Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Disruptive Editor on Ethiopia related pages

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

The User:EthiopianHabesha is being disruptive on multiple pages related to Ethiopia. I was advised to take this issue to ANI at the COI board [1] He wants to censor material that portrays Abyssinians in a negative light and just recently blanked reliable sources, added by another user [2] Previous dispute resolution attempts have failed due to users nationalisic outbursts and difficulty with the english language [3]. He also made what appears to be threats of nationalistic violence on a users talk page [4] Can something be done about this user. Duqsene (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that I have found this editor to be problematic. I don't know whether the issue is primarily one of nationalistic combativeness or primarily one of lack of competence in English, although I see aspects of both, and which doesn't really matter. This editor attempted to state a case at the dispute resolution noticeboard, but was unable to state a case that volunteers could work with. As noted, this is not a conflict of interest issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@Duqsene, in COI I explained clearly, that what you have accused me of saying "Amhara people do not exist" is not actually what I have said [5][6][7]. In that noticeboard you did not provide one diffs to support your claim of me saying "Amhara People do not exist" yet you dedicated that section, based on a false accusation, to explain how Oromos are oppressed by Amhara nationalist[8]. Not that it matters, I do not even belong to Amhara neither Tigray ethinicgroup. Anyways, I am very sorry Robert McClenon did not comment about this clear false accusation. And also I have been accused of "nationalistic outburst", another accusation that is not explained clearly i.e. not supported by diffs and explained to me clearly for which nationalistic group (that the accuser can define it) am being accused of defending for. @Admins, most of my arguments deal with presenting contents in an impartial tone per WP:IMPARTIAL, and to convince the editors to comply with this rule then I had to make a long arguments with these editors whom had several sockpuppets used to disrupt Ethiopia related articles. Some of the sockpuppets I used to argue with that are now blocked includes Otakrem,Zekenyan and Blizzio and also some other IP sockpuppets. Although some try to convince their POV that does not make sense by bullying and intimidation I prefer to convince them by bringing neutral reliable sources, although neutrality of sources is not necessary, so that we edit collaboratively and by consensus. Finally, please note that I have a hard time to reach consensus with Duqsene on the article Sultanate of Showa [9][10]. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 14:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't entirely understand. However, whether we can understand each other is part of the issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon, with respect what I was saying is: Duqsene in COI opened a section [11] claiming I have said "Amhara people do not exist" when I said it is not possible for Kingdom of Aksum (also known as Abyssinian Kingdom [12]) and Dʿmt to be ruled by Amharic Speakers because no linguist claimed for Amharic to exist before 1,000 AD. With respect please see Ethiopian semitic languages. Since no comment from you on this false accusation by Duqsene then I took it you also assumed I have said that and was wondering if you could please provide diffs. I will be very happy if we could focus on the content presented and there is no way I will accept Duqsene's argument if he could be able to provide one source, even if unreliable, showing me that Axum kingdom (Abyssinian kingdom) was ruled by Amharic speaking people also showing that the Abyssinian inhabitants of Axum kingdom spoke Amharic. That was what I was saying and I hope now it is clear. Thank you. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 12:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I still don't understand. It appears that the subject editor is angry that another editor said something that I can't find evidence that they said. Arguing over words that were not said is disruptive. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, as @Robert McClenon notes, we have a problematic editor. @EthiopianHabesha either does not understand wikipedia policies or interprets it from a particular point of view. Some evidence of disruptive behavior of EthiopianHabesha in Ethiopia-related articles since November 2016:

• Slow editwarring to remove sourced content and WP:RS, to restore unsourced content: 1 2 3 4. See @Doug Weller's intervention and edit summary.
• @EthiopianHabesha misrepresents or misunderstands then repeatedly invokes WP:ONUS, WP:IMPARTIAL, WP:QS, WP:EXCEPTIONAL, WP:ADVOCACY, WP:BURDEN etc in order to remove reliable sources published by Cambridge University Press etc sources, with the comment, "choosing sources you have to be carefull [sic] because there are also writers who write for their own agenda such as for ethnic nationalism, secionism [sic], advocacy, propaganda, divide and rule". EthiopianHabesha has invoked these policies disruptively and to support above edit warring: 5 e.g.
• Arguing in circles while ignoring wikipedia content policies. See this question to @EthiopianHabesha by @Doug Weller, non-responsive was the response of EthiopianHabesha.
• Insists that they understand policies and know how wikipedia works, nevertheless: 6
• Puzzling hints on my talk page on "fit for fighting"

Outside of Doug Weller's attempts to explain wiki policies patiently since November 2016, we have had a DRN case too with @EthiopianHabesha. No progress at or after DRN despite Robert McClenon's efforts. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

The editor exhausted my patience and time and I had to give up. His invocation of our acryonyms suggests to me that he is using them as tools without fully understanding them, which might be a competence issue. Doug Weller talk 19:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have to concur with User:Ms Sarah Welch and User:Doug Weller that this editor has some sort of a competency problem, probably having to do with limited English, and that they should be advised to edit the Wikipedia in their first language, and that they need to be indefinitely blocked from editing the English Wikipedia because they have shown that they can't contribute constructively (even though we assume that they want to contribute constructively). Robert McClenon (talk) 03:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

My limited involvement with this editor tends to support Robert McClenon's view. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@Admins, please see the article I recently expanded and balanced: Ifat Sultanate article before it looks like this and now it looks like this. Here is the edit history. After the article is balanced, stories from all sides are presented and I beleive people were able to know new sourced information that they never known before. Based on my knowledge information disseminated by extrimists dominate while infromations disseminated by moderates and relevant experts on the topic which are written by highly educated neutral intellectuals who do not write for any agendas are usually avoided because their information is against extremists agendas. I am not defending any nationalistic group but here only just to let know wikipedia readers that there is also another information exists by sourcing contents based on wikipedia rule. If there are no editors who balances articles then wikipedia is likely going to be a tool used by editors who keeps on removing sourced contents which were added to balance views held by extremists. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 10:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@EthiopianHabesha: You have expanded the Ifat Sultanate article, but it suffers from the concerns Robert McClenon has mentioned to you several times over the last few months. I am delighted you added sources. But, the summary you added with this edit, for example, is not a faithful summary of pages 42-45 of the source, it is POV-y. It does not fairly or accurately summarize Pankhurst, rather your summary seems to filter out and reflect your concern above, "information disseminated by extrimists [sic] dominate while (...)". That is the persistent problem. The evidence repeatedly suggests that your aims here are not to build an encyclopedia according to community agreed content guidelines, but to fight and censor whatever bothers you by invoking acronyms such as WP:IMPARTIAL, etc. That you exhausted Doug Weller's patience, one of the most patient admins and policy-experienced contributors we have, is not a good sign. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:15, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch, it would have been helpful if you could indicate the sentence you were talking about. I guess what you are talking about was the sentence begining with "Ifat was finally defeated by Emperor.....". Please see and it was added by other editors and was sourced with "The Glorious Victories, p. 107". The last paragraph was also added by other editors. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 12:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I meant the whole thing you added. See the link above. I have started cleaning up the copyvio, use of a source which copied wikipedia (which you did not add), etc. This is not that article's talk page. So let us skip it. It is irrelevant to the OP case filed by @Duqsene, or the issues raised above. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@EthiopianHabesha, you have said you want a "balanced" article several times on multiple pages, however your edits prove the opposite. This addition by you, which was corrected by Sarah, misinterpreted the citation to put the blame on Egyptians rather then Ethiopians/Amda Seyon. [13] Do you prefer it to be balanced only when Abyssinians are represented in a negative light? Duqsene (talk) 09:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@Admins please please please save the Ifat sultanate article from being used to attack me. The recent edit made by Ms Sarah is just to prove my work is bad and now the scholars work is being paraphrased out of context. Out of the many, let me just explain one of them. When the source said the conflict was precipitated by the Egyptian Sultan (by encouraging the Sultan of Ifat to seize the envoy of emperor Amde Tsion, while on his return from Egypt after giving a letter containing a threat) as can be seen here, in the article Ms Sarah added "it was triggered by Amda Seyon I" as can be seen here (the second sentence under "Conflict with Christians" section). Ms Sarah again ignored the most important part of the letter sent to the Egyptian sultan saying Amde Tsion will "tamper the Nile" if he does not stop perscuting the Christians of Egypt as can be seen here, and this is not included but only the threat on neighbouring muslims (which I think is not the primary concern for Egypt) is included when tampering the Nile is the primary concern of Egypt (based on the scholars opinion) since without Nile there are no Egyptian people. This very important part of the letter was deliberately ignored by MS Sarah simply to show my work is bad, and if user is trying to improve the article then how is it fair to ignore this?

With respect, Ms Sarah Welch can you please clarify on:

1)Why you said "it was triggered by Amda Seyon I" when the scholar said it was precipitated by the Egyptian Sultan, contorary to this?

2)Why not include the primary concern for Egypt, tampering with the Nile, as explained in the source here and why make it look like as if the Egyptian Sultan is very much concerned with muslims of Ethiopia than the Egyptian people who can not live without Nile?

If there are no editors pointing out this kind of clear issues and debating with MS Sarah to convince one another then I am realy worried how Wikipedia articles are going to be. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 15:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha and Duqsene: I just started working on that article, am not done (EthiopianHabesha: please check the source again). If you have concerns, let us start a discussion on the article's talk page. This is not the right forum to begin discussing that article, by either of you. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch, the one I quoted was from your work finalised yesterday on 16 January and still today it is the same [14]. With respect, I think why did that is deliberately but not because you did not finalised editing that part. Thanks, EthiopianHabesha (talk) 16:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch, the source said "Fear that the Ethiopians might tamper with the Nile was nevertheless to remain with Egyptians for many centuries"[15] clearly indicating that the Egyptian Sultan (who precipitated the conflict between the Christians and Muslims) was also worried this might be a reality, eventhough in todays scholars opinion Ethiopia did not have that technological capacity at that time. Why not also include this quotation in the inline citation which is just added today? — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I will explain here, and let us discuss it further there please. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposal

I hesitate in supporting an indef ban for EthiopianHabesha, but something needs to be done given their conflicts with Duqsene and many others over many months. Perhaps we can start with a 3 month block from wikipedia, and 12 months sanction from Ethiopia-Somalia-Horn of Africa space articles, or something reasonable, and let the articles in this conflict-prone space to evolve. Perhaps we should also start an arb process, and add Ethiopia-Somalia-Yemen-Horn of Africa space articles under WP:ACDS. @EthiopianHabesha: Please do consider Robert McClenon's suggestion that you consider contributing to wikipedia articles in another language. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with User:Ms Sarah Welch who recommends a time-limited block. I will point out that indefinite does not equal infinite, and will state that, in my opinion, an indefinite block is needed, that is, a block that continues until the subject editor can compose an unblock request on their talk page, in English, that can be understood as showing that they understand that the original block was for both poor English and combativeness. If we only give this editor a three-month block, it may be no different when they come off block. If we give them an indefinite block, and they request an unblock in good Commonwealth English in two weeks, that is even better (although I am not optimistic). Robert McClenon (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

It might not be unreasonable to perhaps suggest to the editor that he seek some form of mentorship, preferably from someone who might know whichever language he is most familiar with, Ethiopian, Ge-ez, or whatever it is. John Carter (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I have no objection to any form of mentorship for this editor if the editor will agree to it. I will be satisfied if the mentor writes the unblock request and states the terms of the mentorship, as long as the unblock request is in what the community here considers to be standard written English. Unfortunately, I have found that combative who have a problem with their English are also combative about insisting that their English is good. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I have no objections to these proposals. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards User:Robert McClenon's suggestion to block the user indefinitely. I feel User:Ms Sarah Welch's proposal of a time limit block will bring us back here, as the user still seems oblivious to his disruptive editing. Mentorship is a good idea, granted with a clause of strict following. Duqsene (talk) 08:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I support User:Robert McClenon's proposal to block the user indefinitely. JimRenge (talk) 15:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment - Inserting comment to prevent automatic archival. I think that different editors have different views as to how to deal with this editor, but I don't think that anyone just wants this thread archived without action. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

CommentLooking at this User's history, User has had prior Block. Has had Wall of Text debates with other users. Has edit warred(continues to do so in slow form now). In his wall of texts argues and throws much conjecture and/or threats of ethnic violence due to wikipedia edits. Fights tooth and nail to structure articles to his ethno-nationalist POV. There is more than just a language "barrier" here, there seems a consistent pattern of behaviour of as Robert McClenon noted of ""angry ethnonationalist editor" and "combativeness" (not a Direct Quote of Robert). These articles on the Horn of Africa will not get better if we permit such behaviour to continue not only with this user but the others who have participated in this wikipedia version of "ethnonationalism conflict".HarryDirty (talk) 04:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

HarryDirty, just want to let you know that the last time I got blocked I was dealing with a user who had several sockpuppets and was using them to edit war Zekenyan and Blizzio but still I did not pass the 3 revert rule in 24 hours. After a long discussion with the user in the articles talkpage user finally agreed to include the content [16] that he intially opposed. Also I have been dealing with other users such as Otakrem and Pulheec who had several sockpuppets and use them for advocacy against what they call "Amhara and Tigray domination". I use reliable sources (almost all written by neutral writers) from relevant experts to convince them, if possible, and make sure wikipedia articles are balanced and are written with an impartial tone. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 16:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment - user HarryDirty got blocked today [17][18] because user is a sockpuppet of Otakrem whom I used to have long arguments in the past. If there are no editors who watches and deal with these kind of editors (here to advocate) then it's likely they will come back and remove or add and disappear (In few days HarryDirty already has removed a lot of sourced contents [19]). Wikipedia needs editors from this region and one that knows the people, history and politics of Horn of Africa very well. When MS Sarah said "the conflict was triggered by Amda Sion" [20][21] contrary to what the scholar said [22], and when Ms Sarah left out one important part of the letter containing a threat (tampering with the Nile) [23] no other editor complained and if I did not, it's most likely readers would have got inaccurate information. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 10:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I concur with JimRenge, Robert McClenon etc recommendation of a block. Unless admins have additional clarifying questions, it may be time to wrap this up, one way or other, and close this out. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:18, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Ms Sarah Welch User:Robert McClenon I do not believe this issue with User:EthiopianHabesha is being treated fairly. The lack of sufficient English skills should not come into play when the issue hasn't really got much to do with the edits themselves. We are dealing with Duqsene, which I still believe is Otakrem. A user that has so far made around 5 sock accounts. The last time I brought a case up about his supposed sock, it was successful. Either lock some of these pages in the HOA section or deal with the users correctly, because this user will keep on coming back with new accounts, so it isn't EthiopianHabesha that is really the issue here. Resourcer1 (talk) 04:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not surprised by your comments here, you also blank citations [24] Red herrings and false accusations are not helpful. Duqsene (talk) 09:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Resourcer1: SPI allegations need to be handled in the appropriate forum, and if there is evidence you allege there is, let us establish it and have no qualms at Duqsene being blocked by SPI admins. AGF until then, and avoid casting aspersions. It is not just English-skills of EthiopianHabesha, it is their consequent editing and walls of text on the talk page that is the problem. Just look at the edit history of Amhara people and Talk:Amhara people. Also see notes of admin Doug Weller there and above. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Resourcer1 who looks to be an associate of EthiopianHabesha, is blanking citations multiple times on the Amhara peoples page. [25] [26]Duqsene (talk) 15:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Relationship to other active cases

There is a related ARB case that just been filed by an editor who registered their account few days ago, on January 10 2017. EthiopianHabesha is one of the named parties. I am not sure if that ARB case will get accepted, how or if it impacts this case, but FWIW. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I've just had a quick look at that case (which has now been declined) and it seems quite complicated (I don't understand what the supposed libel issue is, for instance), so apologies if I have the wrong end of the stick, but the claims being made about the applicability of BLP policy to large groups are reminiscent of a now topic-banned editor, Middayexpress, who used to make similar claims in this area. Robert McClenon might well remember the Middayexpress case, but for others, the final AN/I discussion that resulted in the topic ban is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive887#WP:NPA breech following NPOV, THIRDPARTY breeches. Middayexpress eventually quit Wikipedia promising to recruit new editors from the Horn of Africa to carry on their work. Given the similarity of some of the arguments being made in this case to those employed by Middayexpress, it might be worth investigating possible links further. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Not again!?! The Horn of Africa has been an area of battleground nationalistic editing for a long time. Unlike some other real war zones, it hasn’t gone to the ArbCom to have ArbCom discretionary sanctions imposed. However, I urge the community to deal with this particular combative English-challenged editor (EthiopianHabesha) without regard to other combative editors. (By the way, the ArbCom case hasn't been declined; it is still in the process of being declined.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:04, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, sorry - I'm not familiar with how ArbCom works, and took an editor's opinion that the case should be declined as a statement that it had been declined. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The other two threads about disruptive editing in the Horn of Africa area have been archived. Is there any intent to take any action on this thread? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:40, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Kavdiamanju and unconfessed paid advertising

• Kavdiamanju (talk · contribs)

It came to my attention we've had another case of FoCuSandLeArN and his paid advertising, as this current user listed above has unconfessingly started a mass amount of company articles complete with only PR or blatantly PR-like sources; take this and this, of which I've PRODed several. Recently, they also exhibited similar advertising behavior by citing similar MO about PR at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Factom, despite the current votes now show Delete. Earlier today, they then immediately removed the PROD with the stated "Advertisement article" at the specific article for Tripfez. Like with FaL, they had been involved with this for several months until boldly "retiring"; in this case, Kavdiamanju has largely changed their activities in the last months, and as the first link I showed above, it shows they have been focusing with starting cookie-cutter company articles for the past few months now. Similar, take a look at this Factom article which is one of their last contributions today, with the summary of "removing puffery and adding sources" but, like FaL, that in fact only emphasized the article's PR format, complete with PR sources, and in the case of Factom, Kavdiamanju even cared to expand the section of its employees, executives and their services. With all of this, it shows a clear COI which is still unconfessed despite the deletion actions against their articles. Because this user has become a longtime contributor and user, this is the only place we, as with FaL, can take action. FWIW, I would've given them a serious warning about WP:PAID at their talk page, but given the massive campaign here and the fact they've still continued it until today, it's unlikely to work.

Also, like FaL involving himself with images, Kavdiamanju has affiliated articles where immediate SPAs added company images, see this (and this case, different IPs). I have examined their newest company articles so far, but another similarity to FaL, here is the fact they've affiliated themselves with other non-company articles too. Kavdiamanju has never been a largely active user, but the fact they've largely involved themselves with such similarities in such a close timeline to FaL, is probable cause enough. Now, as for articles like Werner G. Scharff, I can't quite confirm the obvious chances of paid contributions, like the others, but in such a closeness and PR-vulnerable subjects, I wouldn't say no to the likeliness. Even if there's no obvious paid contributions by the company, it's clear there's unconfessed COI here. Also, to note, all involved articles so far: BookRenter ("After working for a few startups, Barceloux saw potential in the idea and teamed up with engineers"), Earny Inc ("It introduced an idea to request a refund on the user’s behalf from e-commerce companies to make sure that the users get the best dea"), GeoOrbital ("The successful kickstarter campaign in May and June 2016 generated $1,261,222 in pledges pre purchasing around 1600 wheels"), Tiptalk ("Every celebrity sets their price for a private response as a text, photo or video for question asked on the application", If the celebrity fails to answer within two days, the money is refunded back to the user"), and Tripfez ("Tripfez makes money by collecting commission for the online customers they provide the hotels") all focus with known PR-hubs for advertisers, such as the fact both BookRenter and Earny list similar TechCrunch PR-style articles, and then Tiptalk has it again. Notify Smartse who opened the last ANI for FaL. SwisterTwister talk 01:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• Agree I don't follow all of SwisterTwister's points e.g. the image addition to GeoOrbital was 3 months after creation, but this version of Jeremy SH Griffith created a week ago shows several hallmarks of undisclosed paid editing. I'd prefer not to point out what they are, but I think it should be obvious. I see the same problems at here at Michael Mangini (record producer) as well. Combined with the typical obscure company articles, I think it is almost certain they are paid to write. SmartSE (talk) 13:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• SmartSE, I am surprised to see paid advertising remarks for me. I have edited Factom page when I thought it was pulled down to be written as a software page and not as a company page, there were several reliable sources that indicated that the company is clearly notable. As an editor, I believe that page must not be pulled down, due to the creator's mistakes or what he doesn't have an idea how it should be. The most pages created by me that are PRODED have been reviewed by a Page reviewer and not by Autopatrolled rights, which I have received almost a month back. I am noticing that even reliable sources are now considered as PR, whether they are from Forbes or Techcrunch, which are the most active news channels for the technology companies. SwisterTwister, I saw that you have PRODed 4 pages that I have created which I believe is notable because of the significant news coverage they have received from the different reliable sources. I have only UNPRODED tag for Tripfex, as it was notable not only because of the sources but the first company dedicated for the Muslim travelers and halal-tourism, as stated in Forbes and several other sources. I will certainly agree that the pages I have created were seen on Techcrunch, which is truly a notable and reliable reference. I didn't UNPRODED Bookrenter, when it was clearly mentioned by you, that there were issues in the past. I disclose that I am NOT paid by anyone for creating any page, I have added a few lines that seemed promotional to SwisterTwister, while mentioning their Business model or how the company was founded usually referred from news sources, not at all intended to promote a company.

1. GeoOrbital, was notable due to the sources and I am not linked to the editors who have later edited it. I haven't UNPRODED it
2. BookRenter, was notable due to the sources and again, not linked to the company and neither paid. I haven't UNPRODED it and will be surprised if it's pulled down, however it deserves a place like Chegg, from where I got to know about this company. Review my advert comment on the Chegg's page.
3. Tiptalk, I haven't UNPRODED it and was created by viewing the sources. Not paid for it either.
4. Earny Inc, I haven't UNPRODED it and was created by viewing the sources. Not paid for it either.
5. I have created only pages for those music producers, who were highly notable and didn't had a page. I have not intended to promote these technology companies by any means and I am surprised that an editor has made an edit after me. If you review the article, I don't think it was promotional by any-means. Michael Mangini (record producer), a a two time Grammy Award–winner, deserves a place. Adding a Discography section on Jeremy SH Griffith doesn't make it promotional rather my intent was to display why he was notable. If you see a pattern, I have created pages for Sports, technology companies and then music producers, which is not possible in case of paid editing. If I was a paid editor, I would always got a different industry rather than focusing on a particular industry at a time. I have created pages only after reading news or looking at the Wikipedia pages.

I am highly surprised to see allegations of paid edits, which is not at all even .001% true. If someone edit a page that you have created, it doesn't mean that you are paid for it, rather it is a coincidence that has happened with me only twice, for GeoOrbital after 2 months and Michael Mangini, surprisingly after a day. Either someone has been searching for him and edited the page, it really doesn't make me a paid editor. The pages I have created were only meant to describe what the company is notable for or what they have been doing. Looking forward to your comments. Kavdiamanju (talk) 17:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, I was looking at the comment of SwisterTwister for me "started a mass amount of company articles complete with only PR or blatantly PR-like sources", I realized that I have created 8 company pages, Growing Underground, Earny Inc, Brigade (app), GeoOrbital, TipTalk, Luxe (company) (survived AFD), BookRenter and Tripfez. I have never participated for AFD of the pages created by me as I was sure they will survive AFD if they deserve a place, review here. The only vote that was Delete was of SwisterTwister, where he has raised the same concerns of including clear interviews and PR attempts, however all others agreed that it deserves a place. Keep votes were from Northamerica1000, TheMagnificentist and Maharayamui, who all are senior editors here. Can you (SwisterTwister) please define me what are not clear interviews and PR attempts in case of technology companies that have significant news from sources including Forbes, Techcrunch, Observer and Washington Post news sources, not written by a freelance journalist. I have always attempted to give a clear scenario, what the company is about, how it was founded and why it is notable. If you feel that a certain line is promotional, instead of alleging me for paid edits here, shouldn't there have been an attempt to talk me with on my talk page or tagged with advert or edited the page. It is certainly frustrating for any editor, when he is questioned for a mass amount of company articles completed, when he has only made 8 pages over a period 8 months, when they all were covered by reliable news sources. SmartSE, your thoughts? Kavdiamanju (talk) 05:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

We really need to be on the same platform for the news sources when it comes to the technology companies, when one senior editor is sure that the page doesn't deserve a place and others believe it does, is it primarily due to the difference of opinion or there is really a problem? Can we sort it out? I am here only for a reason that makes me happy that I am contributing to the World's largest encyclopedia that people are going to read in the future, how the world was before them. I am not one of those people, who needs to lie to make a few dollars for his livelihood. I am clear with my goals and want to continue my contributions to make this place clean and help the community to grow up its knowledge base. I am surprised when users like Brianhe, were denied admin rights for no justified reason. Also, I am following SwisterTwister from a long time, during 2014-2015, I have always felt he is an awesome editor, we had a common view for AFD at CodeFuel, SwordPen Publishers, Sergei N. Bauer, Tasha Wahl and others. We have a difference of opinion at IndiaMART, when it seems that the decision was taken much before counting all the details in. From 2016-now, he appears to be with more of a NO point of view, I really want you to correct me, if I am really wrong. I am following Northamerica1000 and others from a long time, trying to learn how the upper level community is working and will be dedicating more time here, once I am free from my commitments. Really don't prefer to comment where I am not 100% sure including here, but to be honest, I couldn't resist against wrong allegation of paid editor here. Kavdiamanju (talk) 06:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@Kavdiamanju: just one question: are you fluent in all the languages used for sourcing on Imonomy which you created here? Or perhaps did someone help by passing you the German, Italian and Hebrew sources and the English text for the article? Brianhe (talk) 06:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@Brianhe:, Here is the process I have followed till now. Reading technology news sources, searching for them and their competitors on Wikipedia, searching Google News to look at the sources for the pages I have created and translated using Google and Bing, wherever I feel that they were required. Most of my created pages were referred from the Wikipedia's existing pages, including sports person, tech company or any news. Never intended to promote to a company, even though it appeared to others or it really did. I preferred to be more like a delete editor earlier, but after a certain period, I felt that I should be more of contributor that's gonna help the community and its readers. Kavdiamanju (talk) 07:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I find this frankly non-credible. How is it possible to do a web search for a valid source in a foreign language that you don't even read? I'm afraid the more likely explanation is some kind of off-wiki collaboration that you haven't described. With all the other evidence presented here and the overall appearance of the articles that have been created, the likelihood is PR editing under direction. Which has now become not just Undisclosed, but actively telling untruths about it. - Brianhe (talk) 14:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@Kavdiamanju: Your first article back in 2013 was a pretty classic case of undisclosed paid editing - non-notable, promotional and essentially unsourced. Given your rebuttal, I will explain why I am confident that Jeremy SH Griffith and Michael Mangini (record producer) were paid for. It's because they contain unsourced dates of birth that are not in any of the sources cited and which I'm unable to find anywhere else. How can you explain that unless you got them from the subject? Looking more closely at the EXIF data of File:Michael_Mangini_producer.jpg I also see that it was taken with an iphone only hours before you uploaded it from Flickr (taken 09:56, 13 December 2016, uploaded 18:53, 13 December 2016). Then, as you pointed out, an editor who appears to be the subjects child edited the article within 24 hours of creation. Are we supposed to believe that these events are coincidental, or go with the much simpler explanation that you were paid to create it? SmartSE (talk) 10:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

And there's something similar with File:Geraldine_Laufer_Dec_2015.jpg where the uploaded to Flickr the same day as it was uploaded to commons. (For those checking, you need to visit flickr, and then hover your mouse over the "Taken on December 4, 2015"). Same with File:Namrata_Brar_during_a_debate.jpg etc. SmartSE (talk) 10:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@Smartse:, Bill Moore was one of the earlier page that I have created and wasn't sure which pages qualify and which doesn't. This is the point where I have started learning. As far the birth dates, I have found them on the references and you can also refer to 1, 2.Kavdiamanju (talk) 16:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

What about Mangini's DOB? And all of the image uploads? SmartSE (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@Smartse:, I have referred images from Flickr and here is the process I have followed to add images. Search flickr by name and the appropriate licenses.

1. File:Geraldine Laufer Dec 2015.jpg- (taken on 4 dec) Added by me on 18 Dec. There were 3 other images (Taken on April 4, 1995), I have chosen the most recent photograph.
2. File:Namrata Brar during a debate.jpg- (taken on 20 July 2016) added by me on 13 December 2016. I still couldn't believe how I have been linked to these profiles.

@Kavdiamanju: Read what I wrote again. It shows on Flickr that these images were uploaded there the very same day you uploaded them to commons. That doesn't happen by coincidence. You must have been in contact with the subjects and told them to upload them there. SmartSE (talk) 19:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I remember having this user on my radar for a while a couple of years ago - after some digging I found [27], [28] and [29] where Kavdiamanju added spam references in the exact same manner as a certain sock farm (the same spammy domains, too). See also this SPI where the CU did not prove anything and the behavioural evidence was seen as weak - still, there's a lot of different pieces of evidence coming together here. I have not been looking at Kavdiamanju's edits more recently, but I wanted to note that this is not a new concern. --bonadea contributions talk 13:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@Bonadea:, as I have said earlier when you are new here, no one knows what are reliable links. Did I had ever added any link to any page after that? Earlier being a newbie, I wasn't sure of the reliable references, I had never ever made any non-constructive edit after that and this is how you start on Wikipedia. When you keep editing and know the community policies better, you learn and don't make mistakes. No child, can speak as fluent as an adult. Correct me If I am wrong. Kavdiamanju (talk) 16:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Propose ban

Per the evidence I've just listed above about the image uploads and their refusal to disclose, I would like to propose a ban. SmartSE (talk) 10:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support given there's enough showing this has been an unconfessed concern, and one I along with others noticed earlier, and the newest paid articles emphasize its recurrence. SwisterTwister talk 17:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Most of the concerns raised appears to when I was a newbie and not sure of the community guidelines. NO link was added after Bonadea's remarks or the first page removed. I will be surprised, if I am banned from the community for the mistakes that I have never made. Kavdiamanju (talk) 17:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

That's complete crap because the problems I've highlighted happened in the last month. SmartSE (talk) 19:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@Smartse: The issues you have highlighted are Birth dates of Jeremy SH Griffith was here, Michael Mangini was from here. All images were taken from Flickr, by first downloading to my laptop and uploaded to commons referencing Flickr. You are looking at a different side of the coin, however, there isn't any perfect theory behind it. I will resolve each and every question raised here. Let me know your next set of questions. I wasn't ready earlier to accept the paid allegations remarks, but atleast ask someone to pay me first, thereafter I am ready to accept paid allegations.Kavdiamanju (talk) 01:29, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Smartse: Also, I have no right to question on this, but how did you got the birth date for Ella Woodward from here, also found several images for her on Flickr here. HCL Infosystems, clearly seems to be paid edit, without any major news reference, this line clearly seems to be promotional (The company started as manufacturing complete range of leading Mini Computers). Birth date for Michael Janisch (musician)?, he was only nominated for (He was nominated for a MOBO Award in 2016 in the category for Best Jazz Act). Point lies here, I have no intention of alleging anyone for paid edit but, this is the same cup of tea, I have received without any valid and justified reason. If I will start looking at any page from a problematic point of view, I will always start finding the problems, whether they exist or not. Ready to answer your next set of questions.@SwisterTwister: Kavdiamanju (talk) 01:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

You're missing the point. No one really gives a damn how you transferred the images from Flickr to Commons. What we do care about is how you explain the extraordinary coincidence that the images you uploaded to commons for articles on relatively obscure people you just recently created, were themselves just uploaded to Flickr not long before you wanted them. BTW it looks a lot like the Wordpress page was only created in 2017. Can you explain how you added a birthdate in late 2016 from a page created in 2017? Even if I'm mistaken, the page doesn't seem to be indexed by either Google or Bing. Can you describe how you actually found it? Nil Einne (talk) 06:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Nil Einne. @Kavdiamanju: if you'd actually looked carefully, you'd see that none of that information was added by me. This discussion is about you and we are still waiting for an explanation about these image uploads. SmartSE (talk) 08:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

And based off the urls for files on that wordpress site e.g. I agree that it looks like it was created in 2017. SmartSE (talk) 09:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Nil Einne:, @Smartse: Did you made an attempt to search for Mangini's website like this, I can find that in one go. I have earlier clarified that I always search images on Flickr, that anyone can access. Only one photograph I have added was of December (that was a pure co-incidence) and other were atleast 3-4 months old.03:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I searched for the URL. If the webpage is indexed, this should find it. It found and still finds nothing. Your search does not find it. If you continue to claim it can be found, give a screenshot sample showing this (but use an external hosting service for the screenshot due to copyvio concerns). And you're mistaken. Both images say they were uploaded to Flickr the same day they were then uploaded to commons. Note that as clearly explained above, we're talking about when the images were uploaded to Flickr not when they were created and neither of them was created in December 2016 anyway (one in December 2015). If you're not sure how to see the upload date, you're welcome to say that, but talking other stuff when it's already been clearly explained that we're talking about the upload date doesn't help your case. And yes, we all read you talking about searching, none of that explains the extraordinary coincidence, and your continually ignoring it and downplaying and instead talking nonsense even after multiple attempts to get the point across to you strongly suggests you're aware that there is a very good reason this extraordinary coincidence happened but you can't admit it rather than a genuine language barrier or confusion or coincidence. Nil Einne (talk) 03:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support Wikipedia depends on collaboration, and collaboration depends on trust. This editor has betrayed my trust and demonstrated flagrant abuse of our community's goodwill. Enough. - Brianhe (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Brianhe:, none of my contributions have abused of the community's goodwill, I spent countless hours to keep the community clean. You are taking decision on one major co-incidence and no evident proof for any edit. If I am banned from the community, I won't be at the loss rather the community will be at the loss by losing an editor who has helped several new editors, deleted thousands of spam pages and helped the new editors. Let's talk logic, after this discussion do you also think, that I can use this account for any paid activity or abuse???' The only reason I am saying this is because I am not involved in any abusive activity. I need my account to make the contributions, if I lose it, you lose your one of the best editor in the last 3 years. 03:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support also, as we have done with other recent UPE cases, their contributions and created articles should be reviewed. Any articles they created in violation of Wikipedia's rules against paid editing and not substantially improved by someone else should be deleted. Editors banned/indefed for UPE should have their contributions treated retroactively as we treat contributions by editors who edit in violation of a block or ban since they have been editing in violation of the Terms of Use. Jbh^Talk 22:49, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jbhunley: Please reveiw my created pages, you will find that all of the pages deserves a place. They have been evidentally reviewed from a single point of view and I have never ever abused my autopatrolled rights. Let's talk logic, after this discussion do you also think, that I can use this account for any paid activity or abuse??? The only reason I am saying this is because I am not involved in any abusive activity. I need my account to make the contributions, if I lose it, you lose your one of the best editor in the last 3 years. Kavdiamanju (talk) 03:38, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

First, I tend to give a lot of weight to the concerns of @Smartse and Brianhe: they both have a lot of experience in identifying UPE. When I looked at your most edited articles I see edits like [30] which looks like PR 'buffing' along with several other edits at Wayne Elsey which talk more about his charity than the person which is often indicative of PR management of a biography. I do not doubt that you make good faith contributions as well but there are also many edits which are typical of what we see with paid promotion. Articles like BookRenter tend to reinforce the impression. Jbh^Talk 15:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Smartse:, @Jbhunley:, @Brianhe:, Can you please review my created pages? I have created only 9 company pages since the last 3 years (8 pages in the last 9 months). Did I have ever participated in AFD's of my pages, NO I didn't. What is the point, I have added images that are questioned were searched on flickr. Putting a ban, when there is no solid proof or anything evident that can make sure that I have been paid is really disgraceful and is insulting for me. I have no words to describe how exactly I am feeling now, even when you are not wrong and cannot prove your innocence. Kavdiamanju (talk) 03:48, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• Whilst you may only have created 9 pages, there has been significant addition of content across a wide range of subjects- e.g. at Varsity Spirit where the page history shows heavy paid editing from SPAs, which you seem to have been a part of. jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support I don't think this is related to Focusandlearn, but I might have misread SwisterTwister's initial post, however it is clear that there is some paid editing here; all the hallmarks have been demonstrated from the evidence presented above by SmartSE, especially with the same day Flickr -> commons -> Wikipedia path we saw with Focusandlearn being repeated here. Whilst it is true that there is not a single piece of totally inrefutable evidence that shows you've been paid to edit some of your articles, the individual pieces of evidence (such as the unsourced dates of birth, readding references that were added by a sockfarm before being removed, being able to use sources in multiple languages that were probably provided by the subject) all add together to create, IMO, a fairly solid case for paid editing. jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:24, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Those spam diffs are damning. Nobody editing in the best interest of the encyclopedia would insert a "reference" to a site like that. MER-C 02:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support The extraordinary coincidences of images being uploaded to Flickr, the day they wanted them is concerning. Of course if it really was just an extraordinary coindence they would have no explaination except their attempt to downplay what happened and talk other nonsense suggests an editor who's aware what actually happened but knows they can't admit it more than something else like a genuine language barrier or misunderstanding. Then when asked about a birthdate they offer a blog, a blog where core images appear to have been added on 17 January and which doesn't seem to be indexed in Google or even Bing. (I'm aware Google can give different results to different people so I can't completely rule out it appearing for them, but I find it unlikely that it'll not show up at all for me, but will show up for them.) This with the other concerns by Brianhe, SmartSE and bonade are enough for a support. Nil Einne (talk) 04:17, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support I do not know for sure if it is paid editing, but it is indistinguishable from paid editing. We should proceed as we do with suspected puppetry--if it is indistinguishable from puppetry, we treat it as such. We can not prove editors have received money in the absence of outside evidence. We can however prove that they edited as if they had done so. Even if conceivably it should be purely voluntary promotionalism , it remains promotionalism , which is incompatible with the purpose of WP. DGG ( talk ) 22:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• I would support this as well, as a non-admin. I've had some more time to look at the user's contributions, and while some are constructive, the pattern shown above is pretty conclusive. DGG makes an excellent point, as well. --bonadea contributions talk 20:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support: His comment "I need my account to make the contributions, if I lose it, you lose your one of the best editor in the last 3 years." in reply to Jbhunley above? Someone give this guy a shovel so he doesn't have to use his hands with that grave digging he's doing, huh? MM ('"HURRRR?) ^(Hmmmmm.) 00:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Not much more input seems to be forthcoming. This should be closed before it gets archived with no action. Jbh^Talk 15:22, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Admin-opinion request on canvassing issue

At Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#"Lists" vs. prose about lists, an editor notified cherrypicked editors without any objective criteria as directed at WP:CAN, such as "Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article" or "Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)." After being asked twice for what criteria was used, this editor responded here that no explanation is required nor will any be given. The notice itself was neutral, but since this editor cherrypicked the editors to notify, it clearly seems like vote-stacking. If someone might take the time to see the canvassing concerns near the end of the discussion, beginning at 02:43, 16 January 2017, it would be much appreciated. The editor was made aware I was seeking an admin opinion. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I can't provide you an admin's opinion, but I do tend to agree that this is very problematic behaviour, both as regards the potential canvassing and the refusal to give a straight answer as to the criteria by which they selected these particular editors. That is to say, the editor either A) does not understand what constitutes canvassing on this project, B) knows and went ahead with it anyway, and is now using rhetorical tricks to avoid the issue, or C) did have a principled, policy-consistent strategy for picking those editors, but is now refusing to decode the situation just to spite Tenebrae. Realistically speaking, it is almost certainly A or B, but even if it were C, that behaviour would be highly problematic in its own right, even if no canvassing took place; a contributor on this project cannot just refuse to be transparent about their actions with regard to a potential abuse of process just because they resent their opposition in a content discussion. That would be just plain disruptive, since the other editor at that point has no other choice but to solicit further community involvement where none is needed, if there is indeed a perfectly good reason for the behaviour.

That said, maybe it will help if an uninvolved editor inquires. Pyxis Solitary, WP:CANVAS is a very important policy which safeguards our consensus-generating process from abuse by assuring that an individual editor cannot tip the balance of apparent community consensus by selecting for participation in discussion those editors which might bend the discussion in their favour. On it's face, it looks like you chose the editors you pinged by some idiosyncratic standard. Under those circumstances, the onus absolutely is upon you to provide at least a short, simple explanation as to how you selected those editors in a manner which is consistent with the few exceptions made in the canvassing policy. You've said to Tenebrae "If you weren't so wrapped-up in your combative antagonism, you could figure it out for yourself.", but that's not a valid response (if you have a good policy basis to your actions, why would you not just say what it is?) and, in any event, I looked at the discussion myself as an uninvolved party, and the basis for your selections was not apparent to me either. Can you shed some light on the process by which you selected these editors, please? Snow ^{let's rap} 19:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

"if you have a good policy basis to your actions, why would you not just say what it is?" ... I'll respond to any editor's question that is not laced with the acrimony of User:Tenebrae. If you read his comments directed at me in this discussion, you would see that his behavior has been combative, accusatory and dismissive: "Here's something I thought was so obvious it didn't need to be explained, but I guess that's not so"; "And as this editor appears unwilling to accept"; "you mischaracterize some editors' ambivalent stances or comments designed to add perspective as supporting your position."; "that's a completely different discussion tha[n] one that's centered solely on one editor's favorite film that one wants to promote."

"Can you shed some light on the process by which you selected these editors, please?" ... I looked at the revision history of the Carol article as far back as 3 June 2013‎ -- and invited many of the editors in its editing history to the discussion. Most have not edited the article in a long time, but that did not negate their having been registered editors involved in its development. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 22:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I see--thank you for the clarification, Pyxis. Tenebrae, does that satisfy your concerns? I haven't done a full audit of every user Pyxis messaged, but those I did check seem consistent with her info here that she was summoning only those who contributed to the Carol article where the dispute began, aside from the fact that some were also explicitly tapped because they contribute to MOS:Film. Both categories of contributor seem to fall within the exceptions provided for in WP:CANVAS and the the large(ish) number of editors messaged suggests that it is unlikely that editors were cherry-picked from within these two groups. Are your concerns sufficiently put to rest that we might consider this part of the dispute resolved? Snow ^{let's rap} 22:58, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I honesty can't say I'm convinced, for two reasons. First, Pyxis Solitary says "invited many of the editors in its editing history to the discussion." Why were some editors not invited? And second, Pyxis Solitary invited three additional editors on Jan. 22. How and why were these three additional editors picked? --Tenebrae (talk) 00:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Addendum: One of those editors had some words today for Pyxis Solitary that might be worth reading. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• Tenebrae, you are required to notify the editor whom you are reporting at ANI on their talkpage, and you did not do that. Also, just for the record, on 18/19 January you posted these notices [31] on 66 users' talkpages. You are a highly experienced editor with over 125,000 edits, and Pyxis Solitary is an inexperienced user with less that 5,000 edits. I'm not sure why you are using antagonistic and hostile language towards her, but I would encourage a much more collaborative and helpful tone and approach, especially with inexperienced good-faith editors who are clearly attempting good-faith contributions to the encyclopedia. Softlavender (talk) 06:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate you and other editors taking time to come here and analyze the issue; I know it's never pleasant.

I actually did notify Pyxis Solitary about the ANI right before I did it, here. She even responded, here, saying, "Go right ahead and indulge your paranoia." I later gave additional notice to everyone at the WP:FILM discussion.

I would also have to say that Pyxis Solitary's examples of my supposed acrimony fall far short of her calling me paranoid, as noted immediately above, and also far short of the stream of personal insults that this editor has directed at me. I began our exchanges with a very straightforward post here:

I removed the list of accolades on this talk page, since Wikipedia guidelines, policies, etc. apply to talk pages as well as to article pages, and that list violated Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Accolades. Trying to place disallowed edits on the talk page because they aren't permitted in the article itself is a serious breach of Wikipedia policy. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:36, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Here is that editor's attack in response. I've boldfaced the first instance of name-calling:

Stop inventing guidelines and policies. There is NOTHING in Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Accolades that deals with the Talk page. There is nothing in WP:TALK#FACTS that supports your assertion that a list in the TALK PAGE violates any WP policy. The rules that govern editing articles are not the same rules that govern Talk pages. All you are is a bully who wants to rule over the contributions of other Wikipedia editors. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 03:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

When I politely pointed out the relevant guidelines, Pyxis Solitary called me a liar here. Eventually, another editor with whom I have no connection took Pyxis Solitary's behavior task in point-by-point detail here.

If that's not enough indication of Pyxis Solitary's verbal abusiveness, name-calling continued for a month after our initial exchange. After Pyxis Solitary called me "a holier-than-thou hypocrite", another editor who had been the target of her vitriol wrote that, "I must confess I've found a lot of Pyxis Solitary's discourse on this article pretty hostile". Whereupon Pyxis Solitary retorted, "You two can have tea together, if you want". Pyxis Solitary also made a serious, unfounded accusation here calling me a stalker when Carol (film) and the related accolades article were the only articles on which we've encountered each other.

When Pyxis Solitary again called me a liar, saying "If you're going to invent and lie, you need to be reminded that claims can be researched", I supplied her a talk-page link backing up my point — and Pyxis Solitary inexplicably acted as if I hadn't supplied that link, in classic I-can't-hear-you.

I could go on, but I think the pattern of behavior is clear. If you'll look over the Carol and Accolades talk pages, I think anyone would find that I and other editors for the longest time were as civil as could be, and Pyxis Solitary responded with a pattern of hostility.

I'm not sure why we're discussing all this when the issue is vote-stacking. But now that this is out of the way, let me work through the rest of the posts above.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Yikes, that's disappointing. I thought maybe we had a simple communication breakdown here that could be solved quickly, but those civility and non-AGF issues seem pretty pronounced. As to the WP:TPG/policy issue, I've not seen the full explanation voiced on any of those forums, so here's my understanding for the record: material which is not suitable for inclusion in mainspace may sometimes be included on the talk page during discussion of whether it is suitable for mainspace, but only for a reasonable amount of time. Even then, there are circumstances where it may not be permitted at all (i.e. major BLP violations that touch upon WP:ATTACKPAGE territory). But certainly under no circumstances should disallowed material be preserved indefinitely on the talk page, just "for the record".

As to the behavioural issues, I'm still unconvinced of the votestacking. It's not outside the realm of possibility that these editors were selectively chosen, but until someone presents us with an analysis showing that Pyxis was not using some allowed metric (i.e., last twenty editors who edited that page), it's hard to support administrative action on that issue.

The breaches with civility are another matter. Pyxis seems to have gone from zero to fury with some of those responses, and she seems to have repeatedly assumed bad, rather than good, faith when evaluating the policy arguments supplied by some other editors, even though she herself seems to have limited experience with some of those policies. However, most worrying is her profound misunderstanding of how the Wikipedia consensus process works; as noted in these posts ([32], [33]) she seems to think that her self-declared identity as an expert in this field gives her some kind of leverage, priority or authority to dictate content via fiat, and she needs to be disabused of this notion in a hurry if she is to contribute productively here. Pyxis Solitary, we do not establish consensus on this project by comparing credentials; most users never even disclose them and they are never a part of our content analysis. You must make your argument on proposed content based solely upon the sources and the policies we have formulated via community consensus (with a little bit of pragmatism to lubricate the process). Coming at someone with an "I know better because X, Y, Z" argument will only decrease the likelihood that experienced editors will endorse your view.

Further, WP:C is not just a luxury on this project, only to be embraced when your expertise/status are being respected with regard to the work you have done here, as several of your comments seem to imply. It is in fact a cornerstone of productive involvement and editors, even if they do not hold the idea in high esteem, are expected to comport with it to an at least baseline level which, in my opinion, you are nowhere near right now. I strongly advise you to review that policy and WP:NPA before contributing further, because you are, in my opinion, courting a block with your current approach--and in any event, it is sinking your efforts to get the content outcome you desire. I honestly think you have a bit to learn about our editorial processes here and how we generate consensus, so i would study up before making any gung-ho assertions about other editors making up policies. It might also help you to seek out a [[WP:Mentor to walk you through some of these processes. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:12, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh, but just to add, Tenebrae, Softlavender is absolutely correct in saying that you should have followed the standard policy for informing Pyxis of this discussion (i.e., a notice delivered to her user talk). Snow ^{let's rap} 04:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I suspect that User:Tenebrae will not accept any explanation since "guilty until proven innocent" has been his modus operandi from the start. I suspect that he is deliberately stalling the discussion in "Lists" vs. prose about lists, which can result in editors moving on to something else or forget about the discussion altogether.

Have I lost my temper in my dealings with User:Tenebrae? Yes. Could I have handled it better? Yes. However, I don't take being accused of knowingly violating a WP policy lightly: " "I noticed only after the fact that you had placed the entire list, violations and all … Trying to place disallowed edits on the talk page is a serious breach of Wikipedia policy." The accusation was false and his behavior was bullying. I said as much and told him to stay away from my Talk page.

• re "After Pyxis Solitary called me "a holier-than-thou hypocrite" -- he conveniently left out the rest: "Read your own choice of words about another editor in your summary of: Revision as of 16:46, 9 January 2017." This is what he wrote in the summary: "Again, that fannish editor is violating WP:FILM guidelines by deliberating ignoring them."

User:Tenebrae made an edit that I considered careless, reckless, and detrimental to the article. Not only did he delete summary content about critical response from the *Critical reception* section, he also deliberately changed a numerical figure I had that same day updated, back to the previous total. When I called him on it, he attributed this change to a revert: "In a revert I made, a number changed from 250 to 247. I immediately corrected it to 250, within seconds. That is not a "pattern" of reckless editing". His explanation was untrue. If you view the History you will see that the first time User:Tenebrae edited the article was on 22:17, 11 January 2017. I provided the links to the revision history before/after User:Tenebrae edited the main article: "Start with Revision as of 09:29, January 11, 2017 and scroll through history of revisions until Revision as of 22:17, January 11, 2017. You could see by looking at the edit that it was not a revert -- it was a manual change and deletion. And I called his excuse for what it was: false -- and hypocritical because he continually accuses me of wrongdoing, when he, himself, does it.

• re stalking: In Gushy tone and other vios User:Tenebrae posted: "I would also warn against canvassing or tag-teaming, as your edit here suggests you may be doing. This would also be part of any dispute resolution or admin intervention." (a) He accuses me of canvassing and (b) exactly how did User:Tenebrae learn that I had sent a private message to another editor unless he was following me to see what I was doing on Wikipedia. This shadowing is obsessive behavior associated with stalking.

– Also in this topic he wrote: "you deliberately misread WP:FILM guidelines to suit your agenda. You're a huge fan of the film. We understand. But that doesn't mean you can flout guidelines."

– And in the Re "Top ten" vs. "Top ten list" in Carol and List of accolades received by Carol (film) discussion he wrote about me: "This is nothing more than a largely SPA-editor fan trying to puff up one of her favorite films."

– And there's "SPA Pyxis Solitary feels FILMMOS doesn't apply when it comes to one of her personal favorite films."

• re "When Pyxis Solitary again called me a liar, saying "If you're going to invent and lie, you need to be reminded that claims can be researched", I supplied her a talk-page link backing up my point — and Pyxis Solitary inexplicably acted as if I hadn't supplied that link, in classic I-can't-hear-you." User:Tenebrae wrote in this topic: "A later discussion at FILM MOS agreed to allow prose mention of the AFI top-ten list (not the nominees, and only in prose). I have reinserted that sentence." To which I replied (after looking at the MOS:FILM Talk page): "There is NO discussion in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film (Talk page for MOS:FILM) regarding AFI top-ten list. In the History of the Talk page -- going as far back as "16 February 2010‎‎" -- there is NO summary that even mentions AFI. If you're going to invent and lie, you need to be reminded that claims can be researched." From what I saw, he was being untruthful and deceptive. This forced him to provide links to archived discussions -- which after reviewing only dealt with the *Accolades* section of a film article, not the *Critical response* section.

I allowed the hostility that developed between me and User:Tenebrae to spill over in my dealings with two other editors. That was wrong. Since then, my interactions with those same editors has been civil and cooperative.

The editor who "had some words to say today" took offense at my responding to his comment and sectioning the discussion, and lectured me based on his presumption that I had knowingly defied WP do's and don'ts (and I add, he twisted my keeping track of who had responded to the discussion and the gist of their comments into my creating a "voting list" -- which parrots User:Tenebrae's allegation: "I'd like to remind Pyxis Solitary that these discussion are not vote-based.").

I saw topics in this page that had been collapsed as "Extended content" and assumed you can do that in a discussion when the content starts to take up a lot of page space. I did a Google search for "Extended content" in WP and found the Template:Collapse/doc which states: "template is used for placing collapse boxes around short discussions and bits of discussions." The text I collapsed strictly deals with the accusations of "canvassing" and "voter stacking", which veered the discussion about "'List' vs. prose about lists" off-track. Since I saw that the collapse does not remove the collapsed content from the discussion, and since the text involved was not comments debating "'List' vs. prose about lists" guidelines, I used the template to keep one subject (discussion about list vs. prose) separate from the other (accusation of canvassing).

I'm getting tired of being accused of wrongdoing by User:Tenebrae (violating WP policies, cherry-picking, canvassing, vote stacking). Pyxis Solitary (talk) 06:14, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Don't talk about an editor without notifying him, especially at ANI - it could be viewed as if you were talking about somebody behind their back. Especially don't do this if you decide to accuse him of "twisting" and "parroting" things. Didn't I ask you to leave me out of this matter, Pyxis? CapnZapp (talk) 23:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

"Didn't I ask you to leave me out of this matter," – Woa! I didn't drag you into this ANI. Use:Tenebrae did: Addendum: One of those editors had some words today for Pyxis Solitary that might be worth reading. He's the one who used you to bolster his "righteous indignation". Re-direct your outrage in his direction. And in your 1-2-3-4-5 comment in that discussion you took a simple record-keeping I created to keep track of editors involved in the discussion, and the kernel of their opinions, into my presenting "voting lists" (your words). If you had bothered to read the entirety of the comments in that discussion you would have seen that one editor wrote: "Please add me to the list of those who consider summary sentences about critical reception acceptable." Laying blame on me is calumnious. And lecturing me (or anyone) is inappropriate. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 06:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay, that's it, my patience with you is up. You appear completely blinded by your attempts to "win" this discussion. Did I accuse you of dragging me into this ANI? No. Read what I said. Next item: Stop telling me where to "direct my outrage"! I don't know if you even realize it, but you don't get to characterize my posts as "outrage". The bit where you characterize me as lecturing you, however, seems rather on the spot, as you will see. And I don't care one bit about your excuses for that list - if you had more experience you would have understood how that is the way it would look, and that's all that counts.

Now, let's forget your attempts to put accusations in my mouth, and instead move over to the things I really told you: Don't talk about an editor without notifying him. Don't put words in his or her mouth. Did you or did you not accuse me of "twisting" your list? Did you or did you not then characterize that view (that you yourself made up) using the word "parroting"? And, did you or did you not do so after being specifically asked to leave me out of it?

You don't get to shift that blame onto others. In fact, as long as you keep barreling down that road, you will continue to have miserable experiences on Wikipedia - until you can accept that you are just as much to blame for this clusterfest as your counterpart. But what you don't seem to realize is that I don't care about the actual subject here. I'm definitely not on Tenebrae's side, but forget about him - I'm responding to your behavior. I'm asking you to cool your jets - whatever you're doing, you're doing it wrong. It isn't working. You're not getting any constructive results.

Instead, just suck it up. Accept blame for what you have done wrong, without waiting for Tenebrae to do it first. Step away from this conflict. That's the way to win here on Wikipedia. You can always return later, when everybody has forgotten about any personal slights, so the focus can return to the actual topics at hand. But, that I can't ask of you. What I can ask of you, however, is this: For the final time: don't involve me, please. As if it wasn't already clear, that includes not talking *about* the user (me), and it especially includes not characterizing that user's edits in any way that can be construed as controversial, and it *really* includes not doing so without pinging or even naming that user. Thank you and have a good day. CapnZapp (talk) 11:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Snow Rise – Re: "she seems to think that her self-declared identity as an expert in this field gives her some kind of leverage, priority or authority". I asked the editor involved "Do you know anything about the film industry and what publications and associations are considered "notable"?" And got the following response: For the record, in my career as a project manager, I have professional experience at a streaming media company with major film industry partners, directly involving decisions about what information from film critics should be displayed in a streaming media application to be integrated in a next-generation smart TV for a major TV manufacturer, so yes I believe I know something about the subject. What are your credentials?. To which I provided a response. And of course, User:Tenebrae couldn't resist getting involved so he could say: "I could throw credentials as a journalist and author that would be more impressive, unless you've published several books." Nuff said. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 07:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I recognize you are not the only one who engaged in that activity in that discussion, however you absolutely are the one who opened to door on those arguments by saying "Do you know anything about the film industry and what publications and associations are considered "notable"? Who else is responding to the third opinion request? Because someone who has zero or minimal familiarity with the film industry should stay out of this convo.". Please understand that this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. And we don't do degree audits or resume checks at the door. Editors frequently contribute to content areas outside of their professional wheelhouses, and, in fact, the project depends upon this. You can't dismiss another editor's contributions because you have decided they lack your elevated understanding of the topic area. That's just not how discussion works here. In fact, sometimes the areas which represent subjects near and dear to an editors heart, or which represent overlap with their professional interests, are the areas where they need to exercise greatest caution in editing, because it can be hard to divorce oneself from their deeply-held convictions or personal knowledge when our policies require a more nuanced approach to the "truth". Regardless, you don't get to decide whose perspectives are sufficiently validated by their professional background to allow them to contribute to a given discussion and berating a user who provided their good-faith editorial perspective through a community process is never ok, and hardly likely to turn minds to your way of thinking. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

"berating a user who provided their good-faith editorial perspective through a community process". You are right and I was wrong to go that far. I realized that I was allowing my experience with User:Tenebrae to infect my interaction with two other editors, and shifted gears. This resulted in one of them thanking me after an edit, and my next contact with the other you can see for yourself here and here. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 09:17, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I had a feeling you'd own up to that straight on. I honestly don't know why you and Tenebrae are having such a hard time getting on: you both seem like reasonable people to me. Is there any chance you two might try to reboot this working relationship, start from square one? I admit, I haven't read every line of that content discussion, but it seems to me there is room for a compromise approach. Snow ^{let's rap} 10:05, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I think once Pyxis Solitary doubled-down on calling me a stalker because I looked at an editor's Contributions page that this precludes any claim of reasonableness on Pyxis Solitary's part. I think the highly defensive wall-of-text responses augurs that as well.

And does this strike anyone as reasonable:

I suspect that User:Tenebrae will not accept any explanation since 'guilty until proven innocent' has been his modus operandi from the start. I suspect that he is deliberately stalling the discussion in "Lists" vs. prose about lists, which can result in editors moving on to something else or forget about the discussion altogether.

It's an old and not very good debate trick to deflect by not answering my two specific questions at 00:49, 24 January 2017 rather than risk having to concede vote-stacking. Saying, "I'm not going to answer" and attacking the questioner is not reasonable behavior. As for the stalling claim: No. A typical RfC lasts a minimum of 30 days, so the shorter amount of time that this FILMMOS discussion has been going on is absolutely typical unless one is impatient and wants to rush things for some reason.

And lastly: How much more combative language and how many more false accusations from Pyxis Solitary should one be expected to take? --Tenebrae (talk) 16:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I understand your frustration with some of those comments, but if you want an honest and pragmatic appraisal, I don't think I see a sanction materializing at this time. It's impossible to be 100% on the matter, of course, but as to the issue that brought you here, the canvassing, I can't see a pattern at present which suggests selection for bias. If you think you find one, you can let us know, but that looks like a dead issue on the present evidence. As to the civility issues, they aren't nothing, but I'd be surprised if an admin blocked. I think you want to hold out for a formal administrative warning, but I'm not sure that's the way forward or that you'd certainly get it. She hopefully appreciates that the combative style is completely counter-intuitive to her goals. I suggest as a compromise that there be no rush by any party to close the RfC. You've already expressed that you view that as important and I agree--under any circumstances and particularly these. I also recommend you post notices at a few central discussion hubs that are neutral and appropriate to the discussion. That's what should have been done here from the start, after-all; better by far than spamming user talks. Then you wait for (hopefully) enough people to form a larger consensus that will even out any effect Pyxis' notices had (if any). Wait the full 30 days and maybe a little longer if discussion is still heavy and likely to yield a consensus. There's no rush here. Just...if you two can't AGF, try to minimize direct conflict on the issues by commenting to others, or at least stick to purely neutral language about the policies alone, without any commentary upon expertise or character of other party. Alternatively you can always make a proposal regarding her here, but my recommendation is the above. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

"I suggest as a compromise that there be no rush by any party to close the RfC." He called it an RfC. But there is no RfC. Right now it is only a discussion in the MOS:FILM Talk page. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 06:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

By the way, right after he posted the 16:51 comment he went to the MOS:FILM discussion and did this: revision as of 16:56, January 24, 2017 "Not a good-faith edit to collapse and hide a discussion that the editor does not want others to easily see". You read what I wrote about collapsing the block of content. He continues to allege misconduct -- and now trickery. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 06:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, if there is no RfC, there should be one--hosted on the talk page for the article in question. Though a notice on MOS:Film or any other neutrally-chosen forum likely to draw in editors with useful insight is permissible. My suggestion above is just one reasonable solution (probably also the most policy consistent game plan / typical approach to this problem as well), but the main point I am trying to stress is that you two need to de-personalize this, and getting more editors involved will help not only that objective, but also make the consensus healthier and more clear. Snow ^{let's rap} 18:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Never done an RfC before. And the bureaucratic hoops it requires you to jump through do not encourage lay persons to roll the dice on getting it right the first time. Just the simple act of inviting editors that had edited the Carol article to a discussion due to edits to said article turned into a hassle and haggle. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 05:06, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

One of the benefits of the RfC is that it allows you to avoid accusations of bias. You do need to be careful about framing the question neutrally and in a way that accurately portrays the positions of both sides. WP:RfC has all of the relevant info and resources (though I do admit is is not terribly user friendly to first timers). Alternatively Tenebrae could do it. Or, if you guys want me to, I can start it as a neutral third party with no particularly strong feelings on the matter. You will have to be patient with me though, as I will be busy today and tomorrow--and it would help if you each submit a (very brief) summary of your positions. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:00, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

"I can start it as a neutral third party with no particularly strong feelings on the matter." – Thank you for offering help with the RfC. I'm not confident that I can dot all the i's and cross all the t's to the satisfaction of editors experienced with RfCs. Where do I submit the summary of my position? Here or your talk page? Pyxis Solitary (talk) 04:20, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

My talk page would be fine--just allow for up to a day...ish, for the RfC to go up. :) Tenebrae, if you feel like undertaking the RfC yourself to get it done faster, you are welcome to. But if you don't mind waiting on me to do it, can you take a minute to summarize the positions for your approach too? Snow ^{let's rap} 07:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I have to put on my thinking cap and will probably rewrite it 1000xs before you look at it. :-) Pyxis Solitary (talk) 09:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Take your time, there's no rush! But do try to keep the argument as tight as possible; RfCs often work best if the proposal is kept as uncomplicated as the context allows, so the more streamlined your arguments, the less I will have to edit them when preparing the posting. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• There is nothing in the spirit or letter of WP:CANVASS which allows for a discussion to be held hostage because one editor disagrees with another editor's notifications. Which was more destructive to the consensus-building process: Pyxis Solitary inviting some other users to comment, or the sideshow resulting from Tenebrae's unfounded accusation? Knock it off. Stick to discussing the issue at hand, and if you can't do that without attacking other editors, don't hit the save button. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Before anyone hurls a claim like "unfounded accusation", it needs to be said that I asked that editor twice for what, if any, criteria was used. The editor twice refused to answer, and then responded with hostility.

When an editor can't give objective criteria, it's absolutely reasonable to suspect vote-stacking — and it's the responsible thing to come here and ask for an opinion other than my own. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't put as much criticism on your initial inquiry as Ivan does, Tenebrae, but at this point it must be said that no one has been able to establish a pattern which strongly suggests vote-stacking, so I recommend moving on. The best suggestion I can offer is to RfC the matter at the article talk page, and publicize the discussion with notices on a handful of relevant boards, projects or other community spaces that are appropriate to the content. Hopefully this will generate enough new contributors to void the potential canvassing issue (if it were indeed a real problem, and I'm not sure it is). At the very least, it will give you both other people to discuss the matter with than each-other--said opportunity I encourage you to embrace, given your inability to AGF with one-another. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate what you're saying, and that does seem to be the consensus here — which was my whole reason to come to this page, to seek consensus by other editors, one way or the other. While I remain unconvinced, I obviously accept consensus. And once again, please let me point out: This all might have been avoided if the editor have behaved in good faith and simply answered the question about criteria in the first place. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, I've noted on the FILMMOS talk page that the issue is resolved. If an admin or an uninvolved editor wants to close this, I have no objection. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

For the record:

• At 21:10, 25 January 2017: the advisory that User:Tenebrae inserted into the top of the discussion was collapsed as "Resolved" by Ivanvector.
• At 22:25, 26 January 2017: the following statement was inserted into the collapsed content by User:Tenebrae, "The consensus is that not enough evidence exists to confirm vote-stacking."

"Not enough evidence" insinuates that there was some sort of evidence. There was NO evidence whatsover. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 03:59, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

No one taught you that when you win an argument to stop talking? You admitted that you selectively chose editors. Then you added three or four additional editors after-the-fact without any criteria whatsoever. I completely believe you chose them all carefully to attempt vote-stacking ... but I'm not willing, as you apparently were, to go look through the talk pages of potential editors and see how they were leaning. Any reasonable person would find it suspicious that you refused to disclose any purported criteria even after politely being asked twice. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:27, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

"I completely believe you chose them all carefully to attempt vote-stacking. And there you go again! This entire turmoil has been rooted in your delusion that I must have been up to no good.

"I'm not willing, as you apparently were, to go look through the talk pages of potential editors and see how they were leaning." Do you know what the word is for "Irrational distrust or suspicion of others"? It's paranoia. Look it up.

"Any reasonable person would find it suspicious that you refused to disclose any purported criteria even after politely being asked twice." Politely asked? This professed respectful and considerate manner (definition of "politely") doesn't exist and anyone who reads it (now collapsed as "Unconstructive") can see for themselves. I did not respond to your questions because it was you that was demanding an answer. I don't respond to anyone's goading. It will be a cold day in Hades before anyone who has been following this here and in the "Lists" vs. prose about lists discussion can say with a straight face that you have been a "reasonable person".

There is no evidence that I was vote-stacking because I was not vote-stacking. I didn't even know what vote-stacking was until your conniption about what you thought I was doing. It's all in your head.

If you continue with your accusations and defamation the next step that will be taken in this matter will be an ANI about you. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 00:12, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

We're already at ANI, in case you haven't noticed, and your verbal abuse toward editors besides even myself are well-documented in this thread. Your name-calling and incivility in your most recent post ("It's paranoia. Look it up.") speaks more about your behavior than it does mine or anyone else's.

And once more, all this could have been avoided if you had just done what we're all expected to do and give an answer when you're asked what, if any, criteria you used in picking editors to notify. It's a breach of protocol to say you'll only supply required answers to editors you personally like. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Possibly dynamic Serbian IPs removing reference from multiple articles

Two Belgrade-based Serbian IPs, 178.221.137.49 and 178.223.93.49 (both of which are effectively WP:SPAs) have been targeting articles that use a book by Philip J. Cohen, ‘’ Serbia’s Secret War: Propaganda and the Deceit of History’’, deleting it as a reference and citations to it and disparaging it and the author in edit summaries. As can be seen from Talk:Philip J. Cohen, this book is critical of collaborationist Serbs during World War II, and has been attacked by some Serbian sources ever since it was published. However, I believe it contains material that is of benefit to the encyclopaedia, and this material shouldn't be deleted by editors because they don’t agree with it. This all began after I AfD’d an article on a vocal blogger critic of Cohen, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carl Kosta Savich and also posted a RfC at Talk:Banjica concentration camp to establish the reliability of Cohen for use on that article after another Serbia-based IP had dismissed it on talk. Banjica concentration camp was at least partially run by Serbian collaborators. First 178.221.137.49 deleted Cohen from Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia here, which I reverted on the basis that while it was BOLD, there was a RfC about Cohen ongoing (which they had already contributed to) and they should wait for the RfC to close before taking such action. I tried to engage them on their talk page, here. However, they deleted it again. I then issued an ARBMAC warning. The deletion was subsequently reverted by another user.

Next, 178.223.93.49 deleted Cohen from the articles on Nikolaj Velimirović, Lazo M. Kostić, and Kosta Kumanudi, all figures associated with Serbian collaboration during World War II. I reverted these removals, but 178.223.93.49 reverted them. 178.223.93.49 also deleted Cohen from List of Serb countries and regions. Obviously I have left them as is for now, but the pattern that is appearing concerns me.

These deletions, almost certainly by the same person, occurring while an RfC about the reliability of Cohen is ongoing, is clearly disruptive and disrespectful towards our community dispute resolution processes. Obviously I am involved, and any further warnings from me appear unlikely to be heeded, so I am asking if an uninvolved admin will warn the users to stop this deletion of Cohen from articles and tell them to wait for the outcome of the RfC on the reliability of Cohen. There are other IP and registered SPAs (likely meatpuppets) appearing on the RfC and elsewhere around this subject, but these two are the obviously related ones causing the most disruption. I've notified both IPs. Thanks for your time looking at this. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that this is Vujkovica brdo (talk · contribs), who exhibited similar relentless behavior of removing all content referenced to sources he doesn't like [34][35], see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Špiro Kulišić, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josip Pečarić mainly in the field of mathematics but also in articles about Serbian and Croatian history. The article B. Wongar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) provides the obvious link, both 178.223.93.49 and Vujkovica brdo editing the article about an obscure Australian anthropologist. While this does not fall under sockpuppeting category (Vujkovica brdo retired in November), it does show a long-standing pattern of disruption. While he often does have a point on the matters of content (he does have a point about Cohen, IMO), he goes about it in so belligerent manner that it inevitably ends up in conflict and disruption. No such user (talk) 16:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I encourage you to have your say about Cohen at the RfC. Thanks for the heads-up about Vujkovica brdo. If it is Vujkovica brdo (and the similar editing on B. Wongar – which has only nine pagewatchers – seals the deal for me), he had been warned three times for edit warring and WP:OWN in the week prior to his "retirement" in mid-November here, here, and here, so edit warring now using IPs is a clear attempt to evade scrutiny of past behaviours, which is prohibited by WP:Clean start. The editors that warned him were @Joel B. Lewis, David Eppstein, and Arthur Rubin:, so they might have a view on this. Would a narrow rangeblock pick up both IPs without too much collateral damage? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

My interest in Vb's edits is connected only to his work on mathematics, not on Serbian history, so I have no informed opinion on the current dispute. But I do have the general impression that Vb knows how to evade rangeblocks. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

The two IPs have stopped since being notified of this thread, but a new account KanteP has just appeared to start edit warring deleting Cohen from articles here, here and here on the Judenfrei article, and making wholesale deletions of work I've recently put into Banjica concentration camp here, claiming I'm putting "too much" background into the article. When I've pointed them to another article with a similar amount of background, Kragujevac massacre (which I've also worked on recently and which is currently undergoing GAN review), they then tagged it as too long as well and made comments on the review page about Cohen here. I have tried to reason with this "new" editor, but this is obvious trolling by someone with less than 100 edits on all wikis, who has obviously been here before, and is very disruptive when all I am trying to do is improve articles in a difficult area using reliable sources, some of which I need to translate with great pain to my brain. It has been several years since there has been this level of trolling in the Yugoslavia in WWII subject area, and I would appreciate a hand here. I've notified the new account. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Just a few points related to this Peacemaker67's work.

• Banjica concentration camp. Two sections Background and Establishment are 2.5 (out of 6) pages long i.e. comprise more than 40% of the whole article. All my warning about this meaningless disproprtionality were in vain. It was told him (her?) that "The Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia already covers most of this section and there is no need to repeat the same things here". The Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia link is visible in the article, If we browse Begovic's two volume book, available online, we'll see that Begovic for the same events (in Background and Establishment) dedicated just 17 out of 750 pages which is less than 2.2% of the whole book
• His reading of Begovic's book is incomplete which results into dubious and unclear conclusions inserted in the article. I've expressed and elaborated my concerns on the article talkpage.
• Cohen's book. The book is rejected by seven notable scholars as something that might be not even written by him. I removed Cohen's book only from the articles where he is obviously inaccurate and incomplete. This user always reverted my fixes not giving a serious reason for it nor responding to my edit summaries. Needles to say that this Cohen's pamphlet accusing the Serbs is advertised excessively across all Wikipedias.--bez potpisa (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• This is not a content dispute (they can be resolved on talk pages and through DR like RfCs), this is about behaviour. I was in the process of expanding Banjica concentration camp, and of course, I started with the background... This editor is aware of (and has participated in, at least once) the ongoing RfC about the reliability of Cohen at Talk:Banjica concentration camp, but continues to ignore that community process (which is still running) and continues to delete Cohen from articles, as if he alone is the arbiter of what a reliable source is on WP. He does not compare and contrast sources when they differ, as we do on WP, he deletes sources he doesn't personally agree with. These articles now include The Holocaust in Serbia here, and Edmond Paris here, and now he is also removing respected Holocaust historian Christopher Browning from The Holocaust in Serbia here because he disagrees with what Browning said at a conference (and then misrepresents what Browning said on the talk page in defence of his deletion). The edits on Judenfrei and The Holocaust in Serbia, along with the removal of Cohen (who has a lot to say about Serbian collaborators and their involvement in the Holocaust in Serbia), might give an uninvolved observer reason to be concerned about his motives. There is a current in Serbian historiography about the Holocaust, saying that local collaborators were only doing what they were told, so have no responsibility for what happened etc. This pattern is very concerning, apart from the edit warring, deleting references, trolling me at Kragujevac massacre etc. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, this is only a content dispute. Browning was blatantly wrong, read in details Sajmiste concentration camp. Jews from Nis were deported to Sajmiste and died in Belgrade were deported and not killed on spot! This is my last response to your incivilties.--bez potpisa (talk) 05:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• More edit warring, now over the Browning quote on The Holocaust in Serbia, per above. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• There are more IPs here 178.221.134.32 is also probably Vujkovica brdo (talk · contribs), as is 178.223.78.167 given the common editing of B. Wongar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josip Pečarić. It looks like this editor has been editing while logged out using dynamic Serbia IPs and and editing while logged in, using two separate accounts, one of which they claim they've "retired" from now. This is a breach of WP:Clean start and not in good faith, hiding their history of edit warring. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:25, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• A look at Catholic Church sexual abuse cases indicates more IP hopping disruption by the same range, including 178.221.148.19 and 178.222.141.169, again on Edmond Paris, and removing reliable sources using 178.221.134.32 on Milorad Ekmečić here. It is pretty clear to me that KanteP is a new account for Vujkovica brdo, but that they are also editing a fairly narrow range of articles using IPs regardless of whether they have a registered account. At the RfC mentioned above, it appears that the same editor has !voted three times, twice as different IPs and once as KanteP. This is pretty obviously being done to edit war and disrupt community processes and not get held accountable for their actions. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• Despite a notice about not editing while logged out, the same editor again deleted Cohen from Edmond Paris here], this time using 91.150.92.1, which has also been used to delete Cohen (and other sources) from Judenfrei here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• And so it goes, still edit warring while logged out at Judenfrei here, and Emanuel Schäfer (the Gestapo officer that had the Jewish women and children of Serbia killed using a gas van), again removing Holocaust historian Christopher Browning and replacing him with the decidely fringey Barry Lituchy, here. This editor just edit wars to remove reliable sources he doesn't like, and edits while logged out in an attempt to avoid scrutiny. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

• The two registered accounts have now been blocked for socking. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:53, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

NPOV tag abuse

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

---

Volunteer Marek, with Jr8825 and Irina Harpy, have been repeatedly tagging Battle of Aleppo (2012–16) with a npov tag without creating the required talk page discussion section and without giving the required reasoning for the tag being there. The incident concerns only Volunteer Marek and Irina Harpy since they were both advised (here [36] and here [37]) that the tag needed a talk page section and reasoning - but both of them went on to reinsert the bare tag.

• 23 December - Volunteer Marek tags the article with a npov tag [38]. He does not give an edit summary, he did not create a npov section on the talk page as required in the tag's guidance notes here [39] and he did not explain which part of the article he thinks does not have a NPOV and why. He did not even make a mention on the talk page about the tag being inserted.
• 23rd December - Jr8825 tags the article with a npov tag [40]
• 3rd Jan - Volunteer Marek tags the article with a npov tag [41]
• 20th January - Iryna Harpy tags the article with a npov tag [42]
• 22nd January - Volunteer Marek tags the article with a npov tag [43]

To make a pov tag justifiable, the tag inserter always needs to indicate clearly to other editors what specific content within the article they are alleging is problematic. Unless this is done, other editors cannot assess what is needed to fix the article and get the pov tag removed. In this case, I have no idea what content the tag's inserters consider problematic, and there is no talk page indication of anything big enough to justify the tagging. The only big recent issue was a RfC about whether uninvestigated unverified claims by unstated persons should be placed in the lede. The overwhelming consensus was that they should not. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:12, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

There is discussion about the tag on the article's talk page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@Tiptoethrutheminefield: You do realize you just flat out admitted to edit warring on an article subject to general sanctions right? Edit warring isn't just with in a 24 hour period, and edit warring over a WP:NPOV tag is seriously a candidate for lamest edit war ever. I'd suggest you read WP:BOOMERANG as I think one may be headed your way. On a side note there is a discussion you just don't seem to hear it --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 00:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, Cameron11598 - that discussion about the tag is about the lack of a reason for the tag being there! It is not a npov discussion. In what possible way does that discussion fill the pov tag usage requirement of "Place POV at the top of the disputed article, then explain your reasons on the article's talk page. To specify the section of the talk page, use POV|talk=talk page section name."? [44] Moreover, that discussion started on 14th January, the tag was first inserted on 23rd December, then re-inserted two further times before that date. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:26, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Alternatively, would some bigwig administrator make a policy statement that there is not a usage requirement when tagging an article with a npov tag to, at the same time, open a dedicated discussion in the article's talk page and, in it, define what reasons justify the tags insertion and suggest what needs to be done to get the tag removed. If that can be done, I will obviously withdraw this report since I assumed there was such a requirement and so would be here out of an erroneous assumption. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@Tiptoethrutheminefield: I also recommend you read WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. The small fact they aren't using the proper template on the talk page, doesn't mean there isn't a discussion. And yes the discussion was started later, so what? Its there now, but consensus of those involved seems to be that the tag remains. You don't agree and you come here to WP:WIKILAWYER a case. (thats how it looks it may not be your intention). --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 03:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Also the word used on the tag documentation is should which is permissive, not must/shall which is mandatory.--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 03:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Cameron, you are the one very aggressively filling your replies with wp links (eight of them so far) - that for me is a sign of Wikilawyering. It is common sense that anyone inserting a npov tag should give a reason for doing it, and to do it at the time of insertion. Is that an unreasonable expectation? Even if not a mandatory requirement, a "should do" surely becomes a "must do" if that pov tag subsequently becomes repeatedly removed because of the lack of a justification section, and when two editors have asked that such a justification section be created? The how to section of the tag documentation says do this, then do this - place the tag, then explain your reasons. That is common sense, because to do otherwise risks the permanent tagging of an article - how can a npov tag be removed if it is unclear what the reasons for it being there are? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 04:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

They are discussing it now, so what is the issue? And what is specifically is the "abuse". They were in line with policy. Speaking as someone who read the article I can see the NPOV issues. This seems to be a content dispute more so than a behavioral one. Which is outside of the scope of ANI. As a uninvolved editor I'd suggest you take this to WP:DRN your claim is there is no NPOV issue, they claim there is. Discussion is occurring on the talk page now. Why bring it here now while the discussion is on going? --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 04:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I guess my standards about what constitutes a "discussion" are far higher than yours. There is still no proper justification for the tag, there is only obscuration, unspecific referring to previous talk discussions, and VM's wonderfully open "Probably a few other things" assertion. Will those unmentioned "other things" be gradually brought up over the coming months when they become needed to drag out the pov tag's retention. Really, your bad faith comments know no end. WHERE have I said there are no npov issue? All I have asked for is that the npov issues that justify a pov tag should be detailed so that they can be addressed and the tag removed. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

50% of the supposedly serious pov-tag-justifying allegations (excluding the unspecified "other things") mentioned by VM easily resolved by just a single edit:[45]. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

So... WP:BOOMERANG? This isn't the first time that Tiptoe has been disruptive on that page and a topic ban from that specific article would help to calm things down a bit.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to give Tiptoe another chance to back away from this first, but I'm joining my voice to the apparent consensus here that he has lost the plot a little. Tiptoe, I was initially about to support your position based on your presentation of the facts, but on closer review, I have to agree that your approach here is needlessly pedantic and non-pragmatic. If there were a steadfast refusal on that page to anywhere address the reason for the tag, then there would be something to your argument, but that's not the case. There is in fact a thread, so what is the resolution which you are hoping for from this filing? Iryna and Marek are not very likely to be sanctioned over the introduction of a tag that is at least arguably appropriate. Although, Iryna Harpy, I will say that some of your comments there ("Would you like a hole in the head to go with that?", "you alpha males") are straying a little too close WP:PA territory, and your response to R2D21015's initial post is also pretty curt, considering it was a friendly, good-faith inquiry. But as to the edit war, Tiptoe, I'd say you're as close as anyone (if not the closest) to receiving a block, considering the discretionary sanctions context and the fact that there does seem to be some consensus on that page as to the presence of POV issues. I really would let this one lay, given the potential for a WP:BOOMERANG. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: Yes, I certainly apologise to R2D2015 for being short, and I admit that my responses were sharpish. As regards the two talk quotes you've pulled, however, Tiptoe (and the other editors currently still lurking there) know that they are specifically in reference to an AE opened by an editor over this article on 28 December 2016. The comment was directed at Tiptoe due to the shmozzle it was (in a long series of AE and other disputes between the self same editors working on various controversial articles using the same disruptive techniques over and over... including him and other editors biding their time in the wings waiting for the latest round of cautions and serious reprimands to hopefully disappear into the ether). I called it equivalent of chest thumping at that AE because these same editors know perfectly well that they monopolise articles by frightening the heck out of any editors outside of the travelling circus that moves from politically charged article to politically charged article. For the record, because I have had a reasonably good editing relationship with Tiptoe, it was a gruff, but AGF, plea with him when he'd removed the tag without proper discussion yet again. The full context of the comment was, "You're edit warring a POV tag on a 1RR article and serving up your personal interpretation of what constitutes a 'dedicated section' here? Would you like a hole in the head to go with that?" (i.e., is it really worth your risking overstepping 1RR over an POV tag placed when the edit warring was at its peak, and everyone commenting at the AE came out looking bad). I was kinda hopin' Tiptoe would drop it instead of going battleground. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. Certainly if you two have a good working relationship, and he takes the comments in stride, what appears to snappishness may be fairplay. But with regard to the gender stereotypes I think we need to be more careful, because the person who is the target of those comments is generally not the only one to whom offense is likely to be given. I think you or I might (reasonably) have responded in strong terms if, in the exact same circumstances, Tiptoe had made a comment about "thin-skinned, nagging women". I think avoiding the association of a supposed fault with a particular gender should be avoided altogether here. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay, agreed. Getting snarky about gender isn't in the best of taste, and editing abilities don't have anything to do with gender. Worse yet, editors new to such articles might not realise how thin-skinned and demure I actually am. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

It is becoming clear here that my concept of the purpose of the pov template tag and my understanding of its proper application differs from all the editors replying here. I find this disheartening. I am also disgusted at the descent into bad faith assumptions by Cameron11598 who falsely claimed that I am saying that there are no pov issues in the article and that I want the tag removed for that reason. Based on the various guidance notes and advice pages, and on best usage practices I have seen on other articles, I believe that an article should not be top-of-the-article pov tagged because of minor pov issues - its usage should mean it is alleged that a serious bias exists throughout the article. And that serious bias allegation needs to be specified and justified on the talk page at the time the tag is inserted so that the issues can be fixed and the tag removed. I will not be changing that opinion, regardless of any threats of sanctions. The guidance notes for the tag back up my opinion on the intended purpose and application of the tag. The hair splitting by Cameron11598 that the guidance notes' "should" does not mean "must" indicates to me that this aspect of the guidance notes need to be looked at with a view to their rewriting. That, for me, is the result of this ANI. The proper place to pursue this further now appears to be the template's talk page [46], unless another better location is suggested. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Tiptoethrutheminefield I apologize if you think I'm assuming bad faith, as I stated thats how it looks but may not have necessarily been the case. Perhaps my phrasing was a bit blunt and for that I'll apologize. However you did edit war, I think the most this case needs is a trouting of everyone involved (myself included anyone feel free to trout me seriously). This again reminds me why I stay away from topics under sanction, things get heated quickly. Again my apologies if I came off as a grumpy old man, I do that from time to time. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 04:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I accept your apology, but you were assuming bad faith - you said I had brought this case here because I was claiming "there is no NPOV issue". I think your contributions here, and their bluntness, derived from that incorrect opinion. At no point did I either say or imply that there were no pov issues. All I wanted were for the specific pov issues that justified the tag to be clearly set out on the article's talk page by the inserters of that tag so that the issues could be fixed. That was based on my reading of the intended purpose and correct usage of the tag. Based on the responses here so far, that reading does not appear to match the current accepted standards of its usage. VM and Iryna Harpy thus appear to have followed current accepted standards, so should not be subjected to any sanctions. However, these accepted standards, I believe, leave the tag's usage open to both drive-by-tagging abuse and, more importantly, the unproductive long-term tagging of articles - so I think they need to change. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Tiptoethrutheminefield As regards any discussion of the use of the POV tag, I believe it to be another exercise in futility. There are POV templates for the lead, and for sections. Until it is established that there are only a couple of outstanding issues where these templates would suffice, the coverall POV tag is less of a badge of shame than tag bombing the article. In my experience, article coverage POV tags are rarely used outside of current affairs topics, and there's nothing astounding about that simply due to the amount of traffic, edit-warring, and the subject bordering on WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. It takes time for some form of order and hefty clean-ups to establish a balanced article. Yes, as with all policies, guidelines, and best practice essays, templates are prone to misuse, or can be confounding. In the end, WP:COMMONSENSE suggests that the most problematic areas be addressed on the talk page, and best judgement be used as to when it's time to drop it down to a section (if that applies). Incidentally, thanks for reworking the 'hell cannons' content. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:52, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Undisclosed paid editing?

• Tim Wallace-Murphy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Jordan.williams (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Jordan.williams has uploaded images to Commons (e.g., this), piping his username to read "DMA Europa". DMA Europa is a common or garden PR company. A cursory search reveals a possible connection. This appears to be a violation of the foundation's TOU. I tentatively propose an indefinite block, and speedy deletion of the article as G11, unambiguous advertising.

Question for Jordan.williams: if, as you say here in answer to a question from Theroadislong, you are "not being commissioned for the work" on Wallace-Murphy, why do you use the name of a PR agency when you upload a photo of him? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

The article has now been nominated for deletion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not going to post it here, but I googled his name and the name of the company and found evidence that he works for them. He's claimed that he's not being commissioned to make the article but it's clear that he does work for a PR company and has used their resources to upload images, meaning that the PR company is involved to one extent or another. Even if this is legit something he's doing on his own, he's still using their marketing kit to create the article - meaning that at some point in time Wallace-Murphy or one of his representatives paid the company to promote him. That's a pretty close relationship there, enough to where it's a bit squiffy. It's possible that he just didn't think about it, so if there are any ties he needs to state what they are, even if this was something he did entirely on his own time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)
• Support block for undisclosed paid editing, very clear from the contrib history alone, but Tokyogirl's evidence just solidifies my support further. What makes it worse is the denial of paid editing when it's quite clear that there's a connection here. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support block per Jcc. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
• Pointing user in the right direction: It would seem Jordan.williams has provided his explanation at the the AfD of the relevant article. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:13, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

And that's an explanation that good faith demands that we accept, even if I still don't know why he wanted to use the company's name to upload an image. At this point, I think it'd be quite enough to ask Jordan.williams for a clear declaration of conflict of interest, and an undertaking not to edit any article with connections to DMA Europa. Could you do that, Jordan, perhaps on your user-page? Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

NOTHERE editor at Wind Turbine Syndrome

Mwest55 (talk · contribs) has, since creating his account last summer, done nothing but advocate for a rewriting of Wind turbine syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) from it's current WP:MEDRS compliant form, to one based on anecdotes and news reports. In that time, Mwest55 has engaged in both article edits and talk page edits, always pushing the exact same thing. He has put his personal opinions right into the article [47], suggested compelling anecdotes as a reason to change the article [48], and accused his opponents of being shills for Big Wind [49]. It died down for some months after an initial spurt of edits, but on his return the edits are exactly the same. Mwest55 appears to be utterly impervious to reason, and incapable of comprehending Wikipedia policy. I propose that he be banned (either a community ban or just unilaterally banned by any uninvolved administrator) as clearly being not here to help build an encyclopedia, but rather to right great wrongs and be disruptive. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:13, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Ha! That's nothing! Wait until he gets wind of the combined wind turbine and cell tower! EEng 04:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I just reverted this user's last edit here to the article for obvious NPOV issues, and left a warning for edit warring on the user's talk page. If this user continues editing the article without engaging in discussion or proper dispute resolution, he will be blocked for edit warring. I'll also note that this issue is not related to the report here, and/or any action that other administrators or the community decides as a result of this ANI. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

User is blocked for 72 hours for continued edit warring on Wind turbine syndrome. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Support community ban per OP. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 10:52, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Someguy1221: a single admin can't ban a user off their own bat unless the pages in question are under discretionary sanctions; it would have to be by community consensus. Since the user is so unresponsive (not sure they know they have a user talkpage), I've blocked for 72 hours to stem the disruption. That might have the added benefit of helping them locate their own talkpage. I see no reason to close this discussion, though — I suggest it be kept open to discuss a possible community topic ban or NOTHERE indef block.Bishonen | talk 15:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC).

Repinging @Someguy1221:. Sigh. Bishonen | talk 15:52, 25 January 2017 (UTC).

• WP:FRINGE covers this. TBAN please. Can't do it myself as I am involved. Guy (Help!) 17:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support community ban - this is pretty clear WP:RGW editing incompatible with building an encyclopedia. Part of being so thoroughly indoctrinated in alt-fact conspiracy theories of this sort is believing that nobody could possibly disagree without being an agent of the bad actors on the other side (in this case, people being paid off with gag orders from the Wind Company) and trying to explain our guidelines to such a user just reinforces their belief in the depth of the conspiracy. We can't possibly rehabilitate such an editor; WP:CIR covers this nicely. (my wrist is sore from endorsing all these Big Cheques from Big Wind) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Just noting I was aware the user was blocked when I made this comment. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:43, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support community TBAN. Bishonen | talk 21:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC).
• Support topic ban per arguments above, as the first effective method of dealing with the alt-fact universe. Miniapolis 22:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support broadly construed topic ban from all subjects related to renewable energy and/or medical conditions Twitbookspacetube (talk) 01:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support TBAN, leaning towards community ban. At a minimum, this user needs to be removed from this topic area, but the fact that they are an SPA on an personal mission, having shown no intentional to comply with (or even minimally attempt to understand) our editorial policies, leaves me highly skeptical that they will respect the terms of the ban. Community bans should be reserved for really the worst-case disruptors who have proven they are unable to reform their behaviour to contribute productively, and yet I have to guess that in this instance, we are only creating a bureaucratic extra step, since this user will almost certainly resume inserting similar material eventually (if not immediately). We could close the discussion with the caveat than any violation the ban should be met with an immediate indef, but then there is no guarantee the responding admin will feel comfortable with that, not knowing the full context. It may be the best call to simply ban the user now. Snow ^{let's rap} 20:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata discussions and fallout

On a number of Wikidata discussions and related articles, things get somewhat heated ("disruptive" is the word used by some). This includes discussions like Wikipedia:Wikidata/2017 State of affairs (already protected once as a result) and its talkpage, and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 January 24#Template:Infobox person/Wikidata (with an edit war about which comments to include in a hatting) and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 January 24#Template:Wikidata image; and articles like Tom Fenchel, Sabina Abdullayeva and Alain Supiot.

More, uninvolved eyes on these pages would be welcome, also to get more input on the actual discussions.

No admin action in the sense of blocks or the like is requested, just some pre-emptive cooler heads who can lead discussions into calmer waters. I have not informed others of this discussion, if you start discussing individual editors here then please inform them where needed. Fram (talk) 15:03, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

You can add John S. Duncan to the list of problem articles as well. Fram (talk) 05:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay, too late, User:RexxS is going off the rails at the moment. You can see the events at User talk:Fram, User talk:RexxS, John S. Duncan and Talk:John S. Duncan. Basically, he has reverted the article four times now in a few days time (if I count correctly), meanwhile repeatedly removing information from the infobox (superficially because it is unsourced, but in reality only things I added, and not the unsourced stuff added by others), causing the appearance of a duplicate website in the infobox for a while, all without adding any actual information to the article. Meanwhile, I have corrected information, added sources (despite his claim that the information was unverifiable), generally improved enwiki. It is quite annoying to get these efforts reverted time and again by someone whose only two interests at the moment are "keep the Wikidata infobox in the article at all costs" and "revert Fram at all costs". Fram (talk) 14:02, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Fram is edit-warring on John S. Duncan to restore his personal preference of an infobox that does not draw data from Wikidata:

• edit summary: Expanded infobox - 09:12, 25 January 2017‎
• edit summary: Undid revision 761950843 by RexxS (talk). Your edit removed the alma mater and duplicated the website. That's not an expansion, that's vandalism. Please stop - 13:15, 26 January 2017
• edit summary: Improving enwiki by removing easily sourced information, and misusing an article here to promote your precious Wikidata? Your goal clearly is to get us to work together to improve enwiki. Definitely. - 13:24, 26 January 2017‎
• edit summary: Stop making totally unnecessary edits which add nothing at all to the article or the infobox. If you don't do any active work to improve the article, don't try to impose your infobox version which already caused problems yesterday - 13:56, 26 January 2017

That's four reverts of {{Infobox person/Wikidata}} to {{Infobox person}} in two days, three of them in the last four hours. Is that a crossing of the "bright line" at WP:3RR? There's also the personal attack of calling my edit 'vandalism'. From WP:Vandal: "any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism ... Mislabeling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful"

Actually, I don't want to see him sanctioned, I just want him to stop destroying the development work that Mike Peel has been doing. The Wikidata-aware infobox was added by Mike Peel, who is working to improve the functionality of infoboxes throughout Wikipedia. That is specifically permitted by a decisive RfC that Fram disagrees with, and he's been spending much of his time in attempting to prevent any implementation of that RfC.

Fram complains of issues with the use of Wikidata-aware infoboxes, and it's true that there will be teething problems when something new is introduced, but he does not accept that any issues that have arisen have been fixed promptly. He seems fixated on rolling back any progress in data-aware infoboxes. I'm more than happy to work with anyone to constructively improve the functionality of infoboxes, but Fram's attitude of "no change, no matter what" is becoming disruptive to good faith efforts of editors like Mike Peel to improve Wikipedia by making use of the resource at Wikidata. I would like to see Fram warned to calm down and discuss the problems he sees – I have proven time and again that I'm willing to address issues that are brought to my attention constructively. --RexxS (talk) 14:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Your first link is not a revert, it's an edit. I added the alma mater and his age. The version before your edits[50] was quite different. So that makes three reverts in two days, not four.

• On the other hand, you reverted first user:Nikkimaria,
• then you reverted me with the false edit summary "expanded infobox even further" when the only result was the removal of the alma mater field, and a duplication of the website due to an earlier error in the infobox Wikidata, which you would have seen had you checked your edit.
• After I undid this edit of yours which clearly made the infobox a lot worse, you did a third revert, claiming "My edit did not duplicate the website and "Alma mater" is unsourced. Please stop adding unsourced content to this article". Too bad that 14 minutes earlier you had already made an edit which said [51] "sorry Mike that duplicates the website when a local value is present - see Talk:John S. Duncan". So you were very well aware that your edit duplicated the website, but decided to lie about it.
• I then [52] readded the alma mater to the infobox, while also adding sources for it in the article. Yet, you once again reverted the infobox to remove the alma mater field.

Basically, over this edit war, I have constantly improved the article, while all RexxS has done is reverting back to older, less complete versions only because they had his precious Wikidata infobox, and because apparently anything unsourced I had touched needed removal (but anything unsourced added by anyone else could remain). meanwhile making it worse by spreading alternative facts in edit summaries and on the talk page ("That's a lie. The reason that {{Infobox person/Wikidata}} removed alma mater was that it was unsourced. It was not a decision on my part.", even though he removed the field from the infobox three times).

Can someone please explain to RexxS that we are here to make our articles better, not worse? Fram (talk) 15:08, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Mike Peel changed the infobox from {{Infobox person}} to {{Infobox person/Wikidata}} on 22:16, 20 January 2017 - your first edit to the article reverted the wikidata version back to the original version. So yes, it was a revert. The fact that you also added an unsourced piece of information (alma mater was not sourced until today) to the infobox at the same time does not excuse you from edit-warring. You still seem to be intent on defending your behaviour by wiki-lawyering. You reverted to the previous version of that infobox four times in two days and three times in four hours. If that's not edit-warring, I'd like to know what is. --RexxS (talk) 15:39, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I was edit-warring to keep an improved version of the article. You were edit warring to... to do what exactly? To remove all progress if it was made by me on flimsy grounds? If you were worried about unsourced info in the infobox, you would have simply removed the infobox, since nothing in it was sourced. But that was never your intention or interest, obviously. I have repeatedly improved the article and the infobox; you have not made a single improvement to the article. Fram (talk) 16:00, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I've been significantly put off editing as a result of this campaign by Fram against the work I was doing with this infobox. It seems that every time I log in, I find that my edits have been reverted, and my attempts to improve things and listen to feedback are sidelined by further criticism from Fram with a very anti-Wikidata agenda. Unfortunately I also have other issues at the moment in real life that need more urgent attention, so I haven't been able to keep up with Fram's verbosity.

I should add that I haven't added {{Infobox person/Wikidata}} to *any* articles that weren't already using it while this has been going on, I've just been working to improve the infobox so that it supports more options and data. A lot of my edits (such as the one RexxS links to above) were just due to me changing the infobox template from opt-out to opt-in, and updating the calls to it in articles so that they kept their opt-in status, nothing more. Most of the calls to this template were added by other users already working on the articles. Some of the articles that Fram has been edit-warring over have now had *more* edits about the infobox than about the article content! Mike Peel (talk) 15:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Please explain how my edits have hampered your attempts to improve things. Shouldn't I have made edits like this one? Then please explain why not. Is this not a serious improvement of the article? There are more than 300 instances of the infobox left, you can experiment with it as much as you like (assuming that even has to be done in the mainspace in the first place). I have not pinged you, not bothered you with questions. Am I not allowed to improve these articles simply because you have edited them? I have not done any raw reverts of your additions, all I have done is (often significantly) improve a few articles. Like you said, you didn't even add these infoboxes in the first place, you only did a minor change on then, so why are you so bothered when a few get removed by me while I improve the article (e.g. by switching to a different, better suited infobox which doesn't have the /Wikidata version). Fram (talk) 16:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I would think that nominating the template for deletion that Mike's currently working on counts as having "hampered your attempts to improve things". No? I really hope we don't lose a editor of Mike's calibre over this crusade of Fram's. --RexxS (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I was going with his "It seems that every time I log in, I find that my edits have been reverted " comment. And we can hardly not nominate a template for deletion because it might cause us to lose an editor. Everything you do here can be edited, reverted, removed, deleted... That's part of the deal of editing Wikipedia. Some people want to keep the template, some agree with deleting it, so it at least isn't uncontroversial or just me who has a problem with it (and neither is it only you or Mike Peel who defends it). That's why we have things like TfD. Fram (talk) 20:29, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I was referring to edits like this one - where Infobox Person/Wikidata is unnecessarily converted to the non-Wikidata one. Of which there were a number, and you are still doing this kind of edit. The ones you've linked to here look good to me, as they're switching to a more appropriate infobox than Infobox Person. The others were just POINTy. Add that to the discussion you started about the template and one of my edits (without even bothering to ping me), followed quickly by nominating the template for deletion, in both cases. This has felt like a systematic attack, without respite to work through with the (sometimes valid) issues you were raising. I'm grateful to RexxS and others for having much higher capacity to deal with these than I have right now. Mike Peel (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

But what is actually made worse or impossible by edits like [53] or [54]? The Wikidata infobox is still active on hundreds of articles, so any test you want to do can proceed. On the other hand, both articles were improved with my edit. On the first one, the Wikidata infobox has been reinstated, with the loss of many information as result (the only field that is fetched from Wikidata is one that was first sourced, by me, on enwiki when I was improving the article). The Margaret Fell article has in the Wikidata version of the infobox a link to the Wikidata item "theologian", because according to the template enwiki doesn't have an article theologian. My version had more information in the infobox, and internal links to an article instead of a link to a Wikidata item. Fram (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Given that you are continuing to remove the Wikidata-enabled version of the infobox from articles, I'm assuming that you won't stop until there are no more articles using the infobox. The Wikidata version only has added functionality compared to the main one, so you could easily have made the changes you have without changing the template used - but you've been pointedly not doing that. Mike Peel (talk) 21:20, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

At the speed I am removing these, it will take a few months before even the current ones would be gone, never mind any that may have been added since then. "The Wikidata version only has added functionality"? No, it also has visual clutter, and links to Wikidata items where we have our own articles which don't get recognised by Wikidata, and so on. It also is a template which get changed often, resulting in errors like your duplicate website yesterday. Having such experimental templates on too many articles isn't a good idea. And the current version, where unsourced entries don't get copied, may seem better, but the quality of the sourcing at Wikidata is not good enough to trust these (e.g. the birth date of José Eduardo Agualusa is taken from Wikidata, and has a source there; but Wikidata has a full date, while the source only has the year). Coupled with the fact that most editors don't watch Wikidata changes (so don't know when the values in the infobox on their articles may be changed), that Wikidata changes are rather hard to interpret in the watchlist anyway, that the sources on Wikidata don't get shown here, and that using the Wikidata infobox we may easily get entries in the infobox which don't match the text of the article, which is not what infoboxes are for, and I think there are enough reasons to not have this on too many articles (if any) and the claim that it only adds functionality seems a bit optimistic. Fram (talk) 21:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

You have good points here. *Please* raise them individually on the talk page for the template, and we can work through them. Things like visual clutter can easily be dealt with, if discussed sensibly rather than edit-warring. I agree that experimental templates on too many articles isn't good, but you could have raised that point to start with so we could figure out how to minimize any interim disruption while testing (e.g., through the sandbox that has now been set up). I'm making more mistakes than usual at the moment because of the disruptive way this discussion has been going. "most editors don't watch Wikidata changes" needs a citation. I'm happy to help with problems with specific articles, just ping me to let me know of the problem and I'll have a look. Mike Peel (talk) 21:45, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

@Fram: Please have a look at José Eduardo Agualusa again - it should look better now. Let me know if you spot any similar issues and I'll look into them. Mike Peel (talk) 22:08, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

• Fram, could you stop forum-shopping your anti-Wikidata crusade? Don't you think Wikipedia:Wikidata/2017 State of affairs and the TfDs you started are already generating enough heat? Only you can prevent meatball:ForestFires :) —Kusma (t·c) 15:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • This isn't about pro- or antiwikidata, this is about editor behaviour. Fram (talk) 16:02, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
    • If you could moderate your behaviour, it would be much appreciated. —Kusma (t·c) 16:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
      • So I should stop improving these articles because it puts Mike Peel off and because RexxS is going to revert back anyway? And meanwhile RexxS can continue spouting nonsense on talk pages and in edit summaries? Your comments seem to be a bit one-sided (but then again, you wanted to keep the template because it is "worth it for raising awareness of Wikidata", so I shouldn't be surprised that that bias comes through here as well). Fram (talk) 16:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
        • "RexxS can continue spouting nonsense on talk pages and in edit summaries". Fram, you need to keep it civil here. I'm prepared to put up with your smears, insults and personal attacks only for so long, before I have to conclude that sanctioning you is the only way to get some respite from your personal animosity. As an admin, you should be setting an example, not trying to drag the discussion down to the level of the gutter. --RexxS (talk) 17:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
          • If you don't want criticism of e.g. your edit summaries or your many mistakes in describing what happened, then don't make so many errors. Claims like [55] "Claims from Wikidata are not automatically imported by this infobox, but filtered to remove any unsourced information.", which wasn't true at the time you made it (and which is a basic asspect of the infobox), should not need correcting by me. Can I also point out that you said at the TfD "Wikipedia talk:Wikidata/2017 State of affairs is nothing but a collection scare-mongering and outright untruths, initiated by the nominator of this AfD, as part of his campaign against Wikidata." If you want a civilized, ault discussion, it might help if you don't dismiss the concerns of others, many illustrated with examples, in such an extremely dismissive way. Accepting that both sides have good reasons for their position is the first step in understanding each other. Dismissing everything the other said in such negative terms is unlikely to get any results. Fram (talk) 20:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
            • You're still defending that attack page you created at Wikipedia:Wikidata/2017 State of affairs. I commented there in good faith, thinking it was a genuine effort to gather neutral, accurate information, giving both pros and cons as I saw them, until you removed my positive comments and allowed complete untruths like "Wikidata edits violate WP:V and WP:BLP" to stand and gather traction. If you want a civilised, adult discussion, you're going to have to stop your mud-slinging campaign to denigrate the use of Wikidata in Wikipedia. Similarly, I'll ask you to consider how your comment applies to yourself, because you've been dismissing everything said by the people you perceive as the other side. I've bent over backwards to accommodate concerns raised and I've solved every single one over the last several days. You've never once acknowledged the efforts I've put in to make sure that a work in progress is able to meet your highly-demanding standards. I understand you perfectly well. I'm always open to constructive suggestions, but your only aim is to completely destroy the work that has been done in making use of the resources at Wikidata. Change your tack and look for common ground if you want to get any results, because I'll oppose you all the way if you persist in trying to roll back the clock to 2012. --RexxS (talk) 02:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Fram, I have a lot of respect for you (no, seriously I do, you do a lot of good work around here in protecting the encyclopedia's integrity and factual accuracy and to deny that would be batshit insane), but the only reason I am not blocking you for edit-warring and personal attacks is because I consider myself WP:INVOLVED and must recuse myself from any administrative actions involving you, except to say (to both you and RexxS) - stop this, now, or it will end in tears. Or Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes 2. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

And the fact that I edit warred while improving articles, and the other side in the edit war reverted while making the articles worse, plays no role in your position? That's a bit disappointing. Fram (talk) 20:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

And here I thought you can't edit war, even while right. I guess being an admin does have its privileges. As for your being disappointed, I'm not sure why. Ritchie never said the other side wasn't edit warring, he merely pointed out your edit warring and personal attacks. I'd take his advice and ease up. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

No, he said I would get blocked, and RexxS not, even though I improved articles and he didn't (and he didn't refrain from personal attacks either). Anyway, it is rather clear that asking here for some extra eyes before things escalate is fruitless. Fram (talk) 21:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

That's another unpleasant calumny. I've been improving articles at the same rate as you have, although in many cases, I've been adding information and references to Wikidata, so that the improvements can be shared by all the other language Wikipedias as well here on the English Wikipedia. I've also been responding to the technical issues brought to me, like making the source filter on by default, updating the documentation, and improving the capitalisation in infobox fields like "occupation" - see Paul Sabatier (theologian) and my complementary edits on Wikidata as an example from tonight. It's not appropriate to dismiss other editors' work simply because they choose to contribute in a different way from you. --RexxS (talk) 02:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Allright, I looked at Paul Sabatier. You added sources (on Wikidata) for his date of birth and death. The problems are manifold though. You couldn't find a reference for his post as professor in Strasbourg: this can easily be sourced to [56]. Hmm, that source gives different dates than your source, what's up? On Wikidata, you made a lot of changes[57], but I have no idea how you actually verified them. You added the place and date of death from Britannica, which is of course a very good source. But you sourced a 1928 date of death to the 1911 Britannica. You used the same source for his citizenship (not really stated in the article, but probably correct), and his alma mater. You claim it is the University of Paris, while in reality it was the Protestant Faculty of Theology in Paris. And in your idal world, these errors would have spread to 7 (current versions of the article) or 300 languages at once. I wouldn't call your changes to the Sabatier article "improvements". Fram (talk) 10:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the source for Paul Sabatier's professorship - I've been able to give a decent reference for university teacher (Q1622272) in his entry. However, the dates of birth and death in BnF seem a little off: 9 August 1858 – 5 March 1928, whereas my 1989 Britannica gives 3 August 1858 – 4 March 1928. It's not enough to worry about, but it shows one of those sources is inaccurate. Anyway, I'm also grateful for spotting my faux pas with the 11th edition. I had fully intended to check in my 15th edition, but it was clearly too late at night to be trying to remember. I've tidied up Paul Sabatier (Q885424) and added the Britannica source to the article, because I don't think the place of death was sourced in any of the other references. I'm fairly certain that a source that states that his brother Auguste Sabatier was French is sufficient to imply Paul Sabatier was was also a French citizen, would you agree? The "educated at University of Paris" was already in Wikidata ("imported from English Wikipedia") when I arrived at the entry, so it's simply untrue to state that it was my claim. I was able, however, to correct that error today in the Wikidata entry and I'm pleased you corrected our article here. The error I made, referencing the 11th edition instead of the 15th edition lasted less than 24 hours and is unlikely to have broken 300 other projects in the meantime. Sadly the University of Paris mistake has been around for much longer, and does give weight to the argument that more editors are needed to comb through Wikidata for these sort of problems. It's comforting to realise that had Mike's infobox project not taken place, both Paul Sabatier (theologian) and Paul Sabatier (Q885424) would not have had such much-needed attention. --RexxS (talk) 22:54, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata really needs to find a better way to link to our redirects than temporarily changing them on enwiki into "articles" just to be able to make an item on Wikidata (and how stupid is it that you can't make an item for a current redirect, but everything works fine if the item points to something that is then turned into a redirect?) See e.g. this.

And I hope I am allowed to replace or remove infoboxes which give the poor result we currently get at e.g. Maria Madalena de Martel Patrício? See the image on the right to see what the infobox (without any local parameters) now looks like (I have not edited the page, so this is not some effort to produce poor results, but actual reality). Fram (talk) 10:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

You get the exact same result as shown on the right on other pages as well, e.g. Simos Menardos, Gloria Cuesta or Suzanne Bernard. Aubrey Feist has a box with only her name. Rudolf Schleiden has his picture, and "died" (same for many others). Edward Bergh has his picture, "died", and citizenship. Citizenship is a parameter which rarely if ever should be used (according to the infobox person documentation only when it differs from what can be expected and is really worth mentioning separately), but is included in many of the Wikidata infoboxes. Fram (talk) 10:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this is a consequence of the switch to only showing sourced information - there is more info already on Wikidata, it just needs references adding. I've partially done this for Maria Madalena de Martel Patrício and, if you give me time, I'll continue working through the rest of the articles too. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:47, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

No, the template needs changing (or deleting) to solve this. Fram (talk) 11:00, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

No, it does not need deleting. Just give us time to work on it. And AN/I is *not* the place to discuss template changes - the template talk page is. Mike Peel (talk) 11:14, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

But you don't need 300+ mainspace articles to work on it surely? No deadline is no excuse for "we put our dodgy software with a new problem every day into the mainspace wherever we want to". Fram (talk) 11:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I think I solved it for you (on the template level), feel free to revert if you get unwanted side effects. Fram (talk) 13:17, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

You did indeed solve it, Fram. I'm sincerely grateful to you spotting the problem and fixing it so rapidly. I do agree that we'll still need a awful lot more referencing on Wikidata before the template becomes a serious candidate to replace {infobox person}. --RexxS (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Dispute with Lx 121 on Talk:Atrocities in the Congo Free State

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

---

For some reason, the previous discussion on this topic was just archived before any resolution was managed - despite a seeming consensus among the respondents.

I would urge anyone new to the topic to read the the archived discussion but, to recap, this issue resolves around Lx's conduct on the article's talk page, throwing around unsubstantiated accusations about systematic distortion in the article. When invited to provide sources to support his/her view, Lx has been repeatedly abusive towards me, comparing me to a Holocaust denier and colonial apologist.

In my reading of the original discussion, there seems to have been general agreement that some form of measure needs to be taken. Since the discussion was archived, Lx has been active again on the same article page and has gloated that the discussion here has "staled-out" and has mocked WP:AGF by stating: "how exactly do you "neutrally" describe a problem with a user who creates nnpov content, & then absolutely refuses to allow any further changes to redress this?" I fear that this is yet another example of Lx's refuses to modify his/her attitude (or even style of communication) in response to disciplinary sanctions.

I believe the following users supported some form some form of sanction against Lx up to and including a ban: @Hijiri88:; @The Blade of the Northern Lights:; @Black Kite:; @Indy beetle:; @Midnightblueowl:. Whatever the outcome, I think it's clear we need some kind of formal resolution here or the dispute will only escalate. —Brigade Piron (talk) 21:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

it's

good

to

see

he

hasn't

succumbed

to

community

pressure

to

change

his

inscrutable

style

of

talk

page

comment

paragraph

divisions.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

By the way, User:Brigade Piron, I didn't get your ping. I only saw this because I'm watching ANI very closely (in fact having to devote virtually all of my on-wiki time to it) these days while waiting for someone to close the second most obvious SNOW case in recent memory. Did you insert the ping after signing your initial post? Because that doesn't work. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

That's possible, thank you for alerting me to it. I'll try again: @Hijiri88:; @The Blade of the Northern Lights:; @Black Kite:; @Indy beetle:; @Midnightblueowl:.—Brigade Piron (talk) 22:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I've been receiving the pings. At any rate, I'm kind of confused as to the "legality" of this use of this discussion board (I've heard conflicting reports on if it's proper policy procedure to bring the complaint against Lx 121 here), but I affirm Brigade Piron's statement that I was one who "supported some form some form of sanction against Lx up to and including a ban". I'm not really interested in seeing any editor lampooned, but Lx 121's behavior has not been collaborative or cooperative and been most uncivil towards Piron. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:34, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I come here in response to a request from User:Brigade Piron, after I had let Piron down on my earlier promise to review the talk page. (Sorry, Piron).

It seems to me that there are two issues here: the substance of the complaints by Lx 121, and the conduct of Lx 121.

On the substance, it seems to me that Lx 121's complaint is well-founded. The article relies overwhelmingly on European and North American sources, with scanty use of Congolese (or other African) sources. Without casting any aspersions on the skill or integrity of the many scholarly authors cited, this is a fundamental imbalance on a highly sensitive topic. From a Congolese perspective, it must feel rather like how an American would feel if an article on the Pearl Harbour attacks drew overwhelmingly on Japanese scholarly sources.

I say that without any criticism of Piron and the other editors who appear to have worked in good faith to produce an article which reflects the sources available to them. I have myself written articles with a limited set of sources which I know give an imbalanced picture, and the resulting article has reflected that imbalance. I do not know what African scholarly works have been published on this subject, but I do know that the nature of academic publishing is such they are unlikely to be readily accessible to European and North American writers other than though academic institutions. This is a systemic bias issue which we should at least seek to overcome.

Nonetheless, I think that it was foolish of Piron to proceed to a GA review without including more African and Congolose perspectives, and I think that the reviewer Midnightblueowl was mistaken to overlook those deficiencies when passing it for promotion to GA status.

So Lx 121 has a clear prima facie case for criticising this article, and it disappointing to see that Lx 121's concerns were dismissed very harshly by Piron in the first section of the discussion at Talk:Atrocities in the Congo Free State#about_the_history_of_the_historians.

However, Piron is right about one crucial point: that if an editor is dissatisfied with the sources used, it is up to them to offer other sources. And AFAICS, Lx 121 has failed to offer any new sources.

I note too that LX 121 alleges that Piron did not make good use of the available sources, and that Midnightblueowl has wisely urged a deeper review of the souces used, as well as supporting the use of more African sources.[58].

But ... Lx121'a participation in the discussions has been very poorly conducted. Some of it does appear to be an angry response to Piron's dismissal of concerns for the imbalance of source; but whatever the perceived provocation, Lx121's tone has been uncollegially hostile and accusatory. Even worse, Lx121's screeds of ill-formatted semi-coherent posting have made the talk page almost unreadable.

The section RFC about NPOV and Undue of article, opened by Lx121, has none of the characteristics of a proper RFC. It is badly formatted, lacks a coherent argument, and tries to compensate for that with expressions of anger and frustration.

I endorse Dwarf Kirlston's observation [59] that Lx 121 is not totally in the wrong here. The re-opened RFC at Talk:Atrocities_in_the_Congo_Free_State#RfC_main_discussion:_Article_as_a_whole_NPOV.3F:RfC main discussion: Article as a whole NPOV? looks more promising than the first attempt.

So I see no need at this point for admin intervention.

However, I would admonish both main protagonists:

• LX121 to ensure that their contributions are concise, properly formatted, and free from personal abuse or expressions of anger; nad to prose changes based on sources rather than on rhetoric.
• Brigade Piron to take greater care to avoid impressions of WP:OWNERSHIP, and not dismiss LX121's concerns so detreminedly; and to heed the advice of other editors on how to use sources.

As others have noted, this is a content dispute. It would be wrong for ANI to give one side the upper hand in that dispute unless conduct issues become severe and one-sided. That is not yet the case. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

In a semi-related matter, I'd like to provide two examples of extreme WP: BATTLEGROUND and WP:NOTHERE behavior by LX121.here and here. 70.209.130.166 (talk) 02:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposal

Since this seems to be going nowhere fast, I'd like to put forward a motion that'll hopefully be the end of this: mentoring for LX121.

Honestly, I personally don't believe that a productive editor can be made out of someone as combative as him, but it's happened before and it's better than a block.74.70.146.1 (talk) 12:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 12:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support. It's worth a try. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:06, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
• Weak Support - I side on "User:Lx 121 side that the Congo atrocities article is problematic, but I would count myself on the side of support @Brigade Piron: request for "some sort of sanction" against Lx 121. I think User:Lx 121 is a productive and reasonable user to a certain extent. I want to note that "The term "mentor" is a euphemism." - this is a kindof "disciplinarian", "interventor" that I'm supporting, not a "friendly mentor". However I note that WP:Mentoring notes that "Involuntary mentorship has a very poor track record and is not recommended." :/--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 16:41, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

COMMENT

WE ALREADY DID THIS

user brigade piron filed this complaint, on the exact same matter, on 15 january.

it was discussed

& no action was taken.

contrary to the claims made by this user above, who has AGAIN misrespresented the facts in this dispute, there was no consensus for action.

the only major participation was by the exact same people involved in the talkpage dispute.

the user's ANI complaint went "stale" & was archived.

diff here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=761521940&oldid=761521899

you do not get "unlimited do-overs" on filing the exact same ANI complaint.

i'm not sure if that activity formally meets the definition of wp:forumshopping or not,

but it certainly falls somewhere in the general category.

NOW this user has not only refiled the same, failed ANI complaint,

but

also appears to have engaged in wp:canvassing to gain "support"

for example:

"I come here in response to a request from User:Brigade Piron, after I had let Piron down on my earlier promise to review the talk page. (Sorry, Piron)." --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

as well as "pinging" a selected group of editors, who this user feels "supported" their views, in the previous failed ANI.

& now we have TWO "anon-ip" commentors; who have miraculously turned up just to comment in the forum here. BOTH OF WHOM see to be very well-versed in the rules & procedures of wikipedia.

• i would like to formally request an investigation into the identity of these anonymous "supporters", on grounds of suspected sockpuppetry.

ADDITIONALLY, this user also happens to know, from my comment in the talkpage dispute, that i do not have "unlimited free time" for wikipedia, during the work week.

which makes me think that their choice of date for re-filing their complaint was not purely happenstance.

IF we do allow "unlimited repeats" on the same user filing the exact same ANI, until that user gets the outcome that they want, this place is going to get a WHOLE LOT more fun! ^__^

request immediate close as an unwarranted "do-over" attempt.

Lx 121 (talk) 18:07, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Please take a few moments of your precious time to review Sentence (linguistics) and possibly also Paragraph. TimothyJosephWood 18:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

In all honesty though, either this user does not understand how to type using sentences and paragraphs, in which case they probably lack the competence required to edit Wikipedia, or they do understand, and are communicating in this way in order to be intentionally disruptive. TimothyJosephWood 18:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

with all due respect, this isn't the "article-space"; we are far away having a conversation in "editor land". this is ephemera, & i don't care about "polished prose" here. i care about communicating. you write your comments in the style that you prefer, & i shall write mine in the style that i prefer.

if you can find fault with my prose in the article space, let me know. but don't expect it from me "here".

i'm "here" to discuss the merits of the case, not to make "clean copy". i would go to a writers forum for that.

& if you honestly think that "i don't like the formatting-STYLE another user writes their comments in" is a valid case for "disruptive editing".

& if you can get that made into policy.

then yes, it is time for me to leave; fare thee well, so long, & thanks for all the fish.

this comment was shorter & friendlier, before an edit conflict showed me your very nice "follow-up" section.

Lx 121 (talk) 18:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

*here, have a sample of my prose from the article-space & see if you can find fault with it? [[60]] Lx 121 (talk) 18:41, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

So you're not incompetent, but rather you simply refuse to make the extra effort so that other people understand you. TimothyJosephWood 18:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

read your link; do not see anything relevant about a talkpage "manual of style" that i am violating?

except maybe that it is a huge pain-in-the-ass to manually count exactly how many colons you need to add, to keep up with the indentation, IF you are not using a media-wiki customised browser with a lot of javascript-y "power tools" added; which i can't waste resources running on here, nor would i want to. Lx 121 (talk) 20:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, huge pain-in-the-ass is exactly what I was thinking. TimothyJosephWood 20:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

...you...you've been here for 10 years...and you haven't thought to copy/paste the colons from the previous comment and add one? ...I don't think there's a particular precedent specifically for blocking for communicating as you do, but I would personally support giving broad lee-way for any and all users to simply summarily ignore such mangled talk page comments, and oppose any sanction that LX121 would seek against them as a result. TimothyJosephWood 20:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

2 points in reply: i)cutting & pasting doesn't make it much more convenient (especially if i already have something else clipped to inset), & it certainly doesn't make the whole formatting style of the indents any less cumbersome. there are better ways to code for this.

2) if you are going to judge other people's statements on the basis of their style of formatting, rather than the content of their words, t, that is your misfortune.

Lx 121 (talk) 16:11, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Just because 'we already did this' doesn't mean it can't happen again. If you continue the disruptive behavior, it's much more likely that this won't end with 'no action taken'. You are digging a hole you won't like to live in. --Tarage (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

*comment -- so that in your view it IS a legitimate practice for a user to file THE SAME ANI again, & again, & again, until they get the outcome that they want? because, i'm pretty sure that's against the rules. Lx 121 (talk) 19:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

• Let's cut to the chase here. Lx 121, you said "i don't care about "polished prose" here. i care about communicating". Yet you continue to communicate in a ridiculous semi-literate manner that makes it difficult for other editors to read. You're perfectly capable of writing properly, so please do it on talk pages as well. You're simply wasting everyone else's time here, so please cut it out. Black Kite (talk) 19:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

yes, "let's cut to the chase here"; how would you define my style of commenting as "semi-literate" exactly? just because you don't like how i write my comments, or because it does not follow your expectations does not make it "semi-literate".

as for the matter of legibility: i am not clear what peculiar, "specialised" device or browser you are using? but i am on plain-vanilla 100% html-compliant firefox, & when i look at the screen, i have no trouble reading the text. & i am seeing what the vast majority of desktop/laptop wikipedia users would see.

personally, i find s p a c i n g & the effective, selective use of CAPITALS, bold, & italics is FAR MORE effective @ communicating intent, & far more legible, than a huge "block" or "wall" of text.

but you are entirely entitled to your own opinions on such matters; as am i.

best, Lx 121 (talk) 19:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

and again, are we having a discussion about the actual complaint which birgade piron has re-filed for the second time in 2 weeks, in hopes of winning on a "do over"?

or are we having a lit-crit circle about the writing style i use, for NON-article space ephemera?

Lx 121 (talk) 19:59, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

• So to be clear, what you're saying is "No, I'm not going to stop my ridiculous way of posting on talk pages". Have I got that correct? Black Kite (talk) 00:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

so to be clear -- when you can show me some actual WP that dictates "user comments in discussion MUST be formatted in X-manner. then you have a case, & then i'll consider it.

UNTIL you can come up with that particular WP, which you haven't been able to, thus far, i'd suggest that you can simply complaining about wp:i don't like this, & that wp:bebold applies here; as per a user's right to write their own comments.

if you can fault me on the content on my coments, i'm all ears.

but all you have said is "you don't like the STYLE i use in formatting them".

& that's not a matter on which you have a "right" to impose your preferences on other users.

as i have said repeatedly before: THIS IS NOT THE ARTICLE-SPACE.

& this is not about "disruptive editing", this is about "conformity".

& absent any actual WIKIPEDIA POLICY dictating it, i choose not to "conform".

if that means you "devalue" my comments, because you don't like how they are written, then the fault is yours, & not on me

with all due resprect, Lx 121 (talk) 16:11, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• LX121, despite having been impartially by the person with whom you are in dispute, I reviewed the situation impartially and posted at length above to argue that your substantive case has merit, and that you should not be sanctioned.
  However, your subsequent conduct is leading me to change my mind. You incoherent, badly-formatted, repetitive comments are highly disruptive to this discussion. Several editors have asked you to stop, and even though their request are clearly in line with WP:TPYES, your response is a defiant i shall write mine in the style that i prefer.
  Since you are clearly not interested in working collaboratively, I conclude that you are WP:NOTHERE to improve Wikipedia, and should be blocked. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

*comment - well, so much for your claims of "impartiality"?

as per: "repetitive"; i am repeating myself, because i am being confronted with THE SAME comments & opinions, repeated by other participants in the conversation.

about point which have already been addressed.

as per: wp:types i have read the section. i do not see where or how i am supposed to be in "violation" there? please clarify?

the most relevant point i can find in the cited material is possibly: "Responding to tone - criticizes the tone of the writing, without responding to the substance".

& that seems to be what you (& the other critics of my style of commenting) are doing to me; NOT the other way around. i've read you & the other's comments; & i have no significant opinion on your tone or writing style.

i think i've done a "fairly decent" job of sticking to the points of the arguement?

if i haven't please indicate WHERE?

beyond that, you are saying that "you want me blocked because you don't like how i format my comments in discussions".

& as far as i can tell, there is no WP to support such an action.

i also consider that a very petty reason to want to block any user, tbh.

i don't support waving the "ban hammer" around without a really good reason. wikipedia loses FAR too many good, useful contributors as it is. & i'm not even calling for a a block or ban on brigadepiron, & i have come to have a REALLY negative opinion of this editor, & to have pretty much run out of "agf" for this person, for multiple reasons; which i will not "laundry-list" here, unless requested or required to do so.

(when the workweek is over, & i have a little more time to spend on this, i will however add some examples from the history of this user's extremely poor, & nnpov, editing choices on the atrocities article)

final point - you seem to have "dodged" the question of whether user:brigadepiron canvassed you to join this discussion. as your initial comments in this conversation seemed to indicate.

i repeat the quoted text: "I come here in response to a request from User:Brigade Piron, after I had let Piron down on my earlier promise to review the talk page. (Sorry, Piron)." --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)"

but i'm glad that you seemed to find some merit in my arguements about in the actual points in dispute" int he actual article that this whole thing was actually about.

i'm sorry that you "don't like me" otherwise; but as i said: if you can find fault with the merits of my arguements, by all means, cite them.

with all due respect Lx 121 (talk) 16:11, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

3 items un-addressed in the general conversation thus far

1. is anybody, among the admins who actually run this board, going to address the "double-jeaprody" question?

user:brigade piron already posted this EXACT SAME complaint, about the EXACT SAME MATTER on jan 15.

there was already a discussion; it went nowhere & no action was taken.

the conversation went "stale" & was archived after about 1 week.

on jan 25, the same user repeated the same complaint; with nothing new added to it. no "new developments", & substantively no new material.

are we allowing this now?

do users get to re-file the same ANI complaint endlessly, UNTIL they get an outcome that they "like"?

because, i REALLY thought that was against the rules, no?

2. is anybody going to check up on the 2 "anon-ip" commentors who turned up "out of nowhere" (& with whom i have had NO previous interactions), just to post in support of brigade piron.

3. re: visibility/legibility: i have now asked more than once, & no one has replied, toproplery explain complaints about the legibility of my style of formatting comments.

as i said; i am using PLAIN VANILLA FIREFOX here. it is 100% html compliant.

what i am seeing on my screen is what the vast majority or wikipedia users would see on a desktop-/laptop.

and i don't see any "read" problems with the style of formatting i use in "here"?

it is different from most of the other commentors.

it isn't in the "usual style" most of the other commentors use.

but it appears to format up onscreen just fine.

(& i, personally, find it easier to read or "parse", that the style-layout of most of the other comments; especially long coments.

so, ARE THERE any actual, REAL problem with how this text i s showing up onscreeen?

or is this really just a matter of "preferences if style".

because i would really like some clarification on this.

preferably with screencaps to illustrate it?

Lx 121 (talk) 16:11, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

It takes up far too much whitespace for starters, and whatever is said risks becoming lost in the required scrolling. However, Lx 121 didn't initiate this or ask to be here, so they are entitled to format their comments in whatever way they like, especially if it is a result of the software they are using. It is the content of the comments, not their layout, that matter. At least it is not colored or all in bold or CAPS! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editing is any behavior that disrupts progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia. The nonsense above is a prime example of a long, rambling messages [that is] difficult to understand. In fact it's so disruptive that it is a significant barrier to actually addressing whether there are other run-of-the-mill behavioral problems, since this thread as well as the talk page is simply swamped in barely legible walls of text.

Looking at the actual talk page while choking back aspirin, I'm seeing this thread, which was probably rightly ignored, which boils down to a lot of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and the less than helpful observation that the article is wp:bullshit.

Then there is the below RFC, which may actually be the least neutrally worded RfC I've ever seen, and is basically just a rant about another editor. This is very reasonably followed by a request: Can I also ask eds to format their posts on a readable way. This is promptly ignored by LX as they continue to rant more about the user and say basically nothing about article content.

So as far as I can tell, looking at the talk page, we start with "the article is bullshit", go to accusing others of "quibbling about wp" (sounds familiar), followed by a comment that is 2.5 pages long when copy/pasted into Microsoft Word, followed by a long rambling conversation into an RfC complaining about another user, asking no real question, and only barely commenting on the article at all.

Am I missing something? TimothyJosephWood 18:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

So, in order to edit Wikipedia without risking being blocked, you are claiming it is a requirement to use specific hardware and software when doing it and it is a requirement that editors write in a set house style throughout all parts of Wikipedia, not just in content edits? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:33, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

If you are trying to suggest that using Firefox somehow compels a user to type like that, the notion is sufficiently ridiculous so as to not merit a response. If you are trying to suggest that, in order to edit Wikipedia, you need to be able to communicate with others like a normal human being, then yes, that is in fact a requirement, and an inability or (in this case) a deliberate refusal to do so is definitely grounds for sanctions. TimothyJosephWood 19:39, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• Just block the fool We used to have jerk who refused to put a space after each comma or period, to "save server space". He got blocked for that. This guy's either a troll or WP:INCOMPETENT, doesn't matter which. And no, it's not his software. EEng 07:25, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
• This would seem to be the equivalent of someone who only types in all caps, uses blinking fonts in their signature, uses a font twice the size of everyone else's, writes in all bold or all italic or all underline, etc. ...And then ignores any request to change it. It's blatantly disruptive to discussion and therefore to collaboration. Many people have raised objections, and Lx 121 seems to understand what the objections are and is perfectly able to comply (after all, there are normal talk page posts earlier in his/her history), but simply refuses to, making the responses -- in the same style -- to those requests come off as sprawling belligerence. As overboard as it sounds to block someone for something like this, if he/she continues to treat other Wikipedians' eyes with contempt, I would be inclined to support it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
• Blocked indefinitely. That's enough wasting of everyone's time. The definition of "disruptive editing" is quite clear. Lx 121 may be unblocked as soon as he commits to communicating properly. Black Kite (talk) 19:46, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Yimingbao

User:Yimingbao is continually reverting edits on tennis tournament draw pages, removing the appropriate closing tags, from something like this:

{{flagicon|RUS}} [[Olesya Pervushina]] ''(Semifinals)''

To something like this:

{{flagicon|RUS}} [[Olesya Pervushina]] ''(Semifinals)

More details on this can be found in this discussion on WP:Tennis:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tennis#Text_formatting_on_tournament_and_draw_pages

Some diffs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2017_Australian_Open_%E2%80%93_Women%27s_Singles&type=revision&diff=762017125&oldid=762016952
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2017_Australian_Open_%E2%80%93_Women%27s_Singles&type=revision&diff=761275232&oldid=761275126
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2017_Australian_Open_%E2%80%93_Men%27s_Singles&diff=prev&oldid=761851826
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2017_Australian_Open_%E2%80%93_Men%27s_Doubles&diff=prev&oldid=761664249

Attempts to contact to user to stop this have failed to yield any results.

Rubyaxles (talk) 06:16, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

@Yimingbao: I'm struggling to understand why you are removing the italic close tags - please could you explain why you are making edits like this? -- Samtar ^{talk · contribs} 09:20, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Apparently, some undocumented quirk of MediaWiki causes all tags to be automatically closed in a table row. I agree with the consensus linked above that this is bad practice and should be discouraged. If this undocumented behavior were ever changed, we'd end up with broken code all over the place. It also makes the content much harder to copy-paste somewhere else, as the code will have to be modified if it ever gets pasted outside of a table row. It further gives newer editors the idea that it's OK to leave tags unclosed, which is something I'd rather we didn't do. I have no idea what Visual Editor would do if it saw this... it might choke. This just seems like a really bad idea to me, and I think it's disruptive to strip out the proper formatting. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:32, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I've blocked Yimingbao 31 hours for continuing to strip out proper formatting without explanation. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:49, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

RIGILKENTARUS disruptive edit

RIGILKENTARUS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Although there is no hard MoS on all football article. The European clubs usually used two column in their squad list. The involved user (possible socks, master unknown) keep removing {{fs mid}} from the articles, which last final warning was on 15 January but he still removing the {{fs mid}} on 26 January. Matthew_hk tc 14:51, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

The editor has made a total of five such edits after the lastfirst time the issue was raised on their talk page, and the last of those was over a week ago. I don't see any evidence they have edit-warred over their removal of this formatting template. I'm not sure what urgent, ongoing problem is being raised. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:01, 26 January 2017 (UTC)Sorry, fixed mis-statement of timing. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Ferociouslettuce

User Ferociouslettuce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is making inaccurate edits to The New York Times Company article by inserting incorrect Chairman and then deleting the correct Chairman in favor of a majority shareholder. This editor, who has multiple blocks, is also accusing me of working for The New York Times, a "conflict of interest" and a "spammer", none of which is in any way accurate. David J Johnson (talk) 23:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

It's allowable for them to remove content from their talk page, but for them to claim in the edit summary that you work for the NYT Co. or their shareholders is just a little bit ridiculous. And groundless. I also noticed that while they've been here since 2006, they only have 300+ edits and most of those seem to be talk comments or minor in nature. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 23:26, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Note that they have been warned multiple times for their editing and been blocked from editing on at least two occasions. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 23:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I left a note on their talkpage warning them that they are edging into violating the terms of their unblock, and that the speculation they keep inserting is disproven with a trivial search. Acroterion (talk) 01:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

My apologies David. The articles I had been reading refered frequently to Carlos Slim as owner, so it appeared you were editing out of concern for Sulzberger Jr. This not being the case, I am ready to move on to better things. Ferociouslettuce (talk) 02:05, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Help with a new (maybe) editor, disruption, etc.

I don't do this very often, but I'm out of ideas for what to do in this situation.

On Jan 19th, Wikiinfomation (talk · contribs) tagged Hickok45 for speedy deletion, asserting spam/promotion only [61]. The tag languished for three days during which a couple of people contested it on the talk page, and I eventually removed it on the 22nd when I came across it. I commented on the editor's talk page explaining why I removed the tag and noted that he/she should take time to become more familiar with guidelines before resuming tagging [62]. In the meantime, he responded, then blanked his talk page [63], and placed a Notability tag on the Hickok45 article [64]. I deleted this, as the article contains significant RS coverage, and I have more that I'm going to add tonight.

A subsequent talk page discussion devolved into circular logic, with the editor seemingly playing an WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT game, either knowingly or unknowingly [65]. Wikiinformation insists that the article is pure advertisement and provides rationales that show a profound misunderstanding of guidelines.

Finally, they submitted it to AfD (fine by me), then proceeded to vote twice (in addition to their submission) [66]. I changed this to a comment and added a response, which Wikiinformation blanked and replaced with another double vote [67].

The account itself seems fishy to me. Their very first edit was to create a brand new article about a minor WWII ship [68], and they subsequently uploaded images from this ship, dated 1943, as their own work [69]. Assuming the editor was at least 18 years old in 1943, that would make him around 90 years old today. That's not outside the realm of possibility, but the idea of a 90 year old writing new articles on Wikipedia and using Twinkle and other tools immediately seems unlikely at best. I'll also add that the new article they created SS Lawton B. Evans, has had two other brand new accounts edit it (with the only edits to that article) making me wonder if there's a sockfarm [70], [71].

They finally removed their double vote after someone else brought it to their attention, claiming "mistake", despite the fact I told them that very same thing previously (which was ignored) [72]. I'm fine with the AfD being allowed to run its course, but can someone please have a look at this editor to determine if they're really just a new (and very stubborn) editor or something else entirely? The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 23:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Something went awry with your link for the editor in question as clicking on contributions does not show any so lets try this one Wikiinfomation (talk · contribs). MarnetteD|Talk 23:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Oops, thanks for the heads up. I fixed that. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 23:59, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't help that Wikiinfomation has repeatedly rewritten their comments on the AfD, once removing another editor's response to his comment (I suppose either because they thought the rewritten version of the own comment rendered response redundant, or because they simply didn't like the response). I've warned Wikiinfomation to stop the tampering. -- Hoary (talk) 01:47, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Kmoksy

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

Kmoksy continues to vandalize the Pastirma article by removing sourced content and also the Armenian cuisine and Byzantine cuisine categories for no given reason, besides "scientific-fiction".[73][74][75][76] In the last edit I warned him to stop or I will report this, but he ignored me. Please note that this isn't a content dispute because Kmoksy isn't even disputing anything, he's just removing things he doesn't like and edit warring.

He has a history of edit warring on this page before now.[77][78][79] --Forsytor (talk) 02:38, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I've warned him, I think coolly but clearly. -- Hoary (talk) 02:57, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

The edits cited above are complex. By contrast, this edit is simple. In it, Kmoksy says that no, Sami Zubaida, Richard Tapper and Claudia Roden (in their A Taste of Thyme. Culinary cultures of the Middle East; Tauris, London and New York 1994, p. 35 & 39) don't say that it's of Armenian origin but instead say that it's of Anatolian origin. I don't have the book; if anyone has it, do please check. -- Hoary (talk) 03:08, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Is Kmosky just planning to ignore the fact that there is little difference between pre-turk Anatolian culture and Armenian? I think this comes down to a Turkish nationalist trying to denigrate Armenia. 2600:1017:B012:73C7:233C:4289:9EDB:9951 (talk) 05:59, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

It does seem possible. However, it's really not useful to speculate about something we will never know for certain unless the user chooses to say as much themselves. It suffices to say that, if it violates consensus and this user continues to edit war, they can be blocked. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:02, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

It would largely be ignored yes. If the source does not say 'Armenian' its not Armenian. If it says 'Anatolian' that is what the article should reflect. The two are not the same and saying one while the source says the other would be misrepresenting the source. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:47, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Except that what was once part of Armenia is now part of Anatolia. One may have informed, cool arguments about nomenclature, as one may about Danzig versus Gdansk. And one may have arm-waving and shouting, as one may about Danzig versus Gdansk. I'd like to know what the book says, and whether User:Kmosky actually corrected the article in order that it conformed more closely to the cited source. Let's hope that Kmosky comes here and explains. -- Hoary (talk) 10:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

This is about conduct. Don't bring the content dispute into ANI
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The Taste of Thyme book (2001 edition) states on p. 35: "Armenians enjoy a reputation throughout the region as distinguished cooks, both in domestic food and in professional catering. They are particularly renowned for their pastry cooking and for fine basturma." This message is repeated on p. 39: "[Armenians] are widely admired as cooks, especially for their pastries and sausages, notably pasturma [sic]." There is no mention of the ethnic origin of the dish; this is about present-day Armenian cooks. Personally I have little doubt that the name of the dish is of Turkish origin, an earlier form being bastırma, which makes it plausible that the ethnic origin of the dish is Turkic. A statement that the dish is (specifically) of Armenian origin needs a reliable source; in that respect, giving Taste of Thyme as a source fails verification.  --Lambiam 21:39, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

139.192.182.85

After being blocked, the user yet started another mischief. He yet added many false information regarding airline flights in different articles. In this article:[80], He called another user Cukimai, and after doing a research, the word means "vagina", according to this website:[81]. I need the admin to help me to confront this issue. Cheers. CWJakarta (talk) 07:23, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi. You should have alerted the IP to this discussion; you didn't, so I did. I am an admin. Some admin, perhaps me, may be willing to confront the issue. A quick look at the IP's recent edits suggest removal of information, some of which they explicitly say is untrue. (That no, airline X does not serve airport Y. Which is something that cannot easily be "sourced".) Please present diffs. As it is, you've presented a single diff, in which there's no addition of any information, but whose edit summary they've used "cukimai", which may mean "vagina" (though may be in some other language), and may be about somebody else and may not. Meanwhile, I warmly invite User:139.192.182.85 to comment here. -- Hoary (talk) 08:00, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

(Non-involved comment): this IP has been discussed at ANI before, and at least one similar incident (with a different IP, albeit one that also geo-locates to Jakarta) has also been discussed. The common pattern seems to be removing references (which may, to be fair, be because they're now stale) and occasional vulgar edit summaries in Batak (IIRC, "child prostitute" has been used in the past, so "vagina" does seem to be a slight improvement...) 80.229.60.197 (talk) 08:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying, User:80.229.60.197. The user's most recent edit was made at 06:43, 27 January 2017. If they continue similarly without bothering to explain, I recommend a block. -- Hoary (talk) 08:43, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, the user edited again and communicated in Indonesian in the edit summary, one of the words was "pendeho" which I am guessing is a swear word? lovkal (talk) 08:59, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

He also keeps clearing his talk page lovkal (talk) 09:00, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

It's OK for them to remove stuff from their own talk page: WP:OWNTALK - it's seen as indicating that they've read the comment(s) posted. 80.229.60.197 (talk) 09:12, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok my bad. lovkal (talk) 09:14, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

For your information, this is what the word "pendeho" means:[82]. CWJakarta (talk) 09:47, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

A different word within the summary of that very edit is translated by Google as "cunt". The edit was to the article Haikou Meilan International Airport. For the most part this article is a pile of unsourced information, or misinformation. Edit summaries aside, how are his edits less credible than those by other editors? (An actual and not merely a rhetorical question.) -- Hoary (talk) 09:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC)Restored after what I'd hope was merely accidental deletion in this edit. -- Hoary (talk) 10:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC)'

True, well I just assumed he was up to no good based on the edit summary, cursing while providing relevant information makes no sense IMO. lovkal (talk) 17:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Admin edit-warring

John (talk · contribs) has been edit-warring on Mary Marquis over the past week, claiming that WP:BLPSOURCES entitles him to remove any references sourced to The Daily Mail. There is currently an open RFC at WP:RSN on whether The Daily Mail should be banned as a source (which John has contributed to), but no ban is yet in place. His removal of content has been reverted several times by me and another editor, Jheald. I asked him to provide a link showing that The Daily Mail was banned as a source on BLPs, but he refused to respond and continued edit-warring. John has threatened to block me for reverting him, and posted a boilerplate warning on my talkpage rather than discussing, despite previously being asked by me not to not template the regulars.

This would all be quite bizarre behaviour from any user, but the fact that John is an admin makes it even more unacceptable. Looking through his talk page, it appears he was warned twice for edit-warring last month, once by Someguy1221 at EWN and once by MSGJ at ANI. On both occasions (and in the current dispute) he seems to have deliberately circumvented 3RR to avoid an automatic block. MSGJ wrote "I am closing this thread with the result that User:John is admonished for edit warring and incivility. A block at this time is not necessary but he is warned that future occurrences will likely result in a block." ¡Bozzio! 08:53, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• Why are you trying to force this through rather than waiting for discussion to take its course? If an editor cites BLP then you cannot force that edit through until consensus supports it. In BLP cases the onus is on the person seeking to add the information not the other way round. Instead of raising complaints you need to stop. If you don't the block will be inevitable. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:11, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

  @Spartaz: I think you're misinterpreting the dispute. John is the one forcing things through without either responding on the talk page or waiting for the RfC to finish. I wrote on the talkpage "If you have a link to the discussion where the Daily Mail was banned from being used as a source on BLPs (as you claim), I'm happy to self-revert" at 06:13, and this edit summary was his only response at 06:59. I'm not seeking to add anything, but John is attempting to remove reliably-sourced information that has been in the article since 2009. The onus is on him to gain consensus for removal, crying "BLP violation!" doesn't override an existing consensus. ¡Bozzio! 10:43, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

  @Spartaz: as you have now commented and expressed your strong opinion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Daily Mail RfC it was probably not wise for you to act as an administrator on Mary Marquis and to fully protect your own version of that article. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:33, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Reverting to the last version that undisputedly is clean and protecting is a routine action for a claimed BLP issue. The correct action now is to discuss the removals, agree what is non-contentious and then find a reliable source for that before reinserting it. The existing consensus is already that DM is not suitable for BLPs so being opposed to its use on the project is hardly disqualifying for any admin taking action around a BLP. I'm afraid that's just the way it is. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:13, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Here's the thing-- you're both edit warring. If you want, you can continue to do that and get yourselves blocked, but there are other options here. The RfC isn't done yet, so you both need to find something you're willing to compromise on until the RfC resolves itself. The notion of a reliable source, BLPs or otherwise, isn't just the publication itself, but the claim(s) being made. Bozzio, if the claims being made are controversial or contentious, then a different source would generally be preferred. John, if the claims are not contentious, then you should let this go until the RfC has resolved. If you can't agree on that, it's time to step away from the article and let the RfC run its course. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 09:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Why? Possibly because this is a crusade for John and he is repeatedly highly disruptive as part of it. To do this when there's an RFC running on the matter is simply to ignore the rest of the community because (as always) John's editing is so much more important than anyone else's.

This is way past any question of the DM, this is a behavioural issue about John, and has been for some time. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• Just to point out, the RFC on the Daily Mail at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard is basically if we now start with the premise its an 'unreliable source' not fit for use *at all* without a strong reason to do so. But there has long been a working consensus on the BLP noticeboard that the Daily Mail is unsuitable and unreliable *for BLP's* except for very basic uncontentious information. At least *some* of the material removed (I think he was a bit heavy handed) above by Tony falls outside that criteria and rightly should have been removed or an alternative source found (the choice here is usually down to how much the editor cares about the article). Secondly BLP removals (where correctly notified as such) are not subject to the usual edit-warring criteria. With consensus *required* on the talkpage of the article or a suitable alternative location (BLPN) to over-ride it. So Spartaz was correct in his protecting to prevent an edit-war - in a BLP edit-war the version protected is almost universally protected without the BLP-contested material present. So while he probably shouldnt have done it himself, had this been requested at RFPP, the end result would have been the same. Incidentally, if there was a previous discussion where the material cited to the Daily Mail was discussed, I didnt find it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
• What User:Only in death said. The DM is already covered by WP:BLPSOURCES and cannot be used on articles like this. I have tried to find better sources but that which cannot be sourced in proper sources will have to go. The RfC is about whether we should blacklist the DM from all articles so is not germane here. Bozzio may need a tap with the cluestick if he continues these shenanigans. --John (talk) 13:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
• First, if there's something contentious here...I'm missing it. It looks a heckuva lot like mundane biographical details, which for all intents and purposes, we could probably just as well source to her social media. Second, John edit warring? That's definitely never happened before. TimothyJosephWood 14:02, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I dont agree with all the removals, but her medical history for example requires a source better than the Daily Mail for inclusion. A primary source, a biography, literally anything would be better than having that sort of personal info sourced to the Mail. A paper that has been proven to *make stuff up*. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:11, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Overblown, and same stuff is in Scotland Now[83]. Google search is generally preferable to ANI drama for dealing with this type of issue. The Wikia article is better than WP's though not RS in its own right. But none of the info seems all that contentious. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 07:12, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
    • For the record, the ScotlandNow article was very very likely written from our piece, so relying on it would be an act of citogenesis. Also, it's from the Daily Record, which those who would do away with the DM links would also seek to remove it. Even with sources that doesn't apply to, I tend to think that there is a case that where something has been said in an interview, even with the Mail, it is not a bad idea to give a link to that original interview, rather that to a "cuttings piece" that repeats the information in another newspaper a few years down the track. As for the Wikia article, it is a verbatim copy of our article as it stood a couple of years ago, before people started removing stuff. Jheald (talk) 16:41, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
      • It doesn't look to me like the removals improved the article in a way many readers would appreciate. I'd keep using the Daily Mail cite for that stuff and add anything better that turns up. If it were something potentially damaging I could see a problem, but if it's been around for that long without anyone contesting the info (I mean saying they think the info is wrong, not just saying they don't like the Daily Mail) I don't think there's a problem keeping it. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 11:27, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
• I'm with Spartaz on this. If there is poorly sourced material on a blp, then the onus is on the person adding it back to seek consensus for its inclusion. In this case, there is an RfC open and the material can be added back after the RfC if there is consensus to do so. Contentious or not, we need to be extra careful when it comes to blps.--regentspark (comment) 15:00, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Editor seems to be NOTHERE

Editor Caillou ftw dora ftl does not seem to be here to build an encyclopedia. Around 90% of his 21 edits are to user space, or some kind of disruptive change to the encyclopedia. Very few are constructive. He has taken to making changes to some articles so that is is how HE wants it to be, rather than following consensus of the community.

I’m posting with two requests – first, I don’t want to raise things at ANI if it's not necessary and so, were there intermediate steps that I could have taken? And second, now that the matter is here, would someone please take appropriate action, whatever that may be. Thanks. 110.147.183.191 (talk) 10:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm counting 7 edits to user space, that's only 33%. They're a bit odd, but they could be the result of a user not understanding they have their own sandbox to work with. The only change against an established consensus that I can find is this single pair of sequential edits. This was potentially disruptive, but still not out of line for a new user. I think your assessment of the situation is a bit presumptive. Everything else is WP:GNOME-ish redirect creation. And the first and only bit of interaction this user has received was you notifying them that you reported them. While I could imagine that we're looking at some sort of troll user, in the light of WP:AGF, their edit habits largely depict a new user who is helping with small edits in niche areas that most of us wouldn't've bothered with. (Likewise, I am assuming that you are similarly new and making this report out of concern for the site rather than any sort of malice). I love blocking some NOTHERE users as much as the next admin (or am I the only one who does this while wearing a Judge Dredd helmet?), but I can't actually find a reason to pull the trigger. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:47, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Its not only the user space edits that I am reporting. See the contributions section for the editor and check out the two edits to Motion picture content rating system (speedily reverted). He then went on to do the same thing at another user's user page, which I am actually suspecting is a possible sock puppet of the editor I am reporting. 110.147.183.191 (talk) 10:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I not only saw those, I linked to them in my last post. 11 of their edits were helpful and 3 were attempts at WP:BOLD editing (misguided in application but not theory). Of the 6 that were to other user's pages:

• RTL5: There is no User:RTL5 and User talk:RTL5/sandbox was created by an IP editor who I assume is CFDF based on these edits. Editing while logged out is allowed, as long as it is not done to avoid scrutiny, pretend to be multiple people, or some other dishonest reason. Looks as though CFDF was trying to create an article and didn't know how to.
• User:Mileland: While that user does exist, their only edits (over a month ago) were to create an apparently defunct sandboxes. This could be a sockpuppet of CFDF's, but so what? There actually isn't a blanket ban on sockpuppetry (dynamic IPs would make such a ban unfeasible for IP editors), there are just certain types of sockpuppets that are allowed and some that are not. Making a mistake in trying to create an article is not exactly forbidden.

So, again, this does look like a new user who is still figuring out how the site works, not a troll. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: But if they are new users why would they add comparison tables of imaginary countries' motion picture content rating systems to Mileland's sandbox? I don't know what you are seeing, but I am seeing nearly a spitting image of SlitherioFan2016 himself. 110.147.183.191 (talk) 20:14, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

If you're claiming they're a sockpuppet, there's a place to raise that concern. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:24, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

There's a place for that? Cool! Send me there! 110.147.183.191 (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:SPI. It's an amazing place, with unicorns and rainbows. Well, ok just checkusers. But they are awesome. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore: I have one problem. As an IP editor I am unable to create pages. Could someone please create the SPI page and I will go forward to notifying CFDF about the investigation. 121.216.27.248 (talk) 20:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

If it's deemed needed, I'm sure someone will do so. Unfortunately I don't see the link, outside the two edits earlier mentioned to the motion picture rating page. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore: Well what can I do in the meantime? 121.216.39.62 (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, just leave it be for now. There's a number of eyes on this now, and if anything looks to be out of place, it'll be acted on I'm sure. Just go ahead and edit like you normally would, and if anything appears weird, leave me a message, I'll have a peek. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• FURTHER INFORMATION: The editor has not responded to the case. I'm pretty sure that this is conclusive that he doesn't care how he edits and just wants the encyclopedia to be the way he wants it to be. But I'm trying to assume good faith here, maybe a bit of decoration to user spaces and trying to help out. I'm not 100% sure this is even a troll, but I think he might be NOTHERE and This needs to be dealt with. Any objections? 121.216.39.62 (talk) 01:05, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Nkansahrexford

With regret, I have to ask that the indef-block of Nkansahrexford be re-instated. This editor was indeffed by Wizardman on 31 March 2015 for repeated copyvios, and a substantial CCI was opened to clear those up. The user was unblocked by Foxj with an undertaking not to violate copyrights again. I've just removed copyright violations (from at least two sources) from Creo Concepts, created by Nkansahrexford on 27 October 2016 (note: I only became aware of this when I went to check the page off the CCI list, and found it already complete; I may have been too sweeping with my removal of text). I know that we need more editors from Africa; unfortunately, what we absolutely do not need is more editors who violate copyrights – we are already overwhelmed by them (about 76,000 pages waiting to be checked at CCI – please help!). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:10, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm only noticing this because I added a PROD tage to Credo Concepts and got a rather strange message on my talk page. Here's the thread, as seen on the editor's talk page:

You slapped a suggested for deletion on an article I didn't move onto Main Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nkansahrexford#Proposed_deletion_of_Creo_Concepts

I'll urge you take a closer look at who to slap a suggestion for deletion on their profile before proceeding. Check the logs, and you'll know the right thing to do: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creo_Concepts&action=history

Because I started the article somewhere on Wikipedia doesn't mean I'm the author of the article on main wikipedia. Unsigned comment by Nkansahrexford (talk · contribs) at 18:07, January 26, 2017‎

I've looked at the edit history -- no one has ever complained to me FOR notifying them about a deletion request -- and near as I can figure -- and I will admit I'm not up on the subtleties -- Nkansahrexford created this page, but did so in the sandbox of a different user, Iamjunie07 (talk · contribs), who moved it into mainspace [84]. Why would Nkansahrexford do that? --Calton | Talk 11:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Because of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bishonen#User:Iamjunie07_Not_my_account -- Nkansahrexford (talk) 12:08, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Strange, I see no attempts at communication between you two. There's also the matter of your claim to me not to have written the thing you now claim you did, nor of it being made up of copyright violations. --Calton | Talk 13:12, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

And while we're at it, why did you add a welcome-user template -- using the name of the company instead of the user -- to the talk page of the sandbox, three minutes after creating it? [85] --Calton | Talk 13:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Editor needs friendly advice

User:Sheila Ki Jawani bears watching and guidance. SKJ is a good editor in many respects, but he or she is making a string of edits which are either marginal or just plain wrong. If you look at this person's Talk page, you will see some warnings that don't seem to be slowing him or her down. I defer to the other editors and the administrators who watch this board to keep an eye on SKJ and hand out some good advice. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 19:26, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Motivação. This does not appear to be a new editor. GAB^gab 19:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

And another: Life imprisonment (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Reverted edits and added at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Motivação. - DVdm (talk) 15:49, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Block requested at the SPI - please continue to report these socks, as they can easily slip under the radar. GAB^gab 16:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

There's probably a ton of accounts, ready to continue the mission. - DVdm (talk) 16:49, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Fulgery destruptive editing, Single-purpose account, POV pushing

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

This account was created on 16 January 2017. His first true edits ([86], [87]) were in Ibn tumart article with no justification. I reverted his edits assuming a good faith, but here began the real problems (and a week of headache). He reverted my revert adding some unreliable primary sources (very poor sources) to support his allegations, and he started a discussion. I responded (in a good faith) to this. The problem here is that this new account is playing a high level WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT game, but I didn't noticed it the first time. He reverted again my revert! (adding another unreliable source). I recommended him to take a look at WP:PRIMARY for the second time. Now, the thing that surprised me in his third attempt to discuss his edits is his decision to lodge a dispute resolution (that was his second day in wikipedia!!). I refuted all his claims in this, but he started an edit war With no attention to the discussion (His understanding to the WP:BRD is inversed). I reverted his edit again. He requested a dispute resolution ( a two days account!). There was a long standing discussion with him, but he WP:NOTGETTINGIT and all sources(primary sources, unspecialist/unreliable secondary sources......) he was using were rejected by the discussants ([88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93]......). is it possible for a "four days account" to know how to Request for page protection? Just for clarification this editor have a total of 126 edit (60 edit in ibn tumart talk page, 11 in Ibn tumart page, 42 edit in other user talks.....) with no constructive edits. So, he doesn't has any edits outside Ibn tumart page. Which seems to me like a single-purpose account which appears to show good knowledge of wiki usage beyond that of a newbie, and a clear WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, desprutive editing (Rejects or ignores community input, Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability, Does not engage in consensus building......) with pov pushing (with some Victim playing techniques.) + when the page was protected he stopped editing for four days and today he returned again to edit because the seven days protection ended + this user was already reported by another editor for his edit warring behaviors. --Aṭlas (talk) 19:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm innocent of this user's accusations. I created an account to edit several pages, not only this one. It's because there is a long discussion with him going on that I don't do other edits on other pages for now. Also, I don't have any other account (he is accusing me of this if I understand well).

There was a long discussion and many edits because I brought some sources that were not reliable at first, without knowing it. He was also warned about the edits. Now, I think I know what is a reliable source and I'm still learning about how to use Wikipedia. I kept discussing in the Talk Page with all the users involved (even in their Talk page). I don't think that I've been hurtful to anyone. As for the POV pushing, I think the current article doesn't represent all significant views on the subject so I want to improve it.

This user forgot to tell you about today's discussion : I brought reliable sources and edited the page as we are told to do by the rules, now I'm sure I'm in my right. He reverted my edits. I asked him if he thought that my sources were reliable or not, and he didn't want to reply to this precisely. And then, now that I brought reliable sources, and because the "unreliable sources" were his main argument against me, I learn that he's complaining about me and accusing me of things. Fulgery (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

You're still learning about how to use wikipedia!!?(requesting a dispute resolution, Requesting for page protection !!?) this is so suspecious for a two/three/four days account. "Now, I think I know what is a reliable source.." I don't think so. your behaviors Don't emphasize your words. Tens of sources were used against your claims, but what !? You just don't like it. All other editors Do not agree with your edits, but what!!? You're not getting it. "I don't think that I've been hurtful to anyone." who told you that you are hurtful to anyone ?This is what I call Victim playing. "I brought reliable sources and edited the page as we are told to do by the rules, now I'm sure I'm in my right.". What reliable sources you're talking about? To this moment you did not come with a single reliable/specialist source Comparable to (The encyclopedia of islam and The cambridge history of africa...). He reverted my edits. I asked him if he thought that my sources were reliable or not, and he didn't want to reply to this precisely. This was already discussed hundred times, so no need for a baseless Re-discussion of this. As there is a consensus in the talk page (and all user talk pages you notified User_talk:Kansas_Bear#Ibn_tumart,User_talk:HaEr48#Ibn_Tumart....) that your sources are unreliable. --Aṭlas (talk) 22:05, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

For the dispute processes, I simply searched for it... The sources that I brought are "reliable/specialist". Do you read Arabic ? But we're progressing, so you confirm that you don't consider the source I used for the Arab descent to be reliable, don't you ? If so, on which basis ? And what has been discussed extensively were other sources, not the reliable ones. The Encyclopedia of Islam and other sources tell one view and I accept these sources ; the reliable sources that I brought tell the other view. They are complementary and both views should be mentioned in the article. Fulgery (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

"They are complementary and both views should be mentioned in the article.". This is why an RFC is taking place. As for the cited source. It's difficult to rely on it, because the bulk of specialist (The encyclopedia of islam, the cambridge history of africa, Princeton Encyclopedia of Islamic Political Thought.......) secondary sources (some of these sources were placed in the discussion) denied this claims. So we shouldn't emphasize the claims by putting "Arab or.." in the lead. --Aṭlas (talk) 22:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia of Islam is not a reliable source. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 22:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok thank you Mr. ip for this important point. --Aṭlas (talk) 22:59, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

You already know that this RTC is misleading for me and I will not participate in it, so forget about it. For you claim that "the bulk of specialists" denied his claims, you will have to bring a reliable source telling this, as you (and me) are not a reliable source. And even if it was the majority view, that doesn't give you the right to delete the mention of the other view if it's reliably sourced.

There are secondary sources that accepted his claims and other secondary sources that related Ibn Khaldun and others' acceptance of it. This Arab descent is an important point to know about Ibn Tumart, and mentioning it in the lead is not "emphasize", but it's going by the rules by citing all the significant views on the subject of his descent, the Arab and the Berber. But, you didn't answer me : do you read Arabic ? Fulgery (talk) 23:10, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

The RFC is misleading for you, because you have an agenda and you want to apply it in any existed way. So, the overwhelming consensus which oppose your point of view is not going to Satisfy your desires. "so forget about it" Why forgetting about it ? There is six editors who gived their opinions and their statements. "For you claim that "the bulk of specialists" denied his claims, you will have to bring a reliable source telling this.....". I (and other editors) already gived you the reliable sources, and that your claims will not take place. "This Arab descent is an important point to know about Ibn Tumart...." It's important for you not for this page. Did you read what others have written, or you just skipped it ? The important thing is to mention the sharifian claims and discussing all this mahdist/sharifian claims separatly in the body of the article. Yes I studied arabic and I can read arabic.

This endless, baseless debate will not end or what ? Do you care about what other involved editors have said ? Do you think that your opinion is The Most Important One Of All ? or what ? + I'm not the only one who told you that you're playing an WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT game ([94]) --Aṭlas (talk) 23:40, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I discussed with the others and I "care about what they have said" (but not on the RTC that I find misleading). I just want to improve the article. I repeat : "For you claim that "the bulk of specialists" denied his claims, you will have to bring a reliable source telling this, as you (and me) are not a reliable source." And even, We're not talking about majority here, but relating all the significant views, even if they are minority views. As far as the "Berber" word is mentioned for the identity in the lead, the equivalent word for the other identity is "Arab". One can see no point of adding something to an article, but a question is : does one have the right to prohibit and delete the addition of the reliably sourced significant view by Wikipedia criteria ? "No" is my answer and I stay firm on that. Fulgery (talk) 00:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

"but relating all the significant views, even if they are minority views." Well, per WP:WEIGHT, as we're talking here about an extremely small minority viewpoint (one modern arab author if we considered his work as a reliable source) Compared to the bulk of the modern reliable secondary sources. We shouldn't give the arab origin a place in this article. The sharifian claims should be discussed separatly in the body of the page, as some reliable sources address the sharifian claim and judge it to be false. --Aṭlas (talk) 01:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

There are other modern reliable sources that validated or accepted the Arab lineage, and there are again, other modern reliable sources that related the acceptance of some medieval scholars like Ibn Khaldun and others. Again, the "an extremely small minority viewpoint" opinion should be supported by reliable sources that that say that. There's no undue weight in relating this significant and known opinion. Fulgery (talk) 04:03, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

What sources you're talking about ? There are sources!! What sources? "and there are again, other modern reliable sources that related the acceptance of some medieval scholars like Ibn Khaldun and others." What sources ? Here we are again with your baseless arguments. Did you provide a reliable source ? No. "Again, the "an extremely small minority viewpoint" opinion should be supported by reliable sources that that say that." You're tuning around the circle again. We don't need to cite that the sky is blue. It's obvious this sources you want to use is an "an extremely small minority viewpoint", because it's opposing the bulk of reliable/specialist secondary reliable sources. "There's no undue weight in relating this significant and known opinion." This your point of view and here you are confirming my concerns about your behaviors (Pov pushing, WP:NOTGETTINGIT) --Aṭlas (talk) 04:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

"What sources you're talking about ?" I cited them in the talk page in my summary, point 2. And we have to add to this, Ibn Khaldun and other medieval scholars acceptance of it. We are not talking about a scientific theory that had been outdated, the opinion that accepts his Arab lineage existed in the past and exists today and should be reflected in the lead. Again, the undue weight argument should be backed by reliable sources. Fulgery (talk) 05:03, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Elianamwiha copyright violations

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

---

This user has continued to add copyrighted material [95] [96] after being warned twice: [97] [98]. It would be helpful to know which of their other contributions are copyvio. Siuenti (talk) 21:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I easily found a few more examples. I've issued a final warning and will monitor the user's edits. Thank you for reporting. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Belen Rodriguez

Could another administrator please take a look at the dispute at User talk:Mz7#Many thanks? The dispute revolves around the Belén Rodríguez article, and it seems to be spiraling a bit out of control. I have to log out for a bit due to a real life commitment, but within that discussion there are behavioral disputes and accusations throughout. There is also a relevant report at WP:ANEW. I would appreciate a second pair of eyes. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 23:44, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Mz7, I already apologize to on an edit war. But the IP from Italy 151.67 kept making offensive and disruptive comments starting attacking and harassing me, kept on calling me a "Troll", and the IP from Italy want to block me. Admins, please I am innocent. Could you check the Belen Rodriguez history page there might be mupltiple IPs from Italy using the 151.67. My arguments are stabled and I'm innocent. 2001:569:70DD:7500:39EA:19D8:DF90:EF4D (talk) 00:21, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Totally false, he is not innocent. I'm a variable IP (not multiple) and he always deleted all other people messages in his personal talk page and all other edit in Belen's page and he refuse to accept Il Giornale, one of the most important newspaper in Italy, as good source; on Spanish ediction he was blocked for Vandalism and note that he create here a legal intimidation against me--151.67.43.10 (talk) 00:24, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Stop it, You're comments are disruptive and you are starting to attack me and I am not a destroying the article. Attn Admins: I am waiting for a strong administrator to resolve this incident. 00:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

In order to resolve this issue, Administrators could you review 151.67.43.10's contributions. There is a lot of disrupted contributions. For an example, WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests has disrupt the editing and the IP from Italy said "Please, with your arguments you LOST the AFD (article for deletion), stop!". I told the IP to Stop and the IP continuing the edit war in the WikiProject a few times. There will be a administration action against the IP from Italy for a possible blocking. Thanks. 2001:569:70DD:7500:39EA:19D8:DF90:EF4D (talk) 06:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I think the situation is pretty much clear. 151* tries to add the info that Rodriguez is divorced. First they tried to reference it to a gossip blog which is not a reliable source. Then they brought a reference to Il Giornale, which is likely a reliable source. The problem is that the article only says "everything is most likely finished", it does not say anything about the divorce. Whereas the divorce is likely coming, the sources of quality acceptable for us has not yet been presented, and the info can not be added to the article per WP:BLP. 2001* were reverting this info, but at least they did not try any BLP violations. The article is currently protected; if any of the IPs continue disruption they should be blocked. I do not currently see a need for a block.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:21, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: I am not talking about Belen's divorce, I am talking about 151.67's disruptive contributions. In order to resolve this issue could you review 151.67.43.10's contributions. For an example For an example, WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests has disrupt the editing and the IP from Italy said "Please, with your arguments you LOST the AFD (article for deletion), stop!". I told the IP to Stop and the IP continuing the edit war in the WikiProject a few times. There will be a administration action against the IP from Italy for a possible blocking. Thanks. 2001:569:70DD:7500:39EA:19D8:DF90:EF4D (talk) 21:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I did study their contribution and in fact addressed it in my above comment.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Username filter for blocking defamatory accounts?

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

---

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere.

I'm sure that can be done, right? Well, since you-know-who is having a knack at taunting other admins with profane rants and so on, and I assume disallowing the use of established usernames by new users might do the trick. Blake Gripling (talk) 02:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I think the proper venue for this would be the edit filter noticeboard --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 02:56, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Filtering usernames isn't something an edit filter could do; edit filters don't check against account creations. There's already an anti-impersonation/spoofing filter in place for account creation, but it can't catch everything. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Rangeblock Request

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

---

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: We've lately been seeing a lot of BS from isp addresses from the blocked AnnalesSchool. Over the last several weeks they have come from the following isp addresses:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/185.160.162.209
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/188.215.109.248
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/185.160.162.221
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/185.160.161.209
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/188.215.109.181
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/185.160.162.91
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/188.215.109.181
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/185.160.163.29
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/185.160.163.162
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/188.215.109.226

Is there any way we can get a range block in here to shut this guy up? We'd appreciate it very much. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:40, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

blockcalc output

Sorted 9 IPv4 addresses (after omitting some duplicates): 185.160.161.209 185.160.162.91 185.160.162.209 185.160.162.221 185.160.163.29 185.160.163.162 188.215.109.181 188.215.109.226 188.215.109.248 Total affected Affected addresses Given addresses Range Contribs 1152 1024 6 185.160.160.0/22 contribs 128 3 188.215.109.128/25 contribs 546 1 1 185.160.161.209 contribs 512 5 185.160.162.0/23 contribs 1 1 188.215.109.181 contribs 32 2 188.215.109.224/27 contribs 23 1 1 185.160.161.209 contribs 1 1 185.160.162.91 contribs 16 2 185.160.162.208/28 contribs 1 1 185.160.163.29 contribs 1 1 185.160.163.162 contribs 1 1 188.215.109.181 contribs 1 1 188.215.109.226 contribs 1 1 188.215.109.248 contribs 9 1 1 185.160.161.209 contribs 1 1 185.160.162.91 contribs 1 1 185.160.162.209 contribs 1 1 185.160.162.221 contribs 1 1 185.160.163.29 contribs 1 1 185.160.163.162 contribs 1 1 188.215.109.181 contribs 1 1 188.215.109.226 contribs 1 1 188.215.109.248 contribs

Looks like 185.160.162.0/23 (contribs) would get 5 of the above with no collateral -- Samtar ^{talk · contribs} 11:50, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Please move forward then. Every little bit will help. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:50, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked the larger ranges, there's zero collateral in recent edits. Black Kite (talk) 19:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

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

IP editor rapidly adding poorly-sourced info to BLPs

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

---

Can someone who knows about military stuff look at 80.2.63.236 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)? He's rapidly adding poorly-sourced material to BLPs. Some of the edits look like they could be legit, but other directly contradict sourced material. For example, in Harry Belafonte, the IP added an infobox module that says Belafonte served in the Army, but a dead link in the article says Belafonte served in the Navy. The IP editor's source, confusingly, is an article about Robert Duvall at military.com – this seems to be his source for almost every edit made today. Is military.com even a reliable source? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Also added infobox content in the James Stewart article saying he was a Private First Class in the U.S. military. For those unfamiliar with Stewart, he was a Brigadier General. The IP seems to be adding the same "Private first class" infobox content to the articles of various celebrities, citing Military.com content about Robert Duvall in them (without providing a precise URL to the content, so no one can check what it says). —BarrelProof (talk) 15:17, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Alright, that's enough for me. I'll block and do a mass-rollback before it's too late. If there's something salvageable in these edits, an informed editor can revert me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Surprisingly, some of the other edits look like good edits, but figuring out which ones are which is a tedious exercise. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:12, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

It's apparently the cause of death vandal, which Thomas.W caught. I reset the block for a month. One thing I noticed about this LTA vandal a while back: there will occasionally be a seemingly constructive edit mixed in with the stream of vandalism. That makes me think Thomas.W is correct in his analysis. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:14, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Жовтневе багаття

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

---

Heavy pro-Ukrainian POV editing after multiple warnings. DS alert already given. Examples of POV include adding replacing English spelling by non-English spelling (e.g. Kiev with Kyiv, Odessa with Odessa) and introduction of original research ("Ukrainophobia widely spread in modern terrirory of Russia"), see [99] as an example. Basically the whole contribution of this user is POV, meaning they are WP:NOTTHERE.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:05, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

This administrator is overusing his admin. rights to attack Wikipedians from Ukrainian cluster. He was the first person to without reasons apply for speedy deletion of my article Temporarily occupied and uncontrolled territories of Ukraine (2014-present) (that for Ymblanter sems against policy of his country of origin), which has ventually survived several checks by more exp. administrators. He is the first in every article related to Ukraine to revert any changes like Crimea-related articles. Full time job, right?. Keep your subjective opinion to yourself. It is against Wiki policy to harrass other users.

Right now Ymblanter reverts multiple useful cited changes not only of me, but of other users as well. For my update of Ukrainians: Difference between revisions Added Crimean Tatar as language of Ukraine (significant change, cited) Adding reference to "The Ukrainian language appeared in the 14th – 16th centuries (with some prototypical features already evident in the 11th century), but at that time, it was mostly known as.... Adding citation for Ukrainian diasporas worlwide part Adding citation to " historical national minorities living in Ukraine. Adding citation to Ukrainian language similarity with other European languages Adding citation on why Volodymyr is used instead of Vladimir. Clarifying some Ukrainian words translations Adding updated list of famous Ukrainian artists Adding Decommunization in Ukraine to see also instead of * Ukrainians in Russia because there are 20 Wiki pages related to Ukrainian in Canada, US, Estonia, Poland etc. so we cannot add them.

Ymblanter, you cannot use your administrator rights against users that you may not like or to protect your own interests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Жовтневе багаття (talk • contribs)

And, well, since we are talking about my AfD nomination, this is how the article looked like before I started to edit it.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Agreed with Ymblanter. User indefinitely blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:04, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

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

User:217.245.52.77

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

---

Please see User talk:217.245.52.77 and his recent edits at Sephardi Jews and consider to block him. Debresser (talk) 20:14, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked for 31 hours. Bishonen | talk 20:38, 28 January 2017 (UTC).

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

User:Abc616

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

---

User has had a history of removing (sourced) critical reviews that don't agree with their taste, like [100][101][102][103][104]. In these, and other, edits (see their contributions), they are also leaving edit summaries that are less than WP:CIVIL. And when they've been warned on their talk page, they blank it, and replace it with more uncivil comments, even one directed at Ferret [105], who gave the user a final warning about removing critical reviews from the various articles [106]. MPFitz1968 (talk) 21:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• Given [107] and their contributions, an indef block seems logical, so I have done so. Black Kite (talk) 21:49, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Continuing styleguide trivia disruption from Dicklyon, now becoming simple attacks on editors

For some time now, Dicklyon (talk · contribs) has been conducting a disruptive war of attrition on other editors, based on imposing a simplistic blanket interpretation of styleguides over common practice within specific fields. See WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive943#Page move ban, and the links from there. The two main aspects are about capitalisation: Should Heart of Wales Line et al be capitalised? Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways/Archive_37#Recent article moves removing capitalisation of 'line' and hyphenation: Harz Narrow Gauge Railways etc. Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Trains#Potential mass move of railway articles could hinge on discussion at one article.

This much is bad enough. An argument is being sustained as a personal crusade, hoping simply to outlast the staying power of the many editors who disagree with him. His colleague in this has been misquoting ArbCom as personal userpage threats those opposing them Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive943#Threats from SMcCandlish. Now though, Dicklyon is treating those who disagree as liars. Enough is enough: GF editors should not have to tolerate such abuse. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:14, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

And away we go again. You are reminded that "Threats from SMcCandlish" was closed by two uninvolved as unfounded, one advising you to drop the stick. And this did not call anybody a liar and didn't approach personal attack. If Dicklyon or anybody else has violated behavior policy or guideline, please cite the p or g and provide diffs. Otherwise stop using ANI as a weapon in a content dispute. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I second this. Just because the real world has turned really ugly doesn't mean that editors can repeat it here by using this forum for continual attacks to get their way. Tony (talk) 03:23, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh, bullshit. Saying that someone knows something is untrue and is saying it anyways *is* an accusation of lying. This is not even slightly difficult. How can you not know this? --Calton | Talk 03:29, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

How can you not know this? Did you just call me a liar? Using words like "Oh, bullshit" does not increase the strength of one's argument. I call for close before this spirals out of control. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I support Andy Dingley's complaint about User:Dicklyon, and that complaint should not be closed just yet. There is clearly an issue as to whether the latter has been disruptively editing, because the latter has been making similar moves to multiple pages without discussion where there is no consensus for such a move. In my view (expressed on Talk:Narrow gauge railways in Saxony), a large part of this disruptive editing is based on a misinterpretation of MOS:HYPHEN, which, in my view, neither requires nor supports such a move. Also, saying to another editor "It's not credible that you've never seen "narrow-gauge railway", is an accusation of lying, in my view. Bahnfrend (talk) 05:01, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

The moves under question were already addressed, here, which is why the RM discussion is open. Can't have it both ways, proposing that Dicklyon is a bad guy for doing manual moves instead of opening RM discussions, and that he's also a bad guy for opening RM discussions instead of doing manual moves.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:35, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• WP:BOOMERANG for Andy Dingley, for misuse of ANI to try to get his way in a trivial content dispute, and for excessive, battlegrounding personalization of title and style disagreements, per WP:ARBATC; Dingley received a {{Ds/alert}} about ARBATC only a little over a week ago [108]. Aside from this frivolous and unclean-hands ANI filing – already a "spiral out of control" – Dingley also posted the following WP:ASPERSIONS about Dicklyon, under the heading "Back at ANI", at Talk:Narrow gauge railways in Saxony itself, instead of writing something more reasonable at DL's user talk page: "Dicklyon, this edit crosses another line. You do not get to describe other editors as liars, simply for disagreeing with you." [109]. This does not comport with WP:TALK policy, and seemed to serve no purpose but to try to color the RM and its closure against DL and anyone else who is not in agreement with Dingley.

  Dicklyon expressing his own credulity level is not "describing other editors as liars". Also, what that other editor posted was not "simply ... disagreeing with [DL]", it was reality-denial, of all the sourced evidence already posted in the RM by DL and by others (including substantial source research by me). The "personal crusade" here is Dingley's 'my topic is magically special and immune to guidelines, evidence, and reason, and I'll have your head for saying it isn't so' behavior. It is disruptive, now of multiple pages and processes, and uncivil.

  Finally, Dicklyon using the prescribed WP:RM process to request moves – based on WP:P&G, evidence in reliable sources, and previous RM precedent – after specifically being instructed by ANI a year or two ago to do so, is hardly "a disruptive war of attrition on other editors"; it's doing as instructed by the community. This was reaffirmed in another ANI, in which Dingley participated, within the month, so Dingley is well aware his hyperbolic accusations are false. That also makes this "re-ANI" an attempt at WP:OTHERPARENT shopping. Dingley is further well aware that his claim of a "common practice within [this] specific field" to drop hyphenation has been disproved, again with RS, in the very RM he's trying to WP:WIN by ANI abuse (the sources are not consistent at all, so we do what MoS says to do, as usual; we don't fight about it article by article until until someone bleeds out). Dingley's is a WP:GREATWRONGS, WP:TRUTH, WP:TE, and WP:WINNING pattern. It has to stop.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:29, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment It seems to me that Andy D. is over reacting in this instance. Already two non-starters have been presented. It seems Dicklyon did not call anyone a liar. Also, I am going to AGF about the DS template ANI and say that this as threat was misinterpreted. Apparently there are discretionary sanctions regarding MOS issues, and to be forewarned is to be equipped. I don't understand why that is being brought into this discussion, because it was a non-issue.

It also seems to me this is misuse of ANI. Pertaining to the DS Template ANI that was a non-issue, so why bring it here. Andy, do you think it is credible to call a DS template a threat and bring that to ANI? Andy has been around on Wikipedia for a long time (since 2007) along with 113,412 edits. He is a seasoned editor. This really has to stop.

Dicklyon is allowed to engage in as much discussion as he himself deems necessary. The result of that page move ban was no consensus, but part of that finding was that he engage in discussion to develop consensus. This seems to be exactly what he is doing. Please stop bringing the page ban move to ANI every time there is a discussion about Dicklyon unless he is unilaterally doing numbers of page moves. It would be like he lost all good judgement and it seems that has not happened. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:14, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Dicklyon is allowed to engage in as much discussion as he himself deems necessary. -- really, no, just no. We can and should set limits or else the discussions might never stop. I don't claim those limits have been reached here yet, but it's clear that there is unhealthy MOS obsession going on. Almost all MOS disputes are bullshit and when it's the same few people in the center of them over and over, the question of the community's patience has to come into view. I'd oppose boomeranging Andy in this incident. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 12:07, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that a BOOMERANG is a punitive over-reaction. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:29, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing punitive about it, but purely preventative. It's clear he will continue escalating in this direction until restrained.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but what is "unhealthy MOS obsession" is decided by consensus. That's consensus established by Wikipedia process, not individual arm-waving and the volume of voices ("I don't give a damn what you think", "Oh, bullshit") in spurious ANI complaints. Dicklyon has consistently followed Wikipedia process, and it's just too damn bad if certain people are on the losing end of that. A few people need to read and internalize Wikipedia:Process is important and Wikipedia:How to lose. Anarchic mob rule seems to be on its way out at en-wiki, thankfully, and I'm here to help it find the door.
I don't really care if Dingley gets his just desserts here, but how else is this business finally going to end? It doesn't appear that he and others are going to stop unless forced to stop by the community.
One of Dicklyon's opponents clearly violated WP:CANVASS yesterday or the day before. He could have had an actual ANI case, but declined to bring it, and the violator gets off scot-free. In contrast, Dicklyon is careful not to violate such policies, so his attackers are forced to invent extra-policy rationales and throw smoke. I think that's a fair illustration of the difference between him and them. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. The "style trivia disruption" is, as usual, being caused by "topical fiefdom" editors who disavow the applicability of site-wide guidelines to "their" topic, even when the preponderance of sources is against them, and when then turn the dispute nasty and personal when it looks like they might not get their way. This continuing pattern of WP:1AM / WP:FACTION escalation against WP:P&G on micro-topical basis needs to be brought to an end.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:56, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Come on, really? It seems as if any attempt by Dicklyon to advocate for his opinion, is seen by some of his opponents as "a disruptive war of attrition on other editors". This seems like an abuse of ANI to me. Paul August ☎ 14:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• Is there any evidence that the average Wikipedia reader cares even one iota about whether "line" should be capitalized or not? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Probably not. But Dicklyon clearly does, and he's happy firstly to waste everyone else's time arguing the point, and then to start abusing people over it. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

So if the general public doesn't care, why do you care about it so much? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Because I am tired of Dicklyon wasting the time of more productive editors with an incessant stream of these renames. And secondly, some of them (like Heart of Wales Line) are simply wrong. This is why he has only recently been at ANI with editors seeking a topic ban. Yet still it continues. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Again, you are the one acting outside of process and policy here. You have asserted one violation of behavior p&g, and it's laughable. If that's the best you have, I suggest you withdraw. The only viable reason to leave this open at this point is because some editors would like to see a boomerang sanction per WP:HA. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I am not interested in a Boomerang at this time. But maybe other editors are, and I can't speak for them. I don't know who was doing the Canvassing but that was out of line, I think for obvious reasons. From my experience on Wikipedia - emotions do not equal justification - and I think I am talking about myself. Oh yeah, I've gotten upset at times - but somehow I remember to look at the long term, and see what effect my disagreeable behaviors will cause for me, as an editor. Yes, this is a selfish point of view - maybe it is called self-interest (self-preservation). Well enough about me...how you doin'? (referring to anybody here) ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll address who did that canvassing in a subtopic below.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:56, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

The CANVASS and FACTION issues

Since Steve Quinn and some others seem unaware of the details: The canvassing of railfans to the RM discussion was done by Bermicourt in an alarmist and highly non-neutral post to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains [110]. Bermicourt posted this in direct response to my request for reversal of his mass moves to strip hyphens from articles with "narrow-gauge railway" in their titles while two RMs about the matter are still ongoing, and someone else's proposal that the Saxony RM determine outcome for the whole lot of them [111].

This was followed in the same thread at the wikiproject talk page by what is difficult to interpret as anything but pointed and direct canvassing by Redrose64 [112] to shop for another vexatious, frivolous ANI action against Dicklyon (after the one the other day on the exact same matter didn't extract a pound of flesh from him [113]); here we are with the current ANI thread shortly thereafter. This WP:DRAMA-activism incident strikes me as questionable conduct for an admin like Redrose64, especially one well aware of WP:ARBATC and the sanctions applicable to personalizing title and style disputes. Its hard to picture anything more personalizing of such a dispute than to incite a wikiproject, which exists to work on article content, to instead "wiki-politically" research dirt on and then go after another editor just because he's in a content dispute with some of that wikiproject's participants (over a trivial and entirely routine, guideline-compliance move request, backed by sourcing).

As noted above, Andy Dingley then canvassed RM participants to this very ANI discussion, with a post to Talk:Narrow gauge railways in Saxony directly under the still-ongoing RM, highlighting the ANI case, and making unreasonable accusations [114].

This is WP:FACTION behavior, in an anti-consensus (see WP:CONLEVEL in particular) direction of WP:OWNership of a topical category, and disruption and abuse of process. Wikiprojects, article talk pages, RM, and ANI do not exist for organizing and executing anti-guideline campaigns or bounty-hunting against other editors in content disputes. If it doesn't stop, maybe it's time for ArbCom to address it. These editors could even theoretically come up with some "smoking gun" of proof that their anti-hyphenation stance is correct (good luck with that, since it's already been disproven), yet their behavior would still be wrong and sanctionable. RM is a reasoned, civil discussion to assess facts, rationales, and consensus; it's not a topical "great wrongs" battlefield of ideologies and personal vendettas.
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:56, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I was not there "to shop for another vexatious, frivolous ANI action against Dicklyon" and I resent the accusation. Nor did I make any comment whatsoever in the previous ANI. As for "here we are with the current ANI thread shortly thereafter" - did I raise this ANI? No.

My concern that in the last few weeks we have had a whole heap of undiscussed page moves (by various people, but Dicklyon most of all) and it's time for people to slow down - even stop - and consider what others might think before taking unilateral action. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and I'm not anti-hyphen either. Just so you know. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• You seem to have as little understanding of Wikiprojects as you do of Arbcom and its usefulness for threatening editors with [115]. It is far from canvassing for a project to publicise significant project-wide issues across a project. Especially not when there is a serious WP:OWN problem from Dicklyon, an editor who has no other evident engagement with or interest in railway topics. He is insistent on imposing trivial styleguides over content, doing this across a wide range of articles, and using one article talk: page (not the project) to establish some sort of "precedent" here (BTW - we don't work by precedent). In such a situation, it's entirely appropriate and useful to the project for Bermicourt to flag this on the project page. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

And you could brush up on WP:TPO too. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:34, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• The notice violated WP:CANVASS because it was not neutral, per Wikipedia:Canvassing#Inappropriate notification. As for WP:OWN, your understanding of that policy stops short of its nutshell. It's about preventing others from editing or participating at an article; there has been zero indication that Dicklyon has tried to prevent anybody from doing either. The nutshell ends with, "Disagreements should be calmly resolved, starting with a discussion on the article talk page" - exactly what Dicklyon has been doing. Please learn something about p&g before you cite it, especially here at ANI. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:42, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

User:YeeYeeYeeYee

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

---

Hope I'm in the right place for this. This user page - User:YeeYeeYeeYee - is an attack page, but I can't tag it because I'm too new. Thanks. Home Lander (talk) 04:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

You might want to block 207.255.100.112 (talk · contribs) also, as it seems to be the same guy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:26, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

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

"Go to one of the enforcers and plunge a knife into its guts"

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

---

Not sure where else to put this. Is this reponse (diff) appropriate advice on dealing with people who disagree on an interpretation of Wikipedia policy? It's a call to declare oneself enlighted and simply "plunge a knife into its guts" of people who enforce policy and guidelines one doesn't like. Since this came from a long-time contibuting editor, I've been trying to interpret it as a metaphor for something else "in the right setting", but I can't come up with what that might be, since it specifically points out using a knife as a better "argument" to use than speech, and is a direct response to someone wanting to follow but change Wikipedia policy. I'm sure any user willing to say things like that is also willing to claim they meant something far more clever and nuanced and on-wiki, and that the rest of the world is politically correct and too stupid to understand and have no right to react; but that only goes so far. Surely there's a line somewhere about average users who may want to get involved in Wikipedia, and what they think they might have to prepare for in their lives instead of speech if they follow existing guidelines, because they can see things like this go unanswered as advice (on Jimbo's user talk page no less). Should I have been asking for a clarification or redaction in case the user was just having a bad day? I was involved in other parts of the discussion, but this wasn't a direct response to me and I have not otherwise engaged this user other than notifying them of this report. --Closeapple (talk) 10:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it was a metaphor, but I saw it as a philosophical analysis rather than an actual threat of or call for violence. Something like the saying "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable" (attributed to John F. Kennedy here though I'm skeptical). And of course in the case of revolution against Wikipedia, the correct utensil to plunge into its guts is a WP:FORK, not a knife. It's been tried a few times with some partial successes. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 11:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Obviously this was not a call for anyone to cut up admins, but reading this I'll do something to make that clearer to anyone in doubt. My point was that every time people come up with an argument against copyright, the response turns to what violence could hypothetically be done to Wikipedia, making any rational decision making anything but that. Wnt (talk) 12:23, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

As written, it is a wish for extreme violence. If an IP or some just autoconfirmed editor had said this there would be no discussion, they would have a long block or ban. Why should you be treated any different.?Nigel Ish (talk) 12:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

No, it is a comment that you can go do something like this, not a command to do so. The title of this section is a sentence that I never said! And it is still absurd, I mean, did you also think I truly believe that the choirs of heaven were less beautiful than a stabbing? But I also do think there are some here who are too quick to WP:BITE the new editors (maybe the policy's name is prone to misinterpretation...), and I would oppose similar action against them, obviously. Wnt (talk) 12:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Those who see a call to violence in that comment need to read it again carefully, paying particular attention to the pronouns used. It does not say what you think it says. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

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

College project that's introducing copyvios, plagiarism, OR and Non-NPOV content to wide variety of Indian history articles

There's a huge group of college students working on some coursework related to historical kingdoms of the Indian subcontinent. They've been copying content from elsewhere on to these articles, some of them from out of copyright works and some from copyrighted works. Utcursch, Chewings72 and I have attempted to engage with a few of them, but except for one of them confirming to Utcursch that this is a college project and they aren't sock accounts, we haven't any response from anyone. Our request to have the instructor read the guidelines for educators and get involved hasn't had any impact either. I'm sure there are more people involved in cleaning up this area, I just don't know who all are involved yet (Doug Weller suggested I bring this here, after a conversation on my talk page). I'll list all accounts I'm aware of here:

1. Worldciv207 satavahanas (talk · contribs) (This is the student who confirmed that it's coursework and not sockpuppetry)
2. Worldciv2017 Chalukya Empire (talk · contribs)
3. Worldciv2017 GUPTAs (talk · contribs)
4. Worldciv2017 chola (talk · contribs)
5. Worldciv2017 kakatiya (talk · contribs)
6. Worldciv2017 tughlaq (talk · contribs)
7. WorldCiv2017 chera (talk · contribs)
8. Worldciv2017 pallavas (talk · contribs)
9. WorldCiv2017 Pallava Empire (talk · contribs)
10. Worldciv 2017 kushan (talk · contribs)
11. Worldciv pala (talk · contribs)
12. World Civ 2017 Maurya's (talk · contribs)

I've provided most (if not all) of the accounts with student-welcome template and have tried to engage with a couple of them but there's been no response. I'm not exactly sure what to do here as we don't even know who the instructor is (his name is Prof Srinivas Reddy) or if this is an outreach effort or any background information. We had a similar group from a college in Pune in 2015 that was working on Kumbh Mela related stuff but I was able to work with them back then, unlike in this case. If someone can actually get through to them and get them to stop the copyvios etc and work in a structured manner, it'd be helpful. —SpacemanSpiff 11:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

:PS, with so many people to notify, it's going to take me a while to do the rounds. —SpacemanSpiff 11:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Add World Civ 2017-SOLANKI (talk · contribs), whom I have just notified of this discussion. I've just been cleaning up their stuff at Chaulukya dynasty, as well as one of the above named accounts at Chera dynasty. - Sitush (talk) 11:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

All these accounts need to be thoroughly reviewed for copyvios, optimally by a Wikipedian with significant expertise in this area. Anyone who joins in, please don't just revert copyvios, but flag them for revdel using {{copyvio-revdel}}. BethNaught (talk) 11:40, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@BethNaught: how do we tag an eit as copyvio if it's already been reverted but not et revdeleted? E.g., here? O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 12:58, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

By following the instructions in the template documentation... BethNaught (talk) 13:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• I've left a note at Wikipedia:Education_noticeboard/Incidents#Student_projects_at_ANI. PamD 12:41, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• Add
  • Worldciv2017 kakatiyas (talk · contribs)
  • Worldciv17 VN (talk · contribs)
• who haven't edited yet, but match the username pattern and were registered in the last 11 days. MER-C 13:03, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
• Note: Worldciv207 satavahanas, the responsive student has confirmed on my talk page that they have alerted the other students about policies and guidelines and to follow them and also about talk pages and will be requesting the instructor to go through Wikipedia:Education Program. —SpacemanSpiff 13:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear this. I hope that when the students who haven't edited yet start contributing they do better. I've dealt with one. Doug Weller talk 17:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Seneed Acharya

This person, under his latest account incarnation User:Dynes acrz, has just recreated for the third time since October 2016 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=Seneed+Acharya&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&subtype= ) the article Seneed Acharya about himself, using different accounts. Both previous versions were speedy deleted, today's version is likely to go soon. I believe that article name should be protected from recreation and a sock puppet investigation on this user's multiple accounts is due. Fbergo (talk) 14:54, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I blocked a couple obvious socks. There's already an SPI case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Seneed acharya, which you can use to report new ones. I'll semi-protect the article if it get recreated again. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:35, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

At least one more sock that I've added, and a bunch at a separate SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Senz acharya. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Seneed Acharya recreated by another sock. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:07, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I thought I had blocked this person before. Couldn't remember who it was, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

G10 Attack Page created by Benevolent Dictator

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

---

User Benevolent Dictator has created Mental health of Donald Trump - a clear BLP violation and an attack page. I have nominated this page for speedy deletion under WP:G10 but the author has repeatedly removed the Speedy Deletion tag and unblanked the page, despite all 4 levels of warning. Following my reporting this user to AIV, they have created an incorrectly formatted AfD discussion for this page - they are clearly not a new editor and I'm not sure how far Assuming Good Faith is meant to stretch in this case. Can an Admin please take a look? At the moment, the BLP-violating content is still visible. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

this guy can't get his story straight. First, I created the aFD before he sent this here. Second, all I did was unblank the page while KEEPING his tag and send it for an AFD discussion. I apologize if I incorrectly formatted the AfD; I am a new editor, young in years.Benevolent Dictator (talk) 15:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

User blocked for edit warring; page deleted. GiantSnowman 15:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Obvious socks of Kingshowman are obvious. Upgraded to indef. Favonian (talk) 16:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

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

can an admin rename this image file?

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

---

File:B19bb3dc8456f43cad8cec6349afcd5c (3).jpg. I forgot to rename it when uploading it (or was confused about how to rename it). It's Julie Maybury holding a framed photo of her daughter Kylie Maybury. Can an admin help here? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done File name is now: File:Julie Maybury holding a framed photo of her daughter Kylie Maybury.jpg. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Joseph A. Spadaro and WP:NPA violations

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

---

Joseph A. Spadaro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm usually not someone who uses this forum for such disputes but I fear this user has a serious problem following WP:NPA. Today, he asked on a talk page whether to add negative BLP information without providing sources. When another user pointed out that he should provide sources, he told them to "go fuck yourself" multiple times and tried to use {{admin-help}} to get an admin to discipline the user who disagreed with him. When I declined to do so and noted that the responding user was correct, he went on to attack me and tried to adminshop another admin to do what he wanted. I would have blocked him immediately but since I am the one he insulted, I think I might be biased, so I'm bringing it here. Seeing as he was blocked multiple times for such behavior in the past, I'm not sure any non-indefinite block is going to make an impression on him. Regards SoWhy 18:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't know about WP:NPA, but certainly WP:CIVIL. "Go fuck yourself" has been forgiven, I'm sorry to say, but only when the consensus was that the speaker was extremely provoked; that does not appear to be the case here. In my view Spadaro needs a break and doesn't recognize the need. Not indef but perhaps double or triple the previous block. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:42, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• I was going to block indef here, but only two are the previous blocks are in recent times, so I have followed the increasing route on those. I suspect, however, that any other episode of similar may lead to a indef. Black Kite (talk) 18:49, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Not notifying users about their pages being deleted

Today I received a request on my talk page to undelete a page which I had moved back to Draft. They couldn't find it at all, and when I checked their contribs I saw it had been deleted. SwisterTwister was the user who added the CSD tags, but never notified them, so I can understand their confusion.

This is not the first time this has happened. A lack of notifying the creator for a set of AFDs resulted in this rather exhausting ANI thread. In it were several admonishments for lack of notification when a page was AFD'd. I've left him a couple of notes to this effect, to no avail.

My main concern is the prolific rate of editing in which ST performs. Just in the last month, he has started 36 AFDs, 81 MFDs, 3 SPI cases ([116]), and at least 500 CSDs without a single user talk notification.

I'm not concerned with whether he has been right or wrong in his nominations, but the fact that there are at least 600 users (in the last month alone!) who might have no idea why their page simply disappeared. As a helper in the IRC channel, I see countless people coming in asking how they can locate their draft; if they don't remember the exact title and/or it's been deleted, we can't always help them. His actions are incredibly BITEy, they cause users (usually copyvio offenders) to repeat their mistakes in the future, and it discourage editors from continuing to help out at Wikipedia. I know the XFD/CSD guidelines use "may" and "should" (though the {{db-g12}} template says "ensure they were notified"), but for someone who has such a tremendous impact on new users I think an exception should be made.

The easiest thing to do would be to ask ST to use Twinkle when they nominate pages; it means zero extra effort on his part, since the script will automatically notify the user in question. It also means the incredibly vague nomination statements ("N", "None of this suggests a notable article", "(C)" or just nothing at all), will be replaced with something useful. Primefac (talk) 18:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree. Both WP:AFD and WP:CSD explicitly say it should be done / is considered standard practice, so imho those not doing it should have good reasons why not. Asking this user (and others) to use a script that both automates tagging and notifying users seems like a sensible idea. In the long run, we probably should consider making notifying users a rule. Regards SoWhy 19:00, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

To add something else here, I've long been concerned that ST seems to ignore the vast majority of news users who post on his talk page, asking genuine questions about how to improve their declined articles. I would rather he reviewed half the articles he does if it means he gets time to respond to those users who ask him questions. Sam Walton (talk) 19:07, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@Samwalton9: I was likewise concerned that SwisterTwister appeared to simply ignore the users asking questions on his user page, however after some investigation (and "watching" his talk page to ensure that this was a consistent pattern), he actually almost always replies with a comment on their AfC draft instead, presumably because they want to keep discussion all in one place. jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:13, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• If you want to make notification mandatory, then the CSD language needs to be changed. "There is strong consensus", "you can", "suggested template" are not the wording you need for that. Look at the editnotice on this page "You must notify the user on their talk page" -- that's the kind of language that's needed. Change the language to make it mandatory, but don't blame editors if they chose not to do something that isn't required. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I proposed such a change for WP:CSD at its talk page. Funny how for more than a decade this was not really a problem since almost all NP patrollers used tools that automated such notifications. I think it's the first time I heard about a user not doing so on such a large scale. Regards SoWhy 19:21, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
• Twinkle also gives the option of not notifying users, Other than "Either notify users or face a block" I can't think of any better options - Clearly new users are confused and clearly this user has no intention of notifying other users so as I said I see no better alternative. –Davey2010^Talk 19:13, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
• Notifying users has always been a "suggestion", not a policy, and WP:Perennial proposals explicitly states this. There has never been a solidified consensus to make it a policy because it's a question of who can be notified, at times, it could be a now-banned user or a CU-confirmed sock, therefore there's no need. For example, such bot-spam accounts I find daily, I never notify because it's all clear unnecessary server-logging, a bot-spam account is not going to know the difference of what we as an encyclopedia accept. There's no serious need for admin intervention here because there have been no policy violations. As it is, any attention to my deleted contribs will find over 80% of it is where the user had no intentions at all because it was simply so blatant. As for the SPIs, I notified at least one of them, but the others were not, simply because they were so obvious, such as Scorpion293's of which was confirmed as a paid puppeteer. Anyone who asked why it was deleted had not noticed the deletion log located in their same article, which either states "Unambiguous advertising" or "Copyviolation", consisting of a link then to our policies. Making anything of it is clear WP:BUREACRACY. As for the MfD nominations, they repeatedly submitted so often, they never showed they understood our policies. SwisterTwister talk 19:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• But why not do it anyway? It is courteous and, with Twinkle, takes no time at all. The impression otherwise is that you are flying under the radar. - Sitush (talk) 19:29, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
• (I do agree re: SPI, though. I rarely notify for those, mainly because of the BEANS thing.) - Sitush (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I would notify if there was a reasonable chance the user showed they understood our policies, but for example, about the AfC Drafts, some of the recent ones were involving nearly 10 or 11 resubmissions, so there's no convincing signs they will listen to a deletion notification after 11 times. When the user shows they understand, either in a talk page message or at the Draft, I will then comment at the Draft and state the concerns again, and if they're refused, that's why I nominate for deletion. Also, WP:Perennial proposals itself, stated that all users should place articles of interest in either their watchlist or similar list. Also, nearly every case of MfD-nominated, showed the user came back to the Draft and noticed the deletion, put aside the ones who were CU-blocked or spam-banned. I used to frequently notify users each time, but after time, it seemed it was simply no use if they simply restarted their campaigns again, thus wasting not only my time, but the server time and space. For example, with Scorpion293, I opened his SPI after his comments, simply to see what the comments would be, or else I would've simply gone to SPI in the first place, without notification. I've found no history where such a "Users absolutely must be notified" was ever close to being a fundamental WP pillar. SwisterTwister talk 19:39, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Server space isn't an issue. I doubt that server time is, either. The rest is irrelevant if you're mostly dealing with new contributors. You can't expect them to know about watchlists, perennial proposals or anything else like that. - Sitush (talk) 19:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 Considering the number of times other editors have complained here about your 'work flow' and the very large number of nominations/patrols you make, it would be advisable for you to follow best practices rather than the rules don't require it and I don't feel like it. Things that are not issues when they are done a few times can often become problematic when they are done hundreds or thousands of times a week. Jbh^Talk 19:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, to add to my comment earlier, the repeated "N", "None of this suggests a notable article" (which actually explains itself), is because I especially them in speedy deletions, which mean they'll be deleted quickly. Also, N is for AfD because it's obviously stated what it means. Anyone of this would also follow the commonly used "Ce" (for copyediting), "sp" (spelling), etc. SwisterTwister talk 20:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but N is for AfD because it's obviously stated what it means - I have never seen another user use a single-letter designation to denote that they have nominated a page for deletion. Sure, I've seen "AFD" but never "N". It is far from obvious. Primefac (talk) 20:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Not obvious to me, either. But, in any event, the point about newbies applies again. If you know you're dealing with them then you have to make allowances. We probably all should, all the time, but we definitely should not all the time. - Sitush (talk) 20:12, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• It's not good for new editor retention (although most of the people who have not received a notification are either spamming or are paid editors). The use of useless edit summaries by SwisterTwister is unhelpful, that's a behavioural issue we can insist they remedy whilst the failure to notify is unhelpful but BMK probably has it right when he says it's optional and ST is technically doing nothing wrong by not making use of the option.
  I'm far more concerned by Sam Walton's concerns, the lack of notifications could well be a symptom of hurried, rushed reviews. The failure to respond satisfactorily to queries from editors about reviews and deletions is a major concern.
  I'd hope ST would therefore agree willingly to use descriptive edit summaries, to leaving more notifications and above all, to provide far more detailed responses to those asking questions. Nick (talk) 19:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@Nick: as per above, SwisterTwister appears to leave comments back at the AfC draft instead of on his talk page, so the appearance of a lack of response to questions (at least re. AfC drafts) is merely a facade- I noticed this as an AfC reviewer myself, as there would seemingly be random comments from SwisterTwister across a wide range of AfC drafts that weren't linked to a review, some investigation showed that these were actually in response to comments left on his talk page. It might perhaps be confusing for editors checking for a response on his talk page rather than their draft, but he is responding, at least to questions about AfC drafts. jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:19, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

This is where I get a little confused about this entire issue, Jcc. ST is perfectly happy to use AFCH for editing/reviewing drafts, but cannot/will not use Twinkle to notify users that their pages are being nominated for deletion? As far as scripts go, it's just as easy to use one as it is the other (moreso, given that with Twinkle you don't have to edit the AFD log directly). As mentioned by someone else, there are a ton of upsides, and almost no downsides. Primefac (talk) 21:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• It's rude not to notify page creators that their article has been nominated for deletion, and to purposely do so is the opposite of collaborative. It's happened to me, and when I complained to the nominating editor, they self-righteously woofed that it's not required by policy. Sad that we would need such a basic social courtesy to be mandated by a written policy. What a great way to drive off contributors. - MrX 19:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
• Also, although I have never maintained a CSD or PROD log and I have no plans to because it's tedious, I will note that over 3/4 of my PRODs recently alone have been confirmed advertisements by either long-ago paid advertisers or recently CU-banned ones (given it's damaging enough keeping such paid spam for long here), so our policies would apply WP:RBI in it alone, given any notifications would only mean harboring attention. SwisterTwister talk 20:35, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• You're grasping at straws now. And if you really wanted to keep a log then Twinkle can do it for you (optional). - Sitush (talk) 20:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) While (again) I am not calling into question your accuracy with page deletion notices, WP:RBI only deals with obvious vandalism, so poorly-written or non-GNG pages don't meet this criteria. Additionally, since you keep no logs, do not notify the user, and you use pretty much the same PROD notice every time, I find it very hard to believe that you know for a fact that 75% of the PROD/CSDs you hand out are from verified socks and/or blocked paid editors. Primefac (talk) 20:41, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

No, it's a fact because both my now deleted contribs and the PROD that are currently still pending and standing are in fact from paid contributions, either shown from their contributions or by their own words. I'll even note the fact it was a paid advertisement in the PROD itself, making it easier to see. SwisterTwister talk 20:47, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

You do realize paid editing is allowed (provided adequate disclosure), right? That doesn't make them automatically exempt from being notified that their work has been nominated for deletion. Primefac (talk) 20:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

In this case, all users had specifically not confessed their COI payment and subsequently were banned (all last 3 cases had enough attention confirming this was the solution) and also CU-puppeting, thus there's no use if they're going to blatantly violate our policies when they know it. SwisterTwister talk 21:08, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@SwisterTwister: Would you please start notifying users when you nominate their articles for deletion? It's a widely-accepted practice that costs you nothing and it will have a net positive benefit to the project. Please indicate your agreement or disagreement with this modest request.- MrX 21:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

 Administrator noteI seriously doubt any admin is going to act on this thread. The reason is simple: while notifications are considered a best practice that are not and never have been required. We might prefer that this user use them more often, but they don't have to, any more than they have to use edit summaries. The only way this can be something enforceable is if someone proposes a formal restriction requiring this user to notify, and that proposal receives sufficient support from the community to become an enforceable editing restriction. I'm not suggesting that anyone actually do this, but as it stands right now it's the only way anyone can be forced to do notifications. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:42, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

True, but I was hoping they might bow to the morality of the point, especially given they haven't really got a decent reason not to do so. It seems, however, like that was a vain hope. I'll stop using edit summaries from now on. ;) - Sitush (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit summaries are also not required but I remember an ANI case a month or so ago where someone was brought here because he didn't use summaries and the end result was that he was forced to use edit summaries. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It does potentially set a dangerous precedent when we tell one of our most prolific editors that they don't have to follow best practices. Sitush is making a POINT, but what if everyone who interacts with ST decides not to add edit summaries or notify users? I hope, to echo Sitush, that ST realizes that best practices are put in place for a reason, and the handful of outliers which he's mentioned are not the primary purpose of the notifications, but it's for everyone who has complained to one editor or another about their drat simply disappearing into thin air. Primefac (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• Agree with Beeblebrox 100%. For myself I add: Swister Twister should be encouraged to clearly explain his deletion nominations, namely with short but descriptive edit summaries, as that is good collaboration practice - with all of us, not just the editors who might be not receptive to comments. As to notifying users I see nothing wrong. (disclaimer: I rarely do any deletion nominations, but when I do I even more rarely notify users) Quite simply, if notifying users should be mandatory, then it is a clear case for a technical solution, not a 'social' solution. It should not be a editor to laboriously notify editors, it should be a automated notification sent to (almost) all article editors and watchers (or something along that line). Nabla (talk) 22:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

We have a technical solution called Twinkle. As an admin, you absolutely should be notifying users if you nominate their articles for deletion. It's not laborious. - MrX 22:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

User:The ed17 and personal attacks

So this is a long story, but most of your drama board audience will see it coming. The ed17 has instructed me that I will be banned if I can't learn to interact like a normal human being. I'm sure he's trying to do the right thing, but accusing me of not being able to act like a "normal human being" is so offensive, particularly for an admin, that I request some input here. I know he can threaten to block me, and to instigate measures to ban me, but I'm concerned that a so-called admin would be able to talk to another editor in such insulting terms. I am a human being – I passed the Turing Test. It's water off my back, but if this so-called admin used such a tone with other, valued editors, it would be very upsetting for them and rightly so. Happy to accept the boomerang on this one, but it's more about this particular admin's offensive and attacking tone. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Wow, okay. Was not expecting to be brought here for this. That was simply a comment on TRM's frequent problematic interactions with various editors. My sincere apologies for my phrasing, TRM, but I think that it's obvious—given the context of my post—that I was not intending to insult TRM in any way, shape, or form. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

What, telling me that I wasn't a "normal human being"? And then using this as a forum to claim "TRM's frequent problematic interactions with various editors" is a good excuse for it? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:42, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

It was extremely ill-chosen phrasing, but it wasn't malicious. I think that'll be obvious to anyone who reads the full comments. If I had been given the chance to redact and rewrite, which you didn't, I would have written "if you can't re-learn how to interact respectfully and civilly with other editors." Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't (AFAIK) have a history with either one of you, but his comment doesn't come off as offensive to me at all. That's a pretty common figure of speech. He certainly didn't threaten to ban you. He opined that if your interactions with other editors didn't improve, such an outcome was likely. Given your response to his comment, I'm afraid he might well be right. Mackensen (talk) 22:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Wow, how times change. "can't learn to interact like a normal human being" - really? Perhaps admins are different from the ones I used to know. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)×2 Telling you that you weren't behaving like one in a certain context, not that you weren't one. (No opinion on the issue, since I don't know about it.) Κσυπ Cyp   22:46, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, that comment is meaningless. Unless you can demonstrate where I wasn't behaving like a "normal human being". The Rambling Man (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

It was a poorly chosen remark, to put it mildly, but Ed apologized for it and struck it. Mackensen, of course the comment is offensive; let's not downplay it. To block for it after it was retracted would be punitive, but I'm saddened it was made in the first place. TRM, I can't apologize for Ed, but I agree, that comment should not have been made and I sympathize with you. Ed, I trust this won't happen again. Sorry for sounding like an old guy. Thank you both, Drmies (talk) 22:56, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I was never looking for The ed17 to be blocked, just a recognition that admins can't just talk to others like shit, or humiliating them or making them feel dehumanised. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:00, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I know, TRM--you know as well as I do that CIVIL is difficult to endorse. For the record, I don't understand why someone would not find the remark offensive; if it weren't offensive Ed wouldn't have struck it--I know Ed as a reasonable human being, and it seems to me he realized this was out of line. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 23:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry Drmies, but I don't agree and I won't accept that admonishment from you. It's not an offensive figure of speech where I'm from, and it clearly wasn't intended to be dehumanizing or any such thing. It's regrettable that it was understood that way. I've long argued we should never use figures of speech, metaphors, aphorisms, or any such things on this project because of the likelihood of misunderstandings like this one. Reinforcing that misunderstanding isn't helpful. Mackensen (talk) 23:07, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't know where you're from but I do know where I'm at. You don't have to accept an admonishment from me--it wasn't even much of an admonishment to begin with. Drmies (talk) 23:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

TRM, ed17 didn't tell you that you're not a normal human being; he urged you, for your own good and the project's good, to "interact like a normal human being". It's of a piece with pleas others, I included, have made to you periodically over the last few years, though with decreasing frequency as hope fades that you'll ever stop your relentless lashing out at everything and everyone. EEng 23:01, 29 January 2017 (UTC) P.S. Passing the Turing Test doesn't mean you're human; it means you're a computer whose behavior resembles that of a human.

EEng, we can do this together. Stop being a dick, and we can work together! P.S. Passing the Turing Test was just a metaphor for letting people know we're not a dog at the end of a keyboard. You know that, so stop being a dick about it!!! The Rambling Man (talk) 23:08, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

TRM, I can't help noticing that your response to the offensive language was: "You are a disgrace, an abhorrence to the role of an admin, let alone as an normal person." Which you have neither stricken nor apologized for. You follow that with an ANI complaint? ―Mandruss ☎ 23:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's all true. I'm still a human being. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:08, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

And no one has claimed otherwise, as already pointed out. Let it be known to all: The Rambling Man is not a monkey. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)