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. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. 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

A hate group is attempting to brigade an RfC

A Manual of Style discussion regarding transgender people is currently being brigaded by an off-site hate group encouraging people to create accounts to "vote support". This group has been actively involved in doxxing, harassing, and making threats of violence against trans people in the past, and they need to be cut off from attempting to use Wikipedia to further their agenda. MarleneSwift (talk) 13:34, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Noting, in passing, the pure unsullied and unalloyed irony of the fact that your own account was registered... on 10 June 2016 at 13:24. _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Because my main account is linked to my real-life identity. My employer is listed on my main account's user page for crying out loud, and I don't want them getting death threats from this group. This group has targeted their opponents in real life before. Also bear in mind that I'm not !voting or offering my opinion in any way on the discussion. MarleneSwift (talk) 13:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • It would be ironic if MarleneSwift issued a support/oppose !vote in the discussion, as that would be engaging in the practice he/she is expressing concern about. That is not the case, as far as I can see. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
    • No, the irony is in the creating of accounts for extraneous purposes. And there you have it. _Muffled ^Pocketed 17:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
• I don't see a problem with this report; if someone is scared enough to start a new account to notify us of what could well be a legitimate concern, we should thank them. I hope it's hot air in that thread. Drmies (talk) 04:33, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Rather than trying to play whack-a-mole by reverting and blocking the new accounts, simply place a prominent note about the situation to alert the closing admin/editor to it. !Votes by newly registered SPAs should be disregarded in any numeric assessments of consensus. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

That being said, if any of the new accounts do engage in "doxxing, harassing, and making threats of violence", this should be dealt with by immediate blocking and rev-del of the offending edits, and by notifying emergency@wikimedia.org should the situation be sufficiently extreme to warrant it. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:15, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment using an IP or a throw-away unlinked second account is becoming far too common. If there's something you object to, and cannot say so yourself because of whatever, then hope someone else objects to it (one person's objection rarely is sufficient for consensus, especially on an RfC). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary Censorship

An editor by the name of General Ization is arbitrarily deleting my posts on an untrue article on Laszlo Csatary. He is not allowing me to respond to a challenge of proof. This is a biased and racist move on the part of General Ization. He obviously has something against Laszlo Csatary and his family and knows little or nothing about the situation. The article is defamatory and untrue and should be removed from Wikipedia. It lacks journalistic integrity and is equal to tabloid trash. Get generalization off this article please! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.150.36.88 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 10 June 2016‎

The edits that were removed do not have any sources to back up their content. This is something that will require being discussed on the talk page of the article. Also, claiming the user has something again the subject, and especially calling them racist is a personal attack and should not be done. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

In fairness to the IP, there are sources - and they are already listed in the article, but not presented in the way the IP wants them to be presented.

The IP seems to want the article to state unequivocally that the subject is innocent of all crime; their argument being that the Budapest higher court suspended his case on 8 July 2013 (already stated and sourced in the "War-crimes indictment", but currently qualified showing reasons they were suspended), and because a book was published in 2014 that claims he was not physically located where the crimes were committed (the book is also already presented and sourced in the "War-crimes indictment", stating the claim made in it by the author). The IP also appears to have a conflict of interest in the article, as they have claimed to be the son of the article subject. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:14, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

The IP has not notified General Ization of this filing, so I have done so. GAB^gab 00:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

• Even though Generalizations Are Bad, GAB? BMK (talk) 00:15, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

• I agree, we ought to expunge all generalizations from the article. GAB^gab 00:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, GAB. Barek has accurately stated the basic history of this case, with the remainder available on the IP's Talk page. The IP has repeatedly engaged in the behavior described at WP:IDHT, in addition to personal attacks, legal threats and claims of censorship. I have considered that I could leave his statements in place on the article's Talk page, but each time they would require the same explanation in reply which I have provided here (in January 2016) and here (last night). The IP's repeated posting of the same claim -- that the self-published book already cited in the article proves that Csatary is innocent, and hence the article should state unequivocally that he is innocent -- is, of course, a violation of WP:NPOV, among other policies, and contributes nothing to the improvement of the article. General Ization ^Talk 00:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

P.S. - I am also the editor who located and contributed the citation that now exists in the article concerning the book, after the IP repeatedly inserted the claim without any source. General Ization ^Talk 00:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Request consideration of WP:ABAN. General Ization ^Talk 03:08, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

• WP:BOOMERANG Give him some time to cool off.142.105.159.60 (talk) 02:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

This dispute has been ongoing (in slow motion, and with the OP using various IPs) since August 2013. "Some time to cool off" will not resolve the issue. General Ization ^Talk 12:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Borderline racism and trolling by experienced editor

At Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates, User:Floydian felt the need to refer to Muhammad Ali by his original name [1]. When called out on this by one user ([2]), his response was this, with the edit summary "Praise Allah, I don't care". On being pulled up again, his seond response was "White liberal guilt alert" with the edit summary "Call the waahmbulance". Since no editor at the page is managing to convey to Floydian how unpleasant his behaviour is in a collaborative encylopedia, perhaps an admin could provide a friendly word? Laura Jamieson (talk) 03:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Urban dictionary - "wahmbulance" - when someone is crying over something stupid, you tell them that you are calling one of these[3] DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think this should be considered actionable except insofar as what I see as misuse of edit summary. That is just my opinion. I can accept that other opinions could be as valid as mine. Bus stop (talk) 03:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not suggesting a block, just perhaps that someone should provide some sort of clue as to the correct method of interacting with others, since said clue appears absent. Laura Jamieson (talk) 04:03, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

In a sense, it takes two to tango. Once the statement "referring to Ali by his former name is pretty offensive" is made, a response becomes likely. Bus stop (talk) 04:11, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

• Well, that's sweet. Longtime editors should know better. "I've never made any attempt to conform to political correctness nor to avoid offending someone" sounds all manly but is just ignorant; the one offended is Ali, who (duh) changed his name for well-known reasons. Using his birth name, which Ali of course called his "slave name", is typically done by white folk who still can't handle a black man being not just a good boxer but also an outspoken critic of the racism of his time. I don't know if it's straight-up racism, but it's a kind of race baiting. Floydian, it's been a few decades since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, for instance--get over it. And, eh, what's wrong with avoiding offending other people? Isn't that one of the bases of civilized society? Drmies (talk) 04:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

If his father's namesake Cassius Marcellus Clay (politician) were around, he might be a little sad that Clay abandoned his birth name, but would likely be mightily impressed by the changes that Ali helped to bring about. As to racism or offensiveness, it's really just silliness. If he were talking about George Burns, he wouldn't likely insist on calling him Nathan Birnbaum. But those names were both essentially "stage names" - and in America, at least, you can call yourself whatever you want to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:57, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Xenophobia and racism is founded on ignorance. I hope Floydian now realises his incivility and will now be dropping the argument. Of course, he could just be recalling the barbershop scene from Coming to America (though Eddie Murphy can get away with it as he's parodying stereotypes). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Xenophobia and racism is founded upon deliberate an vexatious ignorism. I'm sick and tired of the argument that labels you with these traits/terms just because a statement you've made might offend someone. Muhammad Ali (did I spell it right, someone ridicule me if I did not) is Cassius Clay and Cassius Clay is Muhammad Ali. My use of either name has absolutely no influence on any state of affairs. Hence, my reference to white liberal guilt; the idea that we should censor any idea, concept or opinion that could possibly upset someone, even when that person will not and can not ever witness said "offensive" statement themselves. I am parodying stereotypes myself; the difference is that I am not a member of the culture being sarcastically stereotyped. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 20:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Shall we hat the off-topic discussion of a good faith but reverted close? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
FAMASFREENODE, I seriously doubt that Drmies or Ritchie333 would agree with this "not even an issue" close (now reversed). Civility incidents described as racism and xenophobia are very definitely issues, even if they don't result in any sanction. Non-admin closures should be non-controversial and include a balanced summary. Looking at your talk page, it looks like you are keen to prove yourself to be sysop-worthy after your recent NOTNOW RfA, but closures like this one won't help. EdChem (talk) 12:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC)Added diff of close EdChem (talk) 12:56, 11 June 2016 (UTC) I agree that "not even an issue" is not a non-controversial non-admin close, and have reverted it. I offer no opinion on the dispute. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:54, 11 June 2016 (UTC) (edit conflict) @Boing! said Zebedee: It's not the first time he has made a close that had to undone, and with exactly the same edit summary. Muffled Pocketed 13:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC) Noted. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:03, 11 June 2016 (UTC) @Boing! said Zebedee and EdChem:referral by birthname is not any integral part of racism. the defendant user mentioned that factFAMASFREENODE (talk) 12:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC) That's not for you to decide - when you close an ANI report it should only reflect the consensus that has been determined, not your personal judgment. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:01, 11 June 2016 (UTC) This user notes the fact that the revision displayed by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi is one reverted with praise towards this user.FAMASFREENODE (talk) 13:11, 11 June 2016 (UTC) Yes, well. That user should recognise that I was assuming good faith and phrasing it gently, kindly even, in the knowledge that you were probably trying to help. If I had possessed the knowledge then that I possess now (that you had put yourself forward for an RFA after just five days here?), then I assure you my form of words would probably have been very different. Cheers, Muffled Pocketed 13:17, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

• A response from User:Floydian that you are hearing this would allow this to be closed. The essence of CIVIL (as difficult as it is to enforce) is don't be a jerk and do things that just create friction and get in the way of the work here, and Floydian you are definitely creating unnecessary friction, and doing it on the hot-button issue of race. This is not about PC, it is about professionalism. Are you hearing this? Jytdog (talk) 13:42, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • That user called me a troll there, after I agreed with him on the Howe nomination. I can only figure that he's trying to stir up trouble, and the OP here took the bait. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:57, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
• I fired a shot across their bows. Will be happy to enact a block for any repetition. --John (talk) 21:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • A stern warning across the bow? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:03, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
• I haven't been on since this event took place. There was absolutely zero bad or racist intention in my reference to Muhammad Ali as Cassius Clay, as both names are equally familiar to me; I wasn't aware how contentious it was, figuring it akin to Cat Stevens/Yusaf Islam. FWIW, I like to stir the pot; usually net good results of it. After 13 years here, block threats provide comic relief to my day. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 02:32, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Jeez, Floydian, if you prance around with an attitude of "you can't catch me, I'm unblockable" then you run the risk of an admin rising to the bait and blocking you. Stop stirring the pot and do something useful. For example, it looks like David Gilmour is not too far off taking to GA. In future, I would choose your battles more carefully. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:24, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not that I'm saying I'm unblockable nor is it meant to come across as snarky attitude. I'm simply disillusioned at the politicking that has come to plague many processes here (ITN being a notable one), so I just don't care if I'm blocked; it wouldn't be punitive. As for doing useful stuff, I have two A-class nominations and a Good/Featured topic on the way in a few weeks. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 15:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

That's good stuff. I personally can't think of a situation where I'd want to block you, but I'm not like other admins. In my experience, when you get your head stuck into a good GA improvement the noticeboards just fade into the distance. I'm still beavering away at User:Ritchie333/Monopoly myself. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:02, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it should matter if someone made a passing reference, including in edit summary, to Muhammad Ali as Cassius Clay. This apparently began with one reference to "Clay" by Floydian, seen here. Another editor responded, saying "referring to Ali by his former name is pretty offensive".[4] Is it "pretty offensive"? I think that comment is slightly over the top. Bus stop (talk) 19:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Some cheese to accompany your whine?

What boggles me, is whom did I offend? That user? Ali? Ali's family? Every Muslim convert ever? To BaseballBugs, I meant that more as a tongue-in-cheek poke to what you said; the bane of the lack of tone on the internet. I am a Devil's Advocate, and I have no problem debating against a person who shares my point-of-view if only to bring unspoken points to the discussion. As I stated, this is part of my persona, and I will not change that... nor have I over the past decade. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 20:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I think the problem is not that you offended someone, but how you reacted afterwards. You could have done nothing else and ignored it (my recommendation), but instead you said "call the wahmbulance". Now, that's slightly better than "Fuck you, fuck you and fuck you ... who's next?" but not by much. Drmies' point in particular is you didn't seem to either realise or care that you caused offence, and just came across as naive or ignorant. Anyway, I'll tell you again - if you want to say "fuck you" to anyone who doesn't align with your way of working, you do it at your own risk, and just - you know - lighten up a bit. I think anything else you post to this thread is going to cause more harm than good and make it more likely someone like John is going to hit "block". As the old saying goes, you've really gotta drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:32, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I applaud you Ritchie for your excellent comment here when you said "I think the problem is not that you offended someone, but how you reacted afterwards.", we can sense that Floydian indeed like to stir the plot and accuse others of White guilt, seems rampant with people like him hold on Conservative or right wing values. I think he knows how offensive he is but he is using this for no other reason than to start a conflict. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 23:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Ritchie333. "I wasn't aware how contentious it was, figuring it akin to Cat Stevens/Yusaf Islam" is probably fine in this instance. But you had lots of options on how to handle things once it was made clear it was contentious and the way you did handle it was a fairly bad one. If for some reason you couldn't just ignore it, it's not unresonable for you to learn a bit about it. Just reading the article would quickly tell you that it's not a Yusuf Islam situation. Nil Einne (talk) 16:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Part of the blame for the kerfuffle lies with the editor saying that "...referring to Ali by his former name is pretty offensive."[5] That is an opinion, it is stated with too much forcefulness, and "pretty offensive" is terminology of emotions, consequently it is inflammatory. Another response might have been less emotional and more cerebral. A more intellectual response might have included a quote and attributed it to a source: "In 1964, the boxing legend who told the world he was 'The Greatest' changed his name to Mohammad Ali, dubbing his former alias, Cassius Clay, 'my slave name'".[6] Thanks to Drmies for pointing this out earlier in this thread. Bus stop (talk) 21:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• All said, I'll aim to retreat towards editing articles and avoid noticeboards that irk me, as my tone gets out of hand. Fair point, however: my (partially) conservative views are amongst a minority on here, and still deserve due-consideration. And with all due respect, can some attention be payed to the longstanding crapshow that goes on between a half-dozen or so users (not naming names) at WP:ITN/C? - Floydian ^τ _¢ 04:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

size issue, reverts at List of Masters of the Universe Characters

this user stumbled upon the page upon patrolling for things to edit. noting the violation of WP:SIZE (refer to article talk page), created seperate articles for the sections and moved them, see in here. it went unopposed and agreed on until the time the revert wars began (see subsequent revisions with edit summaries). requesting admin intervention.ping User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi User:TheDwellerCampFAMASFREENODE (talk) 16:22, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Now there's a coincidence! _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

So the OP has been around for about 2 weeks (if that). Within five days of being here, started this RFA (!) and likes to threaten other users with ANI. Not bad for a "new" editor. On an unrelated note, I think there's a boomerang in my sock. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Does the ping substitute the required ANI notice? TheDwellerCamp (talk) 17:04, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

No it doesn't. I concur that FAMASFREENODE is probably not a new user. His or her frankly strange manner of speech ("This user" in place of a first person reference, use of formal grammar in all situations) strikes me as geared towards avoiding speaker attribution efforts given its such an artificial manner of speaking. Whether that's relevant is another matter entirely. In any event there's a WP:ANEW thread on this editor as well. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

@Mendaliv: @FAMASFREENODE: I agree. The use of "This user" is very odd, and he/she is clearly a sock of some other user. The user in question seems oddly good with Wikipedia policy, (That's not a indication of sockpuppetry), and seems very disruptive (Combined with the first statement, we seem to have a sock). Take that boomerang out of your sock, Lugnuts, you are going to need it. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 17:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Irony here being that TheDwellerCamp is a freshly blocked sock. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 17:56, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, but I still don't trust FAMASFREENODE. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:03, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

The fun never stops on ANI... GAB^gab 18:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

This comment in particular looks fairly suspect, [here's the link]. Some users are very good at editing Wikipedia when they joined (I read the polices for a month before I joined, and got 2 different messages from people asking if I was a sock), but if someone was good at editing Wikipedia from the beginning, why would they file an RfA? It's not adding up. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:03, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

• IF FAMASFREENODE is a sock (and I concur with the analysis above that raises suspicions), then its purpose is clearly trolling - no sock files an RfA without an intent to disrupt. Considering the report made here by another sock, could this be two puppetmasters competing with each other? BMK (talk) 20:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree with these findings. Knowledge of concepts such as WP:SIZE and WP:SPLIT, as well as submitting an RFA so early make me suspicious that there's sockpuppetry going on here. Omni Flames (talk) 23:25, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Winterysteppe isn't a typical sockmaster, he was a good editor who tried to fight his wiki-addiction by getting blocked, and makes socks to get his fix. ansh666 04:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Sorry, that sounds fairly run-of-the-mill to me, with the single except of getting blocked deliberately. I believe mamy puppetmasters have Wiki-addictions they can't control, and that some percentage of those were good editors at some point. Look at Kumioko. I don;t really care why one takes the step into the dark side, once you're there, experience indicates that there's very little chance of successfully coming back, even granted that the community is willing to extend the chance. BMK (talk) 04:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

This user is still waiting to be notified that there is a discussion taking place about him. :) _Muffled ^Pocketed 08:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• If FAMASFREENODE is a sock, might the RfA be a nice high profile way to appear a new editor, and so the RfA would be camouflage? EdChem (talk) 15:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@EdChem: Yes. It would be a clever way to camouflage a sock. But, it probably backfired, as it shows that the user in question had a clear understanding of WP policy, but is editing disruptively. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 16:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@Nakon: Any progress in determining if FAMASFREENODE is a sock? ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately - and I perceive this as a flaw in our security system - CUs generally require an account to check the proposed sock against. There have been numerous situations where experienced editors have recognized the behavior of a new editor as being extremely sock-like, but because they cannot identify which puppetmaster the sock is controlled by, nothing is done. Behavioral evidence ("it quacks like a duck") will be accepted in the most obvious of cases, but not in all of them. It is my belief that the project would be much better served if the "no fishing expeditions" rule was done away with, and also my understanding that some other language Wikipedias have been able to do so, withotu conflcit with the privacy policies of the WMF. I think (and this is only a personal opinion) that the libertarian roots of Wikipedia may be somewhat stronger here then they are elsewhere in the Wikimedia empire. BMK (talk) 21:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• I've blocked them since their overall editing has been problematic enough to warrant one, especially given the sockpuppetry concerns, which I think are valid. Can someone take a look at this closure they did and either re-open it or re-close it? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• It will need to be done by an admin. Or re-opened for a few more days. Consensus was shfting/heavily leaning towards changing the block to indef - and Fam had closed/archived it based on their already being blocked for a week. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• I'll reopen it. It'll be my first time doing it, so if I make a mistake please correct! Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Looks fine to me Omni Flames (talk) 10:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Persistent disruptive edits by 104.56.23.57 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

This IP has, amongst other disruptive behaviors, persistently recreated articles that have been deleted by Afd (most of which were replaced by Redirects). The most recent 10 examples (excluding repeats/edit warring): [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. This editor is an SPA in the field of Longevity which is subject to AE and has been warned as such. The editor has also been previously blocked for evading a previous block. It is possible that they are a topic-banned editor. Apologies to Admins if this should be more appropriately dealt with under AE but the specific behavior of mass restoration of redirected articles seemed to me to be better dealt with here. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I restored the majority of them because they DIDN'T go to AfD. --104.56.23.57 (talk) 10:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• Note the IP is almost certainly the block-evading User:DN-boards1 (or one of his predecessors). See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Horrifico/Archive especially the most recent filing of 30 April 2016. See also 104.56.23.57's block log. Surely these should be mass reverted to the redirects they were instead of the time-wasting bureaucracy that is resulting in things like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Ringier. Voceditenore (talk) 10:36, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • There is a connection with Dn-boards1. I am his sister! This is meatpuppetry happening, not sockpuppetry. 104.56.23.57 (talk) 10:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, that makes it perfectly acceptable then! WP:SISTER must apply eh ;) _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:50, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

That doesn't apply here, though. I am indeed a separate person from DN-boards1 - and a female, at that, not a male...104.56.23.57 (talk) 10:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Are you now? I strongly suggest you read Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Meatpuppetry and Wikipedia:PROXYING. Paging Bbb23 who did the most recent checkuser and block. Voceditenore (talk) 10:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked. 6 months. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:57, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• Looks like both sockpuppetry, block evasion and meatpuppetry Flow234 (talk) 12:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
• Just so people know, the IP is another of the longevity crazies. EEng 13:26, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Wow, I thought that had quietened down a lot for a while. Let's hope that this isn't the start of yet another one of those shitfights. Blackmane (talk) 14:26, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

It never dies. EEng 15:12, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

You can check out any time you like, but... _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia being open to all, if you work on building the encyclopedia for any length of time, you have the possibility of attracting your own personal stalker who considers pretty much anything you do a personal affront, and who considers it their sacred duty to "expose" the person they fixate on. It's really quite pathetic, but for some reason they just can't quite seem to figure out why no one else sees their actions as heroic. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

For any of these articles that haven't gotten a keep vote at AfD I'd support reverting them to redirects and speedy closing the AfDs as needed. For any that do have a vote there's no harm in letting the process run, but maximum efficiency in tamping down one one of the fanboys in the horde of longevity acolytes leads to less wasted time for everyone. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd love to see them all speedily restored to redirects if possible to save the time of having to wait a week or so. I redirected them myself (with the majority being over a year ago) and the redirects remained unchallenged until this IP address found them in my editing history. But I understand if the ones with 'Keep' votes need to wait the week. CommanderLinx (talk) 04:52, 13 Jun e 2016 (UTC)

Concur with Blade and the Commander. Rolling everything back to the way they were before this latest campaign seems to me the best outcome. Letting the afd's where !votes have been cast play out might be necessary, but it's a little galling to have to keep replowing the same fields because of bad behavior by a recurrung miscreant. David in DC (talk) 23:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Kvng

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

---

I had prodded an article here, and literally three hours before it was due to expire, it was deprodded by User:Kvng. Normally, I wouldn't care too much, but he has a series of edits that are nothing but last-minute deprods or removals of expired prods contrary to policy. Articles are unnecessarily having to go to AfD because of the actions of this editor (who maintains a running list of articles on his page that he has deprodded). I think the user's zeal is coming ahead of adherence to policy and adequate review of the articles prior to deprod. I went through only the June deprods and found the following situations:

• Deprod. 4.5 hours to go. Not that the nom matters, but DGG prodded this, and he's generally very lenient (in my view) about retaining content, and certainly has a grasp of notability policy.
• Deprod, five hours to go, went to AfD.
• This prod was removed 5 hours after expiration.
• As was this one, 3 hours after.
• Five hours remaining, unsourced since October of 2012.
• Prod expired, said it should be merged in edit comment, didn't execute the redirect.
• Expired prod removed, article sent to AfD.
• Removed prod, five hours to go]. Claimed "controversial due to sources" when there were all of two, and the band certainly didn't meet WP:NBAND.
• Removed prod, five hours to go. Prodder indicated that there was heavy COI, and whether or not that is the case, perusal of the sources shows a lot of reliance on WP:SPS and non-independent sources.
• Removed expired prod, article unsourced since 2011.
• Removed prod, four hours left, claimed notability, but it's actually a really good case of WP:NOTINHERITED, as the subject is Marissa Mayer's husband, and all the sources are from articles about her.
• One day left, no explanation given, sent ot AfD by Lemongirl, another editor who has a good grasp of policy.
• Removed expired PROD, article has been unsourced since 2007.
• Removed expired PROD, said to consider merge in edit comment, did nothing.

Discussions have been had several times on his talk page, all instigated by different editors:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kvng#Lots_of_deprods_with_almost_no_improvements
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kvng#DEPROD_rationale
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kvng#Please_stop
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kvng#ExpoMarketing
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kvng#Please_stop_2
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kvng#Team_H2politO_deprodding

and in every case those editors have taken issue with the indiscriminate deprodding going on. So it isn't just me, and it isn't a new or small issue.

My list above was limited to deprods in the first 12 days of June - I didn't go back further, but this should be enough to indicate the extent of the issue. There were 15 articles on the list, but only 2 were unambiguously good removals (and were deprodded well in advance of the PROD deadline). Personal views aside, the role of a deprod patroller is to act in accordance with policy, not execute drive-by removals on every article he looks at, which is exactly what is happening here. The extent of the patrol contribs shows there is not a single article which the user actually patrolled that did not have its prod removed. Policy states that when a PROD has expired, the article should be deleted, not kept. Therefore, I would like this user removed from PROD patrolling, and his deprods reviewed, because he clearly cannot edit within the confines of policy. MSJapan (talk) 18:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

This is the policy: Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion#Objecting. What part is being broken? Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The instances where no explanation was given contravenes #1. Also, don't minimize the problem by claiming it's restricted to a subsection of policy. There is no reason to de-tag a completed PROD - at that point it is in the administrators' court. Moreover, a lot of the issue is timing; this is not being done on day 1, 2, 3 or even 4; it's being done at T minus 5 hours or less, or after the prod has expired, in addition to the poor rationales. MSJapan (talk) 18:57, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

My WP:PRODPATROLLING has been discussed at length at Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_deletion#Deprod_criticisms. What specific policy is it that you believe I have violated? I was not aware that there was anything prohibiting or discouraging deprodding after 7 days. ~Kvng (talk) 18:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• Well, can you explain why you de-prodded Malayan Hymn with no rationale for doing so - an article that was not only unsourced but had been for nine years? Or DXJR - still unsourced. There are other examples above. De-prodding unsourced articles with no reason just creates work for everyone else. I would at least expect a detailed rationale for doing so, "probably notable" and similar is not enough. Laura Jamieson (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I have added my reason to the talk page. There is actually no obligation to provide a reason when deprodding though it is my personal policy to always do so. Sorry about the omission. Please feel free to contact me on my talk page or contribute to the discussion I linked to above with any other concerns. ~Kvng (talk) 19:02, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

No, there's no obligation to - but if you're de-prodding something that is very possibly non-notable, or is unsourced, it's a really good idea. Here's another example - Pokemon Plush Community. Obviously non-notable, unsourced web forum. Your rationale was "potentially controversial immediate prod of new article not meeting speedy deletion criteria". It actually could have been speedy deleted, and it should have been. I appreciate that a lot of your deprods are redirects of non-notable music articles (quite correct too) but it does appear you need to be more careful. Laura Jamieson (talk) 19:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

With regards to Pokemon Plush Community, you might find useful background at Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol#Prompt_prods_of_new_pages_by_new_editors. I felt it potentially controversial to WP:BITE with a PROD within minutes of article creation. To my surprise, I've since learned that there is a clear consensus at WP:NPP this is routine and accepted practice. You won't see me doing any more deprodding using that rationale. ~Kvng (talk) 20:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

It's fairly standard for people to look at Prods at the last minute: for one thing, the obvious place to start is the top of the list, & for another, that's when it's urgent to contest anything that one wishes to contest. It would however be nice if we had an automatic way of notify people their Prod has been removed, so they can decide if they want to go the AfD. The individual Prod logs are helpful, but if one does a lot, that makes another place to check -- I know I rarely have a chance to check mine. DGG ( talk ) 19:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC) .

Why not watchlist your proposed deletions? ~Kvng (talk) 20:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Or PROD log related changes (prod-specific watchlist, basically) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

If I decided to remove all prod tags as soon as they were added to articles, I don't think saying "but WP:PROD doesn't require an explanation" would be sufficient to protect me from sanction. So it's not true that there cannot be any objection to problematic deprodding. After all, for prod to do what it was intended to do, it has to be a functional process. Now, I'm not saying at all that Kvng's behavior is even close to such an extreme, but the many complaints/objections/concerns should beg the question of at what point intervention makes sense? If Kvng is the only time this has come up, it might make sense to hash out here at ANI, but it might also make sense to take this as an impetus to add something to WP:PROD including a line about e.g. "community confidence in an editor's judgment with regard to [proposed] deletion" or "a pattern of deprods the community finds to be excessive or indiscriminate" or the like. There seems to be strong consensus for a low bar to deprodding (myself included), so it would have to be very careful wording indeed, but would need to allow for intervention, too. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:56, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

And in yet another instance of policy ignorance, Kvng is now trying to incorporate talk page discussion started as a result of the AfD notice into an AfD, by pointing to the talk page of the paid editor who created the article and who is now blocked. MSJapan (talk) 21:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Happy to learn. I was trying to be helpful. I didn't realize a paid editor was involved. ~Kvng (talk) 21:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

An Editor Who Does Not Like PROD

I agree strongly with the comments of User:Rhododendrites in that we need to hash this out as a policy matter.

I can see that we have here an editor who dislikes proposed deletion. There has been a recent discussion at New Page Patrol talk in which User:Kvng objected to the prompt PRODding of submissions by new editors, arguing that this was biting the newcomers. Kvng preferred to tag proddable submissions by new editors with smiley faces, give them welcome messages, and offer gentle encouragement. No one objected to welcoming them. There were questions about the impact of leaving the proddable articles in mainspace. This discussion resulted in a suggestion that inadequate new articles be moved to draft space. This was discussed at the Idea Lab and at the Articles for Creation talk page, and there was pushback at both. However, it now appears that Kvng dislikes PRODs in general. Aside from the merits (about which there was argument) against prompt prodding of submissions by new editors, it appears that they don’t like proposed deletion.

There is no rule against a single editor removing a PROD tag a few hours before it is scheduled to expire. PROD is intended for uncontroversial deletions, and PROD tag may, in accordance with the letter of the law, be removed for any reason or for no reason, the removal of the tag being itself evidence of controversy. That is, the conduct in question is consistent with the letter of the law. The questions are whether this editor is pushing the letter of the law in a way that violates the spirit of the law, and whether it is appropriate in Wikipedia to sanction an editor for conduct that is within the letter of the law. (Ignore All Rules is normally used to justify an action that advances the encyclopedia, not to sanction an editor.)

I would like to hear an explanation from Kvng, but, at the same time, I don’t think that there is a wrong that justifies administrative action, and so I would also like to hear an explanation of why Kvng’s behavior should be sanctioned. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I think it is unfair to accuse me of blanket dislike of PROD. I dislike the use of PROD for potentially controversial deletions including cases where there is a reasonable alternative to deletion. I have significant WP:AFD experience so I think I have a good feel for what "potentially controversial" means. I believe WP:PRODPATROL serves an important function and apparently I am the most active member of this semi-active project. I don't believe I am violating either the spirit or letter of PROD policy. Before deprodding I do a careful review. I always have a specific reason for deprodding. In certain cases, I do make improvements to the articles I deprod but with a couple of dozen of these to review per day, my ability to do that is somewhat limited. I have listened to and been responsive to complaints and have changed my behavior in response to consensus and reasonable and specific requests. I do dislike the way new editors are WP:BITEN by PROD at WP:NPP but there is a consensus otherwise regarding this behavior and I respect that. ~Kvng (talk) 21:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Of the 15 cases I noted above, 7 of them were removals of expired prods. That is almost half of the entire list. I don't feel like going through the 500+ articles on Kvng's deprod list, but considering there are 400 deprodded articles in a two-month span, if 200 of those are expired prods, that is not inconsiderable. I would also note that of the three deprods in February 2016, 2 were deleted at AfD subsequently. The third should have been sent, but wasn't until I just did, so that won't count yet. The rest of the monthly lists also exhibit several subsequent AfD deletions, which also shows that the deprod was not appropriate.

As there is nothing in the PROD policy that explicitly permits removal of expired PRODS by non-admins, this is definitely a process violation. I've PRODded plenty of things here, and only once prior to this incident (in a decade of editing) have I ever run into an editor removing expired PRODs. I might simply be lucky, but the template precludes tthe behavior if one reads it. Wikilawyering that it's not explicitly stated doesn't make it permissible.

If, as you say, "Kvng doesn't like PROD", then Kvng is not an appropriate neutral reviewer. Therefore, he should not be patrolling PRODs, and I don't think he is simply going to stop because he is asked. Six discussions on his talk page and one on the PROD talk (as linked above) in the span of a month or so failed to cause either an acknowledgement of the problem (as seen by multiple parties), or a change in the behavior (as evidenced by its continuance). Therefore, it would seem that sanctions are necessary to cause the change, since as presented, this is textbook "what is ANI for?".

Perhaps most importantly, this pattern of behavior renders the entire PROD process irrelevant, and as a process meant to lighten the load at AfD (especially since participation there is significantly lower than in the past), PROD has to work. It is a fairly fundamental part of Wikipedia's functioning, and editors cannot be permitted to interfere with that unilaterally. MSJapan (talk) 21:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

For anyone interested, I do keep open records of what I have deprodded, whether it subsequently goes to AfD and the result there. My assessment is that I deprod about a quarter of the proposals I review. The vast majority of my deprods to not go to AfD. Of those that do, a good percentage are kept and WP:SNOW deletes happen only in the rare cases where I find I was mistaken (and I promptly contribute a Delete !vote). ~Kvng (talk) 22:15, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

As an example of a further part of the problem, in the case of Ali Ahmad Fayyad, Kvng provided three sources on the talk page, two of which were to HighBeam (and thus not accessible to anyone without access), and placed none of them into the article. While it is not necessary for a deprodder to improve an article, when he or she is one of the few who has access to a source and bases their decision on that, it should be incumbent on the deprodder to add the material to back up the decision, especially because no one else can assess the source. What's to stop anyone from pasting a random set of paywall links into any article talk to "assert its notability"? MSJapan (talk) 22:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Many others have requested that I improve the articles that I deprod. Given the number of PRODs I review, I do not consider this a reasonable request. The compromise I agreed to was that if I deprod based on sources I find, that I add them to the article or the article's talk page. I am not aware of any issue using HighBeam sourcing. If you want access to the full content, visit the WP:LIBRARY and sign up for your own free account. ~Kvng (talk) 22:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Your provision of Highbeam links was in violation of the required citation format at WP:Highbeam, particularly, no bare URLS, and provide original citations. You simply cannot expect other people to chase after your citations by requesting access. MSJapan (talk) 22:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Based on the extensive discussion at WT:NPP with this editor I have the uncomfortable feeling this was POINTY behavior. If no one else had objected to the prods and they DePRODed with no explanation and no intention to go back and handle the problems with those articles then a simple, clear statement not to do so any more should be enough. If they continue this behavior then sanctions are in order. Jbh^Talk 22:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I wanted to see WP:NPP behavior more in line with my reading of NPP policy, specifically WP:BITE, WP:BEFORE. It took discussion for me to understand how NPP really works and I would prefer things were different and I did try to make a case for changing. The consensus is clear and I respect that and I thank you for your patience. A batch of deprods of flawed articles from new editors may have looked WP:POINTY but that was before the NPP discussions. I am truly concerned about WP:BITE and do try to avoid the lure of theory and other pointy behavior. I have been on WP a long time and have a clean record. Please extend some good faith to me. ~Kvng (talk) 22:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

If the bulk of these were from before the discussion we had at NPP then I do apologize. However, after that discussion I would think that you should have a firmer understanding of why articles are PRODDed at NPP and would not then go on to do dePRODs which undercut that quality control purpose about which consensus was clear. Jbh^Talk 23:12, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Response to User:Kvng - above you wrote that you object to the use of PROD for potentially controversial deletions. The reason why PRODs sit for a while, is exactly to give people who actually care about the article time to contest it; this was carefully thought out by the community. What we the community has decided is that a PROD that has expired without being contested exactly means that deletion is not controversial. So that is not a valid basis for removing an expired PROD - will you please confirm that you won't remove them anymore? As to your removing PRODs when they are still pending, are you hearing the feedback that your judgement is off here? Jytdog (talk) 22:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we have the right stakeholders here. I've started a discussion on this at Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_deletion#Deprod_after_7_days ~Kvng (talk) 22:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Kvng your behavior is under discussion here and your removing expired PRODs is definitely outside the boundaries of acceptable behavior here, and the feedback you are getting is that your judgement is off. Again, will you agree to stop removing expired PRODs and do you hear the feedback you are getting? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the harm in deprodding expired proposals. There's potential good in that it relieves some administrative backlog evaluating these proposals - remember administrators are supposed to evaluate, not just delete expired PRODS. Anyway, there's no clear policy statement about this so I have opened a discussion to resolve this and will happily adhere to whatever is worked out there. ~Kvng (talk) 23:36, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

(big edit conflict -- typed this up an hour ago but didn't save) I think I have a good feel for what "potentially controversial" means - But you have several other editors challenging you on this now. Reaffirming your own self-confidence doesn't instill confidence in others (just the opposite).

I have only one example that's ready-to-mind because it was the one I was involved with: ExpoMarketing. I spent time analyzing the sources, looking for others, etc. before prodding, then you decided it was controversial because it looked like it cited sources (they were all press releases/primary) and because of the existence of ghits. Granted, you went on to !vote delete at the subsequent AfD, but clearly it just wasted both of our time for it to have to go through AfD.

I'll reiterate that I don't think there's a sanction needed here, but it would behoove you, I think, to consider that you may have a looser definition of "controversial" than others. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I make mistakes but I try to correct quickly if it is clear that I am wrong. Sorry that I wasted your time. There has actually been at least one case where I cast an initial delete !vote on an article I deproded and the AfD result turns out to be keep. The extra steps and checks and balances can be useful. ~Kvng (talk) 23:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• Close with no action taken: There's no policy or guideline to prevent Kvng from doing what he's doing, and most of the complaint seems to be coming from a single editor who just doesn't like it. @MSJapan:, perhaps you should ask that WP:PROD be reworded to discourage removal of expired PRODs. pbp 22:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Strongly disagree; I am heading toward making proposing sanctions, depending on how Kvng responds. Jytdog (talk) 23:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. Looks like 5-6 people raising objections in this thread alone (nevermind the others). Granted, some of us have said sanctions probably aren't needed, but it's obviously not one editor who "just doesn't like it". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

As a result of the discussion Kvng opened on PROD, I have the following, from the third paragraph of the PROD page: "A nominated article is marked for at least seven days; if nobody objects, it is considered by an uninvolved admin, who reviews the article and may delete it or may remove the PROD tag." KVNG is not an ininvolved admin, so he should not be removing those tags, period. By doing so, he is violating a clearly stated policy, and as a PROD patroller, he should know the policy. He does not. MSJapan (talk) 23:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't see anything you quoted prohibiting removal of the tag after 7 days. To be clear, I don't make a habit of this. It happened recently because I was away from WP for a few days. Instead of trying to nail me, please join the new discussion I have started to try improve/clarify the policy. It shouldn't take long. ~Kvng (talk) 23:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

(ec) - I have to doubt your interpretation, MSJapan. WP:DEPROD does not lack clarity & suggests anyone can remove the tag. Perhaps you might continue reading below P3. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I did, so let me drop another line in here. Step 3 of the prod process states: "The article is first checked and then deleted by an administrator seven days after nomination (or any time after seven days that an administrator reviews the article). It may be undeleted upon request. If the reviewing administrator does not agree with the deletion they may remove the PROD tag instead of deleting the article." Emphasis mine, but the policy requires an admin review after seven days have passed, not unilateral removal because an admin hasn't reviewed it yet. MSJapan (talk) 23:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

It would be overly WP:BUREAU to say that for the first 7 days anyone can remove a prod, then between day 7 and review by an admin, only an admin can remove it, but then once deleted, anyone can request a WP:REFUND if they object after deletion. Basically the 7 days is to give time for objections, if anyone objects, even after deletion, the prod is cancelled, and the article must be send to AfD before deletion. An admin backlog just means there is more time to object before the initial deletion. Monty₈₄₅ 23:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me that this is not about someone violating policy, but a disagreement with the policy. I think that rather than ANI this would be better resolved by proposing a change to policy to address the perceived flaws. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 23:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I have started that discussion. ~Kvng (talk) 23:48, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• The number of bluelinks under User:Kvng/Deprod demonstrates that USer:Kvng deprods are justified. The gist of the complaint here reads to me as a complaint asserting that if the Prod patrollers can't keep up with the Prodders than the Prod patrollers should shut up. No. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• I disagree. Everything I listed was bluelinked, some of it should have been deleted, and some of what was not deleted is unsourced for almost a decade. The existence of bluelinks might actually be a really good indicator that no one is bothering with those articles, and that they should have been left to be deleted. Also, you seem to be insinuating that the prodders are deletionists and the prod patrollers are inclusionists who exist to exclusively rescue articles from being prodded. That's not what prod patrollers do, by your own rules. Prod patrollers are supposed to assess articles, not wage war against the deletionists for the sake of keeping unencyclopedic material on the encyclopedia because it exists. Perhaps a rephrase is in order? MSJapan (talk) 00:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Editor neglect is not a valid reason for deletion. It is true that a good proportion of the bluelinks in my prod log are now redirects. Some of this is my own doing as I do a lot of bold redirects and merges as part of my patrolling activities. This is something that prodders need to consider doing WP:BEFORE proposing for deletion. ~Kvng (talk) 02:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposal

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

---

• I propose that Kvng be TBANed from removing PROD tags for one month which should be enough time to get clarify on the policy. Their refusal to acknowledge a) the feedback from the community that their judgement in removing PRODs is not good and b) that removing expired PROD tags frustrates the process and to acknowledge the feedback from the community that their judgement in removing PRODs is not good means that they should not be PROD patrolling; this is going to cause continued disruption if they continue to do it. They can of course participate in discussions about changing PROD. If after they return their de-PRODs are again found problematic the TBAN can be made permanent. Jytdog (talk) 00:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC) (redact Jytdog (talk) 00:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC))

Oppose- The PROD policy specifically allows anyone to remove the PROD as long is it is present. See the third paragraph of the policy where it says, "The first objection kills the PROD, and anyone may object as long as the PROD tag is present." -- GB fan 00:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. Get the policy sorted out. It's not clear to me that Kvng has broken either the spirit or letter of current policy. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose at least for now. In my opinion Kvng is complying with WP:PROD policy. A prod can be challenged/removed at any time, and there is no obligation under policy to fix an article after challenging a prod. Based on Kvng's prod challenge log, (which is a great practice) we can see that a substantial majority of the challenges don't end up with deletion, though a fair number do end up getting redirected. Since Kvng is clearly acting in good faith, and even inviting scrutiny, I oppose any topic ban. If we want to change policy to create additional obligations when challenging a prod, or want to add additional obligations specifically for prolific prod challengers, that would be fine, but until then, I think Kvng is on the right side of existing policy. Monty₈₄₅ 00:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Support - Step 3 of the PROD procedure states plainly that after 7 days, an uninvolved admin must review the article to decide whether to delete it, and the template itself states clearly that an article may be deleted after seven days if the PROD has been in place that long. To claim that, as a PROD patroller, one is not aware of how the process works or what the templates say is problematic, and indicates an inability to exercise judgment on the use of the tools. MSJapan (talk) 00:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

And the third paragraph of the lead says "The first objection kills the PROD, and anyone may object as long as the PROD tag is present." The instructions do not have every nuance of the process. Anyone can remove the PROD at any time even if it has expired. -- GB fan 00:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

(ec)You appear to be selectively quoting, and misquoting, a section of WP:PROD. Clearly views on 'the process' differ, and Kvng can be forgiven for taking a different view than you do. These, and especially your off-colour Highbeam comments, above, suggest you have an animus towards Kvng which I find unhelpful. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - those of you opposing here are not taking into account the (formerly) second and really key part of the reasoning - namely that their judgement has been found sorely wanting here. Flipping the order above to make that more clear. Jytdog (talk) 00:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Kind of you to tell us what we're not taking into account. tbh, I'm finding MSJapan's judgement more concerning that Kvng's. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I can see an argument to be made that when a frequent prod challenger wants to challenge a prod, that they should fix any deletion worthy problems with the article. It may be reasonable for us to ask that Kvng take more steps to fix the articles when challenging prods in light of the frequency with which they do so. (I'm somewhat on the fence on that question) However as policy does not require this, I don't think it is reasonable for us to place such a restriction unless we come to a consensus and then that consensus is not respected. Based on what I'm seeing so far, I have no reason to believe Kvng wouldn't respect it, and so per WP:AGF any type of actual restriction would be premature. Monty₈₄₅ 01:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose: Per Monty845. pbp 00:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose This is the first, as far as I know, that the matter has been brought to to Kvng and there is ambiguity in the PROD rules. I hope they do take on board that dePRODs should have articulable reasons and I would request that they at least notify the editor who originally placed the PROD in case they have not watch listed it. This will guarentee at lease someone will consider whether the article needs to go to AfD.

  In addition I would like to thank Kvng for keeping a dePROD log. That is a good way to be able to track judgement over time and is also a great way to allow others to review your dePRODS. I wish more editors would do things like that. Jbh^Talk 01:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose I have not seen it demonstrated that this is called for. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 02:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Back on track

I think we're losing sight of the fact that what is at issue is editorial judgment. In an attempt to get back to focusing on that, I'm going to provide two more examples in addition to the diffs provided above.

Kvng deprodded Activity centre in March 2016. It was well within the 7-day period, but the deprod reason was "numerous incoming wikilinks indicate potential notability. poor sourcing is not a valid reason to delete." [17] I would like to have Kvng address on what basis incoming wikilinks assert notability.

Anyhow, I went through the article, and I AfDed it. Here's why: First of all, it was odd that the article was focused on Melbourne, Australia. Second of all, there were inconsistencies in the citations, which were a mix of wikied reflist-type stuff and bulleted citations. For that reason, someone templated it with the "unclear cites" template a few years ago. Long story short, there are a number of"[3]" notations inline. They are followed by wikied refs. However, none of the wikied refs are in the reflist, and nothing in the bulleted reflist is cited in the article. So it's an unsourced article that's a wall of text - someone was generous and claimed it was a citation format problem. Now, rf mismatch like that usually happens when somebody cuts and pastes directly from a source, but doesn't take the citations (usually a webpage or electronic thesis). I wasn't able to find the original, but that may be for several reasons. I then looked at the article history. It was heavily edited by an IP. I then looked at the creator's talk page and contribs. The author in question had had several articles speedied, and had received several warnings. In short, there were a lot of flags to show that this was not a good article, and one that should not have been deprodded, if due care had been taken.

But some might say that I "picked something from before the NPP discussion, and Kvng learned from it. Well, let's jump to May 28, 2016. Kvng deprodded Harry Rosman and the deprod reason was "WP:DEPROD consider merge to The_Purple_Gang#Cleaners_and_Dyers_War"(diff). Not only did Kvng not redirect it, the subject isn't named in the target, so if he had, it would have gone to RfD. The subject, by the way, is a textbook WP:BLP1E - he was a witness in the Purple gang trial, and that's all we know about him.

These articles are not improving the encyclopedia. One is copyvio, and one is based on a single news article. There is no real reason why an editor (such as myself) should need to spend the time to write an AfD nom to assess the issues in these articles, send it to AfD, wait at least a week for a response (if consensus is reached - I had an article out for a month with no consensus) while other editors go over it, have clerks take the time to relist if necessary, and finally have an admin delete it when it was basically set to be gone already with a minimum of effort. There may be another 200 or more articles just like this at a low estimate, built up over five months. The rest of the interaction with Kvng has gotten so far as to rewrite policy to condone his actions, and meanwhile, he's refusing to acknowledge the multitude of complaints noted not only as the convo diffs, but also as brought up in this ANI. MSJapan (talk) 04:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@MSJapan: If anybody's off-track or off-base, it's you. The failure of the above proposal to sanction Kvng should have suggested to you to drop the matter entirely. But instead you're bludgeoning us with a wall of text. We get that you don't like his de-proddings. But we're not as upset about it as you are. pbp 04:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd be happy to respond to your concerns about specific DEPRODS but I don't think this is the right place. How about Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_deletion#Deprod_criticisms? ~Kvng (talk) 05:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT you exhibit all over the talk page there makes it a pointless endeavor. Other editors have told you what I am telling you, and all you do is ratilnalize it away and do what you want. I'm not concerned with one or two deprods - I'm concerned about the fact that despite the various complaints made, talk threads opened, and everything else, between those two deprods, that you are still behaving in May and June the same way you were in March before those discussions took place. You have shown that you have not heeded the complaints of others by changing your behavior, and moreover, you would rather rewrite policy to condone it because it's "easier". The problem is that what you are doing is affecting core processes in this project, and that makes it a community problem. MSJapan (talk) 05:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I beleive I have been quite responsive and thoughtful about this

• I have rejected the requests to simply stop patrolling.
• I have rejected the requests to improve all articles I deprod.
• I have accepted the requests to always provide a deprod reason.
• I have accepted the request to provide links if derod is based on a search I've done.
• I have accepted the request to not deprod prompt deletion of good-faith but unpromising articles by new editors.
• I have accepted the request to boldly redirect unpromising articles with an obvious parent.
• I have accepted the request to not use incoming link count as a measure of potential notability (the example you give above is from back in March).
• I have kept open records of my deprod activity so I and others can assess what I'm doing and and I can improve my own performance.

I have also engaged openly in discussion about these activities and have attempted to improve policy where I find friction. Please do not accuse me of bad faith or disruptive editing. ~Kvng (talk) 14:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Both of the DEPRODS you mention here are good. I don't necessarily agree that multiple incoming links means the subject is notable, but I do see it as a possibility that it is controversial, so use of PROD is inappropriate. Suggesting that an article could be merged rather than deleted is appropriate and that makes use of PROD inappropriate. There is no lapse in judgement with these two DEPRODS. -- GB fan 11:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I won't comment on the first DEPROD, but I will on the second. If the article could be merged into another article without being deleted then why did Kvng not do so. Instead they DePRODed an article and left it for somebody else to someday come in an clear up the mess. I honestly don't think that its sufficient to just leave that task for somebody else to handle someday, especially if that somebody doesn't see the note on the talk page and just takes that article to AfD. I don't think any sanction is necessary against Kvng, that would be overkill by a long shot, especially since Kvng seems to be working in good faith. But I do think that the PROD policy needs an update. Just because it used to work, doesn't mean that it still does, status quo just isn't going to work. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

It would have been better if Kvng had performed the merge and redirect, I don't disagree with that. But since this discussion is about Kvng's editorial judgement, neither one of these two indicate any problems with their judgement. -- GB fan 11:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• OK, let me get this straight. Someone tags an article for PROD. It goes 7 days with no one removing the tag. Then, once it's expired but (critically) before an admin reviews it, Kvng comes along and deprods it, sometimes improving it in the process or adding refs or whatever. Some of these removals are justified, as SmokeyJoe indicates above - they end up being useful and policy-compliant articles. Now are we seriously arguing that we should actually delete valid content (that could be restored instantly on request at WP:REFUND) because our overworked and understaffed admin corps didn't get to the expired prod before Kvng did? In what way, precisely, does that improve the project? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• That is exactly what is being proposed here at at WT:PROD. The proposal is to have admins take at least two actions, delete and undelete. At least one is also saying these refunded articles should be moved to draft space so that would take a third admin action of either moving without redirect or deleting the redirect after the move. -- GB fan 13:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for pointing out that discussion. Since we're adding workload for no benefit, perhaps we should also make a log of PRODs removed and deleted and undeleted, then put it somewhere that no one will read, code up some bots to keep it up to date, and have them ping the noticeboard when someone has the infernal gall to actually improve a fucking article rather than delete it. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• So, we're only going to take into account admin workload are we? nobody cares about the (significant) workload dumped on the volunteers that now have to go from PROD to AfD and take hours/days/weeks of several peoples time (per AfD) because a multitude of PROD worthy articles are being DePRODed for no reason (not necessarily by one person, and not necessarily always, but most definitely on occasion). I have been involved in a couple AfD discussions, and they take hours and days to be resolved, occasionally even weeks. I re-iterate, Kvng has done nothing wrong here, they are acting according to what they believe is correct and are doing so by following policy. They've even expressed that they'd be willing to follow any changes to the policy and also mentioned that they already take further than necessary steps when dealing with DePRODing articles. Now, I am not an admin, but as far as I am aware, the time it takes to delete and undelete an article is considerably less than it takes to go from PROD (7 days at least) to AfD (Hours if SNOW, Days if mildly controversial but not SNOW, and about a week+ if controversial). Am I missing something here? in all seriousness, am I actually missing something here or are the above complaints legitimately ridiculous (mine included from this post). Mr rnddude (talk) 14:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

yep PRODland is a CFWOT where upside down logic remains supreme. Jytdog (talk) 14:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Note: FWIW, User:MSJapan has announced his retirement as a result of fallout from this ANI, and from comments made by me and Kvng on AfDs he has started on PRODs Kvng declined. pbp 19:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Just to set the record straight, I've retired because of your vote comment here on this AfD and here. In short, I'm not going to volunteer my time to contribute to be contrib stalked with personal attacks on AfDs combined with obviously biased tag team voting especially when the one uninvolved editor who votes on the AfD agrees with my assessment and then, be met with outright bullying on my talk page with someone telling me what I'm allowed to do and not do here on Wikipedia or they're going to continue to harass my contribs. If the wrods alone aren't proof, run an edit compare; ever since Purplebackpack interjected himself into this thread from the TRM one above (where he was also accused of causing trouble), he's been following me all over Wikipedia, with absolutely no edit interactions before that point. In short, if I'm going to be followed everywhere, tag-team voted against with personal attacks just to contest AfDs, and then basically get told "leave this guy alone, and I'll leave you alone", that is not how this project works. It's a waste of my time to attempt to improve the encyclopedia when people are purposely sabotaging processes and bullying people to get their own way, so I'm not doing it anymore. It's that simple. MSJapan (talk) 02:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• @MSJapan: Don't try to make out like you're the victim in this. You've spilled more ink damning Kvng in this subthread alone than I've wasted on you on the entire project. You followed Kvng around to a helluvalot more places than I've followed you. Seriously, dude, you are one of the thinnest-skinned, hypocritical people I know on this project. pbp 02:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

"Uninvolved" comment

(Non-administrator comment) I feel the need to comment since I had one of my PRODs removed by Kvng with reasons I think insufficient (an AfD runs here). Not really unbiased, but considering my recommendation goes against my bias... Some red herrings here:

1. About removing expired PRODs - I wonder where it is written that this should not be done. I cannot find it in WP:PROD or elsewhere. If you want my opinion, it should be possible - the aim of PROD is to get uncontroversial deletions out of the way. The 7-days limit is to avoid a limbo of "will be deleted articles" while giving reasonable time for objections, not a magic number; if an objection comes 1 or 10 days after the deadline, it is still an objection. (Whether the objection turns out to be relevant or not is immaterial, we are talking about the timescales of the process.)
2. About "deprods like crazy" - well, I did not check the stats provided above, but 200 deprods/month does not seem such a high number to me. Assuming generous numbers of 5 min of investigation per prod (remember, this is not AfD, you just check obvious shortcomings)and a 10% deprod rate, it means a bit more than 16h/month - if Kvng spends a good fraction of their WP time doing prod patrol, it looks totally reasonable.

The only potentially actionable is issue would be disruptive editing in the form of massive incorrect prod-removal. While I feel that some of Kvng's deprods are a waste of time, I see that as a genuine disagreement with the philosophy of PROD, in particular the uncontroversial bit.

For instance if unnotable productX is created by User:productXsmaker (a common sight at page patrol), it is likely that the creator objects to the PROD, even if they do not remove the tag within seven days. My view in such a case is that prodding gives a chance to avoid the hassle of AfD even if it means shortcircuiting the newbies, because none familiar with the guidelines would !vote to keep; another view is that such a nomination is controversial from the start and hence should not be prodded.

Barring evidence from a former discussion or guideline page or whatever in favour of the former view, and former mention(s) of that to Kvng, I see no reason to sanction them. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I used to be a regular prod patroller and have deprodded hundreds too. Some of my deprods would get deleted at AfD, but that wasn't proof my deprod was wrong - prod is only for uncontroversial deletion and like Kvng I would deprod when I thought there was a chance it would survive an AfD or have a suitable merge target. I would improve some but not all the articles I deprodded. Deprodding after 7 days is also not an issue. Prod is meant to be light touch - easy come, easy go - and Kvng has agreed to give a rationale, so move on. Fences&Windows 19:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Forget technical rules; disruption is disruption. However, it's disruptive only if the articles are not prod-able. Nominate them at AfD, if nearly all of them are deleted, we can conclude that Kvng's views on notability or whatever are so off kilter that the community can request he refrain from engaging in Prod's and de-Prodding. If a significant number are kept, he's within bounds. If the OP wants to bolster the objection, send the 400 to afd and let's see whether your, or Kvng's, views on notability are correct. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I would consider deprodding to make a point to be disruptive and what Fences and windows describes gets close to that. I may have crossed the line a couple times as I was learning how to patrol. I think it best, as advised at WP:PRODPATROL, to avoid the lure of theory. ~Kvng (talk) 22:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

You're insinuating I deprodded articles to disruptively prove a point, on the basis of zero evidence. I can't believe you're making an accusation like that in the middle of a debate in which you're being accused of exactly that. I've struck my comment, AN/I can hang you out to dry for all I care. Fences&Windows 22:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I believe you are reading WP:PROD policy correctly and would prevail in a policy debate. But I've received clear feedback that deprodding just because deletion is potentially controversial is not productive. Deprods should be potentially controversial and have a snowball's chance of surviving AfD. It is my impression that there are some mismatches between deletion policy and behavior and a consensus of editors is comfortable with that. ~Kvng (talk) 23:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Fences and windows, I do not believe that Kvng was accusing you of intentional disruption. Merely commenting that others in this AN/I thread have found that having articles you DePROD going to AfD to be disruptive. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Poor behavior/POV by IP editor at Stop Islamization of America

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

---

• Stop Islamization of America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 2a02:a442:3456:0:5453:8e5a:f119:44d (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Having difficulty with a POV-pushing IP editor at Stop Islamization of America. User started by removing sourced labels from the lead (extremist, Islamophobic, etc.) in these edits. I reverted, and the IP re-reverted. IP changes section header from "Ideology" (as covered by RS) to Criticisms here. I again reverted for removal of sourced material with POV intent. IP made a string of edits after discussion on my user talk page ([18]) which we're altogether unconstructive. I made a partial revert here (revert Criticism section header; added ISIL abbreviation; remove Facebook sentence and ref as it is not verified and does not conform with WP:SPS). I also started discussion on the article talk page regarding group's self-description ([19]). IP editor made recent revert here, which also included an unsourced block of text about the group's views.

Meanwhile, on my user talk page, the IP called me "personally invested" because I'm a Muslim (later corrected to conservative Leftist) and asked me to "put your personal feelings aside and try to keep Wikipedia as NPOV as possible." User confirmed decision that I'm a conservative Leftist and later called me a vandal.

Since it's not "clear vandalism", AIV seemed inappropriate. So here I am posting on ANI. Given the number of reverts, I will also be notifying the editor about 3RR. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

While typing this, more occurred. C.Fred reverted the IP editor. IP editor reverted again and made more edits. Refers to C.Fred and I as vandals again and comments on "PC academia" here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I tried to correct a very POV first paragraph ('extremist', 'islamophobic') with a more NPOV version.

Criticism of SIOA's ideology was labeled 'Ideology'. So I added a section 'Ideology' with a concise NPOV description of SIOA's ideology and moved the original 'Ideology' contents to 'Criticism'. Added the group's website as source.

In this, I was hindered by user User:EvergreenFir, who was deleting my content repeatedly and trying to impose his POV version. By lack of a better word, I choose 'vandalism'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A442:3456:0:5453:8E5A:F119:44D (talk) 00:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The organization's self-description hardly qualifies as neutral. —C.Fred (talk) 00:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:SPS are fine if attributed. The problem is that the IP editor doesn't understand that NPOV means neutrally describing sources with due weight. Instead they think it means describing the topic neutrally, which in this case means using the language/terms of an Islamophobic group themselves and whitewashing them. Wikipedia describes what WP:RS say, preferably WP:SECONDARY ones. It does not try to cast an organization in a specific light. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

TracyMcClark reverted the IP again here. Any reversions by the IP after this are clear edit warring violations. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

It is quoted as such: a self-description. The opinions of scholars, also, are quoted as such. As such, it is way more NPOV this way. You call SIOA Islamophobic. That indicates a very biased opinion about SIOA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A442:3456:0:5453:8E5A:F119:44D (talk) 01:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• IP Blocked for 31 hours for edit warring. Clear violation of 3RR. —C.Fred (talk) 01:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you C.Fred. For the record, IP editor added POV statements here which ClueBot reverted. They then undid Tracy's edit here, which C.Fred reverted. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

...What the hell is a conservative leftist?142.105.159.60 (talk) 03:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

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

64.121.83.151 removing LGBT related info from many articles

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

---

64.121.83.151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Is removing a large amounts of well-sourced LGBT content with little or no justification. Seems like I don't like it Blocked five times previously for up to one year.

• Tiffany Darwish Removed unverified info sourced by two references that don't exist
• 19th GLAAD Media Awards Removed article with pro-LGBT bias
• Societal attitudes toward homosexuality removed section, written with obvious bias
• John R. Bradley Removal of book: Saudi Arabia Exposed: Inside a Kingdom in Crisis
• LGBT rights in Ghana Removal of source and content
• William R. King Removal of sources and content
• James Buchanan Removal of sources and content
• Irreligion in Saudi Arabia Addition of weasel words.
• LGBT rights in Saudi Arabia removed unsourced info Also removed sources - edit warrign
• LGBT in the Middle East Removed LGBT book from further reading section
• Religion in Saudi Arabia Added weasel words.

Many more as well. Jim1138 (talk) 05:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Agree; one glance at their contributions shows they are a disruptive SPA removing valid cited information. Has a sizeable block log already. Needs a longterm (at least one year) soft block. Softlavender (talk) 05:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

In Tiffany Darwish the mention of LGBT support was only sourced with two sources that no longer work. In LGBT in the Middle East, 19th Glad Media Awards, LGBT right in Saudi Arabia, and John R. Bradley that was a mistake on my part as I thought they went against Wikipedia: Point of View. Today after you told me to reread it I realized that they didn't actually go against the policy and I admit that was a misunderstanding on my part. For James Buchanan and William R King I was also mistaken in removing it but I thought that since it was debatable whether they were LGBT whether or not those sources should be included. Especially since James Buchanan was asexual so I thought the quote about him wanting female company without an actual relationship could have been related to him referring to his asexuality. I believe this was a misunderstanding from how I misunderstood the rules but I think this is a learning experience for me. I would hope you'd give me a warning as I am trying to make edits in good faith and unlike the past I have good intentions. 64.121.83.151 (talk) 05:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Please see my explanation before making a full and fair decision 64.121.83.151 (talk) 05:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

"I would hope you'd give me a warning" ... Jim1138 gave you three warnings before filing this ANI. Rather than take heed, you proceeded to argue with him instead. It's obvious from your repeated and longterm behavior over the past two years that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. -- Softlavender (talk) 05:58, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I wasn't arguing I was trying to understand why it was wrong and to add reasoning why I made the edits I made. I'm here to learn and try to be better at this. I am here to make good edits.64.121.83.151 (talk) 06:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

This is obviously still the blocked User:Jacobkennedy. Just block for block evasion and be done with it.--Atlan (talk) 08:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• User:Jacobkennedy has previously even posted an unblock appeal using this IP. No SPI needed here. Laura Jamieson (talk) 11:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Also a static IP address so a long (or indefinite) block can be applied with no collateral damage. --Elektrik Fanne 11:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Kinda urgent - botched a page move

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

---

History made - probably the first-ever WP:Page mover botched move on Wikipedia! An admin needs to delete Reactions to 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting and move Draft:Move/Reactions to 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting there after a botched WP:PM/C#4 round-robin move reverting two previous undiscussed moves which went against the MOS.

Seems a {{trout}} is in order :) Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 13:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@Satellizer: If you simply want the primary page name to be Reactions to 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting, 'tis done. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@Ritchie333 and Satellizer: Seems like all the members of Category:Reactions to terrorist attacks have the format "Reactions to the xxx terrorist attack" when the base page name is "xxx terrorist attack". I've moved it to Reactions to the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting. I hope the page move isn't controversial. Regards, Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Fine by me. I think this is probably what Satellizer actually wanted, but it wasn't obvious from the original post. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Epicgenius' title is correct (Reactions to the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting). To clarify, my original request was not for moving the actual article itself but for moving a redirect with edit history which redirects there over another (accidentally created) redirect. Apologies for any misunderstanding. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 14:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

No problem. Looks like everything here is all good. (And I've also had some page mover mistakes too – you aren't the first one Satellizer. ) Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 21:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Legal consequences of page naming

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

---

Please see Talk:University of British Columbia Faculty of Law#Requested move 29 May 2016 for some edits that concern me, this diff probably the best to show my concern. I do not believe that they warrant a block as a legal threat, but they raise some of the same issues IMO. Not sure how to best address it. Andrewa (talk) 13:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• It is an implied legal threat. If they want Wiki legal to get involved, that implies an impetus to engage in legal action. Appropriate steps should be taken until the so-called legal dispute is resolved.--WaltCip (talk) 13:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Borderline IMO, and note that later in the discussion they deny any legal threat. But I do not think we can permit this sort of argument. It has the chilling effect of a legal threat. Is there a less serious censure than a block which might be applied? Andrewa (talk) 13:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
    • It's not serious. At all. If they're chilling the entire remark should be collapsed as disruptive, not because it's a legal threat. The entire purpose of those kinds of complaints is to force an escalation to some higher authority, because the editor is presuming we have that kind of hierarchy (we don't) and that he or she is only dealing with peons at that discussion. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I've dropped a note on their talk page explaining some basic concepts - hopefully that's the end of it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I just want to reassure Andrewa that you were absolutely right to raise this here, but I agree with the others that there isn't a legal threat (although it's pretty close). It's fair to say that the user is engaging in disruptive editing and we should continue to keep an eye on that. WaggersTALK 14:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. The disruption is not just the borderline legal threat, the tone of the editing has a broader WP:OWN flavour to it, IMO. Fortunately its main target here is a very experienced and cool-headed contributor. But if it were directed at a newbie it would be very sad, and if a newbie were to take it as an example of the sort of discussion we want and do likewise, sadder still. The contributor has been here for some years and should know better, IMO. Andrewa (talk) 20:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Not to do directly with the "legal threats" issue—but is it still the case, as I was told years ago, that a redirect carries as much "Google juice" as an article name itself? If so, should this be pointed out on the article talkpage? Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

If so, that is a very important point. It takes the force out of the argument; Perhaps even completely negates it. Even the possibility of it being the case throws the onus of proof back on the contributor making these allegations of legal consequences, IMO.

And it makes sense to me. Google have been sometimes a bit cagey about revealing algorithms, so it may not be possible to tell definitively. But from what I do know of them, it seems to be 100% accurate. Andrewa (talk) 20:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• The possible legal threat comes from an editor claiming that how Wikipedia names an article could have major effects on the school's branding. And you're taking that at face value? What notable school is so fragile to suggest that whatever Wikipedia names the article on the school matters one whit? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Good points and well put. The issue I brought here has been addressed IMO (thanks all) but should the wider issues of the possible impacts of Wikipedia article naming be pursued in a more appropriate forum? Where? Andrewa (talk) 22:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Date vandalism

MarioSonicU (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is doing a sneaky form of vandalism, changing release dates on video game articles, either deleting the source and putting in a new, unsupported release date, or just changing the release itself, whether there's a source or not. Here is one example, here is another. This edit summary leads me to believe they're may be purposely trying to hide their vandalism, too. Eik Corell (talk) 15:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Suspected antisemitic vandalism

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

---

IP account 23.17.170.70 has made several edits which have been reverted as vandalism. These have consisted largely of inserting large and apparently irrelevant numbers of parentheses around words and names, which is reminiscent of the recent antisemitic practice of placing triple parentheses around names of people believed to be Jewish, in order to target them for harassment . See in particular this edit, in which such parentheses were placed around the names of, among others, Baruch Spinoza, Karl Marx and David Ricardo, but not others such as Adam Smith, Voltaire or Robespierre. There can be little doubt that the intention here was to mark out and stigmatise Jews, and it is essential that Wikipedia takes steps to prevent this without delay, in order to prevent this usage spreading over the whole project. Could anyone develop a filter to prevent such edits? And the IP responsible for this apparent first usage here should be sanctioned to prevent any more such dog-whistle racism. RolandR (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for one week. (The conduct is worth an indef, but it appears to be a dynamic IP.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Also someone might want to explain to the IP that Wikipedia's easy to use categories and lists provides far more opportunities for Jew-tagging biographies. Of course they might get upset when they realise editors have been at it for years. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

My reading of the contribution history was that it was not a dynamic IP. Going back to their first edit it is the same pro-aryan nonsense. Based on that I have made it a 6 month block. See their first edit from August 2015: [20]. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 15:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

No objection to that change. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed that the IP address is static. --Elektrik Fanne 16:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Repeated legal threats on S. S. Rajendran

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

---

Legal threats:

• [21]
• [22]
• [23]

Arihant733 Says that they are the 'legal heir' to the subject. If they want to discuss their concerns they should do it here. They should be aware of WP:LEGAL which states that If you post a legal threat on Wikipedia, you are likely to be blocked. -NottNott|talk 18:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I have blocked the account for making legal threats. However I think the content they were removing should be scrutinized to make sure it is up to our standards. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 18:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

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

NSP fanbase responding to YouTube request

A quick FYI: In a Game Grumps YouTube episode that was uploaded today,[24] one of the presenters made the comment "I wish I had my own Wikipedia page" - as a result, there was a sudden influx of editors at Dan Avidan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Leigh Daniel Avidan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), as well as having some related editing at Ninja Sex Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Bringing this up here so a few additional editors can scan through the pages and add them to their watchlists. While some of the editors appear to be acting in good faith to try to create a viable page (although still lacking third-party refs), there's also a significant amount of vandalism that already resulted in semi-protection on at least one of those pages. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Based on the article I'd say the subject is non-notable I've tagged the Dan Avidan Article as CSD A7--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 20:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

And the CSD was removed so sent to AFD --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 20:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Resolved then? Until of course we get reliable sources about the YouTube video itself asking for an article to be created and the subsequent deletion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Please remove talk page access

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

---

A blocked user has gone off. I think removing talk page access and hiding the offending slurs would be beneficial. Many thanks.- MrX 21:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@MrX: Might want to link the user's name? But yeah, indef and remove access imho. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I was just doing that when you created an edit conflict. - MrX 21:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

"Just according to keikaku". Mwhahaha. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to leave this for NeilN to decide. The user reverted, probably realizing what an ass they were making of themselves. Drmies (talk) 22:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I usually ignore attacks directed at me in the heat of the moment or otherwise. Bit concerned at the implied transphobia but hopefully we won't see any more of that.--NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
    • We won't, because I've reblocked indef with talk page access removed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Requesting block for myself

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

---

An unconventional request? True, but it is necessary. I would like to request any administrator to topic ban me from ITN discussions. It is clear the new RD criteria are being pushed through without serious consultation or discussion and I want no part of it. Therefore I request to be banned from the ITN candidates page (WP:ITN/C), to formally show I am ceasing to help out with that part of the project. Fgf10 (talk) 21:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to consider yourself "blocked" if that's what you want. The only person who will enforce this is you, however. Jonathunder (talk) 21:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I fully intent to do that, but I am formally requesting a WP:TBAN for myself for ITN/C. I do not believe this violates any rules? Fgf10 (talk) 22:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Uhuru Movement

Another editor (Esplace) continues to remove sourced text from the above-referenced article. I have warned him/her about NPOV and 3RR and to seek consensus but I am not sure is he/she will stop. The editor and I both are at 2RR at this moment. I would appreciate it if someone could take a look and get an idea b/c I don't really understand what the editor is complaining about. Quis separabit? 01:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The section on Mixon is specifically problematic. out of the 4 external links, 3 are dead. "On the other hand, many black Oaklanders, as well as those belonging to other racial groups, seemed largely opposed to such sentiments" This statement mentions racial characteristics which seem 1. out of line. Why not residents or citizens if the link provides such information. 2. "Many" is nonspecific enough to need little verification while still maintaining an illegitimate weight. In other words, what is "many"? The next sentence " a clear majority of those who regularly campaign against abuses of police power also rejected any attempt to attach legitimacy to Mixon's murder rampage" contains the term "a clear majority" which is not clear. It also talks about his murder rampage, a crime for which he was never convicted. In my attempt to explain this, the edit was undone and the other editor gave me a warning for vandalism, which was not the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esplace (talk • contribs) 01:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok... Point by point...

• Two dead links were found and replaced by references to the WayBack Machine (archive.org). This is a very useful website and I suggest you acqaint yourself with it.
• People who are dead are not posthumously convicted. Your observation that "he was never convicted" is a bit silly. The man was dead.
• Just stating "I'm removing the Mixon events again as the links are dead and it violates the NPOV policy." is not "explaining", though you did voice your objections later.
• Removing an entire section (which is well sourced) is not the way to go. Removing it once is not that bad (WP:BRD), repeating that is definitely a bad move.
• This page is about editor behavior, not the actual content of pages. Your (Esplace) behavior is far from impeccable, but since you stopped short of 3RR and 1RR does not apply, a warning should suffice.

Conclusion: This is mainly a content dispute and stopped short of an actual edit war. Fortunately. Kleuske (talk) 12:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

1. Noted. I saw that some of the links were fixed after all of this happened.

2. You may think it's a bit silly, but murder is a criminal charge. Calling someone a murderer after they are dead without charges being leveled is a bias. Murder cannot be justified, but under American law sometimes killing can be. If we are to maintain neutrality, being aware of biased language is important. This is probably a content issue, but being called silly for paying attention to language is a bit insulting, however.

3. Which is why I didn't revert back to removing all of the content. My second revision was to try to bring the paragraph into line with acceptable policies by removing the more egregious sections about community support which weren't supported in the links provided. Is removing content that is not supported by the supporting material disallowed until someone happens to come across the page and agree? Esplace (talk) 13:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue content here. That's what the talk page is for. Kleuske (talk) 16:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Promotional editor has turned to sockpuppetry

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

---

Note the accounts User:Lawyerdvrao and User:Dr d v rao. For both the accounts, the only activity is writing articles about themself, at two titles D.V. Rao and Dr d v rao (page history). All edits, naturally, advertising himself. The guy needs to be blocked. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

For the discussion on the deletion of the page User:Lawyerdvrao created, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D.V. Rao. -- Gestrid (talk) 03:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. The guy has become a nuisance to deal with. While that alone is not enough to block someone, I believe the self-promotion (on two accounts and two articles, nonetheless) is enough. You'll also notice an IP address from India editing D.V. Rao. I believe that is their IP address, so that might need to be blocked, too. -- Gestrid (talk) 03:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Why are the two accounts? Whatever else may happen, one of them should be indeffed. BMK (talk) 04:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

SPI filed here. Jytdog (talk) 05:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Both have been blocked indefinitely, the master for advertising, promotion and sockpuppetry, and the other as a sock. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Evasion of blocks

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

---

The blocked user Lagoset (which has an also blocked sock puppetry, Fivestarts) seems to be evading his blockade with (at least) these three ips: 147.84.145.193 217.197.27.145 217.197.27.214. He continues doing the same things: copyright violations, including promotional pages, unreliable sources, massive and/or unrelated links on the See also section, etc. e.g., [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 09:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked 147.84.145.193 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for copyright violation
• Blocked 217.197.27.145 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for spam links
• 217.197.27.214 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has not been used for some time so left it.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Editing on Jesus Christ (reopened)

It is about [36] where I have been accused of edit warring and of supporting racism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: User:Adasegogisdi has also broken 3RR at Jesus. StAnselm (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

This is true. We have a small group of editors, namely [37] and User:StAnselm blocking the accurate and oldest picture associated with the article Jesus Christ to uphold their white supremacist viewpoint. -Adasegogisdi (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

When reverting her edits, the WP:FRINGE view is that most Christians would support Jesus Christ the Father, which is a fringe Christian belief and a heresy for mainstream Christians. The WP:OR is using the Bible as source of beliefs expressed in Wikipedia's voice, instead of quoting secondary sources published by Bible scholars. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• Why is this here? This sounds like a content dispute and you should follow the dispute resolution hierarchy, and please remove the pictures. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, it is here because one editor is calling other editors "white supremacists" and "racists". Is there nothing that can be done to stop this? StAnselm (talk) 19:36, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• I've removed the pictures as they're part of a content dispute which cannot be solved here. Content disputes should be discussed on article talk pages, and bropught to dispute resolution if they cannot be solved there. Admins rule on behavioral problems, not content disputes.

@Tgeorgescu: In your complaint, you failed to mention that you dropped a ton of templated warnings on the talk page of Adasegogisdi. All you received was a standard edit warring notice, and a hand-rolled notice about racism. BMK (talk) 19:31, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, yes, if I have dropped them in bad faith I should be reprimanded, but if I have rightly issued them I should be commended. I even tried to explain her that the Bible is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Good faith or bad faith, putting a whole bunch of templates on someone's talk page can easily be interpreted as an attack. It would have been better to write a couple of paragraphs outlining the problems as you see them. BMK (talk) 19:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Just for the record: I have no preference for either image, what I objected against was expressing a fringe view and indulging in original research. My impression is that each subsequent policy violation deserves a higher order warning template, otherwise why are those templates there? They can be used to convey that an editor has repeatedly violated a certain policy. Wise editors are able to take heed and desist from violating policies. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Just because your tool box has a hammer in it doesn't mean you should use it to open the pickle jar. A wiser editor used templates sparingly, and discussion more. BMK (talk) 20:54, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: I can well understand that you might think a warning template or two is a softer response than taking someone to ANI, because it is. Having said that, I see at least seven templates from you on that editor's talk page. If in the future you have to go so far as to issue a second warning template in quick succession, you might also add a bit more relevant text regarding the specific actions in question, and which policies and/or guidelines they violate. And, if you ever feel the need to go to a third template in a short period of time, it would probably be best to take the matter here first, because I tend to think third warnings without any action tend to be much less effective. John Carter (talk) 20:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok, good to know for the future. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:10, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

The Bible is the primary source. And the Bible scholars they are using are obviously white racists and ignorant of the text. "Isaiah 53:2" and "Jesus has bronze skin". And there are secondary sources available: "UPCI" and "namb.net"-Adasegogisdi (talk) 19:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I think I'm seeing the issue here. In reading the text, an interpretation of one way or another is not "racism". It would be best if you not say that the comments are from racists or white supremacists. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• I've blocked Adasegogisdi for 48 hours for edit warring and breaching WP:3RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Reading their unblock request I'm wondering if a longer block might be in order. Calling editors "white supremacists" definitely is a personal attack, and reflects a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:36, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

People from the middle east are traditionally considered to be Caucasian. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

But there is a difference, albeit, maybe, a slight one, between being "Caucasian" and being "white". And I have to agree with Bbb23 that interpreting text should not be a basis for being branded a racist. John Carter (talk) 20:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually that was me. Bbb23 just did the blocking. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right - so I skwewed up. FWIW, if you ever have to deal with me in the future, you'll probably get used to my doing that. ;( John Carter (talk) 20:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Different cultures tend to portray Jesus as "one of us". This is no big deal. See Race and appearance of Jesus. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

True, and hardly a reason to call another editor a racist. We have enough true racism in the world without throwing the claim around indiscriminantly. BMK (talk) 20:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• propose an indefinite block for:
  • their unblock request: White supremacist editors User talk:StAnselm and User talk:Tgeorgescu are upholding their views on Jesus and forbidding debate which followed
  • this warning to StAnselm and the same to Tgeorgescu:Please stop upholding a racist viewpoint on a major article. "Atlantic" Discuss on the relevant talk page and
  • this extremely aggressive post here at ANI.

This editor has The Truth^TM and is not here to collaborate with others who think differently; that together with the lack of competence demonstrated by taking an article in Popular Mechanics as The Last Word on how Jesus looked, is a recipe for endless disruption. Jytdog (talk) 05:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• • (Non-administrator comment) Agreed. WP:CIR issues wrt WP:RS ([38], [39]) along with WP:OR (St. Calixtus catacomb image interpretation), unfounded accusations of racism and white supremacism for those who do not agree. Sufficient grounds for a ban, I would think. Kleuske (talk) 08:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support I said that above regarding the unblock request. Immediately calling anyone who differs with you a racist or white supremacist is a tell-tale sign you aren't here for the collective good. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose indef block - This is a very new editor who has, I think, maybe taken on more than she should chew too early. I might not oppose some sort of lesser sanction, and would certainly encourage the editor to seek a mentor as per WP:MENTOR, as well as make use of the Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it might be a bit early for a site ban, particularly if the editor's primary field of interest is beliefs or groups of a broadly Christian nature which might be comparatively underrepresented here yet. John Carter (talk) 17:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment to Adasegogisdi you need to find WP:RS with sufficient authority to support your claims. I mention authority here since the subject matter implies there most be many, many RS so we will naturally go with the ones that have the most support (i.e. are widely cited etc). We intentionally limited interpretations of primary sources, so claims like "These scholars are wrong because this primary source says...." are generally not really useful especially with a text as long as and with as complicated a history as the bible. Not to mention if this issue is Jesus Christ rather than "what the bible says about Jesus Christ", the bible is only one source anyway. If you are unable to find sufficiently compelling RS to support your claim, either your intepretation is wrong or it's right but for some reason people have realised yet. Rightly or wrongly, the nature of wikipedia means our articles will mostly stick with the normal view rather than a WP:Fringe view. Nil Einne (talk)

Well, the skin color of the Jesus image was not my problem with her edits, but the patently false claim that most Christian denominations would support Jesus Christ the Father (Patripassianism). Unfortunately, she combined two different claims in one edit, and one of those claims is ridiculous. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it really matters what the issue is. The point is they need sufficiently compelling reliable secondary sources, not their own intepretation of primary sources. If there isn't sufficient support for their intepretation in secondary sources then they need to accept their view is minority or fringe at the moment for whatever reason and until and unless this changes the article will reflect that and possibly not even mention their view at all. If they are able to find these secondary sources then they should do so rather than trying to prove something based on primary sources or poor secondary souces. This is quite an important point and one people often have trouble understanding since for general research going to primary sources is often encouraged but as an encylopaedia it isn't how we operate. Nil Einne (talk) 04:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• Conditional support I am prepared to give her the benefit of the doubt, as a newbie who did not know the rules. So, I support the indefinite block only if after her block expires she shows no signs of having learned from the block. As I have argued on Talk:Jesus, I find that she has WP:COMPETENCE problems and that she quite easily casts aspersions, but I am prepared to give her a chance if she shows that she has learned from her block. The gist is: it is not error which deserves indefinite blocking, but persisting in error. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose ban and an indef (as of now) - Way too much, way too soon. Bans are for incorrigible LTAs, not relative newbies. Is this bad behavior? Absolutely, and I'm not questioning that. Still, once the block wears off, then I suggest we give her another chance, as per John Carter and Tgeorgescu. GAB^gab 00:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose ban and indefinite block This a week-old account. Wikipedia has respected editors who acted out when they first started editing the project. And it also didn't help that they also suffered "Death by template" on their user talk page. That blanket templating would anger any editor. I'm in favor of WP:ROPE and I think John Carter has a good point about having a diversity of editors' viewpoints. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose ban (for the present). I would have preferred the block to have been for the unfounded accusations of racism rather than merely being for edit-warring, so that a clear message would have been sent. But we certainly don't have enough evidence yet that basic competence is lacking, and with good mentoring and encouragement Adasegogisdi has the potential to become a fine editor. StAnselm (talk) 02:39, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I've looked at their contribs and I don't see any evidence of potential to become a fine editor and lots of evidence for potential for continued disruption. Lots of people come to Wikipedia because they are committed to some view about X and they don't care at all about this place nor how we do things, and that is what I see here - NOTHERE. To be clear, in my view the indef should of course be appeal-able and they should be unblocked if they some show some inkling of understanding that Wikipedia is not a blog where it is OK to flame people and make very strong assertions that have no basis in policy or guidelines. But I can read :) and I see that others are not seeing things this way. Jytdog (talk) 22:20, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• The edit warring and the charges of racism continue; I blocked the editor for a week, against my better judgment, because there were so many editors opposing an indef block. Drmies (talk) 18:22, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
• my opinion only I don't think this editor is going to improve their behavior, because everything about their editing here shows that they are on a mission from God. They jumped immediately to these subjects, creating a tract and picking a fight about the lead image. Every time we've discussed that image, it has been a struggle, given the huge range of possibilities and the importance this tends to have for the people who care enough to participate. It wasn't that long ago that we went through changing to the current image after a long discussion. So this new editor comes in spouting a great deal of tendentious nonsense (e.g., how is a Sicilian image from the 1100s based either on a Borgia from the 1400s or a German of any sort?). They can have some more rope, but it's just going to end up with more personal attacks and refusal to participate in anything resembling reasonable discussion. Mangoe (talk) 19:54, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
• After this request - I think the user has demonstrated that they are not going to be able to edit in a collaborative project. I think an indef block is appropriate here. SQL^{Query me!} 22:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
• Yes, given the behaviour has continued after the block, I have switched to supporting an indef block as well. StAnselm (talk) 19:21, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
• I'm also switching to indef: "American racism", "Christ's ethnicity is clearly stated in the Bible, and should not be distorted by white fools who hate blacks", "Editors not discussing racist bias", "This racism is unacceptable", "We have a small group of editors... blocking the accurate and oldest picture associated with the article Jesus Christ to uphold their white supremacist viewpoint", "Please stop upholding a racist viewpoint on a major article". Enough already. GAB^gab 15:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
• Ban GAB said it above me, "Enough already." --Adam in MO Talk 16:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
• Indef As I stated before I felt that a longer block was in order originally as this editor did not seem to be here to build the encyclopedia. Further edits have proven this point. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose ban - We don't escalate from one week to a ban for a personal attack, do we? Obviously, this might be a short car ride from here to there, but noobs need to be allowed a reasonable chance to adapt. Carrite (talk) 16:24, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

• Note: I've reopened this because it was an improper close by FAMASFREENODE, who I've since blocked. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Good block. I'm surprised it took so long TBH! Can we have a sweepstake on how long it is before talkpage access is revoked? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

New proposal

• Propose a week- long block (but not a weaker one!). And, pace to Jytdog for the logic of his opening nomination, which I agree with. I think, as someone said, this is bad behaviour, and yes it is almost certainly intentional; but as a relatively new user, it could still be explained by the editor being unused to the demands we make of collegialty (if he's come form toxic environments such as FB debating pages, then this is a totally diferent one. As such, whilst agreeing with the motivation of Jytdog's proposal, suggest than Indef is too severe at this point. A week's block, however, will have the combined effect (hopefully) of removing him from the arena (for both his and WP's benefit- no opportunity to 'make' trouble or for us to imagine it) temporarilly, whilst providing him with enough WP:ROPE for a return to Jytdog's original proposal to be the only logical step for the community. _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

  The user us already on a one week block, due to expire tomorrow, so what are you actually proposing we do now? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Right. I should withdraw that badly thought-out proposal and propose to make no other proposals that involve blocking for a week those currently blocked for a week. _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

 :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of logo violating copyright

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

---

Hello. I have uploaded the coat of arms of the Cheadle Hulme School for the article (Cheadle Hulme School.svg) that I have extracted from the logo of the school, but after a discussion with somebody from the Communications department of this school I think this image is a copyright violation because it is an incomplete version of the logo (derivate work). Can an administrator delete it? I will try to trace the coat of arms myself. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RaphaelQS (talk • contribs) 16:24, 14 June 2016‎

The logo in question is File:Cheadle_Hulme_School.svg. I'm unsure whether or not this specific file would indeed be protected under copyright (and if so, if we'd have a fair-use claim) so I have not myself deleted the image. May well be deletable under the grounds that the uploader requested deletion, though. --Yamla (talk) 17:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Since the author is requesting deletion I have gone ahead and done that. At the time it was not being used on any page. If it was an incomplete version of the logo then it is not ideal for the encyclopedia. RaphaelQS should know that we can use copyrighted images if we use them in a fair use capacity so a low resolution duplicate of the logo is permissible in the appropriate article(s). HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 17:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Rothschild family article

I feel more eyes would be beneficial to our article Rothschild family - there seems to be a history of veiled (and not-so-veiled) conspiracy theory type additions by IPs. Not sure if it approaches the threshold for semi-protection, so I thought I'd raise it here for your input. DuncanHill (talk) 22:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I was tracking down a vandal's work

and arrived at this talk page, which has no article. Talk:Julia L. Jackson. I am hoping that someone there knows what to do about it, and will do it. Thanks, Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 00:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Deleted. IPs can't create articles, so sometimes they create a talkpage instead. Acroterion (talk) 00:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Knanaya

Editor Cuchullain, has been long disrupting this article with a distorted version he have provided and continuously try to prove his point, WP:POVPUSH as the truth since 2012 to see this: https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/usersearch.py?name=Cuchullain&page=Knanaya&server=enwiki&max=

In case of any alternative evidence or reference provided he re-butts it with wrong interpretation of policies or blocks. If the talk page history checked long list of community members disagreeing with his "swiderski" source as credible, a recent edit made to solve this issue is thwarted with 1 year block and revert, this seems unethical and inability to accept incremental changes. The editor continuously plays WP:NOTGETTINGIT and later acts all clean, this is part of their MO which includes requests for blocks, blaming and canvassing.

To see the revision of the article identifiable sources(all can be cross checked using google books): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Knanaya&oldid=724642191

Matters don't end their, there is tag teaming with admins who hold grudges and uses their user-rights as WP:GOLDENTICKET like using edit filters to block any communication, reverting talk page conversation, looking for cornering and visibly rendering other editors voiceless in a manner that fits Wikipedia:Competence is required. I doubt their actions are always valid and acceptable, at-least it isn't with the Knanaya article. SpacemanSpiff is such an editor who have performed and further roped in Drimes: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drmies&diff=prev&oldid=724726554 using some previous grudges with some editors. The article first was blocked by the editor, then when any communications made they were childishly removed without proper explanation and blocked reporting to ANI or talk page conversations using user-rights to discuss in between them to state their actions are correct. A crude method used is citing block evasion as a means for circumvention.

This admin was either roped in by Cuchullain in an Conflict of Interest, believing s/he knows to get their way within a community project. SpacemanSpiffs actions were lowly to be considered as an admin, lacked basic etiquette, lacked judgement to review the edit of actions of editor Cuchullain to see she or he was promoting his private interest over the project rather than its expansion. SpacemanSpiff exercised his or hers user-rights to further Cuchullain's private interest. I strongly feel these actions of the admin should be answered and hope Cuchullain's massive WP:NOTGETTINGIT of Wikipedia:Fringe theories from 2012 will be popped by removing the article block and reverting the edit to : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Knanaya&oldid=724642191 if asked he might even come up with dodging answers, his experience might help him to do this or to twist the policies. But this wouldn't fare well for the article or Wikipedia's thesis statement collaborative edit by the people who use it.

Note: If swiderski's material reviewed it can be identified that he himself is unsure of most of what he postulates here and there for taking a safe ground. There are newly published material that openly discredits swiderski's multiple origin story and this is equivalent to calling a child, a bastard, this seems to be a fact the editor secretly enjoys. The southerner reference is also widely misused. Accepting other sources of information and Removing swiderski's material entirely to not invite any future disputes is the only solution. But editor Cuchullain continuously holds onto these Wikipedia:Fringe theories.

Note: This ANI mentions admins and editors with long-term experience and it is only natural to show herd mentality, but let them be all civil and well explained within wiki rules and regulations.

Note: I also doubt that these defunct or banned editors they talk about are made by themselves to use at situations like this, if so this should be checked by competitive users. Otherwise, there is nothing that explains with this warring reverts and wrongful blocks.

I may or may not be able to further provide responses, but I urge to check the issue and get answers and make changes to the article in question. Even stripping the article from swiderski to a basic article with minimum info is an option rather than filled with nonsense.117.213.18.241 (talk) 23:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC)