quite an arduous task on its own. – Fayenatic London 17:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
• Are we in agreement then to close this thread on the three points I outlined above? --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Subtropical-man

I propose that Subtropical-man be topic-banned from all matters concerning deletion of pages concerning pornography, including in particular the removal of PROD nominations.
Subtropical-man rather volubly disagrees with the revisions to WP:PORNBIO enacted early last year, despite their being supported by an "overwhelming consensus among experienced editors." He has, for more than a year, expressed his disagreement by objecting to virtually all proposed deletion nominations of porn performer articles, without regard to the merits of the nominations, with uncommunicative edit summaries. (Examples: [262], [263], [264], [265], [266]. A full listing would require significant work by an administrator, because most of the deprodded articles have gone to AFD and been deleted uncontroversially, removing the relevant edit history from public view.) This indiscriminate PROD removal has led to scores of unnecessary AFDs, leading to complaints about the volume. See comments on @Spartaz:'s talk page here [267]. Subtropical-man's behavior in the resulting and related AFDs has also been disruptive, in recent months including:

• False accusations of personal attacks for criticism of his arguments Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katrina Kraven
• Striking comments by other editors (in this case, @Tarc:) [268]
• Ridiculously tendentious arguments ("how do I know if current WP:PORNBIO is not prank by some IP?") [269]
• False (and rather obviously false) accusation of topic ban violations Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shane Diesel (this AFD is messy, but see my comment here [270]
• Harassing an editor he disagreed with by refiling an SPI claim without providing any new evidence, after the initial claim was rejected "in the absence of actual evidence". [271] (original); [272] (refile)

The length and range of misbehaviour is striking, but the indiscriminate, WP:POINTY deprodding is itself enough to justify the topic ban. Subtropical-man has pretty clearly acknowledged that his PROD removals are not made in any good faith dispute over the subject's notability under the applicable guidelines, but to force interminable rearguments about the applicable SNG every time an effort is made to enforce it [273][274]. And "arguments" like "how do I know if current WP:PORNBIO is not prank by some IP?" would never be made by a reasonable, good faith user. Eighteen months of this has proved far too disruptive and wasted far too much of the community's time, and it's time for it to stop. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban Subtropical man !votes indiscriminately "keep" at all discussions without checking out, pondering and evaluating the actual merit of any particular subject, and thus doesn't add anything of value to the discussion. Kraxler (talk) 17:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support Borderline WP:DE - editor should take this as a warning a think themselves lucky it's not going to harsher terms, such as a block. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
• Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography/Deletion, see links to AfD pages from 2014. I voted only in part, not in all AfD about pornography. In many Afd pages I don't vote, if the article was weak or person are not notable. If a person are notable, in my opinion, I voting for keep. Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) wrote: "This indiscriminate PROD removal has led to scores of unnecessary AFDs" - solution of problem: please stop try removed very many pornography articles. My WP:DEPRODs are problem? I did it only a dozen times. AfD is necessary for many articles, instead speedy delection (without discussion), for example: Dee (actress). Why deprod [275]? Please see article, this article is extensive, has a sources, image, 5x interwiki. And speedy delection? No, should be discussion. Please Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography/Deletion, almost always vote for delete the same users: The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo), Spartaz, Gene93k, Davey2010, Tarc; other users very rarely vote. Now they're trying do topic banned for opposition. Subtropical-man talk
  (en-2) 18:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban - I'm not at all a fan of "Sub-tropicalman's" dePRODing of articles without improvement (I've tried to treat PRODs in the past like actual AfDs without needed the discussion), but the actual PROD guidelines technically allow for that kind of editing behavior: "Any editor may object to the deletion by simply removing the tag" and "To object to and therefore permanently prevent a proposed deletion, remove the 'proposed deletion/dated' tag from the article. You are encouraged, but not required, to" (emphasis mine).

Not all of the above evidence actually shows disruptive behavior either IMO, since Jennifer Luv & Babysitters (film) both won some likely major awards, the Shane Diesel AfD (and resulting DRV) was a huge mess that was mostly caused by a voluminous sockpuppet ("Redban"), and those supposed "bogus" SPI reports yielded some actual, needed results on that front.

What's mostly, really going on here at this time is that some are trying to engage in some (rapid?) "trimming of the fat" from many of the pornography-related BLPs on Wikipedia, which pleases some & possibly upsets some others. In any event, it is what it is... Guy1890 (talk) 02:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - If I see one more thread here about conduct issues involving pornography, I will propose that pornography be placed under community general sanctions to get a few of the pro-porn and a few of the anti-porn editors topic-banned. For now, try being civil about pornography, even though some of you love it and some of you hate it. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban - The deprodding although annoying isn't really that bad, It's the !voting that I'm concerned with, Sub Man has a habit of simply putting "Notable" or "per above" [276][277][278][279][280][281][282][283][284][285][286] and or on occasions will Keep "per nominations"[287][288][289][290][291][292][293][294] (Despite being told nominations don't count inregards to PORNBIO), It's simply distruptive and despite being guided more than once he's simply ignored everyone and continued regardless so personally feel Topic banning is the right move here. –Davey2010^Talk 19:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: generally, opinion by opposition of Subtropical-man i.e: The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo), Spartaz, Gene93k, Davey2010, Tarc (who always vote differently than Subtropical-man) is clear. The opposition is opposition. Welcome are the opinions of other users, neutral users. Subtropical-man talk
  (en-2) 21:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. Since you are bringing me in, that "opposition" to your keep votes is the application of consensus guidelines that you reject wholesale and challenging of arguments not supported by facts. • Gene93k (talk) 22:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) and Davey2010. I agree with opinion by user Robert McClenon (above), there are two sides in case: pro-porn and anti-porn editors, if topic-banned for pro-porn side, must to be also for anti-porn side. Anti-porn editors are responsible for remove hundreds of articles, they vote for the removal in all AfD pages about pornography in the last period. The length and range of misbehaviour is striking (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pornography/Deletion#Closed) and their actions can be considered as destructive to Wikipedia. Previously, user Раціональне анархіст (Pax) and earlier user Redban who very many porn-articles marked to deletion got topic-ban (in AN/I). These users doing the same thing, so. Subtropical-man talk
  (en-2) 21:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I am not seeing the type or depth of disruption that justifies community sanctions here. Without a whole lot more diffs on actionable misbehavior this does not seems like something that should be up for proposal. Proponents, please add more specific history about earlier issues, diffs, interventions, earlier admin actions, etc. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose There doesn't seem to be a great deal of disruptive behavior going on. Simply objecting to an AfD, even a poorly thought out objection, isn't worthy of a topic ban. Looking at his contribution log doesn't show any sort of edit warring or other. His English seems fairly broken so some of his replies come off strangely. I don't see anything on WP:DRN (which would seem a more appropriate venue for this) and no one has apparently tried talking to him (all I see on his talk page is a nomination for a userspace deletion Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Subtropical-man/Catfight by the same person who brought this ANI). According to WP:DDE ANI is one of the last resorts, not the first.--Savonneux (talk) 11:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Although Subtropical-man's rationales for !keep in various porn-related articles don't always adhere to the current version of WP:PORNBIO (for example, nominations alone), I still think a topic ban is a little premature; in addition, as Guy1890 pointed out, deprodding an article without reason actually is allowed per WP:DEPROD. But to be honest, Robert McClenon's suggestion makes the most sense; and if it came to a topic ban at all with the current behavior that's going on on both sides of the pornography issue ("angry" arguments on the pro-porn side and the anti-porn side), sanctions should be given out to people on both sides of the issue, not just one side (whom those people should be, though, should be determined in their own respective threads, if necessary). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 23:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Although he only votes "delete" 4 or 5 percent of the time and "keep" 95% of the time, I find no reason to debar him from voicing his opinions in a civil manner at XfD discussions. Any more than I would debar those who vote to delete, say, 80% of the time. Wikipedia has enough people that we can afford some "inclusionists" and some "deletionists" to exist, I trust. That noted, I tend to prefer seeking some level of balance in my own positions, but grant forbearance to those who have different mileage. Collect (talk) 23:55, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

childish personal attacks in edit summary - can some administrator remove it?

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

---

I have been subjected to a rather childish personal attack in an edit summary - see [295]. Can some administrator strike out that offensive edit summary comment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brad Dyer (talk • contribs) 17:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz: ? General Ization ^Talk 18:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me, General Ization. I suppose it's okay in Brad's book to say that an editor's messages and edit summaries are false, they are a wikilawyer, and their editing is pointy and disruptive[296]—but heaven forbid you say it in an edit summary. Talk about chutzpah! I'll strike the edit summary if it makes him happy, but it won't erase his WP:COPYVIO from the record. That's the real issue here. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, please strike out that edit summary. but not because it will make me happy , but because it is a violation of wikipedia policy, and all editors need to follow policy, including you. Brad Dyer (talk) 17:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Best to avoid calling editors sick in the head, if at all possible, when they misrepresent a source.

Malik, do you know if this editor makes a habit of misrepresenting sources? That is, is Brad Dyer an egregiously tendentious editor, or is this just a one-off error on his behalf? I see a fair bit of Jew/Muslim editing in his history. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I think you are bit confused here. Malik's complaint was that I followed the source too closely, to the point of copyright violation, not that I misrepresented a source. Something I have not done (ever, to the best of my knowledge).

You said something was current, based on a 7-year-old (?) source. I've been sampling your article edits and, although you have a clear personal bias, I haven't found any serious problems. You both need to work on your interaction style, though. Hard to do in such a hot-button arena I know, but in the long run it'll serve you well. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Will do. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Malik has indicated he is willing to strike the edit summary, but has so far failed to do so. Is there any administrator who can step up and remove this childish personal attack? Brad Dyer (talk) 20:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I've deleted the edit summary. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Help with COI-SPA sock/meat farm (Spanish-speaking admin a plus)

I have been playing Whack-a-mole across enWP and esWP with a COI-SPA sock/meat farm for about 3 weeks now over articles and content related to Daniel Múgica. There was a round of blocks after an SPI in enWP, and similar blocks and protections in esWP based off of the same SPI, but they keep coming back for more. There is an ongoing conversation at Talk:Generation X with 81.39.202.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) who is the admitted owner of indef-blocked account (on both esWP and enWP) DMDHA1967 (talk · contribs). I could use some help from an admin, preferably one who speaks Spanish, and has cross-wiki powers if such a thing exists. If not I can coordinate again with esWP to take care of the newer accounts over there, but need some help here on enWP.

The whole story, with diffs and links to SPI, is documented here.

Thanks, Vrac (talk) 21:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Protection on Daniel Múgica expired last night, today a new ip 83.41.209.191 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) re-made here a bunch of edits previous made by blocked users DMDHA1967 (talk · contribs), Alejandriya (talk · contribs), etc.... Vrac (talk) 21:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Another new account: Mundoviejoycansado (talk · contribs) appeared today making the same edits as 83.41.209.191 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) that were reverted by another editor yesterday. Can someone please re-protect the Daniel Múgica article? Vrac (talk) 14:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Now there's another one: Mikel nieto (talk · contribs) and we're in a revert war, someone, anyone give a little help here? Vrac (talk) 19:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Repeated removal of properly sourced material by Giantsofnigeria on the Muhammadu Buhari page

• Giantsofnigeria (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) repeatedly suppresses encyclopedic information about the Nigerian government's policy in the early 1960s of sending NMTC cadets to non Nigerian (mostly Commonwealth ) military academies for officer training. When you examine the history of updates to Muhammadu Buhari 's page, you'll see an almost tone deaf and stubborn position that Giantsofnigeria assumes. Giantsofnigeria deleted references to NMTC's upgrade and the government policy of sending cadets abroad until Giantsofnigeria checked the Google books link for one of the references I provided. Unfortunately not all references are on Google Books like Dan Agbese's book (which is also cited and gives the example of Ibrahim Babangida who was sent by the Nigerian government to the Indian Military Academy for his officer training after completing his preliminary NMTC training. India is a Commonwealth country and obviously isn't England so Giantsofnigeria's categorical assertion that NMTC cadets were only sent to England is narrow minded and false. There's also the account from Paul Ogbebor that Giantsofnigeria repeatedly deletes and where Ogbebor clearly notes that NMTC cadets were sent to military academies abroad for officer training. I believe more than sufficient information exists (through the 3 reference notes) to put a stop to Giantsofnigeria's tone deaf position to the presentation of factual information and wrongful removal of relevant and encyclopedic information which is against the Wikipedia ethos.

Thank you, Kunkuru (talk) 10:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

You misquote footnote 1&2 p235 of the reference book cited (The Nigerian Military a Sociological Analysis of Authority & Revolt 1960-1967 By Robin Luckham), the footnotes on page 235properly states:

footnote 1: The preliminary selection and training courses for officers cadet had been at the African command training school at teshie in ghana. Cadets passing out from this school(and later from the NMTC) were sent to England for further training at sandhurst, Eaton Hall or Mons

footnote2 which I quoted states: The Defence Academy established in 1964 provided a full three years cadet training, unlike NMTC, which only provided preliminary training prior to the sending of cadets to England

Wikipedia can personally contact the Nigerian Army or Nigeria Defence Academy for clarification, who will tell them that prior to 1964 cadets where sent to England for training. Prior to 1964 graduate officers were sent for courses worldwide by NMTC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giantsofnigeria (talk • contribs) 12:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

It's not Wikipedia's job to contact anyone. It is the job of the user seeking to add material that has been disputed to cite a reliable source to support that material.--ukexpat (talk) 13:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• It's not immediately clear why this needs to be in the article. The info is on p232 of the book mentioned above, where it states that in 1961 the first officer was sent to a staff training course outside the UK (at Pakistan Staff College, Quetta), and by 1963, training was carried out in Australia, Canada, Ethiopia, India, Pakistan and the USA, as well as Britain. The NDA, opened in 1964, was "staffed and organised by a military mission from India." West Germany provided training and planes for the newly established air force after 1964. I would oppose the vague wording "mostly Commonwealth", unless of course it is used by sources. Before adding this to the article, perhaps you should elaborate on the significance to Buhari. zzz (talk) 16:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC) Ps: For future reference, you should not use this notice board unless your editing account has been open for several years. I replied only because I read the article and happened to spot your disagreement, otherwise this would have been ignored, since both your accounts are new. zzz (talk) 15:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Threats, aspersion-casting, etc. by Doc9871

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

---

I don't mind a spirited debate, but this is way across the WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA line, and has been for some time. I and others have tried to dissuade Doc9871 (talk · contribs) from making an action like this necessary, and my skin is very thick, but this behavior can't go on. I shudder to think if this is habitual across his other editing. Kind of a afraid to look.

• Threat/intimidation, followed by an explicit promise to engage in WP:WIKILAWYERing: [297]

  "Ask around if I am one to quarrel with. I will "Wikilawyer" you, and really good. You don't have to like me: you have to reckon with me."

  (while obviously not a threat on my life or anything, it's clearly a threat to WP:HARASS.
• Followed immediately by a veiled threat to attempt to use my having a block log to pursue action against me: [298]. He did this in response to my observation that he was making threats and promises to disrupt; this is strong evidence of self-righteous recalcitrance. He's also done it before to others; diffs below.
• This was all after third parties had asked him to stop, e.g. [299]
• Previous vow to WP:BATTLEGROUND "until the bitter end" (a promise he is keeping, to date): [300]
• Personal attacks (among many others going back through this entire debate, against multiple parties, both at the WP:MR discussion and at the WP:RM, and earlier at same essay talk page): [301][302]
• Absurd accusation of abuse of my admin status (I'm not an admin): [303]
• Assumption and accusation of bad faith: [304]
• Assumption and accusation of bad faith and conspiracy: [305]
• False accusation of "repeatedly" and "against consensus" engaging in "edit-warring" to restore the version of the essay that resulted from the decision of the closer of the move discussion [306]; in actual fact, I put it back one time, for procedural reasons: [307], as did someone else later [308], after multiple admins (and a non-admin) at the MR commented that such actions are counterproductive/disruptive, both before and after he started revertwarring: [309] [310] [311]
• False accusations of personal attacks by others: [312] [313]; another observes that this tactic is being used in an attempt to WP:WIN a content dispute, not just with regard to this RM/MR: [314].
• False accusation of WP:GAMING to get the page deleted: [315]; it's actually Doc971 who keeps agitating for deletion (see below).
• Proud, uncivil insistence that these tactics are justified because he got a convert in the MR discussion: [316]
• The attack-and-threat pattern by Doc9871 pre-dates this debate, but seems to surround his involvement with this essay (no opinion about other editing areas; I'm not contribs-stalking him): [317] [318] [319], as does his repeatedly-expressed feeling that he's essentially immune from any repercussions as long as the other party has a block log: [320] [321] [322] [323] [324]. The cure for this is pretty obvious, especially since he's keeping right at it despite requests to stop, while I was writing this: [325], and his responses to the requests to stop were a flippant "See WP:CON" [326] and escalation of his intimidation tactics [327].

And a whole lot more ...

WP:GAMING / WP:FILIBUSTERING and disruption of an MR in progress, first by retroactively declaring a one-editor lack of consensus [328], reverting to his version when half the ongoing MR discussion is about whether the closer's decision to use the version that matched the new title should be endorsed or overturned [329], revertwarring to restore his version [330] (note the additional personal attack, and blaming me for the closing admin's decision to use a version I drafted that better matches the new page name, a version I wrote at Doc9871's own prompting), and more revertwarring to stop anyone else from editing the essay [331]. While this has been slow enough to not trigger WP:3RR, I submit that it's "slow editwarring" and rather WP:OWNy, as well as disruptive of the ongoing MR – much discussion there has turned to this revertwarring instead of focusing on the endorse/overturn on the merits of the close, the second of two that found consensus to move ([332] "rough consensus to move", relisting to pick a name; [333] full close, finding consensus to move to specific title and rescope; later sent to MR). The entire process has been mired in Doc9871's general battleground / WP:WINNING attitude [334] [335], and denigration of anyone who disagrees with him as full of "p.c. bullshit", "p.c. handwringing", "p.c. crap", "p.c. patrol feel-good smackdown" (whatever that means), etc. [336], [337], [338], [339], [340]; this has been going on since mid-June: [341], [342] [343] [344]. Even if one takes the view that concerns about gendered epithets aren't valid, the bulk the RM discussion was actually about the counter-productivity of the essay essentially being an attack page instead of an advice page, so this "p.c." stuff of his is a red herring. This is all compounded by a consistent WP:POINT pattern of demanding that the essay in question just be deleted if it won't be his WP:RIGHTVERSION.[345] [346] [347], and concedes that his version is problematic despite his defenses of it [348]. This action was in the same vein: [349] [350], and produced precisely the expected disruption, a whole thread about editwarring and misleading tagging. This is all deeply bound up with what Doc9871 is certain this essay is for: helping editors label and denigrate other editors as "divas", specifically meaning some kind of incurable "type" of mental defective "not capable of changing", a diagnosis that seems to not exist anywhere in psychology or psychiatry: [351] [352] [353] [354]. I'm not the only one to observe this, e.g.: [355] [356] [357] [358], many of the comments in favor of the rename remark on the "attack page" style of the essay.

For my part:

Extended content

I've been quite critical of Doc9871's reasoning and behavior throughout, but that doesn't constitute personal attacks. I've repeatedly sidestepped his pointed attempts to goad me into making one. Here, I criticized my own behavior as well as Doc's: [359] In response to his accusations, I've pointed out that my concerns about his reverting were procedural and anti-disruption, not content-based, and that I wished to avoid unproductive drama [360] (this was also the basis of my own sole revert at the essay: [361], and I reiterated the issue here [362]). Rather than have a positive effect, this lead directly and immediately to Doc9871's threat and wikilawyering vow in the first diff above; my being conciliatory and expressing an interest in staying away from noticeboards was interpreted as a sign of weakness to exploit. I'm not depending on any particular outcome at MR/RM, other than consensus against the current name, and expect either a re-opening for RM round 3, or an essay fork, followed by a probable merge discussion. I redrafted the essay to demonstrate that it would not be difficult [363], because a rescope was thought to be needed [364], and I also noted it would resolve four dispute threads at once [365]. Doc9871 repeatedly demanded that I write my own version [366] [367], but has reacted with shock and indignation that I did so [368] [369] [370], and doesn't seem to distinguish between me writing it and the closer using it (because no one but Doc objected to it). Note that Doc himself has directly, not in a sandbox, rewritten the essay extensively without consensus, in a flurry of changes from 5 Sep – 14 Oct 2012: [371], but sees no WP:KETTLE problem with slamming me for having done what he asked, cautiously in a sandbox page. I don't much care what name it's at, as long as it's not sexist or phrased as an attack/labeling exercise. The one it was moved to is a variant (without the "don't feed" part) of Doc9871's own suggestion [372] [373], agreed to by his principal opponent in the debate (which isn't me) [374], and which won me over as well, among others. One editor thought my own one-time reversion to the closer's version of the page was "disruptive" for some reason: [375]

In Doc's defense:

• His was not the only incivility in this discussion, as I pointed out and as Alakzi hatted later: [376]
• I've also defended Doc's refusal to provide examples of editors he thinks "are divas", despite someone else's requests for "proof", since providing them would be uncivil at best. [377]
• Update: He appears to have logged off by the time I posted this, so a block would just be punitive instead of preventative, unless similar behavior resumes when he returns. These actions should not go unaddressed, though. And if does resume, I'm asking for a one-way interaction ban, given the intimidation/harassment threats. 14:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I will notify the subject and the other editors whose diffs I've included, immediately after saving this post, but no other parties connected to the background dispute in question. This about behavior, not content, titles, or bureaucracy.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC) Updated: 14:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

An unbelievable waste of time. I've done SPI's that are more detailed, but that was for the actually "disruptive" types. RFC/U, perhaps? Drafted. Doc talk 08:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:RFC/U doesn't exist any more except as {{Historical}}.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

• I saw a comment a while ago that any time you see the phrase "political correctness" you should replace it with "treating people with respect" and see what that does to the sense of the comment. Thus we see:

I will fight this PC nonsense until the bitter end. Doc talk 05:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Which, applying my rule, gives us:

I will fight this treating people with respect nonsense until the bitter end.

I think that tells us all we need to know. If someone wants to defend essays that don't treat people with respect, that's fine, just not on Wikipedia. Wikipedia essays are designed to help epople avoid problematic behaviour, not to attack people, still less attack them on the basis of any specific attribute.

That is why there was, to my reading, absolutely clear consensus that a title based on "diva" was inappropriate for the essay under debate. Other admins should certainly wander along and look at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2015 August#WP:Don't feed the divas and look at the comments, many of whihc are less than stellar examples of Wikipedian behaviour. Guy (Help!) 12:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Addendum: I have no opinion at all on whether those who commented in the move debate were right or not - I didn't read the old version, I simply judged the discussion, and, as noted at the move review, once you discount the obvious WP:ILIKEIT and other such non-policy-based support, the consensus against the previous title is clear. Guy (Help!) 12:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• (Full disclosure: I was notified of this discussion by SMc, I participated in the RM in an administrative capacity, I voted at the MRV.) Having had the MRV on my watchlist since it began, I would agree with the assessment that Doc's comments there have gone beyond what could be considered spirited debate. That said, I think a block would probably be overkill for this. Doc has had more than his fair say at the MRV, so what probably needs to happen is for an uninvolved admin to tell him to lay off and let others have their say without being badgered. If he persists after that then either block or (better, probably) implement a very narrow topic ban from WP:DIVA-related pages. Jenks24 (talk) 12:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with Jenks24 and have implemented his suggestion. I also agree with JzG. --John (talk) 13:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Doc is definitely being his own worst enemy. He seems not to understand that civility, and letting the discussion proceed without his constant commentary and interference, would quickly gain his desired outcome, whereas his behaviors are rapidly decreasing the likelihood of that happening. That said, I very strongly do not think Doc's actions should impede the calculation of the consensus, either on the RM or the MVR. The consensus seems to be that the RM result was closed inaccurately. And I also see that, above, JzG is equating "PC nonsense" with "treating people with respect" (and put it in boldface), which is very worrisome (evidently this is his personal rule), and probably indicative of why he should not have closed the RM. If he is basing his decisions on his personal rules rather than WP:CONSENSUS, he should definitely not be closing RMs, in my opinion. Softlavender (talk) 13:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree this should not affect the MR. I did not post about this ANI filing at the MR, or the essay page. But we also needn't try to reargue why we think the MR should go this way or that, or what the ultimate consensus there might be. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• I've also voted on both and was notified of this discussion because I was quoted in a diff. That said, I agree with Jenks24. I tried to intervene last night when I saw repeated changes on the DIVA page and some personal attacks in the edits summaries. It seemed to have worked a bit but the edit warring continued. Hopefully my RPP was fulfilled (have yet to check). That said, I'd also encourage SMcCandlish to step back from the rmv at this point. In my opinion, both Candlish and Doc were engaging in BLUDGEON. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 14:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. I have no particular objection to a "reopen" result, anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• One-way interaction ban? "Narrow" topic ban? You want to muzzle me because I am going against this politically correct bunch of utter nonsense? Predictable as heck. This has needlessly been turned into an issue that cannot be defended without being painted as a villain. It's ridiculous. I'm a big boy, and I can voluntarily stop "badgering" the endorsers (whose ranks are swelling with my haters thanks to this attempt at punishing me for standing up for the CON policy). My first ever AN/I thread. I guess I should feel honored. Doc talk 01:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • No, we want to you stop making harassment threats and personal attacks, obviously, but you just did it again. No one cares what your exact position is about some RM. If you feel that you have "haters", well, cf. previous sentence. Care was taken to insulate the MR from this ANI action. If it's going against your position, it's because the twice-found consensus to rename (even if not about what the final name should be) is being confirmed, and you've been your own cause's worst enemy by consistently attacking people for disagreeing with you about it. See also self-fulfilling prophecy.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban: Given that Doc9871 was just administratively warned on his talk page drop this stick or be subject to a topic ban and/or block, but instead came immediately back here to label and denigrate other editors in the same dispute with the same "politically correct bunch of utter nonsense" pointless insults, a topic ban at least is clearly in order. If he does it again, at least a short-term block is called for. There are no WP:VESTED editors who get a free pass for defiant, unrepentent incivility just because they've been around a while.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose as unnecessary. I have already said I would voluntarily stop "badgering" people on the talk page. A topic ban would basically only cover the one page only, correct? It's not a "topic" in the way topic bans are handed out. I will have to point out that I have never been blocked for anything here, and topic bans usually occur after disruption is severe enough that blocks have already been issued. Meh. I am allowed to have opinions, and I am allowed to respond here, especially when I'm on trial. Doc talk 23:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Topic bans (sometimes with expiration dates) are quite often used as alternatives to blocks, not the other way around, because they have far less impact on the editor. Badgering on the talk page is not what this ANI is about (though someone raised it as an additional concern); this ANI is about civility. The fact that you're still WP:NOTGETTINGIT is cause for concern. PS: Your "politically correct bunch of utter nonsense" insult was directed at your opponents in the RM/MR discussion, not at respondents to this ANI; it's precisely what the warning on your talk page said not to do.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
    • You think this is my first day here? You talking down to me is ratcheting things up. Shut. Up. I don't like you, and I don't need you lecturing me. If you keep badgering my remarks, a two-way interaction ban is looking like the more correct solution. So stop it. Doc talk 00:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Tribscent08 and Universal Medicine

Universal Medicine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is an Australian cult. Tribscent08 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been credibly identified as associated with that cult, but does not acknowledge the COI. 100% of Tribscent08's edits are related to that article, and many of them are endless repetitions of rejected querulous demands. Neutrality requires the involvement of multiple points of view, but it's my view that Tribscent08, one of a series of WP:SPAs involved wiht that article, is not helping. I suggest that a topic ban would be in order. Guy (Help!) 12:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for reasons stated above. 79616gr (talk) 14:36, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
• I would in general prefer to see Pseudoscience and other topics covered by ArbCom discretionary sanctions dealt with at Arbitration Enforcement, a more efficient and less contentious process than here, but since we are here, Support topic ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
• Neutral (procedurally) for now see later post below: oppose action beyond admonition at this time: What's the evidence?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

  To clarify, I'm not contradicting or supporting the original poster's position on what's happening. I just can't fathom why there's an ANI open making specific allegations without even any diffs to back them up, and yet people are "voting" to take punitive actions based on nothing but an unsupported allegation. Notwithstanding the subject editor's quasi-confessional below, that is not the proper way to do an ANI filing, much less respond to one.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Seconded; SPA is evident, but not on first inspection the COI. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support DS (preferably) or topic ban. Miniapolis 23:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. User doggedly refuses to acknowledge the cult's unethical behaviours, and appears determined to manipulate the article to further obscure the organization's convoluted financial structure. Disputed issues are consistent with the cult's public protestations of "media bias" and "trolling" by official complainants and government bodies, so COI/meat puppetry is impossible to rule out. Persistently recycles resolved & archived issues. Disruption appears deliberate. XRii (talk) 23:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support Reviewing Special:Contributions/Tribscent08 shows that the OP is correct. It's one thing for a person to be an SPA on, say, birds because that is their interest, but being an SPA on an alternative medicine and religious organisation providing "esoteric healing" products, music, publications, workshops and courses is not desirable for the encyclopedia. The long posts at Talk:Universal Medicine suck up time and energy from non-SPA editors. Johnuniq (talk) 00:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, as both SMcCandlish and Georgewilliamherbert noted, there is no evidence other than being a SPA is shown. Are there any diffs to support the call for a topic ban? GregJackP Boomer! 08:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Evidence is a pattern of Talk page edits pestering with the same grievances as a declared COI editor Choose12. These include repeated requests to remove reference to the cult leader's bankruptcy, and repeating Choose12's claims there's no evidence of unethical behaviour - when the article itself, and the numerous referenced articles from a dozen independent media organizations, plus material on the cult's own websites, indicates a plethora of unethical activity. The editor's inability to distinguish unethical behaviour and repeat attempts to whitewash financial information directly echoes the cult's online propaganda. Tribescent08 refuses to address whether he or she has contributed to the propaganda sites. Those of us who have researched this group have found the cult has at least 30 websites (dozens more Facebook pages etc.), and it relies on a "Facts Team" of propagandists, as well as "investors" to provide the material for a dozen or more blogs. All investors are religious devotees to the leader and most blog contributors have financial or business ties to the organization. Questions or corrections from non followers is prohibited These are examples of edits where Tribescent repeated the insistence there's "no evidence" of unethical behaviour having waited for discussions to be archived. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Universal_Medicine&diff=670252225&oldid=670008491 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Universal_Medicine&diff=next&oldid=647134493 I could pull out more instances. The following link is an example of one of the propaganda pages attacking an official complainant and a News Ltd journalist http://universalmedicinefacts.com/somewhere-in-a-galaxy-far-far-away-jane-hansen-might-find-her-integrity/ Frankly, anyone who can't see problems with this business is certainly a religious follower/investor. XRii (talk) 09:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks. That's helpful.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Reviewing. His main point at [378] is actually valid; dwelling on some WP:BLP subject's bankruptcy 20-ish years ago in the lead of another article raises WP:UNDUE / WP:POV issues. The "no official findings have found Serge Benhayon guilty of any one crime or in breach of any serious misdoings" also has merit, if it's true. His second post at [379] makes the same point more clearly: We're repeating allegations made in the media, but [he says] there are no actual convictions or other real-world evidence. These seems to be valid concerns, even if there could be some ulterior motive for raising them. I agree that this is a WP:FRINGE group, but that doesn't magically suspend WP:V and WP:BLP policies with regard to the topic and people associated with it. If there are legal/regulatory findings of fact behind the media allegations, then citing them directly along with the media stuff would appear to be the resolution.

      I agree that this is clearly a single-purpose account, and that it is probably but not demonstrably one with an undeclared connection to the organisation (and perhaps we can assume one at this point per WP:DUCK). Some of the sourcing attempts by this party have been quite poor (local articles about swimming awards?). That said, not every edit to the article or its talk page have been non-constructive. E.g., XRii agreed that one of the funding-related sources that Tribscent08 flagged as unreliable was in fact unreliable. Some of his copyediting suggestions, e.g. to more closely follow the source and say "The cost of Universal Medicine’s treatments, courses and retreats, for some individuals over a period of years, are reported to be in the tens of thousands of Australian dollars", don't appear to be out of line, either. On the other hand, I also saw deletion of sourced material, and am not sure there's a consensus for that.[380]. As much I'm generally in favor of restraining FRINGE COIs, there's insufficient evidence of disruption, and the article is actually being improved in response to the editor's concerns, even if he's being a bit of a pain in the butt to get them, and may have non-neutral motives (several other editors clearly do as well, in the other direction, even beyond WP:FRINGE skepticism and due-weight balancing). Tribescent's denialism with regard to facts sourced to the organisation's own materials has to stop.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

      • But this is the problem of Tribescent's disrupts. For the third time I have to point out to Wiki eds News Ltd reported that a patient had spent $35K on treatment from a doctor working at the UM clinic in Goonellabah, who also referred the patient to esoteric "healers". It was confirmed in a second article referenced that News Ltd had viewed the receipts. So the tens of thousands is correct. The bankruptcy is not given undue weight because the cult's current publicity states that the leader was financially successful at the time he started Universal Medicine. News Ltd found he had just come out of bankruptcy. So Tribescent and colleagues are attempting to make Wikipedia perpetuate the cult mythology. Benhayon may not have convictions - possibly due to the group's extraordinary bullying of complainants - but there is no dispute that the group's behaviour is unethical. All covered on the Talk page. In terms of real world evidence, they do a good job of incriminating themselves. It can be found with minimal research. For instance their defence of photographs of inappropriate touching they call healing on this page - which another site reveals to be inflicted on sexual abuse victims: http://universalmedicinefacts.com/esther-rockett-byron-bay-acupuncturist-engineering-fear-from-brainwashing-to-false-child-abuse-claims-part-2-lies-about-sexual-abuse-and-incest/ I agree not all of Tribesent's edits have been hostile, but the overall agenda is to disrupt and exasperate. Personally I will be keeping this as a SPA because in the course of my research I've concluded they are highly dangerous. XRii (talk) 12:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I hate to have to not quite play devil's advocate here. The "was he really successful, or bankrupt?" point doesn't seem valuable in the lead. It's kind of trivial. Does anyone know or care how large L. Ron Hubbard's bank account was at the exact moment the started what became the CoS? There doesn't seem to be a dispute about whether this guy was broke or not, just about dwelling on it in the lead of the organization article. Even if consensus says "keep it there", it's not disruptive to have questioned its placement. If Tribescent harangues about it again and again after a clear consensus emerges to keep it in the lead, then that would be an actionable WP:DE issue. Tribescent also isn't challenging the "tens of thousands" figure, but challenging the summarization being worded in a way that suggests 10K+ expenditures are common, when the sources don't actually say that; it's a legitimate WP:NOR point about extrapolating one sourced case into a general statement (or implication the reader is being lead to infer), unless I'm missing something. Tribescent's wording on that appears to be more accurate, even if some of their other edits, and general approach, are less constructive. Re: Unethical/incriminating: If it can, in reliable sources, be "found with minimal research", then just cite it, and the issue goes away. I'm approaching this from the viewpoint of having dealt with CoS legal and PR machinations in the past. Someone associated with a cult may abuse a system (WP, the courts, etc.), but they can't be punished for legitimately using it. By way of analogy, the judge can't say "Get out of the court room, just because you're associated with that cult". But they can be nailed right to the wall for perjury, jury tampering, or threatening judges. PS: See top of my user page. I'm very, very mindful about external organizations manipulating WP coverage; I consider it the #1 threat to WP's long-term viability. But we can't address that by bending or suspending our own rules punitively toward gadflies on particular topics.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:54, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I guess that's the point. Evidence counter to the complaints is amply cited, but the issues don't go away. Those eds seem to wait until discussions are archived to recycle them, I guess in the hope that new editors who've done less or no research will buy their lines - rather than doing the research. They are attempting to manipulate the system outright, knowing that passing editors are hardly going to read all the articles, check all previous discussions - many of which are needlessly protracted - and also research the massive amount of primary source material. I'm wasting time again going over issues that were resolved. Tribesent is playing tag with the other COI ed, Choose12 on the same complaints. The bankruptcy issue has been covered twice already on the talk page and now once here. Using the "former bankrupt" descriptor once in an article is not dwelling on it. The Wiki article says nothing that is not found within the numerous referenced sources. I'd certainly like to see that editor topic banned if we have to continue addressing the same grievances. As for the tens of thousands of dollars for treatments, Tribescent's proposed edit is not in line with the reports either, so I'll propose an edit: "Clients have been reported to spend tens of thousands of Australian dollars on Universal Medicine products and services." XRii (talk) 02:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose strong action at this time (per my above comments). It should be sufficient to issue an administrative admonition to follow the WP:CORE content policies, and to refrain from disruptive editing, including WP:EDITWARring, WP:ICANTHEARYOU, and WP:FILIBUSTERing. Consider it WP:ROPE, and remember that COI editing is not totally forbidden in every way, just "very strongly discouraged". If would probably be more productive for this editor to raise concerns on the talk page and back them up with sources than to directly edit the page; and to use the WP:NOTICEBOARDS for PoV, NOR, etc., if he feels that a bias concern is not being addressed.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm very sorry I thought that as this WP article had 2 sock puppets identified who had contributed greatly to earlier consensus about edits on its page, I could revisit some of those topics. I see I was wrong and I will try to do better. Very happy to continue as a WP editor, to contribute to other articles, and to pull my socks up.Tribscent08 (talk) 08:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• This remark is disingenuous as the sock accounts were not the ones who corrected your misconceptions, at times with evidence from UM's own materials. XRii (talk) 09:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Philm540

This user User:Philm540 has used multiple 2600:1002 IPs and was blocked for disruption and legal threats, as they continued to use different IPs sometimes more than one a day (refer Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Philm540) a range block 2600:1002:B000::/39 was put in place for a month by User:KrakatoaKatie. A discussion was started on a proposed site ban Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive891#Proposed site ban of Philm540, although supported it was archived before being formally closed. The range block has expired and the user has returned editing the same subjects as User:2600:1002:B02C:A89C:CBEA:4CB:FD93:286C.

Just a few questions and requests:

• The main account User:Philm540 was never blocked altough the IPs being used where, perhaps it is time to block now they have returned.
• Can somebody please set the range block again as the user is clearly intends to continue to edit despite what measures are taken.
• Do we need to start a proposed site ban discussion again?

Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I concur that we need to set the rangeblock again, this time for a longer period. The Philm540 account is not being used, which is likely why it was not blocked. If there's a vote, count me as supporting a site ban. Binksternet (talk) 18:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Just for information the user has used four different IPs already today and despite the blocks for legal threats and disruption the user continues to claim he cant be blocked or reverted as per https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nick_Thorne&oldid=675600944 your dangeriously close to violating my rights as a citizen of nation that signature to international aggreements. MilborneOne (talk) 18:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I hardblocked the /39 range for six months. I'm about to leave town for a few days and likely won't be able to check in until I reach our destination, so if someone needs to modify the block, go ahead, but we may need to manage this range with IP block exemption. I'm unwilling to tolerate the legal threats and disruption this user causes, so I also support a site ban. KrakatoaKatie 19:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

As before we have had only support for a site ban, anybody know who needs to review this and what needs to done to record it? thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 15:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Requesting creation of talk page

I'm not able to create a talk page for Denise Milani since it is creation protected. The article itself was able to be created with the help of a sysop (read this). But she forgot to also create the talk page or didn't know that she had to separately. So I'm requesting that one of you do it. Thanks. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 20:36, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I believe the correct place to make this request would be at WP:Requests for Page Protection#Current requests for reduction in protection level. However, according to that page your first step should be to attempt to contact the admin who protected the page. General Ization ^Talk 20:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

But since the protection probably occurred 7 years ago, non-admins can't see who protected the page, and of the admins who deleted it I don't personally recognize any who are very active, you could probably put in your request at WP:RFPP. General Ization ^Talk 20:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, this is the protection:[381].It can only be found when searching in the logs. The admin is still active.--Müdigkeit (talk) 20:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Sysop Od Mishehu is indeed active. General Ization ^Talk 21:04, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Despite all that, it is still OK to take the request for 'unsalting' to WP:RfPP (I've done the same there, twice, recently), as General Ization explained above. It's just that, in doing that, be sure to 'ping' the 'create protecting' Admin (in this case, Od Mishehu) when submitting the request to RfPP. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

This page should not have been unsalted

@KrakatoaKatie:, were you aware of the 2010 AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denise Milani (model)? That includes, or at least alludes to, some material that's quite important in determining whether this article should have been recreated.

• Most important, "Denise Milani" isn't a real person. It's a fictitious identity contrived by an agent/producer, who hired a model to play the role. The name and parts of the biography were tweaked to line up in part with the model's real-world life, but nothing that's based on her "official" information qualifies as a reliable source. A few years ago, the model and her agent had a falling out, sued each other, and put court filings online which pretty much put the lie to much that's in the current article. They've apparently resolved their lawsuits, the court docs have apparently been removed from public view, and the model is now holding herself out as a personal trainer under the "Milani" name. But while the model and the agent were wasting their money suing each other, "Denise Milani" was appropriated as a fake identity exploited by scammers in at least one high-profile case. And, to thicken the plot a little more, restoring the Milani article became a cause celebre at Wikipediocracy.[382] Scroll down that page a little to see yours truly, The Big Bad (Hullaballoo) Wolfowitz excoriated for his arguments in the AFD!
• And the sourcing is ghastly, especially for a BLP. It's cerainly unlikely that "Face to Tits with Denise Milani", from the venerable "Boobs News Center", meets RS requirements. I believe the unsalting was at best premature, and that the article should be removed to draftspace and not restored without consensus at DRV. Thed article was deleted twice, after all, by community consensus. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 02:26, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, I am aware of the AFD. I compared the draft version to the version deleted in 2007, and it is substantially different and contains references. On my talk page, I said as much to Rainbow Unicorn, and I also said that I have no opinion on the notability of the subject. I acted entirely in an administrative capacity because I was the one who salted the article in May. If you have an issue with the new version (and it is new and completely different from the 2007 deleted article), take it to AFD again, because CSD#G4 does not apply here. As for Wikipediocracy, I neither care nor can control what is said there. KrakatoaKatie 02:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
    • @KrakatoaKatie: I was asking about the 2010 AFD, under a slightly different article title, not the 2007 version. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 03:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Please explain

Are the facts presented in the current Denise Milani article about the real person (i.e. the model who had previously been hired to play "Denise Milani"), or are they the fictional backstory created for "Denise Milani", or some combination of the two? If the former, why is there not mention of her real name, no mention of her being hired to play a part, no mention of the person who hired her, no mention of the court cases referenced above? If the latter, why are we presenting a fictional person as a real life person without indicating that it's a character? BMK (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• @Beyond My Ken: Yes, the information in the article is about the real person. I haven't found anything that says her early life or any part of her career is made up. And I believe that the court cases where about the ownership of the "Denise Milani" website, I mentioned it ("In 2010 her website was shut down due to conflicts with its creators."), but not that clearly. And I'm aware that "Denise Milani" isn't her real name, but I'm not sure exactly when she started using that name, probably for her website though. I will look into this, and try to update it with more information to make it more clear soon. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 22:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, that really does need to be made clear, as does the circumstance under which she began using that name. BMK (talk) 22:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Hi I'm a physician with experience in biomedical ethics. I have added a part of a scientific paper of one of my colleagues which focused on the importance of including medical ethics in training programs to "Ethics" but Jytdog deleted that post without any explanation and finally mentioned conflicts of interest as the reason even when I suggested adding that part without any citation. I believe that it's really inappropriate that a non-expert user abuse his/her administrative ability to just based on a biased judgement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohammad1985k (talk • contribs) 20:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Note: When creating a thread about a user on ANI, you are supposed to leave a notice on their talk page, as it says at the top of the page. In this case, I have done so for you. However, please keep this in mind. Thank you. -- Orduin ^Discuss 21:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Please see No original research and Citing sources, along with Conflict of interest. While I'm sure you are expert in biomedical ethics, you seem to have missed the fact that Wikipedia relies on cited, reliable, published sources to ensure that we don't offer an encyclopedia full of misinformation, conjecture and non-expert personal opinion. Your suggestion that the content be posted without any citation was correctly rejected as it does not solve the problem. General Ization ^Talk 20:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, did you notify Jytdog that you were bringing your objection to his action here, as is required so he can present his side of the dispute? General Ization ^Talk 21:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Attention is brought to this note to jytdog and this note on my talkpage left by M1985k. I think he needs to be brought up to speed on how we do things here. "Take a part in a scientific entry if only and only you know enough to talk about" ain't it. — Brianhe (talk) 21:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I invited him to the teahouse; hope that helps. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 23:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Multiple accounts

Why is User:83.100.174.82 allowed multiple accounts? I thought that there was 1 account per user - User:Xiiophen, User:Jonathancarroll.hull, User:Prof.Haddock, User:Imgaril, User:Oranjblud etc. Appears to be both here and on commons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.38.139.9 (talk) 21:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Please explain why you believe that all of those registered accounts are related to that IP. Sockpuppetry is prohibited, though there are a few permissible reasons to have and use multiple accounts (for constructive purposes). The place to file reports of suspected sockpuppetry is WP:Sockpuppet investigations. General Ization ^Talk 21:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Please note that without more information from you as to why you assert that these are related accounts, this report is going nowhere (here at least). In general, there should be no reason for you (or for me) to know or even guess what IP is associated with a given registered account, so I have to assume there is some behavioral evidence that leads you to think so. This noticeboard generally requires evidence to even consider a complaint like this, much less act on it, and at this moment you are the only one who knows what evidence you may have to offer. General Ization ^Talk 02:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Block review

I just blocked WP:SPA EDtoHW (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) partly because it seems to be a drama-only account devoted to proselytising homeopathy but also because of a distinct smell of duck, I found the styl reminiscent of a few other banned homeopathy trolls including Khabboos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and his sock drawer. Guy (Help!) 22:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Had he edited any real article space at all I would have a problem, but JzG is correct. He's NOTHERE. Good block. GregJackP Boomer! 00:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse The WP:NOTHERE assessment is correct. Johnuniq (talk) 00:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse, clear SPA with no contributions outside of the subject. Nakon 01:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse, good call. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse Nothing else to do with this one. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse. Quack quack. Good block, this sort of nonsense needs to be diluted off that talk page to the point it's as effective as a homoeopathic remedy. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:36, 12 August 2015 (UTC).
• Question Is there a way by which a person may be blocked from general editing and still be able to reply to comments made on boards such as AN/I? GregKaye 11:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Convention is that the blocked individual posts to their user talk requesting that it be transcribed to AN/I. Tiderolls 12:25, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Occasionally a blocking admin will unblock for the purpose of responding on ANI, usually with an agreement from the party that is being unblocked that they will only comment at ANI, or they will stay away from an area/topic until the ANI is resolved, etc. It is more normal that it is handled like Tide rolls stated. GregJackP Boomer! 19:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

@Tide rolls and GregJackP:, I presume that a blocked editor who is prevented from personally responding to comments made on administrator boards will not automatically be informed of the mentioned convention or that it might be possible to make the mentioned type of request from a blocking admin. GregKaye 05:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Usually someone else brings it up at ANI. On the transcribing part, anyone can do that, it doesn't have to be an admin. GregJackP Boomer! 05:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

AfD disruption

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

---

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seeds of Death: Unveiling the Lies of GMOs

The author of the article, Mr Bill Truth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a bringer of The Truth (in the sense of 9/11 Truth) and has created numerous articles on the work of anti-medicine crank Gary Null. We can't work out if this is COI or just a True Believer but either way his behaviuour is disruptive and I'd appreciate some help form an uninvolved admin.

His Talk page contains this gem:

You're either a total idiot Jytdog or you take to the given tasks very seriously. I may find time to reply to this piece of gross stupidity that you have put down here. Whilst considering a possibly .... if it's what I suspect and you're just obeying your masters, I feel the greatest pity for you. I really do. You have no idea of the pity I feel for you. Oh I will say one thing. I work for nobody and I bend over for no body! Oh and one more thing again. Either way, I truly pity you

( diff ) Nice. Guy (Help!) 07:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• Reply to JzG/Guy's accusation. Totally false. Personally I believe that JzG/Guy seriously does not even believe the accusations he has thrown at me. I know they're not true! And I think he does too. Yes I have created about 5 articles on Gary Null, all to do with his films which number about 50. Prior to my creating Seeds of Death: Unveiling the Lies of GMOs, there were none. I found that highly unusual considering Null has made many more films than Michael Moore and some, at least some would have to be notable. I have created other articles. I would suspect there are other motivations here. Please keep an open mind here. If editors are using a Wikipedia process to block, ban another editor because they don't agree with their creations then that is not only immoral and dishonest. That is misconduct. I'm amazed and equally amused that (in the sense of 9/11 Truth) has been thrown in here. And again, for a Wikipedia process to be misused is misconduct. ThanksMr Bill Truth (talk) 07:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
• You have provided exactly one diff. I don't see any problems worthy of ANI. Why is this being brought here? The guy is defending his article at AfD, the same way most article creators do. There's nothing disruptive about it, nothing out of the ordinary, and no one seems to be swayed by his arguments. Softlavender (talk) 08:00, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• • Defending an article at AFD is one thing, describing an editor as a "total idiot", describing contributions that are not unreasonable as "gross stupidity" and what appears to be a serious suggestion that an editor is "obeying" the dictates of some shadowy "masters", is quite another. WP:CIVIL did not have an exemption for AFD or controversial topics last time I checked. I trust that User:Mr Bill Truth will have a read of the policy and choose some less confrontational language next time. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC).

  Well Lankiveil, being harrassed and possibly baited, I may have appeared confrontational. I guess I have to learn to just ignore certain things. I will try hard to just ignore certain things. Thanks for your comment too. Mr Bill Truth (talk) 09:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• @Softlavender: Check Mr Bill Truth's contributions. He is hectoring people at AfD, and he is promoting WP:FRINGE topics with a quite remarkable persistence. And coming to ANI saying that an admin doesn't actually believe the statements they are making? That is a perfect example. Guy (Help!) 09:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything disruptive at the AfD, which is what this thread accused him of, without providing a single diff. I have no idea why this is at ANI. It's just normal AfD back and forth, with the article creator being understandably passionate about the merits of the article they spent a lot of time creating. There is no policy against editing in topics one is interested in. Can this thread be closed before we waste any more of everyone's time? Softlavender (talk) 09:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• I don't approve of editors promoting fringe crackpot nonsense or writing a lot of smug jerkassery on their own talk page. But what exactly do you want an administrator to do here? Reyk _YO! 10:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
• Assuming that Mr. Bill Truth has stopped with the personal attacks, we can close this out as is. However, if not, then I'd collapse the attacking sections (the one arguing about consensus isn't attacks and is probably counter-productive but I'd see if the editor has the sense to strike it out himself). The COIN discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Gary_Null requires more eyes though. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
• Comment the full thread from which the diff is taken is all on Mr_Bill_Truth's personal tp but display unacceptable incivility on (presumably) his part. I have known Jytdog to have behaviours that I have interpreted to be manipulative and tendentious but this is within an area of editing where others may have similar approaches.

sorry where not relevant but pinging @DASonnenfeld, Jytdog, Wavelength, Shawn in Montreal, DMacks, AndyTheGrump, and Northamerica1000:and @Sjakkalle, Spartaz, BullRangifer, and Winner 42: as editors of the Seeds of Death: Unveiling the Lies of GMOs article.

Not withstanding other potential issues that may be raised I propose at minimum a 48 hour ban on Mr Bill Truth for incivility.

As far as "quack" is concerned, his article presents that Gary Null's "... views on health and nutrition are at odds with scientific consensus; psychiatrist Stephen Barrett, co-founder of the National Council Against Health Fraud and webmaster of Quackwatch, described Null as "one of the nation's leading promoters of dubious treatment for serious disease". This in itself is not meant as a criticism but to both bring JzG's comment back from WP:ASSERT and to set context for discussion.

GregKaye 11:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• My proposal for a ban may need to be considered in the context of edits of the appallingly uncivil and bitey example of Andy the Grump earlier on the same talk page. Again this only gives context. GregKaye 11:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The 'context' begins with Mr Bill Truth repeatedly using the Essiac article and talk page as a platform for the promotion of a herbal tea as a supposed cure for cancer, (e.g. [383]) despite there being no scientific evidence whatsoever that it cures anything. And dismissing the American Cancer Society as a valid source in doing so, while citing meaningless anecdotal 'evidence' even after repeatedly being told that WP:MEDRS was the relevant criteria for sources. His sole purpose on Wikipedia is the promotion of quackery and similar fringe topics, and he has never shown the slightest evidence of being willing to comply with Wikipedia policy. He has wasted a great deal of many contributors time with his badly-sourced, weasel-worded, semi-literate 'articles' promoting Null and his films, and it seems self-evident that he will continue as long as he is permitted to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump WP:CIVIL is not a conditional policy and I think that it is possible that your unjustified venom has only made a bad situation worse. GregKaye 05:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

That is edging towards a WP:FRINGE ban, when added to his advocacy of Null's claptrap. Guy (Help!) 20:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

See also the ANI thread from November last year: [384]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• I second Soft/Lavender - if there is no "AfD disruption", there is no reason for this thread. If the charge is switching to: "he writes articles about topics we despise", a new thread should be opened. petrarchan47คุก 00:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

But since there plainly is add disruption, in the form of numerous shrill, bolded appeals to all and sundry, the point fails. Guy (Help!) 06:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Blocked

I had a minimal involvement in cleaning up the Seeds of Death article (no vote at the AFD) and a short suggestion here and at COIN but upon seeing that the editor's sandbox at User:Mr Bill Truth/sandbox which is basically a storehouse for all the articles, and refusal to actually work with or respond to any of the concerns people now have with Vaccine Nation following the Seeds AFD closure (such as forcing another AFD to deal with it), this is a WP:NOTHERE issue. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and editors who attempt to delay and drag everyone else through procedures just for their own personal advocacy are not wanted here. If I'm considered WP:INVOLVED, I'll rescind the block but I think a starting resolution could be that User:Mr Bill Truth be required to start all future articles in draftspace and have evidence of reliable sources before moving the articles into mainspace (although the AFC process sometimes leaves something to be desired, it's better than most things we have). The incivility and bludgeoning issues need resolution as well though. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Kitsunelaine and 2601:140:8200:23E5:6074:1FCA:AB9A:3119

These two users, Kitsunelaine (talk · contribs) and 2601:140:8200:23E5:6074:1FCA:AB9A:3119 (talk · contribs · WHOIS); removed Category:Ghosts in television and "Supernatural" in the Kamen Rider Ghost article and Category:Fictional ninja and Category:Martial arts television series in the Shuriken Sentai Ninninger article. These categories and the word is what describes these shows. For the Supernatural genre, take Kamen Rider Kiva for example. The word was included in the article. For the Category:Fictional ninja and Category:Martial arts television series, take Kakuranger and Hurricaneger for example. They included these categories. I edit these articles because I want to describe the shows. These categories helped people on knowing what kind of show it is. That's why I make two reasons for my edits: "Since the show has a ninjutsu motif, it is a martial arts television series" and "Since the show has a ghost motif, it's genre will also be supernatural". She reverted my edits a couple of hours ago. I revert her edits that they are actually helpful. 10 minutes later, Kitsunelaine revert my edits without giving her own reason. These edits I made have a good explanation on why these categories described the shows. Please do something as soon as possible. FrankieL1985 (talk) 16:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• UPDATE: I was not vandalizing anything at all, I edit articles in a good fashion. But she thinks I'm vandalizing these two articles when I'm actually making good-faith edits. FrankieL1985 (talk) 17:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
• Discuss it on the talk page. If no one responds there and the edit warring continues, that's conduct that's disruptive and worth bringing to ANI. I'd say you should try to find a secondary source for the genres rather than just keep arguing it. As for ghosts in television, discuss it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
• Can we close it immediately? FrankieL1985 (talk) 23:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Cyberbullying from G1234~eswiki sockpuppets

The user G1234~eswiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked from Spanish Wikipedia few months ago but he created a sort of sockpuppets and he persist the harrasment in Spanish Wikipedia and here:

List of sockpuppets

• Creador del cielo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Por la justicia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Todos me aman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• I am god and you know (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Also the IP 181.233.197.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Here, Por la justicia sended to me, and two other users (Fixertool and Antur) a sort of harrasments in Spanish ([385], [386], [387]) protesting over and over his unblock and the unprotect of a erased article in Spanish Wikipedia. Usually I don't enter here but its very disgusting see this harrasment. --Taichi (talk) 17:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

@Taichi:, our sockpuppet investigations page is here. I added links to the usernames above; I see that "Creador del cielo" and "I am god and you know" have no edits here, and "Todos me aman" has only edited "I am god"'s talk page. Are you saying that they are confirmed sockpuppets at Spanish Wikipedia? If they are harassing users here in Spanish, then I think we should consider their edits here editing around a block, and should block them here too. I don't see strong evidence of sockpuppetry on this wiki, however. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: These users are confirmed sockpuppets from Spanish Wikipedia, it's totally inneccesary reconfirming here. --Taichi (talk) 21:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Now, he harrases another Spanish Wikipedia sysop here: [388]. --Taichi (talk) 21:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• Note: The account I am god and you know is not attached to any other wiki [389], and does not exist on the spanish wiki [390]. I am not sure about the IP however. The rest should be blocked for cross wiki abuse and sockpuppetry. -- Orduin ^Discuss 21:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Note: The username I am god and you know is almost certainly a username policy violation, and should be blocked on that basis alone. Now, I haven't had the greatest luck at WP:UAA, so someone else may want to try to take that one there... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

If this case is complex because some sockpuppets don't have editions, at least I demand a quickly solution for Por la justicia. While we are debating here, now he bullyies against another Spanish Wikipedia sysop (5th es.wikipedia user in row). --Taichi (talk) 04:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Yo si tengo títeres porque ustedes no quieren entender, de que lo que se me acusa es falso y ustedes no pueden comprender. reitero mi postura, yo solo quiero editar sin que me molesten.Ademas no es Ciberbullyng son quejas simples, que tienen el mismo objetivo, solo es que ustedes creen que yo entre para vandalizar la wiki pero eso no es verdad tengo muchas colaboraciones buenas, y Es la lluvia que cae es una de ellas, pero si al final no me creen, pues ya no puedo hacer nada. --Por la justicia (talk) 13:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• Admin action needed - the user Por la justicia is a confirmed (on es-wiki) sockpuppet (usuario titere) of a blocked and banned (on es-wiki) user, who is using en-wiki to contact es-wiki admins, which is editing to circumvent their block (their talk page access is revoked, no puede editar su propia página de discusión). They and their socks need to be blocked here as well, maybe globally. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Also they do not appear to speak English. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussions on the English Wikipedia should be in English. If you do not understand English sufficiently to discuss your editing in English, then you should not be editing here. BMK (talk) 22:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Yo digo que lo mejor seria que me bloqueen por 1 mes y ya no les digo nada ya no les reprocho nada, Déjenme editar porque no soy vándalo y sere un buen wikipedista. Saludos --Por la justicia (talk) 14:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC) Excusame, mi español es no muy bueno. Usted es bloqueado en la Wikipedia Español. Los administradores inglés no puede ayudar, y usted necesita que dejar molestarlos. Por desbloquear, en inglés nos hacemos "Unblock Ticket Request System", pero yo no encontrarlo en español. Folks who know the Spanish Wikipedia: what is their equivalent of WP:UTRS? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC) Entendido ya no molestare a nadie, la manera de desbloquearse en wikipedia español es con esta etiqueta y abajo pones la razón para ser desbloqueado. . Saludos cordiales --Por la justicia (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC) Si, pero no puede editar tu página de discusión para utilizar la etiqueta, no? Cuando los usuarios inglés están bloqueado y no pueden editar ellos paginas de discusion, ellos pueden utilizar WP:UTRS para contactar un administrador para apelar el bloque. No se que donde el página es en el Wikipedia Español. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC) User:Ivanvector no existe en wikipedia en español. User:Taichi y yo me veo muy disgustado por tu incredulidad, te juro que me da rabia que pienses así de mi pero como no te puedo hacer nada, te digo eres muy hartarte, y odioso no me crees a mi. Mas disgusto me da a mi que pienses así. Saludos --Por la justicia (talk) 16:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Please, anybody take a quickly solution, it's unbelievable that the harrassment comes here in this noticeboard, the user don't speak English and he emphasizes bad words in Spanish here. --Taichi (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Taichi ¿cuales malas palabras?. Traduzcan mis palabras de ahi y no van a ver ninguna mala palabra. --Por la justicia (talk) 16:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I say this, only ublock me. --Por la justicia (talk) 00:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

User issue....

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

---

User:Morrissey1976 is an SPA (also related to User:Morrissey19766) who has only edited on Cornerstone (Austrian band) and their related album articles. I came across the user because he attempted to have Cornerstone (disambiguation) redirected and Cornerstone redirected, in violation of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Upon researching the band and copyediting, I decided that their notability was tenuous, and discussed it here. As a result of the discussion I therefore prodded the band article [391] and the record label [392]. Morrissey removed the endorsed prods, and undid all of my copyediting (much of which was actually to remove puffery and correct "Germlish" ("UK-Tour", etc.).

I would also note that his comment to Fae regarding deletion of a picture on "Somewhere in America", he claimed he created the picture that was deleted, which indicates a potential COI, which seems to be reinforced by a later comment. [393]

As the prods were removed, I therefore sent the band, album, and label articles to AfD. In apparent retaliation, Morrissey has prodded John J. Robinson [394] and Believer (Laura Dawn album) [395] which are both articles I created. To find them, he went to my created articles page, so there is definite retaliatory intent, as he touched nothing else that I've substantially contributed to otherwise, and in fact, the Laura Dawn album was one edit. The prods really need to be removed, but I don't particularly like article creators removing prods on their own articles under any circumstances, so someone else will need to do it.

To specifically address those prods, for the Robinson article, Morrissey said "NN Author- no relevance, no awards for books, doesn't hit Wikipedia:Notability (people). This author is maybe important for a small group of people, but non-relevant for Wikipedia folks" None of which is even a legitimate basis for prodding. Robinson published a book that is de facto reading for almost every researcher in Masonic history (because it wasn't written by a Mason). It was reviewed by two major reviewers (as cited in the preface) because of its high demand in libraries. Robinson went on to publish two more books. This is clearly stated in the article.

The Laura Dawn album prod has the following statement by Morrissey: "NN Artis- and album is not not relevant. No chart rankings or third party sources of relevance available. No reliable sources or references of relevance of both artist nor artist. No major release, everyone in the musicbiz can do distro via a Major distribution meanwhile. Poor rating on Allmusic, no relevance on WP in my opinion." Now, the album was distributed by Warner Bros., so it was a major release by an artist who also has her own WP article. The deprodder found several sources, including Billboard. Apparently Morrissey didn't even bother to look for them.

Morrissey1976 also indicated the following on the Somewhere in America AfD: "Notice MSJapan "Hitradio Ö3 is one of the nationwide radio stations of Austria's public broadcaster ORF" "Radio Wien is the regional radio for Vienna, and is part of the Österreich 2 group" as cleary is seeable on the pages of the radio stations. Learn to read, or in case you can't, let me know, so I will read it aloud for you. User:Morrissey1976 (talk) 11:51, 12 August 2015 (CET+1)" [396].

On the Notability page discussion, he also states the following (emphasis mine) "I'm not a periodically contributor to WP, and most of the stuff is music-related, so you're right, there are too many editions happened, which is clearly a mistake of mine. I've requested the movement of the Cornerstone dab page because for me it's sounds like a logical thing, to get a page with the different meanings of the term "Cornerstone", and not one meaning, with a shortlink, that there are more meanings. 'Of course I did this, to get more recognition for my site..." That pretty much sounds like ownership, a conflict of interest, and a single purpose to me.

The user apparently duplicated the Smalltown Boy article at some point in the past: [397].

According to his response on the Somewhere in America AfD, I'm now an SPA. Guess nobody noticed for ten years:"Regarding the other topics: Requested movements of Cornerstone dab page and Cornerstone happened because of logical point of views and an easier search modus for the several meanings of the term Cornerstone. Probably user is also an SPA for the "Cornerstone dab page” and “Cornerstone” (haven’t checked out yet)." Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Somewhere in America (album)

Also some snide comments on the ATOM AfD: "Notice ATOM Records has one chart-ranking with Cornerstone and noteable musicans Jon Butcher (three albums in the Billboard 200, several singles in various charts) and Leland Sklar in it's rooster, one of the most prominent Bass-players in the music-business. MSJapan, by clicking this blue underlined words on every WP page, you'll redirected to the related pages, where you can check out all of the facts. I'm sorry that you're obviously not know that, but absolutely no problem to help out :-)" User:Morrissey1976 (talk) 12:02, 12 August 2015 (CET+1) (from Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ATOM_Records)

The user has apparently "contacted Wikipedia to have my IP blocked for vandalism." (according to the diff edit comment). Therefore, the WP:OWN is getting out of hand and so is the behavior of the user, who was notified of the discussion. MSJapan (talk) 17:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• I've gone ahead and closed those malformed move requests. I has a disappoint. -- Orduin ^Discuss 19:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Since I usually work WP:COIN problems, I did some cleanup on the article. They probably do pass WP:MUSIC, just barely, having two releases on a major label and some awards, and the AfD seems to be headed for "weak keep". They certainly don't get to have the base article for "Cornerstone" even in the band space; there are other bands named "Cornerstone" (Wikipedia knows of three, Google turns up at least five, and two of them were in trademark litigation), plus various companies and churches. Closing out their move requests regarding the disambig page was reasonable enough. This looks like a routine new-editor COI problem, from someone who hasn't yet realized that Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion. (We get these all the time at WP:COIN, and only rarely does someone have to go to AN/I and ask for the use of the big admin hammer. Band self-promotion is almost retro. A few years ago, that was a big thing, but now corporate PR is the big COI problem.) I'd suggest to the involved editor that they edit some articles on subjects with which they are not involved to gain experience with Wikipedia, and avoid editing on this subject for a while. We can try assuming good faith for now. Keep watching the article, of course. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 19:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

What major label did you find? The whole basis of the problem was that their releases are on an indie label out of Ohio. The album articles are even tagged with the catalog number from that indie label, and the notability of those albums are predicated on the charting of a single that wasn't even on those albums. Also, this is not a new editor; the edit histories go back sporadically over several years - The two Morrissey accounts only edit those articles; clearly someone simply lost their password in the past. MSJapan (talk) 20:20, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

You're right. I thought ATOM Records was a major label. They're not. Changed my vote at AfD to "Comment". Also noted that the promotional picture of the band they uploaded (File:Cornerstone Promo.jpg) never had its copyright issue resolved properly through ORTS, so I temporarily removed the image from the article until that is resolved, and put a note on the ORTS notice board to get it resolved. Some additional eyes on the AfDs for Cornerstone (Austrian band) and ATOM Records would be appreciated. This may all be deleted, in which case the content and user behaviour issues become moot. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 20:54, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

MSJapan, maybe my research of the quality of your articles was a direct result to your strong efforts, to remove the pages I've created. There are some users here, who are not regular distributors to WP, or write just about topics, with which they are familiar with. Btw., incorrect research of yours. I've created more pages on the german WP, for the English WP I've worked on the Cornerstone-Pages and did contributions from time to time on other pages. For example, most of your articles are related to the freemasonry-church, so I suppose you are strongly involved with that, which is ok, you are probably familiar with. Every user should write about the topics, he is familiar with.

I CLEARLY pointed out the facts about Cornerstone in the AFD-pages, so it is completely unnecessary to talk about this topic again. I suppose, you personally hate the band for whatever reasons, and it seems like, you construct and try to figure out ways, to remove the pages I've created, and simply ignore reliable facts and references ("Hitradio Ö3" and "Radio Wien" are just local stations, etc -> incorrect). Talking about "behaviour", reading your comments and references on the removement pages, which are full of rejections and subliminal allusions, we could forward the discussion here quite long , I guess. Writing articles and discussions using Special WP-terms and arrogant, incorrect allegations doesn't cause, you are right. My comments and "behaviour" were a direct reaction to your behaviour. Everything comes back in life.

Just for the records, the album "Head Over Heels" was released in Europe via Sony Music Entertainment, and the bands OWNS the trademark rights to the name Cornerstone in the most common music markets (Not "Two of them had a trademark issue, the TRADEMARKED, AUSTRIAN BAND "Cornerstone" had an trademark issue, because they own the trademark), many bands used this name and had to remove their content from Social-Media platforms, Distribution Platforms, etc. ANYWAY, to cut a long story short: I really don't have the time, to reference to sources all day long and do discussions here with you. So, as a gesture of peace, may I suggest, that I'll do better research and reference for the articles I create(d), so I'll leave your pages alone, and you'll leave my pages alone (except it is a constructive contribution)? User:Morrissey1976|Morrissey1976]] (Morrissey1976|talk) 00:15, 13 August 2015 (CET+1)

Sorry, can't do that, because we've got an information problem again. The article you wrote about the album clearly indicates that it was released by ATOM Records. However, you just said Cornerstone released the album via SME. If in fact, Cornerstone's European releases are SME, then ATOM isn't notable for the single that charted in Austria because ATOM didn't release it in the country it charted. ATOM would not be notable, in fact, for anything related to Cornerstone, because Sony's the actual home market label. So something is still grossly incorrect, and apparently at least two of the articles in question have basic information that is wrong. MSJapan (talk) 23:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Seems like, again you spin facts and references into your strange view. "Head Over Heels" was originally released in 2008 by ATOM Records and re-released in 2010 in EUROPE via Sony-Music (clearly seeable on the Cornerstone, Section Discogrpahy. The band is signed to ATOM-Records but re-released one album in Europe. Both "Somewhere in America"-album and "Smalltown Boy"-Single was released via ATOM Records both in US and Europe. User:Morrissey1976|Morrissey1976]] (Morrissey1976|talk) 01:15, 13 August 2015 (CET+1)

Would the two of you please stop arguing about content here? ANI is for dealing with behavior, not content. You are both making yourselves look bad and discrediting yourselves by arguing about content here. Jytdog (talk) 16:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

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

The barrelling editor from IP 72.229.40.94

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

---

It seems IP 72.229.40.94 is being used by a barrelling editor, i.e. one who edits copiously with absolutely no communication on talk pages or through edit summaries. I didn't bring this to WP:AIV because many edits look constructive, though some are dubious or just plain wrong. The issue came to the forefront for me because on the article for Sage the Gemini, three recent edits assert September 2015 [398], then December 2015 [399], then November 2015 [400] as a release date, none of which have actually transpired yet. From this, it seems as though the editor is just making things up as they go.

The IP talk page gives a pretty good picture of the community's concerns, ending with a couple of templates I used along with personalized comments. I can see the good faith, but it can't be good for an editor to unilaterally plough through Wikipedia with absolutely no discussion or accountability. I trust that an administrator reading this will have the tools and wisdom to effect a solution to prevent further risk of damage. Willondon (talk) 19:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Update: Now January 2015 is proposed as a release date. [401] Willondon (talk) 23:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Update: And now the release date is back to September 2015 again [402]. Willondon (talk) 12:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Willondon, I'm presently looking into this. IP geolocates to Elmhurst, NY; ISP: Time Warner. I see a number of dubious changes like this one, where he credits rapper/actor Treach with appearing in season 3 of Sleepy Hollow. I can't find any press release of the sort and the Sleepy Hollow episode list suggests S3 has just started, which makes his addition a WP:CRYSTAL violation. I also notice along with that edit, he changes the date of When All Else Falls from 2016 to 2015. This title redlinks and I can't find it at IMDb for instance to get more info about it. So that's suspicious. When I searched the article to see who made that addition, I found this edit made by 184.152.17.217 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). That IP geolocates to New York as well, also on Time Warner. It was indeffed (that's rare) by Bgwhite for disruptive editing. I note that both IPs share an impressive number of intersections. Naturally my belief is that it's the same vandal.

@Bgwhite:, do you happen to recall the 184.* IP, and/or do you have any info about an LTA or anything? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb I don't recall. I suspect I saw a page being vandalized, investigated, saw the repeated blocks and did the final block. Talk page shows they were non-communicative, had repeated warnings and had repeated blocks. Bgwhite (talk) 17:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Bgwhite Thanks for the info. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Spamming IP and their persistence in adding a non-used source into articles

This source is being continually added to articles, including FA's, where it is not being used. The IP appears to be one of many sock puppets and is adding the source into articles for no other reason other than to promote and spam. 90.201.206.155, 90.193.120.97, 86.5.179.88, 84.92.105.164 are just four of the many IP address' being used. Cassianto^Talk 19:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

A source does not need to be used as an inline citation to be useful. However, I agree this wholesale introduction to every article on silent film actors seems suspicious, and should be in a Further reading section rather than shown as a reference. General Ization ^Talk 19:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

That view is purely subjective as the articles I write omit sources which are not used. Otherwise where would one stop when it comes to adding books that aren't used? If we were to have a featured article on, say cookery, the "Further reading" section would run into thousands. A line has to be drawn and the earlier the better, as far as I'm concerned. Cassianto^Talk 19:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

No, not really purely subjective. See WP:GENREF. "A general reference is a citation to a reliable source that supports content, but is not linked to any particular piece of material in the article through an inline citation. General references are usually listed at the end of the article in a 'References' section, and are usually sorted by the last name of the author or the editor." This assumes, though, that the cited reference is actually used as a reference by the article's creator and/or a later contributor in the production of the current article. That does not seem to be the case here. General Ization ^Talk 19:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

FWIW: If you Google the author, he's a major contributor to IMBD silent film articles[403], and the book does come up on Amazon. However, as it is already out of print, and the listed publisher on Amazon (Anchor Print Group, Ltd.)[404] is a copy shop, [405] this is reasonably certain to be the author adding his own work, especially if it's not being used in the article. considering he embellished his own IMDB bio with trivia on his grandkids only he would know, [406] I'm not surprised. MSJapan (talk) 19:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

It should be noted also that this activity has been going on since early 2013, perhaps even longer, and affects nearly 160 articles. I haven't confirmed but have the sense that none of the edits are recent. General Ization ^Talk 19:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

And I have a sneaking suspicion that the author's work may be at least substantially based on data gleaned from Wikipedia articles, so a bit of a circular phenomenon has occurred here. General Ization ^Talk 19:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

All the more reason why something should be done. Cassianto^Talk 19:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Look here [407] this IP added the book to over two hundred articles. Amazon.uk says the book covers 3,700 actors in 470 pages, so that's about 8 actors per page. Hardly the level of in-depth coverage that would be useful to a Wikipedia editor. I think it would be a good idea to remove the book from the 15 150 or so articles where it's currently extant. Perhaps this is a candidate for an edit filter? -- Diannaa (talk) 20:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I was mistaken. 84.92.105.164, for one, is quite prolifically active, and doing nothing but adding this ref book title to articles as recently as today. General Ization ^Talk 20:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that this "source" be removed from all articles. See this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done (by numerous editors), except two cases one case where actually cited as an inline ref. General Ization ^Talk 21:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

If this source has been written based on information taken from Wikipedia, then I would question its reliability per WP:RS, so I'd be inclined to to remove that one too. Cassianto^Talk 21:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

That was pure speculation on my part (though I'd be willing to wager it's correct). General Ization ^Talk 21:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

@Diannaa: The edit filter idea makes sense to deal with this seeming abuse going forward. How does one request one be created, and what would you propose as the rationale for it? The author has (hypothetically) written several books, so what would be used as a reliable filter expression? General Ization ^Talk 21:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Not sure how to get the ball rolling on creating an edit filter. Edit filter mavens include @Reaper Eternal:, @Ponyo:, @Nyttend: Pinging these three as potential helpers. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not at all technically savvy: I haven't the slightest clue on what to do. My interests with edit filters involve identifying false positives; I don't know how to prevent them or how to write filters in the first place. But Reaper Eternal should be able to help, as he's demonstrated in the past :-) Nyttend (talk) 21:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't be of help either. The only reason I have the edit filter manager box ticked is to view private filters in relation to SPIs. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Has the user been requested to stop before? I can set up an edit filter easily enough, but if theres only 160 edits in 2-3 in years it might be overkill. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC).

Hi Rich and thanks for taking an interest. There's actually been hundreds of additions and re-additions. For example, 82.4.233.181 (talk · contribs) added it 188 times in November 2012 and 86.5.179.88 (talk · contribs) added it 243 times between January and October 2013. People must have been removing the material as it gets added. Asking him to stop has been tried, for example on User talk:82.4.233.181 and User talk:84.92.105.164. -- Diannaa (talk) 04:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I set up 720 as a public filter. It's currently log-only, I will probably set it to disallow some time tomorrow. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC).

Thanks for that. I have also set myself a Google calendar reminder to watch out for these edits, and will remove them if any slip through. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Copyvio

AMMAR19UL93ISLAM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has added a bunch of copyvios, much of it also being rambling, vulgarly religious POV.[408][409]--Anders Feder (talk) 20:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I've gotten rid of the copy vio and given a final warning. I will watch -- Diannaa (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Delete this image with passwords

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

---

Can someone delete File:Screen Grab of web-browser showing Islamic State Hacking Division online posted result.png? It's not really a big deal hence why I asked here rather then doing it privately, since frankly the info is all over the place and it's unlikely mentioning it here is going to expose it to many more people that have already seen it and it's not even clear if the info is reliable, or new. But it still seems we shouldn't be posting such info which includes alleged passwords for something, addresses, phone numbers, etc, especially as it doesn't seem to serve any useful purpose. I couldn't work out a speedy category (except perhaps as a copyvio since the presentation and comment is likely copyrighted by someone) and it seems unnecessary to take it to AFD. Nil Einne (talk) 00:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• Deleted by admin Nyttend. --Tito Dutta (talk) 05:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

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

List of highest grossing Indian films

Baahubali is Telugu only. See List of most expensive Indian films. Please fix all the articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.44.216 (talk) 03:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

"Please fix all the articles" is a pretty broad request. Which articles are you referring to? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

This user is furthering a content dispute that resulted in multiple page protections on List of highest grossing Indian films. Not to mention they're refactoring others comments in the same way as another editor with an account... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah, so we're in Australia again? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, now I see what you mean. This was ridiculous. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive894#Comments_by_Ricky81682. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Pinging Ricky81682. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Ethnic slurs are ridiculous. Editors have no right to insult all Indian people's like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.44.216 (talk) 04:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• The request seems to be: remove "Tamil" from here. This seems to be answered here. Another IP has made this change. I am thinking to revert it (as the main film article mentions it bilingual). --Tito Dutta (talk) 05:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I reverted it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

This is one of the several California-based IPs who has a personal vendetta against Ricky in regards to his conduct on Indian cinema-related topics. I'm thinking a CU is in order here. Elspamo4 (talk) 05:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I doubt it. I've gotten a crew following me back from Indian ethnic groups for months on and off so I think someone is just taking advantage of their chance to get cheap shots. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

166.170.44.216 (talk · contribs) is just the latest avatar of 166.171.122.101 (talk · contribs), 166.171.121.182 (talk · contribs) etc. WP:RBI if the IP becomes active again. Abecedare (talk) 05:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Bob Lazar

I would not normally post an issue regarding article content here at ANI. But the current state of this article, a BLP, Bob Lazar, is so bizarre and so conspiratorial and so deranged that I believe that it requires immediate attention from an administrator. If I am wrong, let me know and I will pursue other options. Thank you for your consideration. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

An entertaining read, though not very encyclopedic. Chillum 05:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

We are not in the business of "entertaining reading" I do not think, Chillum, so I hope that either you, or another administrator, will revdel totally inappropriate BLP violating content, and warn the responsible editors. Please. Thank you very much. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Have you looked through the sources? This guy has claimed much of the stuff being attributed to him. If you think there is a clear and urgent BLP violation then edit the article, if you really think something needs revdel'n then you will need to be more specific. Chillum 06:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I did some housekeeping. Perhaps Chillum can take a look and see if there is improvement. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The article's been around for about 10 years, and it started as what could be termed an attack page. Is this guy even notable by Wikipedia standards? Should the article be deleted? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I saw him on unsolved mysteries when I was young, so I had heard of him before seeing the article. The guy does have some fame. Chillum 23:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Personal attacks and bad faith editing.

So I think it's time that an uninvolved admin look into the behavior of User:Alakzi, there are extreme cases of assumptions of bad faith and also personal attacks. Odd for somone arguing for civility to think it's ok to tell someone to fuck off, intent on showing offense, like to deliberately offend people, disgusting individual, |selfish, and the last fuck yourself although there are probably a couple more. He has a history of two prior short term blocks for NPA and the disruption is related to WP:POINT editing for the reason "The only admin who blocked me, said to me, and I quote, "I'm going to give you some rope". Another admin referenced WP:ROPE in discussing my block with the blocking admin on their talk page. (And this seems to be quite typical behaviour of admins.) I don't understand how I could possibly not feel offended". They have the history of the recent blocks, they were warned by myself and Beeblebrox and now a third editor has templated them. I think it is time for a longer block or possibly a topic ban from civility related discussions as this seems to effect their mental health ie panic attacks and inability to control oneself. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 12:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Given the reaction to the discussion about this essay, I'm guessing that Alakzi is the hypothetical editor who this has offended, and does not care to share the personal circumstances surrounding why. While I'm not excusing the behavior shown here, it should be kept in mind that this essay can be quite offensive to some people. Throwing around suicide references will inevitably result in a poor reaction when you find the person who's recently dealt with that sort of thing. ~ Rob^Talk 13:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

It's above in black and white they are mad because it was a rationale used for unblocking them. Sad thing is they were blocked for attacks and they are using that rope up. It's the whole reason for the eswsays existence to describe the behaviors they are exhibiting now. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Alakzi states that they were made aware of it when it was used in relation to them, but does not say they are only mad due to the unblocking. We simply do not know the personal context on why this may be particularly offensive to any given editor, and we can't expect to. ~ Rob^Talk 13:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Hell in a Bucket needs to be careful of a boomerang here; he's more than once impugned Alakzi's competence, for no apparent reason other than an disagreement over a content issue, doing so in "mystery meat" links (diff), even doing so again (difff2) after being told that to do so is "unacceptable and unwarranted". Such provocation is a breach of WP:NPA and utterly unacceptable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Pigsonthewing I have referenced WP:CIR, absolutely I have because it's a valid reference in this case. I'm also going to reference the two subsections specifically, grudges and social. As an added reference I'm going to throw Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not therapy in the mix too. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:BOOMERANG should be something you keep an eye out for @Hell in a Bucket:, since you seem to be quoting "Some people just can't function well in this particular collaborative environment. We can't change Wikipedia to suit them, so if they're unable to change themselves, they'll need to be shown the door" and you do not seem to be trying to collaborate with any stretch of the imagination unless they are supporting your ideas. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 14:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

You know if the admin ruling on this thinks I'm the problem block away. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

More offensive bullshit then. Alakzi (talk) 13:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I suppose if you start behaving that way here there will be loads. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Whatever it takes to feed your sense of entitlement, I suppose. Alakzi (talk) 17:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• In retrospect, I believe that my comment of "I'm going to give you some rope" was callous and tactless. I have obviously offended Alakzi, and for that I am sorry. My comment was made in good faith, but with very poor eloquence. With this in mind though, I cannot, in good faith, recommend Alakzi is allowed to continue on throwing vicious personal attacks and pointy behaivior unscathed and without admonition or sanction. In addition to Hell in a Bucket's diffs above, Alakzi said, just above, that, "A consensus among spineless, insensitive and domineering admin wanna-bes is no consensus I care about," in reference to the people in a MfD who disagreed with his point of view. So, he went ahead and moved the page to his desired location, disregarding the consensus of "spineless" and "domineering admin wanna-bes". This is not the first instance, but a pattern of behaviour. When users disagreed with him on the coloring of some infoboxes, he labelled them "pathetic" and "spineless and thoughtless barnstar hoarders", and threatened to use AWB to impose his will on just over a thousand articles. He made good on that threat, which got his ability to use AWB revoked by me. He maintained that the changes he was making with AWB were obvious "to anybody with some sense," and continued his personal attacks (check the previous link). I blocked Alakzi. However, I later unblocked him. Why? The reason for that dispute was that the colors in infoboxes could have hurt the eyes of visually impaired editors. As I said on my talk page, "Both sides [of the dispute] bring reasoned and actionable points. Their methods may be worthy of question, but they're intent is good, as far as I can see." I thought Alakzi was acting in good faith. I no longer truly believe that now. What was the turning point? This. There is an argument to be made that fighting for visually impaired editors is a worthy cause. Fighting to get a fucking template moved, even though the template you want it moved to already redirects back to it, is goddamn ridiculous. There was no just cause there. Just an editor demanding that his will be done, and that everyone else's will be damned. And to make sure his will is done, and nobody else's, he closed the move discussion and moved the page anyway, even though anyone could have seen that there was no consensus, forcing another user to revert the move. When the page was move-protected by an admin to prevent another against consensus move, Alakzi's response? "Another pointless administrative action from you". That sums it up really. Anything that goes against His Mighty And Infallible Will is "pointless", and those who disagree with him are "spineless". Wikipedia is not therapy. If Alakzi has behavioral problems, and chooses to throw all his toys out of the pram everytime someone disagrees with him, we're not the ones to console him. --ceradon (talk • edits) 14:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Do you enjoying writing these tirades? Alakzi (talk) 14:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:CIV is required. AlbinoFerret 14:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Amusing. Alakzi (talk) 14:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Above the rules, aren't we? Case in point --ceradon (talk • edits) 14:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Give it a break @Ceradon:. Alakzi has now had WP:CIV thrown at him about 5 times. May have deserve once or twice, but you don't have to rub it in. WP:BOOMERANG works on Admins too, as does WP:CIV. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 14:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

This is in particular why this type of civility warrior behavior is more disruptive. I will point out for example Rob, his is a reasonable objection and my response was [[410]], these are the reactions that we normally see when a person is not ranting and raving. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you could try answering my question here. Alakzi (talk) 15:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

We have tried to several times but you chose to ignore it because you don't like the result. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

No, you haven't. Alakzi (talk) 15:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. --ceradon (talk • edits) 15:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Yet again another case in point. I'm done trying to reason this through with you. Please feel free to hurl whatever hateful epithet you think will bother me most while arguing for civility and not being offensive. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Sure. I think it's quite obvious to anyone paying attention that Wikipedia:Don't shoot yourself in the foot is speaking directly about self-harm. Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man makes the contents of the essay obvious, doesn't it? Reichstag? Reich? Hitler! It's talking about Neo-Nazism! Noooo! Wikipedia:Don't shoot the messenger is talking about outright murder! The horror! How heartless are we to be perpetuating such vile behavior?! You're going to click those links aren't you? You're going to see that what the titles of the essays say aren't what the contents of the essay say? No! Stop! Don't you dare! Take it at face value, and don't look any deeper! I demand it! It seems that sarcasm is the only way I can impress upon you how ridiculous what you're doing is at this point. Oh well. --ceradon (talk • edits) 15:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

In short, you don't care about offending people whom you view with contempt. Alakzi (talk) 15:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Already responded to this exact same point on the essay talk page, so I'll just copy paste the diff here.[411] This is an essay used during unblock/ban discussions to imply that an editor is going to metaphorically "hang themself." The other essays are not remotely similar in tone and implication. Brustopher (talk) 15:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I think you're making the same point Alakzi is, but that doesn't make it any less false. The title seems a bit off, but the message is not. Here is a passage from ROPE: "If they are pleading to be unblocked and swearing up and down that they understand and won't do again whatever it was that got them blocked, rather than arguing the finer points of the original block or demanding further explanation, it may be better to just unblock them and make it clear that this is their last chance. If they mean what they say, they'll be fine, and if they don't, they'll be blocked again soon enough." If you even read the first paragraph of the essay it say that there is, in fact, hope that an editor is true to their word. If there could never be any doubt that a blocked editor is lying when they say they won't do something again, what's the point of "ROPE" anyway? There is more to the essay than just the title. --ceradon (talk • edits) 15:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

This is starting to get a bit confusing. If you think the title is "off", why are you opposing a move? Brustopher (talk) 15:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Brustopher, There are a few words missing there. "The title, by itself, seems a bit off". The title of the essay and the contents of the essay are not mutually exclusive. The content explains the title, and, in my opinion, justifies it. I see no reason to alter the status quo, thus my oppose vote. --ceradon (talk • edits) 16:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

In short, you don't care about offending people whom you view with contempt. Alakzi (talk) 15:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Ceradon, I think you could fracture your skull before making the impression you are trying. I suggest waiting for the inevitable block and note the continued character and bad faith behavior. "Hangman, hangman, Upon your face a smile, Pray tell me that I'm free to ride, Ride for many mile, mile, mile" Gallows Pole Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for making my point. Alakzi (talk) 15:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Well you are doing a fine job of that yourself with your own behaviors but that comment was addressed to Ceradon and was referencing the two Boomerang threats for him and myself. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment- It's pretty clear that Alakzi is in the wrong here. This is an editor who got blocked for personal attacks and has continued to call people every name under the Sun, but expects everyone else to tiptoe around Alakzi's feelings. It's preposterous to claim WP:ROPE is somehow offensive. Reyk _YO! 15:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Give_'em_enough_rope#Requested_move_12_August_2015 is ongoing, but the arguments there to rename the page does not support your characterization that it is "preposterous".—Bagumba (talk) 18:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Actually, the current consensus does not support a move of the article, and many of the oppose votes do indeed say that the current title is not offensive. There is a type of person, especially among those involved in sociopolitical campaigns, who spends much too much time waiting to be offended by one thing or another, to the point that they lose perspective about what is and is not actually offensive. Their sensitivity to offense is set so low that practically anything becomes potentially objectionable. Were these people to have their way, our language would be stripped of all colorfulness and metaphor, one of its strengths. BMK (talk) 21:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
      • @Beyond My Ken: I personally reserve characterizations of "preposterous" for snow closes, if it were to be used at all. In any event, consensus will take care of itself when that discussion closes. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 22:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
    • An opinion can be preposterous even if many people hold it. Lots of people think the moon landings were faked or that vaccines cause autism, but that doesn't make those claims any less silly. Reyk _YO! 07:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Too much WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality across the board by many participants at Wikipedia talk:Give 'em enough rope#Requested move 12 August 2015. WP:WABBITSEASON anyone? Not too surprising when the theme is political correctness. Disclosure: I am involved in the discussion.—Bagumba (talk) 17:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Blocks

• Users Alakzi and Webdrone have been indef blocked by Nuclear Warfare. See this. BMK (talk) 22:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I've asked NW to reverse the indef, which is completely unwarranted; doubly so on the spurious grounds he gave for making it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
• I started a new subheading as I imagine the actions and discussions about this block will go past where the initial discussion has gone (which I think have resolved themselves, block or no block). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
• Note: both users have been unblocked by Floquenbeam. -- Orduin ^Discuss 00:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Reblock needed for edit warring and personal attacks

Herre's one example of more gross personal attacks [[412]], [[413]], [[414]], [[415]], [[416]]. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support (uninvolved non admin) The first diff and other comments in this section show a total failure to follow WP:CIV. There is also no attempt that I have seen to apologise for the words used. A block of up to three months for Alakzi sounds about right. AlbinoFerret 17:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Alakzi is currently blocked for personal attacks with talkpage access removed. -- Orduin ^Discuss 17:43, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
• Note Without commenting on the validity of the prior "NOTHERE" block, I was going to issue a short block for personal attacks to Alakzi per their "you insufferable scum" comment. However when I got there I saw that a block was already in place. I then noticed the user was continuing to use their talk page for personal attacks while blocked and I removed talk page access. I am open to discussion of this action here or on my talk page. Chillum 17:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: editing restrictions for Alakzi

I started editing this section to get consensus for editing restrictions. That seems impossible now. Therefore, I am now advocating for an indefinite ban for Alakzi.

Alakzi has engaged in numerous behaviors that contradict Wikipedia's communal values. They has been blocked numerous times for editing disruptively, and using personal attacks against numerous editors. They were blocked for personal attacks and disruptive editing by Ceradon for 60 hours, but that blocked was shortened by Ceradon. They were later unblocked by the same administrator. Alakzi was indefinitely blocked by NuclearWarfare, per NOTHERE, and on suspicions of sockpuppetry. They were later unblocked by Floquenbeam. Since there unblock by Floquenbeam, and after agreeing to leave dramatic situations alone, Alakzi has said to Beeblebrox, "Go fuck yourselg, Beeblebrox. [sic] What fucking gall." and has called them "insufferable scum". They have stated "You're absolutely horrible people" and has said that, "This "community" now disgusts me". They have stated that Salvio giuliano, the admin who leveled the most recent 1-week block, "sickens [them]". After administrator Salvio giuliano levelled the most recent block against Alakzi, they have used two sockpuppets, Abotzi and Alakzi1 to insert the following comment into their talk page: "The unaccountable despots who run this place don't give a shit about you."

Alakzi's actions have repeatedly been suboptimal, disruptive and vicious. They have been given numerous chances to change their behavior and return the community to edit in a manner suited to a collaborative project. They have, each time, failed to do so. Alakzi has rendered the time and efforts of numerous editors and administrators wasted. Therefore, they are prohibited from shouting at, swearing at, insulting and/or belittling other editors, and engaging in uncivil or pointy behavior. Should they violate these restrictions, they are to be blocked for a month. Further such behavior will result in an indefinite block.

• Edit: Text was altered at 19:12, 14 August 2015 and 19:16, 14 August 2015.

Voting

• Support as proposer: No user should get to exhaust the community's patience and waste the community's time indefinitely, I'm afraid. --ceradon (talk • edits) 18:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose a ban is overkill and said member could still change their behavior. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Hell in a Bucket: Check again. --ceradon (talk • edits) 19:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I am exiting this entire situation per multiple requests unless I'm brought up. Sorry but I refuse to be blocked for this and there is plenty of eyes. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
• oppose. Ban the admins instead. We need more content creators not egomaniacs. The actions are perfectly normal when someone is backed into a corner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.121.17 (talk) 19:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. I am admittedly involved in the sense that this user has helped me quite a bit in the past with things related to templates and AWB, but that just goes to show that they are doing good for the project. Their current blow-up is very unfortunate and certainly warrants a block for longer than a week, but an indefinite ban is extreme. We shouldn't ignore a long history of positive contributions due to a couple isolated incidents. My hope is that Alakzi can return in a month or so and put this behind them. If they can, they'd be a great asset in the areas of template editing and accessibility. If they can't, then a ban would be appropriate, as unfortunate as that would be. ~ Rob^Talk 19:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @BU Rob13: Check now. --ceradon (talk • edits) 19:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
    • What am I meant to be checking? I'm aware of the sockpuppetry already. ~ Rob^Talk 19:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
      • No longer looking for a ban, just restrictions and an outline on how to deal with them should they violate the restrictions. --ceradon (talk • edits) 19:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
        • Ah, sorry. Missed that. Thanks for pinging me. In the short term, Alakzi has clearly blown his top over this issue. Placing sanctions is unlikely to help him get things back under control for his eventual return, and I see it as a guarantee that he'll get more upset and more likely to do something he'll later regret. I see that as a substantial negative factor to such a sanction. On the other hand, the sanctions you've proposed are nothing more than would be completely expected of him given his block log. I don't oppose admins blocking in the way you described, but I don't think they need a formal sanction on incivility to do so when incivility is always against the rules. Given that I see no real benefit to the formality of a sanction in this situation and a significant downside, I still would oppose the proposed sanction. To reiterate, though, I completely support an administrator blocking Alakzi for a month or longer if he were to return to the site after his current block and continue his current behavior. It would be disappointing, since he has been extremely helpful to me in figuring out templates and regex, but it would be the only appropriate action. ~ Rob^Talk 19:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
• No. For fuck's sake, people. I am at a loss to understand how so many people are missing the basic dynamic here and just keep escalating the situation at every turn. The Rules were broken! Someone said angry things on the internet! You're proposing to indefinitely ban someone who's been a productive editor for months, who has gotten trapped in the escalation ratchet after getting a remarkably callous response to genuine feelings of offense at an essay that really does have problems. The thing you need to do now is stop. Just leave the matter alone for a while. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Opabinia regalis: First, I've altered the proposal. Not an indefinite ban just yet, but restrictions. Second, if we leave Alakzi alone, unsanctioned, and leave him completely able to go on tirades against other users, then what? We just accept all his vitriol lying down? Is that what you are proposing. --ceradon (talk • edits) 19:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
    • There are plenty of others who are allowed to do just that, with impunity. (Reserving judgement on the proposal, for now.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Very productive editor, though strong-willed and outspoken. Problems have arisen when interacting with others with different opinions, in particular with those who take exception to Alakzi's unfiltered language. The situations deteriorate when neither party follows WP:DR, a WP:BATTLEGROUND ensues, and the problem reaches the noticeboards. I'll say that having been WP:INVOLVED with some of the discussions that have gone to noticeboards, I have generally agreed with Alakzi's reasoning for the end result. However, consensus probably doesnt happen as fast or as smoothly as they would prefer, which leads to colorful language. I don't believe NOTHERE applies, as I do feel their intent is to be "here primarily to help improve encyclopedia articles and content". However, I do realize some in the community expect to see changes in the user's reactions during disputes. They are here to contribute, but this may not end up being the right place for them. Durations of successive blocks normally increase anyways, so I don't see the need for more WP:BUREAUCRACY.—Bagumba (talk) 19:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose He's called me before on something, which was just a misunderstanding, so I would say that he isn't into bad behaviour per se. He obviously enjoys his Wikipediaing. He makes good contributions, though I agree he needs to learn to let stuff go. I also think the abusive terms he's using, at least the ones I've seen, really aren't that horrendous. For example, calling a group of people "scum" over the internet is, in all honesty, not that bad, and would be mildly amusing in a different arena. All in all, give him a ban for week, then give him a month next time if he continues to fail to accept it when decisions go against him. Hopefully he can get onto the straight and narrow in time!! Ah, just seen some of the other comments. Well, he does need to learn to calm down. He's not threatening anyone, but yeah, needs to learn to calm it! I again express my hope he can serve out a week-long ban and come back with a new leaf turned over. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 20:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
• A. Support narrower, clearer, and less punitive restriction, but absolutely not with a "swearing" ban: While I largely agree with the reasoning offered by both Opabina Regalis and Bagumba, the observations by Ceradon are clearly correct in the overall gist, though exaggeratory, unclear, and dismissive of the editor's more valuable contributions (even if said editor is sometimes problematic), and the draft remedy was vague and overbroad, even after copyediting. I'd support something along these lines: Alakzi's actions have too often been suboptimal and disruptive. Therefore, Alakzi is directed to address edits, not the editor, and is prohibited from engaging in personal attacks or other uncivil behavior, including: insulting, belittling, name-calling, or questioning the good faith or motivations of other editors. Alakzi is also prohibited from taking WP:POINTy actions. Violation of these restrictions will result in a one-month block. Further such behavior may result in lengthier blocks, topic/interaction bans, even an indefinite block, at community or administrator discretion. NB: I wrote that in a way that should preclude WP:GAMING claims that not-uncivil criticism of edits or editing behavior patterns are "insulting" or whatever; no one has a right to be free from concerns raised about what they're doing. I thus, of course, oppose an indef block/ban.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC) Update: If Alakzi turns out to be a sockpuppet, per the post a subthread below this, then it's a different matter, of course.

  B. Suggest a narrow WP:BOOMERANG restriction on Hell in a Bucket: To wit, Comments, accusations, or suppositions about someone else's mental health or abilities (in whatever exact wording) will normally be interpreted as offensive, and are usually unwarranted and unsupportable; yet Hell in a Bucket has used them frequently as verbal weapons. Therefore, Hell in a Bucket is prohibited from commenting on or verbally hypothesizing about the mental state or faculties of another editor, including by reference to pages like WP:COMPETENCE in a manner that clearly implies mental health or capability issues. No remedies need be spelled out or presently applied in this case. If this is thought too stringent, Hell in a Bucket should be warned on their talk page, in similar language, that such a restriction is likely if the behavior resumes. Update: And this would not be affected if Alakzi turns out to be a sock.

  I'll address issues with WP:ROPE and WP:COMPETENCE in a subthread below.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

I don't know about the rest of you, but my patience is certainly exhauseted. This is not a user whose attitude is compatible witha cooperative environment liek this is supposed to be. That being the case, there is no doubt in my mind that they will eventually end up being indef blocked for disruptive editing and personal attacks. Sooner would be better than later, but whatever. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Aww, but indeffing is just so hard on someone. He obviously enjoys editing Wikipedia, has built up a good volume of constructive edits, so it would really be the nuclear option. I agree, however, that if he does not learn to just let stuff go, he will end up indeffed. No doubt about it. Hopefully, notwithstanding your pessimism, the guy can turn things around. We'll see… --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 20:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

People above are saying that Alakzi will change his behavior after the block. Honestly, I have very little faith in that. But, my proposal above is trying the make an official sanction regarding Alakzi's behavior, and to give blocking administrators a definite guideline on how to deal with such outburst in the future. I am exhausted. Beeblebrox is exhausted. Floquenbeam went out on the limb to unblock Alakzi and had his good will and his ass handed back to him mere hours later. Alakzi has a voluptuous history of outbursts, incivility, personal attacks, and disruptive and pointy editing. If the community should fancy going the optimistic route, that a leopard will magically change his spots, and that no official sanction are warranted, well, fine. But I can't bring myself to take part in such farces. --ceradon (talk • edits) 20:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I opposed, but I freely admit this is not going to end well without some changes. However, I don't think a ban on subjective behavior like "shouting at, swearing at, insulting and/or belittling other editors, and engaging in uncivil or pointy behavior" is the answer. Interaction bans have been mentioned before, but it's not a particular user(s) that are the issue. I don't think there is a specific page, or class of pages, that have been problematic either. I think this can organically resolve itself, hopefully one way versus another.—Bagumba (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with or would clarify Ceradon's original editing restrictions proposal in the following ways:

1. "Go fuck yourself" is uncivil, but not an attack.
2. "what fucking gall" is neither an attack, nor unquestionably uncivil, but a strong expression of opinion about approach, and it uses language some people don't like but which others (like me) largely shrug off.
3. "This 'community' now disgusts me" is nothing but expression of frustration with process and bureaucracy (and perhaps with not getting one's way).
4. "sickens me" is neither uncivil nor an attack, but an expression of personal feeling.
5. "The unaccountable despots who run this place don't give a shit about you" is a general statement about the administrative/ArbCom/noticeboard/remedies system as a whole, and is a sentiment (perhaps unreasonably) shared to varying degrees by a non-trivial number of other editors.
6. Labeling Alakzi's actions as "repeatedly ... vicious" is nearly as uncivil as anything Alakzi has said, and an assumption of bad faith rather than anger.
7. "Shouting" is meaningless in this medium, and would be GAMED as applying to any display of strong emotion.
8. A ban on expletives would be subject to ridiculous levels of GAMING, since what constitutes "swearing" is personally subjective when it's not cultural and subcultural, and varies from context to context even to the same individual.
9. The sockpuppetry barely qualifies as such, as the names were obvious, and it (at least that I have seen so far) was done to be able to make a point on the editor's own talk page, not to vandalize or do something else genuinely disruptive. As short-term, heat-of-the-moment block evasion goes, it's a rather minor transgression.

I agree with all of the rest of it, including the general message, and the need for restrictions. "You're absolutely horrible people" was clearly a personal attack against several specific editors (that said, it was obviously predicated on the user feeling unjustly ganged up on; it's unlikely these are serious assessments of characters, but just venting). Some actions by the editor have been disruptive (e.g. tagging a WP:SPI page for speedy deletion). And the editor does generally display a pattern of quickly-heated response, and related problematic behaviors, but they're obviously not generally "fatal" to the editor's ability to contribute, nor are they a frequent source of disruption.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Suggest postponing discussion

It hurts to do this.

It was suggested to me by email this morning that Alakzi is Jack Merridew/Br'er Rabbit. I've reviewed Alakzi's edits, and it's pretty damn compelling. This probably better explains the 3 CU's recently run on him described in the SPI page, which certainly seemed out of proportion for the Webdrone thing. Since I've defended Jack in the past, I imagine there might be some suspicion about my interceding in his block yesterday. You'll have to take my word for it that I didn't hear about this until after becoming fed up with Alakzi, Beeblebrox, and Hell in a Bucket and blanking my talk page this morning.

I'm no Javert. If this was a matter of a "clean start" (yes, I know, don't quote policy to me, I know what it says and that's why I put it in scare quotes), I'd have been more than happy to look the other way; an un-angry Jack is helpful and knowledgeable, and is, frankly, a better person than some of his long-term detractors.

But he's returning to the exact same behavior that led to his previous bans, and the disruption is spreading to numerous pages, so I can't in good conscience keep silent and let people invest time and emotional energy defending someone who is likely to be banned when he comes back in a week and resumes the fight. From past observation, it is 100% guaranteed that JM/BR does not de-escalate when convinced he's right.

I suggest interrupting this discussion (there's no rush, he's blocked for a week), and wait for an SPI to be filed (I'll do it if nobody else does). We already know CU won't be useful, but it won't be too hard to put together a pretty compelling behavioral case. Alternately, @Alakzi:, my email is my username at gmail.com, and you can short circuit all that work by emailing me a confirmation.

Penultimately, I'm convinced (per my comments at SPI, which remain true) that Webdrone isn't the same person, just a friend.

Finally, I will block anyone who gravedances on his talk page for a fucking month. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Take the weekend off and get away from us. Burn-out doesn't help anyone. :( The discussion doesn't like it supports a full ban at this point so your suggestion may be unnecessary.. There is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alakzi/Archive which seems to have ended with inconclusive but let this discussion go on a bit before we start new SPIs and new fights with that. If this is Jack (and that's a name I haven't heard in a while), the same always applies: go back to your main and request an unblock there. It's not very likely to happen but it's less drama and less of a disappointment to your (former) supporters than creating new socks to see how far you can go before old habits happen. Ah, well, we can lead the horse to water .... -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The incompetent, hung elephant in the room

Not opportune. Drmies (talk) 04:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have to strongly insist that both WP:ROPE and WP:COMPETENCE have to be rethought, and we should stop using them at noticeboards until this has happened. There's a stab at Wikipedia:Let the tiger show its stripes to rewrite ROPE, but that phrasing is not really much better; that saying is rarely interpreted positively. In both cases, there is a negative presumption – of bad faith or of mental problems, respectively. Yet many admins (among others) at ANI and AE have little compunction against using ROPE to 'cleverly" imply that they're actively predicting that the user will screw up [that's vulgar swearing to a lot of people, BTW] and maybe even hoping they will. I've been objecting to this for years, but we have no other page for the concept (I referred to it the other day myself, but didn't feel good about it). The re-approach is that the concept is If an editor released from a restriction returns to disruptive behavior they can be sanctioned more strongly than they were the last time. Note the total lack of assumptions in that new nutshell. With COMPETENCE, it's frequently abused to imply that anyone difficult, "differently clued", highly emotional, or not too good with logic is "incompetent" to participate here, but that's rarely actually true. There must be a way to reword that so that it speaks directly and only to the effects on the project, the community, and the consensus process, but not the motivations or causes for individual's competence issues. What looks like crazy to you may look like stubborn to me, and what I think is stupidity may clearly map to a cultural divide in your eyes. WP has no damned [another swear-word to some people] business trying to imagine what someone else's neuroses or IQ are. We do have a strong interest in tying certain patterns of interaction and other behavior to undesirable effects. We do not have to theorize that someone is incapable of complying, only note that they are not. Competence by definition is something that one develops and exhibits; it is not and cannot be an innate trait.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC) I disagree on the point of ROPE needing a move/rewording. On the point of COMPETENCE, there may be something there, but I would like to see aa draft of any rewrite before I can get behind it. --ceradon (talk • edits) 00:32, 15 August 2015 (UTC) The argument is about assuming good faith not about competency. As I suggested, perhaps something more like "Good faith applies to the blocked as well"? There was WP:SECOND CHANCES but it seemed like people were trying to ramrod the current articles there rather than build a separate one. Either way, that discussion isn't for here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:19, 15 August 2015 (UTC) Oppose: This discussion does not belong here and is a distracting hijack. Recommend this section be hatted. Softlavender (talk) 01:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC) Having promised to withdraw I in the spirit of fairness have to clarify that this has relevance to the situation. There were mentions of CIR by myself a couple of others and the WP:ROPE stuff is apparent as part of the locus. I have nothing to add one way or the other about the rest. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC) Very strongly oppose-SMcCandlish's suggestions, both that they need re-writing and that they not be used. I recommend that if he is offended by them, he not use them, and look the other way when they are properly used by others. If someone improperly interprets them, he should correct their misusage. His POV is not necessarily shared by the rest of the community. BMK (talk) 02:05, 15 August 2015 (UTC) Oppose - SMcCandish is not the new chief essayist/moral compass of Wikipedia, and despite his "strong" insistence that two more longstanding essays be totally trashed, we actually do not need any more essays that he just doesn't like to be rewritten to comply with his POV. What's next on this slippery slope? For instance, WP:TE is currently written entirely from a perspective of how describe a "type" of editor, and "labeling" is a practice which he claims to object to; yet he quotes it when it suits him. He also quotes WP:VESTED when he wants to, which is another label. His method of turning essays that effectively describe disruptive editors into his own little primers (self-written-and-not-submitted-for-community-approval) on how to "cure", or "not be", these types is neither acceptable nor warranted. COMPETENCE has been around since June of 2008. ROPE since January of 2010. Why, now, is this one editor literally demanding that these essays (among others) be sanitized for his approval? Is this a new Renaissance or something? It is not. Leave both of these essays alone. Doc talk 03:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC) Oppose - In the last few weeks we have had as many time sinks abuse AGF as I have seen in many moons. These essays do not need to be weakened to help these WP:NOTHERE editors. MarnetteD|Talk 04:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC) Oppose Both essays make great points. This is hardly the venue to propose such a things. Discussion is already going on at the talk page fro ROPE where consensus seems to be that it is fine. Chillum 04:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC) Comment. What is a "hung elephant" and why is said "hung elephant" in the subheader but nowhere else?Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:09, 15 August 2015 (UTC) When I first read that I pictured a well endowed elephant, but then I realized it was a reference to WP:ROPE. Chillum 04:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism/Block evasion/Personal attacks

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

---

Bishietushie (talk · contribs) - Block this account immediately please. - NQ (talk) 13:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@NQ: I've made a report at WP:AIV, which is the best place to report obvious vandalism. Thanks for bringing this up. ~ Rob^Talk 13:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: I did it already half an hour ago ([417]), but it has been reverted a couple of times... :-) Alex2006 (talk) 13:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Indef'ed. DMacks (talk) 13:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

USER:BU Rob13 you mean like say [[418]]? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

He wasn't blocked and the report wasn't there when I started filling out the report, likely because he reverted it. ~ Rob^Talk 13:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Well that's because it had been removed eight times prior. He knew where to go but it wasn't working look at the history Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I love the smell of socks throwing an impotent tantrum in the evening. Hell in a Bucket, I fixed the URL in your "history" link. DMacks (talk) 13:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

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

False accusation and personal attack

user:Toddy1, has a history of making false and baseless accusations against me. He claimed here [419] that I added the following, when it was there long before I started editing the article: "Under Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab it says "Salafists consider Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab as the first figure in the modern era to push for a return to the religious practices of the salaf as-salih". As we may see here [420], this statement has existed long before I started editing.

Today he posted a menacing personal attack on my talk page, accusing me of being a user I have no connection with and do not know who he/she is. His message may be seen here [421]. This is clearly a violation of a variety of wikipedia policies pertaining to civility and personal attacks. I would recommend that disciplinary action be taken against him. Xtremedood (talk) 14:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I see a big BOOMERANG coming back at Xtremedood. The user hasn't even informed Toddy1 formally. Leaving a manual missive on Toddy1's talk page is bad form. Please put a lid on it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor who interacted with Toddy1 sometime ago I had a brief interaction with Toddy1 a while ago. At first I thought that he was quite obnoxious, overbearing and very rude. But when I went to his talk page I found out that he speaks English language as a second language and therefore they sometimes try to say one thing and it comes out as another. Perhaps you can be kind enough to give them some rope?FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 16:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy, I have informed Toddy1 here [422], however he deleted it.

I have seen other users post more "informal" notices on pages and their complaint was not declared a boomerang, see here [423]. Is there a Wikipedia policy as to a specific format upon which a notice must be placed on a user's page? Xtremedood (talk) 00:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

No, there is no such required format - as the notice at the top of the page says (with my emphasis)

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

The requirement is to notify, the option for using that template is "may" not "should" or "must" - Arjayay (talk) 13:52, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Background. Xtremedood is involved in a content dispute concerning the article on the Salafi movement. He/she made changes on 24 July, 25 July, 8 August, and 10 August. I tried reverting on 24 July on the grounds that two citations that I checked did not support the text. He/she reverted back and started a talk page discussion at Talk:Salafi movement#Revert by Toddy1. In the talk page discussion @Brustopher: supported Xtremedood's changes, whilst @MezzoMezzo:, @DeCausa: and myself objected to them. Xtremedood's changes to the article were partially reverted by MezzoMezzo, and completely reverted by me on 11 August.

Xtremedood's complaints about my conduct.

1. I received a message posted by an IP threatening to report me to Interpol on my talk page on 13 August. It seemed obvious that this was from Xtremedood, so I responded by posting a message on User talk:Xtremedood politely asking him/her not to send me threatening messages.[424]
2. Regarding Xtremedood's other complaint - during the discussion on the article talk page I mentioned two citations that I had checked and found not to support the text they were there for.[425] He/she is right that one of those citations was there before his edits. His/her edits of 8 August had moved the paragraph to a different part of the article, and I mistakenly thought that he/she had introduced that part.
3. I do not understand why Xtremedood believes that I deleted his ANI notification from my talk page. It is still there.

-- Toddy1 (talk) 05:31, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• Ugh. Relatively new editor Xtremedood is trying to POV push a fringe view into Salafi movement and finds established editors MezzoMezzo and Toddy1 resisting on the basis of policy. Xtremedood proceeds on the basis of WP:BATTLE and uses ANI report based on a trivial diff as a tactic to attack one of the editors they're in dispute with. Thread needs to be dismissed with an admin keeping an eye on the OP. That's the story here. DeCausa (talk) 12:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • It's not POV. It was sourced. I am against dogma being promoted in this article over verifiable facts and sources. Xtremedood (talk) 13:43, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

As we can see above, user:Toddy1, once against falsely accuses me of leaving that message when I have no connection to that user and I do not know who that user is. Clearly this has to stop. Xtremedood (talk) 13:43, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Copyright violations in uploaded images

Jmt0905 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been taking an interest in the Santo Domingo article this month - in fact, they have only edited this article. Beginning on 10 August they have been uploading images of the city, claiming that they have unknown authors but are in the public domain, despite being modern. I have tagged several for speedy deletion where I could find plausible sources (e.g. File:Piantini - Santo Domingo.jpg, File:Dario Contreras Hospital.jpg, File:Ney Arias Lora Hospital.jpg, File:Agora Mall Interior.jpg - possibly admin only links) but despite a couple of deletions on 11 August, and several speedy deletion template warnings, they have continued uploading. Can other users please help by checking their remaining images, and admins by blocking if necessary? Thank you. BethNaught (talk) 15:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I will look after this. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

User:194.61.173.253 needs review: contribs show continual mix of sneaky vandal edits, and serious good faith edits, since 2011

Useful links/templates:

• 194.61.173.253 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 194.61.173.253 (talk · contribs · blocks · count · rollback · admin · logs)

There's no block log, deleted/revdeleted contribs and only one talk page comment (unhelpful edits, 2013). A disproportionate number of edits are blanking or vandalism or at best dubious for a bona fide editor of 4 years standing. The latest was two section blankings in mid July 2015. Equally, a ton of edits that looked like more of the same, turn out to be apparently bona fide when I checked, and seem to show thoughtfulness, involvement and good faith. Some I just couldn't find a definitive answer. I'm genuinely confused, so I'm posting it here for others to take a look, or the user him/herself to comment. Hopefully the user will understand (if good faith) that this is part of keeping things good and will understand why I'm so puzzled by their editing history. It's also possible their IP address is shared and this is the work of two editors, one of whom should get an account to prevent this confusion? Some reverts may be needed.

Examples:

• Blatant obvious vandalism:

adds "except for (persons name)" as attack on a person by that name

attack on footballer in subject's BLP (added "a selfish, unmotivated, lazy and highly unlikeable character who is symptomatic of the modern footballer")

• Looks like sneaky vandalism:

changes named club from Southampton to SUnderland, but references show the former was correct [426] (en) [427][428]

• Blanking:

[429] (two edits, deleting sections on two of fourteen construction regulations, unlikely to be accident or have good reason.

section blanked, unlikely to be good reason

infobox items blanked

• Unclear whether or not good faith:

changes name of a museum

changes years and names in a list, could be genuine update or not

changes memorial attribution from being replica of cannons from Siege of Lucknow (India and deathplace of article subject in 1857) to replicas from the Crimea War

• Appear valid:

updating tense to reflect event has happened

changes religion and employer of a BLP, but sources appear to support the edit [430]

changes "local government act" to "local transport act" but latter appears correct

change of date, but as many reliable sources seem to have one date as the other hence AGF

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

A quick WHOIS search will show that the IP is registered to Newcastle City Council, which would easily account for the varied editing style, given that many government employees will presumably be behind this IP. BethNaught (talk) 16:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, you posted yours about 7 mins before I posted the above, while I was writing it. Let's close this and I'll amend my TP post to reflect that better, too. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Just as likely to be library users and schoolchildren as local government employees. DuncanHill (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Some of the good faith edits on talk pages from 2013 were signed User:TWAMWIR, which given their user page suggests that the IP is almost certainly a public terminal. Black Kite (talk) 14:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Kingshowman using Wikipedia as a battleground

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

---

A quick survey of the talk page of Kingshowman (talk · contribs) as well as his contributions and edit summaries (e.g. here and here, to show but two of many) will show that he views Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND and that every time someone reverts his edits or warns him about something, he resorts to incivility and rants. He has been blocked three times already in the past month, but each time he comes back as combative as before. He appears to be knowledgeable in the areas he edits, but completely unwilling to work within the collaborative style of Wikipedia. He is beginning to become a serious disruption.— Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiDan61 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 13 Aug 2015

Generally, I only edit the David Hume page. I think you'll agree on perusing the page that I've vastly improved it from the state of torpitude and decripitude it was in before. There are various thorn-in-my-side editors who follow me there to try to revert the edits, although they have never read a word David Hume penned aside from the quotations I've placed in the article. This is a bogus bunch of bollocks and the people making the claim now that as well I do. My edits speak for themselves. You will find that a number of editors , for example PGALLERT, Prhartcom, and maunus have all praised me publicly for my high quality edits. Those pursuing this block have no abiding interest in the topics I edit and revert them pointlessly simply to try to annoy me. Likewise, they are bringing this case against me to annoy me. The high quality of my edits and the vast improvements of the David Hume page since I came to it speak for themselves. Kingshowman (talk) 17:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kingshowman: It would be a stretch to say that you have been "publicly praised for your high quality edits". Several editors have agreed that some of the points you've made on David Hume were valid improvements, but all have agreed that your means of going about making the changes flies in the face of Wikipedia policies about verifiability and collaboration. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kingshowman: Could you please explain your habit of referring to other Wikipedia users as "edit goons", a theme that seems to be the focus of your contributions here? [431][432][433][434][435][436][437] - MrX 17:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I naively assumed this was a new editor with potential and needed a bit of guidance/caution about interacting with others. I shoulda done my homework. Although his article edits may be good, the level of personal attacks in edit summaries and talk comments are unacceptable. His last two edits to his talk page tell it all his reply to the notification of this discussion and edit summary and his response to my edit warring note and second edit summary are typical examples. Vsmith (talk) 17:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit summaries like This is another editor with no interest in the topic and no reading comprehension skills who has destroyed work without any justification., and messages on talk pages such as Wikipedia policies are not an excuse to not use your brain when editing are totally uncalled for. The reason I undid the users edit was because they were using a typepad blog as a source and I was told to stop my unreasoned edits [inspite of stating in the previous edit summary]. It's not the edit warring, but the unwillingness to discuss and the bad faith comments directed at others that bugs me. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 17:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and I just saw that he told Vsmith to fuck yourself in an edit summary. Don't you think a Topic ban is in the order? -_Rsrikanth05 (talk) 17:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Several times I have referred to certain editors as "edit goons" (jokingly) because they seem to follow me around wherever I go and revert my edits on topics that had previously been of no interest to them. I have no objection to collaboration with people who are legitimately interested in the topic but those who follow me around to revert me because they dislike me I have a real problem with. Dan, no it is not a stretch. When I was previously hounded by editors who don't know my topics but know they dislike me and try to revert on mere technicalities , I threatened to quit and reverted all my edits. They were put back as an improvement to the page. When constructive criticisms were made by actual contributors to the page( rather than drive by shooters who make up completely in informative comments as their "reasons" for reverting the page, something which too, is regarded as uncivil and destructive) I took them into account. For instance you'll see the helpful collaborations on tightening the length of the lead from last night with maanus who said that the trimmings were a great improvement. So no, it is not a "stretch" to say that I've been publicly praised. Why am I continually subjected to excessive scrutiny and harassment on here when my edits have , by and large, been helpful and remedied major deficiencies In a high importance philosophy article? Also, you'll see that in the edit war I was accused of engaging with, I was happy to accept the deletions of the polls of members of the profession ranking Hume highly once a more cogent objection was presented than the mere fact that it came from an academic's philosophy page? Finally, I can hope you would find it clear that "edit goons" is an attempt at humor in response to what I perceive as unwarranted harassment and lack of appreciation for all the hard work I've invested in improving the Hume page, when I could be putting this time into my academic papers. I didn't think humor was illegal. Thanks.Kingshowman (talk) 17:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

And I am a new editor. I've been here for a week.

And unwillingness to discuss? I go begging for days for discussion on the talk page before I make changes. What irritates me are the drive by editors who revert on a technicality totally content free destroying work rather than asking for a citation if they would like one. Kingshowman (talk) 17:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

And you clearly don't know much about philosophy if you're going to refer to the most trafficked philosophy web page on the Internet as a "typepad" blog.

Neither you nor vsmoth have read Hume nor seem to know who he is. I can only conclude you are editing out of malice towards me. Vsmoth particularly has an obvious petty grudge and was destroying and damaging the page without reason to annoy me.Kingshowman (talk)

Editing out of malice? We aren't jobless. If you are going to insult a horde of editors and then claim it was done in jest, then I can very well claim that my reversion of your edits were done in jest. I don't need to know about philosophy to edit the page. The fact that an edit violates a policy is enough. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary , it is extremely destructive to have philosophy pages continually edited by people who haven't read the works. And I called you stupid because and your edits idiotic because you felt t was necessary to revert the first sentence of the lead and delete "highly influential" on a page you know absolutely nothing, not zero about. First of all that judgement is verified below in the article and such a general statement as Hume being influential does not need a citation in the first sentence of the article. Frankly , your edit was stupid and if you want to rag on me for being uncivil that's fine but at least I didn't stupidly delete something on a topic I am admittedly completely ignorant of. It's ok to be ignorant of some things. There are plenty of topics I'm ignorant of. I don't go editing them and drive by destroying information in the middle of t being updated to annoy editors who are freely donating their professional time and improving your poor quality article. ( not my judgment but wikipedia's which currently rates the par as low quality and several other knowledgeable editors have asked me to help improvement it and get it to good article status) you are merely obstructing not that process with admittedly ignorant edits how can it possibly be helpful to have persons who do not anything about the topic edit the pages? How? I'm not asking that you be a Hume scholar but if you have never cracked the spine of one of his works, please, please don't be tempted to ignorantly edit his page. You people are really rather unbelievable that I should have to request that people who have never read Hume refrain from editing. Kingshowman (talk) 18:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Ass for jest, a question was asked about calling people "edit goons" on my user page. The page is marked as humor and anyone ought to be able to tell it is meant to be funny. I've also started on the talk page that the page was meant to be funny. Please read for context. Kingshowman (talk) 18:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Referring to editors as "goons" in an edit summary is not humor. On the Internet, no one knows that you are being sarcastic. Uncivil edit summaries are worse than uncivil comments on talk pages, because they cannot be deleted except by redaction, which requires work by an administrator to correct extreme poor judgment. Knowledge of David Hume does not compensate for ignorance of Wikipedia culture. Recommend a short block to get the attention of the subject that these personal attacks are not permitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:21, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Kingshowman for your answer. I will keep it in the back of my mind that the subject is influential and doesn't need a source. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

You're an idiot and an uneducated ignoramus. Please , for the sake ,of the encyclopedia stay far away from the philosophy articles in the future. No a citation isn't needed in the lead for the claim that Hume is "influential" which is located elsewhere in the article. hint: perhaps you might have read the section marked influence or even begun to read Hime before ignorantly opining on him?Kingshowman (talk) 18:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

That's enough of incivility for now. I'd suggest you refrain from using unparliamentary language and stop coming up with your own definitions of vandalism before you get blocked. Thank you, have a nice day. Admins, please take over. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

This discussion should be preserved after Kingshowman is blocked and/or banned. It reads as a classic example of "how NOT to argue on public forums". FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 18:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Dennis Brown blocked Kingshowman for a week. But like I indicated here and here on my talk page, Kingshowman should be indefinitely blocked. I don't at all agree with anyone thinking that this editor should be allowed to continue to edit here. Being so familiar with, and tired of, editors like this, I am of the viewpoint that anyone trying to help Kingshowman is wasting their time. But, hey, those are my opinions. Flyer22 (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• As an editor, I would agree that an indef block is best, but I acted conservatively as an admin whose job is to guess consensus. If there is a consensus here that an indef is best, I would ask any admin to modify the block without asking my permission. I had to do something to prevent disruption now and make a decision that would clearly be supported as a minimum, but if there is a poll, my personal opinion is that indef is the best solution. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with User:Dennis Brown in not giving an indef block. I only favor an indef block on the first offense for users who are clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia, such as trolls and vandals. This editor is a flamer, but has an agenda to contribute to an article about a philosopher, and we need constructive editing on modern philosophers. If he continues to flame after coming off block, an indef will be in order, but at this time, a timed block is a chance to get his attention to be civil to other editors who are interested in philosophy even if they know less than he does. (I would have supported a three-day block, but seven days is fine.) Thanks. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• I have not experienced any of these problems with Kingshowman, on the contrary he listened carefully to my arguments and followed my suggestions with no conflictive posturing. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

  However, the rest of us have had loads of problems, all of which are out in the open to see. Three blocks prior to the current, plus Flyer22's opinion of an indef block. I think the last one speaks for itself. Kingshowman has harassed Flyer22 a lot. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• Given that this is Kingshowman's fourth block in less than one month, I think an indef is in order. While I can't say this user is WP:NOTHERE as his contributions on David Hume have been done in an earnest attempt to improve the article, I can say that this user is unwilling to accept the consensus of the community regarding his efforts. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• His block log[438] shows that his first block under this username was for block evasion. What username was he blocked under previously? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

He was editing as 24.46.196.22 (talk · contribs), blocked for BLP issues, then created this account while actively blocked. Kuru (talk) 02:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Note... Instead of stating this on Kingshowman's talk page, I'm going to state this here: Regarding the unblock request that Ohnoitsjamie turned down, Kingshowman is incorrect that I called him a poor editor; I called his edits poor; there's a difference. If there were no difference, the WP:No personal attacks policy would not state, "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Noting an editor's edits as problematic is commonplace here at Wikipedia. Same goes for noting an editor's edits as poor. Those are not WP:Personal attacks, as significantly experienced editors here are aware of. Do I consider Kingshowman a poor Wikipedia editor? I do. But then again, he is a WP:Newbie. Seemingly anyway. I, however, chose to focus on the state of his editing, in an effort to try and make him see what others complaining about his edits see. Instead of taking the time to reflect on why these editors are complaining, by clicking on/reading the WP:Policies and guidelines presented to him, he chose to attack...harshly. Not just me, but just about everyone he was in dispute with. He also takes matters out of context and twists facts regarding how editors interacted with him. Everything Kingshowman has stated about me has been a mischaracterization, but I'm not going to address all that. He keeps repeating the same things over and over again, as though not listening anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 03:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, calling an editor a goon might actually be humor per this , however, it really depends on what was said, how it was said and how it was precieved. KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 11:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Call for close

I think that the admins have enough information now to make a decision and close this, and that further discussion will not change that. Let's take whatever action the closing admin deems appropriate, close this, and move on. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Cyanidethistles has deleted content posted on Rohnert Park, California

User:Cyanidethistles has deleted content posted on Rohnert Park, California under the heading 2015 Police Controversy even though multiple users have contributed to it and it regards an ongoing public discussion in America. The content being destroyed repeatedly is proper cited and there are no questions about grammar or objectivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hnolson (talk • contribs) 18:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@Hnolson: I have added a heading for your posting here; and did you notify Cyanidethistles on their Talk page of your complaint here concerning them (as is required, see top of this page) so they can present their side of the dispute? General Ization ^Talk 18:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I see that you attempted to notify Cyanidethistles, though you posted it on their User page instead of their Talk page. I have moved the notice to the appropriate page. General Ization ^Talk 18:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) This looks to me like a simple content dispute that can be settled on the talkpage without having to resort to AIV. Especially when you see that the content was only removed once, and no attempt at a discussion was ever made. -- Orduin ^Discuss 22:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Unjustified removal of sourced content by User:Hippo43 at Backronym

Unjustified removal of sourced content by User:Hippo43 at Backronym:

• In October 2009, he deleted the sourced information that the word was coined in a "monthly neologism contest", calling it spuriously, "cl. rm detail irrelevant to subject" -- diff

It seems self-evidently relevant and encyclopedical to inform about such origin, as opposed to a word coined by a writer in a literary work. (Part of this info was later restored.)

• In April 2010, he deleted the sourced information that "Actual use of the word is found in texts since at least 1994", calling it spuriously, "cleanup" -- diff

It seems self-evidently relevant and encyclopedical to inform about when a word started being used for real, as opposed to being merely cited as a curiosity or as part of a list. (This info was never restored.)

And if one defines "vandalism" as deliberately removing legitimate and sourced content for one own's agenda or amusement, then why shouldn't this be called vandalism? (I suspect that more would emerge if the history of User:Hippo43 was combed.)

I'm afraid that this sort of daily and unpunished deletions is symptomatic of article decay, explains why good editors leave and bad editors stay, and points at why Wikipedia remains such an awful source after fifteen years. 62.147.26.10 (talk) 18:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any discussion of this content removal on the article talk page or on the user's talk page. However I do see a selection of IPs posting there. I wonder how many of these are open proxies? Or did a whole group of random people show up there just by chance? It almost looks to me like Hippo43 is being harassed, an event which is a lot more likely to drive away contributors than this trivial content removal. Also, we don't punish users for their editing choices, especially five years after the fact, or describe them as vandalism when plainly they are not. Please discuss the removal of the content on the article talk page, or restore it yourself. The page is not protected, and anybody can edit it. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:21, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Repeated/escalating non-AGF and personal attacks

My apologies ahead of time for the wall of text below. This report, however is the result of several weeks of continued incivility and personal attacks and deserves -- I believe -- to be looked at from the complete history, not just what it has escalated to be as of today.

In spite of repeated warnings, User:MaverickLittle has continued to make personal attacks and demonstrate non-AGF behavior on talk pages and in edit summaries. I have asked him to stop numerous times and have left warnings on his talk page as the attacks were repeated and escalated. His non-AGF and uncivil behavior have not been limited to me of late, as Cwobeel has also brought it up to him. His rude comments and nasty attitude have not been limited to being directed at just me.

From his talk page history, one can see that the same behavior has been happening for a while with other editors with his comments directed at them escalating into incivility: Edit summary here, here. He was taken to AN3 at the end of June, where an administrator (Darkwind noted the the case was not really edit warring and advised the filer (SanAnMan that the complaint seemed more in line with disruptive editing behavior (AN3 report here). Darkwind further notified MaverickLittle with a Discretionary Sanctions alert here; ML's response was to remove the notice and with uncivil comments in the editing summary - it is at this point where the escalation in ML's aggressive tone is first evident: "Removed info that was attempt to find something that I did wrong, which of course there wasn't. One editor just did not want to add the information to the article and took a lame case to an admin. Nothing came of it. Nothing."; (edit summary found here). Another example of incivility ("Explanation to Jd027 to check his work before he re-inserts--especially when he adds an unnecessary and incorrect to talk page lecture on top of it.") occurred here. Next example of continuing incivility toward editors in an edit summary here. When notified that he was edit warring, his response was less than polite (see here) and was followed by removal of the notice with another curt comment in the edit summary here.

It was at this point where he then went to AN3 to make the following comments directed at me (even though he was not involved in the AN3 filing at all) : "I would take just about any comment that Winkelvi about other people's edit habits with a huge grain of salt. He does not engage in conversation. He just states what he wants the article to be. Period. He reverts you immediately and then states that his version is the stable version, even if it isn't. I have only encounter Winkelvi in the last two days, concerning two different articles, Ted Cruz and Rachel Dolezal, but his actions are the same. His way or the highway. He is not someone to take his comments about other's edit habits seriously. I made one edit to the Ted Cruz article and he reverted me and other information that has been in the article for almost a year and then he puts a warning on my talk page that I was engaged in an edit war. His claim that I was engaging in an edit war was a lie. There is no other way to describe his outrageous claim. I merely walked away from the article instead of attempting in interact with him because he is unreasonable. Yeah, I made these comments, Winkelvi believes that it is his right to be critical of others but he needs the same instruction." - diff here. He was warned by another editor regarding the comments here and they were removed. Everything escalated from that point on - ML's response was "Your comments written above are obnoxious and narrow. You need to find something else to spend your free time on."

I have left the appropriate amount of warnings on ML's talk page since the incident at AN3: #1, #2, #3, #4. His comments regarding the warnings have continued with more personal attacks and all along the same theme as this: ("Stay off my talk page. You are a bully. You like to push others around. I reject all of your comments. You should follow your own advice." (found here. The personal attacks and uncivil behavior at the following talk pages have continued, up to today, even after he has been asked numerous times there to dial it down and behave more civilly: Columba Bush talk page, the Ted Cruz talk page, and the Carly Fiorina talk page.

I know I am far from perfect and have certainly had my moments of anger and incivility; many could probably say I have no room to file a complaint. Even so, it seems to me that even with the amount of warnings and advice and patience by others offered to MaverickLittle, he believes he can continue in the same vein of incivility without consequence. He appears to be fairly new, and his repeated WP:IDHT and WP:NOTTHEM-related comments attest to such. Because he is a relative newbie, I am not asking for nor am I suggesting any kind of block at this time. That said, something needs to be done that will make a stronger impression on him than what he's gotten from several veteran editors. If it doesn't happen soon, he will continue down this road of incivility and personal attacks to the point of where we have a situation of where a Wiki-monster has been created and allowed to flourish. He has made some decent content additions, but the attacks and battleground mentality get in the way to the point of obvious disruption that makes the signal to noise ratio a net negative. The underlying tone of hostility and aggressiveness he has employed pretty much since he started editing here has grown and become, in my opinion, abusive with almost an attitude of "I dare you to report me". I've been putting up with it from him for a while now and am finally at the point of where I'm saying 'enough'. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• Adding this example of further personal attacks by ML on August 6, 2015 at my talk page: "You are a typical bully of Wikipedia. You should be embarrassed. I'm not going to engage with someone who lies like you did when you claimed that I was engaging in an edit war. That was a damn lie and since you are willing to flat out lie like that it is clear that having an intelligent discussion with you is not possible. It was not just a lie; it was a damnable lie." (diff here). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I said all of the things above. Yes. It is correct Winkelvi is a very aggressive editor. Yes, Winkelvi does not cooperate when he edits. Yes, he lectures others about things that he does not do himself. Yes, disagrees with my edits constantly and he immediately reverts them. Yes, I follow neutral point of view. Yes, I use reliable sources to back up my edits. Yes, I am good editor. I admit to all of these things. Yes, I have told Winkelvi to follow his own advice. Yes, I refused to read an essay, which is not Wikipedia policy and that made Winkelvi dig down even deeper to give me a second lecture about how I must read everything that he tells me to. Yes, I raised my issues with Winkelvi with an admin. Yes, no matter what article I go to edit to get away from Winkelvi he follows me there and starts reverting my edits. Yes, if Winkelvi does not like my style or working with me why does Winkelvi follow me wherever I go? It is nonsense. He engages in incivility but he complains about incivility. He does every single thing that he complains about. It makes no sense.--ML (talk) 18:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• Note: ML's claim that I am following him to articles is incorrect. All of the articles we have in common have been on my watchlist for months, in some cases, years. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I called Winkelvi a bully because he is constantly following me around bullying me. Why can't he see that? Yes, I called Winkelvi a bully because I make suggestions, no matter what they are, and he immediately disagrees and usually but not always reverts me. I admit that I called him a bully because he tells me that I have to read anything that he tells me to. I admit that I called him a bully because he does not even read the links that I provide him when we are attempting to have a conversation. Yes, I admit I called him a bully because he tells me that I don't listen to the other editors but I response to every editors comments. He just does not like what I have to say to the other editors. Yes, I admit I called him a bully because he acts like a bully.--ML (talk) 18:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Hogwash!!! I went to the Jimmy Carter article to get away from him and he followed. I went to the Carly Fiorina article to get away from him and he followed. That is hogwash. Why is he following me around? It is creepy!--ML (talk) 18:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

My first edit to the Carter article was on 5 July 2015, yours was on 12 August 2015. Evidence of same here and here. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

MaverickLittle needs to cool it, and do that sooner than later. His approach to editing is highly combative and most definitively not helpful. A strong warning is certainly due. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

A warning for what? Did you read the comments that Winkelvi quotes. There is nothing there. I would ask anyone who reads this to review the series of edits that led to these claims by Winkelvi. I edited the Carly Fiorina article so that it read correctly that Fiorina is the first woman to lead a "Fortune 20" company. It did not say that before. What is said: (1) in the first place it said something to the effect that "some people believe that Fiorina might be the first woman to lead a Fortune 20 company" which left the impression that may be she or may be she didn't and of course the truth is quite clear that she is was, without question, the first woman to be CEO of a Fortune 20 company and (2) in the second place it said she was the first woman to lead a top 20 U.S. company, which is not entirely true. I edited so that it states clearly that she is the first woman to be CEO of a Fortune 20 company. You immediately protested by stating, falsely, that there is no phrase such as "Fortune 20" and you wanted it reverted to back what it was. I pointed out clearly that I was quoting the reliable source word for word. Winkelvi immediately jumped in and stated that my edits needed to be reverted immediately. I told Winkelvi to review the reliable source and I provided him with a link to the reliable source that I quoted word for word. He did not read the correct link and then he immediately stated that my edit needed to be reverted because the incorrect link did not support my edit. I told him pay attention to my comments (the exact same thing that he claims against me constantly) and to read the right link. He then read the right link and he still demanded that my edits be reverted. You supported him during this silliness and so I went and looked up about 27 different reliable sources that supported my wording of the phrase "Fortune 20". And all of my 27 or so reliable sources not only used the phrase "Fortune 20", the exact same phrase that you and Winkelvi were demanding that my edits be reverted and removed from the article. Winkelvi gave me a lecture and told him again (for the sixth or seventh time) to follow his own advice. Neither you or Winkelvi took the time to do the simple research required to see that the phrase "Fortune 20" is a valid term of art and that it applies to Carly Fiorina and that is the correct way to phrase the topic. You both ganged up and attempted to force me to revert my edits immediately. When you say that my edits have "most definitely not helpful" that is just flat out not true. When I started editing the Fiorina article it was mass of POV pushing. For example, I took down a home-made stock price chart for HP that was chock full of false and defamatory information. It made the false and defamatory claim that the stock price for HP fell 65% during Fiorina time period. It had false and incorrect numbers in the stock chart to support this biased false conclusion of 65%. When I removed it you immediately reverted me and then you continued to revert me until I finally got the false and defamatory graph out of the article for good. Moreover, there was a "Controversy" section in the article even though it is long-time policy to remove "Controversy" sections, throw out what needs to go and work the information that is valid into the regular sections of the article. You have been fight that for the last week or so. You have been the rude the whole time. Now, the comments by quoted above might be rude and short, but they are not any less rude or short than the comments made by either you or Winkelvi. This complaint is ultimately about how to edit the Fiorina article and you and Winkelvi have decided that instead of moving forward with a civil debate about what the next step is you want to stop me from editing the article. This is ultimately a content dispute it is not about me being rude because if it was about rudeness then you and Winkelvi would be subject to the same restrictions. It is not a just a coincidence that this complaint happened moments after the two of you attempted to bully me into reverting a well-thoughtout, relevant, reliably source edit that I made in a neutral manner. And it is not just a coincidence that you and him both decided to work together on this complaint. If you were so concerned about rudeness then why don't you file a complaint against yourself or file a complaint against Winkelvi? Lord knows you will find tons of examples for both of you.--ML (talk) 22:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• TL;DR. You need to definitively cool it. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for adding support to my comments.--ML (talk) 00:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

ML: Do you want a civility block? Because if you don't change something quick in how you deal with other editors, that's what you're heading toward. Three veteran editors have told you the same thing as nicely as possible (one being an administrator). Do you really need more people to say the same before you heed the advice you're being given? Making some kind of a sincere indication here that you will change your attitude and behavior would be a good start. Or is a very stern warning something you'd rather see before turning things around? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

This comment by you is a fine example of what I am talking about. I honestly believe that Cwobeel made the extraneous comment above to poke me in the eye by telling me flat out that he did not read what I wrote and that he just does not care what I have to say. His response makes it clear that he has no intention to work with me in a give and take manner. Now in response I wrote that I think that his comment does add support to what I have been saying. If you read what he directed me to it means "Too Long, Didn't Read". How can we have meaningful communication if he won't read what I wrote? We can't. Also, you have tag teamed with him and gave me a lecture that you do not care that what I wrote what sincere and serious. I think he added support to my comments by just telling me he is not going to read what I wrote. Then you started another lecture to me. Your lectures tell me that you are not serious about having a conversation, but just want me to go away. Also, I am sincere and serious when I say to you that you should apply some the same principals that you lecture me about to yourself. I am sincere when I say please listen to me and stop lecturing me and please follow your own advice. Nothing that I have in here is uncivil. You just don't like what I have to say. Those two things are different.--ML (talk) 01:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I give up. I've done everything I can to get you to see that you are going down a path that will lead to somewhere and something you don't want. Two other editors have tried, unsuccessfully, as well. Ironically, while accusing Cwobeel and I of collusion and conspiracy against you and making more non-AGF/uncivil remarks about us here, you took a totally different approach with Drmies at his talk page. Here, you continue to battle and behave in a hostile manner. This duplicity shows you know there are eyes on your behavior and will do what you can to stay out of dutch (no aspersion casting meant, Drmies!) but will still jab and make uncivil remarks toward those you see as enemies who can't hurt you like an administrator could. So, while I once thought you were only going the way of WP:IDHT and WP:NOTTHEM, it's starting to look like gaming the system could be part of this too. Whatever the case, I'm throwing my hands up on this, walking away, and will allow those who can actually do something that will make an impression on you to do exactly that. Obviously, what Cwobeel and I have said means little to nothing to you. So be it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• OK. I have not followed every link offered here, but I followed a few. I think we're dealing here with an escalation of tempers, and I hope that these editors can stay away from each other a bit more. Focus on the issues. I settled one, if it needed settling, and I'm sure that these reasonable editors will move on from that particular one. I do not think that the diffs Winkelvi provided are so terrible as to warrant administrative intervention, but I do think that MaverickLittle is a bit on the combative side. It is in their best interest to tone that down some--it makes working with other editors that much easier. And that, of course, goes for everyone involved here, including yours truly. Drmies (talk) 02:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC).

Fair enough.--ML (talk) 02:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

CloudKade11

At WP:AIV, I was directed to move my report of this user here.

• CloudKade11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - performed sneaky vandalism on Talk:United States presidential election, 2016. After being given a final warning based on a long history of vandalism, he then performed more sneaky vandalism and blanking of talk page comments while pretending to be incompetent. I propose the user be blocked indefinitely.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
• I accept the user's explanation about a misbehaving browser extension, however I suggest that they should agree to disable it while editing or be indef'd, to prevent further disruption of this sort since they edit in areas where that sort of thing is likely to happen again. I think the "blanking of talk page comments" diff actually shows that the comments were moved down the page, rather than deleted. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It may just be me, but I would call "You're clearly sociopathic" a personal attack. Also, I don't buy his add-on excuse. But that may just be me... Kleuske (talk) 21:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kleuske: Not just you. I am on the same boat as you are. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 21:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

How can you not "buy" facts? The extension is very much real. One simple Google search would help you if you need clarification. And yes I called him a sociopath but he did call me a troll first and attacked another user's work by telling him it wasn't his "personal sandbox" for him to "experiment" his "gimmicks' on when he was merely looking for opinions on how to improve the article. CloudKade11 (talk) 22:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

William S Saturn has been engaged in verbal arguments with other users in the past and is currently engaged in one now with another. His sole purpose is to get me blocked because I praised the other users new styling of an article. And like I said, I've disabled the extension and if you don't believe me it's called "The Trumpweb". They have the exact same quotes that were added into the article accidentally. I don't see how anyone can't believe me when you can literally go and see for yourself, or hell I'd do it myself and take screenshots of how the extension works if that's what anybody wants. Not hiding anything. And yes I have a history of vandalism but in this case it was purely accidental because I had no idea the extension would do that. Everytime I left a valid comment/response that pertained to the article, a quote would be added somewhere randomly on the page. As you can see I was legitimately confused as to why I was being called a "troll" and a "vandal". Later I responded with what I think happened and surely enough it did. But yeah I'm not taking anything user William Saturn says seriously and neither should any of you. CloudKade11 (talk) 21:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

From a quick test I can confirm that the quote additions are from this extension; despite only adding a short comment to the bottom of my editing window, the diff showed a whole load of quotes added down the page. This is the kind of thing CloudKade11 should be more wary of, but (without having looked at this in any detail) it seems an honest mistake. Sam Walton (talk) 22:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I promise it will not happen again. I disabled the extension as soon as I realized what happened. CloudKade11 (talk) 23:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• WP: AGF is not a suicide pact.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Look at what this guy (I think it's very obviously the same person since he copied the exact template I left on his talk page) did to my talk page. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I didn't do anything. My I.P. is 2602:306:32da:6710:280f:2b86:51b2:ca90 CloudKade11 (talk) 00:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I find it very strange that my talk page would get attacked with the very same warning template I left on your user talk page. Based on your history of vandalism, I have a strong suspicion that you did it.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Well I just gave you my I.P. and it obviously doesn't match the person who did do it. I find it coincidental that you're so quick to put the blame on me when you're currently engaging in arguments with several other users yet while trying to get me blocked for something that was accidental as I have proven already. Also, many people easily have access to that template I believe. And my vandalism history is my fault, I take full responsibility for it, but just because I have one doesn't mean you should assume I'm at fault for everything without any actual evidence other than your "suspicions". CloudKade11 (talk) 01:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Saturn, don't accuse him of this, I know you like accusing people of sockpuppets (me) without any basis to such accusations. There is a line of rational criticism.   Spartan7W §   05:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Except for the fact that they were indeed socking. I've blocked CloudKade11 for two weeks and the alternative accounts indef. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Need for a quick block of a new Evlekis sock

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

---

Burjeremonz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a very obvious Evlekis sock, creating hoax articles and user pages that are pure and blatant vandalism. I have tagged The CMO Survey and Power trays for speedy deletion as G5, with a pointer to why it's obvious it's Evlekis in the CSD reason, so admins can find all the info they need there. Thomas.W ^talk 20:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• CU-blocked by Bbb23 so closing. Thomas.W ^talk 20:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Useless and unsourced edits by The Sheikh001 (part 3)

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

---

On July 28th, 2015, I filed this report about @The Sheikh001: repeatedly adding odd and unsourced info and then self-reverting. A previous report had already been filed by @Livelikemusic: on July 6th for the same reason. We were told, "If he does anything like this again, please report it here," by @WikiLeon: and he has done it again with this edit. I'm hoping something can be done this time because, if you look at his talk page, he's clearly not here to make constructive edits of any kind. Thank you.Cebr1979 (talk) 23:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Blocked indef. --w^{L<speak·check>} 00:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Ndsm breaking WP:3RR at Brandon Haunstrup

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

---

The user mentioned above has broken the three-revert rule, by saying that "we don't use nicknames in Wikipedia". Since when? I even quoted to him two articles, Cristiano Ronaldo ("[...] as Los Blancos won their tenth European Cup.") and Lionel Messi ("[...] score twice for Barça [...]") with the nicknames pretty clear. But received no replies, and a revert as a prize. Cheers, MYS77 ^✉ 00:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:EWN is thataway. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 02:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@Erpert: created a section there. Thank you, MYS77 ^✉ 03:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Serial nonsense pages

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

---

• MherHzzor (talk · contribs)

We need a block and mass reversions--numerous articles being created that translate to nonsense. Thanks, 2601:188:0:ABE6:5D65:637D:D70A:E45F (talk) 01:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Nuked and blocked. Thanks for the notification. Nakon 01:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

That user has been blocked now... Thanks for your contribution to fight vandals! --Prince Sulaiman ^{Talk to me} 02:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

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

José Bormann not discussing about Lucas Gafarot, thus breaching WP:BRD

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

---

Even after I send him a message explaining everything (The official website says "El FC Barcelona ha llegado a un principio de acuerdo con la UE Cornellà [...]"), he insists that Gafarot is loaned from the B-team. However, any B-team in the whole world cannot loan any players, they are loaned from the main team, and the statement above confirms it. MYS77 ^✉ 02:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I notice that the talk page is blank. Why not start a section to discuss it? So far it look like a content issue. AlbinoFerret 02:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree; ANI is extremely premature at this point. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 02:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• @Erpert: @AlbinoFerret: I already sent him a message in his talk page, the last one being at 01:20 UTC. 25 minutes later, without providing any replies, he restored his content with anything but "he plays for b' team" in his edit summary, which clearly has no sense as the guy was recently loaned out. MYS77 ^✉ 02:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• MYS77, this is the second ANI filing you've made today which does not belong here. I'm closing this ANI, and reminding you that ANI is only for longterm behavioral issues which all other methods have been exhausted on. You need to follow all of the precise steps in WP:Responding to a failure to discuss. Do not bring the matter here. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 03:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Ramzan Kadiryan

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

---

Creating multiple copies of gibberish articles.--Cahk (talk) 06:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Waenceslaus reverting edits made in line with an RSN decision they disagree with

As a result of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Gerontology Research Group (GRG) tables it has been determined that [439] is not a reliable source. This webpage has been used extensively in longevity related articles. The (lengthy) process has now begun to remove any Wiki entries based solely on this source. User:Waenceslaus has reverted a change, made also by IPs, in direct contradiction to the RSN decision [440] and also the appropriate change to WP:WOP with a spurious edit summary [441]. See also the user's entry in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World's Oldest People#Where do we go from here. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Waenceslaus demands that only those who are members of the WOP be permitted to change their guidelines. It's an odd contention since incorrect guidelines are meaningless overall and only serve to mis-lead its own members. We're having similar arguments at Talk:List of oldest living people#Removal of unverified claims. It's approaching WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory to just keep on arguing the exact same arguments (which were made at RSN) and ignoring the discussions that have been going on for years. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

_____________________

Greetings,

I must say I am surprised by such agressive action done by the users User:DerbyCountyinNZ and User:Ricky81682. I do not understand, why users User:DerbyCountyinNZ and User:Ricky81682 are so upset, that they turn to the Administration noticeboard for a single change revert. I did only one edit, which in fact, was reverting a previous destructive edit firstly done by user User:Ricky81682 and later continued by User: DerbyCountyinNZ. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_oldest_living_people&action=history). Both these users have deleted loads of sourced material. The source was Gerontology Research Group, considered by world's press and scientific circles as recognized authority in respect of extreme longevity tracking and supercentenarian study. It is recognized by American, European and also Brazilian press. Here are just a few examples of press citations:

http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/wauwatosa-woman-among-oldest-in-the-us-at-112-b99544087z1-318543041.html

http://ndonline.com.br/joinville/noticias/273114-jaraguaense-alida-grubba-tem-112-anos-e-foi-reconhecida-como-a-pessoa-mais-idosa-do-brasil.html

http://wtkr.com/2015/07/24/virginias-oldest-resident-dies-at-age-112/

The users User:DerbyCountyinNZ and User:Ricky81682 base their statements on a basis of a discussion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Gerontology_Research_Group_.28GRG.29_tables), which concluded, that some of the material developed and presented by the Gerontology Research Group is reliable, while other material is not. In my honest opinion, this assumption belies the facts, expressed above by the citations, I have presented. Because of the fact, that the Gerontology Research Group, considered as whole (and not just parts of it) is the recognized authority on supercentenarians, all its tables and its content are to be considered as such with no exceptions.

What worries me, is the fact, that users User:DerbyCountyinNZ and User:Ricky81682 have controversial history of contributions in respect of longevity articles. They tend to delete large amount of material without slightest effort to strenghten it with more sources. If they cared about the content of Wikipedia and felt, that the current sources are not enougth, which in fact isn't a case once the Gerontology Research Group is used as a source, then in my opinion as a constructive Wikipedia editor, they should put an effort and reach more sources. It is obvious. Instead, they threaten to continue their destructive actions. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_World%27s_Oldest_People#Where_do_we_go_from_here).

Regarding the Wikipedia World's Oldest People group, it associates Wikipedians interested in the topic of extreme longevity and supercentenarian study. It has created its own guidelines for its members, who are inspired by the topic and edit the articles, listed in the topic of "Longevity". (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Longevity). The fact is, that neither User:DerbyCountyinNZ nor User:Ricky81682 have joined the Wikipedia WOP project hence they are not listed among its members. Yet they continue to force their "rules", which only would legitimize the destructive edits done in this section by the users. In my opinion, before any user starts to force such controversial edits, he/she should communicate with the other members of the WOP group in the first place and express her/his good will and be accepted by the team of Wikipedia editors. Instead, User:DerbyCountyinNZ has written a notice on administration board on one of its members, namely me, without any justified reason.

In my honest opinion, the actions of users User:DerbyCountyinNZ and User:Ricky81682 is dangerous and destructive for English Wikipedia and should be stopped immediately by responsible administration units. Their contributions should be listed under observation in order to make sure, they won't keep on erasing important and sourced material from the English Wikipeida.

With kind regards, Sincerely, Waenceslaus (talk) 10:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

We don't need the approval of the WOP editors. Wikipedia doesn't exist to serve the WOP project. The fact that the WOP has created its own guidelines and wants to ignore the rest of Wikipedia's guidelines are the problem here. You expressed your opinions at the RSN discussion and the consensus there was that those weren't appropriate. Re-hashing it again and again for years is the problem here. I'm getting close to propose that the WOP project be forcibly archived as a whole and the discussions be moved to the main WP Biography page where more editors with experience can discuss these articles in line with our policies. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

We must defer to the WOP and stop this vandalism. The GRG is a reliable source and Wikipedia suffers when we let violent abuse over take sense. The wop's guidelines have been in place since it was just a yahoo group and wikipedians must understand that only the GRG really understands longevity issues, no one else does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.48.19 (talk) 10:50, August 14, 2015 (UTC)

___

Greetings, I feel the need to comment some of your statements.

---"We don't need the approval of the WOP editors."

Oh really? I'm afraid, that you have completely missed the issue here. You say, that you don't need the approval of 34(!) other Wikipedia editors associated in a Wikipedia group, being yourself not a member of it, to change the internal guidelines of the Wikipedia project's group? Ricky81682, you have learn to respect other people and their work. Your actions are considered by the members of the group as destructive and controversial. By what law, you claim, that you are the one, who has the right to judge, which sources are reliable and which are not, if 34 other users relies on that sources to keep the articles updated and clear. Face it: you a self-appointed, single Wikipedia editor and you must respect the Wikipedia rules exactly as the members of the WOP group do respect them. You have no right to delete sourced information from English Wikipedia on that scale.

---Wikipedia doesn't exist to serve the WOP project.

You misunderstood how it works again. It is the WOP project, that does exist to serve Wikipedia. And it does so in order to enlarge the level of the common knowledge and educate the society. Wikipedia is a free encyklpedia, that anyone can edit. That means, that also anonymous individuals like you can edit it. However, these edits must be constructive. Deleting the sourced material from English Wikipedia is a destructive action, which is called vandalism.

---"The fact that the WOP has created its own guidelines and wants to ignore the rest of Wikipedia's guidelines are the problem here."

Ricky, it's just the opposite. The WOP group does not create rules. You need to distinguish the word "rule" and "guideline". Guidelines are advises for contructive editors how to edit the articles dedicated for a particular topic and how to find a reliable source to base the information, which is added. However, the Wikipedia rules are broken, when a little group of single, anonymous users continue to delete the reliable, sourced material from Wikipedia. I'm truly sorry to say these words, yet I can't allow the English Wikipedia being affected by such actions.

---"I'm getting close to propose that the WOP project be forcibly archived [...]"

From the one hand you wish to force your own rules for the WOP project, being not a member of it; and from the other you want it to be forcibly archived. I truly do not understand the amount of nastiness from your side. I fear, that we deal here with a little, but somewhat "determined" users to disturb the constructive work of others. I fear, that users User:DerbyCountyinNZ and User:Ricky81682 are the example of users, who are exceptionally negatively prejudiced towards a particular field of science, which in this case is longevity and supercentenarian study. The existance of such negative emotions on Wikipedia, I consider as highly undesirable for English Wikipedia, which mission is to enlarge the knowledge of the society in multiple fields.

Sincerely, Waenceslaus (talk) 15:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The problem here is that members of WP:WOP are operating as their own insular walled garden with their own guidelines that conflict with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. When something like this happens it's absolutely the duty of members outside the wikiproject to bring these articles into compliance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. WOP's local consensus does not trump broader consensus regarding policies and guidelines or reliable sources. Information sourced to Table EE is no longer reliably sourced because that table has been found to be unreliable by the broader community. Therefore, if a reliable source cannot be found to support that information, removing it is absolutely the correct thing to do. Blocking that removal is disruptive. Ca2james (talk) 15:43, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I have been reading within WP about WikiProjects that went off the rails and were disbanded through MfD. It may well be time to see if the community is ready to disband that project and start an MfD on that.... The attitude of project members posting here makes it seem that that they have lost their way. Jytdog (talk) 16:47, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

There was an Arbcom case back in 2010 and one of the key issues was that it was clearly just a transfer from the Yahoo! group with similar insular logic. However I'm not sure there's a policy for disbanding projects like this on second thought. Either way, the point is, the walled garden local consensus approach isn't a resolution here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 16:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

There is a definite problem with this project and its members. Members of this project are almost all SPAs who edit on nothing but articles related to the project and who are unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Moreover, they are highly resistant to having their articles brought into compliance with policies and guidelines, choosing to edit-war their preferred, non-compliant version over discussion. List of oldest living people has been protected for 24 hours due to this edit-warring, and now members of this project are using that protection to argue that other changes - which describe the recent consensus on GRG tables determined at RSN - should not be made. This change has also been reverted because I'm not a member of the project,[442], because the change isn't "correct",[443], and for no reason at all.[444]

When discussion does happen, it's like that which appears above: denying broader consensus because the GRG is the most awesome expert ever on the subject of longevity and no one should ever doubt their words or tables. Quite frankly, the edit-warring, lack of discussion, and denial of consensus suggests that some of this project's members are WP:NOTHERE. If members of the project are unwilling to work within Wikipedia policies and guidelines, then shutting this project down seems like a good option to avoid the kind of disruption that is occurring now. Ca2james (talk) 19:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

You already deleted all the personal tables we had on our personal pages. We're just trying to teach Wikipedia about how the GRG works. Wikipedia should be happy that the GRG users are willing to help here. Would you want to live in a world where Wikipedia doesn't have all those articles on the supercentarians?166.171.121.17 (talk) 19:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• I would appreciate it if someone would take a look at Waenceslaus and the IP's behaviour as they are continuing to revert changes to bring the articles into compliance with MOS:COLOUR and the recent RSN consensus.[445][446] The IP has also reverted changes to the project page yet again because apparently an admin has ruled that my changes are wrong.[447] I think that admin is MusikAnimal and I'm not sure that this is the right reading. Ca2james (talk) 19:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

  See below, I didn't rule any version as the right version, just wanted to stop the edit war. That is the extent of my involvement — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

  Okay, I may have unknowingly gone against procedure (I've received conflicting advice before), and for that I apologize. I've reverted back to the state the article was when I went to protect it. This does not mean it is the right version, and I would like to make it abundantly clear that I am not choosing sides. Sorry for the confusion, and my best wishes that this will all get sorted out civilly — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Desysop Needed

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

---

Admin MusicAnimal specifically reverted everything Ricky did at the oldest living people article and protected it. His disruption is obvious, no one agrees with him and he shouldn't get to keep misusing his powers to attack everyone. It's time to discuss Desysop procedures. We need mandatory admin recall for precisely this kind of action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.121.17 (talk • contribs)

@MusikAnimal:, can you protect every WOP page from this vandalism? We can't let them disrupt the project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.121.17 (talk • contribs)

Let's be frank here, that is absurd. -- Orduin ^Discuss 19:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. We need to Desysop more admins who abuse their powers like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.121.17 (talk) 19:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

No, he meant your claim was absurd, and he's right. It does look from the evidence above that there is a serious problem with the WOP project, and it may be necessary to take some action on that point if its members continue to be disruptive. Black Kite (talk) 19:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

why? Because the cabal doesn't believe in consequences for one of their own?

I don't have any idea what "cabal" you're talking about, but from reading your notes on MusikAnimal's talkpage ("we have consensus", "we are right", "we don't care about your noticeboards") I'd suggest that if you carry on along that road, it will not end well for you, and quickly. There are previous examples of WikiProjects deciding that their own guidelines overruled Wikipedia policies. They were soon disabused of that notion. Black Kite (talk) 19:47, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Quickly stating what I did: I responded to a RPP request about List of oldest living people, observed edit warring with multiple confirmed users on both sides of the content dispute. So procedurally I reverted to the state prior to the edit war (likely the wrong version). This is the extent of my involvement and is the general workflow we take when dealing with an edit war. If there is consensus for changes to be made please make an edit request on the talk page and a patrolling admin will implement it shortly. Sorry I can not be of further assistance, I'm afraid I'll be signing off soon for the weekend. Admins are free to override my actions. Best — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Correct. He protected the right version. The rest of the pages need similar protection to prevent more disruption.

I didn't rule any version as the "right" version. I just put a stop to the edit war. Please seek talk page consensus (or here at ANI, I guess?) and make edit requests accordingly. — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

yes you stopped the edit warring by Ricky and the other disrupters. Things were fine when the WOP was left in control. Please protect the remaining articles the same way.

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

Desysop Black Kite

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

---

Black Nite commented here before closing the discussion above. He is involved and his misuse of his powers should be taken from him. Admins must be held accountable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.121.17 (talk) 19:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Continuing with this course of action is likely to get you blocked. I suggest you cut it out now. -- Orduin ^Discuss 20:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

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

IP canvassing

166.171.121.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) just committed canvassing here. I am not sure if this belongs here. If it doesn't please move it and let me know. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 21:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The canvass is to User:TFBCT1 who similarly just reverts edits to restore the GRG's prominance without discussion. [448][449][450]. The editor also "updates" the tables without providing any change in the actual sourcing which makes it impossible to determine its accuracy.[451]. Frankly canvassing the least problematic part of the IP's antics. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban for Waenceslaus

It's another day that ends in 'y' so I see I'm up for another desysop complaint here. To summarize the issue, oldest people article use a source (the GRG) which on its own calls certain cases "verified" and other "pending" and "unverified". It started off as a Yahoo! group and I believe it is using Wikipedia as a webhost for all its data instead (see this kind of thing). The biggest disputes are whether (a) to include the pending and unverified listings here (I believe so that the GRG members can have easy access to that information) even though that information is, as stated, not verified by the GRG [and in particular the use of coloring and the like to make the pages all fancy and the like) and (b) whether we should not include anything that the GRG has not verified/pending/whatever (regardless of other sources).

1. It's been a long dispute but a discussion at RSN was closed that said the GRG pending and unverified claims shouldn't be included here. Of course there are other claims that come by way of other reliable sources (e.g. newspapers for example). Waenceslaus did comment there I note.
2. This was attempted to be incorporated into the WOP guidelines section but User:Waenceslaus kept warring to revert it in place of a vague "no consensus" (and oddly to reinstate the old language that the GRG should only be used as backup.[452][453].
3. Waenceslaus's arguments at WPT:WOP show that it was based on a belief that only WOP members could determine what the guidelines are and all RSN and other Wikipedia discussions were going to be ignored. The same arguments were rehashed yet again as seen above.
4. There has been similar edit warring at List of supercentenarians who died in 2015[454] and at List of oldest living people[455]. The basis here is again that the pending listings have been verified in some way (which was brought up at RSN and rejected).
5. Waenceslaus's editing is entirely related to oldest people article. The editor has been active at List of Polish supercentenarians and when there were disputes there, just copied and made their own personal table at their userpage (deleted after being mentioned at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Waenceslaus). This was an issue for more than two dozen userpages of oldest people members.

I've requested page protection on the articles (the WOP page shouldn't need it) and hopefully that should calm down later. As such, I suggest we consider a topic ban for Waenceslaus from all longevity-related matters. We shouldn't have to re-hash and rehash the same arguments over and over again with editors who refuse to acknowledge that consensus does not support their position and who refuse to act civilly with other editors. Other editors can be brought up separately but I just want outside opinions on this situation. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I would not only support that, for the reasons you mention above, I would look into resurrecting the ArbCom sanctions in the topic area. Being able to clear the SPAs out without the rigmarole of these sorts of discussions would be supremely helpful, and willingness to use said sanctions would make it a lot easier. At the time of the ArbCom case I had only been here for 10 months or so, so I was very tentative, but now I'd be willing to help you and others run at it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any resolution that doesn't bring up back to ARBCOM. The incivility and repetitive arguments at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_World's_Oldest_People#Where_do_we_go_from_here are clear. When questioned, there's too much insider baseball responses. Nobody from the WOP crowd has yet to explain how their allegedly scientific system of verifying the oldest person lets them demote and remove names years after the fact without explanation. Any legitimate organization that had to rescind a claim about the first oldest living person in their records would give something more than just a deletion in a line in an Excel spreadsheet and yet we're in round 10 of the "Newspapers are garbage for birth and death ages but are RS for things like what the person ate at age 115 when we want to create an article about them." Ironic that the edit warring was to put back the guidelines that the GRG was only a secondary source (which was ignored). If we had that guideline, then we'd be eliminating everything that we couldn't find another source for. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:42, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• Concur completely with BOTNL, both re the topic ban for Waenceslaus, and revival of ArbCom sanctions. The WOP project and its IDHT SPA horde have been one of the most colossal sinkholes for editor and admin time in Wikipedia history. Yes, that's saying a lot, and no, it's not an exaggeration. This crap has been going on for a decade. Here's just a recent taste‍—‌dip in just about anywhere, at anything WOP is involved with‍—‌for more of the same:

User:Ca2james, I am very sorry, however, before you edit any of the WOP group guidelines, you have to be accepted as member of the World's Oldest People group of Wikipedia. Before that happens, I can't acknowledge any of the edits done by you. Please, apply for the membership in the first place. Kind regards, Waenceslaus (talk) 3:49 am, Today (UTC−4) [456]

Oh yeah, see the edit summary here [457]. EEng (talk) 03:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Was a problem back in 2011. Some things never change. Anyone want to explain the concept to Waenceslaus? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I certainly don't. There is not a single reported case of this monomania being cured, ever. As provided here, "In the event that disruptive editing resumes in any of these topic-areas, a request to consider reinstating discretionary sanctions in that topic-area may be made on the clarifications and amendments page." Well, the antics at RSN, at the WOP page, and here, plus the editwarring, certainly qualify. EEng (talk) 04:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Annoying user, will not follow editing guidelines

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

---

This user, Zurich00swiss. Has been bugging me alot, he has already reported me to this user (and several others) for me reverting his edits.

I reverted them because...

• No sources were provided
• They were not allowed per WP:Airports

This user has already been blocked in the past for sockpuppetery per WP:Sock, he has been getting on my nerves as he tells me to stop reverting his edits for no reason and he seems quite young for an editor, he also left a message on my talk page (which I deleted) about not providing references for my edits, which is not true. RMS52 (talk) 08:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

RMS52
1-My edits are correct and your reverted are incorrect! And you reverted my edits because you are mad at me!! 2-I would not be blocking because for you! Zurich00swiss (talk) 08:43, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@Zurich00swiss If you think that unreferenced edits and incorrect edits are correct, they are not. So you are going to have to think about that for a while. As I said, you can read this tutorial and WP:Airports. RMS52 (talk) 08:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@RMS52 when you delate the flights from ZURICH AIRPORT without reason , or delate the VOLOTEA at VRN when there is a definite source , you put two airlines together ( LH and AIR DOLOMITI ) you put a references in this edits? I think NO! Zurich00swiss (talk) 08:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@Zurich00swiss References are not needed for those edits, I removed flights because they were removed before, but they were reverted. And please note that some of your edits did not apply to the guidlines at WP:Airports

@RMS52 In you edits the references are non needed obviously in my edits the the references are needed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zurich00swiss (talk • contribs) 09:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@Zurich00swiss Well, because you are the one adding the content without references, I have the right to remove it without a reference. Same goes for you too. RMS52 (talk) 09:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

RMS52: please keep in mind that you were also blocked of using two identities recently. So pointing at the, now not relevant, sock-history is not useful and potentially dangerous. The Banner talk 09:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@The Banner How is it dangerous for me? I was not really going to point out the 'sock' but this user created lots of sock accounts, I only used an IP. But that does not really matter I guess. RMS52 (talk) 09:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

You used his history to discredit him but your history is not clean either. The Banner talk 09:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion best thing for the encyclopaedia will be a topic ban for both editors for one month. They are both on the attack... The Banner talk 09:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@The Banner Hold on now... Topic ban?

I think the best way to settle this is just to get Zurich00swiss to read the guidlines, then he should be aware of the policies of editing on airport articles. RMS52 (talk) 09:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, a topic ban. No more activities on airport-related articles for a month. The Banner talk 09:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@The Banner I blocking for a month ? I have not done anything wrong ! Zurich00swiss (talk) 09:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

No block, a topic ban. No more activities on airport-related articles for a month. The Banner talk 09:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@@The Banner, @Zurich00swiss I didn't use his history to do that, I was just pointing out that this user did not have a clean history, but everyone has reasons. And Zurich00swiss claims that he created socks to keep editing and avoid getting blocked. He apoligized for his errors too, like I did to you.

As I said all Zurich00swiss needs is a little kick in the backside, (not really!) just get him to read the guidelines and we should both be able to edit without issues or edit wars. RMS52 (talk) 09:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@@RMS52 @The Banner For me the case is closing! everyone goes their own way! Zurich00swiss (talk) 09:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@Zurich00swiss Read WP:Airports and then you will understand why your edits were reverted and in the future, try not to bug other users, I will close this disscussion. RMS52 (talk) 09:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@RMS52: You are clearly not the one to close this discussion. Let the community have their say. The Banner talk 09:55, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@RMS52 Ok I will read WP:Airport. Zurich00swiss (talk) 10:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• A diff as part of a single paragraph summary would be helpful here. ANI is for conduct not content disputes. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Edit warring across multiple pages

User:TBM10 and User:151.227.129.136 (or similar IP) have been edit-warring across multiple train station articles - Chelmsford railway station, Hatfield Peverel railway station, Witham railway station, Colchester railway station, Ingatestone railway station and possibly others. This seems a continuation of what was previously reported at AN/I. If I still had my admin hat they'd both be getting a block for edit warring. Could someone take a look. Dpmuk (talk) 15:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I have spent a great deal of my time and effort improving these and countless other articles over the years and have tried to seek help to block this unhelpful IP user or warn them over their unhelpful edits to said pages, but I have not received any help. As a long-time and helpful editor on this site I would be very disappointed and would quit WP. --TBM10 (talk) 17:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Ludwigpaisteman

I think we've got another "sorry, can't hear you" editor in Ludwigpaisteman (talk · contribs), a straight copyeditor with 0 talk or user talk edits. He seems to go around adding lots of unsourced or poorly sourced content to music articles, and gets reverted all over the place ([458],[459],[460],[461]). I've already dropped him a note saying, "can we talk?" but had no response. Now, if he doesn't mind having edits reverted, I guess there's not much of an issue - but I think my problem is more over articles that nobody watches anymore which have a risk of being subtly degraded and looking a little bit worse. Should we do anything or shall I go and listen to some soothing peaceful music and think happy thoughts instead? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I left him a more specific message directly requesting a response. It's possible that he just hasn't felt the need to respond since no one has asked him a direct question. He's been lighting up my watchlist for quite some time now. His edits are at least sometimes correct, albeit unsourced. --Laser brain (talk) 16:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Cuzkatzimhut and YohanN7

Yesterday, Cuzkatzimhut reported me for edit warring.1. However, he failed so far to provide any diffs for that claim. When admin EdJohnston asked for diffs, the editor responded, I asked the noticeboard to identify the evident pattern of systematic unconstructive editing. WP should be able to police itself, pursuant to whatever format strictures, and not leave things to the successful formatting of the appeals of complainants. Another account, YohanN7 is always present in favor of Cuzkatzimhut edits/opinion. EdJohnston saw then the need to warn of possible sanctions, Calling people idiots or crackpots isn't charming and may cause you to be sanctioned.

• References are often lacking

Initially i've asked editor Cuzkatzimhut to provide proper references for his extensive edits (i.e. recently no references for edits, or here - these edits are very extensive in his edit history, wrong way to add references or here). Additionally his edits are often not in regards to WP:TECHNICAL. Many of the talk pages of the article Cuzkatzimhut edits contain reader comments about too technical or lacking references. (i.e. 1 (See glossary), 2 (No Ref), 3(Insults reader), 4(No ref, claims everything is correct) -- These are just the most recent edits.

• Unexplained reverts

Today, he and YohanN7 begun reverting many of my edits i tagged in regards to references or for OR. An attempt to explain OR to the editors has failed so far. There is this No original research/Noticeboard discussion, where Kingsindian called the incident a classic OR.

Even though with repeated attempts to explain in length the issue of OR (article talk page , or at YohanN7's talk page to the editors, both show no sign of understanding, or willingness to except anything. Yohan's edit summary states several times, Reverting editor showing evident pattern of systematic nonconstructive editing, and Cuzkatzimhut stated about my edits, evident pattern of systematic nonconstructive editing.

• Summary

Even with extensive explanations, links to Wikipedia guidelines or the opinion of other editors, both editors do not seem to understand basic rules. Garchy cautioned in response to Cuzkatzimhut -- let's not make this about WP:OWNBEHAVIOR, which is bordering on Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Thus, besides WP:OR, WP:CIR the editors are just not there where Wikipedia wants to be. I am not sure exactly how to proceed or what exactly should be done about the conflicts mentioned here. prokaryotes (talk) 17:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• Update Yohan now makes threatening comments in response to a support question. prokaryotes (talk) 01:42, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm neutral here, but...how is that a threatening comment? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Original research by IP 2601:4C1:C001:1878:D16B:6CA7:37BB:F6B9 (and several other addresses)

An IP user keeps adding original research to Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, despite discussions why this is wrong on the article Talk and user's own pages. This person never acknowledges OR or synthesis, just talks about "censorship" of what he considers "common sense" and increases the complexity of his argument on the article page, adding more and more sources, none of which verifies his thesis. Person also switches to several different IP addresses (sockpuppetry?), though I have no proof this is deliberate. He has also made recent similarly contentious edits to Italian sausage, reverted by another editor.

2601:4c1:c001:1878:b8ca:e339:1f3b:7ed8 (talk · contribs) 19 June:Special:Diff/666807252/667575426

2601:4c1:c001:1878:d969:4c02:c5e0:1822 (talk · contribs) 10 July: Special:Diff/669242714/670769577

2601:4c1:c001:1878:c00f:507a:d436:ce86 (talk · contribs) 11 July: Special:Diff/670828010/670984416 Source used for the above is Astronauts Wives Club (book), on which I obtained consensus as unreliable on Reliable Sources noticeboard. After I was able to check this book, I found absolutely no reference to what the user was saying.

68.46.226.6 (talk · contribs) 17 July: Special:Diff/671287921/671805064 and following; obviously same editor starts misusing an already-used reliable source to make it appear to say what it doesn't in fact say.

2601:4c1:c001:1878:cc45:c492:4758:9370 (talk · contribs) 10 August: Special:Diff/674386723/675453615 User now starts to construct his increasingly elaborate argument with sources which don't support his claim, except by his own synthesis.

2601:4c1:c001:1878:d16b:6ca7:37bb:f6b9 (talk · contribs) 13 August: Special:Diff/675506264/675856593 At this point, I have started to warn him on his own talk page.

2601:4c1:c001:1878:d16b:6ca7:37bb:f6b9 (talk · contribs) 14 August: Special:Diff/675936899/675999116

JustinTime55 (talk) 17:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit war at Chartres article

Over the past two days there has been an edit war going on at Chartres (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Edit summaries also indicate possible sockpuppetry. The editors who have edited the Chartres article after 30 July are Blue Indigo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Whiteflagfl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), ScrapIronIV, Europatygr, Blaue Max, Huntermiam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), KateWishing and finally myself (only to fully protect the article). FWIW, Blaue Max ScrapIronIV and KateWishing do not appear to be implicated in the war. Europatygr is also probably not involved. As I'm not feeling that confident of being able to fully investigate this myself due to off-wiki issues, I'm raising this here for action. I will notify all mentioned above and post evidence that such notification has been given. Mjroots (talk) 17:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The following editors have been notified of this discussion:- KateWishing, Huntermiam, Europatygr, ScrapIronIV, Whiteflagfl and Blue Indigo Mjroots (talk) 17:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Blaue Max has also been notified. Mjroots (talk) 18:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I simply is a local from the region around, I was against focusing on the Cathedral, on foreigners and on the Royalist period; also Blue Indigo seemed doing self promotion; I was reverted, I opened a debate on the talk page with no response from Blue Indigo, I think he should be banned, as for myself I ' m logging myself out very soon because I was only interested in Chartres future and a few other edits as for Kate "mes hommages Madame".Whiteflagfl (talk) 18:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

There is strong evidence that Huntermiam is a sockpuppet of Whiteflagfl at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Whiteflagfl. It has been suggested that both are sockpuppets of Aubmn. I'm not familiar with that user, but at a glance, their English is broken in similar ways. Aubmn was recently subject to a complaint here with clear consensus for a topic ban, but the thread was archived without action. KateWishing (talk) 18:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

No evidence at all. Kate is just feeling bitter because she feels Chartres has been locked on the wrong version. So everyone must be "socking". Martin Cold Mans (talk) 18:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Pretty amazing that you're an editor with under 50 edits, registered yesterday, and yet you are here on ANI linking to a meta essay on the wrong version. Oh, and I'm uninvolved with the article or any of the editors. GregJackP Boomer! 18:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Can an admin review this user's edit history[462][463][464] and the message spelled out on their userpage? KateWishing (talk) 19:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:AGF and all, it appears that we are being trolled at least in the above examples and recently created pages...and as I typed that the user was indeffed.Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Checkuser results posted at the relevant SPI.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I did edit that article yesterday: one restore after examining the merits of the contributions of the warring parties, with an encouragement for them to go to the talk page; and one minor change to a date immediately following. I don't believe that would make me involved in an edit war on this article, but I am open to correction if it is warranted. Please let me know. Scr★pIron^IV 19:55, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

It is my belief that ScrapIronIV was not involved in the edit war. No action is warranted against him/her. Mjroots (talk) 20:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I've decided not to block BlueIndigo for edit warring. Suitable advice has been given as to dealing with a similar scenario should it happen in the future. Mjroots (talk) 20:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

A contributor with multi new accounts opened on 8 August, 12 August & 14 August, in addition to the regular account he has had for a couple of years, has been tracking me at every article I edit & automatically reverts my edits. This contributor is Aubmn.

How do I know this is the same person? An obvious sign is his handling of the English language, then the tactics he employs, disrupting one's work & provoking battles. Once he has pushed an editor to put his work back, he happily announces that you have reached the 3-revert & are thus guilty of breaching wiki rules. No need to go any further: that is Aubmn's tactic, very well calculated. Beside the war being started, the sad result is that regular contributors stop editing the article, and the article remains unfinished. The perfect example is the article on Marie Antoinette, together with its discussion page.

My problem with Aubmn began last June, but others had battles with him for months before. The problem was never resolved, and it all came to a head on 6 August, when NeilN locked the article for a few days. It has been freed since, with no further participation, however. Since the Marie Antoinette affair, Aubmn has not participated in any article, at least under that user name – nonetheless, he has been busy by using other accounts

What happened next is what is bringing the affair here: Since 12 August, every time I begin working on an article, a newly registered editor comes & reverts my work. Up to today, three (3) have done so:

Whiteflagfl – opened account 12 Aug went directly to Chartres article & reverted my work [465] of a couple of hours before. A couple of hours later, he left this message on my talk page:

Hello, one you focus to much on nobility history even not France before 1789 plus you seems doing self promotion and you seems to belong to the region.

Whiteflagfl (talk) 16:49, 12 August 2015

Up to time article was locked, he argued every one of my edits, reverting all the time, then went at Welborn Griffith, an American Officer KIA on 16AUG44, during the battle of Chartres. Griffith's article is very short, and Whiteflagfl began removing info which he judged unnecessary, nothing more than Griffith's military awards, Légion d'honneur, etc. He then went back to the Chartres article continued hacking away details on the history of the city, reproaching me to mention too much of the nobility (!) - hard not to do when one relates the history of France, or England for that matter, or of any country of Europe, However, he does not seem to realize, or rather does not want to because it is not his purpose, that to go on working at an article, one has to be left alone & be given the time to go to the end (which is what could never happen to the article on Marie Antoinette). The situation is comparable to someone writing with a pen & having the pen taken away after every word. To top it all off, he accuses me of doing self-promotion because I had changed the date of the times of office of the mayor of Chartres, which had been left at 2008. As I told Whiteflagfl: we are in 2015. As for my doing self promotion: I am not the mayor of Chartres, I am not an elected official of Chartres. I do not work for the Chamber of Commerce of Chartres. I am not the bishop of Chartres. Even if I wanted to, I could not be elected to any office for the good reason that I am not a French citizen, although I pass easily for one because of my knowledge of the country and its language. And I am not the only foreigner in France in that position. So, that should settle the accusation of “doing self promotion”, which should be rejected.

Europatygr - opened account 08AUG, got busy & reverted at Louis XVI article, in exactly the same manner as that used by Aubmn at Marie Antoinette.

Huntermiam – opened account today, 14AUG, went directly to Chartres' article, reverting my work exactly in the same manner done previously by Aubmn at Marie Antoinette. Then came and threatened me on my talk page because he had followed every one of my moves at Wikipedia, and read what I had left at someone else's page.

One last thing: RE the accusation by Aubmn & others that I do not respond to msgs left on my talk page: I have responded to Aubmn in a rather lengthy manner on the Marie Antoinette discussion page & really do not wish to have my talk page turned into a battlefield. As far as I am concerned, there is nothing more for me to tell Aubmn and Associates.

That's about it, and it's rather long. Best regards, --Blue Indigo (talk) 22:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban

Seems that there was quite a sockfarm going on. As all the puppets have been blocked, we now need to deal with the puppeteer. Therefore I propose that Aubmn is banned from editing the Chartres article. Mjroots (talk) 19:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• Disagree only in that, as discussed below, I Support a Site Ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Aubmn again... What to do?

I recently brought the topic of Aubmn (talk · contribs)'s problematic editing to this noticeboard, and that thread, which was in favor of topic banning Aubmn with regard to the Marie Antoinette article, was archived without a close as to whether the topic ban should be enacted. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive895#WP:Topic ban for Aubmn. Aubmn stated that the ban was not needed because he would stop editing the article. But I knew that he'd end up WP:Socking again, and continuing with his problematic edits. And sure enough, he started doing just that, though he didn't go back to editing the Marie Antoinette article. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Whiteflagfl. Surely, he would have eventually gone back to the Marie Antoinette article. And, clearly, this editor shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. So, for Aubmn, do we enact the previously supported topic ban, broaden the ban to certain topics, propose a site ban, or just go with an indefinite block?

WP:Pinging all the editors who supported a topic ban in the aforementioned thread: JzG (Guy), Softlavender, MrX, AlbinoFerret, NebY, Xcuref1endx and Blue Indigo. Also WP:Pinging the editors who commented in the aforementioned WP:Sockpuppet investigation: KateWishing and Ponyo (Jezebel's Ponyo). Flyer22 (talk) 21:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support a Site Ban for the sockmaster, who appears to be User:Aubmn. Perhaps I take the rules too seriously, but I have no tolerance for anyone who creates multiple registered accounts other than for declared legitimate purposes. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
• Banninate. Long past time. Guy (Help!) 21:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
• Site ban for all the socks and their master. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 21:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support Block Sockpuppetry is never a good thing. Looks like instead of ignoring the article Aubmn put the rope around their neck and jumped up and down on the gallows trap door. AlbinoFerret 22:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support site ban. They seem to disrupt any article they touch. KateWishing (talk) 22:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support site ban - That trip to Monte Carlo with his/her girlfriend is long overdue. Bon voyage! - MrX 22:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
• Site ban for master and all socks, for abusing not only multiple accounts but also abusing the community's trust in the worst sort of way. Softlavender (talk) 01:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
• Site ban. Someone needs to trip the trap door on the gallows. GregJackP Boomer! 03:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: Also see the #Edit war at Chartres article section above; I hadn't seen that section before creating this one. This section can be made into a subsection of that one. Flyer22 (talk) 03:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Disruption, Racism and BLP violation by User:Mrandrewnohome

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

---

I am bringing this here primarily because the user in question has chosen to upload a file Jews_own_media.png to the commons which is a chart entitled "WHO CONTROLS YOUR MIND" which lists on the order of 300 living people, some 200 or so of whom are marked in red as Jewish. The file's sole use is here where it is meant to elicit comments on Jewish control of the media. The user has previously been warned that the reference desks are not a forum.

The file itself is synthesis, and is neither sourced nor neutral, and is an obvious violation of WP:BLP. I have nominated it for deletion from the commons, here.

Prior recent posts by the user (contributions) also include:

"Final Solution" and

Why are European Jews White which was created by IP User:69.121.131.137.

My concern is that the current file and question at the Reference Desk be deleted. Whether the user is here to contribute to the project is a secondary question. μηδείς (talk) 21:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Judging by that final solution thread, it seems the user is here to try and conduct some research. However, the image itself seems offensive. I assume someone has requested deletion by now at the Commons. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 21:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I submitted a request for deletion at commons, in the meantime someone else has deleted the thread. μηδείς (talk) 21:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• I am Jewish by ethnicity and feel a cultural connection with the Jewish people. I have no hostility to the Jewish people and posted a question which many people have, which is why are so many people of Jewish persuasion or dissent in high profile positions. I'm intending to make it the focus of my undergraduate dissertation about anti-Semitism in the modern world. I'm well aware that the file was contentious as I pointed out it's obvious bias - irrespective of that, it doesn't stop it from being an accurate illustration of Jewish presence in the American media. As my post on the humanities reference desk made perfectly clear, I am not hostile to Jews or Judaism. What I asked may well have cause offence to some, but I feel that it was a perfectly legitimate question - why Jewish people appear to be so proportionately influential and if any peer-reviewed research had been done on the subject. I'm sorry if I uploaded the file in the incorrect manner - however, just because the file could be considered offensive is no reason not to upload it - we have dozens of images which may be considered offensive that are considered legitimate. My interest in the final solution stems from the fact that over 80% of my family who lived in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union were killed as part of it. The question asking why Jewish people are white is, I feel, a legitimate one given that they derive their heritage from areas in the Middle East; however, I am prepared to concede that it isn't the finest or least controversial thing I've ever written and I apologise for that. Once again, I'm sorry for any offence caused and if the image has been improperly uploaded or is considered inappropriate then I have no objections for it being speedily deleted and I apologise for uploading it in the first place. However, I would like my question to be re-uploaded onto the reference desk as I feel it was tactfully worded and legitimate - the reality is that as a tiny minority, the Jewish people exert considerable influence in numerous fields, often for the benefit of humanity - I'm just curious as to why this is the case when they make up a tiny proportion of the world's population; I can think of no over group which has been so successful that is so small in number. Andrew 22:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you would care to explain why you claimed that an image widely found on far-right websites (e.g. Stormfront) was your own work? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

That file can't be relied upon as accurate, if it's indeed from the fringe. I've voted to delete it. GAB^Hello! 00:29, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I think we are all aware that Stormfront and the like aren't reliable sources - that isn't the issue here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

My mistake for not clarifying, that was the claim made above: "I'm well aware that the file was contentious as I pointed out it's obvious bias - irrespective of that, it doesn't stop it from being an accurate illustration of Jewish presence in the American media." GAB^Hello! 00:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

The chart is titled "Who Controls Your Mind? 2013". How is it determined that these people—both Jew and non-Jew alike—"control your mind"? That part seems to be left out. Are we to assume that all the people listed (Jew and non-Jew) are of evil intent? Bus stop (talk) 00:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

It's conspiratorial nonsense. Note the speculation on whether certain media figures are gay, and the idea that having a "Jewish connection" is somehow sinister. This has no place here, that much is clear. GAB^Hello! 00:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

The label you misread said "goy" (non-Jewish), not "gay". I'm not taking any position on the chart, but I did want to point out that there's nothing about sexual orientation in this chart. General Ization ^Talk 01:37, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• I uploaded it as a self upload because it seemed the easiest way to do it. At no point did I infer that Jewish influence in the media was a bad thing, just that they are influential. Note also that the people listed in the table are either Jewish, or of Jewish descent. I didn't find the table from what I would consider to be a racist or far right-wing source, I found it on metapedia, their list of Jewish media executives in America page. I was unable to post the link on the reference desk so chose to upload the file instead, and I admit that I didn't follow the correct procedure. I refer to my previous point that just because an image or visual display of something is objectionable is no reason to censor it, particularly if it could be used to illustrate a point. I acknowledged that the source was potentially shady - however, after doing google searches for most of the names on it, they were, lo and behold, of Jewish persuasion or descent. I was also careful to phrase my question delicately and gave no indication that I held racist or anti-Semitic beliefs towards the Jewish people - I even put a header at the foot of my question that I wasn't looking to inspire racist rhetoric. I may not have followed the correct upload procedure for the file, and recognise that it is a contentious issue, and for that I apologise. However, to use that as a basis to assume that I hold racist beliefs is idiotic and potentially libellous. --Andrew 01:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• I never insinuated/assumed anything about your beliefs, and I'm not going to get into whether or not the content is even accurate. Regardless, metapedia is by no means a reliable source. GAB^Hello! 01:09, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• Whoever wrote this headline used the word racism. Also the chart is clearly labelled who controls your mind as a way to entice readers into viewing the image. The same, or similar, expression is used in reference to other people, notably Rupert Murdoch in the UK. Perhaps if you'd researched some of the names on that list, despite finding it objectionable, you'd realise it is on the whole accurate. And as an encyclopedia that promotes democracy of knowledge, accurate information shouldn't be censored. I admit that it was unreferenced, but given that it wasn't used to illustrate an encyclopedic article, renders that point mute. --Andrew 01:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I am going, against all my instincts, to assume good faith here, and take you at your word that you are actually asking a question because you are writing an undergraduate dissertation on "anti-Semitism in the modern world". And on that basis, offer a few sage words of advice: Get a fucking clue. Don't use crap from Neo-Nazi websites as authorities on who is or isn't Jewish. Don't use Wikipedia as a source for information. Use your fucking College library. Act like a student, not a clueless internet troll. Even if this achieves little in the way of results as an essay (which frankly I have my doubts, if you really are that stupid), you might stand a slight chance of learning something about your heritage. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• If you'd bothered to read my response it wasn't published from what appeared to be a far right internet source. You claim to be assuming good faith, yet appear to strike a particularly angry tone in your messages. I never claimed that it was authoritative either - I claimed that it was an easy way to illustrate a point that I conducted prior research upon. I see that you've failed to applaud me for using the referenced wikipedia and external articles that also illustrated my point. Instead you use the table that I didn't know was used by right wing propaganda sources, which I then verified was largely accurate, as a basis to illustrate a point that I am a racist - which you infer by the phrase going 'against all my instincts'. If you'd also read what I wrote about my dissertation I was referring to Jewish people who held influential positions in society in general - i.e. the basis of my original question. I wasn't overtly concerned with the Jewish presence in media outlets, I was using that as an example to illustrate a point. The fact that Jewish people are perceived to have so much influence is, by the use of far right sites, clearly a bone of contention for those of anti-Semitic persuasion and conspiracy theorists. Therefore, it would be a suitable topic to see whether this perceived influence is one of the many causes why anti-Semitism proliferates in so many cultures. Referring to somebody as stupid for raising a question that has been postulated by potentially millions of people frankly says more about you than I - perhaps a dissertation on the subject would have disspelled these myths in an academic and peer reviewed forum. If it were up to you, we'd never know as you seem to want to stifly objective, impartial research based enquiry on the subject. I doubt you even read the question that I posted on the reference desk, which I consulted on the basis of seeking out whether it would be a feasible dissertation project by asking if there were any published academic materials on the subject --Andrew 01:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not the slightest bit interested in engaging you in debate. Posting racist crap on our reference desks can't be justified by claiming to be a student writing a dissertation, end of story. If you are too stupid to understand why, that is your problem, not ours. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• The fact that you don't seem to understand that the general intent of the question was not in the slightest racist is unbelievable. I've given an account of my actions and attempted to justify them in the best way that I knew how to. I acknowledged the source was biased and used to push a controversial point. That doesn't make it in any way racist. Far-right media outlets use KKK images which, while racist, are used to illustrate points. And how can it possibly be racist if, after conducting a search of the majority of names on the list, possibly be racist. Also if raising a point which many people consider to be valid on the reference desk constitutes racism, even if written in an impartial way with a specific request that racist rhetoric be avoided, then sue me --Andrew 01:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• Stop digging yourself further. Unless this is some experiment to see how far you can make a distinction no one cares about, User:Mrandrewnohome, we have an image on commons and a discussion here that no one wants to have. The image is up for deletion there. The discussion is a closed deal, we can move on. Otherwise, we can't read your mind here but from a conduct perspective, that's two huge strikes in the "we're not interested in you here" column. I don't see any indication that this is solely a problem editor so as long as the stick is dropped NOW, I'd chalk it up to an abhorrent, emphasis abhorrent lapse in judgment for today. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Would like Jytdog to leave me alone

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

---

About three months ago I started getting involved in the acupuncture article, which has been a very contentious page. I ended up writing everything from the History section down. During this time, I started receiving emails from other editors, often subtly (or not so subtly) encouraging me to support the author's point of view. I told them to "knock it off" here. Jytdog either didn't see it or ignored it and sent me more incredibly loaded emails. For example one email contained the text:[[466]]

"I thought you were a pretty clueful editor. I am really blown away by this and this. How can you let yourself get involved in a health-related article, much less a controversial one, when you are this clueless (and I mean that) about how we source health content in Wikipedia? You are destroying your credibility, in my eyes at least. I can only imagine that other Project Med editors are thinking the same thing. I am at least telling you."

This is just a sample. In other cases he said he was "disappointed" in me shortly after I disagreed with him. After a bit of a spat on my Talk page, I closed the string, since it was only going to produce more drama and I thought that was the end of it.

Afterwards, Jytdog started stalking me to pages like Natera and Greenfacts. These pages were not advertised on any noticeboard and the only way for him to come across them would have been by stalking my contribs. He started arguments related to the Greenfacts page,[467] but also seemed to want to start arguments everywhere about everything. Sure he does normally patrol COIN, but does he normally respond literally within minutes[468] [469] with pretty much the best comment he could say to goad me into argument?[470] I didn't even want this article to be created, but since I was out-numbered and the page was created anyway, I spent more than a dozen hours adding 244 sources and now he wants to delete it. (BTW, there are plenty of sources that do discuss McKinsey alumni as a group). In other cases I'm having a civil discussion about a heated topic and he parachutes in with more drama[471] with comments like "You have nothing to gain from this and respect to lose"[472]

These are only examples I have on-hand. When this behavior is taken as a whole, it shows a pattern of stalking, harassment, revenge editing and intimidation. We need Wikipedia to be a drama-free place that fosters open discussion and encourages participation. This kind of behavior has a chilling effect on open discussion, among other things. I'm not sure admin intervention is warranted yet, but I wanted to voice my concerns and start a discussion on this issue. CorporateM (Talk) 00:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Have you tried discussing your concerns with Jytdog? Sam Walton (talk) 00:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on Jytdog from all articles related to alternative medicine until the time comes that he can behave himself and act like a kind, compassionate editor who is here to help others and improve articles. Bad behavior from this user has been going on for years and it's time to nip it in the bud. Viriditas (talk) 01:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on Jytdog, this is the same pattern of behavior that he has exhibited numerous times with numerous editors, including Atsme and PraeceptorIP to name a couple. Viriditas is correct on their view. GregJackP Boomer! 01:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
• Maybe I'm dense, but I see no evidence which would remotely justify a topic ban. It seems both Viriditas and GregJackP have had numerous editorial disputes with Jytdog in the past, which would likely explain the rush to sanction on their part. Sad, really, but probably par for the course on the dramaboards... If you have a chance to get rid of someone who's challenged you in the past, you jump at it no matter the evidence, right? Yobol (talk) 02:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

If you want, either Viriditas and I can provide diffs showing this behavior. Why do we put up with it? GregJackP Boomer! 02:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Please notice the little game Yobol is playing. He has ignored all of the evidence of bad behavior by Jytdog offered by CorporateM at the beginning of this thread and instead blames those who have addressed it. Responding to Yobol will only encourage more of this kind of intentional red herring distraction. The fact remains: based on the evidence offered by CorporateM, a sanction is required. We should only be addressing this evidence and not indulging Yobol's strategic, tactical distraction from the topic at hand. Viriditas (talk) 02:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Except that I specifically said that the evidence presented did not merit a topic ban on all alternative medicine articles. I'm dropping out of this conversation now, as the stench of the predictable drama board antics of enemies calling for blood has me a bit nauseated. Yobol (talk) 02:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I just wish that Jytdog had some speed between idling and 80 mph. He does so much good in pseudoscience areas, weeding out the garbage from the science. I just wish he was a little less zealous, that he acknowledged that some grey area exists. You don't have to challenge every new editor. Assume good faith and all, not everyone is trying to destroy the project. But, I'll admit, this is my general recommendation to every editor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• I would oppose a topic ban but would definitely support an interaction ban based on this set of circumstances. An editor who has made it clear that he wants to be left alone by another specific editor should have that right. If CorporateM is making disagreeable edits (and I am not assuming that he necessarily is), there are plenty of other editors in the area who can discuss this with him. bd2412 T 02:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• I would support an interaction ban per BD2412. GregJackP Boomer! 03:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I suppose that someone will point out there have been issues between Jytdog and myself, and there have. But, after I started involving myself in sections on this page I also received an email from him. It was about a section he had started on Doors22. The emails were an attempt to get me to change my mind on supporting a ban that Jytdog wanted but I felt a lesser sanction was more appropriate. I still have them, and while I thought they were inappropriate off wiki communication, I chalked it up to a one off thing. This section has me wondering if they were not. AlbinoFerret 02:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
• Here's a thought. CorporateM started this thread by writing "I'm not sure admin intervention is warranted yet, but I wanted to voice my concerns and start a discussion on this issue." How about doing that first, and then deciding what to do about it afterwards? You know, as in hold the trial first, and then bring out the noose. Or is that too radical an idea for ANI? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: When I posted this just a couple hours ago, I did notice that Jytdog has previously been warned at ANI for incivility,[473] but I was not aware of what other editors seem to be depicting as a similar behavioral problem in engaging other editors on alternative medicine pages. Back when that page was hot, I actually spent a lot of time discouraging administrative or COI sanctions against editors from both sides; many of those sanctions were being lobbied for by their political opponents. This was the only editor I felt actually engaged in inappropriate conduct. A few comments I have in general (not directed at Andy specifically):

• I'd like to re-emphasize this part of my post: "We need Wikipedia to be a drama-free place that fosters open discussion and encourages participation." This is true here as well.
• In almost all cases where two editors don't get along, an IBAN is a very low-level sanction. Wikipedia is plenty large enough for editors that don't get along to just avoid bumping heads
• A topic ban I see as a more severe sanction and given a history of politically-motivated block-attempts in this subject area (and a lack of familiarity with the accusations flying around), we do need evidence that similar behavior has previously occurred and that prior warnings have been ineffective at preventing the behavior from continuing. Links to prior ANI strings, diffs to similar abusive comments, etc. are needed for folks that are not familiar with the context. CorporateM (Talk) 03:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• I see my fan club has come out to play here. CorporateM, I don't agree with all of your description of our history, but I am not going to take up the community's time sweating the details. Big picture - I am sorry for bothering you; I do understand that my email to you was unwelcome (you too AlbinoFerret). CorporateM, I will not interact with you going forward, unless you ask me something. I apologize for upsetting you. Jytdog (talk) 03:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks @Jytdog:. That is very mature of you. I recommend we close this string as resolved with a voluntary IBAN. I do hope at some point this will be ancient history and we'll be able to work together again, but I'm glad you agree right now the best thing for us to do is simply avoid each other. I did end up at Uber (for example) without realizing you were previously involved, so if something like that happens, you can just give me a polite ping and I'll go away. CorporateM (Talk) 04:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Thesongfan

Thesongfan (talk · contribs) may have some possible COI going on at Chris Janson, as this editor is scrubbing any mention of the fact that Janson was originally signed to another label, and removing other sourced content in favor of stuffing the article with name-drops of artists to whom Janson is only passingly connected at best. (Compare the diffs here). After I warned them for possible COI, they proceeded to attack me in an edit summary and accuse me of stalking. I proceeded to give them a warning against personal attacks, after which they once again removed sourced content from the article without explanation. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I know Hammer already warned him/her, but this was pretty out of line. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

It is out of line. I am considering this user fully warned and may block if disruptive editing continues. Chillum 04:32, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, now that I think about it, that edit summary and this one suggest that Thesongfan thinks s/he owns the article ("I'm allowing you to leave most of the content you've posted"?). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Move vandalism

Willie on wheels is moving front page ITN articles. Abductive (reasoning) 03:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Which articles? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Isapk

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

---

Is continuously vandalizing Wikipedia talk:Legal disclaimer.--Cahk (talk) 04:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC) {[archive bottom}}