Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Conduct of Dan56

Dan56 (talk · contribs)

Topic ban requested.

User repeatedly violates WP:POINT, WP:AGF, WP:OWN, is stubbornly Wikilawyering, and repeatedly edit wars in the process as he willfully pushes his view without considering other editors' input.

• AGF: [1], [2], [3], [4]
• Recent edit warring, & WP:POINT in article editing (in the first diff, he disruptively removes [while I was still improving the section] reviews I'd added from the album ratings box) - chronologically: [5] + my response: [6] + [7]; [8] + [9]; [10] + [11] + [12] + [13]; [14] + [15] + [16] + [17] (←linked to Wikiproject discussion in which he said himself recently it was only a guide)

I'd addressed his behavior in article and talk page with a cordial message on his page, asking him to stop disrupting and start working collaboratively.

I know I have a disadvantage here as Dan56 has promoted many GAs or FAs (reading over ANI, that apparently tends to give you automatic pardon of Wiki guideline violations), but this user has a history of eschewing collaboration, of disruptive and tendentious editing, pushing POV, OWN attitudes, WP:battleground, disrupting editing to make a point, not assuming good faith, genre warring, accusing others of what he is exactly doing or has done, and many editors have called him out on his behavior and editing practices in the past, on various article talk pages (particularly RfCs). Dan56 evidently is not interested in changing his behavior as he feels his promotion of GAs absolves him of any responsibility for his actions and that he's potentially answerable to no one (as his unsanctioned acts would lead him to believe), evidenced, recently, here and here. Most of my encounters with him have been on the band Garbage's articles, at which he arrived about 7 months ago after being canvassed by another editor (who possibly didn't know about the policy then) in a content discussion, and where he willfully employed the same editing tactics and violations he's still willfully and freely employing.

Please see see this relevant RfC here, which is the (recent) source of this dispute, and where much of the aforementioned is evident further. Dan56 does not appear to want to contribute to a collaborative, disruption-free environment at this band's pages, where he has quarreled with me and engaged in all the aforementioned countless times. My request is a topic ban for this band's articles. What he's contributed (e.g., copy edit of reviews, date formats) (by essentially shutting out others, really) can just as easily be and have been contributed by myself or any of the other editors watching the article. And, as I pointed out in the RfC, If Dan56 had actually bothered to give me a minute or two to copy edit and fix issues and continue improving and augmenting the article, as opposed to just reverting and disrupting constructive edits none of that would occur. Of course, that appears to not be in his nature, particularly for these Garbage articles, for which he, going by all prior indication, has a bias against. --Lapadite (talk) 18:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Lapadite77 is personalizing a dispute which stems from my involvement at Talk:Garbage (album)#Album genres and the subsequent RfC for those genres, which didn't go Lapadite's way exactly, partly because I was invited by Andrzejbanas to weigh in and sided with him. Last October ([18]), I began cleaning up and expanding a section at Version 2.0 and have been involved there since. My recent revisions to Lapadite's edits were justified by guidelines I don't feel he can fully grasp at the on-going RfC, where he canvassed two of his recent collaborators at other "Garbage" articles to weigh in. Lapadite argued for his version of the article by drawing comparisons to other stuff in the RfC, so I dont believe he had any intention to drastically trim and properly paraphrase the quote farm he added to the article in question. The section in question is essentially complete, considering the notability of the reviewers and the viewpoints researched, so this is appears to be another attempt at creative control. Dan56 (talk) 02:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Did I mention Dan56 had a history of accusing people of things, never admitting he has done anything wrong, and creating striking lies and misleading statements which are easily refuted by the actual, readable evidence? In that Garbage album RfC, which one can readily see, toward the end, editors called him out on his intentionally misleading tactics (for which he took 0 responsibility for and ignored the comments, and which he again similarly employed in this recent RfC, which I commented on). I created a new poll, because the other was corrupted by Dan56's tactics and lies and more useful content had also been included in the article, with an updated proposal based on recent article edits, and it went smooth and successfully. Exactly the opposite of what he claims here. This accusation - "this is appears to be another attempt at creative control" - and the hypocrisy is utterly laughable. As you can see, in accordance with my report, Dan56 does not believe he does anything wrong. All of the aforementioned, articles and diffs linked, speaks for itself, regardless of how Dan disregards and reinterprets his actions and assumes of others'. If one were to bring all the editors that have called out Dan56 on his disruptive behavior and editing practices throughout various articles they would all agree with this. I don't link to past talk discussions not directly pertaining to this dispute because it may be tacky and doing so might be interpreted negatively but I have no problem doing so if asked. This is far from a personal dispute or vendetta, which I don't care for. You can see my cordial message on his page, and after that Garbage album content dispute he linked, I had very amicably discussed with him on his page some content matters on another article; unlike him, I don't hold grudges and I'm not here for battlegrounds and disruptive practices, only to improve articles. Dan56's presence at this band's articles has been continually disruptive as his POINTy, POV-pushing, OWN, Wikilawyering, NPOV/Stick to sources-eschewal, genre warring (a significant issue during that album article discussion he linked) and lack of collaboration inhibits progress. For instance, If he hadn't disrupted improvement of that article's section (specifically the start of my constructive edits which, as I said in the RfC [contrary to what he too claims here] were far from finished) that section would've been completed right soon and without the need of all that came after it. Of course he credits the current version (which needs a checking of sources and copyediting for POV, cherry picking, sticking to source) to his mighty self, since, liked I stated above, he shut editors out and steamrolled his edits, and while RfC had just started. Again, this isn't the first time here Dan56 inhibits or significantly slows down progress here, takes ownership of an article and disregards collaboration, in the process perpetuating an environment of only disputes (as I remarked near the end of the current RfC I linked: "Is there an RfC that's not a battleground with you? To which he replied, "that's cute and all".). I strongly believe a topic ban is best. --Lapadite (talk) 04:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

You need to file a report here. I recommend including only good evidence in the form of diffs. This thread will likely be closed, by someone else, accordingly. Or do you expect an admin to jump in and block the user per this report? Doc talk 08:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I expected admins to comment on ANI and consider the irrefutable content in all the links provided. Why do you think I should file a report there instead? That page says it is inactive, and the topic dispute isn't limited to RfC conduct, it also, and primarily, regards editor conduct on this band's articles, hence my request of a topic ban, and not another kind; WP:TBAN →"The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid an editor from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive, but to allow them to edit the rest of Wikipedia.". --Lapadite (talk) 09:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

• Another tendentious edit, which I partially restored. --Lapadite (talk) 09:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

• Another tendentious edit and reversal of copyedit/improvements, demonstrating again WP:OWN, POV, and Wikilawyering issues:

I copyedited, as edit summary details: [19]

He wrote, in another section on the talk page, at 10:08: [20] and 2 minutes later, made the following revert (including restoring of his tendentious, NPOV, undue weight-violating ratings replacement [mentioned in the first "Another tendentious edit" diff above]): [21]. The pre-copyediting version (his) that he restored is in many respects cherry picking, giving undue weight, and not sticking to source.

My response to his talk page post: [22])

I sincerely hope what has been provided and continues to be provided (obviously, again Dan56 has no plans to change his habits here) is more than enough to see why I, with reason, request a topic ban for Dan56, due to his considerable, disruptive OWN issues on this band's article, his complete disregard for collaboration, his consistent tendentious editing, knee-jerk reverts of improvements he disagrees with, violations of WP:PRESERVE and all else aforementioned.

Can any admins bother to tend to this thread? All that continues to happen is disruptive and more disruptive editing from Dan56. Lapadite (talk) 18:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Pinging a couple of editors, spotted while skimming ANI, that I believe are admins, to see if maybe this could start getting some attention (sorry if you're not one): Drmies, Stalwart111

I understand what Lapadite is saying, as some of my debates with Dan56 were similar in the past, but unfortunately, I think he's one of those editors that treads the line carefully, where he can come off as rude or abrasive, not its not really bad enough to warrant a block. Unless it starts escalating to personal attacks or hounding, I think a better approach would be to just keep starting discussions or RFC's, to come to a consensus that combats the WP:OWN issues. Sergecross73 msg me 20:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the disruptive editing guideline mentions some "tread the line" behaviors these kinds of editors may engage in such as: "Their edits often avoid gross breaches of civility, by refraining from personal attacks, while still interfering with civil and collaborative editing meant to improve the article". Dan56 doesn't do blunt personal attacks, although others may disagree, and this isn't a report on personal attacks nor a proposal to ban him from editing Wikipedia but a request for a topic ban, to rid of his considerable, still ongoing (after 7 months) pattern of disruption at this band's articles, his considerable OWN and WP:POINTy behavior, and considerable disregard for collaboration. He's still doing it, still reverting. And presumably this guy has many editors not wanting to speak against him, perhaps admins. Pretty much every other thread at ANI has several comments. This is just ridiculous. --Lapadite (talk) 22:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

More tendentious editing: [23] --Lapadite (talk) 01:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Part of Dan56's tendentious edits, is (first mentioned above) the constant replacing of a positive score with a negative score in the album ratings box (which already contains 10 review scores). It has been called out and explained multiple times on the talk page, noted how it's not only tendentious, but violates WP:UNDUE and WP:PRESERVE, but Dan56 keeps restoring it. There's also the persistent claim that reviews that agree on some element of an album are virtually incompatible in that regard in a reception section; summaries of reviews can't include similar opinions, unless of course for something that contradicts positive notions. Any admin's care about this pattern of disruption, OWN and tendentious editing? Seriously, this article would've been completely improved by now if Dan56 hadn't gone (and still continue) on a disruptive, tendentious crusade. --Lapadite (talk) 16:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Is this thread still open? Dan56 does like to ram a point home when he thinks he's right, the problem with that of course is that sometimes he is right. He's been very helpfully sorting out the "critical response" sections to numerous album articles to the extent that when I start improving one for WP:ALBUMS/500 I look at that and think, "good stuff, Dan's done it". With that in mind I'm just reluctant to come down like a ton of bricks on him. As others have said, he's never crossed the line into personal attacks, so all I can really advise is to just stick to the article and forget about who's saying what. It's the only sane method. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I won't pretend I've read all of this thread, but I'm not at all surprised to see Dan56's behaviour become the subject of another discussion. Just over a year ago, I talked GabeMc out of opening an RFC/U on this user, when Gabe and several others were fed up with him, and, although I could be wrong, I believe this was the near-miss referred to in a subsequent RfC on Dan56, in August 2014. I chose not to have any input into that discussion either, but the references there to Dan56 being so obviously pro-Robert Christgau and overly controlling of article content were all too familiar. My direct contact with Dan56 has been limited mainly to tedious discussions about album genres at Talk:All Things Must Pass and Talk:Led Zeppelin IV#"Heavy metal album"; I've seen numerous, similar discussions going on over the last year or two – for instance, at Talk:Crime of the Century, Talk:Are You Experienced (can't access the archive for that page), Talk:Sgt. Pepper's – but, quite honestly, just the sight of his username is enough to ward me off, unless I consider speaking up really important. Ritchie's correct when he says that "sometimes he is right", but at the same time, Dan56 behaves as if, by divine right, he must be so at all times – there's no element of compromise, nor any awareness that he might be making working on music articles a miserable experience for others. He drives editors away from the encyclopaedia, I'm convinced of it – and I can't help thinking that's fine by him, if he alone is left working on album articles here.

Doc commented above that Lapadite needed to supply specific diffs rather than launching an unsupported attack. I don't doubt that that's the correct way to proceed, but I sympathise with the frustration that Lapadite seems to be expressing. As Sergecross73 says about Dan 56: "unfortunately, I think he's one of those editors that treads the line carefully …" So, by and large, everything appears correct per the letter of the law but (I think) at the same time he's continually falling foul of the spirit of Wikipedia – pillars four and five, as I understand them.

Dan56 is the only editor I've ever felt the need to watch, and for all the wrong reasons. I see him constantly laying down the law with new editors and regularly removing the protests that arrive on his talk page, when those editors are not time-wasters but have a case to present. He initiated the removal of terms such as "favourable", "mixed", "unfavourable" from the album reviewer ratings template without (as far as I can see) posting any notice at all on relevant project pages such as Albums or Rock; if those terms have to go in favour of recognised scores and ratings, then fine, but anyone proposing such far-reaching changes, you'd think, would want as broad a consensus as possible. A select few were similarly invited to a proposal on alphabetising album articles' personnel sections (after which Mudwater and I put the word out to a wider audience). To me, along with the other actions mentioned, these are examples of how this user wants to – and does, unfortunately – dominate album articles on the encyclopedia. I don't have bad feelings towards anyone on Wikipedia but I think admins need to address this behaviour. I said to John around the time of an episode in March 2014, it's not just about looking at diffs and specifics, it's about the entire way this user conducts himself on Wikipedia. That's the problem, that's why a thread like this gets opened, and it's why there'll be another one about him within six months. And as I've mentioned, there are other conflicts concerning Dan56 (the January 2014 episode) that don't even get the attention they deserve. JG66 (talk) 16:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you hit the nail on the head JG66. That is precisely the grand problem. My frustration is exactly because this concerns a longstanding pattern and is far from the first time Dan56 does this on this band’s articles - which I discussed above. Dan56 certainly has had numerous disputes with other editors on other articles regarding this kind of behavior, and he does immediately delete all objections and warnings he gets from his page, sometimes mocking the editor that leaves a message or asserting his ‘status' (e.g., here and when I left him a disruptive editing notice in September of 2014. I’d actually mentioned a few of those past disputes, admittedly inappropriately, out of frustration, in that Garbage album talk page (inside the “off topic” shell) he linked in his post here. If what admins need is more proof of Dan56’s pattern of disruption I personally and perhaps others would have no problem linking several examples there and elsewhere. But like I said before, this is a topic ban proposal for this bands’ articles as my own interactions with Dan56 have mostly been there, and his constant disruption, disregard for collaboration, and POV pushing there is intolerable at this point. The problem is Dan56, as usual, might temporarily stop his overtly tendentious disruption and then start up later after ANI thread is closed, but especially if objecting editors leave the article. Like JG66 said, It will certainly reemerge, again (like it did months after the last album dispute); editors like Dan56 who don’t get sanctioned for their disruptive actions never learn and change; obviously they'd have nothing to learn from since, as they mask POINTy, OWN and tendentious behavior largely through Wikilawyering and 'status', hiding behind it and professing no wrong doing (others are at fault and personalizing), they normally don't see consequences, beyond a ‘don’t do it again’ slap on the wrist. In fact, the lack of consequences only reinforces that behavior. I’ve personally stopped improving this particular article, at least temporarily, as I find it futile; only thing I'm still doing is restoring Dan56's tendentious, POV edits/his inability to stick to source when it doesn't suit his bias. Like JG66 mentioned, Dan56 likes to appropriate an article, shutting out others who object to his editing practices, wanting to be left to his own devices. Other editors in the past have noted how he edits tendentiously on articles of artists he does not like, but he also edits tendentiously on artists he does like (for example, the reception section of this album - an article he wrote, and fixed after much FA dispute [ironically, concerning things of which he has accused others]). You can see this in his comments in both talk pages initially linked here. I don’t know how many more diffs from this particular article are needed; figured I’d linked enough and was already tired of linking as the thread received no comments. The page history is plenty evidence of how much revert/restoring happened there as a result. Much of that has been linked here, as well as the talk page discussion.

In the recent RfC that I'd linked, the three editors that responded clearly want nothing to do with the dispute, understandably. At the start of the RfC you can see that one editor noted the inappropriateness of removing the initial reviews I’d added from the album ratings box ("simply removing everything Lapadite added seems drastic"). I'd be shocked that anyone would agree with Dan56’s egregious behavior unless they’ve agreed with Dan’s POV editing in the past. That he may be “sometimes right” - everyone is at least “sometimes right” at some point - does not remotely null or invalidate his history of disputes and disruption, disruption at this band’s articles, or any he makes in the future there and elsewhere. --Lapadite (talk) 15:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

More, under false pretexts: [24], [25]. For how long would this need to go on? 5, 10 revision history pages? Lapadite (talk) 17:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Dan56 apparently went on overdrive instead; More again, this being the first of multiple edits largely of the same nature as previous ones and as described above (his edit summary merely repeating what I stated in the previous edit): [26]. Restored by me here, with some fixes and additions on further edits. --Lapadite (talk) 02:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Action needed here; proposal

• Dan56 was the subject of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dan56 in October 2014, which (despite the stricken participation of a sock) was closed by Beeblebrox with findings that Dan56 be reminded of WP:COPYVIO, WP:BITE, and WP:OWN.
• AN/I threads involving Dan26 after his RFC: [27], [28]

This is a complex case that I think is headed to ArbCom if it doesn't get resolved here. I have observed Dan56 in many places (he's difficult to miss if you work on any music articles) but I assert that the primary sources of his conflicts on Wikipedia are: plagiarism, music reviews, and music genres. I will attempt to concisely demonstrate that Dan has continued to exhibit problems with WP:COPYVIO, WP:BITE, and WP:OWN pursuant to these three items since his RFC, and then propose a remedy in an attempt to avoid ArbCom.

You haven't concisely demonstrated anything. If anything, you've barely inspected what flimsy evidence you provided below. Also, the second AN/I thread you cited above was opened by a frustrated, genre-warring IP, since blocked for being the sock I suspected. You're building a flimsy case just to draw more attention to me, simply to have some action done to me. Also, since my RfC, I fixed the close paraphrasing issues at Talk:Of Human Feelings and performed source checks before I reopened its FAC. I haven't exhibited any problems with WP:COPYVIO since then. Dan56 (talk) 05:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Plagiarism

I last interacted with Dan56 directly at this FAC where 3 different editors expressed concern about plagiarism and close paraphrasing in his writing. I was surprised by his aggressive and uncivil response to such concerns, and to my own concerns. By the second nomination, I had given up dealing with him and so had anyone else who initially offered constructive criticism. He then asked for it to be withdrawn, saying it was "tainted" because he believed one of the objectors to be a sock. Rather than conceding that Rationalobserver had any legitimate objections to his nomination, he accused her of being a sock with a grudge against him who was only opposing his nomination out of spite. He succeeding in getting Rationalobserver blocked as a sock of Jazzerino (talk · contribs), which was later demonstrated incorrect. However, Dan56 edit warred to maintain a note in the second FAC nomination calling Rationalobserver a sock. I will note that Rationalobserver will not be commenting here because she actually agreed to an interaction ban with Dan56 to demonstrate that she wasn't here just to harass him. I will also add that I thought it was sneaky that Dan56 opened this second nomination and notified several editors, but specifically did not notify the editors who opposed the first one.

The situation at Xx (album) demonstrates that the plagiarism problem has continued despite the RFC, and demonstrates how Dan56 reacts to normal constructive criticism in this realm.

I stand %100 by my suspicions and what I had to say on that matter, a matter which I did not provide the deciding evidence but @Mike V: had, who then offered this cryptic explanation as to why that decision was overturned, NOT that it was "incorrect"--it'd be great for the purposes of this insulting thread that you get your facts straight about the situations and disputes you decide to use as "evidence" here, because I feel you're painting an inaccurate picture of that situation in broad strokes. I find it equally dubious that you pretend to forget I responded to what you claim as finding "sneaky" at that FAC page. You're forcing me to explain and discuss a dispute I've been warned not to, so it's incumbent upon you not to misrepresent it. Btw, you do realize I have an open FAC for Of Human Feelings where I "reacted to normal constructive criticism"? Dan56 (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Music reviews

One of the constant sources of conflict for Dan56 is his interminable addition and removal of music album ratings and reviews to suit his personal opinion, many times with a fixation on Robert Christgau. Lapadite77 provided diffs above for recent conflicts involving reviews and ratings at Garbage-related articles. I'm concerned that Dan cherry-picks and promotes/demotes sources to back up his preferred vision for how the reviews and rating should be reflected. Here is a good example of his removing a source he doesn't like under an unclear and disingenuous edit summary. You would think he was simply adding Newsweek and NME, but he is also removing a source he has argued against without clear rationale or consensus. These are clear WP:OWN violations post-RFC.

I'm tired of having to defend myself against this type of nonsense. Being as active and involved as I am means you're going to butt heads with some fancruft and POV-driven editors from time to time, but I'm offended by your accusation that I add or remove ratings or reviews based on my personal opinion--on one hand you say I'm fixated on Robert Christgau, yet support Lapadite77's assertion that I have a negative opinion of an album (article) which Christgau gave a positive review of? I addressed and explained my role in this "Garbage-related" dispute already in my comment above on 3 February. Furthermore, your above example demonstrates what a flimsy case you are making--did you bother to read anything at the article's talk page where the review sources were being discussed?... because that edit was made when I made a case for a source I had originally added be removed in favor of obviously more notable sources per MOS:ALBUM#Critical reception. Either make a close inspection of this dispute--that article's talk page, each editor's edit summaries and arguments--or don't bother slinging vague accusations of ownership at me when the same could and should be said about the other guy (WP:BOOMERANG). The burden is on you to read through Talk:Version 2.0#Revisions to Critical reception and the corresponding revisions made to the article during that discussion, if you're to introduce it here as some kind of evidence of disruptive editing made on my part. Dan56 (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

This, for the record, is emblematic of the ownership issues exhibited by Lapadite77 on Garbage-related articles, articles I hardly care about, with the exception of Version 2.0, whose Critical reception I took upon myself to improve and expand starting last October, with (take a guess)... positive reviews! ([29]) But then I continued my research and found reviews not to the liking of Lapadite77. Dan56 (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Music genres

Again for anyone editing music articles, you will see Dan56 all over your watchlist because he reverts anonymous and established editors who attempt to alter the genres on any article he watches, without any rationale or explanation. This is well-documented in his RFC, and he has continued the behavior despite the RFC findings. You needn't go further than the first page of his contributions to find him reverting genre changes calling them vandalism ("rvv"). Most of the time he's changing one unsourced genre to another. This violates WP:BITE (calling people's good-faith contributions vandalism) and WP:OWN (attempting to control the genres on large selections of articles without sources or discussion).

Untrue. Also, the link you provided is my revision restoring the genre sourced in the body of the article. With what I've contributed to Wikipedia, including the improvements I stand by at Version 2.0, I deserve for my accusers to get their facts straight rather than relying on their impression of isolated disputes I've been involved in. Dan56 (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposed solutions

We need some help here. Beeblebrox, since you closed the RFC, perhaps you can be of some assistance in putting this to bed. I don't think any progress has been made since the RFC. Therefore, I propose the following:

1. Dan56 is required to solicit an independent plagiarism review for any article he's developing before nominating it for either GA or FA status.
2. Dan56 is prohibited from editing reviews or ratings on music articles unless he is specifically preparing that article for GA or FA status.
3. Dan56 is prohibited from adding, removing, or changing genres on music articles unless he is specifically preparing that article for GA or FA status. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 21:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment - The genre warring too characteristic of past dispute at the album Garbage article. I support the proposed solutions, especially the second and third. However, Dan56 could just use the 'preparing article' as a pretext, augmenting the OWN and WP:POINT issues. --Lapadite (talk) 04:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment - Dan56 characterizes the aforementioned as "isolated disputes". Let's see, a scan through the ANI archives of the past year also brings up: [30]; [31]; [32], where an editor who initially disagreed with the OP of the report said:

"All that said, I do not think Dan's hands are clean here. Some of his reverts are questionable: Reverting here to revert Harmelodix's "unexplained removal", for instance struck me as odd; it's not an "unexplained removal" in the content blanking sense. Harmelodix merely restructured the first two sentences. If Dan's intent was to invoke WP:BRD, he should have explained it and started a discussion. This revert, which the edit summary says was in order to revert an unexplained reversion... is just weird. I believe that Dan's behavior in these articles is a bit controlling; I'm not prepared to invoke WP:OWN just yet, but it's what I'd call petty. Wikipedia doesn't need to have the exact verbiage that Dan prefers ... I think Dan's inscrutable edit summaries, picky reasons for reverting, and curious unwillingness to engage in discussion at article talk pages serve to violate WP:BITE. While I don't think a sanction is needed at this point, Dan needs to try to work with Harmelodix rather than revert when he sees something he disagrees. Wikipedia is a group project, not an adversarial proceeding; work needs to take the form of a collaboration, not a negotiation with offers and counter-offers. Finally, I would formally warn Dan that WP:TEDIOUS is a redirect for "tendentious editing": if his intent is to suggest that another editor's edits are tedious, he should not be putting that link in his edit summaries (I would also argue that calling another editor's edits "tedious" is not particularly friendly)."

and [33], where Dan56 is reminded: "I see the changes as improvements, albeit minor ones. Just because the article is an FA, does not mean that it cannot be improved or changed for the better. Please remember it is a collaborative project, repeatedly templating good faith editors is just not good practice and often invites a hostile response." --Lapadite (talk) 09:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Both the report and the ANI threads you are referring to involve editors who were found to be sock puppets or IPs evading a block--Harmelodix and 5.81.225.225. Just like in your research for the articles you edit, you haven't critically assessed the sources for the case you are trying to make and instead are relying on making a lot of noise with weak evidence in hopes that whoever makes a decision on this matter wont carefully look through it. Dan56 (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Dan's insubstantial, retaliation claims shtick was addressed in the talk page here, where he first professed them. On that note, again the start of more disruption and WP:TE of the same from Dan56, likewise just mimicking my previous restore edit summary (mentioned in above section). Does he care, think he's at fault in anything, or believe he will see any real consequences? Clearly not. He is still reverting what has already been called out for multiple guideline-violations or cleared up on the talk page. Given the nature of some of the content in this subsection created by Spike Wilbury, I'd remind that after the first disagreement and dispute with Dan56 at this article he too accused me of Wikihounding (addressed here), as previously noted in the first post of this ANI thread. --Lapadite (talk) 00:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

"Shtick"? That's cute, you used a word from the Newsweek review you've removed numerous times without explanation. And on that note, the start of more "disruption and WP:TE of the same" from Lapadite77, who is still reverting after having been called out for multiple guideline-violations or cleared up on the talk page. Given the nature of this insulting thread, I'd like to bring up the fact that Lapadite made these edits here while editing had grown hot and tempered between us at Version 2.0. In any case, I've opened multiple RfCs now at the article's talk page, because Lapadite is showing little civility or competence concerning the guidelines his edits are violating. Dan56 (talk) 05:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

It is clear Dan56 is merely repeating exactly what I've said to him regarding his gross guideline-violating behavior and edits, on talk page and edit summaries, and projecting exactly what he's been accused of doing. Everything is on the talk page and page history, and detailed above. Dan56 opened two more RfCs (with multiple misleading statements, unsurprisingly) and restored his WP:TE, WP:POV, possibly WP:OR edit again, which was questioned and challenged on the talk page; one of his reverts states: "unexplained removal", which is not the case and is something one of the editors quoted above from a past ANI questions Dan56 on *. It is beyond clear, from all that has been discussed and linked, how much WP:OWN is exhibited, and how disruptive, biased, and uncollaborative Dan56 is; particularly at this band's articles. He has been called out and warned multiple times on various talk pages and ANIs before, and, looking through ANI, edit warring, and SPI archives, Dan56 appears to been been blocked multiple times in the past for disruptive behaviors, largely edit warring. It is clear he has not learned and has no plans to. Nor does he appear to have read the entire ANI thread as I pointed out more than once his lack of ASG and baseless accusation of Wikihounding, which, like I'd said. and linked, was addressed on the talk page.

* An editor's comments from a past ANI thread are relevant here again:

I do not think Dan's hands are clean here. Some of his reverts are questionable: Reverting here to revert Harmelodix's "unexplained removal", for instance struck me as odd; it's not an "unexplained removal" in the content blanking sense. Harmelodix merely restructured the first two sentences. If Dan's intent was to invoke WP:BRD, he should have explained it and started a discussion. This revert, which the edit summary says was in order to revert an unexplained reversion... is just weird. I believe that Dan's behavior in these articles is a bit controlling; I'm not prepared to invoke WP:OWN just yet, but it's what I'd call petty. Wikipedia doesn't need to have the exact verbiage that Dan prefers ... I think Dan's inscrutable edit summaries, picky reasons for reverting, and curious unwillingness to engage in discussion at article talk pages serve to violate WP:BITE. While I don't think a sanction is needed at this point, Dan needs to try to work with Harmelodix rather than revert when he sees something he disagrees. Wikipedia is a group project, not an adversarial proceeding; work needs to take the form of a collaboration, not a negotiation with offers and counter-offers. Finally, I would formally warn Dan that WP:TEDIOUS is a redirect for "tendentious editing": if his intent is to suggest that another editor's edits are tedious, he should not be putting that link in his edit summaries (I would also argue that calling another editor's edits "tedious" is not particularly friendly)."

--Lapadite (talk) 09:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

No one has questioned what Lapadite calls my "WP:TE, WP:POV, possibly WP:OR edit" other than Lapadite himself, who has been the one accusing me of tedious or tendentious editing at Version 2.0 since the content dispute began. After I had opened the first RfC there, he canvassed other editors who had worked with him on other "Garbage-related" articles ([34], [35]). His most recent "unexplained removal" that he is referring to is his removal of text expressing criticism of the article's topic from The Times and NME magazine, a removal he did not explain in any way, either in an edit summary or at the talk page. I don't understand why he continues to refer to the sockpuppet case of Harmelodix, who was in fact found to make tedious GNOME-like edits at good/featured articles I had either created or promoted. Dan56 (talk) 01:14, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Regarding this thread, it's nothing new for a disgruntled editor whose edits have been disputed to accuse those disputing his edits of disruptive editing and edit warring at an ANI thread. In fact, Lapadite's done it before, here and here, where he accused Homeostasis07 (talk · contribs) of ownership and edit warring at, you guessed it, a "Garbage-related" article. Before Andrzejbanas (talk · contribs) invited me to a discussion at one, I had no interest in Garbage articles. I regret having the idea of improving Version 2.0 because of having to interact with such fan-fueled ownership on the part of Lapadite, but all this crap he's flinging at my character and motives doesn't obligate me to bow out. Dan56 (talk) 01:14, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

More projecting from Dan56, like I noted at the beginning of the ANI, throwing out accusations and (laughably) claiming things of which he is guilty. How predictable; randomly citing the two times I've posted on ANI - one seeking resolution on an article tag dispute after reverts of by two editors who were uncivil, the other, reporting an editor's edit warring on an article, as one can clearly see. On the other hand, one can see from all aforementioned part of Dan's history of being the subject of ANI and other disputes, regarding various articles and various editors, as well as his block history. Obviously Dan56 is "disgruntled" with and inconvenienced by having another ANI report on him, and the possibility of actual consequences, such as a topic ban or the aforementioned by Spike Wilbury, which then won't allow him to freely and persistently subject others to his WP:OWN, WP:TE, WP:EW disruptive behavior on selected articles. See how he's continued engaging in all the aforementioned while the ANI is opened, but arguably to a less degree than before the report; I can imagine his drive after it is closed if nothing were to come of it. More WP:TE from Dan56, also misrepresenting a tag: [36] --Lapadite (talk) 03:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

IMO, Lapadite's only concern in this thread is removing my presence from Version 2.0 so he can develop that article to suit his preferences (WP:OWN), by any means necessary. Dan56 (talk) 04:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

And again, which is, in actuality, precisely Dan56's concern and source for being "disgruntled" at this ANI and his retaliation claims. --Lapadite (talk) 04:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

In reference to Lapadite's accusation that I "misrepresented a tag", he is not being truthful. this diff clearly shows he added a "failed verification" tag without good reason, to which I responded in my following revision and removed the tag. He then added a different tag, albeit with the edit summary "Undid revision by Dan56", and is now falsely accusing me of misrepresenting it. He added a "failed verification" tag, and I responded to it in my revert. Dan56 (talk) 04:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Dan56 lies and misleads again; The actual order is as follows: I added the 'failed verification' tag (6:02), changed it to the appropriate one (6:49), then many hours and edits later, Dan56 removed the tag, misrepresenting it as the old one that was replaced (19:28).

He's also edit warred again, whilst violating BRD during another RFC he opened: [37], [38], my talk page comment --Lapadite (talk) 04:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG. Also, you removing my original addition of prose from NME's review and then choosing to revise it after I had restored what you'd reverted doesn't make your revised version the original. Dan56 (talk) 06:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Responding to Dan56's initial edit, which was replaced by the one above; Another frankly pathetic projection of what Dan himself has been called out on multiple times, by various editors. Dan56 also said this on the talk page. Notice how he also sidestepped evidence of his lies. Dan56, re the above, you need to respond on the talk page, not here. That is not the case at all, and I suggest you read WP:BRD thoroughly. --Lapadite (talk) 06:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

That Wikihounding accusation Dan56 made and linked to (as did I initially) on articles Coexist (album) and Xx (album)? Now, Dan56 has reverted the two edits made by me which he formerly agreed with → revert #1 , revert #2. Did I not mention the retaliation, hypocrisy and projection of his own behaviors? --Lapadite (talk) 06:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• Problem is, ANI is for incidents, not behavior. The RfC on Dan, mentioned above and available at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dan56, was railroaded by a sock, but as closer Beeblebrox mentioned, there were legitimate concerns there, and a shortlist of recommendations. We've done away with the RfC/U process, of course, and I don't know what it is replaced with, but RfC/Us were precisely for these kinds of situations, for patterns of behavior that indicate disruption of one kind or another without crossing the boundary of CIVIL, for instance, or EW. I'm not familiar with the editor who filed the claim here, but I am with Ritchie333, whose opinion I value, and JG66 has a slew of GAs and doesn't seem to have fallen off a turnip truck. Dan56, I strongly urge you to make a substantive comment here, not just a repartee of an individual comment by Lapadite. Because it is possible that an admin in a foul mood comes by here and says, hmm, yes, longterm issues of OWNership and favoritism of this source over that, BITEyness of new editors, borderline edit warring, canvassing and copyright issues, hmm already suggested by an RfC going back a half a year and still happening--perhaps some action is warranted. I'm not going to be that admin since I think the good outweighs the bad, and you do a lot of good stuff around here, but sheesh Dan, please address the actual criticism. You may not want to be a teamplayer, but you simply have to be. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Drmies. The problem is that, Dan56 merely getting just another slap on the wrist, another "be a team player, don't do it again". As he has shown and actually implied himself countless times, he has no plans to change his disruptive editing practices and behavior. The conglomerate of evidence presented is unequivocal, the long pattern of disruption and disputes unequivocal, the number of editors in the past speaking out against Dan56's behavior unequivocal, and yet because Dan56 has promoted some GAs and FAs (I'm sure given his history, appropriating articles himself) or has some admin connection, there's hesitation? If this were an IP, or a new editor, they would have been sanctioned, blocked or topic banned right quickly. I've edited collaboratively with multiple editors from various Wikiprojects who've written and promoted multiple GAs and FAs and have never had any problems with any of them; they actually work collaboratively, are civil and uphold guidelines, and don't hide behind some 'status' to go on doing as they please where they please. 'Status'/WP accomplishments doesn't and shouldn't give one a free pass for such egregious editing behavior. WP:HERE, WP:NOTHERE. Drmies, ANI appears to be the only place to report this, something that isn't remotely an isolated incident. See Dan56's hypocritical, laughable, projecting claim above: "IMO, Lapadite's only concern in this thread is removing my presence from Version 2.0 so he can develop that article to suit his preferences (WP:OWN), by any means necessary" - speaks volumes. I mean what more is there to say, beyond more corroboration and more links? Admins either disregard (thereby implicitly validating) this long pattern of WP:DIS, WP:OWN, WP:TE, WP:POINT, WP:BITE, WP:CHERRYPICK, WP:Wikilawyering, WP:HOUND, not WP:AGF (e.g., [39]; [40], [41], [42], [43], [44]), WP:POV, WP:GWAR +, or they actually decide to take long due action. --Lapadite (talk) 00:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Lapadite, I don't know what to tell you. I'm somewhat on the fence and since I participated in the RfC I'm hardly uninvolved, even if I did know what to do here. This needs more eyes, no doubt. Drmies (talk) 02:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Dan56 - I will say again what I said six months ago, and what User:Drmies alluded to four months ago. There is a counter-intuitive aspect to extremely possessive involvement with articles or with the characterization of their genres. You have been so heavily involved in some articles that you risk losing the ability to be involved with them at all, because Wikipedia does not allow an editor to assume ownership of articles. A common response to article ownership attitudes is a topic ban, and you risk being topic-banned from music articles. I warned you of that six months ago. I won't make the proposal to impose that ban at this time, but I don't see a positive or collaborative response by you, and I am likely to support a proposal by another editor to impose a topic-ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

This thread has gone on for more than a week, and it is time either to consider a topic-ban or to close the thread with one final warning. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

You might find an uninvolved admin by posting on AN. Sadly TParis left us--that's one fewer admin who wasn't afraid to jump in and cut Gordian knots. Drmies (talk) 03:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Drmies, is it appropriate to post this on AN? The noticeboard says: "If you are seeking administrator intervention for a specific issue or dispute, you should post it at the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI) instead." I think, if uninvolved admins aren't available and this is unresolved then ArbCom would be the final step. --Lapadite (talk) 05:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Lapadite77 - Yes. Yes, I will explain. Your reading is correct that this board is for specific issues and disputes, and this is a specific issue or dispute; but User:Drmies was suggesting that a request for formal closure of this thread be posted to WP:AN, not that this thread be restarted on AN. This thread has gone on for more than a week, and is getting nowhere. You are continuing to dump about Dan56's article ownership, with which I agree, and about Dan56's copyright issues, which I haven't looked at, but have not taken the time to make a formal proposal. You are just venting, and are continuing to engage in personal attacks. (Yes, it is still a personal attack to say that an editor is lying.) At the same time, Dan56 is continuing to restate his issues with the editing by other editors and to say that there are other bad editors who are worse. Since you, Lapadite77, won't make a formal proposal for a topic-ban, this thread is just wasting pixels. What is now needed is a request for formal closure of this thread, which has degenerated to just two editors dumping on each other. It probably will end in another final warning to Dan56, and it should also end in a warning to you, Lapadite77, about accusations of lying. This thread needs formal closure. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:08, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Right: AN is the place to find a sucker admin willing to read this over and close it. I do think that Robert McClenon has a valid point, that this is devolving into little more than namecalling: "more heat than light" is likely a phrase used by a closing administrator, and that's kind of a shame. Drmies (talk) 16:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Drmies; Robert McClenon, I'd hoped you had read the entire ANI thread as I did formally request a topic ban, and direct evidence (Diffs) was provided of Dan56's lies. I was not asking if the thread should be reposted on AN but if it would be appropriate to ask for admin input there on an ANI incident (I'm not familiar with it). This has gone on for however long it has gone on because no admin has cared enough to do anything about it. The reason there's been a "back and forth" here is precisely because Dan56 has decided, instead of giving a substantive response, to throw out baseless accusations and retaliation claims; and I respond to such, otherwise normally a lie unanswered to is a lie confirmed. So you're suggesting because nothing has been done, that it should just be closed, with a warning for both of us? Another warning for Dan56, and a warning for me for bring up editing abuse by an editor that has been the subject of numerous similar disputes, from various editors? It's just another confirmation that regardless of how much evidence provided, however many diffs, points laid out, specific action requested, ANI is essentially useless and editors like this are given free will to do as they please, disrupting where they please, driving editors away, as I'd been suggested by others. Very constructive to Wikipedia. Dan56 has restarted edit warring and POV pushing on the article in question (Version 2.0) - e.g., removing positive reviews from reliable sources and refusing to provide verification of a citation/source he found online and didn't access himself - , and without discussion, without waiting for Rfc response, anything: [45]. So the expected thing is: edit warring continues, and nothing happens? --Lapadite (talk) 23:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay. I see that you, User:Lapadite77, did include a request for a topic-ban in your post above that was too long, difficult to read. You buried it in there with a dump. If you had provided a heading requesting a topic-ban, you might have gotten Support comments, but you expected that everyone would read its whole length. In a fairer world, we would have read it, and you wouldn't have posted it, and you might have been blocked for the accusation of lying. (Even if you know with 100% certainty that Dan56 is making incorrect statements, can you read his mind to know that he knows that they are incorrect? If not, saying that he is lying is a personal attack.) I have taken the advice of Drmies and requested closure. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Robert McClenon I'm not familiar with proper protocol here. You're right it was muddled in explanations. I'll add it to the heading for what it's worth. I see you had already requested closure on AN. --Lapadite (talk) 00:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Robert McClenon (talk · contribs), unless you take a considerate and meaningful look into whatever disputes or "evidence" brought up in this thread, including the pathetic example posted under "Music genres" which I exposed in my response to it, then I don't feel the need to dignify this thread any longer. If you're interested in editors who exhibit ownership attitudes, then refer to this AN/I thread below, where Lapadite has responded by throwing the same accusations (WP:OWN, tendentious editing, etc.) at Homeostasis07 (talk · contribs). Dan56 (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Dan56 is misrepresenting again. Homeostasis isn't a random editor that reported me, Homeostasis was with Dan56 in the past dispute at a Garbage article, doing the exact same thing Dan56 was doing (all in the links provided here), albeit to a lesser degree there (Dan56 really had it covered). He was reported by me for edit warring for tendentious editing on another of that band's article in October 2014 (which was linked here and in the report below). I haven't had any interaction with him since; he's disgruntled about this report (which he mentions), and the only thing he's doing is retaliating, accusing me of the things Dan56 is reported for here using the same links used here, sticking up for his likeminded ally there, and engaging in 'character assassination'. Like I said there, just a baseless retaliation report; And that is the kind of thing that would warrant a warning for the editor who posted it. --Lapadite (talk) 23:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

^ An absolutely ridiculous and misrepresenting summation of events. I was never "with" Dan56, I merely opposed Lapadite77's proposal here, since then I've stayed well clear of this mess. Here is the bogus edit warring report Lapadite filed against me in October (nothing to do with "tendentiousness", like he's trying to suggest). As you can see, it was dismissed as "no violation", that still didn't stop him complaining to the closing admin. I'm surprised @Robert McClenon: and @Drmies: have reacted to Dan56 the way they have. If you actually delve in to what Lapadite is posting, you'd see some serious skewing and misrepresentation of the entire situation. The links Lapadite77 posted here to demonstrate Dan56's "long pattern of WP:DIS, WP:OWN, WP:TE, WP:POINT, WP:BITE, WP:CHERRYPICK, WP:Wikilawyering, WP:HOUND, not WP:AGF" were in fact Dan reverting genuine vandalism. At least he attempted to post some diff's this time. He usually just calls you "tendentious" and accuses you of Cherrypicking, OWN, NPOV and OR without ever providing a diff. Lapadite77 has a seriously unhealthy attitude towards contributing to Wikipedia, and this entire situation stems from it. He has a huge "me-against-the-world" mentality. Instead of discussing something decently, he immediately accuses opposing editors of all sorts of things - pick a WP:, any WP: - and has demonstrated Badfaith and lacked Civility at every turn. And despite FOUR separate RfC's at Talk:Version 2.0, he is still edit warring there. Action of some kind would be appreciated either here or here, because the level of disruption [46] is ridiculous. Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

What a joke. One can see just how biased Homeostasis is when he deems my recent linking of Dan56's continued overt edit warring at the Version 2.0 article (again clear POV-pushing, and tendentious editing, such as removal of positive reviews from reliable sources, refusing to provide verifiable citation/source, as stated in the diffs there) to be evidence of edit warring on my part, not his. He has not and does not at all disagree with Dan56's tendentious editing and OWN behavior, nor his edit warring (which he himself has evidently engaged in in the past) at that bands articles of course. See how he, like Dan, just repeats the exact language I've used in my report on Dan56 on the baseless accusations fest in which he's instilled himself. Unlike what he claims, Homeostasis is not remotely just a random editor that stumbled upon the rfc from that Garbage (album) dispute linked and "merely opposed" a proposal from me on that article (which was, unlike what both have claimed, and as one can easily see toward the end of it, successful); we had had a disagreement before, and he showed on the talk page of another of this bands articles that he has a bias against that band. That was the subject of the edit warring report I opened on him in October 2014, which he calls "bogus" as the admin that closed it deemed the edit warring no violation because it was a 'content dispute'. In the Garbage (album) talk dispute he and Dan56 linked, he had accused me (out of all the other editors there) multiple times of being an IP that was making unwanted edits on the article. If admins care for this particular, involved dispute from Homeostasis, I have no problem providing the diffs for all I've mentioned. Until then, this is merely a pointless, redundant, vendetta-driven series of ranting posts from an editor that has nothing to do with this particular report but is just disgruntled that Dan56, whom he supports, is being reported, by me. As Robert McClenon had suggested above, this is the kind of thing that does warrant a warning for the editor. --Lapadite (talk) 01:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Hasteur's Alternative Proposal

Since this thead is way over the TL:DR threshold, I suggest we reset it with some basic ground rules.

1. Lapadite77 come up with a short and concise posting explaining the problem, what supporting documentation they have (diffs only, no editorializing), and what resolution they seek from Dan56.
2. Dan56 responds in 1 section without cutting up Lapadite77's comments explaining what mitigating circumstances may be present.
3. Both "disputants" then step back and not post unless specific questions are directed at them (probably via {{U}} pings).
4. The community at large reviews the issues at hand and decides what the best way to resolve this dispute that has passed over from content to conduct disruption.

Please feel free to comment, but I'm frankly sick and tired of raging back and forth with no resolution. Hasteur (talk) 14:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Summary of report - In an attempt to gather from months of exceedingly disruptive pattern of editing culminating on the article in question, Version 2.0 (an album from the band Garbage), primary points are presented in the following:

·Proposal – Topic ban for Dan56 (talk · contribs), from Garbage articles, or, as proposed by others, from editing/reverting music reviews, ratings and genres on music articles.
·Reason – repeatedly and willfully violates multiple guidelines and repeatedly edit wars in the process as he deliberately pushes his view whilst disregarding other editors' input. Long-standing violations of WP:OWN, WP:POINT, WP:DIS, WP:TEND, WP:CHERRYPICK, WP:NPOV, WP:COLLAB, WP:BRD, WP:WAR, WP:GWAR, WP:AGF, WP:LAWYERING, WP:HOUND (Dan56 has also been denounced for WP:BITE and WP:COPYVIO in the past, pointed out by an editor who commented here, Spike Wilbury), and zero indication Dan56 has ever had or has any plans to change (WP:HERE, WP:NOTHERE), which he himself has implied more than once (e.g., [47], [48], [49], [50])
·Some diffs (far too many to list all, but not opposed to presenting more if asked) – largely taken from posts throughout this thread:

• AGF: [51], [52], [53], [54]; adressed here and here
• "Hounding": [55]
• WP:TEND, WP:POINT, WP:POV, Cherry picking, edit warring, in article editing (in the first diff, disruptively removes [while I was still improving the section] reviews I'd added from the album ratings box) - chronologically: [56] + [57] + [58]; [59] + [60]; [61] + [62] + [63] + [64]; [65] + [66] + [67] + [68]; [69], [70]/[71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80]; [81], [82], [83]; [84] + [85] + [86], [87]; [88], [89], [90]; [91] + [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100]; [101]

Talk page where 'discussion'/lack of collaboration took place: RfC sections, and the section above them. Past band album article where the same, all of the above behavior (including genre warring), was exhibited (about 7 months): 6th - 7.2 sections

Summary of the above sections of this report — Diffs are spread out and generally contextualized throughout this report. Dan56, in response and throughout out a back and forth, would repeat the same language and points I did in my report in retaliation with inaccurate accusations (which he also did in article diffs, some linked above). I called him out on lying/misrepresenting in the following, with evidence (which he then sidestepped, changing the subject): [102] → [103], [104], [105]; [106] → [107] → [108], [109] → [110]. Dan56 accuses me precisely of what his motives evidently are: [111]; [112]. Homeostasis07 (talk · contribs) - an editor that has nothing to do with this report, but is involved and entirely biased as (a)he had participated with Dan56, supporting his WP:TE, POV editing, in a past dispute at one of this band's articles, (b)has had prior disputes with me regarding the same issues at this band's articles, (b)was reported by me for edit warring through persistent, repetitive WP:TE on one of this band's articles in October of 2014 - then began making 'character assassination' posts on me on ANI, using the same language and points I did in this report through inaccurate and baseless accusations against me, because he is disgruntled Dan56 is reported, by me in particular, for doing doings he's supported at this band's articles.
I can provide more diffs or further explanation/clarification of anything if needed. The Version 2.0 revision history along with its talk page revision history is notable.

Spike Wilbury created a subsection above further elaborating on some of Dan56's past disputes and initiating a proposal; JG66 also commented on Dan56's history. An admin, User:Drmies, commented above, but said they are/were in some way involved therefore will not make a verdict. User:Robert McClenon, who commented above, asked on AN (February 2) for an uninvolved admin and closure.
Pinging editors that have publicly commented on this report: Ritchie333, JG66, Spike Wilbury, Drmies, Robert McClenon, Hasteur. --Lapadite (talk) 05:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Come on, really? Does that response really strike you as "short and concise"? You're shooting yourself in the foot every time you write a massive wall of text like that - you're scaring away people because they don't want to search through all of that. Sergecross73 msg me 14:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Sergecross73, Concise means brief but comprehensive; all the relevant, primary points of the report were summarized above, succinctly. Are you telling me admins are unable to click on diffs and read the subsequent two short paragraphs? That this report is invalid or useless because there are too many parts to the issue? Like other editors above remarked, this is a complex, perennial issue, and it can't be summarized in just 2 or 3 sentences or a few random diffs. What was said by other editors in the report I believe needed to be summarized as well in order for it to be a concise representation of the report, of the issues presented. Sergecross73, you're an admin, why haven't you at least commented on this matter? Lapadite (talk) 19:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm telling you we're all volunteers here, and like all writers, you need to to write to keep the interest of the reader. People's eyes just glaze over when you write these excessively long entries. You're writing to humans, not machines. Humans who have time and motivational constraints. Write me off all you want, it's pretty obvious you're going about this all wrong, or this discussion wouldn't be running past the 2 week mark now. Sergecross73 msg me 20:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Just asked why you hadn't commented on it. I don't know how any of this is interesting really, or could be presented interestingly. Nothing in this section is 'excessively long' though; there's a Proposal statement, a Reason statement, Diffs linked, and then two short paragraphs. I gather that editors here simply don't care to pay attention to the points and diffs given, disregarding the obvious fact that this isn't a one-time incident warranting two or three diffs and sentences. Do ask yourself, if this were an IP being reported for long-standing disruption would this have gone on as long? --Lapadite (talk) 22:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe you missed my point. Maybe sub in "attention span" for "interest" and you'll get what I'm saying a little better? Anyways, I did respond to you, 2 weeks ago, when it all began. I don't like or approve of Dan56's interactions with others, but based on past precedent, it still manages to fall on the side of what we tend to tolerate. It falls more into "rude" than outright personal attacks or being uncivil. Sergecross73 msg me 00:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes I get what you're saying. I'm saying I see no way to trim the summary without leaving out pertinent points representing the ANI report. Sorry, you're right, I see that you did comment (didn't see it when I skimmed through the thread). This report wasn't and isn't at all about personal attacks though. I'd said myself, agreeing with your first comment, that Dan56 "treads the line" carefully in his disruptive, tendentious editing, even if he does fail to assume good faith many times, as linked above. That's the problem I see, that this deliberate "tread the line" behavior over however many months is tolerated here without consequence merely because he isn't overtly uncivil. The only thing that will follow is more tendentious edit warring from Dan56 (which has continued), disregarding guidelines and others' input. I'm sure when he's the subject of another dispute/report again, he will again be implicitly validated through lack of action. --Lapadite (talk) 00:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The fact that this "is not about personal attacks" is exactly my point - much of the time, action isn't taken until things have escalated to that point. Like I said, I certainly don't personally like Dan56's actions, and I won't stand in the way of anyone who wants to take administrative action against him, I just don't think anything warranted yet. Sergecross73 msg me 13:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but with the best will in the world, all my brain can parse is "blah blah blah Dan56 blah Dan56 blah blah WP:WALLOFDIFFS Dan56". If things are that bad, and the RfC hasn't had any effect, then the only thing left that I can suggest is an Arbcom case. I'll reiterate that I've never really had a problem with Dan and his ability to stop an album infobox going from "Category: Rock" to "Category: Rock, Art Rock, Experimental Rock, Weird Rock, Shoegazing Rock, Uneasy Listening, WP:GARAGE Rock" is very much appreciated. Actually, having had a look at Version 2.0's history, an interaction ban between Dan56 and Lapadite77 might be another answer - if they both work away from each other on something else, it'll stop this thread. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes you said in an above section that you personally don't find Dan56 to be disruptive because you've agreed with some of his edits in the past. I do find it interesting that you deliberately disregard "wall of diffs" here. Regarding your genres claim, Dan56, as discussed on this ANI thread, has genre warred multiple times on music articles (including this band's), and the genres presently in the infobox of Version 2.0 (6) were all added by Dan56; I haven't touched the infobox of that article. If the reaction to all disputes on Dan56's disruptive editing on music articles he takes ownership of is some interaction ban between Dan56 and the editor that reports him then that is troubling. The implication here is beyond troubling: Dan56 shows no wrong doing in 7-month long OWN, tendentious, disruptive editing at this band's articles, and the editor reporting him is only ranting incoherently and should be IB'd so Dan56 continues doing as he pleases. --Lapadite (talk) 22:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

@Lapadite: I have to echo the message from some of the recent posts. I was intending to jump in after Sergecross73 a few hours ago, but … well, blink and it just keeps growing. You've had some support in this thread, and you know that, but you're continually shooting down any potency in those arguments with your repetition of the situation. I'm sure I said something similar to GabeMc early last year: by buzzing around in everyone's face, you're actually running interference for the other guy. If people welcome Dan56's input with an album article's critical reception or genres, for instance, as mystifying as that may be, you can't hold it against them here.

Someone above mentioned that an admin might just come along to a thread like this and take some drastic measures against the user in question, perhaps as a result of his past record. (I think I've got that right – it's hard to find the message now.) They might do, or they might not. Or it might happen in the near future, in which case this thread should be a contributing factor. So, really, what's important is that in the next dispute involving Dan56, someone, particularly an admin, can refer to this discussion and glean something useful. People build their reputation and perhaps this is just another block, but I worry that the more you write, the less effective this whole thread will be. (So please do not feel the need to reply to this message!)

Anyway, where's that turnip truck …? JG66 (talk) 02:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

JG66, I do feel the need to reply to this one, because my comment: "I do find it interesting that you deliberately disregard "wall of diffs" here" does not say "you should not welcome Dan56's input on an album's article". That is not what I mean to say at all, and I resent that implication. Richie333 said: "all my brain can parse is "blah blah blah Dan56 blah Dan56 blah blah WP:WALLOFDIFFS Dan56", hence my comment. "So, really, what's important is that in the next dispute involving Dan56, someone, particularly an admin, can refer to this discussion and glean something useful." - Yes, and like I've already said, that is expected result every time; another warning, another, etc. JG56, I've just responded to editors' replies, clarifying where I feel is needed; no harm meant. Thanks for your input though. This thread was posted a week ago on AN for an 'uninvolved admin' to assess and close it. Just waiting for that to happen. --Lapadite (talk) 03:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Lapadite77 hasn't even specified what topic he thinks Dan56 should be topic-banned from. It presumably has to do with music, but he or she hasn't specified the scope. Both for that reason and because Lapadite77 hasn't even been concise when Hasteur suggested being concise, Oppose a topic-ban (on something). Robert McClenon (talk) 03:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Did in the ANI, but it's specified now at the beginning of this section. --Lapadite (talk) 06:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Darkstar1st on a site-wide purge of any mention of "libertarian socialism"

Darkstar1st (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has declared on the Libertarianism talk page that libertarians should like capitalism and that libertarian socialism, libertarian communism and libertarian marxism are (apparently) some kind of myth. The editor has chosen to expunge that myth from WP by starting up edit wars on just about any page describing libertarian socialist politics:

• diff
• diff
• diff
• diff
• diff
• diff
• diff
• diff
• diff
• diff
• diff

None of these mentions of libsoc are the least bit controversial, to my knowledge, and the political groups in question all describe themselves as libertarian, as typically confirmed by native-language articles. Offering citations doesn't seem to make any difference at all, so I don't know how to proceed. fi (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Looked at the ref for PPK and Darkstar1st appears to be correct. All references to liberarianism are in reference to Öcalan, not PPK. Can't comment on others, but the user does seem to be editing specifically on this issue. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The reference on PKK describes it as communalist, which is a strain of libertartarian socialism, and aligns it with Murray Bookchin, a prominent libertarian socialist. fi (talk) 01:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

We need an RS that says specifically that it's libertarian socialist. Otherwise it's OR. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand. That document does specifically identify it as libertarian socialist unambiguously, in exactly the same way that a manifesto proclaiming Maoism would identify a group as Marxist-Leninist. Bookchin's communalism is a form of libertarian socialism, just like a lemon is a type citrus fruit. B ⊃ A fi (talk) 03:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, you're assuming the result you want. You say a lemon is a citrus fruit, but another editor objects, unless you have a citation from a reliable source that says that a lemon is a citrus fruit, you can't use that in an article. If someone disputes it, you need a citation from a reliable source that says Maoism is a form of Marxist-Leninism, or you can't use it. Does your source say specifically that "Bookchin's communalism is a form of libertarian socialism" (or words to that effect)? If it doesn't, then it's not the source you need. Your prior knowledge is not sufficient, you need a source. BMK (talk) 13:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't specifically say it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

No, that's just patently silly. Wikipedia (on the articles for communalism, Murray Bookchin, libertarian socialism, for example) is absolutely plastered in references confirming that Bookchin's communalism is uncontroversially a type of libertarian socialism. What you're saying is like saying it's OR to call a "poet" a "writer" because a source explicitly called him a "poet" and there's no reference literally saying "writer." I'm not offering my personal knowledge as a reference; it's just documented all over Wikipedia that one is a superset of the other. A square is a rectangle, so we don't need a reference on something being a rectangle if we have a source saying it's a square. More importantly, the editor has not objected as you say and has brought no credible objection or dispute to the discussion. This is just a continuation of the abuse already on the editor's rap sheet. fi (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

"Common sense", for want of a better word, tells us that a lemon is a citrus fruit, and a poet is a writer. It tells us no such thing about the relationship between Bookchin's communalism and libertarian socialism. It is way outside the bounds of common knowledge, and therefore needs a source. BMK (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Then "common sense" tells us, in the exact same way, that a Maoist is a Marxist-Leninist, especially when there's dozens of citations, all over WP, saying B ⊃ A -- same as references describing Bookchin, communalism and (shockingly) libertarian municipalism as libertarian. You can pick your favorite reference, but you're the first person to challenge this, as User:Darkstar1st did not. So, I don't even understand why we're talking about it. fi (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

How does common sense tell us that the World Socialist Party of the United States is libertarian socialist? Contrary to your claim upthread, I'm not aware of them ever having described themselves as such. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

WSPUS was the US contingent of the World Socialist Movement, which was described as libertarian socialist, for example, in Anarchy Magazine, Volume 3, 1963, page 178 (can't link directly, so search for "World Socialist Movement" and "non-state libertarian socialists"), among numerous other sources. "Common sense" would just be transitive logic. If we know where a superset belongs, we know how to describe a subset. fi (talk) 21:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Transitive logic works only if you accept the premise. Perhaps you're not aware of just how contentious political labels can be? I'd advise you to find multiple reliable sources before slapping labels on political organizations, especially when (as in the current case) the organization itself rejects or has never used that label. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Whether a premise is wrong is another thing, while this is about validity: if A and B then also C. If someone's arguing that it's valid but unsound, could you please link me to the discussion? Like I said though, I am aware of zero controversy and I rather doubt WSPUS would have rejected being called libertarian Marxist (had the term been more widely used in the early 20th century) or libertarian socialist (had the term not been associated almost exclusively with anarchist communism then). It's just the most accurate description of their politics and it's not considered pejorative... not that it particularly matters if they *had* rejected it. Whether a group likes the label they're given or not is hardly the one criterion for verifiability. Anyway, I still don't understand why we're talking about this when Darkstar1st's only stated contention was that he doesn't like how libsoc exists, historically. fi (talk) 21:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, it seems you're just making stuff up. Darkstar1st's stated contention for the removal in question was the reliability of the source, not with his distaste for the idea of libertarian socialism in general. You even linked to his edit summary upthread. (And as a matter of fact, your doubts about the label are without merit; the WSP(US) denies that it is "Marxist" so it's a safe bet it would also take issue with "libertarian Marxist".) Of course, disputes about our categorizations of parties are best resolved on article talk pages, not here. There's already a talk page discussion about the categorization of this particular party, to which you're welcome to contribute. —Psychonaut (talk) 22:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

What on earth are you even talking about? WSM and WSPUS were founded by anti-Bolshevik Classical Marxists. It's pretty much the first thing both articles say. So far as the editor in question and that editor's POV crusade, I can back up everything I've said with diffs, like the user's insistence that libertarian socialism isn't real libertarianism, refusal to enter into discussion and the removal of perfectly legitimate sources on statements contradicting that POV. I'm here to talk about that editor's conduct. fi (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

If you're trying to build a case for Darkstar1st's POV, then it help if you got the facts of your complaint straight, and demonstrated a modicum of familiarity with the examples you're invoking. First you stated upthread that Darkstar1st removed the "libertarian socialist" label from the WSP(US) article, even though you claim they "describe themselves as libertarian". However, the WSP(US) has never referred to itself as libertarian. Then you said that "Darkstar1st's only stated contention was that he doesn't like how libsoc exists" (my emphasis), though your own diffs show a variety of stated contentions on his part, including objections to the reliability of one citation (a perfectly reasonable argument, even though it proved to be mistaken) and to another's language (much less reasonable grounds, but still nothing to do with political ideology). Then you claim that the WSP(US) would refer to itself as Marxist, when in fact they have always quite vocally rejected this label. In short, I'd be taking your complaint a lot more seriously if it wasn't so easy to poke holes in your evidence. —Psychonaut (talk) 23:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

WSM is commonly labeled libertarian socialist and describes itself as Marxist, which takes all of ten seconds to verify. If you have some reason to believe both the WSM and WSPUS articles are 100% wrong in their descriptions of these groups, please fully rewrite these articles accordingly: articles presently describing anti-Leninist Classical Marxists. So far as Darkstar1st's removal of the source for being unreliable, that source was a pamphlet published by WSPUS, so I find it difficult to believe that the WSPUS is not a relevant source on the topic. There may be a worthwhile discussion to be had about whether this Marxist group (according to every source available on all relevant WP articles) is more accurately described as impossiblist, libsoc, both or neither, but the editor was not interested in having one. I encourage you to take your own advise and stay on topic. fi (talk) 23:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The topic is your failure to present a coherent argument about Darkstar1st's disruptive editing. Neither the document you just cited nor the one Darkstar1st originally objected to say what you claim they say, and in this thread you continue to argue against strawmen. (I never said that the WSP(US) is not Marxist or libertarian socialist, and I never said that our articles shouldn't describe them as such.) I think I've seen enough of your line of reasoning (such as it is) to come to a conclusion as to what needs to be done here. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't backpedal. Nearly everything you've tried to derail this with has been total nonsense and just factually wrong; e.g. apparently WSPUS is so adamant about rejecting allegations of Marxism that they devoted a quarter of their website to a "Study Guide to Marxism." I'm sorry you tried to grandstand and got called on it. Good call on bailing out. fi (talk) 09:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• In one edit Darkstar reverts the addition of a Spanish language source (in an article on a Chilean political party) with the edit summary "Engligh language sources only please". That is unjustified. We have no requirement for sources to be in English. For writing about political parties in non-English speaking countries particularly it would seem a particularly silly requirement.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

• User:Finx may well be wrong, that is a content issue for discussion. However, if, as they claim, User:Darkstar1st is not discussing the disagreement, we have a behaviour issue. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC).
  
  • A quick look shows that, for example, this edit by Darkstar1st does have an edit summary that points to the a discussion section on the talk page. I think, therefore, that it would be a better plan to engage on the article talk pages than pursue this AN/I. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC).
    

On the face of it, this certainly appears to be a behavioural issue - and if Darkstar1st thinks that it is appropriate to remove all mention of a significant trend in the historical development of socialist thought from Wikipedia, as appears to be his/her objective, we need to do something about it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Note that, as of now, the user is still edit warring and Wikilawyering all over the place. I don't feel like getting into fifteen separate games of revert pong, so I'll just let this roll on until someone wants to do something about the continuing pattern of disruptive behavior. fi (talk) 23:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Recommend admin action. Well there is some pretty obvious POV pushing. It's a systematic removal of references to left wing libertarianism, presumably to POV push that it does not exist, and only right-wing libertarianism exists. So in effect it is vandalism, as a clear pattern has emerged. If left unhindered he may remove all mentions of left-wing libertarianism. --Mrjulesd (talk) 23:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment: there's a larger problem involving libertarian editors and articles. For an example, look what's happened to our article on free society.[113] This kind of assimiliation of a non-libertarian topic, takeover, and OR is going on everywhere. Darkstar1st is only one of many editors engaging in this kind of behavior. Viriditas (talk) 03:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I think part of the problem is that User:Finx is a bit clueless about citations and original research. (See example.) In the example, Citation A, did not support the statement, but Citation B did. User:Finx did not understand that Citation B needed to be by the statement, not Citation A. Regarding original research, User:Finx seems to think that if a party is socialist, and says it has liberal/libertarian values, that makes it a libertarian-socialist party. [The same non-English word translates as "liberal" or "libertarian".] What Darkstar1st seems to be trying to do is to clean up this kind of thing.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I don't stoop to personal attacks, but if you want to charge me with being "clueless" on ANI, let's review the absolutely mind-boggling level of incompetence you have displayed on the Freedom and Solidarity Party article. First of all, the citation already present before the titular POV warrior arrived used the word "özgürlükçü" which, beyond any reasonable doubt (as was explained), translates to "libertarian" in this context. So, no further citation was even needed. Assuming good faith, however, (and way beyond what is reasonable) the very first thing I did was add an inline English-language citation from a respected authority on the subject with a quote that just could not possibly be any clearer: "the ODP, or Freedom and Solidarity Party, is a Turkish socialist libertarian party founded in 1996." This was removed and ignored. When I pointed this out, it was ignored again by both yourself and the POV warrior, followed by complaints about the original reference using "özgürlükçü" instead of "liberter" -- which are synonyms, as can be seen here. When that objection clearly fell apart, the Wikilawyering moved on to ridiculous claims of OR: it's OR to assume that political groups claiming to be libertarian are... libertarian. I mean, this is just comedy. "Liberal" and "libertarian" are mutually exclusive groups: one is capitalist, the other, in this (and practically any) context, anticapitalist. That is also not original research. It's the most basic level of comprehension you can have on the topic. Libertarian, outside of its isolated use in the US as another word for advocacy of laissez faire "free market" capitalism, universally means socialist. The libertarian qualifier in libsoc qualifies the type of socialism (to distinguish from state-socialism), not the other way around, i.e. the type of libertarianism. When a socialist political organization declares itself libertarian, that means one thing only: libertarian socialism. If you are this confused or just know absolutely nothing about these topics, why not ask for clarification instead of calling others "clueless"? And, speaking of clueless, I invite you to find me one article on Wikipedia -- or anywhere else for that matter -- where "özgürlükçü" translates to liberal, let alone where that's a reasonable translation in the context of describing far-left socialist groups. The only thing in your contributions so far that would have even vaguely resembled a rational thought -- had it been concerning a non-socialist party -- is based off a funny Google translation error which you couldn't be bothered to verify when it produced an obvious absurdity. fi (talk) 10:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Site ban proposal for User:Darkstar1st

Normally I would recommend a topic ban from libertarianian-related articles, but the editor's history shows that he has not made a positive contribution anywhere, and has carried out this type of editing in other areas such as the Tea Party movement. He's had years to change, but seems more interested in conflict than improvement of articles. So probably best to ban the editor and avoid having to discuss him at ANI again and again. TFD (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support Site ban for Darkstar1st. This battleground behavior and tendentious editing has been going on for years in many articles related to his interests. He has failed to respond to the many requests and warnings to stop. There's no reason to believe that his behavior will improve in the future. I think he has exhausted the patience that has been extended to him. SPECIFICO talk 04:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose any action against Darkstar1st. The editor who brought this complaint has failed to make a coherent case for any serious disruption by Darkstar1st, willful or otherwise. Most of the edits I've checked seem to be correctly, or at least plausibly, tagging or removing claims which are not supported by citations. And for cases where the edits are disputed he has requested and/or engaged in talk page discussions. He seems to have been confused about the acceptability of non-English sources, though solving that ought to have involved drawing his attention to WP:NONENG rather than dragging him to WP:ANI. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@Psychonaut:This disruptive behavior is just the latest in a long history of such conduct in articles on related subjects. This user repeatedly either ignores or fails to understand warnings and guidance as to behavioral and sourcing policy. He's been blocked numerous times for misconduct. Unfortunately, there is no reason to expect things to get any better. SPECIFICO talk 19:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose At worst he got into an edit war on Equality_Party_(Chile), but it was such a slow burning edit war that he never came close to violating WP:3RR (and he wasn't trying to game the system either doing reverts every 24 hours) and he tried to just use tags for the part he thought failed verification but those were removed. He did misunderstand WP:NONENG and removed sources that were not in English. And I should note that when WP:NONENG was pointed out to him on his talk page he said "thank you both for the clarification. Mea culpa" This is far from siteban worthy (I don't think it is even topic ban worthy). --Obsidi (talk) 13:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Like I said below, it made no difference if the sources were in English and it made no difference if they said what the article said, verbatim. Nothing was read or considered. If previous comments on the talk pages of libertarianism, libertarian socialism, etc, are any indication, it's hard to imagine how one can suspend enough disbelief to see this behavior as something done in good faith. Nonsense like this seems to happen all the time and I'm tired of it, for one. fi (talk) 17:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The only English source that he removed did not support the statement (sense been corrected by a different editor). --Obsidi (talk) 06:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

That is absolutely, 100% false as I've already explained three times now, here and on the article's talk page. fi (talk) 06:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support per clearly WP:NOTHERE "Having a long-term or "extreme" history that suggests a marked lack of value for the project's actual aims and methods". His editing resembles a WP:SPA purely to WP:POVPUSH his view that libertarian socialism is not a movement, and thus removes references to libertarian socialism from numerous articles, To further his cause he uses edit-warring, pretends he can't translate, and uses the deceitful practices of double-editing (first removing the reference and tagging, then removing the actual statement a few hours later). This whole process causes considerable time wasting and acrimony. This isn't just recent behavior but a long-term problem, just look at his record. WP would be a better place without him. --Mrjulesd (talk) 15:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support. I wasn't sure until reading the objections, but now it's clear that this is all pretty disingenuous, and that some people are just repeating the same falsehoods in defense of this user, no matter what anyone says. Five years is plenty of time for someone to change their behavior. fi (talk) 06:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Wikipedia works best if people question flaky citations, and that is what Darkstar1st has been doing. Finx and Mrjulesd feel threatened by that and so are campaigning to have Darkstar1st blocked. This is wrong. Various editors have looked into their objections to Darkstar1st, and found that the accusations did not really stand up. Mrjulesd claimed that Darkstar1st was edit warring in a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive271#User:Darkstar1st reported by User:Mrjulesd (Result: declined, leaving up to WP:ANI), but when I looked into the accusations, the case against Darkstar1st had been overstated, and Finx and Mrjulesd had edit-warred just as much on the page in question as Darkstar1st, and none of them had broken the 3 revert rule. As for accusations of POV pushing - Finx and Mrjulesd make statements like: "non-Marxist communists are generally known as libertarians"!-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

For the context on that quote, which is totally and verifiably true in context (as explained in the article on anarchist a.k.a. libertarian communism), see this discussion thread started by Darkstar1st's wanting to remove libsoc from the article on libertarianism. I find it hilarious that I'm supposed to be in some kind of conspiracy with Mrjulesd, who only stepped into this matter after seeing it on ANI, AFAIK. fi (talk) 09:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Look if we're all wrong he really needs to come to ANI to defend his position, and give an explanation for his editing patterns. These are serious allegations, his lack of input here is plainly unsatisfactory. --Mrjulesd (talk) 11:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support. Have we really been discussing this problem for five years? I think that's enough time to come to a decision. Viriditas (talk) 08:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support with WP:STANDARDOFFER, which would of course entail a topic ban if he were ever reinstated. If someone so clearly WP:NOTHERE is to get the message, he needs an indef ban. Softlavender (talk) 09:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, why are people complaining that Darkstar1st removed political labels which had no reference? Finx is adding labels with no reference or bad references, so Finx is breaking policy, not Darkstar1st. Spumuq (talq) 12:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Where have I done this? None of those labels were originally added by me and I was usually not the first to revert their removal. I did provide sources on four occasions: three from the concerned parties' own publications, one from a respected American academic and authority on regional politics and several others on talk pages (from pertinent and well known political journals, Kevin Carson's think tank, etc). I'm not sure where I broke policy. fi (talk) 13:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

A lot of articles about socialist groups are old and have few if any references. Your first example, Socialist Party (Netherlands, interbellum) is entirely unsourced. Rather than improve articles on socialism, Darkstar1st has decided to remove any reference to libertarianian in them, believing that libertarianism and socialism are incompatible. He has also as mentioned above removed sources before deleting text, and argues that reliable sources are using incorrect translations when they call foreign groups libertarian. But it is no defense at ANI to say one is right - that is an issue of content that should be decided in the relevant content noticeboards. Right or wrong, editors must work collaboratively with others, which Darkstar1st vehemently refuses to do. TFD (talk) 05:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you are mistaken. If you look at (for example) Talk:Freedom and Solidarity Party you will see useful collaborative behaviour by Darkstar1st, Mrjulesd, Finx and other editors that resulted in better citations in the article. None of that would have happened if Darkstar1st had not questioned a the citation to the statement that the party were socialist libertarians.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, this is just the latest in a succession of clueless campaigns of POV editing and WP:IDONTHEAR from Darkstar1st. For example he has repeatedly tried to insert ill-sourced contentious material about Paul Krugman and other left-of-center figures, and he tried repeatedly to portray Adolf Hitler and Nazism as a leftist socialist. Check his contributions if you wish to familiarize yourself with his history. SPECIFICO talk 22:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Draconian solutions are very rarely wise, and I see no evidence that this is an exception. Wikipedia does not benefit from removing editors of disparate opinions, and I see no reason why this should be an exception from that precept either. Collect (talk) 11:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support Topic Ban Even if some edits aren't technically against the rules (such as deleting unsourced), Rules are principles, and the larger impact has been disruptive and not intended to improve the wiki. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 12:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment It looks like this will go the way of no-consensus. Perhaps ArbCom would be better if both sides of the argument have issues with one another? ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 18:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Normally i would agree with you, but have you looked at his history? See the content in "Examples of past disruption" below. This is long term abuse. --Mrjulesd (talk) 22:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose It's apparent from a little research that routinely getting honest editors banned is used as a tactic to remove them from the consensus pool, resulting in a consensus of a dedicated few for politically motivated bias in several articles. This attempt is just another example of this effort. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 21:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC) — Blue Eyes Cryin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

User:BlueEyesCryin seems to be a single-purpose account, thus a tag seems appropriate per WP:SPA. El duderino ^(abides) 21:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment So far all you have have done is contributed to Talk:Libertarianism a few times, an active interest of User:Darkstar1st. And you support his views. That and two userspace posts, and this post here. Are you in anyway connected to User:Darkstar1st? It looks a lot like a sock account. Maybe WP:SPI will be interested. --Mrjulesd (talk) 23:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• Then take it up with WP:SPI. Maybe you'll succeed in getting me banned, too, strengthening the consensus for the politically motivated bias I pointed out above. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 23:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• "Maybe you'll succeed in getting me banned" are you admitting it then? Btw can't you realise you've doing been doing wrong? It's one thing to have political views, but it's another thing completely to try to bias WP articles for your cause. If you want to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS you're in the wrong place. --Mrjulesd (talk) 00:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• Your false and dishonest accusations and bullying tactics won't work on me. May peace be with you. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 00:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment just in case anyone thinks this is recent behaviour take a look at the archive [114]. Here are a few choice examples:

• Support the ban, clearly Darkstar1st is unable to edit neutrally on contentious topics. I recall seeing their name as a part of the (relevant?)Tea Party arbcom procedures where, afaict, they seemed to have escaped direct sanctions -- yet should have taken that inclusion as a clear warning. El duderino ^(abides) 20:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
• Regrettable support All other measures have failed to deter Darkstar from tendentious editing. A site ban will prevent further disruption from him, and also deter future editors from following a similar path. Steeletrap (talk) 04:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose nowhere has anyone shown that the edits were wrong. If we want people to be WP:BOLD and require WP:RS and removal of material that isn't sourced ought to be common practice - why we retain unsourced junk is beyond me, but no one's removal of it ought to get him or her banned. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - I echo Carlos S. Some of the evidence against Darkstar1 relates to his attempt to correct a listing of the World Socialist Party as "libertarian socialist." WSP is Marxist, yes. It is part of the Impossibilist tradition, for those of you familiar with the concept. It might even be spun as "Anti-Leninist" and certainly has taken a role critical of Soviet-style socialism. But "libertarian socialist"?!? I just had a look at the WP piece Libertarian Marxism and it is one of the biggest crocks of original research BS that I've seen on Wikipedia... All DS1 did is put up a "citation needed" template for that extremely........dubious....... categorization of the WSP. Kudos. I'd have removed it altogether if I were editing the piece. In short: this smells like the steamrolling of an inconvenient editor rather than addressing an authentic NOTHERE issue. I don't see anything rising to the level of a site ban. Carrite (talk) 16:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, but with a short leash attacked. Edit warring non-English sources out of an article is not a particularly good idea unless you're very, very sure they don't say what's claimed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Restored this section from archive: Request admin attention

I've restored this section from the archive Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive872#User:Darkstar1st_on_a_site-wide_purge_of_any_mention_of_.22libertarian_socialism.22 as he is back to his old tricks: removing references to libertarian socialism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Equality_Party_%28Chile%29&diff=prev&oldid=646028069

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Socialist_Party_%28Netherlands,_interbellum%29&diff=prev&oldid=646028553

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Socialist_Party_of_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=646028899

He previously removed references to these ideologies, put on tags, and now he is removing the socialist libertariansim, pretending that he did not put on these tags.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Equality_Party_%28Chile%29&diff=645713026&oldid=645692112

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Socialist_Party_%28Netherlands,_interbellum%29&diff=645669261&oldid=645538134

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Socialist_Party_of_the_United_States&diff=645518380&oldid=645442331

I've reported him for edit warring, which is pending. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Darkstar1st_reported_by_User:Mrjulesd_.28Result:_.29

Also see the original diffs. Definite POV pattern to his editing, I request admin action.

--Mrjulesd (talk) 13:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: I've invited Darkstar1st to join this conversation, and let them know that the discussion is currently moving towards their being blocked. -- The Anome (talk) 14:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• I don't care if he is changing 100 articles, if he is doing so for good policy based reasons. To ask for a source for a disputed claim is fine (which is what most of his edits have been). He did get into a bit of an edit war on Equality_Party_(Chile). That was wrong, he should have gone to the talk page after he got reverted. He did remove some content that was sourced to a site in a foreign language, he should have asked for a translation if he disputed it before removing. Other then that I don't see the problem --Obsidi (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• Doesn't that suggest a POV pusher? Removing references to "Libertarian" from lots of socialist political parties? And that's all he's been doing. And there are ample references he's ignoring. There is a definite pattern to his editing suggesting heavy POV against libertarian socialism, like he doesn't like that it exists. --Mrjulesd (talk) 19:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:POVPUSHEditing a POV in an article that corresponds with one's own personal beliefs is not necessarily POV-pushing. If there are references he is ignoring, first make sure that he is aware of them, and then it becomes behavior issue if he continues. Demanding sources and removing unsourced labels (until a source is provided) even on multiple pages is not quite enough to be a problem. If he was repeatedly adding, especially fringe material or expanding sections beyond what would be due weight that would be far more of a problem which is what POV pushing is. --Obsidi (talk) 01:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The editor "asked" for sources and then deleted them when they were provided, or when clarification on the correct and already present sources was offered. fi (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I did see a few that he removed even after a source was provided because the source was not in English. That was wrong. And if he persists and keeps removing it, he should be blocked until he acknowledges that he cannot remove sourced material just because it isn't in English. So far I have seen him remove stuff cited in other languages because it wasn't in English, but after it was added back in he doesn't appear to have kept removing it (meaning a block isn't yet appropriate for that). --Obsidi (talk) 01:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

... removed sources in English that stated what the article said word-for-word, as well. There were up to six or seven reverts on about dozen separate articles, each. Indiscriminate mass deletions by political POV warriors call for a complete topic ban, at the very least, IMO, though I'm tempted to agree with TFD that it might be too lenient in this case. Honestly, the editor above who pointed out that US libertarians are a site-wide problem hit the nail right on the head. I don't know of any other political group here that causes so many problems repeatedly, or spends so much time on shameless appropriation and recuperation of absolutely anything that has some imaginary tenuous connection to the USLP marketing campaign. The issue, as far as I can see, is religious fanaticism. fi (talk) 03:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Can you provide diffs for those in which he "removed sources in English that stated what the article said word-for-word"? There are a lot of different articles and lots of different edits, I have been through all the diffs posted on this thread so far. --Obsidi (talk) 06:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

sure fi (talk) 06:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

So I followed the link for the source cited in the diff and got "Aradığınız sayfa sistemde kayıtlı değildir" which is Turkish for "System is not registered on the page you are looking for" did you get something different? Oh, I see now, your talking about the ref to the book (he didn't remove any content just the ref to the book) I am not sure why he did that, that doesn't seem right. His edit summary seems to be related to the other two edits he made about the weird Turkish page not found message. --Obsidi (talk) 07:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe he felt that it did not support the statement. The text in Wikipedia is "The prominent grouping within the party is Revolutionary Solidarity (former Devrimci Yol (Revolutionary Path) - also known as Dev-Yol) which was formed following the split of Libertarian Socialism Platform in 2007." But the source only says "The remnant of Del Yol, now called the Libertarian Socialism Platform, is also a member of the ODP." Close, but a bit different (or at least doesn't support all the sentence). --Obsidi (talk) 07:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The source explicitly says: "the ODP...is a Turkish socialist libertarian party" -- which was made clear about four or five times, by my count. fi (talk) 07:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes it does, and like I said that is a good source for that. But he removed the reference in the diff above for a different sentence not dealing with if it is a socialist libertarian party. --Obsidi (talk) 12:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

It does not matter if an editor is following content policy and is not something we can decide here. TFD (talk) 18:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

There is a discussion above about a possible site ban for Darkstar1st. I have just created the heading "Site ban proposal for User:Darkstar1st". Please give your views there. --Mrjulesd (talk) 02:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

User Flyer22 and User EvergreenFir - Hounding, harassment

User Flyer22 has been repeatedly making accusations of me, and posted harassing and insulting comments despite my request for them to stop.

Harassing comments: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Binksternet#Feminism_article Request to stop, and failure to do so: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Flyer22#Dispute_resolution

Same goes for the user EvergreenFir, who has been following me around to pretty much everywhere I post and making snide comments and remarks. Requesting an Administrator review their actions to ensure they are in line with Wikipedia policies and rules. BrentNewland (talk) 19:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Forgot to mention, additional comments by EvergreenFir are here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Men.27s_Rights_Movement

I'm just sick of these guys following me around everywhere and trying to start an argument. BrentNewland (talk) 19:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

What specifically do you consider to be "harassing and insulting comments"? Chillum 20:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

You should include some diffs to show what you mean. -- Orduin ^Discuss 20:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know why Flyer22 started talking about me. They suddenly appeared on Binksternet's talk page, solely to comment about me. This user started making accusations about my account and another user's account (failing to follow the standard Wikipedia protocol for investigating sockpuppets). I proceeded to tell them they could have and administrator review my account (subtly hinting that they should actually go find one, instead of talking on a talk page). They did not take the hint, and decided to yet again post making accusations of me being a "sockpuppet". They also attempt to invoke some form of official authority by linking to a section of their user page about "WP:Sockpuppet_watch". To be honest, I would expect someone who claims to be part of a "sockpuppet watch" to actually know what the procedures are for dealing with a suspected sockpuppet (hint: proper procedure is NOT to follow them around hurling accusations at them). Finally, I decided to track the information on dealing with sockpuppets down myself, gave them a link to the proper procedures, and asked them to stop making accusations against me outside of the proper venue. Another post from flyer22 at the same time (probably was making their comment while I was making mine).

Here is one of the biggest problems I have with Flyer22: After (politely) giving them the information on reporting sockpuppets and asking them to stop posting these accusations against me in talk pages, they did exactly that. Incredibly immature, crosses the line. And they did it again. And then they got rude with another user.

Finally, I initiated the formal dispute process. I went to their talk page and formally asked them to stop. And they didn't. They got rude and aggressive. And then ruder.

And that's where things stand with Flyer22.

Now, with EvergreenFir: I first encountered them on the Feminism talk page and the Men's Rights movement talk page, no problems there. They followed me to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Men.27s_Rights_Movement (which is also not a problem).

However, they got rude. Made an edit with the notes being "rp - STICK" and basically accused me of "beating a dead horse". Generally, insulting and condescension are not acceptable arguments for discussions following pre-approved guidelines. The use of the word "equal" in quotes is also quite condescending in context - though that one is harder to quantify. That, plus their other comments, makes it clear they want no discussion to take place on this subject - in which case, their other actions are cast in a different light.

I responded, letting them know that I thought their comment was aggressive, hostile, and condescending. I suggested they be more careful with the wording of their posts, as well as some other suggestions.

EvergreenFir's response was not to own up to their mistakes, but to say "I don't need to be your friend". Then they (again) use condescending language by accusing me of being a "new editor and all". I pointed out that their comment had not addressed nay issues, and asked them to refrain from comments that did not add to the conversation. Then there's an implication that I am using multiple accounts due to my knowledge of "hounding"/google/search phrases. I respond reminding them how to report a sockpuppet account, and that their comment was otherwise offtopic.

HERE'S THE KICKER: EvergreenFir followed me to Flyer22's page and left yet another rude and condescending comment.

If anyone is using sockpuppets, I would imagine it's Flyer22/Flyer2222 (Flyer2222 left a comment on EvergreenFir's page - account name is quite close to Flyer22). But I won't report them for that because it could be seen as harassment having multiple reports. BrentNewland (talk) 23:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• Looks like a straightforward case of meatpuppetry to me. There has been considerable off-site coordination regarding the men's rights page. In this Reddit discussion, for example, activists bemoan the state of the article and plan their collective resistance against Wikipedia's feminist oppressors or something. One redditor suggests Let's edit the feminism wiki article in the EXACT same way, then document how those edits and editors are treated. That's when BrentNewland arrives to demand equal (one might say, the "EXACT same") treatment for feminism and the men's rights movement [115][116][117], regardless of the RS for the subjects. Men's rights related pages are on article probation but more (admin) eyes would help deal with the recent influx of new editors or relatively new reactivated accounts. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm shocked to discover that there's been off-site canvassing from MRM. Shocked. Ravensfire (talk) 21:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

It's gotten worse after the GamerGate ArbCom decision. They talk about GamerGate a lot and what it means for their strategy in approaching the article about "their" movement. Maybe that adds to your shock;) The most recent coordination on Reddit is definitely at least partially responsible for the arrival of so many new and reactivated accounts. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I only have one Wikipedia account. As I told them, if they suspect me of something, they can follow the proper process. Harassing me, hounding me, following me around is not following the proper process. There is no excuse for their actions. I have been editing Wikipedia for years. Just because I don't always do it when logged in doesn't mean I'm some new guy. BrentNewland (talk) 21:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what is meant by meat puppetry, you are not being accused of having another account. I am however glad you have drawn attention to this issue. Chillum 22:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Boomerang? Shot myself in the foot? Please. I am no puppet - sock or meat. The fact that you have linked to WP:Boomerang while saying "drawn attention" leads me to believe that nobody here has any intention of actually investigating my complaint. Instead, you've gone on a Wikipedia:Witchhunt. BrentNewland (talk) 23:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Regardless of whether or not BrentNewland is operating another account - and his comments about editing as an IP are not exactly exculpatory - he's clearly editing as a single-purpose disruptive account that, given the long dormancy, has probably been recruited from offsite. ArbCom sanction 1.2 may be applicable? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Single purpose account? I have edited several articles. If the admins check my IP logs, they'll see I've made many useful contributions. Just because a few edits recently have been on one subject does not make me a "single-purpose account". And as far as "disruptive", if attempting to address flaws in an article, then following the rules and bringing these flaws to the Admin's attention on the NPOV noticeboard is "disruptive", then perhaps the rules should be changed so following them isn't considered "disruptive". Also, Wikipedia:Witchhunt. BrentNewland (talk) 23:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• So I was not nice. Okay. Nothing requires me to be nice. However, BrentNewland flatters themselves if they think I followed them to Flyer22's talk page. I'm sure Flyer22 and any admin if such data exist and are accessible to them can tell you that Flyer22's talk page has been on my watchlist for quite some time. I am alerted to edits there via my watchlist. Imagine my delight to see BrentNewland's edit. Anyway, too much WP:MEAT around here for my formerly-vegetarian tastes. Ciao. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I think it's about time to invoke WP:NOTHERE and the various probations/discretionary sanctions he's been notified of and impose at least a topic ban. Anybody? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Need to be a little bit careful here; the notifications issued were at 22:22, 10 February 2015 (MRM article probation) and 23:03, 11 February 2015 (gender-related DS; less than four hours ago). I'm not seeing good signs from the editor, but I'm not really seeing anything that would justify invoking the probation sanctions or DS after the relevant notification. I note also that the article probation notification was not correctly logged. GoldenRing (talk) 02:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

BrentNewland Topic ban propoal

I endorse a temporary topic ban but not anything else for the user, BrentNewland (talk · contribs). My proposal would be:

• 4 months (proposal to change in progress) of topic ban in the subjects of MRM and Feminism for BrentNewland (talk · contribs). After the period is over, in consultation of an admin (who'll review his edits), he can again reach out to the community to gain approval in the editing sphere to go back to that niche and perform un-biased edits. He's also admonished for accusing editors of harassment when none has taken place.
• Flyer22 (talk · contribs) is not admonished since he has accused him of meatpuppetry, rightly and not sockpuppetry. He's however directed to be a bit more pleasant in tone and not suggest that someone might be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet with no evidence at all.
• EvergreenFir (talk · contribs) is not admonished at all.

Proposal revised. (x2) --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 16:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC) All in support may say "Aye" or "Nay" if not, below this proposal. Any constructive change to this proposal is also appreciated. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 04:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Why only 4 months? They are clearly editing those articles just to be disruptive. Do we really want to invite them back for more later? There are plenty of other people working on those articles. I don't think BrentNewland will be missed. MoreTomorrow (talk) 05:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@MoreTomorrow: 4 months of topic ban is quite a lot for almost a SPA, isn't it? And, he'll need to regain community approval after the period is over, so I guess, it's fine. If one more reputed editor supports an increase to 6 months or such, I'll change my proposal. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 05:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

A tedious bureaucratic comment. First, sockpuppet allegations should be presented at WP:SPI rather than here. Second, harassment allegations are serious and require evidence, which hasn't been provided so far. Third, a proposed topic ban with exemptions for typo fixes or bots would be hard to administer, and would widen WP:BANEX beyond even its current complexity. Fourth, being a SPA is not an offence. --Euryalus (talk) 09:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@Euryalus: He's apparently not a sockpuppet but a meatpuppet and it's not possible to verify the credibility so we cannot have investigations either. I've revised the proposal to fix the issue put in the third point. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 11:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Being a SPA is not an offence. Ofc, it's not. I argued on the same thing a few days ago at ANI. But, once someone's a proved SPA, it becomes hard to judge the POV and decide whether it's unbiased or not. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 16:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• I'm somewhere between meh and nay. As GoldenRing mentioned above, the warnings are fresh. Either the user will improve, they will cease to edit, or we just give them more rope. Waiting is a win-win-quasiwin. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

  Improving doesn't seem to be in the cards. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps time to buy stock in the rope making industry. My stocks in glue manufacturers has paid off. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you are all being absolutely ridiculous. I can't believe how far Wikipedia has fallen. I made, what, 2 edits, which were reverted, then I made no more. I'm harassed for it, I report the harassment following your rules, and you all decide to discuss banning me? Because of my political views? Even though I haven't broken a single rule? And your only evidence is you FEEL I MIGHT be a "meatpuppet"? And you let one of the people I brought claims against VOTE on this topic!?!?

You know what, fine. Whatever. Ban me. Delete my account. If this is how you treat people who are just trying to help, I don't WANT to be on Wikipedia. 17:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrentNewland (talk • contribs)

Tell you what. Edit something else. Prove that you understand how to use Wikipedia policies and guidelines, not just how to quote them. Then we'll all shut up. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@BrentNewland: I think you haven't carefully observed two things. First, EvergreenFir is actually speaking for you. Second, this isn't a vote, this is a discussion to seek consensus on whether you presence in the community is appreciated or not. And the point is, we are not happy but we are willing to give you a second chance. For what it's worth, we are not endorsing a site-ban but just a topic-ban, your edits to the aforementioned subjects are actually quite nonconstructive and you should know it by now. I am honestly fed up with the community too. I've almost left the place. I mostly come on ANI just to defend newbies, just to defend them. Here you might think, I want to ban you. No, it's as simply as, at some point you've got to stop. You have been making quite biased edits which are not really quite satisfying to the community and if you want to survive, you're going to have to deal with it. The only reason that you have an allegation of a meatpuppet is because of your edits. I've realized that atleast, you are here in good faith. Most people are not. Let this be your first and last time, someone points a finger at you for your edits, but I believe reprimanding is necessary. All I want you to prove is that the community is damn wrong. You must prove, you're not a SPA, not a meatpuppet, not a biased article editor. Prove them wrong, in these 4 months, which you should accept, and I guarantee that you'll achieve happiness but respect from the community is not. Our community's a hidden dystopia, deal with it. If you ever have time, read The Bet and you'll realize things about life, that you should take in. Very respectfully. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 13:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• I say Aye. Regardless of the meatpuppetry issue, BrentNewland has fundamentally misapprehended our core content policies, especially NPOV. He continues to argue that feminism and men's rights movement need to be treated equally although other editors have explained (e.g., [118][119]) to him that feminism and men's rights movement are treated differently in RS and that Wikipedia must reflect that. His subsequent disruptive edits, like the tag bombing [120][121] on the feminism page, are based on that fundamental and persistent misunderstanding of NPOV. Sure, we could give him more rope as EvergreenFir suggests, try to explain to him for the fifth and sixth time that he misunderstands how NPOV works, and waste more editors' time and patience in the process. Or we topic ban him for a few months so that he can work in less contentious topic areas and get experience following our NPOV policy and working with other editors. I think that the later option is preferable. However, all of us could be "more pleasant in tone" and I don't get why Flyer22 and EvergreenFir need an extra special reminder of that. They didn't cross the line into personal attacks or harassment. Their more or less oblique (I assume to avoid accusations of OUTING) suggestions that meatpuppetry is involved don't deserve that kind of censure. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 15:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

They didn't harass Brent or otherwise, which is why they're not written in the proposal. He's cited nearly every Wikipedia policy to what he's done and it sounds really template-ish. EvergreenFir has been fine but Flyer22 has put forward quite agitated comments. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 16:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• nay: I say this with all due deference to WP:FAITH, but this plain and simple looks like a Wikipedia:Witchhunt against BrentNewland (talk · contribs) for bringing up valid concerns that he has backed up with evidence. What's even scarier is that by commenting here, I wouldn't be surprised if I'm targeted similar to BrentNewland (talk · contribs). The reaction he's getting is exactly the kind of chilling effect BrentNewland (talk · contribs) was trying to bring attention to. It's the same attempt at a chilling effect that participator Sonicyouth86 is doing to me on my talk page. For admin considering actions here, I think WP:AOTE is instructive.

I have already been a target of aggressive attempts by Flyer22 (talk · contribs) to have me banned, so I'm speaking up to corroborate BrentNewland (talk · contribs) concerns. [If that makes me a meatpuppet, then I struggle to see how the coordinated actions of Flyer22 (talk · contribs), Sonicyouth86 (talk · contribs), and EvergreenFir (talk · contribs) as like minded editors do not also constitute "meatpuppetry". I want to emphasize that the WP:MEATPUPPET policy was enacted to prevent genuine abuse or dogpiling by like minds (much like we are seeing right here against BrentNewland (talk · contribs) by Flyer22 (talk · contribs), Sonicyouth86 (talk · contribs), and to a lesser extent, EvergreenFir (talk · contribs)), it's purpose is *not* to prevent WP:FAITH edits, or to stop WP:BOLD edits made with an awareness of WP:CAUTIOUS and WP:IMPERFECT.Spudst3r (talk) 18:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Your argument against the points about BrentNewland being a long dormant single purpose account would be far more convincing Spudst3r if you were not a long dormant single purpose account yourself. For example: two of your 3 edits in 2014 were to Masculism and Men's rights movement. 78% of your edits since suddenly returning in 2015 are about gender conflicts. And prior to those 3 sporadic edits in 2014 you were not active since 2012. Something brought both of you to Men's rights topic after Feb 5th and to many of the same pages. After the call for meatpuppets to make calls for edits to this site that reflect exactly what was suggested on reddit. That is prima facia meatpuppetry. And that policy reads that doing the bidding of offsite entities, organizations, groups etc in order to manipulate wikipedia in ways contrary to its own policies and regulations is meatpuppetry.
The newly closed Gamergate Arbitration allows for any administrator to act against accounts "with a clear shared agenda may be blocked if they violate the sockpuppetry policy or other applicable policy". Abusing noticeboards, lobbying for misrepresentation of sources and breaches of WP:BATTLE constitute clear breaches of WP:DE and WP:POINT. This is part of a deliberate long-running campaign of ownership by off site entities designed to frustrate this site's rules, goals and standards in this topic area, in order to promote a point of view that may be popular on the internet but is not part of mainstream scholarly opinion.
Thus as it stands I agree with the topic ban for BrentNewland 4 months is ok (I'd have gone for 3 TBH) however meatpupptry by definition does not happen in a vacuum and I see at least 1 other account here deserving of the same prohibition--Cailil ^talk 11:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

A few points: 1. I picked up editing activity before this article in January, making big contributions to the securitization (international relations) article.

2. Since my edits to masculism and men's rights movement, going back to those articles to improve them has always been on my to do list. If you want to know why my editing has picked up it's because I found a freelance job that gives me much freedom to pursue my own pursuits, such as editing wikipedia on my spare time. Do I have a big focus on this subject? Yes, but as noted earlier single purpose account are not against the rules on wikipedia -- if you really want to call me that.

3. Instead of repeated ad hominem on my intentions to limit my ability to contribute, I challenge you to look at the content of my edits. You will see I make extensive use of the talk page, and have collaboratively worked with other editors to find a consensus where disagreements exist.

RE: meatpuppeting accusations: Looking into the reddit article posted by sonicyouth86 that began these meatpuppet claims, I noticed that one of the commenters there points out that Reddit posts about this wikipedia page a lot. It's unfortunate the men's rights subreddit is doing this, but I don't see how I can be blamed for their actions. Furthermore, I'm a little concerned how this page can ever receive valid contributors from a masculinist perspective if outside sources constantly judge them to be meatpuppets because of this subreddit constantly calling attention to this page?! Spudst3r (talk) 22:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Forgive me if my expression above was terse or came across as personal - there is no ad hominem above it is an accurate reflection of your contrib history. However the fact that wikipedia is again dealing with off-site interference is a problem for wikipedia. Single Purpose accounts that don't edit neutraly ARE against the rules. Making edits to one topic area is ok but doing so in order to achieve something outside the aims of this site, "raising profiles", "counter acting" perceived academic bias etc etc are all things that we have had years to develop rules to deal with (see the ARbCom rulings on Israel-Palestine and other nationalist, as well as the many Psuedo- and Fringe science wars). The fact that it took Gamer gate and the massive juvenile disruption of this site for ArbCom to act in relation to the long running (almost a decade) problem of gender conflict on wikipedia is more of an indictment of the shortsightedness of previous committees than anything else. I agree this is extremely unfortunate that redditers are doing this. It adds to the MRAs bad rep. And to the defcon on Wikipedia. It achieves the 100% opposite of what they want. But that's not my problem or wikipedia's it's those individuals'. For Wikipedia one of the most serious red flags is the repeated clamour to edit Men's movement pages to be the same as Feminist pages. Doing this is likely to raise eyebrows. It's the same as asking to edit Obama articles the same as GW Bush articles. It's prima facia agenda driven partisan editing that has nothing to do with Wikipedia's goals and everything to do with PR campaigns of offsite entities (that's not an accusation just an FYI). But you have to understand that in the context of pages where significant meatpuppetry occurs, on a regular basis, when a group of people show up, out of the blue, clamouring for the same things (which are BTW against policy or which require impossible changes to said policy) we'll see meatpuppetry. Especially when we see them acting deliberately against policy repeatedly--Cailil ^talk 14:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

EChastain's comments re: Flyer22, EvergreenFir and sockpuppet accusations

It's very easy to get rattled by the aggressiveness of Flyer22 and EvergreenFir. They do seem to suddenly appear, as BrentNewland says above. As a newly returned editor, I thought I could edit as I had before. But when I edited Mansplaining, in terrible shape at the time, with very poor sources, original research and a huge quote, see:[122], I received a series of 11 posts from EvergreenFir (who hadn't edited the article before), starting with:[123] [124] She reverted me three minutes after my edit, clearly not having evaluated my edit, and threatened me. [125] [126] I finally reverted her with the edit summary "FFS give me a couple minutes to put shit together" is not a reason to revert - stop battleground and ownership behavior)". And she stopped editing it.

I had tried to explain myself both on my talk page and on the article talk page, where I was accused of causing the talk to disintegrate into some sort of a men's rights discussion (by an editor who had never edited the article or the talk page before), though I'm a female. EvergreenFir had not edited that article before I did, and hasn't edited it since then. Almost all of my edits and my suggestions on the talk page were in one way or another ultimately implemented, after EvergreenFir and her supporters left. But I won't edit that article again, or any other article that's been edited in the last few years. I finally banned her from my talk page, an act that was used as evidence against me in an SPI report.

As for Flyer22, she also posted on my talk page several times in a very boastful and offensive walls of text, related to Lightbreather's request for her help in proving I was a sock of someone or other. Examples:[127] [128] [129]

I felt bullied and ganged up on and haven't really been able to seriously edit articles since.

I respectfully suggest that Flyer22 and EvergreenFir to be encouraged to be more respectful and less abrasive and confrontive in their comments to other editors, even if they disagree with them. For my part, I'm trying to be so in dealing with editors on talk pages. (edited) EChastain (talk) 13:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Additional comments. EvergreenFir says above:

So I was not nice. Okay. Nothing requires me to be nice. However, BrentNewland flatters themselves if they think I followed them to Flyer22's talk page.

Not exactly constructive. I don't think this type of response is a helpful to en:wiki, and I empathise with any editor who gets it. I give kudos to Gerda Arendt and her support of kindness, while all the while getting her points across, even when she disagrees and the same for GoodDay. And it does feel like "dogpiling" as Spudst3r says below. It makes for a terribly tense atmosphere, and hinders editors like me who aren't used to it to try to response well on talk pages when you feel under fire. Thanks! EChastain (talk) 13:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Surprised to find my name here, connected to kindness. Sure you mean me, the alleged battleground person, admonished and restricted by the arbitration committee? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, I see that Flyer22 is accusing Spudst3r of being a sockpuppet on the NPOV Noticeboard[130] where EvergreenFir is also participating in a "Men's Rights Movement" discussion. I take no position on whether they are or are not a sock. But these accusations are used all too frequently to discredit an editor, rather than replying with evidence of POV sources etc., as is the purposed of that noticeboard. Since Flyer22 thinks Spudst3r is a sock, I think she should file an SPI rather than fling those accusations around on another forum, rather than addressing the issues at hand. She made it clear regarding me that she excelled at sniffing out socks.[131] [132] So file a report, Flyer22. If these accusations are repeatedly brought up, it tends to start being accepted as true and damages an editor's reputation. It also means an editor tends to feel that they've got to defend themselves against such attacks, rather than solely dealing with, in this case, the sourcing questions at hand. The NPOV noticeboard is not the place to gain support for your "side" by attacking an editor whose view is different. It doesn't further the goal of building an encyclopaedia. EChastain (talk) 17:48, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in {User|EChaistain}. It looks like I'm next up on the chopping block... If there is one thing more than anything that I think needs to be done to improve Wikipedia, it's to really re-examine its approach SOCKPUPPET/MEATPUPPET and aggressive sanctioning. Spudst3r (talk) 00:49, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

EC its no secret that you don't like Evergreen though, your disputes go further back than this so why feel the need to chime in? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Knowledgekid, yes you always turn up.

True I don't like some of EvergreenFir behavior, starting with her attempts to get a certain editor banned at ANI, the mansplaining thing (described above), with rude posts to my talkpage (I believe you told her to back off). And more trying to get an editor banned at the GGTF ArbCom with her claims of superiority, like the lecture: people who "decide" it's a social phenomenon would be the scholars that write about it., which it turns out she is almost one: if we're tossing out credentials, I'm ABD in sociology. Probably 5 years more in grad school. Later she tells TParis: Clarifying that I said you are ignorant of a topic, namely TERFs. Otherwise, [[WP:DENY]]., with the edit summary: "You are misplacing academic definitions with social use"... I'm an academic, so....

Agree with Spudst3r, that one thing to truly improve wikipedia is to really re-examine its approach SOCKPUPPET/MEATPUPPET and aggressive sanctioning. This whole approach is punitive rather than facilitative. Lets decrease the motivation to one-up others, and to brag that one is an expert in "sniffing out sockpuppets" and other behavior that intimidates those of not the same view. EChastain (talk) 07:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring, personal attacks and hounding by former EEML member

Volunteer Marek:

• Followed me to an article he never edited to revert text that was added over nine months ago, claiming he knows what the consensus there is.[133].

And again removed the same text and more.[134][135] He is claiming that I added the text, even though the diffs show that others added the text long ago.[136][137]

• Continuously made disruptive edits in Rape during the occupation of Germany, such as removing text on false pretexts:

Reverted a paragraph, claiming that RT is not a reliable source.[138] This is debatable, but RT was only used as a source to prove that the person quoted is a historian; the main source for the paragraph was not RT.

Added the revisionist label to the same historian without providing a source,[139] which he should know is a WP:BLP violation.

Reverted text from a review criticizing the use of statistics,[140] claiming that the review is positive and I cherry picked[141] and "willfully and blatantly misrepresented" the source.[142] I made no claim that the review is negative. The text simply states a fact from a review.

Re-added a sentence to the intro[143] that violates WP:MOSINTRO; this sentence was recently added without consensus by a disruptive user (who eventually was banned for edit warring).[144]

Change historian to journalist,[145] even though reliable sources call the person a historian.[146] He has his own explanation of why they are wrong [147](comment below).

Removed relevant text without any discussion or consensus claiming he is shortening the section, when in fact he is removing important points.[148]

• Constantly made personal attacks: "You are full of it",[149] "Bull...",[150] "you're just gaming the 3RR rule and engaging in tendentious editing",[151] "only reason you haven't gotten blocked is because you're much better at gaming the system",[152] that I sneaked in edits against consensus.[153]

Defended a disruptive user in the 3RR report I opened and accused me.[154]

Also he attacked an admin who presented more evidence on that user in the 3RR report ("someone rightly calls you on your bullshit").[155] Ddstretch replied that Volunteer Marek simply did not read his comment carefully and there was no reason to call it "bullshit."[156]

Told me to go away on his talk page.[157]

Demanded that I provide a quote for the sourced text I added (almost right after I added it), implying that I did something wrong.[158] I provided the quote, but he continued with threats.[159][160] And no I did not misquote the author; it is almost a direct quote.

• Followed me to an admin's talk page to accuse me and stick up for like-minded users,[161] even though the conversation had nothing to do with him.

All this is in the EE topic area covered by WP:ARBEE. He was an active member of the WP:EEML under his old name.
This is only one example of harassment by former EEML members. -YMB29 (talk) 20:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

This is a relevant quote from the EEML findings: members coordinating in order to protect each other and their point of view in articles against a perceived "Russian cabal". This included coordinating around the three revert rule, commenting in process along "party lines", supporting each other in disputes even when otherwise uninvolved in them. Tactics organized on the list include baiting, harassment and vexatious complaints against specific users in order to have them sanctioned or driven away from participating.[162] -YMB29 (talk) 21:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Response

This is a "preemptive strike" by user YMB239. In this edit YMB239 misrepresented a source. Pretty blatantly and pretty grossly. I inquired about the actual text in source on the talk page here [163]. YMB239 responded by providing a partial quote, trimmed just so it looked like the source supported the source. The KEY information was omitted in the little "...". I gave them another chance but told them that unless s/he was ready to stop misrepresenting the source (and changed his article text accordingly) I was going to report them. Apparently they decided that it'd be a good idea to preempt that by filing this bogus report here against me first.

This is a textbook illustration of WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude, combined with tendentious editing and POV pushing. When caught red-handed playing fast and loose with sources, quickly start attacking the other person that points out your misbehavior. And YMB239 has a history in this regard. The EEML is a irrelevant red herring, a bullshit excuse. As pointed out here [164] at least six uninvolved users have had problems with YMB239's behavior. To repeat, they were: User:Iryna Harpy, User:Diannaa, User:PBS, User:Kierzek, User:Sayerselle,User:Serialjoepsycho, User:Paavo273, User:Buckshot06 - there's at least one or two admins in there. These editors are unrelated to EEML or anything else that YMB239 might dream up. And just recently, User:PBS (a veteran editor like myself, who's been on Wikipedia since 2003) wrote in response to YMB239's false claims that they had "consensus" (apparently a consensus of one), quote: "I stopped arguing with you YMB29, not because I think that you have not harmed this article by including the text that you have, but because it was too much of a time sink, and I have more constructive things to be doing with my time. A am pleased that someone else has taken up the baton and is willing to discuss it further with you. " (my emphasis)

That's what YMB239 has been doing for the past several months on this and related articles. They have been engaged in months long slow motion edit war, combined with a complete lack of good faith discussion on talk, characterized by WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, apparantly designed to just simply wear, tire, and bore, those who take issue with YMB239's POV and edits, out, until they quit and let them have their way. This is extremely disruptive, has been noted and commented on by several users (in addition to those 6 listed above) and a topic ban from the relevant articles has been mentioned. Personally, as a content editor, I think the dishonest misrepresentation of sources to be worthy of a month long block on top of a topic ban.

For anyone who's interested, the full text source is here. The text says pretty much the OPPOSITE of what YMB239 pretends it says.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments

Just to make this a bit less likely to hit the too long cap the request to stay away from his talk page is a perfectly valid request on their part. Amortias (T)(C) 21:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok, but he could have said it in a more civil tone. -YMB29 (talk) 21:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Mentioning users like Sayerselle and Paavo273, who were banned or warned for edit warring, is misleading. I never had any real problems with Serialjoepsycho or Buckshot06. There was no reason for you to try to canvass these users here. -YMB29 (talk) 21:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, I had disagreements with PBS, but he never resorted to personal attacks or following me to other pages. He was not the only one editing that page. The idea that I somehow fooled everyone and pushed edits through without consensus months ago is ridiculous. -YMB29 (talk) 21:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I've no clue what this dispute is over. Which article? This all sounds vaguely familiar. This have anything to do with Soviets raping Germans in Berlin at the end of world war 2?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Yep. Battle of Berlin and Rape during the occupation of Germany.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

You are just canvassing users to distract from the topic. This is not about content dispute. Me and Serialjoepsycho never had problems, only regular talk page discussion. -YMB29 (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The place where I encountered YMB29 was Talk:Battle of Berlin, which is the same place where he is currently edit warring. The problem is the refusal by YMB29 to accept consensus and move on, as seen in Archives 8, 9, 10, and the current talk page, which has wasted an enormous amount of editor time (essentially our only resource). In March through May 2014, and again starting in February 2015, when the consensus is clearly against him. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

So you are claiming that I edited against consensus when I was not the one who added the recently removed text?

Go read the archives and look at the page history. There was consensus to add the text to the footnotes. I wanted it in the article text, but accepted that there was no consensus for that. -YMB29 (talk) 22:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

PBS added the text to the footnote.[165] and Paul Siebert added the other text back in 2009.[166] -YMB29 (talk) 22:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, how does the source say the opposite of what I quoted? Here is the link to the page in the book,[167] so anyone could look and see that you are making false accusations again. -YMB29 (talk) 22:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@YMB29: Before this turns into a pointless rehash of the talk page. I took the time to read through the talk page for Rape during the occupation of Germany from point 15 on before commenting here. I am completely uninvolved in this dispute. I have worked with User:Volunteer Marek exactly once and found him perfectly willing to change his position when the sources warrant it. I have not worked with any of the other editors

Based on the talk page conversation I would say that everyone has been admirably restrained in dealing with your POV pushing. Trying to use Alexander Dyukovand Albert Axell (Who as far as I can tell has published a couple mediocre popular histories and according to JSTOR no peer revieved work) in a controvercial article demanding the highest quality sources shows you are more interested in finding people that agree with your POV than representing what academic consensus is.

• You accuse Iryna Harpy of meat puppeting 10 February 2015, last Tuesday [168]

• You are informed that consensus was required for including of your sources by My very best wishes based on RFC on Soviet Rapes which you participated in. [169]

• You were notified of ARBEE DS on 27 Dec 2015 by EdJohnston

• It looks like you have moved your edit waring to the talk pages by apparently removing another users comments here and here. Then proceeding to argue about it in an entire section on the talk page. If it was an accident a simple 'ooppss I'm sorry' would have likely have been the end of it.

All of the above suggest to me that you are suffering from a very bad case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and are engaging in battleground behavior to push a fringe POV on this article against the consensus of every other author involved with it. If you do not understand that Wikipedia operates on consensus you need to take a break from editing this topic either willingly or enforced. There is currently no consensus for the changes you wish to make it is time to WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on. Based on what I have read I would endorse the targeted application of WP:BOOMERANG. JBH (talk) 22:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Did you bother to look at the evidence?

Accusations like moving comments by a user (who was actually the one removing my comment) are ridiculous. I moved his comment to a new section to help along the discussion.

Iryna Harpy and "My very best wishes" are also both hounding me. I did not present evidence on them because this section was big enough.

You are going by claims by others without looking at what actually goes on. -YMB29 (talk) 22:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I realize that the numbers are against me, but that is exactly what the EEML ("My very best wishes" was also a member of that) was about. Converging on other users who were deemed hostile and creating a false consensus. -YMB29 (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

YMB29 (talk · contribs) I assure that I'm not on good terms with Marek and the Ukraine are has been a disaster for years, BUT, when will-intentioned editors, lioke Jbhunley (talk · contribs) give you good advice, you need to heed that. Basically, you need to learn more about Wikipedia policy and learn how to address content disputes (and conduct disputes) in those terms. If you can accomplish that, you will be much more effective in seeing that the articles reflect the content as represented in WP:RS.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 23:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Jbhunley simply looked at the number of accusations against me and concluded that the problem is with me. He did not look at the evidence I presented, and at the histories of the users he mentioned.

The problem here is a group of users (you should recognize them from the Ukrainian conflict articles) going around to different articles and removing sourced text for dubious reasons. -YMB29 (talk) 23:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@YMB29: Yes, I have read the background and looked into the sources - did I not state that? You are trying to put a revisionist interpretation of history in a very controversial article based upon absolutely crap sources. Everything else is drama. An editor with the barest understanding of Wikipedia consensus policy would have stopped by now. Based on the RFC you were doing the same thing almost a year ago with much the same result. I can not imagine the frustration the other editors must be feeling with your behavior. If, with all the passion and dedication you exhibit in pushing your POV you have been unable to find better sources than you have presented then they likely do not exist or you would have found them by now. If they are out there then I strongly suggest you use the time and effort you have been expending on this futile war to go and find them. If you can not find any then drop it and move on.

I care not one iota about who did what to whom so please do not take this as an invitation to rehash accusations. Stripped of all the drama and crap the issue is simple. You do not have the sources to support what you want to say. You are being disruptive. One will not solve the other. Your disruptive behavior should not be allowed to continue. It is a detriment to the project. That is not to say that you are a detriment to the project. If you can put the goals of Wikipedia ahead of your own personal ideology then you can help shape the Encyclopedia. The end result sought is for your disruption to end. JBH (talk) 23:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Crap sources? When you make accusations like that I wonder about your objectivity here.

These are reliable sources (meet the RS criteria). They represent the majority Russian view, but I understand that this is a minority view on the English wiki. However, they are not fringe. Simply trying to make sure they are properly presented in articles here is not pushing some "ideology."

Consensus is not reached only by an RfC, although the RfC's closing stated that the sources are credible. The RfC, started by user Diannaa, also was not fair as it did not represent the dispute properly. There was a lot of discussion and editing going on after the RfC ended. -YMB29 (talk) 23:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

You are also overlooking the constant personal attacks and going around to different talk pages to advocate for like-minded users (see the 3RR report I filed for example). -YMB29 (talk) 23:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, how do you comment on what I said earlier:

"PBS added the text to the footnote.[170] and Paul Siebert added the other text back in 2009.[171]"

So the users were not reverting text that I supposedly pushed into the article. Regarding the second text (sourced to Bird), it is not a Russian source and I did not even edit the article back in 2009. -YMB29 (talk) 23:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I will say for the third time: I read the talk page history. I looked into the authors you want to use. I applied Wikipedia rules and policies as I understand them in an objective manner. One source was a popular historian with no peer reviewed writings. The other was so far out on the fringe that even Wikipedia, with its BLP policy, unambiguously labeled him as a revisionist historian The only qualified author you wanted to use was Yelena Senyavskaya who as far as I can tell is a lone voice in the wilderness. Even her, according to the talk page discussions, you wanted to use in an inappropriate manner. Just because my analysis is not what you want to hear does not mean it was not objective. It means that after assessing them I found them to be crap, particularly for use about such a contentious subject.

As to the accusations flying back and fourth I already said I give not one iota about them. Based on our exchanges it seems you do not understand when I say I have done something I have done that thing. When I say I do not care about something I do not care about that thing Your inability to grasp that tells me you either suffer from a lack of ability to comprehend what someone is saying to you or you are using an exceedingly juvenile debating tactic in am attempt to discredit.

As to your specific questions. The first is a quote from Yelena Senyavskaya which the RFC said required consensus to include, obviously consensus right now is not to include. The other one I have no opinion on as I have not looked at the source.

As to your third point. Again,I just do not care who did what. The point you raise is irrelevant to your behavior. What you fail to understand is even if you are right on one of the issues you raise it in no way excuses your disruptive behavior. If you continue acting the way you are now no one will care whether you are right or wrong and the one constructive edit you could have made is lost in all the disruption. If you concentrate on one good edit you would make a positive contribution to Wikipedia. What you are doing now is, in my opinion, a net negative.Also, please do not attempt to again represent to others how I formed my opinions on these issues.JBH (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The issue here is not Axell or Dyukov (Dyukov I agreed to remove even though he was RS). You constantly referring to them shows that don't know what you are talking about.

Maybe if you don't care, you should not comment here... Your selective review of evidence and insults like "sources are crap" are disruptive.

So it is ok to stalk users, make personal attacks, commit BLP violations just because you think the users doing that are right on a content dispute?

Is it also ok for users to come into articles they never edited before, make false claims and reverts, and suddenly form a "new consensus."?

As for Senyavskaya, no she is not alone. You simply overlook the other sources. -YMB29 (talk) 01:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, these diffs[172][173] show that you have interacted with Volunteer Marek before, so you are not a neutral observer here. -YMB29 (talk) 01:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Wow! Did you really not read my opening statement where I said: "I have worked with User:Volunteer Marek exactly once and found him perfectly willing to change his position when the sources warrant it. I have not worked with any of the other editors"? Hmmm I bet it is not a reading comprehension issue. Try addressing the issues I have brought up to you rather than trying to discredit my opinion.

The locus of the dispute is you have been continuously attempting to edit a controversial subject against consensus. This has lead to UNCIVIL acts on both sides. However, based on the conversations I have read much of the other editors UNCIVIL remarks stem from from frustration with your continuous WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior. At the minimum, as I and other have pointed out above, you come here with UNCLEAN hands on the UNCIVIL issue.

Attempting to address UNCIVIL behavior here is all but futile except in the most extreme cases. I chose to focus on your WP:TENDENTIOUS editing, which the source issue directly relates to. Whether it is source choice, NPOV wording or an argument over talk page editing you seem completely unable to recognize when consensus is against you. He said, she said ultimately makes no difference. You seem to think other editors' behavior excuses your own. It does not. Hence my not caring about it.

When no one agrees with you the wise man considers that maybe he is wrong. I have said what I have to say. I hope an admin will take a look at this but it has become a wall of text for which I share the blame. If you bring up an issue of substance I will address it. I am going to wait now for some more uninvolved editors to comment. We seem to have reached a point of diminishing returns in our conversation. JBH (talk) 02:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Well again you are not an uninvolved editor, so maybe you should not have posted walls of text accusing me and excusing violations of policy by others.

Your unexpected aggressiveness against me shows that you are not neutral and commenting in good faith. I never interacted with you before and yet you know that I am some highly disruptive user so quickly...

Advocating for other users, even when it is clear they have violated policies, is a common problem here. The same thing happened when I filed my last 3RR report, but that did not help the user being reported. -YMB29 (talk) 02:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I can read and I can understand what the rules are. It was not difficult to see the behavioral problem. Working with one editor on one article does not make me involved. All that claim does is show you try to deflect when you can not address the issues. The purpose of ANI is to solicit uninvolved opinion. That is what I gave you. I advocate for no one. Cheers. JBH (talk) 02:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Well simply stating your opinion, instead of throwing accusations and insults at me and excusing misconduct by others, would have been enough, if you were truly uninvolved and neutral. -YMB29 (talk) 02:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Is there actually *anyone* on Wikipedia that you don't immediately start a fight with when they try to interact and discuss something with you? The list of users who are telling you to lay off and that you're in the wrong has greatly increased in the short time since you filed this AN/I "report", but somehow that's still not getting through.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Who, Jbhunley? Like said, I never interacted with him, so his attacks were uncalled for. -YMB29 (talk) 03:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Honestly this was many months ago when I was there. Surprised it's still going. But honestly I really don't have much to add.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic bans on all editors active in this dispute. I am not a fan of the "block 'em all, let Jimbo sort 'em out" approach, but in this case, it seems appropriate. Regarding Volunteer Marek, this user has been nothing but a thorn in the side of anyone attempting to have a civil discussion or improve an article, so a topic ban on him would greatly improve the editing environment. Viriditas (talk) 03:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Dude, seriously? Still pursuing your little grudges from months ago? You obviously have not even bothered to read either the article or the discussion, just jumped in here in a pathetic attempt to get back to me for some criticism I at levied at you months ago. Who is this "anyone attempting to have a civil discussion or improving the article" that I've thwarted, you're referring to? No-one (it can't be YMB29)? Point'em out please. Name'em. List'em. Anyone? Anyone? Buller? Didn't think so.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support WP:BOOMERANG topic ban for YMB29. Per everything I said above and based on the diffs I have looked fully into the edits YMB29 is complaining about being wrong were correct:

1. Dyukov is a revisionist historian

2. Yep cherrypicked the reviewer does not say his methods call into question the magnitude of the rapes as this quote seems to imply.
3. Removing the weasaly "A frequently iterated claim that thewar time rapes had been surrounded by decades of silence." and replacing it with "The" does not violate WP:MOSINTRO
4. Albert Axell is not a historian by any accademic measure.
5. Saying that "There is dispute from Russia concerning these claims." Re the rapes is unsupported. Saying some Russian historians dispute the rapes is supported.
   

I see no point in continuing through the rest, I want to go to bed.

Volunteer Marek and the others(not going to list them VM is the one brought up by name in the sanction) may have been UNCIVIL but I can not say I would have remained civil in the same situation. It would be great if we had a civility policy with teath but we do not. Topic banning all the other editors for responding to a WP:TENDENTIOUS editor is extreme. I am sure VM and the others can be a real pain in the ass but this is not the issue to topic ban them over. JBH (talk) 04:14, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Jbhunley, why must you misrepresent the dispute and accuse me of things I did not do? If you have real evidence against me, present it. Otherwise, you are simply advocating for Volunteer Marek.

Again, your continuing attacks against me here is proof that you are not just a neutral editor commenting.

Also, you are posting a "wall of text" again. -YMB29 (talk) 04:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@YMB29: Evidence? You mean other than the four diffs in my initial statement and my analysis of five of your diffs? Just what things did you not do? Try addressing the issues I have brought up rather than using WP:BATTLEGROUND tactics to attempt to discredit and redirect. I am supporting a topic ban because based on my reading of your history and your continued attempts to deflect any responsibility for your disruptive editing make me think you need a break from this topic area. PS yep I admitted to sharing the responsibility for the wall of text with you. Can you not even quote a conversation froman hour ago without cherrypicking? JBH (talk) 05:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Well again you are just continuing with attacks against me... This only further proves my point about your "neutrality" here.

I have addressed most of your accusations here already, and pointed out that the fact that you continue to refer to Axell and Dyukov shows that you don't know what you are talking about. You are also bring up content dispute, and this page is not about that. -YMB29 (talk) 05:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@YMB29: You have done nothing to address what I brought up. I am not attacking you I am informing you of problematic behavior in the hope you can take aboard honest criticism and modify your behavior. What you continuously fail to get it that your behavior in content disputes is not acceptable you came here complaining about people following you and reverting you and acting in what you call an UNCIVIL manner (yes some was, not disputing that). I looked at the diffs you brought here and gave my opinion.You brought up the dispute over Axell and Dyukov. Your behavior in those disputes is relevant, your WP:TENDENTIOUS editing in those disputes is relevant I looked at the talk page you brought up here and I found that you were at least as UNCIVIL as the other editors and I supplied the diffs to back it up.

You can not come to ANI and say people are being mean to you and not expect people to look at why they did the things you said was mean and whether the edits you claim were bad actually were. I showed in this section 5 that were not. I focused on your behavior in the content disputes because, in the sections I read, you are more UNCIVIL than they are. cf calling Iryna Harpy a meat puppet. You really think that was CIVIL? As I have told you now *four* times all the he said she said crap does not matter. If there was something terrible done by the other users you have buried it in a bunch of diffs of content edits you are complaining about having reverted and using as evidence of bad behavior. Wait are you now saying those were only content issues and not what this ANI is about?

Maybe if you will not take my other advice you will take this bit:make sure the evidence you present does not convict you. As you are not listening I am done trying to explain things to you. I will however address my Support for your topic ban in this thread where appropriate. Any other interaction seems futile. Good night.JBH (talk) 06:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Another wall of text... I am not going to reply to your dubious accusations again.

The fact that you commented here more than Volunteer Marek himself speaks for itself. -YMB29 (talk) 06:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for User:YMB29 from this issue. Currently he is again repeating the same behaviour that User:JBH has identified at my talkpage. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

:@Buckshot06:Actually I am User:Jbhunley. Did not realize there was an actual User:JBH ooppss. Looks like they have not been active since 2005 though. JBH (talk) 14:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

What behavior are you talking about? JBH is just making disruptive accusations here; the fact that this is my first interaction with him and he already posted so much against me here should tell you something...

I simply provided evidence of what was going on in the Berlin article on your page, since you were the admin who was last involved in the article. I added the diffs to make it clear. If you did not want to look at the issue and did not want any more comments on your talk page, you should have told me.

Did you even look at the evidence here and what I added to your talk page? -YMB29 (talk) 08:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I went back through the talkpage, and then scanned your recent contributions to find this discussion. I read your original note on this page, and then the comments that followed. I would again emphasise that it is much better to debate the issue rather than arguing about the users. To illustrate, I would expect a user sincerely interested in advancing the debate over mass rape in Germany at the end of World War II to be comparing arguments from different scholarly sources based upon their relative credibility. Such comparison of reliable sources would tend to indicate to me that the user concerned was truly engaged in improving the encyclopedia. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 08:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@Buckshot06: I was and am willing to discuss the content issues on the talk pages and even offered dispute resolution, which others were not interested in (see this reply[174]).

However, this is the ANI, so the discussion here can't be about content dispute. The reason I went here is the constant personal attacks by a group of users and them following me to other articles that I have edited. Volunteer Marek is only one of the users who is doing that. There is much more evidence for the other users (including me being referred to as a "Stalinist Neo-Nazi").

On the talk page of the article in question I always try to focus on the content,[175][176] and it is the users I am talking about who focus on me rather than discussing the content (for example this section[177] was created just to accuse me of something). -YMB29 (talk) 13:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

So I don't understand why you support a topic ban for me if I am doing exactly what you are saying on the talk page. -YMB29 (talk) 13:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Nobody called you a "Stalinist Neo-Nazi". Stop making stuff up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

See here[178]. I was the last person he talked to before posting that. -YMB29 (talk) 14:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Like I said, nobody called you a "Stalnist Neo-Nazi". You're making stuff up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

You are ignoring the obvious again and continuing with accusations even here... It was definitely directed at me. I can post more proof of this if required. -YMB29 (talk) 16:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Buckshot06, maybe if you post on the talk page that users should comment on the content only and use dispute resolution if required (no personal attacks and disruptive reverts), and everyone agrees, this matter can be resolved. -YMB29 (talk) 15:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I am an involved editor. If I were not I would suggest that YMB29 be topic banned from editing any of the World War II Eastern Front articles, or at the very least reduced to a 1RR on the same range of articles. This whole ANI is full of the reasons why this would be useful for the project. The way this ANI is mushrooming with unnecessary long comments and repeated replies to distort the points being made. As a microcosm of the problem just look at the two postings by YMB29 directly above (16:23 and 15:52, 13 February). There is no accusation in the statement 'Like I said, nobody called you a "Stalnist Neo-Nazi"' (made by Volunteer Marek), YMB29 reply 'You are ignoring the obvious again and continuing with accusations even here' -- is just a tenacious retort to continue a thread that already should have ended. In the comment to Buckshot06 that '"(no personal attacks and disruptive reverts), and everyone agrees, this matter can be resolved."' YMB29 is being disingenuous. The discussions over changes to the Battle of Berlin page went on for more than six months and in the end YMB29 was able to force through changes for which there was no census by simply wearing out the opposition. If YMB29 is true to form then there will be reply to this posting which is either obfuscation or disingenuous or both, as I have yet to see an example of where YMB29 is willing to let someone else have the last word. -- PBS (talk) 22:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban under WP:ARBEE per PBS. This farce has gone on long enough. RGloucester — ☎ 22:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I should note that User:Nick-D blocked YMB29 for a week, and I have just extended that block to a month. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 22:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for User:YMB29 as set out at User talk:Nick-D#User:YMB29 I've checked a couple of the sources YMB29 was using against what they were adding. In both cases YMB29 was clearly misrepresenting the source to further their views. This is entirely unacceptable, and a topic ban is in order - at minimum. Nick-D (talk) 02:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. While I appreciate that being blocked for a month will prevent disruption for that period of time, and that blocks and bans are not intended to be inherently punitive, YMB29 has already demonstrated patience enough to ride things out, then begin tendentious, disruptive editing from scratch. We're not dealing with someone who needs a cooling off period, or demonstrates any willingness to back down and learn from prior BATTLEGROUND behaviour. I've been at the receiving end of the user's aspersions and can confidently say that we're dealing with a POV warrior who's really WP:NOTHERE. I've even staved off from commenting on this ANI as YMB29 spurts walls of text for every comment made by another editor, all of which add up to "This is a cabal of non-neutral editors harassing and bullying me because I'm right and they're wrong (and they know it!)". This editor is incapable of working collaboratively with anyone who doesn't concede to their POV in relation to Soviet WWII history and should simply not be allowed to edit in this area at the least. I've seldom encountered an editor this obnoxious and immovable, and that's saying a lot. S/he has managed to exhaust and alienate good editors... who may possibly never edit again as a result. For the sake of the project, I'm all for a full topic ban. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:02, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

YMB29 (talk · contribs) is continuing to misrepresent sources on their talk page and not take responsibility for material they added. As such, I have extended the block duration to indefinite as this behaviour implies that they will continue their disruptive conduct when the time-limited block expires. Of course, indefinite isn't permanent. Other admins are very welcome to review the block - YMB29 has lodged an appeal. Nick-D (talk) 06:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support block by Nick-D. YMB29 was caught with misrepresenting sources. This is serious. It means that no one can trust his edits. I quickly checked and fixed his contributions in several pages, and I do not think that YMB29 made too much damage. Nick-D checked only English language source. Speaking about Russian language sources which were cherry-picked by YMB29, some of their authors were also accused of fabricating or inventing non-existing sources by other Russian historians [179], so I am not surprised that YMB29 did something similar here. I think main problem with YMB29 is that he simply does not want to discuss anything in a good faith. This should be clear from his discussion on his talk page with Nick-D. There are many other examples. YMB29 can edit war to keep certain content in articles, but argue it was not him who initially included this text. He can forge comments by another contributor and claim that nothing happened [180]. And he always blames others of stalking, tag-teaming and even ... misrepresenting sources (in the end of this discussion). Well, based on the discussion above, it is obvious that checking his edits in the project would be something very much reasonable. My very best wishes (talk) 14:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
• Update. (a) During this time 3 admins came to talk page of YMB29 to discuss the situation with him. He responded with various accusations about them. If unblocked, I would expect him to continue WP:BATTLE by complaining about administrators and other users, just as he did on this page. (b) As one can see from this thread and discussions on his talk page, debating anything with YMB29 is extremely frustrating. One can only run away, and that is exactly what other contributors did in a number of pages. (c) I would like to disagree about positive contributions by YMB29 to the project. POV-pushing SPA do not improve encyclopedia. He only wasted a lot of time of other contributors and discouraged their participation. My very best wishes (talk) 14:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Some more observations -- PBS (talk) 15:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Some of the affected articles Soviet war crimes Rape during the occupation of Germany Battle of Berlin "Get your retaliation in first" - (Willie John McBride) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive266#User:MiGR25 reported by User:YMB29 (Result: Blocked) 22 Dec. 2014 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive271#User:Sayerslle reported by User:YMB29 (Result: blocked for other EW) 3 Feb. 2015 There are telling exchanges in both of these 3RRs. The first point is that they were brought by YMB29, it seems that to defend his/her position, if the opponent (I use that word deliberately as YMB29 treats Wikipedia as a battle ground), does not keep to the 3RR rule, then YMB29 uses the process to silence an opponent. This in itself is a positive use of the Wikipedia rules, but when, as is pointed out by MiGR25 in the MiGR25 report: YMB29 uses tenacious editing techiques Comments: "There was no attempt to initiate any discussion" There was a dissucsion:Talk:Battle_of_Berlin#Need_to_obtain_actual_consensus_for_controversial_edits yet, you still continuing to widespreed the contested source to the webpages: Soviet_war_crimes, Rape_during_the_occupation_of_Germany; Berlin:_The_Downfall_1945 without any acknowledge to the consensus of an WP:NPOV just because (you) I don't like it YMB29, please stop bickering about process. You have been edit-warring to insert your preferred text but it is disputed by every other editor who has commented or acted to revert it. You have no consensus to make the changes you want to make. Binksternet (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC) [Y]ou have implied Beevor is the only one by your edit. I have stated valid reasons as to the problems as has PBS; it appears it is you YMB29 who "don't like it." Kierzek (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC) I am categorically opposed to statements implying that mass rape did not happen in Berlin. A ten-minute search on Google Scholar will show multiple independent historians reporting that Red Army forces committed mass rapes. The scale of the rapes is up for contention, using scholarly or academically sound sources, but YMB29, you are warned (a) not to imply that these rapes did not take place, and (b) not to edit war. I encourage anyone to report instances of WP:3RR to me. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC) (User:Buckshot06) So MONTHS LATER when other editors are tired of your contentious, tendentious editing approach and take a break, that doesn’t mean you’ve suddenly “won.” Even after another editor who is also an admin. told you to disengage, you’re still at it using the same tired m.o. It’s really time to add a few additional strings to the instrument you’re playing. And a good way would be to familiarize yourself with the WP policies that have been cited to you seemingly ad infinitum to no effect. "Outlasting" other editors who tire of your behavior does not mean you’ve suddenly arrived at consensus. On the contrary. Another suggestion would be to read Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, an IMO excellent essay that, although it is not black-letter WP policy, has a lot of valuable info. MiGR25 (talk) 20:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC) Digging up an old discussion (a lot has changed since) from another article, where you did not even participate, does not count as an attempt at discussion on your part. For a completely new user, you sure seem to know a lot about my history... -YMB29 (talk) 21:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC) The above is also mostly a copy-paste from a post on a talk page made in May.[181] -YMB29 (talk) 15:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC) then it becomes part of a strategy where the alternative is to out-wait editors who do not edit war. When MiGR25 points out that YMB29 uses tenacious editing techiques to out-wait those who do not edit-war, YMB29 simply dismisses MiGR25 observation as "Digging up an old discussion (a lot has changed since) from another article". As someone involved in that dispute I know nothing has changed. In the Sayerslle report there is a analysis of the history of edits to the article Rape during the occupation of Germany I've looked over the article history, and there really only seems to be one long term edit warrior: 80.117.117.225 removes the text [182]. YMB29 reverts [183] MiGR25 removes the text [184]. YMB29 reverts [185] MiGR25 removes the text [186]. YMB29 reverts [187] MiGR25 removes the text [188]. YMB29 reverts [189] Nug removes the text [190]. YMB29 reverts [191] Volunteer Marek removes text [192]. YMB29 reverts [193] Iryna Harpy removes the text [194]. Page protected. YMB29 reverts [195] a series of minor edits My very best wishes removes the text [196]. YMB29 reverts [197] Sayerslle removes the text [198]. YMB29 reverts [199] Sayerslle removes the text [200]. YMB29 reverts [201] Sayerslle and My very best wishes remove the text [202] [203]. So by the looks of it, YMB29 has reverted no less than 6 editors. Note, I've only looked at the edits with >500 bytes changed, and haven't read the contents of the material added/removed. Stickee (talk) 23:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC) @Stickee: So what is your point? This is since October. I undid removals of text that were done without any sort of consensus. MiGR25 was a "new" user whose sole purpose was to revert; he was blocked for edit warring on this page.[204] Most of the other users have a history of edit warring in the EE topic area and harassing others. -YMB29 (talk) 00:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC) So here we have the thee techniqies that YMB29 has been employing for what is now well over a year Be tenacious on the talk page (there is over 300k of discussion in the archives of talk:Battle of Berlin (starting with the section Goebbels's fevered prophecies)) 300k+ all over one sentences and a couple of footnotes in the article! Be tenacious with editing -- as shown on in the collapse box the Sayerslle report "Get your retaliation in first" (as shown by the two 3RRArchives and this ANI all of which were initiated by YMB29) This behaviour has not been against any one editor or group of editors, but against many and as can be seen is a huge time sink for everyone involved. It is telling that not one editor responding to this ANI has given any support for either YMB29's behaviour or the content YMB29 has been forcing into articles. -- PBS (talk) 15:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment - As far as the Russian language sources go, I supported YMB29's contributions to the articles in question. Oleg Rzheshevsky and Yelena Senyavskaya are respected and well credentialed scholars, and for historical events in which Russia was involved it only makes sense to include the research of leading Russian historians. Consistently the individuals who opposed these sources were just complaining about how they contradicted the views of non-Russian historians, but as Senyavskaya noted herself, most historians in Russia do dispute the occurrence of "mass" rapes by Soviet forces at the end of the Second World War, and I suppose if Wikipedia were more biased in favor of Russian-language sources and less biased in favor of English-biased sources, then in that case the same users would find it equally strange and shocking to include English-language sources asserting that mass rapes did occur. One of the reasons other users are saying that YMB29 should be banned is POV-pushing, but this is a sort of Anglophone narrowmindedness. Users are insisting that English-speaking historians somehow know more about what Russian soldiers did in World War II than Russian-speaking historians do. Try as I might, I couldn't think of any reason why Wikipedia should not represent the views held by most Russian historians on an issue directly linked to their own country's history. Trying to exclude their opinions because they are different from what English-language speakers are used to hearing is POV pushing.

Having said that, I was a bit embarrassed to have YMB29 as an ally. It was partly because of his nonstop personal attacks on other users, which were extremely unacceptable and uncalled for, that I was hesitant to back his position too strongly. There were also some legitimate concerns raised about whether YMB29 was cherry-picking quotes from English-language sources, though to accuse him of misrepresenting these sources completely is an accusation that goes too far. The specific information cited to Bird and Roberts did say what YMB29 said that they stated, but it's also true that the specific parts which were inserted into the articles did not reflect the tone of the sources as a whole. It was cherry-picking to some degree, but not dishonesty.

It's possible that either some form of topic ban or some restrictions on reverting may be the right course of action to take. One way or another though, the least I can say is that an indefinite ban is not appropriate. Most of YMB29's edits were constructive and I think that his indefinite ban ought to be reduced back to one month. However, whatever other penalties are applied to him after that is a matter that I'll leave to others to discuss.CurtisNaito (talk) 23:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, as a Russian-speaking and educated user, I can not agree with this. Views which were pushed by YMB29 do not represent anything accepted by majority of real Russian historians. Science is the same in Russia and in other countries. These are views by several nationalist/revisionist historians, which were cherry-picked by YMB29. These revisionist historians, for example Senyavskaya or Stalinist historian Zhukov, were criticized for fabrications and scientific misconduct (no less) by other Russian historians, such as Mark Solonin (for example here or here). Unfortunately, these revisionist historians (e.g. Vladimir Medinsky) were placed "in charge" of History by the Putin's administration [205]. Thinking that majority of real historians in Russia share these ridiculous views is nonsense and just another misrepresentation by YMB29. My very best wishes (talk) 01:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, we need to distinguish between the viewpoints of Wikipedia users and the viewpoints of reliable sources. We do have available to us a reliable source by a leading scholar, Senyavskaya, who says unambiguously that most Russian historians dispute the occurrence of "mass" rapes at the end of the Second World War. By contrast, we have no reliable source saying that a majority of Russian historians disagree with Senyavskaya's views. The idea that her views are fringe is solely the view of Wikipedia users, and not of the sources which have been presented. Mentioning Medinsky is not relevant since no one ever tried to cite him, and using one claim on one single issue from the blog of an amateur historian like Solonin does not somehow discredit Senyavskaya's entire corpus of work. It's true that not all of YMB29's sources were included in the best possible manner and some legitimate concerns were raised about phrasing, and obviously I don't condone YMB29's uncivil behavior. However, no one has proven any deliberate dishonesty on the part of YMB29, and no valid, policy-based reason has yet been presented by any user to exclude the views of Rzheshevsky and Senyavskaya from the relevant articles.CurtisNaito (talk) 01:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Relevant WP guideline is WP:FRINGE where these authors belong. There is no doubt (per vast majority of RS) that mass rapes in Germany indeed had happened. Authors who openly deny this belong to WP:FRINGE (for example, Senyavskaya has declared these rapes to be a "myth" by the Goebbels and Western propaganda). We do not use people involved in Holocaust denial as sources about Holocaust. By the same reason, we should cite Soviet crimes deniers (such as Senyavskaya and some others) only in pages about themselves, propaganda or pseudoscience, rather than in pages about actual events. This is precisely the reason why YMB29 has a trouble around here: he promotes works by fringe authors, but misleadingly presents their views as a legitimate scientific discourse. For example, we are not going to quote views by Trofim Lysenko as a legitimate scientific discourse. My very best wishes (talk) 02:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

P.S. And no, I believe that Medinsky is relevant. He tells, for example that "The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact "deserves a monument." and "The U.S.S.R. never occupied the Baltic states, it just "incorporated" them.". This is precisely what YMB29 promotes here: he removes information about war crimes by the Soviet military [206] because he believes that Baltic States were not occupied by the Soviet Union [207], and that is WP:FRINGE. We do not need contributors who edit war to promote fringe views in WP. My very best wishes (talk) 03:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

CurtisNaito, where and how on earth did you come to the conclusion that "Oleg Rzheshevsky and Yelena Senyavskaya are respected and well credentialed scholars." Have you actually read through this discussion or the relevant articles? Senyavskaya, alone, has been criticised by Russian peers for essentially basing major conclusions drawn in her research based on forgery she could not have taken seriously if she were an honest, impartial historian. Her work has been questioned in no uncertain terms, and determined to be revisionist agenda driven! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I read through all the talk page discussion, and plenty of sources were presented demonstrating that Rzheshevsky and Senyavskaya were historians with credentials and respectable publications. It's true that one source of dubiously reliability, put forward by an amateur historian with no credentials comparable to Senyavskaya's, did suggest that Senyavskaya may have misused one document, but that does not automatically invalidate all the research Senyavskaya has done on the subject. Other users have put forward their view that Senyavskaya is an unreliable revisionist, but not a single reliable source has been put forward by anyone to prove this point. Whatever other flaws he had, one had to respect YMB29 for understanding that Wikipedia should be based principally off reliable sources and not the opinion of users. He proved with reliable sources that the scholars he was citing were reputable, in sharp contrast with other users who believed that they could dismiss Senyavskaya as a dishonest revisionist without actually bothering to present any reliable sources proving this accusation.CurtisNaito (talk) 06:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you actually read Russian? Have you checked the texts? I find it a little strange that you're referring to Senyavskaya as a he when she's a 'she' (which you would have understood without thinking twice if you knew Russian). Therefore, I have to ask myself whether you have any idea of who the 'amateur' blogger is, or the depth of that which he revealed about her research. He's not an amateur historian of any description. If you bother to check into his credentials, you'll find that he is considered an expert on WWII Soviet military history, is published (and peer reviewed). Please don't just mimic what YMB29 claims just because you've decided to pick a side and stick with it. What is on the curriculum for state-sponsored scholars is, as has already been pointed out to you, WP:FRINGE. It isn't a matter of what Russian historians are saying about themselves, nor what Anglophone sources say: other language sources agree with the Anglophone sources (or, to be more precise, Anglophone sources are in agreement with other language sources regarding the research). If you care to go to one of the other language Wikipedias, you won't find the FRINGE Russian theories represented there. Please don't try to treat the matter as a court of law where 'both' sides (they're more than one side involved) get to have their hearing: i.e., that's known as WP:GEVAL. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

As I said above, the criterion of WP:FRINGE is very simple. There is absolutely no doubt (per vast majority of RS) that mass rapes in Germany by the Soviet Army indeed had happened. However, Senyavskaya has declared these rapes to be a "myth" by the Goebbels and Western propaganda. That denial qualifies her work about Soviet rapes in Germany as "fringe". My very best wishes (talk) 14:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I never referred to Senyavskaya as a "he", and incidentally I did check some of the other language Wikipedias and found that Senyavskaya's views on rapes by Soviet forces are cited in several articles on both French and Spanish Wikipedia. But at any rate, the point I'm trying to make is that YMB29 had reliable sources stating that the historians he was citing were reliable and that their views were not fringe. Those who trying to remove Senyavskaya did nothing more than repeatedly insist that her views were fringe without bothering to take the time to find even a single reliable source saying so. It should be noted that when it came to the sourcing which was used during the talk page discussion, YMB29 by and large had the sources on his side, whereas most others had only their strong personal opinions to back up what they said.CurtisNaito (talk) 17:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Please see above why her work is fringe. There were numerous discussions by multiple participants who explained to YMB29 why his sources or the way he is using them were inappropriate, for example here, here, here and here (one could easily provide 10 more links to similar discussions), but he did not get it. My very best wishes (talk) 17:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I already read those discussions. As I said, the problem was that those who disagreed with YMB29 relied either heavy or entirely on their own personal opinions, whereas YMB29 cited reliable sources which proved Senyavskaya's credibility and also suggested that her viewpoint is not fringe in Russia. After YMB29 provided a reliable source saying that Senyavskaya's views were not fringe, both I and YMB29 repeatedly asked other users to provide a source contradicting it as a counterpoint. But, again and again, those who disagreed with YMB29 just kept on ignoring the question and continued to assert their own opinions without corroborating sources. The only reason why I took YMB29's side was because when he was asked to provide sources to back up his view, he did. Everyone else who was asked to do the same just ignored the question.CurtisNaito (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

One can not be sure that any sources by YMB29 were reliable because none of them was decided to be reliable on WP:RS noticeboard. You can not tell that 10 independent contributors, who all happen to strongly disagree with YMB29, were wrong. YMB29 acted against WP:CONSENSUS for years and failed to admit it. I can not speak for others, and I did not read all Russian language sources by YMB29, but those I read were fringe propaganda pieces, as also noted by experts [208] [209]. I did spent some time trying to explain this to YMB29 [210],[211], but he did not listen, just as in all other discussions with other contributors (see above). My very best wishes (talk) 18:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

CurtisNaito, did you not notice that both the French and Spanish Wikipedia versions are translations of the English language version? The French Wikipedia entry was begun as a direct translation on 15 November, 2014, corresponding almost verbatim with the English language version at that time. It has barely any edit history and absolutely no discussion. The Spanish version of the same article doesn't use Senyavsaya as a source. I'd be interested if you could point out which other articles in those Wikipedia's accept her as an RS so as to establish how the articles came about and what form of scrutiny of the content and RS there has been. Any vigorous deliberations on their talk pages? Remember that Wikipedia is not a reliable source.

Further to this, the Ukrainian Wikipedia entry doesn't even mention Senyavskaya individually, but does critique the polemics of Oleg Rzheshevsky particularly as being part of the Russian government's revisionism. Now, if you'd like to dispute this as some form of prejudice against Russia by Ukrainian Wikipedia, remember that we (and Ukrainian Wikipedia) are discussing an article on Soviet war crimes: and over half of Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union, therefore we are looking at self-critiquing. I assume I don't need to remind you that Ukrainians and Belarusians (as well as non-Slavic ethnicities) formed a large part of the Soviet Army and are directly implicated as being amongst the perpetrators. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, it would appear that French and Spanish Wikipedia do accept Senyavskaya as a reliable source, but Ukrainian Wikipedia doesn't, though I'm not sure why you brought up other language Wikipedias in the first place, because as you noted Wikipedia is not a reliable source. The fact remains that Senyavskaya is a prominent member of the Institute of Russian History who, as YMB29 pointed out, has received plaudits from many other scholars. For example, Catherine Merridale stated that her scholarship has "fostered an entire school of new research". I think that Solonin is a reliable source too, but in comparing the two an engineer like Solonin is not on the same level as a leading historian like Senyavskaya, and Solonin of course is noted for advocating non-mainstream ideas like concerning the Soviet offensive plans controversy. Based on the sources provided, as opposed to the personal opinions of users, I don't think there can be any question about Senyavskaya's reliability as a historian.

Compelled to interject here. You don't understand why I'm bringing up other language Wikipedia's? Take a look at your comment a little further above: "... and incidentally I did check some of the other language Wikipedias and found that Senyavskaya's views on rapes by Soviet forces are cited in several articles on both French and Spanish Wikipedia." I'm not certain as to whether you're suffering some form of short-term memory loss, but it was you who brought both French and Spanish Wikipedia as examples of how widespread the recognition of Senyavskaya is. And, yes, she is 'fostering a entire school of new research'. You don't see the irony in presenting her as being anything other than fringe? More worryingly, she appears to be fostering a new school of revisionism. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Regarding YMB29, his uncivil conduct alone justifies the one-month ban he was given earlier, and he was also edit warring to some extent, but those two charges appear to be the extent of his misbehavior. The charge that YMB29 was POV pushing is complete and manifest nonsense, and even the charge of misrepresenting sources is on somewhat shaky grounds. One way or another an indefinite ban is not justifiable here, though it's possible more restrictions beyond a one-month ban should be applied at administrator discretion.CurtisNaito (talk) 23:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, what you are talking about is irrelevant. He was not blocked for using Senyavskaya, and he was not blocked for uncivil comments. He was blocked for intentionally misrepresenting at least two English language sources. And he still believes that he used these sources correctly, but all others were wrong [212], even though several people did their best to explain this matter to him. It means he will continue doing exactly the same after coming back from the block. And that is relevant and important for a number of other contributors (see above).My very best wishes (talk) 02:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Uniquark9 repeatedly deleting content and refusing to engage in constructive discussion on talk page, telling another user to edit war

User:Uniquark9 has repeatedly deleted content that he doesn't like from the articles Yuan dynasty and Northern Yuan dynasty, often giving no reason at all or just saying in the edit summary that he is reversing my edits without giving a reason why. He deleted multiple sentences on different issues/topics.

Uniquark9 Philg88 Nlu

[213] [214] [215] [216] [217] [218]

[219] [220] [221] [222]

Note that User:Uniquark9 is not actually disputing the content itself. He isn't challenging it or its factual veracity (I provided sources for the content on the talk page at Talk:Yuan_dynasty#Content_deletion. He just doesn't like it so he blatantly deletes it repeatedly. Most of the time on these two articles he gave no edit summaries or no explanation for his deletions. He just says things like "Restoring to a version before Rajmaan's edits."

User:Uniquark9 instead of discussing the content deletion, went to another Mongolian user and told him in Mongolian that I am a Chinese (hyatadiig) and that he should help User:Uniquark9 revert my edits. In other words he is telling another editor to help him engage in an edit war with me based on ethnicity.

After I opened on the discussion on the talk page, Uniquark9 only addressed one of the sentences he deleted, provided no source for his claim, and then totally disappeared from the discussion. [223] He totally ignored the other sentences he deleted and refused to talk about them. He hasn't addressed anything else he deleted or justified the deletions, he didn't address any of the sources I provided on the talk page which justified keeping the content.

He also has issues with civility and uses words like "bullshit" and "bullshitting" like on Talk:Genghis_Khan.

He is refusing to engage in discussion and reach a consensus and instead is resorting to edit warring and trying to promote an ethnic nationalist based edit war to get what he wants. This is not about a content dispute, this is a behavioral issue. I am trying to get him to address the content dispute on the talk page and he is ignoring it. We need a third party admin to make all the relevant users engage in the discussion on the talk page and make sure it proceeds in a civil manner.Rajmaan (talk) 01:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Uniquark9 has repeatedly engaged in edit wars at Genghis Khan and Mongol Empire. He was blocked in December for edit warring and using a sock in an edit war. He frequently blanks his talk page to hide all the warnings and complaints about his disruptive editing.

A friend of Uniquark9, User:Ceithe, engages in similar behavior. They also communicate in a foreign language, possibly coordinating edit wars. Ceithe has been in an extended edit war recently at Genghis Khan. He also blanks his talk page to remove complaints and warnings, though some are still present there. Ceithe has openly stated his anti-Chinese attitude. He repeatedly calls other users "vandals," currently because they are adding sourced content that he doesn't like (see here and here). He has been repeatedly asked to cease his disruptive editing and to familiarize himself with WP norms and practices, yet he continues with edit warring and abusive comments towards other editors. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 05:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I cannot comment on the merits of the textual edits, but I do concur on the Uniquark9 as being uncivil based on ethnic origin, as well as unwilling to discuss and/or consider any other views. I did not personally take action because I want clearly-uninvolved administrator(s) to look at the situation (given that I've collaborated with Rajmaan on a number of articles). --Nlu (talk) 05:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

In my interactions with Uniquark9 on Genghis Khan, and also List of Turkic dynasties and countries, I've found that they can do excellent research, and are willing to compromise up to a point. However, I agree that they also are frequently are disruptive and prone to edit warring. I do want to make it clear that one series of reverts exchanged between myself and Uniqark9 just barely went over 3RR, but I consider myself as edit warring since I could have defused things earlier before racking up reverts. Finally, as Laszlo Panaflex brings up, editor Ceithe, a frequent collaborator with Uniquark9, is also disruptive. I've found them more difficult to work with and very inflexible, and they take a much more hostile, insulting, and patronizing tone to those who disagree with them.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Forgot to mention this in my comment: Rajmaan above has confirmed what I thought, which is that there is some collusion between Uniquark9 and Ceithe to enforce a certain point of view here on Wikipedia. Evecurid I think is part of this as well, though I've found them to be far more reasonable and easier to collaborate with.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I haven't researched whether Uniquark9 or Ceithe do excellent research. I do see that Uniquark9 is communicating with some other editors in a foreign language, and is frequently blanking English content, both templates and reasoned discussion, from his or her talk page. Since the warnings have been going on and have been repeatedly deleted, I have to Support a block. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• Please see my comments here.  Philg88 ^♦talk 17:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Um... could you explain how those comments about a retired editor are applicable here? Is the preventive/punitive comment what you are referring to? There have clearly been 3RR violations here, as well as repeated disruptive behavior. Whether a block is preventive/punitive is inapposite as well. Not seeing the connection. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 17:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@Laszlo Panaflex: Sorry about that—it's an unrelated matter that I inadvertently confused with this one.  Philg88 ^♦talk 09:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Could I also bring up Toguchar on this report as well? Their behavior and attitude is very similar to that of Uniquark9 and Ceithe (edit warring, disruptive and abrasive attitude, communicating in a foreign language, blanking warnings and notices from their talk page, etc.).--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Uniquark9 deleted the ANI notification I left on his talk page. I also summoned him here using the User Link template at the beginning and he hasn't responded to any of itRajmaan (talk) 05:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

He/she's not required to respond, although I tend to think it's in his/her interest to do so. But he/she doesn't have to. --Nlu (talk) 17:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest adding user:Alicewond to the list of possible sockpuppets being used to edit war a particular POV. Alicewond has 1 edit, at the moment, had never edited anything, but jumps right into an edit war on the Xiongnu article and coincidentally reverts to the version being pushed by Uniquark9/Khorichar.[224] --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: Topic ban

What Kansas Bear describes is a common pattern for Uniquark9 (see Mongol Empire, Genghis Khan, Yuan articles, and others now). Wherever he goes he is soon embroiled in edit wars with multiple editors. Soon compatriots arrive to argue and edit war on his side, always with newly created accounts. Uniquark9 was blocked in December for using a sock account. He was investigated again in January, but it appears that Ceithe and Evecurid are separate users. Rajmann shows, however, that there is collusion between these editors and others. Some of them have stopped editing, so these new arrivals could be socks of them. At any rate, Uniquark9 and his compatriots engage in disruptive editing on every page they contribute to. He stopped editing for a spell after this complaint was lodged, but now that he has returned, it is the same pattern all over. Ignoring his conduct simply invites more disruption and frustration of the good faith of others. I'm not familiar with the sanction process here, but a block has been issued once against Uniquark9. A topic ban for Mongolia-related articles seems to be the next logical step. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 01:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

As much as I wish that myself and other editors could work with Uniquark9 and Company, those editors seemed determined to engage in disruptive behavior. If a topic ban is invoked, I would extend a topic ban to any articles that involve Mongolia or Mongols, including pages such as the List of Turkic dynasties and countries where states that included Mongols are listed.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

On the basis of the recent history at Xiongnu (an early steppe empire whose territory included modern Mongolia), I'd add Khorichar to the list and I would suggest a topic ban on any article where Mongolia might be mentioned. Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Both sides in the debate (Turkish vs Mongol) are engaging in this kind of behavior, with coordinated edit wars. The Turkish users pop up with newly created accounts and start supporting each other in reverting the Mongol users. They are either sockpuppets or meatpuppets and edit warring on the same articles. People on both sides need to be topic banned if they try this kind of ethnic nationalist edit warring. See User_talk:Bishonen#To_answer_your_question and [225] and [226]Rajmaan (talk) 05:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script

I have started a closure review at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Closure review: Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script. Closing to centralize discussion there. Cunard (talk) 00:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

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

---

Would an admin assess the consensus the consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script (initiated 5 February 2015)? According to this post at WP:ANRFC, this is an "RfC for an emergency measure". Thank you, Cunard (talk) 00:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

You mean to assess if there is a clear consensus? Despite this being an emergency measure, the RfC itself says "this RfC will run for 30 days or until a clear consensus emerges" so it should probably be allowed to continue to run the 30 days if there is no clear consensus. BTW, I'm seeing !votes on 1st February so I think the 5 February date must be wrong. Nil Einne (talk) 14:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for reviewing the discussion and correcting the start day. Cunard (talk) 08:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

It should run for the 30 days. I see the original proposer, as an WP:INVOLVED editor, has taken it upon himself to close this prematurely and with his preferred outcome; this should be reverted. K7L (talk) 07:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with K7L's comment above, which I noticed while engaged in unpromising discussion about the RFC at Kudpung's talk page. For one thing I'm perturbed by the assertion of an "emergency" that's non-existent as far as I can tell. On the other hand, the RFC really was going in the direction that Kudpung said, and the RFC is de facto about whether to protect the page WP:WPAFC/P. Usually if a page needs urgent protection, an admin just protects it (maybe with a talkpage or WP:RFPP discussion) without a full-length RFC or throwing around scary words like "emergency".

Anyway: I'd support re-opening the RFC, but am ok with leaving the WPAFC/P page protected for the rest of the comment period, unless there's significant talkpage or RFPP support for unprotecting it. Added: I'm also bothered by the apparently secret off-wiki development taking place of a replacement for AFC.[227] AFC is certainly dysfunctional but we're going to replace it, Wikipedia principles generally call for open discussion instead of cabals presenting faits accomplis. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 20:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I weakly support reopening it. 30% of editors opposed the change, so it wasn't a landslide decision. For the time being we can leave it protected but that RfC is far from done. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 20:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

As I noted on Kudpung's talkpage, I strongly believe this RfC should be reopened. 30% opposition is not clear consensus and the RfC was not up to the 30 day limit. Furthermore, if all that was necessary was for the AFC script "Participants" page to be protected, that could have been done under the pretence of WP:BOLD. I think we can agree that allowing inexperienced users to approve AfC submissions (which will become articles, and carry the associated weight) is not prudent. Therefore, preventing these editors from adding themselves to the list is a bold, but justifiable move that does improve the encyclopedia. But the RfC wasn't limited to that. It became a discussion to improve AfC overall. I'd say that an RfC is a good, transparent place to do this. Thank you, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 00:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

---

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

Conduct of User:Denisarona

User:Denisarona has changed the redirection of the article Moldavians from the established Moldavia to Moldovans. All attempts to restore to the established version were reverted by user Denisarona. At the same time, he refuses to engage the issue on the talk page of the article in question, and instead posts notifications on my talk page despite they being the person on which the burden of evidence falls. Acting in good faith, I have approached him and stated my arguments on the 26 of November 2014. The appeal was ignored and my message was deleted on the 13th of December 2014 (also please note that he also deleted another comment from User:Dragonmagicediter, and his history of engagements with other users is not sterling). I kindly ask for the article Moldavians to be reverted to the established version (redirect to article Moldavia) and for user Denisarena to be warned and prohibited from touching the article for a set period of time. Thank you. 12:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.122.25.236 (talk)

I have reverted the target to Moldavia, which does appear to be correct, but I see back and forth on this since at least September 2012. Since I can't find an article talk page discussion and am stuck at work with limited time, pinging Denisarona to come and discuss here; it looks like a good-faith misunderstanding that's turned into a slow-motion edit war. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it might be a good-faith misunderstanding. Otherwise, I couldn't see how one would overlook the fact that this is a very sensitive issue (cf. Moldovenism, Moldovan language, Controversy over ethnic and linguistic identity in Moldova, Cultural appropriation). I'm pretty sure, for instance, that nobody would even think about solving the Macedonian naming dispute just with a click of the mouse. 14:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.122.25.236 (talk)

@Yngvadottir: your ping failed due to typo. Pinging @Denisarona: JBH (talk) 15:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Denisarona has a history stretching over many years of reverting people's edits without explanation.[228] 200.83.101.199 (talk) 19:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The original redirect was to Moldovans until 20 July 2014, when 85.122.25.236 changed it to a disambiguation page and subsequently to Moldavia. I then redirected it again to Moldovans because it refers to an ethnic group and not a geographical or historical region, as stated in the introduction to the Moldovans article:-

Moldovans (in Moldovan/Romanian moldoveni pronounced [moldoˈvenʲ];) are the largest population group of Republic of Moldova (75.8% of the population),[2] and a significant minority in Ukraine,[3] and Russia.[4] Under the variant Moldavians, the term may also be used to refer to all inhabitants of the territory of historical Principality of Moldavia, currently divided among Romania (47.5%), Moldova (30.5%) and Ukraine (22%), regardless of ethnic identity. In the Romanian part of the historical region, term moldovenean (pl. moldoveni) is widely used as a cultural-geographical self-designation by people who otherwise self-identify as ethnic Romanians.

This seems more logical (e.g. The article about Italians does not redirect to Italy, the article about Irish people does not redirect to Ireland). If I use an encyclopedia to learn about an ethnic group, I don't go to the geographical location.

The comments of 200.83.101.199 don't deserve a response. See Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP‎.

Regards Denisarona (talk) 17:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. The series of reverts would have been easier to understand with edit summaries. As a matter of fact, I think what you quote supports Moldavia as the better redirect target: "Under the variant Moldavians, the term may also be used to refer to all inhabitants of the territory of historical Principality of Moldavia". But a hatnote of the form "Moldavians redirects here; for other usages see Moldovans" is indicated. Would you agree to that solution, in view of the disputes linked to above by 85.122.25.236. Please don't dismiss the concerns of 200.83.101.199 just because they are (also) an unregistered editor; if you read that "abuse" page you will see they are not under any sanctions. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with your first suggestion. I have no comment on your second suggestion. Up to now I have spent 98% of my time on Wikipedia looking for and reverting vandalism. I will now re-think that idea. Denisarona (talk) 05:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

@Denisarona: There is already a hatnote of the "see also Moldavians (disambiguation)" type, so I have posted at Talk:Moldavia asking whether people agree it's a good idea to add "and Moldovans" ... and whether anyone knows how! I hate to think you will quit vandal-fighting because of this disagreement. But please do start using descriptive edit summaries - it does wonders to reduce misunderstandings - and please don't revert an edit substantially because it was by an unregistered editor. I've so frequently seen IPs quietly fixing things, most of us started as IPs, and there are regrettably innumerable registered vandals at any one time, that even if you disagree as many do with the policy of allowing IP editors, it doesn't make sense to assume they're all bad. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: As I already said, I have no problem with your proposal for the Moldavians/Moldovans articles. In the past I have used edit summaries to explain various edits / changes / reverts for reasons not connected to vandalism. I didn't and don't disagree with allowing IP editors. I didn't target IP editors when reverting vandalism. I have welcomed IP editors who have reverted vandalism. However, enough is enough. Denisarona (talk) 07:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Denisarona, I apologise for claiming that you modified what I thought, starting from common sense, was the established version of the article 'Moldavians', and I'm sorry to hear that this report led you to reconsider your activity on Wikipedia, this was not my intention at all. Please don't hold any hard feelings about this report, and understand I only acted and all my edits on Wikipedia have been made in good faith. Regards, I.B. 19:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.122.25.236 (talk)

Disruptive edits on my talk page

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

---

• EChastain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User talk:Ivanvector (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

I have politely asked this user, per WP:NOBAN, to stop posting comments on my talk page about their misunderstanding of the talk page guidelines, but the user insists on spamming my page ([229] [230] [231]) with quotes from the guideline. Requesting that this user be topic-banned from my talk page. I am not requesting an interaction ban; our discussions have been otherwise productive. Thanks. Ivanvector (talk) 18:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Make that asked twice. Ivanvector (talk) 18:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Thrice, actually. Note that these diffs aren't in order. Ivanvector (talk) 18:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I want to add that this user also took a swipe at @Rationalobserver: [232] without providing any evidence. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• I've asked them to supply the link that supposedly shows my off-wiki activities, but they refuse to answer. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• The dispute stems from this edit where Ivanvector hatted a discussion on his talk page and copied it to the talk page of the redirect under discussion. EChastain apparently viewed this as a violation of WP:TPG even though Ivanvector did not edit any of the comments.[233][234] Ivanvector was well within his rights to hat the discussion on his talk page and move it to a more appropriate venue. He even noted that the discussion started elsewhere before it was copied to its present location. —Farix (t | c) 21:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

IMHO, it would've been best if Ivanvector only hatted the discussion at Ivanvector's own talkpage. Moving it to another place, seems to have caused the dispute. GoodDay (talk) 17:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, GoodDay. Ivanvector moved my comments, without notifying me, to another talk page where I was deliberately avoiding getting involved. The disruption occurred because I was trying to post my objections to his page and kept getting edit conflicts, unaware I was disrupting. For that I apologise, and I'm most happy to oblige by never posting on your talk page again. EChastain (talk) 02:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• This all seems to be in order. In any case, the issue that prompted me to start this thread has long since resolved without admins getting involved, so I am going to close this. If other users want to raise their own issues with EChastain's conduct here, they should start a new thread. Ivanvector (talk) 16:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Tendentious COI editing and socking at Christ Myth Theory

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

Because ANI threads about this article invariably turn into content disputes instead of focusing on behavior: If anyone tries to treat this as a content dispute or turn it into one (regardless of the direction they take it in), I will ignore their input as either in bad-faith or incompetent, and I recommend others do likewise. If you wish to defend the behavior of these two accounts on their own merits, I will acknowledge what you have to say, but if you do so for content-based reasons, you will be ignored. Insinuations about editors' personal beliefs that lack behavioral evidence will be treated as an insulting failure to assume good faith. This is about editor behavior, not article content nor personal beliefs.

Renejs is René Salm, an author focused on the Christ myth theory (what his position is on the matter is irrelevant), and a single purpose account dedicated to promoting the views he writes about. His research is self-published, and the consensus at Talk:Christ myth theory is that it ultimately is not worth including. In response to the consensus that we remove the material about his research from the article, he suggested that we delete the article on claims that the article somehow doesn't meet notability (despite the dozens of the secondary and tertiary sources that remain after removing the material about him). Obviously, he is here with a WP:COI to promote his views, and WP:NOTHERE to build a neutral encyclopedia. What he is here to promote does not matter, it is that he is here to promote it, and how he chooses to do so.

Despite WP:RS, WP:DUE, and so on being cited and explained repeatedly, and a consensus that we need to remove less noteworthy or more fringe subjects from the article, Renejs insisted that we should use the article to list every proponent (including himself, again), simply because he agrees with their work. Regardless of what his views are, this is unacceptable case of COI and RGW.

When policies, guidelines, and other pages such as WP:RGW, WP:NOTPROMO, and WP:COI were repeatedly explained to him, and the consensus clearly sided with reducing the proponents to those discussed at length in secondary sources (i.e. not him), he left an advertisement-like message to announce that he was going to take a hiatus to work on his next book.

The issue is not that he disagreed with consensus or that he accepts the CMT, it is his total disregard for consensus, policies, and guidelines unless they suit him, and his obvious tendentious COI-based POV-pushing in the matter. If he was writing against the CMT he'd've been removed sooner.

GMarxx is a single purpose account focused on:

• Defending Renejs
• Emphasizing René Salm's focus on Nazareth: [235] [236] [237]
• Creating the same sort of artificial prominence for the CMT that Renejs called for
• Generally carrying out edits that Renejs would have wanted, even apparently citing Renejs's posts on talk as GMarxx has only made a !vote.

I raised the possibility that Renejs had not really left but was socking as GMarxx on the CMT talk page, and Renejs responded right away (despite having gone on a hiatus to complete a book). If it had been a few days later, I'd totally buy that Renejs just decided to check on things. If he said he was backing away from just the CMT article and had activity on other articles, I'd totally buy that he just saw the discussion on his watchlist. But, given the obvious similarities between GMarxx's and Renejs's aims, Renejs's immediate response is most readily interpreted as confirmation that Renejs is socking. They are also never on the site at the same time, but there is enough overlap in their range of activity to conclude they're in the same time zone. What information the two accounts are attempting to add to the article is not relevant -- what matters is that they are socking to edit war over that information, and are either not participating in discussion or are only acknowledging discussion that goes their way.

The two accounts are being used to carry out edits that are against the consensus on the talk page, one not engaging in discussion, the other paying no attention to discussion that he doesn't agree with. In particular, they are both restoring material on Richard Dawkins that is original research, a potential BLP violation, and against the consensus on the talk page. And yet, Renejs has the gall to tell the baldfaced lie that there's "no consensus" because the consensus does not go his way. While the consensus on other matters is not universally identical, the changes he suggests have no support whatsoever.

There is disagreement among the other editors, but even the most disagreeable can see beginnings of agreement, and even the most pessimistic can hope for consensus -- just not with Renejs or GMarxx, because his behavior is completely incompatible with this site's practices.

At a minimum, we must:

• temporarily block both accounts to prevent further edit warring on the article, and so we can arrange a...
• topic ban both accounts from articles relating to Early Christianity and Salm's work

That's if we don't just block (or even community ban) both accounts on the grounds of WP:TEND, WP:NOTHERE, WP:COI, WP:SOCK, WP:EW, and WP:NOTPROMO.

Ian.thomson (talk) 19:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment At a minimum, it looks like a sockpuppet investigation is in order. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I should point out that there is no WP:OUTING in identifying Renejs as René Salm as the user has done so himself, event used article talk pages to promote information about his books. I have no comment on the sock-pupping, but what Ian.thomson describes does evoke WP:DUCK. More serious is that Renejs is using Wikipedia to make himself more known, in violation of WP:COI. This includes putting out information about his upcoming book [238] and vehemently disagreeing with proposals to restructure the article in line with WP:RS to exclude Renejs and other self-published non-experts. There is a major conflict of interest in both of these actions. That Renejs is an SPA is obvious [239]. It is not a problem in itself, but when he misuses Wikipedia to promote himself, his books and his pet theory, it's more problematic. He's attitude to Wikipedia is also problematic, openly declaring he'll violate the rules to push for the WP:TRUTH [[240]. The whole history of Renejs at Wikipedia shows that he is here to promote himself, gladly edit war to that end, and that he has no interest in constructing an encyclopaedia beyond his personal interests.Jeppiz (talk) 19:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: Enough is enough. This user was discussed here last month: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive870#Extensive edit-warring, severe COI-violations and refusal to hear. I'm a relatively latecomer to this issue, and have been appalled by Renejs' behviour - blatantly COI editing, edit warring to add in BLP violations,[241][242][243] and personal attacks like this one. I should also point out that when I saw another editor identify renejs as René Salm, I reported this as a possible outing, but the advice I received from oversight was that this is not the case - the user in question has previously admitted his identity. StAnselm (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Checkuser note:. GMarxx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a  Confirmed sock. The others are MithrasPriest, Spacelib, and most concernedly, Gekritzl. I've blocked them all indefinitely, though Gekritzl's I don't intend to be permanent. I've also blocked Renejs 36 hours for edit-warring, totally independent of any checkuser action. Courcelles 20:06, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• Update Even though Renejs is currently blocked for 36 hours, he is now back socking [244]. The socking, in addition to earlier policy violations, only goes to show once more that Renejs, who exclusively edit this topic, is on Wikipedia only to right great wrongs.Jeppiz (talk) 10:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Under the circumstances, I think it is incumbent upon me to point out, as I already have on the talk pages of the editors concerned, that Jeppiz is wrong. I am not René Salm and I consider him to be a particularly unpleasant and not over-bright liar. The only thing we have in common is that we have both been professional musicians. Otherwise, I am a professional historian and publish what I hope is sound work, if not world-renowned, via peer review while trying to fit in all my teaching commitments which is why it takes years to finish anything. The comment was based on my current research project and was designed to inform a debate about Carrier. It is hardly important one way or another. There is however a certain delicious irony in Salm being criticized and having his block extended when for once in his miserable and futile career of lies, attacks, smears and intellectual incoherence he had actually done nothing wrong!109.156.158.20 (talk) 13:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Yet you're on an anonymous account, which also seems to be an SPA, and you've concluded that Renejs had done nothing wrong with his most recent edit warring, which is clearly inaccurate. Zarcusian (talk) 15:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm on an anonymous account for purely professional reasons. I am not a SP, although due to the instability of my phone line my IP address changes fairly frequently. As for: 'you've concluded that Renejs had done nothing wrong with his most recent edit warring, which is clearly inaccurate'; where do I say that? On the contrary, I have made clear my distaste for Salm's actions on numerous while trying to untangle this wholly unnecessary mess.

My one aim in contributing to WP is to try and improve the content of the articles. Salm clearly is here to promote his work. From that point of view, if I had a vote it would be for at the very least a topic

ban.109.156.158.20 (talk) 16:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

We don't vote, 109.156.158.20, and could I recommend getting an account?Jeppiz (talk) 18:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, now I understand. My 'for once...he has done nothing wrong' reference in the initial comment was specifically to block extension on the charge of socking, which whatever else he is guilty of (and let's face it, the man's guilty of practically everything else) was an erroneous charge. That has in any case now been corrected.109.156.158.20 (talk) 16:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I think it's pretty unlikely that 109.156.158.20 is Renejs. However, I would urge the IP editor to establish a named account—it allows one to preserve anonymity and avoid the suspicion that is often directed at IP editors who contribute to articles with contentious histories.

I also think it would be a good idea to reverse the recent lengthening of Renejs' block, since I don't think he's been using this IP to evade his initial block. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Akhilleus on both accounts. I no longer think the IP is Renejs. I do think it was a reasonable assumption at first: Renejs talks about his book project on CMT, is blocked, and an IP turns up whose first actions is to head to CMT to talk about his book project. It looked like a WP:DUCK. So it would be quite helpful if the IP would create an account. As for Renejs, I've already asked the admin who first blocked him (and who has checkuser rights) to verify that the IP is not Renejs and then reverse the lengthening of Renejs's block.Jeppiz (talk) 18:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Already done a few hours ago, guys. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment It's not that I'm overly sensible, but I'm getting a bit tired of all the personal attacks directed at me by Renejs. loose canon", "hypocrite", "bully", "malicious", etc [245], [246]. I can understand he is dissatisfied that I thought he was socking, but I wasn't the only one, I've retracted that when it became clear it was a mistake, I've called on the first blocking admin to shorten the block, which has been done. I don't expect Renejs to like me, but I believe my accusations against him have been factual (vowing to edit war [247] and a strong WP:COI [[248]). Insults like loose canon", "hypocrite", "bully", "malicious", etc. seem a bit uncalled for.Jeppiz (talk) 18:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

One Four down, one to go: Time to sort out what to do with Renejs

(edit conflict)Ok, Courcelles confirmed via CU that GMarxx as a sock of Gekritzl, and blocked him noting that he used three accounts.

Courcelles has also blocked Renejs for 36 hours for edit warring, with no comment as to socking. That Renejs returned so quickly still makes me believe that he and Gekritzl were at least engaging in off-site collusion.

Given Renejs's other behavior (even without the socking issue) is unacceptable, we still need to discuss the possibility of at least topic banning Renejs from all articles relating to Early Christianity and his offline research, if not just an indef block.

To repeat:

• Renejs does not want the article to exist without mentioning him
• he is aware of his own COI but does not care, and wishes to use the article to promote a particular view against policy, guideline, and consensus
• he intends to use this site to promote his offsite work
• he edit wars to restore primary-source BLP-violating based original research he likes, claiming there's no consensus because he doesn't agree with the consensus; and has made it clear that he intends to continue edit warring
• he has been brought up for this behavior before, and was only let off after making a false promise to change
• he believes that his off-site research amounts to credentials that justify his actions on this site

What his beliefs are do not matter, what his research is does not matter (beyond the fact that it is self-published and fringe) -- all that matters is that he believes he is entitled to do as he pleases to push his beliefs onto the site, and will act against the site's interests, policies, guidelines, and consensus because of that entitlement.

Ian.thomson (talk) 20:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

While I of course can't speak to offsite collusion, technically, Renejs is  Unrelated to the other four socks. And while I've indeffed Gekritzl for now, I don't object to someone changing that after discussion. Courcelles 20:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

That is good to know, thanks Courcelles. So we've established that there was extensive socking but Renejs was not involved. That doesn't change things, of course. He is still using Wikipedia to push himself, advertising his self-publish books, and obstructing any change to the article that would remove him (based on WP:RS as he has no expertise in the field). That, combined with the edit warring and even explicit promise/threat to continue to edit war is the issue.Jeppiz (talk) 20:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban I read Renejs's comments on adding the fringe tag and on that alone, he should not be be topic banned. Raquel Baranow (talk) 16:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm having trouble figuring out what you mean. Do you mean:

• That a topic ban is not enough in the light of his other behavior?

-or-

• That his content-based position in those comments excuse his openly stated plans to edit war, insistance on including primary-source-based original research against BLP, his clear agenda to self-promote his work, and so on?

Or do you have something else to excuse those behaviors besides a content-based? Because content does not excuse disruptive editing, especially when there's complete overlap between a user's content and the disruptive editing. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I think this ANI is an ad hominem attack against him, that he's a thorn in the flesh against many editors . . . can you say anything good about him? Maybe he doesn't understand completely how things work here (he only edited occasionally over many years but he's very knowledgeable), I like his website and don't think he's inappropriately promoting it. I don't see how the dif you provided above shows he insists that the article mentions him. At this point I don't think there's any valid reason for a topic ban or at the very least, I'd hate to see him gone because I think he knows the subjects he edits but maybe not what a RS is and that can be very frustrating. Raquel Baranow (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

So, people trying to add content you like excuses any disruptive behavior and trumps policy, guidelines, and consensus on their part? Ok, I'm now ignoring anything else you have to say in this discussion now, and encourage others to do likewise. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The previous ANI involving this editor was closed as a WP:OWN issue with a few guidelines recommended. Raquel Baranow (talk) 20:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

For the record, the previous ANI about the user was closed by an involved non-admin. Closing by an uninvolved admin is good. Closing by an involved non-admin on ANI is rather bad. And I must agree with Ian.thomson in finding it rather extraordinary that somebody should argue that the fact that they like a person's webpage should be an excuse for said person's behavior on Wikipedia. There are persons whose opinions I like a lot who have been blocked, and I've never opposed that, nor even seen anyone oppose it before. Could I respectfully suggest focusing on the actual issue instead of our personal likes or dislikes. As Ian said when filing the ANI, the issue here is behavior, not content.Jeppiz (talk) 21:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban per Ian Thomson and others. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 13:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Recent vandalism of many articles

User Krakkos, probably one of a masters' many sockpuppets, is consequently deleting sourced content and replacing it with own POV-content, accusing everybody who is not of his opinion with sockpuppetry and searching for allies. He has been warned many times for being involved in disruptive editing in the revision history and at the talk page. Especially these articles are affected: Tashtyk culture, Karasuk culture, Kangju, Wusun, Bashkirs, Qiang (historical_people), Shang dynasty, Zhou dynasty. How to respond to such vandalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:E620:A260:414F:9801:C8B7:E1B3 (talk) 22:16, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi 2A02:908:E620:A260:414F:9801:C8B7:E1B3, if you can provide specific examples of this users editing that you have mentioned above. If you havent done it before see WP:SDG for guidance on how to do so. Amortias (T)(C) 22:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zhou_dynasty&diff=640306580&oldid=639271469 ; POV-pushing resulted in a edit warring.

- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shang_dynasty&diff=640295114&oldid=639186591 ; POV-pushing resulted in a edit warring.

- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wusun&diff=647011527&oldid=646999999 ; POV-pushing resulted in a edit warring.

- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Qiang_(historical_people)&diff=640310830&oldid=639428161 ; POV-pushing resulted in a edit warring.

- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kangju&diff=647251410&oldid=647238173 ; POV-pushing.

- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tashtyk_culture&action=history ; POV-pushing.

- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karasuk_culture&action=history ; POV-pushing.

I have counted at least 15 sockpuppets of the same master. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:E620:A260:414F:9801:C8B7:E1B3 (talk) 22:48, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)According to this site, the IP OP geolocates to Germany, where other socks of Tirgil34 also locate. Krakkos usually gives the edit summary that he's reverting another sock of Tirgil34, and the evidence leaves me only inclined to believe he's right. Only thing left to do here is block the IP. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I've notified Krakkos about this discussion. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I can't follow you. Do you mean everybody from Germany is a sockpuppet of this Tirgil34? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:E620:A260:414F:9801:C8B7:E1B3 (talk) 22:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

No, just people who behave just like Tirgil34. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

What kind of behavior is this? Being interested in central asia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:E620:A260:414F:9801:C8B7:E1B3 (talk) 23:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I was actually considering adressing this issue on ANI myself. Recently i've been making an attempt to revert disruptive edits by User:Tirgil34, who has been promoting turanist fringe theories on Wikipedia for years through the use of a vast number of socks. In accordance with CFD G5, article creations (including edits i presume) by banned users qualify for immediate deletion. Tirgil34 edits have especially done signicant damage of WP's coverage of Central Asian history, a good example is the nonsense article Turushka, which had been present on WP for months until deleted upon my request earlier today. Tirgil34 uses agressive tactis to attack serious editors who attempt to repair the damage he has done, for example, the respected User:Florian Blaschke was blocked through Tirgil34's scheeming a couple of months ago after reverting fringe additions by User:Ragdeenorc, later confirmed to be a Tirgil34 sock, to the article Kurgan. Tirgil34 appears to have access to an impressive number of IP's (as examplified in the editing history of Andronovo culture), making it practically impossible to prevent his disruptive edits through blocking. He has been pursuing his agenda with extraordinary tendentiousness for years, and appears to be still active despite his numerous bans, as examplified by the appearance of a ducky IP within minutes after i revert Tirgil34's additions to Wusun. Upon the ducky IP's fulfillment of the WP:3RR, the User:Yagmurlukorfez enters the article to enforce the IP's edits. Yagmurlukorfez has earlier been pushing Tirgil34's theories on a wide range of articles, including Issyk kurgan, Karasuk culture, Andronovo culture, Paleolithic Continuity Theory and many more, which seems to be his only purpose on WP. Given Tirgil34's tendentiousness and access to a large amount of IP's, i fear the only solution is careful monitoring of victimized articles by responsible editors. I will not be able to do this on my own. If any responsible admin would join in this effort i would assist with all means possible. Krakkos (talk) 23:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

You are hiding four facts: 1. Tirgil34 is not related to Hirabutor's sockpuppets, 2. fringe theories were never detected, 3. you are pushing your own POV by deleting sourced contents, 4. you are using many IP's around the world to hide your sockpuppetry. That's the matter and this is what should be discussed. Another matter which should be discussed is how you attack other users with psychological warfare:

- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Atama&diff=prev&oldid=609971489

- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yagmurlukorfez&diff=609967624&oldid=609896550

- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yagmurlukorfez&diff=610458850&oldid=609973978

- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yagmurlukorfez&diff=prev&oldid=609536743 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:E620:A260:414F:9801:C8B7:E1B3 (talk) 23:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm uncertain weather your accusations are even worthy of a reply, but i'l reply nevertheless.

- 1. User:Hirabutor is a confirmed WP:Sock of User:Tirgil34
- 2. WP:Fringe has been pushed by Tirgil34 and his socks on countless articles, a good example is the revision history of Issyk Kurgan
- 3. Deletion of articles made and edits made by banned users is WP:Policy in accordance with CFD G5.
- 4. The last "facts" concerning racist attacks refer to edits made way before i even started cleaning up User:Tirgil34's mess on WP. These edits are obvious trolling. On Wusun an IP which appears connected to you 2A02:908:E620:A260:F836:FBF:6432:6776 accused me of a "false-flag operation". Perhaps you were mistaking me for yourself?

Am I the only person who finds it oddly curious that they were able to pull four such differently linked diffs together at short notice. Amortias (T)(C) 23:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

What is your point? All of them are related to one and the same time frame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:E620:A260:414F:9801:C8B7:E1B3 (talk) 23:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

According to your contributions youve been editing for less than 24 hours and have managed to track down diffs from almost 9 months ago in under 15 minutes. Have you previously edited under a different IP or account that would have provided you with this insight prior to today? Amortias (T)(C) 23:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Does ipv6 tell you something?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:908:e620:a260:414f:9801:c8b7:e1b3 (talk • contribs)

Unfortunatley yes, but without knowing who your ISP is to find out what the address lifetime they have allocated to your IP address is its not much help in proving/disproving what addresses youve edited under previously (legitimately or otherwise) to disprove or prove the concerns mentioned above.Amortias (T)(C) 00:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The "evidence" provided by the OP for "POV-pushing" consists of Krakkos replacing unsourced or poorly sourced information or adding new information, usually citing a Princeton-published work. In this case, he only improved refs. He also shuffled info to give due weight, or removed material that appears somewhat undue. The last bit I point to (the removal of information) is the only thing that I could begin to be worried about, but would still need good evidence to not assume that it was ultimately in good faith.

As for the IP's claims that Krakkos is socking under the last four links he provided: we should all be insulted the IP thinks we're that stupid; and at the very least, treat the poorly-evidenced accusation as a personal attack on Krakkos, if not trolling.

We should block the IP OP. They're clearly not here in good faith, and can only be assumed to be a sock of a blocked POV-pusher who Krakkos has tangled with before. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Seems you would like to block me before I can provide the sock accounts?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:908:e620:a260:414f:9801:c8b7:e1b3 (talk • contribs)

If you really had anything beyond insinuations, you should've revealed them by now. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

What a coincidence, all of them are related to Tirgil34:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Zheek

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mendsetting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Krakkos

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ergative rlt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Cantspans

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Banderheits

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Alsace38&offset=&limit=500&target=Alsace38

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&tagfilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=46.143.214.22&namespace=&tagfilter=&year=2015&month=-1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ArordineriiiUkhtt

here the master even admits he is using socks for "different topic areas": http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Rajmaan&oldid=525645285

... and what coincidence we see the main operating ip's 188. + 187. + 46. consequently in context with the same tactics of ip socking including name changing and allying with the same admins/users, and all of them are connecting Tirgil34's and Hirabutor's edits with one and the same Kurdish sockpuppet master. What a coincidence... also read Hirabutor's earlier evidence: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Materialscientist&diff=prev&oldid=607457239 . Possibly more sock accounts were created, only an investigation could reveal it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:E620:A260:414F:9801:C8B7:E1B3 (talk) 00:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey buddy - if you're going to claim I'm a sock account, do me the favor of starting an investigation at SPI. I would love to know who I'm actually a sock of! Ergative rlt (talk) 20:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with the concerns of repoter. The Reported user doing personel attacks (such as turanist, sockpuppet etc.) and pushing his/her POV and deleting countless reliable sources on several articals with the reason of "sockpuppet edits." But also same removals doing by sevaral IPs with the same reason. These are might be related. We have a serious problem with that. These actions harming neutrality of articals and need to be stopped.Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 23:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment. Per Wikipedia:Banning policy, admins and editors are allowed to remove and revert all sock puppets edits. User:Krakkos explained in his edits summaries why he removed those contents. Socks' edits should not stand on articles. It's a rule to keep WP healthy and prevent further sock puppetry or ip-hopping. --188.159.246.76 (talk) 17:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Says another sock master legend á la Tirgil34. 2A02:908:E620:A260:C43:AA09:5C47:6DDE (talk) 20:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Irrelevant tu quoque. Admins need to finally put an end to this vandal-fest. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Long-time Pan-Turkist sock puppetry

If you review some Central Asian or Eastern European article (usually topics about Indo-Europeans, Scythians, Sarmatians, Alans (even Ossetians), Tocharians, Archaeology, Languages and cultures), you'll find tracks of Tirgil34 edits and his socks. All of them are German! editors who are interested in Turkifying articles. Just check Turanid race article. For example, this is and old unblocked sock: User:FACT NEEDED, see his userpage and contribution, again another German who loves to Turkify anything he finds in wikipedia:

• I am a German historian. I love history.

All of them have same behavior, editing-style, edit summaries, and etc. He plays a "Good Cop Bad Cop" tactic, and that User:Yagmurlukorfez restores his edits every time. These guys are not here to build encyclopedia. They tries to push fringe and unreliable content in every article that they don't like. The above IP who submitted this laughable report, is Tirgil34 himself. Again a German from Germany! It was confirmed by SPI, that all of these users are one person or they work as a team/group. If his edits are not problematic, why different users and admins reverted all of his edits? And now he attacks other editors to find a way to return to wikipedia. Another point is, why all of this so-called GERMANs (who love history) act similar?! Admins should ban him and any IPs related to this Pan-Turkist sock master. Protect those articles and other editors watch similar edits to prevent this non-stop revisionist. --175.179.5.45 (talk) 08:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Completely agree. Tirgil34 and Yagmurlukorfez (same person or not) are only interested in pushing their pet idea, a classic fringe view claiming that the Scythians (and related peoples) were Turkic and Turkic/Altaic languages are native to Europe. No long-time editor who is interested in Indo-European, Iranian or Turkic languages and peoples, or the history of Central Asia, can avoid having run into them and their socks at some point. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 09:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Some IP socks still attacking me with being sockpuppet and "pan-turkist/turanist" claims. Admins should do something to these harassments. It's obviously personel attack but always ignoring by admins and moderatos. Same for user Florian Blaschke. This is not the first time. On the other hand, I (or someone else) can edit whatever I/they want, you can't blaim the people with such thing for their interests on wikipedia.Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 16:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Florian Blaschke looks actually ok, you can at least talk with him in a fine manner, even though he doesn't understand the seriousness of the situation with Krakkos, who appears now with the same Korean/Japanese/Viatnemese proxy-server as Hirabutor made evident. The problem is the sock master, being recently very active with his sock Krakkos, blames other users for being in disagreement with the sock masters' opinion. When debating with Krakkos in the revision history I've noticed the sock master employs three different tactics ; 1. distraction: divert attention from the argument at hand and avoid debating the issue directly 2. ad hominem logical fallacy: blaming the messenger and not debating the message 3. fallacy of relevance ("red herring"): the submitter will attempt the "two wrongs make a right" tactic. In employing these tactics the sock master unwittingly admits the correctness of the opponent's orginal argument. Every attempt to discuss with Krakkos, as this user never admits own mistakes, will enter a dead end finally. The mass-removal of sourced academic content still continues and nobody is doing anything against this. 2A02:908:E620:A260:AD6B:2337:7976:A2AF (talk) 18:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

And 193.154.234.138 is now making a loud quacking on a related article. Amortias (T)(C) 21:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Unrelated to the other IP's which are usually geolocated in the US, Iran, Japan and Korea. 22:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)~

Comment: I have filed a sockpuppet investigation against Yagmurlukorfez, based on the fact that their edits at Wusun are very similar to earlier edits by Radosfrester and Pioikdiyma, blocked sockpuppets of Tirgil34. Hirabutor, mentioned in the paragraph above, is also a blocked sockpuppet of Tirgil34. See Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Tirgil34. --MelanieN (talk) 22:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• I'm really getting sick of these nonsense actions. It's been a year since I joined wikipedia, I'm already investigated several times and nothing happened. Not sure is this some kind a tactic or stupidity of those troll IPs but ironicly, they still keep accusing me with being sockpuppet. I have no directly or indirectly relation with Tirgil34 or his sock accounts. I don't even know who is he. But here, even admins (such as MelanieN) keep opening investigation about me again and again. This negative attitude among some admins against me is harming their neutrality.Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 23:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Followup: the initial sockpuppet investigation found no evidence of sockpuppetry. I have apologized to Yagmurlukorfez. --MelanieN (talk) 00:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

That does not change the fact that both Tirgil34 and Yagmurlukorfez are pushing Turanist/Pan-Turkist historical revisionism that identifies everyone and everything in the ancient Eastern European/Central Asian steppes as "Proto-Turkic": Scythians, Sarmatians, Alans and their modern descendants, the Ossetes, Saka, Wusun, the Issyk kurgan inscription, the Andronovo horizon, the Afanasevo culture, the Botai culture, even the Copper Age Kurgan cultures! Neither can accept that while Turkic peoples did mix with Iranians in the Middle Ages, that does not mean that Iranian nomads of the ancient steppes (and their predecessors) were Turkic themselves. (The Proto-Turkic language was most likely spoken 2000–3000 years ago – the Turkic languages are not strongly differentiated – in the vicinity of the Altai mountains, in Mongolia or so; it makes no sense to talk of "Proto-Turkic" anything before the Iron Age, especially not in Europe.) The problem persists, so the negative attitude towards Yagmurlukorfez is entirely validated by his behaviour. He may not be a sockpuppet, but he sure is a brother-in-arms. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The abundance of "fringe theories" shows that the matter is far from settled, and drugging you through the "fringe theories" conflict resolution is rather a sign of the weakness of its advocates. The alleged consensus is very far from consensus, that why the abundance of objections and a plethora of the "fringe theories". Concerning the Wusuns, they might have been proto-turkic or indo-european. 2A02:908:E620:A260:C43:AA09:5C47:6DDE (talk) 20:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Bull. Shit. It only shows the fervency and persistence (bullheadedness) of Pan-Turkic nationalist idiots. Similarly, Islamic terrorism does not prove the truth of Islam, and constant attacks by creationists, climate denialists, Neo-Nazis and other crackpots on Wikipedia do not show that there is anything wrong with the mainstream scientific consensus. Plain old boring argumentum ad numerum, nothing to see here. In mainstream academia, the Iranian identity of the Scythians is completely settled. Given the low diversity of Turkic, Bronze Age "Proto-Turks" are pure fantasy. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Indef-block/ban for him and Topic-ban for his teammate

1. Indef-block for this User:Tirgil34 guy (the IPV6 guy), he invaded Wikipedia for several years. Don't allow him to edit Wikipedia articles again (WP-ban). If he agree to stop his sock puppetry and multiple account abuse, then allow him to create a new account but a TOPIC-ban is necessary for him. According to his comments, it's obvious that IPV6 guy is Tirgil34 and he still has many accounts. He has a watchlist to monitor those articles (parked account(s)).
2. Topic-ban for his friend User:Yagmurlukorfez. Because he is a single-purpose account who just works with Tirgil34.
3. Tirgil34 attacked other editors who reverted his edits or removed his disruptive actions. A group of unrelated editors. Compare their contributions. Nothing is similar, the only similarity between those editors is; that once upon a time they reverted and removed Tirgil34's edits and now Tirgil34 is angry because of their contributions. Unlike Tirgil34, they're trusted editors in WP (see their contributions).
4. According to his SPI archive, The last invasion by this Pan-Turkist troll/vandal was in 2013-2014, and other users successfully managed to find and report him. He's angry because he tried to insert his unreliable, disruptive, delusional, pseudo-science content in wp articles for several years and every major attempt by him was unsuccessful.
5. Obvious sock puppetry since 2012, earlier Pan-Nationalistic attempts before 2012, Does this guy really want to help Wikipedia?! Horrible usage of multiple accounts in every return of this user.
6. Do he and his friends use an IM application? Because he and his friends restore his edits very fast! Is this behavior allowed in WP?
7. Tirgil34 mocked and insulted us by submitting this report. We SHOULD NOT feed trolls and vandals like him. --103.41.63.10 (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Heads-up: User:RevertBastard

It looks like RevertBastard (talk · contribs) is building themselves a Twinkle-derivative tool. While they haven't yet done anything anything against policy, their username does not inspire confidence about their longer-term intentions. -- The Anome (talk) 12:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Duly noted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RevertBastard (talk • contribs) 13:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• We better hope he doesn't create a tool that vandalizes articles in a flash or even worse, a Vandalbot. Snowager (talk) 15:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • If they're experienced enough, then BEANS re your comment. —George8211 / T 18:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Tendentious editing, removal of well-sourced material, etc., at Sam Harris

Xenophrenic (talk · contribs), Collect (talk · contribs), LM2000 (talk · contribs), Jonotrain (talk · contribs)
WP:GAMING, WP:TE, WP:IDLI, WP:IDHT
I have to sleep after posting this, so won't be back until tomorrow, so take your time.
I add material to Criticisms section[249]
Jonotrain (who originally posted it, seemingly an SPA with too much Wiki knowledge) re-adds sentence to lead [250]
Xenophrenic deletes criticism from lead[251]
I restore.[252]
Deletes again, with untrue edit summary (i.e., “no summary”). There was a summary of the Al Jazeera and Salon pieces before sentence was added to lead.[253]
I revert and tell him “take it to Talk”[254]
And again[255]
Deletes it again even after I remove “racism” as compromise.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sam_Harris_(author)&diff=646784582&oldid=646775831]
Jonotrain restores my version[256]
Xenophrenic makesdubious claim of “copyvio”[257]
Then he deletes Criticisms section including Chomsky quote as well as sentence from lead, adds one paragraph to the portions of the Criticism section and retitles it “On Islam” under umbrella category of Views. [258]
Created “Political” section under Views, reinserted Chomsky quote, with support from two secondary news article sources, one from the Independent, as well as academic sources taken directly from the New Atheism article.[259] Jonotrain (who originally posted it, seemingly an SPA with too much Wiki knowledge) re-adds sentence to lead.[260]
A new editor to the page (LM2000) starts with a delete and claims UNDUE out of the blue [261]
Same editor, following Xenophrenic’s pattern, deletes Political section and merges some of it under “On Islam”, again deleting Chomsky quote, Lean, etc., and then self-reverts, claiming that he saw Talk and didn’t want to fight for the changes [262]
SPA reverts LM2000 self-revert (as well as his own edits, contradicting himself), and suddenly expresses a change of faith that he agrees (i.e., declaring that his own edits were wrong, basically), including Mondoweiss quote he inserted (from piece linked to and praised in Guardian piece by Greenwald)[263]
After reverting, I integrate quote that Jonotrain “signed” and posted in an exaggerated manner, apparently with the aim of having it declared UNDUE later. [264]
After I move Mondoweiss quote to Political section, Collect deletes it, dismissing the source as “very editorial”, then he removes categories (four of the five) under which Harris is categorized as Jewish.[265] Collect had directly edited the categories (Harris was categorized as a Jew four or five times) in his second of only two minor edits to the article before 2/16.[266]
As shown by this BLP/N thread, his apparent aim was solely the removal of the Mondoweiss quote, claiming I violated BLPCAT with it.
I continue to build the article. [267]
Xenophrenic continues to tendentiously revert[268]
After which LM2000 rejoins with a revert, and I expand the Political section further, after addressing Xenophrenic’s unfounded dismissal of sources on the Talk page as well as misrepresentation of HP piece[269] , and he reverts again, claiming my edits are problematic.[270] Regarding sourcing, etc., see this Talk page thread[271], such as this comment dismissing Chomsky and two other sources on false grounds[272].
Collect also started a bogus RfC.[273]
--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

If any editors are edit-warring, then take it to the edit-warring noticeboard. Otherwise all I see is a content dispute. I do not see btw what is bogus about the RfC. It identifies specific text and asks if it should be included. This discussion thread should be closed. TFD (talk) 19:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

While I agree that Xenophrenic should not have necessarily flat removed this material, I do agree that the material was not an accurate summary of the citations at all.

Xenophrenic was right to tell you to take it to the talk page, per WP:BRD (which is not BRRD, or BRRRRD). Per WP:BRD, after the material was removed, you should have gone to the talk page seek consensus for its restoration. That is the spirit of the policy on edit warring, even if the letter defines it as more than three reverts.

Removing "racism" as a compromise was the wrong issue entirely. The articles cited (especially the Aljazeera piece) totally did support including the word "racism" in there somewhere, they just didn't support the notion of "widespread," and needed more exacting summaries (such as "Aljazeera, the Guardian, and Nathan Lean have accused Harris of racism.") Which is pretty close to what Xenophrenic did here. I would be happier if he then summarized the new section in the intro as well, but otherwise the edit was doing your work for you.

The copyvio claim is hardly dubious. This edit removes outright plagiarism from the Salon article cited. Your original addition was a quote (not plagiarism), but it was eventually turned into plagiarism by removing the blockquote tags.

Harris represents a great deal of what I'm personally opposed to, (such that an article that represented only my personal views would portray him as just the pretentious, upper-class, and better-spoken version of the sort of redneck that beat up Hindus after 9/11, combined with the grown version of a teenager who becomes an atheist after finding flaws in his own misconceptions about religion) -- but I have to find Xenophrenics edits and behavior were within site policies and guidelines. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Hope you got a good night's sleep. I agree with TFD - this is a content dispute. Try working it out on the TP. Atsme☯^Consult 20:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Addendum: I could imagine that this edit goes against WP:GEVAL in the intro, but I'd have to study the article in fuller detail to make a solid decision one way or the other.

As for LM2000, I'm seeing edits to WrestleMania 32, List of WWE personnel, Garett Bischoff, and lots of other wrestling articles, going all the way back to Extreme Championship Wrestling. I'm also seeing edits relating to movies, and other forms of entertainment. Is he editing outside of his usual area? Maybe. Is he a single purpose account? Hardly. Does calling him a single purpose account border on a personal attack? Possibly.

Collect's RfC looks to me to be a separate issue, and I do have to ask why OP want to classify a well-known New Atheist proponent he doesn't like as Jewish. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The salient facts are at Talk:Sam_Harris_(author)#RfC, and at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Sam_Harris_.28author. The desire of some to label an outspoken atheist as "Jewish" even to the extent of using a non-notable person's opinion from a non-notable blog to stress their Jewish tribal attitudes seems to be to run directly counter to both letter and spirit of WP:BLP. Clue: When four editors not particularly known for agreeing on much, but agree that one editor is wrong, there is a slight chance that the person posting here is the one who is wrong. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC) Count is now seven - looks like "trying one more forum" failed. Collect (talk) 21:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a clue what administrative action the Original Poster wants taken against multiple editors. (Ban them all on the request of the OP? Block them all on the request of the OP?) I also don't have a clue what the OP thinks is "bogus" about the RFC. Non-neutral, maybe. Bogus? Recommend Closure of this thread with a strong warning to the OP about what appears to be a tantrum. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: I wasn't married to the "widespread" term by any means, and did not insert it myself. Xenophrenic removed the entire "Criticisms" section because he wanted to exclude other sources I'd added, while adding very little content in creating entire new subsections on "Views" from that section. When I started a section on "Political" views, which is well-supported, Xenophrenic tendentiously attempts to dismiss the sources on different grounds. He particularly dislikes the Chomsky source apparently because it is not directly related to Islam.

I simply removed racism from the lead, as Greenwald focused on that Islamophobia instead even though his point of departure was the Hussain piece, but Xenophrenic has warred to remove the entire statement, even after another rewrite, without collaborating. The sentence in the lead seemed DUE in some form, and my focus was not primarily on that. Granted, I should have removed "widespread" in restoring the text, not doing so was an oversight.

If there was a copyvio due to quotation marks being inadvertently removed, that would seem to be a formatting issue, and does not merit removal of the text. Another sign of a refusal to collaborate in good faith. In this case, however, it was in fact Xenophrenic that removed the quoation marks in the first palce with this edit, because he wanted to call the Nathan Lean Salon article a "polemic", as it is referred to in the Independent news article on the controversy. That is gaming the system. He has also accused me of "blatant BLP violations without grounds, which is a personal attack.

@Robert McClenon: OK, point taken, as I don't know whether topic bans are needed, but I would like people to be warned against dismissing sources on illegitimate grounds, such as Xeno calling three RS “jokers”, and while admitting that Harris has “responded to them extensively”, seeks to exclude their statements.[274]

I'm not here trying to make mountains out of mole hills, etc., but trying to create a little content in such an editing environment is extremely time consuming and counterproductive. What does one do when a "content dispute" does not work out in accordance with the "content policies" due to tendentiousness, refusal to edit collaboratively in good faith, etc. Things like civil POV pushing are not easy to deal with, and I have had academic sources culled directly from a related WP article dismissed offhandedly because a group of editors are trying to keep well-sourced critical content they don't like out of the article.

@Atsme: Thanks, got a little sleep.
--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 02:12, 09:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

One other point that should be examined follows.

With this edit, Xeno goes from this

Fellow contributor at The Huffington Post, R. J. Eskow, has accused Harris of fostering an intolerance towards Islam, potentially as damaging as the religious fanaticism that he opposes. Blind Faith: "Sam Harris Attacks Islam.""Reject Arguments For Intolerance–Even From Atheists."

To this

Fellow contributor at The Huffington Post, R. J. Eskow, has cautioned Harris, "in your zeal to end the harms caused by religion, don't be driven by blind faith down a course of intolerance."

quote mining and misrepresenting the import of the source, which is plainly evident from the title, both when originally published in 2006 and when re-posted on the site in 2011.

I mention that to him on the Talk page, and with this edit paraphrase the source and reword the first passage as

“Fellow contributor at The Huffington Post, R. J. Eskow, has accused Harris of presenting misleading analyses and making unfounded inflammatory statements, and cautioned him against following a course of intolerance toward Islam.”

And add a direct quote to the Political section

“R. J. Eskow, has stated, "Coincidentally (or not), Harris echoes the statements of Daniel Pipes and other neoconservatives who have singled Islam out for special censure"."Reject Arguments For Intolerance–Even From Atheists."

that parallels and supports Greenwald’s preceding statement regarding neocon political views

Greenwald states that Harris shares the same basic right-wing worldview of Muslims as his neoconservative supporter David Frum.

Then Xeno removes the entire Political section yet again.
--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 03:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Summarized:

• If any editors are edit-warring, then take it to the edit-warring noticeboard. Otherwise all I see is a content dispute. ... This discussion thread should be closed. — TFD
• I agree with TFD - this is a content dispute. Try working it out on the TP. — Atsme
• I have to find Xenophrenics edits and behavior were within site policies and guidelines. — Ian.Thomson
• When four editors not particularly known for agreeing on much, but agree that one editor is wrong, there is a slight chance that the person posting here is the one who is wrong. Cheers. — Collect
• Recommend Closure of this thread with a strong warning to the OP about what appears to be a tantrum. — Robert McClenon
• Ubikwit, I appealed to you on your Talk page to collaborate with me and the other editors. Instead, you came here? — Xenophrenic

I understand this is a touchy subject right now. Over the past few weeks, there have been high-profile news events involving shootings, deaths and Muslims. Ubikwit began editing the BLP of an outspoken critic of religions, including Islam, and immediately started inserting "opinions" of him as a racist, islamophobe, bigot and hater of Islam because of Jewish tribalism, while simultaneously trying to remove descriptions and categories of his fields of study, declaring "(categories gotta go, too - the guy is nothing more than a PUNDIT)". And you wonder why editors are reverting your edits, or moving your contentious content proposals to the Talk page for discussion? We're only asking that you edit in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Xenophrenic (talk) 12:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

update

For the record, personal attacks have been made against me by Jweiss11 (talk · contribs)[275], and I replied with a warning[276].
Furthermore, there are obvious competence issues, and those have been raised.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 21:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Ubikwit's behavior is really getting absurd. I have responded to his spurious warning about personal attacks on my talk page. His claim of "obvious" competence issues on my part is ridiculous. If that's not a personal attack, I don't know what is. The subject matter in question, Sam Harris's views on religion and politics, is not rocket science. It can be broached by any intelligent person who can read a newspaper. It's almost like he's pulling Wikipedia guidelines and policies at random out of frustration, like when he claimed I "engaged in WP:OR" in response to my talk page comment; see here. Huh? Perhaps it's time for an administrator step in and put a stop to this nonsense? Jweiss11 (talk) 22:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of projection going on here. Ubikwit has previously accused anybody who opposes his edits of having a whitewashing agenda.[277][278] In another edit, he called Jonotrain and I "jokes" and called our edits "stupid", while also threatening to bring us to AN/I for reasons which I still don't entirely understand.[279] He has also called me incompetent.[280] Personally I can look the other way when it comes to petty insults like this, but for him to behave in such a manner while also playing the victim is unacceptable. He has taken to the encyclopedia to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS with absolutely no regard to BLP standards and has done so without an ounce of civility or good faith along the way.LM2000 (talk) 05:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

You and Jonotrain both contradicted yourselves, making it difficult to take your statements at face value, to say the least.

Jonotrain is a decoy, and as described above, you appeared out of nowhere to make your first edits to this article; furthermore, according to the account above, the article is outside your normal scope of content, which I gather focuses primarily on Pro Wrestling. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 07:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Jonotrain came to a compromise once he realized his concerns were met. There was no contradiction on my part, I said that I wasn't interested in fighting a battle over my edits (assuming that I would be battling alone) but that I would give my support if others thought my edits were an improvement; as it happens others thought my edits were an improvement and I subsequently gave them my support. How my reverting of vandals on wrestling articles has to do with any of this I'll never know, this account is five years old and has ventured out into a number of subjects. What any of this has to do with you frivolously accusing others of personal attacks while grossly misinterpreting basic policy is another wonder because it certainly doesn't justify any of the personal attacks.LM2000 (talk) 08:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

And if you thought that Jonotrain was a sock of me, or somebody else, you should have gone through the proper channels, in this case WP:SPI. Of course such allegations are baseless, Jonotrain spent much of the discussion on your side unlike everybody else you dragged here. Jonotrain, a new account, has gone stale since you resorted to the personal attacks (violating WP:BITE in the process). As everybody above said in agreement, this was simply a content dispute and should have never ended up here at AN/I. Even after being given a stern warning for the "tantrum" you threw by bringing us here, this thread is yet to be closed because of additional concerns about your behavior.LM2000 (talk) 08:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Personal attack and ownership at 2015 Copenhagen attacks

2015 Copenhagen shootings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Curly turkey et al are owning the article suppressing information and call those with whom they disagree trolls. Eyes needed. 166.170.36.59 (talk) 03:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any specific diffs you can point to? And since this is your very first edit, whose edits are being removed? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I removed this, and have not otherwise interacted with this troll. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

More personal attacks. A brief review of Curly Turkey's edits on the page in question and concerns raised on his/her user page make his/her misconduct clear. Is this the behavior expected of a wikipedian trusted with some admin tools??166.170.36.59 (talk) 04:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

If it is, then someone quick give me the admin tools! Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Why are you editing while logged out? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• Not anymore. Drmies (talk) 16:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• Don't we have a policy against editing while being logged out. Something about evading scrutiny?? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Personal attacks and harassment

This user @LJU2ORD: has been harassing and making personal attacks [281], [282], [283] on a number of editors, maybe they need a time out. Mlpearc (open channel) 05:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't mind a time out at all since I'm taking a (possibly permanent) Wikibreak anyway, but I should note that Mlpearc and his cronies have been harassing -- or at least consciously bothering me -- for the better part of a day. He was the one who showed up on my talk page and accused me of harassment (first link above) simply because I responded to Montanabw on her talk page -- as I was told to do by an admin. (And my response to Montanabw was identical to the one in the closed ANI discussion above -- not harassing at all.) --LJU2ORD (talk) 06:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• LJU2ORD, I think that what The Rambling Man was referring to was that if you had any future issues with Mlpearc beyond what had already been discussed, then you could bring it up on their talk page. The big issue with this edit is that the topic had already been discussed above and that you'd been warned about being incivil to Mlpearc. While I didn't take part in the prior ANI discussion, your posts did come across as condescending. Generally speaking, if you've already been warned for incivility then it's not a good idea to go onto another person's page and post words like "ridiculous" and terms like "POV-pushing nationalist". Stuff like that tends to come across like you're being WP:POINT-y and it's much, much better to calmly discuss the issue with sources that back up your claims or at the very least wait until you can post calmly. If you're still angry with the editor in question, odds are that it's probably better for you not to talk with that editor until that point in time comes and to ask another editor to act as a go-between. In any case, I got the impression that TRM was talking about future issues and not the one at hand. I'd honestly recommend that in this instance that you just walk away because right now I doubt that you and mlpearc will see eye to eye on this topic. If you feel that you need to take a wikibreak then that's fine, especially if it's because something got heated between you and another editor to where ANI became necessary. Sometimes it's just better to walk away and cool your head for a while. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• Wait a minute: I was the one who was called a "POV-pushing nationalist." Please reread the exchanges. In fact, it was the mean-spirited accusation of nationalistic POV-pushing, and the contempt directed at me (in part) because of my national origin, that prompted me to leave Wikipedia, at least for the time being. --LJU2ORD (talk) 08:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
• I wasn't saying that you were calling them that, just that the way you wrote your statements on their talk page came across like you were trying to continue an argument and it didn't come across like you were trying to calmly discuss an article dispute. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• OK. Thanks for the clarification! The problem is that it's awfully hard to discuss an article dispute calmly when one is automatically dismissed as a "POV-pushing nationalist" right from the start.--LJU2ORD (talk) 08:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• If that's the case then the absolute best thing to do is go through an intermediary, especially if you've been accused of being uncivil and you're upset. We've all been in situations where we've gotten into arguments with people and in most of these cases the best advice I was ever given was to walk away and come back when I'd calmed down or to just go through another editor that's skilled in diplomacy. This is one situation where I'd personally recommend walking away from the edits in question and when you're calmer and everything has had a chance to settle, ask someone at WP:DRN or WP:3O (I'd recommend third opinion first) to take a look at things. If one or both sites agree that the content shouldn't be in the article, the only thing to do at that point is to just move on and work on other articles. I've had instances where I've had to do that and I know it's hard, but sometimes it's the only thing to do. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you so much for your assistance, your suggestions, and your respectful attitude, Tokyogirl79. I really appreciate it. --LJU2ORD (talk) 18:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Timbouctou edit warring and vandalism on Magnum Crimen article

This user keeps reverting the article content for the whole week removing huge portion of the referenced text along the references verifying it. For details see here and specifically here, here, here, here, here

He was warned here after which he reverted the article content again.

He put the http://magnumcrimen.org/ link under External links of the Magnum Crimen article. This is a commercial site selling this book, which is against the Wikipedia no advertisement policy.

He was blocked 6 times in the past for the vandalism, edit warring, and harassment.--Michelle Ridomi (talk) 14:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing to my past behaviour which has nothing to do with you or the article in question here. For the record, User:Michelle Ridomi seems to be a sock/meat puppet of User:Milos zankov. Both of them have been engaged in censoring edits to Magnum Crimen - a controversial book originally published in 1948 claiming that Catholic clergy was closely related to Croatian fascists during World War II and which seems to have a special place in Serbian nationalists' hearts. They have been doing this in an effort to keep our article word-for-word identical to what has been posted to magnumcrimen.org, an external website set up to promote English-language edition of the book. The text over there is a mirror of a previous version of our Wikipedia article, much of which had been added in 2010 by a user blocked since, and which had plagiarised verbatim a 1950 book review, including a few glaring factographical mistakes. Correcting these (or at least rephrasing to avoid obvious plagiarism issues) is virtually impossible due to these two editors' never-ending reverts.

Only after User:Milos zankov (a recently registered account) opened an RfC (which was ciriticised already for overall tone and lack of good faith assumption by a passing by editor) and after Milos reported me here twice did Michelle Ridomi (yet another recently registered account) appear out of the blue to start blowing the same trumpet. I think we would all have to be imbeciles not to assume these two are puppets and not to assume they have a vested interest in this article because of a political axe to grind. Perhaps I should have reported both to WP:SPI. I see now I should have, and I will, once this thread is concluded. Thanks. Timbouctou (talk) 15:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

"They have been doing this in an effort to keep our article word-for-word identical to what has been posted to magnumcrimen.org, an external website set up to promote English-language edition of the book." It is quite clear that magnumcrimen.org copied most of the text from the Wikipedia Magnum Crimen. The time stamp here shows that the word-for-word text existed in the Magnum Crimen as of 27 August 2010. The magnumcrimen.org site claims its copyright as of 2015. If there is a copyright violation, it is on the magnumcrimen.org side. We tried several times to explain that the time does not run backward which this user kept rejecting. Collaborating in a constructive way, which I did when commenting and submitting changes to Magnum Crimen, is not puppeteering.
"and which had plagiarised verbatim a 1950 book review" In 2010 a portion of this text was not referenced. The un-referenced text was reworded by Milos zankov and the reference added which makes no sense to call it a plagiarism now, nor remove the whole section from the article.--Michelle Ridomi (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I think I explained what happened quite clearly - an entire 1950 book review was pasted into our article years ago (unattributed). The article was then mirrored at magnumcrimen.org (unattributed to either Wikipedia or original source), which claims copyright to it. Milos and Michelle are now edit-warring and speficically reverting any re-wording of the said text, many, many, many, many, many times. They also deleted external link back to magnumcrimen.org (the book's official website) several times, they deleted sections on criticism of the book, and they pretend they don't see factual mistakes in the quoted review itself (the book was not banned by the Catholic church; its author was not a priest, etc, etc.). They even oppose translating the title in English exactly the same way it is printed on its English-language edition cover. Milos and Michelle are just here to revert whatever anyone does on the article. And they have no intention of behaving otherwise since they are not here to build an encyclopedia. Timbouctou (talk) 18:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• @Timbouctou I'll respond to a few issues mentioned by this user.

• "an entire 1950 book review was pasted into our article years ago (unattributed)" -> the fact is just these two sentences were "unattributed": Viktor Novak, a Croat by birth, has been, since 1924, active among the Serbs. He has held the Chair of Croat History which was founded at the University of Belgrade in order to promote mutual understanding between the two kindred peoples. which I attributed properly. The whole book review is in front of me and has four pages. As a proof that the "entire 1950 book review" is never pasted into Magnum Crimen I'll offer this snippet from the O. Neuman book review: "The invasion and disruption of Jugoslavia in the spring of 1941 has served the author as the dividing line of the period to be covered in the third part of this trilogy. The magnum crimen is not and individual or isolated action: the author uses the the term to designate the activities of that part of the Croat hierarchy which cast their lot with the poglavnik of NDH. Ante Pavelic and endorsed his policy, friendly to the Axis and hostile to the Serbian people, and in general to all those who even after the forceful dismemberment of the country remained faithful to the idea of Yugoslavia. Two long chapters covering over 500 pages, have been reserved for the description of conditions prevailing in the NDH". The Google search will show you this
• "its author was not a priest, not banned by the Catholic church" A Corrupt Tree: An Encyclopaedia of Crimes committed by the Church of Rome against Humanity and the Human Spirit, A.S., Xlibris Corporation, Jan 13, 2014 page 803 Novak, Viktor, ex Catholic priest, professor, historian, anathema pronounced against him, 537 Magnum Crimen ... placed on the Index, 537. See also Autor je Viktor Novak (1889–1977), hrvatski rimokatolički sveštenik i profesor Univerziteta u Beogradu translated as The author, Victor Novak (1889-1977) , is a Croatian Roman Catholic priest and a University of Belgrade professor--Milos zankov (talk) 23:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure, Milos. Too bad you have no clue where "A Corrupt Tree" got that information from since page 537 is missing from Google Books preview you plucked this from. Also, too bad you don't actually use references when editing the article itself instead of reverting. And reverting. And reverting. And reverting. And then some more reverting. Timbouctou (talk) 07:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

You did not add a single reference. Moreover, you added "official site" which is just an advertisement despite the fact that advertising inside Wikipedia articles is strictly forbidden to advertise. Milos zankov added eight new references.--Michelle Ridomi (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Zankov added very little, and the article is still mostly reliant on primary sources (although, oddly enough, things like author's priesthood and prohibition are not). You, on the other hand, had deleted entire sections about the book's criticism and you are still edit-warring over petty crap, such as the book's English-language title, external link (which is its official website), copyedited 1950 review and a myriad of other stuff that has been touched upon in the talk page. The idea that the external link is merely advertisement is pretty interesting since Milos and yours version of the article body is a verbatim copy of what is on that website. Timbouctou (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Uh, if the review is copyrighted, then it doesn't matter who attributed what or how long it is. Sentences or paragraphs from it shouldn't be in our article, except as direct quotes. Nil Einne (talk) 17:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

User:timbouctou is known to delete any reference s/he does not like, e.g. the image in the article on Extreme right politics in Croatia ( q.v. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Far-right_politics_in_Croatia&diff=645719162&oldid=645701856 )

Seems instead of disciplining and civilising extreme right wing Wikipedia in Croatian (which in all discussions calls itself "Croatin wikipedia"), shich was attempted last year, when it escalated so much that Croatian (left wing) government and Wikipedia founders were involved, we just got the same pro-Ustashi Croatian extreme right policies promoted on Wikipedia in Enlgish now. What User:timbouctou and his/her cohort user:Joy do by removing anything remotely critical of the pro-fascist extreme right wing Croatian worldview or of the Roman Catholic church in Croatia is what people with integrity should abhor and reject and those users should be banned indefinitely.

109.245.135.87 (talk) 03:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I didn't even read all of the above but it's fairly clear to me that the party dragging Timbouctou through the mud here is WP:NOTHERE and needs to be axed. I don't currently have the time to go through an analysis of the abusive accounts, can someone else please tend to it? TIA. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we can safely add above IP to the list. This one is obsessed with adding an unrelated image to the article on Croatian nationalism. Timbouctou (talk) 10:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• @Joy [shallot] Looks like this admin is again solicited to intervene on behalf of Timbouctou. See the earlier WP:CANVASS here and here.--Milos zankov (talk) 11:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

User Joy: It's clear that this administrator is solicited. An additional solicitation is here. It is noteworthy to write that this administrator was already blocked for abusing administrative rights. For details, see here. After being solicited by Timboctou, administrator Joy attacked Milos zankov saying I'm not sure if this account is yet another sockpuppet of User:Velebit or what, but in any event, I'm issuing a final warning. The same Joy attacked other users as sockpuppets of Velebit which was rejected recently .. and this particular SPI file seems to be a dumping ground without any serious evidence that the mass of accounts connected to Velebit are indeed connected. My proposal is to "review" activity of this administrator equally as we reviewing Timboctou's vandalism and edit warring.--Michelle Ridomi (talk) 12:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Joy was mentioned by an IP above with a wikilink to their name, so was probably notified, and in any case should have been solicited to take part in this discussion. Also I just realised this discussion is from several days ago. Why is it here now? Nil Einne (talk) 17:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Nil Einne, Michelle Ridomi removed this discussion from the archives in this diff and placed it at the bottom of the page. It looks like the issues were never resolved. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

And FYI this was the third time the same thread was copy/pasted to ANI by Milos/Michelle, after the first two had been archived unaddressed. Timbouctou (talk) 18:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I sort of guessed the reposting probably happened when I posted above, my question was more why (since it looked like one of those pointless complaints that wasn't going anywhere hence why it was ignored). Having looking more carefully at the edit history, it seems there is actually a serious issue here that needs attention, but perhaps not in the way Michelle or Milos were thinking. If it's true that the content was copied from the review, and in the absence of conclusive evidence it's in the public domain, as I said above it's not acceptable to copy the content to the article even if it's only one or two sentence. While continually reverting such WP:copyvio edits is completely justifiable, I think blocks are in order in the absence of a good explaination as to why there isn't a copyvio concern or at least good indication that the editors involved now understand our copyright policies (which would also mean they stop trying to add the copyvios). The statements above and in the talk page aren't hopeful. They appear to suggest a fundamental misunderstanding of our copyright policies with the suggestion it's okay because only one or two sentences were copied of a 4 page text and the content was belatedly? attributed to the source when it wasn't presented as a direct quote or at least not entirely. Hopefully a careful reading of the copyvio page, Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing will clear things up for them but if not, they need to stop editing wikipedia, or be forced to. Copyvios are too serious to mess around with since they can waste an incredible amount of time cleaning them up. Nil Einne (talk) 20:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Nil Einne. FYI I raised this at SPI and asked a CheckUser. The case is still open but results seem inconclusive. 01:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)Timbouctou (talk)

• Nil Einne: what are you talking about? Did you read this sentence clearly visible on the Milos' response above? Milos wrote, Viktor Novak, a Croat by birth, has been, since 1924, active among the Serbs. He has held the Chair of Croat History which was founded at the University of Belgrade in order to promote mutual understanding between the two kindred peoples. which I attributed properly. (to Neumann)?--Michelle Ridomi (talk) 12:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
• WP:copyvio states: "However, copying material without the permission of the copyright holder from sources that are not public domain or compatibly licensed (unless it's a brief quotation used in accordance with Wikipedia's non-free content policy and guideline) is likely to be a copyright violation.". The two sentences are just a brief quotation used in accordance to the US copyright code. Nil Einne, please, learn more about the copyright before trying to teach others the same.--Michelle Ridomi (talk) 12:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The sentence you mention isn't a quotation [284]. It says "According to O. Neuman", but there's no indication it's a direct quotation (e.g. quote marks or an appropriate template). Instead it's presented in wikipedia voice which implies it isn't a direct quotation and doesn't suffer from excessive close paraphrasing but all indications including from you suggest it does. The second sentence is in quotation marks, but I don't see any reason why. It's the sort of thing which would be best written with our own words rather than directly quoting the source (the same with the first sentence BTW). It's incredibly poor writing, and also raises copyright concerns (as we're supposed to be a free encyclopaedia) to use unnecessary quotations. Still it at least includes quotation marks so we aren't presenting it as entirely CC-BY-SA & GFDL text. And US copyright law is largely irrelevant here (unless it's claimed there is a violation of US law). What matters is our policies and best practices, not US copyright law. The fact you even bring it up further suggests you need to take a more careful read before continuing to edit. I also don't know why you bring up attribution which as I said is irrelevant to the point I was making which was about WP:COPYVIO not was or was not attributed. I'll freely admit I haven't looked in to detail in to this case, and have no desire to. My concern came when I read comments from you and the other participant suggesting you have a very poor understanding of our copyright policies as you seemed to think it was okay to copy content provided it was attributed and only one or two sentences regardless of whether the content was presented as quotations, or whether there was a reason to use quotations for the text. P.S. There is the obvious question of whether the close paraphrasing is okay because there's no other way to say it. Again I didn't look in to detail at this aspect, because your comments suggested it wasn't something you considered anyway. P.P.S. I perhaps should have linked Wikipedia:Non-free content in addition to the other stuff I linked earlier, i.e. Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and WP:Copyvio. Nil Einne (talk) 13:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

You are just wasting my time. There was no copyright violation nor "our policies and best practices". The two sentences coming from prof. Neumann are properly rephrased and quoted according to the Wikipedia guidelines. If "our" means Wikipedia then try to fully understand that all linked text you've counted above before trying to teach me or anybody else. Avoid the high tone because it cannot elevate you above others and it is a kind incivilty and harassment.--Michelle Ridomi (talk) 16:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Promotion of Hästens Company and suspected sock

SleepEditor has been adding promotional material (example) to the article about the bed company Hästens, as well as creating articles to help building a platform for the Hästens company: Signum Priset, Heds socken, Per Thure Janson, Purveyor to the Swedish Royal Court, Pehr Adolf Janson and the deleted "Horsetail hair". I warned the editor the editor about having WP:COI on their talk page. After a conversation the editor removed the warning from the page. After this Special:Contributions/5.150.199.201 continued the editing at Hästens and Pehr Adolf Janson. I suspect that these editors are one and the same, or both being paid editors making these edits just to promote the brand. w.carter-Talk 15:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

This editor's sole function is to promote the interests of one company. I think there is a very serious potential Terms of Use issue here, with regard to undisclosed paid editing. Coretheapple (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

High handed editing by Peter

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

---

With edit summary comments which are incomprehensible to me, irrelevant, and/or against common sense for editing English WP, and without using the talk page, the user is making more and more edits and reverts to the Danish pastry article like this and this. Given the amount of condescending, sarcastic and insulting comments the user has made on the talk page, in what looks to me like a long and drawn-out battle to mainly have h own way in every detail, it's very hard to see good faith shining through. There also seems to be some kind of nationalistic (Swedish) attitude involved in repeated and irrelevant put-downs of at least one (Danish) contributor there, plus an increasing tendency toward article ownership. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I note that the two diffs you provide (including the edit summaries) seem to make sense and don't seem rude; are these really the examples of problematic behavior you intended to highlight?

May I suggest informal one week topic bans for everyone who has posted to the article's talk page in the last week? I assume whatever temporary mass hysteria that is causing everyone on that page to be so cranky and snarky and assume people who disagree with them have ulterior motives will have passed by then. I note that at least one person considers another editor a "Wikipedia terrorist" because of this. A short vacation from the page for everyone might create some perspective.

I'm not joking. Such a solution would probably catch one "innocent" person in the net, but this is a small price to pay, really. And since this informal topic ban would not be logged anywhere, it wouldn't hurt anyone's reputation. If, after a week, the mass hysteria hasn't passed and an ANI thread about pastry wars is really needed, a new one can be created. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Fine with me, but how do the others find out about this? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

It takes the user all of 3 seconds to revert anything hes doesn't want in the article, this latest time with nothing on the talk page, as usual, and with an edit summary that does not coincide with Commons info.

Option A is: I could just make a note to that effect on the talk page, and hat all the discussions, and undo that in a week. Problem is that this is just me being a cowboy admin, and that seems to bother some people, and if others on the talk page disagreed I wouldn't be able to insist on this solution.

Option B is to wait to see if others here think this is a reasonable experiment, and if so I do the same thing as Option A, but with the authority vested in me by this ANI thread. Problem is that some people who frequent ANI would prefer lots of discussion and warnings and blocks and policy-citing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

With option B we have the problem that one can come here and just read, then fix everything the way one wants it for the week, then come back here and agree. I suspect that's already happening, suggest WP:BOLD and lets do Option A right now. Cowboys are often just what we need. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

With halting discussion I must presume you also mean halting edits to the article by those users (all of us). --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• I think said Peter has been a paragon of civility considering some of the mud flung at them. I suppose I'm to be banned from the article as well, thanks to the outlandish suggestion of this rouge and rogue cowboy admin, which I'll protest in triplicate on the relevant Dispute resolution noticeboard. But I have to take issue with the opening sentence of the plaintiff here, nay, with the prepositional phrase which begins their complaint: humbug. Total humbug. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Spoken by an overly authoritative admin who has threatened me before too, criticized my English as if I weren't an appreciated (though aging) teacher and apparently thinks a "paragon of civility" accuses people of obessesion and so on and so forth. Ugh! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Ugh yourself. Drmies is an English university professor, and one shouldn't start an ANI tread before trying other opptions. Hafspajen (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

SergeWoodzing, I will not comment on your English: it speaks for itself. I don't care what you are or were in professional life, or which particular sentences in the article you are/were responsible for--but what Peter did in this edit was turn gibberish into comprehensible English prose. I'm not surprised they have a half a dozen or so FAs, which certainly puts me to shame. Drmies (talk) 18:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Serge has been active in the article all of two days. I suspect that might be some sort of speed record for taking a dispute to AN/I, especially for an experienced user. And without a single diff proving any breech of policy. If he wishes to volunteer himself for a topic ban, I wish him the best of luck. If you ask me, I prefer to focus on improving the article.

Peter ^Isotalo 17:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

One thinks one is going to get help here from neutral administrators. ??? That's why one turns to this option, not to just start another sandbox of animosity. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• Administrators are indeed used with conflicts. If Floquenbeam told you: are these really the examples of problematic behavior you intended to highlight? he was right. This is a dispute for WP:Dispute resolution ... because - if the Danish pastry is exquisitely defined by Danish standards or it is also Scandinavian, where two editors think it is Danish, some Swedish think they also eat it - and even US and UK too. And an outside editor thinks that only the Danish should eat Danish. And the Danish say:Why are other nordic countries even interesting? Its a dough! The nordic countries are no more interesting than any other country in the world! -and so on -Also long and weird discussions that if pastry is called i Norway Wienerbrød, Sweden Wienerbröd, Finland viineri ... or not, or if Norway, Sweden and Finland in fact are Scandinavia or not... yeah - This is typical a dispute for WP:Dispute resolution. Than - ANI. And if anyone was rude than it was the Danish editors,here, and especially with frases like I see no other option than labeling your actions as "Wikipedia terrorism" at Bishonen's talk page. This was not too nice either-but threatening editors, I think. Hafspajen (talk) 18:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Please note this related 3RR complaint.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah! Just edit-conflicted with you on this one. So no need for me to do so. --Kim D. Petersen 18:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Legal threats by multiple IPs (possibly sockpuppets?)

• 107.77.89.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Chaldean Catholic Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This IP has made a legal threat at Talk:Chaldean Catholic Church. I'm having a technical issue accessing that page and can't deal with it directly.

There is a pattern of behaviour by a number of IP editors, replacing any mention of "Assyrian" in the article and using Chaledean Catholic Church sources for the change. I've already protected this article and Chaldean Christians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) twice over this matter.

The primary issue right now is the legal threat. The secondary issue is the pattern of edit warring. There is also a tertiary issue that these IPs may be sockpuppets of ChaldeanEthnicity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

Can I get some more eyes on this situation, given the legal threat in play? I'll also consider whether to file a sockpuppet investigation. —C.Fred (talk) 18:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

While the IP editor is incivil, it is a vague legal threat, directed not at Wikipedia but at an individual editor and it's not even clear whose lawyers this IP believe will carry out legal action. It's the equivalent of saying "There will be lawsuits against you..by someone". I don't think this falls under WP:NLT but the IP editor is editing disruptively and trying to provoke other editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Liz, I'm not sure how you can classify this as vague. we will be coming after you in the lawsuit. Be prepared to go to court and be prepared to face high attorney costs and legal fees. WE will be going after each person individually for a minimum judgment of 250,000.00. Since you are so passionate about this cause, get your pocketbook ready. Seems pretty specific to me. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

All I can say is that what caught my attention was By the way, Chaldean lawyers are preparing a lawsuit to stop you bigoted, politically motivated Assyrians from trying to steal and eliminate the Chaldean name and heritage and we will be coming after you in the lawsuit. and I didn't think the "we" actually included this editor or "you...Assyrians" to specifically mean the editor in question. It seems vague to me but according to FreeRangeFrog, the legal threat does not have to be credible. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

It is a clear legal threat. NLT does not require that the threat be credible (which perhaps amusingly is the case here), only that it be made to create a chilling effect on other editors. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The IP crossed another line, for which I've blocked and revoked talk page access. —C.Fred (talk) 18:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

About the wider dispute affecting that page, I recently proposed an administrative "zero-tolerance approach" to tendentious editing on the related Assyrian people page (see Talk:Assyrian people#Warning: New rules for this page) and have been enforcing it with a ruthless blocking spree. I'd strongly recommend using the same approach here. This entire topic area is completely overrun by ideological single-purpose accounts (from all sides of that sorry mess of ideological in-fighting), and the editing environment has been pathological for years. Block, block, block, left right and centre. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing, 3RR and PoV-pushing by possible sock: user:M.Bitton

Hello,

M.Bitton (talk · contribs) (suspected to be a SP of Historian Student (talk · contribs)) keeps pushing his PoV and edit-warring on many articles, despite being reverted by many users (examples: reverting 3 users (respectively Marek69, Omar-toons (myself) and Blaue Max) on Sand War after they reverted his controversial edits [285][286][287]). Same behavior on Algerian War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Ottoman Algeria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and First Battle of Amgala (1976) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (see respective histories), despite the fact that these issues were discussed before.

I would like to ask admins to block M.Bitton (talk · contribs) from editing (for WP:DISRUPT) while waiting for the RCU's results.

Regards,

--Omar-toons (talk) 18:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Omar-toons refuses to discuss the issue he's having with the reliably sourced content that he keeps deleting while accusing me of sock puppetry. I stand by all my edits (removal of original research and addition of reliably sourced content that I spent a long time gathering) and will discuss each and everyone of them if given half a chance.

Marek69 made a mistake and later thanked me for my contribution, the other two seem to be involved in edit warring with other users, which would explain why they quickly jumped to the wrong conclusion about me. M.Bitton (talk) 18:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm gonna have to agree with M.Bitton here, I don't see any examples of POV pushing, and they were citing reliable sources. While it is true that they violated 3RR, I think a warning would be sufficent. Weegeerunner (talk) 18:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

M.Bitton removed sourced content and broke the talkpage consensus, and when asked to bring the issue on the talkpage [288] he avoids discussion and keeps POV-pushing:"Difficult to prove anything to someone who's falsely accusing me of sock puppetry" [289] Blaue Max (talk) 18:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I get the sourced content/consensus breaking thing now, but I still fail to see how those edits are POV pushing. Seems like pretty NPOV content they are warring over. Weegeerunner (talk) 18:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

And a little bit of vandalism from M.Bitton [290] (removal of sourced infos). Blaue Max (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

@Weegeerunner:I deleted the unreliable sources (one is about the battle of Algiers and the other is nothing more than a student thesis), replaced them with reliable ones and offered to discuss them. Still, that does not explain the blanking of everything I've added and the accusation of sock puppetry. M.Bitton (talk) 19:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I just want to know how that content falls into the category of POV Pushing. Seems like a common case disruptive editing to me. Weegeerunner (talk) 19:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

@Weegeerunner:I The short answer: Just like the sock puppetry accusation, it's the quickest way to dismiss someone's hard work without discussing it.

If you really want to be confused, read what Omar-toons wrote in the edit summary after deleting the reliably souced content and restoring his original research. M.Bitton (talk) 19:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

@Weegeerunner:: Isn't this kind of edits a POV-pushing? WP:OVERCITE doesn't make sth. NPOV, am I wrong? Actually, aren't all M.Bitton's edits of nationalistic-PoV-pushing nature?

Btw, if it is not clearly a POV-pushing case (then I would be wrong), it is still -as you said- a "common case disruptive editing", for whiwh this user should be blocked from editing. --Omar-toons (talk) 23:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC) (Edited ; Omar-toons (talk) 00:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC))

Unlike you, my edits are backed by reliable sources. Your edit history, particularly your obsession with the Western Sahara issue, leaves no doubt as what's driving your otherwise uncomprehensible reverts and the bad faith assumption from the start. M.Bitton (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Omar-toons is at it again, here and here, deleting reliable references and content without explanation as to why. When an editor provides more references to prove that he actually is not making it up, he complaints of WP:OVERCITE. He adds nothing of value to the articles, his only contribution seems to be deleting other editors work, questioning their motives and attacking them. M.Bitton (talk) 23:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Omar-toons is obviously begging to be banned from the Algerian articles. M.Bitton (talk) 00:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Strangely enough, M.Bitton - a "new" user who knows all wikipedia's rules (and how to bypass them)- has the same center of interests, the same methods (and, should I say, the same orthographic mistakes) than blocked User:Historian Student. He has been disruptive of Wikipedia and violated every rules on it, he acted against several users' will [291] [292] [293], and doesn't seem eager to cooperate: "There is no need for concensus to remove origial research"[294]. Blaue Max (talk) 12:49, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

And... here we go again [295][296][297][298][299][300][301][302][303][304], and this [305][306] clearly shows that this user is not here to participate to a collaboravtive project but to impose his POV. --Omar-toons (talk) 12:49, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh... and I just saw the "begging to be banned from the Algerian articles" above... I didn't know that there were Algerian British, Indonesian and Kenyan articles on Wikipedia? (that's sarcastic, in case he didn't get it) --Omar-toons (talk) 12:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Pathetic response from someone who's unable to defend his position in the talk page. It's not about what you think, it's about what you can prove. M.Bitton (talk) 12:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

If that wasn't enough, Omar-toons is now engaging in Vote-stacking. M.Bitton (talk) 12:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I specifically asked for help on how to react when confronted to a disruptive editor [307]. Blaue Max (talk) 12:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

You were specifically asked to discuss the issue like a grown up. Accusing me of sock puppetry while refusing to engage in a contsructive discussion proves that you are incapable of defending your position. M.Bitton (talk) 13:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Everybody has already spoken against your vandalisms. Once you'll calm yourself, once you'll respect Wikipedia's rules and if you're proven not to be another sockpuppet, then we can engage a serious discussion. But discussing with a disruptive editor is hardly possible. Blaue Max (talk) 13:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

This is vandalism and so is this, everything else is a lie from two editors who are unable to defend their positions in the talk pages. M.Bitton (talk) 14:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Poland IP Attack on User:ATinySliver

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

---

• ATinySliver (talk · contribs)
  • 188.121.0.13 (talk · contribs)
  • 95.49.212.187 (talk · contribs)
  • 78.8.242.131 (talk · contribs)

There are a few IP's registered to dynamic services in Poland doing some random spam and disruptive edits on ATinySliver's user and talk page. What do you do in this situation? Thanks! EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 19:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

temporary page protection might do the trick. I'll go request it now. Amortias (T)(C) 19:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Somebody's not happy with the MaxTV AfD and merger to Max Kolonko. It'll likely blow over. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 19:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

There was only one oppose to that AfD, Kszapsza (talk · contribs) do you have anything to say about this? EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 19:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: SPI Opened, though I could be incorrect. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 20:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Apparently it all stems from this Facebook post, attacking ATinySliver with over 1,310 likes, and giving a link to his user page... EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 21:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)\

EoRdE6 (talk · contribs) ATinySliver (talk · contribs) Of course I have something to say. I am innocent of the whole affair. I'm only autor of translation of Max Kolonko article from Polish Wikipedia. I will never have an idea too make sockpuppets. Having thought that the combination and integration of articles can be a good option, I have resigned completely with decision after AfD discussions. I only completed little things in biography Max Kolonko. Since then, I didn't visit the English Wikipedia at all. Now, when I was working on Polish Wikipedia and when I wanted to check something in English version of article, I see this scandal... I didn't know about any attacks on ATinySliver at all. The only reason of these attacks on ATinySliver page might be a post of Kolonko on his Facebook site, where he was writing about deletion of MaxTV article as a scandal. I have written today to Kolonko myself and explained him, that this isn't any affair. I stress once again, the case I have nothing in common. I edit only with your account, Kszapsza. I have never made anonymous editions on English Wikipedia. I did not expect that creation of such an article (MaxTV) might make so big confusion.
I'm really active in another Wikimedia projects, I respect everyone user and contributor of projects and I'd like to contribute them further, so please believe me and acquit me, I do not have anything to do with the attacks on the user ATinySiiver and I did not use any puppets. Sincerely, Kszapsza (user talk) 13:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

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

FIFO disambiguation page chaos

Yesterday I created fit in or fuck off which is also known by the FIFO acronym. I noticed that there were three other articles using the same acronym, yet FIFO went to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FIFO_%28computing_and_electronics%29&oldid=644966399 (since then renamed from "FIFO" to "FIFO (computing and electronics)"). It already had redirects to 2 other FIFO articles in the header and I had now added a 4th one "fit in or fuck off". It was crying out for a proper disambig page for FIFO. This I set up and I also included a link to the Wiktionary page witch gives a general definition as well.

However User:BD2412 has just moved "FIFO (computing)" to "FIFO" which creates quite a mess and obviously obliterates the disambig page.

Doing a popularity analysis of the 4 "FIFO articles:

• FIFO (now FIFO_(computing)) http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/FIFO_%28computing%29 FIFO has been viewed 13179 times in the last 30 days.
• FIFO_and_LIFO_accounting http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/FIFO_and_LIFO_accounting 11135 times in the last 30 days
• Fly-in fly-out http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Fly-in_fly-out 1879 times in the last 30 days
• Fit in or fuck off new article - no stats yet

It looks to me like blatant favoritism for "FIFO" to go to a technical article on computing and electronics when the term has several other more everyday uses including the Wiktionary definition.--Penbat (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

BD2412 reverted a boLd mover per WP:BRD and advised in their edit summary that because of the number of links involved a discussion needed to be held per WP:RFD thats your best place to go. Amortias (T)(C) 20:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that we can all agree that there needs to be a disambiguation page. What has now happened, bizarrely, is that FIFO (disambiguation) has been redirected to one of the articles, so that there is no disambiguation list. The question should be whether the primary use is Computing or whether the primary use is the disambiguation. What has happened now is that disambiguation has been defeated. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I started https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_February_17#FIFO but really I think this is primarily about disambig policy. You would have thought anything with 4 possible Wikipedia meanings (plus Wiktionary meaning) would have a disambiguation page. Even on popularity, which shouldnt be a factor, FIFO_and_LIFO_accounting is almost as popular as FIFO_(computing).--Penbat (talk) 20:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I was bold and have created a place-holder for the disambiguation at FIFO (disambiguation). I know it needs work, but it at least now exists. The RFD can discuss which should be the primary title. I don't own the disambiguation page and I know that it also needs work to add entries. I assume that the defeating of disambiguation was an accident and that everyone was trying in good faith. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I set up "FIFO" as the disambig which is now obliterated. I dont think FIFO (disambiguation) was ever set up unless User:Niceguyedc created it when he was tidying up the links. --Penbat (talk) 20:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I have again set up FIFO (disambiguation). It needs improvement, but it is now there. RFD can discuss which should be the primary title. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I created FIFO (disambiguation) for intentional links to FIFO (per WP:INTDABLINK). Now that FIFO is not a disambiguation page, FIFO (disambiguation) can be the disambiguation page. I make no comment on the WP:PRIMARY topic issue related to this. -Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 20:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Not really the place for this discussion, but in terms of popularity, the fact that computing was the default page would suggest some people were actually looking for some other FIFO page. On the other hand, you're right that popularity is usually only given minimal attention. For example, after several discussions, it's generally accepted that the island home to 143 million people is should be at Java. Java (programming language) gets mention in the header, as does Java (disambiguation). It doesn't matter that Java got 67710 hits and some of those were likely looking for something else, whereas got Java (programming language) got 151683. (Although there is something weird in the history, and some discussion of this in the last move request. I wonder if there were bots hitting the article for some reason.) This probably doesn't hold much for this case (if anything it may strengthen the case for a disambig), but I think it's useful to remember. Nil Einne (talk) 20:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Good point, quite a few ppl hitting the computing article probably just got there cos they typed in FIFO not necessarily wanting the computing sense. --Penbat (talk) 21:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Yo. Wouldn't it make sense for there to be one disambiguation page FIFO with a list of links to all the various articles? That way there wouldn't have to be one "primary" article for people to fight over... :) Goldenshimmer (talk) 20:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, that's what I set up.--Penbat (talk) 21:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Rock and roll. Thanks! :D Goldenshimmer (talk) 21:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, looks like with the new FIFO (disambiguation) page setup, and {{redirect|FIFO}} added to FIFO (computing and electronics), everything should be fine! -- Orduin ^Discuss 21:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

User:BD2412 has thrown in the towel at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_February_17#FIFO so will someone please reinstate FIFO as the disambig page ? Thanks.--Penbat (talk) 22:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• Please do not take the wrong lesson from this process. Your initial move was properly reversed because it created substantial disruption without prior discussion. That discussion has now occurred. This is not a license for future moves of this nature being undertaken without discussion. bd2412 T 02:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done - FIFO is now FIFO (disambiguation). Robert McClenon (talk) 22:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure Penbat's intent was the opposite, but really it's no different. ansh666 06:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

yes i think previously FIFO (disambiguation) went to FIFO - cant see that it makes any practical difference tho.--Penbat (talk) 09:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Amanda Palmer repeated vandalism/censorship

User:62.253.5.4 has been repeatedly, and clumsily, attempting to expunge Palmer's alias of "Amanda Fucking Palmer". The user has been warned a number of times, but shows no signs of giving up. DaveSeidel (talk) 21:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I semi-protected it, due to the rather obvious disruption. We may be able to guess who the IP is, but maybe not. Guy (Help!) 23:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. DaveSeidel (talk) 23:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The IP may actually have a point. There are references to that nickname, but none appear to be reliable, at least 2 are blogs, 1 (The Battered Suitcase) might not be notable, and the reference doesn't go anywhere, the page it points to doesn't exist. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 12:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The IP claims to be AFP, which is slightly doubtful. :-) Besides, TED is about as reliable as you get: https://www.ted.com/speakers/amanda_palmer. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

TED wasn't used as one of the references in the infobox, twitter, tumbler (both not reliable) a google book with nothing in it that refers to Amanda plummer and some media feed were used. The google book appears to be reliable but doesn't mention Amanda Palmer at all, and the media feed, not sure because I can't see it at work, but no reliable sources means the name shouldn't be here, the IP was correct. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 16:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

No, the IP (and you) weren't correct as I've explained on the article's talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I put EEng on notice

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

---

Apparently, he likes to get his message accross by calling me Herr Doktor. Using a German figure of authority only has one connotation, that with Nazi Germany, and I truly am offended by it. I told him to remove it, but it may be prudent for him to hear from others that these kind of personal attacks are not to be tolerated. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 21:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

You think "Herr Doktor" "only has one connotation, that with Nazi Germany"??!! You need to consult an encyclopaedia. Many people, myself included, would see such a description as a compliment. And since when was Corporal Hitler a doctor? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Calling anyone Herr something only puts me in the mind of 'Allo 'Allo!. Number 57 22:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Is there any other connotation? -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 22:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely - the equivalent in Dutch would be Heer Dokter ("Lord" or "Sir" Doctor) - certainly appears to be intended to offer respect. Certainly, I would welcome such an honorific. ScrapIronIV (talk) 22:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm pretty sure Adolf was the only Doctor Germany has ever had, wasn't he? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• The phrase is used in a number of films to refer to characters. The title characters from Young Frankenstein and Dr. Strangelove come quickly to mind as examples. --Allen3 ^talk 22:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok I think we can sum this up in three points.

1. EEng made a comment that could have been interpreted in several ways.
2. This was interpreted in several ways by several editors one of which (who the edit was refering to) found it distastefull.
3. An appology for any unintended offence caused may resolve this and we can all get back to improving the encyclopedia (except for me as I have no creative instinct anywhere).

Amortias (T)(C) 22:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Philistine!! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Does Edokter also have to apologize, to the entire German nation, for implying that they are still all Nazis? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Only the educated ones. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

How about this: if an editor objects to the name you refer to him by, for whatever reason (the reason is irrelevant), and says so to you, stop calling him by that name. Period. BMK (talk) 02:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

How about this: if this character had said, "I don't like what you said" I'd have happily clarified, and likely struck my wording. But what he actually did [308] was to alter my post to remove certain words, and at the same time insert his own comment mischaracterizing those words (now invisible to everyone else) as implying he's a Nazi, which they certainly didn't. And that's not OK [309]. Period.

Then he went on to imply that all German authorities are Nazis, which as David Eppstein points out above is also not OK, to say the least. EEng (talk) 03:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

How about this: you stay away from his talk page. And Edokter: you can remove comments from your talk page, but, in general, you cannot change those posted by others. This is spelled out in WP:TPO. Then how about somebody close this thread in which there's nothing for admins to do, and we all get back to improving the encyclopedia. BMK (talk) 04:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Pardon me, but this all happened on my talk page, which he had visited to lecture me on how a dummy edit "adds unnecessary server load". EEng (talk) 04:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• Although the thread above is closed, I wanted to repeat here the apology I posted on EEng's talk page. I clearly misunderstood where his discussion with Edokter took place and drew erroneous conclusions from that -- which was a screw-up on my part. I should have been more aware of the circumstances before I commented. BMK (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

BMK, you are a gentleman and a scholar. EEng (talk) 20:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Behavior of Mabelina

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

---

Hello, can someone remind to Mabelina (talk · contribs) that it is not acceptable to qualify people of "troll" on wikipedia? (infraction of WP:NPA)
See: How to get trolls like PurpleHz off my back? (diff)

This contributor has been blocked 15 days on wp-fr for his behavior (discussion about his block -- in french), in part because he was carrying personnal attacks on me (resumed here by a french admin -- in english). Now he does this here...

Our only interaction on this wiki was when I corrected three false facts in one of his article (diff).

Regards, PurpleHz (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

PS: I must be one of the buffoons mentionned here (diff). PurpleHz (talk) 23:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Amortias advised you to report any harassment here with diffs showing the harassment. It appears that she has made a few uncivil comments about you on talk pages that do not amount to harassment, and which are not the level of personal attacks for which admins normally block editors. It appears primarily that you are complaining that she has been harassing you on the French Wikipedia. You will have to take that up with the administrators of the French Wikipedia, with better evidence than you have provided here. I would suggest a warning to the subject for incivility and a warning to the OP for not providing diffs after being told to provide diffs (of something that might not have happened). Robert McClenon (talk) 23:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I've never talked to Amortias. Mabelina had. You have misunderstood who is who.

I'm not requesting a block, I'm requesting that someone explain to him/her that it is not an acceptable behavior. But seeing below that he/she is not able to recognize that she called me a troll, a warning may not be enough. Regards, PurpleHz (talk) 00:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I am flabbergasted that PurpleHz resumes this mission so swiftly. The word t...l was introduced by someone else, not by me (but not being one to launch personal attacks on other Wiki contributors, please see for yourselves) please give it a break; or, is it your overriding desire to attempt to get me banned again? Please advise your motives - many thanks. M Mabelina (talk) 23:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

"The word t...l was introduced by someone else"

So... someone hacked wikipedia to make it look like your calling me a troll? (diff), that is what you're saying?

Well, it seems that this contributor isn't able to recognize his/her errors... PurpleHz (talk) 00:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree with the warnings for incivility and not providing evidence and a stong suggestion that both editors go for a walk ,blow up some virtual zombies or some other leisurley activity and remember to comment on contributions not editors. If you want to see some proper incivility its worth looking at some of the edits these socks [310] have made to me in my first few weeks here. Amortias (T)(C) 23:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Possible solution

I'm all for creative solutions to problems, how about this: PurpleHz and Mabelina will agree to a 2 way interaction ban. If they disagree with an edit an individual has made on an article they can implement the below option. If they have an edit they wish to make to an article the other editor has worked on in the past 72 hours they will need to make it a requested edit at the talk page of the article in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amortias (talk • contribs)

1. Support as proposer.

• Stop. This is ridiculous. We're not going to enact interaction bans because one *** editor calls another a "troll". First of all, calling someone a troll once (I assume it's once?) is an insult, a personal attack, a terrible heartbreaking thing and all that, and it's worth a warning. Which the editor can do themselves. It's not worth a block. Second, for crying out loud, we got better things to do than propose, enact, log, and enforce an interaction ban combined with a requested edit procedure. So while I appreciate the thought, no.

  Next item: Mabelina, it is not acceptable to call people "trolls", so stop it. Now, sorry, but this is ANI, and the least we can do is pretend we're dealing with important stuff. Can some uninvolved editor pretty-please close this? Drmies (talk) 04:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Refactoring, edit warring, and harassment by RGloucester

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

---

RGloucester refuses to stop refactoring my comments on Talk:Chairman#Requested_move_17_February_2015. They have refactored my comments multiple times: [311], [312], [313], [314], [315], and [316]. They were warned not to refactor here in the edit summary and on their talk page. They templated me twice (for "improper use of sources" and "NPOV") for comments on a talk page. Requesting block. This is not RGloucester's first time behaving like this. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Ha, ha, ha! Block me all you want. See if I care. Instead, you ought block the fellow above me. He added a list of style guides he said proscribed "chairman". Many of them did not proscribe the word "chairman" at all, and so I removed them. As an example, he inserted this source as "favouring chairperson or chair over chairman", except the source only says the following:

chairman, chairwoman, chairperson: Lower case in text. Upper case in titles, eg Spencer Tracy, Chairman, GDS.

His misuse of sources for the purpose of advocacy is despicable, and has no place on the encylopaedia. There is no way I'd allow that list to stand and influence the discussion, as it was a pure lie on his part. If he continues to lie, I fear God will take a harsh line with him in the next life. Regardless, do what you want with me. I am merely a cog in the machine. Sometimes, cogs get worn out. RGloucester — ☎ 04:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

By the way, I take strong offence at Mr Fir's implication that I am a meat-puppet, with his use of the plural pronoun "they" to refer to my singular person. I fear he should rescind these allegations immediately. RGloucester — ☎ 04:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Singular they. I don't know your gender identity, especially given your user boxes, though you assume mine EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

There is no such thing. You trample over my identity with your false constructions of language, you call me a meat-puppet! Remember, we're not supposed to make personal attacks. We're supposed to respect the integrity f living persons! The only gender neutral pronoun for people of indeterminate gender is "he". "He" and associated forms are the only gender neutral forms in the English language. RGloucester — ☎ 04:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

RG you are going into the gender border here, please focus on the dispute. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Just my two cents but I cant speak for the source here. Evergreen you should have run the source by the WP:RSN, RD do you think saying "Ha, ha, ha! Block me all you want" is going to help anything? Btw EG you identify as female correct? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Knowledgekid87 - I was listing style guides to debunk the claim "chairman" is the widespread neutral term, not anything for article references. I identify as genderqueer, but am fine with any pronouns. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• RGloucester, can you tone it down please? Come on. And this "they" thing is silly. Drmies (talk) 04:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies: This whole thing is beyond silly. How many lines do they need to cross before they are reigned in? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

If you ever refer to me as "they" again, I will report you to AN/I immediately for personal attacks. How dare you insult me with your false and horrid constructions after I specifically told you that I would not endure such lances!? I shan't tone anything down. This liar above is an advocate for the destruction of the language. He doesn't care for sources. He doesn't care for reason or common usage. His only goal is to push an agenda contrary to the God-given nature of our language. Hang me on a cross, for if I am to be put there I shall be glad in my suffering. At least I will know that I am a martyr for the language that gives me shape and form in a world where there is no form or shape. The fellows of this Mr Fir, they are the ones that wish to form a world for their own purposes, devoid of beauty. Let them sit in their concrete and glass boxes. They will feel their souls disintegrate as they die in the human manner that is inherent to us all. I, on the other hand, shall cackle in joy at my fate. RGloucester — ☎ 04:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• RGloucester, I'm sorry, but this is craziness. Drmies (talk) 04:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

wow, don't think I've seen anyone go off the deep end like that before Also, Evergreen Fir linked to Singular they above (I've bolded it now). That is considered English. Blackmane (talk) 05:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

RG is aware of this, but has expressed in the past that it isn't proper English. Not that it matters. ansh666 05:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Since I commented I wont close this but will say the issue was resolved by Drmies, so time to move on everyone. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 06:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

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

User:AndyTheGrump shows bias favoring sources that he has added to the [Energy Catalyzer] article and is making repeated unsourced personal attacks against myself and others.

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

---

AndyTheGrump has repeatedly supported ([317] [318] [319] [320]) a quote by Ugo Bardi, a Physical Chemist, which was posted on Ugo Bardi’s personal Blog, which he added [[321]] to the article in question. During the course of discussions on the talk page (see archives above), issues regarding the quote’s blog source were brought up by at least 4 other editors (Tmccc, NUMB3RN7NE, POVbrigand, Liftarn) before being brought up most recently by myself [322]. The question of whether the source is a legitimate reliable source is not the purpose of this discussion, the problem is the way that AndyTheGrump attacks other similar sources for being from blogs:

"Sadly blogs, even those run by physicists, aren't considered reliable sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)" [[323]]

This indicates a consistent bias toward his own sources, which is unacceptable from a Wikipedia contributor with his experience. I’d also like to bring up personal attacks, as this is something that has been occurring as well. He has repeatedly accused me of POV pushing, through strawman arguments declaring me as a ‘Rossi Promoter’ and telling me what my own personal opinion is on the subject, each time without referencing what posts of mine he is referring to, which constitutes a personal attack. He seems to be unable to treat anyone on the talk page with different views from his own with good faith, and his hostile attitude is unbecoming of an experienced Wikipedia editor.

If you misunderstood my last sentence as a 'thinly veiled attempt' to accuse you POV pushing, I apologise for not being clearer - and will state outright that it is self-evident that you have repeatedly attempted to use this article to promote Rossi's pseudoscientific nonsense, in direct contravention of Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

he later told me to: [324]

Go boil your head. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Having a quick look through the archives of the Energy Catalyzer page, I found other evidence of personal attacks, such as this quote, where he unnecessarily (and without source) insults Domenico Fioravanti (an Italian Engineer) as ‘writing like a ten-year-old’ while reviewing a source another user proposed. [325]

We base article content on published reliable sources. We don't base them on 'original documents'. Particularly ones that appear to have been written by ten-year-olds. If that is any part of a binding legal agreement with a legitimate customer I'll eat my hat. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump has previously been blocked multiple times for making personal attacks, [326] so this is not a new occurrence. He has also not apologized or provided sources for his accusations.

I make this post with trepidation as he has implied that because I have spent the large amount of my edits on the E-cat Page, that I am a single-purpose-account, and implied [327] that as per WP:Boomerang, accusing him could result in an arbitration case being taken against me. I'll let my edits to the article in question stand for themselves [328], as I feel that I have adhered to WP:NPOV. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 04:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

It is, of course, both safe and accurate to describe Insertcleverphrasehere as a single-purpose account. Essentially his entire editing history (since June 2014) has been devoted to cold fusion and to Energy Catalyzer (a dubious cold-fusion 'invention'). Altogether he has made perhaps a dozen scattered edits that aren't directly related to those two articles.

Insertcleverphrase here has a long history of tendentiously pushing a very...credulous...POV on these two cold-fusion articles, and I can certainly see why AndyTheGrump would be frustrated by his persistent personal bias. (I will, in the interest of full disclosure, acknowledge that I've run into Insertcleverphrasehere recently at these articles, and been impressed by his thoroughly disingenuous approach. See most recently Talk:Energy Catalyzer#A brief history of this article's dubious commercial claims for the sort of point-missing I'm talking about.) This AN/I filing is mostly a way for Insertcleverphrase here to try to take a content dispute which he probably wouldn't win at WP:FTN or WP:RSN, and roll the dice on reframing it as a conduct dispute at AN/I. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

If you'd like to make a dispute about me, or my POV, do so, this is not the place. single-purpose accounts are not necessarily a bad thing, so long as NPOV is maintained. I believe I have done so. As for Talk:Energy Catalyzer#A brief history of this article's dubious commercial claims, you guys deleted an entire section saying that it was 'unreliable nonsense' without participating in discussion of the 8 sources to be deleted. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 04:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that using an ad hominem to dispute the sourced evidence that I have given above is disingenuous, and not overly constructive. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 05:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I actually really appreciate that you noticed my recent efforts to be in cooperation with the rules of WP, as I began making edits to the article. Despite our often disagreement, I actually respect your opinion greatly. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 08:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

This sort of selective misreading of what other editors write is a common problem. I have noticed no such efforts, and I find your endless argumentation exhausting. If I see a post by you on an article talk page, I now try to make the minimum response necessary to keep you from further slanting our content; I recognize that it is a waste of time to try to engage with you further. Lest there be any confusion, "disingenuous" is not intended to be a complimentary description. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• Welcome to Wikipedia, where anyone can be an SPA and exploit the encyclopedia by polishing their favored topic to suit their agenda, then provoke editors who defend the project and take them to ANI! A topic ban from all topics related to Energy Catalyzer for Insertcleverphrasehere (talk · contribs) is the obvious solution. Johnuniq (talk) 04:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

What evidence are you going to give to support this? Is this how people are treated with they bring their concerns to the administration noticeboard? You state that I have an agenda... please back this up, or stop attacking me personally. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 05:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit: I'll be unavailable for a couple hours to participate in this, so if I'm not responding thats why. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 05:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support the topic ban of Insertcleverphrasehere proposed by Johnuniq. Throw perpetual motion machines into the topic ban as well, for good measure. Thanks to AndyTheGrump for his consistent work to defend the encyclopedia from cranks and POV pushers. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
• (ec) @Johnuniq: I will note that cold fusion and pseudoscience are covered by discretionary sanctions. Any uninvolved administrator can impose a topic ban (perhaps on "cold fusion-related topics, broadly defined"), as Insertcleverphrasehere was formally notified in June 2014 that DS covered this area. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Yup, I told Insertcleverphrasehere to go boil his head - after his repeated attacks on my defence of Wikipedia policy. Which included accusing me of 'disruption' for pointing out the existence of a WP:RSN discussion of the Bardi material. [329] The same material that was previously also discussed on this noticeboard, where likewise no uninvolved contributor raised any issues with it. [330] It should be noted that I avoided edit-warring over the issue, and that Insertcleverphrasehere made no effort whatsoever to ask for uninvolved comment, instead attempting to browbeat other contributors into accepting a position which basically made any criticism of Rossi's dubious claims a supposed 'BLP violation'. Clearly there is a tension between WP:BLP policy and claims of 'scientific' miracles made by individuals - but such a tension cannot legitimately be solved by applying a double standard which effectively excludes all criticism which does not accept the claims that this is 'science'. Personally, I am of the opinion that the appropriate solution for such problems is to exclude articles on magic-teapot-pushers and their implausible contraptions from the encyclopaedia entirely, until such time as their claims are accepted by mainstream science, their products are in verifiable use and working as advertised, and/or pigs fly. Since that is not the case, and since Talk:Energy_Catalyzer has seen a steady stream of the credulous Rossi faithful who's attempts to subvert Wikipedia policy are only exceeded by their assertions that anyone expressing an iota of scepticism is doing likewise, I have on occasions been less than civil. Though frankly, if Insertcleverphrasehere finds being told to go boil his head a 'personal attack' after insisting that I provide evidence for what was self-evident - that he was yet another of the faithful, I have to surmise that he spends little of his time on the internet. As for the proposed topic ban, I'll refrain from offering explicit support since my involvement might make this seem inappropriate, and since I doubt that it will make much difference anyway - the stream of the credulous will no doubt continue either way, at least until they find another miracle of 'science' to believe in... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

You'll note that I accused you of disruption for attempting to derail the argument about WP:BLP with the WP:RSN discussion, when this discussion did not discuss BLP violation and was therefore inappropriate as argument. Why do you continue to label me of the 'faithful'? I consider this a great insult, as belief has no place in scientific inquiry. If anyone were to actually look at the edits I've made to said article, you would realise that I am actually highly critical of the 'science' that has been performed regarding testing and demonstrating the device. All I have tried to do is provide reliable sources to the effect, that support the mainstream POV view, where we disagree is that you guys would rather not cover the topic at all. Honestly, pretty much all my edits have been grammatical fixes, tense errors, link fixes, and the citing of experts that are critical of Rossi. And yet you continue to call me one of the crackpot true believers? This is what i mean by strawman attacks. Your assertions that I am a 'true believer' are not supported by the facts. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 06:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Certainly belief should not be a factor in science, at least in as much as that is possible - but since we have no evidence from credible mainstream scientific publications that science is being practised this is somewhat of a red herring. A red herring you have been promoting as much as Rossi's teapot itself. I'm tempted to suggest you go boil the one in the other... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

And incidentally, a look at the recent history of the E-Cat article [331] might suggest evidence for something of a double standard from Insertcleverphrasehere - who makes unilateral deletions himself, but then insists on 'consensus' before anyone else does the same... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I deleted 1 link, which I had previously brought up in the talk page and the only response had been about [WP:Parity], when you reverted, I asked for talk and MrX stated that

The content above makes assertions about a living person and WP:BLPSPS is quite clear that self-published sources cannot be used this way.

Binksternet deleted an entire section unilaterally with 8 links in it, without separately discussing any of them. These are not directly comparable. However, in future I will endeavour to make sure that consensus is clear before making significant edits. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 06:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump is doing good work. Articles like Energy Catalyzer would benefit from having more attention, to protect against single-purpose POV-warriors. bobrayner (talk) 06:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I totally agree with you that there are too many POV-warriors on the article. And I'm finding it incredibly insulting that people are labelling me as one of them. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 06:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Since you seem to think that dragging up old posts for evidence, here's one of yours from last year. [332] A classic example of the 'they persecuted Galileo' argument, as rolled out ad infinitum by the credulous everywhere: " I will post on the [Cold Fusion] Talk page, and I do have a point of view. However I do not hold that wikipedia is at fault for any of this, it is however the fault of the wider scientific community, which its denial of CF has meant that blind skeptics have far more peer reviewed and mainstream sources than do supporters or scientists in the field." A clear admission of an agenda to promote fringe material in full knowledge that it is rejected by the mainstream. So much for science... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

You are judging me for one of the posts I made in my first week of editing Wikipedia (not counting my previous account that I used briefly years ago), and my first serious experience in using Talk Pages? Honestly? Theres a learning curve with this stuff. If you'll note I have refrained from making significant edits to articles until I was clear about control of my opinions to NPOV. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 07:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I checked, it was 4 months until I made my first edit of the article itself, and not till recently did I begin to make significant edits, as I became more confident with the system, I have been very clear to try to learn wikipedia rules before jumping into fringe editing. I have received no good faith from you, unlike TenOfAllTrades, with who, although we disagree often, can still have rational conversations. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 07:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• No Support and please block and I hope permanently block AndyTheGrump for glaring conduct violations like the one he just admitted to above and the diffs show it. My experience with Andy is that he will just about say anything, even the marginally untruthful, to get his way on Wikipedia. He is an abusive name caller. He is happy to tell someone to boil their head or call people little shits. He really does not deserve to edit here anymore. The other guy that brought this is right. Block Andy for personal attacks, again. Earl King Jr. (talk) 06:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Next time I suggest you at least make some pretence of actually adressing the issues being discussed here before engaging in your usual partisan vitriol... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

In my experience, Grumpy may often live up to his nickname, but most of the time he gets it right, and for my money that's more important. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• Yeah I did didn't I though. Partisan vitriol? Mmmm. You make my point perfectly. You did not come here to apologize for your personal attack but seem to relish it. Block permanently. Boil your head. You think you can use that kind of language? Pretty close to Isis talking with that one [[333]]. Sick humor and has no place on a talk page of Wikipedia. Tell people stuff like that in real life and what happens? Why should it be different for you. Earl King Jr. (talk) 07:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

While I think that Andy has certainly contributed a great deal to this encyclopaedia, he seems to feel that he is immune from oversight. Despite admitting to personal attacks, he did not apologise but instead justified his actions because he does not like my opinions. He then continued to make ANOTHER personal attack by calling me one of the 'faithful', something that I expressed I find deeply insulting (wether he finds it an insult should not be withstanding, as he should not be attempting to wilfully antagonise others). Indeed he seems to feel that my (and others) opinions are inherently less valuable than his, if they disagree with him, and that therefore he can insult me as much as he likes. He has made no attempt to apologise, indicating that he does not feel that my feelings are worth anything. The fact that he feels that he is so far above the rules, may be related to his SEVERAL blocks for personal attacks that he managed to escape unscathed.

I'll finish by stating, again if you have any concerns about MY actions, please bring them up to me. I think I have demonstrated that I am willing to learn and follow the rules around here, so if I am out of line, please let me know and I'll review my actions. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 08:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• Boomerang. It's high time for obviously partisan Insertcleverphrasehere to be topic-banned from cold fusion, which for this editor will be tantamount to a site ban. Insertcleverphrasehere has been the same kind of disruptive for 8 months, and shows no sign of letting up. Binksternet (talk) 08:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I've repeatedly asked users to refrain from using language like 'obviously partisan' without backing it up. Accusing others needs to be done with references as per WP:No personal attacks:

Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki.

Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 08:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• Banninate insertcleverphrasehere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a likely sock and definite time-sink. Alternatively, for the Mary Poppins types, indefinitely topic ban from WP:FRINGE per WP:ARBPS. Guy (Help!) 10:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Even casually acusing me of Sockpuppetry is a serious claim. Have you any evidence? No you don't. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 10:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Your very first edit pretty much proves it. Guy (Help!) 16:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Support Boomerang topic ban for User:Insertcleverphrasehere. It's far too often that we allow WP:TRUTHers to wear down scientifically minded editors. Civility is more than skin-deep. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, it seems that Andy has plenty of friends that are happy to throw me under the bus without citing any evidence, while simultaneously refusing to comment on Andy's actions. It seems I'm not going to find any help here. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 11:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Anyone filing a complaint here opens themself to scrutiny. The filer does not get to drive the agenda. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I was under the understanding that users over here would at least pretend to be objective, I can see now that I was baited into coming here by Andy and his 'boil your head' comment. I've just spent 2 hours looking through some of the previous disputes regarding AndyTheGrump and his, how shall we say, colourful descriptions of other users, many of which were far more nasty than what I experienced. Since admins seem fine with Andy being rude and personally attacking other editors due to his many contributions, (might is right, he is valuable enough to put up with), I'll agree with them and say, fuck it, let him say what he wants about me so long as he remains useful for the encyclopaedia. I'm being honest, If Andy is so great an editor that they've ignored all his misconduct and name calling in the past, theres no point in further discussing this. 202.36.179.100 (talk) 13:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

"Baited"? Your IP hasn't edited in several days. Or did you forget to log in? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Apologies, occasionally the internet here at the university unexpectedly results in logging me out. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 13:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support Boomerang. To claim that Ugo Bardi, a professor researching materials for new energy sources is not worth of mention on an article about an alleged new energy source is stupid. Wikipedia is not here to provide whitewashed adverts for unproven WP:Fringe technology. The E-cat article has regular attempts to remove criticism, and put the item in a good light. Further, Insertcleverphrasehere was warned about the possible consequences of actions such as bringing the matter here. AndyTheGrump usually makes good calls on matters such as this, and he is correct here. Martin451 13:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll note that the quote in question violates WP:BLPSPS, as raised by MrX, as it's a self published work that makes claims about a living person. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 13:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Since my name has been invoked here, I wish to clarify my comments. WP:BLPSPS is very clear that we can't use (self-published) blogs "as sources of material about a living person". This is reinforced by WP:FRINGEBLP. The policy can't be changed by a few comments on ANI, or on an article talk page, as it reflects wide community consensus. Whether the blog can be used as a source for commentary or analysis of the invention is a matter of editorial discretion, supported by WP:SPS which states "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." As to the claims of personal attacks, socking, tendentious editing, and SPAs raised here, I have no further comment but would advise everyone to be mindful of WP:ARBPS and WP:NEWBLPBAN.- MrX 14:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Some diffs. Insertcleverphrasehere's fifth and sixth edits to wikipedia [334] [335]. Replies to User:Tenofalltrades [336] [337] [338] [339]. Insertcleverphrasehere is clearly a supporter of this device [340], which should in itself not be a problem. However the account seems to be a single purpose account, ~90% of the edits are to Energy Catalyzer or Cold fusion, and the user admits to edit warring [341]. Has gone against consensus to have the word "Tests" as a header[342][343][344] Martin451 16:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Might I suggest remediation. I would appreciate andy apologising regarding his comments about me, and I would request that an uninvolved admin examine my edits to the page in question to determine if I am guilty of POV pushing and/or whether I am a valuable contributor. I will accept this verdict, and if s/he has any concerns regarding my behaviour, I am invested in improving my ability to edit with NPOV. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 13:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Would those suggesting a topic block or ban for Insertcleverphrasehere please provide some diffs rather than simply referring to an article or noticeboard? It's hard to justify the merits of such a harsh boomerang without actual evidence of disruption. I've seen many editors post incidents here that were dismissed because they didn't supply specific diffs that supported the claim of misconduct. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

For your convenience and that of others who wish to quote my diffs here is the full list of my edits to the Energy Catalyzer article, which includes 28 edits in total [[345]]. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 15:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit: In the efforts of full disclosure, one additional diff from the IP of my university, which was made accidentally. [[346]] Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 15:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's a bit of a silly way to represent your editing history. It's almost as if you don't want to draw attention to your habit of tendentious, WP:IDHT behavior on talk pages, or the way that your conduct at Energy Catalyzer and its talk page parallels your behavior at cold fusion and its talk page. If you want people to be able to review all your edits related to cold fusion, it's much more straightforward to point them to your entire editing history. Out of 300 or so edits, perhaps a dozen aren't directly related to those two articles. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Given Insertcleverphrasehere's blatant misrepresentations in this thread, I see nothing to apologise for. The thread starts with a quotation from a comment I made about a source in 2011, based on policy as I then understood it. I suggested that the source was unsuitable, as a blog, evidently unaware of the exceptions under WP:USERG (though whether it applies in the case of the source then in question, I'm unsure). Insertcleverphrasehere however choses to represent this as evidence of "a consistent bias". An assertion which a simple examination of the source concerned, as I had already pointed out to Insertcleverphrasehere on Talk:Energy Catalyzer prior to the starting of this thread, [347] is somewhat questionable, given that it expresses extreme scepticism towards the E-Cat, describing it unambiguously as "a scam". What 'bias' is evident here? None that I can see. And no, I'm not going to apologise for suggesting bias from someone who made it clear from the start that their purpose on Wikipedia was to correct the "persecution" of cold fusion researchers by the "blind skeptics" of the scientific mainstream, and who's personal conclusions regarding the "reality" of cold fusion outweigh any responsibility to reflect contemporary consensus on the matter, as reflected in appropriate sources for a responsible encyclopaedia. [348] And with regard to the E-Cat article, Insertcleverphrasehere's protestations of 'neutrality' aren't borne out by his persistent insistence that the sole subject of the article is 'science', and that any source not buying this particular dubious proposition is somehow in violation of policy. Science (or at least physics), to my mind (and I expect to the "blind skeptic" mainstream as well) does not consist of 'demonstrations' and 'tests' carried out by a man in a white coat promulgating self-serving and contradictory buzz-words. It requires disclosure and independent verification, and controlled experiments. And for Wikipedia's purposes, to be recognised as science, it needs to be acknowledged as such in the appropriate sources - reputable peer-reviewed scientific journals and the like. Unless and until such recognition occurs, the claims that what Rossi is involved in is 'science' are just that - the unverified claims of a self-serving promoter. Science requires scepticism - and most of all it requires scepticism regarding those who purport to follow its practices, but entirely fail to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

You'll note that I carefully explained my personal views on CF and Rossi, and how I arrived at them to Arthur Rubin at the time after he sent me a message which, I had interpreted at the time of accusing me of being financially connected to Rossi, I now see that this was not an accusation but a notice that these issues might come up, (see my talk page for the comment, it is still there). While I was definitely too inflammatory in my response, I think this can be reasonably forgiven in good faith as I had only recently begun editing (one week previously) and was not familiar with talk pages, warnings of the type Arthur Rubin sent to me, nor NPOV at the time. There is a large distinction between having an opinion and pushing a POV. Everyone has an opinion, WP:NPOV states that we should put them aside, something you seem unable to do. I withdraw my request for an apology, as I think it is clear that Andy does not really care that he has hurt my feelings and remains, as ever, unapologetic. I still would request an admin to review my actions and diffs for evidence of POV pushing, or any other conduct that should be improved, as I am fairly confident that this isn't the case, and I'm tired of people making such insinuations about me. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 16:49, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Your representation of your views is not at issue. Your tendentious editing is. Clearly the main problem is that you refuse to accept that it is tendentious. Hence I advocate removing you fomr the locus of your disruptive behaviour. Guy (Help!) 18:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Insertcleverphrasehere, you claim to have only recently started editing (a week before) here. Yet in your reply to Arthur Rubin here[349] you claim to have had a previous account which you have lost the login details for. Which is it? Martin451 19:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Repeated 3RR Violations & Disruptive editing, Disrupting the Project, Civility: User:Tetra quark

I am issuing a direct complaint regarding the continuing unacceptable behaviour and ongoing edit warring and vandalism by this user Tetra quark.

1) Tetra quark has now been given five violations of WP:3RR, of which he has been blocked by John for WP:EDITWAR I've already counted more than a dozen times (or more) advising of the real consequences of violating 3RR, but never shows even a hint of remorse. His attitude changes immediately when actually sanctioned are evoked, as Tetra quark states "... but I'm not here to discuss the edits themselves and the reason I got blocked."[350] This user is also not prepared to find out what is wrong or correct it, but is quite happy to respond bluntly ignoring WP:CIV.[351] [352] [353] His continued responses are both insulting and unnecessary, which he refuses to retract towards Arianewiki1 Isambard Kingdom .[354]. Tetra quark gave weak apologies to John for [355], but such responses, especially to an Admin warrants more serious sanctions.

Behaviour like that unacceptable, not retracting poor behaviour like that is equally unacceptable. It is clearly avoiding WP:GF and is actionable.

2) Discussion on Administrator User: John Talk Page User_talk:John#User:Tetra_quark, discusses further serious violations like 99of9 notice of replaced, where the lead image on Jesus with substituted with pornography on Commons, in what seems like a revenge attack on en-wiki via its usage while the editor was blocked, causing an the necessary indef-blocked on Commons.[356]

As 99of9 states in this thread; "I agree that the action stems from being upset and angry about some kind of issue on en-wiki, but it was also a "deliberate act". It takes quite some deliberation to go to another project to locate the lead image of a highly significant religious figure, locate some hardcore pornography, and go through the overwriting upload steps to replace one with the other. This was no accident." [357]

There is clear evidence, as stated in WP:BLOCK, "A user may be blocked when his or her conduct severely disrupts the project". Evidence suggesting the User:Tetra quark is unacceptably disrupting the project. This action needs to be properly investigated.

3) Administrator John has given the option of a 'Last Chance' [358], but shows evidence he is avoiding this advice " Thanks but I'm not quite sure what's the offer here."[359], when the statement is clearly given.

4) There is evidence of Tetra quark suspected sock puppetry while this user was being blocked for edit warring, as inferred by OccultZone.[360]

Given evidence suggests further sanctions are now warranted against this user.

I am unable to discuss or solve these issues with the Tetra quark as he continues refactoring / deleting my posts. I.e. [361] [362]

In priority here, is the first point. I, or anyone else, should be able to edit without being disrespected, humiliated, intimidated or have unacceptable language spoken towards me (or any other user.) If I was spoken to, as highlighted in the first point, like this by my boss, for example, I'd instantly lose my job.

Thank you for your considerations into these matters. Arianewiki1 (talk) 04:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• I don't understand item 2, but it's late. Plus I can't see the picture, though I'm sure it's exciting. How about waiting for John to comment here? He's a big boy and has no problem dropping the block hammer, esp. after the warning. How about it, John? That was not a kind thing that Tetra quark said. Drmies (talk) 04:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• Item 2 occured on Commons (replacing a picture of a stained glass window depicting Jesus with pornography). This has been revision deleted and Tetra_quark has been indef blocked. The reason I think this also deserved sanction on en-wiki is because the specific image was IMO specifically chosen to disrupt this project, where it is used as the lead image on Jesus (and in many other less significant places). --99of9 (talk) 05:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
• To clarify number 2 further, Tetra uploaded over several high-profile Commons pics (not just the stained glass) on February 10th, resulting in the indef and this thoughtful comment. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• Wow, I hadn't noticed that he also did it to the lead image of a BLP which gets a pageview every 4 seconds, Taylor Swift. Commons admins took only 13 minutes to catch this, but all up that leaves >500 readers presumably including many children, with a severely affected view of Wikipedia. --99of9 (talk) 06:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• Been following the situation. Amidst the conflicts, Tetra has done some good work so far, and I hope that continues, so I'm glad that John offered a last chance for Tetra to improve - but unfortunately I don't have much confidence left at this point. I don't think an indef would be out of the question at this very moment, but I also trust John's judgement and his offer of one more chance - so I'll leave it at that. Tetra simply needs to come to terms with the fact that his edits are not always "the right way," and that he needs to slow down and actually take advice from fellow editors. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
• I support the idea of giving Tetra Quark a last chance. This discussion was already had somewhere before, and the user was already blocked, so just wait to see what happens when the block finishes. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Graeme Bartlett The post here is AFTER the block not before it. To take such WP:ANI action would be unfair on any the user being investigated. Previous actions sanctioned against Tetra quark were in that block. These additional issues placed here have not been addressed. Arianewiki1 (talk) 06:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• My main concern was to avoid disruption from Universe. I believe that Tetra Quark should be left alone for sometime, he shall realize what others want from him. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
• I endorse leaving TQ alone to see how he gets on. After so many blocks for edit-warring, socking, inter-project vandalism and personal attacks (the last being the least significant in context), I have warned TQ that their next block will be indefinite. Maybe I have been too lenient. --John (talk) 10:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
• TQ's first two article space edits after his block expired were reverting uncontroversial edits (one of them is mine) with misleading-by-incompleteness edit summaries using Twinkle. [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Supernova&diff=prev&oldid=647612988][363] I certainly wouldn't complain about either of those particular reversions in isolation, but given the editor's history, it's not an encouraging pattern. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 11:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

New editor repeatedly inserting copyrighted material

Thebetedit (talk · contribs) added some copyrighted material from http://webspier.com/essay/315503 to The Bet (short story). I reverted the four edits and warned. Eight hours later the edits were added again. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Note - the user has not yet been notified on their user talk page. JZCL 16:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz and JZCL: I've notified the user of this report. -- Orduin ^Discuss 20:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I did, although I didn't sign, but now the editor has two notices so the editor should definitely know. And @Diannaa: added another copyvio warning. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Sumedh Tayade and WP:INDICSCRIPT again

A recent ANI thread was closed on the topic after the user apologized and promised to be more careful in their edits and follow consensus. However, unfortunately, the user has resumed his previous activity of adding Marathi script to multiple article lede, disregarding WP:INDICSCRIPTS (which has been pointed to the user on more than a dozen occasions by numerous editors). Sample diffs from just today: [364], [365].
Pinging @NeilN, JodyB, Nyttend, KoshVorlon, RegentsPark, Sitush, and Miniapolis: who participated in the earlier discussion. Abecedare (talk) 17:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I want to hear from Sumedh Tayade on this before I comment. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Concur with User:NeilN JodyB _talk 18:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this is worth escalating. They really only added one indic script name, the one at Samyukta Maharashtra Movement and could be a mistake. The Mahabaleshwar one is in the infobox which is perfectly acceptable. Revert and drop a note reminding the editor of their promise and that should be enough for now. --regentspark (comment) 01:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

About Indic Script

The mentioning of Belagavi as 'Belagaon' is logically correct because In all marathi newspapers and news channels, No body says Belagavi, all say or pronounce Belagaon, so at times it becomes confusing that Belagavi and Karnataka Govt has any concern for the large Marathi people in the Belagavi city, I had cited my edit with proper relevant sources, However it is asserted it was not constructive, A mentioning of indic script name used by large number of citizens in the same city can't be helpful? If its not Helpful, Then Jerusalem should also have only one name and not extra transliterations. I had added no illegal or offensive meaning content to the edits i made Sumedh Tayade (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

So you intend to continue adding script to article text? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

About indic script edit

The Samyukta Maharashtra Movement was led by the Maharashtrians and particularly Marathi people in the state, It was intended to bring all the divided or unclassified but Marathi dominanted or atleast claimed region under one single state as 'Maharashtra', Till today, Maharashtra and Karnataka Govt are at loggerheads over border city issues specially Belagavi, In Maharashtra, No Kannadiga is treated with rudeness but in Karanataka, the situation with Maharashtrian differs, The Samyukta Mahrashtra Movement was for Marathi people, by the Marathi people so its mentioning in Marathi couldn't attract consensus issues — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumedh Tayade (talk • contribs) 04:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Clarification

I dont intend to change the contribitions of helpful editors, i have just mentioned the name in Marathi which is wholly used by Marathi speakers both in Maharshtra, Belagavi and all around border marathi dominated regions in and around Karanataka, When i was in std 10th, I had read on the 2nd page of my marathi textbook that it was printed in Belagaon(Belagavi) so i was amazed that even Marathi is recognised, spoken and valued in Karanataka and since Marathi is almost mandatory subject in Maharashtra then how much copies from how many years are arriving from Belagavi in Maharashatra, so why not its mentioning in Wikipedia, Atleast Hindi and Marathi, the indo aryan languages are spoken or atleast recognised widely among east, west and north india, Southern Indian or particularly Dravidian Languages are very difficult to understand yet they are preached everywhere in the country and linguistic riots occur

It is precisely for reasons such as the misunderstanding that you make here that I asked you to stop adding scripts, period. You don't understand the ramifications and you are trying to bulldoze your Marathi-language POV through as if it is somehow superior the position for any other Indic language. We all know that even now India suffers dreadful real-life disruption because of arguments about linguistic divisions; indeed, as recently as last year, yet another new state was formed (after a lot of angst) in large part because of such divisions. My suggestion to you is that you stop adding scripts and start doing something that is more productive: gain some experience in other areas and (hopefully) you will come to realise why we do things in the way that we do.

And, for the record, I disagree with including scripts even in the infoboxes. As far as I am concerned, infoboxes are sometimes added to game this local consensus (not necessarily by you) and the prominence of a box makes it a de facto part of the lead section and equally prone to vandalism, petty edit warring etc as the opening sentence itself. - Sitush (talk) 06:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Query

Ok, i understood your point, but suppose if a majority of people of the concerned city wish or suppose 30 to 35 of my marathi wikipedian editors do same indic script editing as i do in case of marathi dominated Belagavi, then all would be noticed about wp indic script, wouldn't their opinions considered? I know that India suffers from hate love situations of linguistic divisions but why only Marathi script are focused upon again and again, I have not added marathi script to any city or village outside Maharashtra Sumedh Tayade (talk) 06:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Behaviour of IrishSpook and 178.216.112.128

User:IrishSpook and 178.216.112.128 are repeatedly removing cited content from Army Ranger Wing and replacing it with their own original research. I have tried addressing this with them on their respective talk pages, and on the article talk page. They both respond by reverting messages from their usertalks, and by removing cited content from Army Ranger Wing and replacing it with their original research. All three of us were recently blocked for edit warring on this topic, and I don't particularly feel like going down that road again, but I'm getting absolutely nowhere by talking to them. Any help? 79.97.226.247 (talk) 19:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• Both IPs blocked for two weeks; both have been blocked before (by Callanecc). I did not block the spook, who's not been involved; however, it seems likely that 178 and Spook are the same. We'll see. I had a quick look at the matter at hand but the issue is for other editors to decide. I closed a malformed RfC on the talk page as well. Eyes are appreciated: article improvement by established and knowledgeable editors is always the way forward. Drmies (talk) 20:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Remenu and the Aromanian flag

A new user, Remenu (talk · contribs) is only engaged in articles on the Aromanians. While most of his changes are harmless, he insists on presenting a very specific flag ([366]) as "the" Aromanian "National" Flag. I have reverted him several times and explained in his talk page why this claim is dubious at best. In short, the flag features the Vergina Sun, a symbol that became prominent thanks to the Macedonia naming dispute, and which has absolutely nothing to do with Aromanian history or culture. Apparently, however, it has been adopted by some groups in recent years within the Aromanian communities in Albania, the Republic of Macedonia and Romania, due to the fact that the Aromanians hail from the wider area of Macedonia. I have repeatedly challenged the user, in English and in German, to provide even half-way decent sources to back up his insistence that the flag is generally recognized as representative of all Aromanians (a community spread among several Balkan countries, with approx. half residing in Greece), but the "sources" he came up with were Facebook posts, a DVD cover (!) and fantasy flags from DeviantArt (!!), to the point I am not sure whether he is deliberately trolling or whether he is truly clueless. The photos in Facebook do attest to the flag's use in semi-official capacity in some countries, so I re-added it with a modified caption, but they certainly do not bear out any claim as to being the undisputed one and only Aromanian flag as he wants to present it. Indeed, in a Facebook discussion in Aromanian he linked, several Greek Aromanians protested the use of this flag as totally ahistorical, and given the history of this symbol, any unqualified claim linking it to a specific ethnicity should better be backed up by strong sources. But that doesn't seem to bother him; his response to Greek Aromanians being ignorant of this flag and opposing it is "time they should learn about it". Despite repeated warnings not to tamper with the modified description while discussion is under way at his talk page, in true WP:IDHT fashion he simply waits a few hours and re-inserts his own WP:FRINGE WP:POV ([367], [368]). Constantine ✍ 21:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The user just blew by the 3RR Rule; perhaps reporting him there would lend some stability to the article. I have noticed he is added dozens of repeat Wikilinks, and those will need to be removed, too. The rate at which things are changing, and the number of minor edits which need to be corrected, will require some work. This is a very contentious issue for some, and needs to be dealt with. ScrapIronIV (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Based on this article in Greek, by the former mayor of Metsovo (the Aromanian "capital" of Greece) I. Averoff (scion of Greece's probably most distinguished Aromanian family), the POV this user supports is a relatively recent phenomenon (post-2004), with partial backing from the Romanian state. They claim such absurdities as that the Aromanians being the sole descendants of the ancient Macedonians, and the usual Balkan ethnic posturing. According to Averoff at least, their claims are rejected even by other Aromanian groups within Romania. Given that this is obviously an editor with a cause, and the utter failure of engaging in a meaningful discussion with him, I am not sure 3RR is sufficient. Constantine ✍ 22:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Rather than revert him on the flag text, I provided the official Aromanian flag image as exists in Wikipedia Commons and on other Aromanian articles. Perhaps I am not being helpful, but the flag that was being claimed is not reliably sourced, where this one is. ScrapIronIV (talk) 22:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

And... it's been reverted. I am done for the day, but I hope an administrator will step up to the plate and handle things before it gets completely out of hand. ScrapIronIV (talk) 22:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to my world over the past few days of dealing with this guy... BTW, that flag too is a bit dubious, it seems to originate solely within eurominority.org, and is a bit lacking in sources. Constantine ✍ 22:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I am here to report a Sock Puppet Account

Hi. I am HanSangYoon, and I am here to report a user with multiple accounts (and most likely in an illegal manner). Who: The user is named SecondaryWaltz (he is in my talk page). The account I suspect him controlling is Martin Morin and Rickey Courtney. I also suspected him using the non-logged account of 50.101.38.143. His account and Martin Morin both describes this user from Canada. Another user also in suspicion is IJBall. He is also from Canada. SecondaryWaltz claim that he uses multiple accounts in a legal manner, but I disagree. Why: I am in massive suspicion because the user used the three (maybe four?) users altogether to break the three-revert policy when he tried to revert my edits for adding two pictures on the Union Station page. I took the pictures freshly and put them up at the page (one which is the Union Station red line platform view where the placard shows and the other being the upper floor view of the entire platform). I made and added them because I believed the pictures were a necessary description of what the station was like. Whenever I took pictures, edited, and put them up or wrote the captions, SecondaryWaltz would always appear, reverting multiple times, and causing obnoxious disruptions. I explain to him of my logic of why I should put it up like that, and he goes away sometimes, but always reappears, complicating my process of editing on Los Angeles Metro pages. It is VERY disturbing. He uses his accounts to ignore the three times revert policy, and for that reason, I request this user be blocked. Please help me. HanSangYoon (talk) 22:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Wow. You are flaming out much faster than I expected. First, I'm no one's sockpuppet (in fact, Secondarywaltz and I have even disagreed a couple of times). Second, when you launch in to a process like this, you are supposed to notify all of the people you are accusing of misconduct, something you have patently failed to do. Thirdly, it is you who is edit warring at Union Station (Los Angeles)... Well, I tried to warn you on your Talk page, etc. Don't be surprised if this comes and WP:BOOMERANGs back at you. --IJBall (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

P.S. You also patently ignored the advice you got from Mandruss, et al. at the Help desk. Bad move. --IJBall (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

P.P.S. Oh, and you're supposed to take this particular accusation to WP:SPI, not here, just to complete your 'hattrick'. --IJBall (talk) 22:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

SecondaryWaltz is most probably a sock puppet controller. I never said you were clearly the puppet, but I am here to report this user's dishonest use of his accounts. I do not worry about what's gonna happen to me, since I report with justice. And 'hattrick'? What? I don't get what you're trying to say, but for now, you are also under my suspicion, like it or not. If you are not under him, then this wouldn't affect you, so why be so rhetoric? You're only fueling my suspicion against you as you speak so negatively. HanSangYoon (talk) 22:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

HanSangYoon, when you posted this request, you should have seen a bright orange box at the top, saying When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} to do so. It's your responsibility to notify all editors you mention about this discussion. Also, IJBall is correct, if your concern is sockpuppetry, file a case at WP:SPI, not AN/I. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I already did, Liz. Thanks for the statement. HanSangYoon (talk) 01:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The OP has been adding their own photos to many articles. That is obviously not a bad thing in itself, but they have shown poor editorial judgment in doing so, and ignored constructive criticism at the Help Desk. In particular, in multiple articles about train stations, they have replaced a main infobox photo of the station with their own photo of a sign at the train station. In fact, they came to the Help Desk to ask how they could put TWO of their photos of signs in the infobox of an article about a train station! I advised at Help Desk that they reverse these changes, and they ignored my advice, but it sounds like multiple other editors have chosen to take a more active role. There is nothing wrong with that, I'm glad to see it. In my opinion, the OP is very close to WP:CIR. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Attempt to subvert 3RR?

Hi. I'm not intimately familiar with the 3RR, but from what I can see, this is an attempt to subvert it: Middayexpress posts that "I'm at three reverts, so could you please have a look?"; AcidSnow preforms a revert and confirms that Middayexpress's request has been fulfilled. I should declare that I'm not neutral in the underlying content dispute, as the editor they were reverting was adding material in that I'd previously proposed. I would appreciate an admin taking a look at the behaviour though, even if it's just to confirm that this is within the rules. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

AcidSnow was already part of the discussion, as you are well aware [369]. The real question is, who is that single purpose account? Middayexpress (talk)

Yes, but you seem to have specifically instructed them to make a revert that you couldn't. Is that allowed? Cordless Larry (talk) 00:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't instruct him to do anything. I asked him to please have a look and nothing more. The real question remains, who is that single purpose account? Middayexpress (talk) 00:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

If you're asking me, I don't know who it is. Anyway, I won't comment on the revert further - I will leave it to admins to judge. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Right. Best to try and ignore the initial revert by the single purpose account. Middayexpress (talk) 00:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Please tell it in full: "Done. The odds are against him anyways. You can't simply push something to happen". Also reverting a sock doesn't count as a revert. AcidSnow (talk) 00:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not suprised that the sock left after they blew their own cover. AcidSnow (talk) 00:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Tag team may apply (it may apply to the other side as well). 3RR doesn't mean one should revert until one hits three, of course. Midday, I read over the "Systemic Bias" section and that's really way too close to FORUM for comfort; I suggest you take that up on a project page. You may well have a point, but that particular talk page is not the place for it. Drmies (talk) 03:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

help with an edit warrior who seems to have taken things personally

1. List of online chess playing programs nominated for deletion
2. Closed as redirect to list of chess software
3. Creator of list of online chess playing programs, IQ125, copy/pastes it into list of chess software.
4. I go through the list, seeing if there's anything to merge (I had done this when I weighed in at AfD too), and found that the 8 listed comprise: 2 already on the list, 3 redlinks citing external links to their own websites (links repeatedly added to chess lists in the past), 1 link to a disambig page with no relevant hit, 1 magazine (not software), and 1 website (not software). Accordingly I remove them with edit summaries explaining why I removed each.
5. I leave a couple messages at User talk:IQ125 regarding this and a WP:COMMONSENSE change of redirect target (a matter which, although I find it silly to redirect anything "online" to a list of software when there's a perfectly reasonable list of Internet chess servers/sites, is not something I find important enough to continue to pursue as the name of the redirecting article, "list of online chess playing programs" is imprecise and strange enough that the redirect will likely never be used)
6. IQ125 creates an WP:SPI investigation about me, based on the other accounts I say I have on my user page
7. Bbb23 promptly deletes the SPI
8. IQ125 continues to edit war. Most recent edit summary: The afd consensus and instructions are to place the information in this article. So stop reverting or your account will be blocked! (afd was to redirect, not to merge, and even if it were to merge, that itself wouldn't even be a viable argument to restore copy/paste with duplicates, etc.)

At this point I would rather not continue edit warring by myself against someone who seems like he/she may have taken this personally. 3RR has not yet been breached. Given that, and since IQ125 is removing any messages I leave on his/her talk page, I oh so reluctantly bring this to ANI with what is probably too long an explanation for a relatively straightforward issue. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• No comment on the content issue (the exact nature of the items on the article titled list of chess software should be discussed on the article talk page, and WP:DR can be applied if a cordial agreement cannot be reached) however there's a major problem with the vexatious SPI report. Users should not file frivolous charges against others simply to get them to back off in a content dispute. That shouldn't ever happen. --Jayron32 02:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The content issue is not a content issue. An article that went through AfD with result to redirect, not merge, is being copy/pasted wholesale. Before we even get to things like selection criteria, that's a problem. But even if this weren't after an AfD, DR still wouldn't really make sense because the situation is a block of content (at least partially obviously problematic, e.g. duplicates, unrelated) to a list, that material is being challenged, and no rationale is being offered to include it -- only edit warring and refusal to discuss it beyond the false statement that "this is what the afd said". --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Fully protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

User:RexxS: personal attacks, disruptive editing, etc.

For a good bit of the evening, User:RexxS has been engaged in a series of personal attacks against me to the disruption of a previously productive talk page discussion initiated by me Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion#Query regarding the use of Twinkle for TfD/TfMs:

• "I am in full agreement with the value of notifying both template creators in these cases, but you seem more concerned with using your own interpretations to attack other editors than actually doing any work to solve problems."

(In a thread started by me to discuss the possible deficiencies of Twinkle for TfD notices and the need to change TfD nominator instructions regarding TfD notices.)

• "But I don't need any lectures from you about attacking other editors as you need to get the plank out of your eye before commenting on the motes in others. Your protestations simply don't match your actions. Fix that first."

(After asking him to assume good faith and stop making personal attacks on me.)

• "Don't talk bollocks, Dirtlawyer. You might think your passive-aggressive behaviour behaviour is clever[.]"

(More personalized commentary.)

• "I've been around the block enough times to recognise your kind."

(More personalized and inflammatory rhetoric.)

• "You've spent far more time engaged in attacking Andy than in supplying the missing notification or clarifying the instructions[.]"

(Actually, I've spent a good bit of the last several days laying the ground work for changes regarding TfD/TfM notices, and reminding multiple editors to notify all template creators in proposed template deletions and merges. My interaction with Andy in the last two weeks has been limited to making a good-faith suggestion to expand a TfM discussion to other templates, compliment him on one of his revamped TfM proposals, and three times to politely request that he provide notice to template creators.)

• "You give the impression of preferring a lack of notification and unclear instructions, just to use as a stick to beat other editors with."

(More personalized and inflammatory rhetoric -- weirdly occurring in a thread started by me to discuss problems regarding lack of TfD/TfM notifications and purportedly unclear TfD instructions. See [370], wherein RexxS came out swinging from the start [371].)

• "You might have a point if you were actually doing anything to resolve issues, rather than snarking at the folks like me who are fixing them."

(Actually, I've been doing quite a lot to tackle the ongoing problem of TfD/TfM nominators (including Andy) failing to notify the creators of all templates in pending TfDs and TfMs. See, e.g., [372], [373], [374], [375], [376], [377], [378], [379], [380], [381], [382], [383], [384], [385], [386], [387], [388], [389], [390], [391]. Contrary to RexxS's repeated assertions of bad faith on my part, I believe I've been doing my share to address the problem of TfD nominators not providing notice to template creators and other concerned parties. RexxS would know this if he participated in more TfDs for reasons other than attacking me personally for my purportedly unfair treatment of Andy.)

• "Your words ring too hollow when set against your actions for me to offer you any assumption of good faith."

(More personalized and inflammatory rhetoric.)

In short, User:RexxS (1) has failed to assume good faith as required per WP:AGF, (2) personalized talk page discussions by commenting on me, my motives, and my character, and made repeated personal attacks by impugning my character and motives per WP:NPA, and (3) engaged in disruptive editing by intentionally provoking an unnecessary confrontation and disrupting an otherwise productive talk page thread per Wikipedia:Disruptive.

Based on his own words, I believe the real underlying issue is that RexxS believes that I have unfairly targeted User:Pigsonthewing (Andy Mabbett), and is determined to draw me and any others who have previously criticized the conduct of Pigsonthewing into an open confrontation, apparently to demonstrate the perceived unfairness, bad motives, etc., etc. Previous attempts to engage RexxS constructively have resulted in more of the same. I am a regular participant in TfD discussions, and, prior to this week (see here), I have not previously had any conflicts with RexxS (nor encountered him at all, to the best of my recollection).

I have every intention of continuing to participate in TfD and TfM discussions, as well as TfD policy and guideline discussions on the relevant talk pages, and there is no reason why I should not. RexxS is, of course, welcome to do so as well, but not for the purposes of attacking me.

What do I want from this ANI discussion? A simple warning to RexxS to assume good faith on my part, back off and cease his personal attacks on me, and not to engage in further disruptive editing in threads where I am a good-faith participant. No enforcement beyond such warning is sought. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• Dirtlawyer, in my view this was an attempt to bait, goad, and poke at Pigsonthewing. YOU started a discussion about Twinkle on WP:TfD, when clearly if they were honest attempts to rectify something you would have posted at WT:TW or WP:VP. I considered warning or blocking (more you than RexxS), but figured two grown adults were capable of reaching an understanding. So speaking for myself, "No, I will not be warning RexxS of any impropriety" — Ched :  ?  04:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• Ched, I have a great deal of respect for you, but you could not be more wrong in this case. Please quote the specific language of my "query" that "was an attempt to bait, goad, and poke at Pigsonthewing." Please read my comments again, because it's not there. As for the appropriate forum to open such a discussion regarding the TfD applications of Twinkle, the discussion is directly related to Templates for Discussion, and everyone in the discussion acknowledged that. Logically, if you actually believe my original thread was an attempt to bait, goad or poke anyone, why would it make any difference whether I posted it at TfD talk or Twinkle talk? The whole point of the thread was to get feedback from other TfD participants who use Twinkle for initiating TfD discussions. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Dirtlawyer, I respect you as well, and I also respect RexxS Still, when I read through that thread, it appeared to me there was an equal amount of giving and getting there, and that's why I chose at the time to let the two of you hash it out. Reading through it again, I still fell you "gave as good as you got". My view was that while the gloves were off, there were no "blows below the belt" (so to speak) fouls. Now I've seen a great number of pot-shots taken at Andy, and by proxy RexxS, over the last few months. Hopefully, once the review is over, that will subside. I know there are people on both sides of these template discussions, but just like any "political", "gender", or any other divisive topic on wiki - folks will either have to co-exist, or they won't last long. Granted, there was plenty of snark in that thread, but I think you got your fair share in too. There have been more than enough people baiting and sniping at Andy, and I'd like to think you aren't one of them, (although I've been through some threads in which I questioned that) . Like I said, I personally am not going to "warn" RexxS here, simply because if I warn him, then I feel I have to warn you as well. Just IMO. As to the templates and the inner workings of Twinkle, I'm simply not versed enough in those areas to offer an opinion. — Ched :  ?  05:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Ched, the comments above by RexxS go far beyond "snark." I know where that line is, and I'm not the one who has repeatedly crossed it. A careful review of the thread will easily substantiate that it was a good-faith effort by me to initiate a discussion about TfD-related Twinkle applications (of which, like you, I admittedly know almost nothing), followed by a suggestion that it was perhaps time to revise and tighten the TfD instructions regarding notices for template creators, etc. If either of the original query or the follow-up suggestion constituted an effort to bait, goad or poke, I ask that you quote the language. From there, RexxS came out swinging, repeatedly, in a very personalized manner. If you feel the need to "warn" me, I would gladly accept that if, by extension, it also requires RexxS to cease and desist his personalized attacks of the character quoted above. Sweet Mary, I do my level best to stay away from ANI and the drama boards, but I don't believe anyone is required to suffer personal attacks, such as those above, in silence. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• Looks to me like this is a case of forum-shopping and needs a quick close, both here and at the other page. The discussion between DirtLawyer and RexxS is only understood within the broader context of the situation involving Pigsonthewing and TfD issues, and it is really quite clear that Dirtlawyer was "asking the other parent" in an attempt to play the innocent and gain ammo against Andy, then RexxS caught him red-handed, resulting in the crocodile tears being spilled nere. This needs a snow close and a trout slap at Dirtlawyer for even bringing it. Montanabw^(talk) 06:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

sock

Justina Sh*t Biebergas (talk · contribs) is a sock of Gabucho181 (talk · contribs) (duck evidence = User:Justina F*ck Biebergas), if someone wants to show him/her the door. APK whisper in my ear 06:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Blocked by Callanecc. APK whisper in my ear 06:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

User:FreeSpeechDude

New account with username "TheGreatPoopMan". Account blocked per WP:USERNAME. User complained but complied. Username changed to FreeSpeechDude. User left further complaint here, on initial reporters talk page. Edit reverted by another user. User:FreeSpeechDude is now attacking 3 other users as seen here. User appears to exist only to harass/troll. Deunanknute (talk) 06:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Blocked by Courcelles. APK whisper in my ear 06:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)