Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 585: Line 585:
[[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 11:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
[[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 11:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
* '''Oppose'''. See my comment above. [[User:Kingsindian|Kingsindian]]&nbsp;[[User Talk: Kingsindian|&#9821;]]&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Kingsindian|&#9818;]] 11:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
* '''Oppose'''. See my comment above. [[User:Kingsindian|Kingsindian]]&nbsp;[[User Talk: Kingsindian|&#9821;]]&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Kingsindian|&#9818;]] 11:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
* '''Oppose'''. While E.M. Gregory, as the diffs show, and as this ([[Murder of Georgios Tsibouktzakis]]) ridiculous stub confirms, appears to be on a mission to write articles about every incident where Palestinians have killed people, while staying mum about any incident involving Israeli violence, his numerous articles consistently get some backing from other editors in AfDs, which means he is under the impression that long discussion has not set forth clear guidelines which would deny him the liberty to continue writing such things. As long as the rules allow the kind of equivocation over [[WP:NOTNEWS|Notability]] he can't be punished for what he does.[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 12:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


== Apparent vandalism at [[Anioma people]] by [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/194.74.238.137 IP address 194.74.238.137] ==
== Apparent vandalism at [[Anioma people]] by [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/194.74.238.137 IP address 194.74.238.137] ==

Revision as of 12:13, 22 April 2017

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    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

    Tim Zukas block evasion

    Resolved
     – Select IP addresses blocked for one month. Spike Wilbury (talk) 13:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Regarding Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Tim Zukas, the guy has been ramping back up into the same old behavior since December 2016, with a couple of disruptive edits in the last few days. Here are the recent IPs he has used:

    Perhaps we can block these IPs individually for a good long time, rather than attempting a rangeblock, as there are neighboring IPs which are heavily used by library patrons. Binksternet (talk) 05:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    These are all definitely addresses used by LTA Tim Zukas as they all geolocate to Cal State University (Office of the Chancellor), University of California - Berkeley (Office of the President), the Berkeley Public Library, and a Comcast Commercial account in Walnut Creek, CA. These IPs all belong to registered owners that he used in his many earlier spates of disruptive editing and block evasion, and mirror the same pattern of mass unexplained deletions of content made to transportation related articles (aviation, airports, railroads, etc) is exactly the same disruptive behavior Zukas was permanently blocked for on January 25, 2016. Centpacrr (talk) 07:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Need some admin attention here

    This thread seems to have been lost in the shuffle. It concerns an LTA -- could an admin look at it and figure out a course of action? Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 18:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Most of the IP addresses are stale. I guess we could block them long-term, but they seem only sporadically reused. It might be best to report them to AIV individually. I'll block two that aren't too stale: 205.154.246.130 and 205.154.244.240/30. The /30 doesn't have any collateral damage. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This LTA has a pattern of going back to "stale" IP's depending on where he is. The IP's he has used in the past two weeks are at Cal State (probably East Bay campus), all of the others (excepting one commercial Comcast account in Walnut Creek, CA and one at the Berkeley Public Library) are registered to the Office of the President at Univ. of California -- Berkeley of which Zukas is likely a graduate (c 1970). Centpacrr (talk) 17:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Beatley and SvG articles salvation effort

    As many of you know, Sander v. Ginkel created a lot of articles about sportspeople. The quality of these articles was substandard, and they were moved to the draft space, so that users can work on them and after cleaning this up move them back. A dedicated effort was set up; in particular, very clear guidelines were set, detailing what are typical problems with the articles and how they should be addressed. Unfortunately User:Beatley misused the effort by moving a large amount of articles back to the main space without fully addressing the issues. As a result, we have a lot of articles which are likely unnotable (example: Muna Muneer, fails WP:NSPORT and likely WP:GNG, at least the user did not make an effort to demonstrate WP:GNG), and article with unsourced statements (see this or this. We are talking about dozens, possibly hundreds articles. The user's attention was drawn to this fact at their talk page, see User talk:Beatley#SvG drafts and User talk:Beatley#SvG drafts (again) to which they responded [1] expressing the willingness to continue in the same manner. I believe that at the very least, the user must be topic-banned from SvG articles, and whatever they moved to the main space must be moved back to draft. Which is a pity, since it was massive waste of time for new page reviewers including myself, as well as for other users cleaning up after them. Note that all of these are BLP articles.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oh dear lord no - If I had more time I'd formally propose a Community Ban to prevent Beatley from "helping" with the SvG cleanup, as they are clearly not interested in the reasons behind it, they just want to fish all of those turds out of the toilet bowl for reasons best known to themselves. The comment on their talk page, words to the effect of "take them all to AfD if you don't like what I'm doing," should be taken at face value - we're going to be forced to sit through god knows how many AfDs just because this editor wants to prove some ridiculous point. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that the user's reaction at their talk page is dismissive and not really helpful. In addition, they likely do not understand our BLP and notability policies.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • And they're still going at it - Shibi Joseph. GoldenRing (talk) 19:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and the terrible way they're doing it - for example, not even making the adjustments that experienced editors make to the categories before moving a draft to article space - suggests they have no idea what the hell they're doing. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked them indef; they will be unblocked after we decide here what to do with them.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Good call - it was already getting slightly out of hand, and it's going to take quite a bit of fiddly work to undo the mess they've already made. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Right, so...

    Proposal Community ban, preventing Beatley from moving any of SvG's drafts to Article space. All moves of these articles that Beatley has already performed should be reverted. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Admittedly the signs are not good. GoldenRing (talk) 19:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Would it be disruptive if I started AfDing the ones I think are unnotable? L3X1 (distant write) 20:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I am concerned this will not be disruptive but try not to overload AfD please, either group many articles in one AfD with absolutely identical problems, or nominate several per day.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Huang Szu-chi I'm going to be adding other female volleyball player SvG articles throughout the day. L3X1 (distant write) 21:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And L3X1, I think that answers your question about AFDing them ;) Primefac (talk) 00:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Primefac so yes AfD them all? If the bot is resurrected, there will be 4000 junk articles that need to be sorted through, only they will be in the draft space. Or am I just confused by what Aymatth2 stated below? L3X1 (distant write) 00:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I was not clear. We will bulk delete all draft articles and all mainspace articles restored by Beadley and other rogue editors. AfD is not needed. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't panic!. See User:Aymatth2/SvG clean-up/Audit notes. When we started the clean-up we anticipated rogue editors blindly moving SvG stubs back to mainspace without checking or fixing them. As of 24 April 2017 the clean-up period will end, all remaining drafts will be deleted, and then an audit will check for rogue editors. All articles restored by rogue editors will be deleted. My guess is that of the 4,000+ articles restored at least 3,000 will be deleted. Don't rush to plug up the AfD queues. Most of the garbage will be cleared away en masse during the audit period. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • !vote change Reviewing Primefac's link has filled me with righteous anger, no just disbelief and that feeling when you see a mountain of work ahead of you. For the amount of disruption done, I think our friend the moving man should bestay blocked till every last S.v.G article is taken care of, either through AfD, or being moved back to draft space. This can be done per the difference between indefinite and infinite. And has anyone with CU powers ran SvG and Beatley? Just to make sure? Not casting aspersions, but I would think this would be SOP for the course. L3X1 (distant write) 00:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks everyone for your help with this. I've looked at a sample of the moves, and they all seem to be low-value articles with dubious notability, mainly volleyball players. If any of them fall into the scope of the cycling clean-up lists, let me know, and I'll take a closer look. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:21, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Lugnuts: A reminder that if the audit finds that Beatley has been restoring articles without checking and fixing them, all articles he restored will be deleted regardless of improvements made later by other editors. If you want to salvage one you should userfy it, then wait a few weeks for the dust to settle before restoring it. It might be easier to just let the mass deletion happen, then start a new article from scratch. Most of the SvG stubs are trivial. Aymatth2 (talk) 11:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Primefac: Sorry for the late reply. Do we still need help moving the drafts? If you instead decide to delete them, either now or with all the unreviewed drafts, I can generate a list for you (if you don't already have one) and you can use Twinkle's batch delete tool to nuke them. Alternatively MusikBot II would be happy to undergo a quick BRFA to automate deletion. Best — MusikAnimal talk 02:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    MusikAnimal, no worries. It sounds like they'll be nuked regardless of their location (since the improper movement has been noted), so I think as far as the bot goes we're all set. Primefac (talk) 02:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Support TBAN, but... I'm not sure if that alone is going to suffice, long term; the user seems to have fundamental competency issues with multiple important policies (WP:RS and WP:BURDEN chief amongst them), and with basic process generally. are we just kicking the can down the road to another group of editors by protecting this one narrow content area but not addressing the underlying issues with this user? This seems like a scenario where either some mentoring or broader restrictions might be called for. Snow let's rap 06:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Summarizing and closing will be appreciated.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, when is the mass nuking going to happen? My AfD bundle attempt has been met with resistance. L3X1 (distant write) 20:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Extended reply

    • See User:Aymatth2/SvG clean-up/Audit notes. The deadline to cut off the SvG article clean-up effort is 24 April 2017, five days from now. After that we create lists of who did what to help with audit of the clean-up, then delete all the remaining SvG drafts. The audit will find editors who did mass restores without checking the articles. All the articles they restored will also be mass deleted.
    • AfD's are likely to be rejected because many of the subjects of the SvG stubs are technically notable and warrant articles. The problem is many of the stubs contain errors. some serious, which will linger even after improvements. It is simplest to wipe them out and start from scratch. But many are on notable subjects and can be recovered. That is what the clean-up was meant to do.
    • Beatley saw a conspiracy to wipe out a huge number of articles on notable subjects, and set about trying to save as many as he could, a tedious and mechanical effort much like the effort made by Sander.v.Ginkel when creating them all. Beatley was not responsive to appeals to take more care, perhaps because he did not follow the logic, but I think had good intentions.

    I see no bad intent. Beatley's energy and determination are impressive and he may become a valuable contributor. I would give the benefit of doubt and lift the block, either before or after the clean-up is complete. I hope I do not have to eat these words. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    agree with character judgement. A lot of the articles clearly flunk GNG, and just about any and every policy, but I will just wait for the nuking. L3X1 (distant write) 19:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I am going to unblock them now, but the discussion still needs to be formally closed--Ymblanter (talk) 07:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible NPP restriction on IExistToHelp

    Hello when I was reviewing recent changes and article creation pages I noticed that IExistToHelp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has tagged an article as being vandalism despite the fact that Google easily verifies that such an event occurred. Afterwords I posted a message not knowing that they have done similar things in the past. Perhaps it might be wise to (temporarily) restrict them from tagging pages for deletion? Any thoughts on this? Sakuura Cartelet Talk 02:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    You didn't go through the talk page history enough. I gave them a final warning [2]. Schwede66 warned them [3] (I did point out to S66 on their talk page the previous history), and here's a permalink showing Kudpung, PamD, and myself all warning them when they started trying in February [4]. They also have clerked the PERM page in the past for NPR, which considering the issues, is a bit ironic. I'd support a topic ban from any deletion or maintenance tagging of articles. They've been given plenty of rope on this. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    On a side-note re: IExistToHelp, and as an uninvolved party: I noticed the editor has recently requested the following permissions at once: Account creator, Autopatrolled, AutoWikiBrowser, Mass message sender & New page reviewer. Could there be a competency issue at hand?--Cahk (talk) 04:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It could be hat collecting which is a CIR issue here. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 14:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The article mentioned in the first post was moved to draftspace and then redirected to an existing article, which means the history is still there. This is what it looked like when IETH had put A7 and G3 tags on it - both equally inapplicable. Then, they warned the creator, claiming that the page was an attack page(!) and that it was "pure vandalism because the article had no references"(!!). They need to stop deletion tagging for a while, I think. --bonadea contributions talk 07:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Bonadea: Sorry for that incident. Someone else had done the edits on my computer while I was using the restroom at an orchestra practice(at my teacher's house) during break. I will revert all the edits I have done on that page. The page was poorly written, but I agree, it does not fit with the reasons it was tagged with. I apologize to User:Jacktime34 for these actions and the warnings that followed. I have undone them already. I apologize sincerely and promise not to let this happen again. I will stop deletion tagging for a while and try to improve the articles instead. It's IExistToHelp talk 16:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    This brings another, more serious concern up however. You admit that your account was compromised, which can result in an indefinite block of your account. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I was logged in and he was editing on my laptop which I forgot to close. I have changed my password to my account also. There is no way that can happen now. Plus I have created another account in case this would happen. It's IExistToHelp talk 16:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @TonyBallioni: However, your warnings made no sense. You warned me about requesting deletion of Pelican Park High School because it may be notable, but a day later someone else tagged it with a notability tag. For Hetkhamar, you said that it wasn't a hoax. Yes, it is real, but the article does not cite the sources so we don't know where the info comes from. Google is the only search engine that brings results with the village. Bing and Yahoo! both don't bring up results for the village besides Wikipedia</ [5]. Most of the sites rely on Google Maps, so technically Google Maps is the only source and the others aren't reliable and don't have facts. Even the government website provides no info, so I have no clue how the author got the info from. By looking at Google Maps? It's IExistToHelp talk 22:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The warning was based on lack of understanding of policy and consensus. PROD should only be used for articles that are non-controversial. Regardless of where someone stands on the issue, I think everyone would agree that the inclusion of secondary schools is very much a contentious topic on Wikipedia, and AfD would have been a much more appropriate venue than PROD. On the G3: sure, but that's an argument about sourcing, which could be made via PROD or AfD. It is not a self-apparent hoax, which is what CSD G3 is for. . Neither of the mistakes alone would have been a huge deal, but it was part of a pattern of not understanding NPP, and lack of responding to people who reached out to try to help you. Edit: Looked again, and it was just the hoax tag and not G3, so I apologize for not looking at the article again, my memory failed me. The tagging was still bad because while the sources provided are not reliable, they are enough to show it exists. Bing actually brings up a government source confirming its existence on this PDF file. The hoax tagging was wrong here, and again shows a lack of the skills needed to patrol new pages. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @TonyBallioni: The hoax tag was a mistake sure, everyone makes them.It's IExistToHelp talk 15:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Cahk and KGirlTrucker81: I am not the type of person that goes around showing off. There are also other people who did what I do and I am the only one who gets reported? NeilN also brought this up. For one, I requested Rollback and Pending Changes Reviewer two weeks before I did with AutoWikiBrowser and New Page Reviewer. For mass message sender, I wanted to survey people so that they could improve pages with the topics they are best at.It's IExistToHelp talk 22:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @IExistToHelp: I have not encountered your edits before, nor follow the conversation that has been going on here all that closely. My comment on the request for permission is simple - rarely is there a good reason for an editor to request all those permissions (be that 2 weeks apart, or a few months apart). It may demonstrate a lack of understanding, or just haven't read through all the pages re: permission. This is not against you, but just an observation and comment that is universally accepted in Wiki (and hence @KGirlTrucker81:'s link to hat collecting.--Cahk (talk) 23:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I agree with Cahk. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 23:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't really continue to participate in this conversation for logistical reasons, but for whatever it's worth Floquenbeam, I don't think we should indef folks for being immature. The user is motivated and obviously means well, and got caught in a bad spot and made up a bad lie. Seems like a very good candidate for mentoring, that is, if they actually ever come back after a very bitey block and a very bitey comment about it when (other than lying) they've actually been very civil in the whole discussion, and the conduct issue that was raised was very limited in scope and they've already agreed to fix the thing. If we don't want apparent teenagers editing Wikipedia, then we need to institute an age requirement. Otherwise we need to deal with apparent teenagers as teenagers, with appropriate expectations and responses. TimothyJosephWood 22:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. First, a fixed duration block makes zero sense in this situation. You are aware they can request an unblock. Second, being incompetent and lying about it is not evidence we have a potential useful collaborator in the making. Third, why are you valuing being polite over not lying? Fourth, we're quite happy to have teenagers editing here, but they need to be mature enough to do so. We are not required to take them as they come, and just accept their immaturity because they're young. And fifth, feel free to mentor this editor as much as you like; you know where their talk page is. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (more) Just to emphasize that I'm not some idiot being mean to innocent newbies because I don't know what I'm doing: User talk:WangViolin. Apparently a history of sockpuppetry, and more transparent lying. But by all means let's mentor him for a couple months. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Floquenbeam Whatever. I'm leaving for a while and I can't really take the high ground because I don't have the time to back up my morality. But we're not priests, we don't assign penitence, and we don't block people for lying, because lying does not itself constitute ongoing disruption to the project that needs prevented. If you have evidence that you're actually preventing something (when they've already agreed to stop the behavior that initiated the report) then block away. If you don't then do what you want, but you and I both know whether you're wrong. TimothyJosephWood 23:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    So you don't have the time to look into it, but you're going to tell me I'm wrong anyway... congratulations, that's pretty much the Platonic ideal of an ANI comment. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been looking into it, and I've been aware of this user and this thread for a while. It just so happens that life takes me places and compels me to do things that don't involve this, and occasionally I don't actually have a choice about the matter. I would otherwise be willing to take on the user as a mentor but I can't. Your petulant flippant attitude on the whole deal isn't particularly helpful besides. Unless you're indeffing them for something other than lying then you are wrong, because indeffing someone for lying isn't protecting the project from any imminent threat. And with that I'll leave it, because I have to go to bed so I can wake up and drive for eight hours to do a whole bunch of shit that I don't want to do. TimothyJosephWood 01:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually no, I would hasten to add some choice words that a particular editor said to me recently: The life of WP depends on continuing to attract contributors. It's actually the most important thing we need to do here--everything else needed will follow. TimothyJosephWood 01:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    All I can say is that I saw this coming a mile away. Anyone who was the least bit familiar with this user could see there were issues with over-reaching into areas the weren't ready for and getting in way over their head, and their immaturity made it more or ess ineitable that they would handle it badly when confronted about it. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    How about we give this kid another chance? Maybe find a mentor, since Timothyjosephwood is unavailable. El_C 23:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    It's been suggested they appeal in six months. I think that's a really good idea. --NeilN talk to me 23:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You should know I've had to block two of his socks in the last two days, the last one 20 minutes before his latest unblock request on his own talk page. Both socks' unblock requests were really poorly executed continuations of his lying about who is making what edits. Am I that far outside the mainstream? How many people are there around here who share TJW's and ElC's opinion that continual lying, even after you know you've been caught, is not incompatible with working here, and worthy of trying to find a mentor? --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ouch. This kid really wants to contribute to Wikipedia—let's re-think in six months. El_C 00:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't know this place was a church where lying isn't allowed. SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 00:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This, right here, is why ANI is so useless. People who have zero clue, been here a couple months, making stupid comments at ANI thinking they're being somehow useful. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Rude and uncalled for. SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 00:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Rude, yes. But someone needs to tell you. For example, you screwed up Black Kite's post below, I had to fix that too. "I didn't know this place was a church where lying isn't allowed." is a completely useless, stupid comment. Why did you make it? Did you think it made sense? Or did you think you were funny? --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I know that sometimes happens when I'm editing on my phone and you know what? I don't have to take this from you, I don't care whether you're an administrator or not you don't get to berate other editors. SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 01:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Problem cases have to resolved here—cases which can cause good editors to leave if they receive no assistance dealing with disruption. Someone suggesting that a comment was stupid might have a reason and it would be best to reflect on that because derailing serious discussions is very unhelpful. The place to make comments where no one will be rude is WP:TEAHOUSE. Johnuniq (talk) 01:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm happy to help as a mentor for him. J947(c) 21:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jayabalan.joseph

    Having already been blocked for disruptive edits and being warned not to make personal attacks, Jayabalan.joseph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has now compared Robert McClenon to a senior SS commander. The user is clearly not hear to do anything other than attempt to promote himself and his work, so can I suggest that his block is extended and talk page access is revoked to prevent further personal attacks? Cordless Larry (talk) 10:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, that could just be a cultural misinterpretation. The discussion seems to be progressing quite nicely on their talk, Cordless Larry? Doesn't seem to be much to do here, that's all. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 11:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the discussion seems to be meeting with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. All the editor seems to want to do is publish and promote his PhD thesis here. Not sure how many ways we can explain that we don't publish original research. --NeilN talk to me 12:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I fail to see how someone who has a PhD from a German university comparing editors to Nazis can be considered a "cultural misinterpretation". Cordless Larry (talk) 13:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    ...and even if they were somehow unaware that comparisons with the SS are inappropriate, they had previously be warned that that was the case. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried to communicate with him about what needed to be done to his draft. He didn't listen, although perhaps his English is inadequate to support discussion. Their complaint against me appears to be that I told him to stop posting lengthy complaints to my talk page. After he continued posting to my talk page, I hatted the complaints and warned him. I didn't support the MFD to delete the draft, but I cannot condone the deletion of the MFD tag on the draft; they may not know much English, but they apparently know Wikipedia well enough to know that deleting a tag is disruptive. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    NeilN has blocked this account for 72 for disruptive editing. I think that this is the appropriate action for now. If disruption continues, we can consider action from there. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not think Jayabalan.joseph is Getting It. When their block expires they're free to advocate against the draft's deletion but if they use the Tearoom or community noticeboards to essentially lobby for a "peer review" of their thesis again then I will look into blocking them once more. --NeilN talk to me 02:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Ban

    My patience has been exhausted by this editor. I recommend a Site Ban for self-serving disruptive editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that considering a site ban is much too soon in this situation and for this user :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, I didn't even realize this was being discussed here. To me it's pretty clear Jayabalan is not interested in collaborating to build an encyclopedia, he's interested in promoting his thesis. One month and 600 edits later, that's literally all he has done. On top of that, anyone who disagrees with him is wrong, stupid, dangerous, a censor, or a Nazi. This is definitely the wrong website for him. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Attributing Turkophobic and Islamophobic outlooks to citizens of certain countries

    With this edit (diff) Resnjari wrote a comment which includes this part ...people in Serbia or Greece are more attuned too regarding their nationalism (the Ottomans were "oppressors" thing ignoring other facets of the period) and the whole Turkophobic and Islamophic outlooks they now have. With this edit Resnjari attributed Turkophobic and Islamophobic outlooks to population of Serba and Greece. I think it is wrong to do it and kindly explained to Resnjari with this edit (diff). Instead to acknowledge the issue with their editing and correct it, they removed my comment with explanation written in the edit line: LOL ! Spare me the bullshit. (diff).

    I sincerely apologize if I am wrong and if it actually allowed to attribute certain bad outlooks to whole group of people, based on their nationality. But if I am right, I think it would be good that somebody with admin authorities warn editor in question about this. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The views expressed can be backed by multiple academic sources, some of which i came by you. He is one example you will be more than familiar with. Kopanski page.192 [6]: "They attempted to overcome the extremely biased trend in the modern Communist and Christian nationalist historiography of Albania, Serbia, Macedonia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, Russia and Greece related to the history of the Osmanli state and Islamic civilization in the Balkans. Such an effort seems well timed since the Christian, nationalist and Marxist historiographies of the last hundred years have generally portrayed the Osmanli centuries as some kind of 'Dark Ages' of the 'enslaved' Balkan nations. The sophisticated culture, literature and art of Islam were ignored by the generality of historians who hardly even tried to conceal their anti-Muslim bias. Their ferociously anti-Islamic and anti-Turkish attitude not only obscured and distorted the amazing process of mass conversion of entire Christian communities to Islam, but also provided an intellectual prop for the ultra nationalist policy of ethnic and religious cleansing in Bosnia, Hum (Herzegovina), Albania, Bulgaria and Greece. For against the backdrop of the history of the Balkans, as generally portrayed, what appeared as a kind of historical exoneration and an act of retaliation for the 'betrayal' of Christianity in the Middle Ages." Another by Isa Blumi notes the following p. 32 [7]. "As state policy, post- Ottoman “nations” continue to sever most of their cultural, socioeconomic, and institutional links to the Ottoman period. At times, this requires denying a multicultural history, inevitably leading to orgies of cultural destruction (Kiel 1990; Riedlmayer 2002). As a result of this strategic removal of the Ottoman past—the expulsion of the “Turks” (i.e., Muslims); the destruction of buildings; the changing of names of towns, families, and monuments; and the “purification” of languages—many in the region have accepted the conclusion that the Ottoman cultural, political, and economic infrastructure was indeed an “occupying,” and thus foreign, entity (Jazexhi 2009). Such logic has powerful intuitive consequences on the way we write about the region’s history: If Ottoman Muslims were “Turks” and thus “foreigners” by default, it becomes necessary to differentiate the indigenous from the alien, a deadly calculation made in the twentieth century with terrifying consequences for millions." On the matter of a "removal" of comments, it was at my talkpag, not the article talkpage. You have on occasion come to my talkpage to impart your advice [8]. On my talkpage i can delete whenever and whatever want. If admins want to follow this up, they know where i am. I can back up my views all of them through peer reviewed scholarship. Best.Resnjari (talk) 14:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sophisticated culture, literature and art of Islam + ... the amazing process of mass conversion of entire Christian communities to Islam. Oh yeah, this is a critical work of academia. No bias at all. I wonder why that might be?. The other source, however; At times, this requires denying a multicultural history, inevitably leading to orgies of cultural destruction. Rings true. That said, you can back up a lot of things with peer reviewed sources. Now, I don't give a flying toss if you can justify "your views" about entire ethnic populations with peer reviewed academia. How bout you two stick to the topic "Skanderberg" at the article and article talk. It'd be one hell of an achievement if you two could demonstrate that Albanians and Serbians can work with one another. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I did stick to Skanderbeg. The editor in question referred to an Albanisation of that figure. How can someone be Albaninised when the very person identified himself as Lord of Albania. The editor was inferred things to prevent editing on something povish and without evidence. Skanderbeg's myth is based on a manipulated and distorted image in which his experience was taken out of historical and religious context, turned into a tool of nation building through secularisation and also to deconstruct and attack Islam in Albania, by claiming Ottoman heritage as bad (i.e Islam). On Kopanski, might not be your view, but you have nothing to discredit the source. In the end the academic has written in a journal that is peer reviewed. The editor came on my talkpage to lecture me as done on occasion and i responded in kind the way i did. On the article talkpage i made no remark that was out of order and that editor could have responded only there. Instead it was followed with the usual commentary on my talkpage. My talkpage, is my domain and i will delete whatever i like.Resnjari (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) The sources you brought do not back up your attribution of Turkophobic and Islamophobic outlooks to contemporary people of Serbian and Greek nationality. They refer to the "state policy" or "historiography" of certain period, "the way we write about the region’s history", "generality of historians".... The issue here are not the sources. Its possible to find sources for every kind of speech which attacks a person or group on the basis of their nationality. That does not mean that such speech has its space on wikipedia. There is also no space for repeated inappropriateness like this (diff). --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:36, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Mr rnddude, I would appreciate if you could refrain from attributing any particular ethnicity to me and challenging my ability to work together with other people based on the nationality you attributed to me and them. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources i brought here are but a few. There are many more and contemporary. I brought Kopanski because you are familiar with piece of work when you contributed to the Albanian historiography article. We can go further into this I have all the time in the world. I stand by what i on the article talkpage. Skanderbeg and the construct around him resembles neighbouring nationalistic ideas about the Ottoman era. By the way i include Albanians in the too regarding mass Turkophobia and Islamophobia, as per Schmidt, p. 15 [9]. Oh, yeah i am Albanian by the way.Resnjari (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Should have known the more off-hand joking comment would backfire. It's common knowledge (within the region we are talking about) that Albanian-Serbian relations are strained due to Kosovo. That was more what my comment about Serbs and Albanians working together was about; not necessarily about the two of you specifically. Your name tells me you're against discrimination. In both English (c instead of k) and in SrpskoHrvatski/HrvatskoSrpski (whichever). My apologies if my more off-hand comment was not appreciated. I'll re-iterate the genuine point without generalization; stick to the article topic and don't make general accusations of bigotry at an entire ethnic group. The second point is directed at Resnjarvi; Also at myself. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:06, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well his name being about being against discrimination, much can be said there, anyway jokes aside, scholarship is scholarship.Resnjari (talk) 16:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll respond to both of your comments directed to me here, so as to simplify the threading and reduce the number of comments made. All things considered; both of our ethnic related comments created discomfort. I can't tell whether Antidiskriminator's "Albanization" comment had a similar effect on you. I've been re-reading both comments multiple times and ... I'm not sure that there's a big disagreement between the two of you on article content. Antidiskriminator holds the position that the last period of his life should not take the majority of the article and lede; your position (if I am following correctly) is that there is a mythos about Skanderberg designed to turn people against Islam. I think Antidiskriminator agrees with you on that point; Insisting on his anti-Muslim struggle and neglecting his pro-Muslim pre-1443 life, would be a violation of undue. On content you seem to be on about the same page. I get the point that your comparison isn't meant to be about all Serbs, or all Greeks. It's just that the implication could extend to mean anyone. Presume I'm Greek for a second and you said to me that people in Greece have Islamophobic views. Can you see why that might be offensive to me? The implication being that I am, or my family are, or my friends are, Islamophobes. How do you know, you've never met me, my family, or my friends. I think that's more what perturbed Antidiskriminator, than the historiography of Serbia and Greece. Also, your talkpage isn't actually your "domain" and you can't "delete whatever you like" - WP:UP#CMT. You have greater freedom on your talk page, but, there are restrictions with what you can do. On Kopanski, never heard of the guy, a quick skim told me he'd have biases for Islam. I tend to treat sources with POV's more skeptically than sources that are crafted more carefully and without obvious positions for or against a motion. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have called my own mother a Islamophobe and Turkophobe to her face due to her disgusting views. So i have been in pricklier situations than this. Anyway the point i am making to him was Skanderbeg or the mythmaking around him is based on something else (communist period and the wackiness of the regime for other motives i.e social engineering which is clear) and not Albanisation. To claim Albanisation, especially Anti who wrote the article on the Myth of Skanderbeg is a little bit out there becuase it infers that Skanderbeg was not Albanian in anyway to begin with (these views still exist in some Serb and Greek circles) considering that Kastrioti called himself lord of Albania etc. He is aware. If he is going to say to other editors that certain bits info or alterations should not be done, at least when making a grandiose claim of Albanisation have some kind of backing. On sources, Anti came across Kopanski, i merely followed his actions in my use much later.Resnjari (talk) 17:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Why am I not surprised, Resnjari? Back then, in the Talk:Expulsion of Cham Albanians, you have accused the editors of Wikipedia for being Islamophobe because they didn't share your Islamist views, where you demonize the Christians and victimize the Muslims. This was evident by your personal portrayal of a certain Muslim ethnic group as "victims of Christian Greeks" for being expelled after WWII due to their collaboration with the Nazis. This is what you implied when I opposed your personal portrayal of the Greeks as "ethnic cleansers of Muslim Cham Albanians":
    ** "My approach is objective unlike yours which is based on reasons of “traitorous actions”. Like I said show me peer reviewed scholarship that states that using the term ethnic cleansing is wrong. As for the comparison with the Armenian Genocide it does suffice. It does not matter about the numbers. Both populations where not liked by other peoples that they lived amongst, they had people who collaborated with incoming armies and that was used as justification for the populations demise. The only difference is that Armenians are Christians and Albanian Chams are Muslims. So when peer reviewed scholarship states that those events for Christian Armenians is ethnic cleansing its ok to cite, but when it’s for Muslim Albanian Chams it’s a different standard even though peer reviewed literature cites that too. If you want to report me, then please do so.Resnjari (talk) 23:34, 26 September 2016 (UTC) "  **
    Just this is wrong of your part, Resnjari. To suggest that the Wikipedia's community is racist towards Muslims, so is to disparage their skills and contributions to the Wiki project. Very wrong approach, and not befitting you an editor as well. And certainly it is a not so objective approach as you might think. --SILENTRESIDENT 18:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not say that Wikipedia editors are Turkophobic or Islamophobic on Muslims. My comments which you have cut and paste were part of a larger discussion on sources. Those sentiments are however very common in the Balkans due to state nationalism in many countries starting with Albania poisoned by that thinking. I have been told at length, lectured by Albanian editors that i should not edit or contribute to Islam related articles on Albania because it is the wrong thing to do on my talkpage [10] ! Should i have reported them due to their colourful language? So you know i am very cynical. Also you said i have "Islamist" views ? Now isn't that pushing it. You are aware of what a Islamist is right ? There are many observant Muslims on Wikipedia, who some would even find discussing the faith critically very offensive, yet still that does not make them an Islamist. I don't observe Islam. My mother converted as a Jehovah's Witness when i was a little kid, forced me along for the ride, so i know a lot of bible and little Quran and she still is a Christian fanatic with crazy views of which i have encountered among many, many Balkan people about Islam and i don't share them. Knowledge and yes Western scholarship opened my eyes about Islam and i don't share those alternative views even if now they are the norm in many parts of the Balkans. Now the matter is with Anti. If you got some additional issue with me start a new topic in here.Resnjari (talk) 19:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I am very aware of the difference between Muslim views and Islamist views. The Muslims and the Islamists are not even one and the same thing. Which you probably know already. Your cynical views unfortunately I can't say they do differ from Islamist ones which hold the belief that they are victims of a Christian hostility/discrimination towards them. --SILENTRESIDENT 19:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    So then your aware. If i were an Islamist i would already be trying to convert you to Islam. That has not happened and nor will it. Those that have heritage should keep it. In the Balkans the order of the day has been those with Muslim heritage should discard it. Albania is prime example number one in this regard and the myth of Skanderbeg is central to that campaign dating from the communist era. Muslims in the Balkans have experienced mass discrimination and violence from Christian states and peoples and vice versa and they experienced it because of their faith. It has not been a one way ticket or the sole experience of the latter by the former as nationalist literature and rhetoric often refers too.Resnjari (talk) 19:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Please. I am not interested to listen to theories, nor I care about your opinions as they cannot justify editorial bias. Your edits are fundamentally biased in an anti-Serbian and anti-Greek direction, and, hiding yourself behind historical or religious reasons is to abrogate your own responsibility to be a neutral editor. Please stick to the discussion: your behavior is questioned here, not your opinions. Attributing Islamophobic, Albanophobic or Turcophobic outlooks to the editors in Wikipedia and the people in certain countries goes against the Wikipedia's editorial standards and is a form of disruption, which shows a lack of competence of your part and this behavior is unacceptable. I have warned you in the past about this, but the fact that more editors are now still reporting the same problem in their encounters with you, shows that you are failing to realize the extend of the problem. You are admitting your religious bias but at same time you are showing an unwillingness in remedying for this, which is not good. A topic-wide ban on Balkan articles is usually a preventative measure to protect these articles from incompetent editors who are failing to gasp the problem of religious bias in their edits. --SILENTRESIDENT 12:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not interested in your views about a "anti-Serbian and anti-Greek direction". Wikpedia is about facts, not what feels good about something and omitting the bad stuff. Its an encyclopedia, not a blogging forum. Also the same charge can be made (if one uses your criteria) on the opposite end such as in that citation of yours from a exchange in Cham Albanian related topics. For example your comment about the Chams "traitorous actions" [11] and wanting not to include peer reviewed scholarship. Anti-Albanian bias? Or were you admitting to an anti-Albanian bias ? A topic wide ban on Cham related articles or Balkan ones for that matter regarding you? As i have said on English Wikipedia and even on Albanian Wikipedia, if you don't like my editing, bad luck. Scholarship is scholarship, and all the ones i use i make sure they are wp:secondary, wp:reliable and from the Western World to for those claiming "biases". I am currently editing Islam related topics on Albania because one i have done background reading and two it is a core area in that Wikipedia project. The country is a majority identifying Muslim nation after all. Unless you can find some issue with a source or something i have edited within one of those articles (nothing presented), its more of the same wp:idontlikeit view on your part. By the way i have not said that editors on Wikipedia are Turkophobic or Islamophobic. Don't distort my words. Thank you.Resnjari (talk) 20:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You are doing it again. You are attributing Albanophobia to me. Don't you see? You are presenting the Cham treason and siding with the Nazis against the Greek state as being "my anti-Albanian bias" and not a historical event of WWII. Prespari, as an editor, you have done very very little to remain neutral in your attribution of biased Peer viewed sources against Serbians and Greeks, which shows editorial bias of your part. And to justify this bias, you are hiding behind the argument of citing peer-viewed sources. Bias in sources does not mean you can be a biased editor, Prespari. It's your failure to present scholarly opinions (opinions are not facts) of Greeks committing Ethnic cleansing against Albanians as just that: opinions. You are refusing to present them in an unbiased manner and you are hiding yourself behind your argument "I am just quoting peer-viewed sources". This is not far from saying "I was just following orders." You chose to pick and use the most biased of the available peer-viewed sources and to present them as being facts, using the reliability of the sources as your flag against their paraphrasing or summarization in a neutral fashion and with neutral vocabulary. What do you expect from me to do with this form of disruption? To approve it? Wikipedia tried to warn you over citing and attributing sources: being reliable does not make that source neutral. Your insistence that the reliability = same as = neutrality and that the opinions = same as = facts, shows editorial bias. To insist on your bias despite our warnings, is to cause disruption. --SILENTRESIDENT 22:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No one said Albanophobia toward you. Using your line of argument. On ethnic cleansing, i.e Baltsiotis, a Greek scholar. Anyway on "neutral vocabulary", your one to talk, please. Once again the words "Cham treason" says it all. No even the scholarship goes there.Resnjari (talk) 00:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Not again!!! Weren't the 15 million who were killed when the Third Balkan War turned into World War One enough blood to satisfy any desire to shed more blood over the Balkans? Can't some administrator topic-ban these Balkan fighters?!?! Robert McClenon (talk) 02:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. I agree on the war matter. Idiocy being a cause. Various propaganda of pursuing a "greater" this or a "greater" that with various state building ideologies of othering peoples among other things in the region led to Balkans Wars which morphed into World War One. Topic banning should be based on something substantive. Not a dislike of an editor. On "Balkan fighters", the issue was on Skanderbeg and a matter Silent was not involved in. Silent came here to make her own commentary here, i responded in kind. This is an ANI forum, and i have a right of reply. Resnjari (talk) 00:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Robert McClenon, do you mean Second Balkan War (1913). The third one is the Yugoslav Civil War of 1991/2-95 (1991-2001 as far as Wikipedia is concerned). To answer your question though, evidently not given that another million were killed in WW2 and then more than 100,000 is the Yugo Wars. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Mr rnddude - I was using an unconventional numbering, in counting a war, WWI, that isn't normally counted as a Balkan War. Was it only a million killed in the Balkans (out of a total of tens of millions) in WWII? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Robert McClenon, don't jump immediately to topic ban. The Third Balkan War (according to your "unconventional numbers") belongs to the past and all editors should not confuse history with the actual discussion here. The region has a recent bloody history and for that reason editors from there and the disputes between them should be treated with patience. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Robert McClenon Ah, okay, yes if you count WW1 as the Third Balkan War then yes that makes sense. I was thinking of Yugoslavia specifically which accounts for at least 1 million dead (conservative estimate), but, I've seen values up to 2 million. Add Greece, Romania (some call Romania a Balkan state, others dont), Bulgaria and Albania to it and you can easily add another 1 million in the balkans. So between 2-3 million. The greatest losses were in Russia and China with around 24 million and 18 million a piece and then that's followed by Poland who lost something around 20% of their population which I think is around 6-7 million. Germany also suffered heavy losses but mostly military deaths - maybe 4 million military and 1-2 million civilian. All in all that makes up 52-54 million losses in these four countries alone. World War II casualties has a table with approximate numbers totaling around 70-85 million. There's also this infographic on youtube which I really like (18 minutes). The thing with the Balkans is that they were easily overrun by the joint operations of the Wehrmacht and Italian army. Yugoslavia didn't even make it two weeks before being completely occupied - though the government went into exile and resistance movements were active throughout the duration of the war. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes that too, all of it. The rationale for conflicts in othering peoples based on faith ethnicity and others things is a common occurrence. State social engineering played a large role in this in mobilsing and making people ready to act. Historiography played a big part. Scholarship from the West notes that those histriographies are still mainly the same in most countries in the Balkans with no change after all that. Sentiments of othering need not be overt for them to exist among citizens for a state to use when it wants. The myth of Skanderbeg is a case in point, though the communist regime never got a chance to employ it in war. But they sure made life hell for its citizens using it from the 1960s onward in their social engineering campaigns.Resnjari (talk) 01:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear Robert McClenon, frankly, I was not a witness of the incident between Resnjari and Antidiskriminator, but I wasn't surprised to find this report on ANI. I have seen Antidiskriminator's quality work in Wikipedia. He is a cooperative user with long history of positive edits in the Balkan topics, whose work is widely acknowledged by the editorial community and whose records show no disruption whatsover. Antidiskriminator's contributions resulted in Balkan articles being improved or even gaining a GA status, which shows this user's tireless efforts in promoting Wikipedia's quality. I do not think it is ever appropriate to ask for him to be topic-banned for reporting here another editor's problematic behavior. To do so, is to discourage the Wiki editors from ever reporting on ANI any similar incidents in the future. Which I am very certain is not in our interests, Robert. To ban Antidiskriminator for reporting an evident problem of religious or ethnic bias of Resnjari's part in certain Balkan articles, is to encourage certain editors do not heel to our warnings over their bias. The fact that Resnjari was involved in more incidents, is just an indicator of our failure. --SILENTRESIDENT 10:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well that is not entirely right there. Antidiskrimintor has been banned before for problematic editing [12], [13], [14]. Another thing is Anti has had me in his sights way before i even interacted with him [15], that link can be found on his main page [16] under "Interesting coincedences:". Odd that.Resnjari (talk) 13:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Silentresident. You did not witness a incident. So then why are you here commenting ? On "bias", i never said that Anti had a bias. He referred to Albanianisation and in an attempt to prevent edits and i reminded him of what the figure of Skanderbeg had been refashioned by the Albanian state, and in a similar fashion to sentiments out there in the Balkans. He commented on my talkpage and i deleted him as its MY talkpage.Resnjari (talk) 01:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Realtalk: this guy is trying to defend calling every citizen of multiple countries a racist. I think it's time for him to, at the very least, be topic banned from any article related to the Balkans. Jtrainor (talk) 17:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Resnjari is not "trying to defend calling every citizen of multiple countries a racist". The discussion and decisions should be based on a full understanding of the situation. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not say people are racist, i said those views are very common in the Balkans, and yes even among my people for multiple sociopoltical reasons which involve the state itself imparting upon the people those things through social engineering, i.e see Albanian nationalism, Albanian historiography, Serbian historiography etc etc. Otherwise the Balkans would be a very peaceful place which it has NOT been. And this is recent times too. Also the historiographries of a large number of places in the Balkans is very problematic. As for other editors here, Yyu may not have encountered views which ifered to in the Balkans as you might not be from there. My original reference in the article talkpage was to this as the editor himself referred to Albanisation in an attempt to prevent edits, when he himself who wrote the article on the Myth of Skanderbeg knows otherwise. Antidiskriminator here has made multiple past comments on my talkpage [17], [18] that he will take me i ANI on my talkpage when i noted to other editors (separate to him) the problems of using Serbian historiography due to nationalism and hence POV, of which he uses extensively. Apparently its ok for him to note issues with using Albanian historiography of which i acknowledge and support (i don't use the stuff) but the reverse is apparently not on for Serbian historiography. Also why a topic ban for me? What has been the problem with my editing ? Can someone please show something substantive here with my editing. Otherwise this is resembling more of along the lines of wp:witchhunt and wp:hounding.Resnjari (talk) 00:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Resnjari,
    • if I am responsible for your attacks on the people on the basis of their (wrong) nationality, I am deeply and most sincerely sorry.
    • I am also sorry if I don't share your opinion that works are unreliable on the basis of the (wrong) nationality of their authors.
    • I am also sorry because of the Albanisation of Skanderbeg which transformed medieval tribal chieftain (who is responsible for death of more than million Albanian civillians and soldiers in the Ottoman and rebel units) into Albanian nationalist hero. I can assure that I never participated in such absurd irrational manipulation.
    • Let us not lie ourselves Resnjari. If after three days after the initial report you are allowed to blame the other editors for your attacks on the people on the basis of their (wrong) nationality, its obviuos that you will not be warned and that such attacks are allowed and tolerated. I am sorry for that, but thats life. I wish you all the best. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    On "lies", thank you for pointing that part of the article out. All those sources used there do not use the word Albanianisation, so i am guessing that is a original research take on it. That POV subheading is in need of alteration. The National Awakening Rilindja period did not take a figure who himself used the title Lord of Albania and make him "Albanian". Like i said use a source that states the word Albanianisation here. Albanianisation, on its own carries very POVish connotations. I made my point on the Rilindja period and beyond. Skanderbeg was nationalised and secularised for state engineering processes. By nationalised his fight was interpreted to be one that dominated the country (which was wrong) and that his struggle was one of a "hero" that all Albanians backed (wrong again). As Kopanski noted he was a warlord at best fighting from a small area to restore his fathers lands and his own interests, not some national one. Many Albanians fought against this individual for the Ottomans. That is the part that takes this person out of his historical context and manipulated for others. It was not his Albanian identity that was utilised or invented (if we used the term "Albanianisation" which i take you mean here), but his fight against the Ottomans embellished with fabrications and transfixed by the communists to fight religion in particular Islam, viewed as the religion of the "invader". As for who dies and so on about the medaevil period, the numbers who knows. Its this obsession of the modern day period with Skanderbeg that is problematic and who did not shape the Albanian experience, but the Ottomans. Their arrival allowed Albanians to become Albanians as we know them today speaking Albanian and being of a religion different to their neighbours preventing assimilation. Its this experience in which the communists attempted to wipe out through nationalism and things like the myth of Skanderbeg. As for blame you have been at it on my talkpage many times now. Maybe i should have lodged ANI reports against you with those colourful comments but unlike you i cannot be bothered.Resnjari (talk) 18:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    To argue that these racist views are "very common", is an attempt to justify your editorial bias against these people and countries, Prespari. Which is no different from calling the commonsfolk "racists" and hiding your racism behind this argument. You are crossing some dangerous red lines here. This has no place in Wikipedia. --SILENTRESIDENT 06:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "Prespari", my user name is Resnjari, from the outset from 2008, never been changed. What are you on about ?Resnjari (talk) 21:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I shall note that Resnjari's disruptions are not limited to racist bias only, but also extend to 3RR breaches and POV Tag-abuses, this time in the balkan topic article Albania, here:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albania&diff=773385589&oldid=773354922
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albania&diff=773406406&oldid=773398621
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albania&diff=773410810&oldid=773410545
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albania&diff=773578486&oldid=773477463
    In that incident, which happened earlier this month, at 2 April, Resnjari attempted to impose his POV on the article by using the POV tags as a trojan horse to achieve his goals. Despite not having any consensus (he tried to explain the necessity for POV Tags in Talk:Albania, but he failed to convince; several other editors, besides me, opposed him but he couldn't listen to us and he reverted them when he didn't get the things done the way he wanted). This disruption happened at a moment at which Resnjari fully acknowledges that the article falls under WP:ARBMAC discretionary sanctions. --SILENTRESIDENT 19:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The 3rr rule relates to undoing someones edits 3 times. In your "evidence" the first edit i made i added the tags. The next two which are dated April the 12th i undid 2 edits. The 4th edit relates to April the 13th, Your breach is where ? I also noted extensive issues with the map of which other editors admitted to and its all in the talkpage. Anyway you attempted one of these 3rr things with me a while back on my talk page, not realising the count [19]. You really must want me to get banned Silent.Resnjari (talk) 00:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't want to ban you, what I want is an end to this racist bias on Balkan articles, Resnjari. But like Jtrainor does, all I see here is you defending your actions as if there is nothing wrong about portraying the people of these countries as racist.--SILENTRESIDENT 06:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "racist bias"? How so ? If anything most of my editing has focused on the negative regarding Albanian issues as opposed to the positive, in articles that relate to the Islamization of Albania or recently the Albanian nationalism one, i go where the scholarship takes me. Are you saying then that i am racist toward Albanians, considering i am one of them? As for your evidence, make sure it actually breaks rules when you present it.Resnjari (talk) 07:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    On this issue, Antidiskrimantor threw the term Albanianisation out there, though not offensive to you or maybe others it is to Albanians, due to how it has been used in the Balkans. As much as there is stuff concocted and fabricated about Skanderbeg, the Albanianised part is not it. Saying that without some kind of scholarly backing is very POVish and provocative, especially when it is used as a means to prevent possible editing in a article. If the perception is by some that i overacted, then i apologise, but there should be awareness both ways. Also my talkpage is my domain and not to be used as some editors having been doing to make intimidating attempts at this or that or even telling me (in problematic language and that is putting it nicely) not to edit because my editing violates some "national honour", especially which annoyed me even though i kept my cool. I have let a lot of things pass from many editors over the years, a lot and that shows with my clean record. I don't trash talk your talkpages and i expect the same standard for mine. Thank you.Resnjari (talk) 08:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    For removal of comments, notices, and warnings from User Talk Pages, please see WP: User Pages (Removal of comments, notices, and warnings). --SILENTRESIDENT 09:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, ok fine about notices and stuff. Anti has posted on my talkpage in previous times regarding wanting to take me to ANI (big difference) because to paraphrase him i was "inhibiting his work" due to me discussing (not editing, but discussing) with another editor the problematic issues of Serbian sources. Should i interpret that type of past commentary as intimidation or a threat (for future reference) ? Its ok though when Albanian sources are discussed in that way however. Its stuff like that [20], [21]. On my talkpage, no thank you.Resnjari (talk) 13:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Antidiskriminator has placed accuses on my talk too. I have deleted them and it is not wrong if others do the same when they think there is a good reason. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You too. Well not surprised.Resnjari (talk) 13:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Raheja Developers

    There have been long-term issues of COI editing at Raheja Developers and, apparently, a recent OTRS request. The latest TLDR screed from an account that is almost certainly connected to the company is at Talk:Raheja Developers#Raheja's Clarifications on Allegations with Proofs. I really don't know what to do and, since they seem to be accusing me (falsely) of trying to extort money from them, it is apparently getting serious. FWIW, I have barely edited the article in its current form - Leoaugust (talk · contribs), who has a declared COI, and Jytdog (talk · contribs) were the main drivers. My gut feeling has long been that the article is too slanted towards bad things connected to the company but, equally, the good things were mostly promotional in nature.

    I would appreciate some eyes on this. - Sitush (talk) 08:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    zowie. screed is an understatement. I confirm that the article has been a COI nightmare. Jytdog (talk) 08:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]


    I have been actively involved in the editing, and I stand by every word. There are literally hundreds of cases against the builder, but so far Rahejas have largely been able to manage the news media. For example, the newspaper "Hindustan Times" that Raheja quotes, owns at least 3 apartments in Raheja projects https://twitter.com/gurgaonscoop/status/846963608173101059; so to expect any coverage of the major issues is out of question. The current Wikipage page mentions issues which are widely known, and despite all efforts of Raheja to prevent it, have found way into the media. And both "good" & "bad" things have found their way on the page, though not comprehensively as it could be.
    Further, the arguments made by Raheja developer at Talk:Raheja Developers#Raheja's Clarifications on Allegations with Proofs have been submitted in various Gurgaon and Delhi Courts. They have not met any success for the last 2 years, and hence as a desperate measure have reached out to New York. They have been personally trying to twist arms of Wikipedia in Bengaluru, India since last 1.5 years (even filed cases against Wikipedia), but have so far had no success. I will try to provide a point by point rebuttal of the "clarification" issued by Raheja, if necessary in taking this issue further.
    To me the lasting impression of their clarification is the Raheja claim " Hence, it is essential to provide the company either with the password or the edit rights as the page belongs to them." .... they actually said "as the page BELONGS to them (Raheja)." Their claim that the Wikipedia Page belongs to Raheja Developers in a notice to Wikipedia, hopefully vetted by Raheja's legal team, shows how they are making all these "clarifications" without the basic understanding of whom Wikipedia belongs to, and without application of their minds. For them, this is just an effort to censor and suppress information that might not align with their marketing messages to entrap more buyers. -Leoaugust (talk) 09:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bish blocked, someone else turned up in the place of the blocked account (I am past AGF on this thing, sorry). At least three admins have fiddled about with stuff on the talk page (technical term), and hopefully some may now have it on their watchlist. I remain rather unhappy with the article but that's for another day - perhaps things really are as bad as it suggests. - Sitush (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion of interest to regulars

    Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard#Closing_-_is_it_really_always_necessary.3F --NeilN talk to me 20:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I've quit entirely until this is resolved, as I don't want to be a catalyst. L3X1 (distant write) 02:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (non-admin closure) TLDR is make sure you wait at least 24 hours after last comment befor atop/abot and then another 24 before 1clickArchiving. Also, if it looks like more discussion will come, better to wait than deter people who don't know that closures can always be ignored/reversed. Short stuff that is  Done or
    Resolved
    can be closed before waiting 24 hours, but still wait for archive. Consider EthniKekistan up above, while there hasn't been any comment for some time, the off page discussion is continued, so it shouldn't be closed yet. I'm surprised Oshwah didn't comment, he had been making a lot of quick closures recently L3X1 (distant write) 15:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Antonioatrylia on Talk:Asia Kate Dillon

    I have a feeling that I should be posting here, but I should probably say up-front that I'm very bad at judging when someone's behaviour is harmful towards me and I might miss details that others would notice. I'm tagging User:Funcrunch here because they've seen the discussion between me and User:Antonioatrylia and feel like they could add helpful commentary while remaining neutral.

    The start of this can be found here. I made a draft of Asia Kate Dillon on 2nd March 2017, it was rejected due to lack of notability but then accepted around 8th April, now being considered notable. But a mainspace article had been made in between my creating the draft and the draft being approved and considered notable. It was decided that the mainspace article contained less information and should be overwritten with the draft, which Antonioatrylia rolled back and disputed, arguing with me and another user until an admin stepped in and backed up the original decision.

    They are clearly very upset about the final decision, judging by User_talk:Antonioatrylia#Seriously?: "No trace of the history of all the editors who contributed to the originally created mainspace article for Asia Kate Dillon remain. Everyone's contributions to the original mainspace article were for nothing, because a failed AFC draft was used to overwrite the original mainspace article. It is no wonder that so many editors are leaving wikipedia.". (Two people involved in that exchange are User:Anthony Appleyard and User:Anne Delong.) Anthony Appleyard notes that Antonioatrylia did most of the work on the mainspace article that was overwritten, so I can understand their upset, but they're certainly not remaining neutral or prioritising the quality of the article over their own feelings.

    Antonioatrylia's behaviour since then feels to me like they are holding a grudge.

    After the draft was moved to mainspace, Antonioatrylia tagged it with a Not Notable tag - something that they never did to their original mainspace article, which was much smaller and less detailed. They were upset when it was removed.

    Some of my edits were removed by Antonioatrylia due to having primary sources as references. These include Dillon's birthday (which Dillon mentioned in a tweet) and Dillon's role in a movie (that is available to watch online courtesy of the director, with Dillon mentioned in the credits). When I questioned this decision, Antonioatrylia told me that primary sources are not considered reliable. I did a little research and found that primary sources are appropriate "to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person ... will be able to verify are directly supported by the source." I also found in the section about film specifically, "[t]he film itself is an acceptable primary source for information about the plot and the names of the characters." Dillon's tweet tells us their birthday very directly, and the film itself has Dillon in the credits at the end, so it seemed to me that both of these would be acceptable cases for primary sources to be included. I explained my motives and re-added the sources, expecting that my edits would be accepted since I had shown that Wikipedia policy was very clearly on my side, but Antonioatrylia rolled back the edits and put an edit war warning on my talk page. (It is not my intent to edit-war at all, and I don't want to take part in that.) They told me, "Do not edit war to try to get your incorrect preferred version into the article." I assume the incorrect preferred version they are talking about is the one that includes Dillon's self-professed birthday and the primary source of their appearance in a movie?

    They also tagged the article with WP:UNDUE, and described their reasons in a way that didn't make sense to me - that Dillon's gender and career are given undue weight in the article, implying that more weight should be given to their personal life in the article, I assume? (I may be wrong there.) Me and Funcrunch both felt that WP:UNDUE didn't apply here, and discussed it openly in the talk page, so I went ahead and removed it from the article. Antonioatrylia rolled that edit back, saying "I will be restoring the undue template because the issue has not been fully addressed." This to me reads like an intent to edit-war by Antonioatrylia. I do not want to be threatened again with being blocked for participating in an edit war. (Relatedly, the main reason there is such weight on Dillon's career and being nonbinary is because their notability is centred around them being an openly nonbinary person campaigning for visibility, inclusion and acceptance of nonbinary people, and they're using their career as a nonbinary actor playing the first ever nonbinary US TV character to do it. My edits to expand on their personal life and career aside from being nonbinary have been rolled back by Antonioatrylia.)

    Overall, Antonioatrylia has been aggressive, pushy, superior. "Consider your self warned for not showing good faith. I won't bother to template your page with a notice for failure to good faith." (Here.) My interactions with this user have been very unpleasant, and left me feeling reluctant to edit because I suspect that Antonioatrylia will roll back my edits and accuse me of edit warfare if I argue with them. I'm very much a casual editor and I just want to make a good article with as much complete information as possible, but I feel like every time I do a little work on the article the edits are rolled back. And I feel that this is because "my" draft was chosen over "their" mainspace article.

    Because I am not very good at judging these things, there may be important information that I've omitted. I hope that others can visit the links I've put here and post about the things I've missed, and perhaps Funcrunch, Anthony Appleyard and Anne Delong can add details too.

    Thank you for reading, and I welcome your thoughts! --Cassolotl (talk) pronouns: they/them 21:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • My take is similar to Cassolotl's. I feel that Antonioatrylia's templating was motivated by his resentment of how the article merge was handled. When I noted this at the article talk page, specifically pointing out Antonioatrylia's own talk page comment on the merger, they accused me of not assuming good faith. My reading of WP:AGF is that editors should assume good faith without clear evidence to the contrary. I believe evidence has been provided that Antonioatrylia's templating and subsequent reactions were motivated more by his feelings about the merger than by genuine concerns about WP:V and WP:UNDUE. Funcrunch (talk) 22:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    A request was filed at the dispute resolution noticeboard for dispute resolution about Asia Kate Dillon, but I had to close it because the dispute is also pending here. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment After the draft was moved to mainspace, I added some elements from the original very short article, crediting the appropriate editors. Articles aren't notable or non-notable according to size and detail, but according the existence of reliable independent sources, even if they aren't yet in the article or aren't properly formatted. There was no way to solve this to everyone's satisfaction, because both drafts were worked on in good faith. This a a bi-product of Draft space. I understand Antonioatrylia's frustration because at one point it seemed that it would be resolved the other way, so he/she kept working on it. That's not a reason to make inappropriate edits, though.—Anne Delong (talk) 04:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As Anne Delong has stated above, I was frustrated about how the merge turned out. But that was it. I let out my frustration in a statement on my own talk page and went about my business. I frequently remove references from many articles when they are from unreliable websites such as myspace, twitter, imdb, blogs, and many other such places. I also apply tags or notices to articles after I have worked on them and tried to find good, appropriate, and reliable references. The original poster above tries to make some point aboint me putting a tag on one version but not the other of the article. I would not put a tag on until after I am done working on an article.

    The merge happened. I started working on the article until I reached a point after my work where I felt that article subject was not truly notable. At that point I placed a notability tag. This is truly a content issue and really is not appropriate for this board. The OP is trying to blow out of proportion that I tagged the article and edited it because of a grudge, me being upset and other very colorful adjectives, none of which are true, nor non of which can be substantiated by any evidence or proof.

    On the talk page of Asia Kate Dillon the OP freely admits that they are not acting in good faith. I informally warned them there instead of placing a template on their own talk page. The OP, who by the way is a SPA editor who looks to have only edited this and one other subjects biography, who both identify as non-binary or genderqueer. I mention this becase on the OP's talk page they also identify via a user box that they are agender and prefer the usage of certain pronouns such as they and their just like the article subject.Perhaps, it could be a possibility the OP is a little to close to the subject and their lifestyle to remain neutral while editing the article. They (OP) has shown WP:OWNERSHIP issues of not wanting anyone else editing the article other than themself and one other editor, Funcrunch who also self identifies on their user page as agender via a user box and uses preferred pronouns. I believe all editors from any walks of life should be able to edit the Dillon and all articles freely on wilipedia with out being tag teamed by a pair of editors that could possibly have an agenda to make the Dillon article have a slant toward agender and non-binary issues. I pointed out on the talk page article that there was too much of that going on to the point of undue, and I finally decided to mark the article as undue so other editors could see that and help fix the article to have a neutral tone as is tthe requirement at wikipedia.

    One last obsevation is that the OP has been forum shopping by posting their issue at the DRN board first, and then very shortly afterward here at this incident board. There they had two points: that I removed a reference to an archive of a twitter post that was being used as a reference for the birthday of the subject. In my edit summary there I put it was unreliable as from twitter, and was considered self published. If that is not correct anyone may freely put it back. The other item the OP complained about was my removal of a reference to a vimeo video clip of film that you supposedly have to watch until the end to be able to see the credits to verify the subject as having appeared in the film. That is really way too convoluted to expect our readers to do all that. I group vimeo in with youtube and consider both unreliable in any respect, and I frequently remove other such references for being unreliable. Again, if any editors think that is a fabulous reference, go ahead and put it back if you have a consensus on that.

    This entire filing is frivolous in that this is actually a content dispute. The OP admitted that they were acting in bad faith towards me on the talk page of Asia Kate Dillon. This OP SPA editor is trying to make a big blow up kerfuffle about how the article was merged in the past as a reason to object to another editors opinion in a simple content dispute. None of their schlock is true. I was frustrated by the outcome of the merge, but I let my frustration out on my own talk page, and then went back to editing as per usual. Antonioatrylia (talk) 13:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I am more than happy for others to make edits to the article, and I definitely don't feel territorial. Honestly, help would be very much appreciated; I don't have a lot of energy, and I love when people improve pages I've created or edited. So I'm not really sure where you've got this idea that I am only happy for me and Funcrunch to make edits to this article, Antonioatrylia. :/ If people have things they'd like to add to the article that are not about Dillon's gender I'm very happy about that; I've not removed anything from the article that anyone else has added. If there were facts without citations I've added "citation needed" or researched and found a source myself.
    When you say that you removed the Twitter reference because it was a primary source, and if anyone feels this is not correct they are free to put it back - I did this. I posted explaining that your removing the primary source was incorrect in this case, and I put it back. I provided links to Wikipedia policy and quoted them, on the article's talk page. When I edited the primary sources back in, you rolled my edits back and threatened me with punishments associated with edit warfare.
    You mention that I am editing articles in a particular subject area as though this makes me in some way biased, but I think it is pretty normal for editors to edit things that appeal to them based on interest, no? Yes, I am excited that Dillon is the first actor to play a nonbinary character in US TV, but I don't feel that I am being territorial. I am not upset that people are editing "my" article, I don't feel any ownership of it because it is a subject close to my heart or something. My problem is that you undo my edits, and when I show you that Wikipedia policy backs up my edits you ignore me and roll the edits back and state an intention to keep undoing my edits and threaten me with punitive actions if I continue to act in accordance with Wikipedia policy.
    Overall I feel bullied and pushed around, and like you are rolling back my edits that are perfectly valid. I would expect most people to say, "oh yes, it looks like Wikipedia allows primary sources in this case, cool beans" but instead I am having things thrown at me like that I have only edited a few pages - as if this is somehow evidence of poor behaviour? I made a new account sometime recently because I lost my login information and figured a fresh start might be nice. In fact I have been a casual editor of Wikipedia for many years, mostly fixing grammar and spelling, and tidying up badly formatted citations. I even run my own wiki on another site, so I know how it is to have something you have created get rewritten and replaced and honestly, I think you have to be comfortable with that when you are a wiki editor. I feel pretty comfortable with it. It seems unfair that this being the first article I've created is held against me.
    "One last obsevation is that the OP has been forum shopping by posting their issue at the DRN board first, and then very shortly afterward here at this incident board." I will be the first to admit that I'm not familiar with how this all works. I've never had to deal with this kind of behaviour from another editor before, so I am learning how this system works as I go. I didn't know that it wasn't allowed to post in two places at once, and when I opened this complaint here I added a link to the dispute topic to let people know, hoping that someone more experienced would take the appropriate action. I note that a volunteer kindly closed the dispute topic pending the closure of this one, which I'm grateful for!
    "This is truly a content issue and really is not appropriate for this board." With respect, that's not something for you to decide. I still feel like you have been aggressive and mean to me, and I'm hoping that some support here can help resolve this matter. I would just like to improve the article in peace, without someone rolling back my edits and then threatening me with punishment even when I supply evidence that my edits are in line with Wikipedia policy.
    The Not Notable tag is probably not that big of a deal - the draft that was moved to mainspace was moved there because someone decided it was notable, so I don't feel that removing the Not Notable tag was in error. But I note that Antonioatrylia is focusing on this particular template, when I am more focused on other things they did. One of them being that they kept putting the Undue template on the page when other editors of the page were in agreement that it didn't apply even after Antonioatrylia had explained their reasoning. And then warning me for "edit war" behaviour, which I don't feel I've done - and when they say that they will keep putting the template back even though no one agrees with them, edit warfare is something that would describe their intended actions. If other experienced and knowledgable parties back up the decision to tag the page with UNDUE, I would be fine with that - but the opposite has happened.
    I'm grateful to User:Funcrunch for backing me up here. I agree with them when they say "My reading of WP:AGF is that editors should assume good faith without clear evidence to the contrary." I would like to assume good faith, but after repeated aggressive moves I was sort of forced to the conclusion that Antonioatrylia is taking things personally, ignoring me when it suits them, and being mean. Whether or not they're doing it deliberately or they're unaware I don't know, but I don't think I'm misinterpreting this situation. --Cassolotl (talk) pronouns: they/them 17:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Your behavior here Cassolot has been quite poor, in that you on miltiple times throughout your report have mistated that I removed the twitter reference because it was a primary reference. Please provide a diff of me saying that. What I did say in my edit summary was that I was removing a reference to an unreliable website, and it was an archive of a twitter post that would be considered as self published. You call a removal of a reference to an unreliable website agressive and mean? You need to not take things so personal. I put the undue template back one time, not plural times and only after a talk page discussion. The two editors dicussing it besides me were you and Funcrunch, who I explained in the posting above are both possibly putting forward an agenda that keeps both of them from editing neutrally. They both possibly have a bias. Other editors need to assess the article who have no bias, so the article may be fixed and put to a neutral point of view as is required at Wikipedia. Antonioatrylia (talk) 17:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's the diff where you said the Twitter source was unacceptable because it's self-published. But to be clear, it's not the individual details of the dispute that I'm picking over here. It's the way that I'm feeling picked on, like you're trying to push me around, you're being rude and threatening, etc. You've threatened me with punishment over an edit war that hasn't happened while insisting that you will keep undoing an edit that only you object to, you've berated me and another editor over not having good faith, and you're continuing to chide me like I'm a child even now. It's really unpleasant. I would probably just give up and leave Wikipedia, but I'm passionate about the site and interested in the subjects of the articles I edit so I'm trying to go through the proper channels to resolve this optimally, you know? Anyway, I will pause now and await input from an admin. --Cassolotl (talk) pronouns: they/them 20:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You have provided a diff that does not show that I said Twitter is a primary source. Look back in the thread. When challenged you could not provide it. So you have repeatedly misrepresented what I said, most probably to try and make me look bad. Then also you change the words in your last paragraph to self published insteasd of primary sources. That right there is you being deceptive. Why would you change the sentence, because there is no diff where I said that a twitter reference is a primary source. The diff you provide says exactly what I said that I had said. That seems to be a fail on your part and very deceptive to say the least. You, Cassotol are unpleasent to deal with. Your actions of possibly pushing an agenda and being biased makes it difficult to edit the article effectively to maintain a neutral tone. I have cut back on editing because you haveruined my enjoyment on editing wikipedia. You continuosly misrepresent what I say to try to accuse me of for instance. We had a talk page discussion where I said I was putting the undue tag back on the article. You surely, right away put the disputed references back in the article. I reverted back to the discussed version, and sent you a message warning you against edit warring. I or no one else threatened you. You should really strike that. And btw, your co- editor Funcrunch who is also possibly biased and working to put forth an agenda, reverted my change to make the section header neutral. I hope that you are aware that since you opened this thread that your behavior and actions are put under the same scrutiny as mine. It is possible that you could receive sanctions for your deceptive practice here. When you were unable to provide the diff where I said twitter was a primary source, you changed the language of your statement to match what I had actually said. I also feel like I am ready to leave wikipedia after this unpleasant incident with you. Antonioatrylia (talk) 21:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Reporting Mrollie

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

    Mrwiki72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    I believe there are people in the system who resort to what is well known as Wikihounding. When you look at user named "MrOllie", it is quite evident this is a case of Wikihounding. Multiple attempts to come to a dispute resolution are not being heeded to. I may be forced to stop contributing as a result.

    Please see his recent history, and my attempt to communicate below; he has gone after unrelated edits and showed intent to be vindictive (even if he may be right). If this is not a case of wikihounding, what is ?

    Wikihounding[edit] Please do not resort to Wikihounding, as you have clearly demonstrated going after multiple unrelated edits. If an edit war is in progress and consensus is unclear, forming a discussion, whether between two users or an entire group is strongly encouraged. Any discussions aimed at coming to a peaceful resolution or some other compromise are highly recommended. Wikihounding[edit source] Main page: WP:Wikihounding Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrwiki72 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC) We allow everyone to look at contributions lists. One reason for that is to check if a similar mistake is being repeated on other articles - in this case yes. That is not 'Wikihounding'. Still, if you think I did something inappropriate the place to report that is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I strongly recommend you read WP:BOOMERANG before opening a discussion there, though. - MrOllie (talk) 16:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC) I do not have time to continue an edit war, but you have clearly demonstrated your willingness. Your actions are fully known to you, and therefore you decide if you are doing the right thing. Introspect ! I am a subject matter expert, and an acknowledged one at that, and have demonstrated that through the links. Even if you have a problem with the links, I have ceded, and requested removal of the links (which is contrary to the idea of an encyclopedia where you substantiate through links). But the content edit was justified. But your actions have shown your true intent, which is to wear down new contributors until you win unfairly; so be it. I will report you as that is the right and fair thing to do. Upto Wikipedia what they want to do about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrwiki72 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    He's editing the wikipage Open_Innovation and he's trying to add in something from a website that fails WP:RS the site shows no oversight at all and Mr.Ollie is correctly removing that addition. Looks like Mrwiki72 isn't happy with it. I also note that Mr.Ollie is advising him to declare his COI which is also proper. Mr. Ollie isn't wikihounding MrWiki72 at all.  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  17:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    My intent with linking was to re-inforce the content with attribution / references; having said that, I have offered to remove links as well if that is causing this whole issue. Yet, it keeps getting deleted. Mrwiki72 (talk) 20:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)mrwiki72[reply]

    GregJackP

    Resolved
     – Discussion (here and at BLPN) has served its purpose—no administrative action needed. El_C 16:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    GregJackP said "Also, just to let you know, at 2:00 PM tomorrow (local time), I'll revert the last change back to the long-term version, and I'll continue to do so until you get consensus to remove the material."[22] It appears they will continue to revert. Past reverts.[23][24][25][26][27] I believe they will continue to revert. Something has got to change. I personally disagree with restoring all the sources. The current text uses more reliable sources. I don't want to wait until 2:00 PM tomorrow (Wikipedia time) for the next round of reverts. QuackGuru (talk) 23:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • This material was included by consensus following a series of discussions in 2015. It's not edifying because last time the discussion was held in about 5 different locations because JYTDog was forum shopping. I also find it curious that QuackGuru shows up to an article that he's never edited, nor has he shown a great deal of interest in legal articles, until JYTDog was reverted from his arbitrary changes from what the consensus had been. GregJackP Boomer! 23:14, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Is that an aspersion that someone is a sock of somebody else? L3X1 (distant write) 00:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope. I do not think that QG is anyone's sock. GregJackP Boomer! 04:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    You know Black Kite, QuackGuru, I had this under control. El_C 00:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I know the feeling. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    How so? El_C 01:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry if you think I've stepped on your toes - feel free to unprotect it if you think it'll be OK. Black Kite (talk) 00:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There is more. Infowars and other sources were restored to another page. QuackGuru (talk) 00:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You still shouldn't be shopping for admins. El_C 01:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    El_C is to be commended for approaching this with dialog, as should be the norm. Once we have to protect page or block someone, things have gotten seriously screwed up. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 01:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    After being warned by an admin about using a problematic source they started a RfC using the problematic source. More than one editor opposed using Infowars, but GregJackP is not listening. QuackGuru (talk) 10:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The RfC is, mercifully, up. I suggest you approach it without prejudice. El_C 11:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Rather than collaborate GregJackP has guaranteed the long-version will not be restored any time soon. Proposing to restore text that is not supported by the source was the last straw. It can be closed as a snow oppose within 24 hours. QuackGuru (talk) 14:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There are nine votes to remove and five votes to retain, as of now. Let's not get ahead of ourselves. El_C 14:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I was wrong. They claimed "There are no BLP issues."[28] It can be shut down now per this. A serious discussion requires a serious proposal. The current proposal is not it. QuackGuru (talk) 16:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The revised RfC is now up. El_C 00:12, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    After requesting verification for a part of the text more than one editor refused to provide verification. QuackGuru (talk) 00:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    They are silent. They will not provide verification. QuackGuru (talk) 06:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No, we've answered, you just don't like the answer, either because of IDHT or a competence issue in using the Bluebook citation style. GregJackP Boomer! 16:21, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to the creator of Wikipedia the Wikipedia community is committed to amateurism.
    • In November 2015, Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger told Zach Schwartz in Vice: "I think Wikipedia never solved the problem of how to organize itself in a way that didn't lead to mob rule" and that since he left the project, "People that I would say are trolls sort of took over. The inmates started running the asylum."[1]
    1. ^ Schwartz, Zach (November 11, 2015). "Wikipedia's Co-Founder Is Wikipedia's Most Outspoken Critic". Vice.
    • Can we shut this down? We've got an ongoing RfC where progress is being made, with the exception of one editor. That editor is beginning to become disruptive, making baseless accusations about BLP at that notice board (without identifying a actual BLP issue), at the Bluebook article talk page, here, and at the RfC. Can someone advise him that forum shopping is inappropriate? GregJackP Boomer! 16:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
     Done. El_C 16:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Damaging behavior (edit summaries/article content) at euphoria

    Hello administrators and fellow editors. The following concerns actions by user:Seppi333 at euphoria.

    Reading these edit summaries [29] I ask, why should I be involved with Wikipedia?

    This language is hurtful in itself and humiliating to me when seen by other editors. Technically focusing on content, it is a clever way of being obnoxiously insulting. Now Seppi333 is an asset to Wikipedia; he is a learned first rate editor and I, a very human one; but regardless of the validity of his contentions no one should be treated this way. I resist urges to be provoked or become resigned. Because I have been on the receiving end of f***ing (his wording) comments from Seppi333 before, I appeal to you. I don't want to interact with him.

    But this isn't just about me. While this was happening he actually modified the article to read [30]: "The widely consumed stimulant caffeine is a euphoriant at higher (than typical) dosages,[contradictory][37][38][39] which does not produce euphoria.[contradictory][40][41][42]" Seppi333 created this intentionally absurd sentence, then made another edit, adding the dual contradictory tags in a single sentence, to make his point, without concern for confusing readers or damaging the reputation of Wikipedia. That needlessly hurts everybody.

    Thank you my friends for your consideration. — βox73 (৳alk) 01:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Box73: None of these are ad hominem (personal attacks); they're comments on the references that were cited. They're crude because I'm expressing my exasperation and annoyance at constantly having to enforce WP:MEDRS given the countless times I've pointed this policy out to you since we first started collaborating on the amphetamine article around one or two years ago. I acknowledge that my decision to write an apparently contradictory statement into the article wasn't in accordance with content policies; this was a poor decision on my part and I apologize for that. I'm not perfect, and like all humans, when I'm irritated I'm subject to petty emotional responses which I may sometimes be unable to inhibit.
    I'm frankly getting fed up with constantly having to delete content and/or references in that article when you know very well what sources are and are not acceptable for citing medical claims. If you simply used reliable medical sources in the first place, disputes like this would not occur. If you continue to ignore that policy going forward, it's pretty likely that another dispute will arise in the future. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 10:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) They may not be personal attacks, but the comments are highly uncivil and not appropriate on a collaborative project. There are other ways to point out sources are not adequate. Kleuske (talk) 10:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree on both points. I have tried other ways; they don't seem to work. In the future, I'll likely just seek assistance from other edits at WT:MED in order to deal with content/reference issues introduced by Box73 instead of engage with him directly. Subsequent to my last edit on that page, I was already planning on doing this prior to this discussion because I feel that I'm at an impasse in regard to getting him to cite reliable sources for medical statements. This course of action hopefully will reduce or prevent the potential for any issues with his or my behavior in our future interactions. This is the best solution that I can think of at the moment in regard to addressing his concerns.
    All Box73 really needs to do to address my concerns is acknowledge that he will cite better references and follow through on that. As of now, he has not done so. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 10:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've followed through on what I've stated I will do here: WT:MED#Euphoria needs more eyes. Should any future problems arise with Box73's medical content contributions, I will explain to other medical editors the issues that I see with new content on that talk page, then let those editors engage with Box73 and edit his work as they deem appropriate. If anyone has a better idea about how I should deal with Box73 in the future in order to avoid behavioral problems like this while attempting to address issues with his contributions, please let me know. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 11:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Aside from the obvious advice that if you find yourself this worked up about something on the internet, you should step away from the keyboard before using offensive edit summaries, I'd say that if an editor is chronically incapable of or unwilling to follow MEDRS, they should be topic banned from editing medical articles. Box73, telling other editors to tag your poorly cited additions instead of removing them isn't acceptable. Poorly cited medical edits will be removed on sight. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 11:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    This is outrageous. I am using MEDRS refs.

    Typically Seppi333 simply deletes what he disagrees with. WP:BOLD excuses him from discussion. Challenged, he resorts to wikilawyering and threatens that reverts will be deleted. And he does. Seppi333 deleted and redeleted material I added in December. An RfC supported my addition. I didn't see one comment against.

    The "suck ass" / "shit refs" edit summaries refer to the UV section I added. I used five MEDRS refs, all reviews from medical journals, the oldest from 2011. A sixth was a peer reviewed article from an industrial science journal. A seventh was published on the Skin Cancer Foundation website. While considered lesser quality sources, these were well written, well cited articles written by published medical researchers. They were used with MEDRS refs but could have been omitted without effect on the material. But Seppi333 didn't do that, he radically edited the copy and added the nasty comments, now claiming I used bad refs.

    Bad refs? I didn't write the June 2014 review in Cell but his edit summary response was "Skin β-endorphin mediates addiction to ultraviolet light" is probably the dumbest statement I have ever read in my life. beta-endorphin can barely penetrate the BBB. stop citing shit refs". What part of MEDRS did I violate?

    My caffeine ref was old but otherwise MEDRS. The caffeine material was added by a new editor, well intentioned but poorly cited. I found support for his edit but also let one ref stay temporarily, maybe a week. When reasonable and harmless I want to encourage new editors.

    Seppi333's response is outrageous. I'm responsible for his behavior and I need to be policed? I've never had any problems with any editor except him. All I ask is for him to loosen up, use common sense, try to collaborate, look at the spirit of the law.

    @Spike Wilbury: Thank you. I agree: the flags aren't a license for lousy citations. But the existence of {{medrs}} and {{medcn}} demands some intended use. What I'm saying is that Seppi333 is overstating issues and may react inappropriately. Again, thanks for commenting! — βox73 (৳alk) 10:22, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I addressed Seppi333's edit summaries in my comment as a separate matter. You are not responsible for their behavior. But, there's nothing wrong with noticing your own role in the conflict. The fact is that readers (stupidly) look to Wikipedia for medical advice and that's the primary reason for stringent adherence to MEDRS, same as why we are so strict about BLPs. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 11:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Abusive image usage

    Wondering if an administrator could possibly add File:Tronald Dump.svg to the Wikipedia:Image blacklist; edits like this, including it in templates, will cause it to appear on a large amount of articles. Home Lander (talk) 02:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    This also appears at File:Tronald Dump.jpg; the only proper use is at Hanksy. Home Lander (talk) 02:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
     Done BencherliteTalk 07:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bencherlite: The JPG version above does not appear to be blacklisted. – Train2104 (t • c) 14:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Train2104: Correct, and a link to that version is present on the now blacklisted copy, so it probably should be included as well. Home Lander (talk) 14:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    TFA

    (non-admin closure) Asked and answered.--Darth Mike(talk) 15:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Shouldn't Kona Lanes be protected? —ATS 🖖 talk 03:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    TFAs are generally not preemptively edit protected. It looks like there was a brief spat of rapid-fire vandalism, but nothing in the last half-hour, and nothing unmanageable. If vandalism rates become extreme and/or unproductive edits start to go unreverted for long periods, feel free to request protection at RFPP. Congrats on the feature! – Juliancolton | Talk 04:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Juliancolton!
    In response, I would note only that this is hardly aberrant; while we certainly want to encourage constructive editing, what's the destructive/constructive ratio of TFA, historically? Ten to one? 20 to one? 200 to one? What would semiprotection (Autoconfirmed? Extended confirmed?) hurt, exactly? —ATS 🖖 talk 06:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @ATS: This is a perennial proposal; anyone can edit Wikipedia and they should be able to do so for the most prominently linked article on our home page, and no article is ever perfect so it's likely that constructive edits will occur. Sam Walton (talk) 10:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Personal attacks by Nishidani at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Jerusalem Light Rail stabbing

    E.M.Gregory, Nishidani, and I have both participated in the linked AfD discussion about 2017 Jerusalem Light Rail stabbing, with Greg and I voting to keep and Nishidani voting to delete. During the discussion, Nishidani has written responses to Greg's comments (like this, this, and this) and my comments (such as this), all of which indicate a strong failure to assume good faith and also seem borderline-personal attacks. It's one thing to respond to comments but it's another to fail in holding back aggressiveness in the process. What really gets me is that in the third diff, Nishidani immediately assumes Greg created the Jerusalem terrorist attack article, when in reality he did not.

    Out of concern about these comments, I gave Nishidani a warning about PAs on his talk page (probably not the best warning, now that I think about it, but it certainly reflected my concerns at the time). Then, I noticed that the same aggressive comments on the AfD were continuing, so I gave Nishidani a couple more serious warnings. After I discussed with another user about why I did not include diffs, Nishidani gave me this rather condescending and aggressive response. In addition, Nishidani has shown failure to assume good faith in regards to what he calls IP editors (like this and this in his talk page). While I do understand the mistrust in IP users, I have seen a number that have contributed positively to Wikipedia and there was no need to rush to conclusions.

    Now, the AfD discussion has quieted down at the moment. However, all of these interactions I have seen tell me that Nishidani needs, at the very least, a behavior check. Let it be known that this is my first rodeo at ANI, so forgive me if I did anything wrong. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 09:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Cyrus the Penner: You should strike your own assumption of bad faith in Example text "I/P", when Nishidani used it in that context, clearly referred to "Israel/Palestine" and not "Internet Protocol". The latter group (anons or IP editors -- no one calls them "I/P editors") are actually not allowed edit articles related to Israel/Palestine, so there isn't even any overlap. What you did above isn't really even a failure to actively assume good faith -- you went out of your way to interpret Nishidani's words in an unintuitive manner (the I/P area, which I would advise anyone not to get sucked into, is a good training ground; many passing editors have no knowledge of this practice in the I/P area. to make a point about how disruptive you want the community to think he is. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse me, but I didn't know there was actually a difference between "IP" and "I/P". I've always been aware of "IP" and have never seen "I/P" being used before. So when I saw Nishidani use "I/P", I didn't take the / into account and immediately assumed he was talking about IP users and not Israeli/Palestine articles. One really shouldn't blame me, considering I'm still learning the ropes around here. Don't assume bad faith and think I'm doing this on purpose to bolster the image that Nishidani is a disruptive user who deserves to be banned. But anyway, I have recognized my error and struck that part out. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 03:11, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you are free to edit articles in the I/P area without prior awareness of abbreviations like that. But you are not allowed go out of your way to assume that someone is being disruptive just because you don't understand their terminology (WP:AGF), make accusations against them without providing evidence (WP:WIAPA) or request sanctions against them based on your own flawed assumptions and accusations (WP:BATTLEGROUND). You have now apparently refused to strike your accusation despite my correcting you -- it's therefore not unreasonable for me (and everyone else) to assume that at some point Nishidani had already corrected you and you chose to ignore him.Sorry -- for whatever reason I didn't notice that Cyrus had stricken the offending text. This thread should be closed without action. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:09, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "Well, you are free to edit articles in the I/P area without prior awareness of abbreviations like that. But you are not allowed go out of your way to assume that someone is being disruptive just because you don't understand their terminology (WP:AGF)" I didn't initially report Nishidani for the "I/P" thing just because I couldn't understand the terminology, I reported him because I legitimately thought he meant something else when he used the terminology, so I reported what my concerns were at the time. Once again, you think I did that on purpose, but I didn't. It was a mistake based on a complete misunderstanding and I am owning up to it.
    "make accusations against them without providing evidence (WP:WIAPA)" Even if it was all just a misunderstanding on my part in the end, I did provide these diffs as my "evidence". Faulty evidence based on an inherently faulty argument based on a misunderstanding, yes, but still, I did not exactly run in there blind.
    "request sanctions against them based on your own flawed assumptions and accusations (WP:BATTLEGROUND)." Just because one assumption was flawed doesn't mean the rest were. Clearly I posted an adequate-enough argument if other users have pitched in and voiced similar concerns and remarks about Nishidani in this thread (Greg, for one; and Shrike, Sir Joseph, and Debresser).
    "You have now apparently refused to strike your accusation despite my correcting you -- it's therefore not unreasonable for me (and everyone else) to assume that at some point Nishidani had already corrected you and you chose to ignore him." "Sorry -- for whatever reason I didn't notice that Cyrus had stricken the offending text." Now WHO'S the one assuming bad faith?!
    "This thread should be closed without action." Tell that to Greg and Shrike and Sir Joseph and Debresser.
    Cyrus the Penner (talk) 05:38, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't initially report Nishidani for the "I/P" thing just because I couldn't understand the terminology, I reported him because I legitimately thought he meant something else when he used the terminology, so I reported what my concerns were at the time. Once again, you think I did that on purpose, but I didn't. It was a mistake based on a complete misunderstanding and I am owning up to it. (1) Stop shouting. It really hurts your case that other people are "uncivil" when you can't help but try to shout down people who disagree with you. (2) I don't think you legitimately thought he meant that, as no careful reading of the comments you linked to would leave you with the impression that he was talking about IP editors. "the I/P area" looks like a topic area, not a group of editors, in those comments. Either you were deliberately misrepresenting his comments, and are now lying to cover your tracks, or (and this actually worse) you reported him on ANI for some comments he made that you had only skimmed without making the slightest effort to understand. (3) Even if you did legitimately believe it, once I corrected you you should have retracted your whole comment and agreed that this thread should be closed, as most editors who made a good-faith mistake would.
    Example text As I demonstrated further down, those diffs do not remotely approach personal attacks, and it is clear that you took them out of context. And if you now agree that those too were "faulty evidence based on an inherently faulty argument based on a misunderstanding", you should retract everything and just move on with your life. There are articles to write.
    Just because one assumption was flawed doesn't mean the rest were Wait, did you just admit that this whole ANI thread is based on your assumptions rather than an actual problem? "the rest" implies that they fall under the same category as the "assumption" mentioned in the previous clause. Clearly I posted an adequate-enough argument if other users have pitched in and voiced similar concerns and remarks about Nishidani in this thread Those editors all have their own bones to pick with Nish. They either have his page on their watchlist or, like E.M.Gregory, you pinged them in order to tip the scales in your favour. Greg, for one; and Shrike, Sir Joseph, and Debresser If you haven't read WP:CANVASS, you really need to.
    Now WHO'S the one assuming bad faith?! Please stop shouting, and please refraining from attacking other editors for their own good-faith mistakes that they retracted and apologized for more than an hour earlier. You made (what you claim were) a series of flawed assumptions and attacked another editor based on said assumptions, and even when corrected by someone else have doubled down and only struck out part of the offending text and continue your attacks. I made a legitimate mistake, realized my own mistake almost immediately, retracted it, and apologized. These are not the same thing.
    Tell that to Greg and Shrike and Sir Joseph and Debresser. Again, you are cherry-picking a group of editors who seem to have piled on to this thread because they have Nish's talk page on their watchlists (and one you canvassed yourself). None of them are ANI regulars: Shrike has only posted in four ANI threads since summer 2014, including this, one other about Nishidani, one about himself, and one started by himself about another editor in the I/P area; Debresser similarly only seems to post to ANI when his name is mentioned or something I/P-related shows up; the exception is Sir Joseph, who has chimed in on a bunch of random ANI threads (though only one in the last two weeks), but I am 99% certain the latter is a Nish talk-page-stalker anyway because of this. I, on the other hand, am a regular ANI-junkie and happened across this thread by accident; Nish is an old comrade of mine, but I actually don't have his talk page on my watchlist (I would have chimed in sooner if I did). And you left out AusLondonder and Sam Walton, who both agree with me that there's no administrative action required here. Actually, though, I am beginning to doubt whether "no action" is the proper result -- now that you have (repeatedly) refused to retract your opening statement, which you admit was based on flawed assumptions and your own failure to understand what constitutes a personal attack, I am beginning to think that a WP:BOOMERANG, or at least a very, very heavy WP:TROUT might be in order.
    This thread should be closed with no action against anyone but the OP, and the OP should be issued a strong warning about making accusations without evidence, and going out of his way to assume the worst when someone writes something he doesn't understand.
    Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "Nish is an old comrade of mine": Ah, so no wonder you're so quick to jump to his defense! So I guess you two are coordinating to discredit me and Greg and all the others, huh?! But this witch hunt isn't going to work. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 17:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You are very clearly assuming bad faith, and going out of your way to do so. As I explained above, I don't have his talk page on my watchlist so I can "jump to his defense!" -- I don't have it on my watchlist at all. I'm a regular ANI contributor, and my sig (which includes the characters やや and so is easily identifiable and searchable) currently appears four times in the most recent ANI archive (951), 0 times in 950 (I was avoiding drahma for personal reasons), 70 times in the (uncollapsed) 949, 11 times in 948, 21 times in 947, twice in 946, 35 times in 945, 42 times in 944 (excluding the one, most recent, thread in which I was specifically involved, which is collapsed so excluding it from the search is quite easy), 20 times in 943, and 8 times in 942 (the first of 2017). I clearly don't have Nish's talk page on my watchlist so I can "jump to his defense!", as if I was into that I would have done so before you opened this discussion. This is not true for the other users who claim they agree with you -- the only one who regularly contributes to ANI threads that don't involve him is Sir Joseph, who hasn't done so recently, and I presented pretty clear evidence that he does have Nish's talk page on his watchlist. (I didn't check E.M.Gregory's edit history, but I didn't need to -- he could have shown up because he is stalking Nishidani, but there's no need to verify that because you directly notified him of this discussion.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I notified E.M.Gregory of the discussion because he was the target of Nishidani's accusations and I didn't like the way Nishidani was treating him. He didn't have to respond, but clearly he's been more than happy to pitch in. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 00:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No. For one thing, you're initial complaint was about how you claimed Nishidani was treating you and various unspecified IP editors much more than about E.M.Gregory, and you didn't notify any of those IP editors. But moreso, if he was the target of Nishidani's accusations and I didn't like the way Nishidani was treating him were the reason, you wouldn't be continually notifying him over and over again in your responses to me. I don't know E.M.Gregory from Adam. It's clear you are continually pinging him (and several other users further up) because you want him to chime in and start helping you attack everyone who disagrees with your assessment. The problem is, most of them are smarter than to do that. They saw an open ANI thread with Nishidani's name plastered all over it and decided it was safe to badmouth him, but they're not going to start going after me, Kingsindian, AusLondoner and Sam Walton as you have been doing. In future, if you really are acting in good faith and your constant pings to users on your "side" of this discussion are not deliberate canvassing, you should use Template:Noping (as I did just now) or just don't link their usernames at all. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:03, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "For one thing, you're initial complaint was about how you claimed Nishidani was treating you and various unspecified IP editors much more than about E.M.Gregory, and you didn't notify any of those IP editors." Nope. I have mentioned E.M.Gregory from the get-go. Read the first paragraph, he's prominently mentioned there. Also, I thought we were clear about this: there was no issue with IP editors in the first place because I misunderstood Nishidani's usage of "I/P". Cyrus the Penner (talk) 01:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    E.M.Gregory, Nishidani, and I have both participated in the linked AfD discussion about 2017 Jerusalem Light Rail stabbing, with Greg and I voting to keep and Nishidani voting to delete. [...] What really gets me is that in the third diff, Nishidani immediately assumes Greg created the Jerusalem terrorist attack article, when in reality he did not. You kind of book-end the first paragraph with brief mentions of E.M.Gregory, but this clearly was not your primary motivation for opening this ANI thread, as if that were the case you would have done so when that happened. You were motivated to open this ANI thread because, after you templated his talk page, he responded annoyedly. You closed your OP comment with your actual reason for opening it: However, all of these interactions [including the fabricated "IP" nonsense] I have seen tell me that Nishidani needs, at the very least, a behavior check (emphasis added). If E.M.Gregory thought that Nishidani's "bad faith accusations" against him (for which you didn't provide any diffs, mind) were worth an ANI thread, he could have done it himself. (BTW, E.M.Gregory did write the article. Before his first edit, the page looked like this and had been live for less than six hours; after his first string of almost uninterrupted edits, it looked like this.) Essentially, you opened this ANI thread because you don't like Nishidani, and selectively pinged one of the contributors to the AFD who happened to be on your side. Everyone here except you, the editor you canvassed, and some other Nish-stalkers with a grudge against him, think this thread should be closed with no action, and yet you continue to insist that other editors have "agreed with you" in your baseless accusations that you made without evidence, and have been using their "agreement" as justification for your refusal to retract them. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:36, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It's ok to ask people to cool down, but your warnings may not be taken kindly; it's a good idea to leave people alone if they ask you to. Reduces irritation all around. All the people involved are very experienced editors with thousands of edits to their name. EMG can respond to Nishidani if they want to themselves (and they have). Discussion in this area tends to become heated sometimes, but overall, the discussion is focused on the facts of the matter. I have left a short comment on the AfD page. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 09:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The thing is, judging by what's been said and done on the AfD, is that this isn't the first time something like this has happened. But it seems like, specifically for this incident, Greg has been the one to stay calm and collected during discussions (as best as he can, I can presume), while Nishidani's been the one to lose his cool and make all of these seemingly baseless accusations. Whatever the larger situation is, I think it should be addressed. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 09:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why not try engaging with the issues raised? Sure, tell Nishidani that he is very rude if you like, but while doing that, why not think about what he wrote and, assuming you don't like it, try to argue against his view. The article is 2017 Jerusalem Light Rail stabbing which concerns a knife attack by a lone Palestinian on a train a week ago (one student killed, and two others "including a pregnant woman" injured). By the way, if you are going to assert that someone has made personal attacks, it would be best to provide a diff and a short explanation of the problem. The diffs in this report do not go anywhere near showing attacks. Johnuniq (talk) 09:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have. Also, I understand that I gave Nishidani a couple of PA warnings. But at the time I posted this, I have decided to reconsider my stance on that, hence my current label of his "comments that indicate 'a strong failure to assume good faith and also seem borderline-personal attacks.'" Cyrus the Penner (talk) 09:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, the ARBPIA area is that bad? You think those two diffs show you engaging with the issues! OMG. Johnuniq (talk) 09:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have also been following the AfD and reading what is being said closely. Otherwise I'd be saying some really outlandish stuff. I don't think I'm required to be fully committed to discussing things out. If I see a problem, I'm obligated to report it, right? Cyrus the Penner (talk) 10:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • And you are entitled to be treated with respect and courtesy by administrators and by fellow editors, who should always AGF, especially when dealing with new and new-ish editors.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nishdani assumes a WP:BATTLEGROUND stance that makes him deaf. Here: [31], he appears not able to see that my argument is that the ongoing coverage generated by a trial produces/increases notability. Here [32] he accuses me of "specializ(ing) in these silly articles" by which I assume he refers to articles on such terrorist attacks as the Palm Sunday church bombings that I have created. Here [33] he states "E.M. Gregory starts these articles instantaneously using breaking news." as though that was a crime. I do, often, start articles on incidents such as the 2015 Abha mosque bombing and 2016 Minnesota mall stabbing when it is clear that a breaking news story is of a nature that will sustain an article. To me, this seem like routine action to take. But here here [34] he attacks me with the slur on my editing that I regularly created article on terrorist attacks that are rapidly deleted. This is simply untrue, and my request [35] that he check the facts was ignored, although he has returned to the page to comment on a separate issues since.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't see that any administrator action is necessary here. That said, Nishidani, please consider how your messages will be received before you send them; bringing up editor's article creation history and otherwise belittling their contributions is not helpful at discussions unrelated to those concerns. And Cyrus the Penner, you'll have more luck explaining your concerns about this kind of behaviour in the future if you don't template the regulars. Let's all take deep breaths and move on; nothing here warrants administrator intervention in my eyes. Sam Walton (talk) 10:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Its not the fist time that Nishadani was warned for his personal attacks and casting WP:ASPERSIONS on other editors .Maybe enough with the warnings and take some action?--Shrike (talk) 13:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I've seen the interactions and cannot see any need for administrative actions here. E.M.Gregory, the target of some allegedly adverse comments, is an editor who themselves can often be rather spirited and curt in the course of passionate disagreements relating to terrorism and Israel/Palestine articles. Nevertheless both E.M.Gregory and Nishidani have important contributions to make and this isn't big enough for ANI. So time to move on I think. AusLondonder (talk) 12:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi, may I ask why a deletion discussion was set to the 500-edit threshold? I looked in the history of the discussion but found no incidents of vandalism or abuse, so are all deletion discussions in this topic area protected by default? ValarianB (talk) 15:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    BU Rob13 did it, I have no idea why. L3X1 (distant write) 15:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok thanks, I asked on their talk page. ValarianB (talk) 16:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    ValarianB he was following the Arbcom agreement that no editor or IP with 500 edits or less can edit anything related to the Israel-Palestine conflict.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    So many labyrinths to navigate but I think i found the pertinent part at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3 ? If so, is even posting in this discussion a transgression? If so, my apologies. ValarianB (talk) 16:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know if IAR mixes well wil ArbCom, but I'm pretty sure posting on AN/I doesn't break the spirit of the rules. L3X1 (distant write) 17:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @ValarianB and L3X1: Per WP:ARBPIA3#General Prohibition, which I've alluded to in a couple of my earlier comments, I/P-related noticeboard discussions, including presumably AFD, are closed to non-extendedconfirmed editors. Even if IAR allowed exceptions to this, specifically unbanning new editors from an AFD discussion (when AFDs are historically prone to off-site canvassing and bad-faith actions by the COI editors who wrote the articles) seems really unlikely. @TheGracefulSlick: Technically, your use of "anything" is not entirely accurate. They are apparently allowed edit article talk pages, but not the articles themselves, or noticeboard discussions. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Obviously take with a grain of salt, but Nishidani has been warned many times that his behavior and comments can be unacceptable. As was pointed out earlier, there were a few AE actions where this was mentioned. If nothing comes of this, I would at the very least request a "Final warning" to Nishidani to stop being uncivil and condescending to other editors. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have complained many times to Nishidani about his denigrating language towards his opponents, me included. I have complained about it publicly several times as well on various forums uncluding WP:ARBPIA. Years ago there existed a procedure on Wikipedia called "User Review", and many times I have felt that this would have been the ideal procedure to put some checks on Nishidani. Putting down other editors, insulting their intelligence, and questioning their capabilities and qualifications, is not the way to win an argument, and makes for a very unpleasant atmosphere, which is not conductive for dispute resolving, productive editing or minimizing conflicts. Unfortunately, Nishidani engages in all of these habitually. Based on years of experience with Nishidani, I feel that even though his contributions are valuable, there is more value in banning this editor from the - already complicated and heated - area of WP:ARBPIA, than in allowing him to conduct his behavior unbridled. Debresser (talk) 19:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? That's quite interesting. Would you mind providing diffs of your reports so I know what exactly you're referencing? Cyrus the Penner (talk) 19:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Non-administrator comment) Nish has a sharp tongue at times, but in my interactions with him he has shown an almost superhuman amount of patience and tolerance toward what most others would consider the grossest of WP:IDHT and WP:GAME behaviour. So when someone comes along and says, essentially, "Nishidani was rude to me", I am inclined to assume good faith on Nishidani's part. So yeah, I'm inclined to agree that there's no admin action required here. Also (this is probably unrelated, but Cyrus should read and understand our policies on vandalism and edit-warring. Unambiguous vandalism can be reverted more than three times in one 24-hour period, but on 2017 shooting of Paris police officers he reverted IP edits that may or may not have been bad (they were unsourced and removed possibly unnecessary square-brackets from a quotation) four times in the space of 27 minutes. (I noticed this because Cyrus is a fairly new user, and Nishidani generally edits articles new editors are not allowed edit, so I checked what articles Cyrus was editing, and while he doesn't seem to have violated any ArbCom restrictions, I noticed that 83.6% of his edits are to the mainspace, which in my experience is a sign of an edit warrior, so I "Ctrl+F"ed his contribs for "undid".) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I looked a bit more closely.
    • This is not a personal attack by any stretch. It's a statement of fact that for every Palestinian=>Israeli attack there are multiple incidents that go the other way. To say that Nishidani was lying that editors on his side of the fence don't imitate the behaviour of "pro-Israeli" editors, one would need evidence of him (or other "pro-Palestinian" editors) creating such articles. There is no failure to assume good faith for the same reason -- if anything Cyrus is the one failing to assume good faith, and should provide some proper evidence.
    • This is not a personal attack. If it were a strawman argument that would be one thing, but E.M.Gregory did literally say that because a newspaper article reports that the accused will face trial, that must make the crime notable enough to have a standalone Wikipedia article. There is also no failure to assume good faith, as he was just responding directly to the comment in question.
    • Since Cyrus's accusation of "borderline personal attacks" is clearly baseless, the repeated templating of Nishidani's talk page was disruptive.
    • Ditto this.
    • "Condescending" or not, this was in response to a string of clearly disruptive edits Cyrus made on Nishidani's talk page. Telling someone to stop following you when they are clearly following you is the opposite of a bad-faith action, and it is not standard practice on Wikipedia to sanction editors for getting annoyed when someone harasses them just because the harasser wants us to. @Cyrus the Penner: If you have Nishidani's talk page on your watchlist, please respect his wishes and remove it.
    I'll get to the rest in a bit.
    Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the thing: I DON'T have his talk page on my watchlist, never did, never will. If it isn't personal attacks he's guilty of, then it's making these baseless accusations and assumptions. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 02:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, then you should read his comments (including this later one) as a somewhat gruff request to stay off his talk page, a request he is entitled to make and one which you are normally obliged to respect. See this thread further down this page. His gruffness can be easily explained by your having posted a string of "warnings" about "personal attacks" that weren't personal attacks on his page. WP:BITE is an essay you might want to cite when justifying your actions with I'm still learning the ropes around here, but WP:TEMPLAR is a just-as-widely-respected essay that you definitely should read. It's really annoying for experienced editors when new editors (who shouldn't even be editing those articles, honestly) show up and start haranguing them about policies they don't understand. And "don't understand" is me being generous and assuming your inexperience actually is responsible for your not knowing what a personal attack is. Now that I have told you that you are incorrect, inexperience is no longer a valid excuse, as even new editors are expected to listen when they are corrected. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "Well, then you should read his comments as a somewhat gruff request to stay off his talk page, a request he is entitled to make and one which you are normally obliged to respect." Well, there's no harm in asking nicely. How do I, or anyone else, expect to collaborate with fellow editors like him if they're just going to lose their cool?
    "See this thread further down this page" For your information, I did not write down all of that; I copy-and-pasted this template. So yeah, he just dissed the writing style of a Wikipedia template, not my own. I'm going to honor his request and stay off his talk page, but you (or someone else) should probably tell him that because that's just another example of him making a baseless accusation.
    "His gruffness can be easily explained by your having posted a string of "warnings" about "personal attacks" that weren't personal attacks on his page." Well, he should've explained me that to me in the first place. Nicely too.
    "It's really annoying for experienced editors when new editors (who shouldn't even be editing those articles, honestly) show up and start haranguing them about policies they don't understand." Most points taken, but...what the heck are you getting at with the bolded text? Last I checked, Wikipedia is edited collaboratively and nothing is hands-off for anyone (not at first, that is).
    Cyrus the Penner (talk) 05:38, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, there's no harm in asking nicely. How do I, or anyone else, expect to collaborate with fellow editors like him if they're just going to lose their cool? Again, when I first posted in this thread I was working under the assumption that Nishidani had been provoked, since I know from experience that he has a frustratingly long temper. Further inspection revealed that you had provoked him (you posted a string of bogus "warnings" on his talk page based on your own flawed understanding of what constitutes a "personal attack"). You then revealed that actually you are much more likely to use your cool than Nishidani (the shouting above).
    For your information, I did not write down all of that; I copy-and-pasted this template. So yeah, he just dissed the writing style of a Wikipedia template, not my own. No, he was almost certainly well aware that you used the template. He was joking about how ironic it is that you would use a template that so clearly reflected different sentiments to yours. I'm going to honor his request and stay off his talk page, but you (or someone else) should probably tell him that because that's just another example of him making a baseless accusation. You realize that by continuing to actively request sanctions for him based on nothing, you are likely to earn yourself a WP:BOOMERANG, right? Your claiming that you intend to honour his request to stay off his page is pretty pointless in light of this.
    Well, he should've explained me that to me in the first place. Nicely too. No. You came onto his page and started lecturing him about what a bad widdle boy he is. Blame the wording of the templates (which are meant for new users anyway) if you like, but that excuse will not get you very far. He is under no obligation to continue to be "nice" to you on his own talk page when you treat him like that.
    what the heck are you getting at with the bolded text? Last I checked, Wikipedia is edited collaboratively and nothing is hands-off for anyone (not at first, that is). New editors are not allowed edit articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, per this 2015 decision by the Arbitration Committee. We have had a bunch of instances of editors trying to game the system by quickly racking up 500 edits (self-reverting in their own user-space, for example) and then waiting a month before jumping into articles on the Israel-Palestine conflict. You don't seem to be one of those editors (my looking through your edit history indicates you like articles on recent crimes, particularly murders, and happened across this AFD by accident), but you are still a new user, and new users, even extended-confirmed ones, should be editing cautiously, and humbly, when in the I/P area. You clearly have not, or else this thread would never have started. In fact, you made thirteen edits in December and then disappeared for three months, so you really only meet the ARBPIA3GP cutoff due to a technicality -- if you had registered your account at the same time as you started actively editing, your account would still be only three weeks old.
    Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a right to edit whatever I want. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 17:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you don't. You do not have a "right" to edit anything on Wikipedia. The Wikimedia Foundation grants you, at its own discretion, permission to edit a lot of pages on English Wikipedia. But even if we take your use of "right" figuratively, you are still wrong. There are a bunch of things on English Wikipedia (not going to go into other Wikimedia projects) that no editors are generally taken as being free to edit (other users' user pages, for example) and pages that it's generally seen as poor taste for any random editor to edit (talk pages of long-banned users, for example). Brand new accounts are generally banned from contributing to AFDs and the like because they were almost certainly canvassed off-site. There are also a hell of a lot of articles that new editors (IP editors and accounts with fewer than ten edits and four days since they were registered) are not allowed edit, and even some that there is a much higher bar (500 edits and at least a month since the account was registered) to pass before one is allowed edit them. The article in question (and the accompanying AFD) are in this latter group. You technically pass the bar, but only technically. You have more than 1,000 edits to your name and your account is over four months old, but of those 1,000+ edits, all but thirteen were made within the last three weeks. Editors who are only allowed contribute to an AFD because of a technicality should not be complaining about alleged violations of policy by other editors.
    And by the way, I am now 100% certain your templating of Nish's talk page was done in bad faith and not merited, since you did the same thing to me for my participation in this ANI thread. "Welcome" messages from people who claim to be new users still learning the ropes are incredibly annoying for editors who have been here for more than a decade. Please stop doing this.
    Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That's messed up, dude. I thought Wikipedia was a place for everyone to edit and share knowledge. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nishdani has previously accused me of violating WP rules, here [36], at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Jerusalem shooting attack, he accuses me of "ongoing defiance of policy, E. M. Gregory's attempt to turn Wikipedia into an ethnic exclusive version of Yad Vashem." I honestly do not know what policy I was accused of violating. I had created an article about a terrorist shooting attack in which 6 people were wounded and 2 killed on the day the attack happened, as is usual in terrorist attacks with multiple deaths, and had returned to source and expand it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here [37] is an administrator closing an AfD on an article I created about a 1936 anti-Jewish riot in Mandatory Palestine: "The result was keep. After discounting the "delete" opinions by Ijon Tichy and Nishidany because they are mostly personal attacks, nobody except the nominator supports deletion."E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:46, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    For Nishidani's PA that Greg mentioned, it's here. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 05:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Why is this still going on? There's absolutely nothing in the diffs presented in the original post. People are reduced to dredging up all sort of nonsense from months ago. Please either sanction Nishidani, or close this with no action. Also, please don't amend some vague closing statement in the latter case, otherwise people will use it to try to justify some nonsense complaint in the future, just as Shrike cited the AE report half a year ago. No action was taken, but a vague closing statement asking "all sides to chill" was appended in that case. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 08:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Can I suggest closing with a general admonition based on the following advice at WP:NPOV?

    'Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another.'

    I have always taken this practically to mean that in editing or writing articles on areas where conflict between two parties or states is described, editors are under an obligation to paraphrase sources in such a way that all due information regarding the respective POVs is reproduced. To take snippets from sources, while ignoring anything that makes the picture look more complex, is not acceptable, yet is repeatedly done. Editors whose record is one of making edits only in favour of one POV should be reminded that we are obliged to cover all sides. Bolter21, for the 'Israeli angle', consistently does this, and his example is generally ignored by many of the plaintiffs here.

    As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process.

    There is far too much reverting on spurious grounds, without talk page justification, as opposed to waffle, and rarely do you see someone honouring the general rule to rephrase what you think tilted to bias.

    A POV fork is an attempt to evade the neutrality policy by creating a new article about a subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. POV forks are not permitted in Wikipedia.

    They're not permitted, but are endemic in this area. Thank you.Nishidani (talk) 11:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Nishdani here makes a more formal version of his familiar demand that attacks: shootings, stabbings, car rammings, bombings - terrorism-related or merely criminal be forbidden. Instead, such attacks (he calls them "POV forks") should be covered only as part of a list. This would require deletion of yesterday's 2017 shooting of Paris police officers as a "POV fork... not permitted in Wikipedia."E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No, Nishidani is arguing that people like you who create articles only on one side of the conflict should not be allowed to get away with it, because it a violation of NPOV. Here's a very simple example, taking the start of the 1936-39 Arab revolt in Palestine. You created articles on the 1936 Anabta shooting and The_Bloody_Day_in_Jaffa (where Jews were killed), but for some strange reason ignored the intervening incident when the Irgun killed two Arabs in retaliation. A more blatant example of POV forking can scarcely be imagined. There are dozens of such examples. I think Nishidani's hope is forlorn, myself. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    To repeat, E.M.Gregory. I have never censored anything. I and Bolter21 from a different perspective have consistently added material regarding Palestinian attacks on Israelis for some years now. Check my record. I have written many articles on things that are of deep importance to Jewish settlers, like Joseph's Tomb, etc. I, like all editors here, do not create articles on Palestinian youths being gunned down for throwing stones, 17 cases in 2016 or of incidents of soldiers murdering a woman because she brandished a pair of scissors at them, as they stood protected by armour and a barrier some distance from her. It would be easy to ratchet up my 'article creation' figures by jumping at these weekly occurrences, to push a pro-Palestinian POV. I refrain from that temptation, as I think editors with the other POV should refrain from making articles on every single incident in which a Palestinian kills or injures a non-Palestinian. That is my reading of both WP:NPOV and WP:NOTNEWS. And if editors rack up a record for creating article only on victims from one side, I am entitled to think that they are abusing wiki mainspace to promote an agenda. I'm quite sure, from the outset, that this practice will not stop, but I will continue to exercise a right to protest at what I believe is an abuse.Nishidani (talk) 16:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please check you tendency to make grand, sweeping, patently false assertions of fact, such as the assertion that editors are "making articles on every single incident in which a Palestinian kills or injures a non-Palestinian." Nor have I accused you of "censoring" anything. And stop attempting to hijack this discussion by making up new rules. In response to your latest accusation, I write all kinds of articles, including articles about terrorist attacks in many countries. NPOV editing requires that editors stick to the facts and maintain a neutral tone, it does not require that any individual editor create or abstain from creating articles about any topic or category of topics, so long as the articles themselves are reliably sourced and written in a neutral tone.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:55, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Read closely. censor rephrases your inference from Kingsindian's point (while dodging its gravamen) that if the arguments he and I supplied are correct, 'In that case we must eliminate . .'. I did not make up new rules, I insisted the existing ones be correctly interpreted rather than wikilawyered. If, by analogy, we had an editor only writing instant articles on Black Americans involved in homicide, while ignoring incidents of homicidal whites, the deduction I make here, which is contested, would be considered fair. It's that simple. Nishidani (talk) 18:53, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    E.M.Gregory: Here's why the articles you created were POV forks. The section in the main article: origins of the 1936 Arab revolt has one sentence each, for the incident on 15 April (two Jews were killed), 16 April (two Arabs were killed), and 19th April (the disturbance spread and many Jews were killed by an Arab mob, a general strike was called and the Arab revolt began in full swing). The section also contains background from the early 1930s and gives explanations of what all sides (the Zionists, the British and the Arabs) were doing. A person who wants readers to understand the events of 1936-39, and not propagandize, needs all this information presented in context in one place. Now, you create articles on the incidents on 15 April and 19 April, strip all the context, and make the story a straightforward "Arabs killed Jews". This is so blatant that it is impossible to believe that it isn't intentional. You do this again and again, and pretend not to understand what you do.

    I have concluded that it's a waste of time trying to stop you, because many of these AfDs end up "no consensus" based on a "party line vote"; and the articles are kept. Congratulations on finding a loophole and exploiting it to the max. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    regardless, the issue here is not about content. It's about Nishidani violating 5p. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how those would constitute POV forks. I think Greg's just trying his best to inform readers about the violence Arabs have committed against Jews. There's really nothing in there that would benefit the information. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 17:48, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    In 12 years of editing, I have made, as a last resort, 2 cases at AN/I or AE against abusive editors, despite the huge number of POV pushers there. At the same time, I have been brought to these boards dozens of times, mostly by editors who then later get banned, not least because they jump at frivolous stuff to try and get me off the I/P area, and engage in a lot of dubious behavior, like sockpuppetry. Many here pushing for my exclusion on these trivial grounds should ask themselves why they keep reporting me, and I don't retaliate. I believe it is because I don't think we're here to play games. Editing is a serious science, not a POV playground. Nishidani (talk) 18:53, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you should be asking yourself why people tend to report you. There's clearly a cause for that if not one, not two, but four or five different users agree that you're being unnecessarily aggressive. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 23:42, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Cyrus, the reason people report Nishidani is because they are belligerent. Nishidani's point is that he, by contrast, is extremely tolerant and patient. Sometimes frustratingly so. User:Curly Turkey and User:CurtisNaito can attest to that. The latter engaged in a war of attrition on numerous talk pages over several years that wore my patience thin fairly quickly to the point where I gave up and moved on, while Nish kept arguing, but it never occurred to him to open an ANI thread, while the former opened an ANI thread after only about a month of it, which is pretty standard. And in fact when Nish opposed Curly's ANI solution on one occasion based solely on the principle that, essentially, "banning editors sucks", which was extremely frustrating for the rest of us, but which also proves pretty conclusively that one cannot doubt Nishidani's patience, tolerance and willing to assume good faith to the bitterest end. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've had no previous interaction with any of the principals but it's hard to miss this discussion. There's no question that some of the comments made on that page are over the top. One I found offensive: someone said "stick a knife in this" (a reference to the article). But there's a lot of heat in this general area and I'm not sure there's anything actionable here. All involved and particularly Nishidani should be cautioned to assume good faith (no matter how much that principle is observed in the breach). Full disclosure: I just !voted to "merge" with the rail article. Coretheapple (talk) 19:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The knife comment was mine, and I got it after seeing someone else make an identical remark on an AfD discussion on 2017 Paris machete attack, which I thought would be appropriate to use in the Light Rail stabbing as well. But I apologize if you were offended. That was never my intention. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 23:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait -- really? Black humour on Wikipedia is generally tolerated, but those commentsyour comment makes light of an incidents where peoplesomeone recently (!) lost their liveslife by being stabbed. That's pretty grotesque. Don't do that again. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Got it. Will be sending a warning to the user who made the first comment. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 00:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Stop templating the regulars, as you have been told by several users multiple times in this discussion, and stop trying to blame other users for your own poor taste and lack of judgement. If you actually template @Lugnuts: as you are threatening to do, you should be blocked to prevent further disruption of this kind, as you are clearly trying to be antagonistic at this point. By the way -- I was being polite (and admitting my own ignorance of recent stabbings in Europe) by implying that my comment was not directly aimed at you and solely you. I had not looked at the article or AFD you mentioned, and didn't even no that there were no fatalities. It's still a black, and arguably poor-taste, joke, but not the kind that should necessarily be censured. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    WHAT THE HELL?! He made the comment first and I followed because I thought it was funny and wanted to use it, but then you told me it was a very inappropriate comment to make. Shouldn't it be fair that he be informed of how inappropriate it was to say that too? I was not doing this just to be trolly, I was doing it to be fair because I shouldn't get flak for doing something that had already been done by someone else without any sort of admonition or other response. By the way, I did not template him; I wrote the entire warning myself.
    "I had not looked at the article or AFD you mentioned, and didn't even no that there were no fatalities." Someone was injured by being stabbed, though, which does still make Lugnuts' comment inappropriate. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 01:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Is Cyrus the Penner daft, or does he just act that way?

    The preceding was thread started because Cyrus the Penner jumped into the deep end of the pool before he knew how to swim. (Gee, I didn't understand the difference between I/P and an IP address.) Directly above, he congratulates himself for giving an experienced editor a warning for a comment made at an AfD more than two months ago.

    Yesterday, I tagged a sentence at 2017 shooting of Paris police officers, asking for clarification because the sentence makes no sense: "[French President François Hollande] later released a statement saying French authorities were 'convinced' the shooting was a suspected terrorist attack." Either one is convinced, or one suspects terrorism, but one cannot be convinced of a suspected terrorist attack. Cyrus the Penner removed my tag, writing "That's what the source says." Doubly false. There were two sources at the end of the sentence, and neither one said that. When I asked him about it, he dissembled and finally removed my questions from his talk page without an explanation or an edit summary. He has zero credibility in my view.

    I recommend other editors scrutinize his contributions to Wikipedia, as I intend to, to ensure that there are no other ridiculous instances of original research or just plain foolishness. I recommend an administrator close both the preceding thread and this one, or consider a boomerang against Cyrus the Penner for initiating and continuing a silly and baseless complaint out of his own foolishness. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    It's worth noting what Cyrus the Penner just wrote on E.M.Gregory's talk page: "The coordinated effort to discredit us over at ANI is astounding, mind-boggling really. I never knew people on Wikipedia are capable of going out of their way to shut us truthful users down just because we are disseminating information they don't want us to disseminate to the public." Here we have an explicit serious personal attack against everyone at ANI who disagrees with Cyrus or Gregory. Yet Cyrus came here to accuse others of personal attacks! As well as a personal attack, the statement has the "we are on a mission to spread the truth" aspect which marks Cyrus as exactly the sort of editor that Wikipedia doesn't need. A boomerang is strongly called for here. I propose an indef. Zerotalk 06:58, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ha ha ha, LOL. It's true, though; E.M.Gregory, me, and like-minded users get loads of trash and our voices are always silenced because we have differing views on how Wikipedia should present Islamic terrorism to an audience. They just banned a friend of mine all because he was trying to create an article about Islam-related terrorist attacks. Apparently, the mainstream thing to do in Wikipedia when it comes to Islamic terrorism is delay categorizing attacks as such, citing stuff like WP:BLPCRIME, even though MULTIPLE media reports have consistently mentioned the perpetrators' sympathies towards radical Islamism and Islamic terrorist organizations. You should see 2017 Stockholm attack; it's CRYSTAL-CLEAR it was an Islamic terrorist attack, yet no one is allowed to use the I-word in there. Certain editors have even gone as far as removing WP:RS like The New York Times, claiming that Swedish government sources are more reliable than that. Wikiwashing truly is a serious problem and it needs to be addressed ASAP. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 07:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • So ... is the OP going to be blocked? He has now essentially admitted to being here to spread the "truth" about "Islamic terrorism", even admitting to discussing it with his off-wiki friend LeoHsn (talk · contribs) (They just banned a friend of mine all because he was trying to create [an article that was created by LeoHsn] per this tag dating from the days when the page was live, for those who like me can't see the deleted edit history -- I'm not sure if Cyrus thought this information would be hard to find). The fact that no one else is talking about "Islamic terrorism" (even Nishidani and Kingsindian are talking about false equivalence and POV forks) makes it pretty clear that this is really about Cyrus. Now, if Cyrus's accusations about E.M.Gregory, both here and on the latter's talk page, being similarly motivated by things other than the goal of creating a high-quality encyclopedia are accurate, I believe this thread should remain open until that is also investigated (Nish, do you have any evidence, like links to the previous POVFORK-production you appeared to allude to?), but blocking Cyrus seems like a no-brainer at this point. (Note that User:Curly Turkey expressed a similar sentiment on my talk page as I was typing this -- pinging him in case he wants to formalize that in the form of a !vote; I don't think anyone would say he was canvassed, given that his first involvement here was as my talk page stalker who saw Cyrus trolling me on my talk page.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Looked a bit deeper at the on-wiki relationship between the two. Cyrus has been complaining about "censorship" for at least the last several weeks.[38][39][40][41][42][43] He has also been making some pretty grotesque islamophobic comments.[44][45][46][47] He even got called out by a bunch of editors for using an article talk page as a soapbox for his anti-Muslim rhetoric. And I found out that he directly canvassed E.M.Gregory on the latter's talk page (not just a ping) and was almost certainly aware of what I/P meant since Gregory used it in converstation with him and he responded, meaning he was deliberately misrepresenting the facts above and only backtracked when I caught him out.[48][49][50] The deeper one goes down this rabbit hole, the worse it gets. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't feel right "formalizing" things without going thoroughly through the diffs, etc., but it should be clear at this point that Cyrus is WP:NOTHERE for anything but anti-Islamic POV pushing. And I think this is enough Israel—Palestine for me for 2017 ... Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, me too honestly. I just saw a familiar name show up on ANI for the first time in a while. I might be able to get some article editing in over GW, thankfully. Work's just been pretty hectic lately, so reading and contributing to the drahma boards -- which apparently includes RSN now (!?) so that I can't really be blamed for picking ANI -- is a lot easier than researching Chinese poetry at the moment. But yeah, Nish was probably right when he warned me away from I/P a few months back. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:36, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    What on Earth is going on? Please don't block anyone. This complaint was silly (overreaction over a trivial or nonexistent matter) and a boomerang would be silly. The longer this ANI complaint runs, the sillier it becomes. Please just put this thing out of its misery. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Kingsindian: Didn't you see the "religion of peace" diffs? And the censorship ones? Yes, this whole ANI thread was bogus, but the OP knew that before he opened it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I did; someone told Cyrus that Wikipedia is not a forum or soapbox, and the discussion was hatted. That advice can be repeated if necessary. There wasn't any disruption to the encyclopedia (unless one counts this ANI thread). An indef is too harsh. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: Indef block for Cyrus the Penner

    Per all the nonsense above, it's clear that the OP is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, and he's wasted a hell of a lot my energy and that of others already. He has been deliberately trolling, posting "warnings" on talk pages despite multiple user telling him to stop, using article talk pages as forums for general anti-Muslim babbling, canvassing, making very serious accusations of bad behaviour and repeatedly refusing to provide evidence, twisting peoples' words... There is clearly no good that can come of him continuing to edit here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: Some kind of BOOMERANG for E.M.Gregory

    As the original proposer of this bogus ANI thread[51] and someone who has apparently been engaged in no shortage of disruptive POV-forking himself (I am trusting Nishidani's word on this, admittedly), I don't think it would be right for this thread to get closed with the one who opened this ANI thread on the direction getting indeffed and the one who egged him on not getting some kind of sanction. If no one else has, I might consider going through the 301 articles he boasts of on his user page, and see what percentage of them are POV-forks on random cherry-picked instances of anti-Israeli violence by Palestinians.

    Gregory, though, has been here for a while and I am not comfortable saying unequivocally that he is NOTHERE, so I don't know if an indef would be appropriate. What does the floor think? TBAN from "terrorism and actions that have been described as terrorism, broadly construed"?

    Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose. See my comment above. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. While E.M. Gregory, as the diffs show, and as this (Murder of Georgios Tsibouktzakis) ridiculous stub confirms, appears to be on a mission to write articles about every incident where Palestinians have killed people, while staying mum about any incident involving Israeli violence, his numerous articles consistently get some backing from other editors in AfDs, which means he is under the impression that long discussion has not set forth clear guidelines which would deny him the liberty to continue writing such things. As long as the rules allow the kind of equivocation over Notability he can't be punished for what he does.Nishidani (talk) 12:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Apparent vandalism at Anioma people by IP address 194.74.238.137

    Resolved
     – no administrative action needed at this time. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    There seems to be some random changes, including link changes. I'm not quite sure what user warning Template to use for this, so I'll pass this incident on for a more experience wiki-er. Also, this is an IP address... Link is here SnivyFan1995 (talk) 14:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • They don't look random to me. Can you explain? Drmies (talk) 16:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm, the user replaced [[Isoko people|Isoko]] with [[Urhobo people|Isoko]]. This results in a case of linking to the same page twice (overlinking) within the same section. Anyway, after reviewing the rest of the article, I retract my concern about this user vandalising the page. My mistake. The user also changed the wording quite a bit as can be found here, so I got a little concerned. Sorry about that. I'll just remove the extra link, I s'pose. Gunnerfreak from Yohoho Puzzle Pirates 17:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

    Gianluigi02 - Persistent addition of unsourced/improperly sourced material

    The article List of terrorist incidents in April 2017 is a mess of WP:OR and failed WP:V. In 99% of cases, the source provides does not explicitly call the even terrorism.

    One editor, Gianluigi02, has a history of adding incidents to terrorism related lists where the sources do not support inclusion. Examples: [52], [53], [54], [55]. This user has racked up multiple final warnings regarding this behavior, most recently on April 2. Given that it's not "obvious vandalism", ANI seemed to be the appropriate forum to bring up this disruptive behavior. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I fail to see how the first three aren't terrorist attacks. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 19:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources do not label them as terrorist attacks. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Left a custom final warning [56] instead of a template. If they ignore, ping me. --NeilN talk to me 19:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @NeilN: Thank you EvergreenFir (talk) 14:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Unusual IP starting a war

    It seems that this IP address has been loitering about ever since I have restored a point-blanked edit on the Ángel Pagán article. I would request assistance to see if you guys can settle this debate. Thank you for your support. Slasher405 (talk) 21:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Why did neither of you take it to the article's talk page? --Tarage (talk) 22:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's proof of it now. Slasher405 (talk) 22:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. Slasher405, go talk it out on the talk page. Stop edit warring. --Tarage (talk) 22:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    What does "point-blanked" mean? Did you mean "blanked"? It looks like the IP editor didn't actually remove anything you added, they just moved it down (I don't know why you put a warning template for blanking on their talk page). According to their messages on your talk page, they believe that the content you added does not belong in the lead section, which is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article, according to the guideline they linked you to. Your edit summaries ("Can't do that" and "Point-blanking") don't seem very helpful either. ~barakokula31 (talk) 22:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It was only a partial blank down, referring to WP:PAGEBLANKING, but I successfully restored it. Sometimes, editors have to be wary when removing content, even if they don't cite a reliable source. Slasher405 (talk) 22:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not what that means. Stop edit warring and go to the talk page. --Tarage (talk) 22:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Inexplicably referring to an IP as an "unusual IP". Is this because it is an IPv6 address? What is unusual about that, and why is that significant to this complaint?
    • Referring to a content dispute as the other editor "starting a war". If you are referring to edit warring, please read the first paragraph of WP:Edit warring.
    • Bringing a content dispute to this page instead of following guidance at WP:Dispute resolution.
    • Inventing terms like "point-blanking" and "partial blank down" and expecting others to know what you're talking about. How does that facilitate communication?
    • Did you notice that the largest removal from the lead was simply moved to a section below the lead? Did you understand the other editor's rationale for doing that?

    It seems to me that you are greatly over-estimating your own editing competence. For the foreseeable future I would suggest you focus more on learning and collaborating, and less on "correcting" of other editors. Do not bring content disputes to ANI. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Per a previous comment on my talk page, we have reached an agreement. It seems that this case is pretty much resolved now. Slasher405 (talk) 16:48, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Aztec, New Mexico

    Requesting assistance with this, and I've also asked for a block of the user. In the last few days the article has been subject to persistent promotional editing, including copyright violations and unsourced trivia. I don't think we need to know how many picnic tables and trash cans exist in each park, and spending my time reverting is, well, a waste of time. Perhaps someone could clean this up and protect the article. Thanks, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User blocked for one week with the warning that any further disruption may result in an immediate indefblock. I don't think the page needs protecting, since it seems to have been just the one user doing all of the damage, but I've added it to my watchlist and will keep an eye on it. – Juliancolton | Talk 23:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Juliancolton. I know that reporting here was a bit of overkill, but I felt exasperated. Much appreciated. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Suicide in free verse on REDACTED

    Not sure what current policy is, I've been away. For your consideration I bring this. My belief is this is free association rambling due to illness or drug use. Do not see it as a credible expression of suicidal intent. Have not notified user as I do not believe he is coherent. Dlohcierekim 23:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, user page previously contained rambling text regarding Donald Trump and child pornography until it was deleted. Home Lander (talk) 23:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've applied a 12 hour block because he went on to rambling on a user's talk page. Dlohcierekim 23:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    An editor notified me of this so I removed some material from the talk page and revision-deleted. The e-mailer has also notified the WMF as per emergency procedures. All such posts must be viewed as being credible please. The thing to do is to follow the instructions at WP:Emergency. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Some of this account's contributions are a little concerning as well. Home Lander (talk) 23:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    have taken steps per WP:Emergency. This is my first application. Someone might want to check my work. Dlohcierekim 01:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Getting tired of AIV being spammed

    This editor has been spamming AIV with an completely inappropriate amount of reports to AIV at once, for some time now. They continued to do so, despite being blocked numerous times by Coffee. They continue to evade their block by continually jumping between random IP ranges. I've seen static IP changes before, but the vast difference between the IPs that repeat the behavior described above leads me to think this evasion is deliberate. This editor disruptive AIV is what led Coffee to place a protection on AIV, while a abuse log could be made for the issue at hand. Am I the only one that is aghast at the fact that there continues to be nothing done about this? As I said before, the range between the IP ranges involved would cause way too much collateral damage for a simple SPI case to be a sufficient resolution. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 03:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I didn't realize that this has apparently been an ongoing problem. I have indeffed the new account. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ad Orientem Thanks. I've unfortuately have been aware of the problem for about a week now. It may have been going on for longer. I'll continue to keep an eye out of any sock of this editor, as I have a feeling they are going to switch to using actual accounts, with the implementation of abuse filter 768/845. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 01:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Trolling talk pages

    Resolved
     – Blocked. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 11:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:JOHNRJR88 has trolled 2 talk pages in addition to his own talk page and sandbox. I'm not sure how to handle disruptive edits only to talk pages and user spaces, but one has already been tagged by another user. RM2KX (talk) 07:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked as vandalism-only account--Ymblanter (talk) 07:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User repeating reposts of AfD-deleted biography

    Resolved
     – Sock and master blocked. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 11:38, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added another account above which is the master, blocked 72 hours for sockpuppetry and indeffed the sock.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 08:48, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've salted the new titles. Now we can look forward to recreations with variations in the use of caps etc. (WP:BEANS? I don't really think so; anybody can figure out that possibility, and often does.) Bishonen | talk 15:16, 21 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

    Vandalism that nearly crashed my browser

    Resolved: User blocked. If you had rollback that would have easily been done with Huggle. (non-admin closure) Yoshi24517Chat Very Busy 15:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Resolved
     – User blocked. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 11:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Luckily I was able to undo this: [60]. Can someone warn the user who was responsible for this for this extremely large edit? It could have crashed my browser! TheWizardof2017 (talk) 09:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: it consisted of the same image repeated constantly. TheWizardof2017 (talk) 09:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure how he even managed to do it as the logs show I blocked him a minute earlier. I suppose he must have already started editing it at the time of the block. Deb (talk) 09:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    GTVM92

    GTVM92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has been previously blocked for "persistent addition of unsourced content" three times, has recently started a new wave of his unconstructive edits:

    1. In this edit, the user has fabricated the results of separate approval pollings for the candidates and presented them combined as an opinion poll for voting. He also brought 22% voting for "others", out of nowhere. I checked the source and added the genuine results in this edit.
    2. Here he adds three sources for his own original research. This source does not mention any reason for disqualification of Ahmnadinejad, but is used as a reference for the reason "possibly for the opened legal file at the court". This source was used to verify disqualification of several candidates while they are not mentioned in the source at all, and the reason "due to age".
    3. This edit is a total hoax. The sources cited do not mention any party conventions held. This one is for example an interview with Hossein Marashi. You can ask a Persian language native editor to verify what I'm saying.
      When you remove all the section, said "What's this? Fictional party convention held in your own fantasy?", but you know that Popular Front of Islamic Revolution Forces and Islamic Coalition Party are held conventions for selecting candidates, as you add to their article. Reformists are also do soo, just not helding congress but selecting candidates with votes. This is one of the examples that you are removing many things that are correct and occured in Iran, just not a good source I found for them because many news in Iran are said just in telegram and other apps. GTVM92 (talk) 16:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      @GTVM92: It's kinda hard to prove something, at least on Wikipedia, without source. If you can find reliable sources for the information, that's fine. —JJBers 16:56, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    4. In this edit, the source provided does not even mention radio programs. It does not mention time dedicated to each candidate, airing dates or channels airing programms. And yes, this is also a hoax because I cannot find any source citing such information, even in native Persian!

    —Pahlevun (talk) 11:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems to be a disruptive account from looking at the contributions. User is most likely WP:NOTHERE, and hasn't bothered to respond to the talkpage, or the ANI. —JJBers 14:48, 21 April 2017 (UTC) Updated at 16:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Andreinaepa93

    So along come this user and makes Nacarid Portal, which was CSDG11 on the 12th of April by Jac16888. They then recreate it uder the name Nacarid Portal Arráez and the go and get a sock names User:Aepa0911 who rebuild the article, removes tags, and makes Nacarid Portal into a redirect. Can the article and redirect be deleted and salted? An SPI has been filed. Thanks. L3X1 (distant write) 17:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Well the G11 was just declined by Dlohcierekim, so at this point, I'd take it to AfD. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:53, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a PROD tag on it from April 14th, so I'm not going to AfD it. CSD really needs to be reworked with more criteria and have G4 fixed to include recreates. L3X1 (distant write) 18:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Seeing as the author, and their sock have now been blocked, I'm going to CSD it. You're right on this, it's blatant adcopy and it's gone. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated upload of fair use images without tags

    ShineAries  Confirmed and blocked as a sock puppet of LuckyAries (talk · contribs · count). @Majora: Any images created by ShineAries are deletable per G5 if you think it's appropriate.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    ShineAries (talk · contribs)

    I came across this person when patrolling the file maintenance categories and they have repeatedly uploaded fair use images without the proper tags. Uploading them under the {{Somewebsite}} tag and uploading them in a resolution that is far far far too big. I have asked them to stop on their talk page and have been ignored. As it sits, their uploads are copyright violations as they refuse to add the proper tags to them to signal that they are uploaded under fair use. I could continue to follow them around, fixing all of their mistakes, but that seems a little much. Seems like this is the next logical step to bring this here. --Majora (talk) 20:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Some people are trying to obstruct use of Talk page for discussion of edits to main article.

    The following is a copy of a paragraph I just posted to Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories

    "The editor johnuniq is trying to conceal my attempt to discuss an edit to the article, by means of reverting a large amount of discussion, above. This amounts to highly improper manipulation of the WP article-editing process. Some people apparently want to prevent the main article from being edited, and their line of defense includes protection of the article itself from valid edits. That left the Talk page, which I have attempted to use to discuss the issue. Then, they move the goalposts once again, claiming that there must be a proposal for an edit. However, such proposals don't necessary appear out of thin air; their contents can and should be discussed. So, I discuss those issues. At that point, the goalposts shift again, saying that there has to be a "specific proposal". Oh, really? This wild abuse of the WP system is outrageous and thoroughly disgusting. I will initiate a complaint to WP:ANI, since it is clearly warranted now.)" 97.120.54.196 (talk) 20:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (uninvolved editor) You must notify an editor if you are going to discuss their behaviour on here. Instructions are provided in the large orange box at the top of the page. DrChrissy (talk) 21:01, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    97.120, please read the advice given to you here, under the heading "Purpose of Wikipedia", when you were editing as 97.120.31.14 (talk · contribs). Your involvement on the talk page is mostly building of your own original theories. Several editors have counseled you about this. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 21:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but I can't control my changing IP. I'm on a system which can have a single IP for a day, or perhaps as much as a week. Then it changes; don't know why. 97.120.54.196 (talk) 06:47, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    While I think the IP is probably hedging on original research and likely cannot implement what is suggested, I do think that the claim made by johnuniq on the IP's talk page "An article talk page is for discussion concerning actionable proposals to add or remove text from the article, in accord with reliable sources." is rather extreme. A talk page is used to discuss improvements to an article, which may require discussion that does not immediately involved anything immediately actionable. I know that there have been a few exceptional places where talk pages have been highly restrictive and only "actionable proposals" and discussions related to them were permitted (Gamergate, for instance), but that's the exception and doesn't seem to be the case here. The IP's posts don't necessarily violate FORUM, were there no original research , there may be something to be added to the article, so the outright removal (rather than hatting) is a bit of a questionable action. --MASEM (t) 21:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect Johnuniq removed the section as the IP was simply re-hashing the section they'd posted directly above that one, which had long been asked, answered and hatted. There is no point posting large screeds of exposition if it also doesn't include a precise explanation of what they want the article changed to (i.e. "Change X to Y", or "Add X to section Z". Otherwise it is completely pointless. Black Kite (talk) 22:10, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    True, different IP but repeating same claims, but then were I in johnuniq's position, that should still just have been hatted with comment "Asked and answered immediately above". I'm a very bit wary when, for a talk page not under any protection, even one that is likely to draw anonymous editors with their personal theories, to try to claim that only "actionable proposals" can be suggested on a talk page. I'm sure that just judging by that history that watching admins don't want to put up with a bunch of IP coming with bogus arguments and frustration can set in, and this might have been a curt statement in that light. If the IP problem is that bad, then one can turn to 500/30-type protection on the talk page as per GG. --MASEM (t) 22:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP's posts seemed in violation of WP:FORUM because it was essentially WP:OR, i.e., disassembling the cited reliable sources to "show" they actually stand for the opposite of their stated theses. User:Johnuniq hatted one such discussion, and the IP's very next post continued as if the hatting had never happened, so User:Johnuniq presumably escalated by deleting because the hatting had proven to be an ineffective deterrent. Weazie (talk) 22:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You said, "disassembling the cited reliable sources..." You don't seem to acknowledge that reliable sources can be misrepresented as to what they actually say. You are implying that if a source is reliable, anything the (former) editor said the source said somehow goes, and nobody else can challenge that assertion. Do you see the problem?
    Floquenbeam: I certainly don't disagree that some "birthers" are morons. But your statement, "birthers are morons", implies that they all are, including each and every point that any one of them has ever made. Is that really your position? 97.120.54.196 (talk) 06:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I watch several pages like Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories because they have been raised as problems at noticeboards. Recently, I have been feeling guilty about leaving Weazie to do all the work of repeating and repeating and repeating standard advice. I think the first occurrence from this IP can be seen in Weazie's full and patient reply on 13 April 2017. It appears over 50KB of text has been added to the talk page since then, not counting where the IP restored text that I had removed after leaving an explanation at User talk:97.120.31.14. If anyone feels the IP should have a place to post their views, please add a link to your talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 23:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As an aside, the IP's first post on that page (that I can find) is as 71.222.50.217 (talk · contribs), here, on 21 Feb 2017. Antandrus (talk) 23:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh Dear Someone should point out that the BLP policy applies to talk pages, not just the article itself. Those walls of text are disruptive and the IP editor is clearly an experienced editor who has logged out (which isn't allowed). The talk page should be given the same level of protection as the article, to allow a general cooling down of temperatures. From a thorough reading it appears that Johnuniq has been very patient and has assumed good faith. The IP editor has abused this, and unless someone can show me where WP:AGF means that talk pages can be flooded with BLP-violating nonsense, the page should be semi-protected. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Exemplo347: Could you explain why you believe that there is a violation of the BLP policy in the Talk page? Assuming you are referring to ex-President Barack Obama himself, this implies you believe that the content of the Talk page has some sort of libel against him. (Libel, I understand, is the primary issue that would lead to a BLP violation.) But it is not libelous to (hypothetically) assert that a person was born in Kenya, or was not born in Hawaii, for example. Barack Obama himself. like most people, has no personal recollection of where he was born; his knowledge where he was born comes from his recollection of statements of other people made as he grew up. The main issue I am currently addressing is the fact that Sarah Obama (Barack Obama's step-grandmother) was recorded twice in a 2008 interview claiming that she was present in Mombasa Kenya when Obama was born. Is that somehow really a BLP violation? I am pointing out that the source with this information was actually being misused to ignore this statement by Sarah Obama. I believe this study is no more Original Research than the study done by somebody previously who used that source, and asserted a fact in contradiction to that fact. 97.120.54.196 (talk) 07:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    BLP applies to far more than libel. BLP requires that we write Wikipedia articles, and discuss topics related to living people, using only high-quality sources; that we avoid gossip, rumormongering and conspiracy theories; and that we treat living people with respect and sensitivity when writing about them.
    Wikipedia is not a discussion forum for conspiracy theories, and Wikipedia talk pages are not a platform for you or anyone else to "hypothetically assert" a factually-wrong claim about a living person. There are many, many wretched hives of scum and villainy on the Internet where you may do such things. This is not one of them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. Well said, Exemplo347. I've semi'd the talkpage for a couple of weeks per WP:SOAP and WP:BLP. It's a bit of a pity to have to close it to all IPs, of course, but since the OP here jumps about, it's not possible to topic ban them from the page. I agree they're most likely an experienced editor logged out (which is indeed a neat way of avoiding topic bans and blocks). Sorry, but my AGF wears thin. Bishonen | talk 23:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

    Considering the fact that the IP editor continued the conversation after it was hatted by User:Johnuniq, I would be wary of the WP:BOOMERANG, if I were the IP editor. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 01:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't understand all of the terminology, but I assume you are suggesting that one user (in this case Johnuniq) can unilaterally cut off discussion on a subject, against the will of another user (me) without as much as a vote on the matter. Am I interpreting this correctly? This implies that johnuniq has some sort of special authority that I do not have. Who gave me that authority? May I read about it, to learn what he is entitled to do that I cannot? What if somebody disputes the assertion that a point was actually addressed and answered? 97.120.54.196 (talk) 07:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There isn't much that can be done, though. We could have the IP blocked, which might be an inconvenience, but I agree with Exemplo that this is sockpuppetry, and CU won't identify the master so we can indef. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)\[reply]
    I read somewhere on one of WP's background (rules) pages that a person who can't avoid changing IP is NOT engaging in sockpuppetry. I wish I could find it again. Or does that make too much sense? Keep in mind that I still believe that there has been much abuse so far, and this WP:ANI thread has barely scratched the surface of it. I could easily make a list, but it's obvious. Statements like "birthers are morons", "Those walls of text are disruptive...", etc. Also, I challenge the idea that I was doing Original Research: I was simply addressing sources (alleged to be reliable) that appeared to me to be misrepresented in their use in the article. Editors are allowed to do that, right? Indeed, the fact that above, someone claims to have semi-protected the Talk page, but that happened based in large part on the abuse I've already experienced there. Until that abuse is actually addressed, here, I suggest that is highly premature. 97.120.54.196 (talk) 07:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    97.20, I believe the people talking about sockpuppetry aren't referring to the fact that your IP changes, but to the likelihood that you're an experienced editor logged out. I know I was. You're certainly very good with the Wikipedia jargon for a new user. When you say I "claim" to have semi'd the talkpage — no, no, I don't claim it, I have semi'd it. You can't edit it now unless you get an account/log in to your account. I took that action because WP:BLP applies on talkpages too, and because Wikipedia talkpages aren't intended for constructing your own theories based on primary sources, or for arguing with secondary sources. See WP:WPNOTRS: "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." The "abuse" you complain about has merely consisted of attempts to point these Wikipedia principles out to you, here and on Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Wikipedia isn't your soapbox, and this board isn't either. The page has been semi'd so I don't see what else there is to do here. Time to close? Bishonen | talk 08:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

    Дагиров Умар

    Дагиров Умар was warned for "Edit War" in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladikavkaz , but he continues to edit the page as User:46.125.250.124. --Edmundo Vargas —Preceding undated comment added 10:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=776656476"