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

CFCF Not Here on E-cigs

CFCF(User talk:CFCF, CFCF) Has recently made several controversial edits, reverts and moves on pages related to e-cigarettes whilst refusing to engage in consensus building. These pages are subject to General Sanctions

here he re-reverts material that was disputed back into the article despite discussion on the talk page relevant to it that he was not involved in claiming established consensus.

here he hatted a discussion relevant to that controversial material he had added in where he was being asked to justify the inclusion of some material but he did not engage in it.

here he accuses me and/or S Marshal of vandalism for removing content which did not have consensus for inclusion and was being discussed at the talk page when reverting & here he accuses me of vandalism again. (I freely admit here I was slow edit warring however it didn't come close to vandalism, it was a content dispute that I was handling badly and have been sanctioned for). I posted to his talk page to ask him not to accuse me of vandalism when I was not doing that

and here he 1 click archives it without response. I Reposted a request that he engage in discussion to build consensus

and here he 1 click archives without response

here he admits that he finds discussions to seek consensus unproductive and so reverts without contributing or considering them.

here he re-introduced a controversial claim with a long discussion on the talk page which had not found consensus and in which he had not participated.

here Despite an ongoing discussion which CFCF had not participated in at the talk page CFCF moved the article from Chemicals in Electronic Cigarette Aerosol to Electronic Cigarette Aerosol. here CFCF had added a "Redirect you may have meant" tag to Cigarette smoke with no discussion. It had been reverted and he re-introduced without taking it to the talk page.

here When I posted to his talk page about the above he 1click archived it immediately.

here The part about being designed to appeal to 11 year olds we had reached consensus to remove, the later sentences, Quack Guru had Boldly Added, S Marshal Reverted because it was controversial. CFCF re-introduced without discussion

I could go further but this is already long enough and covers just the last week.

I know this isn't a major issue but I feel CFCF has earned at the least warning in an area of general sanctions because this pattern of behaviour is not conducive to consensus building in a topic which, touch wood, has calmed down somewhat recently from a prior battleground and is in some ways being productively edited. I know S Marshall has been frustrated by some of CFCF's edits and they show that CFCF has little or no interest in working collaboratively in this topic area per WP:NOTHERE.SPACKlick (talk) 20:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

CFCF has made good edits to various e-cig pages. This should be closed immediately. QuackGuru (talk) 20:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

This looks very much like abusing process to attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute. Admins take a bit of a dim view of that. Guy (Help!) 21:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I have no intention of gaining an advantage in a content dispute. My desire in this would be for CFCF to engage in the collaborative process so consensus can be reached on the disputed content but nobody can force that. The issue I have is that when discussion is on-going and the nuance of consensus is being reached, whether in the direction I initially wanted or not, CFCF makes driveby reverts without reference to that discussion or any of the consensus and kicks the process back a notch. Hence why I've asked for a warning or a prod and not any form of ban/block/Tban/Iban that would limit CFCF's contributions.SPACKlick (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The e-cig pages have greatly improved as a direct result of CFCF's edits. That's what the evidence shows. QuackGuru (talk) 21:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I see nothing in CFCF's edits needing sanctions. I agree with Guy. Cloudjpk (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Guy. CFCF's edits seem quite reasonable. This appears to be a content dispute and not sanctionable. Ping me with {{u|Jim1138}} and sign "~~~~" or message me on my talk page. 03:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

[Some of] The edits would be reasonable if they responded to consensus but CFCF actively ignores consensus, ignores ongoing discussions, When he adds information and is reverted he immediately reverts back and ignores all discussion about the inclusion. Whether or not the content of his edits is good, and I won't weigh in on that here because there is content dispute, the lack of collaborative effort is a clear example of NOTHERE. SPACKlick (talk) 08:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Once again I'd appreciate it if someone could restore order on that page. I certainly don't think all of CFCF's recent edits have been 100% helpful, but he's far from the only offender and what's actually needed is a large injection of clue.—S Marshall T/C 21:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Of Note CFCF again included without consensus. There is a discussion about this hatnote on the talk page. 4 editors see the hatnote as outside policy 1 has made an argument for it. CFCF claims to have made his point on the talk page. His one post on the talk page is No, you're wrong. WP:HATNOTE. How are these not WP:NOTHERE edits? SPACKlick (talk) 17:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I disagreed. See diff. QuackGuru (talk) 18:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Off Topic about QuackGuru
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Do you think your edit improved the page? How about me? Do you think my edits improved the page? Don't massage anything. I want your unfiltered opinion. QuackGuru (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC) I think that edit improved the page, yes. Since you ask for my unfiltered opinion, I think your influence on the encyclopaedia as a whole is a net positive because you're relentless in dealing with bad faith editors and highly active, but I also think you have poor encyclopaedic judgment and you often don't understand words in the same way I do. I think CFCF is reverting good edits and bad edits alike and he can't tell the difference. I think the best editor at work on that page is Johnbod and I wish he could get a word in edgeways. And I think AN/I is an extremely bad place to have this conversation because AN/I only ever solves simple problems, i.e. the ones where you can point to a clear policy violation using diffs. You can't come to AN/I saying "CFCF has bad judgment" and expect anything positive to happen as a result.—S Marshall T/C 22:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC) Do you want me topic banned or "just reined in"? See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive886#QuackGuru_and_Electronic_cigarette. Rather than delete relevant text I consolidated two sentences to improve the readability. If you look at my previous edit I changed the word "abuse" to "addiction" to clarify the wording. The known unknowns cited to a MEDRS review is good information, especially when it is about young people. QuackGuru (talk) 00:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC) I know this was directed at S Marshall but IMO reined in, specifically passed through a copy editor. Most of the sources you find have good information and most of the information you want to add is good information to add. It's just how it's incorporated and where its incorporated that's usually where I end up with objections. If you could work closely with a strong writer who can keep things readable and increase the information transfer in the article, your net benefit on the encyclopedia would be significantly greater.SPACKlick (talk) 08:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• SPACKlick is pretty much a WP:SPA for e-cig topics per their contribs. The topic seems to draw such editors or turn otherwise useful editors astray. SPA warns about situations where there is "...evidence that a user is also editing to add promotional, advocative, or non-neutral approaches, or has a personal or emotional interest in the area of focus, possibly with limited interest in pure editing for its own sake....") On their userpage SPACKlick makes their advocacy position on e-cigs very clear (which is very "pro"): here. In my view SPACKlick should be trouted for bringing this groundless case, and should be warned to broaden their editing at WP, with a topicban per WP:NOTHERE, per SPA, riding on their failure to broaden their scope of editing. Jytdog (talk) 17:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Once Again CFCF added a controversial hatnote without engaging in discussion, where the discussion was ongoing, where the bulk of discussion was not in favour of the edit. Likewise CFCF has repeatedly reverted inclusions by S Marshall without discussing it but not reverted the same or near identical inclusions when written by QuackGuru as discussed by S Marshall in this post on the talk page. Whether or not I am sanctioned per the below discussion. I would appreciate if someone could cast eyes and a decision over CFCF's interaction with the page which I feel is pretty clearly not in the benefit of either consensus and collaborative editing at the article or the encyclopeida's aims as a whole. SPACKlick (talk) 13:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

A brand new account reverted the change. Before that an IP reverted the change without an edit summary. QuackGuru (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

As Quack points out another editor removed it after my above comment and CFCF immediately re-instated claiming consensus on the talk page. This is now bordering on Edit Warring Surely? It's ridiculous. Thats 4 reversions 1234 of the same hatnote with only 1 comment of non-engagement on a talk page where 4 editors (not including two who have removed the hatnote) have disagreed with inclusion. SPACKlick (talk) 16:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

The new account only made one edit to Wikipedia so far. The IP made four edits to Wikipedia. QuackGuru (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• Another IP making an edit to the page. QuackGuru (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

CFCF again added the hatnote, calling its removal vandalism. Still has not engaged on the talk page, the discussion still not having come to consensus. That's 3 reversions in 25.5 hours. walking right along the line of an edit war. SPACKlick (talk) 15:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The new account might be a throwaway account. The IP is from Germany. The editor from Germany was banned and indef blocked. Reverting a banned editor is not a revert. QuackGuru (talk) 18:38, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I suspect DaleCurrie is a throwaway account but it's misleading to link to Fergus there Quack, because while they are banned they haven't been shown to make either of these edits, if there's concern you want SPI. By the way CFCF doesn't just do this on e-cig pages. he reverted me on Domestic violence for a formatting fix pointing to a consensus on the talk page. The formatting hadn't been discussed even once on the talk page. I'm rounding on the conclusion that CFCF has a problem with certain editors and fails to follow AGF.SPACKlick (talk) 23:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The 89 IP is back. The IP numbers change but it still begins with 89. The previous edit was this by the 89 IP. The 89 IP made yet another comment. QuackGuru (talk) 00:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Boomerang topic ban for SPACKlick

Per comment above by User:Jytdog, I propose a topic ban from the e-cig pages for User:SPACKlick. Cloudjpk (talk) 20:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

@Cloudjpg: Are you proposing a topicban for yourself too? Your edit count shows a "bizzarro-sock" of SPACKlick and not one with a longstanding edit history.--TMCk (talk) 22:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• This proposal is based on a fallacious and hypocritical comment by User:Jytdog, which itself seems a good justification for BOOMERANG. If SPACKlick can be considered a SPA, Jytdog should be as well.

Spacklick's top edited pages:

94 Electronic cigarette 56 Monty Hall problem 34 Roger Moore 28 List of Durham University people 26 Orthodox Presbyterian Church 25 Sean Connery 24 Electronic cigarette aerosol 24 Safety of electronic cigarettes 23 Top Gear (2002 TV series) 18 St Cuthbert's Society, Durham 17 George Lazenby 16 List of Old Boys of The Scots College (Sydney) 14 Zoe Quinn 11 Trial of Oscar Pistorius 11 College of St Hild and St Bede, Durham

Jytdog's:

675 Genetically modified food controversies 584 Monsanto 327 Genetically modified food 319 Glyphosate 220 Genetically modified crops 159 Genetically modified organism 155 Organic farming 139 GlaxoSmithKline 137 Electroconvulsive therapy 128 ZMapp 124 Organic food 108 A2 milk 99 Séralini affair 99 Novartis 98 Regulation of the release of genetically modified organisms

SPACKlick is surprisingly the only editor to speak out against CFCF's unsupportable redirect from "Electronic Cigarette Aerosol" to "Cigarette smoke". A read of the resulting talk page section (where QuackGuru seems to speak for CFCF, who is absent) should have uninvolved observers questioning why it is SPACKlick who is being portrayed as the problem. petrarchan47คุก 22:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Petra you are so dependable! As I wrote above, per contribs. The bulk of my editing on GMO stuff was mid-2012- mid-2013, with spikes when anti-GMO advocates come around, or back around as the case may be, and yes that has been an enormous amount of work. If you look through the past couple years, the edit count would look very different than the totals you present there.

Getting back to the topic, if you actually look at SPACKlick's contribs in the past year or so, he has indeed become pretty much a SPA for e-cigs; those articles cause people to obsess and e-cig topics keep causing trouble. My recommendation is above. Jytdog (talk) 23:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Of my last 500 edits, a quick and dirty analysis says that 60% are e-cigarette related (if there's a tool for better temporal analysis I'd appreciate the link), including talk page edits and user talk edits. but that may have missed some of them. If we go to the 500 edits before that, very few of them are e-cigarette related. It comes and it goes. And I won't deny e-cigarettes has been my focus recently, just s monty hall was for a while. I come and go from the project with certain dense posting periods. I still monitor a lot of RFC's and where I feel I can contribute, do so. I had hoped to get started on a long project in project tree of life but real life got in the way and another stellar editor had done the majority of the legwork prior to my return. I edit where my interest is at the time. E-cigs has been a focus for a long set of editing bursts because it still has major problems and I haven't yet found a tack that leads to productive improvement although progress has been made. SPACKlick (talk) 01:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

That User:SPACKlick finds the diffs listed concerning is I agree a concern in itself. Some time away from the article may due SPACKlick good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Of note, In all but one of the diffs I've posted above I have attempted, however (un)successfuly, to point out that my issue isn't the content of the edit but the context of the edit being ignoring, over riding or avoiding discussion between editors attempting to hash out consensus. The one I don't point to avoiding ongoing discussions relating to consensus is where he avoided BRD on a potentially controversial addition by unreverting his own edit. I also pointed out that this wasn't a major issue but it is an issue of disengagement from the process and the sort of behaviour I thought the general sanctions were supposed to nip in the bud. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPACKlick (talk • contribs) 21:42, 8 July 2015‎ (UTC)

• Comment. SPACKlick is well aware of the sanctions.[1] Me thinks SPACKlick repeatedly deleted sourced text.[2] See Talk:Electronic cigarette aerosol#Re introduction_again for the current discussion. He was warned by the admin User:Bishonen to stop making personal attacks.[3] Back in April SPACKlick wrote: this previous section at the e-cig talk page: "It's almost like you're not competent to edit this page", "your ridiculous addition", "a ridiculously long caption", "it was pointy, tendentious or ownership", "you do not own this article", "You arrogantly inserted".[4] In June SPACKlick wrote" "QuakGuru, whether or not particle size is medically relevant is OUTSIDE THE SCOPE of this article which is about the CHEMICALS WITHIN E-CIGARETTE VAPOUR. Particle size, is not relevant to what chemical a particle is. You're nuts"[5] He was recently warned again about NPA.[6] QuackGuru (talk) 19:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Quack talking about ownership: Me, I and myself. Cheers.--TMCk (talk) 19:35, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
    • You wrote in your edit summary "I'll promise you my friend, I will not cease in standing by your side in battle..."[7] You wrote "I also shall not cease in doing so until you have learned and turned (until death, online or real, will takes us apart).[8] QuackGuru (talk) 19:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
      • And as you can see I did hold my promise.--TMCk (talk) 19:53, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

General sanctions are failing

General sanctions on e-cigarettes aren't working because it's so hard to attract the attention of an uninvolved administrator. The only participant in this discussion who might remotely count as an "uninvolved administrator" is JzG and he's only contributed one sentence. Everyone else is divided along party lines. What's actually needed here is a referee; but I can fully understand why a previously uninvolved person would shy away from such an entrenched situation with such a lot of history.—S Marshall T/C 07:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• Since this thread has attracted so little attention from uninvolved administrators, it should be archived without result.—S Marshall T/C 22:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
• Well, I can try to referee if you think it would help, but I strongly suspect that my long-standing support for WP:MEDRS and opposition to pro-CAM edits will not sit well with the group that makes up the pro-ecig side of this war. In the absence of uninvolved admins, and given the clear need for some firm action, I guess arbitration may be the only option. Guy (Help!) 14:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, I certainly do think it would help. It shouldn't be necessary to go to arbitration over this; that's like going to A&E with a hangnail. I don't think I could produce diffs that would be of much interest to arbcom.—S Marshall T/C 15:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I can also take a look, but I have some notifications and an Arbcom case evidence to do over the weekend, so if it can wait a couple of days for another set of eyes as well then that would help. Is it deteriorating notably fast? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
    • No, it isn't. I'm finding the situation's improving, probably thanks to the extra eyeballs on the subject. Thank you.—S Marshall T/C 00:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. User:Georgewilliamherbert, please review the current atmosphere at the e-cig pages. I am not aware of "the extra eyeballs on the subject".
• S Marshall is well aware of the sanctions. In your edit summary you wrote "tag-teaming".[9] You claimed "Consensus can change, and it will. I learned this when I got broad consensus to change the first paragraph of this article in many ways, and then started an RfC to discover that changes in the population of this talk page meant my consensus was no longer there. Wikipedia's a waiting game, QG. A quick look at your block log tells me there are pretty good odds that you won't be active on this talk page forever, and when you're gone it will be possible to make the fixes you're preventing. Don't get me wrong, QG, I do think you're a net positive to Wikipedia despite the fact that I find you very frustrating to deal with. I've argued in many discussions before that you should not be blocked, just reined in. My views in that respect have not changed."[10]
• S Marshall, so why do you want me "reined in"?
• Both SPACKlick and S Marshall deleted a 2014 MEDRS compliant review from the Addiction section recently. The 2014 review is relevant to the section, especially since it is concerning youth. QuackGuru (talk) 19:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• I want you reined in because I'm a mean and nasty POV-pushing industry shill, of course!—S Marshall T/C 23:13, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• Whew, glad we got that settled. <g> BMK (talk) 19:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Pretty sure E-cigs is going to need to go to ArbCom, since editors are reporting that GS are not working, and since there are or have been so many SPAs editing the e-cig articles. I propose that someone start to draft an ArbCom request proposal -- but it obviously shouldn't be drafted by QuackGuru or by one of the SPAs or virtual SPAs, past or present. I don't know that there is anyone editing the articles who is completely neutral about the topic, but perhaps Doc James might be willing to, as he has in the past edited on the subject, but has remained decidedly quiet when related subjects come up on ArbCom or ANI. If he or someone of his ilk would draft and post an ArbCom request, however brief, others could chime in on ArbCom with their opinions. Just a thought. Softlavender (talk) 00:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Will take a look in a two weeks as off to Wikimania. I am sure that some would view me as far from neutral. Especially those who continue send me hate mail regarding the topic. User:S Marshall has done some good work condensing the prose. QG adds generally well supported text. The discussion on the talk page get more snarky than it should be at times. Would be good if many of those involved would work more on other pages but of course we cannot mandate that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

You're right. Someone reverting with a misleading editsummary to re-introduce utter unscientific fringe nonsense -- I sure don't have much (or any) confidence in them. Even less when the same supposed to be a scientist. But go for it anyways. It doesn't matter who is filing.--TMCk (talk) 21:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

The discussion on the talk page showed the restored text is well sourced. For example, see Talk:Electronic_cigarette_aerosol/Archive_1#Re_introduction_again. QuackGuru (talk) 02:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I have started reviewing pages; I tagged one more with the talk page "under DS" notice. Still getting a feeling for how the conversations are going. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I recommend you check the archives too. See Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 24 and see Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 25. QuackGuru (talk) 23:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

@Georgewilliamherbert: Are you still looking into it and intend to comment? Just wondering since it's been a while and problems on those pages have been "abandoned" before several times. Thanks.--TMCk (talk) 14:18, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but had other things I am working on as well. They're all watchlisted now and I am still reading histories. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with Softlavender that e-cigs proabably needs to go to ArbCom at this point. After following the topic from afar, but purposely avoiding actually being involved from articles aside from RSN, my main concern is advocacy and (relatively) civil-POV pushing that's degenerating the topic into the state it's in now. ArbCom could cut both ways though and end up hindering editors who overall are trying to push back against these problems too and just lock the articles down into the state they're in now. Seeing this ANI with unfortunately nothing that appears actionable (it should probably be closed soon), how often it comes up here, and how many editors that have just given up on it, ArbCom seems to be the only thing left. Kingofaces43 (talk)

Rolandi+ and Alexikoua's behavior in Balkan-related articles

• Rolandi+ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Alexikoua (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Both of these editors have been duking it out in multiple Balkan-related articles. The Balkans are under discretionary sanctions as per WP:ARBMAC. Both users are aware of this: [11] [12]. Both users have been previously blocked for edit-warring, and are well aware of the rules there. Rolandi+ is just coming off of a block and Alexikoua has been blocked multiple times.

One of many examples of their warring is Nicholas Leonicus Thomaeus.

• Full or partial reverts from Rolandi+: [13] [14] [15] [16]
• Full or partial reverts from Alexikoua: [17] [18] [19]

Other examples with some recent edit warring include:

• Illyrians
• Kara Mahmud Pasha
• Greater Albania

Both users have placed warnings on each others' talk pages but appear fairly oblivious that the warnings apply to themselves as well: Rolandi+ placing on Alexikoua: [20] [21] Alexikoua placing on Rolandi+: [22] [23]

Also note that Alexikoua went to several articles that Rolandi+ edited in a short period of time and reverted everything he did, which is possibly WP:HOUND. He clearly was singling out Rolandi+, at the very least: [24] [25] [26].

While both users are being fairly careful to avoid violating the 3RR, it is clear they they are engaging in disruptive behavior, and they're well aware of the rules given their respective block logs. It's getting to the point where a topic ban may be necessary. ~ Rob^Talk 16:13, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

On each case I initiate a discussion on the correspondent talkpage and I'm very carefull when to remove specific parts in case they are either poorly cited or not cited at all. For example in Nicholas Leonicus Thomaeus, I'm still waiting for Rolandi's talkpage participation but there is still no response [[27]]. On the other hand Rolandi's talkpage is full of warnings from multiple users (I count at least 4). Also comments such a this one [[28]] from a recent ani filled again him by another user, reveal an edit-warring nature.

About Rob's comments I have to add that my last blog was 2+ years ago (May '13), thus it's a bit unfair to neglect that fact, in addition that this is the first report against me from that time. Alexikoua (talk) 16:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The OP paints a very simplistic picture, which shows sloppiness and a lack of understanding of the topic and issues involved. Rolandi+ is in conflict with multiple editors, due to his falsification of sources, dishonesty, and incivility. He has repeatedly falsified sources, edit-warred over unsourced material, made stuff up and refuses to get the point. At Illyrians, he has falsified a source that makes the opposite of the claim he is pushing in the article [29] [30]. He edit-warred over this, made accusations of sockpuppetry, and is extremely rude in the talkpage [31]. He was blocked for edit-warring at Illyrians, and he is now resuming right where he left off [32], using low quality sources. This, after he was blocked 36 hours for breaching 3RR at two different articles in the same day [33]. He is also falsifying sources at Vlachs [34], and edit-warring over there as well. Here he falsifies one source [35] (the author states that the Italian census numbers are exaggerated, but he omits that and enters the number using Wikipedia's own voice) and removes another high quality source (Meyer) for no good reason, without even mentioning it in the edit summary. When he can't find even low quality sources to falsify, he just makes stuff up [36]. When a fellow Albanian editor mildly criticized one of the highly nationalistic, low quality sources he tried to use, Rolandi removed that user's talkpage comments from the talkpage [37]. To top it all off, he is extremely rude and refuses to get the point: [38] [39] [40] (referring to Greek editors as "penguins") [41], [42] (taunting a Serbian user about being bombed by NATO), [43] [44], [45], [46], [47]. Here is is taunting another user to "please" revert [48]. It's really not hard to find diffs of this user's disruptive behavior. Just go to any talkpage he has participated and they as plentiful as fish in the sea. This user has exactly ZERO positive contributions to wikipedia, has major WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. His talkpage is nothing but a graveyard of warnings by multiple users of all kinds of backgrounds [49]. Even in Japan-related topics he is making trouble [50], for which he was warned. Alexikoua has repeatedly tried to engage him in article talkpages and on his own talkpage, to no avail. It is impossible to reason with this user. He is here to here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS [51] (Greek sources cannot be trusted because "it made genocide,killed and stole albanians") and nothing will get in the way of that. This is in stark contrast to Alexikoua, who has kept a clean record for the last two years now, has created dozens of articles and DYKs, and is always civil and amenable to reason in talkpage discussions. Athenean (talk) 18:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

This is an unfair report regarding Alexikoua. Rolandi+ has exhibited WP:BATTLE behaviour including removing a fellow-Albanian editor's comments for not agreeing with him for which he was subsequently warned on his talkpage by an admin. Here after his block for edit-warring expired he tells the blocking admin: Actually I have been busy for some days so the block wasn't any problem for me. He has also exhibited bravura when reported at 3RRN challenging me to report him even as he had two, yes two, 3RR reports pending against him at 3RRN. In addition his talkpage is full of warnings regarding his falsification of sources and other disruption. Alexikoua's edits are a factor of stability in the Balkans, a troubled area of Wikipedia. There is simply no comparison between the two editors. The OP is completely misguided in his unfair comments regarding Alexikoua. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:39, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi , There are many cases of edit warring between us.It's true!I hope this will not happen in the future. As for "Nicholas Leonicus Thomaeus" case I tried to explain him twice at his talk page that he couldn't delete others' edits and references only to add the greek hypothesis.It's normal to include all the hypothesis about Thomaeus' origin.Also he can't delete well-established informations that have been there since a long time. As for "Illyrians" case,I had corrected my edits.My last deleted edits made it clear that Illyrians may be the ancestors of Albanians.(I didn't make it a fact,just a hypothesis).Alexikoua thinks that the Albanian hypothesis doesn't need te be included there,but the Vlach hypothesis yes. As for "Greater Albania" I stoped my edit waring and I have discussed that with Athenean at my talk page.I will discuss that at the article's talkpage soon as I haven't enough time now. I hope that there will not be any need for this noticeboard in the future.However it is important the fact that Alexikoua has a habit to delete almost all my Albanian related edits within 24 hours.If you see my edit history,the majority of my edits have been deleted by Alexikoua within a short time.He doesn't try to talk to me or discuss together. In our recent edit warrings another user is included.Athenean has the same habit as Alexikoua to undo the majority of my edits. As I said ,we need to be more carefull in the future and stop edit warring.However,it is important for Alexikoua not to delete almost all my edits.If he thinks I have made disruptive edits in the future,he can try talking to me or to involve other users or an administrator for help. As for my past mistakes I have been blocked for 36 hours before some days so Athenean doesn't need to mention them here. I don't actually know why these three users contribute at the same pages at the same time.I think it is a kind of sockpuppetery or collaboration. Rolandi+ (talk) 19:01, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

As for Japan related article,the warning was a mistake.Go and ask that editor.It not the only time I got warnings that were a mistake.See my warnings history and the involved users' talk pages please . As for the Vlach case ,as you can see,I hadn't falsificated any reference,just go and see .The warning editor falsificated the references.This story is explained but Athenean doesn't mention this fact.As for Italian census case I explained to Athenean what I meant with that reference at my talk page.But Athenean doesn't mention my explanation because the only thing he wants is my block.As for "Baku spirit" case,why don't you go and se the KSFT's talk page.I suggest to these three users to open as many noticeboard cases as possible ,there is no problem for me. Rolandi+ (talk) 19:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

This case is only about me and Alexikoua.There was another ANI involving me before some days and these three editors commented against me.Isn't this a collaboration?You can easily note that there are many cases where these three users edit at the same pages at the same time .Isn't this some kind of strange collaboration or even sockpuppetery?Rolandi+ (talk) 19:41, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The topics you are editing have been the target of sockpuppetry, edit-warring disruption, falsification of sources and personal attacks by editors advancing low quality, nationalist-based edits. You seem to be doing most of these things so don't complain when other editors clean up after you. Also if you have evidence of sockpuppetry don't try to weasel your insinuations into the discussion. Either open a sockpuppet investigation against the editors you suspect or stop your personal attacks. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:57, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

You are making personal attacks here,I am just defending myself.If you have sth against me,open another case.Also an unregistred user undid my edits at Thomaeus by claiming that my edits are " propaganda & false information".This is strange.He explains this by saying "(WP:V, WP:RS)and Jacques & 'scholars' from the Hoxha era are very unreliable sources".Who is this user in the reality?Strange.Rolandi+ (talk) 21:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

You are making personal attacks here,: Can you specify by giving a diff which part of my comments were a "personal attack"? Who is this user in the reality?Strange. Why are you asking me? If you have any questions about a user you can open an SPI to find out. Finally, do not ask other editors to intervene making false claims against editors who comment here because it is considered canvassing and uncivil. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:38, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Here's a simple fact: Alexikoua has reverted the edits of Rolandi+ repeatedly and across multiple pages in short periods of time. Edit-warring is not excused by correctness. That's the only additional thing I'll say. This statement is not influenced in anyway by Rolandi's comments on my talk page; I was watching this discussion already, and would have commented this way when I had returned no matter what. I do agree with the point about WP:CANVASS, though. ~ Rob^Talk 22:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

From what I can tell, Alexikoua has not exceeded 2 reverts in a 24 hour period in any article. This is in contrast to Rolandi who has breached 3RR at least twice in the last few days. You seem to be painting the users with the same brush. That is incorrect. There is one user who has made countless valuable contributions to Wikipedia, and one who hasn't. There is one user who has engaged in ethnic baiting, and one who hasn't. There is one user who falsifies sources, and one who hasn't. There is one user who has been blocked recently for multiple breaches of 3RR and one user who has maintained a spotless record for the last two years. Athenean (talk) 22:22, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Your accusations of WP:HOUND and excessive edit-warring against Alexikoua do not stand up to scrutiny. If I look at his contribs of the last 7 days (i.e. since Rolandi's block expired), he has reverted Rolandi a total of two times at Greater Albania, once at Illyrians, three times at Nicholas Leonicus Thomaeus, and once at Kara Mahmud Pasha. This is over a period of 7 days, and not taking into account that Rolandi was POV-pushing, falsifying sources, being incivil, and was reverted by several other users (because he was POV-pushing and falsifying source), not just Alexikoua. Athenean (talk) 22:32, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I had not seen the HOUND allegations of the OP against Alexikoua. That betrays a total lack of understanding of the MO of the SPAs and socks in this area of the Balkans. Once an SPA is bent on changing the nationality to Albanian of many historical figures they do it across multiple articles and they do it by falsifying sources and enforce it through edit-warring. To follow such an SPA through multiple articles to correct their falsification of sources is good and standard practice not WP:HOUND. I don't doubt the good intentions of the OP but they are severely misguided and betray a total ignorance of the operating methods of the SPAs in this subject area. I am also concerned that despite the available evidence of widespread disruption by the Rolandi+ SPA the OP seems bent on insisting on treating Alexikoua's proper edits as somehow problematic. Such behaviour is not constructive. To gain a proper understanding of the nationalist-based disruption in this area one has to check SPI archives such as Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Malbin210/Archive and related cases as seen in the archive and also check the sockpuppet userpages and contributions. For example, one of the socks had tried to convert the origin of George Washington's mother to Albanian. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Firstly you said that I haven't made any valuable contribution here.Then you mention "nationalism" ,Malbin210 and related cases.It is obvious now,the only problem for you is the fact that there are some Albanian editors contributing to Wikipedia.You don't want Albanain editors to contribute to Wikipedia.This is the only problem here.Rolandi+ (talk) 09:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

What part of edit-warring disruption and falsification of sources did you not understand? Don't try to use the ethnicity of editors as a red herring against me, especially when you yourself removed a fellow-Albanian editor's comments because he didn't agree with you. Resnjari, whose opinion you reverted because he didn't agree with you, is also Albanian and he has my respect. This has nothing to do with ethnicity and you know that very well. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 09:54, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

The previous ANI regarding Rolandi+ was initiated by me, but it apparently ended in no result. I don't think it's necessary for me to present the user's incorrectness – he's been warned countless times. It's strange that he is allowed to continue this disruptive behaviour. Alexikoua shows none of Rolandi+'s manners (has always been civil, etc.) and I fail to see why Alexikoua is mentioned as a subject in this ANI. --Zoupan 10:16, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

As for Resnjari,I have talked to him.I deleted his comment because we weren't talking about chams in greece.Why don't you mention this fact?Zoupan says it's strange that I am allowed to contribute to Wikipedia.It's very strange in fact.Why doesn't Zoupan mention his falsification of sources as he did for example at Kosovo serbs?Why?How it's possible that these users undo all my edits (including Zoupan)?Why?Why do Alexikoua,Dr.K and Athenean delete all references that say the a X famous person or ethnic minority has albanian origin?How is it possible?Why don't you see their edit's history.Don't believe in our words...just go and control our edit's history.Alexikoua is very civil because after he deletes others' work and references ,he asks his collaborators for help.Before some days there was another ANI where I was involved.It was opened by Dr.K,while Athenean and Alexikoua commented against me.How is it possible that when I don't have the same ideas with Alexikoua,Athenean and Dr.K come and delete my work?How is it possible?It's unfair that the work of the Albanian editors is always undone by these three editors.How is it possible that all references introduced by Albanian editors(or by other editors who add the so-called pro albanian references)are "nationalism","unreliable","propaganda" and "manifesto"?It's unfair because Wikipedia has to be neutral.Look for example at Thomaeus article,I explained Alexikoua that he couldn't delete the well-established infos only to add the greek hypothesis.The right thing to do there is to include all the hypothesis about Thomaeus' origin.If you can't control these users,why don't you delete all the Albanian related articles,so they will not be vandalised anymore? Rolandi+ (talk) 11:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Also see at the "Greater Albania" talk page.These users put a map showing the presence of Albanians in the neighbour countries .Why don't they agree to put the map of "Greater Albania" there? Because they don't like it?Alexikoua says it is created by Albanian users?And what does it mean?Note the fact that Alexikoua uses greek politicans as references (for example at Souliotes)That article is about Greater Albania and not about the presence of Albanians in the neighbour countries.Everyone knows that the Greater Albania map is the map introduced by League of Prizren.Actually ,this is RACISM.Rolandi+ (talk) 12:16, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Alexikoua,Dr.K and Athenean delete my references and edits .They say that my references are POV (Even when the reference is a non-Albanian/non-greek well-known scholar).On the other hand they use greek politicans as references. I can't even use the talk page,because the only thing they say is that my references are always "POV" and "manifesto".How is it possible that all my references are unreliable?Isn't this strange?Look at other Albanian editors.Their work is always undone by these three users because their references are always,but always "unraliable" and "POV".How is it possible?Rolandi+ (talk) 12:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

@Rolandi: To name an example, it's kinda weird to insist on adding citations such as this: [[52]], which claims that the Wars of Alexander the Great were fought by Albanians [[53]]. Even an editor who is not involved in historical articles will find it POV and unreliable. It's also not a case of ethnic conflict, as I've worked together with several editors that share the same national background with you.Alexikoua (talk) 12:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Why did Athenean lie?He said that I falsified sources at "Baku spirit".My warning there was a mistake.Why don't you go and ask the warning editor?Also note he didn't warned me for falsification. Athenean said I had falsified the source at "Vlachs".Why don't you go at the Vlach's editing history and see the truth?Why don't you see what the book used as reference says in reality?Also Zoupan said there is a problem with me at "Vlachs".Which is the problem?Zoupan don't know how to lie! Athenean said I falsified the sources at "Illyrians".Where is the falsification there?My edit there said that according to some scholars Illyrians are the ancestors of Albanians (this means that it's a theory,I didn't make it a fact). Athenean said that I falsified the source at the "Greater Albania".I explained him that we had to introduce both greek and italian figures to make the article neutral,why didn't he mention this fact?Because the only thing Athenean wants is to lie about me. As I said the use of the Talk page with these users is useless as the only thing that these three users say is that others' references are always,but always "nationalism","POV" ,"propaganda" and "manifesto".It's not my fault that these three users always say that my references are "propaganda" and "POV". Also,Alexikoua,why do you mention only the case of Wars of Alexander?Why don't you mention all the cases where you have undone others' edits claiming their references are "POV" and "nationalism" and "propaganda"?Rolandi+ (talk) 13:23, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

It's very easy.There is so many edit warring between us because these three editors always,but always undo my edits .The talk page is useless because the only thing they do is to claim the others' references are always,but always "unacceptable","POV","nationalism","propaganda","manifesto","unreliable".I can't use the dispute noticeboards for hundreads articles,because it is ridiculous.The only thing to do is to prevent these three users from vandalizing Wikipedia,especially albania-related articles.I am sure that if these three users stop deleting other's edits and references only because they don't like them,there will not be any edit warring/problem at albanian related articles anymore.Also I suggest you to help editors about Balkans-related articles (for ex. if their references are reliable/POV etc).Rolandi+ (talk) 13:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Alexikoua doesn't agree to put the map of the Greater Albania at the "Greater Albania" article.He firstly said the the current map is detailed,but it's not the map of Greater Albania (the original map is based on the map of the League of Prizren ).Then he claimed that these maps are the the same,but they aren't.He said that we can't put the map of the Greater Albania there because "I am eager to see a map that paints everything in red" (meaning that I am a nationalist and maybe I have irridenstist ideas) while the national colours of Albania are the red AND THE BLACK.He doesn't agree because he doesn't like the map,this is the problem with these editors,they don't agree with others only because they want to control Wikipedia.Note that the current map shows Albanians in Albania and neighboring countries,not the Greater Albania based on the maps of the League of Prizren.Rolandi+ (talk) 14:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

The Balkans are subject to discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBMAC. Arbitration Enforcement may be a more efficient way of dealing with conduct issues than this noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:43, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

To Robert McClenon. About time this happened. More attention needs to be paid because to many shenanigans having been going on and some Albanian editors have been intimidated and i include myself in this as being as such. Few Albanian editors have been engaging with Wikipedia recently because of such things and some editors of a non-Albanian heritage seem to be making changes in articles without even discussing it. I call to your attention the article Aoös whose name was changed by Greek editors (such as user User:Hwasus > [[54]] without consensus (and due to Albanian editors no longer continuing for a while) while in previous discussions about a name change was resolved that Vjosa stays as the page's name ([[55]]). Who would i go to regarding this very serious matter.Resnjari (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Alexikoua deleted many informations at Nicholas Leonicus Thomaeus,including the references that said that he Thomaeus might have been of Albanian origin,saying that "widely established international scholarship tend to disagree with what was written inside Albania during the People's Republic regime".Where did he learn that Thomaeus' albanian origin hypothesis is fabricated during the communist period in Albania?Also he deleted Jacque who isn't albanian.This is only racism and this is a big problem.Seriously this is ridiculous.Rolandi+ (talk) 17:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

To Rolandi, some Albanian sources from the communist period are tainted because they were ideologically driven and or forced by Enver to produce material that has many problems. For a list of academics who managed to go against the communist regime and produce good research like Eqrem Cabej see book "Pipa, Arshi (1989). The politics of language in socialist Albania. East European Monographs. As for non Albanian western sources state Nicholas Leonicus Thomaeus was a Greek. This is possible as during the time Nicholas was born there were some Greeks (merchants and so on) in Durres, as it was a coastal port and international city (its also had Albanians). See Robert Elsie article page 3 ([56]. The stuff on numbers in the Cham Albanian article, the Topulli stuff is resolved. Send me on my talk page the stuff from researcher Nazarko (he is a good source -full inline citation though and source). I'll work something out regarding Idromeno on that basis.Resnjari (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Resnjari.you said that western sources state that Thomaeus was greek.And Jacque,isn't he a western source?I am not saying that Thomaeus wasn't greek,I am saying that he might have been albanian (hypothesis).Also where did you learn that the Albanian hypothesis was fabricated by the Communist Albanians?The fact that many albanian scholars ideologically were driven and or forced by Enver Hoxha to produce material that has many problems doesn't mean that the albanian hypothesis was fabricated by them.See also sources like Jacque.Alexikoua deleted many infos that were there since a long time and added the greek hypothesis.The right thing to do is to include all hypothesis.Rolandi+ (talk) 20:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• "Comment": Rolandi+ is proving to be a problem editor on a number of articles surrounding the Balkans. I suggest that he/she is an aggressive editor who's WP:NOTHERE. Leaving missives such as this on my talk page is not appreciated when I have read through the sources he/she has used to introduce changes to content on Vlachs. The user has WP:CHERRYPICKING sources addressing a variety of complex issues and academic evaluation in order create WP:SYNTH. I made the mistake of allowing the user enough WP:ROPE to continue refactoring the same content, for which I take responsibility: I made the wrong call. As the "Vlachs" article falls under the general scope of WP:ARBMAC, I agree with Robert McClenon that this is something to be dealt with via WP:ARB. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

In my limited observation, there is a great deal of battleground editing and quarreling about articles about the Balkan region. One reason is of course that the Balkan region has too many times been a real battleground, including being the origin of World War One, which killed fifteen million people. ArbCom was prudent in putting the Balkans under discretionary sanctions as an area that the community does not deal with effectively at noticeboards such as this one. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I think you're aware that most of my editing is in the area I know, being Eastern Europe. Being a glutton for punishment, I like to keep my hand in on other contentious areas where I don't have any doubts as to my neutrality. ArbCom is, unfortunately, an extremely arduous process for those who are involved in working through complaints (and my sympathies are extended to them) as there's a tendency for involved users to continue their battles there rather than follow the processes. Unfortunately, the end product is that problem editors keep getting out of being sanctioned by the skin of their teeth, only to keep their heads down for a period of time and resume when they're confident that enough time has elapsed for prior behavioural problems to have been forgotten. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Irina Harpy,why don't you mention the fact that the discussion (and the problem) between us started because you changed (falsified) the citation at the reference.See here what the source says.Another user deleted your falsifications and explained everything.Why don't you mention this fact?Why?I agree that Balkans related articles are almost all problematic and vandalised but this doesn't mean you can LIE!Rolandi+ (talk) 08:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy Rolandi just needs some more practice. One just needs to have a in depth discussion about things and too tone it down a bit. At the moment it seems i am the only one doing engaging with him without resorting to name calling and so on. I value Rolandi wanting to contribute; it’s just he has to be more cautious about certain sources or how the source is used in general. There are few Albanian editors these days on Wikipedia. Things have become dormant and some editors of non-Albanian heritage have taken it upon themselves to do for example article name changes (like the Vjosa example i cited) without community consultation or to call POV anything a editor might want to undertake in adding to an article (even when the source/s is peer reviewed and very credible) (see: Talk:Cham Albanians). I have had these issues multiple times now (in the end my edits have gone through almost in their entirety) but it has taken too much time, energy and effort which though was done in good faith. There were cases were even my cognitive abilities where questioned which was quite offensive. (See article Talk:Greek Muslims). What you might call "quarreling" i have an issue because not all editors are equal. Some who have privileges are editors from a background who may have less than polite views regarding people of Albanian heritage. There should be non-Balkan editors adjudicating certain articles so those who have those privileges don't abuse them or intimidate editors who insist on change (the later must make their case though). Merit and content based on Wikipedia policy should be the outcome everyone conducts themselves upon. More oversight is needed or absent that the removal of privileges (auto patrol etc) of some editors for those engaging in such behavior so as to make it a level playing field. Wikipedia is a democratic forum, it should not be a place where Greek editors have privileges over Albanian ones or vice versa.Resnjari (talk) 09:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The user makes up his own rules, again, and again.--Zoupan 16:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you mention the fact that there is a consensus at the talk page?Why?Why do you want to delete informations +add others without consensus?Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolandi+ (talk • contribs) 17:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I fail to see a concensus in the talkpage. Can't understand what you really mean.Alexikoua (talk) 18:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

There is no concensus about our recent edits,so they have to all to be deleted until a consensus.I said that at talk page,you commented but you did't said no.Zoupan and Alexikoua agree with the fact that my edits (and others made by other non-albanian editors) have to be deleted until consesnus (note that the edits of some other non-albanian editors have been there since a long time but you deleted them because you don't like them).But you don't agree with the fact that your recent edits have to be deleted until a consesnus too (as some of them are clear vandalism). You always,but always (just see your editing's history) delete others' edits and references.Strange.You always delete albanian's editors edits but you don't know what to say.Alexikoua deleted my edits at "Kara Mahmud Pasha" saying "rv poorly cited (you have been advised how to do that properly without false ISBNs)".Actually there wasn't any ISBN there.He LIED. This is what some specific users :Alexikoua,Zoupan,Dr.K ,Athenean do,they just destroy others' work,especially the work of Albanian editors. Note:It's the second time that unregistred users delete my work.After the habit of those four user to delete my edits was introduced here,some unregistred users are undoing my edits.STRANGE!Rolandi+ (talk) 19:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

After the habit of those four user to delete my edits was introduced here,some unregistred users are undoing my edits.STRANGE!: Actually your insinuation is not strange at all. That was the favourite MO of blocked sock Bonender: Are you a sock puppet account of Alexikoua ? Cause i will seek investigation cf. Malbin210's SPI. Strange indeed. Isn't it? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Also here you accuse Athenean of being Alexikoua's sock: disruptive editing by Alexikoua's sock,maybe needs reporting Funny that. Very similar phraseology to Bonender's. Really funny stuff, ain't it? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 06:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

The real fun is that you claim that people that doesn't have the same ideas with you are socks.Why don't you go and see how many contributions you have deleted by claiming that others are sock...hundreads...thousands.How is possible that you edit at the same article at the same time?Rolandi+ (talk) 09:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• Block Rolandi+ and move on I'm amazed at the lack of action and long discussions. This in an incredibly simple matter that does not need to take up anyone's time. Rolandi+ is definitely guilty of multiple policy violations as clearly demonstrated in the discussion. No other user appears to have done anything wrong. I suggest an admin just closes this discussion with a suitable block for Rolandi+. When a situation is this clear, there is no need for all the drama currently taking place.Jeppiz (talk) 22:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

As I see Roland had already reflected on his wrong doing, which I fail to see on Alexikoua, and what is more outrages I see that people fail to understand the subtle difference of personal offences and arguments. Roland is being offended here and still is argumenting his positions. Resnjari is right, there are very few Albanian in Wiki, which is being 'taken over' from sources provided from our neighbors (as in the Vjosa case as he/she mentions). This to be honest shouldn't be normal and not fair. This is almost supression due to numbers. Wiki should be a place of consensus, harmony and inclusions, not the place where biggest actors surpress the smallest. QTeuta (talk) 13:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)QTeuta

Edit warring on Albanians

There is now an edit war going on at this article between User:Rolandi+ and User:SilentResident. See article history. I've notified SilentResident. Rolandi+ is already party to this discussion. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I've notified SilentResident about discretionary sanctions, as he does not appear to have ever been notified in the past. ~ Rob^Talk 21:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I deeply apologize for the 3-revert rule, I just tried to revert the POV edits by the user Rolandi+. Feel free to check the page's history Albania. Again, my apologies if I broke the 3-revert rules, this was not my intention. --SilentResident (talk) 21:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

When Rolandi+ insisted on his POV edits on Albanians and refused to provide any reliable sources for his edits in the appropriate talk page, even after 3 reverts, I realized that I had no other option but to ask politely for a moderator's attention on the issue, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#Unsourced_POV_edits_on_population_figures I didn't had any bad intentions, I just tried to prevent POV edits on the page. My apologies. --SilentResident (talk) 22:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions warnings should not be given on the basis of a single edit-warring incident on a single article. That's why we have the 3RR rule. Only when the editing causes disruption in more than one Balkans-related article and there is a pattern of disruptive editing in multiple Balkans-related articles a DS warning should be issued. SilentResident does not qualify for a DS warning under these criteria. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

This has become ludicrous. Reverting edits by a DE does not merit sanction warnings. As noted by Dr. K, Rolandi+ has established a NOTHERE editing pattern and is oblivious to BRD to the point of being pure BATTLEGROUND. DS warnings for GF editors (particularly where they are obviously aware of the existence of the DS) smacks of punitive action inferring that the editor is acting in bad faith. Surely there is a point at which Wikipedia sysops should review the nature of incidents and not shift the onus to the reverter while ignoring the BURDEN on the contributor to back up their content changes/additions with cite checked RS (nor allow for non-sysops to play the blame game by using DS warnings to be used as badges of shame). This can only be construed as rewarding bad faith editing on some obscure point of POV righteousness. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

A DS notification is just that - a notification. As the template itself states, it is not an implication of any wrongdoing, but merely a notification. If he plans to continue editing in that area, it's something he should be aware of. I meant nothing more by it than that. I agree that my warning did not meet Dr.K's criteria, but those criteria are not part of any actual policy that I've been able to find. ~ Rob^Talk 01:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

A DS notification is just that - a notification. As the template itself states, it is not an implication of any wrongdoing, but merely a notification.: That does not mean that one should proceed with notification overkill or notify in the absence of good grounds for a notification. A DS is designed to warn about disruption in the Balkans area. An edit-warring dispute in a single Balkans article does not equal disruption in the Balkans area. Good judgment is needed when using Arbcom instruments. You will not find this requirement in any policy but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

DS notification is not a sanction. It's notification that special policy applies, for editors working in a topic area that have done something that merited attention. That something may or may not have been actionable but attracted attention.

We had prior arguments over whether it was a hostile action or abusive to DS notify someone, and the consensus was that involved parties should not under that circumstance but others' doing so was not a problem. Was there something specific here that was a problem?... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you George. I have seen the prior debates and I understand the arguments. Having said that, I think a notification to an editor who has not exhibited disruptive behaviour in the area of the Balkans is not necessary. A single article in the Balkans area is not the area of the Balkans. Here we have Rolandi+, an edit-warring champion in the area of the Balkans edit-warring, as is his custom, with an editor who has no record of disruptive behaviour in the Balkans area. I think it is an overkill to give the latter a DS warning absent any evidence that his behaviour is going to spread to at least one more Balkans article. I think using discretion in such cases is a good idea. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

He was engaging in behavior that could easily lead to a report to WP:AN3 if it continued. Had that occurred, an admin would have almost certainly brought up the discretionary sanctions (if only to mention them). I'm of the opinion that an editor should not first hear about discretionary sanctions when they're being talked about on a noticeboard. They should know what they're getting into before they engage in any behavior that is borderline, as they may choose not to engage in that behavior if they're aware of the discretionary sanctions. Keep in mind that, on the flip side, an editor that is editing positively in a contentious area subject to discretionary sanctions will want to know about them so they can respond appropriately to disruptive editors if necessary. Knowledge is power, etc etc ~ Rob^Talk 03:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

It is somehow speculative to assume that an admin at 3RRN will issue DS warnings to the parties but even if s/he does I don't see the problem with being informed at the noticeboard. I think it is preferable to see the warning at the noticeboard than being slapped with it at one's talkpage. There are also other ways to inform editors about DS without slapping them with a formal notice. Knowledge is power and other such slogans are ok but being slapped with a DS notice on their talkpage is intimidating to some editors never mind the disclaimers and associated slogans. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Echoing Dr. K's sentiments, the problem is that I would consider the notification as being a bad judgement call on behalf of BU Rob13. While experienced editors are aware of the fact that, technically, it isn't an accusation of wrongful editing behaviour, such warnings should be issued bearing in mind the context (it takes two to tango, but substantiating who's leading the dance is of primary concern). In this instance, the new contributor did not receive the same warning to at least meet with a sense of parity, whereas it was directed at a more experienced editor who was reverting badly sourced, POV content whereas the other party (whose amendments to the content actually carry the BURDEN) was not following through discussions per BRD. The new contributor has already been previously blocked, harrassed non-partisan editors and cast WP:ASPERSIONS as to the nature of their editing, and is treating Wikipedia articles surrounding Albanian issues as a BATTLEGROUND. I'll admit to the fact that I've already been worn down by the opponent by trying to comply with AGF, this courtesy has not been extended to any editors attempting to communicate with Rolandi+ (see the section on my talk page + the diffs outlining multiple examples of harassment of other editors in this thread, not simply this subsection).

While I'm not condemning BU Rob13 for posting the DS notification, at the very least a reciprocal alert should have also been posted on Rolandi+'s talk page. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Good point Iryna, but I did that some weeks ago as soon as I realised we were faced with yet another edit-warring champion in the Balkans area. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 06:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Propose topic ban of Rolandi+

Just a few days ago, Rolandi posted this, saying (and I quote) "As I said ,we need to be more carefull in the future and stop edit warring.". Yet today he racked up 3 reverts at Albanians, no problem. Is there anyone here who still believes a word this user says? He has lost all credibility in my opinion. Any more warnings are a waste of time, he will make all the right noises to avoid punishment and then as soon as he thinks no one is looking he will revert to form (no pun intended). I am thus proposing that he be topic banned from Balkan related articles, broadly construed. Proposed. Athenean (talk) 05:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• "Support". While I would be reticent to support a general block against Rolandi+ (as has been suggested in the earlier thread), if the user is genuinely committed to being HERE, s/he needs to familiarise themselves with WP:PG by working on articles outside of the contentious ones directly and indirectly involving Albania. Throwing themselves into the deep end of an area they have partisan alliances to without any experience in moderating their behaviour is bound to be distressing for both the user and regular editors. At some point in the future, after demonstrably positive input, the topic ban could be reviewed. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Irina Harpy,all the problem here is that I said you that I will report you because you sent me a false warning and because you falsificated the reference at Vlachs.This is tha all the problem.Why don't you go and see what really happened at Albanians?Why?That editor and me used the talk page and I explained him his mistakes.Also,my edits aren't reverts of his edits (except one only after we talk at the talk page),but improvements of his recent work.Go and see to believe it.So don't try to LIE AGAIN.Rolandi+ (talk) 09:02, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Also go and see what SilentResident did at Albanians.Milliyet says that 500 thousand have consciousness of their Albanian origin while there are 1.3 mln albanians in turkey.This is POV .It means he isn't neutral and then the problem is me.The only problem is that some editors delete informations (not always added by me ,for example at Albanians ) claiming that the references aren't reliable.When the reference is a well known scholar,the problem is the user who deletes it.Also I didn't make edit-warring,I improved some informations (some of them were added by SilentResident) and reverted his edits only one time .

Also ,after this ANI was created and some Greek editors were involved on it,how is it possible that some other greek editors started deleting well established informations about Albanians?No, this isn't a problem,the problem strangely is only me! Rolandi+ (talk) 09:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Also SilentResident doesn't need to LIE.He said he deleted my POV,but the informations that he deleted without any clear explanation and without concensus are there since a long time.Those informations weren't added by me.SO HE LIED AGAIN AS HE DID ABOUT MILLIYET REFERENCE.AND THEN THE PROBLEM IS ME!!!!You are very neutral!Rolandi+ (talk) 10:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Support topic ban Rolandi+ has shown beyond any doubt they are WP:NOTHERE, and continues to violate several policies. The continued comments by Rolandi+ inthis thread further show the user is unwilling to hear and continues to insist the problem is everybody else. Broad topic ban only solution.Jeppiz (talk) 10:10, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Rolandi+, you have just attacked me and called me a liar. This is very sad and unfortunate of your part. I have expected that, like how I am trying to be polite with you, I could have enjoyed a minimum level of reciprocity in my politeness to you. I wish you could show some maturity at least, because Wikipedia is not a playground where we fight with other Wiki users, nor it is a bar where we accuse them of blatant lies. While you speak with accusations and insults, I speak with logic. While you are resorting to edit wars with other users, reverts and insults, I have at least tried asking for your cooperation in bringing more sources for citation. I have nothing against you, and it only saddens me that Wikipedia is overshadowed by people of your kind whose the actions disrupt the peaceful environment and cooperation with other users. I am very sad, and I am sorry. --SilentResident (talk) 10:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

And dear community, because I am involved in this unfortunate tension with Rolandi+, I don't think I am eligible in taking position regarding Rolandi's ban suggestion. (so I won't be voicing pro-banning or against banning him, and will stay neutral).--SilentResident (talk) 10:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose': My preference is that further discussion is had with Rolandi. When i have done so how certain sources or numbers may be an issue, he has taken it on board and relented (for example the Cham Albanian page or the Tomasso article). Some editors here who are advocating for a ban have in the past referred to certain proposed changes with peer reviewed material i have done as "POV" (while after backing off when i invoked Wikipedia policy and so on and in the end have gone through. They have also shown to be very selective with Wikipedia policy or even to the point of making it up to prevent peer reviewed material going into an article. For more see: Talk:Souliotes) and have said things such as questioning my cognitive abilities which was very offensive (For more see Talk:Greek Muslims). I do not trust some editors’ motives in this instance for banning Rolandi, due in part to my experiences with them. There are many Greek and Serbian editors, but so few Albanian ones these days. I call for outside adjudication regarding the matter so trust and good faith can be restored and some articles that are in need of a fix up to be done as such with peer reviewed material and free of intimidation and personal attacks as i have experienced repeatedly for a select number of editors here now going after Rolandi. Outside intervention is needed so as to prevent any ganging up like activity from occurring.Resnjari (talk) 10:40, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

SilentResident,your words are very beautifull.Why don't you go and see what did you do at Albanians article?Why?Also keep in mind that I do not intend to offend anyone,I said that you lied because you really lied.And your words (your lies about what really happened at Albanians )may send me to a block.Rolandi+ (talk) 10:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Alexioua and me have made edit warring (Alexikoua has made edit warring at hundreads and thousands other cases about Balkans related articles ,more than me) so Athenean proposed topic ban ONLY for me.Interesting!Rolandi+ (talk) 11:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I want to report Rolandi for trying to blakcmail me now, in the Talk: Albanians, he threatened me twice: "So revert your edits about the albanians in turkey,or I will report you after that ANI" and "I may be blocked for this topic,but this doesn't mean that I can't report you for your vandalism.So go and delete your edits about albanians in turkey". He is basically threatening me that if I don't undo his reverted POV edits, I will get reported! Please, any help? --SilentResident (talk) 11:15, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes,go and read Wikipedia's rules about the use of concensus when you want to delete well-established informations.I am involved at this ANI now,after that I will report your falsification of sources (see what Milliyet really says about the number of albanians in Turkey).I also will report you for your lies (you said that you deleted my POV,while they weren't added by me ) and for your vandalism (you deleted well -established referenced infos without concensus ).Rolandi+ (talk) 11:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Support topic ban. I tried explaining to him the importance of having reliable facts and sources in Wikipedia's articles, and especially in the sensitive ones related to the Balkan region. This person however is pushing things off edge by trying to blackmail the me and accuse the others! I agree with Jeppiz and the people above, this user should be banned, at least from the Balkan-related articles. --SilentResident (talk) 12:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

This ANI is about Alexikoua and me,but the discussion here is only about me.who are discussing?athenean,zoupan and dr.k who have deleted almost all my work and edits (and many other's edits,just see their history ).also,i had said to irina harpy and silentresident that i will report them,so thay came here talking against me!this isn't fair.why isn't there any problem with alexikoua's edit warring ?why?he has deleted many others' work and edits (not only albanian editors )only by saying "manifesto","nationalism""propaganda" etc. This isn't fair and it's sure this will not end here.if neended,i will try contacting wikipedia for the fact that the discussion here is only about me.you can ban me,but this will not end so easily. This is not a thread,i am just saying what is going to happen.this is ridiculous,the discussion here is made only by some editors that don't have the moral right to discuss here,for the only reason they have been accused from me for several things.on the other hand,alexikoua isn't mentioned on this discussion. Also note that I haven't made edit warring since that ANI.The only one is at Albanians where SilentResident deleted many infos (with a part I agree,with some no ),I tried to explain him the Wikipedia's rules (I would send him a warning but I am at this ANI now ).This isn't my fault.Anyways I will be more carefull in the future and I will solve problem at Albanians at ANI .Rolandi+ (talk) 15:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• To be frank, Rolandi+ has made no contribution (or "work"). A topic ban would possibly stop his disruptive editing if he decides to change his ways, and give him a chance to contribute. If he then continues his behaviour which we've seen thus far, definitely block as per WP:NOTHERE.--Zoupan 00:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Zoupan,you said I have made no contribution....where did you learn that?Go see my editing history (all my editings at balkans ralated articles and balkans non-related articles ) and then come and talk here. As I said: This ANI is about Alexikoua and me,but the discussion here is only about me.who are discussing?athenean,zoupan and dr.k who have deleted almost all my work and edits (and many other's edits,just see their history ).also,i had said to irina harpy and silentresident that i will report them,so thay came here talking against me!this isn't fair.why isn't there any problem with alexikoua's edit warring ?why?he has deleted many others' work and edits (not only albanian editors )only by saying "manifesto","nationalism""propaganda" etc. This isn't fair and it's sure this will not end here.If neended,i will try contacting wikipedia for the fact that the discussion here is only about me.you can ban me,but this will not end so easily. This is not a thread,i am just saying what is going to happen.this is ridiculous,the discussion here is made only by some editors that don't have the moral right to discuss here,for the only reason they have been accused from me for several things.on the other hand,alexikoua isn't mentioned on this discussion. Also note that I haven't made edit warring since that ANI.The only one is at Albanians where SilentResident deleted many infos not added by me (with a part I agree,with some no ),I tried to explain him the Wikipedia's rules (I would send him a warning but I am at this ANI now ).This isn't my fault.Anyways I will be more carefull in the future and I will solve problem the at Albanians at ANI .Rolandi+ (talk) 08:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Zoupan i am very concerned that you have inferred that Rolandi "has made no contribution (or "work")". He has contributed to many other non-Balkan articles and his edits have stayed. Only an administrator can make that call. The issue is with Balkan related material. My advice to you Rolandi is use google books and scholar if you do not have access to a university database of journal articles and academic books. Believe me you will save yourself a lot of trouble. Look for Western peer reviewed material that has done work in the field and do google the author to make sure their work does not have creditability issues or they as a academic. Then do as you will. I have been going through your Balkan related edits and they have been challenged on a variety of matters, a sizable amount with due reason. I understand where you are coming from as an Albanian. But be cautious. I do not want you to get banned. Going through the archive of some of the articles and their talk pages just very recently, a picture is emerging that it is a select few who have engaged in making editing for Albanian editors quite difficult. Nothing has been done about that, yet you are making yourself the focus of attention and giving them the justification to continue with such forms of intimidation while making them getting away with it. There are editors in here who have abused their privileges. The focus needs to be upon them, not you. I urge you most emphatically as one Albanian to another or as a brother to brother to reflect carefully and take into consideration what i have written and how to go about editing controversial topics. There are few Albanian editors and their numbers have shrunk here already and continues to do so. Don't allow yourself to be another in that line. Be aware its difficult for us like editors of other backgrounds like the Palestinians, Turks, African Americans and so on who also have low numbers contributing and have issues in having their voice heard. Its harder for us because this is after all a Western platform. Don't forget that. Take care Rolandi. Resnjari (talk) 09:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

As for Resnjari's advice for me,I totally agree and I will be more carefull in the future.Rolandi+ (talk) 09:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I disagree with Resnjari that Rolandi+'s behavior is really affecting the rest of the Albanian editors negatively or positively. At least not for me. I don't know if Rolandi is Albanian or not, and that little matters. My unpleasant encounter with Rolandi+ does not affect in any way my attitude towards other Albanians. I have met other editors, of other ethnicities and their behavior can not (and should not) be compared to that of Rolandi+, and so, it is logical that here in the Administrator noticeboard, the matter is not the ethnicity of a person, but his behavior and attitude. Rolandi+ is subject for his indimitative attitude. Of course this in no way this means that the other Albanian editors of Wikipedia could be affected or related to Rolandi's case in any way, just because of his ethnicity. And this should not be allowed to happen. Wikipedia should and must encourage the and contribution of all the people regardless of ethnicity. --SilentResident (talk) 12:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Like i have said in the past, an in depth discussion free of diatribe with Rolandi will go a long way to solving these issues. How is it that after i have engaged with Rolandi that he has desisted regarding certain articles, while the rest of you continue with the path you have taken regarding him ? It has created a situation where all positions have hardened and no progress has occurred. I never said anything about Rolandi’s behavior affecting Albanian editors. But I definitely want him around. There are so few Albanian editors around and he has a passion for doing the editing task and patrolling pages. It’s just how he has gone about it that is the issue and needs refinement. You say you have had a unpleasant encounter with Rolandi, I have more than a few more than a few with Athenean who has even questioned my cognitive abilities (what the heck does that have to do with editing the article!) and called my peer reviewed edits and proposed changes better suited to a “blog” and even called changes regarding articles relating to Albanians “irrelevant”. And yet I have extended in a spirit of good will to him even after all of that to only engage with the material (and to do no personal attacks) and all he has done is repeatedly continued with such mannerisms. Alexikoua on the other hand (part from saying POV, POV, POV to my proposed edits based on peer reviewed sources in the talk page as a first reaction) has even made up Wikipedia policy in order in an attempt to restrict peer reviewed sources from going into a article (like the Albanian name of the Souliots) saying that a “10% threshold” was needed without providing any proof (It went through in the end, but not without much problems by other editors also). What am I to make of that then especially, for example, when Alexikoua has numerous privileges and undoing edits? All my edits are based on sources of the highest quality. I can vouch for all and albeit one (due to “original research reasons”), all have gone through. But how much stuff did I have to write to argue for the inclusion of those edits in the talk page because I was accused of POV pushing – and these are for edits I have proposed in the talk page. I have not edited them even into the article yet!) It has become an absurdity frankly! Also if did place these issues on the Administrator notice board who would act upon it anyway? It would be me pitted against people who have privileges. The system is not balanced and is currently two tiered. Because of this, my trust in the system is very minimal at the moment. It is on this basis also that I distrust this campaign against Rolandi. Yes Rolandi needs to clean up his act, but it’s a no to any form of a ban.Resnjari (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Strongly oppose:(see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sulmuesi, user has been indef blocked as a sockpuppetAlexikoua (talk) 20:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)) I admit to have not read in depth the technical arguments in the articles and the full details the case with Rolandi+ and Alexikou. Nevertheless, I can clearly see that in relations to challenging articles related to Albania, the other editors belong to countries that openly disagree with the most Albanian-promoted version of histories, e.g. Greek, Serbian, Russian (all supportive of pro-slavic, pro-orthodox christian and anti-albanian theses). I find it equally disturbing that the users with common views opposing the Albanian vision of history, unite to ban an Albanian editor. I have the impression that this has nothing to do with Rolandi+ (despite his flamboyant temperament), since similar heated attitudes are exhibited by most other editors. Then, how do we solve the disputes? Easy, create an anti-Albanian majority and kick the Albanian out. While it might have worked in the past, it is not fair. Admins should be careful to not punish editors from the tiny nation of Albania, only because the opposing pro-slavic pro-orthodox sides (Greeks, Serbian, Macedonian, Russian) are more numerous. In my opinion, this anti-Albanian discriminating behavior is not fair and should stop. OppositeGradient (talk) 12:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

OppositeGradient, that is a comment without any merit, and it violates WP:NPA. There is no anti-Albanian conspiracy here. Personally, I don't think I've ever edited an article even remotely related to anything Albanian, I'm neither pro-Albanian or anti-Albanian. Your whole argument seem to be nationalistic (we shouldn't ban Rolandi+ because he is Albanian as well as there's an anti-Albanian conspiracy at play). At ANI, we should not care one way or another. Bad conduct is bad conduct regardless of a user's nationality. The fact of the matter is that Rolandi+ has violated Wikipedia policies time and time again, and continues to violate them despite several warnings. Everything else is irrelevant.Jeppiz (talk) 17:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Ethnicity-based arguments are the silliest form of discourse and do not belong anywhere and especially on Wikipedia. Same goes for ethnicity-based conspiracies which are an even worse form of argument. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:26, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Jeppiz due to my experience with certain editors, saying that the Albanian factor is not present in their persistence regarding making editing difficult POV is very questionable. In my experience as I have mentioned repeatedly in previous posts now, I can cite many examples to the contrary. And it is some of those same editors now also going after Rolandi. Makes on wonder. Dr. K, it no conspiracy. Ask Athenean, why my cognitive abilities (or of any interest to him) were questioned or why Albanians are “irrelevant” in an article that relates about Albanians (e.g. Northern Epirus? The ethnic issue here is at play for some editors in how they view those changes done by editors who they don’t like. How else does one interpret their interest about a person's cognitive abilities, making up Wikipedia policy and saying Albanians are irreverent? Resnjari (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Jeppiz, you can be characterized as an Exception that proves the rule :) Please note that I mentioned well-known attitudes toward Albanians, instead conspiracies focus on non-evident facts. In fact, the question is whether the other editors oppose the Albanian guy i) because they had a full disagreement on the respective topic, or ii) because they blindly respect Wikipedia rules. Stated otherwise, those editors would be credible if they would find his behavior disruptive despite agreeing with him. Let me further iterate, Rolandi+ is not significantly more combatant than for instance Alexikou, right (plus minus the same style)? Then, why do the 'neutral' editors above not raise a flag on Alexikou as well? The only explanation is because they publicly share his opinions on the articles under concern. Jeppiz, it is very easy to blame a person without seeing the big picture. Perhaps you and I would also lose our cool if several editors gang against us because of our opinions (not behaviors). For instance, he mentions that his reliable sources are mistreated and ignored to the point of driving him mad. Analyzing those behaviors is highly important for the quality Wikipedia. For this reason I think we should not selectively punish Rolandi+. Instead we should all work together on trying to break the existing 'gang-style' lobbying in Albania-related articles. Meanwhile I advise Rolandi+ and all editors involved in heated discussions to cool down a bit and let go. OppositeGradient (talk) 17:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Rolandi+ is not significantly more combatant than for instance Alexikou, right (plus minus the same style)? Then, why do the 'neutral' editors above not raise a flag on Alexikou as well? This betrays a total lack of understanding of the content that Rolandi+ is pushing in this area. Calling Alexikoua "combantant" shows no understanding of the disruptive MO of Rolandi who is pushing his POV through falsification of sources and OR. But we have been through these points in multiple fora as well as in this report, so I am not sure why you seem oblivious to them. Alexikoua has been editing this area for years and is an expert in this subject area. He is a very knowledgeable and moderate editor who has reached consensus with many Albanian editors before. He has also faithfully countered wave after wave of relentless and disuptive socks over the years defending Wikipedia from socks who wanted to convert many historical figures to Albanian including George Washington's mother Mary Ball Washington. Alexikoua should be congratulated for his tireless efforts through the years defending Wikipedia's policies not unfairly criticised haughtily from those who have no idea of the relevant article content. That he has a problem with Rolandi+ is indicative of Rolandi's POV-push problems. You are welcome to your opinion obviously but if you do not understand or investigate more deeply the parameters of this discussion you should not accuse Alexikoua for no good reason. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

My friend, please do not tell me you think Alexikou is a hero :) The way I see it is two combatant editors showing similar attitudes. The only difference is that most editors commenting here have a history of disagreeing with Rolandi+, which makes the credibility of his inquisition questionable. OppositeGradient (talk) 18:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Please do not patronise me when you address me. I don't know you at all, let alone consider you my friend. I will not repeat myself but I will just reiterate one point: You are completely unaware of the content issues involved so offering your opinion on a content issue you have no idea about is not constructive. And yes, Alexikoua has been defending the content policies of Wikipedia, a fact that completely escapes you because you have no idea of the content involved. But I said that before. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Please note everybody, "OppositeGradient" is a sock of User:Sulmues, one of the most disruptive editors to plague the Balkans topic areas [57]. He always thought in ethnic "terms" and that disruptive Albanian editors should not be banned no matter how disruptive just becaue "it's not fair". Athenean (talk) 23:39, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

@Athenean: I suspect that you're correct, and that a WP:SPI is in order. The similarities in MO (language, battleground, personal, harass, etc.) are distinctive. OppositeGradient is currently operating in the same manner on the current Kosovo RfC. S/he has admitted to being this IP, but has been active there as this, this, and this IP at the least. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

"Alexikoua should be congratulated for his tireless efforts". Yep so then why does such an editor then try to make up Wikipedia policy. A selective "moderate editor who has reached consensus with many Albanian editors before". That is open to interpretation. Not all would agree. Resnjari (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Support topic ban. Editor clearly disobeys rules and consensus and gathers support from regular crowd of POV pushers. Naphtha Termix (talk) 18:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify, do you mean Rolandi+ alone, or both editors involved in the combative discussions are responsible for the heat? By the way, who are the regular crowd of POV pushers supporting Rolandi+? I am particularly interested, since Rolandi+ is being 'attacked' by most editors expressing opinions here. OppositeGradient (talk) 18:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

You for one. Naphtha Termix (talk) 04:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Really, I am a "regular crowd POV pusher"??? :) Ok, Mr. POV-dreamer, if you would be thinking before you typeset, you would realize I was not part of any article discussions involving Rolandi+. How can I be POV if I was not participating at any discussion (for your records in contrast to most editors here opposing him). Thanks for the dose of morning smile :). That closes it from my side. OppositeGradient (talk) 06:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• Strong support Rolandi+ is a combative, edit-warring POV-pusher who has triggered all the POV-push alarm bells in this area of the Balkans. His edit-warring and POV edits align closely to the edits of countless socks which have plagued this area for years. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

As I said I will be more carefull in the future .Rolandi+ (talk) 18:44, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I Strongly Oppose any ban on Rolandi, in light of all things cited in my above comments.Resnjari (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

You have already given your vote above, so please strike out this second vote. --T*U (talk) 23:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I have added the word comment to the above sentence. However I strongly oppose any ban on Rolandi for the reasons i have outlined and due to the editor involved in calling for such a thing.Resnjari (talk) 07:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The last thing to say is that I will be more carefull in the future .Rolandi+ (talk) 21:26, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for Rolandi+, but oppose general block. I agree with Resnjari that Rolandi+ shows signs of willingness to learn how Wikipedia works, but the edit history in Balkan-related pages shows that the editor will need to learn how to edit in a NPOV way. After a period of, say, half a year or one year, Rolandi+ will have the chance to show ability to follow Wikipedia guidelines (and possibly also will be able to learn punctuation rules) and may then apply for lifting of the topic ban, which I will support if the general edit history shows improvement. On another note, I will strongly lift my voice against all arguments above that are based on nationality. Being Albanian, Greek, Bulgarian, Siamese or whatever has no relevance to this discussion. --T*U (talk) 23:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
• I also oppose an outright ban, he is willing to learn the rules and can edit constructively. Maybe three months will be enough to make him stop and think, I am sure after that he will be very welcome on those articles. Naphtha Termix (talk) 04:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Rolandi, subscribe to some of the journal databases that Wikipedia is offering access to. Francis and Taylor has much stuff that relates to humanities type material that involves Balkan topics. As for TU-nor's comment that "I will strongly lift my voice against all arguments above that are based on nationality. Being Albanian, Greek, Bulgarian, Siamese or whatever has no relevance to this discussion." I will most strongly lift my voice and disagree with that view due to the following. I have shown evidence to the contrary and can do so even more. All things come into play because some editors reason's for claiming POV or refusing peer reviewed sources and data in an article have been based not on Wikipedia policy but other 'reasons'. These same editors are the same ones most adamant in wanting to ban Rolandi. All things must be considered because they are selective when using Wikipedia policy and sometimes have tried to make up Wikipedia policy. If you want more evidence and exact words (+editors involved) and were its all located i am more than happy and willing to have that discussion here (i was not aware of this process before till a few days a go). Again i say, no ban of Rolandi for the reasons outlined.Resnjari (talk) 07:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I read the Wikipedia's rules recently (carefully ) and I guarantee I have learned how to edit in a NPOV way.Also,you can see my recent constructive contributions in Balkans-related articles and in Balkans non related articles.So the best thing to do is to give me another chance.I know I have made many edit warring in the past but this will not happen in the future and I am sure for that.

I have read the Wikipedia's rules carefully and I will be more carefull in the future.

The right thing to do isn't to block me for some time,but to give me a "golden chance" and to patrol carefully all Balkan related articles.Rolandi+ (talk) 08:14, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I want you to not just patrol, but edit too, but to do it right. There are so few Albanian editors already and intimidation on other pages has occurred by editors seeking a ban for you. You getting banned will stifle a dwindling Albanian voice so limited at the moment. No ban. Wikipedia is a democratic forum, a ban of this nature will further curtail freedom of expression. A censure or something along those lines with a final warning that if it occurs again, it will be a ban for Rolandi. But no ban at this moment.Resnjari (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for a specific period of time (up to a year). I have only glanced at this discussion, but the edits I have seen from Rolandi from my watchlist (particularly at Nicholas Leonicus Thomaeus) betray both a POV-ish attitude and a general WP:IDHT mentality. Regarding Alexikoua, as others have said, counting reverts is not the fairest way to apportion blame when dealing with such cases. I am however in favour of giving at least one more chance to people, and prepared for now to accept the argument that this is due to inexperience, and that there is remorse and will for improvement. Thus I would strongly recommend that during this ban period, Rolandi engage in article-writing in other areas and topics, so that he can a) gather experience about how things are done here and b) demonstrate his competence in constructive article-writing away from contentious topics. This should be sufficient to determine if he is a WP:SPA or WP:HERE... I also advise Rolandi to seek out a WP:MENTOR if he is serious about contributing constructively. Constantine ✍ 13:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Resnjari.The best thing isn't my block topic,but to give me my last chance.I have made many contructive contributions the recent days in both balkans related and non related articles .If I will do any other edit warring or any other bad thing like that,just ban me forever.

I read the Wikipedia's rules recently (carefully) and I will not make bad things anymore.I think I don't need to learn anymore,if I continue making edit warring or anything else,just ban me forever.

Also note that I have made many contributions that aren't related with Balkans articles,so I don't need time to learn or to demonstrate my competence (I have read Wikipedi's rules recently and I have done many contructive editings the recent days in both balkans related and non related articles ).I am using the talk page now ,as you can see in my recent history,I am not and will not make edit warring or anything else in the future.The only thing I need is a last chance,not a topic block.Rolandi+ (talk) 15:36, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

But you already said that, haven't you? And as soon as you thought no one was looking, you went and racked up 3 reverts over at Albanians in the blink of an eye. Why should anyone believe you at this point? Athenean (talk) 23:35, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

To Athenean,firstly,I knew that someone was looking me at Albanians.I know how Wikipedia works.

Secondly,when talking about my recent constructive contributions,I am talking about my construcive contributions after the Albanian case.Also we found concensus at Albanians.Also note that after the Albanian case I read the Wikipedia's rules carefully and now I know what is edit warring and why we need to use the talk page to make constructive contributions.

Thirdly ,I can say to the administrators.:The best thing isn't my block topic,but to give me my last chance.I have made many contructive contributions the recent days in both balkans related and non related articles .If I will do any other edit warring or any other bad thing like that,just ban me forever.

I read the Wikipedia's rules recently (carefully) and I will not make bad things anymore.I think I don't need to learn anymore,if I continue making edit warring or anything else,just ban me forever.

Also note that I have made many contributions that aren't related with Balkans articles,so I don't need time to learn or to demonstrate my competence (I have read Wikipedi's rules recently and I have done many contructive editings the recent days in both balkans related and non related articles ).I am using the talk page now ,as you can see in my recent history,I am not and will not make edit warring or anything else in the future.The only thing I need is a last chance,not a topic block.Rolandi+ (talk) 07:15, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Athenean, don't go accusing Rolandi. I just checked and he has not done any edits very recently on the Albanians page. I am the last editor to have made a contribution and a significant one [[58]]. Frankly Athenean you need to stop your behavior of accusations toward other editors. With me, you have questioned by cognitive faculties (very offensive), referred to Albanians as "irrelevant" in the Northern Epirus article (on the talk page) which is about a territory within the sovereign borders of Albania with a substantial Albanian population and you have referred to my proposed edits (all from peer reviewed western sources and importantly academics of Greek background) there in the talk page as "fit" for a "blog", not Wikipedia. You also said that you would not allow me to undertake any changes to articles, or by condescendingly referring to me as "its you" and "i thought it was you". These are but are few of your memorable comments after i have repeatedly stretched out a hand of good will to discuss and edit (like at the Talk:Greek Muslims or the Talk:Northern Epirus. Don't intimidate and or bully. Wikipedia is a democratic forum. Moreover I was not properly aware of this administrators board for incidents, but if you continue, and i say this to Alexikoua also who made up policy (a so called 10% threshold to try a prevent peer reviewed material going into the Souliots article, See: Talk:Souliotes) which is a no no in Wikipedia, i will lodge complaints against you both. Like i have said to you many times (by having to quote at length Wikipedia policy) Athenean stick to the content, not the person. Also, a FINAL warning to Rolandi will suffice with some short probationary period, but definitely no ban especially since those calling for it are less than innocent and their motives more than suspect (as i have outlined in the above posts). Resnjari (talk) 09:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I can perfectly understand most non-Balkan editors, who do not see how a majority of Greek/Slavic editors try to impose their version of history in most Albanian-related articles. I also dreamed of a world (and encyclopedia) where nationality is not important. Yet, all of us involved with any Albanian-related topic know this is not real. We cannot pretend that this situation is simply a random group of Greek/Slavic editors with randomly same opinion on Greek/Serbian-Albanian relations, all randomly start attacking a randomly Albanian editor who randomly happen to disagree to randomly all of them in randomly all disputed articles under consideration. Sure, the whole story is a random coincidence and has nothing to do with nationalistic views on history. If you think there is no difference between the ideal world and the Balkan reality, then I think this incident is destined to be misjudged. OppositeGradient (talk) 13:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Its why we need more outside oversight at times keep an eye on the editing process. There are those within Wikipedia who would object to material entering a article not its merit, but because it might go against a world view. For example the article Turco-Albanians was created by non-Albanian editors with southern Balkan heritage. It was created without any mention that the term has mostly pejorative connotations. Many editors who "contributed" and patrolled the article were against additions to that article or concerns of Albanian editors. Now because Albanian editors had either no access or were unaware of sources to make sure the article had no racism, those who patrolled (have a look at the page history bit of the article: Turco-Albanians: Revision history https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turco-Albanians&action=history ) made things very difficult to get change there. Now i have made the changes there but it was not without its issues. Its because of this article that at first i was really annoyed, (its like having the article on the "n" word saying that its a friendly ethnographic term used by white people for African Americans) and overacted as Wikipedia says it does not promote racism. There also was a lot of POV on the Cham Albanians page (such as the unsubstantiated claim of Chams being involved in the deportation of Ioannina's Jews. It had a citation tag on there for more than two years). I found the source from where that had been copied and pasted. A Karl Savich article on the website Serbianna, a problematic website for one and two all the sources he had cited not one mentioned anything about it, and i checked them all !). Change was only done after a exhaustive process and accusations of POV. All my edits based on peer previewed material went through, but one for "original research" reasons. Currently i am in the process of editing the Northern Epirus article. As it stands now i have identified numerous issues of POV pushing and unsubstantiated claims made in there (as outlined in the talk page :[Talk:Northern Epirus]) and it reads more like a propaganda piece for the Greek Northern Epirote lobby than a encyclopedia article showing neutrality and balance. I have not even added my edits (based on peer reviewed material with inline citations and also mainly from Greek academics !) and into the article first, but on the talk page and invited editors to make comments on the content. So far, Athenean has come out with, no, no, no (to paraphrase his comments) and i have not even done the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle because i want everyone's constructive input, while Alexikoua had to be convinced that a article about a geographical place in Albania that has substantial numbers of Albanians which the literature on Northern Epirus states had to be included (see: Talk:Northern Epirus). It was not without its issues as at first, as i was again accused of POV pushing, then some edits i have made using peer reviewed material on other pages (about for example the remaining Albanian speaking presence in the Epirus article) and agreed to by those editors where in a way explained to me that they could be deleted if i persisted with these changes and only after exhaustively citing Wikipedia policy was a somewhat "normal" discussion started with Athenean's comments once in a while of no, no, no. But never a why, why, why, when asked. I urge non-Balkan oversight and outside intervention during the editing process of that article and to make sure that the discussion is had primarily on the content and that no intimidation occurs. I urge this of the administrators and others too of a non-Balkan background as there are also few Albanian editors and a fake consensus could also occur to block certain peer reviewed material relevant to the article going in.Resnjari (talk) 14:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

OppositeGradient, your passionate arguments in favour of a Slavo-Greek conspiracy would be much more believable (aside from the fact that one would have to completely ignore that Greek and Slavic nationalism don't make good bedfellows) if the case were actually precipitated by some anti-Albanian cabal ganging up on a poor blameless Albanian user, and not by the latter behaving in a typical tendentious manner that we all are sadly too familiar with. This thread was not started by Greeks nor Slavs, and complaining about cabals and secret agendas is always the last refuge of someone with no case and no arguments. The problem is Rolandi's behaviour and disruptive pattern of editing, which has caused this whole bruhaha. Of course other Balkan users will get involved, because Rolandi edits in Balkan-related articles, and pushing a particular POV he is bound to get in conflict not with German, Chinese, or American users, but with Greeks, Serbs, etc. i.e. with people who care about these articles. If his edits were more thought-out, if he provided decent sources, if he respected the WP:BRD rule, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. Resnjari, I have seen you being engaged in page-long content disputes with Alexikoua and Athenean, but you are not reported at ANI. Why? Because you do not behave in a hot-headed manner, and argue on the basis of sources. I too would like to see more Albanian editors active at WP, but not if that means that we have to tolerate nationalistic hogwash POVs and edit-wars. Complaining about ethnic-based profiling and then arguing that a user should be cut more slack than usual because there are too few of his nationality around is a weird line of argument. I am willing to allow a period for Rolandi to shape up and matters to calm down, but with the provisional topic ban. Why? Because I've been here long enough to know that if he is WP:HERE to do serious work, then he will persist through this period and come out better from it. Without the ban, we'll in all likelihood be here again a month from now. Constantine ✍ 17:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

You said:"Without the ban, we'll in all likelihood be here again a month from now."Why are you so sure ?

I can say to the administrators:The best thing isn't my block topic,but to give me my last chance.I have made many contructive contributions the recent days in both balkans related and non related articles .If I will do any other edit warring or any other bad thing like that,just ban me forever. I read the Wikipedia's rules recently (carefully) and I will not make bad things anymore.I think I don't need to learn anymore,if I continue making edit warring or anything else,just ban me forever. Also note that I have made many contributions that aren't related with Balkans articles,so I don't need time to learn or to demonstrate my competence (I have read Wikipedia's rules recently and I have done many contructive editings the recent days in both balkans related and non related articles ).I am using the talk page now ,as you can see in my recent history,I am not and will not make edit warring or anything else in the future.The only thing I need is a last chance,not a topic block.Rolandi+ (talk) 20:39, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Constantine, the issue with Rolandi is no one here attempted to calm him down by properly showing the error of his ways that went beyond policy. I engaged with him in a manner, which lets be frank about it, has now stabilized the situation and he has but all ceased his previous activity. That is what dispute resolution is all about, while others kept fanning the flames. For example he deleted a comment of mine. So, i then placed another comment and explained what he was doing was out of whack regarding the material. I didn't go all paternalistic with him. He is an equal. No one is above or below and i stand by that. In general Rolandi will have to do much reading before editing some Balkan topics (like i said to him he should subscribe to the Francis and Taylor database, many good humanities journal articles there if he has no access to university stuff). He is in need of a last warning, that i agree, but no ban. I still think that a ban is not the way to go, due in part to some editors own behavior as i have pointed out. Athenean, has all but refused to engage with peer reviewed material that i put up as proposals, (not even in the article itself, but the talk page and has been disruptive when a consensus has been reached with an editor on the matter !) I have repeatedly urged him to engage in the discussion in good faith.) and has been very dismissive also (apart from his colourful commentary that has nothing to do with the article). Alexikoua also at one point made up policy (which is a Wikipedia no no) to try and prevent a peer reviewed source going into the Souliotes article which he as a editor with privileges should know better and so on (Will Alexikoua get a warning for doing that? I wonder). POVs occur when the material is in question. Why do i get repeated accusations and dismissiveness? Its not always Albanian editors engaged in POV pushing or edit wars. It also comes from the other side. I have given examples already to that effect, especially with regard to Athenean. To date all my sources have been of the highest quality (all peer reviewed) and so have my edits (yes at times the wording needs refinement, that's why in good faith i have asked for engagement and input in the talk page, not POV accusations which i still get), yet i still have to deal with these shenanigans. If Rolandi gets a (topic) ban than these others should too as they have intimidated people and violated Wikipedia policy. If Rolandi stuffs up again and we are all in here in a month as you say, then a ban is what he will get. But for now no. A definite, clear and final warning will do.Resnjari (talk) 21:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Diff of Rolandi+ removing warnings and discussions regarding his behaviour. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. I do not see If Rolandi gets a (topic) ban than these others should too as realistic.--Zoupan 00:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes he has been warned. As i am not aware previously as to who could give out such warnings (i thought it was only the administrators who could), Rolandi got caught out, while these other editors have been getting away with such behavior. All should get a warning and be reminded that they solely stick to examining the material and editing and not focus on the person. The others are in need of a warning by the administrators also. One cannot defend Alexikoua's making up policy regarding that "a 10% threshold" was need so a peer reviewed source could go into an article. Or in another article that if certain peer reviewed edits are sought for there, that other previously peer reviewed material (agreed to also by Alexikoua) would be subject to deletion. Zoupan how is that defensible, especially since Alexikoua has many privileges that other editors don't ? I have also outlined Athenean's behavior which is consistent and has bordered on and been sometimes outright offensive. No ban, only a final warning for Rolandi. If Rolandi gets a topic ban or whatever the others too + warnings. Administrators need to take these serious issues that i have outlined into account. Wikipedia is a place meant to be one free of intimidation or bullying and that goes for all. Stick to the policy and peer reviewed material ! Resnjari (talk) 07:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I am saying this again ( all editors can go to verify my recent constructive contribution).

I can say to the administrators:The best thing isn't my block topic,but to give me my last chance.I have made many contructive contributions the recent days in both balkans related and non related articles .If I will do any other edit warring or any other bad thing like that,just ban me forever. I read the Wikipedia's rules recently (carefully) and I will not make bad things anymore.I think I don't need to learn anymore,if I continue making edit warring or anything else,just ban me forever. Also note that I have made many contributions that aren't related with Balkans articles,so I don't need time to learn or to demonstrate my competence (I have read Wikipedia's rules recently and I have done many contructive editings the recent days in both balkans related and non related articles ).I am using the talk page now ,as you can see in my recent history,I am not and will not make edit warring or anything else in the future.The only thing I need is a last chance,not a topic block.Rolandi+ (talk) 08:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment The discussion has been going on for almost ten days, and it takes up half of the entire ANI-board. One way or another it should be closed.Jeppiz (talk) 22:18, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

He is still not ready.--Zoupan 16:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Really Zoupan?Why don't you go to the talk page and see?In addition,I have been busy today,but in the coming days I will give new arguments to you.In fact ,if someone calls Losha an Albanian tribe,it means they are Albanians.I don't delete your references Zoupan,but strangely you delete all my references.You don't give any explanation.However,don't worry,maybe the next ANI will be for your latest edits and your lack of neutrality,especially when talking about Albanian-related articles.

Why don't you go and see how you delete my edits and reference without saying sth?Why?

In fact,you don't have any moral right to talk against me for the only reason that I have accused you in the past for several things and many other editors know that fact.Also we have had many conflicts in the past and now you came here as you don't like my edits.Why don't you go and explain me when deleting my work in the future,as I am sure you will delete my work and references in the future!

Also,after I added the version that says he was Albanian,I deleted the part that said "Albanian historians consider him Albanian" because then it was irrelevant (after saying that he was Albanian).I explained this ,but you don't mention this fact.Why?In fact,it's not the first time that you delete references that say that a notable person born/living in Albania is Albanian,only saying that it is a demonym.Why?Because you don't know what the neutrality is.

Also this user deleted my referenced edits here [59] without any clear explanation.Why?Because it says that Malakas might have been an Albanian tribe.

Also he deleted my edits here [60] without any explanation.Why?Because it gave the birth name of St.Angelina,which is an Albanian name. Rolandi+ (talk) 19:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

In all seriousness, even if we were to dismiss doubts as to Rolandi+'s good faith, the user lacks WP:COMPETENCE. This thread is going to be archived while s/he is making messes of articles. Any English language text that is grammatically correct is being recognised almost immediately as being WP:COPYVIO... and that's only including articles that are being watched. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

In fact I am working with it.Also,how can you Irina Harpy talk about WP:COMPETENCE,when you modified the source at Vlachs and then sent me a warning?I said you that I would report you and then you came here and voted pro my block!In fact, I found it difficult to adjust with Wikipedia's rules,but now I am in the right way.Also,I would like to thank T*U who adviced me about some easily adjustable problems!

I am saying this again ( all editors can go to verify my recent constructive contribution).

I can say to the administrators:The best thing isn't my block topic,but to give me my last chance.I have made many contructive contributions the recent days in both balkans related and non related articles .If I will do any other edit warring or any other bad thing like that,just ban me forever. I read the Wikipedia's rules recently (carefully) and I will not make bad things anymore.I think I don't need to learn anymore,if I continue making edit warring or anything else,just ban me forever. Also note that I have made many contributions that aren't related with Balkans articles,so I don't need time to learn or to demonstrate my competence (I have read Wikipedia's rules recently and I have done many contructive editings the recent days in both balkans related and non related articles ).I am using the talk page now ,as you can see in my recent history,I am not and will not make edit warring or anything else in the future.The only thing I need is a last chance,not a topic block.Rolandi+ (talk) 07:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Just to make this clear, Rolandi+: you're stating that you're ok with being banned if you ever edit war again on any article? Jeppiz (talk) 21:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Jeppiz,I have been involved in edit warring in the past,but I have realised that edit warring isn't the best solution.In fact,it's not a solution.As I said,ban me if I edit war again.Rolandi+ (talk) 10:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

You stated "give me my last chance" earlier, but obviously do not understand the opportunity you are given here, having in the meantime continued unconstructive editing and still trying to blame others for your own mistakes.--Zoupan 08:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Really Zoupan?Everyone can see that I am in the right way finally.Also, you need to have an explanation before deleting other's referenced work in the future.Rolandi+ (talk) 08:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Rolandi, your Malakasi reference is ok. you need to read up on doing Wikipedia citations though. John Fines book (1994) does come after Hammond's and Ducellier's and they are not the only medaevil expert's regarding the Balkans. Fine does refer to the Malakasi as Albanians. Various Western scholars have different views on the Malakasi's ethnic heritage so all should be covered. As for the Angelina Arianti matter, though yes she is Albanian, her Albanian name is covered in the footnote. She is a eminent figure for the Serbs and not Albanians in general, so having the name in the lead is not needed. Zoupan, Roland's edits are improving and were done in good faith. The sources he used were good this time. All i can say to Rolandi though is to look at the citation manual on wikipedia. Though the relevant information is covered, they can be done a bit better (no pg instead p and pp for page/s etc). Resnjari (talk) 18:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Hammond clearly explains in several pages that the "Albanian" migrations into Greece in the 14th century included Albanians and Vlachs (They were called "Albanians" by Cantacuzenus, because they had come in a geographical sense from the area which he called "Albania"). He is cherrypicking one word and, deliberately or not, refuses to understand context, despite several replies which explain this. Removal of "Vlachs" at Spata family (comment: pg.59 says albanians overran...... without mentioning vlachs), he thus insists that only the sentence in p. 59 should be taken literally, which actually is Hammond's transcription of Cantacuzenus (In 1358 the Albanians overran Epirus, Acarnania and Aetolia, and ...); comment at Malakasi "Yes,now you are claiming that I am doing cherry-picking.In fact no.It will be added as it is what the reference says.". The user has now spread one matter over three article talk pages, saying that "it will be" as he wants. This comment speaks for itself.--Zoupan 16:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, Zoupan don't call me "ignorant" anymore.Secondly,why don't you mention the fact that you continue deleting my edits without any clear explanation? In fact,I don't have said "it will be" as I want.We have talked at the talk page!As I said,the fact that Cantacuzenus called Vlachs "Albanians" doesn't mean that all Albanians in Epirus are or may be Vlachs as you claim.Hammond says that "In 1358 the Albanians overran Epirus, Acarnania and Aetolia, and established two principalities under their leaders, John Spatas (shpate in Albanian meaning a sword) and Peter Leosas (/fos in Albanian meaning a pockmark)".Why doesn't he says "Albanians and Vlachs"?When Hammond cites Cantacuzenis about Vlachs,he clearly says "Vlachs" and not "Albanians".You are saying that saying "Vlach" (Hammond's transcription of Cantacuzenus) Hammond means Vlachs,while saying "Albanian" he means Albanians and Vlachs together.Interesting!Rolandi+ (talk) 17:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Competence and civility issues with Koala15

• Koala15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

My latest encounter with Koala15 was on the Ted 2 page, where I fixed a fairly simple grammatical error [61] and was blankly reverted on sight [62]. I reverted back with the summary "Unexplained" [63] and he kept edit warring with the summary "Go home, your [sic] drunk" [64]. This happened again, until General Ization issued an EW warning on my talk page, and a civility warning [65] on Koala15's page. Koala15 repeatedly refused to apologize or even acknowledge that he was edit warring, dismissing General Ization with sentences such as "Have a sense of humor" and "There is no need for you to get so worked up over this", assuring him that he matter had been resolved, when in fact, it was not - and still is not. I explained very clearly on my talk page why I performed said edit, which prompted Koala15 to respond with a guideline that directly contradicts his edit - which I also explained. However, he refuses to "get it", while writing replies on the grammar level of a twelve year old - which I extensively tried to explain within the same discussion, examples being seeing him "use patently incorrect expressions like "more clearer", open a sentence with "hence", miss punctuation, or consistently not capitalize "I" as in first person", not to mention his first reply to me via edit summary: "Go home, your drunk".

A quick look on Koala15's talk page will reveal that he has been taunting other editors for a while, in an abrasive and unapologetic manner. A few select examples: User talk:Koala15#Reversions... [66], User talk:Koala15#July 2015 [67], User talk:Koala15#No [68], User talk:Koala15#Redirecting [69]. Another example of insisting on edit warring and being rude is here. I would like to finish this nuisance on the Ted 2 page and move on, but I would like to ensure that he doesn't spite revert me again. Please take care of this matter. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be about this at all. Thank you very much. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 20:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Well i tried to work with you, but you don't seem to wanna work with me. Most of the things you are linking from my talk page are simple misunderstandings. And i don't think you can report anyone for a 'lack of competence". Koala15 (talk) 21:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

How ironic... you have just given another dismissive and offensive reply. You are either not realizing it or deliberately insulting me, and neither case is welcome on Wikipedia. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 21:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I have had my own run-ins with Koala15, which can be seen at Talk:Penguins of Madagascar and Penguins of Madagascar. Koala15 had initially participated in WP:OWNBEHAVIOR over a copyedit tag about the article with a reason saying "And i do think an IP's suggestion is less valid, cause the majority of them are vandals.". Not all IPs are vandals. Some contribute with no issues at all. I find that comment uncivil and rather a POV statement. They persistently removed the tag until they reached 3 reverts. They stayed quiet on the article, but they removed it again but this time with reasons but not valid ones. There was still WP:Consensus going on in the talk page, which Koala15 dismissed. Instead of participating in WP:Discussion and ask for opinions, they removed the template again. I reverted them, stating that they weren't the user who added the template and to remove it from a user who disagreed with it in the beginning is very questionable. They started edit warring, making 5 reverts within a span of 12 hours, I believe. If they reached the 6th revert, I was going to report them. My warnings can be seen on the user's talk page and PfM's talk page. In terms of Koala15, I do think they make good edits and they help the community, but my only concern is the way they act. Upon disagreements they edit war and so on, it seems. I do agree that saying a user is drunk is uncivil as much as saying to a user they need help. It seems they have had run-ins with other people, excluding me, EauZenCashHaveIt and General Ization. I would suggest a warning about continuing disruptive editing but I'm not sure. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 21:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Well i apologize, i shouldn't have removed those maintenance templates without asking. And i don't think its fair to say i participated in WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Koala15 (talk) 21:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Per one of the bullets, "An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental." You removed the template with this reasoning: "Uhm, yeah no." which certainly counts as you saying it's unnecessary without valid reasons and follows on of the statements "I can see nothing wrong with the article and there is no need to change anything at all." which you've given the impression (not even at this point) since the beginning and on the talk page. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 22:10, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• Note for reviewing admins: here's the last "clean" version of Koala15's talk page, before he panicked and blanked it in order to invalidate the links I brought up earlier: [70]. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 21:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, it was time they cleaned their talk page (no offense, Koala15). It was so long, over 200 posts. They kept some stuff, so I don't think it would really matter since it's their talk page. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 22:10, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

The timing though... anyway, I've said too much already. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 22:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• First, 200 posts going all the way back to 2012 probably needs archiving (and no, archiving isn't just blanking all the warnings) but that's not the issue here. Second, Wikipedia:Competence is required which includes social competency. Koala15's edits are problematic. Insulting and being uncivil is a concern. Individuals who cannot corroborate effectively have been shown the door before. I'd say there's civility here but I'll let some others chime on what they think should be done. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
• Having had run-ins with Koala15 before, some of which have been referenced in this post, I thought I'd also chime in. While their edits themselves are not disruptive or problematic, aside from a lack of edit summary usage, Koala15's conduct towards other users is condescending, patronizing and downright rude in some cases. On multiple occasions I have been told by the user that I don't understand Wikipedia, ("You don't understand the guidelines") and that I'm a newbie who interprets policies wrong ("I understand that you are new here, but you seem to lack a simple understanding of the rules of Wikipedia."), which if anyone else has been on the receiving end of, would know that it's incredibly frustrating. Initially I thought I was the only one to be scolded as deluded by Koala15, but apparently I'm not the only one. A quick CNTRL+F searching for the word "understand" on an old revision of their talk page shows three distinct immediate instances where Koala15 downplayed other editors, brushing them off as not understanding some aspect of the project: I'm not even gonna bother responding to this nonsense, cause you clearly don't even have a basic understanding of Wikipedia., "Once again you show that you don't understand the guidelines." and "It sounds like you don't understand Wikipedia." and "You are possibly the most clueless editor i have ever met.". While Koala15's talk page only showed a few instances of their incivility, I imagine I wasn't the first to be insulted on their talk page or via edit summaries. A block doesn't seem appropriate to me, and would quite possibly chase Koala15 away, given how bitter and angry they already come off with a near-clean block log, but an assurance from the user that the'll try and be more civil and get off their high horse would be nice. Azealia911 _talk 10:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Koala15 care to respond? Azealia911 _talk 10:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Well its easy to take my quotes out of context and try to me make me look bad, but in the context of the conversation they were more or less facts. Either way you seem like a good editor, it just took you a while to fully understand the guidelines. Which is fine, it took me a while when i first joined Wikipedia. Koala15 (talk) 15:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh Koala15, you really are being serious aren't you? You're not even trolling, sigh. I guess that means no chance of an apology for being rude and condescending? (the latter of which is ironically displayed in your most recent reply). Azealia911 _talk 17:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Well its definitely not my intention to be "rude and condescending" that's just how I talk. I think its really a matter of how you choose to interpret my words. In the future, i will try to be more thoughtful with my reply's since it bothers everyone so much. Now hopefully we can put this whole thing behind us and move on. Koala15 (talk) 18:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

No, we can't... at least not while you maintain these dismissive and unapologetic replies. Each and every one of those reinforces the incompetence claim. You've been told the same thing by everyone here: apologize, show genuine regret, and we will move on. Your telling everyone to move on while sarcastically dismissing every concern raised on this page is nothing short of offensive. Notice that it's you who keeps brushing off every opportunity to make things right. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 23:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I second EauZenCashHaveIt's comments, completely accurate. Koala15, your replies just demonstrate what everyone here is trying to tell you, you just seem to not be hearing us, replying with the behavior and tone that landed you here. Back handed comments like "Either way you seem like a good editor, it just took you a while to fully understand the guidelines" don't do anything but frustrate me, and "I think its really a matter of how you choose to interpret my words" is absurd, so it's our fault for getting offended at what you say? "i will try to be more thoughtful with my reply's since it bothers everyone so much" you say, acting as if we're burdening you with actually being...nice?! Maybe take responsibility for your actions, genuinely apologize (which you have yet to do) and maybe then we can move on. Azealia911 _talk 18:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I thought i did apologize. But yes i apologize if i offended anyone, that was definitely not my intention. Hopefully we can move on now. Koala15 (talk) 18:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for apologising Koala15, yep, that's all I needed, take care. Azealia911 _talk 19:06, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

jeez a bit hypocritical to talk about incivility when you're saying he has the grammar of a 12 year old. and why would you care about grammar on the internet anyway? poli 19:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I was wondering when the usual devil's advocate would make their appearance. This is an encyclopedia, grammar is a basic requirement here. And most importantly: while Azealia may or may not have gotten their apology, the general issue is still unresolved. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 19:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

obsessing over grammar is so pretentious. i promise you're not smarter than anyone else here so chill. poli 22:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Would you like your name to be added to the report? EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 00:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• EauZenCashHaveIt, what exactly are you looking to happen? Koala15 has apologized and said that they will be more thoughtful with their conduct. I say leave it, we've given them the rope, its their choice to hang themselves with more rudeness, land back here, and ultimately be blocked, or lasso their next edits with both hands (yes, that is literally the only analogy I could think of for positive things to do with rope). What else would you propose? Azealia911 _talk 19:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

@Azealia911: I am looking for a more permanent solution than an obviously insincere apology with no indication of any behavioral change. But hey, if there are no takers then I guess we both have better things to do than bark up that tree. If you are satisfied then I won't say anything, at least until something new happens. Sadly, I have a feeling I am not mistaken. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 19:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

EauZenCashHaveIt I can also see us returning here, but that's up to Koala15. If required, bring it back here and I'll be the first to recommend implications. Azealia911 _talk 16:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• To me, Koala15's contribution to this new discussion on their Talk page suggests that Koala15 has learned nothing from this process. Still arbitrarily removing maintenance templates from articles without participating in the discussions they reference, a behavior just recently discussed with them here. General Ization ^Talk 18:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Christ, didn't take them long, I really did think they'd be more considerate. General Ization what do you suggest doing? Azealia911 _talk 18:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I really don't know. I know I spent more time than I could really afford to trying to explain to them why this is a problem on their Talk page and here, and what mostly comes back is from the editor is I didn't hear that. I really think it's a competence issue. General Ization ^Talk 18:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Definitely seems like the case, considering their edits aren't specific to one or one set of pages, perhaps a short term block would be appropriate. Azealia911 _talk 19:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, i make mistakes like everyone else, Jeez, i didn't realize my every edit would be under a microscope. Its also strange that you have my talk page watchlisted. Koala15 (talk) 21:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Everyone whose edits cause them to be brought to this page will find their subsequent edits to be "under a microscope" for some period of time, especially while the case is unresolved. Most at least make an effort to not engage in the same behaviors during that time. And it's not strange at all – your Talk page was placed on my watch list when you and I discussed the matter above. General Ization ^Talk 21:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

It was my bad, i didn't know what the statute of limitations was on page a split discussion that had no responses. I realized it was a mistake after i did it. I will refrain from making edits like that in the future. I go on Wikipedia for fun, and i'm not here to start trouble or anything like that. I'm gonna try to stay out of things like this and mind my own business. Koala15 (talk) 21:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Since the template was just placed this month (and says so within the template as any reader sees it), you might reasonably have assumed it had not expired; if you were unsure, you could click the Discuss link and ask. Your "No need for a discussion" comment linked above shows either a lack of understanding or contempt for editing processes here, not confusion over an expiration date. General Ization ^Talk 21:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Since Koala15 has decided to play possum, I am asking the patrolling admins to make the appropriate decision here. This discussion cannot simply vanish as stale. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 20:38, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm definitely seeing Koala15's edits as problematic after going through the diffs. No specific action has been proposed yet, but there may be some lingering hope Koala can improve. My first thought was to just close this with the closer stating that if this kind of issue happens again, that would expedite a block by linking back to that decision. A short term block could be used instead of essentially a warning, but both would take a WP:ROPE approach. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

A "relative" owning an article

• Spiro Koleka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Burridheut (talk · contribs) persistently removes referenced material regarding Spiro Koleka belonging to the Greek community of Albania. Here are some of his comments (diffs): "Do not use inaccurate information on purpose, not on this page.", "Removed text about Greek origin. There is no historic/official evidence that this Spiro Koleka has any greek ancestry. On the contrary, he could not have been a politburo member if that was the case.", "You are editing my article", etc. He claims that "I know better his origin as he was my family member! I will report you for spreading separatist propaganda with your Wikipedia edits.". I have presented WP:OWN, WP:NPOV and WP:OR to him. Compare this diff.--Zoupan 20:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi all, this is Burridheut. Zoupan is forcing greek separatist propaganda on a family member of mine, the proof is on the edit history. He on purpose has added in it information about another subject person with the same name, so we have an identity mismatch. I have informed him about this repeatedly and have challenged his sources as they are not based on official records and have lots of errors. Zoupan blindly insists that Spiro Koleka (the subject of the article) first was Spiro Gogo Koleka, than he claimed it is the son of Spiro Jorgo Koleka. In fact, I that am the creator of the article, can tell you who I created the article about, and that these people mentioned here are not part of the same family as the subject of the article. Spiro Koleka's father was Thoma Koleka. As a final evidence for this, I have uploaded a picture from the graveyard of the Vuno village where you can see the grave stone of Spiro Koleka (see here at http://i.imgur.com/pAJ5FLt.jpg), in which he is named as Spiro Thoma Koleka (Thoma thus is the father, not anyone else). So I have proved my claim with the man's own grave stone! Zoupan has found an erroneous/inaccurate source online that is not based on official records. From the same source he has taken the supposed claim that Spiro Koleka was born in a greek family. This is not true/fact, there are no records to support this, and the author of the text has mixed the fathers lineage of Spiro Koleka, meaning also his ethnic background is inaccurate as well. So how can this source be trusted??? You will excuse my ineptitude to resolve this matter here on wikipedia "following the book" but I am a beginner here and do not know all the rules, I am learning some of them the hard way though. The only article I have ever created and edited is this one!

I do know my family, village and region much better then an internet anonymous that is happy to change people's fathers so he can baptize them as greeks, serbs or whatever minority is convenient for him. Please help in resolving this issue impartially based on real world evidence (see picture at http://i.imgur.com/pAJ5FLt.jpg). There is also a facebook group called Vunoi (birth village of both Spiro Thoma Koleka and Spiro Jorgo Koleka) where you can address any questions to corroborate my claims or Zoupan's. I kindly request you to ban/restrict Zoupan from editing articles about Spiro Koleka in the future as he is doing the same as he has done in other articles in the past, where other people have complained of his propaganda and biased edits. Thanks for your time! --Burridheut — Preceding undated comment added 13:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

The main problem is not the claim of "mismatched identity" (which is made only to confuse uninvolved editors) but that Spiro Koleka belonged to the Greek community: ... the supposed claim that Spiro Koleka was born in a greek family. This is not true/fact, there are no records to support this, and the author of the text has mixed the fathers lineage of Spiro Koleka, meaning also his ethnic background is inaccurate as well. If Spiro Jorgo Koleka was not the father, it still doesn't refute that Spiro Koleka belonged to the Greek community (which is directly referenced: James Pettifer; Hugh Poulton (1994). The Southern Balkans. Minority Rights Group. ISBN 978-1-897693-75-9. "some Greeks rose to high positions under the one party state, with an ethnic Greek, Spiro Koleka, from the minority southern village of Himarë; The Southeastern European Yearbook. ELIAMEP. 1994. But there has always been a Greek presence in Albania, despite this general trend. ... integrated into the communist system in Albania, with one member of the minority, Spiro Koleka, a native of Himara, being a close associate of Enver Hoxha ...). Both being from the same village in Himara, a predominantly Greek town (The South Slav Journal. Dositey Obradovich Circle. 2001. Politburo member Spiro Koleka, who came from the predominantly ethnic Greek town of Himara.), with the same names, they were without a doubt part of the same family (Robert Elsie (24 December 2012). A Biographical Dictionary of Albanian History. I.B.Tauris. p. 243. ISBN 978-1-78076-431-3. Spiro J. Koleka ... He is not to be confused with his son of the same name, Spiro Koleka [2] of the communist period). Please see the article talk page.--Zoupan 00:35, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, future disruptive editing is awaited by possible sock Endribinaj (talk · contribs) I'm gonna edit that page once more, if I see you persist in your futile efforts, I'll report you for the sole reason that you're spreading false information maliciously. So long.--Zoupan 00:42, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Diff of ip vandal.--Zoupan 01:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Zoupan (talk · contribs) why did you delete the part of the article that was talking about his engineering achievements (road design etc.)? They had references and you deleted them. Perhaps you did not like those, but stop vandalizing this article. If you lack entertainment go watch a movie instead. --Burridheut

The relative Burridheut (talk · contribs) is now posting Spiro Thoma Koleka's marriage certificate (http://i.imgur.com/xXHKx6o.jpg?1) to prove my claims of who his father is. I have access to this information since I am part of the family. This OFFICIAL DOCUMENT clarifies name, father name, mother name, nationality, citizenship etc. of Spiro Thoma Koleka and automatically makes the references used by Zoupan as unreliable due to inaccuracies. I want the text added by Zoupan removed from this article as it is just there to confuse and misinform the public. If any there are any additional questions I will be glad to answer. --Burridheut

Thank you, in 3rd person, for getting hand on the certificate and clarifying the matter regarding his father. Continue the discussion at the talk page, and please sign your comments. Again, this does not make all references unreliable, as you have pushed for all the way, in order to remove him belonging to the Greek community – the references regarding this do not state his father was Jorgo. Comment: As for this thread, I think it should be closed as there has been no edit-warring for a time.--Zoupan 22:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

This thread should be open because you are doing an edit war changing this article on a daily basis and removing text and references and replacing with your own inaccuracies. You just removed his wife's name record from the article. What is wrong with you? Burridheut (talk) 07:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I am not doing an edit war. There is a link to the article, its history, and the talk page. I removed "Amalia Koleka" because it was unref'd and your certificate said "Lica" (you commented "added back" but that is not "adding back"). You are incoherent. I could write a book from all your nonsense; I'd say 5% of your comments are constructive, the rest is blabber. You have zero respect for Wikipedia etiquette. --Zoupan 16:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

And here comes one more explicitly stating that he belonged to the Greek minority, from Albanologist Miranda Vickers: Miranda Vickers; James Pettifer (1997). Albania: From Anarchy to a Balkan Identity. C. Hurst & Co. Publishers. pp. 189–. ISBN 978-1-85065-279-3. Greek minority ... Hoxha ... few favoured members of the minority ... Spiro Koleka. Case closed?--Zoupan 16:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Please refrain from adding anymore "original sources" that are authored or co-authored by Mr. Pettifier. He is the same source publishing different books. How difficult is that to understand why his mistake is repeated in all of his books? Please, use some gray cells now (no, not in MS Excel). Burridheut (talk) 18:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment We really need some outside help here. See his removal of refs, and insisting based on "Himara still is a town and not a village, so the reference is inaccurate.".--Zoupan 05:48, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment #2 Members of the wikipedia community, please find some time to help here! This Zoupan user is on a personal mission to spread misinformation. It took me about a week to revert his false claims about the articles subject person's father. I had to get a picture of a grave stone, dig marriage certificates and what not to prove that his references were inaccurate. Yet, he is vandalizing the article I have created and on purpose removing all information that he does not like. He also puts 4 sources/books made by the same author as a reference. I removed once 3 out of those 4 because it is the same author that authored or co authored those books. Zoupan puts them back and claims they are 4 sources. Wow!!! I have never seen a more irrational behavior from an adult. Perhaps the fact that we are anonymous here on wikipedia gets out the worst in some of us. But there must be some minimum amount of respect we need to have for each-other as well as some amount of trust and good-will. All I want is for the article about my family member to be accurate and away from any Balkan-related propaganda that is plaguing the internet. What good it is to write that Himara is a predominantly Greek town in an article that is not about Himara at all. This is a pure provocation, because this is a well known controversial topic. Himara is Himara, the number of Greeks is known and recorded. If you want to talk about it or dispute it, go and do it in the Himara talk page. You can just put a hyperlink to the Himara page and whoever is interested in it can click there. There is absolutely no need to transform the article about a public figure into a ethnic war and hate zone. Keep the propaganda away from this article, please! Spiro Koleka was born in a Greek family this user claims! I insist that Spiro is not, his wife is. I proved this by photographing their marriage certificate and convince this Zoupan user, but to my disgust this turned into an even more amusing joke for him/her. Is this what wikipedia is about? Family members being bullied by internet trolls on false information about their deceased dear ones? Do I have to become a wikipedia expert so that my edits get to stay? Zoupan has reverted my edits so many times, he seems to be untouchable in that regard. Please help resolve this matter. Burridheut (talk) 11:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Elsie's bibliographical dictionary does state he was born in Vuno. Vuno is identified as a Orthodox Albanian speaking village within the wider Himara area (Nitsiakos, Vassilis (2010). On the border: Transborder mobility, ethnic groups and boundaries along the Albanian-Greek frontier. LIT Verlag. p. 99. "According to the latest census in the area, the Greek-speaking population is larger but not necessarily continuous and concentrated. The exclusively Greek-speaking villages, apart from Himarë, are Queparo Siperme, Dhërmi and Palasë. The rest are inhabited by Albanian-speaking Orthodox Christians (Kallivretakis 1995:25-58); Kallivretakis, Leonidas (1995). "Η ελληνική κοινότητα της Αλβανίας υπό το πρίσμα της ιστορικής γεωγραφίας και δημογραφίας [The Greek Community of Albania in terms of historical geography and demography." In Nikolakopoulos, Ilias, Kouloubis Theodoros A. & Thanos M. Veremis (eds). Ο Ελληνισμός της Αλβανίας [The Greeks of Albania]. University of Athens. p. 53.) Regarding Orthodox Albanian speaking people in general though as they have been “between identities” of either choosing the Albanian linguistic one over one that gives them religious commonalty with the Greeks (and thus a common ethnic identity according to some) over the past 150 years, Koleka’s identification as “Greek” by Petiffer may(and I stress this word may) suffice. This matter is also interesting considering that Koelka is the uncle of Edi Rama. Spiro’s sister is Edi’s mum. Dare I say it, I wonder would we say that Edi Rama is a “Greek” too? Things to think about.Resnjari (talk) 18:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Resnjari, I need to reply to this. Speaking Greek does not make you Greek, just as speaking English does not make us British or American. Tomorrow perhaps our grandchildren will speak Mandarin, so it does not really tell much about someones lineage. Also when you mention Christian Orthodoxy it is important to emphasize that these is Albanian Orthodoxy and Greek Orthodoxy.They are not one and this is a very important distinction, although it might seem minor at fist sight. As you probably know, Albanians are not very religious people, so religion is not a good criteria to divide them in groups. There are exceptions to this though, but it is common to find Albanians of different religions and regions that have mixed with one another. Remember that Ali Pasha's wife Vasiliqi was Christian whereas he was muslim himself. Similar examples you will find everywhere and they are a sign of a modern society (signs of open-mindedness, tolerance, mobility). Coming back to the subject person. Spiro Thoma Koleka was not Greek, neither part of a minority. it will be impossible for anyone to prove Spiros Greek lineage because it is just a myth. For your info, it is very difficult to find an ethnic Greek (note the word Greek, I am not saying Greek speaking) in the village of Vuno. There are many in Dhermi and in some neighborhoods of the other villages, but in Vuno there are more polar bears than ethnic Greeks! Until recently many Albanians have taken the Greek passport because it was very convenient to be a member of the EU if you are Albanian. You got to travel freely, work in the EU area, get state assistance in case of unemployment, healthcare covered etc. So, for a poor Albanian working all day for 300€ a month, it was not a bad thing to have an additional passport. Also many older people have gotten a Greek passport and get a free pension that is higher than the average salary in Albania (no wonder how the Greek state has a black hole of 300 Billion Euros, they have been giving away free money all over the place). Anyway, getting the passport does not make you ethnic Greek, it just makes you ALSO a Greek CITIZEN, besides Albanian. Dual citizenship in Albania is allowed, so who am I to say that it is bad. The law is clear, the state does not care, the economy is bad, so people survive with what they can.

Last but not least. Edi Rama's mother is Aneta, but she is not Spiro's sister. Spiro's sister died in 1941 during the Greco-Italian war, so yes, she died 74 years ago at the age of 45. She would have been 119 years old if she was alive today so she is far from being even the same generation as Aneta. The whole point with Zoupan's persistence of Spiro's "greekness" is to invent a Greek lineage of the current prime minister of Albania. This is his agenda, it is not hidden as he has written about it himself. But the truth is that there is no such lineage whatsoever. We could talk more about the prime minister, his mother etc., but I am afraid that this is beyond the topic at hand, i.e. Spiro Koleka. Burridheut (talk) 20:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

User: JIK1975

• JIK1975 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For several months now the user in question has been going around "fixing" redirects. His talk page shows that he's been told repeatedly to stop it with a number of users pointing him towards WP:NOTBROKEN and WP:NOPIPE, but he doesn't answer any of these posts. He edits a lot, but 95% of his edits are redirect fixes.

Here are some of the times he's been told to stop doing what he's doing:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JIK1975&diff=667574680&oldid=666445935
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JIK1975&diff=668033922&oldid=668024105
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JIK1975&diff=669048538&oldid=669033215
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JIK1975&diff=669430565&oldid=669048689
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JIK1975&diff=670136903&oldid=669895466

リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (LOLTNA) 18:38, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• What Administrator intervention are you requesting here? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:56, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• Deep down, I believe his intentions are good, but he also should know by now that what he's doing is not helpful, in fact quite the opposite. For a start, a short-term block from editing could really wake him up. If he resumes this activity upon his return, I could bring the issue back up in terms of a longer block. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (LOLTNA) 19:18, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• @Ribbon Salminen: I have to warn you – any kind of block for "WP:NOTBROKEN" edits is extremely remote, as it's unlikely to be considered "disruptive" enough editing. The most you might be able to get out of ANI is an actual Admin leaving this user a warning note that they should quit with the NOTBROKEN edits. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I was one of the editors (referred to above) who posted about WP:NOTBROKEN, etc. on JIK1975'S user talk. I too believe they were not trying to intentionally create problems. Although the majority of the edits I saw were unnecessary, they didn't do any real harm. There were a few, however, which actually redirected the page to a different (but similarly titled) article, but I believe these were soon fixed. I think a big part of the problem was that attempts were made to discuss things on their user talk page, but these were seemingly ignored. There was also the problem of never leaving any kind of edit sum, which made it hard to udnerstand why the edit might have been needed. This kind of editing is problematic, but perhaps not serious enough to warrant a block. Regardless, the whole thing is now probably a mute point since they have posted "OK, I won't fix those redirects anymore." on their user page. It still might be a good idea for an administrator to inform them that they should be a little more careful in the future when making such edits as well as to leave an edit sum when editing, but I can't see any point in a block at this time. - Marchjuly (talk) 23:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Update: I left JIK1975 a personalized message on their Talk page about this, and they have now contacted me on my Talk page. I think part of the issue was that the previous message left on JIK1975's Talk page about WP:NOTBROKEN was too technical, and I don't think the message got across. I'm hoping now that JIK1975 is aware of the issue, that this matter may be resolved. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@IJBall: I think everyone involved appreciates your help in trying to resolve this matter. Despite you taking the time to clarify things for JIK1975 at User talk:JIK1975#WP:NOTBROKEN, Part Deux, they have gone back to "fixing" redirects and piping links which were fine as is. They also continue to do so without leaving any edit sums explaining why. I'm not sure how many different times and in how many different ways WP:NOPIPE and WP:NOTBROKEN can or should be explained to them, but at some point WP:IDHT and WP:CIR come into play, don't they? - Marchjuly (talk) 00:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Whoa – the rapidity of edits today between 15:50 and about 17:00 suggests some kind of automated editing. I don't know what to make to that... Aside from this, I think, at this point, a good argument could be JIK1975's editing has crossed over into "disruptive", as they've been warned about this kind of editing (multiply), acknowledged my message about it on my talk page (to which I responded with more detail), and have now gone on and ignored that. Again, I dunno if an Admin will block on a series of WP:NOTBROKEN edits, but the side of "IDIDNTHEARTHAT" might be enough to get an Admin's attention here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editor refusing to accept consensus

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

---

Several months ago, I was involved in an editing dispute with Synthwave.94 on Happy (Pharrell Williams song) regarding how to list US charts. It is standard practice in song articles to list the main US chart, the Billboard Hot 100, before any secondary charts. Synthwave.94 holds a different viewpoint that all charts should be listed in alphabetical order, which means that charts such as Adult Top 40, Adult Contemporary, and Alternative Songs would be listed before the Hot 100. The two of us, and other editors, discussed this at the article talk page before reviving an older discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Record charts#Chart order, where nearly all editors besides Synthwave agreed that the primary chart should come first, with secondary charts listed in alphabetical order after that.

Despite the overwhelming preference to list the primary chart before any secondary ones, Synthwave has continued to war over this. At the "Happy" article, he has reverted my changes to reflect this consensus on multiple occasions over the past few months. Initially he reverted me on the basis that the discussion was still ongoing. Recently, with the discussion untouched for over a month and editors' preference quite clear, I reinstated the change only to be reverted again. Additionally, Synthwave has been changing examples on Wikipedia:Record charts/Billboard charts guide and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Record charts to reflect his/her preferred ordering, against consensus.

I warned Synthwave on his/her talk page recently that I would bring the matter here if their tendentious, disruptive editing continued. They refused to acknowledge the problem and tried shifting the blame on me. Not too long after, I corrected the chart ordering on Rehab (Amy Winehouse song) to reflect consensus, and Synthwave reverted with a blatantly misleading edit summary that did not state all of his/her changes.

Synthwave is an editor with quite a history of edit warring, disruption, and IDHT behavior over the past two years. I'm not sure what sort of action needs to take place, but this is obviously a recurring problem with the arrangement of record charts only being a small part of it. Chase (talk | contributions) 01:28, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

• Pinging editors who also discussed the matter with me and Synthwave, in case they'd like to comment or better articulate anything I might not have explained well enough: IndianBio, Tomica, Azealia911, Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, SNUGGUMS, Iknow23, and Btljs (who partially agreed with Synthwave). Chase (talk | contributions) 01:34, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

You ought to strike the comment about Synthwave.94 being disruptive, etc. The user has not been blocked for seven months. I find Synthwave.94 to be an invaluable fighter of vandalism. I would like to see that this disagreement is evaluated on its own merit (or demerits) rather than bringing in a truckload of old laundry. Binksternet (talk) 02:17, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

"Not blocked for seven months" is damning with very faint praise indeed. An editor's history (or alleged history) is generally relevant in assessing allegations of improper behavior, as opposed to content disputes. DES ^(talk) 03:05, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Chasewc91, you don't know nothing about me and most of what you're saying is misrepresentative of the editor I am, so please stop saying incorrect statements about me. As Binksternet pointed out, I'm mainly a vandal fighter. I don't even understand why you judge on 5-6 edits only. I've already told you the problem linked to chart order associated with charts components, but you never listened to me and you continue messing around with alphabetical order in charts. Calling me a disruptive editor exaggerated and clearly inappropriate in all ways, especially because you are the one who started the edit war. Synthwave.94 (talk) 03:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

As the article's talk page shows, I engaged with you in discussion about this. I pinged several other editors who work on music articles and virtually everyone who commented agreed with me. You then continued to edit against this consensus, and that is the problem. Chase (talk | contributions) 04:06, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not striking anything. The block log shows multiple blocks for edit warring and that is the issue I am currently having with Synthwave. Edit warring against consensus. Chase (talk | contributions) 04:06, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

• On the whole, Synthwave.94 does seem like a good level-headed editor, however, I don't think it's uncalled for that Chasewc91 is labeling them as disruptive. Failure to accept consensus and to continue making changes against the communities opinion is disruptive, and the fact that Synthwave.94 continues to edit in their preferences over two discussions (1,2) where clear consensus was national over genre chart, is frustrating. Even still, the user continues to claim they weren't listened to "but you never listened to me and you continue messing around". Move on, and accept that "The community's rejection of your idea is not proof that they have failed to hear you." Azealia911 _talk 08:02, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

• I'm uninvolved in this particular content dispute, but have had contact with Synthwave.94 on another issue (here here) and he had difficulty hearing the community consensus on an issue. While WP:CITEVAR is not the same as the order of charts, there is an MOS section on the chart issue and it should be followed. @Binksternet:, part of the reason that he wasn't blocked in seven months is that for three of those months, he was in fact blocked with talk page access revoked. That block just expired on March 22, so he's just about to hit his fourth month of not being blocked. I'm not sure what should be done, he does do good work where he's not against a consensus of editors, perhaps a break from editing music articles? GregJackP Boomer! 15:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Synthwave.94 seemed quick to accuse Flyer22 of owning in the links you provided, interestingly enough, the last edit to Michael Jackson, the topic of the links you gave, was Synthwave.94 blankly reverting an edit which simply placed spaces between bullet points in lists throughout the article. Pot calling the kettle black anyone? Just interesting. Azealia911 _talk 19:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Chasewc91 Thanks for pinging me. I do agree with Synthwave.94 that a flat list should only ever be sorted using one rule (eg. alphabetical OR by category but not both) I suggested various acceptable alternatives here. I'm less interested in whether or not a user is disruptive than optimal presentation of information. Consensus is not the be all and end all; mistakes can be made by a majority. My own reaction to being at odds with the consensus opinion is to make my point and then stop watching the pages, because it is too frustrating. I can't condemn another for choosing to fight on, however. These lists are incorrect as they stand. Btljs (talk) 14:44, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of whether you or Synthwave.94 find the listing to be incorrect, you must acknowledge that there is a problem when the community determines otherwise and s/he continues to edit war. This is not the venue for you to state whether or not you believe the consensus to be the best editorial choice. Chase (talk | contributions) 02:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I think context is everything actually. You and others above have sought context in the user's timeline of edits; I find it more appropriate to look at the actual edit which is occurring rather than trying to pigeon hole a user as a 'trouble maker'. In this case there is 'a problem when the community determines otherwise and s/he continues to edit war' for the community but not really for the audience/end user. The articles are not rendered less informative by these edits (whether or not we disagree about minor differences in clarity) so the problem is one of behind the scenes administration. I think it would be harsh in the extreme to sanction somebody for this. Why don't you just leave the edits as they stand and, if you are right about the community, then somebody else will change them sooner or later? Btljs (talk) 21:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Because "consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making, and is marked by addressing legitimate concerns held by editors through a process of compromise while following Wikipedia policies." It's one of the core aspects of this project, and "the continuous, aggressive pursuit of an editorial goal is considered disruptive, and should be avoided." I believe Synthwave.94 should be sanctioned as he has been blocked several times in the past for edit warring and/or disregarding consensus and here we are again. Someone is clearly not getting the memo. Chase (talk | contributions) 23:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

This has gone on long enough and admins are obviously not interested and neither am I. Take the sqabble someplace else. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Alleged hounding by SPA User:Baroccas

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

Baroccas appears to be an SPA that is hounding Gjboyle. Baroccas claims that Gjboyle has a COI and is reverting their edits. Jytdog reached out to Gjboyle about managing COIs, where the topic of Baroccas came up (link).

An interaction checker report does seem to indicate that Baroccas is indeed following Gjboyle around. The timeline for their interaction on Carroll Izard shows the problem well.

Baroccas' angry message on Jytdog's talk page is what brought this to my attention. Given the hounding and SPA (possible sock really), requesting this user be indeffed.

Users notified: Jytdog, Baroccas, and Gjboyle.

EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Here's a better diff for Baroccas' angry message, with the original heading.

I second this request. This is an extremely hostile sock who is treating a newbie very badly. We need to retain expert editors, not drive them away. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, kind of a messy situation. Gjboyle says he is, and appears to be, a RW psych expert. He first showed up when he created an article about himself at the end of June, and Joseph2302 picked up on the COI issues and attempted to address them with Gjboyle, which didn't go well (a bit too aggressive on Joseph's part, a bit too defensive on Gjboyle's part). I noticed (as have others) and talked with Gjboyle to try to help him understand WP better.

This fell off my radar for a while. What has transpired is that Gjboyle has unfortunately limited his editing mostly to the article about himself and articles some other people who are close to him professionally - so pretty much all COI editing (not paid COI, but the non-financial-interest kind of COI)

On July 18th Baroccas opened their account and started dealing harshly with Gjboyle about his COI and following him around which you can see through the interaction analyzer data above. If you look at their contribs you can see the harsh edit notes they are using.

I noticed this today, and posted this message to Baroccas, and Baroccas responded with the message linked above.

I do think that Baroccas' behavior is not appropriate. They are definitely a SPA focused on Gjboyle and his COI, and they appear to me to be a SOCK. They seem to be too well-informed to not be one; on the other hand I do not know who the sockmaster would be. In any case the possible SOCK is a sideshow to their SPA/HOUNDING behavior which is not appropriate. If Baroccas will not agree to stop, they should be indeffed per NOTHERE. Jytdog (talk) 21:01, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

After carefully reading through policies on this hounding issue I agree I reacted poorly to constant personal attacks I received by Gjboyle and Jytdog's message to me and my response was a reaction to this editors constant personal attacks on me calling me a "troll" and so forth even after I politely asked him to stop. This is just one example where he says "You do like to exaggerate and paint a picture that suits your weird and bizarre fantasy!" [71] to which I patiently responded with no counter attack [72] He seems to have some very extreme personal views and a definite COI and is inserting references from his own books into articles willy nilly. [73] Anyway sorry Jytdog for you copping my reaction to this editor's constant personal attacks toward me.Baroccas (talk) 23:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for apologizing. Like I wrote to you, I understand your desire to protect WP's integrity but the way you are going about it is not good and probably harms the overall effort to address COI in Wikipedia, which can be controversial. Will you please let it go? Jytdog (talk) 02:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

No problems Jytdog. I am a new editor, despite your accusation, which I felt was pretty rough. I tend to read things pretty carefully and took the time to carefully read and then re-read a number of Wikipedia policies in depth, before opening an account, like I have now read carefully the Wikipedia:Harassment policy which as I said, given I am now aware of, will stop focusing on GJBoyle individually and go through proper protocols on Wikipedia to address. I politely asked this editor GjBoyle to read the policies that others had suggested including the Wikipedia:No personal attacks, which I sustained constantly by GjBoyle, and provided a couple examples above (which I used my sandbox to learn how to do. But you have all ignored these sustained and significant attacks on me. Admittedly, I am still learning. I also have read other policies very carefully like Wikipedia:Assume good faith a fundamental principal on Wikipedia and I'm not sure if your post on my talk page labeling me a sockpuppet was fair or just either. Nor for that to be repeated in your comments above. I'm not a sockpuppet by the way. A return apology would be appreciated but that's up to you. Finally I've been a fan of Wikipedia for a long time and would just like to contribute. I am not a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account or SPA either as you tarnished me either. In fact, if you look at all of my edits, you will clearly see I have edited a number of other articles that GJBoyle has not edited, and I actually do have experience in these areas as well. Albeit not the 200 plus publications that GJBoyle keeps reminding everyone of in no uncertain terms. But does that matter? Does that make me any less of an editor? Is there a status or class structure on Wikipedia. I thought not at least. In fact, my understanding of Wikipedia policies is that we are all supposed to be equals! Anyways, I've certainly read and re-read the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest policy in depth and will go through the proper channels in future. If you all still wish to burn me at the stake, or condemn me without trial, for trying to point out an extremely obvious COI, of Dr Boyle editing his mentor and very close friend's (it seems) articles, and indeed his own article on himself and him injecting his own published material into a number of articles without question, because he has written 200 articles and you wish to turn a blind eye to this, and ignore Wikipedia policies, wellp, so be it!Baroccas (talk) 09:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

So you won't let it go? There are proper ways to deal with COI and it's not attacking the editors with issues. An conflict doesn't bar people from editing, just requires a little more work on all parts. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ricky81682. I just re-read the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest article again, which I'm sure you're more familiar with than me, but I'm not sure what to think about all of this now? I thought the policy made it pretty clear in the first paragraph. But if it is okay to edit articles about your own closest friends, relatives and mentors, then that's the way it is, I guess. Can't talk for other much more experienced editors like WeijiBaikeBianji who wrote a great response to GjBoyle, about how they personally approach COI issues, but hey, that's up to them. As I said, the way I was approaching things was not helpful,(but was well intentioned at least, from the perspective of not having biased articles) and I accept that. So yep, I am willing to let it go.Baroccas (talk) 12:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

No, the point is don't get into personal attacks. Propose adding template:COI if you think it's an issue, or at the very least, go report it to the WP:COIN noticeboard. We don't strip out everything from anyone with a bias, we just work it out. Otherwise just the pure adding of content on its own isn't necessarily going to raise hackles. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:46, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok thanks for clarifying between the 2 issues then Ricky8162, appreciate it. That sounds reasonable regarding how to approach the COI for Professor Boyle and his close friend and mentor Cattell and Professor Boyle editing his close friend's articles. As I said above, the poor way I handled his COI won't occur again. I apologise for that again to everyone.Baroccas (talk) 15:15, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I see I've been mentioned here for some reason, I have no comments to make about GjBoyle, as I've been keeping out of his way after a few arguments started between us. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Responding to the original ANI notice here, I will mention that I have seen some of the underlying discussion on article talk pages and on user talk pages that were previously on my watchlist, and came to see this ANI notice by reading a recent post to the user talk page of one of the notified editors. I agree with Jytdog's overall summary: first one newbie (Professor Boyle) and then another newbie (as it appears to me, the editor being mentioned in this ANI) have got into a spat about issues that recur over and over and over again here on Wikipedia. I think both have something useful to contribute to Wikipedia. I have gone out of my way to welcome Professor Boyle here (I recognized his name instantly when he arrived because I have read some of his articles for my professional off-wiki research, which also influences which topics I most actively edit on Wikipedia). Because I have greeted Professor Boyle, some of the interaction between him and new editor Baroccas has occurred on my user talk page, which will be linked from my signature on this comment. What I would like to see happen here is for both of those still very new editors to take seriously all of the Wikipedia editor conduct guidelines, including the guidelines against assuming bad faith on each other's part, and to look in their offices for reliable sources that they have read and understand well and then look for Wikipedia articles about topics that they have sources for and roll up their sleeves to improve those articles. It is best for all of us to stay far away from even a hint of conflict of interest. As I wrote on my user talk page yesterday, in the section there that Professor Boyle opened about this dispute, "To @Gjboyle:, allow me to remind you that the conflict of interest conduct guideline applies to absolutely everybody here, and in my opinion it is best to interpret that guideline strictly, that is to broadly exclude from your editing activities on Wikipedia any article regarding which you may have a conflict of interest. Let me be clear (as I have been on one of the relevant article talk pages): I will never, ever create an article about myself here on Wikipedia, nor will I personally edit any such article if someone else creates it. I never edit articles about any relative or close friend, former or current employer, former or current teacher, or co-author. I will never edit an article about any organization at which I have studied or worked or for which I have served as a director or as volunteer staff. I never edit articles about personal friends. I have a number of close discussion relationships with psychologists, some by email and many by participation in a "journal club" (graduate seminar course) but I never write on their behalf, never edit the biographical articles about those persons, and when editing articles about general topics they research am as likely to cite sources with which they disagree as sources with which they agree. I try to become familiar with the professional literature in a few domains (psychology mostly, and also linguistics and education reform, particularly in elementary and primary mathematics instruction) and I leave other topics on Wikipedia alone. There are 6,909,314 articles on Wikipedia, and that means you and I and everybody have plenty to edit here that doesn't involve any conflict of interest. Think about it. Most of the psychology articles on Wikipedia these days are badly in need of work. Show what you can do for the project by editing some of the key (high pageview) articles about general topics of psychology that every well educated undergraduate should know about. Don't overemphasize the publications of your friends when you cite sources, and it is best not to cite your own writings at all (I follow this rule) when editing any Wikipedia article." The one addition that I would make to that today is that besides not writing about any of my teachers or bosses or co-authors here on Wikipedia, I will also not write about any of my students (who may end up being the most famous of all the people I know). There is plenty for all of us to write about here without coming anywhere near to writing about people or organizations with which we have personal associations in real life. My wish is that the editor mentioned in this ANI and Professor Boyle both join hands with all the rest of us to clean up and improve Wikipedia, with mutual respect and collaboration. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Other than being notified, Gjboyle hasn't responded here so I'm not sure this discussion is necessary. My view is that if you're an expert, the expertise is helpful. Ideally, I'd suggest that if I wanted to add my personal articles or articles where there's a perception for bias, I'd just post on the article talk page with a Template:Request edit notice. That's just being conservative because else someone will slap a giant template:COI notice on the front of the page and that doesn't look good. As silly as it is, WP:RANDY is an actual problem here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Legal threats by RobertGeraldLorge

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

---

RobertGeraldLorge, an SPA, has been edit warring his own article. Now he is starting to make legal threats. He and his various sock/meatpuppets ([74], [75], [76]) have already been warned about conflict of interest, edit warring, original research, copyright violations, advertising, and vandalism, and he has been reported to the conflict of interest noticeboard, all to no avail. 32.218.45.136 (talk) 12:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Where is the legal threat, because I don't see one in the section you linked. —Farix (t | c) 12:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

It's way down at the bottom of the section: "FYI: I have copied your numerous repeated unauthorized actions and IP address and date and time stamped them in the event I need to take legal action. ... I am, Sincerely, Attorney Robert Gerald RobertGeraldLorge" 32.218.45.136 (talk) 12:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Seems to be a pretty clear legal threat, of the "I'll sue if this doesn't go the way I think it should" variety. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The OP sums up the disruption pretty clearly - COI & POV editing, edit warring, copyvios; I'd add poor or inappropriate sourcing to the list of problems. The account is new, and assuming (probably against the weight of evidence) that this user is new to Wikipedia, I've tried to begin discussion of these issues on their Talk page. The editor appears to / claims to be the subject of the article, and while that creates an obvious COI, it also helps explain the editor's frustration, and - mm, persistence. I'd like to see if he engages, or persists in the problem editing. If the former, we can see where it goes; and if latter, then I think the account needs to be blocked. (I can't say whether the legal threat, indirect as it was, trumps all of the foregoing, and leave that to the admins.) JohnInDC (talk) 13:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

As noted on the editor's talk page, the very same boilerplate content he is trying to insert now was first inserted in the article seven years ago. It was reverted and reinserted numerous times in the intervening seven years. I'm not confident that "seeing where it goes" will produce a change in this editor's behavior, and I do think that the legal threat trumps everything he has done to date. 32.218.45.136 (talk) 13:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I have blocked the user for making an unambiguous legal threat. We don't warn for legal threats, we don't "see where it goes". We block until such threats are retracted and investigate if there is anything serious to the claims. The comment was clearly meant to have a chilling effect that would bias our neutral point of view. In addition to our neutral point of view our editors should not be subject to intimidation.

I recommend that some look me made into the users claim that "false biased and politically slanted and irrelevant information" is in their biography. Chillum 14:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this guy is who he says he is, and he is a lawyer. I would love to see an unbiased review of both the content and the edits on this article. How do we accomplish that? 32.218.45.136 (talk) 14:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

A review is probably unnecessary given the way Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Gerald Lorge is going. But a quick comparison of the changes he wanted to make with the article's state previous to that and after he was reverted indicate that there is nothing in the current state or the "pre-User:RobertGeraldLorge" state that could possibly be construed as what he terms "libelous false information and politically slanted". Voceditenore (talk) 14:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Going by the dif of what the user was restoring, there does not appear to be substantial problems. While the results of the election he lost could have been phrased better (I have updated it to indicate that the winner got 67%, rather than "almost 70%", and to include how much the subject got), deleting the statement that he lost was not appropriate. There is a disagreement with a statement that he is a "certified master beekeeper" (as opposed to having a masters degree in beekeeping), where it is possible that the information is inaccurate but it is sourced and would seem not to be an egregious or destructive error to make. The bulk of what the user has restored is material sourced inappropriately to the subject's own campaign website. The article is currently at AfD and seems headed for deletion anyway. (Speculating on his law training is neither appropriate nor necessary. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Nat, what's currently in the article about Lorge's beekeeping is correct. I checked the University of Florida Beekeeping extension program, from which he graduated. "Certified Master Beekeeper" is a "rank" in that program. Their website says that it is "comparable to the completion of a Master's degree from a university" [77]. However, the recipient is not awarded an MA degree from the University of Florida. Lorge's campaign material has morphed this into saying he has received a "Master [sic] Degree" [78]. So, as far as I can see, there is nothing in the current article that is "false", let alone "libelous" or "defamatory". Voceditenore (talk) 08:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

All of which is moot now. The article has just been deleted per a snowball AfD. Voceditenore (talk) 09:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Excellent point about the AfD, it seems unlikely to survive. I also appreciate the analysis of the user's edits compared to what they were claiming. Thanks for the due diligence. Chillum 16:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing during an AfD

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

---

• KatyRat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

User:KatyRat with less < 50 edits to Wikipedia started an AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trishneet Arora (2nd nomination) in his/her third edit. During the course of the AfD KatyRat has engaged in disruptive editing three times. The first two times warnings were given, with the third I am asking for a moderator to look at the case. The edits include:

• Deleting another editor's !vote.
• Striking out other editor's !vote and comment
• Ping notification of 8 editors who !voted delete in the last AfD which is a WP:CANVAS.

Thank you for any help. -- GreenC 13:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

This editor knows way too much for a new account. How to strike comments, starting an AFD, knowing to refer to the closer as "closing admin", pinging other editors. The smell of birds is very strong. Blackmane (talk) 14:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Any new account that is jumping straight into creating AfD for their first edit is obviously experienced here, this is clearly not a new person. Per our sock puppet policy "Undisclosed alternative accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project", specifically the Wikipedia project space which AfD is in. I would like other admins opinion on the appropriateness of this account. Unless KatyRat explains exactly how they are not in violation of our sock puppetry policy I am leaning towards a block. Chillum 16:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• @KatyRat: Chillum 16:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The accounts that are making an attempt to disrupt the discussion are as follows: SCMite (Created on 22 July 2015 at 15:41) , User055 (Created on 22 July 2015 at 10:34) with one edits on AFD. Moreover the recreation of the article was without any WP:DRV and by a SPA Blackstallion55. Green_Cardamom warned me only once on the AFD and not twice. Pinging other editors is not wrong I suppose, and most importantly the reason to ping the editors who voted Delete on earlier discussion (through which the article was deleted) could best analyze the difference and analyze. Moreover, the AFD was running abandoned since last 8 days so pinging was the best way to conclude the discussion. I would still request to remove the votes by those accounts mentioned above by cross-checking with their contributions. Thank you. KatyRat (talk) 18:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Moreover the account of Blackstallion55 became active today (last activity 28th February 2015, evidence here to revert my edit on the page of Trishneet Arora, hiatus! KatyRat (talk) 18:21, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Although the magnitude of keep of votes are more on the AFD discussion [3 of 5 Keep Votes by SPA], I believe the article still needs more coverage and most importantly in national sections per WP:RSN to confirm the reality of content on the article or at-most be rewritten with a complete neutral point of view. The article still sounds as a Advert to me (my opinion, your may be different). And I believe that the closing administrator could best deal with the AFD with a common sense than magnitude of votes. Thank You! KatyRat (talk) 18:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

And also the page was salted due to repeated recreation which can be seen here KatyRat (talk) 18:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• Suggest immediate block for KatyRat as sock and/or block evading account. Knowledge of Wikipedia back office is far too developed for this performance - and then opening an SPI case on them all with CU request. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I concur. Rlendog (talk) 21:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I also concur as a non admin, and suggest that an admin close the AfD as no consensus due to procedural disruption. KatyRat's sock accusations do not appear to be without merit, and her reprehensible conduct have rendered the discussion FUBAR. John from Idegon (talk) 02:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Thre is no rfeason to close the AfD, serious editors are makign reasoned comments apart from this disruption. If I had to close it as it stands, it would be as keep. DES ^(talk) 03:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The evidence that KatyRat is a sock is strengthened by their obvious knowledge of what SPA's, RSN and DRV are. 14.203.110.227 (talk) 02:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• User 14.203.110.227 that commented above are having only two contributions (first contribution on this discussion) that too related with WP:SOCK policy and that too created today with an in-depth knowledge of policies such as SPA, RSN, DRV. Surprised, why there is a need for an editor to post as an IP (suspicious!) Looks like there is an attempt to WP:CANVAS by these IPs  Looks like a duck to me KatyRat (talk) 08:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Let me point out that the above IP is me. I had reopened a tab in my browser and while it looked like I was still logged in, I was in fact logged out. Applying WP:TROUT to myself. Blackmane (talk) 10:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• Note A new editor Weditor123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was created yesterday as a SPA solely to vote on the article as keep. Looks like there needs a SPI to be filed. Shall I file it myself or anyone here to help? Thanks KatyRat (talk) 17:48, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I very much doubt that anyone is going to assist you filing a SPI until you give an adequate explanation for your own behaviour. It is self-evident that you are not new to Wikipedia. Why have you created a new account? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks to SpacemanSpiff who alerted me to this discussion on my Talk page and who got the master exactly right, KatyRat is  Confirmed as a puppet of Sanjoy64 (talk · contribs · count).--Bbb23 (talk) 21:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Vandalism on TV/radio stations

I know we usually operate under WP:DENY, but I'm concerned that I'm the only person seeing this editor's pattern, and I want to make sure that we do everything we can in this regard. The user I'm concerned about edits under a variety of IP addresses and adds sneaky errors to articles about satellite radio stations and Georgia TV stations. Favorite targets include List of Sirius XM Radio channels and High-definition television in the United States, but there are many others. Edits look like [79], [80], [81], and [82] for a few random examples (well, not so random--the last one makes me think that this person is a seasoned vandal, which is why I almost didn't post at all).

Because the subject matter was similar, and because CaptainHog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was known to use socks, I originally reported these as potential socks of that user at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/CaptainHog. Looking at the edit patterns, I'm no longer quite so sure (for a variety of reasons that don't necessarily need to be explicitly discussed). What I do know is that whoever this IP vandal is, it's becoming a problem. agtx 19:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Why do we have a list of HD channels in that HD article in the first place? The same reason we deleted the DirecTV and Dish channel guide articles, that should be applied to the HD in the US article too; we're in 2015 and only the cheapest and oddest broadcasters still are stuck on SD and this list at this point doesn't inform and only acts as a vandalism magnet, especially to frustrate this one vandal away from an unneeded target. Nate • (chatter) 23:30, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

That could easily be true, and would be an issue for AfD. Honestly, it's not an area I know much about. Regardless of whether the article should be deleted, that doesn't really solve the problem. agtx 17:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Viriditas edit-warring (once again)

Viriditas (talk · contribs) is reverting my edits without a justified reason at Talk:Chain Reaction (sculpture). I'm trying to assess WP:CALIFORNIA and WP:ANTIWAR upon their respective assessment pages Wikipedia:WikiProject California/Assessment#Importance scale and Wikipedia:WikiProject Anti-war/Assessment#Importance scale, but I keep being reverted. According to him "An assessment has been requested from an editor other than yourself as multiple editors have challenged your judgment", which is certainly false as no other editor other than ATinySliver (talk · contribs) has contested my assessments. Considering this user has made 131 edits to the article, it is clear this user has a COI about the subject of the page, plus Viriditas him/herself has a long history of edit-warring, including a previous 3 months block. As the user keeps reluctant to justify him/herself, I'm bringing this here. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 20:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

ATinySilver and myself noticed a pattern of strange assessments coming from users who were not connected to the relevant projects. Your assessment came on the heels of two prior ones, particularly a logged out account using the IP 189.225.21.90 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). As far as I can tell, you are not active on either of the projects you claim above. Viriditas (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject California/Assessment's FAQ states: "How can I get my article rated?: As a member of the WikiProject California, you can do it yourself" and "Who can assess articles? Any member of WikiProject California is free to add—or change—the rating of an article, but please follow the guidelines." Wikipedia:WikiProject Anti-war, like most projects, doesn't require members to assess their articles as it is based upon WP:1.0 guidelines. In neither WP, on the other hand, members are required to be "active" to make assessments, at most they require editors to follow the given guidelines. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 20:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

If your assessment is disputed, then you are supposed to take it to the article talk or project talk page for wider input. What you're not supposed to do is keep reinserting your assessment, logged out or otherwise. ATinySilver and I noticed this monkey business and acted accordingly. Viriditas (talk) 20:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Don't twist things, I edited first as an IP, and later I logged in as an editor as ATS requested it. The thing is I can go to WT:CAL, the article(s) can be re-reassessed as I assessed them, or if I was wrong, with a higher assessment, and that's it. The reason you are here, is because of your persistent edit-warring, despite the fact you've been blocked several times for this reason, and those temporary blocks certainly aren't working. If you're not here to cooperate, you should be indef instead. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 21:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The thing is, this is the first time you've admitted it. Both the IP and yourself denied you were the same person. I realize English is your second language, so I'll chalk up the confusion between the two accounts to a communication problem. However, in the future, please stick to one account. Viriditas (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The thing is I have never denied it, because I have never being formally asked about it (even ATS understood it immediately). I explained it to ATS here. I don't log in because when I'm editing as an IP I'm on my cellphone and I see no reason to log in to do basic stuff like this or this, and assessing articles is, for me, basic stuff, because as I have explained, most WP assessments are based upon a common rationale (relevance for the WikiProject + relevance for the readers {based on page views}, for the importance assessment; quality's have another rationale most complex). © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 21:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The problem is, when one looks closer into your claims, they completely fall apart. I've given you the benefit of the doubt by attributing this to the language barrier. However, some things simply don't make sense. Previously, when given the opportunity to explain, you reverted to the IP's version, writing in an edit summary, "Sure, established accounts are now sockpuppets of IPs."[83] A month previously, at 02:45, 25 June 2015, 189.225.21.90 wrote, "I'm not a "new user", I'm an experienced editor who prefers to not log in for simply tasks."[84] But, at the same exact moment, you were actually logged in and reverted to 189.225.21.90's version again.[85] So, those diffs show that you were not only logged out with your cellphone, you were also logged in simultaneously. In the past, we've had serious problems with sock puppets editing from one one machine while also editing from dynamic addresses on their cell phone. Now, how did you manage to comment on a talk page while logged out and revert to the IPs version while logged in, all at the same moment? All you had to say was, "hai guyz, it's me, logged out", but you never did until you admitted here. Something isn't right here. Like I said, use your registered account, but don't revert back to versions while you are logged out. More importantly, don't edit as a registered account and as an IP simultaneously as the diffs show up above. This is very simple. Please stop. Viriditas (talk) 22:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Because I answered as an IP, and later logged in with my account to make the reverts. I don't know what you're trying to prove with it (well, I do know, but I'm not going to put words upon your mouth), but, for sure I wasn't "logged in simultaneously"--which makes no sense. What happened, rather than creating conspiratory-like comments, is as simple as that I wrote the message, I sent that message, and I logged in as soon as it was sent. Later, I logged in and started to make reverts, which happened to be in that minute, and the subsequent minutes if you pay attention. I never revert an user who reverted my IP, if that happens, I log in and revert the edition explaining it, as in this case. If you see this as sockpuppetry, consider that socking is defined as the "improper purpose [which includes, but it is not limited to do] attempts to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, evade blocks or otherwise violate community standards and policies". This is not sockpuppetry; socking would be that I, as "Tbhotch" edited, later to be reverted, and later created an account/used my IP to continue what I was doing to game the system. In this case, I, as an IP, was reverted for the simple fact of being an IP. As such, I logged in to demostrate I was not an inexperienced user as said by ATS, and up-to-date no other IP/user has edited. And no, I'm not going to "stop" using IPs rather than my registered account as it is not forbidden, and in fact, I waste much more time login in and out for simple changes. Good attempt to distract attention, but we're not here because of me, but because of your disruptive pattern of editing. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 01:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

As I've been mentioned here, I'll present this—which includes one personal attack and one assumption of bad faith (I've asked no one to to do anything)—and this—which deflected the issue. It is my assertion that a rating that appears arbitrary (not on behalf of the WikiProject) is subject to removal by anyone at any time, regardless of the reverting editor's involvement in said Wikiproject.

That said, I am not in a position to comment outside the instant issue. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 20:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:WIAPA. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 21:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikilawyering about what is or is not a personal attack isn't helpful. ATinySilver felt attacked by your comments. Viriditas (talk) 21:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

On the same grounds, this is a personal attack, as you are asserting I'm a "disruptive sockpuppet {of only you know who, btw}"]. I felt attacked by your comment as I find it defamatory and your lack of giving a valid response is much more offensive. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 22:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Except, as the diffs show up above, you were simultaneously editing logged out and logged in at 02:45, 25 June 2015.[86][87] Viriditas (talk) 22:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Did you know a minute has 60 seconds in it? You only have minutes, not seconds, and by no means justify yourself. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 01:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

So, Tbhotch, calling someone a "child" does not attack an individual's age/intellectual acuity/emotional level/etc.? (For what it's worth, I began what is likely my penultimate career as a print journalist five years before your existence.) This speaks to your ability to make assessments? When another editor points out your evident Wikilawyering over NPA, you respond (in so many words), "But you did it too"? This response—which, incidentally, could be considered childish—speaks to your ability to make sober, adult assessments?

In all honesty, this is a straw man anyway; the issue was and is, is it proper to remove an assessment that appears to be arbitrary? Absent an explanation, it is—and, again, I speak only for my own involvement prior to an "explanation" that was arrogant, dismissive and combative. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 22:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

You are adding words I never said. If you consider that by one simple word I "attack[ed] your individual's age/intellectual acuity/emotional level/etc." it's literally your problem. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 01:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how a Wikilawyer attemps—poorly—to escape "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." This is now incontrovertible proof that you are not qualified to assess anything. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 01:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how I'm "not qualified to assess anything" based upon a comment. "Assessments" and "personal attacks" are not related, by any mean, and such rationale is poor. It is incredible how you and Viriditas call me a "Wikilawyer", when the essay Wikipedia:Wikilawyering itself starts with "Wikilawyering is a pejorative term". I have to understand that I can't call you "child", but you both can call me a "pejorative" term, plus Viriditas call me a "disruptive sockpuppet"? It it clear that you are by his side, but c'mon don't bite your tongue when trying to defend him. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 03:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

... aaaaaand, AGF is gone, too. I've never dealt with Viriditas in any manner (of which I'm aware) prior to this little episode—but that's another straw man. While Wikilawyering is indeed a pejorative, it describes an action, not a person—but that's another straw man. To call someone a "child" carries with it the explicit intent to belittle that person, not his or her actions. Whether this insults my sensibilities is not merely tangential, it’s immaterial; indeed, I’ve heard all but infinitely worse from the all but infinitely more relevant. (That's a fact, not an attack, by the way.) The sole issue is Wikipedia policy. Period. That you violated. Period. That you continue to exhibit a singular blindness to this simple, undeniable fact is the very thing that calls into question your qualification—if not in fact renders it nonexistent—to offer assessments. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 03:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

You stopped AGF the moment you said I'm "not qualified to assess anything", and that's not a "straw man". I recommend you to write a book about this, I can give you a title: "Child": How I Transformed the Real and Current Meaning of the Word "Child" Into Multiple Theories About How Grossly, Insulting, Degrading, and Offensive It Really Is--Immaterially Speaking. If 50 Shades of Grey was a best-selling book, this will be as well. If you still here is because you want either, someone to stop me from assessing articles in general--for which you require to open a WP:TBAN giving much (much) more evidence than saying "this guy call me 'child', his judgement is compromised!"; or you are trying to prove how I should be blocked because I "commented on the contributor and not the content", ironically commenting on the contributor ([88][89]) and justifying yourself and Viriditas for commenting on the contributor and not the content. If you want neither of those, your only work here is to comment about Viriditas' own long-term pattern of edit-warring, (rather than justify his pattern). Other comments, like yours presented throughout, are off-topic. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 04:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

My presence was invoked by you. My response—which, incidentally, closed with "I am not in a position to comment outside the instant issue"—led to your presumption to lecture me on what is or is not a personal attack. The ironically titled "kid gloves" came off at that moment, not as a result of anything I’ve written.

That you called someone a "child" violates policy. That you refuse to own up to it violates all sense. You have gone to what I would have thought heretofore were impossibly voluminous lengths to say anything other than, "Yes, that was a personal attack. I should not have done that." That simple statement will go a long way toward establishing your credibility which, as it is now, does not exist. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 04:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

With regard to users disputing the assessments, are there any disputes other than over whether an editor needs to be part of the Project? In other words, have any editors expressed the view that the assessments are not accurate? If the only controversy is who may or may not make the assessment, then there really is no reason to revert the assessments. And if members of a Project disagree with the assessments, they can just change the assessments. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• I'd like to point out that this is the second time Viriditas has reverted an assessment of this article on the grounds of a user not being part of the relevant WikiProject. Given that two editors have rated the article as low importance I think that the rating should stay - regardless of their participation in the WikiProject - and if you disagree then you can request opinions at the relevant projects. Sam Walton (talk) 22:30, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for pointing that out. As I said on another talk page, I don't agree with drive-by assessments by people who don't know the topic and aren't involved in any of the projects. The sculpture is the first work of public art designated as a historic landmark in the City of Santa Monica and is likely one of the most notable anti-nuclear war/peace monuments in the United States. Can you point to a sculpture in Southern California or an anti-war sculpture in the United States that has received this much attention? These demonstrable facts fly in the face of these assessments. Furthermore, the use of the importance parameter is disputed, with some projects eliminating it altogether. We've seen, time and time again, editors use drive-by assessments as a means to disrupt or disparage the topic. While that may not be the case here, both ATinySilver and myself were alerted by the unusual pattern of uninvolved editors, in this particular case an IP belonging to a registered account that was used to edit war over an assessment. The fact remains, the burden of proof is on the editor making the assessment to discuss it, not the one disputing it. If an editor wants to argue for his or her assessment, they are welcome to discuss it any time. Clearly, that has not happened here. Viriditas (talk) 22:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not disputing the assessment, you make a good case for it being a greater than low importance. I'm disputing that you have any right to edit war the rating of other editors out. There's no reason that low importance can't remain there until consensus is reached. Sam Walton (talk) 22:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• Per the Assessment FAQ, if you don't agree with a rating, one is "free to change it...in the case of major disputes, the WikiProject as a whole can discuss the issue and come to a consensus as to the best rating." Further, "these ratings are meant primarily for the internal use of the project" and "the WikiProject bears ultimate responsibility for resolving disputes". The user's claim that they are assessing for WP:CALIFORNIA and WP:ANTIWAR is not supported by the evidence. Their contribution history shows that they work mostly on music articles, not California-related or antiwar-related topics. They actually joined the project(s) yesterday after the complaint was lodged about their assessment. I think the fact that the user was changing this assessments while both logging out as an IP and reverting back while logging in as a registered account is reason enough to retain the previous assessment. Viriditas (talk) 22:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Points taken. I agree with Viriditas in all respects. Jusdafax 23:19, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Despite all that back-and-forth, no one has responded substantively to what I said. Why revert the assessments to "no assessment"? Assessments are Wikipedia inside-baseball: readers (other than editors) could not care less about them. It's not like having a "wrong" assessment hurts the page for our readers. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Because the rating specifically means "We at WikiProject Whatever give this article this rating on behalf of the WikiProject." If we're going to use the ratings at all—and that's been the subject of its own debate—then there should be demonstrable integrity attached thereto. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 00:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

That claim of "integrity" would have some legitimacy if every assessment followed a discussion and consensus amongst the members of the project. But that rarely is what actually happens. Instead, one editor typically makes the assessment, subject as always to subsequent revision by someone else. Per WP:BOLD, there is no integrity in insisting that this one editor must establish some bona fides before making the assessment. It seems to me a waste of time and drama to insist on dispute resolution, instead of just correcting an assessment with which one disagrees. But if the disputing editors want drama instead, then that's their problem, and I have nothing more to say. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Interestingly, you bring up exactly why their very existence foments argument. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 20:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, this is something where it really does not seem necessary to have anyone blocked, especially over such trivial stuff. If the editors involved would just agree to have a discussion on the article talk page, along with notifications at the talk pages of the affected WikiProjects, and if the editors will just agree to leave the edits as they are until the talk page discussion yields a consensus about the assessment, wouldn't that be enough? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Obvious sock building an attack article on a blocked editor

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

---

User:Jkpilsudski is a new editor whose only actions so far have been to create a retaliatory article on a blocked editor. That it is retaliatory can clearly be seen by their userpage: "As i am creating an article on a banned wikipedian who has threatened to out others, i ask that my anonymity and privacy be respected." This both implies that the article is a punishment, and that they are hiding another on wiki identity. Can someone please block them? Brustopher (talk) 22:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• Suggest 'Indef Block I am not sure if this a a sock though that seems highly likely. But it is a gross violation of WP guidelines and policy by someone who knows what they are doing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
• How is the article an attack or retaliatory? everything is well-sourced. If you want it deleted, use wp:afd. i am concerned that he would out me not matter how neutral the article is. --Jkpilsudski (talk) 22:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • if there is a real problem with the *contents* of the article, I will accept all the help I can. --Jkpilsudski (talk) 23:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

  The "biography" was just a mass of disparate sources cobbled together for the seemingly single purpose of attacking a living person. That person is a local politician who, on their own accord, would not be notable to Wikipedia. The article clearly fails WP:BLP and WP:SYNTH. I have deleted it as an unsourced attack page. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 01:48, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Need a redirect removed.

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

---

I need this redirect removed to make room for an AfC article Draft:Bwog to be moved into the mainspace. To be honest, this is probably the wrong avenue, but after my due diligence and looking for a way to get this resolved I couldn't find another place to ask for help on this. Thanks. Sulfurboy (talk) 22:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello Sulfurboy. Probably the quickest way to get done what you want done is a {{db-move}} template tag. However, I'm not sure if it qualifies as a "non-controversial move" when it involves bringing articles over from "Draft space". I'm sure someone will be along to clarify that... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• @Sulfurboy: redirect deleted. You can move the article when ready. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 05:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Refusal to engage in discussion about incivility

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

---

I recently was subjected to uncivil comments by an editor. I have asked the editor concerned on their Talk page to explain their behaviour 3 times, however, they have simply deleted them without comment about their edits. What course of action should I follow now?DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

@DrChrissy: Any chance you can provide some diffs showing this? Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

First, this is not a matter for admins. Next, there is no requirement that an editor must respond to any questions placed on their talk page. Your best bet is to move on and start editing article again. MarnetteD|Talk 00:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Forgot to mention that per WP:REMOVED you should not restore the comment again as it is not an exception to the three-revert rule. MarnetteD|Talk 00:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

User:MarnetteD I did not restore the comment. I sent a completely new message 3 times - but thanks for the heads-up.DrChrissy ^(talk) 01:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

@User:IJBall I think the following contain all the necessary diffs. Because these name the editor, I will inform them of this thread.

My original posting to the editor[90]

Reversion#1 [91]

Reversion#2 [92]

Reversion#3 [93]

DrChrissy ^(talk) 01:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I believe what was meant was diffs of the uncivil comments, not of their reversion of your postings to their talk page. Which, as has been mention, a user may remove and not respond to if they so choose. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Border Town ‖ 02:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The supposedly "uncivil" remark took place in the James Randi section just a bit above this. DrChrissy stopped by to make a remark, and I commented:

C'mon, Dr. Chrissy, anyone familiar with your history knows that's not why you're here. [94]

Since DrChrissy believes that remark to be "uncivil", I'd like him to explain here exactly why it's uncivil. What is it about "[A]nyone familiar with your history knows that's not why you're here." breaks WP:CIVIL, bearing in mind that civility and AGF are not the same thing. BMK (talk) 04:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

You're doing this all wrong. You need to put my name in the section title, then you'll get Alansohn, Lugnuts, Richard Arthur North (1958- ), and, if you're lucky, The Rambling Man, to come by and tell everyone what an incredible jerk I am and how I should have been banned years ago. BMK (talk) 02:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Based on my experiences with you, I do, unfortunately, consider you as a jerk. I once told you one time to keep an uncivil comment on the down low, and I asked you if that comment was necessary. You said that user deserved it. And this was on ANI. Then there was that archive of a discussion here. You posted on my talk page about it. Then you realized that you made a mistake but didn't bother to say a little sorry. However, based on my experiences, you don't deserve a block. Callmemirela {Talk} ♑ 02:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

OMG, you called me a jerk!! I demand an instant block for incivility. IMMEDIATELY, I say.

BTW, I'm quite old enough to make my own decisions, thank you very much, good or bad, and then live with the consequences. I've been doing it for 60 years and I guess I'll keep doing it until the Alzheimer's finally kicks in for good. On the other hand, there are a fair number of editors on Wikipedia who I respect enormously, and whose advice I am happy to receive and give full consideration to. BMK (talk) 03:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• Generally, we don't "do" anything about incivility besides offer a reminder about the civility policy. Any editor, myself included, can become irritated and thus "uncivil" at anything, really, and there's no reason or common practice to punish them for that. It's important, but as long as overall an editor is willing to reign themselves in enough to focus on the task at hand, there's no need for action. If an editor demonstrates a problematic behavioral pattern of incivility, then it's time for a wider discussion about it, which usually results in a consensus to reinforce the community's opinion that such behavior is unacceptable (i.e. give them a warning). It's only after one to several of such warnings will we start to consider anything more drastic. Overall though, "civility enforcement" isn't something that's even done unless the problem is chronic and severe. You haven't even reeally explained what the problem is so I'm not sure what you're wanting. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 05:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Swarm. The original reply by DMK to my posting (re-stated above in bold by DMK) was totally a comment on me as an editor and not on my posting which was making a valid point. DMK stated that my motivations for being at the article were other than to make my legitimate comment, and that my related editing history was in some way "negative"; it was clearly intended to provide misleading information about me. Drive-by personal attacks such as these are extremely disruptive to Discussions, harmful to individual editors and therefore harmful to the project as a whole. In my opinion, these are becoming more frequent and more damaging. Regarding the deletion of my comments by BMK from their Talk page - I tried to engage in Discussion with the user about his incivility. I believe this is a prerequisite to raising any objection on a dispute noticeboard. Clearly, BMK did not wish to explain his actions and feels he can make drive-by personal attacks such as these with impunity. @User:Swarm you asked what I wanted. I thought carefully about this thread before my original posting and I stand by my OP - I am simply seeking advice as what to do next. If the community tells me to "go away and forget it", then I will do that, but the community needs to realise that it is then condoning such drive-by personal attacks and incivility.DrChrissy ^(talk) 12:22, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

What you have so far failed to do so with yet is providence evidence of the uncivil comments. Please do so. Explaining the situation without diffs of what happened (not the posts on BMK's talk page, THE ISSUE) is not what we've been asking for. Just realized it was posted on top. Please remember this DrChrissy instead of letting others do the job for you, Callmemirela {Talk} ♑ 13:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

@User talk:Callmemirela Initially, I did not provide diffs as I was being careful not to name the editor - I was hoping for a generic answer to my question. Once an editor/admin asked for the diffs, I provided these. What have I done wrong?DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

If the incivility is obvious and ongoing, then the community will always unite against it, but if we're dealing with subtler, "drive-by personal attacks" we normally won't make a big deal out of it at all and besides noting the incident for later there's really nothing that can be done but to move forward and forget it. A lot of times this absolutely does inadvertently condone bad behavior by uncivil editors, and a lot of people think we should be harsher when it comes to "civility enforcement", but this is the way the status quo has come to be. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 16:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

User:DrChrissy says that they did not provide diffs because they did not want to name the editor. In other words, they were asking an abstract question. This noticeboard is not really intended for abstract questions. Those are better asked at the Help Desk. However, even at the Help Desk, some of us are wary of responding to abstract or hypothetical questions, because sometimes such a question is a slightly biased description of what really happened, and is intended to get a policy statement in order to wikilawyer a response. The purpose of posting to this noticeboard is to request admin action, such as a block, and admin action cannot be taken against unnamed users. I suggest that this post be closed as an incomplete questionh. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I apologise - I had not realised this noticeboard was only for requesting action. I thought it was also for help and support.DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

No, there's nothing like that on Wikipedia for content builders. This is an entertainment page for admins and their entourages. --Epipelagic (talk) 17:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Epipelagic, your remark is unhelpful and insulting. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah, so it wasn't just me. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Epipelagic: It's meant to be a noticeboard for incidents that require administrator attention. It's not meant for things like academic policy questions. There's plenty of other places to ask questions and get answers: Help Desk - Village Pump - WP:HELP (where you can search for all guides on incivility) - The Teahouse - Template:Helpme - IRC Help Channel, and, utilizing the search function will help you find an exhaustive guide on dealing with incivility, Help:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual/Collaborating with other editors/Handling incivility and personal attacks. ANI can be a shitshow but it's absurd to act like there's no other resources available to editors. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 20:41, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

C'mon, this is the 13th AN/I report that DrChrissy has filed in their 4 years of editing here, so the idea that she wasn't aware of the purpose of this board rather stretches credulity, especially since most of those filings were to report "personal attacks" of one sort or another. (They've also filed 11 Teahouse questions, 3 RSN reports, 1 ORN report, and 1 AN report complaining about the closing of one of their AN/I reports, so the idea that she is unaware of the purposes of the various boards doesn't really hold water. Counts can be verified here.) BMK (talk) 02:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Pudist and conspiracy theories

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

Users edits in just the past two months include:

• Edit warring to add conspiracy theories to September 11 attacks
• Edit warring to add OR claims to Alex Jones
• Citing some forum posts to give WP:UNDUE support to a conspiracy theory about the RFK assassination.
• Posting a rant (possibly a WP:COPYVIO) arguing that Lee Harvey Oswald didn't kill JFK, and then attempting to downplay mainstream history, even after final warning.

User has some other edits demonstrating potential usefulness elsewhere, but their edits relating to conspiracy theories run in the complete opposite direction of WP:NPOV. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• I would have taken this to the Fringe Theories Noticeboard which generally deals with the promotion of fringe conspiracy theories, but since it's here I will ping that board. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

You do realize you cannot ping a board here? not unless you post a message there about x subject. Otherwise, pinging boards does not work. Pinging serves for pinging users only. Callmemirela {Talk} ♑ 02:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I do realize that. I was using the term in the more general sense, meaning to alert. Which I did in fact do. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

This is an obvious WP:NOTHERE block. Blackmane (talk) 02:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure. This editor has been around for a while and some of their older work doesn't look especially controversial. But after a long break they are suddenly on a fringe conspiracy theories kick and definitely engaging in disruptive behavior. Perhaps a broad topic ban including any conspiracy related topics might be in order. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban relating to conspiracy theories was what I was thinking as well. Perhaps something along the lines of "anything that List of conspiracy theories discusses and any pages in Category:Conspiracy_theories or its subcategories," just to prevent any possibility of the claim "I didn't know that was a conspiracy theory." Ian.thomson (talk) 04:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what to make of this editor yet. Sometimes it takes new people time to get the hang of working with others. Incidentally, the rant was copied from the blog of James H. Fetzer. - Location (talk) 04:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

He's been around since 2006. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

He/she averages around 10 to 12 edits a year. Perhaps "inexperienced" would have been a better way to describe him/her. - Location (talk) 05:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• I have blocked this user as they have blatantly violated WP:NPOV in spite of a final warning, but would recommend we impose a topic ban to prevent this disruption over the long term. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 05:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban broadly covering any conspiracy related subjects. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:47, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban - Why I posted, why he's blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban and warn that NPOV is essential. Any editor who considers James H. Fetzer's blog to be a reliable source cannot be trusted to edit such articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban as proposed. We've been here enough times by now to know that this kind of editor's behaviour is unfixable. Guy (Help!) 08:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

George Ranalli

• George Ranalli (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Annevalentino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

The article George Ranalli is currently being heavily edited by somebody who seems to be the wife of the subject (self-identified). She was adding content from his website until I was alerted to the issue and temporarily blanked it, whereupon she stopped to engage in IP. I tried to help build the article, but unfortunately added in some content she does not like, brief and neutrally presented information on her husband's leave that is sourced to a professional blog from what I believe is a reliable industry publication. (The school where her husband is dean lists an "acting dean" on its website.) She has repeatedly removed content about her husband's role ([95], [96], [97], [98]. She's been warned about removing content without explanation three times (twice by me; once by an IP) and asked to engage: [99], [100], [101]. But she has persisted. (I've checked OTRS just in case; there's no sign of correspondence there as of this writing.) Perhaps I should have given her the standard 3RR warning, but I had been hoping we could just talk reasonably. That doesn't seem to be working out. :/ I could use some assistance, especially as I am now involved with the text.

To be clear, my concern here is lack of engagement and continued editing without responding to concerns. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• I've reinserted the material about the admin leave and acting dean, and warned her about marking every edit as a "minor" edit and about COI editing. GregJackP Boomer! 07:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I really appreciate the assistance, User:GregJackP. :) Unfortunately, that one just didn't go as well as I'd hoped. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sold on that being his wife. I wandered over to look at the article just as a matter of curiosity, and found some rather basic, but glaring, errors in the description of his academic career. The professorship title was wrong (a quick Google confirmed that), terminology describing his academic standing was off, he wasn't identified as the dean of the CUNY School of Architecture, and a couple more similar errors that, presumably, someone who knows him wouldn't make, particularly given most of his/her edits were about tarting up the list of Ranalli's accomplishments. This might be an ardent but less well informed fan rather than his wife. --Drmargi (talk) 12:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Attack page?

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

---

Does this come under the scope of an attack page? This users other contributions are far from helpful too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

(ec) I disagree (with the deleted comment here) and I deleted the page. It is still a text on a (presumably, real) living person with comprometizing info not supported by any sources. However, if there is consensus that the text can be on Wikipedia, any admin is obviously welcome to restore it even without notifying me.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Taffe316/User:Yankees10

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

---

User really needs to be considered for a permanent ban. Has a history of being uncivil and edit warring and has been reported here numerous times. Just left this on my talk page (then removed it like it made a difference at that point).--Yankees10 08:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Something needs to be done about this user. User:Yankees10 repeatedly reverts quality edits to pages with giving explanations. The stat of being a member of the 300 save club was added by myself to all members off the club. This user took it upon himself to revert all edits without giving an explanation. This user also seems to stalk most edits I make due to some quarrel between the two of us about a year ago, which in my opinion is very childish. This user seems to think himself above others and able to own all pages he sees fit due to some Wiki awards he's received, and action needs to be taken or else his childish acts will surely continue.Taffe316 (talk) 08:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Except I did give you a reasoning. I just didn't put it in every single revert.--Yankees10 08:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

This was extremely inappropriate but is hardly justification for a permanent ban; where is the rest of the "history of being uncivil"? Sam Walton (talk) 08:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

He has nothing, he just wants me gone due to some quarrel we had about a year ago, as mentioned before. He doesn't like that I'm a fellow Wiki: Project Baseball member, he doesn't like that I'm a strong contributer to numerous baseball articles, and as example of this he takes it upon himself to undermine numerous edits I make in an attempt to rattle me, and he gets away with this because he's a "highly respected" editor. The immediate action on his talk page I took was wrong and I apologize, but at least I know that. If you want to put a block on me than fine, but I'm not the only bad guy here. Taffe316 (talk) 08:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Uncollaborative behaviour by SportsEditor518 (and related IPs)

I have been engaged in a dispute with User:SportsEditor518 (his talk page) (and various IPs of the same editor, including Special:Contributions/2001:8003:4406:9F01:223:32FF:FE9E:4B9F andSpecial:Contributions/2001:8003:4610:BF01:223:32FF:FE9E:4B9F) on the article Interstate matches in Australian rules football. It has been mainly a content dispute, with the two of us having different views on the popularity of the concept in the state of Victoria. My version states that interstate football was not popular in Victoria; his version states that it is. I'm not here to dispute the content; I'm here to report disruptive/obstinate behaviour by SportsEditor518 which is precluding any conclusion.

The dispute played out through moderated dispute resolution here: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_119#Interstate_matches_in_Australian_rules_football. This dispute resolution ground to a halt when SportsEditor518 simply stopped responding at the dispute page; but he is still monitoring the page in question, reverting any efforts to remove his unreferenced views, and making no efforts to engage in discussion proactively. There is an ongoing pattern of uncollaborative behaviour which, while it mostly seems well-intentioned, is proving disruptive; and therefore I am at a loss to understand where to go next other than to report SportsEditor518 (and his IPs) for edit warring, and also more generally on competence is required grounds. Specifically:

• He has continued to push his POV in the article that interstate football was very popular in Victoria, without providing any supporting references. The attempts at sourcing that he has provided have either a WP:SYNTH based on his interpretation of crowd numbers, or extremely generic references which don't really support the point (examples: [102] [103]) The dispute resolution volunteer moderator and I have both tried to explain the shortcomings of his references to him, and to educate him on the policies, but he has proven unable or unwilling to accept them. (You can see in this diff [104] that he still has a steadfast belief in the admissibility of his own synthesised conclusion).
• During the dispute resolution process, he went for two long unexplained absences which led to the volunteer moderator and I concluding he had lost interest in the dispute – only for him to re-emerge and begin reverting me or adding the disputed content again within a day of my making the edits to the article. (These diffs are the sudden re-emergences after long absences: [105] [106] – the timestamps make sense in the context of the dispute resolution page highlighted above) He has never given an explanation or apology for or even an acknowledgement of his absences. In the more recent case, he simply reverted the content and made no other attempt to continue discussion on the matter despite being fully aware that I disputed the content. This most recent response to my talk page [107] is particularly insulting, and suggests he may be trying to game the system by claiming the dispute is unresolved when it was his own recalcitrance that led to the lack of resolution.
• He seems to have, and be unaware of, his own biases on the subject. He's shown on a couple of occasions ([108] [109]) that he views supporting interstate football as an inherently positive act, and therefore that my suggesting Victoria did not support interstate football is somehow an attack on Victoria's character – rather than simply a description of the state's tastes and preferences. It's clouding his judgement to view the references objectively.
• Finally, he is unaware of his own shortcomings as a writer. On a couple of occasions I have made purely style- and grammar-based edits without removing his content ([110] [111]], only to have them reverted with an edit summary to the effect of "mine says it better" (which I think the diffs clearly demonstrate is not true). I did raise this issue with him, but it was not well received [112]. Once again, I think WP:CIR is relevant here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aspirex (talk • contribs) 10:16, 23 July 2015‎ (UTC)

comment I was the DRN volunteer for this dispute. The dispute started out with both parties appearing to be willing to discuss and find compromise. Unfortunately SportsEditor518 did fail to return to the discussion for a long period on two occasions. The first time, after a week's silence, we closed the discussion, believing their absence from both the discussion and from continuing to edit the article signalled that they had decided not to dispute the issue further, and Aspirex began editing on the disputed section again. SportsEditor518 immediately started editing the section, so we pulled the discussion from the archives and reopened it. SportsEditor518 returned briefly to the discussion, promising to respond the following day, and we waited this time nearly two weeks but they never did. We finally closed the discussion as failed. I have to agree with Aspirex that what started as a content dispute has become, unfortunately, a behavior issue. valereee (talk) 11:41, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Having watched this dispute at the dispute resolution noticeboard as User:Valereee tried to mediate it, I have to agree with the OP and the moderator, at least if the IPs are SportsEditor518. If the IPs are SportsEditor518, then we have a pattern of attempting to provide synthesis amounting to original research, and of using dispute resolution to stall rather than to collaborate. SportsEditor518 replied and discussed briefly, then went into radio silence, then became active again, and then went into radio silence again. This is an intermittently tendentious editor who is disrupting the dispute resolution process. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Topic-Ban on SportsEditor518 from Football

A topic-ban on SportsEditor518 is recommended from articles on Australian rules football. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support as proponent. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose I think that's overkill. As far as I know, he hasn't caused any problems other places, just one section of one article, one particular tiny point that he feels extremely passionate about, possibly to the point it's almost a COI for him. He's a new user, and he found an assertion that he violently disagrees with on an emotional level. He just needs to stop editing that one article until he learns more about Wikipedia. If he's topic banned from Australian rules football, you might as well just block him, I think it's all he edits at this point. valereee (talk) 16:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - I am willing to strike my recommendation on two conditions. They need to agree, first, to take part in collaborative discussion of editing, rather than pushing changes through, and, second, to edit only from their account and not from IPs. The problem at this point is that SportsEditor518 hasn't recognized that their editing behavior is problematic and that they should follow Wikipedia practices and guidelines. (The two disappearances are also problematic, but a rule that forbids editors from going off-line and coming back is not reasonable.) At this point we are waiting for a response from User:SportsEditor518. If they agree to improve their editing behavior, I will strike my recommendation. If not, not, because another period of silence is not agreement to stop the intermittent disruption. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Alternate proposal Again, he's new -- at least to using a user name -- and one of the issues we had was that he doesn't edit every day or even every week. He hasn't edited logged in since July 11, so he possibly hasn't seen the messages to his username. He needs to be pinged at both 2001:8003:4406:9f01:223:32ff:fe9e:4b9f and 2001:8003:4610:BF01:223:32FF:FE9E:4B9F; I've also put the notice on both those pages. What I would support would be putting a block on both IPs, which would force him to log in and see that he has messages. valereee (talk) 09:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, the 4406 IP edited today. I think we can assume this user is ignoring us. I suggest a block on both IPs, an article ban for SportsEditor518 on Interstate matches in Australian rules football and that Aspirex resume editing that article. valereee (talk) 12:22, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

An editor is offering a 'donation' in order to get a Draft: accepted

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

---

I do not wish, yet, to make this formal and name the editor. I will do so if requested and given a rationale for doing so, so they have not been notified (yet) of this discussion. What I wish to know, please, is how and if we fire a real warning shot across their bows for this type of rather juvenile behaviour.

I recognise that it is often an expression of exasperation, along the lines of "How do I get my awful piece of COI junk accepted? Must I make a donation to Wikipedia in order to do so?" but I also see this as a highly offensive behaviour. It offends me as an editor because it implies that my editorial judgement at WP:AFC (where I review reasonably actively) can be bought, and it offends me as a Wikipedian because it implies that Wikipedia can be bought.

This means I do not feel disposed to treat this lightly.

We do not treat legal threats lightly, even throwaway ones, and I wonder if we ought to treat offers of corruption, even throwaway ones, the same way.

I felt raising it here rather than on a policy forum would be a great place to start, principally because, if the advice is that this 'is an incident' then I wish to report it. I'm happy to be advised to migrate this question to a different forum provided I am told which forum to migrate it to. Fiddle Faddle 10:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Filing a report withotu specifics is worthless. WHo, what article, provide a diff - otherwise this report is useless. BMK (talk) 11:41, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, ok, if that is what you feel should happen.

• Editor Nancy Sudheer
• Diff: here

I am about to notify the editor concerned in the next few moments. I had hoped for a general answer to a general question. Fiddle Faddle 11:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done Notified. Fiddle Faddle 12:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I think it's an innocent enough question, to which the answer is no. They haven't offered to pay anyone in particular to accept their article, which I would treat more seriously, they just asked if a donation to the foundation is required. Sam Walton (talk) 12:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I see it as a simple question. born out of frustration, but not an innocent one. They have implied that a consideration might pass to Wikipedia in exchange for th publication of their pet article. Taken further this moves Wikipedia as a whole into the realms of plying for hire. This editor is an example of a number of such seemingly innocent questions. Fiddle Faddle 12:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps innocent wasn't quite the right word. What I mean to say is, the solution to this situation is to say no, explain how things work here, and move on. What administrator action are you looking for? Sam Walton (talk) 12:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I think I am looking for advice and guidance, in part for the editor community (rather than just me) when faced with this silliness, perhaps formalised in guideline, and in part advice for this and other editors, perhaps formalised as some form of potentially gentle warning template. As you see from my opening, I was not keen on hauling this particular editor over the coals. While I recognise that admins are really only janitors, I also feel that some of the better policy/guideline proposals come after consideration by our loyal team of janitors. I may, of course, have started this entire discussion in the wrong forum. Fiddle Faddle 12:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The Village Pump might be a better venue. Sam Walton (talk) 12:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll take it there happily. I suggest in that case, unless anyone else jumps in on the next short while, this discussion be closed with no stain attaching to the editor concerned. Fiddle Faddle 12:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done Now open for discussion at the Village Pump where all contributions are welcome for and against the formulation of a policy/guideline/process. Fiddle Faddle 12:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

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

LGBT rights in ... the European Union vs. Europe

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

---

Two tables on opinion polls were removed from the article about LGBT rights in the European Union because they included several countries that are not member states of the EU.

User:Sdino reinserted those tables. Their argument was that "a majority of countries in the table are in the EU". I reminded them of the fact that the article is called LGBT rights in the European Union, and not LGBT rights in European countries, the majority of which is in the EU. [113]

User:Sdino reinserted the tables again and called removing them "vandalism". User left a note on my talkpage, telling me not to remove content from LGBT rights in Europe even though I have never removed anything from that article. I removed user's tables from the article about LGBT rights in the European Union only.

I again reminded the user that their tables include several countries that are not member states of the EU [114] User again left a note for me, calling my editing "disruptive"; and threatening to have me blocked. User again added tables to the article, that still include non-EU member state.

There is an article about LGBT rights in Europe, covering all European countries - those inside the EU and those outside the EU - and that's where user's tables belong to. User doesn't seem to care though.

---

User:Sdino is long known for their disturbing edits. The article on LGBT rights in Croatia even needed to be protected just a few days ago because of them.176.4.125.73 (talk) 13:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

As I have said on WP:RPP#LGBT rights in the European Union, IP176 is arrogant, unwilling to co-operate with others. Furthermore, I think he thinks he owns the article, and reverts lots of referenced content, instead of reducing it to only the relevant content. Also, he uses different IP addresses, so to stop the disruptive edits, I asked for page protection. IP176 did not go onto the talk page to discuss the issue. Diffs of the unconstructive edits:

• 22:28 7 July 2015 This article isn't on "Europe" but on something "European Union". Norway, Russia, Switzerland and Ukraine are not part of the EU. by 46.114.48.140
• 13:45 15 July 2015 Undid revision 671551371 by Sdino (talk) This article is *not* called "LGBT rights in European countries, the majority of which is in the EU by 176.0.114.40
• 22:35 22 July 2015 Undid revision 672590242 by Sdino (talk) Norway, Switzerland, Russia and Ukraine are still non-EU. That hasn't changed the last few days. by 176.4.46.236
• 10:35 23 July 2015 Undid revision 672708672 by Sdino (talk) Switzerland is still non-EU. That hasn't changed overnight. by 176.4.125.73

– Sdino (talk) 13:28, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• How do non-EU laws figure into an article about the EU? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

They're not laws, they're opinion polls. I put in a template for ease of editing, and it had 3 or 4 non-EU countries, which caused IP176 to go overboard. – Sdino (talk) 13:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

If it were me, and for the sake of clarity, I would separate the EU nations from the non-EU nations. That way they could be compared with each other. Alternatively, re-post with only the EU nations. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I did that, but I must have omitted some country by accident, because IP reverted it yet again. – Sdino (talk) 14:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Is there info in the EU-only article that's not in the all-Europe article? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

On the talk page I could only repeat what i wrote in the edit summaries. Norway, Russia, Switzerland and Ukraine are not member states of the EU. So they have no place in an article on something "EU". To have Brazil, India, South Africa included would make as much sense.176.4.125.73 (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

As long as they are separated in the table, I don't see the problem. It's more informative to the readers to compare how EU and non-EU nations in Europe respectively view the issue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

There is a separate article about LGBT rights in Europe, which includes all European countries - EU and non-EU.176.4.125.73 (talk) 14:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

So what's the point of having the EU-only article? The EU article is 5 years newer than the Europe article. Why is it needed? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I get the impression the EU article was started to talk about EU wide law more than legislation territory by territory which should be pointed at the in Europe page. SPACKlick (talk) 16:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The nation by nation ("state by state") table was posted in the first edition of the article in 2011. The Europe article separates EU from non-EU. I don't see why the EU-only article is needed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree. It seems that the EU article is largely redundant to the Europe article and can be merged there, avoiding these disputes. Rlendog (talk) 20:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The simplest thing would be to look for any info in the EU that's not in the all-Europe, then copy it, remove the back-reference to the EU-only, then change the EU-only to a redirect. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The very existence of an EU-only article is no bad thing. The EU itself forms part of the political landscape of Europe. It enacts legislation that is binding on its own institutions (and its member states). The EU's competence regarding LGBT-related policies is very limited, still the EU has some influence. An article "LGBT rights in the EU" should exist along the lines of "LGBT rights in country-this-and-that" articles. It is very true though that the article in its current form is not very informative on actual EU legislation. It focuses too much on member states' laws. But that's something that should be discussed on the relevant talk page(s). Those LGBT articles are edited by many users and those users are usually good at finding consensus.176.4.35.78 (talk) 00:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Anyway... It wasn't my intention to have a discussion on whether certain articles should cease to exist. It was about User:Sdino's behaviour.

Sdino, a (self-declared) homophobe, does many disturbing edits to LGBT-related articles. They get involved in edit wars regularly. They act fast threatening to report users for "disruptive edits", or actually do report users, just because those users don't agree with them. On the other hand Sdino feels harassed when someone else is considering to report them for their disturbing edits.

As said somewhere above ... Just a few days ago the article on LGBT rights in Croatia got even protected because of the user's behaviour. In that article, too, the user insisted on having a particular image (a pie chart) included. The user is very selective about the information on their opinion poll tables. They prefer to list or highlight only those polls that show little support for LGBT rights; the user prefers biased, highly-POV language etc.

Please take a look at this thread, which led to the protection of the article on Croatia.176.4.35.78 (talk) 00:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

That's a pretty serious charge. Where does the user declare himself a homophobe? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I could't find a statement like that. Could somebody please point me to it? BMK (talk) 09:49, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Haggen Food & Pharmacy article issues

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

---

Whoa – this looks like a mess. Someone with an account created today – HaggenFood&Pharmacy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – and who may have a conflict of interest (duh!), has taken to creating a new article Haggen Food & Home Improvement, copy-and-pasting the contents of the original Haggen Food & Pharmacy article to the new article, and then converting Haggen Food & Pharmacy into a redirect. Needless to say, there are all kinds of problems with this. Then, to top it off, they edited my Userpage without permission: diff.

Could a kindly Admin please unwind this mess, by restoring Haggen Food & Pharmacy (so that the edit histories match the article), and possibly either speedily delete Haggen Food & Home Improvement or convert it to a redirect? Also, could the appropriate actions be taken with the COI user account? Thank you in advance... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Week-long disruptive editing by ‎Runningfox34

‎Runningfox34 has been engaging in disruptive behavior on the Lorge family articles (Robert Gerald Lorge, Gerald Lorge, William Lorge) for over a week. He has been warned about conflict of interest, edit warring, original research, copyright violations, and advertising and he has already been blocked once for disruptive editing. He has failed to respond to any messages about his behavior on his talk page. It is highly likely that he has been using sockpuppets to deflect his editing and to get around his block. Today he created a new article on Robert Gerald Lorge, after it was snowball deleted yesterday. This character and his various sockpuppets need a long timeout. 32.218.33.216 (talk) 20:15, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I redeleted Robert Gerald Lorge's article per G4, and another admin has salted it. While Gerald Lorge certainly seems like a notable person I suspect the article on William Lorge will go much the same way the article on Robert Gerald Lorge did in regards to notability(I misread the article). As for the users they seem to change accounts fairly quick so I think other than blocking quacking aquatic birds all we can do is watch the articles. Chillum 20:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't requesting deletion of either Gerald or William; both were long-time state legislators. I was asking for help with the persistent disruptive behavior of Runningfox34, an SPA dedicated to whitewashing and spamming Lorge family articles. 32.218.33.216 (talk) 20:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that the IPs are his sock puppets? Chillum 20:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

1. Yesterday, during the time Runningfox34 was blocked, a new account was created, Smartvoter2006. Smartvoter2006 immediately began editing the Gerald Lorge article, trying to insert images that Runningfox34 had previously uploaded. Minutes after Runningfox34's block expired, Rf began fiddling around with the images, in the same way that Smartvoter2006 had been doing. See edits of GL article that occurred between 23:44, 22 July 2015‎ and 03:55, 23 July 2015
2. On 20 Jul 2015, RFD, Pokechu22, and I were all involved in reverting repeated insertions of unsourced and POV edits by Runningfox34 to the William Lorge article. Then 75.100.87.220 showed up, making exactly the same kinds of edits to the article. A few hours later, 69.130.252.37 did exactly the same thing. See edits of William Lorge article from 05:22, 20 July 2015 to 04:54, 21 July 2015.

Perhaps one or more of the IPs is a meatpuppet, and not a sockpuppet, but there definitely appears to be close collaboration or collusion.

If nothing can be done to stop the disruptive editing of these editors, full page protection would be effective, since they only edit Lorge family articles. 32.218.33.216 (talk) 20:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The OP has accused Runningfox34 of sockpuppetry but it doesn't appear that a formal SPI has actually been filed. Maybe that's the next step? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I didn't file an SPI because I didn't want to go board shopping and because it's the disruptive editing that is the primary problem. Runningfox34 has engaged in a week of edit warring and other disruptive behavior. Is that not appropriate and sufficient for this noticeboard? How many hoops does one have to go through? 32.218.33.216 (talk) 03:48, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive SPA

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

---

A RfC on Kosovo has generated a large number of newly minted SPAs weighing-in on it. A request for closure was recently posted. This seems to have inspired the creation of more SPAs, one of whom, Spicemoods has taken to editing my comments in Talk (e.g. [115], etc.) by selectively deleting words so as to make my comments appear nonsensical (or at least more so than usual), as well as inserting sexual exclamations like "touch me yes yes" into the middle of articles (e.g. [116], etc.) or creating the article "Ian Thompson Sucks Dicks" which appears to be an accusation (and/or congratulation, depending on your viewpoint) directed toward Ian Thomson. While Spicemoods could be blocked, the problem may persist pending a closure of the RfC which seems to be the genesis of issues. LavaBaron (talk) 20:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The user had graduated to making an attack page which I deleted per G10. I have blocked the user indef for disruptive editing as they have few helpful contributions and are acting like a vandal. Chillum 20:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Adrian2526 and article creation

"Please this is miss universe 2015 page but since it was blocked i just decided to put this one" about sums up this editor's attitude. Edit warring to keep the 2015 in the 2016 article, creation of Miss World 2017 when the 2016 edition hasn't occurred yet, and not a lot of hearing of the issues raised. [117], [118] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

And now there's an IP (who I blocked about five days ago) adding links to Adrian2526's to draft article. [119] Quack, quack. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Miss World 2017 has been tagged for speedy deletion. Miss Universe 2017 has been proposed for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Miss World 2017 has since been redirected to Miss World. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) - Adrian2526 just restarted the Miss World 2017 article and recreated the Miss Universe 2016 article despite being asked to stop. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

S/he was just final-warned. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 23:12, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Hounding by GregJackP

GregJackP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

• Bowman v. Monsanto Co. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Emerald ash borer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Background

I've had relatively little interaction with GregJackP until about the last month. I recently made an edit at an article which GregJackP reverted. I generally edit agricultural topics and have been watching the article for awhile now. Prior to this, I only had two previous interactions with this editor here, and here while I stayed out of the content dispute at this same page because of the incivility I saw towards another editor in a past content dispute. This current discussion originally should have been a straightforward mundane content discussion (should a picture be included or not). Instead, the issues with GregJackP's behavior can be mainly seen at the relatively short talk page discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bowman_v._Monsanto_Co.#Picture_of_justice. I started off very civil (and throughout the conversation) asking why GregJackP thought the image should remain. Instead, I was met with refusal to engage in basic dialogue about the content (what purpose is the picture serving?), immediately calling my edit harassment in the edit summary, and some strange ownership behavior all summarized pretty well in this diff. Trying to ask for at least some dialogue just resulted in a dismissive, "Get consensus if you want it removed." [120]

Hounding and vandalism

So, we've got some really prickly and uncivil behavior from GregJackP, but what they said and did next is what brings me here because of purposeful disruption: "When it is someone that hasn't edited bug articles, but starts a dispute over the three photos of the same bug? I'm not going to do that, because I'm not an asshole, but I'm not going to look favorably on answering BS questions about a photo. . ."[121] Not much later, they followed me to a insect GA nominee I've been responding to suggested edits on and did exactly that.[122]. GregJackP has never edited the page and it is not in their normal topic area at all. This coupled with their previous statement demonstrates obvious WP:HOUNDING. GregJackP's edits summaries in the first hounding diff and a repeat [123] are very closely paraphrased from my own comments from attempted discussion[124] for further pointiness. This also amounts to vandalism of a page and WP:POINTY behavior by trying to disrupt a page to prove a point.

Always being met with incivility by this user when I always approach them civilly coupled with blatant hounding seems to show their behavior isn't going to be better on its own. GregJackP was blocked by GorillaWarfare for continued harassment and personal attacks back in January (unblock appeal by Quadell)[125]. A temp block might be suitable until it's clear this won't continue to be a problem. However, I'm fine with someone just getting the point across to them that the behavior is not acceptable as long as the immediate incivility stops on pages where our interests overlap (apparently patents relating to agriculture) and pointy hounding stops on pages where they do not. I don't think an interaction ban should be necessary quite yet.

It would also be nice if someone undid the hounding edit on the emerald ash borer page since my removals are reverted each time. All this because I wanted to talk about if a picture of a judge was really needed. . . Kingofaces43 (talk) 09:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I should also stress that GregJackP claimed I was trying to derail the GA process at the Bowman v. Monsanto Co. article (I firmly rejected that attempt at bad faith [126]). Now after purposely following me to the emerald ash borer article, GregJackP has managed to partially cause the GA review to fail due to instability. [127]. Action is needed from the community when disruptive editing to this degree is occurring as I've never seen anything this blatant before. Kingofaces43 (talk) 12:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: I protected emerald ash borer for 24 hours due to edit warring before realising that this issue had been brought here (and closed my good article review of the article). Any administrator has my permission to remove, extend or shorten this protection as appropriate. I have no opinion on the claims of hounding at this time. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah this doesn't look good. Kingofaces43 was bold and removed a pic on the Bowman article. GregJackP reverted and then discussion happened (and continues to happen). GregJackP went to the EAB article was bold and removed three pics (and started discussion). Kingofaces43 reverted and GregJackP reverted again. It doesn't look good when you head to another article you've never edited and initate conflict there with someone you are in conflict with elsewhere. 24.236.232.136 (talk) 14:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for summarizing that nicely. I don't think I'd describe GregJackP's edit on the ash borer page exactly as bold though as that insinuates a good-faith edit. The context here shows a more disruptive intent as vandalism, not to mention one of the edit summaries saying he removed a picture because he claims the picture was of an elm tree and not an ash. That's original research at best, but context from the Bowman article doesn't really show this as a best case scenario. WP:SNEAKY describes this vandalism best in addition to WP:POINTY.Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

It looks like your unwarranted removal of an image at the Bowman v. Monsanto Co. article precipitated this little kerfluffle.[128] Further, it looks like you and Jytdog are both harassing GregJackP (and by extension another user named PraeceptorIP) on the article talk page for no reason other than because "Monsanto" is part of the article name. Because you and Jytdog seem to disrupt every article where the word "Monsanto" appears, have you considered voluntarily withdrawing from any and all Monsanto-related topics? Viriditas (talk) 21:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Viriditas, Could you please provide some diffs showing us how they harrased GregJackP?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Happy Attack Dog (talk • contribs) 21:28, 24 July 2015‎

This has already been discussed here. Jytdog agreed to drop the stick and move on. However, Kingofaces43 showed up just less than a month later to start up the hounding again. Anyone can look at the stats and see what's going on here. The problem is not GregJackP. Viriditas (talk) 00:53, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I think we're in Australia again... Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:38, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

How exactly is boomerang relevant to Viridtas' comment? It's very apparent they are blowing hot air here if one reads the actual diffs I provided. Are you suggesting a boomerang for Viriditas instead? It's not entirely clear. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:54, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I was never involved in the ANI you just mentioned. I also wasn't involved in whatever dispute Jytdog and GregJackP were involved in, and only had a few notes of caution as things were pretty much wrapped up by the time I got back from vacation and was catching up [129]. I know you are not fond of Jytdog, but this is not a soapbox for that as we had next to no interaction in this instance. Anyone who reads the diffs and links to conversations I provided should be able to see pretty clearly that I was being civil in response to some pretty poor behavior, and the various claims Viriditas has made so far are readily dismissed by reading the various links I originally provided. They actually document all of my interactions with GregJackP, which shows just how quickly they resorted to this behavior. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:53, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I am seeing roughly equal levels of unconstructive behavior from GregJackP, Jytdog, and Kingofaces43. It is evident that after the July 12/13 ANI Viriditas linked to above the stick was not totally dropped and that Kingofaces is now playing ball as well.

Kingofaces43, you are not "being pretty civil in response to some pretty poor behavior". That's what Viriditas and Erpert were suggesting. One can argue "But he's being worse!" back and forth a bunch, but the nature and extent on all three parties are similar.

I am simultaneously concerned about multiway multiparty novel synthesis and you and Jytdog apparently deciding to ignore an informal style standard for court cases despite being told repeatedly.

When you come to ANI with unclean hands they're going to get looked at. GregJackP, you clearly need to tone it down as well, but Jytdog and Kingofaces43, you have brought attention to yourselves here and it's not looking all that good. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:56, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert, you're right, I shouldn't have reacted the way I did. I had not gone back to GMO-type articles and if you look at my last 500 edits, they are almost all in the legal article arena (with a few outliers). I guess I just got frustrated with Jytdog coming back to WT:LAW to argue on citation style (and then OR/Synth) when all of the seasoned editors in that field are telling him that he is wrong. Then, to top it off, Kingofaces43 shows up at an article where he has never made a single edit, where the page has been nominated for GA (over a month ago), when the last substantive edit had been over a month ago, and when the photo in question had been in the article since late June ([130]). It looked to me that he was intentionally trying to screw up the GA nomination, especially after he ignored my comment that all of the SCOTUS FAs and 2/3rds of the GAs have pictures of the justice who wrote the majority opinion. So I let him bait me and I shouldn't have.

Look, all I want to do is to work on my legal articles. I create good content and I've tried to stay out of the hot areas like Climate Change and the like. I like PraeceptorIP, and am in awe of his knowledge and expertise, so I try to help him out on articles he's working on (formatting, he doesn't need help on the material itself). If they would just go back to their GMO area and leave me alone on legal articles, everything would be great.

I shouldn't have let him get to me, shouldn't have let the baiting work, but I can't change the past, just try to do better in the future. GregJackP Boomer! 06:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

The bad-faith assumptions you're expounding here explain a lot of the improper behavior. Baiting is a serious accusation, but one you've entirely manufactured yourself. This is all based on one single edit that I thought a picture wasn't need in an article and you went off the deep end attacking me for suggesting it. There should have been no assumption of baiting in that whatsoever. Engaging in such conspiracies when one is trying to engage in WP:BRD in good faith with you is what was disruptive here. If that can stop, any interaction we have in the future should be civil. Kingofaces43 (talk) 13:49, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert, could you specifically link to what you're seeing as unconstructive on my part? I summarized my interactions with Greg in a recent comment below which should show that I had been been approaching them extremely civilly throughout. The diffs and overall talk sections should speak for themselves. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Time for a two-way interaction ban and/or some carefully targeted topic bans? --Guy Macon (talk) 05:00, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

If someone really wanted to impose an interaction-ban, there can be evidence for a one-way interaction ban against GregJackP (though I wouldn't intend to interact directly with them anyways). If someone actually reads the diffs on 'my interactions with this user, there is no evidence for an interaction ban. I've been extremely civil responding to the various attacks, so it seems sort of silly to impose a two-way ban. Others are trying to interject some larger and separate dispute into this with another editor as a proxy. Kingofaces43 (talk) 13:49, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Since there's been some confusion and people bringing up an entirely different dispute between other editors, here's a timeline of my actual interactions with GregJackP:

1. I had the Bowman page on my watchlist and had been catching up on various content disputes occurring there. I noticed GregJackP had been edit warring that day, so I left them a friendly reminder about 3RR so they didn't cross it.[131] Some discussion occurred over how many reverts actually occurred, but the the goal was just to caution them in good faith, not some sort of punishment.
2. I later went to leave a note at a talk page of another editor on the page about expert editors. Another editor which GregJackP has been heavily involved with, Jytdog, had already posted a very similar note, so I left my comment in that section.[132] That was as close as I ever came to interacting with Jytdog there. GregJackP attacked me there too even though I made it very clear I wanted no part in whatever dispute they were having at the time. [133][134]
3. I had no interaction with the page or users there for about a month. An ANI apparently occurred where GregJackP and Jytdog came up, which is what other editors commenting here have been mentioning, and some are trying to create the idea I was involved in all that drama.
4. I'm looking over the Bowman article a few days ago and think a picture isn't needed. It seemed uncontroversial, so I deleted it per WP:BRD expecting someone to revert and discuss if they felt strongly about it.[135]
5. GregJackP went of the rails pretty quickly in the discussion (calling my edit harassment in one edit summary)as I tried to ask him what purpose the picture was serving. [136]. I kept trying to redirect him to be civil and simply answer my question so we could resolve it, but they just kept resorting to some conspiracy of being attacked.
6. It took another editor to actually address my question at the end of the section to actually reach the purpose of the discussion, while GregJackP resorted to sniping in it.

Those are all my interactions with GregJackP up to the hounding at the ash borer page. There's no reason for GregJackP to react as he did to my edit or initial question. The hounding aspect is described in my original post above of deleting pictures with a disruptive purpose at an article I was putting under GA review. Claims that I'm resorting to the same behavior as GregJackP are unsubstantiated in my interactions listed above. I encourage folks to actually look at my edits and interactions before jumping to claims that I've been embroiled in some larger dispute with GregJackP that resulted in this incident. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• All interactions between Kingofaces43 and GregJackP are listed at [ https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py?users=Kingofaces43&users=GregJackP ].
• All interactions between Kingofaces43 and Jytdog are listed at [ https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py?users=Kingofaces43&users=Jytdog ].
• All interactions between GregJackP and Jytdog are listed at [ https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py?users=GregJackP&users=Jytdog ].
• All interactions between all three are listed at [ https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py?users=Kingofaces43&users=GregJackP&users=Jytdog ].

--Guy Macon (talk) 15:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

And this[137] appears to be the start of where things really went off the rails. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

To expand a bit on the above, I think that Jytdog has been trying to pick a fight with GregJackP for a long time, that GregJackP 's responses to Jytdog haven't been perfect but neither are they over the top, that Kingofaces jumped in a started behaving the same way Jytdog was acting, and in particular jumping into a legal artice (GregJackP's main area of interest) and picking a fight, and that suddenly GregJackP and Kingofaces found themselves in a nasty dispute in an area where Kingofaces considers himself to be an expert. That last bit is only a small part of the overall problem, and by no means the start of it, but in my opinion it is where things really went off the rails.

So far the consensus at ANI seems to be that all three of these editors have been part of the problem. It seems to me that GregJackP's contribution to the problem is smaller, but I may be biased because I have a favorable view towards him. The key here is that GregJackP admits that he reacted poorly and was wrong to do so, while Jytdog appears to be dedicated to continuing to battle. I am not sure about Kingofaces; I suspect that he is a good-faith editor who allowed himself to get sucked into a fight. I am hoping that he too will admit that he behaved poorly and that he and GregJackP can shakes hands. apologize, and try to avoid this sort of conflict in the future.

On a related note, I think someone with more knowledge on the topic than I have should look into possible problems in articles relating to Monsanto. I have no idea if anyone is misbehaving, but some of the comments are troubling. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Guy Macon, some of the troubling comments are coming from a set of editors casting aspersions about me without evidence backing the claims up. It's extremely difficult to take claims at face value others have been making about my intent at least because of that. Jytdog isn't even involved in this particular dispute at all, so why he keeps being brought up is beyond me unless others are just trying to perpetuate whatever dispute was happening there. This is amounting to a witch hunt because I made an edit GregJackP disagreed with and I also happen to overlap with Jytdog in agricultural topics we both independently follow. With all that in mind, and since I've known you to be pretty even handed in comments in the past, could you tell me what specific comments caused you to say I was "behaving the same way Jytdog" or anything else that was interpreted as problematic? I included diffs or links to series of comments for all my interactions in this case because they should show very clearly there was no misbehavior on my part all when read in context. I'm quite happy to respond to critiques of my comments in a pointed manner for clarification. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Bigger picture

There's much more to this than Kingofaces43 is disclosing, and there's a reason other editors have linked his behavior with disputes involving Jytdog.

Here is what took place on the Bowman v. Monsanto Co.:

June 20 - June 22

• Jytdog edit wars to insert his POV info that was not supported by his source: [138] [139], [140].

June 21

• During the course of a major rewrite of the article, GregJackP added the uncontroversial picture of Justice Kagan to the article: [141]

June 22

• Kingofaces43 templates GregJackP on his talk page for edit warring on the Bowman article [142], even though GregJackP had only 2 reverts while Jytdog had 3 (see above). Kingofaces43 had never edited on either the article or the article's talk page. Note that the picture of Justice Kagan was already in the article, and Kingofaces43 did not raise any question or objection to it.

• Jytdog chastises PraeceptorIP about his edits on Bowman, and continues to push his POV to support his continuous reverting to include faulty info. [143]. Within 6 minutes, Kingofaces43 shows up on Praeceptor's talk page to support Jytdog, even though Kingofaces43 had never edited the article or engaged in discussion on the talk page: [144]

• Jytdog says he's dropping the issue on the talk page: [145]

• GregJackP nominates Bowman for GA [146].

June 23-July 23

• There are no substantive edits on Bowman and the article becomes stable, awaiting GA review [147].

July 23

• Kingofaces43 removes the picture of Justice Kagan from the article, having never before edited the article or its talk page, and after a month without any substantive edits to Bowman.[148]
• GregJackP explained the inclusion of the picture as soon as he reverted the removal in a civil manner: [149]. Another editor joined the discussion as well supporting Greg's position [150], yet Kingofaces43 tenaciously continued to argue and would not accept reasoned discussion [151], [152], [153], [154], [155]
• It is interesting to note that King's removal of the uncontroversial picture came right on the heels of another of Jytdog's unwarranted and failed content disputes with GregJackP and Praeceptor here [156] and here [157],

This is not the first time editors have had problems with Jytdog and Kingofaces43 being acting in tandem in what appears to be bullying and canvassing, all the while claiming to be acting civilly: [158], [159],[160], [161]

GregJackP, no doubt, engaged in some uncivil dialogue in the course of these disputes, and he has acknowledged his inappropriate response to Kingofaces43. But if you consider the bigger picture, it does look like Kingofaces' removal of the picture on Greg's GAN was not innocent - it does look like Kingofaces was making a deliberately controversial edit to retaliate for a past dispute (i.e. Kingofaces was baiting GregJackP).Minor4th 19:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• No one else did, so I left a notification at Jytdog's user talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I haven't yet had time to look through all the history of this, but I've previously edited with Jytdog and Kingofaces on some content disputes involving Monsanto, and my past experience has been that Jytdog, in particular, has been pretty scrupulous about WP:NPOV with respect to content in this subject area, and that anything having to do with Monsanto tends to be a magnet for "Monsanto-is-evil" POV-pushing. I hasten to add that I do not know whether there was such pushing in this case, nor do I know about the level of civility in the present dispute, but when I see "Jytdog edit wars to insert his POV", my immediate reaction is to want to hear the other side of the argument. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:20, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

What User:Tryptofish, who is not an administrator but should be one, says, is absolutely correct. There are a few subjects on which rational discourse is not possible, because there is an already established point of view that will stop at nothing. There are a few editors who are so certain that Monsanto is evil that they know, beyond knowledge, that no editor can agree with an edit that removes "anti-Monsanto" content on policy grounds, and that any removal of "anti-Monsanto" edits must be based on ownership of Monsanto stock. Some editors really do assume bad faith by any editor who will make any edit that removes "anti-Monsanto" edits on grounds of conflict of interest. Can we really agree not to make idle accusations of COI, and just talk about Monsanto? If so, good. If not, you have about two months to do your name-calling before the Arbcom kicks in discretionary sanctions. Anyway, please try to be civil, even though I know that all of you, on both sides, will be uncivil and will engage in pointless complaints. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The edits in question were not really a Monsanto / anti-Monsanto issue, but dealt with the issue of patent law on the issue of "making" and whether the information appeared in a law review article to support it. The information wasn't in the article, and multiple legal editors pointed that out. I don't think that any POV on the good-Monsanto or evil-Monsanto was involved, on either side of the dispute. GregJackP Boomer! 03:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• I have no desire to comment on this thread, as I have been trying to steer clear of GregJackP per Tryptofish's useful advice to both of us. I will say the following two things. 1) I don't know what motivated Kingofaces to remove the picture from the Bowman article: I have not participated in that discussion as I don't care if the picture of the judge is there or not. 2) Regardless of what motivated Kingofaces' removal, it is very clear that GregJackP's interference on the Emerald Ash Borer article was just ugly retaliatory behavior, and all the counterattacking distraction doesn't change that. Jytdog (talk) 00:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• Just an observation. Showing up at WT:LAW to raise issues on Bluebook and issues already settled at the talkpage of In re Alappat sure seems to be a sign that he's not "trying to steer clear" of me. I haven't gone to WP:COIN, GMO, or any of the areas that I know Jytdog edits in, and would have thought that if he was trying to steer clear, he would have done the same for my preferred subject areas. And I've already stated that I should not have responded to the obvious baiting of Kingofaces43. I'll not comment on the remarkable coincidence that Minor4h pointed out, that Kingofaces43 seems to act in tandem with Jytdog. GregJackP Boomer! 01:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Bringing it to WP:LAW was exactly an effort to steer clear of you; you are not identical with articles related to law nor with issues I deal with regularly. I won't be responding further to you here, as I would prefer to keep steering clear of you. Jytdog (talk) 02:13, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Bringing it to WP:LAW would be like me camping out on WP:COIN - a surefire way to come into contact. You know that. GregJackP Boomer! 03:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• I have been editing articles about IP law for a long time. As far as I can GregJackP had almost no interest in IP law before his fixation on me. As near as I can tell, he is the one sticking to me; I am not following him around. I would just as soon never cross paths with the guy again. And I have not seen GregJackP show an iota of interest in COI so his showing up at COIN and other COI matters would be yet more following me around. I deeply regret ever getting involved in the Black Elk article, which I landed on via a posting at RSN. Can't turn back time but I can turn away - and have turned away - from a bad relationship. The question is, can GregJackP? Jytdog (talk) 04:58, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Minor4th, you just made some very serious WP:ASPERSIONS about me, please do not misrepresent my comments. I very clearly stated here when I first commented on anything related to the Bowman article that I came there independently[162] and did was not interested in whatever was going on with Jytdog and GregJackP.[163] For anyone actually reading my comments, that should have completely skewered any conspiracy theory that I'm somehow involved in whatever happened with Jytdog. I wasn't there for the bulk of content disputes, and I haven't even read the recent ANIs or other disputes you mentioned involving the two editors. I came to the article as a completely uninvolved editor, and editors trying to continue whatever spat was going on with Jytdog by attacking me simply because I piggybacked on a comment when I said I was already planning to make it separately at first is highly inappropriate. Trying here to drag me into whatever larger dispute was going on involving Jytdog is even worse.

This still boils down to me checking back on the article after the disputes settled down and thinking a picture wasn't needed. GregJackP reverted it, I tried to ask what purpose it was serving for the article, and he blew up. There is no reasonable way to claim I was misbehaving there and there is no way to paint it as me retaliating for some set of disputes I wasn't even aware of until you posted them. That was far from a controversial edit or comments on my part if you look at the actual sequence of events.[164][165][166] Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:18, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

While all of this has been tremendous fun, can we get someone to close this? I would rather be working on creating, expanding, or improving articles. GregJackP Boomer! 01:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

That seems a bit premature considering we don't have any resolution on your behavior, even with your comment above saying you shouldn't have done what you did while going on to cast aspersions saying I was baiting you. That bad-faith attitude is a huge problem and disruption. The hounding wasn't excusable even if you mistakenly thought I was part of some secret cabal and completely missed comments that should have dispelled that for you ages ago. Is that all going to stop if I interact with you in the future? I've been approaching you civilly from day one. I only expect civility in return and have always tried to respond civilly to you even when you weren't to me. I can understand to a degree if you let frustration from other separate editor interactions bleed over into the brief interactions we've had, but I'd really recommend trying harder to keep such things separate in the future. I did not come here for a block or ban even though you partially derailed a GA review as you mistakenly claimed I was trying to do. I was just here to get that behavior to stop. If you can agree to stop that problematic behavior in the future, then I see no reason why this shouldn't be closed. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

If you'll just agree to stop baiting people on articles that you have never edited, along with agreeing to stop acting in concert with Jytdog, I think we can resolve this. Or we can continue and go into more depth about your problematic behavior. Do you really want to do that? Several here have already indicated that they want to apply a WP:BOOMERANG to your report, your actions, etc. I, on the other hand, would rather get back to editing. Why don't we just do that? GregJackP Boomer! 03:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

That's a precarious way to handle an olive branch, but sure. Considering though that I never baited you or worked in concert with Jytdog at the article, I have no problem assuring that I also have no intention of doing so in the future either. I don't bait people and I work independently even when editors frequent similar topics as myself. You do appear to think I did, but that's part of the assuming bad-faith issue I was asking you address. Ignoring the misstep above, can I expect what I asked of you? Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Kingofaces43, I fully support Minor4th's interpretation of the diffs. That multiple people who have little to no contact with each other interpret the data in the same way and come to the same conclusions should tell you something. From where I stand, you continued disrupting the Bowman v. Monsanto Co. article in the wake of Jytdog's departure. Given the connecting evidence offered by Minor4th linking you with Jytdog, this appears open and shut. Viriditas (talk) 02:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Our previous interactions have been rocky at best Viriditas, but this insistence is amounting to lying about an editors comments in clear violation of WP:NPA. Please refrain from that. I made it abundantly clear in the diffs and straight from the horse's mouth what my intentions were. The diff Minor4th included even show I stated I came there independently and wasn't interested in the drama between Jytdog and GregJackP if one actually reads my comment. If I had put my comment to PraceptorIP in it's own section as I originally intended before I saw a similar section already open or even posted my comment earlier in the day (should've cut my vacation short by another hour apparently), there would have been absolutely no question. That's as close as I ever got to interacting with Jytdog. As for the actual issue at hand this was far from a controversial or disruptive edit, especially when one is assuming good faith. I know I was when I made that edit at least. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Interactions between Kingofaces43 and Jytdog. Note that there are 42 edits on the same pages that are within 15 minutes of each other, and 79 within 2 hours of the other. If you look at the edits, on the very first page (Monsanto) you are supporting Jytdog's position on archiving [167] even though you had not participated in the discussion. That pretty much matches what Viriditas said earlier. Jytdog makes a proposal on HFCS and 6 minutes later you are there with a support [168]. At Organic Food, it took a whole 11 minutes for you to show support for Jytdog's proposal [169]. I could go on and on. So for you to claim that you don't interact with Jytdog is just false. Drop the stick, let's go back to editing. GregJackP Boomer! 04:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

As stated previsouly, our topic areas overlap in agriculture. Considering that I often get short breaks in the day where I'll hop on Wikipedia, of course there are going to be a few times when I see a very recent update on my watchlist I respond to that happens to be his. I react quickly to other editors too when I have a bit of time. It's called having articles on your watchlist, so again, please refrain from casting aspersions. As I've mentioned, I don't care what your obsession is over Jytdog here, but leave me out of it and stop trying to pull me into that larger dispute. I've already pointed out to you that one post coincided at the same time as one of his, but there was no interaction going on at Bowman. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• A note for those claiming I somehow came to the Bowman article due to Jytdog (which is still completely tangential here). I clearly summarized in one of my first interactions with the topic on a user's talk page that I came there independently, "I was actually going to pop over here to say the same thing. I'm just catching up on my watchlist after some time away."[170] GregJackP was already alerted to this [171] well before this current dispute and that I wanted nothing to do with whatever spat GregJackP and Jytdog were having.[172] I've iterated this a few times here already, but since this is clearly from the horse's mouth both now and in my original interactions, can we at least cease with the distraction from whatever other disputes GregJackP has been in? Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that people don't believe you, based on the evidence in the diffs and your history of showing up to support Jytdog. Again, I encourage you to drop this and let's all get back to editing. GregJackP Boomer! 05:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

As I've asked you, please drop the stick on continuing these false accusations. You're only continuing the cycle every time I've civilly asked you to stop. In this venue especially, I'm going to set the record straight if someone is misrepresenting me. The diffs clearly show my intent in the series of edits as I explained it, that I was there independently, and that there wasn't wrongdoing on my part if one actually reads my comments thoroughly. I even stated all that outright well before this ANI even started. If after all that someone chooses to assume bad faith, we might as well delete WP:AGF and let everyone assume bad faith for whatever dispute they want. As I've asked before, please just stop the attacks. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Kingofaces43, you claim that this has nothing to do with Jytdog, but you placed a warning about edit warring on GregJackP's talk page (but not Jytdog's) concerning a page on which GregJackP and Jytdog were interacting.[173][174] Two days later you removed a picture of supreme court justice Elena Kagan from that page -- a page you had never edited before.[175][176] This was followed by GregJackP removing some pictures from Emerald ash borer, the two of you edit warring, and the page being protected. [177][178][179][180][181][182]

Concerning the merits of the warning, my count on that page is

• [183] GregJackP: original edit.
• [184] Jytdog reverts: 1RR
• [185] GregJackP reverts: 1RR
• [186] Jytdog reverts: 2RR
• [187] Minor4th reverts" 1RR

So you gave a warning for edit warring to an editor who was at 1RR, didn't give it to the editor who was at 2RR, and a couple of days later engaged in a real edit war on another page. I don't consider that to be helpful.

Nor do I consider GregJackP's behavior to be helpful. He edit warred on Emerald ash borer too. Also, after you removed the picture from Bowman v. Monsanto Co. in a clear case of hounding, he removed several pictures from Emerald ash borer in a clear case of hounding you right back. The only question is who is going to admit that they lost their cool and behaved poorly and who will ignore the first rule of holes and claim innocence. GregJackP has alreasdy admitted that he behaved poorly and made a commitment to not do it again. Your responses sound like you believe that your behavior was correct and that you would do it again. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• I'll have to say a lot of those comments about me are way off base. Let's start with the edit waring template. If you actually read what I wrote in that overall conversation [188], I did not place a template on Jytdog's page because they had previously stated they were done at the page. A warning would have served no purpose unless they started editing again, in which case I would have left a warning there myself just the same (I almost did until I saw his comment saying he was leaving). I count the original edit as a revert too (there is some variation in what people think on that), but I made it clear I posted it, "as a good faith reminder"[189] and not as some sort of punishment. I generally welcome such reminders [190] and make my intent clear for others when I post them. It also looks like only looked at edits on June 22 instead of edits in the 24 hours period going into June 21. Edit warring was occurring regardless of how one counts reverts and that was the take home message to be wary about since things were looking precarious from an uninvolved editor just starting to catch up on edits I'd missed. The breakdown of different ways people consider "reverts" is also in the edit warring talk page discussion where I made it clear I wasn't trying to pin GregJackP down for a certain number of reverts, but just as a previously uninvolved editor asking for caution about edit warring.
• I'm not sure where you get the idea that I removed the picture two days later. The edit warring template was a full month before I made the picture edit, not two days (June vs. July confusion maybe). Part of the reason I didn't even look at the article during the in-between time was because I didn't want to be involved in whatever tussle was going on at the time after seeing how GregJackP came after me, so I came back at a later date instead when things had settled looking at what I myself thought of the article for improvements. That some have manufactured this idea that I had other intents is problematic, but when I reiterated time and again what my actual intentions were, that point should have been a closed book as far as any scrutiny on why I was editing the article.
• Again, there's no case for claiming I was ever hounding GregJackP. It's clear now he does not react well to my presence there (and I hope that changes in the future), but that's quite opposite to me hounding someone. When I edited the article a full month after my brief interaction with him, I approached the article edit and conversation civilly. It's starting to be clear from this his responses here that bad faith was assumed (i.e., baiting) when I've explicitly stated I was approaching the whole thing with good faith.
• My edits on the emerald ash borer page were removal of vandalism and do not count as edit warring as they are not reverts per WP:NOT3RR for reverting obvious vandalism. There's no question hounding was occurring there in order to deliberately disrupt an article to prove a point. That very squarely fits the definition of WP:VANDAL. That can be discussed more if you want since that's why I originally came here in the first place. I stopped removing it when it was apparent the hounding was going to continue, and came here instead.
• As for GregJackP, they have continued to make baiting accusations even though they have been told I never intended any such thing, so that commitment was chopped up pretty quickly. I've still been civilly extending that olive branch to them in this conversation and simply asking for the bad-faith attitude to stop. That's never been rescinded either. I'm commenting on my behavior because people are making accusations about my intent that I have shown to be completely false straight from the horses mouth. It's a simple case of bad faith being and ignoring my comments stating what my actual intent was, and I'm just asking for that to stop. Kingofaces43 (talk) 13:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Whyedithere and personal attacks

Whyedithere has made this edit to his user page under the heading Wikipedia Users that Suck. The content, particularly these other morons that edit wikipedia don't get that they can stick their advice up their ..., is clearly a personal attack so I reverted and left a warning on his talk page but he has reverted both. There's very little point in me, or any other non-admin, reverting and/or warning again because he simply doesn't take any notice of warnings. Whyedithere was recently blocked for three days for edit-warring and this was only his 5th edit after coming off the block. The attack is obviously retaliation for the involvement of Drmargi, AlexTheWhovian and me in that block and he has previously had some rather negative interactions with Swarm. The content will probably be removed in a few days anyway, as there is now stronger evidence that Whyedithere is a sock of Andrewwikiedit and I'm currently drafting another SPI case, but that's no excuse for ignoring this issue now. Editors have no right to create content specifically aimed at attacking other editors. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Reverted and warned. GiantSnowman 09:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

He's reverted the headings, along with a little pontification about freedom of speech. Like too many people, he doesn't understand that the American right to freedom of speech is not unlimited, and it's certainly not a license to insult without consequence. --Drmargi (talk) 00:08, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

SN: I know there's no guideline against warning someone about possibly being blocked, but is there a guideline about non-admins threatening to block someone? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Erpert I don't think they, Whyedithere, is threatening to block anybody. It looks to me as if he is saying that he has to go along with AussieLegend or AussieLegend will block him. Not to say that AussieLegend actually said that. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I certainly didn't. Whyedithere is probably misreading one of the warning templates left on his talk page (or the talk pages of his previous accounts) that say (roughly) "if you continue to do this you can/may be blocked". --AussieLegend (✉) 15:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

User:RB NRK needs talk page block

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

---

User:RB NRK has persisted in using his talk page for personal promotional purposes following an indefinite block, while not communicating with anybody. It's time to block him from editing his talk page —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I already did, a few minutes ago. Didn't you get the memo? Yunshui ^雲_水 12:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Alakzi

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

---

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

Reporting Alakzi for taking disruptive and vandalistic action to remove parameters instead of fixing them, going against ongoing discussions and against lack of consensus at Template_talk:Infobox television season. Alex|The|Whovian 13:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

More specifically, the user in question is removing custom colouring from table headers as they believe that the contrast is not AAA compliant as described in MOS:Access. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

And Alakzi is not wrong; many of the color combinations used in the TV series infoboxes are color-contrast non-compliant. Some of them are difficult for me to read, depending on the angle of my laptop screen, and I have near 20-20 corrected vision when I'm wearing my eyeglasses. This is effectively a content dispute over compliance with the color-contrast guidelines, and it is probably going to require some compromise by all parties in order to get it resolved, and eliminate the worst examples of non-compliant color combinations. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Expanding upon this, given the initial report was rather basic: The user in question raised the topic of AA/AAA compliance when it came to colour contrast in infoboxes and episode tables of television series. He requests that other editors take out the actions of editing the articles to make the colours more compliant, refusing to do so himself, and given that the discussion at the infobox talk page didn't go as fast as he'd liked, he decided to take action by removing the contrast-offending parameters completely. He refuses to compromise, only if he gets things his way. Alex|The|Whovian 13:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

While the editor may not be wrong in some areas, this doesn't give him the right to suddenly remove valid parameters in hundreds of articles without concluding the discussion or gaining consensus first, and demanding that other editors do the work which he deems required to be done. Alex|The|Whovian 13:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

... demanding that other editors do the work which he deems required to be done. This is patently false. I have done all the work that needed to be done. You made the demand that I replace violating, arbitrary colours with conformant, arbitrary colours, which I refused. Alakzi (talk) 13:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

No, Alex, it does not give Alakzi the right to unilaterally remove the color parameters from the TV series infobox template, but WikiProject TV editors need to get off the dime and start proposing some viable solutions. There are numerous egregious examples of color-contrast non-compliant infoboxes. Let's take this back to the talk page, where it needs to be resolved. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I would recommend reading the talk page in question. Many viable solutions have been proposed, and this is what we got. Our apologies that we have busy lives and cannot be on Wikipedia 24/7 to implement everything. Alex|The|Whovian 14:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I have read most of it, Alex, and I am familiar with the principal cast of characters. There's no need to apologize for being a volunteer. I'll talk to you more on the discussion page. See you there. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

• To provide some background for this, since it's not going to be obvious to an outside observer as to what has been going on, here is some history. About a week ago Alakzi decided that he didn't like the colour combinations being used at some television season articles, so he set about removing not just the colour data, but the parameters as well, from infoboxes at several articles.[191][192][193][194][195][196][197] When that was going too slowly, he decided to instead remove the parameters completely from {{Infobox television season}}, without any prior discussion.[198] He was reverted by AlexTheWhovian, but restored the changes.[199] I then reverted and directed him to discuss, both in my edit summary,[200] and on his talk page,[201] but he reverted me as well.[202] The discussion on his talk page did not go well and he was eventually warned by MSGJ,[203] who then protected the template. Protection was later upgraded from "templateeditor" (Alakzi, the main combatant, has the templateeditor permission) to "full" by Mr. Stradivarius, who has been watching the discussion in progress at Template_talk:Infobox television season. We have been working toward modifying the template so as to best comply with WP:COLOR to prevent future problems, and to develop a strategy to eliminate current problems outside the infobox area of affected articles but the discussion is not progressing fast enough for Alakzi, who appears to have given up on discussion. (this is his last edit.) He has decided to instead take it upon himself to start editing all of the articles removing the parameters entirely and so far has done this at 276 articles. His removals have been arbitrary and quite disruptive.[204] Other editors are happy to collaborate on this and there is no excuse for Alakzi's actions. As a result his access to AWB has been revoked,[205][206] but I'm not sure that will stop him. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • You continue to unapologetically misrepresent my position, presumably so as to mask the absurdity of your own position. "Alakzi decided that he didn't like the colour combinations being used at some television season articles"? Do you have no integrity? Alakzi (talk) 14:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry, but was I wrong? Do you actually like the colour combinations used? --AussieLegend (✉) 15:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
      • You do have no integrity. Alakzi (talk) 15:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
        • In fairness, Aussie, WP:TV does have 100s of text-background color-contrast problems in the infoboxes for TV series; it's not simply a matter of Alakzi "does not like the color combinations"; you know this. And rhetorically trying to make it sound as if there is not a guideline-based reason is misrepresenting the situation -- otherwise there would not be a need to address the current problems, and prevent future problems, as you mention above. Let's try to get this back on track, shall we? There are real problems here which needs to be addressed, and beating up Alakzi, while good sport, does nothing to resolve them. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:25, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
          • I don't deny that there are colour contrast problems. In fact I welcome discussion aimed at resolving the issues. My own personal opinion is currently that we probably shouldn't bother with colour in the infobox, so I sort of support Alakzi, but his attitude to resolution of the problem is unnacceptable. He chose to make significant changes without any discussion, has edit-warred, abused AWB and is now even challenging admins to block him.[207] It's not a case of getting this back on track. Everyone except Alakzi is still on track and has never been off. Alakzi has gone rogue and needs to be reigned in so that other editors can continue to work without disruption. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Should the rest of Alakzi's (?) edits be reverted or leave as it is? I understand their reasons, but this is disruptive since they haven't seek consensus. It doesn't matter if it takes 100 days to make it happen. That is how Wikipedia works: compromise. Not this disruptive editing. Callmemirela {Talk}

My belief in the sense of Wikipedia's "consensus" has vanished. I have seen too many times that consensus arrived at something tat makes no sense (example: according to consensus, Wagner wrote all his stage works in German with one exception, The Flying Dutchman. This argument is a matter of accessibility, right? We should pursue accessibility, whether consensus wants it or not. We don't vote if a building can have a ramp for the handicapped, or do we? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)♑ 15:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Of course we would have to discuss that and decide by consensus, accessibility can be pursued and achieved in many ways, and sometimes it may not be the best choice to pursue it if it means that information is lost. In this case however I dont think there are any good arguments for not choosing the most accesible solution.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

• Alakzi's colour-removals all deserve reverting!, Whether colours should or shouldn't be in articles should be discussed at an RFC and he's been here long enough to know that, This is quite honestly disruptive editing at it's best!, Seeing as I don't have a brilliant track record when it comes to edit warring I won't mass-revert but I suggest someone does!. –Davey2010^Talk 15:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I think I've covered it all. I'll double check later. Callmemirela {Talk} ♑ 15:48, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

There is a real issue of very poor combinations of foreground and background colour in many articles that use Template:Infobox television season. At present, editors are free to choose any set of colours that take their fancy, with no regard to the problems caused to visitors with impaired vision, either in acuity or in colour-blindness. This issue is not negotiable. The Foundation makes it clear that no Wikimedia project may discriminate against users with disabilities, and that its policy "may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored by local policies". With over 1,000 articles potentially affected, the solution suggested by AlexTheWhovian and AussieLegend is for Alakzi to go through each one individually and replace poor colour combinations with accessible ones. The solution implemented by Alakzi is to take the choice of colour out of the template. This whole fracas is a result of AlexTheWhovian and AussieLegend stonewalling the improvements, safe in the knowledge that the task of policing those 1,000+ articles is a huge task for a single editor. The solution is clear: the template should not have the ability to change colours unless it can be shown that there is a mechanism in place to ensure that the colours chosen meet high standards of accessibility. Alakzi's changes to the template should remain unless the non-compliant colour combinations are corrected first. If editors want to have their own custom hues for television seasons, they are going to have to show that they respect the problems of disability that bad choices will produce.

In the meantime, this malicious report needs to be seen for what it is. --RexxS (talk) 16:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this is a solution. --Izno (talk) 17:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

It should be noted that Alakzi was blocked by Ceradon for personal attacks for a duration of 24 hours. Callmemirela {Talk} ♑ 16:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

For those interested in actually dealing with inaccessible pages, I just discovered the Accessibility WikiProject. I, for one, am joining. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I am concerned about how much of the discussion about this issue has centered on various matters of who behaved worse about what and who was impolite to whom. Considering the nature of the problem, there are two possible solution classes:

• Inappropriate color combinations left in the template:

• Pro: Editors can work at their own pace to replace accessibility-violating colors with acceptable ones of their choosing.
• Con: Some of our readers can't read some of our content for indeterminate amounts of time.

• Inappropriate color combinations removed from the template:

• Pro: The affected subset of our readers can now read the content, even if editors replacing colors work slowly.
• Con: Readers will have to see infoboxes whose color schemes do not match the preferences of the TV editors.

In other words, the first solution is more convenient for the editors doing the cleanup, and the second is more convenient to the readers interested in our content. The editors' reactions are more salient to us; the affected readers are not represented on an internal noticeboard. A lot of the activity here has failed to appreciate the asymmetrical nature of the issue. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:03, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I found it hard to get a handle on the events that transpired here, so have compiled a timeline for reference:

1. 1:25 18 July 2015 (UTC) Alakzi raised an issue with Template:Infobox television season being invoked with non-accessible colors parameters, and made a bold edit to remove usage of colors in the template itself.
2. 2:22 AlexTheWhovian reverted, and started a discussion at Template_talk:Infobox_television_season#Colour.
3. 19:32 AlexTheWhovian warned by admin MSGJ: "Your recent actions on Alakzi's user and talk page have not been constructive, and seem to amount to "baiting" ... Further disruption will result in a block." [208]
4. 19:35 MSGJ protects template citing "edit warring" after further reverts by Alakzi (3), AussieLegend, and AlexTheWhovian
5. 13:39 20 July Consensus reached at Template_talk:Infobox_television_season#Protected_edit_request_on_20_July_2015 to add a tracking category, Category:Articles using Template:Infobox television season with invalid colour combination, to identify specific transclusions of the template that are calculated to have accessibility issues per WP:COLOR.[209]
6. 12:27, 24 July Alakzi starts a thread at User_talk:Alakzi#Pathetic with "It's now been a week and 1,038 articles remain inaccessible. Congratulations to all of the spineless and thoughtless barnstar hoarders who have made this possible. If this is not resolved by tomorrow noon, I'll run AWB to remove all violating colour combinations."[210]
7. 12:36 AlexTheWhovian responds on the page with "We're not your slaves. Do it yourself. Any removals of parameters will be swiftly reverted", which Alakzi reverts from their talk page.[211].
8. 12:45–13:13, 24 July 2015 Alakzi uses AWB to modify various article with edit summary "rm WP:ACCESS violating colour combination using AWB"
9. 13:00 AlexTheWhovian reports Alakzi for "disruptive and vandalistic action" at WP:AIV[212]. Eventually closed there at 13:36 per WP:NOTVANDALISM[213]
10. 13:03 In a bit of WP:FORUMSHOP, AlexTheWhovian reports Alakzi again for "disruptive and vandalistic action", now on this current ANI thread [214]
11. 13:12, 24 July 2015‎ On User talk:Alakzi, Alakzi asks AlexTheWhovian to "Do stop commenting here" [215], which is a user's perrogative per WP:NOBAN
12. AlexTheWhovian continues posting on Alakzi's page: [216][217][218]
13. 14:07, 24 July 2015 Admin Ceradon revokes Alakzi's AWB rights, explaining: "However, I fear that you will continue to make controversial changes while the matter is being discussed. To be clear, I have no prejudice against this being re-granted when this issue is resolved." [219]
14. 14:50, 24 July 2015 Alakzi responds to Ceradon: "These are not controversial changes to anybody with some sense"[220]
15. 14:51, 24 July 2015 Summarizing past events, AussieLegend writes in this ANI thread that Alakzi "didn't like the colour combinations being used"[221]
16. 14:59, 24 July 2015 Alakzi responds that AussieLegend "unapologetically misrepresent my position", and asks "Do you have no integrity?" [222]
17. AussieLegend responds "Do you actually like the colour combinations used?"[223]
18. Alaksi responds "You do have no integrity."[224]
19. 15:25 Alakzi challenges Ceradon: "Get off your high horse, or block me."[225]
20. 15:25 Alakzi challenges Ceradon: "It is up to people like you to make a stand, but you continue to fail the community and the encyclopedia."[226]
21. 15:56, 24 July 2015 Alakzi is blocked by Ceradon for personal attacks and disruptive editing

—Bagumba (talk) 01:50, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Bagumba for your timeline. Really does help to wrap your head around this whole thing. Cheers, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 02:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

In truth, I believe AussieLegend summed up the solution to this dispute quite laconically: "The solution is to fix the colours in articles where inappropriate colours are used, not to delete the parameters entirely." I'm inclined to agree that simply removing the parameter from all these pages doesn't fix the problem, as MOS:ACCESS does not disallow the use of colors in infoboxes. However, I believe that we can all agree that we need to satisfy our readers -- all of them, of course, and those with visual impairments none the less -- and that, as it stands, the colors that exist in certain articles are a bit over the top, and difficult to read. Now, while I do agree that we have a problem, I do not believe Alakzi's solution -- simply removing the parameters -- fixes it, and it, to me, leans toward disruption. But this is not something Alakzi seems to realize. He doesn't get the point so much so that he jumped on AWB and made sweeping changes to a smorgasbord of articles, and doesn't seem to think his edits are controversial, which defies logic, because the very definition of controversial is that it gives cause to argument or debate (i.e. what we are doing right now). Alakzi has been warned that "a super-quick resolution of this dispute" is not workable (Further, I want to quote more of Mr. Stradivarius' sentiment in the same diff: "Yes, we need to make this site accessible. But we also can't afford to alienate our editors. By doing this through discussion and consensus we can have our cake and eat it as well - there's no reason that accessibility needs to come at the expense of editor retention." This is not something that Alakzi understands, or even seems to care about.) A few comments after, Alakzi was told: "There is no rush to fix what has not been seen as a major problem up to now. Meta discussions are not leading us to a solution." But what I find really disgusting is that he chose to use AWB as a weapon to force the changes he wanted on a large amount of pages. (see his contributions for evidence of that) And his use (abuse, in my opinion) of the template editor user right and edit warring to make controversial changes to a template, and got the template fully protected. That was Pigsonthewing's doing, not Alakzi's.

I could go on and on about Alakzi's behavior, intransigence and refusal to get the point, but, this is not to say that others do not share some blame. AlexTheWhovian engaged in an edit war to remove a quote about him on Alakzi's user page (now deleted), and when he was told to stop, he refused. This edit is quite disruptive, and an unnecessary escalation, if you were to ask me. And this was deeply troubling to me. But I would caution any user to pay keen attention to narrative that editors here are trying to force. That a white knight is sweeping to slay the wicked inaccessibility-mongers and valiantly save our readers, and the encyclopaedia from itself? No, to fairy-taleish for my blood. In truth, Alakzi could have ended the edit war by simply removing the quote. Simple as that. And I come away with the impressing that Alakzi's intransigence towards AussieLegend's and AlexTheWhovian's suggestions were just as provoking and annoying to them as AlexTheWhovian's actions towards Alazki were provoking and anoying to Alakzi. An below, RexxS add fuel to the fire: Alakzi's edits discussed above are an attempt to bring many instances of inaccessible colour combinations into compliance with WCAG 2.0 AAA standards, our accessibility policy, and the Foundation Non discrimination policy... Yes, but there is nothing wrong with having colors in infoboxes, so his solution to simply remove the parameter, rather than change -- you know -- the color that is causing the problem in the first place seems a bit extreme. prohibits discrimination against users on grounds of disability. Oh my! You're vilifying your opponents. They did not consciously discriminate against editors with disabilities. This is also extreme.

Now, to dispute resolution. First some findings of fact (point out to me if I am wrong anywhere): (1) The matter of contention is whether the colors used in infoboxes would hinder the readibility and accessibility of our content for visually-impaired editors. (2a) Alakzi chose to, as a resolution to this matter, remove the parameters controlling the colors in infoboxes from a large amount of pages. (2b) AlexTheWhovian, AussieLegend and several others did not like this resolution. (3a) Some editors, as a resolution to the conflict, wanted to seek consensus for the changes. (3b) Alakzi disagreed, saying that consensus would take too long and the changes fall within the realm of common sense. (3c) Other editors responded that the changes are not dire, and consensus can be reached before changes are made. Second: I just want to lay out a framework for what I believe might end this:

• In the appropriate guidelines (MOS:ACCESS or wherever) editors are told something to the effect of: "While colours in infoboxes are not discouraged, colours that are difficult to read for our readers and editors who have visual impairments are. Therefore, colours in infoboxes must be compliant with the World Wide Web Consortium's (W3C) Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG). You can check that here. The colors chosen should also be relevant to the article in question. Further, not liking the color presented is not a reason to remove the parameter completely."

It may also be necessary that an automated program change the color to a unified scheme, not remove the parameter completely, and afterwards, individuals may come along and change the color scheme of individual articles again to make them relevant to that particular article. (for example, a nice, WCAG-compliant shade of red for an article like Clifford the Big Red Dog). Thoughts? --ceradon (talk • contribs) 02:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Just to make sure we are all on the same page: The template coding itself was resolved at timeline No. 5 (13:39 20 July), with the tracking category added to identify transclusions with flagged color combos. The issue now seems to be whether to 1) remove the current color in those individual flagged articles, with the option to add back accessible ones later as needed 2) have the flagged articles remain with inaccessible colors indefinitely until users address them one-by-one 3) other?—Bagumba (talk) 02:50, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

@Bagumba: To me, and this may be quixotic, I believe that if we can agree on a unified color scheme and have that implemented on all articles in the tracking categories, the majority of this dispute is solved. Both sides bring reasonable points, and a solution that cuts right in the middle is workable, in my opinion. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 03:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

And his use (abuse, in my opinion) of the template editor user right and edit warring to make controversial changes to a template, and got the template fully protected - Just to clarify, when Alakzi edit-warred, the template was not protected so he didn't actually abuse the template editor user right. After he first protected the template, MSGJ posted a request on the talk page stating Alakzi and others involved in the current dispute are requested not to edit the template, but to raise a request and allow another template editor or admin to gauge consensus.[227] Alakzi then edited the sandbox and noted on the talk page, I've now implemented this in the sandbox; see the final testcase in Template:Infobox television season/testcases,[228] and left it at that. He did not request that the code be implemented. It was Pigsonthewing who then added Alakzi's code to the template.[229] I reported this to MSGJ,[230] who reverted Pigsonthewing. It was Pigsonthewing who abused the template editor user right when he edit-warred, reverting MSGJ.[231] MSGJ then asked Pigsonthewing to revert or lose his template editor user right.[232] The template was fully protected after this. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:03, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Stuck it from my comment, AussieLegend. Thank you for pointing that out. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 03:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

To add a little background on WCAG 2.0: the guidelines provide for three levels of compliance, "A", "AA", and "AAA". They don't have any particular fixed meaning; "A" is the lowest level of accessibility and "AAA" is the highest. Color contrast is not an issue for the "A" compliance level, but a contrast ratio (between text and background) ≥ 4.5 is required for "AA" compliance, and a ratio ≥ 7 is required for "AAA" compliance. Looking through the documentation here, we see that the "AA" minimum is set to meet typical acuity of vision in an 80-year-old, while the "AAA" minimum accommodates 20/80 vision (i.e., the maximum vision impairment likely not to use screen readers). I surveyed the contents of the infobox tracking category, and, thanks in part to Alakzi inserting automatic contrast switching code on the 18th, 98% of it meets the "AA" criterion. So it is possible that some people with reasonably severe vision impairments not quite serious enough to use screen readers are unable to make out the headings in the infoboxes and are compelled to read the article text instead; since all the information in the infobox should be present in the article, that arguably (*very* arguably) constitutes a "conforming alternative version" which "provides all of the same information and functionality in the same human language" and meets the AAA guideline anyway. Now, the argument for retaining colors is obviously equally trivial; the aesthetic benefit to doing so is not great, and there's certainly no reason it can't be done with AAA-conformant color combinations. But in terms of the big moral picture of accessibility, this is somewhere around the "tithes of mint, dill and cumin" level. (IMO, the reason it's being fought so furiously is because the issue is really serving as a proxy for the extent to which editors can bypass normal community processes by asserting technical expertise. But let discerning observers draw their own conclusions.) Choess (talk) 05:53, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

AlexTheWhovian

The reporting editor needs to take note of WP:BOOMERANG. His behaviour towards Alakzi has been appalling recently and he needs to back away. It is clear from his comments on Alakzi's talk page that he is deliberately harassing Alakzi and this report is just another facet of his campaign to remove an editor who disagrees with him. Here are a selection of the problems AlexTheWhovian has caused:

• In this edit, AlexTheWhovian refactors a conversation on Alakzi's talk page. No edit summary.
• Alakzi politely requests that AlexTheWhovian does not further revert on his talk page.
• AlexTheWhovian bluntly refuses.
• Alakzi asks AlexTheWhovian to stop.
• AlexTheWhovian makes a clear threat to give Alakzi "a terrible experience at Wikipedia".

On multiple occasions, has accused Alakzi of WP:vandalism, including several times today, in the above and on Alakzi's talk page. Vandalism is defined as a "deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia". Our policy is clear that "any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism". Alakzi's edits discussed above are an attempt to bring many instances of inaccessible colour combinations into compliance with WCAG 2.0 AAA standards, our accessibility policy, and the Foundation Non discrimination policy which prohibits discrimination against users on grounds of disability. Any suggestion that such edits are not good faith attempts at improving the encyclopedia need to be disavowed and AlexTheWhovian needs to withdraw those accusations or face sanctions.

I propose that to avoid further possibility of harassment, AlexTheWhovian is instructed not to interact with Alakzi in future. --RexxS (talk) 15:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Ahh the old gang is all here, good to see. You're a bit late with this. It was handled by an admin days ago.[233] --AussieLegend (✉) 16:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Definitely fun to see, AL. A threat? Redefine. Quotes from other editors about how bad one is at editing is their own fault, and none of mine. I have been one to revert his dangerous edits, and he has been the one to blatantly refuse discussion when requested to by other experienced users and admins. Alakzi's edits have been disruptive and unrequired, as he has deliberately gone against the face of lack of consensus and discussion, taking it in his own hands simply because we weren't replying fast enough. As per what I've just said, I will not withdraw my statements of these edits being the opposite of good faith, given the fact that multiple editors support this as well. Alex|The|Whovian 16:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

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

---

Interaction ban between Alakzi and AlexTheWhovian

These two users interacting with each other helps nothing. It's sad that this had to end up here. I believe RexxS's diff and the context of this situation speak for themselves. These two editors interacting does not benefit Wikipedia, and it would seem to be this conflict is only exacerbated by this. I want to propose a two way interaction ban under the standard terms of WP:IBAN. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 17:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support --ceradon (talk • contribs) 17:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose: My personal opinion is that formal interaction bans, along with topic bans, typically set editors up for failure as well as create resentment. Neither scenario is conducive to a collegial editing environment. This doesn't seem to be an ongoing problem between the two of them (someone correct me if I'm wrong), but something that has come up in the last couple of days. That in mind, why not allow these two to make a personal resolve to avoid each other at all costs and see how that goes? Hopefully, by the time tempers cool and the 24 hour block has expired, each editor will be able to make more adult choices in behavior and civility. If this is still a problem after a reasonable amount of time following the expiiraton of Alakzi's block, then bring it back here for an interaction ban proposal. At this point, it seems a bit premature. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Ceradon, thank you for being willing to take on a complex dispute, but this is a little ham-handed. Indefinite interaction bans as a result of a single conflict are over the top. Two-way bans have a superficially appealing symmetry, but conflicts are rarely genuinely mutual in a way that such a blunt solution will address. I'm running out of time so I'll spare everyone the lecture on short-term civility blocks. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:03, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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

User:Alexiulian25 and page creations

Hi, I wanted to inform about User:Alexiulian25 who has a history of creating many bad unsourced article (about 50 or so on the same day) so all of his creations was moved to drafts. Now that his drafts has been declined he has ignored the drafts (blank them) and copy and paste them into mainspace anyway which is highly disruptive (a block needed?). For example Draft:Dermata Cluj declined twice (see diff) but he now created Dermata Cluj anyway. Same for Draft:CSM Suceava also declined twice, but now created anyway CSM Suceava. Can some admin take a look at this editor please? Qed237 (talk) 13:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Same for other articles like declined Draft:Mureşul Târgu Mureş created at Mureşul Târgu Mureş. Qed237 (talk) 13:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Alexiulian25 (talk) 13:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)It is nothing wrong with my articles. it has references and good information. not so many because they are old teams with low data avaible. If you do not accept my drafts how do you want to develope the encyclopedia. I m here to develope the encyclopedia but some people do not like because is less information, but they do not understand that I chose that subject to create it and write at least something about it. It is better less then nothing. I just choose subject in "red" without a page and create them.Thank you.

• Alexiulian25, you cannot simply create a page that has been declined at Draft stage. Please have a look at what the declining editor said about the article and attempt to fix those problems. I am sure that for all 3 of the articles I have just deleted, the draft versions could be made into something that passes our notability guidelines if these are professional football clubs. Black Kite (talk) 13:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Just my opinion but I do not agree that "something" is always better than "nothing".--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding, and if you have time can you check this 2 drafts articles to see if they are worth for the main page? My reference is a book which is write at the reference list. I also have Copa del Rey Topscorers and Copa del Rey Topscorers by Season nominated for deletion, why? if the articles was approved before and verified.Alexiulian25 (talk) 17:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Alexiulian25 (talk) 14:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)If it is a subject you can not find references, or just 1 - 2 references, and I also have a book where I get the information and translate it, what can be wrong with this. I wrote about subjects you can not find easy on the internet. That makes wikipedia encyclopedy better. No ? And if I write "something", other one can help and improve it, so it make it better then no one add "nothing". For articles like this is ok less information I think. what is the problem if is not a proper long page ??

This is not the right place to discuss that. When your drafts were declined, it is very clear: If you require extra help, please ask a question on the Articles for creation help desk, ask the reviewer that declined your submission, or get help at our live help chat from experienced editors. Please take a look at one of your declined drafts and click on the relevant links there to access those resources. WaggersTALK 14:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@Black Kite, Sphilbrick, and Waggers: He just recreated Mureşul Târgu Mureş again and does not show any understanding. Enough for a block? Qed237 (talk) 14:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm a softie, but I think that's the right approach when an editor is trying to improve the place and may simply not be following all of our many rules. I see that the recent article created is virtually the same as a draft, but I do not see that the draft was rejected. If the editor creates an article in main space that is virtually identical to a rejected draft, I would support a block. I would also suggest that given the editor's lack of understanding of our notability rules, that the editor to be asked to start new articles in draft space until such time as there is evidence that the editor understands the rules.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: The draft Draft:Mureşul Târgu Mureş was declined here and here but still he has created the article not only once, but twice. Qed237 (talk) 15:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Alexiulian25 Please put your signature at the end of your comment not the beginning. When at the beginning it looks like you are addressing that person. I agree that there is value in creating a very limited article and looking for help from others. When Wikipedia started this was acceptable in main space, but that is no longer the case. Start such an article in draft space, then go to the appropriate wiki project and enlist the help of others to make it suitable for inclusion in main space. References do not have to be online. While online references are easier to access, reliable sources in the form of books and hard copy newspapers and magazines are quite acceptable.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

The problem with this user is that they would rather create 50 articles with 1-2 references (some of which are just pointless lists), rather than make 5 articles, each with 10 sources. There's no point the user submitting them for review if they're going to just ignore the reviews. None of their articles seem to be definitely notable either. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Could someone please delete Mureşul Târgu Mureş now as the Draft:Mureşul Târgu Mureş has been declined twice and article deleted in the past? Qed237 (talk) 22:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to speedy delete it, and another admin has declined a speedy. Wile editors are strongly advised to heed the advise of AFC reviewers, there is no rule preventing anyone including the creator, from moving a draft to mainspace at any time. I don't know enough about Romanian football to know if "Division A" is a top-level league or not. If it is, this passes notability criteria, if not WP:AFD is at hand. DES ^(talk) 00:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Nor is creating stubs or moving pages from draft to mainspace, even after an AfC decline, a valid reason to block a good faith editor, adn i see no indications of bad faith or vandalism here. DES ^(talk) 00:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Please delete history of page about Alexander Tuzhilin

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

---

Hello,

I am the person who created and largely edited the page about Alexander Tuzhilin. I would like all versions of the article before March 23, 2015 to be removed as they contain his date of birth. Tuzhilin has communicated to me he is uncomfortable about having his date of birth being publicly available.

Thanks,

Jayanta Sen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayanta Sen (talk • contribs) 13:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

The current version still has his date of birth in the infobox. Mr Potto (talk) 13:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I removed it from the infobox.

I haven't Revdel'ed because I'm not fully up to speed on the community's position on inclusion of birthdates if properly sourced.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

It's all spelt out nicely at WP:DOB - list the year only. I'll proceed with the revdel. WaggersTALK 14:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Odd account creation pattern

In looking at edit filter 527 this morning, I discovered that over 200 accounts have been created starting with "User:Twanitk" (User:Twanitk1, User:Twanitk2, up to today's User:Twanitk277) since March of this year. None of them have any edits. Is this something we should be concerned about? NawlinWiki (talk) 14:51, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I can't think of any valid reason for anyone to have made this number of clearly linked accounts. It looks a lot like it might be the creation of a farm of sleeper accounts. Are there provisions for mass-blocking of large numbers of accounts? -- The Anome (talk) 16:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. Our current policies and guidelines don't give us any guidance, because they look like ducks but haven't quacked yet. Checkuser won't help, because checkuser only relies on what duckpond the ducks swim in, and they aren't swimming yet. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

They are up to User:Twanitk279 now. See this listing. I don't think we need precedent or explicit policy, or for these accounts to be misused in an attack, for this to be recognized as a bad thing. -- The Anome (talk) 16:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Has anyone checked to see if these accounts are related to an educational project of some sort? BMK (talk) 16:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I see now that's unlikely, considering some of the accounts were created months ago. If it was an educational program, they should have been used by now. I say nuke them all from orbit, it's the only way to be sure. BMK (talk) 16:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't disagree they could be blocked without there being anything explicitly forbidding this behaviour, but it's IMO worth approaching them to see if they have any good explaination. The links above to their usernames should probably have notified them, but that doesn't always work. So I've left a message to the original unnumbered accounts, 279 and the not yet created 280. Neither 279 or unnumbered have emails. There are perhaps two or three related reasons I can think of why someone may those this if they aren't up to something malicious, but I won't mention them here for WP:BEANS reasons. Nil Einne (talk) 18:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Your choice to create #280 and leave a comment there - very clever! Kudos to you. BMK (talk) 21:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Should this be on the user page as well as the user talk page? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:50, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Heh – that was my thought was well. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:54, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done BMK (talk) 09:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Affinion Group

• Affinion Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Surgenski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Asking for help, rather than starting an edit war. Looks like a lot of promotional content being added here, without objective sources. We're not a repository for services offered by companies. 2601:188:0:ABE6:B53D:47CE:83E6:3C5F (talk) 20:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I am just using a 10K to fill out information on a private company. All of the information I have comes from the 10K which is the most reliable source I can find on this company given their limited and outdated online presence. If I could have assistance on how to word articles in a better way, I would be most grateful. I tried to remove information that you found to be promotional - Surgenski

So the main question then is whether this company is even notable enough to warrant a page. I don't think ANI is an appropriate venue for this sort of thing. Djonesuk (talk) 21:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

This was a the reinstatement of content I removed: [234]. It appears that much of this either copied or closely paraphrased an SEC 10k report. It raises a flag when a new account gets so deeply involved in an article on a private company, and a lot of the edits consist of the addition of promotional material. For the record, the article was very promotional before, as well. 2601:188:0:ABE6:B53D:47CE:83E6:3C5F (talk) 20:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

The article says this company has annual revenue of $1.2 billion. That suggests notability, though it may still not be easy to find sources. (I found nothing for the name Affinion in the Wall Street Journal). The company's services may be offered under a multitude of names that might have to be separately checked. Though they seem to be privately held, they do publish detailed financial statements, and this should be acceptable as evidence of the size of the company. Reuters said they tried to IPO in 2007 but I can't tell what happened as a result. Their 10K says they are a holding company and all business is conducted by their subsidiaries. EdJohnston (talk) 04:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Revenue has nothing to do with notability - which is defined as significant coverage in secondary sources. There seems to be some misunderstanding that if a company is large enough (by some definition) it qualifies for an article but that's just not true. There must be deep, independent coverage in reliable sources. Djonesuk (talk) 10:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editor and sockpuppeteer on Holi (1984 film)

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

---

Wikiboy231 just registered today, and started to edit disruptively on Holi (1984 film) by removing legitimate content with no explanation. I gave them several warnings on their talk page, but they persisted. Then, after I gave them the level four warning, an IP (presumably the same user), made the exact same disruptive edit, prompting me to report Wikiboy231 to WP:AIV. However, now a new account has been registered, Wikiboy2316, which is obviously a sockpuppet of the first user based on the almost-identical username and exact same types of edits. Please block both of these accounts indefinitely and block the IP as well. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 22:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Edit war on MOSNUM

Can we get an admin to poke their head in at WP:MOSNUM? (Disclosure: I made a single revert.) Involved users include @Fnagaton, EEng, Glider87, Dondervogel 2, and Arthur Rubin:. I'll make the talk page round shortly. --Izno (talk) 02:35, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I think I only made one revert also. I agree there is a problem. As I see it, the question revolves around the text "are rarely used, even in technical articles", referring to IEC prefixes. EEng and Dondervogel want it removed, and Fnagaton and Glider87 want it retained. I don't think it necessary in the guideline (as long as it is recognized as consensus at the time), but I don't yet see consensus for its removal. In addition, Dondervogel is accusing Glider87 of being a sock. Of whom, I have no idea.

The other 4 parties named all have 3 reverts within a 12 hour period, although I think they have all avoided violating 3RR. I was going to make an ANI AN3 report, but I haven't figured out how to paste the diffs on my smartphone. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:01, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Re-proposing_removal. All editors who had participated in the thread were pinged for the final proposal of removing this text; after four days, three editors (counting me) agreed to the change and none made any argument in opposition it, so the change was made. Considering that (as established during the discussion) the text proposed for removal was originally added with no discussion at all, that certainly seems like adequate consensus to me. Two days later Glider (who literally hadn't edited in two years) showed up to disagree, and Fnagaton showed up again after a week's silence, and since then they've been crying "no consensus" instead of starting a new discussion, if they care to. EEng (talk) 02:59, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

How is this an AN/I matter, if everyone's avoided 3RR (and if they hadn't EWN would be the proper venue)? Looks like a policy dispute, which should be discussed on the policy talk page, and nobody should "make the rounds" WP:canvassing people? Or am I missing something? BMK (talk) 03:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:EW is enforceable against persons who have made less than 3 reverts in 24 hours if they are, well, edit warring. Which is plainly what's occurring (in tag teams, no less!). Especially, I imagine, in an area with WP:DS. I agree it's a policy dispute, but it seems to have destabilized the guideline-proper. Either some protection or some trouts (or stronger) are needed. --Izno (talk) 04:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

As for whether this should be here or at EWN, I picked this one simply because it came to mind first. I'm happy to move the post around, but that seems bureaucratic at this time. --Izno (talk) 04:52, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

You need to watch exactly what you're saying. A group of editors who hold the same opinion is only a "tag team" if they are coordinating their efforts. If you have some evidence of this, you should present it here. If not, you should withdraw that quite serious accusation. My suggestion is that the page be fully protected until a consensus can be reached on the talk page. BMK (talk) 05:51, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Shrug. It's not worth arguing with you when I've achieved my goal here. So stricken. --Izno (talk) 15:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

It looks like edit warring to me. I'd say full protection for 24–48 hours couldn't hurt... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Fully protected for 24 hours - involved editors need to resolve the issue on the talk page.  Philg88 ^♦talk 07:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I think we need to start topic banning editors who edit war on MOS pages. It is a perennial source of weapons-grade lameness. Guy (Help!) 12:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Broken edit filter

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

---

There seems to be a broken “test filter” preventing legitimate contributions to Talk pages. The filter description is “ASCII art.” I ask that this be swiftly addressed. False positive reports here:

• Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Reports#75.108.94.227 2
• Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Reports#75.132.236.51
• Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Reports#67.14.236.50

—67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:33, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Taking a look at this now. Nakon 04:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

This has been corrected as of 04:36. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. Nakon 04:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Foreign relations of South Korea

• Scottish12345678 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Foreign relations of South Korea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can someone check the edits of User:Scottish12345678 to the above article. This user is continually changing countries listed as Asian (e.g. Turkemnistan) and placing them in the Europe section. Denisarona (talk) 04:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Scottish12345678 looks to me like an SPA with singular focus on "Foreign relations of [country]" articles – several Talk page warnings this month on various "Foreign relations of [country]" articles. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:53, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :Looks to me as if Scottish12345678 is editing in good faith but perhaps as a relatively new user is a little unsure what they're doing. Talk page dialogue is probably the best way to resolve this, but Scottish12345678 needs to engage with the community.  Philg88 ^♦talk 06:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Similar edits are also being made by User:Irish12345678. Denisarona (talk) 11:18, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Same type of editing going on by 180.189.88.158 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) who went all over Wikipedia editing the foreign relations of other countries (some with useless copyvio) about South Korea from news articles on the Korean MOFA. I had to clean up several of their edits. This seems like it could possibly be COI editing. Elspamo4 (talk) 16:20, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Examples of useless copyvio: [235], [236], [237], [238], [239]. I'm not sure if this would qualify as copyvio but the content is copy-pasted word for word from the references he provides. The editing is virtually identical to the two other users. Elspamo4 (talk) 16:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I've raised my concerns about this user, and Irish12345678, on this page (see below), regarding their edits on Foreign relations of South Korea. Sorry, didn't realise that this discussion was already on-going. Basically they're inserting massive overlinking, grammatical nonsense, reverting any attempt to fix, and ignoring any attempts to communicate. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:53, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Editor Irish12345678 / Scottish12345678‎ and overlinking

• Irish12345678 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The editors Scottish12345678‎ and Irish12345678 are heavily editing the Foreign relations of South Korea article. While the substance of these edits are positive, there are a number of problems.

• Massive overlinking. This article now has links on every mention of every country, including through redirects. Other common terms are linked on every mention. The weight of these make editing the article increasingly difficult.
• Scottish12345678‎ and Irish12345678 are possibly not native speakers. Some sentences don't make any grammatical sense.
• No edit summaries on any edits.
• I suspect Scottish12345678‎ and Irish12345678 are the same editor. Same articles, exact same edits.
• I have attempted to fix issues with the article, only to have them reverted.
• Any attempt to communicate with the editor(s) about their edits are ignored.

--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Is this a duplicate of a section above, also complaining that those two editors are making bad edits to the same article? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Has a sock-puppet investigation been filed? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. Didn't realise discussion had already been started. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:55, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't see evidence of an SPI report being filed yet, no. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:56, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Nanak Shah Fakir

• 173.71.50.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Some one from this IP address trying hard to revert back all the information updated by me on the above page title, please block this user, as he trying to update the wrong information about the title. Nanak Shah Fakir (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Kulvinder Singh 17:54, 25 July 2015 (UTC) (talk)

Both of you are involved in an edit war. Consider this the formal warning for both of you. I will not block now, as you've both just been warned, but if you continue, either of you, a block may be forthcoming. Even if you are factually correct, it does not excuse poor behavior, and blocks are handed out for behavioral violations rather than factual issues. Believing yourself to be correct does not excuse you from following Wikipedia norms, so please use the talk page to work out your differences. --Jayron32 18:01, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

HOUNDING by Elvey

Sorry to bother you all. I cannot figure Elvey out. but he/she has taken a disliking to me and from time to time comes around behind me and argues against whatever I am trying to do. I have been putting up with it, but now he has started making a mess with a new editor who has a COI.

June 13: filed a COIN case naming me as an editor with a COI over Kaiser Permanente (where he has been hounding a disclosed representative of that company on the Talk page here and later here) and then refused twice here and here to make a case that I had a COI, or even to acknowledge that by listing my name in the posting, he had raised a concern about possible COI for me on that article. Incompetent, BATTLEGROUND behavior.

June 17: Followed me to articles he had never edited here (that one having to do with an editor working on the article about himself - so a COI issue) and here arguing against me randomly. I warned him to stop here.

July 8: Elvey went back to it here, seemingly randomly reverting my removal of content added by a blocked user, Nuklear and edit warred over that, and didn't stop until an uninvolved, chemical-savvy admin, Edgar181, explained to Elvey why Nuklear was blocked and that the content Nuklear added had an error in it anyway, and that my cleanup after Nuklear was OK with him. I gave Elvey a 2nd warning here about that.

Yesterday, a new instance. Doc James and Alexbrn and I are having a difficult but salvageable set of discussions with a new editor, ColumbiaLion212, with a disclosed COI who I advised not to edit the article directly, and who has made the newbie mistake of accusing us of a COI since we are disagreeing with him, but then Elvey showed up at ColumbiaLion's talk page and actually told ColumbiaLion that "Given the concerns you raise above (about other people's COI), I think it may be quite appropriate for you to continue to edit the article directly." This is not only incompetent and wrong but it is pure BATTLEGROUND baloney. I warned Elvey to back off here and they just came right back with more incompetent, BATTLEGROUND nonsense. I don't know if we are going to be able to get things back on track with ColumbiaLion after this bumbling.

long narrative version of ColumbiaLion story
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
As you can see from their contribs, an editor named ColumbiaLion212 showed up at the Cranial electrotherapy stimulation article after first going to the Fisher Wallace Laboratories article (a company that makes CES devices and has HQ in New York City - note the user name - 212 is the area code for NYC and Columbia University's mascot is a lion), and started edit warring to add content promotional about these devices. I opened a discussion with ColumbiaLion212 about COI in Wikipedia, and they eventually disclosed that they work for a company that makes CES devices. So in this dif I informed them that they had a COI and asked them not to edit directly but rather work things out on Talk, and make proposals there. In the meantime, ColumbiaLion212 had kept trying to work on the article (although I had advised them to take a pause while we worked out COI issues) and unfortunately went over the top and decided that the other editors there must have a COI (this happens with new editors, unfortunately) and were acting in a conspiracy to keep "good" information about CES out of WP, and left COI messages and warnings to the editors who had worked on that page in the last year, Doc James here, SandyGeorgia here, Alexbrn here, and me here. ColumbiaLion212 received a warning against doing that from Acroterion who is otherwise uninvolved here. That was difficult but salvageable (things with COI editors sometimes derail but I am ~usually~ able to work with people to get things back on track) but then Elvey showed up at ColumbiaLion's talk page and actually told ColumbiaLion that "Given the concerns you raise above (about other people's COI), I think it may be quite appropriate for you to continue to edit the article directly." This is not only incompetent and wrong but it is pure BATTLEGROUND baloney. I warned Elvey to back off here and they just came right back with more incompetent, BATTLEGROUND nonsense. I don't know if we are going to be able to get things back on track with ColumbiaLion after this bumbling.

I would like Elvey to be topic banned from discussing COI in Wikipedia (he is not competent to deal with editors with a COI as his behavior on Kaiser Permanente and ColumbiaLion's talk page show) and I would like a one way topic ban with regard to me since his HOUNDING of me is disrupting my work here and is harming WP. Jytdog (talk) 18:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC)Please impose a long cool-off block on Jytdog.

Response from Elvey

I twice responded to this editor's talk page accusations of HOUNDING: "Thank you for linking to that policy. In fact WP:HOUNDING#NOT says: '[T]racking a user's contributions for policy violations' 'is not harassment if the claims are presented civilly' '; the contribution logs exist for editorial and behavioral oversight. Unfounded accusations of harassment may be considered a serious personal attack and dealt with accordingly.'." I ask that WP:HOUNDING#NOT be enforced. diff.

I don't even think there's a need for me to dredge up diffs showing his worst behavior because his diffs supposedly showing me at my worst actually make him look bad. But let me respond to each assertion:

1. His assertion re. June 13 seems to be a lie: He must know I never said he had a COI WRT Kaiser because we've reminded him so multiple times - the diffs Jytdog provided show me pointing this out and he's been told I did no such thing repeatedly not only by me but by others as well (diff) (admin User:SlimVirgin). To continue to spread this blatant falsehood here is blatant BATTLEGROUND obsessiveness.

2. Re June 17: Take a look at the 2 edits he's pissed off about and links to, where I told users he bullied, "You may continue to make appropriate edits directly to the article, Clockback, which the WP:COI guideline definitely allows, but discourages." and, "Way to follow WP:DR, be constructive and civil, SageRad." Were they good edits? I think so. Was this hounding? I already responded to that accusation on my talk page (excerpt above). That bullying is a violation of WP:BULLY policy, which Jytdog has been repeatedly chastised for, including by at least one highly trusted administrator entrusted to use powerful mops and broomsticks with care: User:Risker.

3. Re July 8: Look at the edit history and you'll see that his edit war accusation should BOOMERANG. He edit warred; I followed standard DR.

4. Re. "Yesterday", I was directed to review Jytdog's edits by another editor, and when I did so, I was troubled and responded appropriately, as the diffs Jytdog has provided show.

5. He grossly misrepresents when he says ColumbiaLion212 "finally" disclosed working for a company that makes CES devices; User:ColumbiaLion212 did so a day after being asked - with his very next edit - his 9th edit on Wikipedia!

6. Jytdog sees what he wants to see in our CoI policy; he says here that he believes that the "very strongly discouraged" in "Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing." is actually a "cannot". I suggest he be blocked until he is no longer delusional about what the CoI policy actually is, because he has disclosed, and demonstrated that it is his intent to attempt to enforce a nonexistent policy.--Elvey^(t•c) 03:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

As you usual Elvey makes a garble of things. In my interactions with editors who declare a COI, I never say "cannot" and you will not find any diffs where I did. Editors with a COI are strongly discouraged, and the dif he points to shows that I understand that very well. Jytdog (talk) 04:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Re your comment about #6: I provided a diff, in which he indeed says "cannot" (without the quotes). And the rest of diff does show him expressing the opinion that I described. If there's a more clear and concise way to express that Jytdog says here that he believes that the "very strongly discouraged" in "Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing." is actually a "cannot", I'm all ears. I note that you have not responded regarding #1, 2, 3, 4 or 5! --Elvey^(t•c) 05:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I am not responding to you point by point because most of what you write is incoherent. Others will be able to see that. Jytdog (talk) 06:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

That's one way to dodge scrutiny. Snowded says my writing is perfectly coherent, so no he was not able to see that. Based on that, I would ask that any interaction ban apply to Jytdog, rather than be one-way on me. Jytdog is saying I should be banned because of the behavior defended in #1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, and yet Jytdog refuses to discuss it. That's not reasonable or fair. I've launched a solid defense of 1-6. Yet Jytdog demands I self-impose a ban for the behavior addressed in 1-6. --Elvey^(t•c) 16:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Canvassing

When opening this case, Jytdog notified no fewer than three admins and two other users who take his extremeist view of COI and I ask that any comments from the canvassed users be disregarded and that our policy on canvassing be enforced with the requested block. A WP:Sham consensus may be the result of such canvassing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Elvey (talk • contribs) 03:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC} (UTC) ) signed this additional bit of mess-making by ElveyJytdog (talk) 05:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Are you aware that when naming an editor in a post at ANI, you are meant to notify them? That is not canvassing. Alexbrn (talk) 07:37, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

If that's not canvassing, then the rule against canvassing has a giant loophole. Pinging users surely accomplishes what other forms of canvassing accomplish. But if you and Jytdog want to defend that use of the loophole, I won't fight you. The canvassing tag has been removed. --Elvey^(t•c) 16:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Survey of responses to proposal to sanction

WP:BOOMERANG 172.56.18.107 (talk) 19:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:WHY ? Acroterion (talk) 19:59, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

172.56.18.107 has been blocked with an expiry time of 1 week for abusing multiple accounts. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:36, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• Block user Elvey. The accusations in the COIN charge are vague, unsupported, and unhelpful. I have tried to follow this editor's diatribes without success. @Elvey: This discussion and my investigations make it appear that you are incompetent to edit here. Please correct me by providing one or more specific edits where user Jytdog has gone astray, and how you think that they have gone astray. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

After looking at Elvey's response (try following #6, for example), I reiterate my request that Elvey be blocked temporarily and in addition banned from COI topics indefinitely. Editor does not seem to be competent to have these conversations. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 13:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support COI topic ban I haven't seen WP:COIN recently, but an example of clueless COI enthusiasm is here. If there are other similar examples a topic ban is required because blundering around like that could tip the balance for some editors and make them retire. Johnuniq (talk) 02:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
• Ugh. Normally I'd be quite supportive of attempts to root out COI, but the discussion that Elvey has initiated with regards to Doc James and Jytdog that have been linked to here have an unpleasant whiff of McCarthyism about them. It's not serious enough to warrant a topic ban yet in my view, but at the same time it's neither helpful or appropriate to have self-appointed COI cops wandering around demanding to know if someone is or has been a member of the COI Party. It very well could turn into a topic ban or other sanctions unless Elvey moderates their approach in the future, and that would be unfortunate. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Lankiveil to be clear, the reason I asked for the topic ban from COI is Elvey's incompetent interference in ongoing COI management efforts, as with ColumbiaLion212 (which was especially bad), and his interactions with the declared conflicted editor at KaiserPermanente where he abused the Talk page with soapboxing accusations. As you can see Elvey is only pushing harder here; he does not appear to be corrigible. Jytdog (talk) 04:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Lankiveil - Re. "self-appointed COI cops wandering around demanding to know if someone is or has [a COI]" - Are you not aware that Jytdog has been going around, bullying a great many users, demanding to know if they have a COI? Need more diffs? I've already provided some. --Elvey^(t•c) 05:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Elvey, asking about someone's relationship is not demanding. Jytdog (talk) 05:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support COI topic ban ColumbiaLion212 had gone off the rails badly but was being managed, but then Elvey came storming to their Talk page, apparently in furtherance of some kind of feud with Jytdog, and actually encouraged them to continue their COI-tainted editing. Elvey has not responded to questions about this and show no sign of getting a clue about how bad it was, so I believe a block is necessary as a preventative measure. Alexbrn (talk) 05:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

@Snowded: Why did you add a canvassing template to my comment? I was not canvassed. Please strike or provide some justification. Alexbrn (talk) 07:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, what are you talking about? ----Snowded ^TALK 07:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Apologies Snowded, got my diffs in a twist: it was Elvey who added it, so - to Elvy: Why did you add a canvassing template to my comment? I was not canvassed. Please strike or provide some justification. Alexbrn (talk) 07:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps 172.56.18.107 is the same user that set up https://twitter.com/IndustryLapdog/with_replies! Wasn't me. --Elvey^(t•c) 03:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support one-way interaction ban between Elvey and Jytdog, and COI topic ban for Elvey. His arguments here make it pretty plain that he is engaging in motivated reasoning and that this has led him to a view of COI which leads to his making - ahem - unhelpful comments. I think six months should be sufficient. Guy (Help!) 12:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose While Jytdog is annoyed with the other editor (who, AFAICT, made no accusations of COI about Jytdog per se), the behaviour does not, IMO, rise to the level where sanctions are called for at all. The tendency to ask for sanctions when there is a reasonable disagreement is all too common on Wikipedia at this point. I note Snowded's reasoning below. Collect (talk) 12:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't often agree with Collect ;-) but in this case I do. I suggest both editors reflect a little and try and find a way to see value in the others comments before we move to sanctions. ----Snowded ^TALK 12:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - IMHO, seeking sanctions on another editor is the wrong way to go. But, if both individuals can't get along? then a 2-way IBAN would be best for them. GoodDay (talk) 12:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

To those opposing. This is about Elvey's behavior. Elvey is hounding me, not vice versa. And in the course of Elvey's hounding, Elvey inserted himself into a discussion with a new editor with a COI that was already going off the rails, and pushed it over a cliff. It is the damage to other editors and to the overall effort to manage COI in WP that led me here. Jytdog (talk) 14:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The best route here for you, would be to ignore Elvey. If Elvey were to follow you around, while you're ignoring him/her? then he/she would be viewed as harrassing you. GoodDay (talk) 14:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I do - I don't go fight about every harassing edit Elvey makes. But when Elvey inserts him/herself into a discussion as they did with ColumbiaLion and as they did at KaiserPermanente, they make a mess of things that cannot be ignored. Their incompetent actions on COI issues are what I am really after here. I want the one-way ban because that is what apparently drove these bumbling "interventions", and they are already fixed on me and this posting will only make that worse. Jytdog (talk) 14:21, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

What is our CoI policy actually?

Jytdog sees what he wants to see in our CoI policy; he says here that he believes that the "very strongly discouraged" in "Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing." "is actually a cannot". I suggest he be blocked until he is no longer delusional about what the CoI policy actually is, because he has disclosed, and demonstrated that it is his intent to attempt to enforce a nonexistent policy.

Jytdog was ***roundly critized by two longtime arbitrators for his extreme interpretations of our CoI policy and treatment of User:Snowded - none other than User:Risker, who is sick of him and User:Newyorkbrad.

The diff above shows that:

Risker told Jytdog, "The ToU doesn't say what you think it says." at 10:02 am, 13 June 2015 (UTC−7)

User:Snowded told Jytdog his "absolutist interpretation of what is a guideline not policy does not help." I wish Jytdog would listen or be given some quiet time to think about it.

Risker told Jytdog, "Conflict of interest is not the same thing as paid editing. If you cannot understand that, you need to stop working in this area. Paid editing is things like Elance or other SEO organizations who specifically write for pay, or the PR department of a company. Conflict of interest is not the same thing. Again, if you insist that the two things are identical, which is exactly what you were doing in the edit I reverted, then you need to stop working in this area, because you misunderstand the basic premise." at 12:51 pm, 14 June 2015 (UTC−7)

I wish Jytdog would listen.

User:Newyorkbrad told Jytdog: "Let me see if I can help a bit here, because there is a widespread tendency to interpret the COI issue and related guidelines in a simplistic way, which is increasingly unhelpful for everyone. I'm a partner in a law firm. The firm is not notable enough for an Wikipedia article, but suppose I were at a larger firm and we had one. If I were to edit the article about my law firm, I would have a "conflict of interest" (the significance of which could be minor or major depending on the nature of the edits). However, I would not be a "paid editor," because my firm pays me to practice law, not to edit Wikipedia. Is everyone in agreement so far?" at 11:10 am, 13 June 2015 (UTC−7)

I wish Jytdog would listen.

But Risker doesn't expect Jytdog to listen; I see a need for admin action is proven by this comment and driven home by Jytdog's actions leading up to this ANI dispute: "Thank you for your illustration, NYB. I am afraid, however, that it falls on deaf ears (referring to Jytdog's ears) for those who imagine themselves pure as the driven snow." at 12:56 pm, 13 June 2015 (UTC−7)

I wish Jytdog would listen.

"Jytdog I strongly suggest stepping away from COI issues until you have taken on board the community's concerns (expressed well by Risker) regarding your editing in the area, if you don't then I would not be surprised to see a topic ban proposed at AN/I." -User:Thryduulf at 3:33 am, 12 July 2015 (UTC−7)

I wish Jytdog would listen or be given some quiet time to think about it, or made to heed this. Said topic ban is hereby proposed - probably where Jytdog got the idea to propose the same ban for me!

--Elvey^(t•c) 03:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Within the range of views that exist within WP -- which range from very strong opposition to editors with a COI even being part of the community, to opposition to dealing with COI at all and just focusing on content -- I have a moderate interpretation of COI - and above all a view centered on talking with people about what we all care about - namely good content. Additionally, we don't have a COI policy at all. We have a COI guideline. Elvey's post from its header on, is an incoherent ramble, cherry picked from various discussions, and a demonstration of what I mean about their lack of competence to discuss these things. Jytdog (talk) 05:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Elvey would you please add difs to your quotes above? I checked Risker's contribs and they made no comment at 12:56 pm, 13 June 2015. And, by the way, I took my time out as suggested at the Arbcom case that was declined with no action, and got some very helpful feedback. Jytdog (talk) 05:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I've put a few asterisks next to a diff that provides what you requested, Jytdog. (And times are UTC−7.) Here it is again, since you're having trouble finding it:

Jytdog was ***roundly critized by two longtime arbitrators for his extreme interpretations of our CoI policy and treatment of User:Snowded - none other than User:Risker, who is sick of him and User:Newyorkbrad.--Elvey^(t•c) 06:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The harder you twist, the worse you look. The "sick of him" is especially ugly, as what Risker was sick of what Atsme and I going back and forth. What would be useful would be if you would promise to stop following me around, and stay away from COI issues, which you are making a mess of. Jytdog (talk) 08:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposal

OK, if there's a consensus that I need to

1. stop informing users who are told not to edit articles because they have a COI the truth - that the COI policy guideline only discourages users with a COI from editing but does not forbid it and
2. Stop informing users that if it applies to them, they must comply with the ToU clauses requiring disclosure of FCoI, then I will stop doing so.

If you think I should to stop doing that, or shouldn't, please indicate that below. But please also explain WHY I should or shouldn't stop doing so (optional). --Elvey^(t•c) 06:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I have already indicated it above. I can tell you from long personal experience of handling emails at OTRS, and as an admin for nearly ten years now, that your advice to these users is profoundly unhelpful and the most likely outcome of their following your advice is that they will end up blocked or banned. Guy (Help!) 12:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, so Guy is on record saying that users (this user at least) must not inform users who are told not to edit articles because they have a COI the truth - that the COI guideline only discourages users with a COI from editing but does not forbid it and users (this user at least) must not inform users that if it applies to them, they must comply with the ToU clauses requiring disclosure of FCoI. I hear you when you say that this true advice is nonetheless profoundly unhelpful. Anyone else agree? User:Jytdog? Say so here and I'll stop. --Elvey^(t•c) 16:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

That is mostly incorrect and incoherent, Elvey. I don't tell people not to edit articles; I ask them not to.

And there are lots of perspectives in the community about how the ToU applies to editors with a COI. Some interpret the ToU as applying only narrowly to say freelancers who are literally paid to edit or create WP articles, and would not apply the ToU to a company employee writing about their company of their own volition. Others interpret the application of the ToU more broadly. Also, the ToU only requires disclosure - it says nothing about editing WP articles. Your discussion is all confused, and you are trying to draw lines through that stew. It can't be done. So I cannot affirm or deny what you write.

I will say that your emphasizing what people with a COI can do (which is not clear in WP) instead of what they should do (which is clearly described in the COI guideline), is a destructive thing.

And what is profoundly unhelpful is your fiercely bringing your confused ideas and your beef with me (whatever that is) into ongoing discussions with editors who have or may have a COI. What I have asked for, is for you to say away from me, and stay out of COI issues. Will you agree to do those two things? Jytdog (talk) 16:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment from sort of involved editor

Interesting. I agree with Jytdog that Elvey is cherry picking (although he is not incoherent) and I am also strongly of the opinion that Jytdog has the best interests of Wikipedia at heart. However I don't think Jytog has a moderate interpretation of COI. He has an assertive/bureaucratic approach to COI not a conversational one and acts (not just in my case) as if the guideline is policy. In the incident which gave rise to the above an article about a framework I created was subject to attack by a commercial rival. After a couple of rounds I (recognising my involvement) took the matter the Administrators Notice Board and an independent admin gave the offending editor an 'only warning' and the issue appeared resolved. Jytdog then arrived and the situation escalated for some time with multiple notices, postings, warnings and the like. In effect a guideline was acted on as if it was policy.

Based on that experience and monitoring other COI notices by Jytog and others, I've been meaning to write up a suggested guideline for the COI notice board when I get time. But given this has been brought up I think there are a few points that it would be useful to discuss:

1. Any editor getting involved in issuing a COI notice needs to make a very clear distinction between a 'paid' editor and one who has an interest in a page. There is a radical difference between getting the odd lecture or consultancy fee and being employed to directly edit Wikipedia.
2. The COI notices used tend to take a all editors with any COI however remote are all sinners' approach which can have a chilling effect. We could do with two different notices: One for those paid and the other for those with some interest. In fact templating should be discouraged in the latter case
3. It is clear that in respect of an academic framework the creator of that framework is also a subject matter expert. Any notice should make that clear. Asserting that an editor in this situation should not edit the article (per Jytdog) is not policy and should not be asserted as such
4. In general any editor taking a COI monitoring role should exercise care not to (i) inflame a conflict and (ii) not to come across as a bureaucratic enforcement agent. In this case Jytdog could have acknowledged that I had not taken part in an edit war, despite the posting of a false statement, but had brought in a neutral admin pretty quickly. I asked him if he thought I had made any edits against policy and got no reply. I'm an experienced enough editor not to have taken offence but I can think of a few academic colleagues, not familiar with some the 'guideline bureaucracy culture' in some parts of Wikipedia might have taken it differently.

So regardless of the cherry picking and/or Jytdog's accusation of incoherent rambling (not helpful) there is an issue for the community here. ----Snowded ^TALK 06:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

This discussion belongs at WPT:COIN or WPT:COI not here. The issue is the editor's conduct towards each other, not the minutia of what the technical grounds of a policy are or are not. And we have a policy that no one really follows and there's little support for, then it's time for the policy to reflect reality not the other way around. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

And at some stage I will move a more elaborate version of it there, but the comment was relevant in so far as it reflects a wider problem that undiscriminating COI enforcement can create. As to your comments on policy and reality, the solution to that is not the current COI practice which needs more development - then it might be possible for it to become policy. ----Snowded ^TALK 07:31, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Snowded Thanks for your remarks! The policy issues that came into play in our interaction were WP:NLT, WP:BATTLEGROUND, and WP:BLPCOI (BLP applies to talk pages too) all related to your real world disputes with the other editor, that the two of you carried into WP. I have only run across a few (maybe three) situations where two editors, each with such clear COIs of their own, also were in conflict in the RW and carried that into WP. That is not a common situation - a double COI in a way (your own, and the conflict with the other editor, and the same for the other editor) - and my interactions with editors with potential or already-declared conflicts generally do not get near so intense; those three policy issues generally don't come into them. Thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 09:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I think you just further illustrate the point I was trying to make Jytdog. There was a RW conflict, what you failed to realise was that I had responded to the wikipedia conflict by pulling in a neutral admin to avoid escalation. You then arrived and created the conditions that allowed an unnecessary conflict to escalate. My points above about handling different types of COI was meant to try and prevent that sort of thing. It was made worse by your subsequent attempt (the Elvey extracts above) to challenge my right to even talk about the issue. Fortunately you were overruled by two former arbcom members. You continue to see COI as black and white rather than understanding the difference between paid editing and legitimate interest even subject matter expertise. Until you engage with the issue of the manner of your interactions you are going to end up in more conflicts. I can see that Elvey's behaviour is problematic, but so is yours. ----Snowded ^TALK 12:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Snowded, this is where COI issues get so difficult - even now you still seem unclear on your own COI. You have academic claims of ownership of the concept, you founded a company based on the concept and serve as CSO of that company and make money lecturing about it etc (direct financial interests) and you have an external conflict with another editor who has a competing company. If only the first were at play, our interactions would have been very, very different. As I wrote above, having two editors in conflict here in WP each with their own COIs and in RW conflicts with each other is rare, and you still don't seem to recognize how locked-in to that conflict you were. Also, I never challenged your right to talk about it - I thought you should disclose that you had a COI in articles you write about, when you posted at WT:COI. Risker disagreed with how I expressed that. Also, my views on COI are laid out on my Userpage and what you will find there, is very far from black and white. Finally, I highly value subject matter expertise in WP, in line with the wider WP community. Our very valuable essay on WP:EXPERT welcomes experts, and warns experts not to use WP as a platform to promote their own ideas and publications. That is how I treat experts as well, when that is the only issue. Look at my interactions with User:Gjboyle on their talk page, for example. The picture you are painting of me is not accurate. It is very much shaped by our difficult interaction which I have acknowledged I could have handled better. Jytdog (talk) 14:18, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I fully understand the exact nature of my interest in that article and the nature of the conflict. I go out of my way never to do a primary edit on either of the two articles I am associated with so the idea I am using wikipedia as a platform to promote my ideas is a nonsense. I have a framework which has revived multiple awards and citations therefore I have an interest in that article. I didn't found a company based on that concept, its one framework and our main focus is software. You've been told that but you don't listen. The fact that you refuse to see any different between that and a paid editor remains problematic. The fact that your response to any editor who disagrees with you on something is to tell them they don't understand their own position when you have at best surface knowledge is a problem. What you fail to see is that your attitude and method of engagement is a PART of the problem. So whatever your intentions you are creating problems. In the case it question it was your intervention that caused the conflict and you still can't see that. Now this is probably not going anywhere so having made the point I will leave it. I hope when I bring proposals on this to the COI notice board we can find a way to work together ----Snowded ^TALK 14:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Snowded. I did take a break from COI work per the advice at arbcom, and I did get valuable feedback on my talk page. I have heard, that I can come across too stridently. I have heard that. And we will probably continue to disagree about what happened at Cynefin article; I do acknowledge that I got too harsh there and was part of the problem; that is why I apologized. And as I wrote at Risker's page, there is a difference between paid editing and other forms of COI. Paid editing is a subset of COI which in turn is a subset of advocacy, and it is advocacy that shows up in bad WP content. The ToU apply only to paid editing. So please don't misrepresent me.Jytdog (talk) 16:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support ban from all COI-related discussions for Elvey. This is an issue of WP:CIVIL and WP:OUTING policy not COI. Elvey doesn't care about the COI policy, and just seems to use the COI policy as an excuse to lord it over people that have identified themselves in some way. If the dispute is about WP:COI policy, then the discussion belongs as that talk page not at ANI (or at WPT:COIN). Arguments about policy here aren't going to go anywhere. Here, we can discuss your individual ability to respond to potential COI issues and how in particular you act with each person you have concerns about. The problem is Elvey seems to use potential COI issues as an excuse to attack people. If you can't be civil with potential issues, then you'll be stopped to prevent extra work for the rest of us. This comment is less about COI issue and is based someone using their ability to know a person's identity to make a snide off-topic uncivil remark. There was no discussion about drug pricing, not even something that the representative brought up, just an excuse for Elvey for start a fight. This discussion is basically the same as WP:OUTING people to win fights. Frankly, Elvey is getting close to WP:OUTING issues and I think an outright indefinite block may be needed if the editor insists on just hunting around for fights. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The issue User:Snowded raised and you seem to want to pretend doesn't exist, Ricky, is that Jytdog's uncivil behavior toward me, Snowded and many others. Don't try to hand wave it away as off topic for ANI. Holy shit! There are 113 mentions of Jytdog's name on this page, and only half of them are in this ("HOUNDING by Elvey") section. Jytdog seems to live here.--Elvey^(t•c) 07:42, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Snowded, I extracted the relevant comments from a single conversation. If that's cherry picking, then I picked cherries.

Yes, he acts as if it's policy that an editor must not edit an article if they have a CoI. There is no such policy. But that's not all. There's no such guideline EITHER! There's been a HUGE push to get the COI guideline changed to say that an editor must not edit an article if they have a CoI - there have been 4 huge, formal RfC campaigns. But they didn't succeed. I voted for 'em. But it's dishonest to go around deceiving people into believing CoI says what it'd say if one of those campaigns had been successful. so I don't do it.

1. Yes! I mistook one for the other recently, but unlike some users, I'm willing to recognize my mistakes.
2. Yes! I recently proposed a new template just for when a FCoI disclosure notice is not adequate.
3. Absolutely!
4. Yes, I tried to do that when I approached DocJames, and he was entirely cordial in response (though perhaps he's infallibly cordial). I still got attacked here for doing so. Refusing to address the concerns I've raised other than to dismiss them as "incoherent" is not in accord with policy, which requires that users respond when reasonable concerns are raised.

Thanks for piping up. --Elvey^(t•c) 07:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

No, I do not behave as though it is policy. Most people, when approached respectfully and informed about the COI guideline and its advice, are happy to comply. Which has been a really pleasant part of the doing the COI work. Even editors with a COI understand that if WP lacks integrity, the public will stop trusting it, and it will become useless for people to learn anything about whatever their external interest is. Jytdog (talk) 09:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I genuinely don't think you intent to behave as if it was policy, but having looked at your interactions not only in my case but others I think you come across that way. Fast templating, assertive statements without qualification; threats of ANI referral; all create that impression. Your call if you want to listen to that or not. ----Snowded ^TALK 12:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Snowded, I tell people I will bring them to ANI when they violate policy and I have some actual case to make here. I have not told anyone I would bring them to ANI for a COI issue per se. I never assert that someone actually has a COI unless they have already disclosed it. I do make assertions about behavior and editing that are always 100% supportable. I do ask questions. I do ask people to follow the COI guideline. I did get way too hot with you and with Atsme, for sure, for different reasons. I apologized to both of you. I did push too hard there. Jytdog (talk) 13:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

OK thanks for the acknowledgement it gives a way forward. I would suggest that saying that if someone doesn't do what you want you will take them to ANI and that you have a successful track record is probably an intervention of LAST resort. Better to explore understanding of what has happened and policy before jumping to the threat :-) ----Snowded ^TALK 14:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Policy status

Elvey is right that the COI guideline is a guideline not a policy. It offers guidance for users on how to edit a subject in which they have a vested interest. He is wrong, however, to assert that ti does not have the force of policy. In fact, the COI guideline exists to help people avoid a global site ban from all WMF websites. The WMF Terms of Use say:

These Terms of Use prohibit engaging in deceptive activities, including misrepresentation of affiliation, impersonation, and fraud. As part of these obligations, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

— Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use

Obviously there is scope for Elvey to wikilawyer about the precise meaning of compensation, but policies are interpreted using Clue, not weaselly lawyer speak. Anyone who edits in a way that may result in personal gain, or who edits Wikipedia on their employer's dollar (i.e. while at work) risks falling foul of this bright line rule.

The guideline has another very important purpose.

Any company or individual who edits Wikipedia with an undisclosed conflict of interest, risks substantial reputational damage. We have seen this already with the congressional editing scandal.

I wrote the boilerplate guidance to company representatives at OTRS, I also wrote the guidance to BLP subjects, and both of them make the same point: in order to protect your reputation and preserve your rights to edit, we strongly recommend that you follow the COI guidelines, which are designed to ensure transparency and facilitate engagement with the Wikipedia community to ensure rapid resolution of issues you might have with an article.

It's there for a reason. Elvey clearly does not understand that reason. Perhaps, having read this, he might. Guy (Help!) 12:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

COI needs updating or clarification

I'd recommend ya'll go to WP:COI, as it is the core of the above disagreements. GoodDay (talk) 12:21, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:COI is clear enough, the issue is Elvey's idiosyncratic interpretation of it. Guy (Help!) 12:34, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The core of this ANI thread is Elvey's unacceptable behavior. Jytdog (talk) 16:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Kwamikagami: personal attacks, incivility, and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior at Talk:Tagalog

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

---

Kwamikagami has been engaging in personal attacks and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior in a move request he started at Talk:Tagalog. The most egregious personal attack is this, but incivility and battleground behavior has been par for the course,[240][241] including in his RM proposal.[242] This is besides the fact that he started this move request immediately after the last one closed, and after move warring. I asked him to remove the personal attack, at least,[243] but he just doubled down on it.[244] Someone needs to step in.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I was advised to start a new move request to reverse the original one, which was closed with little input and violates both consensus and WP guidelines, and is opposed by all linguists who have commenetd. Now that I have gone through the proper channels, Cúchullain objects that I'm being disruptive. He is being a hypocrite: not just a 'heads I win, tails you lose' mentality for following process, but he's demanding levels of evidence that were never required for the original move. Perhaps what I should have done was have ANI review the original move. — kwami (talk) 18:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

You were advised to go through the proper channels rather than move warring, which is what you did before. Now you've started an RM in the most disruptive way possible: opening it immediately after the last one closed while attacking and antagonizing people who disagree with you. This needs to stop, now.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I was advised to go through proper channels, so I did. Now you're attacking me for going through proper channels. Can't you see how that makes you a hypocrite? And who are these "people" that I'm attacking, beside calling you out? You're an admin -- if the proper way to address a badly closed move was to have it reviewed at ANI, then you should have said so, but I was told to open a new move request, and that is what I did. — kwami (talk) 18:39, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

You're seriously making more personal attacks in an ANI report addressing your personal attacks? And you seriously don't see what is wrong with your combative behavior in the discussion?--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:52, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Objecting to obnoxious behaviour is not a personal attack. I did inadvertently make one, when I called you a hypocrite, and that I retracted. You've had several impolite things to say about me -- does that make you guilty as well? It's your behaviour that's inappropriate, not you as a person. That's an important distinction to make, or no-one would be able to criticize anyone's behaviour without it being a "personal attack", and you would not be able to file this complaint without being sanctioned yourself.

Also, others on the discussion page have called you out on being a hypocrite while avoiding the word. I'm not the only one who has a problem with you behaving in bad faith.[245][246] — kwami (talk) 19:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Please do not use personal attacks in response to this report, it does not help your case and makes you look disruptive. As far as Cuchullain's behavior, I will look over it and see what needs to be done. --w^{L<speak·check>} 19:38, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

From the first your behavior has been unacceptably uncivil and disruptive, and it continues even here at ANI. You need to step back, either voluntarily or otherwise.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

He redacted his attack. And I'll assume he won't bring another one up. If all else fails in regards to the page move, I recommend a possible request for comment, but I would respect the result of the previous one, as consensus usually doesn't change so soon, and a quick re-list may be seen as illustrating a point. --w^{L<speak·check>} 20:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm unclear which consensus you are referring to in the previous comment, WikiLeon--the long-standing consensus that respects WP:NCLANG and the opinions of actual linguists, or the recent one that neither respects WP:NCLANG nor includes any linguists because the bot used to initiate it failed to list it at WP:LANG. Every linguist on the current RM supports the move back to the previous, long-standing and compliant consensus. --Taivo (talk) 01:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• Lord knows I don't always agree with Kwamikagami, and I would really love to know how one officially gets listed as a linguist here, but this complaint is quite tendentious, and brining the matter to ANI because Cuchullain thinks Tagalog is special and the Tagalog language convention should not be applied as it is with every other language article I watch is simply puerile. This complaint should be closed and the move Tagalog > Tagalog language should be made forthwith. μηδείς (talk) 01:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

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

The Inbetweeners infobox

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

---

Hi, the infobox on the page The Inbetweeners has been vandalised, but it didn't happen in a recent edit. I don't really have the time or know how to find where the damage was done, or to undo it, so I thought I would post a notice here. I'm sorry if it's the wrong place, I'm not really a Wikipedia editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.98.120.209 (talk) 21:24, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done Reverted to last good version, thanks for reporting this. Sam Walton (talk) 21:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Can someone review the half dozen open protected page requests at Talk:List of highest-grossing Indian films

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

---

Can someone review the half dozen open protected page edit requests at Talk:List of highest-grossing Indian films? the fanboys are having apoplectic fits that the daily box office numbers have not been updated. Thanks! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

And over the languages of a particular film. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:08, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

As much as I will hate the eventual outrage that will follow, I did it myself. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Tom991

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

---

Tom991 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – On Worcester Fire Department:. User has repeatedly been disruptive. Despite attempts to assume good faith, the user constantly feels attacked and "fights back":

• [247]
• [248]
• [249]
• [[250]] (An additional case which involved a different user that Tom991 left a message for)

Most recently the user made an unexplained content removal which I reverted with a clear edit summary.([251]) The user immediate undid my reversion and accused me of harassment. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• From a quick glance at their talk page, they've been warned for the addition of unsourced content, not using edit summaries, and disruptive editing. They could definitely use some general guidance on normal editing procedures, policies, and perhaps civility.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 01:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• Seems to be handled for the time being. See User talk:Zackmann08#Apology [252]. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 06:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Need guidance from Check Users

I found some IP vandals whose IPs were very very similar to my IP range. Now if that user opens account, we will have same IP addresses or range. Is there any way, so that I can avoid being wrongly blocked. I do hope Check User tools are advanced. For two days, I was not able to open my Wikipedia account as the entire range was blocked for two weeks by some administrator/check user. The block is going to be lifted tomorrow.

My plan is that I will not delete my browsing history and cookies which will let CU know I am not him/her. But sometimes I will have to clear my browser cache. Right now I am commenting from a Net café, as my ISP is not allowed to edit Wikipedia. I was reading about sockpuppetry pages. If he is my neighbor and use the IP range for vandalism, then there must be some way prove we are different Human beings.--5.150.254.79 (talk) 11:11, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

To paraphrase Smith & Dale's old joke, "Doctor, I get mistaken for a vandal when I edit logged out!" "Well don't edit logged out then!" What are you going to do if you get hit by another collateral rangeblock? Anyway, how do we know you're not just a vandal lying to us? We don't! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Jazz Stewart

So been extending good faith to this editor for a couple months now, most recently [about a week ago]. I've attempted to engage this editor previously [253], article talk page, their talkpage again and finally today. UNtil today there has been no response to me but their responses to other editors have been Hahaha. LOL, Nt again U FUFF!!! OMG, SPARE ME.. really, i ddnt knw, thnx 4 infrmg me BTW, LOL, you (DMLS), Is that true? OMG... . Today after reverting some things they decided to template me for WP:OWN issues and then after that a diva, it was partially my error because the source had been updated to show Boston University which has been a problem in the past but also restored problematic edits as well such as films that haven't completed filming yet despite instructions not to do so in the editing box. I was asked for a source [[254]] which I provided, they objected and I found another source [[255]] but was met with [bad faith accusations]. I'm thinking there are language WP:COMPETENCE issues, an inability to collaborate and the time has come for a longer term block or a topic ban from the subject. A short example of language competence issues can be this [256], I directly state it wasn't likely they weren't a sock [257] however part of the behaviors that we are seeing are reminiscent of a banned User:Smauritius which is what Krimuk was asking. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)