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

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 [1] and was blankly reverted on sight [2]. I reverted back with the summary "Unexplained" [3] and he kept edit warring with the summary "Go home, your [sic] drunk" [4]. This happened again, until General Ization issued an EW warning on my talk page, and a civility warning [5] 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... [6], User talk:Koala15#July 2015 [7], User talk:Koala15#No [8], User talk:Koala15#Redirecting [9]. 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: [10]. 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)

slightly-off-topic discussion on grammar

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) that's so petty. smh poli 02:22, 29 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)

Kingofaces43 EauZenCashHaveIt, I'd be more lenient to go with a short-block, maybe as short as two weeks. Earlier on this post, I urged nothing to happen, giving Koala15 the rope, and within two days they were removing merger notices and playing the old apologetic "I'll never do it again" card, when it had been discussed with them before. I'm not sure how many times Koala15 expects us to take their fake apologies before doing anything. The block may be the wake-up call they need to understand their attitude and actions won't be at all tolerated. Azealia911 _talk 17:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Azealia911. In fairness, Koala15 has in fact seemed to "stay out of things like this and mind [their] own business" (as they put it above) for the past week or so, but without a real understanding by Koala15 of why their (past) behavior is a problem, all it will take is one editor to object to/revert one of their edits (rightly or wrongly) and I expect we'll be right back here again. I haven't heard or seen anything here that makes me think that understanding exists as yet. General Ization ^Talk 20:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 23:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

My experience with Koala15 at Penguins of Madagascar was similar to User:Tokyogirl79's [11] in February. This wasn't a controversial topic or sensitive BLP. The article's about a movie that features talking commando penguins. After some edits to it I later added a tag regarding prose issues and a thousand-word quotefarm plus explained the tag on the Talk page. Koala reverts with a derisory summary. I restore days later due to the encyclopedic text and non-free content concerns and post on his talkpage: Koala responds dismissively and immediately undoes my edit as vandalism. Only after multiple other editors become involved does he finally visit the Talk page.

He engages in IDHT--continuing to say he doesn't see the problem ("as far as I know this is how the majority of reception sections are written") and asking for suggestions on to how to fix it--despite multiple editors having already provided them, edit-wars over the tag, plus adds quoteboxes making the quotefarm even more glaring. We assume good faith and spend time explaining. Only later to discover it's all happened before. –146.200.32.196 (talk) 14:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed short-term block for Koala15

I'll repeat a comment I made above, earlier in this post, I urged nothing to happen to Koala15, giving them the "rope", and within two days they were removing merger notices and playing the old apologetic "I'll never do it again" card, when the same issue had been discussed with them before. I'm not sure how many times Koala15 expects us to take their fake apologies before doing anything. A block may be the wake-up call they need to understand their attitude and actions won't be at all tolerated. The amount of said block can be determined by whoever closes the post.

Pinging all past contributors who may not keep track of the post: EauZenCashHaveIt, General Ization, Callmemirela, Ricky81682, Kingofaces43, Politoed89, and most importantly Koala15.

• Support as proposer – recommending a 2-4 week block. Azealia911 _talk 01:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Striking my support, may sound odd considering I'm the proposer. I've decided to give Koala15 one last chance, their recent behavior has seemed less aggressive and more open to discussion. Weather that lasts is up to them, but I firmly believe they'll reduce their negativity on the site for the foreseeable future. But this isn't an oppose, I'm staying neutral, I think comments from both sides are equally valid. Azealia911 _talk 22:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Support Anddd I switch again. As a result of IP 146's overwhelming evidence, showcasing that Koala15 not only breaks rules over and over after being warned, but doesn't seem to care about the ramifications (apparent from the fact he's hardly contributed to the discussion even trying to defend himself and given that the only response to 146.200.32.196's CCI report was whining that he's a victim and trying to get him blocked is a "trend") A six-month block at the least seems appropriate in my eyes. Azealia911 _talk 02:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support per preceding thread. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 01:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support per proposer's comments (thanks) and my comments above. General Ization ^Talk 01:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I don't see why you guys are so against giving me another chance to redeem myself. I admit I made a few mistakes, but I don't think we should overlook all of the good work I have done on here in the past few years. I genuinely promise to have a better attitude when communicating with other editors. I look forward to working with you all again in a positive way. Koala15 (talk) 02:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

No one's against your having, or denying you, a chance to redeem yourself. If we were, we would be proposing an indefinite block (which none of us think is appropriate at this time). You will hopefully redeem yourself in any case. But it's precisely because you're thinking of this matter as so trivial that a block is appropriate. Many editors who produce good edits but cannot collaborate constructively with other editors have been blocked before you and many will be blocked after you. Assuming our proposal is implemented, please spend at least some of the time actually reading the many Wikipedia policies and guidelines we have tried over several weeks to get you to consider carefully. General Ization ^Talk 02:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why a block is necessary, I'm not gonna learn anything that i already haven't. I am gonna make a change in my behavior on here from this day on. And if you catch me breaking any rules, than block me. Take me at my word on this one. Koala15 (talk) 03:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

To me, this attitude right here is the epitome of your problem. You don't get to tell us what is necessary and what is not necessary. You can ask, you can argue your case, or anything else that is genuinely collaborative. You are still trying to take the lead and dictate the outcome. This is why the block is proposed. Azealia911, General Ization and others - I am not sure how else I can put it. @Chillum: this should address your concern. Nothing has changed. Literally, nothing. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 06:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• Neutral. I have no preference on a short term block either way. It's clear that this editor will be back to editing in awhile even if they were blocked, so the the important thing for this conversation is to show that they are sitting on their last chance per WP:ROPE if the issue comes up again. Sometimes ANI closures aren't clear on this, so as long as that point gets across, I'm content with just closing this as such. A block will demonstrate that as much as a well-worded close (and may be warranted given the continued behavior that popped up, but I'm not digging further into this to evaluate that), so I'm fine either way. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose The block would not be preventative at this point in my opinion. If anyone can explain how it would be preventative I will gladly reconsider. Chillum 03:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

My hope is that it will give the editor some (enforced) time, if they are so inclined, to actually learn how to be a better and more collaborative editor, rather than just editing in a vacuum. A "time out" if you will. We've been hearing a lot of I didn't hear that from Koala15, and my personal opinion is that it's because they won't stop editing long enough to actually read policies and guidelines and learn how to and why they should avoid this kind of issue. If they were not so inclined, then indeed all it would do is give them a reason to remember that incivility and disruptive editing have consequences. General Ization ^Talk 03:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per Chillum, it sounds more a punitive than a preventive block. Also, while Koala certainly had been sometimes rude, most of the differences above just document talk page discussions, but not the actual "incidents", or at least not the whole picture, so it is hard to judge who is really innocent here. Eg, it was linked at least three times (if I have not missed some other links) this talk page discussion as a proof of Koala's problematic behavior, yet it all started by an editor boldly redirecting a Koala's article a few hours after it had been created and then edit warring with Koala to have it redirected without any community discussion. The dispute eventually ended in an AfD, where the article was kept with no votes for deletion outside the nominator. The same with the Ted 2 incident, where the opener of this ANI discussion just showed some incompetence (he, not Koala), first battling to add a bizarre and non-standard "Elsewhere in the United States" in the infobox-date of release [12], then, after being explained why he was wrong, still trying to remove the premiere date with a poor rationale [13]. Rudeness is not excusable, and Koala should be more collaborative and use the edit summaries to immediately explain his actions and not to attack other editors, but the context is important, and so far the "incidents" do not rise to a level requiring a block IMO. Cavarrone 07:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: it's a shame that the devil's advocate sometimes wears an admin's hat. In their opposing statement, Cavarrone seems to have turned the wheel around and accused me, Koala15's victim, of incompetence, having completely ignored a discussion which I cited earlier. There is a considerable difference between sheer unprovoked rudeness and a stern reaction to sheer unprovoked rudeness, but apparently, to them the two are one and the same. This doesn't look very neutral to me, but I will be more than happy to be proven wrong. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 23:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
• Neutral, as stated in my intial comment above. Whilst I do believe Koala15 has good editing-related intentions, discussion-wise is a mess. I do believe that they are aware of the issue of civility and so on. They are being watched and if any further comments that are deemed uncivil, inappropriate, and so on, they will be reported once more and consequently blocked as they were given chances. And I will take their above comment "If I break the rules, block me." (not exact) seriously. I expect them to learn their mistakes and choose their words carefully instead of being rude and uncalled for. I choose to believe they will stop edit warring and stop engaging in OWNBEHAVIOR and start discussing in good matters. And that their competence here will improve. The way they type and what they say are supporting that issue. Thank you for the ping, Eau (I really don't know your username that easily) Callmemirela {Talk} ♑ 20:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support short term block up to a month (uninvolved non admin) Clearly preventive block to stop the ongoing problems that resurface in no time. Perhaps the time off will also bring about a change for the better and prevent this from happening again. AlbinoFerret 19:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support a block, oppose short-term. I don't think a short-term block would do anything a previous block and about 85 warnings & interventions did not. Then there's a further 15 or so copyright etc. notices. How many warnings does he get? His response to the CCI notification was typical: brushed off as "old news" (I'm positive the blatant copyvios weren't mentioned on his talkpage) and a "trend" of trying to get him blocked. The usual way we deal with those who create long-term copyright problems and refuse to mend their ways despite warnings is an indefinite vacation from editing. In this case I think an indef block is necessary. –146.200.32.196 (talk) 22:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
• Strong oppose (uninvolved non admin) A suitable warning is sufficient. If this is Koala15's first ANI report after three years of editing, 75,000 edits and creating an incredible 1,713 new articles [14] (the only one that was deleted has since been recreated), this is NOT a competency issue. With those numbers, 15 copyright warnings are really not indicative of a real pattern of violation. If there is a long-term plagiarizing or copyright issue then that needs to be examined as such with actual diffs. Koala15 has genuinely shown good faith by admitting mistakes were made and asked for another chance.[15] "Go home, you're drunk" is a common Internet meme [16] and only shows humour that should not have been used in this case. Additionally, reporter proposer has graciously accepted apology and opposes is neutral on block. —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: I'm not the actual original reporter, if you were referencing me with "reporter has graciously accepted apology and opposes block" which I have a inkling you were per the civility barnstar you kindly just awarded me with (thanks for that by the way!). I also don't oppose the block, just as I don't support it, staying neutral, however 146.200.32.196's slew of evidence isn't pushing me in the opposing direction to be frank. It should also be noted that you reference their article creations, however most are blank film stubs that list a cast list and minor details, with Koala15 even leaving the plot blank with a "section expansion" tag, leaving someone else to do the work after he's quickly filled in the blanks. I may be mistaken but I swear I'd read somewhere that they'd been warned for this in the past under WP:MASSCREATION grounds. Azealia911 _talk 16:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, oops, hah. Struck through. You still very graciously accepted the apology and went neutral, which is still very nice to see. I don't think this [17] is really a blank stub, just a stub lacking plot, as it's referenced and has a good introduction and everything. Mass creation of blank stubs to me is like that obnoxious sock puppeteer who created hundreds of fish stubs that consisted entirely of the species infobox only and an external link to a Thailand university database in order to linkspam. —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support a block, oppose short-term. This editor refuses to abide by WP:COPYRIGHT despite warnings stretching back years. This calls for an indef block. Thanks to 146.xx for compiling such a detailed history. Lagrange613 01:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Long term disruption and copyvios

Hi, I'm the editor who User:Callmemirela indirectly referred to above. I want to put this one to bed so we can all move on, too. Having looked into this a bit more, however, there're some additional aspects that should be taken into consideration. Unfortunately, it'll take me just a little while longer to put the details into a neat orderly manner, dot the i's and cross the t's so to speak, ready to post here. I'm pretty sure I can do so within 24hrs. –146.200.32.196 (talk) ^{(formerly 146.'115 / 146.'207)} 02:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

While we wait, or to help us/admins decide whether we should, it would be helpful to understand your relationship to the case (since you are currently an IP with only this edit in your history). Are you the editor who formerly used IP 146.198.28.207 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 146.199.67.6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (see contribs)? General Ization ^Talk 03:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes. (Powercut last night.) Incidentally, thank you for your application of meatball:DefendEachOther at the talkpage. Looking into this took a while (complexity and depth of the edit history among other factors) and, as we can see, a poll began in the meantime. It's preferable that reports here don't stay open for extended periods, so I can understand why EauZenC initiated it. 146.200.32.196 (talk)^{(formerly 146.'115 / 146.'207)} 03:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@146.200.32.196: Did you plan to provide us with some additional insight concerning this matter, as your post above suggested? If so, please do so quickly or if not, please let us know, so that either way we can move this case toward closure. It's unfair both to the subject editor and the rest of us watching this section to leave it in limbo any longer. General Ization ^Talk 16:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I apologise to the community. In hindsight my 24hrs estimate was over optimistic. I misjudged the time needed wrt the large quantity of edits. Fortunately, having worked through the night, twice, things moved right along. I do intend to provide some additional material facts asap, so we can wrap this up. I'll come back here later today. Thanks. 146.200.32.196 (talk) 09:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Seemingly the IP's 72 hour estimate was also unrealistic. Move for closure, as at this point I can't imagine what revelations they could bring to the discussion that would make it worth our waiting any longer. General Ization ^Talk 18:29, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I see now that the IP has added to the open discussion above today, though they do not offer a closing recommendation. So I again move for closure, but now because it appears all who have an interest in commenting on this matter have done so. General Ization ^Talk 20:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

The IP's entry only reinforces the view of Koala15 as ill-faithed (not sure if this is a good antonym for good faith) and a repeat offender that has not shown any signs of real regret for their actions. As far as I see it, they are a ticking time bomb. Closure without action is precisely what they are hoping for. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 09:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• List of Warner Bros. films - Hello. I'm having an issue with the same user. He's deleting information that has been proven with citations from reliable sources. He's doing so on the basis of what he thinks is necessary on the page, whereas it's not entirely up to him. StephenCezar15 (talk) 18:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

It's been nearly four days since somebody commented on this, and nobody else seems interested to comment, what's been said seems to be all that'll be said, can this be closed please? With the closer doing what they see fit? Azealia911 _talk 21:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Final note to closer: An IP who commented on this post has seemingly been working on an account of Koala15's disruptive behavior, a very detailed account of it to be exact. After checking on it every couple days, work on it seems to have stopped. It may be worth giving it a full read through before making a formal decision on how to proceed with actions upon closure. The account of their behavior can be found here. Azealia911 _talk 23:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@Azealia911: In future please ask or notify a fellow editor before linking their notes (esp. if edited in the last 48hrs) on a highly-watched page and inviting everyone to go look. Please read this. Thanks. 146.200.32.196 (talk) 21:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

My linking to your notes was a move of panic, not one of ignorance. You'd seemingly finished with the notes, and forgotten to link them here, and had been offline for a couple of days. Myself and another editor had requested this be closed and I didn't want to take the chance of waiting days for you to respond, to only have this be closed while waiting. Yes, in hindsight, I should have, I apologise. I should add though, I gravely resent your request that I read WP:HUMAN. You know full well that I respect you, as I do with all editors exactly the same. I suggest if you don't want something seen by the community, don't save it for the community to see, perhaps write, preview, and copy/paste to an offline document in the future. Best, Azealia911 _talk 22:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I intentionally worked on it in plain sight, rather than solely offline, so others might see what I was working on. That's not the same as pointing folks to my rough notes on a high-traffic page without so much as a talkpage note (much less 'will you be posting your notes or would you like a hand perhaps?'). And these had after all been edited within the last 48hrs. I wasn't seeking an apology only that you learn what may be learnt and move on. On reflection, if there were do-overs there'd be several things in this whole saga I'd do differently myself. Like you pretty much say, hindsight's a wonderful thing. Best, 146.200.32.196 (talk) 04:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

That is a very interesting and very detailed log. It hasn't been worked on in two days, and the penultimate edit summary is "kinda done with this", so I hope he or she posts it here in the next few days. Especially since this ANI has been here for going on one month at this point, and the IP said a week ago s/he could have it for us "within 24 hrs". Softlavender (talk) 02:55, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Softlavender, although I didn't say quite say that. I said I hoped to add additional info and did post a comment (on their recidivist edit-warring). I overran by a day or so on that and apologised for the delay. I do agree the thread's gone on a while, though I only came across it more recently. –146.200.32.196 (talk) 19:27, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

(←) Koala15's behaviour has been tendentious and disruptive for as long as he's edited here. There's a long history of problem reverts, edit warring, refusal to collaborate and accept consensus, and copyvios.

Unfortunately a prior block plenty of polite engagement and warnings all had little effect. He's had warnings and reminders every month since 2012, over 100 of them.([18][19]) According to User:Cryptic in April, he's a prolific edit-warrer on non-free images, too. Edit summary use in mainspace remains minimal at around 7%, and, when he does use them, they're often uncollegial or deceptive.[20][21] He refuses to take responsibility for his actions and has made insincere apologies and empty promises.[22][23]

Those who bring concerns to him are fobbed off on a string of pretexts [24] or he downplays the matter to others as "misunderstandings" or "simple disagreement", ignoring his refusal to discuss it. This was exactly my experience. In content disputes or otherwise he engages in disruptive behavior with edit warring and personal attacks to get what he wants, and shows absolutely no sign he will stop. On at least two occasions it seems significantly likely his hostility drove editors off Wikipedia altogether.

On top of this there are attempts to conceal his behaviour and game the system. He'll caution others over conduct he persistently engages in [25][26] or, say, try to excuse an unexplained revert afterwards saying the edit would've pushed an already long plot over 700 words (when it did so barely [27][28] or not at all) but copypaste 1200+ word plots from websites and pass them off as his own. He also 1) outright lies that he wrote copyrighted content 2) cherrypicks from guidelines, ignoring clear admonitions against lengthy and excessive quotations [29] plus 3) edit-wars to keep it in, while accusing editors who try to address it of vandalism [30] and 4) uses sources that're recently-published or whose publication times are less obvious.

The community's granted him substantial good faith because it appeared he was also doing good content work. It's now clear this comprises serial copyright violations, quotefarming, close paraphrasing, and plagiarism. It'll likely require a lengthy CCI case. Due to the long-term and recidivist nature of the disruption and copyright violations, in my view an indef-block is appropriate. –146.200.32.196 (talk) 19:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

^{Note: Report added at CCI here. -146.200.32.196 21:55, 8 August 2015 (UTC)}

Well I admit I'm not a perfect editor, I don't think its fair to take edits from 2-3 years ago out of context to fit the narrative that I'm only here to be disruptive. They are from a time when I was less experienced. I know we got started of wrong but I hope you guys can forgive me. I have good intentions and from now on I'm gonna try to follow guidelines more closely. Koala15 (talk) 15:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Topic Ban violation by User:TripWire

TripWire was topic banned by Future Perfect at Sunrise for 6 Months from all edits related to Pakistani politics and Indian/Pakistani conflicts, for a period of 6 months.

His block still exists. Still he violates ban and defend himself with comments like this

1, 2, 3, 4, 5.112.79.39.220 (talk) 11:56, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

First Sir, have the courage to use your actual ID to report me. I dont think, a sock should be allowed to report registered users. Anyways, I have explained this earlier and will try it again; my topic ban relates to Pakistani politics and Indian/Pakistani conflicts. Now, I dont understand how does editing a page regarding a terrorist organization Lashkar-e-Taiba falls under Pakistani politics and how does a terror attack in India 2015 Gurdaspur attack which (initially) had nothing to do with Pakistan has to do with Indo-Pak conflict? From what I understand is banned from Indo-Pak Conflicts means is that I cannot edit articles like Siachen Conflict, Kargil Conflict, 1965 Indo-Pak War etc where actual war/conflict is taking place.

The edit I made at Gurdaspur Attack was 'As per MHA sources, 2 x GPS, 3 x AK-47, 10 x magazines and 2 x China-made grenades were recovered from the terrorists' i.e. added just the basic info which was non-controversial. I was reported to Admin FPAS talk page by showing only one edit to made it look like as if I am doing something wrong. FPAS being busy responded quickly without actually confirming that I was violating my topic ban as he did not review the entire issue as he was committed elsewhere. Resultantly, I asked him a simple question:

So what you want to say is that in future ANY terrorist attack on Indian soil (which is condemnable), even like that carried out in Manipur by rebels in Mayanmar, will automatically fall within the scope of Indo-Pak conflict, because it ultimately will end up being supposedly supported by some terror group linked to Pakistan? This sir is a huge statement. Since when did Admins at Wikipedia have started speaking the language of Indian External Affairs Ministry?

As FPAS is still busy, he hasnt responded to the comment. So, I ask here again, will any future terror attack taking place in India be taken as a conflict between India and Pakistan? Or may be till the time India does not accuse Pakistan for orchestrating the attack, I could edit the page as till then it would not have become a conflict between the two countries, because the time between a terror attack in India and India accusing Pakistan for the same is with hours? Please explain? If it is the former, so what editors at Wikipedia want to say is that even before pakistan's hand is established behind an attack, all terror attacks in India will by default be assumed to be supported by Pakistan and thus by this definition, all such pages will fall under the purview of Indo-Pak Conflict, and thus within my topic-ban?

As for LeT, how does a page related to a terror org, like LeT, like the LTTE in Sri Lanka, ISIS in Yemen, Sikh Seperatists and numerous others in India etc are all linked to the politics of the respective countries. I am confused and seek advice. If I am told and clarified by the respected Admins that by the edits being quoted against me, I was infact violating by ban, I'll happily admit to my mistake as I did not consider doing so was wrong, and will refrain from such edits in future. Thanks.

Lastly, or the Indian socks and tag-teamers who wants to show that I cant live with my topic ban, my edit history, post my topic ban begs to disagree:

• Territorial claims in the Arctic
• My Trip Back to the Dark Side (film)
• Kim Yo-jong
• Chappie (film)
• Frequencies (film)
• Sabeen Mahmud
• Benjamin Sisters
• Javed Iqbal Ramday
• Central Superior Services of Pakistan—TripWire ^talk 12:21, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: This needs admins attention. This user has been blatantly violated topic ban several times even after several warnings. One can read latest advice by admin FPAS User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise#Topic ban violation. He is busy. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  12:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou sir, for repeating the 'same' words as by the IP one more time. You think repeating it will make it true? BTW, you claimed that I have "been blatantly violated topic ban several times", so please why dont you tell the admins when was the last time I have edited a topic which you for now presumingly believe falls within my topic ban? As I have requested you earlier, that you need to stop lying and exaggerating the 'facts'—TripWire ^talk 13:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

You mentioned it itself, sir. You think that India thinks that all terrorist attacks in India are related to Pakistan, and because of that, it is part of an India-Pakistan conflict, and this means your topic ban applies. Besides, topic bans are broadly construed. Violating topic bans may result in an extension of that ban, a block, including an indefinite block... If you think a topic ban is unjustified, don't violate it, or try to circumvent it, but appeal it.--Müdigkeit (talk) 14:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

So sir, what you are trying to say is that because any attack in India, will automatically, by default, without any investigation, without any proof, without any recourse to any legal proceedings will have to be understood (internationally and among ALL editors of Wikipedia and Admins) to be orchestrated by Pakistan, so it falls under Indo-Pak Conflict? WOW! I will say that same thing what i said to FPAS, ' that's a huge statement sir', not to mention a clear violation of WP:NPOV and numerous other wiki polices. BTW, would the attack carried out by Manipur Rebels in Manipur, India recently by the rebels operation from the Indo-Mayanmar Border, to which India responded by carryingout a hot pursuit operation inside Mayanmar, also included in the definition of topic-ban provided by you? Thanks —TripWire ^talk 14:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Important Question to Admins (and sock IP)

I am being accused of violating by Topic Ban related to Indo-Pak Conflict pages by editing 2015 Gurdaspur attack page. But please consider:

• 2015 Gurdaspur attack occurred at 5:30am on 27 July 2015.
• The 2015 Gurdaspur attack was created on same day at 08:44 am
• Till then it was an unfortunate attack on Indian soil, no terror group claimed responsibility, no one knew who was behind the attacks.
• Later it was known that one of the attackers seemed like a Sikh, and thus the possibility of Khalistan Movement surfaced.
• I made my first edit at the page at 02:28, 28 July 2015, approximately 24 hrs after the attack.
• Till then Pakistan had not been brought into the mix, so the question, how and when did this page started falling withing the purview of Indo-Pak Conflict, a topic I am banned to edit?
• The first mention of Pakistan at the page was made at 21:44, 28 July 2015. This was usual Indian rehtoric of accusing Pakistan everytime a terror attack happens in India. This time it was a shot in the dark as unlike let's say Mumbai Attacks where India had a confession of Ajmal Kasb, thereby giving credence to the Indian claim, this time the accusation was blank, vague and to date unproven. So the second question: Did this ACCUSATION make 2015 Gurdaspur attack page an Indo-Pak Conflict topic, may be? If so, then I would respectfully ask the Admins the same question I asked from FPAS at his talk page, but I am not going to repeat it here.
• Please, I request, help me understand how (and when) does a terror attack in India becomes a topic of Indo-Pak Conflict? What's the criteria, how should I gauge that a page I am editing is a Conflict page, because the line is quite thin here and personal vendettas quite high. Thanks.—TripWire ^talk 14:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Read above comment, you disagree on "Pakistan is behind Gurudaspur bomb blasts" thats why it is part of India-Pakistan conflict. And what about your edits on NGO Lashkar-e-Taiba? I demand strict action on this user. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  14:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

You, as been highlighted numerous times, are an exaggerator and a manipulator. You are again lying by saying that I "disagree on Pakistan is behind Gurudaspur bomb blasts", can you prove it sir? Which edit of mine made you think that I am against it? Did I remove ANY info related to this? Did I challenge this accusation by India? The only thing I changed in the line quoted by you is that India 'alleged' that Pakistan is behind the attacks, what's wrong with that? Isnt it an accusation as of now or you as per habitual WP:NPOV pusher wants to state this as a FACT? The other edit I made was to add the fact that Indian authorities mistakenly thought one of the attackers to be a Sikh, is that wrong to? Is it not factual or supported by Indian sources? Or by highlighting that India retracted a mistake well in time and instead accused Pakistan, didnt I actually support the Indian POV as opposed to your accusation that I am against "Pakistan is behind Gurudaspur bomb blasts"? Wake up Sir! You in your frustration against me, have crossed all bounds of morality.—TripWire ^talk 14:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Lashkar-e-Taibar is clearly related to Pakistan, so it is a forbidden article. A topic ban is a topic ban. Not from an article, but from everything related to that topic, broadly construed.--Müdigkeit (talk) 14:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Related to Pakistan, not Pakistani Politics. Broadly construed is OK, but making it so broad that anything which has a word Pakistan in it is banned for me is not. If that had been the case, FPAS could have very easily said in by Ban that I am not allowed to edit ANY topic related to Pakistan (alone). Infact, that's the clarification I am trying to seek here from respected Admins. I can be wrong, and I dont mind if I am corrected by Admins.—TripWire ^talk 14:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Immediately after his ban, TripWire filed a request to lift his ban, which was not even replied and ultimately rejected. You were banned for India-Pakistan conflicts which includes Lashkar e taiba as this terror group launches attack against India every week.112.79.39.111 (talk) 14:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Funny. Ref: as this terror group launches attack against India every week: and this far-fetched accusation makes it a topic of Pakistani Politics/Conflict? Sir, excellent attempt at pushing a WP:NPOV. BTW, did you muster the courage to login? Admins sirs, is it fair to be reported by a sock/SPA? —TripWire ^talk 14:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

While I will defer to admins more familiar with the India-Pakistan area and topic bans more generally, this does appear to me to be a violation of the topic ban. Edits such as this and this are clearly on topics related to India-Pakistan conflicts. It doesn't really matter, in my opinion, whether it had yet been confirmed that the attacks were carried out by people from Pakistan; I think the fact that a link was being considered brings the topic within the India-Pakistan conflicts topic. Sam Walton (talk) 14:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@TripWire: If an article mentions both Pakistan and India and covers violence or religious strife or political or military wranglings you are topic-banned from that article. Lashkar-e-Taiba emphatically falls under your topic ban. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm...So sir I have been wrong all along?? Darn! May be I was taking the ban wording too literally. —TripWire ^talk 14:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@TripWire: It's not a good idea to test the boundaries of a topic ban. If there's any doubt, ask an admin familiar with the matter before you start editing. But these queries should be reserved for non-obvious cases. Lashkar-e-Taiba is an obvious case. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I do find it hard to believe that you would think your topic ban didn't cover articles like Lashkar-e-Taiba or in conflict-related articles where a link between India and Pakistan is being discussed. Sam Walton (talk) 15:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Sir, all along my argument regarding LeT had been that it did not fell under "Pakistani Politics", now it seems that it is connected to Indo-pak Conflict?! Ouch!—TripWire ^talk 15:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Problems with the ban appeal

I noticed someone mentioned a denied ban appeal.(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive177#Result_of_the_appeal_by_TripWire Ban Appeal) And then I noticed the following: Future Perfect at Sunrise didn't answer or explain his actions in the appeal despite notice, and the appeal was automatically archived after 7 days. This is disappointing. Future Perfect at Sunrise was active during that time. This behaviour seems to be contrary to WP:ADMINACCT.--Müdigkeit (talk) 15:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Sir, thanks for saying what I couldnt. I am being continoulsy mocked that I didnt even worth a reply on my ban appeal and thus (ironically) my ban was justified. Sir Neil has suggested that I should have asked an Admin if I was in doubt 9which I was). Seriously, I may be wrong in saying so, but I will not fall down to a level where I approach the same admin who did not even bother to reply to my appeal. On a seond thought, I should have approached FPAS, but whereas I do enjoy my edits at Wikipedia, but it is not a matter of life or death to me. I exercised my right of appeal, it went unanswered, which in itself was insulting, if taken in that sense, I am sorry, if resultantly I didnt feel comfortable to interact with the same Admin. I could have also approached another admin, but for the same reason, I found it rather belittling that I am knocking at a door, only to find out that it remains unopened. The only reason behind my latest interaction with FPAS at his talk page was because I was forced by Human3015 to respond there when he reported me to FPAS. BTW, FPAS didnt even then respond to me, but made a hasty reply to Human3015 alone, which again was taken with a heavy heart by me. But still, I understand that being an Admin is a thankless job, and I hold no grudges. We are all here to improve this website, will try to do that, till I am permitted to do that. Thanks —TripWire ^talk 15:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• @TripWire: If someone has not replied to your ban appeal then it doesn't mean that you are allowed to violate your topic ban. That can be different discussion and should not be discussed on this thread, @Müdigkeit: this is the issue of WP:AE. Here we are discussing current topic ban violations by TripWire. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  16:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually I think this is related to that. TripWire had the right to appeal, and it is obvious that right was not fully exercised or granted as no one even replied on the thread. I think we all ought to sit back and re-visit the original ban. It would be good if the previous appeal could be de-archived and the involved admin/editors could add in their thoughts. After all, it's meant to be preventable, not punitive. And to be honest, TripWire isn't really doing anything different than what the POV pushers on the other side of the fence are doing. Perhaps sanctions should be applied equally. Mar4d (talk) 23:25, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@Mar4d: It is not just you who thinks in that way, even I wanted that his appeal should have been replied, I said this in my long advice on TripWire's talk page see last line. But apparently his appeal could have been refused. His behaviour is such that even you yourself describing his behaviour as "POV Pusher". He has done many mistakes even after his topic ban. Even if we de-archive or re-open his case still again no one will comment on his appeal. Or even if someone comment on it still it will end up in deny. It will hurt TripWire again. And I agree on you that "POV pushers" of "both" sides should be banned. These POV pushers are ruining Wikipedia. When we are busy in any project these POV pushers and Socks unnecessarily attracts our attention and we end up in wasting our time and we also lose our interest in that topic. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  02:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Human3015, please stop patronizing me. What you call advice was more of a mockery whereby you showed your true colors. You were the first one to 'enjoy' that my ban appeal went out without a discussion. Stop lying for once!—TripWire ^talk 06:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Two cents (uninvolved editor)

This is my personal take on the issue, perhaps a bit biased. I just wanted to see if the latest had been added to the article and went there today. I have not edited the article in any way which may show bias towards anyone. I am assuming here that that the reporter is human3015 as there is almost no chance that a person who has not edited Wikipedia knows about our ANI and reporting process.

As far as Human is concerned I would like to say that perhaps he could have waited for a couple of more reverts before reporting, but having said that he is quite within his rights to report and if he follows the law to the letter no one should blame him, even though I personally would have given tripwire some "rope".

On the other hand the total meltdownesque tirade from Tripwire seems to be such a huge huge huge amount of overkill I cannot even describe it in words. Had he just come here and apologized for editing during the TB, i am sure this would have ended in a nice "Ok, no harm no foul dude" and a cool wiki thread. but alas, such escalation! I'd like to recommend that an admin takes just one minute from his time and tell Tripwire that his TB includes everything that has even a tiny bit of connection with Pak-India Politics. That is what the term "broadly" means. And that another incident of violation will "upgrade" the TB to 9 months. I think that should end this for the time being. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Human3015 and Sock IPs

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

---

While we are at it, I'd like to make few observations:

• Human3015 has a weiered habit of showing emphathy with established socks and vice versa.
• I wonder why is it that whenever I have been in discussion with Human3015, a sock or a SPA appears from nowhere and attempts at disrupting my contributions. The fact that I have been reported by a (sock) IP for topic-ban vio here is a point to note. Especially, when Human3015 falsely and in pure bad-faith reported me for 3RR vio, and when it was seen in the discussion there that it is not going to yield results as per Human's wishes, this socks appears and reports me here.
• Point to note is that the last edit I made at LeT page was at 00:23, 3 August 2015 and the last edit made by me on 2015 Gurdaspur attack was at 20:30, 2 August 2015. Thereafter when I was told that I might be violating my topic-ban, I stopped from editing both the topics. But, still I get reported by the sock IP today on 5 August (after it was seen that the false report against me for 3RR was likely to backfire, with a likelihood of some action against Human as he used a 2-days-old edit by me to force compile 3RR volition)??

• This is not the first time this has happened. I was reported by Human for SPI upon 'suggestion' by an established sockmaster. Human, instead of ignoring the sock, gladly acknowledged the Sock's suggestion and obliged by reporting me for SPI. The result of SPI was also not as per Human's wishes, but no action was taken against Human for accusing me of socking that too upon suggestion by a sock - fathom the irony!

• Just yesterday, when Human and I were having a discussion at Talk:Desi daru, and when Human was unable to prove his point, another sock/SPA appeared from nowhere and vandalized my talk page twice while I was amidst the discussion with Human.

• I wonder why is it that established socks/sockmaster always approach Human for help? Is it just a coincidence that socks are in communication with Human, that socks recommend to him to report me for false SPI, that I get reported by a sock IP again here on the eve of sanctions on Human for falsely reporting me for 3RR? Food for thought.—TripWire ^talk 18:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • If you want to allege that another user is a sockpuppet then file an SPI. Sam Walton (talk) 18:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't know from where these IPs appear whenever I have discussion with TripWire. My talk page has always been attacked by both Pro-Indian and Pro-Pakistani IPs. And both of these group of IPs are socks of different sockmasters. As usual TripWire told you half story, now I will tell you another story, [31], [32], [33] Here one IP is abusing me in local language saying "What conspiracy you did to get me topic banned for 6 months?, did you e-mail admin FPAS to provoke him to get me topic banned?. Don't touch Pakistan related articles for 6 months till my ban is over". I will not translate abusive words. I have never even thought that it is sock of TripWire, I have not even complained or discussed it with anyone. I just left this matter. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  21:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

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

My take on this

As an uninvolved editor, it appears to me that there is some dispute over whether an incident is considered India/Pakistani conflict, and therefore covered by the TB, or not. There is a reason that the AE/DS motion is worded "all pages related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed" and it is to avoid this type of confusion. And yes, I'm prepared to accept that there was some confusion, or at least controversy, over whether the Gurdaspur attack constitutes India/Pakistani conflict or is in fact Indian domestic terrorism. I have no opinion on that matter, but I would suggest that the wording of the topic ban is changed to include "all pages related to India and/or Pakistan, both broadly construed" so that TripWire, and all other editors, are clear he is to stay aware from this area for at least six months. Unfortunately, this paints with a broad brush but I believe doing so is necessary for the avoidance of doubt and to prevent this type of dispute in future. Djonesuk (talk) 11:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Bad faith editing at TV articles by User:TheRedPenOfDoom

I have noticed that on some "list of programs broadcast by network" articles that User:TheRedPenOfDoom has added tags to upcoming programming sections that claim there is undue weight and advertising.

For one, how on earth can listing upcoming programming lend undue weight to articles, if there are currently and formerly broadcast sections? Secondly, @Manoflogan: stated the content in question is not promotional material as long as it is cited with proper sources, in this case, most of it is. Yet TheRedPenOfDoom went on his delusional crusade anyway. (please read User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom#Regarding Upcoming Series on Zee Zindagi for more info)

This user is obviously crazy to believe that upcoming programming lends undue weight and is advertising, source or no source. He is continuing to uphold this even after I had reverted his tagging. I personally feel that an indefinite block or ban is needed at this point. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 21:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

TRPoD started discussions on the addition of the Undue tag on the article talk pages where you were edit-warring. It would preferable to try to come to a resolution by discussing this difference of opinion with other editors before turning to ANI. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@Liz: Personally, I feel TRPoD's claims of undue weight and advertising are invalid, yet he's running with them anyway. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 21:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

You might be correct about the content but it's best to get a consensus on the article talk pages. It looks like a discussion is occurring at Talk:List of programs broadcast by Zee Zindagi although it is heated. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Extracted the following from the discussion:

Wikipedia admin Cyphoidbomb has given his opinion that he does not mind the presence of Future Programming as long as there is a valid source of reference. User_talk:TheRedPenOfDoom#Regarding_Upcoming_Series_on_Zee_Zindagi. I am therefore going to remove the two warnings that you inserted. He/She also mentioned that it is a standard template for television network programming. If you have any issues, you can take it up with him/her. But from now on, please refrain from adding warnings just because you object to the sections or their referenced content. In addition, please don't go about putting the warnings back again.

Like Manoflogan, I removed the templates from the articles. However, TRPoD re-added them almost immediately. Like I keep saying, the edits do not appear to have been made in good faith. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 22:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

"Delusional crusade"? "This user is obviously crazy"? Electricburst1996, you need to step back from the edge of the cliff pronto.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, maybe I am exaggerating a bit too much... ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 22:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This really doesn't seem like something that warrants actions anywhere near an indefinite block or ban. Article talk pages are there for a reason. Sam Walton (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

If the Guinness Book of Records has an entry for "dragged most times to ANI for manifestly invalid reasons" then TRPoD would own it. Reyk _YO! 21:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

As noted above, an AN/I complaint that says "this user is obviously crazy" had really better be confident that the user complained of is obviously crazy. Good faith does not invariably mean "agreeing with me". I'm disturbed about the way targeted editors are dragged into this sort of thing over and over again, and would not be surprised to find that this is yet more spillover from TRPoD’s previous persecutors. The community should give TRPoD a firm assurance that, barring actions that actually are "obviously crazy", these repeated complaints will be ignored or boomeranged; that sort of assurance would go a long way toward defusing the tension. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Whilst not being a proof of sanity, or otherwise, can anyone list off some article where RedPen's efforts have been held up as an example of good editing? This is an editor with a serious WP:BATTLEGROUND problem, across every article I've ever seen them at. They have formal restrictions against them because of this on the Gamergate issue. In particular, they have a messianic belief in their personal absolute correctness, no matter what.

Although I'm seeing some hyperbole from Electricburst1996 here, it's not hard to see how RedPen has inspired it. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

If I may chime in my two cents here, I think Andy Dingley has hit the nail on the head here. I agree that Electricburst1996 is over reacting, and using some rather hyperbolic language, but there is also something to be said for the fact that users across the board are constantly taking issue with the same user, over and over again. Even if one assumes some of these complaints are simply sock puppets, surely they aren't ALL. Seems to me that at a certain point TRPoD should take some responsibility for this as well.--Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

TRPoD does a valuable job in pruning back the dross that tends to accumulate in articles. In a project where some people think that every passing mention of a thing, in every single medium, however trivial, deserves its own section in the top-level article, we do actually need cruft-pruners. Guy (Help!) 21:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

And that's a free ride to behave however he wants? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Evidence supplied by long-term abusers who get special treatment because of their perceived good content work would suggest yes it is. I make no comment on if that is a good or a bad thing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

There appears to be a content dispute at the heart of this. One party is engaging on the talk page, which is what you're supposed to do, while the other is running to this page which is intended for reporting serious conduct issues, crying "bad faith" rather than engage in discussion to resolve the content dispute. The latter behaviour tends to be frowned upon. --TS 00:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

@Tony Sidaway: I left a message on TRPoD's talk page in an attempt to resolve the issue. I'll report back tomorrow to see how it goes. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 02:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Given that this started with edit warring to remove tags that state " Discuss and resolve this issue before removing this message." and then violations of WP:TPG by blanking the discussion from the talk page and then [34] blatantly violate WP:NPA while simultaneously accusing me of acting in bad faith, I think it is pretty clear where the bad faith editing is emanating from in this instance. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: I frequently run into TRPOD at problematic articles related to Indian/Pakistani entertainment. Typically I agree with his staunch anti-fluff attitude, however in this case I disagree with him. The inclusion of upcoming programs in a List of programs broadcast by... article is standard operating procedure if the content can be sourced. Rather than templating individual articles with badges of shame, I think the better approach might be for him to approach WikiProject Television and start the discussion there. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - I have no comment on whether or not TRPoD is actually "crazy" or "delusional" or "mentally hilarious." I will say that deleting entire referenced, non-copyright sections of articles only because these sections are about to future commercial endeavors is batshit insane by Wikipedia standards. Should we also delete all Category:Upcoming films too??? How about delete Category:Upcoming products and all its categories? It's about time those publicity-hungry jerks at the Oxford Hebrew Bible stopped getting a free ride around here! —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
• Currently, there is a discussion going on at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television#Heated Disagreements about Future Programming about the issue at the heart of this report. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 17:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

IP edits to New Jersey Devils related articles

Look at this history. We have several IPs making changes and several established editors reverting them.

The IP edits look cack-handed at best, but not really vandalism. I see no attempt to discuss it... although I get the impression that the established users have been here before and think this may be socks of people who have been causing problems before.

Anyone familiar with the history and want to intervene?

Yaris678 (talk) 13:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

For relevant history, see this previous incident report which led to an editor block, Talk:1994–95 New Jersey Devils season and the discussion threads to which the last two sections link, and Talk:1993–94 New York Rangers season to see many attempts at discussion and the stream of edit requests that have been made which lack specific details (the talk page history contains more edit requests that have been deleted). isaacl (talk) 17:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring by 173.21.188.179

User:173.21.188.179 is continuing to edit war with User:5 albert square after being warned not to. 99.53.112.186 (talk) 18:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

There's no edit warring from me as I haven't edited the page since 2nd August. I reverted them previously because I didn't see how edits like these could be construed as anything other than vandalism. The IP hasn't given a reason for reducing the image so when I came across the edit, after a report to AIV, it looked like vandalism to the untrained eye. They've reverted it again still not giving a reason as to why the size of the image should be changed so they're continuing their disruptive editing.--5 albert square (talk) 19:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree that you were not edit warring User:5 albert square. You did the right thing in my opinion. I was only referring to the user in the title. 2602:306:3357:BA0:6914:843B:E888:7228 (talk) 21:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

For those who are wondering, it appears that the article the OP is referring to is Fornjot_(moon), but at any rate...Albert, the OP stated that only the IP is edit-warring, not you (but I do see how that can be misinterpreted). Anyway, I was about to note that the IP hasn't edited since receiving the most recent warning, but his/her talk page indicates that this is an ongoing issue (if all that represents the same person, that is). Maybe a longer block is warranted? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with having this user blocked for a longer period of time. Is everybody on board with that decision. 2602:306:3357:BA0:14B8:B3F4:8A0:185E (talk) 03:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:Topic ban for Aubmn

Whether here or WP:AN is the best place for this, I propose a topic ban for Aubmn (talk · contribs) with regard to the Marie Antoinette article. Aubmn's problematic editing at that article has been documented by various editors. For a WP:Diff-link to the evidence, see here and keep scrolling downward. Each section following that is one about Aubmn's problematic editing. And that problematic editing includes WP:Copyright violations, falsifying text, hard-to-read text, WP:Edit warring, WP:Socking and WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT behavior. NebY and I, especially NebY, first tried to deal with all of it. Then more editors took notice and tried to deal with all of it. Eventually, Saddhiyama brought the matter to WP:ANI earlier this year; see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive880#User:Aubmn and sockpuppetry. Since then, Blue Indigo (talk · contribs) has been trying to help out with the article and deal with Aubmn's problematic editing; he brought the matter to my talk page, as seen jhere and here, and I eventually suggested that he bring the case here to WP:ANI himself. Seeing that NeilN has WP:Full protected the article (see this link), and that Blue Indigo is understandably stressed because of Aubmn's problematic editing and that NeilN has been clear that he will block either of them for WP:Edit warring, I decided to follow through with reporting this case here. From Aubmn (talk) 11:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)what I have seen of Aubmn's behavior, I don't think he should be editing Wikipedia at all. Flyer22 (talk) 01:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately Flyer22 has a very negative attitude from the first with me, more than a year ago I began editing Marie Antoinette article who was on the watchlist of Flyer and who was left incomplete since 2012 and relying on one source Fraser, I was still an editor who didn't know about copyright s rules or a lot of rules in Wikepedia, I removed myself all the copyright violations and began editing by counting first on Fraser and completing the article specially the revolutionary period who was largely left unfinished since 2012. After that many editors came to work on the article , unfortunately the negative behaviour of Neb and Flyer22 let many of these editors to feel empowered and they wanted me completely out of the article after first proposing to work with me; krobison 13 was the first one, he himself acknowledge that he knew little about the subject , yet flyer and Neb wanted to give him complete control over the article, when we were left alone without the negativity and harrasment of Flyer and Neb, I was able to work with krobison who made hundred of edits in the article without interference from me, we have your differences who where solved when Krobison wanted to remove the 14 of July the most important event of that period. Blue Indigo refused to work with me from the beginning although I proposed to him twice on his talk page , he reverted 90% of my edits, I accepted 90 % of his edits (see per talk page). Aubmn (talk) 02:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC) I will talk of the last edit about the necklace scandal, Blue Indigo removed my contribution completely while I kept his contribution who was not based on the role of MA and when I tried to add my contribution without removing his, he removed it again as he felt empowered by Flyer22 (see SoS, SoS 2) on Flyer talk page, in addition to all that Blue Indigo compared me to a panzer division on Flyer22 talk page with it reference to Nazism without any reaction from Flyer22, know Flyer is saying Blue Indigo is stressed. Aubmn (talk) 02:14, 7 August 2015‎ (UTC) I welcomed the involvement of NeilN who is an objective person trying to find solutions in the Talk Page; not behaving and taking a negative attitude like Flyer22. Finally I want to say I committed mistakes sometimes out of ignorance of the rules sometimes because of anger but the fact remained , I completed a major article on a major personality which was left incomplete since 2012 and second I listened to many editors including Neb who told me the main weakness of this article is on it reliance on one source Fraser, I provided a solution to this problem by adding dozen of references to this article using the most important historians of MA like Castelot, Lever, Zweig and many others. I m not stressed like Blue Indigo because edit warring was mainly from his side and I believe in talking, cooperation and compromise ,,as an example I opened a new section in Napoleon article about education and I reached compromises with the editors there who were behaving in a positive way. Finally yes I committed some mistakes,I panicked sometimes not knowing about the rules but my intentions were good and positive, in the end I provided information's for a major article unfinished since 2012 and I removed its main weakness by giving it many sources instead of one. Know I trust NeilN and I m ready to follow any arbitration decided by him or her on MA talk page.Thank you.Aubmn (talk) 03:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC) Aubmn (talk) 02:45, 7 August 2015‎ (UTC)

Note: Anyone wanting to know how I initially addressed Aubmn can see User talk:Flyer22/Archive 17#Aubmn: Marie Antoinette article. Judge whether or not that matches up with his assertion that "Flyer22 has a very negative attitude from the first with me." As seen there, I asked him clearly about copyright violations, and he was dishonest. Unless he didn't know what copyright violations are, he should have known what I meant. The WP:Copyright violations policy is just adhering to what the law does. Yes, there are very likely WP:Copyright violations still in that article because of Aubmn. And any negative attitude I've had toward Aubmn has concerned his WP:Disruptive editing. Feel free to look for any way that I have been inappropriate with Aubmn. I will ignore his mischaracterization of me and others in this thread from here on out. I'll leave the rest of this to the community to handle. Flyer22 (talk) 02:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support. The talk page shows a long history of problematic edits including copyright violations, and strong evidence of WP:OWN. The claim that text is "information" and therefore sacrosanct, is a hallmark of POV-pushers. I think a topic ban is in order. Guy (Help!) 08:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

First about copyright violations,when I knew the law, I removed not only those I put which Flyer and Neby acknowledged they couldn't find them, I also removed hundred of copyright violations and paraphrasing from the test which were present before my contributions.

Second what is called ownership is first simply the absence of many editors for years to deal with this article, krobison 13 made hundred of edits without any interruption from me, Blue Indigo made hundred of edits who were left unchanged, the problem is like the diamont necklace show he removed my contribution, I kept his.

Third, I added many references to an article who was counting on one reference.

Fourth, frankly I 'm tired, I have a very beautiful life outside Wikipedia, if 'm banned I'll stop my work as an editor and concentrate more on my real life which is the cornstone of my existense, because I never spent more than one hour or two on Wikepedia everyday; perhaps that is the best for me, anyway whatever happen I want to thank NeilN and all who have shown objectivity.Thank you all Aubmn (talk) 10:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Seriously? You have such a single purpose here than if you can't edit that singular article, you'd quit? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support. From the MA Talk page, this appears to be an ongoing problem that should have ended months ago. Lucky he isn't getting proposed for another block, which apparently would have been well warranted. Softlavender (talk) 11:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

My friend Ricky I 'm tired, what do you expect, I finished a major article who was incomplete and depending on one source; I was lucky that I was able to complete it and also to provide many sources so the article don't 'depend on one source. I 'm not very interested in adding a few lines to other articles who are almost complete and to face the same scenarios. Unfortunately this is the kind of policy that is driving editors away from Wikipedia which is also losing a lot of readers. I' m going to Monte Carlo with my beautiful girlfriend and I don't need all of this. Thank you for all,a last notice NeilN said on MA talk page flyer22 put words from her mouth, I think that resume the person.Aubmn (talk) 11:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban as proposed, per WP:CIR and WP:DISRUPTSIGNS.- MrX 16:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

OK making the decision easier and making you not loose more time, first I want to thank all people of good faith who collaborated with me, second unfortunately Wikipedia is losing it appeal and all studies are showing that the reading of its articles is going down in a very dramatic way ; I 'm logging myself out of Wikipedia as an editor, I m not like Blue indigo afraid of being quicked out., I have a life better outside Gentlemen and Ladies, anyway wish you luck. Aubmn (talk) 17:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support up to 6 month topic ban (uninvolved non admin) There is some problematic behaviour. Suggest 6 months is long enough for this relatively inexperienced editor to try and learn more about WP and to stay out of trouble. I would also suggest that they learn not to focus on one specific article. AlbinoFerret 19:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support _{(was involved)} Whenever an editor tries to do any sort of substantial and badly needed work on the article (and not just if they tamper with the repeated and embarassingly banal descriptions of Marie Antoinette's feelings and suffering), Aubmn returns and reverts them edit by edit, then inserts more text that further obscures the subject. NebY (talk) 21:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support For reasons already described by the editors above. But I particularly agree with Guy, article ownership and POV pushing is troublesome here. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 08:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC

• Support_{(was involved)} for the reason that it is impossible to work with Aubmn or have a sensible conversation with him - (although I ignore if the fact that my last contributions of 7 August, which provoked the protection of the article, should keep me from voting in this case.) Aubmn automatically rejects the work of others, also uses the 3-revert rule in a calculated manner to accomplish his goal of the day: the elimination of others. He has set up his own censorship over the Marie Antoinette article, allowing the contribution of others only after he has put his stamp of approval on it, or reworded it beyond recognition, sometimes contradicting the very reference he is bringing to prove his point. It is not necessary to go into any further details: the article talk page and revision history speak for themselves. I also want to answer Aubmn here as to his accusation (above) of my calling him a *N*: I never used the word, only compared his removal of huge blocks of vital information from the Napoleon article to the tactics of a Panzerdivision, using military terminology to describe his elimination of military actions - mention of battles - from an article concerning a military man, his accomplishments, his victories and his defeats. --Blue Indigo (talk) 12:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry and COI Edits

There has been a lot of sockpuppetry and Conflict of Interest violations going on at the page La Salle College High School. Most of these edits seem to be the result of a "public relations" campaign by the school to clean up their image in the wake of a semi-recent scandal of a Priest at this Catholic School saying Mass by a swimming pool. Many Catholic newspapers and blogs covered the incident, so it is certainly notable and verifiable. The school is simply trying to clean up its image, a clear violation of Wikipedia Conflict of Interest policies. This is not the first time the school has withstood scrutiny for its editing and advertisement of its Wikipedia Page. As this talk page notes, all content put on the page in question is scrutinized by La Salle's director of communications, Mr. Christopher Caribello.

Additionally, there are two other subsets of problems that are notable, those being that
1.) The school is using sockpuppet accounts run by school, as well as directors of communication Christopher Caribello and Braden Bonner, and that
2.) These sockpuppet accounts are repeatedly violating the 3 Revert Rule.

Please investigate this and take any action that is appropriate, including possible protection, dispute mediation, and a sockpuppetry investigation, which has already been opened at the appropriate page. I also would like to propose a WP:Topic Ban against any sockpuppets from the school editing the school's page in light of the recent troubling public-relations and advertising that has been going on.

I believe these accounts are related:

Braden.bonner (Director of Communications Braden Bonner)
8605Cheltenham (Director of Communications Christopher Caribello) (8605 Cheltenham is the school's address)
206.169.237.5 (IP editor related to the school, possibly either Bonner or Caribello)
167.220.104.218 (Another IP editor related to the school, possibly either Bonner or Caribello)
2601:44:8501:b3e0:30f5:792c:7be7:df64 (Another IP editor related to the school)
50.199.67.44 (Another IP editor possibly related to the school)

70.192.131.83 (talk) 03:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The section on the "pool mass" had one ref which didn't mention the subject, and the remaining refs were all blogs or other unreliable sources, so it has been deleted again. - David Biddulph (talk) 03:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

... and I see that the sockpuppetry aspects have been raised at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Braden.bonner. - David Biddulph (talk) 04:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• David Biddulph, I encourage you to leave a note on that talk page in case this isn't over. Drmies (talk) 16:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• • The reason for the removal of the content is simple. No official Catholic newspaper ever covered this story as claimed. The only coverage it received was in several (not many) ideologically biased blogs and privately produced news programs not associated with any diocese or religious institute and without any official church standing. Additionally, no one making this claim has demonstrated the credentials or authority to make canonical judgments. The post is based on a layman's interpretation of a canon, which has the same validity as a layman's interpretation of a civil statute.Thank you. Braden.bonner (talk) 21:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Disruption and harassment by 8.39.228.13

8.39.228.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This IP made their first edit to Shooting of Samuel DuBose on 30 July. They had 25 total edits prior to that, going back to September of last year (assuming they are all the same person). Everything was cool for awhile after they joined the DuBose article. Then, around 3 August, their editing became very disruptive, with a lot of aggressive reverting and without waiting to build consensus for disputed changes. In article talk, I asked them to "Slow ... down. Please." When they continued, I issued a template warning for DE on 3 August, and another 12 hours later, referring to their then-current style as "steamrolling the article". I am not providing diffs for the events up to this point because they are not relevant to this report. Even if my handling of the situation was incorrect, and I don't feel it was, that would not justify or even mitigate what has followed.

The IP's editing style then became less aggressive, and I have had no complaints about it since then. However, the IP started an article talk thread about biased editing by other editors, specifically me, and was advised by another editor to observe WP:AGF. Their tone in discussion has often been confrontational, with comments like, You've been proven wrong. Care to edit the article to reflect the truth, or should I? I won't say the IP is WP:NOTHERE, but they are not here to collaborate peacefully and cooperatively.

But the main reason I'm making this report is that the IP has continued their article talk criticisms of me, which are both unfounded and inappropriate, amounting to harassment. They have accused me in article talk of "dominating" discussion and POV-pushing, of "whitewashing". They started a second thread in article talk specifically about me, presenting statistics that apparently show that I have the highest edit count for that article and its talk page, as if that's something to be ashamed of (I'll take their word for it, as I didn't even bother to look at the statistics due to the patently ridiculous nature of the assertion). The thread was promptly closed as inappropriate use of article talk. As far as I know there is no limit on discussion on an article talk page, nor does the community recognize a concept of over-participation. I certainly do not exhibit any WP:OWN behavior in that article or any other, and I have never had any complaints about POV-pushing. The IP has repeatedly been advised by me and others to take any misconduct complaints about me to this page or user talk, but they have not done so. As far as I know, they are completely alone in their opinions about my participation, and that includes multiple experienced editors actively involved with the article, including MrX, Gaijin42, and Cwobeel. In any case, I'm not here to defend myself, this report is not about me, and any user is free to open a separate thread about my behavior.

Yesterday I posted on the IP's user talk page about the harassment, and also about WP:NOTFORUM after they took an RfC into off-topic discussion about bias in Wikipedia editing. I suggested that they consult an uninvolved third party about the whole issue. The response was more angry accusations and this threat: If you do not cease your whitewashing, I plan on compiling a list of specific instances of whitewashing in that article, publishing it in a separate Talk section in that article, and inviting others whose edits you have repeatedly reverted in other similar articles that you have disproportionately dominated (for example, in Shooting of Michael Brown), to weigh in with their feedback.

The IP's behavior is completely inappropriate, they have been an overall disruptive presence at an article that enjoyed relative peace before they arrived, warnings have not had any effect, and I don't see this situation getting any better by itself. So I am requesting a short block.

1 - Article talk: Starting a talk thread: "Biased application of 'alleged'" naming me as the main culprit

2 - Article talk: "You've been proven wrong. Care to edit the article to reflect the truth, or should I?"

3 - Article talk: Starting a talk thread: "Disproportionate number of edits made by Mandruss"

4 - Addition to the above thread: "I should note that your editing of this Talk page is even more disproportionate."

5 - Article talk: Direct accusation of biased editing against me, in the RfC

User talk:8.39.228.13 ―Mandruss ☎ 04:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

If not a block, the IP should at least receive a final warning to stop personalizing content disputes, and to use to proper channels for addressing alleged conduct issues. Secondary concerns are Original research and WP:NOTAFORUM, which the IP has been previously warned about as well. - MrX 15:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Mandruss is one of these editors that always collaborate and engage in useful discussions, we should have more like them. This IP editor, on the other hand, arrived to that article with an aggressive and un-compromising lack of good faith. The IP editor needs a super strong warning, with the hope they reconsider their approach. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:27, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

MrX, Cwobeel - can any of you provide diffs to substantiate the claim that my editing was "very disruptive, with a lot of aggressive reverting and without waiting to build consensus for disputed changes." - 8.39.228.13 (talk) 15:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Why are you asking me? I never made any such claims.- MrX 16:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I see that, thank you. In response to your question, I'm asking you because those claims are central to this dispute, and you have commented on this dispute in support of Mandruss's position that I be disciplined. - 8.39.228.13 (talk) 16:19, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

WTF? Who is saying that your editing was disruptive. What I said that your interventions at that article talk page show a WP:BATTLE behavior and total lack of good faith. Maybe time for you to listen and heed the advice. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:46, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

And I have already clearly explained why there are no diffs for that. I'll try one more time, since the IP apparently has a hearing problem. First, that DE is not a basis for this complaint; I am not seeking a sanction as a result of that. The DE ceased roughly four days ago and sanctions are preventative not punitive. There is no question that I issued the template warnings, I don't need diffs to show that I did, and the only reason I mentioned that was that I believe it explains why the IP has been preoccupied with me since then. Second, even if my template warnings were inappropriate under those circumstances, that does not justify or excuse the IP's subsequent behavior. There is no justifiable repeated misuse of article talk, no justifiable repeated WP:FORUM discussion, no justifiable repeated confrontational talk behavior, and no justifiable harassment. That's my last attempt, if the IP still doesn't hear me, they never will. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Mandruss, you have claimed that my "editing became very disruptive, with a lot of aggressive reverting and without waiting to build consensus for disputed changes." This is a falsehood. Not only did I not commit "a lot" of aggressive reverting, I didn't commit any. In fact, I intentionally refused to become involved in an edit war, instead taking my concerns to the Talk page. When I added a relevant, sufficiently-sourced phrase to the article about one of its subjects committing a violent crime, you whitewashed it. Now you want discussion of that sentence whitewashed from Talk, and you want me whitewashed from Wikipedia. Please either substantiate your claim that I have made disruptive editing or aggressive reverting, or edit your comment above to remove it. - 8.39.228.13 (talk) 16:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I am accountable to the community, not to you. You seem to harbor the mistaken impression that no sanction can occur unless I satisfy your endless demands for more information, responding to your every obtuse point or argument, while you repeatedly fail to hear what I have said. That's not how it works here. As I said earlier, below (more hearing problem), others are free to ping me if more information is required from me. Your arguments are unimpressive and this is my last comment to you in this report. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

You are bullying me, in direct violation of WP:BULLY. Specifically, you have made a no-edit order contrary to policy [35], and you have attempted to unjustifiably use the Wikipedia system (in this case, an ANI) to block me from editing. Also, you have claimed that my "editing became very disruptive, with a lot of aggressive reverting and without waiting to build consensus for disputed changes", a complete falsehood. By lying, you have violated Wikipedia guidelines on civility (WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL). - 8.39.228.13 (talk) 20:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

For an editor with about 50 edits, you surely can wikilawyer. Go do something useful, for Pete's sake, and stop wasting everybody's time. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:58, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I have every right to defend myself, no matter how many edits I have. Had such a baseless claim not been made against me, in an attempt to have me blocked, perhaps I wouldn't feel the need to so diligently make sure that my position was fairly represented. - 8.39.228.13 (talk) 00:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Response

Zero evidence of disruptive editing to the article has been provided. Mandruss claims that "they are not relevant to this report", but nothing could be more relevant. Accusations of disruptive article editing should be accompanied by links to article edit diffs. If no such links can be provided, then such an accusation should be retracted.

Mandruss has pursued an agenda of whitewashing the Shooting of Samuel DuBose article, repeatedly reverting well sourced claims that present one of the article subjects in a negative light. He has even stated about one of the article subjects: ""Frankly his history looks terrible, especially juxtaposed with Tensing's (aside from being indicted for murder, that is), and the more we say the worse that gets."" [36]. Our job is to honestly report on the events that the article covers, and not conceal relevant information because "the more we say the worse it gets". I am not completely alone in my concern. For example, Gaijin42, who is mentioned above, said: ""Presenting information that looks poorly on DuBose is not an attempt to shift blame, it is honest reporting, and hiding it makes it look like we are trying to whitewash him/bandwagon on Tensing""[37].

Mandruss was the first to personally call me out by username/ip in the article's Talk section, under the "8.39.228.13 edit" section [38]. When I mentioned in a talk section that a disproportionate number of the edits were made by him, I also used it as an opportunity to repeatedly praise Mandruss, and encourage others to increase their editing activity to balance out the voice in the article.[39]. Mandruss characterized this as a "spurious attack thread" on my Talk page.[40]. When I asked him to substantiate this claim by pointing out what in that section was spurious, he didn't respond.

Mandruss has participated in WikiBullying by accusing me of steamrolling the article with zero substantiation, and threatening me with having my edit privileges revoked[41], while himself making a disproportionate number of edits on both the article and the talk page (29% of the edits to the article[42], and 46% of the edits to the Talk page[43]). I have refused to participate in aggressively editing or reverting the article, instead choosing to state my concerns on the Talk page.

I would be happy to compile a list of diffs documenting the whitewashing of this article.

Finally, I again request that diffs evidencing disruptive editing to the article by me be provided to substantiate the claim that I have participated in such activity. Thank you for considering my position. - 8.39.228.13 (talk) 19:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

As I said above, any issues about my behavior should be discussed separately and independently from those about yours. Even if you had any valid reason for complaint, one does not justify or excuse the other, and, as my parents taught me, two wrongs don't make a right. You steadfastly refused to come here with your complaints until you needed them to defend yourself here, to divert discussion from the issue at hand in this thread. I refuse to defend myself in this report, beyond what I have already said. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

As your behavior is relevant to this conflict, and specifically to the accusations you have made against me, I feel it is fair and appropriate to mention that behavior here. Again, I encourage you to provide diffs to substantiate your claim that I have made disruptive edits to the article. - 8.39.228.13 (talk) 19:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Again, I decline, for the reasons stated. As I'm well aware that far too many of these ANI threads devolve into unproductive and extended pissing matches, I'll now leave this with the community and trust that the right thing will be done. Others are welcome to ping me if further input from me is required. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Legal threat

Here, an anonymous editor has threatened me by saying that they will take legal action against me if I revert their edits again. Please block that IP. Here, I reverted their edits because they are trying to erase/hide a name. Now they replaced the name with a nickname. Supdiop (Talk🔹Contribs) 05:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The editor is currently under a 31-hour block but the editor is in the right in regards to WP:BLP. Saying that people are or were members of a band could be considered controversial (although this IP address may just care about marketing more than that). Under that basis, I've removed all the band members until someone can provide sources for them. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Ideloctober refuses to read or learn about Wikipedia Policy over on the Frankfurt School talk page.

Once again there's an obtrusive editor over on the Frankfurt School talk page causing problems. The user is Ideloctober (talk) - all the usual symptoms are present: Brand new account. Demands the article be changed without providing any sources for their arguments or referring to any Wikipedia policies. Refuses to even visit the talk page guidelines. Has decided Wikipedia is part of a Marxist conspiracy, and is now putting in repeated edit requests and generally refusing to work with others (resistant to all attempts at explaining the purpose of Wikipedia's policies, even from editors more sympathetic to their personal viewpoint). Any aid in restricting this uncooperative editor from further disrupting the talk page would be appreciated. --Jobrot (talk) 08:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, cool, you went here too. I never said Wikipedia was a "Marxist conspiracy", I said that you being given sole editing privileges on the article, while being an outspoken pro-Marxist Liberal who stated that Capitalism would not be permitted to be discussed in a positive way, is extremely biased and unfair. Calling the article a conspiracy theory has caused mass amounts of mockery and jeering by other groups and forums, as it's one of the most blatantly biased and skewed viewpoints I've ever seen on this website in my 10+ years of anonymous or accounted editing here. You, a Marxist, are the only one allowed to make changes to a section about Cultural Marxism, and forbid anyone from calling it more than an anti-semitic racist conspiracy theory. Your bias is sickening, and I suggest your editing privileges on said article be revoked, and that you be required to follow by the same rules you preach to the others. Your personal attacks (calling me and another anti-Semites for requesting a title edit?????) as well as your overt bias are both not permitted on Wikipedia. You are accomplishing nothing by attacking me and making fraudulent edits other than proving Leftist-Marxists as yourself are entirely opposed to free, unbiased speech and, as Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol, Che, Castro, Sung, Jong-il, Jong-un, and every other Communist leader in history did, you too prefer censorship and false sources in order to promote your own agenda. That much is obvious. Ideloctober (talk) 09:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I remind you that On the Internet, nobody knows you're a Marxist and you're not helping yourself attacking other editor's alleged bias. For both sides, diffs would be helpful. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Ideloctober, without citing any sources, your arguments on the Frankfurt School talk page simply come across as whining. You say you have been on Wikipedia for years, so one would hope you're familiar with the concept of verifiability. And you use the phrase "neutral", so one would hope you understand that neutrality means reflecting what is written in reliable sources. Since you have provided no sources of your own, and given no serious comment on sources currently used, all you've done is expressed your personal displeasure with the viewpoints present in the article. Continuing in this manner will inevitably lead to your being blocked or banned from Wikipedia, although continuing to assail Jobrot on a personal level may lead to that even sooner. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I never called you an anti-semite. I have in fact explicitly stated that the conspiracy theory doesn't always boil down to anti-semitism (diff of that). Also I've said specifically that I don't have any special privileges here on Wikipedia (diff of that). I was certainly never given "sole editing privileges on the article" and that's not something likely to happen on Wikipedia. Please learn to respect Wikipedia's policies and processes if you wish to contribute.

As for Wikipedia inhibiting your free speech - Wikipedia is not a SOAPBOX for your free speech. Speech on Wikipedia is restricted to what adheres to Wikipedia's policies and sourcing requirements... which are there to ensure accuracy and verifiability. NOT to facilitate your personal opinions - or for that matter, MY personal opinions. --Jobrot (talk) 10:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Someguy1221 and Ricky81682 hit the nail on the head. The rhetoric and unsubstantiated claims made by Ideloctober here on this page are troubling. When you accuse someone of making racist (or other types of slurs) comments, you should really provide the links to back that up. I personally could not find that. And when incredibly incorrect statements like an editor being given "sole editing privileges on the article" are made, that really hurts your credibility. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• I was contemplating coming here too about "Ideloctober"(who probably also edits logged out with 74.129.76.107. The edits at the George Lincoln Rockwell(An American Nazi) are also problematic. The sources used and edits there are definitely not compatible with Wiki policies. I don't believe any amount of discussion will persuade this editor. Dave Dial (talk) 14:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Problematic? Are we on Tumblr now? Never use the phrase 'problematic' unless you want to appear as a stereotypical eFeminist. My edits to Rockwell following a friend editing on the same local IP are sourced with one influential blog and two books both published by Universities. I know how to cite, I know how to source, and I've used them. There are articles with claims far less sourced than mine, and with all this evident Liberal backlash I'm beginning to doubt Wikipedia's true neutrality. There is no solid source that Cultural Marxism is nothing more than a conspiracy theory, considering many other sources from the Right or Radical Right back it up. But you won't use those sources, will you? No. It's laden with Left, Marxist, and Progressive sources, which are all fine, but the Right is "too biased". Again, with the Liberal bias you allow to run rampant, perhaps this is why thatm ore than ever people don't take Wikipedia seriously. Sure, I think your "Progressive" agenda is the definition of backwards and wrong, but I'm not arguing to attack your ideas or include sources or comments attacking you, I just want neutrality, and you know as well as I do that passing Cultural Marxism off as a pure conspiracy theory by virtue of pro-Marxist sources alone is extremely biased, and it's befitting the agenda you're attempting to impose, Jobrot.

"Base and Sperstructure in the Marxist cultural Theory", Raymond Williams http://www.marylandthursdaymeeting.com/Archives/SpecialWebDocuments/Cultural.Marxism.htm The Free Congress also has many discourses on the topic.

But those are probably much too unfavoring of Marx for you to accept, Jobrot. Ideloctober (talk) 22:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE. The accusations of bias and personal attacks are out of control. GAB^Hello! 22:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Stop focusing on Jobrot, start confining your comments to content and sources. You can do this, or abandon the topic area, or you can leave Wikipedia. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll abandon the topic area. Please wipe this section out whenever possible. I didn't mean to cause such a fight. Ideloctober (talk) 23:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

This user has continued to take it upon themselves to make personal commentary/attacks against me elsewhere (specifically on their talk page). --Jobrot (talk) 00:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• The editor continues to use blogs(anthonyflood.com) for sources on the George Lincoln Rockwell article. Using blogs to claim that the US Government assassinated the American Nazi leader here(noncounterproductive.blogspot.com), same here, adds more conspiracy claims with another blog here(anthonyflood.com) and keeps adding again and again. Claiming that JFK and MLK get conspiracy theories, why not an American Nazi(edit summary). This editor is not here to build an encyclopedia or not competent. Dave Dial (talk) 03:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• The sources were from two University press books. If you believe Rockwell being a Nazi means he shouldn't have the same treatment other assassinated politicians and political activists do, then that does seem a bit biased. However, I've stated I'll cease editing the articles in question and have said nothing else on the matter. I'm not entirely sure what the continued ganging-up will accomplish here. I'd be lying if I said I didn't suspect this is due to my anti-Liberal views on a site where Liberal bias has been accused for over a decade. Quite like going to a baking convention and stating you despise bakers. That's not to say it's the reason or only reason, but I do have a feeling anti-Liberals aren't looked too highly upon here. That being said my edits and wished changes have had nothing to do with politics, but simply establishing neutrality where I feel it isn't present. It's very hard to collaborate in good faith when off the bat it seems you're being told your opinions on a subject are wrong, and when you're outnumbered as I am now. Lastly, I have indeed stated I won't make any more edits to these articles, and apologized to Jobrot for making him feel I was personally attacking him. This really has no further purpose. I didn't intend on being disruptive or causing conflict, and admittedly I got a bit heated on the topic. Ideloctober (talk) 10:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: In addition to Ideloctober's problematic editing, he is clearly a WP:Sock. I support indefinitely blocking the Ideloctober account. Flyer22 (talk) 11:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• • I've apologized and stated that I will let it go. I think this has been resolved. Ideloctober (talk) 01:14, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• • • Comments like this do not lead one to believe that you are letting it go. Rather the opposite. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Health and Welfare ‖ 02:56, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• • • Am I not allowed to talk to other users? Am I not allowed to tell someone to not let people get them down? It didn't even pertain at all to this situation. I deleted my comment, if that fixes things. Ideloctober (talk) 03:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for you to conduct a personal political witch-hunt. You've been brought here for accusing others of promoting a political bias (whatever the bias may be, but in this case for having a Marxist and/or Liberal bias) your response to this has been to accuse others of calling you antisemitic which you've absolutely failed to prove. You've been warned several times in several places and claim to have changed your ways - yet you are still conducting an anti-marxist witch-hunt and making accusations of political bias. Wikipedia is not a battleground WP:BATTLEGROUND - yet you continue to use it as one despite the best efforts of your fellow wikipedians to coach you against this behaviour. I believe you will continue to have difficulty understanding what the problem is with YOUR actions in favour of perceiving a Marxist bias everywhere and editing for political interests rather than for the interests of creating neutral encyclopedic content. I think a ban would be appropriate. Please keep your political views OFF Wikipedia. --Jobrot (talk) 05:14, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I did. I already apologized to you and have several times stated I will refrain from editing the article any further. This is the only time I've ever gotten political on an issue, and it's only because it is indeed a hot-button topic for some, and I shouldn't have let that get the best of me. I'm sorry, really, although I just don't see why this has to continue. Ideloctober (talk) 05:30, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, a Non-apology apology (in that you apologized for my perceptions rather than your actions), and as of today (the 9th of August) you're still using Wikipedia for political purposes WP:BATTLEGROUND, as exampled in the comments Ebyabe has brought up. This process will end when the admins make their decision. --Jobrot (talk) 13:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

By the way are you ever going to produce evidence that I called you antisemitic? --Jobrot (talk) 13:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, if you have really learned your lesson, please edit some different articles so you can demonstrate this. Actions speak louder. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - General Health ‖ 14:54, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Still fighting the good fight. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 20:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I deleted any and all politically charged comments. I don't have to apologize for calling you a Liberal, because that isn't an insult. I thought you were one, and whether you are or not, it isn't meant to be an insult whatsoever. I would appreciate it if people could stop nitpicking comments I removed on my own accord as ammunition here. Whether or not I think the site has a Marxist-Liberal bias or not is just that, thinking, my opinion, and you have no right to dictate what I'm allowed to think and not allowed to think. I apologized for bringing in political bias, I removed my comments, and now I'm quite curious as to what else I've apparently done wrong that requires this report to be kept open while snarky contributors come in with jabs and comments unrelated to anything else that's going on. Ideloctober (talk) 20:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

If you don't understand why personal politics and ideological accusations of your fellow editors should be kept away from Wikipedia and out of the editorial process (hint: WP:GOODFAITH exists for a reason) - then perhaps Wikipedia is not the place for you? I hope level heads (and policy) prevail, and that the WP:DEADHORSE of explaining WP:SOAPBOX to you can be given a rest. --Jobrot (talk) 03:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support block - WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR seem to be serious issues here. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support block - Given the issue stems across multiple pages and the editor claims to have been editing anonymously for 10+ years now, yet still hasn't learnt the basics of Wikipedia policy and conduct (let alone how to perform citations diff) - I'd say a ban of both the user and their IP is in order. WP:NOTHERE WP:LISTEN WP:SOAPBOX WP:BATTLEGROUND. --Jobrot (talk) 05:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

As stated before, I will no longer edit said political articles nor make any contact with said users that have been involved with this. From what I read in the guidelines this is the best way to let it go and move on, and it's what I'll do. Ideloctober (talk) 06:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support block - Editor seems to think wikipedia is a ideological WP:BATTLEGROUND and not certain as to why that is an issue in creating an encyclopedia. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 07:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose block - Seems wrong to silence certain voices. Isn't freedom of speech preferable?Jimjilin (talk) 18:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Cotap Spamming

I would like a couple of more eyes on an article if you can, the Cotap article. Over the last six months or so a series of IPs and low time registered accounts have been adding information on a "controversy" around this company spamming emails to people and using either no sources or completely unreliable sources to support this position. I feel this is over A) Undue weight and B) completely badly sourced. Since I've been reverting these additions, and my "connection" to the company (i.e. none) is now being questioned, I believe should bow out of the article to avoid drama and any possibility of edit warring in case I'm viewing it wrong. Could someone else give it a drive by and maybe chime in with their view? I did protect the article a couple of times due to the roving IP edits, and it is currently protected against non-approved users. Canterbury Tail talk 11:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

My advice is not to abandon the article unless you want the spammers/disruptors to win. If the information has merit, they are welcome to find WP:RS that reports it. If not, it's not appropriate. Wikipedia isn't Google or a newspaper, and doesn't report every claim that shows up on Google. These IPs and whatnot (and even the reports on forums and Google) could also be competitors looking to slander the company. Softlavender (talk) 12:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm the one who wrote the "Spamming controversy" section on the Cotap page. As I've stated in the article's "Talk" page, I have no connection to the company, except as a sysadmin of an email domain which they have targeted with their UCE (Unsolicited Commercial Email, aka SPAM). Additionally, I want to state that I have absolutely no relation to any of the company's competitors, and also that I have no axe to grind with the company; my motivation for writing the aforementioned section is that I find it worthwhile (and enhancing to Wikipedia as a whole) to report on the company's current affairs and practices, as it's the case with the issue at hand. All the edits I did to the page was while logged in with my Wikipedia id, so I do not understand what you mean by "roving IP edits". I also want to note that I have a long story as a Wikipedia contributor (since 2006, please check my contributions page), and I want what is best for Wikipedia; I think it's unfair to imply that I'm a disruptor/slanderer/spammer. Regarding adherence to WP:RS, please note that it offers (as of necessity) only general advice on what is permissible or not, to quote: "[...]Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable" (emphasis mine); the only part of the WP:RS that mentions forums is regarding material on living persons, which is not the case here, and I also took care to list other references which are not forums; please see the paragraph I just added to the article's talk page further explaining my reasoning in this regard. As a final (for now) note, I ask that you please refrain from deleting the section I've added while we are discussing it. Thanks for your time and consideration. Durval (talk) 13:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

(Point of note, according to WP:BRD once you've added content and it's been removed (by several users) you should not add it in again until agreement has been reached, not continue to add it and tell others not to remove it.) According to the history there are many IP addresses adding in the same content and now 5 different users have removed this content. In order for this material to be included in Wikipedia you need to have reliable sources for A) the fact it is happening, B) that it is widespread and C) that it is considered a controversy that is discussed by independent third party sources and D) something more than trivia. Canterbury Tail talk 14:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I see only two other users (besides yourself) removing the section, and those other two only happened in the last few minutes/hours after you asked other editors for help here. So I'm refraining from undoing the removals now as per WP:BRD, but I ask other editors who are reading this to please add it on my behalf. On a final (for now) note, I point that you (and the other editors helping you) have not answered my defense of the sources used, which I posted in the article's talk page, and just went on and removed it again. I think this is undue censorship, and that the right thing to do is to keep the section up while it's still being discussed. Again, thanks for yout time and consideration. Durval (talk) 14:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

That isn't how things work here, Durval. We need a solid source for information like that, not to mention that, as you've been told, continuing to re-add the section after it has been removed is edit-warring, which can and does regularly result in a block. Also, I suggest reading WP:Sock puppetry#Meatpuppetry before you continue your canvassing off-wiki; at this point all you're going to do is waste admins' time and get the article semi-protected to stop your little power-play. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 16:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

<procedural note. User:Durval has solicited offsite encouragement for people to edit war on this topic. See the thread here.> Canterbury Tail talk 15:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I will note that two SPAs showed up on the newly-minted AfD discussion. One is an IP; the other is a registered user; both have only ever made edits related to Cotap. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 17:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• I'm interested to hear what other admins think of the off-wiki canvassing signaled by Canterbury Tail. I consider that blockable. Drmies (talk) 17:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

While Durval has been here more than long enough to know the rules, I wouldn't call for a block on it (despite the fact that they mention I've been calling to have them blocked, which hasn't happened.) I think that was a heat of the moment and can assume good faith. Canterbury Tail talk 17:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• I'm of the old school, I suppose. Durval, it might be interesting to hear your comment. In my opinion, such canvassing has the potential of leading to great disruption. Drmies (talk) 17:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The canvassing can be handled by the closing admin on the AfD, but as relates to the non-RS material repeatedly being reinserted into the article, I agree this is going to cause great disruption. My view would be to warn Durval that he needs to either delete that canvassing post or, if that's not possible, retract the canvassing in that thread and tell the people in that thread to stay completely away from the article, or else he faces a block. By the way, here is a more direct link that goes right to the canvassing and does not require any scrolling: [44]. Softlavender (talk) 21:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC); edited 10:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Note from a non-admin involved person: given that the canvassing was in response to an edit-war warning, its clear intent was to continue the edit war through meatpuppetry, while denying that it was an edit war ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Durval&diff=next&oldid=674995354 " I'm not doing any edit wars -- I've merely reinstated the section that I wrote and is being repeteadly removed by another editor"). While the edit war seems paused now that the AfD is underway (it looks to be heading toward a no-consensus result), I see no sign that he's aware that either the edit war or the meatpuppetry attempt to avoid a block is inappropriate and thus that those attempts will not be resumed should the deletion attempt fail. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Long term pattern of POV edits and edit warring by User:Jimjilin

I started to post this to a current thread about Jimjilin at 3RR (opened by David Gerard), but it's really more appropriate for ANI.

Jimjilin and I have some overlapping interests it seems, because I keep coming across a reliable pattern of POV edits followed by edit warring over those edits, sometimes over the course of many months. Though he's been blocked for edit warring in the past, he's a relatively experienced Wikipedian and rarely breaches 3RR. Airborne84 opened an ANI thread about him in December, but other than a comment from Xcuref1endx it did not attract attention or result in any action.

The current 3RR report concerns Jerry Coyne. Here are some other examples:

• At Promiscuity: sustaining multiple edit wars. One is over adding a statement about promiscuity and health: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Another (related) is edit warring to downplay a source which that says the opposite of the claim he wants to press, adding poor sources to contradict one that passes WP:MEDRS, and alleging it's other people mischaracterizing the source: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
• There are other examples in many, many articles Jimjilin has edited: Paul Singer (businessman), Thomas Piketty, Criticisms of Marxism, Michel Foucault, Moral panic, Cecile Richards...
• An edit war at Michael Kempner led Mosmof to open this thread at RSN a couple months ago. In that article Jimjilin added the same thing 12 times between October 2014 and June 2015: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

I believe Jimjilin has some productive contributions to some articles, and I truly hate bringing people here (it's only happened a couple times before), but POV and edit warring constitute a shockingly high percentage of his edits and, judging by past blocks and the long, long list of warnings/comments at his user talk page, there does not look to be any indication of the behavior stopping. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

That...are a lot of warnings. Copyright violation, edit wars, POV edits...

The diffs and contributions show extensive disruptive editing, and the talk page shows a complete ignorance of warnings.

How did that user get so many warnings without being blocked?

I'd say infinite siteban for long-term disruptive editing, including copyright infringements, ignoring a total number of fourty warnings...--Müdigkeit (talk) 20:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I've had limited interaction with Jimjilin because of a content dispute. I think what complicates things is that the user is actually operating in good faith and doesn't seem to see a distinction between POV and fact, so like Rhododendrites, I don't want to see a long-term block. That said, Jimjilin has been blocked before and all the warnings and friendly links to guideline pages are obviously not making a difference. Mosmof (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@Mosmof: No, I no longer believe he is acting in good faith. He has made some productive contributions, yes, but the reason I brought the issue here is because of an egregious extent of edit warring despite being warned/advised many times; persistent WP:IDHT as displayed through editing, edit summaries, and talk page posts; [less frequent] misrepresentation of other people's arguments or [claiming/feigning] ignorance as an excuse to continue edit warring (e.g. ~"this satisfies your concern" or ~"let's just go by what the source says" while changing the text to a POV interpretation of the source); clear POV nature of a large percentage of his edits (often tacking on a line of "criticism" based on a single/poor source after well-sourced content); and having to be told everything repeatedly every time, just for him to do the same thing months later. As I said, I hate bringing people to ANI, largely because I can usually find cause to assume good faith on some level or because the issues are compartmentalized in some way, but after months/years of the same, Jimjilin has exhausted that AGF. It's possible something like a 0RR could solve the biggest problems (not 1RR as he's shown a willingness to continue an edit war over long, long periods of time), but I think that would just delay the inevitable. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: I've come around and support a long-term block precisely because I think he's editing in good faith (no really, work with me here. There are obvious blindspots when it comes to partisan topics, and there's simply no awareness that he's doing anything wrong. If the user was willfully pushing POV and trying to get around policy, then I think there's a chance for change in behavior. But with all the warnings and friendly advice he's received and he still doesn't get it, then there's no hope. Mosmof (talk) 19:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I am an uninvolved editor. See: [45][46][47][48][49] GAB^Hello! 22:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

... or this.--Müdigkeit (talk) 22:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

A quarter of the warnings received would still be grounds for sanctions. GAB^Hello! 22:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• I don't know what you are proposing, Rhododendrites, but I support whatever block or ban that will stop this editor from editing WP:Disruptively. He is a prime example of a WP:Edit warrior and someone who disregards WP:Policies and guidelines too often; if he had valid WP:Ignore all rules reasons for acting the way he does, things would be different. And even if he were to have valid WP:Ignore all rules reasons, that is not a policy to invoke on every whim or in most cases. For the record here in this thread, I'm one of the editors who has dealt with Jimjilin's problematic editing at the Promiscuity article. Flyer22 (talk) 23:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• @Flyer22: The main reason I didn't explicitly propose a block/ban is because I'm involved and wanted to bring it up here to see what other people thought the best way forward would be. Maybe it's better to be specific about a suggested course of action, though. So for the record, I see no indication whatsoever that Jimjilin is WP:HERE. Countless warnings and words of advice over the course of years has made no apparent difference in his editing patterns, so barring a credible expression of a radical change in perspective, I think that if we're thinking about preventative rather than punitive measures, an indefinite block is the only option. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, yes indeed. Support. GAB^Hello! 00:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support whatever it takes to stop the misuse of Wikipedia for POV pushing—I saw the five virtually identical edits (1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5) at Jerry Coyne and it is clear this editor will continue for months. Those five edits occurred on 6 and 7 August 2015. Adding WP:DUE encyclopedic information is fine, but adding fluff criticisms is not helpful. I picked another article from Jimjilin's contributions and saw two virtually identical edits to again add fluff criticism (1 + 2). Something like WP:1RR could be tried, but that may just draw the process out because it can be used to repeat an edit once a day or once a week. Johnuniq (talk) 01:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Rhododendrites seems to follow me around constantly deleting my additions. It appears he wants to silence opinions that he doesn't like. In the Kempner article Rhododendrites claims I "added the same thing". He is mistaken. I made many changes to my additions. I usually respond to comments from other editors even when these comments (in my opinion) lack merit. I did disagree with Rhododendrites in the Promiscuity article, but disagreeing with Rhododendrites does not = disruptive editing. Rhododendrites seems to be breaking Wikipedia policy, he was not honest in his criticism of me, he is not treating other editors respectfully.Jimjilin (talk) 01:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Johnuniq, a thoughtful article by two Phds is "fluff criticism"?! This seem absurd! Here are the authors: Dr. Alex B. Berezow is the founding editor of RealClearScience and co-author of Science Left Behind. He holds a PhD in microbiology from the University of Washington. Dr. James Hannam is the author of The Genesis of Science: How the Christian Middle Ages Launched the Scientific Revolution. He holds a PhD in the history and philosophy of science from the University of Cambridge. Looks like great qualifications.Jimjilin (talk) 01:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

My contributions at Paul Singer (businessman), Thomas Piketty, and Criticisms of Marxism I think were well-sourced and they eventually were accepted. In the Paul Singer article I linked to a NYT article amongst other sources. In the Piketty article I linked to another NYT article and a study Piketty wrote with Emmanuel Saez. In the Criticisms of Marxism article I linked to books by Thomas Sowell and Bertrand Russell and an article by Mikhail Bakunin. Can Rhododendrites tell me why he feels these sources are inadequate? Perhaps Rhododendrites is POV pushing and he doesn't like my well-sourced additions because they conflict with his agenda.Jimjilin (talk) 01:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Laughably, Jimjilin just got blocked 5 minutes ago for exceeding 3RR. The block is just a routine 24 hours. Meanwhile, based on the overwhelming evidence above and the incredibly long rap sheet of warnings, I Support a block, length to be determined by community consensus or closing admin. Could be anywhere from two weeks (escalating in length if problems continue after it expires) to indefinite. Most folks here, and those who have dealt with him all these years, appear to favor indefinite. Softlavender (talk) 02:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC); edited 02:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I checked the user's talkpage and saw our past discussion regarding his POV-push on an article. I was struck by the fact that he wouldn't budge from his POV despite evidence to the contrary from reliable sources that I provided to him. The sources were easy to find but he refused to check further once he had made up his mind. This rigid stance coupled with longterm POV editing and edit-warring is very disruptive to a collaborative project. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment An assumption of good faith isn't applicable, and if for some reason it is, the other issue then is an incurable competence issue. Evidence of this: Here Jimjilin attempts to add a POV and decontextualized Piketty paragraph in the Karl Marx article. Here an editor puts the Piketty comment into context, pointing out that Jimjilin ignored or missed the context of Piketty's opinion and was decidedly POV pushing. One month later Jimjilin then moves on to Marxism and attempts to add this, the same exact thing, proceeding as if his attempts to pull the comment out of context in the other article never happened. The same editor essentially had to repeat what they wrote before. Jimjilin responds as if this was the first time this came to his attention. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 05:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support block. Enough is enough. Indef seems suitable as they have not improved with warnings. They continuely add poor quality sources that support a specific POV and they have tried to remove high quality sources that don't.[50] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Honestly, it seems several of you are more upset about Jimjilin's personal views rather than his conduct. I haven't been involved enough to comment fully, but it's just an outsider's observation. Ideloctober (talk) 10:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the level of cluelessness and disruption displayed in that statement says a lot more about the reason you should be sanctioned in the above ANI about you than it says anything at all worthwhile about this case. Softlavender (talk) 10:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I think you don't really know what you or he is talking about. Ideloctober (talk) 01:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support any increase in block length. Jimjilin has contributed good content before, but he seems to have a serious ideological ax to grind here. The fact he spent nearly a year at Michael Kempner adding the same disputed content over and over again I think shows a complete disregard for dispute resolution and consensus building. Given this sort of behavior is very old, and still occurring, I think it may be time to show Jimjilin the door. Though I would support his continued presence under strict conditions. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• I propose this: An indefinite topic ban from political ideologies, broadly construed, an indefinite 1RR restriction, as well as an indefinite allowance for uninvolved adminstrators to use blocks or bans of any necessary length or type for further violations, including indefinite blocks or bans, warnings about copyright as last warning from the community, and a block of sufficient length to ensure that this user reads the warning, this time.--Müdigkeit (talk) 10:52, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• The problem with this is, admins don't have time to babysit individual editors, and the problem/pattern is intransigent, years-long, resistant to a multitude of warnings, and completely unheeding. At this point, it's a NOTHERE situation, and the only remedy is a long long block or a site ban. Softlavender (talk) 11:04, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• @Müdigkeit: I hope you don't mind; I've added a bulletpoint and unbolded your post above. I did so just for clarity, because by not indenting and bolding everything it could give the impression that people below are specifically supporting what you've framed as a "proposal". If you would really like to propose something specific like that, it may be most clear to open a sub-section. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Actually it occurs to me that since I'm not sure which "this editor" Xcuref1endx means, he/she may indeed have been supporting what Müdigkeit proposed. Pinging to make sure I didn't make this more confusing rather than less :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support What this editor has said. I believe competence to be a serious issue here as to which I am not certain what a temporary ban will achieve. Despite the constant warning over and over again, the editor is still under the idea that if "someone wrote something somewhere" it is a valid secondary source and its existence provides it with enough weight for inclusion. Those that suggest otherwise he interprets as having some sort of conspiratorial tendency to censor information or trying to "suppress information". The editor probably suspects that is what this ANI is about, note how he chose to defend himself here above, he still is working under the assumption he is doing things correct and Rhododendrites is attempting to "silence opinions" he doesn't like. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 18:50, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

The first idea I had was also "siteban". However, the user has not been blocked since 2012(ignoring the recent block that is still in effect). Most of the warnings came later. The user has probably ignored further warnings because no action was taken. I also mentioned a block of sufficient length, that doesn't have to be a short block. Probably at least a month.--Müdigkeit (talk) 11:12, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support long-term block. I recommend at least six months. I would hate to see someone permanently blocked, but conversely a block of a few weeks or a month or two doesn't send a strong enough message of "change your behavior to align better with Wikipedia's policies". I spent some time on Jimjilin's talk page suggesting better ways to get results at Wikipedia, but it appears that he or she is fairly intractable. Jimjilin could potentially contribute in the future, but without a strong message, his or her actions will not change. Jimjilin's talk page shows that clearly enough. --Airborne84 (talk) 14:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Xcuref1endx writes: "the editor is still under the idea that if "someone wrote something somewhere" it is a valid secondary source and its existence provides it with enough weight for inclusion." This kind of vague blanket criticism is of course silly and unhelpful. Xcuref1endx and I have differed many times in the past and he is anything but neutral, see my Talk page. Xcuref1endx has made many accusations against me, most of which lack any merit. At times, for example in the Criticisms of Marxism article and the Piketty article, I think Xcuref1endx has been less than cooperative - he has engaged in what appears to be disruptive editing, deleting well-sourced facts which did not suit his agenda.Jimjilin (talk) 04:18, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Ideloctober, I think the extreme hostility of a few editors is driven by their eagerness to cover up facts which fail to buttress their ideology.Jimjilin (talk) 04:18, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry I broke the 3RR rule in the Jerry Coyne article. Editor David Gerard kept insisting on a point for which he offered no proof. I should have been more careful.Jimjilin (talk) 04:18, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I think we are past the stage of trying to determine if there is a problem or not, however, since Jimjilin has claimed that I have made many meritless accusations against him and points to his Talk section as proof, for clarity, here are my edits there: 1, 2, 3, 4,5, 6. These have all been responses to the editor ignoring conversation in article talk sections about controversial additions, engaging in edit-warring over contributions that consensus was clearly against, and many instances of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT (see my post above for an example). The editor often interprets demands to proceed along the lines of wikipedia guidelines (such as gaining consensus) as ad hominem attacks against him or attempts to "suppress information" along ideological lines. Though, other editors already pointed that out. Being an involved editor, I will not participate in determining what the appropriate way forward is, the evidence has been put forth, some uninvolved editors should take a look and determine the best course action. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 19:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• support long term block i looked at Jimjilin's edit history - their focus here is politics (including social conservative politics) - a topic ban from politics is essentially all of WP for them. Politics is hard enough without this kind of non-collaborative POV-pushing. Jytdog (talk) 23:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Xcuref1endx: "Jimjilin and I have some overlapping interests it seems, because I keep coming across a reliable pattern of POV edits followed by edit warring over those edits, sometimes over the course of many months." Note Xcuref1endx's dishonesty at the start of this discussion. He tries to cover up the fact that we have argued for a long time. He didn't "come across" edit warring he constantly made inappropriate accusations of edit warring against me. Please note our discussion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Thomas_Piketty) where Xcuref1endx proclaims an addition is "cherrypicked" and then refuses to say why he feels that way or provide evidence for his belief. I think he has been less than cooperative. As always Xcuref1endx accuses others at the drop of a hat of starting an "edit war". lol In this discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Criticisms_of_Marxism Xcuref1endx again refuses to answer straightforward questions, proclaims without evidence that well-sourced additions are "cherrypicked", accuses others of engaging in an edit war. In this same discussion Xcuref1endx dishonestly claimed I "responded to no concerns of any editors". He also engaged in personal attacks. Perhaps Xcuref1endx should be honest, seek consensus, stop making baseless accusations, and stop POV-pushing. In both the Piketty article and Criticisms_of_Marxism article I listened to other editors and changed my additions which were eventually accepted.Jimjilin (talk) 14:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and advocacy by 2602:306:b8bf:c0:a17b:1dc4:f754:7974/199.116.169.39/199.116.175.123

2602:306:b8bf:c0:a17b:1dc4:f754:7974 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (who used 199.116.175.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 199.116.175.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) recently as well) is engaged in long-term disruptive editing and advocacy on numerous Chinese military hardware articles, in addition to engaging in personal attacks. (See the list of other IPs used by the editor below.) The editor does not seek resolutions through talk pages (even when invited to do so) and edit warring is frequent. The editor frequently falls back on any Chinese-language sources; these sources have few if any credentials demonstrating expert knowledge on the subject or give sources for their information (the Chinese web has so many enthusiast writers that there's always some "source" that the editor can fall back on and claim to be "accurate" and "official".)

I have (to my discredit) edit-warred with this editor, both currently and in the past.

Some more recent examples:

CJ-10 (missile)

• 119.116.175.123 adds ([51]) "sources" which the editor claims supports adding a ship to the box.
  • The claim rests on a Chinese-language article which extrapolates the fact that the ship carries the missile (which given the secrecy of Chinese military developments, such claims coming from a non-expert source is suspect).
  • A personal attack is issued in another edit.
  • Finally, the editor defends his sources not by addressing matters of its reliability by saying "If you argue that my source is not reliable, then back up with reliable source to prove them wrong"; in other words, the unreliable source must stand unless a reliable source can be found to replace it, rather than removing the unreliable source and its claims.
  • A talk page section is ignored.
  • Only the threat of possible admin action stops the editor from reintroducing the claims.
• 2602:306:b8bf:c0:a17b:1dc4:f754 reintroduces claims from an unreliable source (PopSci) and misinterpreted source (Janes.)
  • The readdition of the Janes article is particularly blatant, since it really does not mention the article subject (the missile's designation has been subject to confusion over the years, so without supporting sources the Janes article should not be used in the CJ-10 article.)
  • I suspect the editor has not bothered to read the article, and is only adding it because I had reverted that same edit made by a different user (who may or may not be a sockpuppet of the editor in question.)
  • The relevant talk page section is ignored.
• Throughout, the editor makes reverts with the comment "removal of sourced content", evidently continuing to lack understanding that not all sources are created equal as per WP:RS and WP:VERIFY
• Similar thing happened on the [[YJ-12], again concerning the PopSci source; again, no interaction on the talk page, and the editor seems to be intervening on behalf of another editor (the same one as on the CJ-10 page)

Type 054A frigate

• 199.116.175.123 marks all ships as "active" simply on the strength that the infobox says 20 are active (the number at the time is completely unsupported by the article)
  • I update the "active" and "building" numbers by sourcing US DoD (17 active, 5 building)
  • 199.116.175.123 interprets the Janes article to say that since the 20th ship under construction has been commissioned, that all previous 19 seen under construction have been commissioned, and uses the Janes article as the "source" for each of the ships.
  • I dispute this on the talk page
    • The editor insists his interpretation of the Janes article is correct, and "backs it up" using a Chinese-language source. As far as I can tell, the Chinese source does say the same thing as the Janes article, that the 20th ship spotted under construction has now commissioned, not that 20 ships have been commissioned. The editor thus misinterprets the Chinese source too. This misinterpretation underlies the editor's argument, and the editor refuses to be budged from it. As an additional defence the editor says that since it's all on Baike Baidu (Chinese-language wiki) and supposedly sourced there, everything the editor has done in the article should stand, regardless. [52]
    • Pointing out that the Chinese-language source has no indication of being more authoritative than Janes are ignored (in editor's words, the Chinese-language source: "It is official source, you just can not argue with it.") Also pointing out that saying it's on Baike Baidu is no substitute for proper sourcing and referencing on Wikipedia is ignored; essentially the editor attempts to use Baike Baidu to WP:PROVEIT. ([53])
    • I suggest that if the editor thinks the Baike Baidu sources are good, then the editor should transfer them to Wikipedia. This would make the interpretation of the Janes article irrelevant. As far as I can tell, my suggestion has been ignored.

Type 093 submarine

• 2602:306:b8bf:c0:a17b:1dc4:f754:7974 adds a 43 min Chinese-language video as a source. I revert it, ultimately arguing that it is incomprehensible to an English audience (no subtitles, no English summary)
  • The video is readded by 199.116.169.39/199.116.175.123; re-addition is justified by "The source is BETTER than English, it is from official Chinese news media, CCTV 7. Just watch the video as it clearly describes the propeller portion !" and "Does it matter? The source is from Chinese news site, which is more accurate than English version, 093 SSN is a Chinese military product !!!"
  • I start a topic on the talk page; editor refuses to show even after being explicitly invited on the editor's own talk page User talk:199.116.175.123#Talk pages.
• 199.116.175.123 uses a non-expert Chinese-language source to support a change to the "active" number, and claims over the submarines capabilities.
  • I dispute that the article says that the 3 093Gs have entered service, and say so on the talk page. (If you run the article through Google translate, it says the yard has completed construction, not that they have been commissioned.) I point out that contemporary sources support the assertion that the subs were completed, but not yet commissioned. No rebuttal by the editor.
  • The editor claims the Chinese-language source is "newer" than it actually is ("5 As of 8/5/2015 according to official Chinese source", when it was actually written on 29 Mar 2015) and again claims it is "official" and implies it is more authoritative than the other sources (ignoring, of course, how the editor has misinterpreted the source already as stated in the previous point)
  • Editor switches to 2602:306:b8bf:c0:a17b:1dc4:f754:7974 and re-adds the claims, which also highlights the editors ignorance concerning the dates
  • A personal attack is thrown in for good measure.
  • Throughout the editor uses "Removal of sourced content." to justify re-additions, clearly not understanding why they were removed, and of course, avoiding the talk page and deeper discussion.

Shenyang WS-10

• A minor example of the lack of due care on the part of the editor
  • Removes info using the edit comment that "it's not in the source", or "removal of sourced content" ([54], [55], [56]) when what was in the article was indeed in the source (as I explain on the talk page.)
  • Finally, the editor explicitly demonstrates ignorance of the source article's contents, first by elaborating on why the editor thinks the reversions are justified ("The source did not even mention AL-31FM1, where did you get the idea that the latest WS-10 has less thrust than AL-31FM1? You troll !!!!") and almost immediately afterwards realizes that it the information is in the source ("Ok, I read the source. It clearly says approaching. Let us use this word instead of "less". This is more accurate and neutral tone.")
  • In the editors final revision (and the current one), note how any negative connotations toward the WS-10 have been removed to be "neutral". The source article does support the range of a lower bound of 13 t thrust, and an upper bound of the thrust of the Russian engine (this is explained on the talk page.)

Other IPs this editor has used in the past include (all with similar behaviour):

• 199.116.175.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 199.116.175.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 199.116.175.83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 199.116.175.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2602:306:B8BF:C0:9104:96F8:421:1AE7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2602:306:B8BF:C0:A40B:3EC8:EBC1:5351 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I was unsure whether or not to take this to content disputes, since talk page interaction seems to be a prerequisite for that and this editor seems to make it a point to avoid interacting on talk pages altogether. This is in addition to editor's general uncivilness and lack of comprehension. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 03:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• I've looked at the first three. This is a lot of words. I reverted on and semi-protected the missile and the submarine. I can't do the same for the frigate since a major edit happened in between. Your IP editor, whom I hope you've notified all over the place on as many of their talk page as you can, can get back to those two articles two weeks from now, and if they continue in the same vein, without getting talk page consensus, they will be blocked and, if need be, semi-protection will be extended.

  As for you, RovingEtc., consider taking the reliable source issue to WP:RSN. If you get a consensus that this or that source is not to be used, then you have a good argument for reverting and placing warning templates, etc. And then an admin can block and protect. I also suggest you post a note on the MILHIST project talk page, to get some expert input--since much of this may rely on source reading and interpretation. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 02:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Refusal to lift WP:BURDEN by User:Mhhossein

Mhhossein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is repeatedly inserting material from a disputed source in Quds Day without lifting his burden to demonstrate its reliability on either the talk page or anywhere else.[57][58] The source is a partisan Muslim organisation with no reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I have explained the same user numerous times before that such sources aren't usable per WP:V and he is not likely to stop disrupting the project before action is taken against him.--Anders Feder (talk) 07:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Why is this not on WP:RSN? Kingsindian ♝♚ 14:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Because WP:RSN is the place where editors not failing to follow WP:BURDEN can ask about the suitability of sources they wish to add or restore, "not the place to discuss other issues, such as editor conduct", as it says in the leading text on the board itself.--Anders Feder (talk) 15:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Neither of you have opened a discussion at RSN, while both have been edit-warring over this. It is not permissible to edit war even if you are right. Why are people here? To build an encyclopaedia, not create drama. I count 0 talk page comments by either side, both are arguing through edit summaries. A simple post to RSN would have solved this without any drama. A word to the wise: there are no victors at WP:ANI, only survivors. Kingsindian ♝♚ 15:55, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: What would RSN solve given that it almost never responds? You're obviously a bit of an amateur and mistakenly think RSN is "the ANI-equivalent for sources".--Anders Feder (talk) 16:57, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

@Anders Feder: I have posted many times at WP:RSN, as you can check here. You could use WP:RfC, WP:3O (another underused and very useful tool), or a hundred other things. Posting at WP:ANI before posting on the talk page is really weird. Kingsindian ♝♚ 17:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Easy for you to say given that you have zero interest in resolving the issue. Moralizing lectures dismissing everybody else's concerns as "drama" are a dime a dozen on Wikipedia.--Anders Feder (talk) 17:37, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

To me, you would not take it here if you had interest in resolving the issue. Mhhossein (talk) 12:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Your repeated attempts to shift your own WP:BURDEN onto others across multiple articles is not an issue that belongs on the Quds Day talk page. It is a user conduct issue that belongs here.--Anders Feder (talk) 12:18, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm passionately waiting for you to show the cases in which I have not respected a consensus. Mhhossein (talk) 12:29, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Why? What does your refusal to lift your burden to form consensus have to do with whether you have respected the consensus you have failed to form? Are you attempting to shift the topic even here?--Anders Feder (talk) 12:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I would stop questions after questions. Mhhossein (talk) 13:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

What does that even mean? If you want to "stop questions", you should answer them.--Anders Feder (talk) 13:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• @Kingsindian: Sorry for the delay, I was on a trip. Any way, why not saying Anders Feder is repeatedly removing a challenging material from a possible reliable source from Quds Day without starting a talk page discussion? He could easily open a topic in WP:RSN instead of repeatedly reverting the edit at the very beginning. In fact, he acted so that he is the only one who determines whether a source is reliable or not. Of course, I didn't say that he was wrong for sure (for he was expressing his respected opinion), but his unidirectional reverts was really disturbing. I will certainly respect any consensus over this issue. Mhhossein (talk) 12:03, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: I will respond on the talk page. Kingsindian ♝♚ 12:09, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Sakimonk

Sakimonk has been previously been warned repeatedly, once for edit-warring by Melanie here and once again by myself here. The user continues to edit-war on a number of pages. See for example histories of Qadiani, Ahmadiyya or Template:Islam.

The reason why I am writing here is because I have been subject to uncivil behaviour by Sakimonk here. The user refers to me as a "treacherous qadiani", [Qadiani is a derogatory religious slur for Ahmadis], "who allies with the enemies of Islam to make war against Muslims". The user continues calling me, "plain enemies of Islam" and "kuffar"[meaning infidel]. I don't think the user is here to improve Wikipedia.--Peaceworld 10:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I should probably add that this is not the first time the user has been uncivil. The user appears to claim that I have an hidden agenda here.--Peaceworld 10:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

actually I deleted that message left on your wall because I realised it was not nice and I wrote something different.

Also I stopped editing those pages and I only put the bit regarding the phrase qadiani - all I wanted to say was that it is the official government term in Pakistan (which it is).

Also the only reason I said those things is because you were harassing me and stalking my edits, going into the Israel talk page and siding against me JUST because I was disputing with you is very unfair.

I actually listened to your suggestions on template Islam so I don't one why you're saying I edit warred there.

Sakimonk ^talk 13:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

could you find evidence evidence where I have harassed you? If not, that may constitute a personal attack.--Peaceworld 14:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Sakimonk is also going around labeling muslim groups he doesn't like as Sects. Namely the Barelvi movement Misdemenor (talk) 19:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Loool what!? One minute I have Peaceworld who is attacking me because I'm NOT calling ahmadis a "sect" of Islam and then i have Misdemenor attacking me because I AM calling Barelvis a sect :O, look I haven't bothered you guys so please just leave me alone I'm just trying to get along here but I keep running into you two whereever I go. Peaceworld, I was talking about your talk on israel, you sided against me even though you weren't involved in the convo at all whatsoever, and I got angry and left a message on your talk page which I promptly deleted and replaced with something else after I gave your comments some thought. Sakimonk ^talk 04:29, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

In your opinion I "sided against" you, even though I don't see it that way. My comment was (in my opinion) a closing response to the never-ending discussion. Nevertheless, I don't see how that counts as harassment. Secondly I don't see where I have been "attacking" you.--Peaceworld 09:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to work with you not against you, these are teething problems but ultimately we're all trying to create a representative picture that accurately captures the essence of a topic. A few reverts here and there are to be expected. I've even revamped my edits drastically to align them with WP:NOV guidelines. Sakimonk ^talk 22:06, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• Sakimonk, settle down. Misdemor, if you're referring to this edit with your "sect" comment, then you're being silly--the lead already called it a sect. And I don't know how far along you are in your religious studies, but from where I stand "sect" is not a bad word. Drmies (talk) 02:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Recurring violations of IBAN

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

---

Per this thread Catflap08 (talk · contribs) has violated our IBAN yet again, and everyone else agrees. Previous violations include joining in a discussion in which I was a key participant, reverting my edits, joining in an unrelated discussion and requesting that I be banned from editing a page he had no prior interest in, and insinuating that another user and I are neo-Nazis based on our usernames.

My interacting with this user has produced no positive results whatsoever, and every time he comes back and starts engaging in this kind of (not-so-passive-)aggressive behaviour it drains my desire and ability to contribute to the project. I have spent the vast majority of my Wikipedia activity since the IBAN was imposed trying to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Japanese poetry (almost all of these articles were created by me since the IBAN), whereas he appears to have gone back to fighting with other users over Soka Gakkai on talk pages with his only article edits being to violate WP:V and WP:NOR, something he has been criticized for constantly. I have been doing my very best to avoid directly joining in these discussions to point out that Catflap08 is continuing to engage in the same disruptive behaviour that led to our IBAN; Catflap08 on the other hand has not hesitated to attack me in whatever venue he can find.

I'm tired of having to put up with this harassment; and it's a blatant double-standard that he can violate the IBAN whenever he wants to and I can't/don't want to. I'd like to see any of the following results:

1. Catflap08 receives a block (at least a short one) for his repeated IBAN-violations, but the IBAN stays in place;
2. the IBAN stays in place, but Catflap08 receives a further TBAN (or PAGEBAN) from pages related to Kenji Miyazawa and the Kokuchūkai, broadly construed -- he has never contributed anything worthwhile to this area, but it represents 75% of his IBAN-violating edits and close to all of his historic interactions with me;
3. the IBAN is dissolved, Catflap08 is allowed continue to do what he is doing with no direct consequences, except that I am also allowed respond directly, and the community works to resolve the underlying content issues.

One or more of these solutions received near-unanimous support (Catflap08 himself was "neutral") in this thread, but the thread was archived before a close could be made. The impartial observers mostly (User:SPACKlick and User:Blackmane but not User:Shii) tended to line up behind consequences for Catflap08 rather than dissolving the ban (solution #1 or #2), and there was a tendency among users with a history of involvement with the dispute (User:Snow Rise, User:AlbinoFerret and User:Sturmgewehr88) to favour dissolution of the IBAN (solution #3).

No one benefits from the status quo, though, so something clearly needs to be done. (Also pinging users @SilkTork: @Wikimandia: @Hoary: @Drmies: and @Dennis Brown: for historic involvement in this dispute -- sorry if you don't want to comment, as some of you specifically stated months ago; just ignore if so.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I have not followed this ongoing drama except for occasionally skimming it if I'm reading ANI. So I'm not up to date on the history but I will say that THIS EDIT from Catflap08 saying that "88" in a username is a some kind of well-known code for Nazi enthusiasts is WHOLLY UNACCEPTABLE and patently offensive. In this stupid comment, Catflap08 has cast aspersions on everyone with 88 in their usernames as possibly being Nazis. There are almost 30,000 of these users on the English Wikipedia alone (no doubt many of whom were born in 1988, or are using 88 for any other perfectly innocent reason). If someone knows how I can safely lobotomize myself to delete just this odious factoid, please tell me. —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Per Nazi symbolism#Continued use by neo-Nazi groups, "88" is in fact used as a code among some neo-Nazi groups. Your notion that he extends this to any username containing "88" seems to be a strawman.--Anders Feder (talk) 11:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Well if you want to get technical, those (for lack of a better word) dumbasses use two eights not eighty-eight like Hijiri and myself. When I render my username in Japanese I use 八十八 (eighty-eight) instead of 八八 (eight eight). But if you read Catflap's comment, he's obviously insinuating that anyone using 88 has a "Fascist background". ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 16:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

@Anders Feder: Considering Hijiri88 is apparently Catflap08's WP nemesis and all of this is really about this ongoing feud and hatred of Hijiri88 and the iBan is with Hijiri88, there is some kind of insinuation here regarding his 88 username, no? Keep in mind this is about an ongoing dispute apparently related to Buddhism/Japan and (as far as I know, please correct me if I'm wrong) this has nothing to do with any editing of Nazi subjects (such as German, Jewish, Holocaust or World War II, etc). So, Catflap08 writes about Hijiri88: "As soon as the ice gets thin he calls for his cronies including Sturmgewehr88 (being banned from a number Wikipedias for obvious reasons – in many European countries just like Germany the number 88 is a code for a fascist background – based on edits)." ???? He says "based on edits" and "banned for obvious reasons" ... so what has Sturmgewehr88 done to indicate his supposed fascist background? Why is this being brought up at all? If you say I'm using a strawman argument, please tell me what the actual argument/intent is as you see it. Because as a casual observer, again, I think this is a personal attack on H88 and S88 (and potentially all *88 user names apparently). —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I suspect it is a relatively minor point that should not distract from the overall concern raised by OP. Your reading could well be right.--Anders Feder (talk) 18:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

That's true about overall point, I will take some time to more thorough read all the diffs. I may need to give a more thorough analysis in case this 88 remark that grinds my gears is missing a larger point. —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I had an edit conflict with the above two posts while trying to craft my response. I put a lot of work into it and I don't want to throw it out just because the user to whom I was responding has indicated that he/she is not that concerned and does apparently recognize that the IBAN-violations are an issue. There is also a little bit of important commentary relevant to the larger dispute that I would like to get on the record. I'm removing said user's name from the response in order that it not look like aggressively insisting on getting the last word, though. I hope you all understand.

Response to slightly-off-topic discussion of accusations of fascist associations

Both I and (I believe) Sturmgewehr88 were born in 1988. I use my birth year rather than my month/day in my username because I use the latter in my usernames on Twitter, Facebook and several others associated with my real-life identity and, if combined with other features of my wiki-activity, it would make my real-world identity too obvious. I have a right to edit anonymously, and I also have a right as an Irish person based in Japan who has never been to Germany or eastern Europe to have no idea whatsoever that "88" has neo-fascist connotations. The fact that technically his above-cited comment didn't directly attack me but only Sturmgewehr88 is irrelevant; in the middle of a long rant about how I am supposedly such a terrible person, he randomly mentioned that I often associate with Sturmgewehr88 and that said user's username has fascist connotations. The clear and obvious intent was to accuse me in the same fashion. He accused me of having "cronies including Sturmgewehr88" -- why did he choose this particular one of "my cronies" to mention, and why did he decide to hone in on one particular aspect of said "crony"'s username that he happens to share with me? It should also be noted that, in that particular post and elsewhere, he has been very careful not to directly mention me by name (except in deliberately-chosen anachronistic section title edit summaries), as he apparently believes reverting my edits is okay, as long as he doesn't mention my username even in an open discussion of the IBAN itself. It's pretty clear that if he thought he could get away with it he would have written "Hijiri88's username has neo-fascist associations", but said it about Sturmgewehr88 instead. Sturmgewehr88 has also told me off-wiki that he received a suspicious email from Catflap08 "advising him" to be careful about editing German Wikipedia under that name -- did he really mean the email for me, but for the fact that this was after the IBAN was in place? Catflap08 and Sturmgewehr88 have NO history of interaction with each other, except when it comes to me. Neither Sturmgewehr88 nor I should have to put up with this kind of attack anyway, IBAN or no. Catflap08 apparently has a history of causing trouble by accusing users of neo-fascism in this fashion -- I wonder if I should ping Horst-schlaemma? (I remember this issue from months before the IBAN, as it was one of two or three other massive feuds Catflap08 was involved in around the same time he first got involved with me, and was on his talk page around the same time as me. I did not trawl through Catflap08's edit history to find it, as he and his friend have admitted to doing to me.) Surely it's time the community put this tendentious user who has never been able to edit a single article without getting in a fight with someone out to pasture? Whenever the ice gets thin he accuses other users of having a religious bias, or being neo-fascists or Holocaust-deniers, of wanting to somehow "deny history" or "censor sources", and he has never shown any interest in changing his ways -- just see his recent edit history on various talk pages related to Nichiren Buddhism and Soka Gakkai for evidence that after the IBAN with me was imposed he went straight on to find more victims (while of course continuing to harass me in a manner that has thus far gone unnoticed as the IBAN-violation that it is).

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 19:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment The IBAN has been a disaster. The editors edit in the same area and its almost impossible to avoid each other. I am against removing one or the other because most of the problems flow from content disputes. My suggestion for a 1RR for both of them to replace the IBAN didnt receive a lot of discussion last time because of the huge length of the section. Strangely, or not so strange, the sections become walls of text and that slows or stops willingness of the community from input. But I think a 1RR is a good way to stop the battles and force discussion and consensus if not a 0RR for both of them. AlbinoFerret 21:04, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Strong support for lifting IBAN, but a different take on the next measure My thoughts on why this IBAN was never going to work are summarized in my second post of the thread in which said ban was implemented. In short, IBANs are always a dubious, short-sighted and counter-intuitive approach to handling editors who have have refused to collaborate civilly and have an inability to disengage with one-another; in cases where said editors share "close quarters" with one-another on a topic area dominated by articles with limited numbers of editors, an IBAN is pretty much guarunteed to result in the situation we've seen here -- recurrent disruption on the articles in question and endless bickering on the noticeboards, sucking up massive amounts of community and administrative effort that quite simply dwarfs any benefit the IBAN could reasonably have ever been expected to have. This has been discussed ad nauseum in the threads one or the other of these parties have filed here in the months since the IBAN was implemented and we are well past the point to stop dithering and remove it as the first step to discussing sanctions and other remedies that will put an end to this drama.

However, as to the second point, I happen to think though that 1RR/0RR would probably fail here for the exact same reasons the IBAN has; neither party has the least bit of intention of giving ground in their feud over the tone of numerous articles on Japan's culture, religion, and history and they haven't been held accountable for the disruption they cause between them. The remedy for the refusal of two parties to respect our collaborative principle and behavioural policies is not to suggest that they should try collaborating or behaving better, certainly not at this point. They would clearly both just try to game 1RR/0RR, by rushing to stake-out territory on the disputed articles by being the first to edit on particular points, and then reverting one-another anyway, using pedantic arguments about why they were really not reverts, all landing us right back here. I suggest instead that we review the latest wave of disruption and then topicban one or both from all articles on Japanese history and culture, broadly construed. That is clearly the only way this nonsense ever stops. These two exhausted any reasonable amount of patience the community should display on this matter months ago and though I need to review the most recent confrontations to say with certainty whether both have failed to learn from the previous warnings and are deserving of the proposed measure, I'm convinced there's no chance of stopping this disruption short of TBANs or blocks. The kid gloves have to come of on this ridiculousness; we've been thoroughly enabling this drama and will only have ourselves to blame if we don't draw a line here. Snow ^{let's rap} 22:50, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I actually agree that Catflap08 should be topic-banned from the area in question (Miyazawa Kenji and Kokuchukai) and, if he shows further disruptive behaviour in other areas (Soka Gakkai and Nichiren Buddhism, for instance), he should be banned there too. But "Japanese history and culture" is ridiculous, for the reasons I outlined below. For Catflap08, let alone me. Additionally, Snow Rise, you are aware that AlbinoFerret has just done what he usually does and taken one off-hand comment by you as some sort of "community consensus" and rolled with it in opening a new sub-thread, and that this is now likely to derail this discussion to the point where it will again be archived with no result, right? Careless remarks like that are clearly a much bigger factor in enabling this drama than "treating it with kid gloves", since it's a demonstrable fact that on three previous occasions AN/ANI discussions of violations of this IBAN have been archived with no result despite a clear consensus to do something. And believe me, I have not been treated with kid gloves in this matter. I have had every single word of my comments closely scrutinized for even the slightest hint of a violation and when such may or may not have been found an ANI thread was immediately opened. John Carter has a history of going well out of his way to read very, very deeply into everything his friend Catflap08's "enemies" say to find some excuse to get them banned from the project in order to defend him. There were no kid gloves involved, believe me. To see an intelligent user like yourself make a gaffe like this makes me feel a pang of despair.

Anyway, if you really think I should be banned from "Japanese history and culture", then I would like you to recommend another user to complete the project I have been recently working on, creating articles on all classical Japanese poets who do not already have them. It would also be very nice if you could demonstrate where I have ever behaved in a disruptive manner in this area. I know you yourself did not say "Hijiri88 and not Catflap08 should be topic-banned" or "both should be topic-banned", but you must know that in such a hot-bed dispute where there is a long history of users jumping the gun and immediately taking any opportunity to request extremely harsh and draconian measures, that even mentioning such a thing without providing extensive reasoning based on evidence is highly dangerous.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:23, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Hijiri, the community members reviewing these matters will judge for themselves, but I don't find my comments here particularly "careless" or "gaffe"-like. Nor do I find the proposal AlibinoFerret has made particularly impulsive or draconian. This is one of at least six threads that I know of have been opened on AN or ANI in just the last few months by you, Catflap or another party who has been dragged into your battles. They all follow a similar pattern of disruption, obfuscation, and attempts to game the system to remove one-another from your shared areas of interest (or, increasingly as a tit-for-tat response to the other party for attempting to do so themselves). Not only do I not feel that you are being treated particularly harshly here, I think that you have been an extreme amount of patience on these issues -- indeed it was several noticeboard threads back that this level of tolerance began to venture into the absurd and problematic. I personally would have rather seen the IBAN removed prior to (or at a part of) the proposal for an alternative sanction, but it's hard to see the proposal of the topic ban itself as anything but inevitable. I was in fact surprised that a pageban was not implemented at any point in the previous threads.

As to my own !vote on said proposal, I said I would wait until I had time to review the most recent accusations between you and Catflap before determining which, if either of you, this measure ought to be applied to, and I've done that now. I'll summarize my thoughts on the matter in the subsection bellow, but there's a few points that are more germane to your filing here that ought to be addressed. First off, you haven't a single diff to support your assertion that Catflap is actively and presently involved in violations of the IBAN. The link which you provide is of Catflap asking (in a straight-forward, one-sentence request on AN) to have the edit history on an article you are both active on reviewed to see whether or not your activity represents a violation of the IBAN. Not only is his request allowable and not in itself a violation of the IBAN, it is what he is meant to do in this situation, rather than address you directly and start the feud going again. You're also allowed to respond to that accusation on the noticeboard, but opening your own thread here is clearly meant as some combination of retaliation and attempt to re-contextualize that disagreement in a way that paints him as an aggressor, but it's clear that he has not otherwise been involved in legitimate violations of the IBAN, or else you would have linked such behaviour.

What you've done instead is reach back several months into the past for diffs that were already addressed in the previous AN/ANI threads on the disruptive behaviour between you two. In fact, some of these links predate the IBAN itself and therefore could not be violations, and most of them would not have been violations of the IBAN whenever they occurred; for example, an IBAN does not prevent either of you from commenting in the same discussions as the other, provided you both avoid directly referencing or reverting one-another. I know that might sound silly (in my opinion it's one of the reasons IBANs almost invevitably lead to more disruption), but that is in fact the way the sanction works; see WP:IBAN. As to the "88" issue, it may have been meant for StG88 only, but was, in any event, an ill-considered comment on Catflap's part, which is exactly why other involved community members condemned it and cautioned him not to use such statements unless he was prepared to substantiate his suspicions with a lot more than a prejudicing observation. But that comment was made (and addressed) back in April, and, especially in the context of all of these other dated diffs, it surely seems as if you didn't have enough (that is to say, any) evidence to support your accusations of present IBAN violations, so you've instead dug up a lot of stale drama in order to have some blue links that superficially seem to support that he is actively violating the IBAN and presently making personal attacks.

And that is just not going to be a winning strategy for you, because if we go back that far into the hostilities between you two, you do not come off looking like a victim by any stretch of the imagination. Catflap may have made serious behavioural blunder in making that 88 comment, but for context, around the same time you were actively stalking Catflap across multiple unrelated talkpages, userpages and project spaces, in what can only be described as hounding, despite the fact that you had received multiple warnings from an admin that this was completely unacceptable and that you were on the verge of being blocked for incivility; even after these warnings, it took the combined efforts of numerous uninvolved editors to get you WP:Drop the stick, though clearly not for long. Most everyone involved in those discussions found your behaviour to be tendentious and needlessly combative, so reaching back into that period of your conflict with Catflap strikes me as both hypocritical and highly disruptive. In any event, it is clear that you have opened the present thread as a tit--for-tat response to Catflap's above-board request at AN, and in so doing, you have failed to present any evidence of present IBAN violations in the time since the last ANI/AN discussions on the matter of your ongoing contest of wills, nor indeed any certain evidence of an IBAN violation on Catflop's part at any point in your exchanges, period. So I see strong evidence that this present thread requires a WP:BOOMERANG response in the form of the TBAN proposed bellow.

Lastly, I'll offer a piece of advice of the sort that's been given you before but which you ought to adopt with speed now if you don't want an even more severe backlash to your present efforts; your comments directed towards BMK and AlbinoFerret below suggesting that they are somehow acting in bad faith and that they will "be the next for repercussions" is not doing you any favours here. They are providing their perspectives as uninvolved parties and concerned community members, which is exactly what this space is for. Calling them, and anyone else who !votes against your interest, out and implying laziness or bad faith on their part can only solidify the reputation for disruption and hostility towards contravening views that you've steadily built for yourself here. No one made you open this thread without evidence; you could have just defended your actions to the best of your ability in the AN thread after Catflap opened it. Instead, you upped the ante by reviving old drama, and it is completely appropriate if the editors here express the opinion that the benefits of your (and/or Catflap's) involvement in the project begin to be massively outweighed by the burden that you impose on the community and the project at large with this unceasing, caustic bickering. I've pointed out to you on two previous occasions, that when you make accusations against Catflap, he generally doesn't bother to respond, and I think its strategic on his part -- I believe he expects that you will respond to criticism of your behaviour with such ardent and histrionic denial and counter-accusations that you will tank your own position. And if that is his strategic motivation in not engaging, it's brilliant--because that's usually how it bears out. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Topic ban for both Hijiri 88 and Catflap08 for 3 months

This has gone on long enough as Snow Rise has pointed out. It would be wrong in my opinion to topic ban just one side of a constant, ongoing, and seemingly never ending dispute over content. I therefore propose a topic ban from Japanese history and culture, broadly construed for a period of three months for both. With longer bans possible if the problems continue to other areas or when this one ends. This constant disruption needs to end. AlbinoFerret 23:12, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Additional info for those that wonder why I am proposing this. Neither party is innocent. This has been going on for months. Feel free to look through the search results. Like these WP:AN [59][60] and WP:AN/I [61][62]. Each time it becomes a wall of text that goes nowhere. Neither party is blameless in this, it needs to end. AlbinoFerret 02:46, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support. The only other options would be indef them both, or to take it to ArbCom. This is the community's last chance to deal with this ongoing disruptive dispute. BMK (talk) 23:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Actually, I would also support this as an indef topic ban for both, rather than 3 months. Let's shut this engine down for good. BMK (talk) 00:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• @Beyond My Ken and AlbinoFerret: Please show us the diffs in which H88 violated the iBan or any instructions from the last ANI. It's not right to bring up all the older ANIs that have been closed and retroactively punish him. If H88 was given a topic ban, iBan or any other instruction, and he has followed that in good faith, I can't see how the right response to Catflap08's violation of his iBan with H88 is to ban Catflap AND H88 (especially indef!). —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Ridiculous proposal. This would essentially be a 3-month site ban for both of us, as neither of us has ever expressed any interest in editing any article outside the area of "Japanese history and culture". The proposer has demonstrated in the past a lack of understanding of the dispute in question, and has been called out by myself and other users for attempting to unilaterally sway discussions in ridiculous directions far away from their original scope. Additionally, no evidence has ever been presented that I have edited disruptively in the narrow topic-area under discussion (Miyazawa Kenji and the Kokuchukai), much less "Japanese history and culture". If AlbinoFerret and Beyond My Ken, neither of whom have to the best of my knowledge ever contributed anything of note to "Japanese history and culture" legitimately think that I should be de facto banned from the entire project for three months, they need to present some form of evidence. User:Shii or perhaps User:Nishidani: you have a great deal more experience in this area, and hardly ever agree with me (so you could hardly be called biased) -- is there any chance you could talk some sense into this discussion? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• What the hell does our lack of participation in Japanese history and culture-related articles have anything to do with anything? The point is that the two of you keep bringing this back to the noticeboards over and over and over again and I, for one, am entirely sick of it, and I am certain that others are as well. Whether I've contributed to your pet subject area is totally irrelevant: the lack of control on the part of the both of you is the subject. Since you cannot control yourselves, we, the community, will do it for you. We've tried an IBan, and that hasn't worked, this is another possible next step. As I said, other possible steps are indef blocks, site bans or ArbCom. If you're more interested in those actions than in trying out topic bans, then we can see how much support we can find for that. But what cannot happen is for this to continue to go on as it has. BMK (talk) 00:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

You're saying that a ban should be placed, even though you clearly have not looked at any of the evidence and clearly have no understanding of the dispute in question. "Japanese history and culture" was mentioned, no doubt inadvertently, in an off-handed manner by Snow Rise, and was then thrown out of proportion by AlbinoFerret. You then throw your support behind AlbinoFerret's ... frankly quite insane proposal. This dispute is not about "Japanese history and culture" -- if it's about content at all (and no user who has actually looked at the evidence thinks it is) then it is about one poet and one group he was briefly associated with. Why on earth would you want to ban me from editing every Wikipedia article I have ever edited based on this? What the hell are you on about? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

You've done a very pretty job of twisting my words, well done. Let me simplify for you: the topic bans are because you the two of you cannot behave yourselves, and it will take you out of each other's way -- so it's not about content, it's about behavior. Please do not deliberately misinterpret my words again. BMK (talk) 00:44, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that comment BMK, and I would like to clarify my position above. While the content is the engine that drives the problem, its the behaviour of both of them that warrants a ban. AlbinoFerret 00:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Again, please show some evidence that I have not behaved myself? Catflap08 violated the IBAN (multiple times, in fact), not me. Everyone who has commented on the issue agrees on this point. There is not now, nor has there ever been, any evidence presented that the disruptive behaviour was at all mutual. And a TBAN (de facto SITEBAN) does not make sense unless a reasonable parameter has been set; the above-proposed parameter doesn't make sense, because it is based on a misinterpretation of an off-handed remark by a user without much direct awareness of the dispute to begin with, so even if the "behavior" was mutual (it isn't and everyone here except you agrees) the proposed topic-ban would not be appropriate. A TBAN for Catflap08 in the area of Miyazawa Kenji and the Kokuchukai makes sense, and has been supported by a large number of users; if you think I should suffer further repercussions beyond the constant harassment/being called a Nazi I already have, then you need to present some form of evidence.

@User:AlbinoFerret: What does that remark even mean!? "the content is the engine"!? "behaviour of both of them"!? You need to present some kind of evidence to support such accusations, or you'll be the next one up for repercussions from this mess. "Japanese history and culture" is a ridiculously broad topic, and one that neither you, nor BMK, nor even Snow Rise, have any legitimate reason for claiming either I or even Catflap08 should be banned from, given the narrow scope of this dispute. If you think I should be site-banned, then come right out and say it, but be warned that such harsh and unjustified attacks tend to come back and bite the attackers in the lower back.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:58, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

In the last incarnation of this shitstorm, I did indeed support sanctions against Catflap as I felt that they indeed violated the conditions of the interaction ban. However, optimist that I can be, I also felt that just giving up on the ban so soon after it had been implemented would be a shame not to mention a disrespectful waste of the time of those editors who participated in that discussion. I had also hoped that we would see the last of this feud here. If the two editors involved cannot fix it then it falls to the community to sort this out, so I Support the topic ban per AlbinoFerret and BMK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackmane (talk • contribs) 20:57, 8 August 2015‎ (UTC)

Wow Blackmane .... so because Catflap violated the punitive directions so quickly after said decision was made means he should be given a pass, in order to see if the ban sticks this time around? Please share your logic on that one. So is there like a 72-hour window, or one-month window, in which the bans shouldn't be enforced, you know, so it doesn't waste the time of the previous ANI contributors? Looking forward to your answer. —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:43, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@Wikimandia: I stated that I supported sanctions against Catflap for his IBAN violation in the last round that this appeared at ANI. I also stated that I was against the ending of the interaction ban between Catflap and Hijiri but not the withdrawal of sanctions against Catflap. Please reread my statement carefully.Blackmane (talk) 08:00, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@Blackmane: You are indeed right, and I thank you for your continued attempts to pump some sanity into this debate. However, Wikimandia was also partly right in responding negatively to your above post, because you stated that you support the topic ban per AlbinoFerret and BMK. This was clearly a slip of the pen on your part, since the rest of your comment indicated that you oppose said topic ban, but in fact support a one-way sanction on Catflap08 per the latter's violations. The final sentence of your above comment implies you support a strong topic ban against me, and a significantly weaker (relative) sanction against Catflap08, who at least occasionally edits articles on Germany and mainland Asian Buddhism that have nothing to do with Japan.

But no careful admin could legitimately read anything you have written here or elsewhere as actually supporting such an outcome, so no harm no foul as far as I am concerned. The rest of what you have written here is reasoned and much appreciated.

Hijiri88 (talk) 15:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Umm why ban for Hijiri88? Nobody has supplied any diffs showing how he has done anything to violate the iBan or anything near it. He has provided diffs showing Catflap08 flagrantly violating said iBan by reverting his edits, insulting him and apparently also calling him as a fascist Nazi. Yet you want to ban H88 for reporting this, because you're tired of reading about here? I'm speechless. Oh wait, that's not the right word. How about appalled. I have seen this kind of apathy/laziness around here (please go see all the unresolved reports in the archive) because people don't want to take the time to look at it or just tired of it. One report last month or so must have taken the reporter about four hours to compile all the diffs showing downright proof of ban evading, sockpuppetry and extreme NPOV violations going back to 2008 (seven years) and the response was "yawn, tl;dr" What's the point of having ANI? (See below) —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:59, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban for both. Would anyone who is not prepared to examine the situation and find out whether there has been an iban violation per the report please find another hobby. The pollyanna suggestions above that associating H88 and S88 with nazism should be overlooked as minor is also unhelpful—if an editor repeats such an accusation without being able to produce good evidence showing POV-pushing for nazism, the editor should be blocked until they agree to not make unfounded accusations. Johnuniq (talk) 02:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Please provide diff for the comments suggesting that associating other users with nazism should be overlooked. If no such diff can be produced I suggest we instigate actions against you too per WP:ASPERSIONS.--Anders Feder (talk) 12:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@Anders Feder: To be completely fair, your initial post in this thread did imply that you believe Catflap08 was merely providing an off-hand comment about how "88" has neo-fascist associations, rather than directly attacking Sturmgewehr88 and indirectly attacking me, and that at least that point was irrelevant. You did not, like some other users who refuse to look at the evidence, directly insinuate that I was the one who violated the IBAN and that I deserve to be sanctioned, but the implication of your initial comment was that you did not feel Catflap08 was calling all users with "88" in their usernames Nazis. This may in fact be the case (that he is not accusing all such users in this manner), but in the context you made it look like you thought he should be excused for (indisputably) accusing two particular users in this manner. If it merely looked this way, then I apologize for misinterpreting you, but you should forgive me my justifiable misinterpretation, as you should forgive Johnuniq. :-) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: I haven't implied anything at all about whether or not Catflap08 was attacking you or anyone else. I was merely pointing out that the suggestion that he was attacking anyone with "88" in their username seems to be stretching it. I understand that "mob justice" is the modus operandi on these boards, and people like Johnuniq feel bereaved when someone detracts from the universal demonization of the user which the mob has elected to be the culprit. Nonetheless, I prefer cases to evaluated on the basis of just the facts and nothing else and I hope you too will forgive me for that.--Anders Feder (talk) 16:12, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. I haven't seen any evidence to convince me that Hajiri88 is acting disruptively. Quite the contrary, in fact, accusations of Nazism by Catflap are very disconcerting. Claiming that both editors are 'disruptive to the community' simply because this issue has been brought to ANI on more than one occasion is a non sequitur. It doesn't prove that Hajiri88 has edited inappropriately on 'Japanese culture and history'. Elspamo4 (talk) 05:56, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@Elspamo4: I think that Hijiri88 calling Catflap a "jackass", as well as Hijiri's stalking Catflap's edits and blatantly violating his IBAN with Catflap on the Kokuchukai article all constitute "acting disruptively". Like I said, this is the third time this year that a similar topic ban has been proposed. The user Snow Rise said it all the last time a topic ban was proposed against Hijiri88 back in May. "Unfortunately, the noticeboards have already seen an abundance of evidence of Hijiri's tendentiousness in this area. But as he is facing a pageban here and the possibility of two more in a thread above, I hope he will take the message with whatever narrower sanctions he might receive (or narrowly avoid, if that proves the case) and try to reach towards consensus and middle-ground solutions instead of the type of approach that has brought him here repeatedly. If he doesn't, I'm sure someone will propose a broader TBAN next time he is back here (as it will probably be for issues in the same content area)."TH1980 (talk) 21:14, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

You are a lunatic. Snow rise never suggested any such thing against me in me. You are talking utter nonsense and need to be banned from editing Wikipedia until you learn to interact with other users in a constructive manner. Your following me here is directly akin to Catflap08's following me to the "topic ban" discussion to which you are referring. The only users who think I should be topic-banned at all are users who already don't like me, even though they themselves have never contributed anything to the topic in question. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Hijiri88 to TH1980: You are a lunatic. This is why the topic ban is needed for both of you. You are a lunatic, indeed. 00:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Strongly Support Catflap08 has been taking plenty of abuse from Hijiri. Hijiri has called him a "jackass" and always assumes bad faith by casting aspersions on him like "You don't want to go out and do the research on the modern Kokuchukai in order to clean up this article because you're afraid it MIGHT contradict you". When Catflap was considering retiring, Hijiri posted an insulting message celebrating his decision to leave. Hijiri's recent edits to the Kokuchukai article were clear violations of the IBAN.

This is the third time this year a topic ban has been proposed for Hijiri88 due to his disruptive behavior. He has demonstrated an extremely long-term pattern of uncollaborative and disruptive behavior on Wikipedia, He has created attack pages defaming me and has called me a POV-pushing sock. He was stalking my edits on the article "The Magnificent Seven", taking issue with extremely minute details about a sword Akira Kurosawa presented to John Sturges, and he repeatedly insulted me on the talk page. I've seen a ton of other users harassed by him in the same manner or worse. Either the admins or the community need to deal with this and impose some sort of sanctions on him. Wikipedia is supposed to be about cooperation among editors, not anarchy.TH1980 (talk) 18:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

TH1980, the above is a clear revenge edit. Your own history with me was pretty neatly summed up recently when you made a series of personal attacks against me on an article talk page and then when I asked you not to make attacks against me on the article talk page you moved over to my user talk page. You can count on me seeing to your receiving harsh repercussions for this in the near future. Your edits on the two articles you mention were clearly problematic, as about a dozen other users agreed. You should be blocked for this kind of abusive behaviour. Good bye and good luck. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Hijiri88's rants posted in reply to me here speak eloquently as to his disruptive nature.TH1980 (talk) 22:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Rants? Your posts are rants. Your above post indicates that I should be "topic-banned" (site-banned) because I have violated Catflap08's IBAN with me, but all of your examples of me violating the IBAN predate the imposition of the IBAN. You and I have had negative interactions in the past, as well; but how is that evidence at all? About a dozen other editors approved of what I did in those interactions because I was in the right. You need to stop this harassment campaign and go home to whatever "democratically-run" social networking site you are confusing Wikipedia for immediately, or you will find yourself facing similar consequences to the ones you are unilaterally trying to enforce on me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Absolute support for TBAN for Hijiri, neutral on Catflap at this time, pending further evidence of present improper behaviour Like BMK, I would have supported an indef, but we'll see if a short-term ban won't do the trick (I am personally doubtful). This issue has been bounced back to the noticeboards half a dozen times too many. Looking at this present filing, it feel it represents clear evidence for the necessity of a WP:BOOMERANG response in the form of the topic ban that should have been implemented instead of an IBAN in the first place. Hijiri clearly filed this ANI in response to an above-board request by Catflap to have a potential violation of the IBAN reviewed by an uninvolved admin, which is exactly what he is meant to do under those circumstances. Hijiri is now inappropriately presenting that as an IBAN violation itself, which it is not. Likewise, the other diffs and links which Hijiri provides above do not constitute IBAN violations and even if they did, they are all months old, predating older ANI/AN threads on their longstanding battle of wills and, in some cases, the IBAN itself. The "88" reference was unfortunate, but was responded to appropriately back in April, when it occurred (in the context of Hijiri having been involved in protracted hounding of Catflap across multiple spaces for which he (Hijiri) received numerous admin and community warnings); Hijiri bringing all of this up here as ammunition to add bite to his complaints when he otherwise has not evidence of present behavioural issues from Catflap is indicative of his general inability to WP:Drop the stick on this ongoing and highly disruptive drama, and of his tendency to carry a grudge for perceived slights against him by Catflap while failing to own up to his own uncivil and disruptive behaviour. It's become (or indeed, long ago became) abundantly clear that this issue cannot be resolved by an IBAN which cannot keep these two parties apart, and a more effective sanction needs to be implemented--and frankly I think 3 months is a light response, given how long this has been going on without resolution. I'm not entirely against extending the TBAN to Catflap if even a little bit of evidence of present and ongoing misbehaviour is presented for him, but I see none at present. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Counterproposal: Elevate this to ArbCom

• Support as nominator If the prevailing attitude around here is just "ugh I'm so over this" and thus you want to punish both parties when there (as presented so far) is only wrongdoing by one person, then obviously either a) this is not the right forum for you personally to contribute to or b) this is not the right forum to deal with this anymore. I am assuming good faith here, so I am recommending B. We need people willing to roll up their sleeves and take time to look at this from a NPOV. Obviously, the measures so far coming from ANI are a complete failure. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:59, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • No. Arbcom have enough to do and if ANI can't handle this trivial issue, ANI should be closed. Johnuniq (talk) 02:44, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I definitely agree with your second statement. —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to hold my tongue on this for the time being. While I have indeed become very skeptical about the admin corps' ability (or, rather, the ability of the minority of non-admins who actually appear to control ANI) to deal with this issue, a user for whom I have a great deal of respect has told me off-wiki to stay the hell away from ArbCom if humanly possible. (In that case, he said that even though I was right about content, I had the weaker case when it came to talk page etiquette, and ArbCom was according to him inherently biased in favour of the user who had used slightly less foul language. So in fact said user's advice might be irrelevant in this case, where I'm not the one who called the other user a Nazi.)

But for the record, I don't think ANI should be closed -- I think certain users who never contribute anything to the project except hijacking ANI threads without actually looking at the evidence should be blocked, and others who sometimes contribute to the encyclopedia but also cause a lot of trouble hijacking ANI threads without actually looking at the evidence should receive temporary page-bans.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• A proposal to "elevate" something to ArbCom is worthless because it doesn't work like that. If someone thinks there's an ArbCom case here, it can be filed at any time, but since an AN/I discussion is open, they're most likely to hold off on accepting a case until the AN/I is finished or archived or runs our of steam. In any event, it doesn't require a proposal. If Wikimandia (who confusingly signs their posts "Мандичка") think the case should go to ArbCom, then they should go file an ArbCom case, no one's stopping them. BMK (talk) 04:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Vandalism, Sock Puppets?

User:Csalinka, User talk:Csalinka and User:188.36.195.10, User talk:188.36.195.10

These users continue to add destination maps and attempt to change the typo on Nuuk Airport, Zurich Airport, Addis Ababa Bole International Airport, Kangerlussuaq Airport and Presidente Nicolau Lobato International Airport. I have warned the IP and the user. But they don't listen and will not communicate with anyone. They claim that their edits to Presidente Nicolau Lobato International Airport are not vandalism, but they clearly are as they are adding 2000MB bytes of content without providing any sources at all. I also think that User:Csalinka is socking the IP, any further actions would be apprecciated, thanks, RMS52 (talk) 11:38, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Bytes, not MB.--Anders Feder (talk) 11:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but that is not relevant to this. RMS52 (talk) 11:46, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Obviously a factor 1000 error in your accusations against another user is extremely relevant. But it isn't central to it, hence the use of small text.--Anders Feder (talk) 11:57, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

1,000,000 All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:32, 8 August 2015 (UTC). So true.--Anders Feder (talk) 18:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

The user has engaged in discussion at WikiProject Airports over the use of maps. The vast majority of the destinations on Presidente Nicolau Lobato International Airport are unreferenced. Not sure we should be accusing someone of vandalism is their contribs are merely unreffed. If they are demonstrably and consistently wrong, that is another matter. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:32, 8 August 2015 (UTC).

False accusations of being a sock

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

---

Dondervogel 2 keeps on making false accusations of being a sock while reverting my changes. [63] S/he doesn't engage on the talk page. Please help because these constant accusations make it really hard to try to engage in good faith discussions.Glider87 (talk) 17:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

S/hw was warned before that it's a personal attack[64] and I had hoped the person would engage in talk but they reverted back to their pattern of refusing to talk and just reverting with sock accusations.Glider87 (talk) 17:26, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Even after User:Arthur_Rubin tried to help [65] the person Dondervogel 2 still kept on using "sock" personal attacks to revert without talking.Glider87 (talk) 17:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Glider87 is a disruptive single-purpose account that operates together with a second single-purpose account. They typically operate by one of them making a BRD edit. When that edit is challenged the other comes and backs it up, thereby claiming consensus for it. When their “consensus” is challenged they respond with “you are wrong – there is consensus for our change”, citing their mutual support for the change. Recent examples include mosnum [66] and Quantities of bytes [67]. Relevant talk page links include one in which the pair was requested to stop and another that refers back to the findings of earlier sock-puppet investigations. They used to operate in the same way at Thanksgiving [68]. That was a while back but is relevant to one of the sock investigations Dondervogel 2 (talk) 08:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

If you believe these two accounts to be the same, why not just file a sock puppet investigation? Valenciano (talk) 08:57, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I put a lot of effort, years ago, to help Omegatron demonstrate that DavidPaulHamilton was a sock from the same stable. That effort resulted in a) DavidPaulHamilton being blocked, b) the sockmaster free to continue with endless new accounts, and c) a valuable editor (Omegatron) leaving Wikipedia in disgust. As a result I lost all faith in WP dispute resolution, and that is why I have not done what you suggest. I left too for a year or so, but decided to come back. Would it have been better to stay away? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 09:44, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

It's better that you've returned. I understand your frustration as I've been trying to keep a banned user and prolific sock creator off articles on my watchlist with the same result, they disappear but return a month or two later with new accounts. However, this is an inconvenience to them and so yes, it's best to keep plugging away by reporting obvious socks or contacting an administrator if accounts are disruptive and clearly WP:NOTHERE. Valenciano (talk) 10:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

As the disruptive SPA has now reported itself, I'm hoping no further action is needed from me. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 10:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Legal threats on Talk:Ketchapp

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

---

77.207.173.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

An IP claiming to be the CEO of Ketchapp has asked at Talk:Ketchapp that Wikipedia "remove Ketchapp page because all information are incorrect" and has added that "We will take legal actions if necessary against Wikipedia." --McGeddon (talk) 19:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

The IP is User:77.207.173.119. Also note that he was warned after making that threat on his own talk page, which I deleted. 99.53.112.186 (talk) 19:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll check the sourcing to verify that there isn't a legitimate concern here. ~ Rob^Talk 19:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I can see why the company wants to suppress this, but it's been widely reported that they're stealing the ideas of developers, and all claims in the article have been sourced. I've done some tweaking to achieve more neutral language, and there's probably a little more work to be done to comply with WP:NPOV, but there are no unsourced negative statements in that article. ~ Rob^Talk 19:46, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed; the article seems reliably sourced, and your efforts are much appreciated, Rob. If this IP (who probably is the CEO; why would someone pretend to be him?) keeps it up, he should be blocked per policy. North of Eden (talk) 19:52, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I did discover a somewhat significant inaccuracy in the article. A blockquote was previously placed in the article with a citation that was allegedly from a developer whose game was stolen. The citation supported that the developer did claim the game was stolen, but the specific quote, which was strongly worded, was nowhere in the citation. I've removed the quote and reworded that section. I'm not sure whether this matters when it comes to the legal threats, but there was somewhat of a legitimate issue here. ~ Rob^Talk 19:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• That sounds good. Perhaps it will allay the IP's concerns. North of Eden (talk) 20:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: I think you're talking about the one I added. It was referenced by the source I included. This post is where I got the quote from. Anarchyte 00:09, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Without such a negative quote or claim being thoroughly covered by reliable secondary sources, including a statement as strong as "a ripoff" provides undue weight to that view, in my opinion. The actual source you cited in the article did not include the quote. This can be covered on the talk page, though, rather than ANI. ~ Rob^Talk 00:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

The IP has now been blocked by Doc James for making legal threats. This can probably be closed by an uninvolved editor, unless there are any remaining issues. ~ Rob^Talk 20:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Harrassment, Race-Baiting Personal Attacks, Edit-Warring and NPOV Violations

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

User:Binksternet and User:Roscelese are tag-teaming me, as retaliation for an edit I made at SPLC that they hate.

After I added a one-sentence, NPOV edit to SPLC, “In a 2010 book-length issue of exposés devoted entirely to the SPLC, the journal The Social Contract dubbed the SPLC, “Profiteers of Hate”[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Southern_Poverty_Law_Center&oldid=675227514), User:Roscelese immediately reverted me, with the highly POV explanation, “The fact that this is the journal of a white supremacist group is just a coincidence, of course.” (Roscelese, while vandalizing SPLC.)

I undid his revert, whereupon he got his crony User:Binksternet to threaten and intimidate me on my talk page.

“Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Southern Poverty Law Center, you may be blocked from editing. Binksternet (talk) 05:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)”

I responded,

“(Warning: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Southern Poverty Law Center.)” (Binksternet)

“The fact that this is the journal of a white supremacist group is just a coincidence, of course.” (Roscelese, while vandalizing SPLC.) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Southern_Poverty_Law_Center&oldid=675227077 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Roscelese

“The foregoing is an example of blatant, POV editing. I did nothing of the sort. I also added no ‘personal analysis’ whatsoever. I simply added NPOV material that contradicted the SPLC advertisement that you and your cronies seek to maintain. You are clearly bullying and threatening me (not to mention projecting like crazy!), in violation of numerous WP rules, on behalf of your political ally, Roscelese. How many times have you already been blocked, for just such unethical behavior?2604:2000:9061:3800:F4C4:E64B:61B1:60B4 (talk) 05:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)” https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ABinksternet

User:Roscelese also insinuated that I am somehow a “white supremacist.”

I would appreciate if User:Binksternet and User:Roscelese would be ordered to cease and desist in their harrassment, edit-warring, vicious, personal attacks and blatant NPOV violations.2604:2000:9061:3800:F4C4:E64B:61B1:60B4 (talk) 07:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, IS it a white supremacist journal? You left us hanging. Parabolist (talk) 07:46, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

No. But don't take my word for it--read it yourself.2604:2000:9061:3800:F4C4:E64B:61B1:60B4 (talk) 10:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• See this post by Doug Weller at WP:AE. That confirms that a very banned user is currently active, and it is likely that throw-away IPs will post rants at various articles and noticeboards for a few days (example). Johnuniq (talk) 07:48, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I do not appreciate your insinuation that I am a banned user’s sockpuppet. Either say it openly, or retract your insinuation.2604:2000:9061:3800:F4C4:E64B:61B1:60B4 (talk) 10:48, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I've just deleted the IP's personal attacks at Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center with an edit summary saying that it is ok to mention, in an impartial manner, that an issue has been raised here. Roscelese's removal of content was of course not vandalism. Doug Weller (talk) 08:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted race-baiting soapboxing on Talk:John Derbyshire by the complainant which has little to do with the article [69], and the IP has restored it [70]. I don't, however, think this is a sock account, it should be judged by its own actions and should probably be subject to AE sanctions. Acroterion (talk) 12:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

We have The Social Contract Press which includes the sentence "In response, the Social Contract Press devoted its Spring 2010 issue criticizing the SPLC, calling them "profiteers of hate"." added as a 1-off edit by an IP 4 years ago. Searches for this publication only pull up a very small number of hits, suggesting it is WP:UNDUE even in its own article and obviously in the SPLC article. Doug Weller (talk) 13:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• The fact that this IP took Bink and me to ANI after one revert each strongly supports the idea that this is a sock, actually. I didn't think it before, but I'm thinking it now. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
• Sock or not, this guy is hateful and WP:NOTHERE. Nothing to do but block him. Binksternet (talk) 15:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support NOTHERE block for the IP. BMK (talk) 01:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit request of SummerSlam (2015)

Could an administrator please place the following matches to SummerSlam (2015)

Bray Wyatt & Luke Harper vs. Dean Ambrose & Roman Reigns - Source: [71] and Intercontinental Champion Ryback vs. Big Show vs. The Miz (Triple Threat Match) - Source: [72]

Thanks! TheGRVOfLightning (talk) 09:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@TheGRVOfLightning: Please make your request at Talk:SummerSlam (2015). Sam Walton (talk) 10:55, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@Samwalton9: Many have tried this. The page has not been edited however. TheGRVOfLightning (talk) 11:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Qualified eyes needed at Bhakt

I have no idea what this term means, however this edit got my attention real quick. Anyone out there able to verify this information given? If its a POV or OR related then it needs to be reverted (or perhaps redacted), but as I said that depends on whether or not the info is in fact correct (which is beyond my ability to judge). TomStar81 (Talk) 10:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I reverted the edit, since it (more or less) duplicated the lede with added POV. I considered this link to be a "dead giveaway". Kleuske (talk) 11:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Everyday someone comes up wit a new term, this is one of those. It's not OR, just that one writer wrote an article using the term, a few newspapers picked it up and the rest is history as we cover everything in this place. WP:NOTNEWS should be retired soon. I'll post at WT:INB and anyone interested can edit the article. —SpacemanSpiff 14:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

User:City Government/sandbox

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

---

This page appears to be a legal threat. Someone might want to check out Jerry Speziale too, it might have issues but I don't know anything about the subject matter. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Definitely a legal threat. So why hasn't the user been blocked yet? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Page nominated for speedy deletion as a legal threat and blanked as a courtesy (since legal threat pages are G10 variants), user warned with {{uw-legal}} and reported to UAA as username that implies shared use. Nothing else to do here. --TL22 (talk) 15:48, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

There is now a thread at WP:COIN about this (see here), and the sandbox was deleted -- Orduin ^Discuss 17:03, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Sonam K Sonam

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

---

• Sonam K Sonam (talk · contribs)

Repeated BLP violations, continuing after multiple warnings. It looks a lot like there's sock/meat-puppetry going on as well. I'm going to continue to go through the latest round of edits from this account, then follow up here. --Ronz (talk) 15:58, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I quickly looked through all the edits since the last warning 17:04, 7 August 2015. I'm not sure what to make of it. There's outright misrepresentation of sources [73], which uses http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/Ive-been-like-a-gypsy-shares-Nargis-Fakhri/articleshow/21860544.cms with the title "I grew up...spiritual" to source Nargis Fakhri as being Muslim, which it simply does not do. I'm not seeing such blatant problems in every edit. I've notified the others who left Sonam the warnings know about this discussion. --Ronz (talk) 16:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Improper blocks by Floquenbeam

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

---

In this edit Floquenbeam indicated that s/he had or was about to block Cityside189 and The Editor of All Things Wikipedia, as the block log shows was done.

There is no checkuser evidence. There is no behavioral evidence of either of these editors being associated or acting similarly to any specified banned or blocked user. The only evidence against was that editor's fairly detailed knowledge of Wikipedia, and his rather disruptive attitude. The only evidence against Cityside189 was that s/he was a new editor caught up in the disruption caused by TEoATW's efforts to "mediate" at WP:DRN and that s/he complained about this at the Teahouse and on the talk pages of admins and experienced editors who had posted about the matter. Oh and that Cityside189 showed some knowledge of Wikipedia, although not nearly as much as TEoATW. And Cityside189 had stated previous editing experience as an IP, and had indeed identified particular edits.

All of this evidence was presented in the #Help thread above. Blocks were suggested there, and there was no consensus for them. Sockpuppetry was suggested there, and there was no consensus that it was going on.

We make extensive efforts to document Wikipedia's policies and practices. Sometimes an intelligent verbally-oriented editor can actually pick up on this, and imitate notices and standard responses and actions, without long experience. We are not a secret club where outsiders need to petition humbly for admission. Competence and knowledge are not valid signs of suspicion, without more.

I stand ready to unblock Cityside189, who has not been disruptive in any way, and IMO shows every sign of being a potentially productive editor, provided we haven't driven him away already. If I don't see some better evidence in a few hours, i am going to unblock. I would also like to see an apology from Floquenbeam for this highly improper block.

While I think the block of The Editor of All Things Wikipedia was also improper, I can't argue that s/he was a productive editor. Still we had a consensus above to try a regime of restrictions in the case of this editor, and this block flies in the face of that consensus. if there had been new evidence, not known to the participants of the ANI thread (such as a checkuser confirmation) that would be a different matter. But this is purely a speculative judgement as to what a new user would or would not do. Floquenbeam does not get to make such judgements unilaterally, agaist the expressed consensus already and recently formed.

I ask Floquenbeam to reverse these blocks. Failing that, I ask consensus to overturn both blocks. DES ^(talk) 18:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Taking a look at this, I agree. @Floquenbeam: Innocent until proven guilty; while there may be a link, we need to let CU check this out. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 18:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• I am not going to unblock a troll so he can continue to waste the time of productive editors. If you want to do so, be my guest; I'm not claiming permanent infallibility yet. I saw the results of the ANI thread above, and was content to see if Beeb's proposal would work. At the time, I figured there was an 80%-90% chance we were being trolled, and was surprised it wasn't obvious to everyone, but whatever. However, after seeing their interaction with Cityside189, I'm 100% sure. If you want a few more specific reasons why I'm sure, I can provide them - on wiki if you insist, so they can adjust their behavior next time - but I'm pretty surprised that the additional info at the SPI isn't convincing. If you do unblock, be prepared to apologize to the people who are going to further waste their time with this person. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • If you have additional reasons please provide them. I'd prefer on-wiki, but my email is enabled. However i reserve the right to post any such email on-wiki unless it contains personal identifying information, or other content covered by the privacy policy. DES ^(talk) 19:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Really? What good is e-mailing you if you "reserve the right" to nullify Floquenbeam's discretion by posting his information on wiki? Did you not take in the point about not teaching the trolls to adjust their behavior next time? Bishonen | talk 19:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC).

Yes i took the point. I don't think much of it. Evidence should be public to support public accusations, except in a very few circumstances. DES ^(talk) 19:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

There is no possible way that a good faith newbie, regardless of cluelessness, can:

• Think that he has blocked another editor. There is no block button for him to think he could push. Did he think he did it using mind control?
• Know how to look up where admins rank on "all time list" of editors by edit count.
• Constantly say they are acting "per wiki policy" or "per wiki guidelines" when they aren't even coming close. And then saying "oh, that's what I thought it said" when caught. This isn't misinterpreting, this is deliberate BS-ing.
• Ask for an advanced permission 11 times. No rational mature human thinks this is OK, newbie or not.
• Think, after 10 edits, that they can reasonably tell another editor to be "ready to hear my interpretation of your behavior and submit to my supervision of your activities". Particularly when, a few minutes before, they were expressing fear and asking for help about this "frightening user".

The odds of two such people (who, individually, should be blocked for lack of competence anyway) interacting is such a silly way is vanishingly small. This morning, I thought there was an 80% chance this was trolling, I'm up to 100%. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:06, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

All of the above actions, except for your last point, were done by TEoATW. None by Cityside189. You say that both "individually, should be blocked for lack of competence anyway" what lack of competence did Cityside189 display that was blockworthy. I really think that Cityside189 was collateral damage here, and that the evidence that Cityside189 is in any way involved with TEoATW, as sock or meat or associate, is laughably thin. DES ^(talk) 19:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

You speak of what a 'rational person' would do, but not everyone is as rational as we might like. i have encountered at least one editor here, and indeed tried to mentor him, who was every bit as irrational as TEoATW seemed to be, if not more so. As for your contrast between 'fear" and "atempted domination", aren't you aware of the very human pattern of bluster and bravado in the face of fear? In any case, i ask just what Cityside189 did to disrupt the project. DES ^(talk) 19:26, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

You really think the encyclopedia would benefit from someone who thinks, after editing for two days, that he can demand other editors be "ready to hear my interpretation of your behavior and submit to my supervision of your activities"? I'm amazed. Not rhetorically amazed, but actually amazed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:29, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I point out that he didn't demand that of "other editors", he demanded it of ONE editor who he perceived as harassing him, and only as a condition of continued interaction. He said that if TEoATW didn't like that, simply stay off his talk page, which he would have been fully entitled to demand without any conditions. DES ^(talk) 19:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: True, but we should keep in mind that (according to him, anyway), he's a teenager, and with rare exceptions what else is to be expected from teenagers? I would like to remind everyone about Thine Antique Pen, who started in a similar fashion and has since matured into what I believe to be a very productive editor. (He certainly has credit for more GAs than I could ever hope to have.) Hopefully this is a similar case and with some mentoring (as I and one other editor were selected to do) he'll become a better editor. This is assuming, of course, that this account is not a sockpuppet. If it is that's an entirely different story, but seeing that he has asked to be checkusered, I'm not sure that he really is a sockpuppet... --Biblioworm (talk) 20:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Did I miss something? It was The Editor of Everything Wikipedia who filed the SPI, and requested the CU on his user page aftre being blocked. Where did Cityside request a CU? BMK (talk) 20:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Regarding the likelihood of socking, we have more than ample evidence that TEoATW enjoyed having some degree of power over others. The desire to jump into DRN, pronouncing "I am the mediator" and such (even though experienced volunteers know that they are afforded no special autority, per policy) speaks for itself; so does the record of "banning" and blocking. User:Cityside189 has behaved almost identically in his "discussion" with TEoATW, saying "I am the Teacher and you are the Learner"[74] and generally acting like some kind of e-potentate. It's too similar to be unrelated. Plus, Cityside's talk about how TEoATW is always so "fast" is very similar to TEoATW's own defenses on the initial ANI thread. North of Eden (talk) 20:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• Floquenbeam's instincts are very good in these situations, but since others are in disagreement, I recommend that CU look at this quickly. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:43, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
• I'm certainly not uninvolved, but I think Floquenbeam's blocks were well-founded and correct; I would be surprised if checkuser turns up anything different. North of Eden (talk) 18:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • For the record, I endorse the blocks. North of Eden (talk) 19:17, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse blocks - I agree with Newyorkbrad that Flo's instincts are very good in these situations. Cityside189 did exactly what socks do when they know they're socking. The user is likely someone who has haunted Roscelese before. The Editor of All Things Wikipedia is an obvious troll, obviously. It amazes me how much time we're willing to waste on such users. - MrX 18:59, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse block - Floquenbeam did what absolutely needed to be done. I'm sorry that DES disagrees with that, but those arethe facts as I see them, and there was plenty of support for an indef block -- if not a consesnsus -- before the latest "submit to me" nonsense began. There is really no other reasonable interpretation for what those two were doing: sockpuppets, meatpuppets, trolls, ventiloquist act, whatever, they were clearly WP:NOTHERE. BMK (talk) 19:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse blocks All of the AGF to help the editors was for naught. I would note that CUs are not foolproof. Add to that the fact that these two could be meatpuppets rather than socks. In any event both accounts proved that they were WP:NOTHERE. MarnetteD|Talk 19:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • What exactly did Cityside189 do to establish that he was WP:NOTHERE? diffs pleaase> DES ^(talk) 19:29, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
    • 13th edit, 14th edit, 17th edit. The pattern is one we see again and again from sockpuppets. I can't be more specific than that.- MrX 20:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
    • (ec) Please read this conversation . Cityside says to Editor of the Known Universe:

      If you want to really dialog, you should be ready to hear my interpretation of your behavior and submit to my supervision of your activities. You should be prepared to take action to do new things, and you should be prepared to stop doing things even if you think you shouldn't have to. You may have to stretch out of your comfort zone. If you want my dialog and support here on Wikipedia, you will have to agree up front to do whatever I say to do, and refrain from doing whatever I say to refrain from doing. If you don't like the ideas of this or think it's wrong, or simply disagree, then I will not dialog with you or support you, and I probably will share my views with important wikipedia administrators that you should be removed from Wikipedia. So it's up to you. (emphasis added)

      Tell me this is normal conversation from one newbie editor to another. "You [must] submit to my supervision of your activities ... You have to agree upfront to do whatever I say to you." Can't you tell when someone's performing for you, taking the piss, doing their schtick? BMK (talk) 20:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse blocks, and yes, Floquenbeam has good instincts in these sorts of situations. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse blocks, respectfully disagreeing with DES. Strongly endorse block of TEOATW. Endorse block of Cityside189. The argument of TEOATW that we failed to assume good faith is judicial jujitsu, an attempt to use the strength of a judicial or quasi-judicial system against it, but the claim to have been acting in good faith is incredible, that is, undeserving of belief by a serious rational human being. Mediating a dispute without qualification is one thing; that could have been in good faith. Banning an editor from a topic, and issuing a block notice when there is no block button, cannot be believed to be good faith. The problem is not that we failed to assume good faith, but that we assumed good faith too long, before Floquenbeam put two plus two together and realized that two editors with equal experience were arguing with each other to create maximum drama, and in the process disrupting the real efforts to resolve content disputes. The audacity of Cityside189 in requesting Checkuser may indeed mean that they are two human beings in collusion, acting as good hand and bad hand, rather than one human being acting as good hand and bad hand. In any case, it is very clear that TEOATW was trying to disrupt, and was succeeding. Maybe Cityside189 should be unblocked under mentorship; maybe not, but the block was all right. Endorse blocks, and respectfully disagree with DES. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:41, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
• Additional data point, in case anyone is wavering: [75], last sentence. If that isn't trolling, I don't know what is. I suggest declining the unblock request and removal of talk page access as a timesink, but I won't do it myself. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:58, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse blocks, temporarily. A checkuser should be done immediately, and if the user is not found to be a sockmaster, then I will no longer endorse them, although I will continue to support the restrictions previously imposed. --Biblioworm (talk) 20:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
• Note: Since the SPI case was closed, all of the people saying a checkuser is needed should summon one. I think the incantation is {{Checkuser needed}}. I don't need a Checkuser - my decision is independent of any pro or con CU results - so I won't do it myself. But others might want to use it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
• I am more concerned about Cityside189 and not really concerned about that other user that could, in my opinion, stay blocked regardless of CU results. It isn't clear that Cityside189 is a sock. And because others seem to think the same:{{Checkuser needed}}.--Müdigkeit (talk) 20:18, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support block of TEOATW, oppose block of Cityside189- the evidence doesn't say it's a duck IMO, so a CU should be run. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: @Müdigkeit: I endorsed a ChecUser check at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/The Editor of All Things Wikipedia, so I de-templated your request for CheckUser. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:30, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for reconsidering. BMK (talk) 20:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse block. AGF is not a suicide pact, Checkuser is not magic wiki pixie dust, and "innocent until proven guilty" is the standard applied in Western criminal justice, not in maintaining the smooth running of a private website. Obviously experienced, obviously disruptive—whether Cityside189 is a sockpuppet, a meatpuppet, or just a wilfully disruptive troll there is no good reason to waste more time on him. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • (ec again) A point I tried to make but got EC'd. Even if the CU comes back with no connection, the blocks should stand. The Editor for trolling, disruption and tendentious editing and Cityscape for WP:NOTHERE. There's plenty of back-up for those blocks, and little indication of positive value to offset it. BMK (talk) 20:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
• Optional semi-related productive activity: This article, Cityside's first edit, seems to have problems; target of a lot of single edit vandals, and parts of it "sound" copied from somewhere, if you know what I mean. I know it upsets people when I attempt to use my instincts, but something seems off. Is this article mentioned in a blog/reddit/etc. somewhere? I'm too tired of this place to dig into it, and am going outside to sit in the sun and regenerate my faith in mankind, but someone fresh should take a look. Seems like a bunch of VOA blocks and a check for copyrighted text might be useful. Oddly enough, the bearded dragon named Harry Potter appears to be true... but it also appears to be copied from an Amazon "about the author" page. p.s. Go easy on the original author, there's no reason to think she's involved in the socking, and newbies can't be expected to know about copyright. See, I can assume good faith, when it's reasonable to do so... --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:43, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse blocks regardless of whether they are socks are not. I don't think it even matters at this point. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
• Comment – A Checkuser should be run on TEOATW to determine if they are Cityside189. We don’t need a Checkuser on Cityside189, because Cityside189 complained at the Teahouse about being tag-teamed and bullied on LGBT parenting as an IP editor, so we know their IP block. At first I thought that Cityside189 was an inexperienced editor assuming bad faith who needed to be reasoned with, and to be told not to yell "censorship" to "win" a content dispute, and who had a valid complaint about having a DRN thread hijacked by TEOATW. At this point, the timing of when TEOATW started editing and when the IP who became Cityside189 began editing is either an odd coincidence or no coincidence. I would further submit that if Cityside189 wants to edit, they should file their own block appeal. We don’t need proxy block appeal drama here. TEOATW has already done enough damage beyond sockpuppetry that the block should stand. That is my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:54, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
• Checkuser comment: Results are inconclusive. No further information can reasonably be provided without violating the privacy of one or both accounts. Risker (talk) 21:57, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
• Given the inconclusive results, I think there's a consensus here that both of Floquenbeam's blocks should stand. As many have indicated, he perfomed the blocks on more than ample evidence. A read-through of both the first AN/I thread and the SPI indicate that both TEoATW and Cityside189 are not here to improve the encyclopedia and may well be socks or meats to boot. In any event, their interaction at User talk:Cityside189 evidences a highly suspicious connection. North of Eden (talk) 22:18, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
• I am still totally unconvinced by the "evidence" presented here, especially against Cityside189. Franky I think the main fault of both editors was not socking but being excessively annoying. However I doubt that anyone here will admit that to themselves, let alone publicly. I could continue to try to refute the arguments presented, such as they are, but I rather doubt that anyone would be persuaded. I think an unblock would be within policy, but there is clearly now a consensus against it, and wrong as I feel he block of Cityside189 is, I won't take admin action against consensus. I draw your attention to the comments since the block on User talk:Cityside189. I have tasks here that I promised to complete, then we will see. I'll probably continue editing, but just now the whole thing feels dead. I really thought that this was a place where reason would generally prevail over emotion. I am sorry to be proved wrong. I ask people, if you were reviewing a BLP article, and it included the text "John Doe operated a sock puppet on Wikipedia", citing the same statements and evidence in the ANI threads and the SPI here against Cityside189, would you let the statement stand? Sleep well, if you can. DES ^(talk) 23:16, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, you're certainly right. Nothing was their fault, it was our fault for being "annoyed." (Wait, isn't that sorta the definition of WP:Disruptive editing?)
    Yours is about the most facile "analysis" I've seen in a month of Sundays, and deeply disappointing coming from a ten-year admin.
    Both blocks should stand, per my argument above. BMK (talk) 23:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I respect DES's intentions, and his tenacity is admirable. But indeffing presumable socks ("No further information can be provided without potentially violating the privacy of one or both accounts" is not exactly vindication) isn't like we're giving someone the death penalty without a fair trial. And Wikipedia is not a democracy and it is not a criminal justice system. Ultimately, folks are supposed to be here to build and maintain an encyclopedia. Both editors (or the editor) involved here showed less interest in these goals than in asserting themselves as authority figures and engaging in petty disputes. I, for one, will be sleeping just fine. North of Eden (talk) 00:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse blocks There is no need to determine whether someone is a troll or is accidentally behaving like a troll—either way, such contributors suck up too much time and energy and the community should move on. Johnuniq (talk) 23:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• Yep. Alas, DES has gone down this road before. As someone said above, WP:PACT. - Sitush (talk) 23:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• "sleep well, if you can" oh the humanity. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

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

CIR at Bhumihar

Please can someone review the efforts of Chrishitch (talk · contribs), in particular at Talk:Bhumihar. While this is underpinned by a content dispute, the real problem seems to be one of competence and tendentiousness. They seem unable to comprehend what our article says regarding the various theories of origin for that caste. We're getting long screeds and after Bgwhite closed the first discussion, Chrishitch began all over again. They still do not understand what our article says and seem to think that the source is giving one theory when in fact it is examining several.

They've had an explanatory note from Bgwhite on their talk page and also formal notification of WP:GS/Caste. They're the latest in a long line of people who have tried to change this reliably sourced article, most apparently being members of the caste in question and several being socks.

We're well into WP:CIR territory and I'm likely to lose my temper sooner rather than later, having kept a lid on it thus far. - Sitush (talk) 20:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there are certainly problems of competence, and at the same time some indications that they're not a new user. I've asked about those indications on their page. Just take it easy, please, Sitush. Sit on the lid. Bishonen | talk 22:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC).

Oh, the indications were there from an early stage and I am gratified to see that someone else has spotted that they might exist. But even without those, this is something that probably should not have required me to raise the issue here. By my standards, which I realise some people think are not that high, I'm sitting remarkably firmly on the lid. It does look like I need yet another break, during which the rubbish will continue to flood umpteen caste-related articles and be accepted by experienced contributors who tinker round the edges with gnomish edits etc, making it harder to spot the real issues that underlie their well-intentioned efforts. They mean well but we really do need to clamp down in this area, especially regarding WP:V - if an addition is not reliably sourced then bin it.

We've lost several of the few admins who take an interest in that area and I'm afraid that it means WP:GS/Caste will lack the support that it should have, sans frequent referrals here. - Sitush (talk) 23:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Be more specific than "please review his efforts." The talk page is over 100k, incomprehensible in many places and there's IP addresses, and numerous unsigned comments. Please do a little more than say "look at the talk page" and pointing to a discussion that was closed (without a single link in the discussion to the source in question) and reopened again. Did you ask User:Bgwhite (an administrator who seemed to have forgotten a signature to the close) about it? I still have no idea in all the edits all over the place what is the problematic article edit at issue here (if any). I have zero idea of its a legitimate issue with both sources or just nonsense all around or what. The editor's conduct at Patna seems fine so I don't know what's going on and what sort of ban or block or protection if any is appropriate. As someone who deals with plenty of this caste idiocy, other admins aren't going to jump in if you don't make the discussion easier enough to follow than "here's an editor editing an caste issue, please help." It may be obvious to you what are reliable sources and what are people spouting unsourced dogma about every caste being kings and whatever nonsense de jour but ANI is basically fly-by-screen admins requests. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that useless commentary, Ricky81682. You clearly cannot see the wood for the trees; for example, the incomprehensibility is a part of the CIR problem with their edits. Please don't bother responding to me in future. - Sitush (talk) 06:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring, violation of sanctions, BLP violations

User:JudgeJason has been involved in edit warring at the BLP of British politician Jeremy Corbyn, by repeatedly inserting statements without consensus, using excuses such as " no reason given to exclude". The information is not relevant as it relates to unsubstantiated claims that Corbyn has received financial benefits from a legal charity. I have not reverted his most recent change to avoid a permanent edit war. I have repeatedly asked the editor to take the matter to talk. User:JudgeJason has already been warned by User:John over his edit warring and also advised of the WP:ARBPIA sanctions.

• User:JudgeJason is repeatedly inserting disputed material without consensus, such as here and here, despite this matter having been taken to talk with no consensus to include.
• These matters relate to WP:ARBPIA, and his conduct is in violation of those sanctions
• The information being inserted is a possibly violation of WP:BLP. The High Court has found claims that the legal charity support Hamas are seriously libellous. The Court found the Sunday Express guilty of libel for the same allegations now being made in a BLP.
• User:JudgeJason has used edit summaries such as "stop censoring inconvenient facts" and "and supports Hezbollah. don't censor", in further violation of BLP, when refusing to discuss this matter with other editors
• User:JudgeJason has a history of edit warring and politically-motivated edits, as his recent edits prove
• In addition, despite the High Court judgement, User:JudgeJason initially sought to link the charity, and Corbyn by association, to Hamas in Corbyn's BLP. AusLondonder (talk) 23:58, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, I have already sought to discuss this with JudgeJason on his talk page, however he has refused to revert his edits. AusLondonder (talk) 00:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Eik Corell blocking TALK PAGE discussion by repeatedly erasing it

This member is involved in a revert war on List of Internet forums and has erased the entire discussion to resolve it on the talk page three times. In erasing the talk page he refers to a call to arms on a messageboard to war with wikipedia.

Removing irrelevant blahblahlah courtesy of this tribalwar.com/forums/archive/t-680335.html thread
[diff3]

[diff2]

[diff1]

72.181.218.181 (talk) 00:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I asked the editor. However, the problem is that the "categories" column is entirely made-up WP:OR so I've removed the entire column. I opened it up on the talk page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I saw the user forcing their edits through and threatening to get admins involved against anyone stopping them. Combined with the meatpuppetry here[76], it seemed logical to just remove the entry since pretty much any time video game forum members flood to a Wikipedia article, it usually only serves as a space to rant and rave at each other, especially when the thread above was what brought them here. Eik Corell (talk) 13:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm a long time contributor to that thread. I was not involved in the article edit war. I was the one to request admin assistance to stop the fight and I was trying to get the debate onto the TALK PAGE and off the article edit page. Thats my understanding of the resolution process. I don't know of anything in the dispute resolution process that recommends erasing a lengthy discussion among many editors on a talk page - three times - regardless of who is participating and what side of the dispute they are on. I don' agree with the meatpuppetry and I was the person first identified that there was a solicitation on the message-board to "fight". 72.181.218.181 (talk) 13:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Legal Threat by Craxd1

The following post by User:Craxd1 appears to be a legal threat. It says that the legal action will may be by others, not by the poster, but it appears to be intended nonetheless to have a chilling effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAbel_Clarin_de_la_Rive&type=revision&diff=675322010&oldid=675151351

Recommend a block at least until original poster understands the threat policy and reconsiders.

By the way, the original poster also has a frivolous request for arbitration, but appears to be about to withdraw it.  Done

Changing wording in a way that doesn't make a difference. NLT is NLT. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Robert McClenon (talk) 00:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

First, has the legal threat been resolved or not? Your done checkmark is more confusing than helpful. Third, next time, can you quote the actual threat instead of this vagueness? There's no actual words "legal action" used there and I'm not generally in the mood to read hundred-word screeds of round-about language like that but you aren't helping and are being equally if not more vague here. Don't mis-quote with words that aren't there and ignore what the editor actually says expecting others to read your mind. The editor says "I catch you at it again, and you'll be before the Arbitration Committee as fast as you can say Jesus" which is not a legal threat per se but a Wikipedia threat (which sounds ominously like a legal threat to some people). The editor goes on and on and I don't care but fine, the "libelous" bullshit is enough for me to block for now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Improper revert by User:Calidum

Since 2005, the infobox at Hillary Clinton has used the full name, Hillary Rodham Clinton, which was also the title of the article until a move request earlier this year. Following that move, it was proposed that the infobox name should be changed, and the infobox was in fact changed back and forth several times until User:Bearian randomly locked the article at a stage where the infobox included the proposed change. After a long discussion on the matter at Talk:Hillary Clinton, User:Sandstein closed the discussion, finding that there was no consensus for a change. In accordance with WP:NO CONSENSUS, which states that "[i]n discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit", I restored the status quo ante. This was immediately reverted by Calidum with the assertion that the closer apparently intended something other than the "no consensus" finding in the close. I request that Calidum's improper revert of my policy-based restoration of the status quo ante be reversed, and that he be advised against further edit-warring on the matter. bd2412 T 00:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I neither took part in the discussion nor !voted in the RFC, but I can see that your interpretation is wrong and you are misrepresenting some facts. The closer's intent is obvious: "That means we have a majority for "HC", but not consensus, but even less of a consensus to change the current (as of this writing) status of "HC"" (my bolding for emphasis). Calidum's revert was in line with the closing. If you have an issue with the closer's version of what the proper status quo is, you should ask him to review his closure.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 00:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see that bd2412 has misrepresented anything. What do you feel was misrepresented? Omnedon (talk) 01:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@WilliamThweatt: I did ask the closing admin to review the prior status of the page, but he has lost interest and washed his hands of it. The fact that he referenced the "as of this writing" status indicates that he was unaware that this was not the status of the article before the dispute arose. Editors should not be able to game the system by edit warring until an article gets stuck on their preferred version, and use that to effect a disputed change without consensus. bd2412 T 01:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

For some background I would like to point out a previous ANI thread on the matter and the successful move request that proceeded it. Back to the matter at hand, the name parameter of an article's infobox almost always matches the title. To deny that a move request would also affect parts of the article (infobox included) is WP:WIKILAWYERING and a violation of WP:NOTBURO. The title parameter of the infobox matched the article's title for the past decade and a no consensus close reinforces that that should continue -- in this case meaning the infobox should say "Hillary Clinton." That was how I interpreted Sandstein's closure. I have also already asked about this on Sandstein's talk page. A simple solution would be to have another admin or panel of admins review the relevant RFC, provided Sandstein does not object. Calidum T|C 01:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Anyone who thought that was the case should have brought it up during the move request. There is no policy stating that an absence of consensus ties the infobox name to the page title. There is a status quo ante visible throughout the article history, and that is all that "the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal" has ever meant. bd2412 T 01:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Please don't obfuscate the actual issue here, Calidum, by re-arguing the RFC. There was no consensus. We're all agreed on that.

The status quo ante was HRC. Calidium and colleagues were edit-warring to impose HC when the article was protected and an RFC was raised. The wording of Sandstein's close is ambiguous, and will just draw this thing out even more. User:Sandstein, clarify what you mean. Your present wording is being used by Calidium and colleagues to push their bold change onto the article, despite no consensus. Is that what you intended? Be clear.

I really don't see how there can be no consensus for a change from HRC to HC but "even less consensus" to retain HRC, unless you are just referring to the numbers (15 !votes vs. 20 !votes). If you intend to sit on your hands here and just let this thing fester and consume more and more ordinarily-productive editors' time, I consider that to be grossly irresponsible.

It looks very much like you didn't notice what the status quo ante was when you made your decision. That's fine. I don't think it was mentioned in the RFC. But if that's the reason for your odd comment in the close, please explain that and clarify your meaning and save us all a lot of time. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

We might agree it was closed as no consensus, but we clearly disagree on what no consensus means in this instance since the closer said " less of a consensus to change the current (as of this writing) status of 'HC.'" Given that, it's hardly irrelevant to provide background on the dispute since BD's real issue here seems to be the RFC itself and not my single revert. Calidum T|C 01:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Your "single revert" imposed the change for which there was no consensus. If you would like to create a rule requiring the infobox to match the article title, go ahead and propose that somewhere. This dispute is not the vehicle to create a new rule. bd2412 T 02:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Rereading this, it's now beginning to look to me like you acknowledge there is no consensus and you are aware of the status quo ante but, because there is a majority in favour of HC, you think the article should be changed from the status quo ante (HRC to HC). Is that what's going on here, User:Sandstein? All very confusing. Please clarify. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

As the RfC closer, I did not take into account any status quo ante, but only attempted to determine what, if any, consensus, emerged from the RfC itself. The position of RfC closer gives me no particular authority beyond that, so I don't see why I should have any determinations to make regarding the past or future of the article. How to proceed, and what if any weight to give my opinion, is now a matter for interested editors to determine through the editorial process, which last I checked does not involve this noticeboard. If it helps, I don't object to other admins re-examining the RfC.  Sandstein  04:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. So, since the closer finds no consensus for the change, we continue with the status quo ante until such time as a consensus to change becomes evident, per WP:NO CONSENSUS. I'll go and restore the status quo ante now. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Done. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I am no longer a sysop, so I don't have the magic buttons any more. Also, at the time, I was not supporting the subject, but now I am a proud supporter of Hillary Rodham Clinton for President. That being said, the clear consensus has been that HRC is her name and initials. Bearian (talk) 12:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Administrative assistance with edit filter needed

An edit filter is blocking my attempts to add relevant entries to Shit (disambiguation), citing "Addition of bad words". Perhaps the filter could be modified to add an exception for pages whose titles contain "bad words". I posted about this problem nearly 20 hours ago at Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Reports, but an administrator reviewing the reports skipped mine. Assistance with this problem would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. D638 (talk) 00:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

It appears you have succeeded in overriding the bot at Shit (disambiguation). I can't see myself how it would be wise to create exceptions to this filter, since articles that already contain words/titles with profane or obscene meanings are just as likely or more so to be vandalized by the insertion of more, with less scholarly motives in most cases. General Ization ^Talk 00:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I did override ClueBot NG, since it only reverts once. But the edit filter is still preventing me from adding the entries for shit kicker and Shit Brook to the disambiguation page, with no override available. D638 (talk) 00:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Gob Lofa disruptive editing on Troubles related articles

Articles to do with the Troubles are subject to arbitration remedies due to the sensitive nature of the subject matter. User:Gob Lofa has been intent on pushing subtle or blatant bias, misusing sources and using personal opinion as justification, mixed with occasional edit-warring. They may also have breached the 1RR Troubles restriction in regards to the Kingsmill massacre article, which I detail below.

What follows is not an exhaustive list of troublesome edits/behaviour by Gob Lofa, and is a selection of the main instances that highlight Gob Lofa's issues that affect the Troubles arena. There is other issues that other editors are better able to detail, and one of them I know is preparing their own AN/I report on Gob Lofa, so I will leave that to them, however I am getting weary of policing Gob Lofa's edits. Whilst there are instances where I have worked with Gob Lofa no problem, even recently, I have to admit that I have no good faith left in regards to this editor, and my own attitude to them on talk pages is not always as diplomatic and AGF as it should be.

McGurk's Bar bombing

• Here Gob Lofa removes a statement and adds in a context changing piece of OR, "launched armed campaigns" to "retaliated". [77], providing no sourcing whatsoever.
• I reverted [78] and that was it for 9 days until they decided to repeat the edit using personal opinion as their vindication, personal opinion that only makes mention of one of the two groups mentioned in the statement, yet still applying it to them both: [79]
• I once again inform them of WP:BRD, add a source for the sentence they keep removing and remove the OR. Likewise pointing out the obvious [80]
• A month later Gob Lofa decides to return and push his edit again with the edit summary of "See talk" [81]. As anyone can see, there is no consensus or anything at the talk page for Gob Lofa to even get the impression that they can go ahead with their contentious edit.

Ulster Defence Regiment

• Here Gob Lofa adds in personal opinion citing "well documented" as their justification [82]. User:Gavin Lisburn reverts them asking them to take it to talk [83].
• Gob Lofa restores it claiming that it is referenced [84]. This they are reverted by User:Flexdream [85].
• Next Gob Lofa decides to take the personal opinion and OR furhter [86]. Reverted again by Gavin Lisburn [87].
• Nearly two months and 15 intermediate revisions later [88] Gob Lofa decides to revert Gavin Lisburn again and still providing no evidence for their claims. Once again Gob Lofa is reverted [89].
• Gob Lofa returns with sources [90] but these do not bac up their claim and they are reverted by Flexdream [91].
• Regardless Gob Lofa tries to force it again [92]. Gavin Lisburn removes one [93] as it didn't even mention the UDR specifically. They then restore "some" per the talk discussion [94]. Flexdream removes the other of Gob Lofa's dubious sources [95] as it doesn't substantiate the claims Gob Lofa is making.
• Gob Lofa then lets the issue lie, however decides to embark upon an unsourced weasel-worded rewrite [96], which I amend [97] as Gob Lofa added in very subjective wording that is not backed up the sources they provided.

Chronology of Provisional Irish Republican Army actions (1970–79)

• Here [98] Gob Lofa changes a sourced statement to add in contentious OR so that the sentence states that the army looted hundreds of houses. I remove the "and looted" telling Gob Lofa to provide a direct quote from the source [99].
• Gob Lofa then provides a source [100], however I have to reword [101] the statement as the source Gob Lofa provided did not state that hundreds of homes were looted but that the army admitted that their were "incidents" of looting. This is outrageous and disruptive POV pushing.
• The next issue on this article is Gob Lofa removing wording from a sourced sentence stating that it is speculation [102]. I revert asking them do they have the source to know it's not in it [103].
• Gob Lofa removes it again stating that it is not in one of the sources [104], however I have to revert again as there are two sources given. Just because it is not in one does not mean the other does not have it [105].
• After reverting, I decide to show Gob Lofa what they should do in such circumstances by adding a request quote tag to the statement [106].

Curragh incident

• Gob Lofa decides to make minor changes to this article [107] citing that its awkward etc. I revert it [108] stating that the wording is fine. Regardless Gob Lofa in a clear act of "I am right, everyone else is wrong" restores the edit [109].

Billy Fox (politician)

• I myself perform no reverts one this article, however this article is littered with reversions of Gob Lofa edits [110]. Also Gob Lofa has been slow-edit warring on this article since 8th September 2013.
• Despite opening a talk page discussion back in February 2014 on the issue which was still going on till the 28th July 2015, Gob Lofa has garnered not one bit of support for their edit with the other five editors (including me) who have commented on the discussion requesting he provide sources.
• Gob Lofa has provided two sources, however neither back up their claim that Billy Fox identified as an "Ulster Protestant". One source doesn't even mention Billy Fox, whilst the other one makes mention of Protestant in one part of it and Ulster in another, but not as an ethnic term, meaning Gob Lofa is using synthesis.
• Gob Lofa has been slow edit-warring over this issue since they first tried the edit on 8th Septmeber 2013 with their latest being 12th July 2015: [111], [112], [113], [114], [115], [116], [117], [118] - that's eight times.

Kingsmill massacre

• Adding unsourced original research and POV [119] (the very last addition)
• [120] - again adding further OR
• These edits are OR and opinion, evidenced by Flexdream challenging them as not being in the source quoted [121]
• After this Gob Lofa adds a reference [122] however it does not back up their statement as my revert clearly points out [123]
• Gob Lofa then restores their edit within 4 hours of making it regardless of issues raised [124]. This may be a breach of 1RR. They were notified of 1RR in regards to Trouble articles on 1st August 2015, this breach was done on the 8th August 2015. It could be argued that it was not technically an exact revert as they changed the tense of a word, however that could simply be a case of gaming the system considering there is still an issue with the edit. Also consider that they still hit revert (or rollback) as it does state "Undid revision" despite making an alteration.
• I again reverted back to the citation needed version informing Gob to stop adding sources that do not back up their claims [125] to which they decide to revert me whilst making a change to the edit that still does not solve one of the core issues raised about the source [126]. Why they needed to do a revert here I don't know and I can only see it as antagonism.

Gob Lofa's edit is biased and flawed because they are stating that the case is "regarding UDR involvement", despite the direct quote he provides in the edit summary stating "because of strong indications that Ulster Defence Regiment colluded with the UVF". Gob Lofa is presenting speculation as fact. The edit also doesn't state that Reavey took out the case, so a source is still needed for that or a rewording.

Civil_Authorities_(Special_Powers)_Act_(Northern_Ireland)_1922

• Here Gob Lofa tries to enforce their viewpoint on Northern Ireland's status by pushing their edit into the article four times between 30th July and 6th August despite being reverted by three different editors (me, User:Snowded and User:Ebonelm) [127], [128], [129], [130].
• The second last is the most ironic because despite making the initial edit that was reverted he demands that Ebonelm argues their case on the talk page whilst they don't even go near the talk page until after Snowded reverts him and even then he didn't even argue a case. The result of the talk page discussion shows that Gob Lofa doesn't even accept or is unwilling to admit and accept that they were edit-warring.

RUC Special Branch

• An article created by Gob Lofa.
• Here I revert [131] a clear misuse of a source where Gob Lofa simply is presenting speculation as fact. The source clearly states "perceived". Also the subjective term "infiltration" is likewise not in the source, so I amend the statement to be more accurate [132].
• Despite the irony of Gob Lofa's edit summary they revert back to their OR and bias [133].
• After this I take it to talk and then notify the UK and Ireland WikiProjects so that more input can be sought. Having done that Gob Lofa is quick to restore the amendments to their contentious edit despite their assertions that it itself was OR. As far as I am concerned they were intent to push their POV until it was put up to a wider audience and they realised that no other editor would agree with their edit.

Bloody Sunday (1972)

• A highly sensitive article.
• I come across highly contentious categories in this article whilst checking up on Gob Lofa's edits to the categories [134]. These categories state that Bloody Sunday was an act of British terrorism despite the article itself not making this statement anywhere in it.
• Gob Lofa decides to re-add the terrorist category but this time amended [135]. I revert stating that Gob needs to provide reliable sourcing that it was indeed terrorism [136].
• On 20th July an IP suddenly appears to add in the claim that Bloody Sunday was a terrorist incident [137]. Maybe it is related, maybe not.
• Despite not once discussing the issue on the talk page Gob Lofa decides to reinsert the terrorist category citing a source [138]. Another issue with this edit is that Gob Lofa "reverts" my edit I made on the 14th July, which is 20 days and 12 intermediate edits later [139]. The fact the only thing that seems to have changed despite reverting 12 intermediate edits is the addition of the category, meaning Gob Lofa is intentionally clicking revert whilst keeping any intermediate edits. What is the point of this other than being provocative?
• Snowded reverts [140] Gob Lofa's addition requesting a direct quote, to which Gob Lofa does take to talk, to which I provide the rationale to the problem.
• It also turns out that Gob Lofa was the editor who introduced the contentious terrorist categories I originally removed into this article back on 8th January 2015 [141], changed it a bit on 5th February 2015 [142] and n same day added the other [143].

This article is sensitive enough without such contentious content being added.

Birmingham pub bombings

• Here Gob Lofa changes "terrorism" to "violence" [144], to which Snowded reverted [145].
• Just over a day later Gob Lofa restores their edit regardless [146]. User:Kieronoldham restores "terrorism" adding two references [147].
• The articles talk page shows Gob Lofa's unreasonable attitude trying to argue what is the sources definition of terrorism .

What this shows is Gob Lofa's blatant bias where it is OK for actions by the British Army (Bloody Sunday) to be classified as terrorism however actions by the IRA to not be so.

Democratic Unionist Party

• Here an IP removed two infobox ideaology terms [148]. Gob Lofa restored them [149] (note they didn't do a revert for the IP). Snowded then reverts Gob Lofa [150] citing OR and synthesis.
• Gob Lofa agrees with Snowded about one of the sources [151] so omits it but restores the rest. I revert as the sources do not explicitly say that the DUP are what is claimed and that it is synthesis [152].

This helps show the issue Gob Lofa has with sources and being able to interpret or use them properly. Despite the fact none of the sources backed up the claims, they were happy enough to include two of them.

1971 Balmoral Furniture Company bombing

• Alters the position John White held within the UDA despite no evidence to state that he was the leader of the organisation [153]. His own article states that he was a leading member of it, not the leader. Instead his article states that he was the leader of a cover-name branch of the organisation called the UFF, which is what the Balmoral article states, but Gob Lofa for some reason seems to object to that. I revert clearly stating why [154].
• [155] Gob Lofa reverts anyway regardless. I restore and tell them to take it to talk [156]. Four days on still no talk page discussion from Gob Lofa to argue their case.

Ulster

• Here [157] Gob Lofa alters a statement, provides two sources, yet despite claiming "Remove Irish nationalist rot" in their edit summary, they keep the original source. Having put that edit into the article myself I can categorically state that it is not Irish nationalist rot, and the original source that Gob Lofa didn't even bother removing despite it not backing up their amended statement (which on its own gives false backing to a statement) is from a well-respected historian who is definitely not of an Irish nationalist persuasion. Thus Gob Lofa is using his own personal opinion as justification for making changes to sourced information.

Protestants of Ulster

• A very minor issue, but one none-the-less that typifies Gob Lofa's inability to accurately source statements.
• Alters a sourced statement to backup "Ethnoreligious" [158], which I alter to actually match what the source states [159] which is "Ethnonational", which is obviously not the same the thing.
• I also have to reword to better match the source this piece of subjective and slanted wording [160].

End notes

I must also make mention of administrator User:JamesBWatson. They blocked Gob Lofa for their behaviour on 10th July 2015, however decided to unblock Gob Lofa two days later, which I contested.

A week later I raised a few issues, not too indepth, on Gob Lofa's page tagging JamesBWatson seeing as they have experience with Gob Lofa. All that did was, for me anyways, call JamesBWatson's judgment as an administrator into question as they did nothing but defend Gob Lofa, to which I issued a refute. Though it was my fault for not providing JamesBWatson with more indepth evidence of the issues I mentioned at the time before and after his response. Though Gob Lofa has decided to help provide many new examples since his 2 day block. JamesBWatson's quick unblock and defence of Gob Lofa may have only served to embolden Gob Lofa to continue as they are despite their block log and recent let off.

The above is not an exhaustive list of Gob Lofa's issues and I have not even gone into their history beyond July unless it is at a particular article where there have been issues recently or have been involved in beforehand. No doubt there are many more examples in the history records.

Personally I believe Gob Lofa should be topic-banned from Troubles articles, or be made to request an edit to a Troubles article on the talk page just like IPs have to do on semi-protected articles. Whilst they do do many minor edits that are not troublesome, even if not needed, their attitude in the area is disruptive and problematic and has antagonised several editors, all from different political bias'/viewpoints. Like in all my time on Wikipedia I can't ever remember me and Snowded actually agreeing on something! I haven't even looked at their articles to do with things outside the Troubles and UK, so there could well be further issues, however the Troubles area is an incredibly sensitive area and quite a few of Gob Lofa's edits in that area are not beneficial to the project or its integrity and sanctions are merited to try to encourage them to edit more responsibly in that arena or elsewhere. They may also still be guilty of breaching 1RR on a Troubles restricted article despite knowing of the restriction. I also believe that Gob Lofa may be abusing their rollback privilege with their reverts, especially the ones that seem to not affect intermediate revisions of articles, but still result in me getting notifications that my edits have been reverted.

The one thing for sure is that failure to do so something only further emboldens Gob Lofa's attitude. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Wow, I understand by this you have an issue you absolutely want resolved, this is probably not the place with that amount of evidence. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The original poster acknowledges that ArbCom discretionary sanctions are in effect. So why is this filed here, rather than at Arbitration Enforcement? Maybe because ANI doesn't have explicit word limits. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the reference above linke dto my name. --Gavin Lisburn (talk) 01:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

As Mabuska says we are normally on opposite sides of the fence on NI issues but we clearly have a disruptive editor here. I think its better at Arbitration Enforcement. The problem is 80% of the edits are gnome like improvements and very useful, but they seem to be a cover for ideological changes and it is exhausting tracking through them. I've been trying to think of a way to word a proposed sanction that would cover the case. ----Snowded ^TALK 05:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Mabuska has mentioned me above, and also posted to my talk page calling my attention to this report, so I will make a brief response. Mabuska says that my judgement is questionable, because I "defended" Gob Lofa. Indeed, Mabuska goes so far as to specifically say that I "did nothing but defend Gob Lofa" (my emphasis). Perhaps Mabuska did not notice my final sentence in the discussion in question: "None of this means that I think nothing in Gob Lofa's editing might reasonably be criticised, but I do think that the way that Mabuska goes about making criticisms is very unhelpful." That is not doing "nothing but defending Gob Lofa": it is mainly criticising Mabuska, and in the course of doing so also limiting the degree of any "defence" of Gob Lofa, by making it explicit that I did think that there are problems with Gob Lofa's editing. Also, when I lifted the block that I had placed, I did not say that I thought there were no problems with Gob Lofa's editing: I merely said that on reflection my block was disproportionate to the problems for which I had placed the block. Further, in answer to an accusation by Mabuska that Gob Lofa had made a personal attack, I wrote "the wording used by Gob Lofa may not have been ideal, but to call it a 'personal attack' seems a bit extreme." Both "may not have been ideal" and "seems a bit extreme" were attempts to use minimal language, in the interests of keeping things as cool as possible, but I was indicating that I thought both editors in question were deserving of criticism. I was not "defending" Gob Lofa's comment: I was criticising Mabuska's handling of the matter. Anyone interested in reading the whole of my response to Mabuska in that discussion can do so at User talk:Gob Lofa#July 2015 again, but I think I have said enough to demonstrate the following two facts: (1) it is certainly not true that I "did nothing but defend Gob Lofa"; I also criticised Mabuska, and (2) my "defence" of Gob Lofa was at the level of attempting to keep the problems with his editing (or at least, those I was aware of) in proportion, and more than once I specifically stated that did not mean I thought there were no problems.

I have no intention whatever of becoming heavily involved in any of the numerous controversies among Wikipedia editors about Northern Ireland, any more than in the controversies about India/Pakistan, Israel/Plaestine, The Balkans, etc etc. However, I will just say that, while what I have seen of Gob Lofa's editing suggests there are some problems, what I have seen of Mabuska's editing suggests to me that there are problems there too, and all editors contributing to this discussion should take into account all relevant facts, no matter what editor is concerned. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

User constantly revert my edits...

Dear Administrators,

Recently I took care of few wikipages. I started to edit information on Mad Max (band) and Roland Bergmann (draft) pages. Unfortunately, constant interruptions and re-editing page by Walter Görlitz, is not allowing me to keep the pages valuable. I wrote in a comment of editing that a source provided by the user is not reliable, contains wrong and incomplete information. However, the user is keep putting the reference to the page. Please, do something with this!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_Max_(band)

Kind regards, WikiSilv

This is a request that's best made at the edit warring noticeboard. --w^{L<speak·check>} 05:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Not really. The issue is that the editor insists on removing what I believe to be a RS for a specific fact, the band's date of establishment. I have taken that up at WP:RSN as I requested of the other editor. WikiSilv has been drafting an article and put it up for acceptance, but the sources are poor and I have been notating the errors, and the article has improved, but the subject still fails WP:GNG. It appears that the other editor doesn't want help so I'll stay away from the draft article, but the other article, which was unsourced until recently, when I added sources, is a different problem. If I interpret correctly, WikiSilv wants to own the pages and not accept help from others. Not likely fodder for ANI, but the editor isn't a native English-speaker either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Seems like a normal ANI discussion. The solution may be full protection so that the editor has to work out sourcing things properly via talk page edit requests. Sounds more like a situation where the article should have been started in draftspace (doesn't solve WP:OWN but does keep it downplayed for now) and then brought here. Perhaps suggest that to User:WikiSilv? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the editor has tired of my suggestions and notices. Feel free to try. Might be a better case for WP:DRN? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:RFPP may be better. Is the band notable? Only this one seems like a reliable source. I was thinking AFD. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Userpage vandalism on my talk page

Hello, could someone please semi-protect my talkpage for a while, revdel the latest changes and handle the IP-editor(s) involved? Many thanks. GermanJoe (talk) 08:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Never mind, the trolling has stopped for now (I am so glad, that we follow the dogma of free IP-editing with zero actual proof of its advantages). GermanJoe (talk) 08:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:COP-related CfD closure review

Per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE I'd like a closure review on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 May 25#1st to 5th century BC births:

1. Trying to sort it out with the closer, to no avail: User talk:MER-C#Problem with closure of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 May 25#1st to 5th century BC births
2. Prior to that I had attempted to stop the bot implementing the closure, but the bot already had completed the task [161]

Problem with the CfD as closed: overrides WP:COPDEF and WP:SEPARATE by adding categories like Category:15 BC to biographical articles. I'm OK with merging BC "birth by year" categories in BC "birth by decade" categories, and recategorizing the affected biographical articles along these lines, not with the "dual upmerge" of "birth by year" categories in biographical articles to both a "birth by decade" and a "by year" category (e.g. [162]) while this is undesirable overcategorization ("birth by date" categories are covered by WP:COPDEF, "by year" categories are not), and makes the BC by year categories mixed people/non-people categories (not allowed by WP:SEPARATE).

I started removing "by year" categories (diff), which is uncontroversial per WP:COP, but there are too many and any cooperation of bot operators seems to be impossible as long as there's no apparent consensus this is indeed what should be done. Also Wikipedia:Bot policy#Categorization of people proved to be ineffective in this case (see Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval#ArmbrustBot 4)

@Marcocapelle: pinging initiator of the CfD to know their view whether they were aware about the COPDEF/SEPARATE issues when submitting the CfD, and if not, whether it would have made any difference when being aware? Same question to the others participating in the CfD: Peterkingiron, Vegaswikian and Ricky81682.

Tx for considering this. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Subtropical-man

I propose that Subtropical-man be topic-banned from all matters concerning deletion of pages concerning pornography, including in particular the removal of PROD nominations.
Subtropical-man rather volubly disagrees with the revisions to WP:PORNBIO enacted early last year, despite their being supported by an "overwhelming consensus among experienced editors." He has, for more than a year, expressed his disagreement by objecting to virtually all proposed deletion nominations of porn performer articles, without regard to the merits of the nominations, with uncommunicative edit summaries. (Examples: [163], [164], [165], [166], [167]. A full listing would require significant work by an administrator, because most of the deprodded articles have gone to AFD and been deleted uncontroversially, removing the relevant edit history from public view.) This indiscriminate PROD removal has led to scores of unnecessary AFDs, leading to complaints about the volume. See comments on @Spartaz:'s talk page here [168]. Subtropical-man's behavior in the resulting and related AFDs has also been disruptive, in recent months including:

• False accusations of personal attacks for criticism of his arguments Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katrina Kraven
• Striking comments by other editors (in this case, @Tarc:) [169]
• Ridiculously tendentious arguments ("how do I know if current WP:PORNBIO is not prank by some IP?") [170]
• False (and rather obviously false) accusation of topic ban violations Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shane Diesel (this AFD is messy, but see my comment here [171]
• Harassing an editor he disagreed with by refiling an SPI claim without providing any new evidence, after the initial claim was rejected "in the absence of actual evidence". [172] (original); [173] (refile)

The length and range of misbehaviour is striking, but the indiscriminate, WP:POINTY deprodding is itself enough to justify the topic ban. Subtropical-man has pretty clearly acknowledged that his PROD removals are not made in any good faith dispute over the subject's notability under the applicable guidelines, but to force interminable rearguments about the applicable SNG every time an effort is made to enforce it [174][175]. And "arguments" like "how do I know if current WP:PORNBIO is not prank by some IP?" would never be made by a reasonable, good faith user. Eighteen months of this has proved far too disruptive and wasted far too much of the community's time, and it's time for it to stop. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban Subtropical man !votes indiscriminately "keep" at all discussions without checking out, pondering and evaluating the actual merit of any particular subject, and thus doesn't add anything of value to the discussion. Kraxler (talk) 17:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support Borderline WP:DE - editor should take this as a warning a think themselves lucky it's not going to harsher terms, such as a block. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
• Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography/Deletion, see links to AfD pages from 2014. I voted only in part, not in all AfD about pornography. In many Afd pages I don't vote, if the article was weak or person are not notable. If a person are notable, in my opinion, I voting for keep. Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) wrote: "This indiscriminate PROD removal has led to scores of unnecessary AFDs" - solution of problem: please stop try removed very many pornography articles. My WP:DEPRODs are problem? I did it only a dozen times. AfD is necessary for many articles, instead speedy delection (without discussion), for example: Dee (actress). Why deprod [176]? Please see article, this article is extensive, has a sources, image, 5x interwiki. And speedy delection? No, should be discussion. Please Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography/Deletion, almost always vote for delete the same users: The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo), Spartaz, Gene93k, Davey2010, Tarc; other users very rarely vote. Now they're trying do topic banned for opposition. Subtropical-man talk
  (en-2) 18:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

childish personal attacks in edit summary - can some administrator remove it?

I have been subjected to a rather childish personal attack in an edit summary - see [177]. Can some administrator strike out that offensive edit summary comment?

@Malik Shabazz: ? General Ization ^Talk 18:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive users vandalizing article about Spiro Koleka

Hi wikipedia admins. There are two users (Zoupan and Alexikoua) who jointly vandalize the page of Spiro Koleka. I have tried all to convince them to stop, and so have done other users but it is impossible to make them reason. This has gone too far, the talk page looks like a war zone, the length of discussions is incredible. There are other users involved bringing sources and logic to the discussion, but that does not help either, as the vandalism of these too intensifies even more. Please help by removing access to this article for these editors. Ban them or take some disciplinary action. They revert or delete everything they please! Absolutely disruptive and provocative, a real shame for the wikipedia community. Burridheut (talk) 17:58, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

While I am not involved in this matter I would however like to note this has gone on before, and in multiple places. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what to do anymore. It is like they are paid to provoke and disrupt. How is this possible that this is allowed in here? Burridheut (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

There have been countless attempts for constructive discussions. There was an ANI, and a previous EW that ended in semi-page protection. He has major WP:OWN and POV problems. The latest comments include "Please don't touch the article again." and "Get out of here, vandal. You have been warned by several users many times to stop this shameful campaign of yours." Please see the lengthy discussions on the article talk page for more information. I have reported his edit warring once again here, after assuming good faith for several reverts. User has made over 10 reverts, and broken 3RR.--Zoupan 18:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

You Zoupan and the other user Alexikoua have made probably twice as many reverts as me and have disrupted any attempt to have a constructive outcome. For you the political agenda that you are paid or volunteer to push here on wikipedia comes first, but you have crossed every red line. I have warned you many many times to stop vandalizing that article. Other users have appealed to your reason too, but in vain. I have no other choice but to appeal to the admins to take care of both of you. Burridheut (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)