Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:Edwardpatrickalva and blatant COI.

The user in question was directly involved in production of the highly controversial film The Hunting Ground, which, by many accounts, was proven to have used a patently false narrative. Evidently, as this article shows, Mr. Alva has, by his own admission, violated the laws on Conflict of Interest over the course of several months, and arguably has violated NPOV and Verifiability by changing articles to match the accusations of the film, rather than own up to the film's factual inaccuracies. Now, rather than apply hard protection to a wide array of articles, I feel that at the very least, for the sake of the encyclopedia's integrity, the issues be addressed with the guilty party, and that this bad-faith editing is halted. Of course, the decision rests solely with you guys. KirkCliff2 (talk) 23:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The editor has explicitly stated it at Talk:The Hunting Ground as well. This belongs at WP:COIN not here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The edits to articles on the film's subjects would seem an even more serious issue, and though it might go on the BLP noticeboard, the two matters are closely related. Our BLP provisions apply to all articles involving living humans, not just to biographies, so they apply to the article on the film also. Further analysis is needed, and I think we should be prepared to block if there are further related mainspace edits. I don't want this issue to get lost in a jurisdictional dispute between noticeboards DGG ( talk ) 01:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

We can focus on the different issues. I don't know what should be done though. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, the COI issue turns out to have press coverage.[1]. Not in connection with the film article, though, in connection with Jameis Winston, who is a subject of the documentary. There. Edwardpatrickalva made edits regarding the rape accusation.[2][3] That's a major BLP issue. Those edits started in March 2015. That article (the subject is a football player) has many edits since then, including some recent section blanking by an anon.[4]. I suggest that the Winston article be referred to the BLP noticeboard for attention. The film article had a little too much PR language, and I toned it down a bit. There's current press coverage and criticism not yet mentioned; that's a subject for the article talk page. In any case, Edwardpatrickalva shouldn't be editing either article. John Nagle (talk) 07:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I am glad to see more editors paying attention to these articles, though I am a little skeptical of the reasons. From the beginning, I have been upfront about my affiliation, and I have worked to seek consensus among other editors for more substantial changes. I’d ask that Wikipedia admins take a close look at Talk:Jameis Winston, where on multiple occasions I brought things up for discussion. Prior to my involvement, the lead section of the Winston article was at odds with Wikipedia policy (though I don’t think any particular Wikipedia editor had done that intentionally, I think it was an organic outcome of how Wikipedia articles sometimes come together). Nearly every story about Winston in the many months before the NFL draft -- in mainstream media, in sports media, in entertainment media -- centered on whether his off-the-field issues would impact his draft performance. But that point appeared nowhere in the lead section, and could only be found in a “controversy” section below everything about his sports career. I took steps to address that significant problem, seeking input from other Wikipedians, striving at every step to work with Wikipedia’s standards in mind, not to narrowly advance my employer’s interests.

Finally, could an admin consider taking action to deal with the vandalism on my user page this morning? It has been reverted once, which I appreciate -- but I do not look forward to having to deal with schoolyard insults while this issue plays out. -Edwardpatrickalva (talk) 18:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I think it's best that you step away from editing in this subject area entirely. There are plenty of other editors who can work on these articles from a neutral point of view. Kelly ^hi! 18:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

From what I can tell, Edwardpatrickalva acknowledged the COI early on and generally engaged on talk pages to suggest/discuss sensitive changes before making them. That's exactly what we want people with a COI to do, no? Clearly this is an issue that demands scrutiny, and of course using the talk page first doesn't mean there aren't problems with his edits, but I'm worried this COI angle is a ticket to fomenting wikirage to justify edits contrary to his. It should be a red flag that the source leading the charge here is one we don't typically take as reliable for contentious social/political issues. There are plenty of sources criticizing the film and plenty of reason to take the claims seriously, but let's not get sidetracked by COI. @Edwardpatrickalva: will you agree to takes Kelly's advice above and refrain from editing any article for which you have a COI for at least a while until these articles can be evaluated and stabilize? COI editing is a touchy thing, and it would be better to focus on content, I think. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd want to do a bit more investigating here, and I don't really have the time. But as I now see it, this situation could be dealt with very quickly and justly with a permanent ban of Edwardpatrickalva. There is clear evidence of disruption, violation of the policy WP:BLP, and of the guideline WP:COI. Even leaving out WP:BLP, blatently violating WP:COI and causing disruption is enough for a ban. It is *not* a cause for leniency to say that he complied with the Terms of Use to disclose his employer - that is just a minimum requirement to edit. Flying in the face of WP:COI and causing disruption in and of itself is cause to ban, and I believe that any admin can do it. As I said, I don't have enough time to do a thorough investigation, but those should be the principles applied. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

A cursory review of Mr. Alva's edits shows clear disruption, including replacing entire paragraphs that would cast doubt on the allegations made by the movie, replacing them with favorable content, using unreliable sources and dubious wording, shameless self-promotion (where "self" means the film), and stern warnings about his bad-faith editing which he ignored. His declaration of his involvement with the movie was only just added recently, and the user seemingly has not made edits that aren't related to the subject matter of the film in some manner or another. From all indications, this account of his was created solely to give the film a PR boost, while trying to manipulate Wikipedia to conform to a false narrative. KirkCliff2 (talk) 00:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Additionally, the user has been highly disingenuous with both edit summaries and his methodology on this very discussion, in addition to editing on his own where a consensus should be reached beforehand. He has been warned, several times, and in numerous places, to cease with the flagrant gaming, yet even as this discussion is happening, he remains engaged in discussions on the talk page of The Hunting Ground. Again, you, the Administrators have the final say in what happens to him and virtually everything else within the realm of this encyclopedia; I'm just laying out the facts before you. KirkCliff2 (talk) 01:02, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

@Kelly and Rhododendrites: I have not edited the articles themselves since this issue came up, and I don’t see why I would, as long as there is a healthy amount of attention from diligent Wikipedians. Before yesterday, there were far fewer editors working on any of these articles, and edits and talk page comments were much less frequent. I did not want to nag, and in some cases was explicitly advised to just make changes myself.

To the other editors who repeat accusations, I would request that you do take the time to look at the issues closely; there is a great deal of nuance in the topic, which I have sought to address openly and responsibly. It’s possible I made some judgment calls that were less than ideal, and I am happy to learn; but the repeated accusation that I’ve been “disruptive” overall is simply not accurate.

One specific criticism I want to address: yes, one user did tell me not to edit The Hunting Ground on two occasions. I did take note of what the user said; in hindsight, maybe I should have explicitly acknowledged it. But I also noted that my edits were mostly received favorably, and I was confident I was not breaking any rules. I did make sure after that first statement to be more diligent about bringing substantial edits up for discussion.

There are strong opinions on all sides in this issue, which is pretty obvious from the varied takes in media. I do not think I am the only editor working on these articles who has strong opinions; but I have tried to reveal my own bias and to keep it from driving my edits, and to check in with other editors when there might be a question. I am open to feedback if I have made mistakes, but please understand, my intent the whole time has been to improve Wikipedia articles according to Wikipedia’s standards. -Edwardpatrickalva (talk) 03:31, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• Jimbo has mentioned this issue and this news story on his talk page. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  09:42, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

But I also noted that my edits were mostly received favorably, and I was confident I was not breaking any rules.

Do you honestly expect anyone to believe that? You continue trying to justify your actions whichever way possible, when the reality is, the aforementioned policies exist for reasons such as this; and to that very end, declaring your conflict of interest would seemingly imply you knew better. Either way, regardless of how your edits were received (I, for one, am incredulous to your claim), and irrespective of how many editors these articles had working on them, you should never have been editing everything from the film article, to Title IX, anti-rape movement, and Jameis Winston's article, and certainly not for the purpose of making your film seem accurate when the real facts dictated otherwise. If you can't plausibly grasp these concepts, you have no business editing on Wikipedia. Am I wrong to think so? KirkCliff2 (talk) 15:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Plain and simple, Edward: No matter your intentions, no matter what the circumstances may be, the rule is immutable: Where editing the article(s) in question would result in a conflict of interest, stay clear of editing said article(s). Simple as that. You are trying to justify breaking a golden rule of Wikipedia that even Jimbo Wales himself has indicated needs to be upheld more stridently. Are you going to tell me you know better than Jimmy himself, Edward? KirkCliff2 (talk) 15:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I concur. If you have a bias strongly in favor of a subject, your word alone is not sufficient to assure everyone you will not try to push your bias. Nothing personal, Edward, but it's human nature the rules were designed to safeguard against, and it's human nature to want to make something you have a vested interest in look good, consciously or otherwise. If you want to make changes, you should stick to the talk pages and ask uninvolved editors to supply the information you believe needs to be added, and only after it has been verified as accurate. The NPOV of Wikipedia is to ensure the minimization of any bias, or at least as much as possible when presenting information, and as such all things that might insert bias, such as editors with a vested interest in the topic, are not exempt from making sure bias is not inserted, even if the NPOV Wikipedia strives for doesn't make the topic at hand look good. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia strives to be factual, not as propaganda. Arcane21 (talk) 22:41, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Commentary: I find it rather shocking that Mr. Alva has the audacity to lie about his intentions, stating that everything he did, he did to help articles comply with Wikipedia standards and guidelines, when his edit history tells an extremely different story; and if his intentions were really so pure, we wouldn't be having this discussion to begin with, nor would Ms. Ashe Schow of the Washington Examiner have called him out, exposing the hypocrisy and prompting me to bring this case before ANI, which is where we now stand. Edward, although I'm not an Administrator, I've been around a long time, and I've seen the case files on users banned for life. You are going to end up just like them, if you continue manipulating Wikipedia and its users alike (two different kinds of manipulation, to be sure, but that is hardly relevant or germane) as you downplay the seriousness of your actions, henceforth exposed for what they are. KirkCliff2 (talk) 23:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I feel like enough discussion has been made of the subject here and at Jimbo's talk page on this user and his policy violations. Can a consensus be reached on a course of action that would ensure Wikipedia remains relatively neutral and free of potential scandals such as this? If necessary, that can be decided upon elsewhere. KirkCliff2 (talk) 16:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

"Enough discussion has been made..."? Most of it is yours. You seem to be pushing this with a vengeance. We're not a lynch mob and can afford to move slowly. No damage is being done. A cursory look at the talk page of Winston's bio shows Alva working extremely well with other editors and his edit requests meeting their approval. I don't know about other articles. Maybe we should let other editors speak. It's too bad that some of the editors who have worked quite well with him aren't here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Jimbo personally addressing the topic on his talk page has added a sense of urgency to the matter. As for Jameis Winston's article, even if his edits are well-received, are they factually accurate? And were the editors aware of Alva's Conflict of Interest, which should technically have precluded him from being in the discussion? Meanwhile, many of his other edits are far less constructive, and were essentially revisionism so that his film could be seen by Wikipedia as more accurate. There is never any excuse for agenda-driven editing. Do you not remember when members of United States Congress got caught red-handed on here? The same sort of principle ought to apply here, no? KirkCliff2 (talk) 15:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

KirkCliff2, Jimbo says a lot of things on his talk page. Some of his statements are useful, others less so. There's no added sense of urgency for this matter and disclosed COI precluding someone from being in a discussion is completely wrong. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

NeilN is right. Back off a bit and drop the lynch mob attitude. A cautionary approach is called for here. I'm going to repost below what I wrote on Jimbo's talk page. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Some logical thoughts to consider so we don't look like a kangaroo court or lynch mob:

1. He did declare his COI. Good.
2. He did use the talk page. Good.
3. If his edits were questioned, did he edit war over them? If so, a short block might be in order if he persisted. Did any of that happen?
4. If his editing was questioned, was he willing to stick to using the talk page and cease editing the article(s) in question? If so, good.
5. Questions about his editing will naturally tend to call out the worst assumptions made by human nature (such failure to AGF can be a blockable offense): "He has a COI, so hang him immediately, no matter what types of edits he made, and by all means immediately revert all of them, regardless if they improved the article!" We must still AGF. Misunderstandings occur between all good faith editors, and that includes COI editors.
6. Lynching is the wrong approach because a COI does not absolutely forbid editing, but rather it's an admonishment to be careful. If a COI editor actually violates policies (not referring to COI here), then judge based on those infractions. While it's wise for them to only use the talk page, it's not totally forbidden to carefully edit and seek consensus.
7. A topic ban might be wise, if such infractions are clearly proven to be more than just differences of opinions.

So go through those steps and don't jump immediately to blocks and topic bans unless necessary. We do need topic experts, and even a topic ban should be limited to the article itself, not the talk page, unless dealing with a really hardcore a##hole. Then just indef them. So carry on and good luck with this. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

---

I'm an ancient wikimedian who shirks admin duties (I do not envy you guys, thanks for doing what bums like me won't), and I gotta say this ANI discussion addles my already-baffled brain. One, too many words. Two, too too much adhominenmication, which just adds to problem One. Could someone/s sum up the facts of the case? - Thanks; LeoRomero (talk) 17:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

---

A blatant Conflict of Interrest (COI) occurs when there is an elephant in the room and the owner of the elephant expects that nobody will discover the fact. When someone comes and says: look at my nice elephant, this becomes a disclosed COI. And now, it remains to examine if the Washington Examiner is a more Reliable Source (RS) than The Atlantic when it comes to en:wp. A DC versus MA controversy ? Pldx1 (talk) 12:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Necessary sub-section

May I reiterate that the user's disclosure is a fairly recent event? The majority of his seemingly bad-faith edits, which, among those I glanced, included the aforementioned revisionism and borderline advertising. And, while I apologize for what might very well constitute a lynch-mob mentality (I'm very results-oriented, but only the correct ones, achieved with due diligence), I feel that too much focus is being placed on the COI alone and not on the nature of the edits themselves. Finally, with regards to the COI rule itself, independent of Mr. Alva, I'm sensing there's no clear delineation on what the procedural policy is for dealing with editors who violate this principle. Even among here, there've been a wide array of stances on the issue. Is there a definitive guideline set forth on the matter? I ask in order to better contribute and respect whatever the guidelines instruct Administrators to do in such cases. KirkCliff2 (talk) 15:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about, KirkCliff2? As far as I can see, the very first edit Edwardpatrickalva made to Wikipedia was to declare his COI on his user page, which means he is fully compliant with the Wikimedia terms of use. If he sought agreement from other editors for any edits, as Brustopher asserts below, then he has done absolutely nothing to deserve anyone's wrath, and the related press article seems like a rather cheap shot. Andreas JN466 16:43, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Leo, a lot of the key issues were spoken of by me plus others in what constitutes the lede, and also shortly thereafter. The rest has largely been run-of-the-mill Wikipedia debate club material (perhaps we should have one, bringing together the best of the best to WikiLawyer in good nature?). KirkCliff2 (talk) 16:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

---

Thanks LeoRomero, that is what I have been trying to understand: what exactly am I being accused of? I have no idea. In this thread, people have said I am disruptive, that I am a liar, that I have introduced bias. Elsewhere, the founder of Wikipedia (!) said it is appropriate that I should be publicly shamed. None of this makes any sense to me. If there is a place where I erred, I would like to know about it as much as anybody -- and if public shaming has to come along with that, OK. I am relatively new here, I can take a little hazing if necessary.

In the meantime, the extraordinary bias in the Jameis Winston article that I worked to slightly reduce has been fully restored. The widely respected publications Wikipedia is supposed to respect barely mention his name without making his behavior a central focus; the 6,000 word NY Times article, written by a Pulitzer winner, was not an account of his athletic prowess. ESPN dubbed him "this years most polarizing player" on the cover of their magazine. The GM of the team that drafted him said one day he might write a book about the extraordinary steps they took to vet his character. But Wikipedia editors seeking to correct for my alleged bias have minimized those issues, paying more attention to a couple of opinion columnists and the president of a university with his own conflict of interest.

Please believe, if I wrote a version that matches my own bias, it would look radically different from any version of the Wikipedia article that has ever existed. But since I know Wikipedia is a place for reasoned deliberation and careful vetting of sources and facts, I have never pushed for something that even comes close to reflecting my own bias. Again, if I have erred anywhere I would like to know about it -- but so far, all I see is broad and unfounded accusations. I also hope editors will put even a fraction of the energy they have put into this page, into improving the biography of one of the most talked-about athletes of our time. -Edwardpatrickalva (talk) 00:10, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

This is why I'd support a ban of you altogether, Edward: You continue alternating between a partial admission of guilt and acting as though you never were aware of any wrongdoing, all the while trying your hardest to ignore everything I and others have said about your actions and for which we have blatant proof. If you cannot plausibly understand what the rules are, you have no business editing until you do. If you think lying to Administrators and normal editors and portraying yourself as a victim will help you, you're gaming the system, and likewise should abstain from editing. If you could simply own up to your mistakes and agree to not insert your personal bias into articles, let alone your need to rewrite them so they make your film seem accurate, that would show a degree of willingness on your part to help improve the encyclopedia for the common good. I'm trying my hardest to remain civil with you, Edward, but your repeated and condescending attempts to feign ignorance and at the same time show disdain for the whole process of finding an optimal resolution to this issue are honestly very frustrating. Just stop. You can't hide your edit history, or the warnings given to you by Admins. Leo, am I wrong? KirkCliff2 (talk) 01:23, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Kirk, you need to stop the wild accusations and actually provide diffs. You MUST AGF!! Even if you're right, this is nothing compared to this SPI case, where a large paid PR team got away with it, and their meat puppets are still whitewashing articles. Huge COI. That is real harm.

No harm is being done here (other editors have been collaboratively involved all along), and if necessary, a topic ban (from the articles, but not their talk pages) would protect Wikipedia. I haven't examined everything, but what I've seen is certainly debatable and without edit warring, IOW typical editing. What I've seen showed the other editors agreeing with the quality of Alva's edits and thought his edits were good.

These types of accusations should not include normal content disputes, but only concern truly egregious edits and edit warring, and I fear you're including mere content disputes in your calls for a burning at the stake and lynching. That's way over the top. We want content experts here and we aren't supposed to bite newbies. Alva has only made "79 edits since 2015-03-13", and many of them were not to articles.

So, no more accusations without diffs. Okay? -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok I've looked at his contributions to Jameis Winston and Alva has played very close to the rules with regards to COI policy. It doesn't look like he's made a single change to the article without prior agreement from another editor. From his very first edit he had his role on the Hunting None of his edits are anything that would get someone without a COI sanctioned. As proof of this, look at how none of the editors who approved of his proposals are being dragged to ANI. Would not support any sanction stronger than a restriction to only talk pages. Brustopher (talk) 11:13, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

@Brustopher: Thanks for doing that. If you could share your evidence via diffs, that would be very helpful. Only Nagle, the most experienced arbitrator among us, has submitted diffs so far. Quoting him from text above: "Edwardpatrickalva made edits regarding the rape accusation (diff1,diff2). That's a major BLP issue." Neither Edwardpatrickalva, nor anyone who supports his case, has addressed Nagle's evidence. @Edwardpatrickalva: Would you mind addressing just those two edits, also via diffs (f.e showing the consensus-building conversations you had prior to those two edits)? If you're not used to our arcane procedures, let me know and I'll help you. - Thanks again; LeoRomero (talk) 22:37, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

@LeoRomero:Sure thing! Before making the changes in the first diff, Alva presented the proposed text at Talk:Jameis_Winston#Updating_article, where it was approved by User:Muboshgu. The changes in the second diff were made on the recommendation of User:Jadeslair in Talk:Jameis_Winston#Including_rape_allegation_etc._in_lead_section. The rest of his edits to Jameis Winston follow pretty much the same method linked to above. From a COI policy standpoint Alva did nothing wrong on that article. If his edits are indeed smearing Winston as people claim, those who approved them share equal blame. However, after further searching, I've come to the conclusion that the same cannot be said about his edits to other articles. Alva added links to the film's article to Title IX, Anti-rape movement and Annie E. Clark. While Alva made proposals beforehand on the talk pages for Title IX and the Anti-rape movement, these additions were made before anyone responded. His additions to Clark's article were done without any previous talk page discussion. While these edits are clearly problematic, I wouldn't say they're enough to warrant any kind of sanction if he agrees to stick to talk pages on COI issues as I have requested on his talk page. Brustopher (talk) 23:33, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

@Brustopher: Thanks! You've made it so much easier for a bystander like me to follow the trail that led to the two contested edits by @Edwardpatrickalva:

1. 23 March 2015: Edwardpatrickalva starts conversation on proposed edits. This goes on for eight days. diff
2. 31 March 2015: Edwardpatrickalva updates the article along lines agreed at Talk diff
3. 5 May 2015 Edwardpatrickalva discusses new edits re rape allegations on Talk diff
4. 24 August 2015 Edwardpatrickalva edits Article diff

I thus see no evidence that Edwardpatrickalva broke COI, as to these two edits. As to the other edits you found while doing further research, no one's supplied relevant diffs, so I'll just trust your judgment that although Edwardpatrickalva did break COI, no sanctions are warranted if he agrees to stick to Talk. I'm grateful for your research, and your balanced approach. - Thanks again; LeoRomero (talk) 01:05, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I did not notice that the coi on his user page was related to the page being edited. I had no idea what that movie was about. The main thing I was concerned with was that the NYT article was original research. After looking at this tonight, it is clear the the user should not be editing pages directly but to my knowledge the editor has not broken any policies just guidelines. Although this edit probably supports the movie, it updated incorrect information based on what the citation says. It seems this dispute is from an article about the editor. The external news sources do not know all of our rules and I do not think we should bow to them. He is most certainly biased, as we all are but I think the edits are pretty solid. I am not an admin so I am not even sure If I am supposed to be commenting here, if not please disregard Jadeslair (talk) 04:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

"the NYT article was original research": A NYT article is the exact opposite of original research: it's a reliable source, Jadeslair. Andreas JN466 06:55, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. My mistake Andreas. I thought it needed other sources to verify it's accuracy. Which the editor later provided. Jadeslair (talk) 11:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to Brustopher for good work, although the burden of proof is on those making the accusations. They have not provided any diffs showing any wrongdoing. I too looked at the very few edits made by Alva and found nothing wrong, and his talk page interactions were fine. Unfortunately he met some stiff resistance and uncalled for demands from accusers who don't understand the COI guideline.

I'm not sure what LeoRomero means by "although Edwardpatrickalva did break COI." He has a COI, but did not make any improper edits, so he did not violate the COI guideline. It does not forbid careful and collaborative editing. When we are dealing with a subject expert who has a COI, that is the type of editing we want from them, and that's what he gave us.

Only if his edits were problematic would he be required to only use the talk page, or if worse get a topic ban. None of that seems necessary. He's been an exemplary COI editor who openly and honestly declared his COI, made very careful edits, worked well with other editors, and did no wrong. He's a subject expert whose expertise has improved the encyclopedia.

He should get a medal and everyone who made such severe accusations and failed to AGF should apologize to him and be forced to carry a wet trout in their underpants for a week. People who don't understand the guideline should keep quiet. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

What's deplorable in cases like this is that the press can manufacture a plausible-sounding story out of nothing. Andreas JN466 14:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, he did add links to his movie in three articles without gaining prior approval (as I detailed above), which is what LeoRomero is probably referring to. But in 2 of those articles its was because his proposal was met with silence, so it's really a pretty small fry violation if anything. Definitely not something worth getting the pitchforks out for if he agrees to stop doing it. Brustopher (talk) 14:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: I didn't say what you said I did. Not that it matters, because Edward himself said he didn't stick to COI all the time. More important, your trout proposal is a clear and direct violation of [WP-TROUT], and that's a blockable offense. LeoRomero (talk) 15:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

LeoRomero, "although Edwardpatrickalva did break COI" is an exact quote from you. As far as the "trout" goes, you're supposed to laugh. I'll put a smiley up there. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

---

Hi guys - After going through the text above and the summary below one more time, here's what I see so far. Did I get that right? And if I did, how much time should we give others to present actual evidence against Edward before I ask the Examiner to re-examine their story? - Thanks; LeoRomero (talk) 15:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC) BAN ALL COI EDITS! He said again.

---

Summary so far

1. Incident submitted 11/19;
2. two Wikipedians asked that Edward be banned altogether and outright;
3. they did not present evidence, and stopped participating in this discussion on 11/20 and 11/25;
4. as of 11/25, Edward was accused of breaking WP:COI, WP:BLP, WP:DIS, WP:NPV, WP:VER
5. as to those, we received two diffs (diff diff) relevant only to WP:COI and WP:BLP. They showed that Edward did make at least two COI edits to a BLP, over a span of months
6. we subsequently received two diffs (diff, diff) which showed that Edward did in fact consult other editors prior to posting the edits: Edward did not break COI, not in these two cases;
7. there are indications of other COI edits, but no one who is still in this discussion thinks they're a big deal;
8. recommendations on actions, as of 11/29: temporary topic ban, permanent topic ban, site ban;
9. Edward had already volunteered to a temporary topic ban;
10. no one at this point is proposing any ban or block against Edward;
11. others have gotten away with worse.

Conclusions

1. Verdicts: Not exactly not guilty, but not guilty enough to be blocked from site. Since Edward had already volunteered to impose a temporary subject ban on himself, No Topic Ban. No Page Ban. No Bans.
2. We have created way too much jargon (we need our own dictionary), and have way too many rules, procedures, and proceedings.

---

dangit, I forgot to add "... and waaaaaaaaaaay too much drama." LeoRomero (talk) 22:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

[Moved summary section up LeoRomero (talk) 20:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)]

Summary as of 11/25

[ Update: I think my analysis as of 11/25 below has served its purpose, and don't plan to update the table. No objections to anyone getting it out of the way. Thanks; LeoRomero (talk) 02:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC) as I shake my head over how much work goes into just one COI case. My solution to the COI problem is to get rid of COI. No Conflict of Interest edits. You get one warning. You ignore that, we send you to Friendster, forever. Join the discussion at COI Talk. ]

Table of points, diffs, and recommendations

My first and only attempt at a case summary, ever. We have a shortage of diffs. Missing diffs are marked as ? under the diff column. I think this includes all relevant points, though I may have accidentally left some snarkiness in. Please edit as you please, esp for brevity. If you are not comfortable with markup, just do as I did and test a Visual version on your User page/subpage first, then copy the source code over. - Thanks; LeoRomero (talk) 08:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC) Relevant links Edwardpatrickalva (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The Hunting Ground (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Talk history Jameis Winston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Talk history Discussions Talk:Jimbo Wales, Talk history AN/I, History Talk:COI, Talk history POL/REQ +/- statement diff by WP:COI - as this article shows, Mr. Alva has, by his own admission, violated the laws on Conflict of Interest over the course of several months ? KirkCliff2 WP:COI - editor has explicitly stated it at Talk:The Hunting Ground ? Ricky81682 WP:COI na COI issue turns out to have press coverage.[5] na John Nagle WP:COI + From the beginning, I have been upfront about my affiliation, and I have worked to seek consensus among other editors for more substantial changes. I’d ask that Wikipedia admins take a close look at Talk:Jameis Winston, where on multiple occasions I brought things up for discussion ? Edwardpatrickalva WP:COI + Prior to my involvement, the lead section of the Winston article was at odds with Wikipedia policy ... I took steps to address that significant problem, seeking input from other Wikipedians, striving at every step to work with Wikipedia’s standards in mind, not to narrowly advance my employer’s interests. ? Edwardpatrickalva WP:COI + acknowledged the COI early on and generally engaged on talk pages to suggest/discuss sensitive changes before making them ? Rhododendrites WP:COI - clear evidence of violation of the guideline WP:COI It is *not* a cause for leniency to say that he complied with the Terms of Use to disclose his employer - that is just a minimum requirement to edit. ? Smallbones WP:COI - His declaration of his involvement with the movie was only just added recently, and the user seemingly has not made edits that aren't related to the subject matter of the film in some manner or another. From all indications, this account of his was created solely to give the film a PR boost, while trying to manipulate Wikipedia to conform to a false narrative ? KirkCliff2 WP:COI + I have not edited the articles themselves since this issue came up, and I don’t see why I would, as long as there is a healthy amount of attention from diligent Wikipedians. Before yesterday, there were far fewer editors working on any of these articles, and edits and talk page comments were much less frequent. I did not want to nag, and in some cases was explicitly advised to just make changes myself ... In the meantime, the extraordinary bias in the Jameis Winston article that I worked to slightly reduce has been fully restored. The widely respected publications Wikipedia is supposed to respect barely mention his name without making his behavior a central focus; the 6,000 word NY Times article, written by a Pulitzer winner, was not an account of his athletic prowess. ESPN dubbed him "this years most polarizing player" on the cover of their magazine. The GM of the team that drafted him said one day he might write a book about the extraordinary steps they took to vet his character. But Wikipedia editors seeking to correct for my alleged bias have minimized those issues, paying more attention to a couple of opinion columnists and the president of a university with his own conflict of interest. ? Edwardpatrickalva WP:COI + one user did tell me not to edit The Hunting Ground on two occasions. I did take note of what the user said; in hindsight, maybe I should have explicitly acknowledged it. But I also noted that my edits were mostly received favorably, and I was confident I was not breaking any rules. I did make sure after that first statement to be more diligent about bringing substantial edits up for discussion. ? Edwardpatrickalva WP:COI - regardless of how your edits were received, and irrespective of how many editors these articles had working on them, you should never have been editing everything from the film article, to Title IX, anti-rape movement, and Jameis Winston's article, and certainly not for the purpose of making your film seem accurate when the real facts dictated otherwise. ... No matter your intentions, no matter what the circumstances may be, the rule is immutable: Where editing the article(s) in question would result in a conflict of interest, stay clear of editing said article(s). ? KirkCliff2 WP:COI - I concur. If you have a bias strongly in favor of a subject, your word alone is not sufficient to assure everyone you will not try to push your bias. If you want to make changes, you should stick to the talk pages and ask uninvolved editors to supply the information you believe needs to be added, and only after it has been verified as accurate. ? Arcane21 WP:COI + disclosed COI precluding someone from being in a discussion is completely wrong. ? NeilN WP:COI + He did declare his COI. He did use the talk page. We must still AGF. Misunderstandings occur between all good faith editors, and that includes COI editors. ? BullRangifer WP:COI na Jimbo has mentioned this issue and this news story on his talk page na Etamn WP:COI na Jimbo personally addressing the topic on his talk page has added a sense of urgency to the matter. na KirkCliff2 WP:COI na Jimbo says a lot of things on his talk page. There's no added sense of urgency for this matter. na NeilN WP:BLP - edits to articles on the film's subjects would seem an even more serious issue ? DGG WP:BLP - made edits regarding the rape accusation. That's a major BLP issue. Those edits started in March 2015. [6][7] John Nagle WP:BLP na article (the subject is a football player) has many edits since then, including some recent section blanking by an anon. [8] John Nagle WP:BLP - clear evidence of violation of the policy WP:BLP ? Smallbones WP:DIS - clear evidence of disruption ? Smallbones WP:DIS - A cursory review of Mr. Alva's edits shows clear disruption, including replacing entire paragraphs that would cast doubt on the allegations made by the movie, replacing them with favorable content, using unreliable sources and dubious wording, self-promotion (where "self" means the film), and stern warnings about his bad-faith editing which he ignored. ? KirkCliff2 WP:DIS - disingenuous with both edit summaries and his methodology, in addition to editing on his own where a consensus should be reached beforehand. He has been warned, several times, and in numerous places, to cease with the flagrant gaming, yet even as this discussion is happening, he remains engaged in discussions on the talk page of The Hunting Ground. ? KirkCliff2 WP:DIS + No damage is being done. A cursory look at the talk page of Winston's bio shows Alva working extremely well with other editors and his edit requests meeting their approval. ? BullRangifer WP:DIS - even if his edits are well-received, are they factually accurate? And were the editors aware of Alva's Conflict of Interest, which should technically have precluded him from being in the discussion? Meanwhile, many of his other edits are far less constructive, and were essentially revisionism so that his film could be seen by Wikipedia as more accurate. ? KirkCliff2 WP:NPV - changing articles to match the accusations of the film ? KirkCliff2 WP:NPV - The NPOV of Wikipedia is to ensure the minimization of any bias, or at least as much as possible when presenting information, and as such all things that might insert bias, such as editors with a vested interest in the topic, are not exempt from making sure bias is not inserted, even if the NPOV Wikipedia strives for doesn't make the topic at hand look good. ? Arcane21 WP:VER - changing articles to match the accusations of the film ? KirkCliff2 REQ na issues be addressed with the guilty party, and that this bad-faith editing is halted na KirkCliff2 REQ na shouldn't be editing either article na John Nagle REQ na step away from editing in this subject area entirely na Kelly REQ na could an admin consider taking action to deal with the vandalism on my user page this morning? It has been reverted once, which I appreciate -- but I do not look forward to having to deal with schoolyard insults while this issue plays out na Edwardpatrickalva REQ na refrain from editing any article for which you have a COI for at least a while until these articles can be evaluated and stabilize na Rhododendrites REQ na permanent ban, and I believe that any admin can do it na Smallbones REQ na A topic ban might be wise, if such infractions are clearly proven to be more than just differences of opinions. na BullRangifer @LeoRomero: I can't tell if your intent was to close this discussion or not. These summaries (here and at User talk:Jimbo Wales) are admirable and probably helpful, but if this is not an actual close, it does, at least in part, have the effect of closing/moderating discussion. Operating under the assumption you're looking to aid continued discussion rather than close it, I've renamed the section from "case summary" to "summary of discussion so far" and collapsed the extended table. Others can feel free to restore if I'm alone in thinking this way. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC) Hi @Rhododendrites: I like all your edits, thanks. The only change I made was to add the word "diffs" to your title. We have a severe shortage of diffs in this case. (Is there a Diff Drought?) Of all the participants, only one provided diffs - @Nagle: all 3 of those diffs linked from the table. Our overworked Arbs and staff need good diffs in order to examine the evidence without having to read yet another gazillion pages. And thanks for assuming my good faith, Rhod, and for the opportunity to address your concerns. Even if I did have the power to close an ANI (or any) discussion (which I don't, and never-ever will), there's no way that I would close this case without adequate evidence via diffs. I wouldn't even open it. And that would be such a disservice, esp to both the accuser and the accused, who almost always, as in this case, get the most abuse. Thanks again; LeoRomero (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal for Omar-toons

Omar-toons (talk · contribs) is a prolific editor on topics related to northern Africa, particularly Morocco and Algeria. Unfortunately he has a strong pro-Moroccan and anti-Algerian POV that makes it impossible for him to work constructively and collaboratively on those topics. The example that brought me here was the Sand War where Omar-toons is giving prominence to less reliable sources and for spurious reasons either removes or de-emphasizes better source. Examples include [9], [10], [11], [12]. By now there's a rather wide, policy-based consensus established on the talk page; that didn't keep him from labeling those opposing his preferred order of sources "disruptive".

That pattern of edits is not limited to a single article: [13][14], [15], [16], [17]. The standard modus operandi is to revert, possibly quoting some irrelevant policy, and to keep reverting until the other side is exhausted. In my experience talk page comments generally are short, if they're given at all, and do not address the points raised by others; they're more of a diversionary tactic than an attempt to establish a consensus.

For these reasons I'm proposing a topic ban for Omar-toons from edits related to North Africa and the Maghreb. Huon (talk) 15:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

In my defense I could say that I always try to keep it NPOV, and that disagreeing with me about the edition on one sole article isn't enough to accuse me of being a POV-pusher (I even keep it NPOV about Western Sahara, for example by considering it a separate territory from Morocco, which can be considered illegal here... just to say).

Also, I called M.Bitton "disruptive" because... actually he is. Did you take a look on his TP (in its pre-cleaning version)? He did a mess last time he intervened... [18]. --Omar-toons (talk) 00:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Reduce Sanction to 1PR I don't think that we should TB any editor who is adding material to an article. YES his additions are POV(I have just come here from Sand war, an article I went to browse and witnessed it brim over with drama), but still he adds sources and does work. So we should just make sure that we take out the disruptive side of his contributions , and a One revert Per Day sanction should be just that. Toons can continue editing Wiki, but if he is reverted he will have to discuss it without being disruptive. Win Win for all. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

And, FreeatlastChitchat : you are nor an admin nor involved, except the fact that we had some diagreements on previous articles (where you POV-pushed a lot)... so, what's your point? --Omar-toons (talk) 12:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Ummmm, don't know what to say here when faced with this kind of imbecility. But here goes. DUDE! I am on your frigging side here. Did you not even read my comment? It says "REDUCE SANCTION" right there at the start. Being involved with you in debates and still taking your side on this is evidence in itself that I am not INVOLVED, so whats your point? had I been involved I would have commented something like "Toons is a complete troll who routinely edit wars on Algeria related pages diff, diff, diff, diff. Ban him asap omg why isnt he banned yet. /hairpull #BanToons". So please do not look a gift horse in the mouth. @admins who judge this, my stance still remians that toon should not be topic banned. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 13:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

• Well, Omar-Toons was blocked for edit-warring this time; my suggestion was going to be that we try and let regular processes play out. I can't see if an ANEW report was filed, but that, perhaps, should be done every time OT gets to edit warring--and kindly point out, in such reports, that typically OT isn't always guilty of 3R, but rather of slower edit warring. I am well aware of OT's zeal and occasional disruption, which includes ownership-style editing and very loose interpretations of policy ("You are a little bit late : all sources are kept per WP:BOLD"); for a topic ban, however, we would need more evidence from different pages. I'll have a look at Huon's second paragraph; in the meantime, I'll also ping Dougweller, who has some experience dealing with this type of problem. In the other meantime, Omar-Toons, I wish that on occasion (like, on this occasion), you could break out your most mellow and collaborative side. Drmies (talk) 22:31, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
• OK, Omar-toons did the exact same thing on Algerian War just signaled by User:Huon, and I have blocked him again for edit warring, now for 72 hours. Drmies (talk) 23:03, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't ask for a topic ban for a slow-moving edit war, though that's tedious enough on its own. What did it for me was a mistranslation and a misrepresentation of a source. Omar-toons adding sources is no benefit if the sources don't say what he claims they say. Huon (talk) 00:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive behavior with ethnic overtones on Blue Army (Poland) Talk Page

I'd like to report User:Faustian for disruptive behavior on the Talk:Blue Army (Poland) page. Several editors are in the process of agreeing on a consensus based on the results of a nearly finalized RfC, which concluded that the there is a issue of undue weight and coat-racking within the article. Unfortunately, despite the outcome of the vote, Faustian has continued to argue that more information should be added, contrary to the RfC results, more importantly his behavior is taking on the characteristics of bullying when Faustian wrote: "So far every non-Pole thinks thinks that it reflects the source" and "Double-standards motivated by nationalism" and "You are presenting with a pattern of dishonesty" [19] . I would request that Faustian is blocked before this gets out of hand. Also, he continues to revert edits which have gained support — here: [20] [21] and [22]--E-960 (talk) 21:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with Darouet's assessment that your RFC is non-neutral and thus rather problematic. Additionally the most support is for the third of three options ("Other possible solutions") so it does not seem as though consensus is really very strong. I don't see that Faustian is doing anything to be blocked for. I would recommend you withdraw the RfC and rephrase it in an unbiased way, plus have only clear options for people to support rather than a vague "other." —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

—Мандичка, the RfC is a separate item (btw most folks clearly voted for option 3, no need to question the results), the problem I'm reporting on has nothing to do with the merits of the discussion. But, the tone struck by user Faustain, pls address my request. --E-960 (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm just telling you my unbiased impression. I don't think Faustian has done anything worth banning for and may have a point. You shouldn't be making those changes before the RfC is complete so Faustian is right to revert you. I don't agree with your assessment that it's a nearly finalized RfC. The tally vote math has "Option 1: 1.5 votes/Option 2: 2 votes/Option 3: 3.5 votes to reduce the text / 1 vote to expand the text" IMO this is not very clear at all and not much of a majority. Additionally, the RfC as you formed it clearly violates policy as it is very leading and biased, and thus an admin may choose to close it with no consensus by default. So I recommend starting over with a neutral question. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:38, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

E-960 is operating as essentially a SPA devoted to removing negative information about the Blue Army. This is part of his disruptive process. The talk-page is filled with his mostly one-editor struggle to do this. He has already been caught deliberately misrepresenting what a source says. On another RFC he claimed [23]: " Also, as noted by Encyclopedia Judaica such actions were the result of "individual soldiers",[2] so the article text should not overemphasize controversial subject matter to tacitly imply that the entire army was a pogroming force." The actual source stated [24]: "Attacks on individual Jews on the streets and highways, murderous pogroms on Jewish settlements, and deliberate provocative acts became commonplace. While these may have been on the initiative of individual soldiers, they were known to their officers, if not openly supported by them." This sort of thing has been common with him. He is clearly not here to build an Encyclopedia but to remove information he doesn't like, and to disrupt the efforts of those who are here to build the encyclopedia. If anyone ought to be sanctioned, it should be him. Please do so.Faustian (talk) 22:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Please note the results of the RfC vote, I think most editors who commented have a genuine desire to improve the article, however the recent tone struck by Faustian is counter productive:

• Option 3: As suggested by users SMcCandlish and Ivanevian. I think that the proposed "third way" approach is fair and worth pursuing. --E-960 (talk) 07:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
• Option 2: Keep as is no changes. Faustian (talk) 15:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
• Option 3: Certainly keep lead and body material that describes pogroms, but add more information that also describes the causes of anti-Semitic and anti-Ukrainian violence, as we discussed in the Talk Pages above. -Darouet (talk) 18:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
• Option 2: Keep as is no changes. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 01:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
• Option 3: There is clearly a WP:UNDUE / WP:COATRACK problem here, but it is not as significant as the nom suggests. I do agree that this material can be compressed by about 50%, but a summary of it should not be removed from the lead. As noted below about Enc. Judaica, Haller's Army is notorious for this; i.e., it's one of the things that establishes WP:Notability. It's not WP's job to do a WP:SYNTH analysis of our own on how significant the alleged pogromming was in relation to the Blue Army's role in the war. Just follow the sources. That said, don't dwell and dwell on one aspect from cherry-picked sources.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
• Option 3: I wouldn't go as far as option 1, but the emphasis on anti-Jewish violence by the BA completely distorts this article, so a re-edit of some kind is definitely needed. Ivanevian (talk) 22:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
• Option 1/3 I second Ivanevian; the article currently has an undue focus on this issue. I'd suggest shortening the lead a bit (what are "numerous segments"?), and trying to be more concise in the body. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
• Option 1: Re-edit the sections as recommended. Reason: It is too one-sided, hence POV now. Zezen (talk) 00:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

--E-960 (talk) 22:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

He has now violated 3R. Reversions are here: [25], here: [26], here: [27] and here: [28]. He was warned here: [29].

Most of his reversions involved removing sourced information without consensus and despite a previous RFC having concluded that the information was acceptable in the article (RFC here: [30]).Faustian (talk) 23:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Faustian, the removal of this text was seconded by an experienced user Volunteer Marek, because the text originally cited to back it up was taken out of context and was missing key verses that completely changed the meaning of the statement. --E-960 (talk) 23:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

False. The full passage was included and RFC passed with the full passage. Anyone can follow the RFC here: [31], just scroll down. The missing verses actually made the RFC less likely to pass. When I included the full paragraph it was determined that the statement in the article did reflect the original source. Had I deliberately left out information to make my case better (as you falsely claim I did) people wouldn't have disagreed with me initially.

At any rate, this is off-topic, although it does highlight your negative approach to wikipedia.Faustian (talk) 23:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, lord. Could we please have an admin involve themselves here? In all honesty, any editors who have had dealings with E-960 have been subjected to his blunderbuss techniques to the point of EXHAUSTion and should no longer be expected to assume good faith. He's an SPA who's NOTHERE being allowed to continue BATTLEGROUND tactics on all things ARBEE. Please see these archived ANIs: here, here, and here. He's a bully, pure and simple. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with this assessment, as I told Faustian, that the current discussion on the talk page, is attracting input from several experienced editors and we are receiving feedback on how to improve the disputed section, however Faustian wants to add material without gaining consensus and reverting text which was seconded by another user. I suggest any admin should look at the ongoing discussion before rushing to judgement. --E-960 (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• On quick note, my last recommendation was to initiate a cool-off period until other editors can review the proposed edits. [32] I don't think that by making such statement I'm engaging in battleground tactics, just simply trying to get more editor to review possibly controversial text. --E-960 (talk) 00:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• On a quick note, I don't accept this piece of WP:CRUSH as being 'respectful' in good faith. I'm afraid your reputation precedes you here. Paying lip-service to 'civil' when you believe it serves your purposes is a misrepresentation of the machinations of how and why you edit, and how you interact with other editors. Incidentally, starting this thread and posting this slanted 'request' on the AN is FORUMSHOPPING. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Addendum: Anyone who reads through the protracted dispute on the article's talk page will see for themselves that the context in which you 'initiated' a 'cool-off period' belies your claim not to be batteground... and anyone who knows the first thing about how RfCs work know they are not a !vote... so why do you keep counting !votes? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The RfC has several editor comments and we are in the process of agreeing on how to fix the disputed actions, the votes are just a quick reference point. No need to ridicule my method, also because several editors have lend their feedback, I don't think that Faustian's approach is productive, when he tries to insert more information to the disputed section while the discussion is on how to reduce the size of the text to avoid Coat-racking with in the article. --E-960 (talk) 05:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Faustian inappropriate comments questioning editor's ethnicity

Moved up from bottom of page as new report. BMK (talk) 22:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Again, for the the third time User:Faustian has questioned an editor's ethnicity on the Talk:Blue Army (Poland) page. This again happened after I submitted an ANI yesterday — 21:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC) — to check his behavior before it got out of hand. Unfortunately, my request was ignored. Since, then Faustian has made the same obnoxious remarks to Volunteer Marek.

• Double-standards motivated by nationalism? Faustian (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
• So far every non-Pole thinks thinks that it reflects the source. Faustian (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
• In the RFC and here every non-Pole felt that it reflected the source. Faustian (talk) 08:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Prompting this response:

• I have no idea how you know the ethnic background of everyone who's commented here. Second, you are ascribing views to people based on their ethnicity "Y believes X because Y is Z". This is at best a form of offensive stereotyping and at worst a form of bigotry. Third, you've been on Wikipedia long enough to be aware that the proper way to carry out discussion is by commenting on content, not editors. Volunteer Marek 22:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm very frustrated by the apparent selectivity of how admins discipline editors, I myself have been accused of being an instigator, yet no disparaging remarks were made on my part. All the while user Faustian has been blocking content which was agreed on with other edits and making rude comments. Yet, no disciplinary action has been taken against him. Is this going to continue? --E-960 (talk) 21:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

This is your second complaint here about Faustian on the Blue Army article and the other one is not even closed. The reason why you're accused of being an instigator is apparent. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Can I ask that you address the statements made by Faustain, pls. Yes, it's the second request because I'm afraid you ignored the first. --E-960 (talk) 22:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC

He was just blocked for edit-warring: [33]; after coming off his block he is continuing his pattern of disruptions and harassment.

My statements that he is complaining about, in the talk section of an article about a Polish military unit that killed Jewish civilians: "In the RFC and here every non-Pole (once the full paragraph was included) felt that it reflected the source: [12]. Me, SMcCandlish ☺, Malik Shabazz, and here Darouet. truther2012 felt it wasn't but that was before I provded the full context, and he didn't respond after that. RFC was closed by Robert McClenon (talk who concluded "The statement does properly reflect the source." My statement that all the people who happened to not be Polish, felt that the statement reflected the source, was accurate. I suspect this may not be a pure coincidence. I have respect for you as an editor and I think you edit in good faith, but like all of us you might not be completely free of unintentional bias. A good thing about an RFC is that it can get neutral voices. In this case, the neutral voices didn't agree with you. I would be happy to do another RFC. My next and final comment on this topic was: " Volunteer Marek , I'm disappointed in your harsh tone; I had been quite civil with you. I did not ascribe views to people based on ethnicity but suggested the possibility of subtle bias, due to one's background, in you (as in anyone), whom I consider to be a good-faith editor. I pointed out that it would be good to have non-Eastern Europeans comment on these issues as they have no "dogs in this fight" and that on this specific issue concerning a Polish military unit non-Polish peoples' attitudes differ form Polish editors. Something to think about. that being said, I won't comment on this anymore and will stick to content."

This discussion was finished, but then E-960 (talk decided to use it to continue his pattern of harassment and disruptions.Faustian (talk) 23:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and this was simply false: "All the while user Faustian has been blocking content which was agreed on with other edits".Faustian (talk) 23:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I've already addressed Faustian's behavior and once again I don't feel Faustian has done anything wrong. IMO he is arguing for a neutral viewpoint here, not just the Polish POV, which I think is necessary for content such as this. —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Again, majority of users who commented recently on the Talk:Blue Army (Poland) page: User:Piotrus, User:Ivanevian, User:Zezen, User:Volunteer Marek, User:SMcCandlish and User:SageRad believe that Faustian is not arguing from a neutral POV, but unfortunately when an admin is selectively looking through the content you can justify just about any kind of behavior. --E-960 (talk) 05:30, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Yet another misrepresentation, but off-topic here so I won't get drawn into a discussion here.Faustian (talk) 13:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

E-960, please stop attributing sentiments to me. I do not endorse that attribution above. Please strike it. I haven't looked closely into the matter to make my own judgment. I was only called by Legobot to an RfC on the Blue Army (Poland) page, and my only contribution i believe was to help discern what the Morgenthau Report actually said. I did not weigh in as you suggest. SageRad (talk) 15:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban for E-960

It's been suggested here that E-960 is a SPA for Poland who is WP:NOTHERE. I've noticed seriously problematic, non-neutral and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior so far on the talk page for the Blue Army, and elsewhere E-960 does not appear interested in engaging in a civil manner[34], [35]. We have previous ANI complaints[36][37] and I propose this be dealt with via a topic ban for Eastern Europe, which is already under WP:ARBEE. —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support as proposer —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support. His efforts are a largely a trail of disruptions. Faustian (talk) 15:07, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
• Against. This is a WP:TAGTEAM initiative, by users who's share similar POV on issues related to Eastern Europe. I want to show user Faustian's misconduct which has continually been ignored by admin Мандичка who marginalizes Faustian's out of line comments and instead tries to shift attention to users who oppose him. Simply a hit job. Also, the false charge of "SAP for Poland"… pls see e-960's edits to Gothic architecture, Brick Gothic, Baroque architecture etc. The entire argument if based on loose facts. --E-960 (talk) 19:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  • This is really preposterous to accuse me of being part of a tag team scheme aka meat puppetry. Additionally, your edits on architecture are largely related to Poland anyway![38], [39], [40], [41]], [42], [43] Looking through your edits, it doesn't appear you've ever made a single article edit not related to Poland either directly or indirectly (ie Allies of World War II). —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Just for the record, WP:TAGTEAM is very different from WP:MEATPUPPET. And Мандичка isn't an admin.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

You are extremely bias in your accusations. Yes, my interest focuses on Poland and it's history. I'm not going to get involved in editing subject matter I know nothing about like Quantum mechanics or history of History of Canada. Unfortunately, in an effort to pin me down, you are distorting the definition of "single purpose" account to fit your needs. --E-960 (talk) 08:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• Also, I'd like to add that — several editors including: User:SMcCandlish, User:Zezen, User:Ivanevian and User:SageRad commented and agree that the BA page has issues of WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK. So, my arguments and position is by no means unreasonable. --E-960 (talk) 09:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• I never said that. I just reviewed the article's talk page where i arrived due to a LegoBot call to an RfC, and my only comments were to establish a point of fact about the Morgenthau Report. Please strike my name from the above comment and don't attribute things to me that i didn't say. SageRad (talk) 14:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support Too much drama and disruption coupled with silly accusations. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support This has been a long-running problem Nick-D (talk) 05:58, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see anything even close meriting a topic ban. I also do think that E-960 brings up valid points on talk. There's a lot of discussion but that is precisely what is suppose to happen in these situations. Volunteer Marek  08:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, and take this to ArbCom. The only evidence presented is two diffs of questionable civility (one is more like excessive stridency, and neither are from the talk page in question), followed by a suggestion for an excessive topic ban from all Eastern Europe articles, which isn't justifiable. I don't think E-960 is the only problematic editor at the article. The page has been subject to months of editorial controversy (I've participated, via WP:FRS, in several RfCs there, which were basically rehashing the same issues). I'm skeptical that singling out one editor for a topic ban will resolve the problems at that article, and may simply amount to supervoting in an ongoing, long-term content dispute. This mostly appears to be a conflict between those who view the subject's notability as primarily or at least deeply tied to antisemitism, versus those who see the anti-Jewish violence material as a PoV/OR coatrack, overplaying the relation of alleged pogroms to the subject's history. There's a second dispute axis, alleging anti- and pro-Poland PoV pushing that doesn't seem tied to the antisemitism-or-not arguments. Finally, some of us with no dog in the fight(s) thought some coatrack and/or NOR and/or PoV concerns were valid, and some of them were not, and thus supported compromise; the multiple RfCs have not reached one. It's not primarily a two-editor or even two-faction dispute, so I'm skeptical that WP:DRN or WP:MEDCOM would be useful. This can probably be done at WP:ARCA, as a request related to WP:ARBEE, or maybe the clerks would instruct the filing of a new WP:RFARB (I don't spend much time at ArbCom, so I'm not sure). That won't resolve the content dispute but it will deal with the (non-singular) behavioral problems that are preventing resolution of it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

E-960's problems extend beyond mere content dispute. He is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, but to (disruptively) advocate for the Blue Army. Opening these ANIs against me seems to be part of that struggle. He has also made numerous false accusations, such as of tag-teaming, as well as edit-warring, on this very ANI. He made a false claim of what another editor stated on this ANI, as described by that other editor here: [44]. In addition to frequent misrepresentation of other editors' actions and words, there is also a pattern of misrepresenting sources to suit his agenda. For example, here: [45], here: [46] and here: [47]. He advocated for "During the fighting on the Ukrainian front individual soldiers within the ranks of the Blue Army acting on their own initiative attacked segments of the local Jewish population" when the original source stated "Foreign officers and the ties with France kept Haller's forces independent of the official Polish command, a fact exploited by Haller's soldiers (called the "Hallerczycy") for undisciplined and unbridled excesses against Jewish communities in Galicia. Attacks on individual Jews on the streets and highways, murderous pogroms on Jewish settlements, and deliberate provocative acts became commonplace. While these may have been on the initiative of individual soldiers, they were known to their officers, if not openly supported by them." Fixing this took a lot of effort due to multiple reversions by E-960. E-960 has also tried to blame the anti-Jewish assaults on links between Jews and Bolshevism ([it took an RFC to clear this one up: [48]). Here I found a piece of information, reliably sourced, that could result in a brief 6 word addition to the article: [49]. As seen from the diff, he falsely claimed one of the sources was not reliable and will of course fight to keep the information off the article. So apparently an RFC will be necessary for every piece of info that is critical of the Blue Army...or to remove every piece of "information" that (as in the case of the alleged Jewish support for Bolshevism I linked to above) seeks to justify or exonerate the Blue Army's actions by misusing sources. It just goes on and on. I fear that WP:ARCA and WP:ARBEE will simply be more tools for him to use in his efforts to defend the Blue Army. He may have already worn down Darouet (talk, who had been quite active but who has recently disappeared from this article, with his efforts.Faustian (talk) 13:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Faustian, pls do not suggest that I insert bogus claims into the article — a source which you cited in the BA article has this statement: "In the borderlands many Ukrainians, Belorussians and Jews accorded an enthusiastic welcome to the invading Red Army." Nationalizing a Borderland: War, Ethnicity, and Anti-Jewish Violence in East Galicia, 1914-1920 p. 108. In any case, I don't think this is the place to argue about specific text.--E-960 (talk) 14:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Topic ban for Faustian

I'd like to propose a topic ban for user Faustian on Eastern Europe, who has been blocked several times for his editing approach on the Blue Army (Poland) page, disrupted other pages with related topics, and has used inappropriate tone to comment on other editor's ethic background instead of focusing on the content of the article.

• Double-standards motivated by nationalism? Faustian (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
• So far every non-Pole thinks thinks that it reflects the source. Faustian (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
• In the RFC and here every non-Pole felt that it reflected the source. Faustian (talk) 08:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Also here is a list of complaints from the ANI, which were filed against user Faustian by other edits:

• Vandalism of page tags by nationalist tag-team, Iryna Harpy and Faustian
• User:Faustian reported by User:Jacurek (Result:Page protected )
• User:Faustian and User:Ward3001 reported by user:jmh649 (Result:Page Protected )
• User:Faustian reported by User:194.44.15.214 (Result: Semi)

And a recant warning about Faustian's behavior on the Blue Army (Poland) page by admin User:MSGJ: @Faustian: Looking further I see you have been blocked previously for edit warring on this very same article. If evidence is produced that more than three of your five edits on this article yesterday were reverts, then I will consider blocking you too. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC) --E-960 (talk) 20:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support as noted above. --E-960 (talk) 20:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

The above is a good example of this editor's dishonest and disruptive approach. A quick example - "user:Faustian reported by User:194.44.15.214 (Result: Semi)": (link through google): [50] IP's claim was rejected by an admin, who followed my advice and semi-protected the article to prevent the IP who reported me from disrupting it. E-960 is using this as evidence to prove I am "bad?"Faustian (talk) 21:04, 28 November 2015 (UTC

• Oppose - silly. Additionally please stop accusing people of being in a tag team (WP:NPA) - that people agree with each other and disagree with you does not make them WP:TAGTEAM. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:53, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. In my experience, Faustian has been a constructive editor in those topics, and amenable to reasonable discussion. I'd oppose a topic ban, barring serious evidence of disruption, which I am not seeing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose; ArbCom. Per my comment in previous section. Not all of E-960s complaints are invalid. Not all of Faustian's are either. And they're not the only editors who need to take a step back at that article.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban for E-960 and Faustian with Pending changes protection

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

---

This conflict has been going on for several years with no hope in sight. It is a terrible drain of Wikipedia resources. Some commentators (including an admin) since left Wikipedia. No uninvolved editors are being acknowledged by the active participants in this feud ... one of the better established puppet theatres I've seen. Repeat assumptions of bad faith shown in reverts and in uncivil comments never stopped since the article was created. It takes two to tango. User:Faustian has been warned by the Arbitration enforcement numerous times for edit warring in Eastern Europe, User:E-960 even worse (with repeat warnings: Callanecc, MSGJ). These two editors (incl. blocked: Factor01 and COD T 3 among numerous "cameo appearances") constantly goad each other and everybody else into prolonging the conflict by personal attacks, vilification, and accusations of bad faith as well as "falsehoods". Please be informed. The General restrictions affecting all users editing in this area have been defined in § 11 of the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe as follows: "Any editor working on topics related to Eastern Europe, broadly defined, may be made subject to an editing restriction at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator. The restriction shall specify that, should the editor make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling." – We do already have in place all the administrative basis necessary for imposing this topic ban; and installing the Wikipedia: Pending changes protection in the article, in order to finally stop the bleeding! Poeticbent talk 17:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

What have I done to deserve a topic ban? I have not been warned "numerous times" by arbitration enforcement for edit warring. In 9 years of editing I have had one (24-hour) block on an eastern European topic, which involved reverting the removal of reliably sourced information by a since-permanently banned user (compare to your own block history: [51]). When I have run into trouble, it was simply due to not walking away from an article that was undergoing attack or disruption by a clearly disruptive editor. When someone provides a falsehood, I describe it as such and provide clear evidence for that. I have created about 30 articles on Eastern European topics (see my use page: [52], several of which were featured in the "did you know" section of the wiki main page, and made about 10,000 edits. Equating me with E-960 and proposing to ban me from eastern European topics is, sorry, just not right. Faustian (talk) 19:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Try to see the forest for the trees, please. This is not about you, but about the time and energy wasted by the community members tricked into believing that this thing with the Blue Army (Poland) can be resolved with their pointless and useless attempts at helping you. The waste of time and resources will never stop until we stop it. Think about the Wikipedians other than you, who could use a break from this never-ending story for a change. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 20:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - this is nonsense. Faustian has not done anything to deserve a topic ban and Poeticbent's reasoning of "This is not about you, but about the time and energy wasted by the community members tricked into believing that this thing with the Blue Army (Poland) can be resolved with their pointless and useless attempts at helping you" shows it is a bad faith proposal. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support (as nominator). None of them has shown any desire to resolve their differences between themselves, ever! This is a good faith proposal with everybody else in mind. Faustian made 231 edits to that talk page beginning in January 2011, E-960 made 118 edits there. The unresolved issues today, are the same as they were in 2011 long before E-960 showed up on the scene; nothing has changed one iota in spite of numerous attempts from the community. They need help, Poeticbent talk 21:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think you understand what topic bans are for. It appears you might be thinking of interaction ban, but I don't see that is warranted either. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Equating a disruptive editor and someone else very active on the same page is wrong. I have opened several RFCs on that page to resolve issues, and I have worked collaboratively with non-disruptive editors with whom I disagreed (such as here: [53].Faustian (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support Faustian, has been the main editor who disrupted the article from the beginning. Most of the conflicts started when he inserted highly controversial material as seen in the talk page over the years, he has been edit warring with established edits on this page such as User:Volunteer Marek and User:Piotrus not to mention all the newer edits like myself or User:Ivanevian.--E-960 (talk) 06:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

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

User:In ictu oculi continually spreading lies/harassing - please make him stop

This has been going on for years and years now, and it seems to always get ignored or brushed aside. This is not another oops slip-up by In Ictu oculi. I've asked him so many times over those years to stop the lies my fingers are getting tired from typing it. A difference of opinion is one thing, we don't agree on diacritics. Now there are several conversations going on about whether wikipedia should ignore a person's own wishes and sources on how to spell their name in English. And in those conversations, once again, In ictu oculi is making personal attacks and spreading the same lies once again. I did not create WP:TENNISNAMES, I did not even !vote on creating that essay and told the editor I could not support something that didn't take into account all sourcing. In ictu oculi is closer to owning that essay as he edited it. Yet over and over again he attacks me on it with these continual fabrications: HERE and HERE. There are dozens of these off-topic attacks on me. I don't care that he disagrees with me on following a biographical person's own wishes, that's wikipedia. I do care about his continually, year after year, attacking me with fabricated nonsense. Please make him stop this ridiculous baloney and stick to the topics at hand, because I've had it with his own warped version of non-truth. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Here is the type of thing I had to deal with even 3 years ago when this guy tried to round up everyone he knew to attack me. It will never end with this guy and I want it stopped this time. I will keep reporting it until I get satisfaction because I don't want his attacks and lies to get swept under another rug. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I can see you are frustrated, Fyunck(click), but I don't believe those diffs warrant a block. I have posted a warning on his talk page (User talk:In ictu oculi#November 2015). If this disagreement between the two of you has been going on for years over a specific set of articles, I encourage you to utilize dispute resolution. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm beyond pissed. But I don't want a block. That's always the last thing I want. I want it retracted and I want it to not happen again. After years and years of this same baloney from him... always leaving the topic at hand to attack me, to slide in innuendos, to link me to the page he worked on, to bring up things from years ago every chance he gets... I'm fed up. I try to turn the other check with this fabricator, but he won't let me. He's been banned from my talk page for years, Administrators have told me to try and steer clear of his antics and they'll blow over. Well they never seem to blow over. Don't block...make him STOP! I want nothing to do with him, ever, as he is 100% untrustworthy. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

What about an interaction ban? clpo13_(talk) 20:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

In looking at it, that could work. If an RM or RfC happens, it looks like we can both comment as long as we don't comment with each other or bring the other one up in any way. I assume if one of us starts the RM/RfC the other could !vote? I could go for that. Anything to stop this dude. And effectively, I do that already unless it's to defend myself when he gets way out of line. And it's better than a dispute resolution mentioned above because I will never ever assume good faith or trust this editor in any way. That boat has long since sailed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I know it affects me also, but how do we get the ball rolling on that so I don't have to deal with this anymore? Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Obviously it's a holiday in the US so I expect a slow down in implementing, but I want to make sure this stays fresh. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:57, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

AFAIK, you can simply propose it yourself and editors watching this page/section will chime in supporting or opposing the proposal. Then an admin will decide whether to implement the proposal based on community consensus. clpo13_(talk) 19:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

• User:In ictu oculi, it really behooves you to comment here. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Drmies, hi. I would but experience shows that old users, ones who are familiar with the Tennis/diacritics tension of 2011-2012 are not going to take this seriously, and new users, ones who are not familiar with practice in our en.wp BLP article corpus (pick at random Category:Latvian scientists, Category:Czech writers etc.) take time to get up to speed. You see the wall of text above. Any attempt to answer it will generate an even longer wall of text. But since you request, I will do.

1. Firstly I was quite happy with admin User:Liz already having dealt with it, and I thanked Liz already. I shouldn't have said "bullshit" as linked, my bad. I said sorry, I'd already edited it down myself anyway.

2. Re the headline charge of "spreading lies/harassing" the "lie" bit appears to be that I said this:

Marin Čilić -> Marin Cilic) Oppose per WP:TENNISNAMES and WP:TENNISNAMES2 both of which were indirectly initiated by this editor, and had an overwhelming rejection of the idea that blogs and Twitter are reliable sources for "tennis names", or for Croatian, etc. orthography.

But there's a reason I said "indirectly". Yes look at WP:TENNISNAMES and you'll see Fyunck post 11 times on that RFC (similar WP:TENNISNAMES2) but Fyunck did not draft the tennisnames rule; that was done by another anti-diacritics editor MakeSense64 who last edited in August 2012. However the move to remove diacritics from tennis players (not just East European, but French and Spanish and even American tennisnames) was kicked off 3 July 2011 by Fyunck etc. and edits following. I'm not a tennis editor, I just spotted one of the early RMs to remove diacritics and was not impressed with some of the sentiments expressed. I looked through categories (those Category:Latvian scientists, Category:Czech writers etc.) and found that en.wp was 99% consistently using full Unicode fonts, as was tennis.

3. Re the second headline charge "continually ..harassing". It has been two years since the last attempt at an RM to restore Ana Ivanovic → Ana Ivanović (for those not up to speed this is the one straightforward en.wp BLP title out of line with normal en.wp BLP titling practice) so "continually" is not accurate, and putting in a RM to revert a move is not usually judged "harassing". As regards the removal of -ć from article text rather than titles, that is here ANI August 2012 but also as illustrated by e.g. Basel article history Fyunck removal of -ć from Ivanović, 9 March 2012, 21 May 2013, 12 August 2013, do you see my edits on the Basel article? The 3 other editors reverting this are just rank and file editors.

4. DrMies I would now say that this is a minor trivial issue, and that this one current BLP will probably be left as a monument to tennisnames, and maybe that's how it should be. I have tried my best to be courteous, I hope that overall this is visible, and have not been accusing editors of "lies". In ictu oculi (talk) 08:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

This may be a trivial matter to In ictu oculi, but that because he's not the one that being attacked, or has been attacked for 4 years. All someone has to do is search our names and see all the times I pleaded with him to stop fabricating things about me. To stay on topic and not drag my name through the mud every time I comment on a foreign spelling. He says I commented on the tennisnames essay 11x... so did IIO 11x... I guess that makes it his article also. I had told the original essay writer I could not support it... that I always felt we had to look at all sources when determining the spelling of a name. The RfC was "Can a wikiproject require no-diacritics names, based on an organisation's rule or commonness in English press?" The answer was "no" from those voting. You can't make it that narrow in determining anything here on wikipedia. To limit sources to one kind of source didn't fly. Why IIO keeps lying over and over in linking me to that essay I have no idea. I have told him to stop a lot...it's not an error that he's making... it a bold attack that he has gotten away with for years! I want it to stop, and stop NOW! Even now he's so sure of himself that he's done nothing wrong and will likely continue to attack me that he told the admin who asked him to comment that I'm just going to stand back and watch. He's done that a lot... get's a few people to invest time in attacking me and then sits back. He did it in the past with fellow editor... that fellow editor and I got blocked. IIO sat back unharmed. On Nov 25 IIO tried again to drag that same editor into the fray with this diff. This time that editor didn't bite. It's these types of things and his continual tennisnames crapola that led me here. I've had it with him. I will never trust him. It looks like at Talk:Ana Ivanovic another administrator is fed up with him too. Maybe it's IIO that should be topic banned from anything diacritic related such as moving pages and RM's. But all I was demanding was that he be stopped from attacking me. The others can defend themselves. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• 'Oppose as frivolous complaint, but advise both editors to avoid further personalization of title/style disputes. Both of these editors have a hard-core position (opposite ones) on MOS:DIACRITICS, and have been testy with each other for years, but this isn't an actionable level of animosity. If anything, the complaint here is so finger-pointy is appears itself to cross the WP:ARBATC#All parties reminded line. Repeated but unproven accusations of making "personal attacks" and engaging in "harassment", and WP:AGF failures like "I will never trust him", are the kind of aspersion-casting covered by discretionary sanctions there (whether I think ArbCom should be interfering with internal policy discussions or not, which I don't). So, both editors should probably mutually agree to lay off each other. For starters, In ictu oculi should stop trying to "blame" Fyunck(click) for the TENNISNAMES essay, even if if F(c) has tried to rely on it in past discussions. It's just some WP:PROJPAGE essay that (on at least one point) violated WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy, and RM consensus has rolled over it for a long time now. If it goads F(c) that much to link him to the essay, the obvious solution is "don't do that". Secondly, F(c) needs to stop accusing IIO of harassment, attacks, and untrustworthiness. Neither of these sound difficult.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Dƶoxar and Kyiv/ Kiev

User:Dƶoxar is not ready to accept Wikipedia consensus that the capital of Ukraine is Kiev (not Kyiv), see Talk:Kiev/Naming. Hedoes not edit Wikipedia often these days, but when he does, he comes back to Ahatanhel Krymsky and replaces Kiev with Kyiv on all occasions. Lest year I took it to their talk page, and they said they do not accept the above-linked discussion as consensus. For safety, I took the issue to the WikiProject:Ukraine and got exactly zero comments. Today, they started an edit-war in the article (at three reverts now) and called me a "vandal" [54]. This is usual article ownership problem, which is exaggerated by the fact that only them and me care about the article at all. IAt this point, I am not sure what to do, I would definitely reject myself a similar RFPP request, and I do not see how 3RR would give smth in this situation. I think the general problem is that nobody cares, and the user just insists on keeping it at their version.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

May be to add that other users have been blocked in the past for mass renaming / replace Kiev by Kyiv, but to get blocked, they really had to work hard and to exhaust someone's patience.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there is a particular need for consensus about this specific issue, given it falls under the more generic scope of WP:ENGLISH. As far as I'm aware, the English-language name of the city is Kiev, even though Kyiv is a more direct transliteration of the Ukrainian name: "do not substitute a systematically transliterated name for the common English form of the name, if there is one". LjL (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I accept Kiev but I don't accept exclusion of Kyiv. Historically Kiev was used wider but practically both versions are correct. So, I think users have right to choose depending on context. (Although this is not precisely this case but I see it similar.)--Dƶoxar (talk) 22:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Kyiv is the Latin spelling of Ukrainian name and it is the capital of Ukraine, versus the Russian-era Kiev. Kyiv is used nearly universally by a majority of reliable sources, including other governments, the CIA Factbook, National Geographic etc. Insistence on the Russian spelling of Kiev is ridiculous and Dƶoxar is right to question how this is allowed to be "consensus" when it's clearly politically motivated from pro-Russian editors. It goes to show the problem with consensus in that facts are irrelevant; consensus could be that fuchsia is yellow; that doesn't mean it actually is. It's no different than clarifying Peking/Beijing; Bombay/Mumbai, Calcutta/Kolkata, all of which are respected on Wikipedia. Both can be used but Kiev should redirect to Kyiv, and not other way around. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ANI is not the venue to discuss Kiev vs Kyiv issue. We have Talk:Kiev/Naming for that. I suggested to take the issue there a year ago, but nothing happened.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Kyiv redirects to Kiev and many articles, such as Kyiv Post and Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, use this spelling as it is perfectly correct. Kyiv is not wrong nor is it vandalism. There are many articles with spelling variations of proper names, such as Lwów Ghetto for Lviv, because of transliteration or common name. I fail to see how Dƶoxar is being disruptive and think you are POV-pushing. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me Wikimandia, who said "Kyiv was vandalism"? The OP said that the other editor accused them of vandalism for insisting on Kiev. LjL (talk) 22:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@LjL: IMO, OP is implying Dƶoxar is being disruptive by using Kyiv in articles, and that he went on his page to warn him not to do that. I'm stating that there is no such need as Kyiv is not wrong and as I stated, is frequently used across Wikipedia. It's not vandalism so why the need to go tell them to stop using it? It would be like going on someone's talk page and warning them to stop using the name Myanmar to refer to Burma. Surely there are more important issues to worry about. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Whether or not there is merit to using the "Kyiv" name (which is not so much for this board to discuss), WP:Vandalism isn't the only behavior that is against Wikipedia policies. LjL (talk) 22:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

OP stated that Dzoxar started an edit war when that is not true - OP reverted Dzoxar first.[55] Meanwhile, Dzoxar did not violate any policies by using Kyiv and I can see his frustration over this. I think it's a real problem that OP, who is Russian, is POV-pushing insisting on the Russian version for the Ukrainian capital. LjL what you said above about Kiev being the English name is not correct - Kyiv is recognized as English by multiple English dictionaries and reliable sources. It's not the equivalent of using "Munchen" for Munich or "Moskva" for "Moscow." "Kiev" is an artifact of Soviet Ukraine and no different than the Russian spellings of other Ukrainian cities that have been changed and recognized, such as Lviv, Kharkiv, Zaporizhia, Luhansk etc. Reverting mentions of Kyiv is pure politics and IMO rather unbecoming of an admin like Ymblanter. If people want to use the spelling Kyiv in random articles about Ukrainians like Ahatanhel Krymsky, who cares? —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I, for one, do care a bit about consistency. As to "reverting first"... that's not (necessarily) starting an edit war, as per WP:BRD. Usually, the one reinstating the reverted content without discussion is the one considered to be edit warring. LjL (talk) 23:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Iron-fisted consistency is not a hard and fast rule, thus we allow variations for British/American spelling, DMY/MDY dates etc. They are all correct. Kiev and Kyiv are both English, and thus we have Kyiv in article names because it is not considered foreign. Consistency in the same article is what I care about. The article on Ahatanhel Krymsky was started from the very beginning with the spelling Kyiv. Ymblanter is the one who changed it to Kiev. —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

As advised, please take content debates to Talk:Kiev/Naming and off of ANI. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Where I've started an RfC here. BMK (talk) 00:00, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• I personally disagree with the idea that this merits yet another RfC about Kiev/Kyiv, when every single one of the perennial RfCs on the matter comes up as a close as Kiev. This is a user disruption issue, and a IDHT issue. If the user will not accept En-Wiki style, they need sanctioning in order to stop their disruption. The sanction could start as small as a topic ban on anything Kiev-related, broadly construed, enforceable by very longterm blocks (since they only edit sporadically) followed by an indef it if recurs. Softlavender (talk) 02:31, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• I don't disagree, I'd be happy to withdraw the RfC if something else could be done - but it's not just Dƶoxar now, it's also Wikimandia edit warring to put in "Kyiv". Any solution involving topic bans, or promises not to continue their policy-violating editing, would have to include both editors. BMK (talk) 03:54, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. You're right. Wikimandia needs to be included in the topic ban if she is going to be obtuse like this. Wikipedia has been through this revolving door far too many times for it to be open to debate every six months. Softlavender (talk) 04:01, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I've made my opinion clear here and in the RfC, and I fail to see why I should be topic banned. I hardly even edit in this area so excuse me for being knowledgeable and unbiased. BMK has done more reverts than I have. People claiming Kiev is the "English" name of Kyiv are the ones being obtuse à la "Bombay is the English word for Mumbai!" Duh. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

We go by consensus on Wikipedia, not by your personal opinion. And the consistent consensus every time this comes up every few months like clockwork for the past 11 years is to use the English-language WP:COMMONNAME spelling/transliteration of "Kiev". Perhaps you have not been privy to all of those discussions – if you have, you're being obtuse; if you hadn't, you can check them out now. Softlavender (talk) 05:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah the same brilliant Wikipedia consensus that got Bicholim Conflict labeled a featured article? Consensus does not replace fact. Looking over recent RfCs, most of them "no consensus". About what you'd expect if you'd done an RFC "which is correct, DMY or MDY"? They're both correct. But for Ukrainian articles, Kyiv is correct. Just like Mumbai, Beijing, Kolkata and Almaty are correct. Old names are no longer used. Arguments show that people used in this so far show most people don't understand the difference and think Kiev is how you transliterate Київ, and the pro-Russian bias here is apparent. I'm hardly a Ukrainian nationalist, and frequently correct names based on how people actually refer to themselves,[56] but I'm neutral enough not to inflict Soviet-era spellings on a capital city. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe that anyone would argue that consensus gives the "correct" answer everytime, but since we don't have a Content Supremeo to hand down rulings on content disputes, there has to be some mechanism in pace to settle these things so everyone can move on, and consensus is the way we do it. Og course consensus can change over time, but the "Kiev" consensus has been remarkably consistent since at least 2007, and a glance at the page the RfC is on will show at least 8 RMs from 2007-2013 in which a move to "Kyiv" was rejected. Teher may be more in the archives, I haven't checked.

It's one thing to refuse to accept a local conses which consists of 2 people with an opinion opposed to yours, but it's another thin completely to fly in the face of multkiple consensus decisions involving large numbers of editors. I suggest that you and Dƶoxar simply grit your teeth, accept the fact that you are in the minority, and drop the matter. I also suggest that if either of you change "Kiev" to "Kyiv" again, that an admin should drop a significant block on the editor who did so. BMK (talk) 23:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I generally turn to the BBC when I want to know what the common spelling is in the English language. While it does use Kyiv in some places, it overwhelmingly uses Kiev in general usage - up to and including this month. Having checked a few other western news outlets, they also tend to be the same, Occasionally Kyiv, mostly Kiev. Which doesnt appear to have substantially changed since the last 15 discussions on this topic. Also, content dispute yadda yadda.. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposal

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

---

The long-standing consensus having been confirmed, if editors User:Dƶoxar or User:Wikimandia again make a change from "Kiev" to "Kyiv" or any other version of the name, or if they make any other change of name for a person or a place for which a standing consensus exists as to what the WP:COMMONNAME is, they will be placed under an indefinite topic ban from changing the spelling or transliteration into English of any name, anywhere on English Wikipedia, It is their responsibility to determine if a consensus exists or not. BMK (talk) 23:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support as nom. BMK (talk) 23:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose as common sense - Kyiv exists in many articles (including titles) and is a perfectly valid spelling and in fact is CORRECT per every single official source. Being that I'm not a sheep, I also would not accept consensus if Wikipedians decided that the earth is flat and vaccines cause autism. And indefinite topic ban of what? What is the topic? Proper spelling of European capitals? —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:46, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  • No one is forcing you to change your own personal opinion, to which you are well entitled. But if you don't accept the community's decision regarding the spelling of the name, your only choices are to attempt to change that consensus, or to refrain from making any edits relating to the name. Seeing as the first option has repeatedly failed, for the time being you need to go with the second option, or else it will be imposed on you. (Other editors can voluntarily abide by this community decision despite their personal objections, so I hope you can as well.) —Psychonaut (talk) 09:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
    • No, I don't accept the community's "decision" regarding the capital city's name, any more than the community can "decide" who the queen of England is or who is on the U.S. Supreme Court. Facts should not be left open to consensus and this is the biggest joke about Wikipedia, especially in cases like this when you have serious ethnic bias and ignorance running amok. I am not an active editor on Ukrainian articles but I will continue to call bullshit like I did in the case of OP. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
      • That you still cannot see the difference between "the truth" and an editorial decision does not bode well for your continued freedom to edit in this topic area (or at all). —Psychonaut (talk) 08:33, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
        • LOL the "truth" essay - are you suggesting it is not verified that the capital city of Ukraine is called Kyiv? Even though the government of Kyiv and Ukraine, in all English-language material it has published, clearly calls it that? It's not verified even though the CIA World Factbook and National Geographic call it that, among many other expert sources? This is not verifiable? Perhaps you should visit WP:CIR if you think this can't be verified. —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:21, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Although BMK and I see eye to eye, in this case such a broad topic ban is excessive. If Wikimadia continues to do what they're doing now, just levy an edit warring block. Blackmane (talk) 23:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Problematic behavior

User Spybuteo first began editing on November 14.[57] They have deleted reliable sources [58] [59] [60] including the Encyclopedia Britanica[61] [62] and Brill. [63] On Talk:Hamza ibn Abdul-Muttalib they misrepresented my position and accused me of gaming the system for no apparent reason, [64] Another editor reminded SpyButeo to AGF,[65] but a few days later on Talk:Aisha SpyButeo accused me of meatpuppetry for agreeing with another editor,[66] then 2 minutes later welcomed [67] an account that only has 1 edit before November 15 [68] who Spybuteo agrees with on that talk page.[69] Spybuteo has also specifically invited comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muawiya II from only two accounts, [70] [71] neither of which appears to have ever edited the Muawiya II article or its talk page. [72] [73] Edward321 (talk) 17:02, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I closed the AfD as speedy keep, and the user seems to me an example of WP:NOTTHERE. Other opinions are welcome.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Clearly Spy is WP:NOTTHERE, although I am not sure if he is just a POV editor who won't listen or a troll. Otherwise clear case of disruptive editing by him at multiple article. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:31, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I have opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SpyButeo Edward321 (talk) 17:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I believe I am being harassed by Martin451

Imho, my record speaks for itself - I came to Wikipedia a few months ago with a solid book source and a desire to improve Avro Vulcan XH558. Over multiple edits over the summer I believe I have improved it greatly, hopefully educating more people about it during this time of increased public interest (it's last ever flight was a month ago). In more recent edits, as well as further updating XH558, I have also improved Vulcan related material on various other articles, not least by creating Vulcan Display Flight (details of which I only realised were completely missing from Wikipedia while researching XH558), and making a start on List of surviving Avro Vulcans, which also looked like an obvious omission when looking at other similarly notable aircraft types, by splitting out what was a tiny unsectioned list in the main article. I hope to expand on it in future, time permitting.

I have been here long enough not to really expect any thanks for any of this, and I appreciate that on the whole, people here only seem to interact in a negative/obstructive way, but I draw the line at people attempting to impugn my motives, with the apparent goal of stopping me editting Wikipedia completely. The harassment all started when I came back recently - during my past work on XH558 I had shifted a list of displays out into a separate list, List of Avro Vulcan XH558 post-restoration public appearances. At the time I was ambivalent about its merits, noting this exact issue had previously been debated on the talk page between a couple of users, without resolution it seems. I just wanted it out of the way so I could work on the main article. But I did also greatly expand and improve it too - applying the tabular format consistently across all years, and filling in lots of missing entries.

Having come back for a second stint, with no more displays planned, I thought I might next work on getting that list of appearances finished, citing every entry and filling out all remaining gaps (I estimate around 20 appearances per year, or 160 in total). In my absence, someone else had proposed it be deleted, so mindful of the earlier dispute, I took the perhaps unusual step to propose it for deletion myself - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Avro Vulcan XH558 post-restoration public appearances, in order to establish a positive consensus that it should exist. Without that, I'm not really interested in spending the time it would take to finish, and I'm glad I did, as the debate is currently trending delete. The final part of the story is the fact I also started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avro Vulcan XM655 the same day, for more straightforward reasons, as explained there, in the process copying the usable parts to the list of survivors.

Although some have complained I have ignored attribution (I am now careful to state where I am splitting content to/from), and I supposed the reason for the first deletion can be seen as unconventional, I think my actions are defensible from the standpoint of wanting to improve Wikipedia. However, it seems user Andy Dingly [74][75], and now Martin451 [76] (creator of Avro Vulcan XM655) disagree. But rather than just disagree, they have seen fit to make all sorts of nefarious allegations against me, suggesting I'm here to disrupt Wikipedia and/or rid it of Vulcan related content by stealth. Their allegations don't stack up, but they seem to be deliberately ignoring facts which counter their narrative and they have persisted despite objections. Well, Andy has at least stopped. But I logged in today to see fresh allegations from Martin451 [77], and I really have had enough. I ask that they be asked to stop and restrict their comments to things I have actually said or done, and reasonable analysis of such, rather than trying to conduct what I can only really describe as some kind of smear campaign aimed at getting me to just go away and find something else to do with my spare time. Since Wikipedia isn't all that much of a rewarding place to be anyway, it won't take much more of this to persuade me to do just that. Natural Ratio (talk) 18:51, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

The only major interactions I have had directly with you is in two AfDs. I don't think I have had any other interactions as I have hardly been editing of late.

1. Could you please supply a diff where you asked where I restrict my comments to things you have said and done.
2. In the AfD List of Avro Vulcan XH558 post-restoration public appearances, you nominated the article for deletion, then immediately posted a keep !vote. You then pretty much disagreed with all !votes whether they where/are !keep or !delete. I posted one !vote where I !voted for merge, and suggested you were being disruptive due to just wasting time.
3. After reading the above AfD, I found the second linked by Andy Dingly where I made one keep !vote, followed by comment of Natural Ratio's language to Andy, I then made a second comment over twenty hours later. That is the total of my postings two these AfD. (A total of four edits on both AfDs).
4. Natural Ratio made what I believe a personal attack on Andy [78][79], and his complaint seems to be that I am in the wrong for questioning his personal attacks. He does not believe that language he used is a personal attack, and that questioning his behaviour is an affront to himself.
5. After this personal attack on Andy I replied with this[80]. They replied with this [81].I then replied here [82], he then brought this matter to ANI.

I don't believe my behaviour constitutes harassment. I think WP:Boomerang applies here. Natural ratio has done some excellent work with the Vulcan articles, but he displays a bit of WP:OWNership. They are happy to hand out insults, but not to be told about them, and regard being told about insulting behaviour as an affront to themself. I suggest Natural ratio avoid AfD, and major policy until they have come to understand it. Martin451 00:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I will most certainly not avoid Afd because I think I do understand it. This is harassment - it doesn't need to be a long or sustained campaign, it just has to be a pattern of continued behaviour like this, over objections. And I most certainly consider it an affront to be told I'm disrupting Wikipedia with my supposed anti-Vulcan article agenda by someone who has now suddenly changed their tune and acknowledged my good work. I am not attempting ownership of anything, my edits have almost universally been ignored in fact, and I have actually compromised on the one issue someone actually disputed with me on XH558 - having a Background section. This is what I'm talking about, you're clearly trying to smear me with accusations that are baseless in fact, and I think it's because of your own ownership issue, being upset that I nominated an article you created for deletion. I don't believe I attacked Andy, I think it's fair comment to say he was being paranoid in his attempts to cast me as some kind of Dr Evil, which did indeed result in a raving comment, which made no sense whatsoever. I note he has not continued these allegations and has not come here to defend or add to them, so I can only assume he has seen his error, so I've no wish to focus on him if he has indeed moved on. You however, appear to be digging in. Natural Ratio (talk) 01:39, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Quote: I don't believe I attacked Andy, I think it's fair comment to say he was being paranoid in his attempts to cast me as some kind of Dr Evil, which did indeed result in a raving comment, which made no sense whatsoever[83] I don't think I need to add anything. Martin451 01:56, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe I've just got better and busier things to do than waste time at ANI, where it now seems that comments made at an AfD are to be discarded unless they're submitted in duplicate and countersigned at AfD.

You have split a section off from one article, then AfDed the split section. You have simply AfDed another article. That's a funny way to go about "supporting" or "extending" Vulcan coverage.

Now if you'll excuse me, this volcano won't hollow out itself and I've got a Villiers Vindicator to rob. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Evidently I gave you too much credit. It would be funny if that's all I had done, but as I explained above, it's not. And 'split and delete' is not what I did to the display list either. It's this sort of behaviour I am here about - the repetition of blatant lies and misrepresentations despite my objections. It is either a deliberate attempt to smear me, or you still haven't yet properly studied my edits and explanations. There is a very clear line between fair criticism, and whatever this is, whether it's intentional harassment or just plain negligence. So no, you are no excused. I have better things to do as well, but you two have imho crossed the line. Natural Ratio (talk) 16:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

IBAN review

See [84]. If this constitutes a blockable violation of an IBAN, then block me, but I may not notice as I am ridiculously busy right now and this makes me more impatient than is consistent with fair exercise of admin (or indeed editing) privileges, so I'm taking a Wikibreak. Guy (Help!) 22:13, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

• No one should block you for that. Good to see you on-wiki again Guy--take care. Drmies (talk) 22:52, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
• This is the statement made by the blocking admin.[85]DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:41, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
• Considering Guy is not "continuing this behaviour", this would be a moment for an application of IAR and just let it be. Blackmane (talk) 01:18, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
• By any reasonable and common sense reasoning, not only was this not a violation of anything, but it was the kind of commendable behavior that we should see more of on Wikipedia. Bravo! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:32, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
• (1) Not a violation in any respect of the terms of the IBAN. (2) If it was a technical violation, which it wasn't, given its nature it should not have provoked any sanction on Guy. Common sense. BMK (talk) 04:20, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Problematic editor Trinacrialucente

This editor has:

• engaged in personal attacks or remarks: this edit summary and this comment (I can find similar older issues like this striking one)
• reverted other editors' talk page comments (under the pretense of providing "a third opinion")
• edit warred (not sure what to make of User:2601:14c:0:f6e9:b4a6:abc6:d6ca:f708 in that history, might be someone else)
• seemingly wrote off ARBPIA3 restrictions after being informed about them
• been here before with editors complaining about similar behaviors from them (although they were the one filing the report)

Perhaps nothing extraordinary but just a slight adjustment to this editor's settings could be made? LjL (talk) 02:51, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

This is an absolute lie. I was not "edit warring"; I was providing NEW sources and citations for the topic while two other users were reverting/undoing mid-edit. I welcome any/all editors to analyze the topic of Racial Segregation/Israel and review the conversation on the talk page. Trinacrialucente (talk) 03:05, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll address these point by point for Trinacrialucente

1. Commenting on an editor's mental state is an attack, accusations of racism are attacks.
2. Outside of blatant vandalism or personal attacks, you should not be editing or removing another editor's comments.
3. The repeated reversions as evidenced in the article history are edit warring.

   Racial segregation has nothing to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict..specifically my topic of segregation against Felasha...who are not Arab.Trinacrialucente (talk) 03:50, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

4. I'll go find the ARBPIA3 warning template and drop one on Trinacrialucente's talk page. I'm pretty sure discretionary sanctions were authorised but admins won't act on them without a DS notice being issued. Blackmane (talk) 03:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

The behaviors around removing other editors' comments, aggressive language in the quoted comments, and edit warring ([86], [87], [88]) are unacceptable. I have evaluated Trinacrialucente's request to review the relevant part of the talk page for evidence that this was not edit warring, and what I find is reasonable disagreement with the structure of their edits. So yes, it's edit warring. That some of these issues around personalizing disputes and aggressive language have arisen before, and their denial that there is any actual problem suggests that a block is needed. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 03:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Please note that the user routinely removes warnings, notices, and a recent indefinite block from his talk page. While that is his right, the deletions hide a long-standing pattern of the behavior outlined by LJL above. Roscelese detailed this pattern at length in the previous ANI report linked above. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 03:57, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if this counts: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATrinacrialucente&type=revision&diff=692625126&oldid=692562471 but he is aware that he should not be editing in that arena, regardless if he's being civil or not. As for the other area, I've been blocked for much less, so I won't comment on what should happen, only what happened to me. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:34, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• Note: an edit warring report has now also been filed by another editor. LjL (talk) 03:54, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be an underlying content dispute, which can be discussed on the talk page. What Trinacrialucente should realize is that everyone in this area has a POV, and complex matters should not be discussed through edit summaries. Make your case on the article talk page, and don't hurry to edit in the main space. This is a very contentious area, and making personal attacks like calling a user "unbalanced" can lead to easy blocking, no matter how right or wrong you are about the underlying content dispute. WP:FOC is applicable. Kingsindian ♝♚ 08:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't particularly care about the underlying content dispute: you will note that I basically only took part in it to point out (by reverting) that the editor in question had already been asked to contribute to the talk page debate instead of edit warring. I don't post on ANI to resolve content disputes, and in fact, this specific dispute has now been frozen for at least some times by means of full protection. LjL (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

User Mannyqee keeps posting references to a blog full of unreliable information

Revision history

Within the racing sim community that blog is known to be full of conjectures. I don't know a single person who takes it seriously. Such references should stay out of wikipedia.

Thanks. --Theaghan (talk) 09:14, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) -- samtar ^whisper 09:17, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Theaghan, you may disagree with the source (I haven't overly looked into it) but creating obvious sock accounts (such as Garyjpatersonwiki) is against the username policy. I've opened a SPI -- samtar ^whisper 09:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I noticed some days ago that IPs were removing information from the article in question. I didn't think any more of it until I saw it here. Anyway, I've just had a nose around and there is a thread on a forum related to the subject. It's not public but I suspect it's being used to organize a meatpuppet campaign here. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 17:06, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Admin oversight required - WP:PA, WP:VAN and WP:SOCK suspected in Talk:Racial segregation

A number of bona-fide named contributors to Talk:Racial segregation and the related articles have been called names such as "morons", "know nothing about the subject ... why it's XXXX", "ZZZZ is not competent to edit WP". Also the sourced content has been repeatedly removed by the related IPs, with little, if any, explanation on the Talk Page, bordering on WP:VAN. Such offensive ad hominem comments by IP(s) were then redacted (removed) by named account(s).

What is weird, the IPs and one named account(s) use similar phraseology. Apart from WP:PA, I suspect WP:SOCK and maybe even WP:WIKIHOUND. It is too difficult for me to disentangle who does what to whom, as numerous accounts and even languages are involved, so please investigate. Zezen (talk) 18:07, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Obviously an IP-hopper, so blocking won't fix it. The best solution would be to semi-protect the talk page for a few days so the disrupters can find something else to play with. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I've had to do with this (starting yesterday, after noticing an edit war, see above report about Trinacrialucente), and I do echo the sentiment that semi-protection would now be beneficial. LjL (talk) 18:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I leave it to you what to do here. Is it possible to semi-protect both pages against IPv4 and IPv6 contributors only? Zezen (talk) 18:21, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

It's very easy to make an account "on the fly", so that's why semi-protection is (always?) applied to IP addresses and new accounts. (Besides, to be honest, y'all edit warring.) LjL (talk) 18:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Is it possible to semi-protect pages against both IPv4 and IPv6 only? Semi-protection does protect against both types of IP addresses, and against accounts that have not been autoconfirmed. There isn't a form of semi-protection that permits new accounts to edit while blocking IPs, because, as LjL says, it is easy to create new accounts "on the fly" as a form of sockpuppetry. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:56, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected for 3 days to start with.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on the page. GAB^Hello! 21:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I think the article itself, aside from the talk page, might benefit from semi-protection. See the latest IPV6 edit summary for instance... LjL (talk) 01:03, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

1. I concur that the article itself should also be semi-protected.

2. Also, please note that the same two IPs who messed up this talk pagestarted to use the epithets "moron", "shit" when commenting on bona-fide article scope proposals in this Talk page, probably WP:HOUNDINGing me thereto with their aggressive edits. They openly admit to be the same "editor" in the comment itself.

-> Can you look into the pattern there and react? Zezen (talk) 01:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Gosh, and this n-th sock of a sophisticated black-hat Wikipedian also accuses an unrelated named account of canvassing, using high-level Wiki TLas. The cheek, I say... Zezen (talk) 01:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Zezen, if you're going to quote me, please do so accurately. I wrote that you're not competent to edit en.wiki, and your actions since then have only confirmed my diagnosis. Your understanding of English seems to be lacking, you can't read and understand policies and guidelines -- let alone the opening paragraphs of Wikipedia articles. I think WP:CIR applies.

Also, your complaints indicate a complete ignorance of how it works when one edits as an IP. As I wrote at User talk:NeilN, every time I start editing I am assigned a new number -- that's not socking, it's not evading scrutiny, it's not against policy. It's just the way things work when you take Wikipedia at its word that it's the encyclopedia anybody can edit.

So please drop the stupid remarks about "I don't reply to a number". I've been here longer than you have, I understand the policies and guidelines better than you do, and if I correct your mistakes and leave you a message on your Talk page, it's not too much to expect a response. Read WP:IPHUMAN. Thank you. 2601:14C:0:F6E9:71B2:6F01:9EB8:B237 (talk) 02:24, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Blood libel and Aryan Nations have seen activity by IPs that geolocate to the same area and share the same dismissive tone, and are probably avoiding Drmies's block of the above IP. They've switched to another network that uses IPV4. Some eyes there would be useful, I'm going to be away. Acroterion (talk) 04:32, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Sir Joseph, User:Drmies and other editors think such IPs are at best WP:PRECOCIOUS. I can see that by now apart from the semi-protect page(s) request, this IP has been suspended for personal attacks towards other editors, of which it is proud, but it is whacking a mole.

As for my grasp of the English language, see my contributions hereinabove. Zezen (talk) 09:06, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry, but I have no opinion on precociousness. Drmies (talk) 15:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
• Rangeblocked 2601:14C:0:F6E9:0:0:0:0/64 for 72 hours and semi-protected this page for 12 hours due to this IP editor's disruption continued as these IPs:
• 66.87.80.133 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 66.87.82.248 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Madridejos, Cebu and Lazaro Mangubat

I have had a lot of trouble with WP:DE by User:Mateothehistorian also number as 49.151.10.237 / 49.151.38.12 (in Metro Manila). He has again and again added text without WP:V or WP:RS. I have added additional references but he keeps deleted them.

Madridejos, Cebu

Revision as of 16:40, 3 September 2015
   Revision as of 08:53, 20 November 2015
Revision as of 04:17, 22 November 2015
   Revision as of 06:08, 22 November 2015
Revision as of 07:06, 22 November 2015
   Revision as of 07:15, 22 November 2015
Revision as of 08:38, 22 November 2015
Revision as of 08:45, 22 November 2015
   Revision as of 09:09, 22 November 2015
Revision as of 13:59, 23 November 2015
   Revision as of 23:06, 25 November 2015
Latest revision as of 17:24, 27 November 2015

Lazaro Mangubat

   Revision as of 22:52, 13 November 2015
Revision as of 04:14, 22 November 2015
    Revision as of 22:58, 23 November 2015
Revision as of 16:04, 24 November 2015
   Revision as of 19:00, 24 November 2015
Revision as of 23:46, 24 November 2015
   Latest revision as of 00:09, 26 November 2015

In the nearly three years, all Mateothehistorian has done is about 60 editings of Lazaro Mangubat and about a dozen of Madridejos, Cebu. All he writes is legend not fact; does not give WP:RS and WP:V; ignores or reverts any references I have had. Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Sat 04:13, wikitime= 20:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

All change, this time 49.151.2.157, to Madridejos, Cebu Latest revision as of 19:43, 28 November 2015

I am about to clear again. All edits today I have made 37 to other pages. "Mateothehistorian" made – none. This needs some page protection to allow only logins in. And a block against User:Mateothehistorian.
Recap the two articles said by him:
* Lazaro Mangubat was grandson of Lapu-Lapu (Lapu-Lapu died about 1542)
* Fray de Medina write about 1630. No mention of Spanish forts in Bantayan island.
* Madridejos municipality states fort (kota, kuta, cotta) made 1790, as does 'Panublion' of Ateneo de Manila / Society of Jesuits (or 1792)
* All watchtowers on Bantayan island where built by Fr. Doroteo Andrada del Rosario, parish priest of Bantayan in the 19th century.
* Lazaro Mangubat is an orphan, Madridejos, Cebu is updated and used
(Some, I had a stroke in April, and I can read / hear OK but writing / speaking are quite difficult.) – Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Sun 07:18, wikitime= 23:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

IP user: 201.88.39.234

User has five times deleted the same piece of text without explanation and despite requests to discuss and warning on Talk page. Special:Contributions/201.88.39.234 Btljs (talk) 10:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC) Six times: they've just done it again. Btljs (talk) 10:27, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

User has been blocked, this should've been reported to Wikipedia:AIV. Dat GuyWiki (talk) 10:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Gotgot44

Gotgot44 (talk · contribs) had been warned in the past for vandalism of multiple pages (not recently though), tonight they're at it again. Just great. Aethyta (talk) 10:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

You're required to notify the user; I've done so for you. It might also help to explain how the edits constitute "vandalism". For many of us the subject matter is opaque.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, a brief glance at the most recent edits

This is nonsensical OR

This is an odd statement, probably OR or some sort.

This edit removed a lot of sources

More OR

They also broke a few images. This seems to be more incompetence plus some English issues than malicious vandalism of any sort. Blackmane (talk) 13:00, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. Looks like a troll to me. Aethyta (talk) 17:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Box Office India has gained a lot from Wikipedia

Few days ago I filed an ANI about a user who removes reliable sources to add boxofficeindia.

Today another old editor comes to prove that boxofficeindia is the only source for boxoffice collections, removed references from Bollywood Hungama and The Financial Express with edit summary "Don't add box office figures now. Wait until BOI publishes" and removed content sourced from International Business Times

Me, myself regularly visit boxofficeindia.com to check latest box office colections of Bollywood movies. Now: How I came to know about this website? Today i remembered.

Few years ago I used to read Bollywood movie articles in Wikipedia. I read the critical reception and the box office section. I read the plot of movies, that i didn't want to watch. In the box office section, boxofficeindia website would be used as reference. Due to that i visited the website. There was no other such Bollywood box office related website dedicated only to box office. At that time the website was very ordinary than what it is today. I don't get it why this website is given preference over others.

I read the warnings of Administrator given to spammers "Wikipedia is not a vehicle for driving traffic to your website". But me and many people visited boxofficeindia through Wikipedia. Some third party news websites also mention about boxofficeindia. Even they might have read wikipedia articles. Even good faith editors have begun to trust boxofficeindia. I never objected against boxofficeindia, but if editors with high edit count starts preferring boxofficeindia over other much much reliable websites then there is something fishy going on here, as much more reliable websites as International Business Times India edition, India Today - 1 2. Business Standard - 1. The Economic Times- 1 also publishes Box office reports along with Koimoi and Bollywood Hungama.

Novice spammers, open an account, and directly start spamming their website in multiple pages and get blocked. Experienced ones read the Template:Uw-sblock which are posted on user talk page blocked for spamming. And this blocking template has link to this Forbes page page named "Spin Me Softly"--(reasons unknown to me, why that link was given in the template).

And in this page Andy Greenberg wrote in the year 2007: -- "But with the right tactics, articles can be successfully tweaked to improve brand visibility and drive traffic to other Web sites, contends marketing guru Spencer. He suggests that marketers add valuable text to an article, along with a link to their own Web site. Since Wikipedia’s editors will hesitate to delete useful content, the link often stays on the page.

Even better, Spencer says, is to develop a user profile on the site that builds personal trust within the Wikipedia community. That means spending time deleting typos in articles, cleaning up spam and otherwise cultivating a good Wiki-citizen image. “You have to make real edits that add value, not just ones that boost your company or your client,” Spencer says. “Developing that street cred is really important. If you try to add links or content without it, chances are it’ll be reverted.”

As if, we want to teach the spammers how to spam successfully, otherwise I don't see any other reason that article with such spamming/advertizing tricks being included in a blocking template meant for blocking spammers. --The Avengers 13:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

If it's not immediately clear to admins, in addition to musing generally about problems in Indian cinema articles, The Avengers appears to be complaining directly about user Arjann, for instance about this edit summary linked above where Arjann bossily instructs users Don't add box office figures now. Wait until BOI publishes. This sort of gruff assertion is not helpful as it's not based on any Indian cinema community precedent. Indian film grosses are all estimates. There is no reliable way to track this information, and there is corruption throughout the industry. Some of that corruption takes place at Wikipedia as well, with paid editors and socks going to extreme lengths to inflate numbers, deflate numbers, report the newest, highest pet estimate, etc. as if the made-up box office estimate from Times of India that comes in at 2pm is more reliable than the made-up estimate that came in at 1pm from the Mumbai Mirror. Facepalm

The Indian cinema community has made no such determination that BoxOfficeIndia.com is the only reliable source. In fact, it generally feels the opposite, and this assertion that BOI is the only go-to source is very similar to what indeffed user WikiBriefed tried to pull.[89][90][91]. Arjann has done this a few times, for instance, here he removes would normally be a suitable reference, IBTimes, with the insufficient explanation unofficial source. I can only surmise that he means that he prefers BoxOfficeIndia.com, but when do we discard reliable sources like this? Here he makes an unsupported proclamation Oye Times is more reliable than Filmibeat. Who said? There's nothing in the Indian cinema task force's WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources that asserts this. I don't see any discussion at RSN. I don't know what Arjann's specific motives are, but by all appearances, it looks like an attempt to take ownership and to craft articles to fit a POV. I also notice bizarre edits like this where Arjann ignores an obvious embedded note that asks for film budget data to be attributed to a reliable source. He doesn't add a source, just the comment, Budget is confirmed. Arjann may need a refresher in proper Wikipedia editing. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

The Avengers does ask some, on the face of it, reasonable questions about the rationale behind inclusion, and content of the external link, which was added in 2008. Perhaps they might be best addressed at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace if it's not deemed appropriate here? Begoon ^talk 01:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

The thing I found about BOI is that they do no independent checking of the factuality (if that's even a word) or accuracy of the information that is posted to the site. I wonder whether there is a circular action going on here. BOI is used as a source in WP, driving more traffic to BOI, consequently encouraging more editors to use it despite the fact that the material on BOI has not been confirmed to be accurate. Blackmane (talk) 05:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I see no reason why we should remove sourcing from legitimate newspapers in favor of a website with zero information about them. If the paper sources the website, fine, I can accept that but we shouldn't remove it in favor of the website. Before there was spamming to get Koimoi as the official source and I think it's been rounds of other websites in the same fashion over the years. Take note that, for example, Box Office India has more details on its server and its domain registrar than any person behind the company. But we've had two prior discussions at RSN over the years and once again at the Indian films talk page. I think the prudent thing is warn Arjann and others not to remove other sources in favor of Box Office India at the moment and then to have another discussion at RSN about it. If they want to spam it, block them. We may have really reliable sources we use for American films for example, that doesn't mean we would eliminate newspaper and other sources in favor of one source. Again, we're down to the same issue of several newspapers use it as a source and therefore should we consider it a reliable source (or I guess the reliable source) based on that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Box-office means film business, and that's why Indian business/finance newspapers publish box-office related news. If we have sources from Indian Business newspapers, then these websites shouldn't be used as reference. If we don't have a source from any newspaper, then only these websites as BOI, Koimoi can be used. There must be some consensus about this, as we can't repeated ANI discussion about old editors preferring Boxofficeindia to remove references from well established business/finance based newspapers. Boxofficeindia's popularity is due to Wikipedia. And if some newspaper mentions boxofficeindia, it's more likely the journalist read wikipedia Bollywood articles (which use BOI as reference).The Avengers 08:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Please read this discussion titled Box Office India Discussion and BO of all BW films. However, one may use also use Rentrak for the accurate figures. I have been a lot through this BOI discussion and I'm really tired.

• 1. I know putting the premise again despite knowing that it has copyright problem was in good faith. I assumed that some user who may have seen the film observes this and writes a full fledge plot of the film in his own words, later.Here Oye Times is more reliable than Filmibeat. On this I want to say that it was Oye Times that published first and filmibeat just took that from it. Filmibeat is not reliable in any case.
• 2. I'm not pushing any fan POV. Go through the article and the history of edits I have made on the page. I kept and always keeping it as neutral as possible. If any disagreement clear it on talk pages or invite users for the same.
• 3. The Avengers you are simply getting mad at me for all this. I didn't expect this from you side. Arjann (talk) 15:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

@Arjann:, Read the full comment made by me. The heading is about boxofficeIndia. I didn't make the section heading as Arjann. The bitter truth is that we all, including me are taking part in this game of promoting boxofficeindia above others, when it comes to boxoffice figures. I have clearly mentioned that, for last few years i am visiting boxofficeindia to check the details of latest Bollywood movies. And it is from Wikipedia movie articles, I became aware of this website. You try to think hard, Honestly----When was the first time you were aware of this website. Was it through Wikipedia or some other sources. I am not against boxofficeindia. I don't like when people remove sources from websites of Indian newspapers which are more than 40 years old and include boxofficeindia. I checked some old movie pages and the BOI refences become deadlinks. The Avengers 16:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Replicative editing of Leaf-cutter bee articles

User:Thine Antique Pen has made a replicate expansion of hundreds of Megachile species articles from August 28. He/she seems to have concocted general information about the genus Megachile together with specific information about a single species, and copied them over almost each and every species article in the genus. The result is simply a devastating amount of misinformation in hundreds of articles. I opt for immediate reversal of all these edits. Gidip (talk) 15:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I am going to discuss this at WT:INSECTS where there has been some feedback. I am not sure what administrator assistance is being requested; a number of experienced editors, including administrators, have been aware of these article expansions that I made in August for a long time. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 19:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)These articles were created edited at a speed of about 10/min and formed part of Wikipedia:Stub Contest/Entries#Thine Antique Pen. I've looked at a few e.g. Megachile afra, banksi, cockerelli and decemsignata. The quite detailed three-paragraph descriptions are identical apart from the species name, who first described it and when, and a reference retrieval date. There are 1,501 of these articles. In the end, they didn't count in the contest.

@Gidip:, can you briefly indicate how much of a sample article is incorrect? I can hardly believe what I've seen, that 1,501 bee species don't differ in any way worth mentioning, but I know nothing of the Megachilidae. NebY (talk) 19:54, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Correction; the articles were edited in August 2015 with the insertion of the three apparently identical paragraphs of description. They were actually created in October 2014, also by Thine Antique Pen. Sorry for my error; I've taken the liberty of correcting it above. NebY (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

For convenience, let's continue the discussion at WT:INSECTS. Gidip (talk) 20:56, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

When one rereads the nominations and supports at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Thine Antique Pen (from one month later) with the knowledge we have now, one wonders how this was missed by everyone at that time. Anyway, it seems from the linked discussion that the OP was correct and that the content additions were generally wrong. They have been reverted, and if no further action is needed (like checking if the same happened at other articles as well) this can be closed. Fram (talk) 12:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikistalking by User:DaeafcMnnC

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

---

After I !voted "weak keep" in an afd (s)he nominated, DaeafcMnnC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been wikistalking me. Look at their contributions from 15:11 to 15:21 today and you will see they sequentially reverted several of my edits including removing my comments from talk pages, blanking sourced material, removing an afd template, and undoing my vandalism reverts (thereby re-instating the vandalism). On their user page they say they've been editing since 2009, but the account is only 5 days old. (S)he has violated 3RR on this page. Their entire contribution history shows they're most likely not here to constructively build an encyclopedia.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 16:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Hate to be assuming bad faith here. But something seems off about this user. Connormah (talk) 16:24, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

This editor's conduct at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nels J. Smith and the associated article has been reprehensible. NeilN has imposed an entirely justified 48 hour block. I encourage other administrators to take a look and be prepared. The risk of more disruption in two days is high, in my opinion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia's policy regarding self-published books

I'm having a disagreement with User:Ralpherns about whether to include a large paragraph in the article Consumption function, based on Ralpherns' book. He argues that it is "based upon a Cum Laude PHD Thesis," but I think it is not regarded a reliable source by WP:SELFPUBLISH since it was published via CreateSpace. I don't want to start an edit war, so please someone else decide who's right here. --bender235 (talk) 21:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

See WP:SCHOLARSHIP, and make it quick, 'cause in a moment some people will show up to say you asked in the wrong place. Harken! They approach! Let us make ourselves scarceth! EEng (talk) 21:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Boo EEng, boo! Drmies (talk) 01:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Self-published sources can be reliable if the author is considered an expert in his or her field, and theses can be reliable if they have been peer reviewed. Neither appears to be the case here. In addition, the editor kept adding an Amazon link to purchase the book which (in addition to adding the reference itself) represents a significant conflict of interest. I have reverted the edit and also warned the editor. Woodroar (talk) 21:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Self published sources can be used but there are caveats to that. I don't really feel like looking at those caveats in this case due to the glaringly obvious COI.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Alright. Issue solved, I guess. --bender235 (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the above, in that self-published sources can be reliable per WP:RS, but WP:COI (as well as other pitfalls) can and usually do negatively factor into doing so. I'm going to mark this thread as resolved and let someone else close this (in case more needs to be discussed). ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

Unresponsive editor making unexplained changes

Chickensire (talk · contribs) continues to change geo-coordinates on city articles without providing a source. I left this message asking for an explanation and source, and was provided with a dead link as a source. I asked a second time here, and again no response, yet the user continues to change geo-coordinates on city articles. Also, the user has been creating redirects, but would not respond asked why they are doing this. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Are the changes improvements? BMK (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I've spot checked their changes. The good news: the new coords are within the cities that are the subject; the bad news: I can see no rationale behind the change - the old coords seems just as valid as the new coords, and the new coords don't do anywhere logical, like City Hall. Given that, I think we do need to here from Chickenshire as to why they are doing what they're doing.

When they do that for coords, they might also explain why they made a handful of article moves, shifting "Town, New York" to "Town, County, New York" without discussion. These I have reverted. There's also the question of why they created a redirect from "Harlem, New York County, New York" to a subsection of "History of Harlem" - I have changed the target to "Harlem, New York City", which is where our article is. BMK (talk) 01:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

The editor says on the talk page that those are the coordinates for the city's original settlement. Since these may or may not have anything to do with the city's current geographical center, I've asked them to stop, and to explain the moves as well. BMK (talk) 01:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm also a bit confused at your report, Magnolia677. You called them an "unresponsive editor", but in fact they've responded to your inquiries 3 times. How is that "unresponsive"? This is clearly a newbie who doesn't know how to indent or add a sig, we should probably give them a break or two. BMK (talk) 01:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Alright, not so much a newbie, since they've been here since March 2012 and have almost 1500 edits. BMK (talk) 01:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Deliberate muddying of the water

Is there a policy against deliberate muddying of the waters? The making sure that there is no consensus. "It's the lifeblood of our product" Jack Tatem sort of thing. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 05:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

This is a noticeboard to deal with incidents. What's the incident? BMK (talk) 05:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• A general question like this belongs at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Otherwise, Wikipedia:Disruptive editing is a good catch-all policy. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
• There's no incident here, only a reference to a film that apparently we have never had an article about. Peter James (talk) 06:05, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
• Are you intentionally avoiding the phrase poisoning the well? --Pudeo' 07:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• • Thank you, Ricky81682. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

AFD Backlog

Maybe this is just me, but the backlog at WP:AFD is as long as I have ever seen it; there are plenty of discussions with clear consensus that have not been closed yet, and a number that could bear closure in any case because they have been relisted far too many times. More eyes are needed, admins and non-admins both. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93 how can a non admin help? Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

FreeatlastChitchat; non-admins can help by a) expressing considered opinions in AFD discussions where consensus is still unclear, so that consensus may be reached sooner, and b) if they are experienced enough, by performing non-admin closures in situations where there is clear consensus for an outcome that does not require admin action (ie clear keep, merge, or redirect outcomes). Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

This should do the trick.

I'll take some time to run through some of these— I'm awake. For everyone else, a loud wake-up call might be in order. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 08:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry, someone will come round and set them all to relist for another seven days, instead of getting off the fence. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:37, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

For admins who want to help out, WP:OAFD is a good place to start. A word of warning, there seem to be a larger than usual number of contested and messy ones in there at the moment, which might explain the backlog. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:37, 29 November 2015 (UTC).

Edit-warring by User_talk:107.10.236.42

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

---

The account of This IP has been engaged in edit warring and imposing his POV in a number of articles including Yeshivat_Chovevei_Torah and Avi Weiss. A couple of weeks ago an IP tried to get my account blocked based on my account name, and an administrator responded here that there is nothing wrong with my account name "Council2". Since this is a generic English term it does not imply any connection to any existing organisation.

Since then the IP was able to get another administrator to block my account. The IP made various accusations including edit-warring, POV pushing, and sockpuppeting, none of which have any basis. However, the accusations seem to have been accepted by the administrator without checking the facts.

In fact, it is the IP that has been acting against a consensus of other editors. There are at least two editors who have been adding material consonant to changes I made.

Examples are User:ScrapIronIV in this edit and User:Costatitanica in this edit as well as a number of other edits.

Also, my edits have been consonant with the the WP:BRD process. In most cases, when the IP in question reverted my changes, I took the material to the talk page and challenged the IP to a discussion, as for example in this edit, without re-adding them to the page in question.

If there was a AN discussion of alleged violations on my part, I was certainly not informed of it and cannot find it now.

The administrator who blocked my account also proceeded to revert some changes I made as in this edit. He claimed that material he reverted is contributed by me but in fact most of this material was contributed not by me but rather by a different editor at a related page in this edit. I simply copied this material to the Yeshivat_Chovevei_Torah where it is also relevant.

The administrator who blocked me claimed that I was engaged in edit warring but provided no evidence to this effect, making it quite impossible to respond to his request to "Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of edits for which you were blocked" in this edit.

I already responded earlier that I represent no organisation at all, including any that may contain the common English word "council" in their title. In particular, I represent neither the moetzes of Agudat Israel of America, nor the Council of American Rabbis, nor yet the European Rabbinical Council. It is not even clear what organisation I was accused of representing.

I therefore request that my account User_talk:Council2 be unblocked and that the edit-warring account User_talk:107.10.236.42 be blocked.

I could just as well continue using my new account "Counsel2" but I am concerned about a possible reaction by the IP hostile to my edits and the administrator who took the IP's word for it without checking the facts. Counsel2 (talk) 16:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

So, Counsel2, you are a block-evading sockpuppet of Council2. Do you realize that you probably just punched your own ticket to having your block extended? Have you e-mailed the blocking admin, asking them to discuss your block on your talk page? Did you even notify the blocking admin of this discussion (which you are told to do in big letters when you edit here)? Did you post your complaint on your talk page and ask another editor to transclude it onto this page? BMK (talk) 16:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I am none of the sort. I have certainly left a message at the talkpage of "Council2" explaining that the allegations have no basis. I don't see anywhere that I need to notify the blocking administrator directly. Since you seem to think this is required I will certainly do so now. Counsel2 (talk) 16:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

These words appear in big letters at the top of the page when you began this report:

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

Your report was not just about the IP, it was also about your being blocked, which means it was about the actions of the blocking editor which means you were required to notify them. BMK (talk) 16:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I have notified JamesBWatson on this thread, as you were supposed to do -- except, of course, that you weren't supposed to be editing here in the first place, being blocked and all. BMK (talk) 16:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I am confused. You are "none of the sort"? User:Council2 is blocked. You said that User:Council2 is your account, even though you're currently editing as User:Counsel2. That, by definition, means that User:Counsel2 is a sockpuppet of User:Council2, and given the latter is blocked, the former shouldn't be editing here. LjL (talk) 16:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• I just blocked Counsel2 because of the WP:block evasion. You have been advised by the blocking admin and myself (vie e-mail) that you should post unblock request at your ORIGINAL account's talk page (that is User talk:Moetzes). I would easily unblocked you if you did that, but you didn't even try. You say that you "could just as well continue using new account", but that is highly disruptive per WP:EVADE. By creating yet another account, you are reducing your chances to be unblocked. Please, stop arguing and do what you was told to do. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

1. Thank you BMK for alerting me to this report.
2. It is not true that I "took the IP's word for it without checking the facts". I checked them very carefully, and I never block anyone on the basis of another editor's say-so, without checking.
3. The editor Moetzes/Council2/Counsel2 has persistently edited to promote a point of view. That point of view happens to agree with that of a council which calls itself by the Hebrew name "Moetzes". It is reasonable to think, therefore, that the editor is editing on behalf of that council. If he or she is not doing so, then he or she has used misleading usernames, and nobody else can be blamed for believing what he or she appeared to be saying by using those usernames, in conjunction with editing in ways which, as I said, promote views agreeing with those of that council. An administrator who decline an unblock request for the first account said "your username in combination with your contributions gives the impression, whether correct or incorrect, that you are representing the council you are citing. That's contrary to our policy". If, having read that, the editor then proceeds to create another account with a username based on the word "council", then he/she must have known full well that he or she was again in breach of the same policy again.
4. I still think the balance of evidence suggests that the editor was either editing on behalf of a council or else trying to give the impression of doing so, perhaps in the belief that doing so would give the edits more authority, but even if that is not so, it makes little difference, as the main reason for the block was editing to promote a point of view, with the username issue being, in my opinion, a secondary matter. There are also other reasons why the unblocking might be unhelpful, such as edit-warring, a battleground approach to other editors, and sockpuppetry.
5. It is a total misrepresentation to say "an administrator responded here that there is nothing wrong with my account name 'Council2'". In the edit which Counsel2 linked to with that statement, the administrator in question said "There is nothing disruptive in him registering new account", and did not make any statement about the username.
6. I see the remarkable statement that I "provided no evidence" that the editor was edit-warring. I took a considerable amount of time posting a detailed explanation for the block, rather than a templated message or at the most a one-sentence message, wither of which I could easily have done. In that message I carefully explained what "edit-warring" meant. Of course I didn't provide "evidence"< because of course the editor knew that he/she had repeatedly made the same, or substantially the same, change, so no "evidence" was required. However, since the editor has now expressed a wish to see evidence, I will provide some. There are these edits [92] [93] [94] [95] [96], in which the editor adds essentially similar content, on two occasions repeating word for word identical content as before, on other times expressing it differently, but always essentially promoting the same point, and also on two occasions removing the same categories, and there are these edits [97] [98] in which the editor removes the same content each time.
7. The editor says "He claimed that material he reverted is contributed by me but in fact most of this material was contributed not by me but rather by a different editor at a related page in this edit. I simply copied this material to the Yeshivat_Chovevei_Torah where it is also relevant." I am not at all sure why the editor thinks that the fact of someone else having posted the promotional content elsewhere somehow makes it all right for him/her to do so.
8. The editor has used his/her latest sockpuppet account, Counsel2, to post some of the same point-of-view-promoting content to talk pages. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Recruiting people to a deletion discussion

Should User:SwisterTwister be notifying User:DGG to come to multiple deletion discussions on User:DGG's talk page? I thought we had a strict rule about trying to recruit people to a deletion discussion. You aren't supposed to notify individual people unless they were involved in writing the article, or if they were involved in a previous attempt to delete the article. See User_talk:DGG#AfDs User_talk:DGG#AfDs again and other postings of large lists. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Notified the two users Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 19:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

To begin, I hate ANI so that's enough to say. But second, the guidelines for that specifically mention users who request to be notified especially if they're familiar with the fields and subjects. Either way they vote, I couldn't care and always simply want a consensus of something (as to not have another no consensus) I have settled and explained this throughly to anyone who has asked so mentioning this without notifying and consulting is obvious what it signifies. SwisterTwister talk 19:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

User SwisterTwister frequently notifies people active in AfD based on interest areas and possible ability to find more sources/offer more input. For example, SwisterTwister notifies me regularly for articles related to Eastern Europe/Russia and in about 2/3 cases I support keeping. This is not the same thing as WP:CANVASS and in fact is extremely helpful. —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• Yep, I also get the occasional ping from SisterTwister about an AfD on an article I've been involved with. Most recently they voted "delete" in an AfD (not one they put up) and pinged me; I found that Michig had dug up some decent sources and I'm leaning "keep". In other words, I don't think SisterTwister could have expected what my vote would have been. As for DGG, he's a straight shooter and as neutral as they come--DGG probably leans a bit towards inclusionism. If this really is an accusation of canvassing where admin intervention is asked for (and it has to be, or RAN would have been courteous enough to ask SisterTwister on their talk page), then the answer is no: no canvassing, no intervention required. Drmies (talk) 21:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

To be honest Drmies RAN never even attempted to talk to me about it and I certainly wish he had because as mentioned I simply hate ANI and make my best to stay away. FWIW and I'm sure DGG will come around soon, he has explicitly said (i.e. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ACT Alberta) that he is interested to be notified of subjects he has expertise and familiarity with therefore I'm not particularly leading him anywhere (as mentioned before, I will also ask him to help close a much needed AfD long overdue so that's not certainly not malicious either). Cheers, SwisterTwister talk 22:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's canvassing. SwisterTwister is only trying to find consensus, frequently in poorly-discussed AfDs. I got pinged in a few AfD discussions that I didn't see. I think it's helpful. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Asking editors to help in improving articles is not canvassing. The work can be considered part of the efforts of the Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron. IMO SwisterTwister should be commended for this. MarnetteD|Talk 23:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

At one time I tried to comment of all afds where I knew enough to say something useful. I cannot now do so, so I started trying to spot those that either were in subject fields I particularly care about, or that had multiple relistings about which I could try to get some consensus--or close. I no longer can scan them all myself even for this, and I ask some people) to notify me about a selection. That editor is not canvassing me, but helping me at my request--I really must thank SwisterTwister, and all those who notify me of interesting things, so I can work as widely as I do. Ever since I realized I couldn't do everything, I have deliberately decided to work first on problems people presented to me. By now they know that I will often not give the response they might be hoping for, or might be expected. DGG ( talk ) 00:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I, too, sometimes get AfD pings from SwisterTwister. They're always with regard to India articles and I'm absolutely sure they have no idea what opinion I might offer. Canvassing would necessitate that they did know, so I see no problem. - Sitush (talk) 08:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion watching needed

Can one or more uninvolved admins keep an eye on Talk:Bangalore#Requested move 29 November 2015 please? RMs on the names of Indian cities have been a tense issue and the current proposal expresses concern about canvassing in previous RMs which does nothing to settle this. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Book spam

A book called Worlds Together, Worlds Apart[99] is being spammed (at least that's the appearance into multiple articles by multiple new editors, eg User:Jaredlynn, User:AlexandraMKing and User:Sarahgilbert18. I've blocked Sarahgilbert18 after a warning, but if anyone feels an unblock makes sense no need to contact me. I see that User:JamesBWatson and User:Elizium23 warned AlexandraMKing and I asked her if it was a school project, after which she stopped editing. I'm off to bed now but I'll notify them - although I guess this could be one person. Doug Weller (talk) 22:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I was also surprised at how fast these users learned our citation markup, even using ref names. Doug Weller (talk) 22:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I really am trying to get to bed, but to be fair, it's possible that this is a class, although I've seen no indication that it is. That doesn't make it not spam, and I am of the opinion that although this seems to be an excellent generalist textbook we should be using specialist books for history, paleontology, etc, and I've seen at least one error introduced to an article citing the book. Doug Weller (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Turns out this is a class assignment, add material from their textbook to 20 articles. Doug Weller (talk) 06:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

And looking further, not only do I think the book is dubious as a source for at least some of the articles, editors are treating dab pages as articles and addding text sourced to this book, are adding a citations to the book at the top of the articles, and further investigation might show other problems. Doug Weller (talk) 06:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• I've posted a fairly long message on their talk page, with an emphasis that their professor should set up a course page or contact someone about the school assignment. I've also given an alternate suggestion that they could probably use other sources, since I feel that it's probably most likely that the teacher wants to ensure that they understand the topic and can apply it properly in a real world setting. I think that the textbook choice is incidental, as it's most likely this particular textbook since it's the one they're using in class and as such, the teacher is more aware of the book's content than they would a random source. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Doug Weller, Tokyogirl79, and Joshua Jonathan:-- I'm the professor on this particular assignment, and it's one I've used pretty successfully for several years. I've asked my students to look through their textbook and through other materials we've used in class [World History before 1500], and asked them to make corrections and/or additions to articles related to the materials we're studying. The idea is two-fold. First, it allows them to [hopefully] make a more lasting contribution to people's understanding of history than simply writing a bunch of papers for me that I'll end up throwing out a week after the semester is over. Second, it might prompt a few of them to get more involved in editing on a longer-term basis.

Because this was a semester-long assignment with a due date "by the end of the semester," they are all now (unfortunately) doing this all at once. So, narrow-ish topics, 40 students, 10 or so required edits each--yeah I can understand why it appears spam-like. But they have a limited number of sources for the class, and we've spent an entire semester going through the issue of footnoting, citing sources, etc etc. We also spent time in class "practice-editing" a few articles to ensure they would get it right. WP:RS notes that "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." So, I've encouraged them to footnote their textbook in order to provide a reliable source. Are they making some mistakes in their editing? Almost certainly. We all did when we started. But I'm not sure it's accurate to say that the textbook is "dubious as a source." It's a peer-reviewed textbook used in hundreds of college classrooms around the U.S. Does it have flaws? Sure. An unreliable source? I don't think so.

To be honest, I've done this same assignment for about three years in different classes, and this is the first time I've encountered an issue. I've been editing for a few years, sometimes intensively, sometimes not. Most of my editing is confined to WP:BEER-related materials, but I also spend time patrolling edits using STiki. All this is by way of saying that I, and they, didn't go into this blindly. But if there's another issue here, I'm open to some guidance. Prof. Mc (talk) 14:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi [User:Prof. Mc|Prof. Mc]] and thanks for responding. Besides the issues of not understanding WP:DAB pages, adding citations at the beginning of paragraphs, etc., there is still the issue of the book. Take for example this edit[100] of our article Black Death. It removed a figure[101]sourced to a specialist book A Pest in the Land: New World Epidemics in a Global Perspective By Suzanne Austin Alchon, University of New Mexico Press, and replaced it with a figure from the textbook. Which source would you prefer? Another problem is that at least in my opinion it's not a good idea to fit a textbook to an article in this way. When sourcing the articles your class is working on, they should be looking for the best academic sources and where there is a dispute showing that dispute in the article. We do have a framework for projects such as yours and can give you guidance and support if you'd like that.Doug Weller (talk) 15:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Doug Weller:. I appreciate your thoughtful reply. If I'm reading you correctly (and it's early here and I've not yet had my caffeine, so anything is possible), the issue seems not to be so much with the source, then, as it is with the use of the source. I am unable to view the page in the Alchon book to which you have linked, but I absolutely agree with your general point--a recently peer-reviewed textbook should not replace a recently-peer reviewed monograph without some further explanation in the Edit Summary and perhaps on the Talk page. To be honest I hadn't really anticipated this scenario and so neglected to cover that in class. The fault here is entirely mine, not theirs. I'll work with them on this, of course. In terms of a framework, whatever you have would be great. I'd like to use this assignment again next semester with my History of Beer students. Prof. Mc (talk) 15:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Well now, a professor, beer, a lack of caffeine, this is all starting to sound eerily familiar. It also sounds like you teach at a funner place than me--all we have is a Special Topics class on Ice Tea. (The drink, not Ice-T the rapper.) Textbooks are frequently tertiary sources, whose use is somewhat deprecated here, and I think that applies to this one as well. That's not to say they should never be used; like primary sources, they should be used "to a lesser extent" than secondary sources. There's more at WP:ANALYSIS. Depending on the level of the class, one could require of one's students that they use secondary sources, as a research component, but given what you said earlier, Prof. Mc, it doesn't seem to be the kind of class where you can easily do that--certainly not if they leave it all for the last week of the semester. (Believe me, I know the feeling.) If I can make a suggestion (purely in my capacity as an old fart), placing the particular assignment earlier in the semester may alleviate some of the problems, here and maybe even in your classroom and the computer lab. Happy grading, and cheers, Drmies (talk) 16:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Problem with editor over religious edits

Hi all - I'm having problems with an editor over categories. I'm engaged in a substantial task of putting articles on American religious leaders into state-specific categories. All has gone well up until a few days ago, when Elizium23 (talk · contribs) contacted me to complain that I was putting Roman Catholic bishops into categories for bishops, rather than making individual categories for Roman Catholic bishops by diocese, then making parent categories for Roman Catholic bishops, and then putting those categories in the (grandparent) Bishops categories.

While I see this as useful, it would slow down the work I'm doing, and I feel that categorisation simply as bishops is better for Wikipedia than having them totally uncategorised. After all, if Elizium23 feels that they should be in these subcategories, (as) it is now easier for him to find and add those categories himself, and (b) perhaps he should have already added those categories. Elizium23's messages on my user talk page have been confrontational and threatening - he accused me of laziness (despite the fact that I have been categorising several hundred articles during this task, and he could easily have added any extra categories he wanted himself), and threatened to revert the work I have been doing. This is something which he has begun to do, despite being warned of the disruptiveness of this silliness.

As an admin, I can't get personally involved in fixing this mess, so I'd like to ask some neutral admins to have a look at it if possible. Thanks, Grutness...wha? 23:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

If anything, having bishops in state-specific categories should make it easier for Elizium23 to further subdivide them. Reverting instead of improving, that is lazy. Not justified IMO.-- Elmidae 07:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Day6 reversions by User:Dr.K. and User:Drmies

This matter revolves around edits to the Day6 article about a Korean boy-band.

This reversion by User:Dr.K. lead to this message from me on his/her talk page.

That lead to the Talk:Day6#Moved_from_my_talkpage discussion.

I reverted Dr.K.'s edit creating the misspelled names (as discussed in the article talk page linked above) added links to the sources, and added the trivial data also included in that source (band member's height & weight) as that's the type of trivia which I suspect boy-band fan users will generally tend to enjoy.

Minutes later, User:Drmies then reverted my reversion of Dr.K. with the edit summary "Undid revision 693042895 by Wikierroneous height and weight? Why not blood type and favorite color? Rv: trivia".

Since this reversion obviously not only removed the trivial height & weight (which who cares if it exists or not), but also removed the added links to references and restored the non-trivial misspellings of names contrary to the RS, I reverted DrMies with the edit summary "Undid revision 693043712 by Drmies (talk) If you want to remove the height & weight then go ahead and remove it, but don't restore misspellings of people's names as you did with your revision".

In the meantime, I also reverted one of DrMies' many revisions in that article of something minor I had added a while ago, in this case ‘trivia’ about news of their concert trending #1 on social media within 5 minutes of its announcement (which I would argue indicates how significant a fad it currently is). Mies' edit summary removing that info had been "Concerts: trivial" and my reverting summary was "Undid revision 693009843 by Drmies (talk) Trending is relevant in Kush & Orange Juice,Bulgaria in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest,Back from the Dead 2,Ew! (song),Tox (protocol)". After which I dealt with his revision of me mentioned immediately above and (as mentioned, reverted it as well two minutes after posting this reversion).

Five minutes later Dr.K. reverted both my reversions of DrMies (again reestablishing the misspellings that fail to match the sources, which he also deleted in the process) with the edit summary "Reverted 2 edits by Wikierroneous (talk): No consensus for tables. Please stop your edit-warring. (TW★TW)" and posted an edit-warring warning on my talk page. I note that it really seems that Dr.K./DrMies don't like tables and so now it's up to others to get a bunch of people together to satisfy K & Mies before adding any tables.

Dr.K. & DrMies seem to have established (an otherwise undocumented that I know of) policy regarding article formatting, specifically the use of tables where they don't like them in WP. Really I could care less, particularly regarding a foreign boy-band.

I note that Dr.K. & DrMies both seem to revert each other's "opponents" (for lack of a better term) surprisingly quickly, and both seem to have similar user pages.

I'm taking a break from WP for a while, because who needs this kind of hassle, so someone else can worry about reverting vandals on that Day6 article and can concern themselves with what information should or shouldn't be included in the article, whether it should be sourced, whether it should match those sources, what format it should be in, and whether formatting is apparently determined by the whim of any group of 2.

Cheers — Wikierroneous 03:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@Wikierroneous: If there's a disagreement on the inclusion of trending info for the event, or for a table, and they were only reverted once, that's WP:BRD at work, and it's time for discussion for the talk page. As for the other trivia bits, was there something preventing you from correcting the misspellings without adding the problematic trivia back into the article? Also, I'm just going to go ahead and not take seriously that you're suggesting Dr. K and Drmies of being one in the same or working together because you've provided no credible basis for it. While we're here, it's not appropriate to omit a talk page link from your signature. If you're going to contribute to the project, it's important that other editors be able to get in touch with you in a one-on-one context. Please add a link back in. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 04:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Wikierroneous: First, and I'm putting this in bold to make it very clear: You are edit-warring over a boy band!!

OK, with that out of the way, Drmies is an admin, Dr.K. is a respected editor, both of them have been here for a looooong time and know the rules quite well. If they say something shouldn't be there, it probably shouldn't be there. Listen to what they have to say, work with them, and discuss this on their talk pages first. Big notice at the top of this page: "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please consider discussing the issue with them on their user talk page." There is no evidence you tried this route first.

I see no reason this needs to go any further than right here. Wikierroneous seems to be OWN'ing the page, dislikes Dr.K. and Drmies "messing" with their perfered version. I recommend closing this ANI thread and throwing it back to the Talk:Day6 page. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@Wikierroneous: and added the trivial data also included in that source (band member's height & weight) as that's the type of trivia which I suspect boy-band fan users will generally tend to enjoy. Is this an admission that you are not seriously trying to build an encyclopaedic article?

I note that Dr.K. & DrMies both seem to revert each other's "opponents" (for lack of a better term) surprisingly quickly, and both seem to have similar user pages. I hadn't noticed. Thanks for the compliment. And your point is?

Really I could care less, particularly regarding a foreign boy-band. But cared enough to open this frivolous report at ANI although discussion is ongoing at the article talkpage. But I forgot: You didn't like that I moved the discussion to the article talk and you called my move "childish" while disregarding my valuable advice to you. Dr. K. 04:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@I JethroBT: Drmies gave him/her a message about the lack of links to his talkpage and s/he reverted it with a dismissive edit-summary. Dr. K. 04:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Dr. K. and I do have very similar user pages, I suppose. K's got a cat, I got an ostrich. Drmies (talk) 05:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I was just admiring that picture. You obviously have a more upscale sense for pets than I do. I will show your pet's picture to my cat and see his reaction. If all goes well I will add it to my userpage just below his picture. Dr. K. 05:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

BTW, I wasn't aware of any misspellings--as far as I could tell there were alternate spellings. Either way, it's minor, and could easily be solved by doing that individually. I'm also not sure where the vandalism is that Wikierroneous signaled. A bigger problem here is the refusal to have a simple link to the editor's talk page, and wishing that we could do without talk pages runs counter to the whole idea of collaborative editing. I was on my phone earlier and the editor's talk page produced nothing but a black screen (similar to what Windows 10 gives me), which was all my phone showed me--also not indicative of a collaborative spirit. Drmies (talk) 05:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

The irony is s/he doesn't like any messages and reverts them but feels quite free to dump messages on other users' talkpages and expects them to have conversations there instead of the article talkpage. Really contradictory attitude. Dr. K. 05:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

That seems correct, Dr. K. As for you, Drmies, it is good to see that you are editing with a smart phone, like the real hardcore editors do. Yeah, you need to scroll past a whole lot of blackness on that "talk" page. Very strange. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I think that both User:Dr.K. and Drmies should be site banned at once because they have committed the ultimate sacrilege of reverting a fan's edit on a boyband page. Furthermore they should both be escorted to the the sixth circle of hell for this heresy. Clearly they have formed a cabal against all boybands and their fans. signed by FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC) in order to make BBB23 happy.

• I've blocked Wikierroneous as a  Confirmed sock of Who R you? (talk · contribs · count). I've blocked the master for two weeks. I've removed the image, cute, but interferes, and please sign your posts.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • FreeatlastChitchat, you have totally found us out. Damn you! But the question, as Dante well knows, is of intention: do Dr.K. and I hate boy bands because we are...homophobic? man haters? racists? jazz tyrants? (I suppose that me saying that I didn't know it was a boy band is useless--boyband, girlband in K-pop, they present the same problems...) Also, thank you Bbb23. Drmies (talk) 15:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
    • @Drmies: Disruption by trivia is an equal opportunity phenomenon in K-pop articles. It is not gender-specific. So we are indeed politically-correct in reverting it wherever it occurs. Dr. K. 15:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

"Month Year" redirects

The user DoctorKubla has turned the month articles from January 1997 to November 2015 into redirects. However, they have not yet been moved to the Portal namespace. An administrator should start moving them with the "Leave a redirect behind" box unchecked and make the Portal pages transclude Template:Current events archive with the first parameter being the year and the second parameter the month. The administrator should also recreate redirects to the year articles (they will be marked as "N" in the user contributions and have a log entry saying "automatically marked revision REVISIONID of page PAGENAME patrolled"). GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

It appears this was discussed before redirects were made/changed. Since this was discussed and this can be easily reverted, I don't see any harm done here.

As I mentioned above....Big notice at the top of this page: "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please consider discussing the issue with them on their user talk page." Next time, please discuss this with the user before coming to ANI. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Vitamin K2

• Vitamin K2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Got a new account repeatedly copy/pasting text from this source into the lede of our article (also adding biomedical information not sourced to WP:MEDRS, which is another matter). Could an admin take a look? Alexbrn (talk) 07:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours for edit warring. Note the source does not have a CC license compatible with Wikipedia. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

And increased to 72 hours for block evasion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting! Alexbrn (talk) 11:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

IP-jumping editor with an anti-Kurdish bias

This is a rewritten version of something I wrote last night at the talk page of @JzG:. He suggested that I take it to ANI. I wasn't sure if the regulars here need to be spoon-fed diffs or if, on the contrary, I would be met with TLDR comments if I wrote any longer. Please take a look and point out if there is anything you feel is insufficiently clear.

There is a succession of Swiss-based IPs (most starting with 81.62) that have been on a reference removal and prodding spree and has made other edits with what appears to be an anti-Kurdish and anti-Yazidi bias.

• 81.62.0.20 (talk · contribs) (17 Nov.)
• 81.62.114.4 (talk · contribs) (20 Nov.)
• 81.62.94.51 (talk · contribs) (21-22 Nov.)
• 62.202.122.82 (talk · contribs) (22 Nov.)
• 81.62.232.113 (talk · contribs) (24-25 Nov.)
• 81.62.178.125 (talk · contribs) (25 Nov.)
• 81.62.29.36 (talk · contribs) (27 Nov.)
• 81.62.24.156 (talk · contribs) (28 Nov.)
• 81.62.90.64 (talk · contribs) (26-27 Nov.)
• 81.62.160.49 (talk · contribs) (28-29 Nov.)

The IP user is somebody familiar with Wikipedia terminology and notability policy (although quite willing to overlook the blatant notability of a topic if it would get in the way of getting it deleted, as with Khana Qubadi, an 18th-century Kurdish poet, or Taufiq Wahby, a philologist who was also a member of cabinet and senator in Iraq). The user is also familiar with templates.[102][103].

Some of the references and links removed have indeed been dead, as claimed in the edit comments, but some of these appear actually to be online versions of printed sources, such as this one (the journal article can probably still be located even if the link happens to be dead). This removed links to articles in the online edition of the Encyclopaedia Iranica. While the EI appears to have changed the article URLs, they can be found through a search of the website (e.g. [104]). In general, substitutes for these links are less likely to be found once they are hidden away in the article history and their removal is likely to prejudice the admin dealing with the page at the end of the prod period.

I suspect that Lrednuas Senoroc (talk · contribs) (28 Nov.-) may be the same user. This user has started an article on Kurdish terrorism (recently at AfD) and nominated Kurdish mythology for deletion. He also edited Khana Qubadi, previously prodded by 81.62.90.64 (talk · contribs), just after I deprodded the page.

All in all, I find it difficult to "AGF" in this case. I have deprodded a few articles. @PanchoS:, who has noticed the same pattern (as he pointed out at User talk:JzG#Kurdish terrorism), has deprodded a large number as claiming notability and at least needing a proper discussion.

I will notify Lrednuas Senoroc (talk · contribs) but will ignore the talk pages of the IPs, as they don't appear to have been re-used once the user has rotated to a new one. --Hegvald (talk) 11:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

The user Hegvald starts this with a personal attack even in the section title, generally a sign of somebody that has no facts and that the discussion is emotional.

Hegvald complains that I attempted to do some much needed quality control and cleanup after I spotted a walled garden of non-notable articles, all created by the same user. The user has created a walled garden of hundreds of articles on non-notable subjects. These include bloggers, translators, "writers" whose output consist of a few nationalist pamphlets, whose only reference is a token article written by the subject himself about himself! If these articles would have been in a less obscure area, they would have been deleted within 5 minutes! And all the links I removed with the edit summary "dead links" were dead links, not just "some" (the rest were not in accordance with the WP:EL policy). To be able to also edit at 'Articles for Deletion', I had to create an user account. I was not only doing some work in much needed quality control, as Hegvald noticed, but also expanding articles (Kurdish women, kurds in germany,...) and creating articles (on the Kurd Banaz Mahmod).

The real issue, I suspect, is that he didn't like that I wrote articles on Banaz Mahmod and about Du'a Khalil Aswad. The same user who spammed wikipedia with this walled garden of non notable articles is the same user who repeatedly deleted every mention of the Murder of Du'a Khalil Aswad and other victims in the kurdish women article. That is the real issue, these same users who spam wikipedia would like to bury every memory of these victims in wikipedia, exactly like they buried the poor Yazidi woman Du'a Khalil Aswad, together with a dead dog after she was stoned and after she was dragged trough the streets! Because I created the article about the Kurd Banaz Mahmod and wrote about the Yazidi Du'a Khalil Aswad, I must be anti-Kurdish and anti-Yazidi, out of a perverse logic that certain aspects of certain communities should not be written about, and this user who spammed wikipedia, and censors every mention of these Kurdish and Yazidi victims, is of course just a bona fide Kurdish nationalist. --Lrednuas Senoroc (talk) 12:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Who is the user you are talking about? Are you talking about @Vekoler: who appears to have started several of the articles you are trying to have deleted? You should have informed him of the fact that you were nominating them for deletion, but you never did. In either case, I don't see anything wrong in starting many articles in a particular topic area of one's interest, in this case Kurdish writers. Other Wikipedia users create huge numbers of articles on professional wrestlers or footballers. Regrettably, far fewer people around here are able and willing to write about Kurdish literature and scholarship.

As for the dead links, they were indeed dead, but many referred to sources that may have been located in other ways. That was the case with both Encyclopaedia Iranica articles mentioned by me above. The articles are still live; they just changed the URLs. Some other may have been found at archive.org, but only when one knows what to look for. And as I said, some were printed publications, such as articles in the International Journal of Kurdish Studies. In those cases, having a link is nice, but it is perfectly fine if they can be located in print in a library. --Hegvald (talk) 13:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot the issue of honour killings. No, there is nothing wrong with mentioning this (although it should probably be mentioned here and in passing that it is common among many other populations in the Near East and elsewhere).

What struck me was that in all your expanding of articles such as Kurds in Germany, Kurds in Sweden, Kurdish women, this was the only thing you were interested in writing about.[105][106][107] Surely there must be other aspects of these topics worthy of interest and expansion? --Hegvald (talk) 13:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is Vekoler. You may believe that everything merits a wikipedia article, but it is not the consensus on wikipedia, otherwise we wouldn't have the notability policy and the AFD and PROD processes. Clearly, many of these articles do not meet the notability policy and wouldn't have survived that long in less obscure areas of wikipedia.

About the dead links, where is the policy how to deal with them? If I tag the dead links, or if they are already tagged, how long does one need to wait until they can be removed? What about dead links in the External links section? Should they not be cleaned up? Many of these articles are BLP articles, and everything unsourced or sourced to dead links in BLP articles should be removed immediately and without discussion. --Lrednuas Senoroc (talk) 14:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

In the future, I will rather tag the dead links when they are used for reference. Except when it goes against WP:BLP or WP:USI, the BLP policy says all contentious information should be removed immediately if it is unsourced. --Lrednuas Senoroc (talk) 15:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Your familiarity with WP:TLAs makes it plain that you are not actually a new user. What was your previous account, please? Guy (Help!) 15:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Srednuas Lenoroc might be entirely innocent here, but someone should investigate whether there is any relationship (perhaps an attempt at imitation by Lrednuas Senoroc)? Cordless Larry (talk) 15:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I am not Sredunas and there is already a discussion on his talkpage. To figure out TLAs one does not need to have a registered account on the english wikipedia. In any case, to protect their privacy, editors who have edited while logged out are never required to disclose their usernames (see also clean start). --Lrednuas Senoroc (talk) 15:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Repeated unfounded accusations by User:Dalamani

User:Dalamani has continued with their behaviour despite adequate warning and despite stating that they would cease. They made a baseless accusation of sockpuppetry here, for which I gave them what I thought was quite a mild warning ([108]). They responded by accusing me of harassment ([109], [110]). User:Drmies also pointed out the error of their ways ([111]) and they stated they would cease but went on to make a pretty clear insinuation of meatpuppetry (also baseless, of course) in the same AfD ([112]). Dalamani has previous for this sort of thing, in their interactions with another editor ([113], [114]). Their behaviour is unacceptable and I don't see any useful editing coming from that account. There's no point in me warning them again, as it will just result in further accusations of 'harassment', and frankly I don't see that further warnings would be an adequate or worthwhile response. --Michig (talk) 11:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Well as I am a new editor you are expected to assume good faith, which you have not. From the first attempt to edit the page (which I admitted that I made errors on being new to the process) I have felt as though these editors are being exclusionary and acting like Wikipedia is their own private club. I never explicitly accused anyone of sockpuppetry, despite previously being accused of having an agenda or ulterior motive to nominating the article for deletion. As for accusations of "meatpuppetry", is user Michig denying that the next user to support their position on the AFD page, Wwwhatsup does not have Michigs username on their talk page, indicating a relationship of some sort? I find it curious that an editor that obviously has a Wikipedia connection with another editor suddenly appears on an AFD page enthusiastically supporting their position. Coincidence? Possibly, but curious nonetheless and its obviously something that Michig has taken personal exception to. I find the behaviour of Michig to be confrontational and arrogant and frankly bullying. If you need to drag out a very old and irrelevant incident with another Wikipedia bully to bolster your case it doesnt bode well. Ban me if thats what will make Wikipedia a better place for bullies but it wont do anything to encourage new editors to "be bold". Im considering doing an open letter to Wikpedia on my userpage in the style of Paolo.dL. Dalamani (talk) 12:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Predictably, another accusation, now of bullying, for notifying them of this discussion ([115]). --Michig (talk) 12:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Look Michig, Im not interested in you so please just stop with the harassment. There are a lot of Wikipedia policies that Im reading up on and it is very illuminating. Id suggest you do the same. No need for further discussion, lets leave this to arbitration. Dalamani (talk) 12:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Leaving repeated and unwanted messages on a users Talk page, as you have done, is just one of the many Wikipedia policies that I believe has been breached here. I REPEAT, as a new user you should have assumed good faith, not criticised a new users motivation for deciding to nominate a particular article for deletion. You did not and this is where it has led. I believe some introspection is required here on your part regardless of the outcomes of your pre-emptive actions (yes, I told Michig I would report them for harassment if it continued just prior to this being actioned) Dalamani (talk) 13:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Assuming good faith does not imply simply ignoring missteps like baseless accusations. As DrMies stated, you are not being harrassed, you are being addressed as a Wikipedia user who is expected to play by the rules. Just like anybody else. Kleuske (talk) 13:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

So it is OK for administrators to imply ulterior motives on a new users attempts to edit wikipedia, but not for a new user to defend themselves and point out that there appear to be conflicts of interest in their own agenda? I see Kleuske and Drmies are known to each other as can be discerned from Klueske's Talk page. This is getting more interesting by the minute! Dalamani (talk) 13:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• Dalamani, these days I am first and foremost Dr.K.'s sock. I see you've been doing some research into my editing behavior--you may have noticed that I have made some 45,000 edits to user talk pages not including mine, only three of which on Kleuske's page. Kleuske, this is not to say you're not special to me--you are, of course, and I will do my best to make it up to you. Besides, I am honored to be suspected as being in cahoots with you. Also, Dalamani, you are not being harassed. Au contraire--which I find reflected in older comments like this and this, besides in this treatment of Michig. If we're going to have a bullying task force, as some users seem to want, don't be surprised if all this boomerangs back on you. Drmies (talk) 15:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Accusations of racism at Talk:Bangalore

I wish to propose a ban on User:Loginnigol from commenting on race in any forum. Two weeks ago, he claimed that stating an issue was "manifestly two-faced (Western/white versus non-)" was "not ... making it a race issue". He was asked to withdraw the comments, apologize and desist from making similar comments in the future. Today, he has returned to the attack by accusing opponents of "white supremacy (Indian sources are regarded as inferior to lily white Anglo Saxon sources)". DrKay (talk) 13:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Notified the editor as required here. Is there a reason we shouldn't block under WP:NOTHERE? Race-biting over sources is not a good use of time here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 13:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

He is editing since 2011 though and looks active, right? D4iNa4 (talk) 14:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

DrKay had notified in a different section, perhaps you missed that Ricky. I'm pinging Future Perfect at Sunrise who had proposed placing this page under discretionary sanctions. —SpacemanSpiff 14:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

He should have been blocked for edit warring at Apple pie where he seems to have an anti-western or anti-American pov and introduced ridiculous "facts". Although others tried to use the article talk page to address his changes specifically, he did not engage. Also, he blanked different editors attempts to discuss with him on his own talk page. This may be more than just race issues.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Can I propose a ban on the DrKay for making false accusations and for attempting to ban discussion on a TALK page? It's bad enough that the article is biased but that's not enough for some. They also want to prevent discussion on the talk page. Needless to say I categorically reject his claims that I am "accusing opponents" of racism whatever that means (I didn't even know there were "opponents" here. That itself sounds like racism to me. My comments today or yesterday refer only and exclusively to content, not "opponents" or persons of any other sort. —Loginnigol (talk) 14:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Opponents of the move. DrKay (talk) 15:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• No, there will be no such "ban". I actually agree with Loginnigol that the comments on Talk:Bangalore aren't racist or race-baiting--they're just completely inane. I hasten to add that I have not looked at the issues signaled by Berean Hunter. Drmies (talk) 15:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)