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 copyediting and cleanup edits, I later added a tag regarding prose issues and a thousand-word quotefarm plus explained the tag on the Talk page. Koala15 reverted with a derisory summary. Days later I restore the tag due to the encyclopedic text and non-free content concerns, and post on his talkpage. He responded dismissively and immediately undid my edit as vandalism. Only after multiple other editors become involved did he finally visit the Talk page.

He then 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 all 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 hadn't been 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

Мандичка, I think we're at crossed purposes on one point. The 15 or so (ineffectual) copyright cautions he received isn't the extent of the copyright problems. There're more; here's just one, from February. Better yet, let's look at a fresh example:

 · Pixels (2015 film) (+6,390) [diff] at 05:16, 26 July 2015 UTC

 · Source: http://themoviespoiler.com/2015Spoilers/Pixels.html | comparison

 · Lets see who copied whom. Go to the source's page on Facebook, linked on the review

 · It shows the publication time: 10:39, 24 July 2015 – that's in PDT (notice the matching text as well)

 · To be absolutely sure, view source of that bit to get the precise posting time: data-utime="1437759592"

 · Lastly, convert those numbers to human-readable GMT/UTC: 17:39:52, 24 July 2015. TWO DAYS BEFORE HIS EDITING THE ARTICLE.

This was done after this thread began! In short, Koala15 continues to post copyvios and he will NOT stop of his own accord. –146.200.32.196 22:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

_{originally posted further up. mv'd for readability}

collapsed/non-essential discussion
The following content has been placed in a collapse box to save space.
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 Azealia 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) 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 <redacted: mv'd to thread inside green {{cot}}s> . Azealia911 talk 23:26, 7 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) @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)

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)

Detailed evidence ~ personal attacks, incivility, and the uncollegial

reverts saying "i wrote that myself. We don't take IP's serious." told it's unacceptable by a second editor, he tries to downplay it claiming he "didn't mean it literally" [18] July 2014 reverts saying "Go home, your drunk" [19] a second editor brings it up and he brushes it off as "just a joke", "have a sense of humor" [20] July 2015 [21] [22] warned (template:uw-tdel2) tells another who added a maintenance template "i'm not a lazy editor that just places tags so someone else will do the job", then replies "i didn't call you a "lazy editor" you just assumed i was talking about you". February 2014 puts ==hypocrite== on an editor's talkpage in a content dispute because otherstuffexists [23] 13 October 2013 "its been a pleasure not running into the most stubborn editor on Wikipedia for a while, until now" "You are possibly the most clueless editor i have ever met" tells a ten-year editor he won't respond as "you clearly don't even have a basic understanding of Wikipedia" objects to an admin's page deletion so awards barnstar "for most clueless admin" [24], warns him "It better be reinstated by the next time i log on" [25], that he's "lucky I'm being this polite" [26], and "should be more professional" [27] May 2014 (later, another admin touches on volunteers, attitude of entitlement, and civility; Koala berates him for being snippy and tells him he expects admins to fix their mistakes promptly) "You just sit in your basement and destroy other peoples work?" [28], "just another random know it all editor" [29] and "extremely unreasonable person that i would never want to meet" [30] for over 3hrs, August 2014 "Random IP's do not decide if we keep articles or not" [31] compare with him redirecting: "Theres nothing that makes this page notable. Message me before reverting again" [32] 18 May 2013 "that you think you can revert an article like this is ridiculous." 22 February 2015 (incident led to AN3 warning: you even refused to discuss them here at your talk page, saying that the film is "of course notable") "Quit being a hurt iranian" [33] "This tag is unnecessary, and hiding under ip's i see?" [34] "redacted may be the most difficult editor on Wikipedia and i have met alot of difficult ones" [35] "you are nothing but a WP:GWAR" [36] January 2014 falsely reverts with "poorly written." [37] August 2013 all existing reviews on page are negative. was correctly-formatted cited quote of a positive review (disliked album?) "Your writing is horrible, We can't use it in this article" [38] May 2013 reverts addition restored after he undid it as vandalism with "The grammar is awful" [39] September 2013 editor spends over an hour on wikignomish edits. reverts with "awful fixes" [40] January 2014 "your writing is awful" [41] January 2015 “On at least two occasions it's significantly likely that his hostility drove editors off Wikipedia altogether.” tells a user who'd templated him with uw-genre [42], that'd posted on article talk, "You are a joke for sending me that message" [43] (didn't join discussion) (Nov 2013); user complained, replies: In what why did i insult you? [44]. Other user never edited again new users worked for days on improving the Shrek article [45] and added a themes section using impeccable peer-reviewed scholarly sources. wiped out in two edits with: [46] "very poor" and "The Themes section is very poorly sourced we can't use it"[47] February 2014 baseless and extremely unkind. the users never edited again

Detailed evidence ~ Copyvios and NFC issues, quotefarms, and related

Copyvios and NFC Copyvios and non-free content warnings go from April 2013 to present. Typically copypasted plots, long and/or excessive quotes, and close paraphrasing. Copyright-related Warnings April 2013 Warned. [48] June 2013 exact copying and pasting, overquotes, close paraphrasing at DYK [49] | Warned: [50] (template:uw-copyright-new) [51] August 2013 restores "plagiarized content" inserted by user since indef-blocked for copyright violations, with "these summarys are not plagiarised." [52]. user that removed it responds: "In spite of what Koala15 asserts, some of these episode synopses represent unambiguous copy/pasting from unattributed sources" February 2014 Warned. added copy/pasted synopses then reverts removal saying otherstuff exists "Feel free to reword them" [53] April 2014 [54] revert-warring Moonriddengirl over template:copyvio (copyviocore) [55]/[56] "in the meantime, as the [copyvio] template indicates, it should not be removed" May 2014 CorenSearchBot warning [57]. silently removes warning May 2014 Warned. replies "I don't know how words can be copyrighted, I don't think I'll ever understand why we can't copy a plot". [58] July 2014 reverted "removal of copied tvguide.com plot summaries and then altered only one of them" [59] August 2014 CorenSearchBot warning September 2014 Warned. replies "So your trying get me blocked for this?" says he still doesn't get how sentences can be copyrighted and tells them to "Rewrite the summary's then". The warning user refers to his POV edits, edit-warring reversions, lack of collaborative editing and says attempts to explain to him have proved "unfruitful". [60] 19 October 2014 Warned, again. replies "My bad, that was an error. It won't happen again". [61] An insincere apology and empty promise. 23 October 2014 CorenSearchBot warning [62] re article composed of stitched together quotes. silently blanks warning December 2014 undoes CorenSearchBot warning [63] page creation, large quote [64]. notified re copyvios by CorenSearchBot again, January 2015 June 2015 editor had tagged a quotefarm "Needs copy editing" - reverts saying he made it and in his eyes there's no problem [65] page composed of quotes July 2015 Warned (template:uw-copyright) copypasted episode summaries False claims of having written copyrighted content edit-warring to keep in copyrighted & non-free content, on one occasion deleting a url to conceal the original source then falsely claiming to have written it himself. User:Psychonaut rv's "copyvio of official episode summaries" added a month before episodes air [66] 20:37, 15 June 2014 They're subsequently re-removed as plagiarism/copyvios. Koala15 reverts that as vandalism again and again [67], [68] Finally he removes the source url, re-adds part of the copied content (matches text inserted by another user one month earlier and official site [69] website), without a summary, [70], and repeatedly lies that he wrote it himself [71], [72], with a passing dig at the other editor Quotefarms articles and sections composed entirely or primarily of quotes, and excessive quoting "The Life and Times of Jonny Valiant" [73] composed of brief proseline+quotes May 2013 now has more quotes "Kiss Land" [74] composed of brief proseline+quotes July 2013 now has more quotes Underground Luxury" [75] October 2013 composed of quotes; quotefarm album [76] created page with two thousand words of quotes. promptly speedied; self-removes csd tag, says "they are only quotes". swaps two extensive quotes [77], [78] [79], [80] adds quotes to around 600 words. July 2014 composed of (fewer) quotes "Directors of Photography" [81] August 2014 composed of quotes; quotefarm "Cadillactica" [82] October 2014 composed of quotes; quotefarm "Frankenweenie (2012 film)" [83] February 2014 critical response section quotefarm "Tomorrowland (film)" [84] May 2015 critical response section quotefarm "Fly International Luxurious Art" reverts user trimming quotefarm [85], added more later "American Dad! (S10)"[86] plagiarizing, close paraphrasing Dec 2013 (IP editor fixes it [87]) December 2013 "Shrek" [88] close paraphrasing January 2014 Large copyvios "Aloha" matches synopsis on IMDb [89] 3 June 2015 It flows well. It uses 'there' correctly. It's a copyvio. "Toy Story of Terror!" Here he adds a 1,231 word plot for a 22 min film. [90] 24 December 2013. Example: “Mr. Pricklepants states, á la classic horror films (which he, apparently, believes this to be), "And so it begins."” Note: use of parentheticals, commas to separate clauses and use of French loanwords. It's a copyvio. [91] Two weeks earlier, Koala answered a query about an unexplained revert saying "the plot was at 699 words and has to be under 700 words" 9 December 2013. It wasn't. 661 word count (or 639 with prosesize tool) - with the change it was still under 700 words. [92] and to a later query February 2014: "a lot of editors add to the movie plots and the plots are supposed to be under 700 words" (was 701 words before, 730 after) "The Yellow Badge of Cowardge" [93] 19:45, 19 May 2014 "added a plot feel free to add to it" (comparison) Matches article on Thecelebritycafe.com by regular writer May Chan. Publication date is the same day it was added here. Again the language style is different from Koala15's e.g. "The fireworks go awry". Another recap of hers [94] bears no resemblance to ours. [95] Recurring source matches include IMDb and TheMovieSpoiler.com. Evidence: Source: TheMovieSpoiler.com. Its Facebook page [https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Movie-Spoiler/158384470875779] announces newly published reviews in timestamped entries (mouseover date or view source for 'utime' (converter)). The announcements include 'read the rest at themoviespoiler.com' snippet text that matches Koala's additions. All times given as UTC. "Tomorrowland (film)" [96] 18:57, 23 May 2015 Added to original source: 17:30, 23 May 2015 comparison "Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2" [97] 23:12, 19 April 2015 (sought semi-prot 00:31, 19 April 2015) Added to original source: 06:37, 19 April 2015 comparison "The Age of Adaline" [98] 01:47, 1 May 2015 UTC Added to original source: 07:45, 27 April 2015 comparison "Hot Tub Time Machine" [99] 19:43, 21 February 2015 UTC Added to original source: 14:02, 20 Feb 2015 comparison There are several authors here: prolific TheMovieSpoiler writer "Jeremy" and first-time author "Elizabeth", plus IMDb contributor "mep1019" and regular Thecelebritycafe.com writer May Chan. Punctuation differences e.g: The Age of Adaline uses a spaced ndash and “curly quotes”; the Toy Story one uses double hyphens and "ascii quotes". Grammar is at odds with Koala's, such as the use of 'whom' in Hot Tub Time Machine 2. Koala15's own writing tends to be short phrases used to stitch together quotes, and 'on date released/interviewed in' proseline sentences. The writing style is pretty different between, say, The Age of Adaline plot (Elizabeth's) and Tomorrowland or HTTM2 (Jeremy's). http://tools.wmflabs.org/contributionsurveyor/survey.php?user=Koala15

Detailed evidence ~ warnings received ∘ diffs/dates  (excludes image-related)

Note i: Excludes image-related warnings. Does not include level 1–4 warnings received for edits while logged out Note ii: Over a hundred warnings and pleas over unexplained removals, edit summaries, wrongly claiming vandalism, ownership, edit-warring and disruptive editing (plus a couple for gaming the system), and copyright violations. At: levels 1–4 Note iii: warned & asked to use edit summaries and not edit/revert-war around 85 times. pretty much every month since he got here [100] unexplained removal, no edit summary <!-- template:uw-delete2 --> 19 October 2012 [101] edit warring 21 October 2012 [102] multiple articles <!-- template:uw-delete3 --> & images <!-- template:uw-nonfree --> 24 October 2012 [103] Let me be a little more clear this time: repeatedly creating articles on non-notable subjects is disruptive 4 November 2012 [104] please use an edit summary 10 November 2012 [105] <!-- template:uw-unsourced2 --> 22 November 2012 [106] <!-- template:uw-unsourced3 --> 4 Dec 2012 [107] "if you continue to make disruptive edits, i.e. edits you know are against policies and guidelines, you may be blocked" 10 December 2012 [108] <!-- template:uw-editsummary --> 16 December 2012 [109] <!-- template:uw-unsourced1 --> 17 January 2013 [110] unexplained content removal <!-- template:uw-delete1 --> 21 February 2013 [111] please fill in the edit summary 15 March 2013 [112] original research 18 March 2013 [113] <!-- template:uw-delete2 --> 14 April 2013 [114] copypasting copyrighted content 19 April 2013 [115] "without edit summaries, then when reverted by another editor using an edit summary, you keep reverting back. Images have to be orphaned for seven continuous days to be deleted. Once the tag has been removed, you cannot simply revert because the process would have to start over again. You are clearly trying to game the system as can be seen in your edits to [[:File:David Banner - Certified.jpg]]. You re-orphaned the image on April 25 after three days of it being back in the article, so you should have tagged it for that date. You clearly tried to speed up the deletion today by changing the date to the 17th, then to the original 20 and eventually to the 18th. These are very disingenuous edits that are not acting in good faith. In summary, I hope that you discuss these edits here instead of reverting back to your preferred versions. 28 April 2013 [116] sarcasm, assuming bad faith ... can lead to blocks 10 May 2013 [117] sourcing, excessive snark in edit summary 19 May 2013 [118] "you've made nominations that barely apply to the articles at all, at times (naming individual musicians as groups). you've nominated far too many, far too quickly. If you didn't have so many edits, I'd think you just didn't understand what notability means, but your long tenure here makes me wonder about your motivation. ...On one AfD you state, "Regardless of the sources, he still does not meet notability guidelines." That simply doesn't make any sense ...hard to AGF here, because I explicitly said, just above, that "--" is clearly notable, as she has received multiple instances of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources" 25 May 2013 [119] queries unexplained revert [120] 25 May 2013 [121] no edit summary, content removal <!-- template:uw-delete2 --> 11 June 2013 [122] <!-- template:uw-editsummary --> 23 June 2013 [123] maintenance template removal <!-- template:uw-tdel1 --> 23 June 2013 [124] <!-- uw-copyright-new --> exact copypasting, overquotes, close paraphrasing [125][126] 23 June 2013 [127] <!-- template:uw-nor2 --> 1 July 2013 [128] edit summaries 1 July 2013 [129] <!-- template:uw-disruptive2 --> 2 July 2013 [130] please stop reverting, WP:3RR warning 14 July 2013 [131] restores "plagiarized content" inserted by user since indef-blocked for copyright violations, with "these summarys are not plagiarised." [132]. user that removed it responds: "In spite of what Koala15 asserts, some of these episode synopses represent unambiguous copy/pasting from unattributed sources" 2 August 2013 [133] queries unexplained revert 8 August 2013 [134] reverting an edit in whole when I fixed other mistakes is kind of disruptive, if you do not agree with one part of an edit, fix that one part 11 September 2013 [135] "Unless you have a source for the deal being "fake" or a "rumor" or incorrect at all, I consider your reverts without discussion pretty disruptive" 17 September 2013 [136] unsourced genre changes 4 October 2013 [137] <!--uw-genre3 --> ([138] 'start a discussion' 'no you') 4 October 2013 [139] personal attacks, refusal to take part in consensus-building 7 November 2013 [140] <!-- template:uw-own1 --> 8 November 2013 [141] unexplained removal of content next time ... blocked from editing 8 November 2013 [142] "could you please explain why you have undone three of my edits on the plot section of [article], even when I had explained my edits the second and third times. 7 December 2013 "As a third party ...I would also appreciate it if you would explain your edits. many of the edits you're reverting were made in good faith, and it's courteous (and considered good practice, especially in this case) to provide some reason." 9 December 2013 [143] "you simply reverted all my changes without an edit summary and without any kind of comment on the talk page of the article" 9 January 2014 [144] edit summaries, reverts 14 January 2014 [145] "you reverted my edit to the Shrek article, with the comment "Not a Universal film.", which leaves me confused as to why you would revert my changes rather than just removing the references and links to Universal Pictures. please explain?" 30 January 2014 [146] edit warring <!-- template:uw-3rr --> January 2014 [147] removal of maintenance templates <!-- template:uw-tdel2 --> 7 February 2014 [148] 3RR warning 8 February 2014 [149] add summaries to your edits 10 February 2014 [150] edit warring and ownership 13 February 2014 [151] warned, added copy/pasted synopses then reverts removal 18 February 2014 [152] edit warring, lack of edit summary 19 February 2014 [153] undid me, no edit summary; my edit wasn't vandalism 23 February 2014 [154] edit-war; unexplained reverts 25 February 2014 [155] undid without non-default edit summary. why was edit considered vandalism 2 March 2014 [156] idontlikeit, idontknowofit; original research. "This time you have deleted the section created by the other user and you said in your comment that it is unsourced material. ... this other contributor gave a source, namely the BBC article. article thread [157] 8 March 2014 [158] revert-warring Moonriddengirl over <!-- template:copyvio --> (copyviocore) [159]/[160] "in the meantime, as the [copyvio] template indicates, it should not be removed" 5 April 2014 [161] CorenSearchBot warning 2 May 2014 [162] maintenance template removal "prose needs improvement so fix it if you wish the tag to be removed" 3 May 2014 [163] <!-- template:uw-3rr --> 25 May 2014 [164] copypasting copyrighted content 25 May 2014 [165] <!-- template:uw-delete3 --> 10 June 2014 [166] "been told several times, and have never given a reason for the removals. You do not own the article, it's not up to you to decide what is or isn't hip hop. Stop trying to covertly delete entries" [167] <!-- template:uw-delete3 --> 23 June 2014 [168] no edit summary, content removal <!-- template:uw-delete2 --> 28 June 2014 [169] <!-- template:uw-delete3 --> 28 June 2014 [170] removing sourced content without reason <!-- template:uw-delete4 --> 4 July 2014 [171] reverted "removal of copied tvguide.com plot summaries and then altered only one of them" 22 July 2014 [172] reverting w/out edit summaries 24 July 2014 [173] <!-- template:uw-delete3 --> 31 July 2014 [174] CorenSearchBot copyright warning 18 August 2014 [175] repeated reversions, ownership, claims otherstuffexists 30 August 2014 [176] copyright warning. replies says he still doesn't get how sentences can be copyrighted. warning user says attempts to explain to him have proved "unfruitful". 23 September 2014 [177] "may I demand an explanation as to why you would remove Carl Thiel as co-composer" 15 October 2014 [178] copyright warning. 19 October 2014 [179] copyright warning, CorenSearchBot 23 October 2014 [180] <!-- template:uw-ew --> 19 November 2014 [181] copyright warning, CorenSearchBot 7 December 2014 [182] edit warring 15 December 2014 [183] why did you revert 19 December 2014 [184] edit warring 8 January 2015 [185] copyright warning, CorenSearchBot 15 January 2015 [186] <!-- template:uw-3rr --> 31 January 2015 [187] Reverting without explanations 1 February 2015 [188] please stop reverting + not discussing + WP:AN3 & warned 23 February 2015 [189] asked to explain sourced edit undone as vandalism (genres) 27 March 2015 [190] <!-- template:uw-genre1 --> 5 April 2015 [191] queries unexplained revert undone as vandalism 11 April 2015 [192] "I obviously looked up the information. I even included the references and he still undoes them" ([193] silent removal). I'm just so angry and frustrated [by] it" 22 April 2015 [194] adding unreferenced material [195] to BLP 24 April 2015 [196] <!-- template:uw-unsourced2 --> 7 May 2015 [197] querying revert undone as vandalism 14 May 2015 [198] or/pov/genre-warring revert on film 18 May 2015 [199] asked to explain revert of edit undone as vandalism 21 May 2015 [200] "wondering why you undid my revision, as you didn't provide an explanation" 5 June 2015 [201] OR, WP:CRYSTAL 24 June 2015 [202] re revert of redirect of an unsourced article, failed general and subject-specific notability guidelines - no it's notable now - not without sources enabling it to pass guidelines it isn't - you don't understand the guidelines 4 July 2015 [203] <!-- template:uw-copyright --> 5 July 2015 [204] persistently reverting 7 July 2015 [205] quotefarming, persistent reverts [206] unexplained content removal <!-- template:uw-delete1 --> 10 July 2015 [207] edit warring <!-- template:uw-ew --> 10 July 2015 [208] ANI notification for edit warring, unexplained reverting 12 July 2015 [209] queries unexplained revert undone as vandalism 14 July 2015 [210] unexplained removal of content <!-- template:uw-vandalism2 --> 15 July 2015

(←) Koala15's been persistently disruptive since he started here in 2012. Despite over a hundred warnings and reminders,[211][212] and a past block, he continues to be uncollaborative, and engage in disruptive behaviour with edit warring and personal attacks. On at least two occasions it's significantly likely that his hostility drove editors off Wikipedia altogether.

Editors' legitimate concerns are routinely met with deflection and gaming. They're fobbed off on a string of pretexts,[213] downplayed to others as "misunderstandings" or "simple disagreement", ignoring his refusal to discuss it (exactly my experience), or met with insincere apologies[214] and empty promises.[215]

Pleas and warnings for edit summaries have been ineffective. Once you discount tool-appended automatic ones, his mainspace edit summary use is around 7%, and those are often uncollegial or deceptive.[216][217]
Policies and norms seem to be used as weapons. He'll caution others to adhere to the very ones he refuses to,[218][219] cherrypick from guidelines;[220] or use one to belatedly excuse a revert, such as falsely claiming the edit pushed the plot over 700 words[221][222] yet he copypastes huge plots from copyrighted sources. Not only has he outright lied that he wrote copyrighted material, he edit-wars to keep it in while accusing editors who try to address it of vandalism.[223]

The community's treated him with kid gloves because it appeared he was also doing good content work. It turns out this consists of serial copyright violations, quotefarming, and plagiarism—see CCI report. Due to the long-term disruption and copyright violations, in my view an indef-block is appropriate. –146.200.32.196 (talk) 19:28, 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)

The narrative is not that you are only here to be disruptive. The narrative is that you have continued to engage in unconstructive and/or prohibited behaviors that you engaged in 2-3 years ago and have been warned about multiple times since then, and that you either are unable to or don't care to learn, despite two to three years of OJT, what is and isn't appropriate under Wikipedia policies. As you yourself put it earlier, "[you're] not gonna learn anything that [you] already haven't", which is what's causing us to look at this from the standpoint of competence, not just arrogance. General Ization ^Talk 23:49, 10 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)

Given that you've edited a couple of Nazis pages (adding your own positive spin that didn't meet WP:RS and has brought you up for edit warring), the Administrators notice board, and the Cultural Marxism/Conspiracy section of The Frankfurt School page... I'd say the bulk of your edits are political articles... the only other edit you've made was for McClintic Wildlife Management Area. Even though the sample size is small - it still suggests you'll gravitate back to your interests here - which are political in nature. --Jobrot (talk) 21:33, 11 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)

As stated earlier, Wikipedia is not a loud speaker for personal views. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of facts, not opinions. Free speech here is, and should be limited, held captive by policy. Particularly WP:RS. --Jobrot (talk) 03:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia contains many opinions. And who decides which facts are valid, which facts are included? Wikipedia needs a variety of viewpoints, don't you think? Not everybody in the world is a white male atheist pretending to be neutral. lolJimjilin (talk) 18:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose block "Blocks" on users with under a hundred edits sounds more like "He annoys me" more than "He will not follow wikipedia policies and guidelines" at this point. Nor do I even see sufficient angst to warrant a topic ban here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment - It indeed does. However, core content policies should be always followed by editors. Similar to laws and regulations implemented by a government of a country, here on Wikipedia policies govern what's appropriate for an encyclopedia. WP:RS is the specific policy which helps us decide which sources are valid. -- Chamith (talk) 18:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment - There is a hierarchy of sources with peer reviewed academic sources being at the top, then credible journalistic sources with good quality verified editorial oversight, then experts and institutions, then the wider web. By now you should have known this, and the fact that you don't speaks to your incompetence as an editor and the importance of WP:CIR in deciding your case. --Jobrot (talk) 21:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment - Your comments on the matter sound a lot more personal than a basis of rule-breaking. I've been on Wikipedia a long time, but it isn't a "serious" thing to, as in some kind of occupation or extremely strict zone. If I have a source and an article misses something, I'll add it. I haven't got all the policies and rules memorized. I'm "casual", you could say. Of course, that's not a good thing or entirely justified, and I SHOULD take it more seriously, not get angry over edits, and adhere to the guidelines once I've got them all down. However, I'm not a very experienced Wikipedia editor nor someone who takes it as seriously as the more seasoned editors may. This is why I think it's very odd that you keep throwing personal insults at myself and others, attacking some supposed "competence", and generally carrying out a very personal and belligerent attitude. You could've just pointed out the policies in simple explanation, telling me exactly what I did wrong and how to correct it; helping out the newer editors, that's been a staple of Wikipedia for a long time, and it isn't until recently that I even spent more time on Wikipedia. I'm still pretty much new. What you did, however, was throw out vague terms or acronyms with no explanation as to how they affect my case whilst sprinkling insults, sarcasm, and hostile implications throughout. I was wrong to get too emotional about political editing, but I've admitted to that. I even apologized for calling you a Marxist. Yet, you've not apologized for your comments to me, your belligerent behavior, nor have you tried to make it clear why I'm wrong. Instead, you send out long rants to me or those who support me, again tossing around acronyms and policies without even explaining how they relate to the situation, and even though this scenario was more or less resolved over a week ago, you're the only one continuing it, insisting I be blocked for a lengthy amount of time over wrongs that I've long since apologized for and not repeated. As I "let go" the topic of the Frankfurt School, perhaps you should just let it go too, Jobrot. Ideloctober (talk) 05:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I have let it go, as illustrated by the comment I left here the other day. However my comment was accidentally deleted by another editor. I've now re-instated it, and I suggest you head my warning... and for the record I did specify which policies you were breaking, and advise you to familiarize yourself with them, providing you with direct links to the policies in question (it's up to you to familiarize yourself with them, as they constitute good quality editing on Wikipedia). I am currently still of the opinion that you don't cite sources enough, but I'm happy to see that you're still editing... and I'm also happy to let this matter go. Keep contributing productively and I'm sure things will go fine for you. --Jobrot (talk) 08:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

In fact my very first comment to you of any substance was one explaining policy diff. Anyways, good luck... and remember to have WP:GOOD FAITH in your fellow editors (especially when they're talking policy, it all comes down to policy). --Jobrot (talk) 08:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I linked to many quality sources. And don't forget, bias and conflict of interest can undermine even the most august sources: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/Jimjilin (talk) 02:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I would argue that the site you've linked to is known to conduct "post-publication peer review" and for that reason can't be considered a high quality source in of it's self (although any papers that appear on that site AND have other peer reviewed credentials may be quality sources, but that website alone - due to the nature of post-publication peer review - isn't necessarily indicative of quality). Post-publication peer review differs from standard peer review as it entails the academic findings being uploaded (published) FIRST, and then "reviewed" on a web 2.0 user generated content basis... compare this to the traditional academic peer review system (of reviewers being verified anonymous experts in their fields), and it's pretty obvious why post-publication peer review has come up for question: [224] [225] [226] [227]. Anyways, Post-publication peer review has all the problems of Wikipedia essentially. Take this example of a "researcher" who is solely targeted at having an anti-gay agenda (and even goes to the irrational lengths of reviewing news stories for some reason and claiming that has some sort of scientific validity): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Cameron%20P[Author]&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=14723445

However this is all fairly irrelevant to your consistent failure to meet Wikipedia policy (note: you don't get to pick and choose which policies you follow). If you want to attempt to dismantle wikipedia's WP:RS standards, you won't find any help here.

Also, please visit the Talk Page Guidelines and format your comments on talk pages properly by indenting your comments. You have been here too long for basic formatting issues like the nesting of replies to STILL be an issue. I believe this demonstrates your consistent failure to WP:LISTEN. --Jobrot (talk) 05:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

So by my count that's 4 supporting a block (Flyer22, Ian.thomson, Xcuref1endx and myself) 1 opposing (Collect). However Ideloctober has said they're willing to stay away from political articles (although how that'd be policed I'm not sure). I guess if anyone has further troubles with this editor, or if they find themselves back here for political edits - further action should be taken. For now I'm fine letting this editor off with a warning. Ideloctober DO NOT follow the lead of Jimjilin - or you will share a similar fate. Wikipedia is about collaboration and bureaucracy. If you understand the processes and policies here, particularly on how to perform good quality citations - and if you keep making constructive edits - then your time here will go well. But if you don't, then you'll continue to find trouble until you find too much. Be careful with your edits, and I wish you continued success in your contributions to Wikipedia. I hope you understand this result as tough but fair. This is not a political forum, or a place to trifle with. Good luck. --Jobrot (talk) 14:58, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

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

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

---

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

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: [228][229][230][231][232] 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.[233] 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 resorted to ad hominems. 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)

So...If anyone wanted a prime example of the WP:CIR and WP:DISRUPT that is at play here, the above response is typical. Editor attributes a quote to me, that was really someone else. Has completely ignored the concerns of EVERY editor here. Still doesn't get the fact that accusations of edit warring against them are in fact legitimate. Forces editors to repeat themselves over and over again. Misinterprets being told to comply with wikipedia standards as ad hominem attacks against him. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 18:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Additionally, when jimjilin says I accuse others at the drop of a hat of starting an "edit war". Here is the hat dropping: 1. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 02:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block this user clearly doesn't understand the purpose of Wikipedia (to expound on whatever THE SOURCES say) nor the method (collaboration with OTHER EDITORS) and I'd say they're abusing the site and the goodwill of fellow editors. In my opinion they should be banned permanently. WP:CIR WP:NOTHERE WP:SOAPBOX WP:BATTLEGROUND --Jobrot (talk) 08:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose all Draconian sanctions as a general rule, and noting that having multiple noticeboard complaints on the single editor is pretty much a poor idea. Also noting that I do not see any strong consensus here - other than in the Dodge City vein. Let this go now - if the editor is a real problem, he will show that soon enough. So far, IMO, he hasn't. Collect (talk) 23:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• Move to close and enact the consensus. There's a clear consensus that this years'-long intractable behavior pattern despite numerous warnings merits a long-term block. Move for an admin to close this thread and enact the consensus, if their perception agrees with this summation. Softlavender (talk) 12:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Xcuref1endx doesn't seem able to understand that I made many changes to my additions in the Piketty article. I responded again and again to the concerns of editors. Xcuref1endx's dishonesty, as when he claimed I "responded to no concerns of any editors" in the Criticisms_of_Marxism article and his constant inappropriate accusations of edit warring are only part of his hostility towards those who fail to push his agenda.Jimjilin (talk) 18:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I have made some valuable contributions to Wikipedia and I haven't violated the 3RR rule in some time (since 2012). I hope Wikipedia is hospitable to editors who have a point of view not shared by the majority of Wikipedia editors.Jimjilin (talk) 18:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Indefinite block I know I said I wouldn't vote but I kind of had to. However, it should be noted that I am an involved editor. I say indefinite because there is a WP:CIR issue that I do not think an extended amount of time away will fix. I second Softlavender's move to close and enact consensus. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 19:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Jimjilin is not getting the purpose of this encyclopedia. Are there any admins there that can wrap this up? -Xcuref1endx (talk) 21:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• Requesting closure - It doesn't seem like this thread is drawing any additional participation. To me, consensus seems pretty clear, but either way this could use a close. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Is my show trial over? Am I guilty of thoughtcrime? lol I'm guessing the admins understand that disagreeing with Rhododendrites/Xcuref1endx does not = edit warring.Jimjilin (talk) 15:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• Indefinite block This editor has engaged in extensive edit-warring, despite warnings and blocks and has not changed. And their comments above about a "show trial" and "thoughtcrime" show a derision for other editors. TFD (talk) 00:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Call for a Close

Nothing new is being added, an Admin should take a look at it and enact consensus. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 18:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I need more context before I can make an informed decision. Can someone please explain to me in detail what the problem is? I read the above discussion and it sounds very confusing. It probably seems similarly confusing to other editors who are not directly aware of this story. Thank youZigzig20s (talk) 21:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

As a thread that's been open for several days, awaiting closure, which includes the opinions of 16 editors (excluding jimjilin and me) and references a lot of diffs, a request for more context kind of needs more context (not trying to be difficult ... I just don't know what you could want). Can you be more specific about what you don't understand about the claims made (or the claims themselves)? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh. you were canvassed. Jimjilin found a back-and-forth between Zigzig20s and I on my talk page over the White genocide article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes. What is the main beef against that editor? Multiple reverts happen by mistake sometimes. Is it a matter of conservative-leaning content? If so, what is it precisely please? (I would strongly oppose a block for "conservative bias," as an encyclopedia must remain fair and balanced...)Zigzig20s (talk) 00:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

No. It is not a matter of conservative leaning content. The reasons for this have been documented above. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 01:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Apparently, you are an "involved editor," as you put it. I also read above, "in the Criticisms of Marxism article and the Piketty article, I think Xcuref1endx has been less than cooperative." I need more context/specific details here from a neutral editor to be able to make an informed decision.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:39, 16 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)

Don't be a dick to your fellow contributors. Someone asked you for some helpful followup information and you told them to piss up a rope. How does that help resolve anything? Protonk (talk) 16:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• That attitude is why reports like these goes straight into the archive without a comment and why admins don't care to get into the caste articles. The ones who do get attacked equally for asking for an explanation as much as they do from the trolls. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• Think whatever you like. I'll always think better when it comes to caste stuff. If you cannot see the blindingly obvious then that is not my fault. - Sitush (talk) 23:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• Think what better? Think that just naming people and saying "it's another caste issue" is going to get these things resolved? Were my questions so ridiculously out of place or offensive or something? I just asked if you spoke with the admin who closed the discussion and what is the actual source at issue (literally not one person once linked to it in the entire discussion section). I read the entire damn discussion, it was nutty as hell, but I don't know who Kumar is, I couldn't find the actual source everyone is arguing about (the entire argument is about a single word so it would be actually helpful to know what the hell everyone is complaining about). Another admin closed the discussion and didn't block Chrishitch which should mean something. You expect someone to just say "hey if Sitush says there's a caste article issue, well let me block him right now, there's no point in even seeing what the actual source anyone is talking about or asking what the admin who was involved there before did or didn't do or if anyone spoke to him, just go right in and be the bull in a china shop because no one should have to provide background information"? If those are the kinds of questions that require too much work to respond to, make you need to take a break from the subject matter. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• "I'm likely to lose my temper sooner rather than later, having kept a lid on it thus far." Sitush, how would we tell the difference and why should any of us give a rip if you do? Protonk (talk) 13:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Ricky81682 asked if I'd comment as I was the one who closed the discussion. I don't think a block is warrantied, yet. Chrishitch does have competency issues. Currently, Chrishitch is correcting grammar on multiple pages and causing the same amount of problems as they are correcting. When I closed the discussion, on Sitush's talk page I left, "I've closed the discussion as it was going nowhere. I'd highly suggest not to respond to them anymore." There is obvious meatpuppet or sockpuppet issues on that page which is why I did page protection. When it comes to Bhumihar, I think the best option is continued page protection if problems resume when current PP is lifted. As for Chrishitch, will need to keep an eye on them. A block will probably warranted if they continue down their current path. Bgwhite (talk) 23:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

There seem to have arisen many issues with my conduct and competence viz

1. Tendentious editing
2. Sock issues
3. Content dispute
4. Insolence
5. Incompetence

I don't wish to contest any of the issues here , may be i cannot judge myself . However,plz bother to scrutinize the edits i have attempted to make. I may be an incompetent editor, but in my incompetent endeavour i have tried improving some wiki articles. These articles are in a very very bad shape. They are replete with unsourced , whimsical content. These articles are neither protected nor edited properly. May be they warrant more attention from competent people than my modest efforts at making them a tad better with my perceived incompetence. rahila 10:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC) (talk)

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)

• Thanks for the ping. I have warned the user for continued aggressive editing. If he continues there will be a sanction. Should it be a topic ban or just escalating blocks? I lean towards the latter but I am open to others' opinions. --John (talk) 20:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not so sure. As far as I can see, AusLondonder is on a whitewashing exercise, repeatedly removing negative but well-sourced content ([234], [235], [236], [237], [238], [239]) and adding unsourced positive statements ([240], [241], [242] (source doesn't support most of the added sentence), [243], [244] (not supported by the source), [245], [246] (all apparently to a primary source, may be okay for this use I guess but RS would be much better), [247] (first part of sentence), [248] (UNDUE, and the Islington Gazette is, at best, on the very border of RS), [249] (last para unsourced), [250], [251] (marked as minor!), [252] (several portions not supported by the source, though probably all true enough)), not to mention one of those really, really WP:LAME slow-motion edit wars over whether it is necessary to mention that England is in the United Kingdom. I'd suggest that, at the very least, this complaint is brought with unclean hands, if not grounds for an outright WP:BOOMERANG. GoldenRing (talk) 10:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

User:GoldenRing, what an extraordinarily dishonest and disingenuous exercise in abuse.

• The first four of six items you mention as "repeatedly removing negative but well-sourced content" relate to this very issue being raised! No consensus had been found to include. With regards to the last two issues of "repeatedly removing negative but well-sourced content", that related to sensationalist wording taking the source out of context.
• Regarding "unsourced positive statements" I fail to see how #83 is unsourced - it is an article written by Corbyn himself! #84 was a reinstatement of removed content that I did not originally post, and not unsourced. #85 was, as my edit summary made clear, simply a revert of unexplained removal of content that I did not post
• With regards to #88 and #89 they are sourced per WP:ABOUTSELF and come from Corbyn's website. I cannot understand how #90 would need a direct source, as it is a summing-up of existing content.
• The Islington Gazette is a reliable source, and the local newspaper for Corbyn. Many MP articles have commentary on their expenses. The "parsimonious " comment was widely used in other sources. #92 is not unsourced, it comes from the interview cited in the paragraph directly above.
• Regarding #94, I think that was an encylopedic sentence putting the views into context. Not every single word needs a source directly next to it.
• I'm wondering whether #95 is a mistake, all the issues are clearly sourced. The "lame war" regarding England/UK relates to the repeated unexplained removal of UK birthplace without consensus and against convention
• Your personal attacks on me are very disappointing, given your misleading statements here. Other editors have clearly supported my position. I am not seeking to whitewash anything, the article contains details of his support for Sinn Fein and Argentine sovereignty over the Falklands. I'm seeking to ensure the article remains neutral and meets the policies of WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. I have commented regarding this on the Corbyn talkpage.
• The issue here is not about inclusion or not - it's an editor violating sanctions to push for the inclusion of material AGAINST talkpage consensus. AusLondonder (talk) 10:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• I'm glad you brought that up. What talkpage consensus? I see two editors (including yourself) arguing against inclusion and three (including myself) arguing for inclusion, but that discussion is a loooong way from 'consensus'. Or did you have something else in mind?
• To respond to your specific points:

• Since when did we need to seek consensus before including material? |This is what WP:BOLD is about, and reverting on the sole grounds that it lacks consensus is disruptive.
• 83 was a copy-paste error - should have been [253]. "however Corbyn opposes nuclear weapons in all circumstances" is unsourced. 84 ("Corbyn opposes segregation at such a young age") is not supported by the source cited, whether you inserted it originally or not.
• 88 and 89, well I think we more or less agree on this, though a secondary source would be better for someone who is going to be contentious.
• I'll cede the Islington Gazette, I'm not going to get into an argument here about whether it meets WP:RS. 92 - fair enough. It looks unsourced, my apologies.
• 94 - it seems a pointlessly positive addition to me. If it was on its own, I'd say meh, but as part of a pattern it's worrying.
• Your defence of 95 is a doosy - the source cited does not call him a socialist, does not mention poverty, does not state that he voted against introducing tuition fees, does not mention railways, and does not discuss taxation. What's left in your insertion that is supported by the cited source is that he voted against increases in tuition fees and supports nationalisation of some sort. If this is your approach to sourcing BLPs, we have a problem! Whether to mention that England is in the UK is one of those issues that has me saying, "Why do either of you care about this???" but I'm sure it has its place.
• I'm sure you are very disappointed - pointing it out here wasn't enough, apparently, and you felt the need to repeat your disappointment at my talk page - but, given the above, I'm happy to disappoint. Criticising your approach to sourcing is not a personal attack. GoldenRing (talk) 11:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Another deliberately misleading series of statements. "What talkpage consensus? I see two editors (including yourself) arguing against inclusion" - you didn't come until after I posted this issue at ANI!

• Consensus is required when a change is opposed by other editors - several editors including myself opposed the addition of this material. That is not disruptive.
• "Corbyn opposes nuclear weapons in all circumstance" is paraphrased from his article and his stance is well documented anyway in other sources at his BLP.
• Regarding 95, all the statements are important and factual and discussed in other sources. Most importantly, it is not libellous or in violation oof sanctions. AusLondonder (talk) 08:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Trivial issue - in what specific way are the edits which are presumably about Iran related to ARBPIA? I note the Raed Salah BLP has mentioned Corbyn for some years now, so the claim is not apparently regarded as contentious there. If the claim were that contentious, I would have thought someone would have removed it years ago. Nor does the editor at issue appear to make vast numbers of edits - surely the "problem" is not very great - nor does it appear to relate to ARBPIA with regard to the claims about Iran. By the way, by using the term "libellous" are you in any way implying that a lawsuit could or would be filed? I trust you have read WP:NLT which some might unfortunately applies whenever the clarion cry of "libel" is made. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Collect, I'm quite baffled by your comments here. The WP:ARBPIA complaint relates to matters concerning Hamas and Hezbollah, not Iran. WP:NLT makes abundantly clear that " A discussion of whether material is libellous is not a legal threat" and "A polite report of a legal problem, such as defamation or copyright infringement, is not a threat and will be acted on quickly". I cannot comprehend how you suggest I am in breach of WP:NLT. It seems you are trying to use WP:NLT to shut me down, the precise opposite of what is intended. AusLondonder (talk) 11:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, I can't understand how it is trivial to violate sanctions, insert disputed material without consensus, violate WP:BLP and engage in WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. AusLondonder (talk) 11:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

You asserted something about a specific edit [254]. ARBPIA does not prohibit the edit in question as far as I can tell. You asserted that the edit was specifically "libellous" as determined by the "High Court" and that the specific claim was a libel by the Sunday Express. ARBPIA is primarily about reverts - a 1RR restriction for "any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict." I fail to see this BLP as falling into that category. Further, of course, you may ask that this BLP be so labelled, but note that the revert rule would apply to anyone there at all. Including many editors at this point, including yourself. In fact, it appears you likely violated the revert rule, had it existed on this article, more than the editor you here complain about. The claim retracted by the "Sunday Telegraph" was that a charity specifically funded "suicide bombers." The edit you assert is "libelous" does not make that retracted claim. Collect (talk) 13:29, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:COP-related CfD closure review

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

---

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 [255]

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. [256]) 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)

• Agreed that "dual upmerge" of "birth by year" categories in biographical articles to both a "birth by decade" and a "by year" category, would be highly undesirable. The non-birth year categories would be flooded with birth trivia, when they're suppose to contain other events, and have the births in a subcat.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
• I wasn't aware of any issues, for what it's worth in this stage. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Similar

The closure at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 May 30#1st to 6th century BC deaths has the same problem, I notified bot operator [257] and closing admin [258] of the topic being discussed here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Too late – contents already merged, see WP:CFDWM. At least we can hold off deletion of the old categories. – Fayenatic London 17:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Forward

Are we in agreement about these points:

1. The closures of MER-C on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 May 25#1st to 5th century BC births and of Fayenatic london on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 May 30#1st to 6th century BC deaths are undone, in view of the WP:COP incompatibility;
2. The recategorizations and (partial) category deletions resulting from the now suspended closures are undone by bot
3. Marcocapelle or whoever thinks this a good idea are of course at liberty to resubmit a similar CfD that keeps within the provisions of WP:COP.

I'd agree with a simple removal of "year" categories on biographical articles by bot, but as this may lead to other issues, I think it best to fully retract our steps to the situation "ante", and take it from there. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• I would have no objection against removing them from "year" categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The consensus was a double upmerge. If the bios may not be categorised in the year categories, the other contributors may prefer to revert to the old births-by-year categories, rather than remove biographies from the year hierarchy altogether. Removing the bios from the year cats may make it harder to revert, as we would then not be able simply to reverse the contribs of Armbrustbot – which would be quite an arduous task on its own. – Fayenatic London 17:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
• Are we in agreement then to close this thread on the three points I outlined above? --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

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

• Oppose overturning CFD discussionions on this page. The correct venue is WP:DRV. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Nah, WP:CfD does not stand for "Categories for deletion", it stands for "Categories for discussion", so, per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE "Challenging other closures" applies for which this is the right venue. @Armbrust: please stop wikilawyering, the consensus is clear. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:25, 17 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: [259], [260], [261], [262], [263]. 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 [264]. 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:) [265]
• Ridiculously tendentious arguments ("how do I know if current WP:PORNBIO is not prank by some IP?") [266]
• 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 [267]
• 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". [268] (original); [269] (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 [270][271]. 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)

There seems to be some misunderstanding: I don't support the topic ban because they vote "keep". The key word here is indiscriminately. They vote, if they vote at porn bios, always "keep" and state "passes PORNBIO", although, as a question of fact, and conceded by all other voters in the few AfDs with a "keep" result, the bio does not pass PORNBIO. The guideline was amended recently, and is very well defined. Obviously they even are on the winning side in a few cases, having voted "keep", but all other voters in these cases voted "keep" because the subject passes GNG, not PORNBIO. Thus, Subtropical man's votes are useless and disruptive, and being topic-banned from porn-related AfDs just lowers the amount of aspersions and unhelpful discussions, without any bad side effects. Kraxler (talk) 20:34, 15 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 [272]? 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)
• Oppose topic ban - I'm not at all a fan of "Sub-tropicalman's" dePRODing of articles without improvement (I've tried to treat PRODs in the past like actual AfDs without needed the discussion), but the actual PROD guidelines technically allow for that kind of editing behavior: "Any editor may object to the deletion by simply removing the tag" and "To object to and therefore permanently prevent a proposed deletion, remove the 'proposed deletion/dated' tag from the article. You are encouraged, but not required, to" (emphasis mine).

Not all of the above evidence actually shows disruptive behavior either IMO, since Jennifer Luv & Babysitters (film) both won some likely major awards, the Shane Diesel AfD (and resulting DRV) was a huge mess that was mostly caused by a voluminous sockpuppet ("Redban"), and those supposed "bogus" SPI reports yielded some actual, needed results on that front.

What's mostly, really going on here at this time is that some are trying to engage in some (rapid?) "trimming of the fat" from many of the pornography-related BLPs on Wikipedia, which pleases some & possibly upsets some others. In any event, it is what it is... Guy1890 (talk) 02:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - If I see one more thread here about conduct issues involving pornography, I will propose that pornography be placed under community general sanctions to get a few of the pro-porn and a few of the anti-porn editors topic-banned. For now, try being civil about pornography, even though some of you love it and some of you hate it. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban - The deprodding although annoying isn't really that bad, It's the !voting that I'm concerned with, Sub Man has a habit of simply putting "Notable" or "per above" [273][274][275][276][277][278][279][280][281][282][283] and or on occasions will Keep "per nominations"[284][285][286][287][288][289][290][291] (Despite being told nominations don't count inregards to PORNBIO), It's simply distruptive and despite being guided more than once he's simply ignored everyone and continued regardless so personally feel Topic banning is the right move here. –Davey2010^Talk 19:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: generally, opinion by opposition of Subtropical-man i.e: The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo), Spartaz, Gene93k, Davey2010, Tarc (who always vote differently than Subtropical-man) is clear. The opposition is opposition. Welcome are the opinions of other users, neutral users. Subtropical-man talk
  (en-2) 21:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. Since you are bringing me in, that "opposition" to your keep votes is the application of consensus guidelines that you reject wholesale and challenging of arguments not supported by facts. • Gene93k (talk) 22:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) and Davey2010. I agree with opinion by user Robert McClenon (above), there are two sides in case: pro-porn and anti-porn editors, if topic-banned for pro-porn side, must to be also for anti-porn side. Anti-porn editors are responsible for remove hundreds of articles, they vote for the removal in all AfD pages about pornography in the last period. The length and range of misbehaviour is striking (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pornography/Deletion#Closed) and their actions can be considered as destructive to Wikipedia. Previously, user Раціональне анархіст (Pax) and earlier user Redban who very many porn-articles marked to deletion got topic-ban (in AN/I). These users doing the same thing, so. Subtropical-man talk
  (en-2) 21:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I am not seeing the type or depth of disruption that justifies community sanctions here. Without a whole lot more diffs on actionable misbehavior this does not seems like something that should be up for proposal. Proponents, please add more specific history about earlier issues, diffs, interventions, earlier admin actions, etc. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose There doesn't seem to be a great deal of disruptive behavior going on. Simply objecting to an AfD, even a poorly thought out objection, isn't worthy of a topic ban. Looking at his contribution log doesn't show any sort of edit warring or other. His English seems fairly broken so some of his replies come off strangely. I don't see anything on WP:DRN (which would seem a more appropriate venue for this) and no one has apparently tried talking to him (all I see on his talk page is a nomination for a userspace deletion Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Subtropical-man/Catfight by the same person who brought this ANI). According to WP:DDE ANI is one of the last resorts, not the first.--Savonneux (talk) 11:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Although Subtropical-man's rationales for !keep in various porn-related articles don't always adhere to the current version of WP:PORNBIO (for example, nominations alone), I still think a topic ban is a little premature; in addition, as Guy1890 pointed out, deprodding an article without reason actually is allowed per WP:DEPROD. But to be honest, Robert McClenon's suggestion makes the most sense; and if it came to a topic ban at all with the current behavior that's going on on both sides of the pornography issue ("angry" arguments on the pro-porn side and the anti-porn side), sanctions should be given out to people on both sides of the issue, not just one side (whom those people should be, though, should be determined in their own respective threads, if necessary). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 23:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Although he only votes "delete" 4 or 5 percent of the time and "keep" 95% of the time, I find no reason to debar him from voicing his opinions in a civil manner at XfD discussions. Any more than I would debar those who vote to delete, say, 80% of the time. Wikipedia has enough people that we can afford some "inclusionists" and some "deletionists" to exist, I trust. That noted, I tend to prefer seeking some level of balance in my own positions, but grant forbearance to those who have different mileage. Collect (talk) 23:55, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
• oppose. I have gone through subtropical-man's contributions, and they by and large seem responsible and competent. He also seems to be a natural counterbalance to the surprising amount of triggerhappy deletionists we have on english wiki. 89.243.10.130 (talk) 13:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oh, yes, putting Nelson Rockefeller's mother on a list of performers in "catfight" pornography is just the sort of responsible, competent editing that is expected of Wikipedia editors. Only a ftriggerhappy deletionist would think otherwise. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Philm540

This user User:Philm540 has used multiple 2600:1002 IPs and was blocked for disruption and legal threats, as they continued to use different IPs sometimes more than one a day (refer Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Philm540) a range block 2600:1002:B000::/39 was put in place for a month by User:KrakatoaKatie. A discussion was started on a proposed site ban Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive891#Proposed site ban of Philm540, although supported it was archived before being formally closed. The range block has expired and the user has returned editing the same subjects as User:2600:1002:B02C:A89C:CBEA:4CB:FD93:286C.

Just a few questions and requests:

• The main account User:Philm540 was never blocked altough the IPs being used where, perhaps it is time to block now they have returned.
• Can somebody please set the range block again as the user is clearly intends to continue to edit despite what measures are taken.
• Do we need to start a proposed site ban discussion again?

Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I concur that we need to set the rangeblock again, this time for a longer period. The Philm540 account is not being used, which is likely why it was not blocked. If there's a vote, count me as supporting a site ban. Binksternet (talk) 18:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Just for information the user has used four different IPs already today and despite the blocks for legal threats and disruption the user continues to claim he cant be blocked or reverted as per https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nick_Thorne&oldid=675600944 your dangeriously close to violating my rights as a citizen of nation that signature to international aggreements. MilborneOne (talk) 18:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I hardblocked the /39 range for six months. I'm about to leave town for a few days and likely won't be able to check in until I reach our destination, so if someone needs to modify the block, go ahead, but we may need to manage this range with IP block exemption. I'm unwilling to tolerate the legal threats and disruption this user causes, so I also support a site ban. KrakatoaKatie 19:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

As before we have had only support for a site ban, anybody know who needs to review this and what needs to done to record it? thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 15:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Hi I'm a physician with experience in biomedical ethics. I have added a part of a scientific paper of one of my colleagues which focused on the importance of including medical ethics in training programs to "Ethics" but Jytdog deleted that post without any explanation and finally mentioned conflicts of interest as the reason even when I suggested adding that part without any citation. I believe that it's really inappropriate that a non-expert user abuse his/her administrative ability to just based on a biased judgement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohammad1985k (talk • contribs) 20:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Note: When creating a thread about a user on ANI, you are supposed to leave a notice on their talk page, as it says at the top of the page. In this case, I have done so for you. However, please keep this in mind. Thank you. -- Orduin ^Discuss 21:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Please see No original research and Citing sources, along with Conflict of interest. While I'm sure you are expert in biomedical ethics, you seem to have missed the fact that Wikipedia relies on cited, reliable, published sources to ensure that we don't offer an encyclopedia full of misinformation, conjecture and non-expert personal opinion. Your suggestion that the content be posted without any citation was correctly rejected as it does not solve the problem. General Ization ^Talk 20:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, did you notify Jytdog that you were bringing your objection to his action here, as is required so he can present his side of the dispute? General Ization ^Talk 21:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Attention is brought to this note to jytdog and this note on my talkpage left by M1985k. I think he needs to be brought up to speed on how we do things here. "Take a part in a scientific entry if only and only you know enough to talk about" ain't it. — Brianhe (talk) 21:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I invited him to the teahouse; hope that helps. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 23:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• This user seems intent on ramming citations from a certain author into articles. There are communications issues, it seems plausible that English may not be his first language. People are trying to help him and there's nothing more to do in this thread, but.... how come he found his way to the drama board with his 11th edit? This smells of fish to me. Or rather, duck. Guy (Help!) 11:29, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Cyberbullying from G1234~eswiki sockpuppets

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

---

The user G1234~eswiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked from Spanish Wikipedia few months ago but he created a sort of sockpuppets and he persist the harrasment in Spanish Wikipedia and here:

List of sockpuppets

• Creador del cielo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Por la justicia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Todos me aman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• I am god and you know (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Also the IP 181.233.197.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Here, Por la justicia sended to me, and two other users (Fixertool and Antur) a sort of harrasments in Spanish ([292], [293], [294]) protesting over and over his unblock and the unprotect of a erased article in Spanish Wikipedia. Usually I don't enter here but its very disgusting see this harrasment. --Taichi (talk) 17:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

@Taichi:, our sockpuppet investigations page is here. I added links to the usernames above; I see that "Creador del cielo" and "I am god and you know" have no edits here, and "Todos me aman" has only edited "I am god"'s talk page. Are you saying that they are confirmed sockpuppets at Spanish Wikipedia? If they are harassing users here in Spanish, then I think we should consider their edits here editing around a block, and should block them here too. I don't see strong evidence of sockpuppetry on this wiki, however. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: These users are confirmed sockpuppets from Spanish Wikipedia, it's totally inneccesary reconfirming here. --Taichi (talk) 21:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Now, he harrases another Spanish Wikipedia sysop here: [295]. --Taichi (talk) 21:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• Note: The account I am god and you know is not attached to any other wiki [296], and does not exist on the spanish wiki [297]. I am not sure about the IP however. The rest should be blocked for cross wiki abuse and sockpuppetry. -- Orduin ^Discuss 21:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Note: The username I am god and you know is almost certainly a username policy violation, and should be blocked on that basis alone. Now, I haven't had the greatest luck at WP:UAA, so someone else may want to try to take that one there... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

If this case is complex because some sockpuppets don't have editions, at least I demand a quickly solution for Por la justicia. While we are debating here, now he bullyies against another Spanish Wikipedia sysop (5th es.wikipedia user in row). --Taichi (talk) 04:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Yo si tengo títeres porque ustedes no quieren entender, de que lo que se me acusa es falso y ustedes no pueden comprender. reitero mi postura, yo solo quiero editar sin que me molesten.Ademas no es Ciberbullyng son quejas simples, que tienen el mismo objetivo, solo es que ustedes creen que yo entre para vandalizar la wiki pero eso no es verdad tengo muchas colaboraciones buenas, y Es la lluvia que cae es una de ellas, pero si al final no me creen, pues ya no puedo hacer nada. --Por la justicia (talk) 13:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• Admin action needed - the user Por la justicia is a confirmed (on es-wiki) sockpuppet (usuario titere) of a blocked and banned (on es-wiki) user, who is using en-wiki to contact es-wiki admins, which is editing to circumvent their block (their talk page access is revoked, no puede editar su propia página de discusión). They and their socks need to be blocked here as well, maybe globally. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Also they do not appear to speak English. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussions on the English Wikipedia should be in English. If you do not understand English sufficiently to discuss your editing in English, then you should not be editing here. BMK (talk) 22:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Yo digo que lo mejor seria que me bloqueen por 1 mes y ya no les digo nada ya no les reprocho nada, Déjenme editar porque no soy vándalo y sere un buen wikipedista. Saludos --Por la justicia (talk) 14:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC) Excusame, mi español es no muy bueno. Usted es bloqueado en la Wikipedia Español. Los administradores inglés no puede ayudar, y usted necesita que dejar molestarlos. Por desbloquear, en inglés nos hacemos "Unblock Ticket Request System", pero yo no encontrarlo en español. Folks who know the Spanish Wikipedia: what is their equivalent of WP:UTRS? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC) Entendido ya no molestare a nadie, la manera de desbloquearse en wikipedia español es con esta etiqueta y abajo pones la razón para ser desbloqueado. . Saludos cordiales --Por la justicia (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC) Si, pero no puede editar tu página de discusión para utilizar la etiqueta, no? Cuando los usuarios inglés están bloqueado y no pueden editar ellos paginas de discusion, ellos pueden utilizar WP:UTRS para contactar un administrador para apelar el bloque. No se que donde el página es en el Wikipedia Español. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC) User:Ivanvector no existe en wikipedia en español. User:Taichi y yo me veo muy disgustado por tu incredulidad, te juro que me da rabia que pienses así de mi pero como no te puedo hacer nada, te digo eres muy hartarte, y odioso no me crees a mi. Mas disgusto me da a mi que pienses así. Saludos --Por la justicia (talk) 16:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Please, anybody take a quickly solution, it's unbelievable that the harrassment comes here in this noticeboard, the user don't speak English and he emphasizes bad words in Spanish here. --Taichi (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Taichi ¿cuales malas palabras?. Traduzcan mis palabras de ahi y no van a ver ninguna mala palabra. --Por la justicia (talk) 16:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I say this, only ublock me. --Por la justicia (talk) 00:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me my english is bad, It notes that administrators of Wikipedia in English were the same that contributed to my block. Therefore I think it is my right to claim.--Por la justicia (talk) 17:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

This is other sockpuppet of me.

Contributions/Guillermo_Armas12 This is my other sockpuppet.]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Por la justicia (talk • contribs) 02:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• SPANISH-SPEAKING ADMIN ATTENTION NEEDED - Would someone please figure out what the heck is going on here, and deal out some warnings, or indef blocks for sockpuppetry, or something? Add then ask es.wiki to keep their problematic editors to themselves? BMK (talk) 05:40, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken I'm trying to speak English.--Por la justicia (talk) 17:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Then explain what you want. BMK (talk) 17:23, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I think my right to claim, librarians who blocked me in es.wiki.--Por la justicia (talk) 22:42, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

No, you have no rights regarding Spanish Wikipedia here on English Wikipedia. None. We have no power or authority over them, and you're being disruptive here. If you have problems at es.wiki, deal with them there with whatever procedures they have --- NOT' here on English Wikipedia.

I'm going to be BOLD and close this, as no admin seems interested in blocking your sockpuppets, which I believe would be appropriate. Anyone who disagrees with this close, especially Spanish-speaking admins, please feel free to re-open it. BMK (talk) 00:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Spamming IP and their persistence in adding a non-used source into articles

This source is being continually added to articles, including FA's, where it is not being used. The IP appears to be one of many sock puppets and is adding the source into articles for no other reason other than to promote and spam. 90.201.206.155, 90.193.120.97, 86.5.179.88, 84.92.105.164 are just four of the many IP address' being used. Cassianto^Talk 19:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

A source does not need to be used as an inline citation to be useful. However, I agree this wholesale introduction to every article on silent film actors seems suspicious, and should be in a Further reading section rather than shown as a reference. General Ization ^Talk 19:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

That view is purely subjective as the articles I write omit sources which are not used. Otherwise where would one stop when it comes to adding books that aren't used? If we were to have a featured article on, say cookery, the "Further reading" section would run into thousands. A line has to be drawn and the earlier the better, as far as I'm concerned. Cassianto^Talk 19:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

No, not really purely subjective. See WP:GENREF. "A general reference is a citation to a reliable source that supports content, but is not linked to any particular piece of material in the article through an inline citation. General references are usually listed at the end of the article in a 'References' section, and are usually sorted by the last name of the author or the editor." This assumes, though, that the cited reference is actually used as a reference by the article's creator and/or a later contributor in the production of the current article. That does not seem to be the case here. General Ization ^Talk 19:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

FWIW: If you Google the author, he's a major contributor to IMBD silent film articles[298], and the book does come up on Amazon. However, as it is already out of print, and the listed publisher on Amazon (Anchor Print Group, Ltd.)[299] is a copy shop, [300] this is reasonably certain to be the author adding his own work, especially if it's not being used in the article. considering he embellished his own IMDB bio with trivia on his grandkids only he would know, [301] I'm not surprised. MSJapan (talk) 19:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

It should be noted also that this activity has been going on since early 2013, perhaps even longer, and affects nearly 160 articles. I haven't confirmed but have the sense that none of the edits are recent. General Ization ^Talk 19:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

And I have a sneaking suspicion that the author's work may be at least substantially based on data gleaned from Wikipedia articles, so a bit of a circular phenomenon has occurred here. General Ization ^Talk 19:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

All the more reason why something should be done. Cassianto^Talk 19:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Look here [302] this IP added the book to over two hundred articles. Amazon.uk says the book covers 3,700 actors in 470 pages, so that's about 8 actors per page. Hardly the level of in-depth coverage that would be useful to a Wikipedia editor. I think it would be a good idea to remove the book from the 15 150 or so articles where it's currently extant. Perhaps this is a candidate for an edit filter? -- Diannaa (talk) 20:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I was mistaken. 84.92.105.164, for one, is quite prolifically active, and doing nothing but adding this ref book title to articles as recently as today. General Ization ^Talk 20:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that this "source" be removed from all articles. See this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done (by numerous editors), except two cases one case where actually cited as an inline ref. General Ization ^Talk 21:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

If this source has been written based on information taken from Wikipedia, then I would question its reliability per WP:RS, so I'd be inclined to to remove that one too. Cassianto^Talk 21:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

That was pure speculation on my part (though I'd be willing to wager it's correct). General Ization ^Talk 21:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

@Diannaa: The edit filter idea makes sense to deal with this seeming abuse going forward. How does one request one be created, and what would you propose as the rationale for it? The author has (hypothetically) written several books, so what would be used as a reliable filter expression? General Ization ^Talk 21:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Not sure how to get the ball rolling on creating an edit filter. Edit filter mavens include @Reaper Eternal:, @Ponyo:, @Nyttend: Pinging these three as potential helpers. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not at all technically savvy: I haven't the slightest clue on what to do. My interests with edit filters involve identifying false positives; I don't know how to prevent them or how to write filters in the first place. But Reaper Eternal should be able to help, as he's demonstrated in the past :-) Nyttend (talk) 21:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't be of help either. The only reason I have the edit filter manager box ticked is to view private filters in relation to SPIs. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Has the user been requested to stop before? I can set up an edit filter easily enough, but if theres only 160 edits in 2-3 in years it might be overkill. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC).

Hi Rich and thanks for taking an interest. There's actually been hundreds of additions and re-additions. For example, 82.4.233.181 (talk · contribs) added it 188 times in November 2012 and 86.5.179.88 (talk · contribs) added it 243 times between January and October 2013. People must have been removing the material as it gets added. Asking him to stop has been tried, for example on User talk:82.4.233.181 and User talk:84.92.105.164. -- Diannaa (talk) 04:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I set up 720 as a public filter. It's currently log-only, I will probably set it to disallow some time tomorrow. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC).

Thanks for that. I have also set myself a Google calendar reminder to watch out for these edits, and will remove them if any slip through. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Bob Lazar

I would not normally post an issue regarding article content here at ANI. But the current state of this article, a BLP, Bob Lazar, is so bizarre and so conspiratorial and so deranged that I believe that it requires immediate attention from an administrator. If I am wrong, let me know and I will pursue other options. Thank you for your consideration. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

An entertaining read, though not very encyclopedic. Chillum 05:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

We are not in the business of "entertaining reading" I do not think, Chillum, so I hope that either you, or another administrator, will revdel totally inappropriate BLP violating content, and warn the responsible editors. Please. Thank you very much. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Have you looked through the sources? This guy has claimed much of the stuff being attributed to him. If you think there is a clear and urgent BLP violation then edit the article, if you really think something needs revdel'n then you will need to be more specific. Chillum 06:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I did some housekeeping. Perhaps Chillum can take a look and see if there is improvement. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The article's been around for about 10 years, and it started as what could be termed an attack page. Is this guy even notable by Wikipedia standards? Should the article be deleted? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I saw him on unsolved mysteries when I was young, so I had heard of him before seeing the article. The guy does have some fame. Chillum 23:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Personal attacks and bad faith editing.

So I think it's time that an uninvolved admin look into the behavior of User:Alakzi, there are extreme cases of assumptions of bad faith and also personal attacks. Odd for somone arguing for civility to think it's ok to tell someone to fuck off, intent on showing offense, like to deliberately offend people, disgusting individual, |selfish, and the last fuck yourself although there are probably a couple more. He has a history of two prior short term blocks for NPA and the disruption is related to WP:POINT editing for the reason "The only admin who blocked me, said to me, and I quote, "I'm going to give you some rope". Another admin referenced WP:ROPE in discussing my block with the blocking admin on their talk page. (And this seems to be quite typical behaviour of admins.) I don't understand how I could possibly not feel offended". They have the history of the recent blocks, they were warned by myself and Beeblebrox and now a third editor has templated them. I think it is time for a longer block or possibly a topic ban from civility related discussions as this seems to effect their mental health ie panic attacks and inability to control oneself. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 12:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Given the reaction to the discussion about this essay, I'm guessing that Alakzi is the hypothetical editor who this has offended, and does not care to share the personal circumstances surrounding why. While I'm not excusing the behavior shown here, it should be kept in mind that this essay can be quite offensive to some people. Throwing around suicide references will inevitably result in a poor reaction when you find the person who's recently dealt with that sort of thing. ~ Rob^Talk 13:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

It's above in black and white they are mad because it was a rationale used for unblocking them. Sad thing is they were blocked for attacks and they are using that rope up. It's the whole reason for the eswsays existence to describe the behaviors they are exhibiting now. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Alakzi states that they were made aware of it when it was used in relation to them, but does not say they are only mad due to the unblocking. We simply do not know the personal context on why this may be particularly offensive to any given editor, and we can't expect to. ~ Rob^Talk 13:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Hell in a Bucket needs to be careful of a boomerang here; he's more than once impugned Alakzi's competence, for no apparent reason other than an disagreement over a content issue, doing so in "mystery meat" links (diff), even doing so again (difff2) after being told that to do so is "unacceptable and unwarranted". Such provocation is a breach of WP:NPA and utterly unacceptable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Pigsonthewing I have referenced WP:CIR, absolutely I have because it's a valid reference in this case. I'm also going to reference the two subsections specifically, grudges and social. As an added reference I'm going to throw Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not therapy in the mix too. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:BOOMERANG should be something you keep an eye out for @Hell in a Bucket:, since you seem to be quoting "Some people just can't function well in this particular collaborative environment. We can't change Wikipedia to suit them, so if they're unable to change themselves, they'll need to be shown the door" and you do not seem to be trying to collaborate with any stretch of the imagination unless they are supporting your ideas. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 14:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

You know if the admin ruling on this thinks I'm the problem block away. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

More offensive bullshit then. Alakzi (talk) 13:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I suppose if you start behaving that way here there will be loads. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Whatever it takes to feed your sense of entitlement, I suppose. Alakzi (talk) 17:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• In retrospect, I believe that my comment of "I'm going to give you some rope" was callous and tactless. I have obviously offended Alakzi, and for that I am sorry. My comment was made in good faith, but with very poor eloquence. With this in mind though, I cannot, in good faith, recommend Alakzi is allowed to continue on throwing vicious personal attacks and pointy behaivior unscathed and without admonition or sanction. In addition to Hell in a Bucket's diffs above, Alakzi said, just above, that, "A consensus among spineless, insensitive and domineering admin wanna-bes is no consensus I care about," in reference to the people in a MfD who disagreed with his point of view. So, he went ahead and moved the page to his desired location, disregarding the consensus of "spineless" and "domineering admin wanna-bes". This is not the first instance, but a pattern of behaviour. When users disagreed with him on the coloring of some infoboxes, he labelled them "pathetic" and "spineless and thoughtless barnstar hoarders", and threatened to use AWB to impose his will on just over a thousand articles. He made good on that threat, which got his ability to use AWB revoked by me. He maintained that the changes he was making with AWB were obvious "to anybody with some sense," and continued his personal attacks (check the previous link). I blocked Alakzi. However, I later unblocked him. Why? The reason for that dispute was that the colors in infoboxes could have hurt the eyes of visually impaired editors. As I said on my talk page, "Both sides [of the dispute] bring reasoned and actionable points. Their methods may be worthy of question, but they're intent is good, as far as I can see." I thought Alakzi was acting in good faith. I no longer truly believe that now. What was the turning point? This. There is an argument to be made that fighting for visually impaired editors is a worthy cause. Fighting to get a fucking template moved, even though the template you want it moved to already redirects back to it, is goddamn ridiculous. There was no just cause there. Just an editor demanding that his will be done, and that everyone else's will be damned. And to make sure his will is done, and nobody else's, he closed the move discussion and moved the page anyway, even though anyone could have seen that there was no consensus, forcing another user to revert the move. When the page was move-protected by an admin to prevent another against consensus move, Alakzi's response? "Another pointless administrative action from you". That sums it up really. Anything that goes against His Mighty And Infallible Will is "pointless", and those who disagree with him are "spineless". Wikipedia is not therapy. If Alakzi has behavioral problems, and chooses to throw all his toys out of the pram everytime someone disagrees with him, we're not the ones to console him. --ceradon (talk • edits) 14:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Do you enjoying writing these tirades? Alakzi (talk) 14:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:CIV is required. AlbinoFerret 14:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Amusing. Alakzi (talk) 14:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Above the rules, aren't we? Case in point --ceradon (talk • edits) 14:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Give it a break @Ceradon:. Alakzi has now had WP:CIV thrown at him about 5 times. May have deserve once or twice, but you don't have to rub it in. WP:BOOMERANG works on Admins too, as does WP:CIV. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 14:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

This is in particular why this type of civility warrior behavior is more disruptive. I will point out for example Rob, his is a reasonable objection and my response was [[303]], these are the reactions that we normally see when a person is not ranting and raving. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you could try answering my question here. Alakzi (talk) 15:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

We have tried to several times but you chose to ignore it because you don't like the result. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

No, you haven't. Alakzi (talk) 15:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. --ceradon (talk • edits) 15:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Yet again another case in point. I'm done trying to reason this through with you. Please feel free to hurl whatever hateful epithet you think will bother me most while arguing for civility and not being offensive. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Sure. I think it's quite obvious to anyone paying attention that Wikipedia:Don't shoot yourself in the foot is speaking directly about self-harm. Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man makes the contents of the essay obvious, doesn't it? Reichstag? Reich? Hitler! It's talking about Neo-Nazism! Noooo! Wikipedia:Don't shoot the messenger is talking about outright murder! The horror! How heartless are we to be perpetuating such vile behavior?! You're going to click those links aren't you? You're going to see that what the titles of the essays say aren't what the contents of the essay say? No! Stop! Don't you dare! Take it at face value, and don't look any deeper! I demand it! It seems that sarcasm is the only way I can impress upon you how ridiculous what you're doing is at this point. Oh well. --ceradon (talk • edits) 15:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

In short, you don't care about offending people whom you view with contempt. Alakzi (talk) 15:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Already responded to this exact same point on the essay talk page, so I'll just copy paste the diff here.[304] This is an essay used during unblock/ban discussions to imply that an editor is going to metaphorically "hang themself." The other essays are not remotely similar in tone and implication. Brustopher (talk) 15:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I think you're making the same point Alakzi is, but that doesn't make it any less false. The title seems a bit off, but the message is not. Here is a passage from ROPE: "If they are pleading to be unblocked and swearing up and down that they understand and won't do again whatever it was that got them blocked, rather than arguing the finer points of the original block or demanding further explanation, it may be better to just unblock them and make it clear that this is their last chance. If they mean what they say, they'll be fine, and if they don't, they'll be blocked again soon enough." If you even read the first paragraph of the essay it say that there is, in fact, hope that an editor is true to their word. If there could never be any doubt that a blocked editor is lying when they say they won't do something again, what's the point of "ROPE" anyway? There is more to the essay than just the title. --ceradon (talk • edits) 15:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

This is starting to get a bit confusing. If you think the title is "off", why are you opposing a move? Brustopher (talk) 15:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Brustopher, There are a few words missing there. "The title, by itself, seems a bit off". The title of the essay and the contents of the essay are not mutually exclusive. The content explains the title, and, in my opinion, justifies it. I see no reason to alter the status quo, thus my oppose vote. --ceradon (talk • edits) 16:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

In short, you don't care about offending people whom you view with contempt. Alakzi (talk) 15:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Ceradon, I think you could fracture your skull before making the impression you are trying. I suggest waiting for the inevitable block and note the continued character and bad faith behavior. "Hangman, hangman, Upon your face a smile, Pray tell me that I'm free to ride, Ride for many mile, mile, mile" Gallows Pole Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for making my point. Alakzi (talk) 15:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Well you are doing a fine job of that yourself with your own behaviors but that comment was addressed to Ceradon and was referencing the two Boomerang threats for him and myself. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment- It's pretty clear that Alakzi is in the wrong here. This is an editor who got blocked for personal attacks and has continued to call people every name under the Sun, but expects everyone else to tiptoe around Alakzi's feelings. It's preposterous to claim WP:ROPE is somehow offensive. Reyk _YO! 15:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Give_'em_enough_rope#Requested_move_12_August_2015 is ongoing, but the arguments there to rename the page does not support your characterization that it is "preposterous".—Bagumba (talk) 18:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Actually, the current consensus does not support a move of the article, and many of the oppose votes do indeed say that the current title is not offensive. There is a type of person, especially among those involved in sociopolitical campaigns, who spends much too much time waiting to be offended by one thing or another, to the point that they lose perspective about what is and is not actually offensive. Their sensitivity to offense is set so low that practically anything becomes potentially objectionable. Were these people to have their way, our language would be stripped of all colorfulness and metaphor, one of its strengths. BMK (talk) 21:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
      • @Beyond My Ken: I personally reserve characterizations of "preposterous" for snow closes, if it were to be used at all. In any event, consensus will take care of itself when that discussion closes. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 22:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
    • An opinion can be preposterous even if many people hold it. Lots of people think the moon landings were faked or that vaccines cause autism, but that doesn't make those claims any less silly. Reyk _YO! 07:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Too much WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality across the board by many participants at Wikipedia talk:Give 'em enough rope#Requested move 12 August 2015. WP:WABBITSEASON anyone? Not too surprising when the theme is political correctness. Disclosure: I am involved in the discussion.—Bagumba (talk) 17:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Blocks

• Users Alakzi and Webdrone have been indef blocked by Nuclear Warfare. See this. BMK (talk) 22:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I've asked NW to reverse the indef, which is completely unwarranted; doubly so on the spurious grounds he gave for making it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
• I started a new subheading as I imagine the actions and discussions about this block will go past where the initial discussion has gone (which I think have resolved themselves, block or no block). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
• Note: both users have been unblocked by Floquenbeam. -- Orduin ^Discuss 00:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Reblock needed for edit warring and personal attacks

Herre's one example of more gross personal attacks [[305]], [[306]], [[307]], [[308]], [[309]]. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support (uninvolved non admin) The first diff and other comments in this section show a total failure to follow WP:CIV. There is also no attempt that I have seen to apologise for the words used. A block of up to three months for Alakzi sounds about right. AlbinoFerret 17:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Alakzi is currently blocked for personal attacks with talkpage access removed. -- Orduin ^Discuss 17:43, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
• Note Without commenting on the validity of the prior "NOTHERE" block, I was going to issue a short block for personal attacks to Alakzi per their "you insufferable scum" comment. However when I got there I saw that a block was already in place. I then noticed the user was continuing to use their talk page for personal attacks while blocked and I removed talk page access. I am open to discussion of this action here or on my talk page. Chillum 17:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: editing restrictions for Alakzi

I started editing this section to get consensus for editing restrictions. That seems impossible now. Therefore, I am now advocating for an indefinite ban for Alakzi.

Alakzi has engaged in numerous behaviors that contradict Wikipedia's communal values. They has been blocked numerous times for editing disruptively, and using personal attacks against numerous editors. They were blocked for personal attacks and disruptive editing by Ceradon for 60 hours, but that blocked was shortened by Ceradon. They were later unblocked by the same administrator. Alakzi was indefinitely blocked by NuclearWarfare, per NOTHERE, and on suspicions of sockpuppetry. They were later unblocked by Floquenbeam. Since there unblock by Floquenbeam, and after agreeing to leave dramatic situations alone, Alakzi has said to Beeblebrox, "Go fuck yourselg, Beeblebrox. [sic] What fucking gall." and has called them "insufferable scum". They have stated "You're absolutely horrible people" and has said that, "This "community" now disgusts me". They have stated that Salvio giuliano, the admin who leveled the most recent 1-week block, "sickens [them]". After administrator Salvio giuliano levelled the most recent block against Alakzi, they have used two sockpuppets, Abotzi and Alakzi1 to insert the following comment into their talk page: "The unaccountable despots who run this place don't give a shit about you."

Alakzi's actions have repeatedly been suboptimal, disruptive and vicious. They have been given numerous chances to change their behavior and return the community to edit in a manner suited to a collaborative project. They have, each time, failed to do so. Alakzi has rendered the time and efforts of numerous editors and administrators wasted. Therefore, they are prohibited from shouting at, swearing at, insulting and/or belittling other editors, and engaging in uncivil or pointy behavior. Should they violate these restrictions, they are to be blocked for a month. Further such behavior will result in an indefinite block.

• Edit: Text was altered at 19:12, 14 August 2015 and 19:16, 14 August 2015.

Voting

• Support as proposer: No user should get to exhaust the community's patience and waste the community's time indefinitely, I'm afraid. --ceradon (talk • edits) 18:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose a ban is overkill and said member could still change their behavior. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Hell in a Bucket: Check again. --ceradon (talk • edits) 19:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I am exiting this entire situation per multiple requests unless I'm brought up. Sorry but I refuse to be blocked for this and there is plenty of eyes. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
• oppose. Ban the admins instead. We need more content creators not egomaniacs. The actions are perfectly normal when someone is backed into a corner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.121.17 (talk) 19:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. I am admittedly involved in the sense that this user has helped me quite a bit in the past with things related to templates and AWB, but that just goes to show that they are doing good for the project. Their current blow-up is very unfortunate and certainly warrants a block for longer than a week, but an indefinite ban is extreme. We shouldn't ignore a long history of positive contributions due to a couple isolated incidents. My hope is that Alakzi can return in a month or so and put this behind them. If they can, they'd be a great asset in the areas of template editing and accessibility. If they can't, then a ban would be appropriate, as unfortunate as that would be. ~ Rob^Talk 19:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @BU Rob13: Check now. --ceradon (talk • edits) 19:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
    • What am I meant to be checking? I'm aware of the sockpuppetry already. ~ Rob^Talk 19:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
      • No longer looking for a ban, just restrictions and an outline on how to deal with them should they violate the restrictions. --ceradon (talk • edits) 19:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
        • Ah, sorry. Missed that. Thanks for pinging me. In the short term, Alakzi has clearly blown his top over this issue. Placing sanctions is unlikely to help him get things back under control for his eventual return, and I see it as a guarantee that he'll get more upset and more likely to do something he'll later regret. I see that as a substantial negative factor to such a sanction. On the other hand, the sanctions you've proposed are nothing more than would be completely expected of him given his block log. I don't oppose admins blocking in the way you described, but I don't think they need a formal sanction on incivility to do so when incivility is always against the rules. Given that I see no real benefit to the formality of a sanction in this situation and a significant downside, I still would oppose the proposed sanction. To reiterate, though, I completely support an administrator blocking Alakzi for a month or longer if he were to return to the site after his current block and continue his current behavior. It would be disappointing, since he has been extremely helpful to me in figuring out templates and regex, but it would be the only appropriate action. ~ Rob^Talk 19:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
• No. For fuck's sake, people. I am at a loss to understand how so many people are missing the basic dynamic here and just keep escalating the situation at every turn. The Rules were broken! Someone said angry things on the internet! You're proposing to indefinitely ban someone who's been a productive editor for months, who has gotten trapped in the escalation ratchet after getting a remarkably callous response to genuine feelings of offense at an essay that really does have problems. The thing you need to do now is stop. Just leave the matter alone for a while. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Opabinia regalis: First, I've altered the proposal. Not an indefinite ban just yet, but restrictions. Second, if we leave Alakzi alone, unsanctioned, and leave him completely able to go on tirades against other users, then what? We just accept all his vitriol lying down? Is that what you are proposing. --ceradon (talk • edits) 19:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
    • There are plenty of others who are allowed to do just that, with impunity. (Reserving judgement on the proposal, for now.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Very productive editor, though strong-willed and outspoken. Problems have arisen when interacting with others with different opinions, in particular with those who take exception to Alakzi's unfiltered language. The situations deteriorate when neither party follows WP:DR, a WP:BATTLEGROUND ensues, and the problem reaches the noticeboards. I'll say that having been WP:INVOLVED with some of the discussions that have gone to noticeboards, I have generally agreed with Alakzi's reasoning for the end result. However, consensus probably doesnt happen as fast or as smoothly as they would prefer, which leads to colorful language. I don't believe NOTHERE applies, as I do feel their intent is to be "here primarily to help improve encyclopedia articles and content". However, I do realize some in the community expect to see changes in the user's reactions during disputes. They are here to contribute, but this may not end up being the right place for them. Durations of successive blocks normally increase anyways, so I don't see the need for more WP:BUREAUCRACY.—Bagumba (talk) 19:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose He's called me before on something, which was just a misunderstanding, so I would say that he isn't into bad behaviour per se. He obviously enjoys his Wikipediaing. He makes good contributions, though I agree he needs to learn to let stuff go. I also think the abusive terms he's using, at least the ones I've seen, really aren't that horrendous. For example, calling a group of people "scum" over the internet is, in all honesty, not that bad, and would be mildly amusing in a different arena. All in all, give him a ban for week, then give him a month next time if he continues to fail to accept it when decisions go against him. Hopefully he can get onto the straight and narrow in time!! Ah, just seen some of the other comments. Well, he does need to learn to calm down. He's not threatening anyone, but yeah, needs to learn to calm it! I again express my hope he can serve out a week-long ban and come back with a new leaf turned over. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 20:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
• A. Support narrower, clearer, and less punitive restriction, but absolutely not with a "swearing" ban: While I largely agree with the reasoning offered by both Opabina Regalis and Bagumba, the observations by Ceradon are clearly correct in the overall gist, though exaggeratory, unclear, and dismissive of the editor's more valuable contributions (even if said editor is sometimes problematic), and the draft remedy was vague and overbroad, even after copyediting. I'd support something along these lines: Alakzi's actions have too often been suboptimal and disruptive. Therefore, Alakzi is directed to address edits, not the editor, and is prohibited from engaging in personal attacks or other uncivil behavior, including: insulting, belittling, name-calling, or questioning the good faith or motivations of other editors. Alakzi is also prohibited from taking WP:POINTy actions. Violation of these restrictions will result in a one-month block. Further such behavior may result in lengthier blocks, topic/interaction bans, even an indefinite block, at community or administrator discretion. NB: I wrote that in a way that should preclude WP:GAMING claims that not-uncivil criticism of edits or editing behavior patterns are "insulting" or whatever; no one has a right to be free from concerns raised about what they're doing. I thus, of course, oppose an indef block/ban.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC) Update: If Alakzi turns out to be a sockpuppet, per the post a subthread below this, then it's a different matter, of course.

  B. Suggest a narrow WP:BOOMERANG restriction on Hell in a Bucket: To wit, Comments, accusations, or suppositions about someone else's mental health or abilities (in whatever exact wording) will normally be interpreted as offensive, and are usually unwarranted and unsupportable; yet Hell in a Bucket has used them frequently as verbal weapons. Therefore, Hell in a Bucket is prohibited from commenting on or verbally hypothesizing about the mental state or faculties of another editor, including by reference to pages like WP:COMPETENCE in a manner that clearly implies mental health or capability issues. No remedies need be spelled out or presently applied in this case. If this is thought too stringent, Hell in a Bucket should be warned on their talk page, in similar language, that such a restriction is likely if the behavior resumes. Update: And this would not be affected if Alakzi turns out to be a sock.

  I'll address issues with WP:ROPE and WP:COMPETENCE in a subthread below.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Do what you have to do. If you seriously think that this is a person that is able to productively handle disputes in a way that the essay specifically references for social interactions and grudges then there is little I can say to convince you otherwise. I have little to add to this at this point, further actions by myself have proven to be futile to try and address this so I am not going to waste the energy further. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 04:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
    • If this is indeed Jack Merridew, the community banned editor who inspired much of an essay currently under scrutiny, it would explain a lot. There are incurables for sure, and Merridew is absolutely one of them. Doc talk 05:09, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Let's remember that Alakzi, a very skilled and significant contributor, is blocked for their - admittedly intemperate - response to a bogus socking accusation and an unwarranted indef block made on bogus grounds (for which the blocking admin has issued a half-hearted apology to only one of the two victims); both preceded and followed by goading and personal attacks. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:19, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • That's a very... interesting ... interpretation of events. BMK (talk) 00:04, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
    • It's also factual. Feel free to attempt a refutation, rather than a snarky comment, if you disagree. Perhaps you an provide evidence that the person conducting the checkuser was mistaken in finding no evidence of socking? Or that the (piss-poor) apology made by NW for his intemperate block (one described as "misunderstanding; not a sockpuppet" by the unblocker) referred to some other case? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Frankly, it needs no refutation, because it merely represents your very skewed POV on this matter, which has been consistently one-sided from the beginning. My comment was intended simply to flag that to anyone who may be coming to the issue without having been aware of the background, which is easy enough to find by perusing this thread, User talk:Alakzi, and the SPI. Such an examination does not support your POV. BMK (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
        • You offer no refutation, because you cannot refute what I wrote. I presented irrefutable facts, not PoV.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
          • Actually, your "facts" are your own biased personal interpretation of what occurred, and nothing more. Anyone can see your POV who wishes to follow up this silly discussion. I suggest that you have expressed your opinions, and I have expressed my opinion of your opinions, and there is little to be gained by extending this conversation. Let's both give it a rest and return to doing something productive. BMK (talk) 19:12, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, mostly per Opabinia regalis. I think Andy also described the events well. I would like to see a few more people apologize to Alakzi. Floq did. NW also but not on the user's talk page. - I say this in the name of (projects) Editor retention, Freedom of speech, Quality article improvement and, yes, for civility. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:12, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
• Agree. Hell in a Bucket's recent writing struck me as trolling/provocative. Moreover, looking at some recent edits, Hell in a Bucket wrote 'I resent that,' in a talk on 14-Aug. And he alludes to various other negative feelings. Wikipedia is not the place for resentment, rage, grudges, revenge. Whether it's inappropriate aggression, or simply an aggressive writing style, we need to stay on the dispassionate side of things. Wxidea (talk) 03:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

I don't know about the rest of you, but my patience is certainly exhauseted. This is not a user whose attitude is compatible witha cooperative environment liek this is supposed to be. That being the case, there is no doubt in my mind that they will eventually end up being indef blocked for disruptive editing and personal attacks. Sooner would be better than later, but whatever. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Aww, but indeffing is just so hard on someone. He obviously enjoys editing Wikipedia, has built up a good volume of constructive edits, so it would really be the nuclear option. I agree, however, that if he does not learn to just let stuff go, he will end up indeffed. No doubt about it. Hopefully, notwithstanding your pessimism, the guy can turn things around. We'll see… --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 20:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

People above are saying that Alakzi will change his behavior after the block. Honestly, I have very little faith in that. But, my proposal above is trying the make an official sanction regarding Alakzi's behavior, and to give blocking administrators a definite guideline on how to deal with such outburst in the future. I am exhausted. Beeblebrox is exhausted. Floquenbeam went out on the limb to unblock Alakzi and had his good will and his ass handed back to him mere hours later. Alakzi has a voluptuous history of outbursts, incivility, personal attacks, and disruptive and pointy editing. If the community should fancy going the optimistic route, that a leopard will magically change his spots, and that no official sanction are warranted, well, fine. But I can't bring myself to take part in such farces. --ceradon (talk • edits) 20:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I opposed, but I freely admit this is not going to end well without some changes. However, I don't think a ban on subjective behavior like "shouting at, swearing at, insulting and/or belittling other editors, and engaging in uncivil or pointy behavior" is the answer. Interaction bans have been mentioned before, but it's not a particular user(s) that are the issue. I don't think there is a specific page, or class of pages, that have been problematic either. I think this can organically resolve itself, hopefully one way versus another.—Bagumba (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with or would clarify Ceradon's original editing restrictions proposal in the following ways:

1. "Go fuck yourself" is uncivil, but not an attack.
2. "what fucking gall" is neither an attack, nor unquestionably uncivil, but a strong expression of opinion about approach, and it uses language some people don't like but which others (like me) largely shrug off.
3. "This 'community' now disgusts me" is nothing but expression of frustration with process and bureaucracy (and perhaps with not getting one's way).
4. "sickens me" is neither uncivil nor an attack, but an expression of personal feeling.
5. "The unaccountable despots who run this place don't give a shit about you" is a general statement about the administrative/ArbCom/noticeboard/remedies system as a whole, and is a sentiment (perhaps unreasonably) shared to varying degrees by a non-trivial number of other editors.
6. Labeling Alakzi's actions as "repeatedly ... vicious" is nearly as uncivil as anything Alakzi has said, and an assumption of bad faith rather than anger.
7. "Shouting" is meaningless in this medium, and would be GAMED as applying to any display of strong emotion.
8. A ban on expletives would be subject to ridiculous levels of GAMING, since what constitutes "swearing" is personally subjective when it's not cultural and subcultural, and varies from context to context even to the same individual.
9. The sockpuppetry barely qualifies as such, as the names were obvious, and it (at least that I have seen so far) was done to be able to make a point on the editor's own talk page, not to vandalize or do something else genuinely disruptive. As short-term, heat-of-the-moment block evasion goes, it's a rather minor transgression.

I agree with all of the rest of it, including the general message, and the need for restrictions. "You're absolutely horrible people" was clearly a personal attack against several specific editors (that said, it was obviously predicated on the user feeling unjustly ganged up on; it's unlikely these are serious assessments of characters, but just venting). Some actions by the editor have been disruptive (e.g. tagging a WP:SPI page for speedy deletion). And the editor does generally display a pattern of quickly-heated response, and related problematic behaviors, but they're obviously not generally "fatal" to the editor's ability to contribute, nor are they a frequent source of disruption.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Suggest postponing discussion

Seconding motion that "It's not necessary to keep this thread alive ..."—Bagumba (talk) 19:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It hurts to do this. It was suggested to me by email this morning that Alakzi is Jack Merridew/Br'er Rabbit. I've reviewed Alakzi's edits, and it's pretty damn compelling. This probably better explains the 3 CU's recently run on him described in the SPI page, which certainly seemed out of proportion for the Webdrone thing. Since I've defended Jack in the past, I imagine there might be some suspicion about my interceding in his block yesterday. You'll have to take my word for it that I didn't hear about this until after becoming fed up with Alakzi, Beeblebrox, and Hell in a Bucket and blanking my talk page this morning. I'm no Javert. If this was a matter of a "clean start" (yes, I know, don't quote policy to me, I know what it says and that's why I put it in scare quotes), I'd have been more than happy to look the other way; an un-angry Jack is helpful and knowledgeable, and is, frankly, a better person than some of his long-term detractors. But he's returning to the exact same behavior that led to his previous bans, and the disruption is spreading to numerous pages, so I can't in good conscience keep silent and let people invest time and emotional energy defending someone who is likely to be banned when he comes back in a week and resumes the fight. From past observation, it is 100% guaranteed that JM/BR does not de-escalate when convinced he's right. I suggest interrupting this discussion (there's no rush, he's blocked for a week), and wait for an SPI to be filed (I'll do it if nobody else does). We already know CU won't be useful, but it won't be too hard to put together a pretty compelling behavioral case. Alternately, @Alakzi:, my email is my username at gmail.com, and you can short circuit all that work by emailing me a confirmation. Penultimately, I'm convinced (per my comments at SPI, which remain true) that Webdrone isn't the same person, just a friend. Finally, I will block anyone who gravedances on his talk page for a fucking month. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC) Take the weekend off and get away from us. Burn-out doesn't help anyone. :( The discussion doesn't like it supports a full ban at this point so your suggestion may be unnecessary.. There is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alakzi/Archive which seems to have ended with inconclusive but let this discussion go on a bit before we start new SPIs and new fights with that. If this is Jack (and that's a name I haven't heard in a while), the same always applies: go back to your main and request an unblock there. It's not very likely to happen but it's less drama and less of a disappointment to your (former) supporters than creating new socks to see how far you can go before old habits happen. Ah, well, we can lead the horse to water .... -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC) OK. So: I haven't had much of a chance to see what's been going on here today on-wiki, because: I've received a lot of mail Some of it is of the "Yeah, I think so too" variety Some of it is of the "Are you sure? that doesn't sound right" variety More importantly, Two of them are from people who have known both editors, and are very sure that they are not the same person. These are people who I trust not to mislead me to protect a friend. One of them in particular is convincing: all template-related stuff is black magic to me, but the particular area of technical expertise with templates is apparently quite different. Two of them have had several conflicts with Jack in the past, one of whom is doubtful and the other pretty confident I've got it wrong. I saw (and still see) a lot of technical area overlap, and one or two other things that led me in one direction. But the human part of this - people I trust implicitly, and people who are smarter than me, saying it probably isn't Jack, or even flat out that it isn't - convinces me that I've probably made a big mistake, and one that caused a lot of distress to Alakzi. So, I'm: Withdrawing the accusation, and am not going to file an SPI; conflicting lists of pro and con pieces of evidence that friends and enemies can argue about will not be productive Apologizing to Alakzi. Particularly because this comes on top of an incorrect sock accusation the day before. Apologizing to everyone else for doing the same thing that so pisses me off when other people do it: causing pointless drama Apologize to Jack for dredging his name up, and giving weasels an opportunity to get a free kick in Getting back out of the sock business; I'm evidently worse at it than I thought Attempting to play The Game this weekend, except instead of not thinking of the Game, I'm trying not to think about Wikipedia Once again, sorry Alakzi, and sorry everyone. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC) It's not necessary to keep this thread alive, and I wish you the best of luck with the Game this weekend, Floq. But just, and since I haven't spoken before, here or anywhere, wrt this cause celèbre: re your point 4, about the weasels and the free kicks. Yes, it is a pity you gave an opportunity for this attack on a long-gone editor, as are you, I'm sure. That said, do remember the responsibility for jumping at the opportunity and for the nasty wording ("incurable", with its ugly overtones) is the speaker's, not yours. Bishonen | talk 14:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC). I can't wait for the next bullshit accusation I'm gonna have to put up with. And what's with extending my block? My, I've "socked" to copyedit my own talk page; how terrible. No, I'm not the one who should be sanctioned; it's the tyrants Ceradon and Chillum, and all of the unnamed arseholes who ran undisclosed checks on my account. Being in a position of authority MEANS TO BE ACCOUNTABLE AND RESPONSIBLE. My TE user right was removed last night by MSGJ because I apparently "no longer hold the trust required". Not so. I haven't failed you; you have failed me. It's you who have lost my trust. What is it that I'm supposed to do with yet another half-baked apology? Do some introspection. It's COMPLETELY FUCKING UNACCEPTABLE to accuse me of being Jack or whoever else it might be in public without providing EVEN THE TINIEST SHRED of evidence, all the while I AM UNABLE TO RESPOND due to being blocked. I felt like complete shit. Doing the right thing means to minimise damage to humans; it doesn't mean to follow the fucking rulebook. My God. If I wasn't insane before, I am now. Oh, and this forum is worse than the deepest catacombs of 4chan. Alakzi2 (talk) 17:42, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

The incompetent, hung elephant in the room

Not opportune. Drmies (talk) 04:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have to strongly insist that both WP:ROPE and WP:COMPETENCE have to be rethought, and we should stop using them at noticeboards until this has happened. There's a stab at Wikipedia:Let the tiger show its stripes to rewrite ROPE, but that phrasing is not really much better; that saying is rarely interpreted positively. In both cases, there is a negative presumption – of bad faith or of mental problems, respectively. Yet many admins (among others) at ANI and AE have little compunction against using ROPE to 'cleverly" imply that they're actively predicting that the user will screw up [that's vulgar swearing to a lot of people, BTW] and maybe even hoping they will. I've been objecting to this for years, but we have no other page for the concept (I referred to it the other day myself, but didn't feel good about it). The re-approach is that the concept is If an editor released from a restriction returns to disruptive behavior they can be sanctioned more strongly than they were the last time. Note the total lack of assumptions in that new nutshell. With COMPETENCE, it's frequently abused to imply that anyone difficult, "differently clued", highly emotional, or not too good with logic is "incompetent" to participate here, but that's rarely actually true. There must be a way to reword that so that it speaks directly and only to the effects on the project, the community, and the consensus process, but not the motivations or causes for individual's competence issues. What looks like crazy to you may look like stubborn to me, and what I think is stupidity may clearly map to a cultural divide in your eyes. WP has no damned [another swear-word to some people] business trying to imagine what someone else's neuroses or IQ are. We do have a strong interest in tying certain patterns of interaction and other behavior to undesirable effects. We do not have to theorize that someone is incapable of complying, only note that they are not. Competence by definition is something that one develops and exhibits; it is not and cannot be an innate trait.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC) I disagree on the point of ROPE needing a move/rewording. On the point of COMPETENCE, there may be something there, but I would like to see aa draft of any rewrite before I can get behind it. --ceradon (talk • edits) 00:32, 15 August 2015 (UTC) The argument is about assuming good faith not about competency. As I suggested, perhaps something more like "Good faith applies to the blocked as well"? There was WP:SECOND CHANCES but it seemed like people were trying to ramrod the current articles there rather than build a separate one. Either way, that discussion isn't for here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:19, 15 August 2015 (UTC) Oppose: This discussion does not belong here and is a distracting hijack. Recommend this section be hatted. Softlavender (talk) 01:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC) Having promised to withdraw I in the spirit of fairness have to clarify that this has relevance to the situation. There were mentions of CIR by myself a couple of others and the WP:ROPE stuff is apparent as part of the locus. I have nothing to add one way or the other about the rest. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC) Very strongly oppose-SMcCandlish's suggestions, both that they need re-writing and that they not be used. I recommend that if he is offended by them, he not use them, and look the other way when they are properly used by others. If someone improperly interprets them, he should correct their misusage. His POV is not necessarily shared by the rest of the community. BMK (talk) 02:05, 15 August 2015 (UTC) Oppose - SMcCandish is not the new chief essayist/moral compass of Wikipedia, and despite his "strong" insistence that two more longstanding essays be totally trashed, we actually do not need any more essays that he just doesn't like to be rewritten to comply with his POV. What's next on this slippery slope? For instance, WP:TE is currently written entirely from a perspective of how describe a "type" of editor, and "labeling" is a practice which he claims to object to; yet he quotes it when it suits him. He also quotes WP:VESTED when he wants to, which is another label. His method of turning essays that effectively describe disruptive editors into his own little primers (self-written-and-not-submitted-for-community-approval) on how to "cure", or "not be", these types is neither acceptable nor warranted. COMPETENCE has been around since June of 2008. ROPE since January of 2010. Why, now, is this one editor literally demanding that these essays (among others) be sanitized for his approval? Is this a new Renaissance or something? It is not. Leave both of these essays alone. Doc talk 03:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC) Oppose - In the last few weeks we have had as many time sinks abuse AGF as I have seen in many moons. These essays do not need to be weakened to help these WP:NOTHERE editors. MarnetteD|Talk 04:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC) Oppose Both essays make great points. This is hardly the venue to propose such a things. Discussion is already going on at the talk page fro ROPE where consensus seems to be that it is fine. Chillum 04:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC) Comment. What is a "hung elephant" and why is said "hung elephant" in the subheader but nowhere else?Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:09, 15 August 2015 (UTC) When I first read that I pictured a well endowed elephant, but then I realized it was a reference to WP:ROPE. Chillum 04:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: restore Alakzi's talk page access

I voted above in a thread that begins with proposing a ban, has a different header (editing restrictions), and I wonder what a user agrees with who just writes Agree, under my post. My command of English is limited, and I like things simple. So excuse me for starting another thread. I met Alakzi in February, and have enjoyed tremendous help and cheerful talk. Look at the difference of St Matthew Passion discography and St John Passion discography: Wikipedia has to thank Alakzi for that. (More appreciation here., you can also look for my name in the talk archives.)

Alakzi has been treated with bad faith and mistrust by the community (blocks, SPIs), and reacted in explosion. I have not seen anything that I would interpret as a "personal attack" (a statement has to be personal to be a personal attack, so I dont think this which started the sequence of sad events, is one, "spineless and thoughtless barnstar hoarders" not directed at a person). I suggest to restore Alakzi's talk page access, solving all "socking", with advice to use it for factual comments. I guess we have heard most of the general statements about us as a community, which makes me look critically at what kind of a civil collaborating community we are. I see restored talk page access as a first step to restore the respect of Alakzi's integrity. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Support as proposer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

False accusation and personal attack

user:Toddy1, has a history of making false and baseless accusations against me. He claimed here [310] that I added the following, when it was there long before I started editing the article: "Under Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab it says "Salafists consider Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab as the first figure in the modern era to push for a return to the religious practices of the salaf as-salih". As we may see here [311], this statement has existed long before I started editing.

Today he posted a menacing personal attack on my talk page, accusing me of being a user I have no connection with and do not know who he/she is. His message may be seen here [312]. This is clearly a violation of a variety of wikipedia policies pertaining to civility and personal attacks. I would recommend that disciplinary action be taken against him. Xtremedood (talk) 14:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I see a big BOOMERANG coming back at Xtremedood. The user hasn't even informed Toddy1 formally. Leaving a manual missive on Toddy1's talk page is bad form. Please put a lid on it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor who interacted with Toddy1 sometime ago I had a brief interaction with Toddy1 a while ago. At first I thought that he was quite obnoxious, overbearing and very rude. But when I went to his talk page I found out that he speaks English language as a second language and therefore they sometimes try to say one thing and it comes out as another. Perhaps you can be kind enough to give them some rope?FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 16:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy, I have informed Toddy1 here [313], however he deleted it.

I have seen other users post more "informal" notices on pages and their complaint was not declared a boomerang, see here [314]. Is there a Wikipedia policy as to a specific format upon which a notice must be placed on a user's page? Xtremedood (talk) 00:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

No, there is no such required format - as the notice at the top of the page says (with my emphasis)

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

The requirement is to notify, the option for using that template is "may" not "should" or "must" - Arjayay (talk) 13:52, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Arjayay, my comment on BOOMERANG was unrelated to the type of notification left for Toddy1. I was referring to Xtremedood's WP:NOTHERE, WP:BATTLEGROUND behavioural pattern which I determined just in a cursory look at the user's editing history, and the fact that this ANI complaint is a tendentious waste of editor time and energy. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Background. Xtremedood is involved in a content dispute concerning the article on the Salafi movement. He/she made changes on 24 July, 25 July, 8 August, and 10 August. I tried reverting on 24 July on the grounds that two citations that I checked did not support the text. He/she reverted back and started a talk page discussion at Talk:Salafi movement#Revert by Toddy1. In the talk page discussion @Brustopher: supported Xtremedood's changes, whilst @MezzoMezzo:, @DeCausa: and myself objected to them. Xtremedood's changes to the article were partially reverted by MezzoMezzo, and completely reverted by me on 11 August.

Xtremedood's complaints about my conduct.

1. I received a message posted by an IP threatening to report me to Interpol on my talk page on 13 August. It seemed obvious that this was from Xtremedood, so I responded by posting a message on User talk:Xtremedood politely asking him/her not to send me threatening messages.[315]
2. Regarding Xtremedood's other complaint - during the discussion on the article talk page I mentioned two citations that I had checked and found not to support the text they were there for.[316] He/she is right that one of those citations was there before his edits. His/her edits of 8 August had moved the paragraph to a different part of the article, and I mistakenly thought that he/she had introduced that part.
3. I do not understand why Xtremedood believes that I deleted his ANI notification from my talk page. It is still there.

-- Toddy1 (talk) 05:31, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• Ugh. Relatively new editor Xtremedood is trying to POV push a fringe view into Salafi movement and finds established editors MezzoMezzo and Toddy1 resisting on the basis of policy. Xtremedood proceeds on the basis of WP:BATTLE and uses ANI report based on a trivial diff as a tactic to attack one of the editors they're in dispute with. Thread needs to be dismissed with an admin keeping an eye on the OP. That's the story here. DeCausa (talk) 12:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • It's not POV. It was sourced. I am against dogma being promoted in this article over verifiable facts and sources. Xtremedood (talk) 13:43, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

As we can see above, user:Toddy1, once against falsely accuses me of leaving that message when I have no connection to that user and I do not know who that user is. Clearly this has to stop. Xtremedood (talk) 13:43, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

DeCausa knocked it out of the water, though Iryna Harpy figured it out pretty fast as well. Xtremedood: give it a rest. I advised you more than once that your combative methods got you blocked for edit warring on other articles. You aren't going to get your way by attacking other editors all the time; stop seeing us as adversaries and start treating is as colleagues working together to improve articles, otherwise you're just going to be marginalized and your suggested edits will be rejected. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

The complaint is about a false accusation, stay on topic. There is no need to gang up on me if I disagree with your position or Toddy1's position. I did not send Toddy1 that message. Toddy1 should not be falsely accusing me. For the admins who may be confused about this, the dispute this user is mentioning refers to the article Salafi movement and the discussion between MezzoMezzo, Toddy1, DeCausa, and I may be viewed here: [317]. Xtremedood (talk) 05:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

No, the fact is that you are being tendentious and nit-picking in order to get your way instead of listening to discussion and consensus on the article's talk page. You're now heading towards pushing the limits of 'they're ganging up on me'. Please pay attention and drop the stick. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with your accusation that I am being tendentious and nitpicking. My sources are clear and may be seen here [318] before you reverted them. However, this is not the place to discuss this. This is regarding an incident where I was falsely accused of something I did not do. This violates a multitude of wikipedia policies pertaining to civility and personal attacks. I have opened a dispute on the dispute resolution noticeboard here [319] (feel free to state whatever you wish over there), however I now see that a decision should be made here before pursuing a case on the DRN. Regardless, stay on topic. Xtremedood (talk) 15:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

User:194.61.173.253 needs review: contribs show continual mix of sneaky vandal edits, and serious good faith edits, since 2011

Useful links/templates:

• 194.61.173.253 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 194.61.173.253 (talk · contribs · blocks · count · rollback · admin · logs)

There's no block log, deleted/revdeleted contribs and only one talk page comment (unhelpful edits, 2013). A disproportionate number of edits are blanking or vandalism or at best dubious for a bona fide editor of 4 years standing. The latest was two section blankings in mid July 2015. Equally, a ton of edits that looked like more of the same, turn out to be apparently bona fide when I checked, and seem to show thoughtfulness, involvement and good faith. Some I just couldn't find a definitive answer. I'm genuinely confused, so I'm posting it here for others to take a look, or the user him/herself to comment. Hopefully the user will understand (if good faith) that this is part of keeping things good and will understand why I'm so puzzled by their editing history. It's also possible their IP address is shared and this is the work of two editors, one of whom should get an account to prevent this confusion? Some reverts may be needed.

Examples:

• Blatant obvious vandalism:

adds "except for (persons name)" as attack on a person by that name

attack on footballer in subject's BLP (added "a selfish, unmotivated, lazy and highly unlikeable character who is symptomatic of the modern footballer")

• Looks like sneaky vandalism:

changes named club from Southampton to SUnderland, but references show the former was correct [320] (en) [321][322]

• Blanking:

[323] (two edits, deleting sections on two of fourteen construction regulations, unlikely to be accident or have good reason.

section blanked, unlikely to be good reason

infobox items blanked

• Unclear whether or not good faith:

changes name of a museum

changes years and names in a list, could be genuine update or not

changes memorial attribution from being replica of cannons from Siege of Lucknow (India and deathplace of article subject in 1857) to replicas from the Crimea War

• Appear valid:

updating tense to reflect event has happened

changes religion and employer of a BLP, but sources appear to support the edit [324]

changes "local government act" to "local transport act" but latter appears correct

change of date, but as many reliable sources seem to have one date as the other hence AGF

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

A quick WHOIS search will show that the IP is registered to Newcastle City Council, which would easily account for the varied editing style, given that many government employees will presumably be behind this IP. BethNaught (talk) 16:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, you posted yours about 7 mins before I posted the above, while I was writing it. Let's close this and I'll amend my TP post to reflect that better, too. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Just as likely to be library users and schoolchildren as local government employees. DuncanHill (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Some of the good faith edits on talk pages from 2013 were signed User:TWAMWIR, which given their user page suggests that the IP is almost certainly a public terminal. Black Kite (talk) 14:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Repeated/escalating non-AGF and personal attacks

My apologies ahead of time for the wall of text below. This report, however is the result of several weeks of continued incivility and personal attacks and deserves -- I believe -- to be looked at from the complete history, not just what it has escalated to be as of today.

In spite of repeated warnings, User:MaverickLittle has continued to make personal attacks and demonstrate non-AGF behavior on talk pages and in edit summaries. I have asked him to stop numerous times and have left warnings on his talk page as the attacks were repeated and escalated. His non-AGF and uncivil behavior have not been limited to me of late, as Cwobeel has also brought it up to him. His rude comments and nasty attitude have not been limited to being directed at just me.

From his talk page history, one can see that the same behavior has been happening for a while with other editors with his comments directed at them escalating into incivility: Edit summary here, here. He was taken to AN3 at the end of June, where an administrator (Darkwind noted the the case was not really edit warring and advised the filer (SanAnMan that the complaint seemed more in line with disruptive editing behavior (AN3 report here). Darkwind further notified MaverickLittle with a Discretionary Sanctions alert here; ML's response was to remove the notice and with uncivil comments in the editing summary - it is at this point where the escalation in ML's aggressive tone is first evident: "Removed info that was attempt to find something that I did wrong, which of course there wasn't. One editor just did not want to add the information to the article and took a lame case to an admin. Nothing came of it. Nothing."; (edit summary found here). Another example of incivility ("Explanation to Jd027 to check his work before he re-inserts--especially when he adds an unnecessary and incorrect to talk page lecture on top of it.") occurred here. Next example of continuing incivility toward editors in an edit summary here. When notified that he was edit warring, his response was less than polite (see here) and was followed by removal of the notice with another curt comment in the edit summary here.

It was at this point where he then went to AN3 to make the following comments directed at me (even though he was not involved in the AN3 filing at all) : "I would take just about any comment that Winkelvi about other people's edit habits with a huge grain of salt. He does not engage in conversation. He just states what he wants the article to be. Period. He reverts you immediately and then states that his version is the stable version, even if it isn't. I have only encounter Winkelvi in the last two days, concerning two different articles, Ted Cruz and Rachel Dolezal, but his actions are the same. His way or the highway. He is not someone to take his comments about other's edit habits seriously. I made one edit to the Ted Cruz article and he reverted me and other information that has been in the article for almost a year and then he puts a warning on my talk page that I was engaged in an edit war. His claim that I was engaging in an edit war was a lie. There is no other way to describe his outrageous claim. I merely walked away from the article instead of attempting in interact with him because he is unreasonable. Yeah, I made these comments, Winkelvi believes that it is his right to be critical of others but he needs the same instruction." - diff here. He was warned by another editor regarding the comments here and they were removed. Everything escalated from that point on - ML's response was "Your comments written above are obnoxious and narrow. You need to find something else to spend your free time on."

I have left the appropriate amount of warnings on ML's talk page since the incident at AN3: #1, #2, #3, #4. His comments regarding the warnings have continued with more personal attacks and all along the same theme as this: ("Stay off my talk page. You are a bully. You like to push others around. I reject all of your comments. You should follow your own advice." (found here. The personal attacks and uncivil behavior at the following talk pages have continued, up to today, even after he has been asked numerous times there to dial it down and behave more civilly: Columba Bush talk page, the Ted Cruz talk page, and the Carly Fiorina talk page.

I know I am far from perfect and have certainly had my moments of anger and incivility; many could probably say I have no room to file a complaint. Even so, it seems to me that even with the amount of warnings and advice and patience by others offered to MaverickLittle, he believes he can continue in the same vein of incivility without consequence. He appears to be fairly new, and his repeated WP:IDHT and WP:NOTTHEM-related comments attest to such. Because he is a relative newbie, I am not asking for nor am I suggesting any kind of block at this time. That said, something needs to be done that will make a stronger impression on him than what he's gotten from several veteran editors. If it doesn't happen soon, he will continue down this road of incivility and personal attacks to the point of where we have a situation of where a Wiki-monster has been created and allowed to flourish. He has made some decent content additions, but the attacks and battleground mentality get in the way to the point of obvious disruption that makes the signal to noise ratio a net negative. The underlying tone of hostility and aggressiveness he has employed pretty much since he started editing here has grown and become, in my opinion, abusive with almost an attitude of "I dare you to report me". I've been putting up with it from him for a while now and am finally at the point of where I'm saying 'enough'. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• Adding this example of further personal attacks by ML on August 6, 2015 at my talk page: "You are a typical bully of Wikipedia. You should be embarrassed. I'm not going to engage with someone who lies like you did when you claimed that I was engaging in an edit war. That was a damn lie and since you are willing to flat out lie like that it is clear that having an intelligent discussion with you is not possible. It was not just a lie; it was a damnable lie." (diff here). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I said all of the things above. Yes. It is correct Winkelvi is a very aggressive editor. Yes, Winkelvi does not cooperate when he edits. Yes, he lectures others about things that he does not do himself. Yes, disagrees with my edits constantly and he immediately reverts them. Yes, I follow neutral point of view. Yes, I use reliable sources to back up my edits. Yes, I am good editor. I admit to all of these things. Yes, I have told Winkelvi to follow his own advice. Yes, I refused to read an essay, which is not Wikipedia policy and that made Winkelvi dig down even deeper to give me a second lecture about how I must read everything that he tells me to. Yes, I raised my issues with Winkelvi with an admin. Yes, no matter what article I go to edit to get away from Winkelvi he follows me there and starts reverting my edits. Yes, if Winkelvi does not like my style or working with me why does Winkelvi follow me wherever I go? It is nonsense. He engages in incivility but he complains about incivility. He does every single thing that he complains about. It makes no sense.--ML (talk) 18:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• Note: ML's claim that I am following him to articles is incorrect. All of the articles we have in common have been on my watchlist for months, in some cases, years. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I called Winkelvi a bully because he is constantly following me around bullying me. Why can't he see that? Yes, I called Winkelvi a bully because I make suggestions, no matter what they are, and he immediately disagrees and usually but not always reverts me. I admit that I called him a bully because he tells me that I have to read anything that he tells me to. I admit that I called him a bully because he does not even read the links that I provide him when we are attempting to have a conversation. Yes, I admit I called him a bully because he tells me that I don't listen to the other editors but I response to every editors comments. He just does not like what I have to say to the other editors. Yes, I admit I called him a bully because he acts like a bully.--ML (talk) 18:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Hogwash!!! I went to the Jimmy Carter article to get away from him and he followed. I went to the Carly Fiorina article to get away from him and he followed. That is hogwash. Why is he following me around? It is creepy!--ML (talk) 18:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

My first edit to the Carter article was on 5 July 2015, yours was on 12 August 2015. Evidence of same here and here. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

MaverickLittle needs to cool it, and do that sooner than later. His approach to editing is highly combative and most definitively not helpful. A strong warning is certainly due. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

A warning for what? Did you read the comments that Winkelvi quotes. There is nothing there. I would ask anyone who reads this to review the series of edits that led to these claims by Winkelvi. I edited the Carly Fiorina article so that it read correctly that Fiorina is the first woman to lead a "Fortune 20" company. It did not say that before. What is said: (1) in the first place it said something to the effect that "some people believe that Fiorina might be the first woman to lead a Fortune 20 company" which left the impression that may be she or may be she didn't and of course the truth is quite clear that she is was, without question, the first woman to be CEO of a Fortune 20 company and (2) in the second place it said she was the first woman to lead a top 20 U.S. company, which is not entirely true. I edited so that it states clearly that she is the first woman to be CEO of a Fortune 20 company. You immediately protested by stating, falsely, that there is no phrase such as "Fortune 20" and you wanted it reverted to back what it was. I pointed out clearly that I was quoting the reliable source word for word. Winkelvi immediately jumped in and stated that my edits needed to be reverted immediately. I told Winkelvi to review the reliable source and I provided him with a link to the reliable source that I quoted word for word. He did not read the correct link and then he immediately stated that my edit needed to be reverted because the incorrect link did not support my edit. I told him pay attention to my comments (the exact same thing that he claims against me constantly) and to read the right link. He then read the right link and he still demanded that my edits be reverted. You supported him during this silliness and so I went and looked up about 27 different reliable sources that supported my wording of the phrase "Fortune 20". And all of my 27 or so reliable sources not only used the phrase "Fortune 20", the exact same phrase that you and Winkelvi were demanding that my edits be reverted and removed from the article. Winkelvi gave me a lecture and told him again (for the sixth or seventh time) to follow his own advice. Neither you or Winkelvi took the time to do the simple research required to see that the phrase "Fortune 20" is a valid term of art and that it applies to Carly Fiorina and that is the correct way to phrase the topic. You both ganged up and attempted to force me to revert my edits immediately. When you say that my edits have "most definitely not helpful" that is just flat out not true. When I started editing the Fiorina article it was mass of POV pushing. For example, I took down a home-made stock price chart for HP that was chock full of false and defamatory information. It made the false and defamatory claim that the stock price for HP fell 65% during Fiorina time period. It had false and incorrect numbers in the stock chart to support this biased false conclusion of 65%. When I removed it you immediately reverted me and then you continued to revert me until I finally got the false and defamatory graph out of the article for good. Moreover, there was a "Controversy" section in the article even though it is long-time policy to remove "Controversy" sections, throw out what needs to go and work the information that is valid into the regular sections of the article. You have been fight that for the last week or so. You have been the rude the whole time. Now, the comments by quoted above might be rude and short, but they are not any less rude or short than the comments made by either you or Winkelvi. This complaint is ultimately about how to edit the Fiorina article and you and Winkelvi have decided that instead of moving forward with a civil debate about what the next step is you want to stop me from editing the article. This is ultimately a content dispute it is not about me being rude because if it was about rudeness then you and Winkelvi would be subject to the same restrictions. It is not a just a coincidence that this complaint happened moments after the two of you attempted to bully me into reverting a well-thoughtout, relevant, reliably source edit that I made in a neutral manner. And it is not just a coincidence that you and him both decided to work together on this complaint. If you were so concerned about rudeness then why don't you file a complaint against yourself or file a complaint against Winkelvi? Lord knows you will find tons of examples for both of you.--ML (talk) 22:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• TL;DR. You need to definitively cool it. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for adding support to my comments.--ML (talk) 00:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

ML: Do you want a civility block? Because if you don't change something quick in how you deal with other editors, that's what you're heading toward. Three veteran editors have told you the same thing as nicely as possible (one being an administrator). Do you really need more people to say the same before you heed the advice you're being given? Making some kind of a sincere indication here that you will change your attitude and behavior would be a good start. Or is a very stern warning something you'd rather see before turning things around? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

This comment by you is a fine example of what I am talking about. I honestly believe that Cwobeel made the extraneous comment above to poke me in the eye by telling me flat out that he did not read what I wrote and that he just does not care what I have to say. His response makes it clear that he has no intention to work with me in a give and take manner. Now in response I wrote that I think that his comment does add support to what I have been saying. If you read what he directed me to it means "Too Long, Didn't Read". How can we have meaningful communication if he won't read what I wrote? We can't. Also, you have tag teamed with him and gave me a lecture that you do not care that what I wrote what sincere and serious. I think he added support to my comments by just telling me he is not going to read what I wrote. Then you started another lecture to me. Your lectures tell me that you are not serious about having a conversation, but just want me to go away. Also, I am sincere and serious when I say to you that you should apply some the same principals that you lecture me about to yourself. I am sincere when I say please listen to me and stop lecturing me and please follow your own advice. Nothing that I have in here is uncivil. You just don't like what I have to say. Those two things are different.--ML (talk) 01:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I give up. I've done everything I can to get you to see that you are going down a path that will lead to somewhere and something you don't want. Two other editors have tried, unsuccessfully, as well. Ironically, while accusing Cwobeel and I of collusion and conspiracy against you and making more non-AGF/uncivil remarks about us here, you took a totally different approach with Drmies at his talk page. Here, you continue to battle and behave in a hostile manner. This duplicity shows you know there are eyes on your behavior and will do what you can to stay out of dutch (no aspersion casting meant, Drmies!) but will still jab and make uncivil remarks toward those you see as enemies who can't hurt you like an administrator could. So, while I once thought you were only going the way of WP:IDHT and WP:NOTTHEM, it's starting to look like gaming the system could be part of this too. Whatever the case, I'm throwing my hands up on this, walking away, and will allow those who can actually do something that will make an impression on you to do exactly that. Obviously, what Cwobeel and I have said means little to nothing to you. So be it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• OK. I have not followed every link offered here, but I followed a few. I think we're dealing here with an escalation of tempers, and I hope that these editors can stay away from each other a bit more. Focus on the issues. I settled one, if it needed settling, and I'm sure that these reasonable editors will move on from that particular one. I do not think that the diffs Winkelvi provided are so terrible as to warrant administrative intervention, but I do think that MaverickLittle is a bit on the combative side. It is in their best interest to tone that down some--it makes working with other editors that much easier. And that, of course, goes for everyone involved here, including yours truly. Drmies (talk) 02:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC).

Fair enough.--ML (talk) 02:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• Update: 36 hours later, and nothing has changed with this editor. Still making rude comments directed at specific editors, and after telling an administrator Drmies he would tone it down. Both Cwobeel and I have tried to reason with this editor, asking him numerous times to comment on edits, not editors. When given basic, non-threatening advice, shown policy, asked questions, or reminded to keep his comments about edits alone, his responses are as follows: "That is pure extrapolation on your part. Do not read into the comments that is not there. That is you...Please stop with the false and incorrect lectures and warnings." found here; "did your comment improve the article? No." found here. When Cwobeel also tells him enough is enough, ML responds, "You are absolutely right. WV's comment was absolute nonsense. I agree." found here. Cwobeel informs ML that is was his comments he was referring to, ML responds, "And I was referring to his. Also, if don't want the conversation to keep going why are participating in it? You need to focus on constructive edits. found here. My response was that nothing has changed and he has not lived up to his agreement with Drmies. His response to that was more WP:IDHT: "I agree. You should not be rude such as when you told me that my comments "were not helpful" when they were completely helpful. Please stop being rude. Nothing in your behavior has changed. found here. This editor does not want to change his behavior and attitude -- even after indicating he would do so. My personal feeling is that it has nothing to do with not getting it. It has to do with not caring if he gets it because he believes his edits are so valuable to Wikipedia that no one with any authority here will do anything to keep him from editing. Just like his self-praise in his comments above, the edit summaries he leaves also indicate a very cocky attitude (just one example: "I just provided another great solution...Oh, yes, my work is damn helpful."). Like I said two days ago, unless someone makes a very strong impression on him that his behavior is not acceptable, he won't change. My prediction has come to fruition. How much longer will this go on? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Winkelvi, MaverickLittle is unlikely to behave differently. If combativeness and lack of good faith was the only problem, somehow we could simple ignore and get on with doing the work. But when the editor starts misusing sources [325] then we have a real problem. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Cwobeel, frankly, I see it all going hand-in-hand. If one is allowed to slide (lack of AGF and personal attacks), then why wouldn't misuse of sources and synthesis be allowed as well? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I did not misuse any sources. That is a bald untruth. Do not make things up. That claim is bald faced untruth. Please stop.--ML (talk) 21:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

CloudKade11

At WP:AIV, I was directed to move my report of this user here.

• CloudKade11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - performed sneaky vandalism on Talk:United States presidential election, 2016. After being given a final warning based on a long history of vandalism, he then performed more sneaky vandalism and blanking of talk page comments while pretending to be incompetent. I propose the user be blocked indefinitely.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
• I accept the user's explanation about a misbehaving browser extension, however I suggest that they should agree to disable it while editing or be indef'd, to prevent further disruption of this sort since they edit in areas where that sort of thing is likely to happen again. I think the "blanking of talk page comments" diff actually shows that the comments were moved down the page, rather than deleted. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It may just be me, but I would call "You're clearly sociopathic" a personal attack. Also, I don't buy his add-on excuse. But that may just be me... Kleuske (talk) 21:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kleuske: Not just you. I am on the same boat as you are. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 21:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

How can you not "buy" facts? The extension is very much real. One simple Google search would help you if you need clarification. And yes I called him a sociopath but he did call me a troll first and attacked another user's work by telling him it wasn't his "personal sandbox" for him to "experiment" his "gimmicks' on when he was merely looking for opinions on how to improve the article. CloudKade11 (talk) 22:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

William S Saturn has been engaged in verbal arguments with other users in the past and is currently engaged in one now with another. His sole purpose is to get me blocked because I praised the other users new styling of an article. And like I said, I've disabled the extension and if you don't believe me it's called "The Trumpweb". They have the exact same quotes that were added into the article accidentally. I don't see how anyone can't believe me when you can literally go and see for yourself, or hell I'd do it myself and take screenshots of how the extension works if that's what anybody wants. Not hiding anything. And yes I have a history of vandalism but in this case it was purely accidental because I had no idea the extension would do that. Everytime I left a valid comment/response that pertained to the article, a quote would be added somewhere randomly on the page. As you can see I was legitimately confused as to why I was being called a "troll" and a "vandal". Later I responded with what I think happened and surely enough it did. But yeah I'm not taking anything user William Saturn says seriously and neither should any of you. CloudKade11 (talk) 21:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

From a quick test I can confirm that the quote additions are from this extension; despite only adding a short comment to the bottom of my editing window, the diff showed a whole load of quotes added down the page. This is the kind of thing CloudKade11 should be more wary of, but (without having looked at this in any detail) it seems an honest mistake. Sam Walton (talk) 22:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I promise it will not happen again. I disabled the extension as soon as I realized what happened. CloudKade11 (talk) 23:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• WP: AGF is not a suicide pact.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Look at what this guy (I think it's very obviously the same person since he copied the exact template I left on his talk page) did to my talk page. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I didn't do anything. My I.P. is 2602:306:32da:6710:280f:2b86:51b2:ca90 CloudKade11 (talk) 00:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I find it very strange that my talk page would get attacked with the very same warning template I left on your user talk page. Based on your history of vandalism, I have a strong suspicion that you did it.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Well I just gave you my I.P. and it obviously doesn't match the person who did do it. I find it coincidental that you're so quick to put the blame on me when you're currently engaging in arguments with several other users yet while trying to get me blocked for something that was accidental as I have proven already. Also, many people easily have access to that template I believe. And my vandalism history is my fault, I take full responsibility for it, but just because I have one doesn't mean you should assume I'm at fault for everything without any actual evidence other than your "suspicions". CloudKade11 (talk) 01:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Saturn, don't accuse him of this, I know you like accusing people of sockpuppets (me) without any basis to such accusations. There is a line of rational criticism.   Spartan7W §   05:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Except for the fact that they were indeed socking. I've blocked CloudKade11 for two weeks and the alternative accounts indef. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Ramzan Kadiryan

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

---

Creating multiple copies of gibberish articles.--Cahk (talk) 06:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Waenceslaus reverting edits made in line with an RSN decision they disagree with

As a result of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Gerontology Research Group (GRG) tables it has been determined that [326] is not a reliable source. This webpage has been used extensively in longevity related articles. The (lengthy) process has now begun to remove any Wiki entries based solely on this source. User:Waenceslaus has reverted a change, made also by IPs, in direct contradiction to the RSN decision [327] and also the appropriate change to WP:WOP with a spurious edit summary [328]. See also the user's entry in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World's Oldest People#Where do we go from here. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Waenceslaus demands that only those who are members of the WOP be permitted to change their guidelines. It's an odd contention since incorrect guidelines are meaningless overall and only serve to mis-lead its own members. We're having similar arguments at Talk:List of oldest living people#Removal of unverified claims. It's approaching WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory to just keep on arguing the exact same arguments (which were made at RSN) and ignoring the discussions that have been going on for years. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

_____________________

Greetings,

I must say I am surprised by such agressive action done by the users User:DerbyCountyinNZ and User:Ricky81682. I do not understand, why users User:DerbyCountyinNZ and User:Ricky81682 are so upset, that they turn to the Administration noticeboard for a single change revert. I did only one edit, which in fact, was reverting a previous destructive edit firstly done by user User:Ricky81682 and later continued by User: DerbyCountyinNZ. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_oldest_living_people&action=history). Both these users have deleted loads of sourced material. The source was Gerontology Research Group, considered by world's press and scientific circles as recognized authority in respect of extreme longevity tracking and supercentenarian study. It is recognized by American, European and also Brazilian press. Here are just a few examples of press citations:

http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/wauwatosa-woman-among-oldest-in-the-us-at-112-b99544087z1-318543041.html

http://ndonline.com.br/joinville/noticias/273114-jaraguaense-alida-grubba-tem-112-anos-e-foi-reconhecida-como-a-pessoa-mais-idosa-do-brasil.html

http://wtkr.com/2015/07/24/virginias-oldest-resident-dies-at-age-112/

The users User:DerbyCountyinNZ and User:Ricky81682 base their statements on a basis of a discussion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Gerontology_Research_Group_.28GRG.29_tables), which concluded, that some of the material developed and presented by the Gerontology Research Group is reliable, while other material is not. In my honest opinion, this assumption belies the facts, expressed above by the citations, I have presented. Because of the fact, that the Gerontology Research Group, considered as whole (and not just parts of it) is the recognized authority on supercentenarians, all its tables and its content are to be considered as such with no exceptions.

What worries me, is the fact, that users User:DerbyCountyinNZ and User:Ricky81682 have controversial history of contributions in respect of longevity articles. They tend to delete large amount of material without slightest effort to strenghten it with more sources. If they cared about the content of Wikipedia and felt, that the current sources are not enougth, which in fact isn't a case once the Gerontology Research Group is used as a source, then in my opinion as a constructive Wikipedia editor, they should put an effort and reach more sources. It is obvious. Instead, they threaten to continue their destructive actions. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_World%27s_Oldest_People#Where_do_we_go_from_here).

Regarding the Wikipedia World's Oldest People group, it associates Wikipedians interested in the topic of extreme longevity and supercentenarian study. It has created its own guidelines for its members, who are inspired by the topic and edit the articles, listed in the topic of "Longevity". (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Longevity). The fact is, that neither User:DerbyCountyinNZ nor User:Ricky81682 have joined the Wikipedia WOP project hence they are not listed among its members. Yet they continue to force their "rules", which only would legitimize the destructive edits done in this section by the users. In my opinion, before any user starts to force such controversial edits, he/she should communicate with the other members of the WOP group in the first place and express her/his good will and be accepted by the team of Wikipedia editors. Instead, User:DerbyCountyinNZ has written a notice on administration board on one of its members, namely me, without any justified reason.

In my honest opinion, the actions of users User:DerbyCountyinNZ and User:Ricky81682 is dangerous and destructive for English Wikipedia and should be stopped immediately by responsible administration units. Their contributions should be listed under observation in order to make sure, they won't keep on erasing important and sourced material from the English Wikipeida.

With kind regards, Sincerely, Waenceslaus (talk) 10:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

We don't need the approval of the WOP editors. Wikipedia doesn't exist to serve the WOP project. The fact that the WOP has created its own guidelines and wants to ignore the rest of Wikipedia's guidelines are the problem here. You expressed your opinions at the RSN discussion and the consensus there was that those weren't appropriate. Re-hashing it again and again for years is the problem here. I'm getting close to propose that the WOP project be forcibly archived as a whole and the discussions be moved to the main WP Biography page where more editors with experience can discuss these articles in line with our policies. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

We must defer to the WOP and stop this vandalism. The GRG is a reliable source and Wikipedia suffers when we let violent abuse over take sense. The wop's guidelines have been in place since it was just a yahoo group and wikipedians must understand that only the GRG really understands longevity issues, no one else does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.48.19 (talk) 10:50, August 14, 2015 (UTC)

___

Greetings, I feel the need to comment some of your statements.

---"We don't need the approval of the WOP editors."

Oh really? I'm afraid, that you have completely missed the issue here. You say, that you don't need the approval of 34(!) other Wikipedia editors associated in a Wikipedia group, being yourself not a member of it, to change the internal guidelines of the Wikipedia project's group? Ricky81682, you have learn to respect other people and their work. Your actions are considered by the members of the group as destructive and controversial. By what law, you claim, that you are the one, who has the right to judge, which sources are reliable and which are not, if 34 other users relies on that sources to keep the articles updated and clear. Face it: you a self-appointed, single Wikipedia editor and you must respect the Wikipedia rules exactly as the members of the WOP group do respect them. You have no right to delete sourced information from English Wikipedia on that scale.

---Wikipedia doesn't exist to serve the WOP project.

You misunderstood how it works again. It is the WOP project, that does exist to serve Wikipedia. And it does so in order to enlarge the level of the common knowledge and educate the society. Wikipedia is a free encyklpedia, that anyone can edit. That means, that also anonymous individuals like you can edit it. However, these edits must be constructive. Deleting the sourced material from English Wikipedia is a destructive action, which is called vandalism.

---"The fact that the WOP has created its own guidelines and wants to ignore the rest of Wikipedia's guidelines are the problem here."

Ricky, it's just the opposite. The WOP group does not create rules. You need to distinguish the word "rule" and "guideline". Guidelines are advises for contructive editors how to edit the articles dedicated for a particular topic and how to find a reliable source to base the information, which is added. However, the Wikipedia rules are broken, when a little group of single, anonymous users continue to delete the reliable, sourced material from Wikipedia. I'm truly sorry to say these words, yet I can't allow the English Wikipedia being affected by such actions.

---"I'm getting close to propose that the WOP project be forcibly archived [...]"

From the one hand you wish to force your own rules for the WOP project, being not a member of it; and from the other you want it to be forcibly archived. I truly do not understand the amount of nastiness from your side. I fear, that we deal here with a little, but somewhat "determined" users to disturb the constructive work of others. I fear, that users User:DerbyCountyinNZ and User:Ricky81682 are the example of users, who are exceptionally negatively prejudiced towards a particular field of science, which in this case is longevity and supercentenarian study. The existance of such negative emotions on Wikipedia, I consider as highly undesirable for English Wikipedia, which mission is to enlarge the knowledge of the society in multiple fields.

Sincerely, Waenceslaus (talk) 15:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The problem here is that members of WP:WOP are operating as their own insular walled garden with their own guidelines that conflict with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. When something like this happens it's absolutely the duty of members outside the wikiproject to bring these articles into compliance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. WOP's local consensus does not trump broader consensus regarding policies and guidelines or reliable sources. Information sourced to Table EE is no longer reliably sourced because that table has been found to be unreliable by the broader community. Therefore, if a reliable source cannot be found to support that information, removing it is absolutely the correct thing to do. Blocking that removal is disruptive. Ca2james (talk) 15:43, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I have been reading within WP about WikiProjects that went off the rails and were disbanded through MfD. It may well be time to see if the community is ready to disband that project and start an MfD on that.... The attitude of project members posting here makes it seem that that they have lost their way. Jytdog (talk) 16:47, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

There was an Arbcom case back in 2010 and one of the key issues was that it was clearly just a transfer from the Yahoo! group with similar insular logic. However I'm not sure there's a policy for disbanding projects like this on second thought. Either way, the point is, the walled garden local consensus approach isn't a resolution here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 16:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

There is a definite problem with this project and its members. Members of this project are almost all SPAs who edit on nothing but articles related to the project and who are unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Moreover, they are highly resistant to having their articles brought into compliance with policies and guidelines, choosing to edit-war their preferred, non-compliant version over discussion. List of oldest living people has been protected for 24 hours due to this edit-warring, and now members of this project are using that protection to argue that other changes - which describe the recent consensus on GRG tables determined at RSN - should not be made. This change has also been reverted because I'm not a member of the project,[329], because the change isn't "correct",[330], and for no reason at all.[331]

Concur with it being to Mfd this project. It appears clear that it is operating against core Wiki policies and too many of the most active members appear resistant to attempts to bring them inline. The lingering influence of those that began it continues, to the detriment of Wikipedia. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree closing down the project may be a reasonable option. The level of ownership behaviour displayed by its regulars is just breathtaking. When they were fighing over that addition to the project guideline, they weren't just arguing that only a "project member" could make such a change, but in fact even that you'd first have to "apply" for membership to become one! [332][333] That IP was even striking !votes of other editors from a RM discussion in article space because he felt only WOP members should be allowed to decide on articles in the scope of the project. And now that I implemented the topic ban against Waenceslaus, the next day I get another IP telling me on his talkpage that I can't take such admin actions against a project member because I'm not one [334]. Unbefuckingleavable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

When discussion does happen, it's like that which appears above: denying broader consensus because the GRG is the most awesome expert ever on the subject of longevity and no one should ever doubt their words or tables. Quite frankly, the edit-warring, lack of discussion, and denial of consensus suggests that some of this project's members are WP:NOTHERE. If members of the project are unwilling to work within Wikipedia policies and guidelines, then shutting this project down seems like a good option to avoid the kind of disruption that is occurring now. Ca2james (talk) 19:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

You already deleted all the personal tables we had on our personal pages. We're just trying to teach Wikipedia about how the GRG works. Wikipedia should be happy that the GRG users are willing to help here. Would you want to live in a world where Wikipedia doesn't have all those articles on the supercentarians?166.171.121.17 (talk) 19:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors react to elimination of longevity fancruft. Click here for audio.

It would be a kind of paradise. See right. EEng (talk) 05:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• I would appreciate it if someone would take a look at Waenceslaus and the IP's behaviour as they are continuing to revert changes to bring the articles into compliance with MOS:COLOUR and the recent RSN consensus.[335][336] The IP has also reverted changes to the project page yet again because apparently an admin has ruled that my changes are wrong.[337] I think that admin is MusikAnimal and I'm not sure that this is the right reading. Ca2james (talk) 19:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

  See below, I didn't rule any version as the right version, just wanted to stop the edit war. That is the extent of my involvement — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

  Okay, I may have unknowingly gone against procedure (I've received conflicting advice before), and for that I apologize. I've reverted back to the state the article was when I went to protect it. This does not mean it is the right version, and I would like to make it abundantly clear that I am not choosing sides. Sorry for the confusion, and my best wishes that this will all get sorted out civilly — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Desysop Needed

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

---

Admin MusicAnimal specifically reverted everything Ricky did at the oldest living people article and protected it. His disruption is obvious, no one agrees with him and he shouldn't get to keep misusing his powers to attack everyone. It's time to discuss Desysop procedures. We need mandatory admin recall for precisely this kind of action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.121.17 (talk • contribs)

@MusikAnimal:, can you protect every WOP page from this vandalism? We can't let them disrupt the project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.121.17 (talk • contribs)

Let's be frank here, that is absurd. -- Orduin ^Discuss 19:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. We need to Desysop more admins who abuse their powers like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.121.17 (talk) 19:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

No, he meant your claim was absurd, and he's right. It does look from the evidence above that there is a serious problem with the WOP project, and it may be necessary to take some action on that point if its members continue to be disruptive. Black Kite (talk) 19:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

why? Because the cabal doesn't believe in consequences for one of their own?

I don't have any idea what "cabal" you're talking about, but from reading your notes on MusikAnimal's talkpage ("we have consensus", "we are right", "we don't care about your noticeboards") I'd suggest that if you carry on along that road, it will not end well for you, and quickly. There are previous examples of WikiProjects deciding that their own guidelines overruled Wikipedia policies. They were soon disabused of that notion. Black Kite (talk) 19:47, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Quickly stating what I did: I responded to a RPP request about List of oldest living people, observed edit warring with multiple confirmed users on both sides of the content dispute. So procedurally I reverted to the state prior to the edit war (likely the wrong version). This is the extent of my involvement and is the general workflow we take when dealing with an edit war. If there is consensus for changes to be made please make an edit request on the talk page and a patrolling admin will implement it shortly. Sorry I can not be of further assistance, I'm afraid I'll be signing off soon for the weekend. Admins are free to override my actions. Best — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Correct. He protected the right version. The rest of the pages need similar protection to prevent more disruption.

I didn't rule any version as the "right" version. I just put a stop to the edit war. Please seek talk page consensus (or here at ANI, I guess?) and make edit requests accordingly. — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

yes you stopped the edit warring by Ricky and the other disrupters. Things were fine when the WOP was left in control. Please protect the remaining articles the same way.

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

Desysop Black Kite

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

---

Black Nite commented here before closing the discussion above. He is involved and his misuse of his powers should be taken from him. Admins must be held accountable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.121.17 (talk) 19:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Continuing with this course of action is likely to get you blocked. I suggest you cut it out now. -- Orduin ^Discuss 20:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

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

IP canvassing

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

---

166.171.121.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) just committed canvassing here. I am not sure if this belongs here. If it doesn't please move it and let me know. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 21:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The canvass is to User:TFBCT1 who similarly just reverts edits to restore the GRG's prominance without discussion. [338][339][340]. The editor also "updates" the tables without providing any change in the actual sourcing which makes it impossible to determine its accuracy.[341]. Frankly canvassing the least problematic part of the IP's antics. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Topic ban for Waenceslaus

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

---

It's another day that ends in 'y' so I see I'm up for another desysop complaint here. To summarize the issue, oldest people article use a source (the GRG) which on its own calls certain cases "verified" and other "pending" and "unverified". It started off as a Yahoo! group and I believe it is using Wikipedia as a webhost for all its data instead (see this kind of thing). The biggest disputes are whether (a) to include the pending and unverified listings here (I believe so that the GRG members can have easy access to that information) even though that information is, as stated, not verified by the GRG [and in particular the use of coloring and the like to make the pages all fancy and the like) and (b) whether we should not include anything that the GRG has not verified/pending/whatever (regardless of other sources).

1. It's been a long dispute but a discussion at RSN was closed that said the GRG pending and unverified claims shouldn't be included here. Of course there are other claims that come by way of other reliable sources (e.g. newspapers for example). Waenceslaus did comment there I note.
2. This was attempted to be incorporated into the WOP guidelines section but User:Waenceslaus kept warring to revert it in place of a vague "no consensus" (and oddly to reinstate the old language that the GRG should only be used as backup.[342][343].
3. Waenceslaus's arguments at WPT:WOP show that it was based on a belief that only WOP members could determine what the guidelines are and all RSN and other Wikipedia discussions were going to be ignored. The same arguments were rehashed yet again as seen above.
4. There has been similar edit warring at List of supercentenarians who died in 2015[344] and at List of oldest living people[345]. The basis here is again that the pending listings have been verified in some way (which was brought up at RSN and rejected).
5. Waenceslaus's editing is entirely related to oldest people article. The editor has been active at List of Polish supercentenarians and when there were disputes there, just copied and made their own personal table at their userpage (deleted after being mentioned at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Waenceslaus). This was an issue for more than two dozen userpages of oldest people members.

I've requested page protection on the articles (the WOP page shouldn't need it) and hopefully that should calm down later. As such, I suggest we consider a topic ban for Waenceslaus from all longevity-related matters. We shouldn't have to re-hash and rehash the same arguments over and over again with editors who refuse to acknowledge that consensus does not support their position and who refuse to act civilly with other editors. Other editors can be brought up separately but I just want outside opinions on this situation. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I would not only support that, for the reasons you mention above, I would look into resurrecting the ArbCom sanctions in the topic area. Being able to clear the SPAs out without the rigmarole of these sorts of discussions would be supremely helpful, and willingness to use said sanctions would make it a lot easier. At the time of the ArbCom case I had only been here for 10 months or so, so I was very tentative, but now I'd be willing to help you and others run at it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any resolution that doesn't bring up back to ARBCOM. The incivility and repetitive arguments at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_World's_Oldest_People#Where_do_we_go_from_here are clear. When questioned, there's too much insider baseball responses. Nobody from the WOP crowd has yet to explain how their allegedly scientific system of verifying the oldest person lets them demote and remove names years after the fact without explanation. Any legitimate organization that had to rescind a claim about the first oldest living person in their records would give something more than just a deletion in a line in an Excel spreadsheet and yet we're in round 10 of the "Newspapers are garbage for birth and death ages but are RS for things like what the person ate at age 115 when we want to create an article about them." Ironic that the edit warring was to put back the guidelines that the GRG was only a secondary source (which was ignored). If we had that guideline, then we'd be eliminating everything that we couldn't find another source for. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:42, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support Concur completely with BOTNL, both re the topic ban for Waenceslaus, and revival of ArbCom sanctions. The WOP project and its IDHT SPA horde have been one of the most colossal sinkholes for editor and admin time in Wikipedia history. Yes, that's saying a lot, and no, it's not an exaggeration. This crap has been going on for a decade. Here's just a recent taste‍—‌dip in just about anywhere, at anything WOP is involved with‍—‌for more of the same:

User:Ca2james, I am very sorry, however, before you edit any of the WOP group guidelines, you have to be accepted as member of the World's Oldest People group of Wikipedia. Before that happens, I can't acknowledge any of the edits done by you. Please, apply for the membership in the first place. Kind regards, Waenceslaus (talk) 3:49 am, Today (UTC−4) [346]

Oh yeah, see the edit summary here [347]. EEng (talk) 03:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Was a problem back in 2011. Some things never change. Anyone want to explain the concept to Waenceslaus? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I certainly don't. There is not a single reported case of this monomania being cured, ever. As provided here, "In the event that disruptive editing resumes in any of these topic-areas, a request to consider reinstating discretionary sanctions in that topic-area may be made on the clarifications and amendments page." Well, the antics at RSN, at the WOP page, and here, plus the editwarring, certainly qualify. EEng (talk) 04:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban Waenceslaus per the evidence laid out above, but I think ArbCom has to be he way to go here. The problems involved in this set of articles are so deeply entrenched, I don't think we'll be able to work them out here and the participants certainly aren't listening on talk pages or at their Wikiproject. AniMate 14:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support. User:Waenceslaus' claim that "Yet, before any change in the WOP guideline can be done, a user is to become a member of Wikipedia WOP group" seems odd and a bit grasping since on 15 May 2015 all Waenceslaus did was add his name to a list.[348] Both Ca2james 30 December 2014‎ and Ricky81682 24 January 2015 have been using the Wikiproject World's Oldest People talk page in a constructive manner for quite some time. Hardly the "deliberately want to make chaos by edit-warring"--types. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

____

Sincerely, I do not trust User:Ca2james and User:Ricky81682.

And here is the proof: Ca2james's talk page, where they are plotting against Longevity-related articles. As user Ca2james, uses much more proper language than user Ricky81682, he is also involved in anti-longevity front on Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ca2james#Wikipedia:WikiProject_World.27s_Oldest_People

I suggest picking an article and starting on that. I'm starting on List of oldest living people as I imagine that would be the center of the firestorm (pending cases must be removed and merging the "other cases" with other reliable sources that aren't verified by the GRG is everything at once). Most of those editors won't care about what RSN or anything here says and I suspect this won't be resolved until we go back to ARBCOM and get serious procedures to work with, and the ability to sanction with teeth as every discussion and report at ANI and other places ends up a madhouse of arguments about how amazing the GRG is. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Ricky8168, thanks for making those changes. I've reverted one of the editors who reverted your changes and will keep an eye on the page. I'd like to avoid a fight on this issue but sadly, I don't think that's going to happen. I wish ArbCom hadn't rescinded the discretionary sanctions in this project area. I'm going to start work on List of supercentenarians who died in 2015. Ca2james (talk) 01:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

How do you plan to explain yourself? Not to mention the unscientific language, that you use in your statements. Both users: User:Ca2james and User:Ricky81682 deliberately want to make chaos by edit-warring, trying to change established consensus without discussion (WP: OWN violations). As I said, this proves, that we deal here with the example of users, who are exceptionally negatively prejudiced towards a particular field of science, which in this case is longevity and supercentenarian study. The existance of such negative emotions on Wikipedia, I consider as highly undesirable for English Wikipedia, which mission is to enlarge the knowledge of the society in multiple fields.

Therefore, for the sake of the English Wikipedia and richness of its articles, I'm asking for an ArbCom discussion and I'm asking, that the proposed plans of users User:Ca2james and User:Ricky81682 be frozen until the separate issues that they present be worked out, as their contributions are controversial, ruin the established order and the members themselves do not show any will to socialize with other members, who are particularly interested in the topic. Instead, they act agressively - change the content of whole articles without any agreement with other editors of longevity articles and attack another user (me) without any justified reason. I consider this as a personal attack. Yet the users User:Ca2james and User:Ricky81682 are not alone on Wikipedia and before they force their "rules", and edits, they should in first place act in an agreement with everyone else. Sincerely, Waenceslaus (talk) 05:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

That, right there, is as good an example of the total self-unawareness that pervades this topic area as you'll ever find. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:19, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, please‍—‌it's not even in the top 50. Don't you remember when a now-indefinitely-blocked user declared that he was "in charge of the world's oldest people for the entire planet"? EEng (talk) 13:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough; let me modify that to say about the best example from one of his acolytes out in the open. At least they usually pick obscure places to post these things. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, Waenceslaus, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests is that way. It's probably a new case but someone else can re-open the old one about discretionary sanctions. I await the notice that you've started it. Thanks! By the way, are we still doing this topic ban thing or not? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban and other editing restrictions as need to be applied to the area. -- Orduin ^Discuss 16:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I presume this is for both Waenceslaus and for Ricky. Both made need to go for the good of the project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.51.185 (talk) 20:48, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment about the anonymous user under the IP: User166.170.48.19.

We must defer to the WOP and stop this vandalism. The GRG is a reliable source and Wikipedia suffers when we let violent abuse over take sense. The wop's guidelines have been in place since it was just a yahoo group and wikipedians must understand that only the GRG really understands longevity issues, no one else does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.48.19 (talk) 10:50, August 14, 2015 (UTC)

Anonymous IPs don't represent the GRG. This type of comment may actually be made by an anti-GRG person trying to undermine the GRG's credibility, which can only be beneficious for users users User:Ca2james and User:Ricky81682, who break more than one Wikipedia Policy with their edits in longevity related articles. I hope, that you are not the ones standing behind this. Waenceslaus (talk) 22:05, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Please review talk page layout. Your comments are all over the place. This character may be concern trolling though. Waenceslaus, you'd do better to focus on responding to the actual concerns people have rather than arguing that everyone else is part of a conspiracy against the GRG. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban for Waenceslaus since he is acting according to the three Wikipedia policies and has not breached any of them. 930310 (talk) 08:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Waenceslaus proposes topic ban for Ricky81682

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

---

A topic ban is something, that would be recommended for the User:Ricky81682 for targeting articles and deleting sourced content from it, ruining the established consensus and provoking edit wars by wrongful undermining of recognized sources (GRG) as proven below. I am also very worried about the unscientific language, which the user Ricky81682 uses, that can betray, that he is not acting in a good faith and is negatively biased towards a particular science.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ca2james#Wikipedia:WikiProject_World.27s_Oldest_People) I suggest picking an article and starting on that. I'm starting on List of oldest living people as I imagine that would be the center of the firestorm (pending cases must be removed and merging the "other cases" with other reliable sources that aren't verified by the GRG is everything at once). Most of those editors won't care about what RSN or anything here says and I suspect this won't be resolved until we go back to ARBCOM and get serious procedures to work with, and the ability to sanction with teeth as every discussion and report at ANI and other places ends up a madhouse of arguments about how amazing the GRG is. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Such action is undesirable as it prevents the society from learning the facts from reliable sources and weakens the amount and quality of the content of English Wikipedia. It is unseen, that a user is taken to the admin board for one reinstatement of the content, which was vandalised by the users, who began this thread here (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_oldest_living_people&action=history)

The edits of users User:DerbyCountyinNZ and User:Ricky81682 in the article above, that are the reason for this discussion here, are destructive, they ruin the established consensus and provoke edit wars. In my honest opinion, they are fairly not acting in good faith.

I would like an independent party having a word. I'd like to ask User:Kudpung to express his mind, as he is the one, who has already seen some member's negative action towards the articles on longeivty and had a final word upon some previous AfD, done by one and the same users. In both matters, I strongly supported to keep the articles untouched in order to protect the sourced content and richness of the English Wikipedia and in each case, it turned out, that my view was fair and the article has been kept untouched. Sincerely, Waenceslaus (talk) 13:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support Eliminating sourced content and mixing unverified with verified claims is a very disruptive action considering Wikipedia's importance, many people seek out Wikipedia as their primary source of information, and the only thing the user User:Ricky81682 is doing by removing sourced material and mixing validated with unvalidated cases is turning the supercentenarian lists into a "free-for-all" in which anyone can put any claim they want with no scientific consensus at all, which is undesirable if we are to achieve any informational value

Also to note, the issue is not wheter or not User:Ricky81682 is a WOP member but the fact that he violates wiki policies with his behaviour, including:

No Original Research, Assume Good Faith, Wiki:OWN, Verifiability.He is also responsible for initiating this "edit war" and, as seen above, plotting to start it. .LegateMaximus (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

___

Greetings. I need to complain here about the action of user User:Eeng. Hiding my explanations will not help to solve this matter. Please, don't do that. Everyone can speak out his mind. My statement also contained an invitation for another Wikipedia admin. By an insight of more people, a greater objectivity can be achieved. Kind regards, Waenceslaus (talk) 15:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, fine. I've moved your call for Ricky81682 to be topic-banned to its own section, where its merits can be properly considered. Your ping of Kudpung was not affected in any event. EEng (talk) 18:37, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

"Madhouse of arguments about how awesome the GRG is." Hell, I may just join in with this as we now have another argument at RSN that newspapers are no longer reliable sources when considering the birth and death dates of very old people (in response to the GRG issue). As ARBCOM stated back in 2011, the WOP needs more experienced editors, topic banning them is not helping their cause. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:19, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

After this, we can go after James and Commander. Nobody voted to let them into the WOP project here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.51.185 (talk) 20:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Is anyone interested in doing a sock investigation of this IP and others used by, apparently, the same editor? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think they're actually socking, they're simply moving from one IP to another in that range. I don't see any evidence that they're trying to give the impression of being more than one editor (unless I've missed something). Black Kite (talk) 22:00, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

They have said previously "You already deleted all the personal tables we had on our personal pages", this indicates that the user has/had a login, they are either deliberately avoiding using their account or have been banned from doing so. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd be more appreciative if someone could oppose topic banning me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:18, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry, it's such a stupid idea it's not even worth wasting the boldface. EEng (talk) 01:12, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

You give some people too much credit. Anyways, moving on here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Maybe if you would like to edit in this topic you should stop making bad faith accusations towards users who care about WP:Verifiability. Ollie231213 (talk) 00:37, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

There's no opposition so let's get this topic ban on Ricky86182 imposed before he disrupts another article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.176.57.66 (talk) 03:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC) Troll. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:13, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Obviously as this is ridiculous. AniMate 04:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

::::Don't worry, it's such a stupid idea it's not even worth wasting the boldface. EEng (talk) 01:12, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't say so, because this members' actions in the longevity related articles are controversial and there are voices of support from members, that are regularly making good contributions for the article. Therefore the topic ban for user User:Ricky81682 is defenitely worth consider. As for you, User:EEng, please try to use more scientific language when you engage in an important discussion. Thank you. Waenceslaus (talk) 09:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• No. There's support from you, an IP that has been consistently warned for making disruptive edits over the last 24 hours, and an account with 5 edits. I'd suggest this be closed as ridiculous before it gains even the semblance of credibility (I'd close it myself, but I've warned the IP editor elsewhere). Black Kite (talk) 09:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

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

topic ban for Ca2james

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

---

We need to topic ban User:Ca2james from WOP articles as well. Non-WOP members shouldn't be disruptive the way those two are. 166.170.51.185 (talk) 21:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

James is being disruptive at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Oldest_people_in_Britain. Every single citation is being managed and watched by the GRG's UK correspondent, no one else needs to make a mess of their work. This is why the non-WOP members should be banned from these articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.51.185 (talk) 21:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Topic ban for DerbyCountyinNZ

Another proposal from the top-banned Waenceslaus to topic-ban someone else

User:DerbyCountyinNZ, who initially created the thread on my matter in the admin board - for just one revert of a negative change done by him in an longevity related article, now apparently feels too confident and continues to make destruvtive edits. I can't allow this to happen for the sake of the quality and richness of the articles of English Wikipedia. The user User:DerbyCountyinNZ is fairly negatively biased towards the particular field of science, which is longeivty. His negative and controversial actions regarding the longevity-related articles have prolonged over the years now, yet everyone of the valuable contributors for these articles wished to avoid the direct confrontation with the troublesome user. It's time to end this now. I apply for the topic ban of the longevity-related articles for the user User:DerbyCountyinNZ. Firstly, the user does not seek any way of solution of the problem with the other, constructive contributors for the longevity-related articles. It's true, that no one has to be a WOP member to edit a topic in the area, but they do have to follow Wikipedia's own policies. Users User:DerbyCountyinNZ and User:Ricky81682 haven't. Neither of these user, however, have applied to become members of the Wikipedia WOP group, which associates 34 other members. There are no problems at all among the members of the Wikipedia WOP group, because they follow the established order. Users User:DerbyCountyinNZ and User:Ricky81682 intend to ruin that order by undermining our sources, which reliability is beyond question, and, turning those, who oppose their destructive action, namely me, to the admin board. (cur | prev) 21:57, 15 August 2015‎ DerbyCountyinNZ (talk | contribs)‎ . . (61,973 bytes) (-28,633)‎ . . (→‎Japanese supercentenarians: As per talk page. It's a start...) (undo | thank) Here is his "explanation" from the talk page: Main list is too long[edit] I see no justification for listing every supercentenarian, verified or unverified. That seems to violate WP:LISTS. Even if it does not, it is not encyclopedic to have an open-ended list. Other stand-alone lists typically have a set limit, the greatest of which is usually 100 entries. Unless there are sound reasons, backed up by wiki policy, for keeping the current list I will be WP:BOLD and make the list a top-100 instead. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 07:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC) The self-appointed user User:DerbyCountyinZN has just erased 28,633 bytes of the article, which has been constructively edited by other users, also those associated in the WOP group, for years. That is ONE THIRD of the entire content of the article. What is his explanation: "the list is too long."(?) Should we erase the the entries from the list of cities of Germany, or should we erase the entries from the list of notable people born in 1903 just because the list can't contain more names than 100? The answer is no. That is the destruction of significant amount of knowledge, especoially considering the fact, that the erased material has been sourced. User:DerbyCountyinZN violates Wiki policies arbitrarily, including WP:No Original Research, WP:Assume Good Faith, WP:Wiki:OWN, WP:Verifiability. What is more, he betrays himself, that he is not willing to end on just this one destructive edit. As he says himslef here: "It's a start...". Such attitude raises my worries and the initiative should definitely be taken - topic ban from longevity-related articles for DerbyCountyinNZ. Because the thread was initially created in my matter, in order to prove, that I act in good faith, I undertake not to edit any longevity-related article until my matter is (hopefully) concluded with a positive result for me. However, I would like to continue participating in this discussion in order to point out the users, who are truly a problem and deserve the topic ban. I am ready to sacrifice for the sake of the quality and English Wikipedia and for the sake of protection of our knowledge. These are the examples of destructive edits done by the user User:DerbyCountyinNZ, which have never been consulted with other, more experienced editors and breed controversions, as they are highly destructive and harmful, deleting the sourced content and year-long work of other contructive editors. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Japanese_supercentenarians&diff=676270260&oldid=676267519 The user has deleted 1/3 of the entire article. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_supercentenarians_from_the_United_States&diff=676318211&oldid=676293353 Again, he has vandalised annother article in the same way. (cur | prev) 05:48, 16 August 2015‎ DerbyCountyinNZ (talk | contribs)‎ . . (105,774 bytes) (-28,027)‎ . . (→‎American supercentenarians over 112-years-old: Refactor to oldest 100; no justification for open-ended list which will increase ad nauseum) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 21:57, 15 August 2015‎ DerbyCountyinNZ (talk | contribs)‎ . . (61,973 bytes) (-28,633)‎ . . (→‎Japanese supercentenarians: As per talk page. It's a start...) (undo | thank) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waenceslaus (talk • contribs) -- see [349]

Edit warring across multiple pages

User:TBM10 and User:151.227.129.136 (or similar IP) have been edit-warring across multiple train station articles - Chelmsford railway station, Hatfield Peverel railway station, Witham railway station, Colchester railway station, Ingatestone railway station and possibly others. This seems a continuation of what was previously reported at AN/I. If I still had my admin hat they'd both be getting a block for edit warring. Could someone take a look. Dpmuk (talk) 15:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I have spent a great deal of my time and effort improving these and countless other articles over the years and have tried to seek help to block this unhelpful IP user or warn them over their unhelpful edits to said pages, but I have not received any help. As a long-time and helpful editor on this site I would be very disappointed and would quit WP. --TBM10 (talk) 17:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Ludwigpaisteman

I think we've got another "sorry, can't hear you" editor in Ludwigpaisteman (talk · contribs), a straight copyeditor with 0 talk or user talk edits. He seems to go around adding lots of unsourced or poorly sourced content to music articles, and gets reverted all over the place ([350],[351],[352],[353]). I've already dropped him a note saying, "can we talk?" but had no response. Now, if he doesn't mind having edits reverted, I guess there's not much of an issue - but I think my problem is more over articles that nobody watches anymore which have a risk of being subtly degraded and looking a little bit worse. Should we do anything or shall I go and listen to some soothing peaceful music and think happy thoughts instead? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I left him a more specific message directly requesting a response. It's possible that he just hasn't felt the need to respond since no one has asked him a direct question. He's been lighting up my watchlist for quite some time now. His edits are at least sometimes correct, albeit unsourced. --Laser brain (talk) 16:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I think when, in all likelihood, the user doesn't respond a brief block may wake them up and nudge a response. Normally, I work on lesser-known bands, albums, and songs than what Ludwig is editing in, but it's still concerning that many articles on renowned musicians are potentially being degraded by unsourced material.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:18, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked for the time being. I particularly want to discuss his changes to Richard Wright as I can't find a source for the date given. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:42, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Cuzkatzimhut and YohanN7

Yesterday, Cuzkatzimhut reported me for edit warring.1. However, he failed so far to provide any diffs for that claim. When admin EdJohnston asked for diffs, the editor responded, I asked the noticeboard to identify the evident pattern of systematic unconstructive editing. WP should be able to police itself, pursuant to whatever format strictures, and not leave things to the successful formatting of the appeals of complainants. Another account, YohanN7 is always present in favor of Cuzkatzimhut edits/opinion. EdJohnston saw then the need to warn of possible sanctions, Calling people idiots or crackpots isn't charming and may cause you to be sanctioned.

• References are often lacking

Initially i've asked editor Cuzkatzimhut to provide proper references for his extensive edits (i.e. recently no references for edits, or here - these edits are very extensive in his edit history, wrong way to add references or here). Additionally his edits are often not in regards to WP:TECHNICAL. Many of the talk pages of the article Cuzkatzimhut edits contain reader comments about too technical or lacking references. (i.e. 1 (See glossary), 2 (No Ref), 3(Insults reader), 4(No ref, claims everything is correct) -- These are just the most recent edits.

• Unexplained reverts

Today, he and YohanN7 begun reverting many of my edits i tagged in regards to references or for OR. An attempt to explain OR to the editors has failed so far. There is this No original research/Noticeboard discussion, where Kingsindian called the incident a classic OR.

Even though with repeated attempts to explain in length the issue of OR (article talk page , or at YohanN7's talk page to the editors, both show no sign of understanding, or willingness to except anything. Yohan's edit summary states several times, Reverting editor showing evident pattern of systematic nonconstructive editing, and Cuzkatzimhut stated about my edits, evident pattern of systematic nonconstructive editing.

• Summary

Even with extensive explanations, links to Wikipedia guidelines or the opinion of other editors, both editors do not seem to understand basic rules. Garchy cautioned in response to Cuzkatzimhut -- let's not make this about WP:OWNBEHAVIOR, which is bordering on Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Thus, besides WP:OR, WP:CIR the editors are just not there where Wikipedia wants to be. I am not sure exactly how to proceed or what exactly should be done about the conflicts mentioned here. prokaryotes (talk) 17:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• Update Yohan now makes threatening comments in response to a support question. prokaryotes (talk) 01:42, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm neutral here, but...how is that a threatening comment? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

He implies i did something wrong then states i should never do this again, implying a threat if i do it again, what the user perceives as stalking. However, if we actually look at the page on harassment (WP:HOUND) it makes clear that i wasn't stalking recent changes by user Cuzkatzimhut. My edits mostly added ref tags. prokaryotes (talk) 10:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

He is using unrelated support questions to interfere, for whatever reason. My question was unrelated to the user or any articles in question, initially. Now he hijacks my support question to explain his version of my edits, again look at those edits, which have added ref tags to a couple of articles. prokaryotes (talk) 10:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I was briefly involved with this as an outside editor on the WP:NORN page. I have reviewed some of the diffs above. I see what is going on. The basic issue here is that Cuzkatzimhut and YohanN7 are familiar with the subject matter and assume a level of background knowledge to someone reading the article, which is not unreasonable in itself. If someone is reading these highly technical articles, it is likely they have some familiarity with the relevant background. Often they leave certain statements uncited, because of this. They are indeed cited in the general references contained at the end of the article. Prokaryotes (correct me if I'm wrong), a layman like me, is trying in good faith to have as many inline citations as possible, even for things which the other two believe are obvious to anyone who is familiar with this area.

In discussion at WP:NORN, Cuzkatzimhut did indeed understand the WP:OR issue and tried to address it, though I am not sure Yohan understands it. In my opinion, everyone is acting in good faith, though tempers have become a bit frayed because of the non-aligned expectations of reader's background knowledge. In my opinion, if everyone stays focused on content, this can still end well. I see no evidence of WP:HOUNDing, though I see how it may be perceived that way. There is nothing wrong with looking through an editor's edits and flagging similar issues in other pages. Kingsindian ♝♚ 11:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Kingsindian, you are correct, I aim for best verifiability, imho the most important part of Wikipedia is content which is properly referenced, no matter how clear cut something may or not may be. prokaryotes (talk) 11:57, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• Intervention request Could someone please notify these 2 accounts here, why they post in the wrong spot, i think the accusations of both users are getting out of hands now and require some admin intervention. Thank you. prokaryotes (talk) 12:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Both users continue a battleground behavior, and Cuzkatzimhut stated recently, in response to his edit warring request. I will try to fight the good fight away from that disappointing board Besides the continued aggressive tone(you have to read his lengthly replies), the user is unwilling to understand or accept WP rules and sees tagging of articles he edits as a threat to him.prokaryotes (talk) 17:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

"Battleground behavior"? After the the highly personalized rampage I reported and documented painstakingly, of Aug 13, UT 15:05 - 27:10?? Rolling back, in rapid-fire succession, pages I had edited last: Adjugate matrix, Fermi's golden rule, scale invariance, special unitary group, non-linear sigma model, De Sitter special relativity, Rotation formalisms in three dimensions, canonical commutation relation, wave packet, Polynomial Wigner–Ville distribution, wave packet, pauli matrices, etc, including references I put in (scale invariance) summary deleted only to be supplanted by requests for references templates? I understand. I have to play "nice". I'll leave the bellicose talk to the cold record and invite the readership to advise me on how they would have responded to the rampage. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 17:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

It is not true that i reverted all above articles (only the first 2), the other articles were just reference taggings, at scale invarience Cuzkatzimhut defends a link to scholarpedia, just the page ofc, no pointers what so ever. To call this a rampage you need to ignore Wikipedia rules.prokaryotes (talk) 18:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Aug 13, contris: UT 17:37, 17:47, 17:09, 17:33, 17:48, 18:38, 22:06, 22:38. In that streak, to unjustifiably eschew "rampage", no pages appear to have anyone but me as the last editor. I now appreciate this may well be a part of an aspirational project to tag all technical WP pages with "missing citations" tags? As for myself, I am so nice I have nothing to say. Just behold. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 18:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with tagging recent edits of articles based of 1 editors edit history.prokaryotes (talk) 18:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Nothing against it in WP rules, sure. Now, then, close examination of the gratuitous deletions and destruction of content and formatting (red links) accompanying those tags will also let the reader decide what is "wrong" or not. Ad hominem attacks on Yohan when he reverts your reversions is probably also within the purview of the system. The systematic pattern, however, is undeniable: I am baffled you declare yourself its anapologetic practitioner. Is that a warning to everyone here to not call your bluff on that scalar field theory reference? You think everyone will be bullied?? Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 19:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

@Prokaryotes: WP:SCG is the standing general guidance on recommended citation practice in technical science articles. Is it something you have had a chance to look at, and would you see yourself in broad agreement with it? Jheald (talk) 08:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

SCG is exactly covering my edit motives. prokaryotes (talk) 08:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

It is my feeling that Yohan and Cuzkatzimhut are thinking of their practice as falling under Wikipedia:Scientific_citation_guidelines#Uncontroversial_knowledge. Kingsindian ♝♚ 10:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Original research by IP 2601:4C1:C001:1878:D16B:6CA7:37BB:F6B9 (and several other addresses)

An IP user keeps adding original research to Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, despite discussions why this is wrong on the article Talk and user's own pages. This person never acknowledges OR or synthesis, just talks about "censorship" of what he considers "common sense" and increases the complexity of his argument on the article page, adding more and more sources, none of which verifies his thesis. Person also switches to several different IP addresses (sockpuppetry?), though I have no proof this is deliberate. He has also made recent similarly contentious edits to Italian sausage, reverted by another editor.

2601:4c1:c001:1878:b8ca:e339:1f3b:7ed8 (talk · contribs) 19 June:Special:Diff/666807252/667575426

2601:4c1:c001:1878:d969:4c02:c5e0:1822 (talk · contribs) 10 July: Special:Diff/669242714/670769577

2601:4c1:c001:1878:c00f:507a:d436:ce86 (talk · contribs) 11 July: Special:Diff/670828010/670984416 Source used for the above is Astronauts Wives Club (book), on which I obtained consensus as unreliable on Reliable Sources noticeboard. After I was able to check this book, I found absolutely no reference to what the user was saying.

68.46.226.6 (talk · contribs) 17 July: Special:Diff/671287921/671805064 and following; obviously same editor starts misusing an already-used reliable source to make it appear to say what it doesn't in fact say.

2601:4c1:c001:1878:cc45:c492:4758:9370 (talk · contribs) 10 August: Special:Diff/674386723/675453615 User now starts to construct his increasingly elaborate argument with sources which don't support his claim, except by his own synthesis.

2601:4c1:c001:1878:d16b:6ca7:37bb:f6b9 (talk · contribs) 13 August: Special:Diff/675506264/675856593 At this point, I have started to warn him on his own talk page.

2601:4c1:c001:1878:d16b:6ca7:37bb:f6b9 (talk · contribs) 14 August: Special:Diff/675936899/675999116

JustinTime55 (talk) 17:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

IP Address 68.46.226.6 shows edits consistent with this same IP user. Same articles, same rationale. Editor located in same area too according to Geolocator. 2601:240:C501:3C40:28F3:97FF:F1E4:D19 (talk) 17:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit war at Chartres article

Over the past two days there has been an edit war going on at Chartres (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Edit summaries also indicate possible sockpuppetry. The editors who have edited the Chartres article after 30 July are Blue Indigo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Whiteflagfl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), ScrapIronIV, Europatygr, Blaue Max, Huntermiam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), KateWishing and finally myself (only to fully protect the article). FWIW, Blaue Max ScrapIronIV and KateWishing do not appear to be implicated in the war. Europatygr is also probably not involved. As I'm not feeling that confident of being able to fully investigate this myself due to off-wiki issues, I'm raising this here for action. I will notify all mentioned above and post evidence that such notification has been given. Mjroots (talk) 17:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The following editors have been notified of this discussion:- KateWishing, Huntermiam, Europatygr, ScrapIronIV, Whiteflagfl and Blue Indigo Mjroots (talk) 17:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Blaue Max has also been notified. Mjroots (talk) 18:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I simply is a local from the region around, I was against focusing on the Cathedral, on foreigners and on the Royalist period; also Blue Indigo seemed doing self promotion; I was reverted, I opened a debate on the talk page with no response from Blue Indigo, I think he should be banned, as for myself I ' m logging myself out very soon because I was only interested in Chartres future and a few other edits as for Kate "mes hommages Madame".Whiteflagfl (talk) 18:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

There is strong evidence that Huntermiam is a sockpuppet of Whiteflagfl at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Whiteflagfl. It has been suggested that both are sockpuppets of Aubmn. I'm not familiar with that user, but at a glance, their English is broken in similar ways. Aubmn was recently subject to a complaint here with clear consensus for a topic ban, but the thread was archived without action. KateWishing (talk) 18:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

No evidence at all. Kate is just feeling bitter because she feels Chartres has been locked on the wrong version. So everyone must be "socking". Martin Cold Mans (talk) 18:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Pretty amazing that you're an editor with under 50 edits, registered yesterday, and yet you are here on ANI linking to a meta essay on the wrong version. Oh, and I'm uninvolved with the article or any of the editors. GregJackP Boomer! 18:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Can an admin review this user's edit history[354][355][356] and the message spelled out on their userpage? KateWishing (talk) 19:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:AGF and all, it appears that we are being trolled at least in the above examples and recently created pages...and as I typed that the user was indeffed.Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Checkuser results posted at the relevant SPI.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I did edit that article yesterday: one restore after examining the merits of the contributions of the warring parties, with an encouragement for them to go to the talk page; and one minor change to a date immediately following. I don't believe that would make me involved in an edit war on this article, but I am open to correction if it is warranted. Please let me know. Scr★pIron^IV 19:55, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

It is my belief that ScrapIronIV was not involved in the edit war. No action is warranted against him/her. Mjroots (talk) 20:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I've decided not to block BlueIndigo for edit warring. Suitable advice has been given as to dealing with a similar scenario should it happen in the future. Mjroots (talk) 20:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

A contributor with multi new accounts opened on 8 August, 12 August & 14 August, in addition to the regular account he has had for a couple of years, has been tracking me at every article I edit & automatically reverts my edits. This contributor is Aubmn.

How do I know this is the same person? An obvious sign is his handling of the English language, then the tactics he employs, disrupting one's work & provoking battles. Once he has pushed an editor to put his work back, he happily announces that you have reached the 3-revert & are thus guilty of breaching wiki rules. No need to go any further: that is Aubmn's tactic, very well calculated. Beside the war being started, the sad result is that regular contributors stop editing the article, and the article remains unfinished. The perfect example is the article on Marie Antoinette, together with its discussion page.

My problem with Aubmn began last June, but others had battles with him for months before. The problem was never resolved, and it all came to a head on 6 August, when NeilN locked the article for a few days. It has been freed since, with no further participation, however. Since the Marie Antoinette affair, Aubmn has not participated in any article, at least under that user name – nonetheless, he has been busy by using other accounts

What happened next is what is bringing the affair here: Since 12 August, every time I begin working on an article, a newly registered editor comes & reverts my work. Up to today, three (3) have done so:

Whiteflagfl – opened account 12 Aug went directly to Chartres article & reverted my work [357] of a couple of hours before. A couple of hours later, he left this message on my talk page:

Hello, one you focus to much on nobility history even not France before 1789 plus you seems doing self promotion and you seems to belong to the region.

Whiteflagfl (talk) 16:49, 12 August 2015

Up to time article was locked, he argued every one of my edits, reverting all the time, then went at Welborn Griffith, an American Officer KIA on 16AUG44, during the battle of Chartres. Griffith's article is very short, and Whiteflagfl began removing info which he judged unnecessary, nothing more than Griffith's military awards, Légion d'honneur, etc. He then went back to the Chartres article continued hacking away details on the history of the city, reproaching me to mention too much of the nobility (!) - hard not to do when one relates the history of France, or England for that matter, or of any country of Europe, However, he does not seem to realize, or rather does not want to because it is not his purpose, that to go on working at an article, one has to be left alone & be given the time to go to the end (which is what could never happen to the article on Marie Antoinette). The situation is comparable to someone writing with a pen & having the pen taken away after every word. To top it all off, he accuses me of doing self-promotion because I had changed the date of the times of office of the mayor of Chartres, which had been left at 2008. As I told Whiteflagfl: we are in 2015. As for my doing self promotion: I am not the mayor of Chartres, I am not an elected official of Chartres. I do not work for the Chamber of Commerce of Chartres. I am not the bishop of Chartres. Even if I wanted to, I could not be elected to any office for the good reason that I am not a French citizen, although I pass easily for one because of my knowledge of the country and its language. And I am not the only foreigner in France in that position. So, that should settle the accusation of “doing self promotion”, which should be rejected.

Europatygr - opened account 08AUG, got busy & reverted at Louis XVI article, in exactly the same manner as that used by Aubmn at Marie Antoinette.

Huntermiam – opened account today, 14AUG, went directly to Chartres' article, reverting my work exactly in the same manner done previously by Aubmn at Marie Antoinette. Then came and threatened me on my talk page because he had followed every one of my moves at Wikipedia, and read what I had left at someone else's page.

One last thing: RE the accusation by Aubmn & others that I do not respond to msgs left on my talk page: I have responded to Aubmn in a rather lengthy manner on the Marie Antoinette discussion page & really do not wish to have my talk page turned into a battlefield. As far as I am concerned, there is nothing more for me to tell Aubmn and Associates.

That's about it, and it's rather long. Best regards, --Blue Indigo (talk) 22:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban

Seems that there was quite a sockfarm going on. As all the puppets have been blocked, we now need to deal with the puppeteer. Therefore I propose that Aubmn is banned from editing the Chartres article. Mjroots (talk) 19:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• Disagree only in that, as discussed below, I Support a Site Ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • PROPOSAL WITHDRAWN, see site ban discussion immediately below this subsection. Mjroots (talk) 10:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Aubmn again... What to do?

I recently brought the topic of Aubmn (talk · contribs)'s problematic editing to this noticeboard, and that thread, which was in favor of topic banning Aubmn with regard to the Marie Antoinette article, was archived without a close as to whether the topic ban should be enacted. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive895#WP:Topic ban for Aubmn. Aubmn stated that the ban was not needed because he would stop editing the article. But I knew that he'd end up WP:Socking again, and continuing with his problematic edits. And sure enough, he started doing just that, though he didn't go back to editing the Marie Antoinette article. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Whiteflagfl. Surely, he would have eventually gone back to the Marie Antoinette article. And, clearly, this editor shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. So, for Aubmn, do we enact the previously supported topic ban, broaden the ban to certain topics, propose a site ban, or just go with an indefinite block?

WP:Pinging all the editors who supported a topic ban in the aforementioned thread: JzG (Guy), Softlavender, MrX, AlbinoFerret, NebY, Xcuref1endx and Blue Indigo. Also WP:Pinging the editors who commented in the aforementioned WP:Sockpuppet investigation: KateWishing and Ponyo (Jezebel's Ponyo). Flyer22 (talk) 21:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support a Site Ban for the sockmaster, who appears to be User:Aubmn. Perhaps I take the rules too seriously, but I have no tolerance for anyone who creates multiple registered accounts other than for declared legitimate purposes. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
• Banninate. Long past time. Guy (Help!) 21:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
• Site ban for all the socks and their master. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 21:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support Block Sockpuppetry is never a good thing. Looks like instead of ignoring the article Aubmn put the rope around their neck and jumped up and down on the gallows trap door. AlbinoFerret 22:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

  Without opining on the proposal here: you know how there's a discussion right now about WP:ROPE and how the metaphor is kind of inappropriately violent? Here's a good example. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support site ban. They seem to disrupt any article they touch. KateWishing (talk) 22:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support site ban - That trip to Monte Carlo with his/her girlfriend is long overdue. Bon voyage! - MrX 22:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
• Site ban for master and all socks, for abusing not only multiple accounts but also abusing the community's trust in the worst sort of way. Softlavender (talk) 01:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
• Site ban. Someone needs to trip the trap door on the gallows. GregJackP Boomer! 03:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support a site ban. Mjroots (talk) 08:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: Also see the #Edit war at Chartres article section above; I hadn't seen that section before creating this one. This section can be made into a subsection of that one. Flyer22 (talk) 03:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done Mjroots (talk) 09:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support site ban. This recent spate of clear malicious damage backed with specious arguments suggests that for many months their behaviour on Marie Antoinette was also a conscious and deliberate mockery _{(and I was a fool to WP:AGF)}. NebY (talk) 19:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Request closure

Per the #Aubmn again... What to do? section above, we don't need this matter be archived again without a close. Flyer22 (talk) 19:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Disruption, Racism and BLP violation by User:Mrandrewnohome

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

---

I am bringing this here primarily because the user in question has chosen to upload a file Jews_own_media.png to the commons which is a chart entitled "WHO CONTROLS YOUR MIND" which lists on the order of 300 living people, some 200 or so of whom are marked in red as Jewish. The file's sole use is here where it is meant to elicit comments on Jewish control of the media. The user has previously been warned that the reference desks are not a forum.

The file itself is synthesis, and is neither sourced nor neutral, and is an obvious violation of WP:BLP. I have nominated it for deletion from the commons, here.

Prior recent posts by the user (contributions) also include:

"Final Solution" and

Why are European Jews White which was created by IP User:69.121.131.137.

My concern is that the current file and question at the Reference Desk be deleted. Whether the user is here to contribute to the project is a secondary question. μηδείς (talk) 21:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Judging by that final solution thread, it seems the user is here to try and conduct some research. However, the image itself seems offensive. I assume someone has requested deletion by now at the Commons. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 21:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I submitted a request for deletion at commons, in the meantime someone else has deleted the thread. μηδείς (talk) 21:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• I am Jewish by ethnicity and feel a cultural connection with the Jewish people. I have no hostility to the Jewish people and posted a question which many people have, which is why are so many people of Jewish persuasion or dissent in high profile positions. I'm intending to make it the focus of my undergraduate dissertation about anti-Semitism in the modern world. I'm well aware that the file was contentious as I pointed out it's obvious bias - irrespective of that, it doesn't stop it from being an accurate illustration of Jewish presence in the American media. As my post on the humanities reference desk made perfectly clear, I am not hostile to Jews or Judaism. What I asked may well have cause offence to some, but I feel that it was a perfectly legitimate question - why Jewish people appear to be so proportionately influential and if any peer-reviewed research had been done on the subject. I'm sorry if I uploaded the file in the incorrect manner - however, just because the file could be considered offensive is no reason not to upload it - we have dozens of images which may be considered offensive that are considered legitimate. My interest in the final solution stems from the fact that over 80% of my family who lived in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union were killed as part of it. The question asking why Jewish people are white is, I feel, a legitimate one given that they derive their heritage from areas in the Middle East; however, I am prepared to concede that it isn't the finest or least controversial thing I've ever written and I apologise for that. Once again, I'm sorry for any offence caused and if the image has been improperly uploaded or is considered inappropriate then I have no objections for it being speedily deleted and I apologise for uploading it in the first place. However, I would like my question to be re-uploaded onto the reference desk as I feel it was tactfully worded and legitimate - the reality is that as a tiny minority, the Jewish people exert considerable influence in numerous fields, often for the benefit of humanity - I'm just curious as to why this is the case when they make up a tiny proportion of the world's population; I can think of no over group which has been so successful that is so small in number. Andrew 22:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you would care to explain why you claimed that an image widely found on far-right websites (e.g. Stormfront) was your own work? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

That file can't be relied upon as accurate, if it's indeed from the fringe. I've voted to delete it. GAB^Hello! 00:29, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I think we are all aware that Stormfront and the like aren't reliable sources - that isn't the issue here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

My mistake for not clarifying, that was the claim made above: "I'm well aware that the file was contentious as I pointed out it's obvious bias - irrespective of that, it doesn't stop it from being an accurate illustration of Jewish presence in the American media." GAB^Hello! 00:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

The chart is titled "Who Controls Your Mind? 2013". How is it determined that these people—both Jew and non-Jew alike—"control your mind"? That part seems to be left out. Are we to assume that all the people listed (Jew and non-Jew) are of evil intent? Bus stop (talk) 00:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

It's conspiratorial nonsense. Note the speculation on whether certain media figures are gay, and the idea that having a "Jewish connection" is somehow sinister. This has no place here, that much is clear. GAB^Hello! 00:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

The label you misread said "goy" (non-Jewish), not "gay". I'm not taking any position on the chart, but I did want to point out that there's nothing about sexual orientation in this chart. General Ization ^Talk 01:37, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• I uploaded it as a self upload because it seemed the easiest way to do it. At no point did I infer that Jewish influence in the media was a bad thing, just that they are influential. Note also that the people listed in the table are either Jewish, or of Jewish descent. I didn't find the table from what I would consider to be a racist or far right-wing source, I found it on metapedia, their list of Jewish media executives in America page. I was unable to post the link on the reference desk so chose to upload the file instead, and I admit that I didn't follow the correct procedure. I refer to my previous point that just because an image or visual display of something is objectionable is no reason to censor it, particularly if it could be used to illustrate a point. I acknowledged that the source was potentially shady - however, after doing google searches for most of the names on it, they were, lo and behold, of Jewish persuasion or descent. I was also careful to phrase my question delicately and gave no indication that I held racist or anti-Semitic beliefs towards the Jewish people - I even put a header at the foot of my question that I wasn't looking to inspire racist rhetoric. I may not have followed the correct upload procedure for the file, and recognise that it is a contentious issue, and for that I apologise. However, to use that as a basis to assume that I hold racist beliefs is idiotic and potentially libellous. --Andrew 01:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• I never insinuated/assumed anything about your beliefs, and I'm not going to get into whether or not the content is even accurate. Regardless, metapedia is by no means a reliable source. GAB^Hello! 01:09, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• Whoever wrote this headline used the word racism. Also the chart is clearly labelled who controls your mind as a way to entice readers into viewing the image. The same, or similar, expression is used in reference to other people, notably Rupert Murdoch in the UK. Perhaps if you'd researched some of the names on that list, despite finding it objectionable, you'd realise it is on the whole accurate. And as an encyclopedia that promotes democracy of knowledge, accurate information shouldn't be censored. I admit that it was unreferenced, but given that it wasn't used to illustrate an encyclopedic article, renders that point mute. --Andrew 01:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I am going, against all my instincts, to assume good faith here, and take you at your word that you are actually asking a question because you are writing an undergraduate dissertation on "anti-Semitism in the modern world". And on that basis, offer a few sage words of advice: Get a fucking clue. Don't use crap from Neo-Nazi websites as authorities on who is or isn't Jewish. Don't use Wikipedia as a source for information. Use your fucking College library. Act like a student, not a clueless internet troll. Even if this achieves little in the way of results as an essay (which frankly I have my doubts, if you really are that stupid), you might stand a slight chance of learning something about your heritage. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• If you'd bothered to read my response it wasn't published from what appeared to be a far right internet source. You claim to be assuming good faith, yet appear to strike a particularly angry tone in your messages. I never claimed that it was authoritative either - I claimed that it was an easy way to illustrate a point that I conducted prior research upon. I see that you've failed to applaud me for using the referenced wikipedia and external articles that also illustrated my point. Instead you use the table that I didn't know was used by right wing propaganda sources, which I then verified was largely accurate, as a basis to illustrate a point that I am a racist - which you infer by the phrase going 'against all my instincts'. If you'd also read what I wrote about my dissertation I was referring to Jewish people who held influential positions in society in general - i.e. the basis of my original question. I wasn't overtly concerned with the Jewish presence in media outlets, I was using that as an example to illustrate a point. The fact that Jewish people are perceived to have so much influence is, by the use of far right sites, clearly a bone of contention for those of anti-Semitic persuasion and conspiracy theorists. Therefore, it would be a suitable topic to see whether this perceived influence is one of the many causes why anti-Semitism proliferates in so many cultures. Referring to somebody as stupid for raising a question that has been postulated by potentially millions of people frankly says more about you than I - perhaps a dissertation on the subject would have disspelled these myths in an academic and peer reviewed forum. If it were up to you, we'd never know as you seem to want to stifly objective, impartial research based enquiry on the subject. I doubt you even read the question that I posted on the reference desk, which I consulted on the basis of seeking out whether it would be a feasible dissertation project by asking if there were any published academic materials on the subject --Andrew 01:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not the slightest bit interested in engaging you in debate. Posting racist crap on our reference desks can't be justified by claiming to be a student writing a dissertation, end of story. If you are too stupid to understand why, that is your problem, not ours. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• The fact that you don't seem to understand that the general intent of the question was not in the slightest racist is unbelievable. I've given an account of my actions and attempted to justify them in the best way that I knew how to. I acknowledged the source was biased and used to push a controversial point. That doesn't make it in any way racist. Far-right media outlets use KKK images which, while racist, are used to illustrate points. And how can it possibly be racist if, after conducting a search of the majority of names on the list, possibly be racist. Also if raising a point which many people consider to be valid on the reference desk constitutes racism, even if written in an impartial way with a specific request that racist rhetoric be avoided, then sue me --Andrew 01:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• Stop digging yourself further. Unless this is some experiment to see how far you can make a distinction no one cares about, User:Mrandrewnohome, we have an image on commons and a discussion here that no one wants to have. The image is up for deletion there. The discussion is a closed deal, we can move on. Otherwise, we can't read your mind here but from a conduct perspective, that's two huge strikes in the "we're not interested in you here" column. I don't see any indication that this is solely a problem editor so as long as the stick is dropped NOW, I'd chalk it up to an abhorrent, emphasis abhorrent lapse in judgment for today. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Would like Jytdog to leave me alone

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

---

About three months ago I started getting involved in the acupuncture article, which has been a very contentious page. I ended up writing everything from the History section down. During this time, I started receiving emails from other editors, often subtly (or not so subtly) encouraging me to support the author's point of view. I told them to "knock it off" here. Jytdog either didn't see it or ignored it and sent me more incredibly loaded emails. For example one email contained the text:[[358]]

"I thought you were a pretty clueful editor. I am really blown away by this and this. How can you let yourself get involved in a health-related article, much less a controversial one, when you are this clueless (and I mean that) about how we source health content in Wikipedia? You are destroying your credibility, in my eyes at least. I can only imagine that other Project Med editors are thinking the same thing. I am at least telling you."

This is just a sample. In other cases he said he was "disappointed" in me shortly after I disagreed with him. After a bit of a spat on my Talk page, I closed the string, since it was only going to produce more drama and I thought that was the end of it.

Afterwards, Jytdog started stalking me to pages like Natera and Greenfacts. These pages were not advertised on any noticeboard and the only way for him to come across them would have been by stalking my contribs. He started arguments related to the Greenfacts page,[359] but also seemed to want to start arguments everywhere about everything. Sure he does normally patrol COIN, but does he normally respond literally within minutes[360] [361] with pretty much the best comment he could say to goad me into argument?[362] I didn't even want this article to be created, but since I was out-numbered and the page was created anyway, I spent more than a dozen hours adding 244 sources and now he wants to delete it. (BTW, there are plenty of sources that do discuss McKinsey alumni as a group). In other cases I'm having a civil discussion about a heated topic and he parachutes in with more drama[363] with comments like "You have nothing to gain from this and respect to lose"[364]

These are only examples I have on-hand. When this behavior is taken as a whole, it shows a pattern of stalking, harassment, revenge editing and intimidation. We need Wikipedia to be a drama-free place that fosters open discussion and encourages participation. This kind of behavior has a chilling effect on open discussion, among other things. I'm not sure admin intervention is warranted yet, but I wanted to voice my concerns and start a discussion on this issue. CorporateM (Talk) 00:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Have you tried discussing your concerns with Jytdog? Sam Walton (talk) 00:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on Jytdog from all articles related to alternative medicine until the time comes that he can behave himself and act like a kind, compassionate editor who is here to help others and improve articles. Bad behavior from this user has been going on for years and it's time to nip it in the bud. Viriditas (talk) 01:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on Jytdog, this is the same pattern of behavior that he has exhibited numerous times with numerous editors, including Atsme and PraeceptorIP to name a couple. Viriditas is correct on their view. GregJackP Boomer! 01:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
• Maybe I'm dense, but I see no evidence which would remotely justify a topic ban. It seems both Viriditas and GregJackP have had numerous editorial disputes with Jytdog in the past, which would likely explain the rush to sanction on their part. Sad, really, but probably par for the course on the dramaboards... If you have a chance to get rid of someone who's challenged you in the past, you jump at it no matter the evidence, right? Yobol (talk) 02:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

If you want, either Viriditas and I can provide diffs showing this behavior. Why do we put up with it? GregJackP Boomer! 02:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Please notice the little game Yobol is playing. He has ignored all of the evidence of bad behavior by Jytdog offered by CorporateM at the beginning of this thread and instead blames those who have addressed it. Responding to Yobol will only encourage more of this kind of intentional red herring distraction. The fact remains: based on the evidence offered by CorporateM, a sanction is required. We should only be addressing this evidence and not indulging Yobol's strategic, tactical distraction from the topic at hand. Viriditas (talk) 02:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Except that I specifically said that the evidence presented did not merit a topic ban on all alternative medicine articles. I'm dropping out of this conversation now, as the stench of the predictable drama board antics of enemies calling for blood has me a bit nauseated. Yobol (talk) 02:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I just wish that Jytdog had some speed between idling and 80 mph. He does so much good in pseudoscience areas, weeding out the garbage from the science. I just wish he was a little less zealous, that he acknowledged that some grey area exists. You don't have to challenge every new editor. Assume good faith and all, not everyone is trying to destroy the project. But, I'll admit, this is my general recommendation to every editor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• I would oppose a topic ban but would definitely support an interaction ban based on this set of circumstances. An editor who has made it clear that he wants to be left alone by another specific editor should have that right. If CorporateM is making disagreeable edits (and I am not assuming that he necessarily is), there are plenty of other editors in the area who can discuss this with him. bd2412 T 02:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• I would support an interaction ban per BD2412. GregJackP Boomer! 03:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I suppose that someone will point out there have been issues between Jytdog and myself, and there have. But, after I started involving myself in sections on this page I also received an email from him. It was about a section he had started on Doors22. The emails were an attempt to get me to change my mind on supporting a ban that Jytdog wanted but I felt a lesser sanction was more appropriate. I still have them, and while I thought they were inappropriate off wiki communication, I chalked it up to a one off thing. This section has me wondering if they were not. AlbinoFerret 02:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
• Here's a thought. CorporateM started this thread by writing "I'm not sure admin intervention is warranted yet, but I wanted to voice my concerns and start a discussion on this issue." How about doing that first, and then deciding what to do about it afterwards? You know, as in hold the trial first, and then bring out the noose. Or is that too radical an idea for ANI? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: When I posted this just a couple hours ago, I did notice that Jytdog has previously been warned at ANI for incivility,[365] but I was not aware of what other editors seem to be depicting as a similar behavioral problem in engaging other editors on alternative medicine pages. Back when that page was hot, I actually spent a lot of time discouraging administrative or COI sanctions against editors from both sides; many of those sanctions were being lobbied for by their political opponents. This was the only editor I felt actually engaged in inappropriate conduct. A few comments I have in general (not directed at Andy specifically):

• I'd like to re-emphasize this part of my post: "We need Wikipedia to be a drama-free place that fosters open discussion and encourages participation." This is true here as well.
• In almost all cases where two editors don't get along, an IBAN is a very low-level sanction. Wikipedia is plenty large enough for editors that don't get along to just avoid bumping heads
• A topic ban I see as a more severe sanction and given a history of politically-motivated block-attempts in this subject area (and a lack of familiarity with the accusations flying around), we do need evidence that similar behavior has previously occurred and that prior warnings have been ineffective at preventing the behavior from continuing. Links to prior ANI strings, diffs to similar abusive comments, etc. are needed for folks that are not familiar with the context. CorporateM (Talk) 03:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• I see my fan club has come out to play here. CorporateM, I don't agree with all of your description of our history, but I am not going to take up the community's time sweating the details. Big picture - I am sorry for bothering you; I do understand that my email to you was unwelcome (you too AlbinoFerret). CorporateM, I will not interact with you going forward, unless you ask me something. I apologize for upsetting you. Jytdog (talk) 03:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks @Jytdog:. That is very mature of you. I recommend we close this string as resolved with a voluntary IBAN. I do hope at some point this will be ancient history and we'll be able to work together again, but I'm glad you agree right now the best thing for us to do is simply avoid each other. I did end up at Uber (for example) without realizing you were previously involved, so if something like that happens, you can just give me a polite ping and I'll go away. CorporateM (Talk) 04:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Concern about how it was logged

I looked at the log of the IBAN, and I am concerned, mostly procedurally, about the way that it was recorded there. It seems to be a one-way ban, placed on Jytdog. That is not how I read the discussion above. It seems to me that a plain reading of what CorporateM says in the final post of the discussion is that the voluntary interaction ban is agreed to be two-way. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

You're correct, I missed CorporateM's statement about "avoiding each other". I'll change the log, and the closing notice. BMK (talk) 18:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Thesongfan

Thesongfan (talk · contribs) may have some possible COI going on at Chris Janson, as this editor is scrubbing any mention of the fact that Janson was originally signed to another label, and removing other sourced content in favor of stuffing the article with name-drops of artists to whom Janson is only passingly connected at best. (Compare the diffs here). After I warned them for possible COI, they proceeded to attack me in an edit summary and accuse me of stalking. I proceeded to give them a warning against personal attacks, after which they once again removed sourced content from the article without explanation. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I know Hammer already warned him/her, but this was pretty out of line. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

It is out of line. I am considering this user fully warned and may block if disruptive editing continues. Chillum 04:32, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, now that I think about it, that edit summary and this one suggest that Thesongfan thinks s/he owns the article ("I'm allowing you to leave most of the content you've posted"?). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

@Chillum: See the above post, Thesongfan has continued their disruptive editing and is now claiming ownership of the article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Note the timestamp of my comment on the timestamp of the above diff. There have been no edits since I said that, while another admin may feel differently I don't wish to block at this point. Also please take care not to get caught up in edit warring. Chillum 05:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

It has continued so I am blocking them. SmartSE (talk) 07:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Move vandalism

Willie on wheels is moving front page ITN articles. Abductive (reasoning) 03:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Which articles? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I think this was in reference to 2015 Tianjin explosions, and it looks like it's been taken care of by a couple of Admins... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:18, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any moves on that article's logs. I think this might be about 2015 Baghdad market truck bombing (look at the logs for the article). By the way, the page-moving vandal for the Baghdad bombing article has been globally locked. CabbagePotato (talk) 05:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Isapk

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

---

Is continuously vandalizing Wikipedia talk:Legal disclaimer.--Cahk (talk) 04:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Mass salting

Could someone please create-protect all the articles created by Ramzan Kadiryan, SizinGünbəzDoqquz, and MER HAYRENIK? Socks of KunoxTxa keep recreating the articles, some as many as six times. Thanks, Conifer (talk) 09:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I think User:Shirt58 is already on it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Umpire Empire

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

---

Umpire Empire is a new editor(in fact he used to edit as an unregistered user before creating this account)He readded the Vlach claim about the origin of Spata family(it was deleted by another user). The used source doesn’t mention any Spata family.I deleted his edit and explained the reasons at the article’s talk page.He readded the Vlach claim without any clear explanation.Then I tried to give him some advice about this case at his talk page and his answear was:” Unlike you, I'm here to build an encyclopedia, which includes replacing pseudo-history with real facts per the very same Wikipedia policies you ignore when it suits you”,” you give Albanians a bad name”.This user said :” I'll take a look at the Spata article and correct it if there's an error” but he didn’t.Rolandi+ (talk) 10:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Please disregard Rolandi+'s immature behavior. First and foremost, it's really insulting for Rolandi+ to be giving "advice" to me about following Wikipedia policies when he blatantly and consistently defies them ([366] [367]). The user has an Albanian ultranationalist agenda (thus giving Albanians a bad name; see [368] [369], etc.), which is why he doesn't show the entire discussion he started on my talkpage where he first threatened to report me and even ignores the fact that I improved ([370] [371]) the Spata family. Also, it's acceptable practice to replace pseudo-history with accurate facts on serious historical and biographical articles per the Wikipedia policies that Rolandi+ ignores (like WP:RS, WP:V, etc.). I urge the administrators here to simply ignore Rolandi+ and spend their efforts or more worthwhile things. Umpire Empire (talk) 14:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

You didn’t improved anything at Spata family article.You just deleted your edits after I reported you.You continue offending others and saying that “I give Albanians a bad name”.You claim that I have an Albanian untranationalist agenda because I edited at Spiro Koleka.Now it is clear that you have problems with the Albanian history.Just see your words:” replace pseudo-history”.Rolandi+ (talk) 14:30, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Lying won't accomplish anything Rolandi+ since I told you I'd work on the Spata family and also told you to stop harassing me. And it's obvious that you're an Albanian ultranationalist, because you behave like one by conveniently ignoring facts and rules that don't suit your pro-Albanian worldview and reporting anyone you see as a threat to your agenda. I'm done feeding the trolls and at this rate, you won't have me to kick around anymore. Umpire Empire (talk) 15:42, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Many problems with cut and paste merger without discussion (several articles)

Editor Lfstevens recently manually cut and pasted several pages. However, as i pointed out, the merging of several articles lacks in many regards (subjective content deletion, rewrite of lede per none RS, selective reference removal, just to name a few issues). The user edit history contains many summaries with merge, all appear to be not in line with WP procedure. The user also was notified on his talk page on August 12 by editor shoy to follow WP:Merge and contact admin Moonriddengirl, which he didn't. I also asked the editor to respond on his talk page. prokaryotes (talk) 11:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I have limited time right now but have left a note at his talk page explaining the situation a bit more completely and asking him to assist with one of the recent issues. A glance shows that this may be a widespread issue in need of repair, but further assessment is needed there. I think it's worth emphasizing to people that this attribution is a legal requirement and mandatory under our Terms of Use. There is an effort to attribute at [372]; I believe this is a good faith effort, although inconsistent as this is also copied, but without attribution. It should be reparable, as long as Lfstevens is willing to assist.

I would very much like to know which administrator he has been working with and references here. I do not see edits to any user talk page other than his own in recent history, or to Wikipedia space or engagement on the issue at any article talk pages. If there is an admin who was notified of "the whole mess" and didn't advise, I'd like to be sure said admin is conscious of the legal issues as well. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi folks. I am just about through with the editing process on a bunch of articles about the Sun. Before beginning, I requested feedback on the project on the talk pages of the major articles involved. The only feedback I got was encouragement. I did not contact an administrator when requested because I had not finished and therefore was unsure of exactly what admin help was required and didn't want to waste anyone's time. I plan only a couple of additional changes at this point. In the end, three existing articles ended up as redirects, one of which has already had its history moved. Most of my changes were moves, rather than copies. Finally, most of my pastes also involved revisions along the way, if that matters.

Sorry for any violations that may have ensued. I am happy to do whatever I can to remedy any problems. I hope that doesn't involve reverting everything. I'm surprised that in all my 10ks of edits I've never run into this before (either as an editor or as an observer). Always more to learn. Lfstevens (talk) 16:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Please do the following: Tag the destination page's talk page with , and the source page's talk page with . Place these tags at the top of the talk pages. -- from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Merging#How_to_merge However, it is unclear at this point if a merge must be reverted. If you use sources, links to other wiki websites are not sufficient.

prokaryotes (talk) 16:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I generally retained the sources from the original articles, which generally did not use wiki sources. To summarize, for material that was copied from one article to another, I should used {{copied}} and for material that was moved, I should use {{merge-to/from}}. And for the redirects, the history should be moved. Is that correct? Lfstevens (talk) 16:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Re other wiki websites: The edit about you adding links to wiki websites to the lede, can be found here. Someone has to go to all your related activities and assess your decisions when you removed or added content. prokaryotes (talk) 16:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Not trying to be obtuse, but I don't see any use of wiki sources in that edit. The refs were to external sites (merriam webster, etc.) Are you referring to the File? Lfstevens (talk) 16:34, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Both links are not reliable (they don't cite any sources, and we do not link to other dictionaries or Enceclopedia. Please read WP:RS, additionally carefully read WP:OR. The lede is wrong, Solar irradiance (also Insolation -- this is not in the cited sources and could be considered original research. prokaryotes (talk) 16:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Those links were in the Insolation article where I found the material. Lfstevens (talk) 17:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Please explain why you think Insolation and Solar irradiance should be merged, do you have any source for this? According to some websites these are two different things. prokaryotes (talk) 17:10, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

From the version I merged: "Insolation (from Latin insolare, to expose to the sun)[1][2] is the power per unit area produced by the Sun in the form of electromagnetic radiation. It is also called solar irradiation." (I would so much rather have had this discussion before I did the work. Where were you then?) Lfstevens (talk) 17:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

You can hardly complain now when you did a merger without a merger discussion. I guess you just merged the pages because you thought it might be okay, but you have not researched each subject to be sure. prokaryotes (talk) 18:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Lfstevens, no deletion should be necessary, as long as the content is properly attributed now. But it does require that you acknowledge the copying in edit summary, and it does require (where taking is extensive) acknowledgement of the copying on the talk pages of the articles. Where content is merged, the template used above is a good idea. Where it's just copied, {{copied}} is the way to go. Even if you modify the content, you have to attribute to meet the requirements of our licenses. The question of whether isolation and solar irradiance should be merged is really a content discussion and likely best at the article's talk page or at personal talk page. Administrative intervention is not need there, at least at this stage, but we do need to address the copyright issues. (Even if a merger is reverted, for attribution history, the edit summary should be used.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Apparently the user is well aware of merging, see this past edit. I'd like to point out that a merger on these solar articles is a good idea, but he needs to add the required data as mentioned above, and should respond on the talk page about his merge edits. Thanks. prokaryotes (talk) 19:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• Mergers include There is this merger from Solar variation into Solar cycle (See in particular this old content), and a merger from Insolation into Solar irradiance (See also talk page there), and moved Solar and celestial effects on climate to Orbital effects on climate and Solar and celestial effects on climate, and then moved content to new article Solar activity and climate.prokaryotes (talk) 19:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we're getting to closure here. If I understand the rules, what I need to do is:

- use {{merge-to}}/{{merge-from}} on Solar irradiance/Insolation and Solar phenomenon/Solar activity. Administrators will handle the history merge. - use {{copied}} on Solar cycle X, Solar cycle (to Solar phenomenon and Solar activity and climate), Solar activity and Sunspot (to Solar cycle and Solar activity and climate) and Solar irradiance to Solar activity and climate. Happy to make those changes, once they are confirmed. Please let me know of any other things needed. Lfstevens (talk) 06:59, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I looked more closely at the merger of 3 articles and it appears that it is basically okay, though there night be an issue with Solar irradiance and insolation, but this might be covered at one place. There are still some problems, as mentioned above, but i think this can be worked out. When you have specific questions about merging i can only point you to the guides, also linked above. You should at least add the templates to the talk pages, i guess this would resolve the copyright concerns too.prokaryotes (talk) 01:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Unjustified deletions

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

---

I've copyedited material in All Along the Watchtower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) regarding its relevance to Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series) and Music of Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series). Most of the work consisted of copyediting, not insertion of new material. Doniago (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) deleted both sections I edited claiming lack of citations, throwing away both my work and that of previous editors. The generally accepted way of handling such cases is tagging with "citation needed" or a similar template, allowing for further edits without destroying potentially useful material. I approached the user on their talkpage, but they disregarded my comments and continued to remove the sections. Deleting relevant, informative and well-phrased content merely for lacking citations (which, by the way, there's more than a handful of in the articles those sections link to) is a lazy, uncooperative act that results in a net loss of good Wikipedia material, and should be the last resort where other means (tagging, checking linked articles, contacting the relevant editors, doing the work yourself) have failed. François Robere (talk) 13:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

No administrator action is necessary here; the simple solution is to add a source to the information when you re-add it, the text is still available in the page history for you to use. Maybe a citation needed tag would have been better, maybe not, but at the end of the day the information needs a citation and Doniago was perfectly within their rights to remove the text given the lack of sources. Sam Walton (talk) 13:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I've added some sources. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:34, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Personal attack

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

---

Today's featured article is Departures (film). I made a change based on the MOS for large numbers and the current consensus of the film's infobox and a grammatical change too. This was reverted by User:Curly Turkey with the edit summary concluding with "take it home". I changed it back (per the MOS) AND raised this issue on [CT's talkpage pointing him to the MOS of large numbers and the film infobox. I was then greeted with this reply. Being told to "fuck you", being called a troll and an asslicker. I can let alot of things slide, but these personal attacks are not acceptable. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• Context is everything: Lugnuts has a known history provoking these things with me. The important issue is that he began an editwar and at no time tried to deal with the alleged "issues" on the talk page—nor is this the first time he's pulled this kind of thing with me. In this case Lugnuts has targeted the TFA to invoke a maximal reaction. The editwar itself is a Personal Attack in this context, and by a repeat offender aiming at causing maximum distress while the article in question is in the spotlight. Put another way: Lugnuts' behaviour is openly disruptive in article space; my behaviour is restricted to my user page, and was the response he was trying to provoke. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 13:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

The only past dealing I've had with this editor was several years ago (I had to look at their block log to remind me - I thought the name was familar). Regardless, that is no justification for the attacks. How did I "target" TFA? I'm a very active member of the Film Project and saw a film article on the main page. I made improvements based on the current MOS. And for my trouble, I get those comments. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:00, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I've put up with editwarring from this Lugnuts on two occasions at How a Mosquito Operates (leading to a block), agressive behaviour at WP:TFD, and more editwarring and aggressive behaviour at Talk:Main Page in the past. This is the fourth editwar Lugnuts has tried to provoke me into, and the editor has more than enough experience to know that such disagreements must be discussed on the article talk page, and not through multiple reverts. Check out Lugnuts' blocklog, primarily for editwarring and personal attacks—he knows the rules, so can only be deliberately breaking them. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 14:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I do know the rules, and I know that it's simply not acceptable to make the personal attacks that you did when I made those edits in good faith. I had no idea you had any edits on this article. Is it your article now? Does that make it OK to call another editor all those things you posted in reply to a geninue question? It's not an editwar when I conform to the long established MOS and invite discussion from yourself on your talkpage. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

There we have it, folks—he does know the rules, and simply refuses to follow them. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 14:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

No, I do follow them. You asked Crisco 1492 for help on the matter, saying that (I'm) "this fucking wrong", and yet Crisco agrees with me and the MOS. Does that mean he's also "fucking wrong" too? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

He said "we should round up if we're going to round", which is not what was disputed (I wasn't rounding). The primary dispute is over "over" vs "more than" (as you're aware—you quoted my "take it home"). So why are you ignoring my invitation to take it to the talk page? Just as I suggested—you're looking for drama. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 14:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Context: Crisco accidentally "restored" the number 69 with the edit summary "source says 69 million, and MOS:LARGENUM says implies that rounding to the nearest million is appropriate in this context", mistakenly believing the dispute was about which way to round, and then corrected himself by rounding up to 70 and leaving the comment "the source gives 69.9 million, so Lugnuts is correct that we should round up if we're going to round." I never rounded either way—I restored the original, unrounded number. Lugnuts is aware of this context and is trying to take advantage of Crisco's mistake. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 14:59, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Curly, there is nothing you had to say that could not have been said without name calling. To be 100% clear you may be blocked for engaging in personal attacks even if you feel that you have been provoked. If you think Lugnuts is acting inappropriate then draw attention to it, or express yourself in a manner that does not constitute personal attacks.

If you are being baited then you are taking the bait, don't take the bait. Chillum 15:05, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• I lapsed for a single posted comment and my pottymouth has since ceased. Lugnuts' behaviour, on the other hand, has not—he is clearly unwilling to discuss the issue, continued his editwarring, and is clearly continuing to bait me. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 15:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • This is possibly the only time in my life I will ever type this sentence: Chillum is talking sense and you should listen to him. (FWIW, I actually agree with Lugnuts here; we shouldn't have an overly-precise dollar gross, since much of this film's revenues will have been in Japan and fluctuating exchange rates will mean the dollar figure will never be that accurate.) ‑ iridescent 15:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
    • So Lugnuts has succeeded at his game: the primary issue is not over the number, but over the grammar, which he refuses to discuss despite an invitation at his talk page. Am I free, then, to revert the grammar issue if I don't touch the number (which I never considered important, just pointless, and not the MOS:LARGENUM issue he misrepresented it as)? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 15:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm more than prepared to discuss - hence why I posted on your talkpage in the first place! But when I was greeted with the gross personal attack, I decided to back away from this foul-mouthed editor and wait until he calms down. WP:NPA means just that - no personal attacks. There's no excuse for your outburst. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 15:18, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

There's no excuse for editwarring, which preceded the outburst. If I apologize will you do the same and revert? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 15:19, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

(non admin observation) Two wrongs dont make a right. The issue at hand is your behaviour. The comment linked is way out of bounds. I suggest you apologise and dont put conditions on it. AlbinoFerret 16:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

No, my behaviour cannot be removed from the context of his behaviour—otherwise this turns into a race over who can file at ANI the fastest. The most important thing is: whose behaviour is disrupting Wikipedia? Mine sure wasn't. Editwarring always does. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 16:34, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

(Multiple EC) May be I'm missing something but I don't see any attempt at discussion until after this thread was started [373]. Perhaps WP:BRD would imply Lugnuts should have stopped after being reverted and perhaps there was personal contact on user talk pages, but I always find it difficult to give either side much credit in WP:Content disputes when I visit an empty talk page (or would have if I'd seen this discussion earlier). It's far better to actually try and discuss disputes, which for disputes surrounding articles should nearly always be on article talk pages, than to say I was willing to discuss but the other editor wasn't. Ultimately whoever should start a discussion, someone has to so it's far better to start the discussion yourself on the article talk page rather than to insist you would have taken part in the discussion, if only the other editor had started it. Nil Einne (talk) 16:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Nil - Yes, you missed the conversation I started on Curly's talkpage straight after the edit on the article in question and before coming here. That's when Curly stooped to going straight to the personal attack instead of discussing this like an adult. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Nil: there's context here—this is the fourth edit war Lugnuts has started against me. Tell me how coolheaded you'd be. Regardless, I did start a talkpage discussion. Lugnuts' "response" is totally divorced from what it's responding to. He's obviously not interested in participating in the discussion in a good-faith way. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 16:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Two reverts is not an edit war, its a content dispute. AlbinoFerret 17:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

You're mistaken: 3RR is not what defines an "editwar", and context is everything: this is an editor with a history of editwarring who was clearly showing the familiar pattern. It ceased before 3RR because I refused to be baited again. Ignoring context will only show these situations to proliferate---please don't contribute to that. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 17:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, context matters. Looking at the last 100 edits, it was two reverts on it. That is no indication it was an edit war. If it were, you also would be guilty. In fact, you are guilty of violating the WP:3RR [374][375][376][377]. AlbinoFerret 17:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Come again? Those last two are reverting clear vandalism by two IPs, and the edits are entirely unrelated to Lugnuts' edits (they have to do with the age of the main character). What are you trying to pull here? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 18:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Reverting is undoing another editors edit. The IP editors are editors and the edits dont appear to be obvious vandalism. If we AGF the IP editor could have thought the age was correct, are you claiming another of the exemptions? There is also no requirement that the reverts all have to be of the same editor or material. The top line of WP:3RR states "A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material." AlbinoFerret 18:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but you'll have to read through the guidelines again. Under no circumstances can those edits be interpreted as "editwarring". If you don't believe me, then go report it here now. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 18:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Correct. And this is now being discussed on the talkpage in question. Now that Curly has side-stepped the personal attack issue, please can an admin review this? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

An observation: Lugnuts edit wars almost every day. Sometimes gets on your nerves. 117.216.148.48 (talk) 16:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Can you provide diffs to prove that? AlbinoFerret 17:09, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

You can find plenty if you scan through his contribs. This one is funny (not an edit war though) and proves he craves credit and attention. 117.216.148.48 (talk) 17:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

It is not up to others to back up your accusations or go looking. Accusations must be proved WP:ASPERSIONS. AlbinoFerret 17:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Canvassing and removal of comments at Talk:Departures (film)

This section moved to here from bottom of page. BMK (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

For some reason, Lugnuts WP:CANVASSed The Rambling Man‎[378] to take part in a discussion at Talk:Departures (film). The Rambling Man responded a minute and a half later, immediately taking Lugnuts' position[379] (how could he even have read the discussion in that amount of time?). He then removed a question of mine asking why he was canvassed—not once, but twice: [380][381], replacing it with aggressiveness bordering on personal attacks, and has continued with more.[382] This is especially disturbing coming from an admin. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 18:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

What's more disturbing is that I've seen no edit conflicts here yet I've posted the same response twice, without it appearing. I also really appreciate Curly Turkey's assumption of bad faith by heading straight to ANI about something we could have actually discussed. I have nothing more to add, as usual this will descend into some kind of circus no doubt. All over the lamest thing I have ever seen on Wikipedia. And that's saying something. (P.S. " (how could he even have read the discussion in that amount of time?)" it's called "grammar"). The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

something we could have actually discussed: the diffs make amply clear that The Rambling Man had no intention of "discussing". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 18:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

It seems, based on your recent editing patterns, that you should remove yourself from this discussion. It's not going "your way" (tm) but you refuse to let it go. I'm sorry it's causing you so much distress, but it's better to just drop the stick. Perhaps you could explain why I saw my orange banner three times despite refreshing my talk page three times and even removing your unsigned, unheaded "warning" message? Or perhaps you don't have enough good faith left to address that problem either. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll just have to let the diffs and your undisguised aggression speak for themselves. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 18:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, along with your bad faith, misunderstanding of grammar and inability to properly sign posts, create sections on talk pages etc etc. Of course, we're none of us perfect. Good luck with your journey, the remainder of my Saturday evening without pedantry and meaningless, endless discourse over the trivial awaits me, especially considering the comments directed to you and you alone in the section above. Please excuse me. P.S. As for "aggression", how does "Jesus fuck you, you troll"' and "is there nothing we can do about this asslicker" and "he's this fucking wrong—both with his ass-backwards and erroneous prescriptivism" compare, all of which you managed to achieve in a single edit? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Which had come to an end long before you were summoned (and which I'd already offered an apology for), and which was on my talk page, not the discussion page under discussion. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 19:18, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Real aggression. Real personal attack. As I suggested, it looks like you need to take a long break away from this. Good luck. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed block of Curly Turkey

I am uninvolved in this and only became aware of it when it showd up on AN/I. Curly Turkey has made a personal attack at Lugnuts. [[383] He also violated the WP:3RR [384][385] previous version [386], 3rd revert [387] previous version [388] 4th revert [389] previous version [390]. No 3RR warning was made during the reverts, but he is aware of the rule having been warned for edit waring in the past,[391] I suggest a block of 1 week. AlbinoFerret 18:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

After thinking about it, it deserves more than a week. I am opposed to an indef, perhaps the discussion will suggest an appropriate ammount of time. AlbinoFerret 21:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

I'd say that personal attack alone deserves something approaching an indef block. Unless of course, the editor to whom it was directed has taken no offence. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

The editor to whom it was directed did take offence, which is why he brought it here. For god's sake admins, you've let this slide into a long, sidetracking discussion about article content. Just judge the offender's offensive and abusive language as requested, and block. Your dithering over making a decision looks very much like you're trying to punish the objecting OP because of his past behaviour. If you'd made a prompt decision, you would have defused his frustration and made him less likely to offend in future. Akld guy (talk) 21:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• I oppose a block at this time. This is an outrageous edit and should never be repeated. The edit-warring is also a concern, but again FA writers are usually afforded some leeway in "defence" of their work on TFA day. I would be happy with a guarantee that there will be no more edit-warring, insults or assuming bad faith on the part of people editing "your" article. It isn't yours. [Disclaimers: I have reviewed a couple of Curly's articles at FAC and recently reverted one of his changes on the article before I noticed this discussion, see discussion at article talk.] --John (talk) 21:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)(struck through part of disclaimer, --John (talk) 22:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I would agree with you John but if you read the sections above this he is defiant and sees nothing wrong with his actions. He is trying to shift the blame on the other editor and is not recognising his bad behaviour. I will also pAlbinoFerret 21:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I have not been defiant—I even offered a truce. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd say that extremely unpleasant rant-edit needs some kind of sanction. There's no behaviour that justifies that kind of response, and it never, ever improves the situation. There's history here – maybe Lugnuts is a bit of a trial sometimes – I wouldn't care to make that judgement and I don't think it's relevant. I can think of several editors towards whom I'd like to direct that kind of abuse, but when the red mist descends I take a few minutes out and I can restrain myself. Anyone who can't restrain him/herself should either learn to do so, or stay away. You wouldn't say that to someone you work with because you'd get fired, so why say it here? Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• I'd like to apologize for my personal attack on Lugnuts and promise to disengage from him. My record shows I spend my time contributing content and rarely visit ANI or any such forum—I am not a threat to the community. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• I support a block. I think it this warrants it. Bus stop (talk) 23:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose block; he apologized at 22:06 ↑↑ -- Diannaa (talk) 23:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose block - I'm not sure a block would have been warranted in the first place, but with the offering of an apology, certainly not. BMK (talk) 23:59, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose block with the recommendation that Curly Turkey stop reacting. The next time this happens, take a step back, let time pass before replying or just ignore it. You can't do anything about or control Lugnuts; you are only responsible for your reaction to him, and if you pause and reflect at the moment instead of instantly replying or taking action, you will find a different outcome more amenable to both parties. Just as music occurs in the empty space between the notes, harmonious editing can take place in the long pauses between action and reaction. Viriditas (talk) 00:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support block. This should never have been up for discussion. The only way to stop abuse is to stamp on it immediately. Admins need to stop playing favourites, stop harbouring old personal grudges, and start acting impartially. Akld guy (talk) 00:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose block -- slow down there. Curly Turkey's comment was in response to what he obviously perceived as an editor messing up an article he worked hard on (I am not commenting on the validity of that perception, as I don't know the full story). This isn't Curly's modus operandi from what I can see, so I'm hesitant to reach for the block button, as it wouldn't be preventing disruption, in my opinion, only a usually productive editor from being productive. That isn't something we should strive for. Rather, I think Curly should be strongly advised to take a breather when such situations arise, gain some perspective, let things cool down, and then come back. It's not worth a block, and I think you will agree. I accept that Curly says he will leave this thing alone, and think that his record is enough for me to trust him on that. Thank you, --ceradon (talk • edits) 00:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• I certainly do not agree. Akld guy (talk) 02:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose This is possibly the silliest proposal I have ever seen at ANI, and my suggestion would be that people try to work out Wikipedia's purpose before assuming the role of hall monitor. A glance at the article shows that Curly Turkey should be thanked for developing yet another FA, and Lugnuts should be asked to avoid taking the TFA day to attack a content developer. Johnuniq (talk) 02:47, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Sorry, it was Saturday night in the UK and I didn't get a chance to respond. I don't accept Curly's piss-poor attempt at an apology. He only did that to escape getting blocked. There was no call for the attack. Ever. So the message is clear - make a gross personal attack, say "sorry" (eventually) and it's all OK. Glad that's all cleared up. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• Considering you continue to be uncivil with him as well, you might want to stay your hand with those stones you've got there. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

User talk:EspectrumHD

While I have given several warning since he began to edit in the Wikipedia in English, the user did not want to change their attitude, it's going to add information without references in multiple articles. In the article "Doña Bárbara" made vandalism without any reason, the user does not understand the language or simply gives same messages that are left. I hope that any admin can do something about. Thank you.--Philip J Fry • (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Block Bella7790

• Bella7790 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I need help with this user. I think she needs to be blocked. She is basicaly always inventing and faking information in diverse pages. Let me know what you think. She has been adviced according to her talk page several times. Anonpediann (talk) 16:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

You appear to have forgotten to notify Bella of this discussion. I took the liberty of doing so. Zarcusian (talk) 17:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks i appreciate it. Anonpediann (talk) 17:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• Blocks and bans aren't punishments; they're remedies to prevent damage to the encyclopedia. While this editor has been warned for unconstructive behavior in the past, I'm not a sufficiently problematic history to indicate she's a disruptive editor. North of Eden (talk) 01:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Freeze Out (game show)

There's a bit of an argument on the talk page of this regarding a critical reception section. Please advise on who is the unreasonable one of the two.--Launchballer 19:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

This appears to me to be a content dispute, with no misbehavior on anyone's part that belongs here at ANI. General Ization ^Talk 19:29, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

(A bit more) When two editors have a different interpretation of a Wikipedia policy, and both are convinced they are right, an appropriate course of action is to start an RfC, not to bring the dispute to ANI. General Ization ^Talk 21:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Issues/Cyberbullying concerning Krull The Eternal

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

This user has been flaming my talk page for the past two months. After being told clearly to stop posting offensive links on my talk page. This type of behavior obviously is obnoxious and should be resolved. I'm requesting an administrator's opinion and action on this matter. If anything this is cyberbullying and holding a grudge.

Examples of this user's behavior:

• 1 (latest incident)
• 2 (second incident)
• 3
• 4

It seems the user is holding a grudge regarding a matter settled two months ago. link This user apparently feels the need to post offensive comments, whether it be on edit descriptions or talk pages. --Sciophobiaranger (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• I don't see evidence of consistent flaming but the latest post is far from being in order. Lessons from the march "Ha-ha-ha. ... Ho-ho-ho-he-he-he-hi-hi-hi." comment have not been learned. Krull_The_Eternal Please knock it off.

One possibility would be to ban Krull from initiating threads on Sciophobiaranger's TP. GregKaye 22:48, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

SPA User:Tdauletk removing deletion tags

The article Farleon was deleted yesterday after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farleon (2nd nomination) ended in delete. Today Tdauletk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) recreated the article (including copyvio, according to CorenSearchBot) and has removed the cpyvio tag and then twice the G4 tag. See [392]. The user has been warned on the article talk page and on his own talk page, to no avail. Kraxler (talk) 20:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I have looked after this. Just a reminder, you are supposed to notify the user when you post on this board. I have included that notification in my message. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

You're right, I really forgot it. After checking the user's talk page and looking where the previous notifications went (they deleted them without answering), I got sidetracked somehow... Kraxler (talk) 22:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

It seems like this is a less experienced user, likely an honest mistake. This user could use some guidance on how our inclusion and deletion policies work. Chillum 01:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

A prolific and disruptive sock, returned

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

---

• Yunus-bek Yevkuryan (talk · contribs)

Creating dozens of nonsense articles, the content of all of which translate as "What you Innings does not seem to understand that I will never stop destroying their heads . Temporary restrictions do not interfere one bit. Even long-term prevention is . You boys should just give up this point."2601:188:0:ABE6:5D65:637D:D70A:E45F (talk) 23:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Nakon looked after this. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Helpchat

• Helpchat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

No good deed goes unpunished. I've tried to edit this new article into acceptable condition, and the creator continues to add non notable employees and external links to the body. Ignores my warnings, and rather than plaster this with templates and edit war, I'd really appreciate some other eyes and minds here. Thank you, 2601:188:0:ABE6:5D65:637D:D70A:E45F (talk) 00:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be little evidence that the company meets our notability guidelines - the sources are little more than announcements of what it intends to do. AfD would seem the logical solution. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

If you think I was too quick to remove the speedy template, I'd be happy to have the action reversed. But an AfD will work as well. 2601:188:0:ABE6:5D65:637D:D70A:E45F (talk) 01:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Whether it meets the strict speedy deletion criteria might be open to question - AfDs look at the broader guidelines. I have posted a comment on the talk page, and placed a notability template on the article. It will probably be best to see how the article creator reacts before proceeding further. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Much appreciated. 2601:188:0:ABE6:5D65:637D:D70A:E45F (talk) 01:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

The presence of "references" is probably enough to save this from CSD A7, but I don't think anything will save it from an AFD. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:37, 16 August 2015 (UTC).

Maltin Kant and continued inappropriate page creation

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

User keeps creating WP:COPYVIO pages, behavioral evidence is strong that Kant is a sock, and CU wasn't against it. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Blocked, purely on the grounds that one copyvio is understandable, but the cavalcade we see here is too much. No opinion either way on the socking. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC).

• I might agree that this is a little over the top for a more dynamic IP, but this is part of a /24 with a similarly patchy record. For example [393], [394] [395], [396], [397] and [398] together with good edits such as [399]. I would suggest that it might be worth considering a range block. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:40, 16 August 2015 (UTC).
  

Overly-aggressive block of User:128.177.161.187

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

---

User:128.177.161.187 (likely a shared IP) has been blocked for one month with no recent warning, by User:Materialscientist, using a rationale of (literally) {{anonblock}}. Since there appear to be no grounds for such a block, I have therefore asked them to unblock, but they have declined. I set out my reasoning in that discussion. I should be grateful if someone would review that and the block, please. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse block - It's a soft block. Given the vandalism and prior warnings, it seems very appropriate. As usual, Materialscientist has demonstrated good judgement.- MrX 12:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • What vandalism? What "prior warnings"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
    • This IP's contribution history is not long, if you just click through them you will find vandalism, non-constructive edits and most importantly a lack of constructive edits. If you look at the talk page history you will see the warnings. This is an absolutely routine response to common behaviour from an IP. The soft block allows for registered users to use the IP. I really don't see what the fuss is about. Chillum 18:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
      • No vandalism; just some newbie "test" edits, some failed attempts at productive edits, and indeed some productive edits with no problems. This is not worthy of any block, much less a month-long block. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
• Problematic block Appears to only edit on the order of once per month - meaning the "block" accomplishes essentially nil. IPs with far worse behaviour get far shorter blocks (usually 31 hours or less), so - unless this block is intended to be punitive - it is not a "standard" sort of block on an IP at all. It should therefore be reset to only 31 hours maximum, as I see nothing so egregious as to warrant a full month block in any event. [400] is the IP's sole edit since 15 July. Collect (talk) 13:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse block - The purpose of the block is to both prevent further disruption and make them realise that their behaviour isn't acceptable, making the fact that they on average edit only every three weeks or so a very good reason for blocking for a month, and not for just 31 hours (they wouldn't even notice they had been blocked, if they were blocked for 31h...). Thomas.W ^talk 14:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • If the intent is to make sure they notice the block, then all offenders should simply get indefinite blocks in the first place - but that is not how the Wikipedia policies and guidelines on this are worded. Note the post on their talk page - which did not say they were being blocked instantly. "Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Thorium, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 23:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)" was instantaneous with the block (also logged at 23:04). AFAICT, the Thorium edit may have seemed to be nonsense, but it did not verge into overt vandalism which would be a reason to block. The administrator who issued the block is "involved" on the article in question with multiple edits - some of which are reverts of non-utile edits, but others are actual substantive edits, and, if I recall correctly, a person who edits an article should not also act as an administrator regarding that article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Who is "them"/"they" in this case? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Whoever is using that IP. Since we can't look through the wire and see the face of the person who is typing the messages we have to go by behavioural evidence, which in this case is a comparison of the edits made by the IP. And if all edits made by an IP over an extended period of time are of the same type we assume that it's the same individual who is doing it, and act accordingly. There's no way to be 100% certain that it actually is a single individual, but from Wikipedia's point of view it doesn't really matter if it's a single individual who is vandalising or if it's two or three individuals who do it. Thomas.W ^talk 17:59, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
      • All edits by this IP are not "of the same type". HTH. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
• Of course support block When an IP does the same vandalism for months on end you can assume it is the same person. When a person only contributes vandalism they may be blocked without warning, though this user did get warnings. This will prevent disruptive for the duration of the block, if it is not long enough then it can be extended. This is a pretty common response to IPs that don't have positive contributions and have a history of negative contributions. Chillum 14:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • What "same vandalism"? Why do you refer to "a person", singular? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
• Ensdorse block and suggest a tap of the cluestick for Andy Mabbett.BMK (talk) 15:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support block Are we really looking to unblock a vandal? Trout for proposer. AlbinoFerret 17:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Are you aware that it's Wikipedia policy that good faith edits including new-users' tests, should not be described as "vandalism"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Ten months of vandalism is more than enough to show this wasnt good faith edits. AlbinoFerret 19:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• Good block A block is supposed to prevent disruption. I don't think it makes very much sense to go through the regular process of four warnings when the user has a history of persistent unconstructive behavior despite multiple warnings. --גַּבְרִיאֵל (ceradon) (talk) 17:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Again, you refer to single user. Why? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Because it doesn't matter at all whether it is a single user or multiple users. If it is multiple users that have been disrupting, or a single person, is immaterial. The fact to be considered is the IP's persistent unconstructive edits despite numerous warnings. --גַּבְרִיאֵל (ceradon) (talk) 18:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
    • User:Pigsonthewing, I also want to point out that it is being decided by ArbCom the appeal needs to be from the [user]. I believe this was already the case but they are clarifying it. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
      • What on Earth does that have to do with the case in hand? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
        • That the appeal should be filed by the blocked party, whether that is a reduction, outright vacating etc. The last few months edits have appeared to be non constructive I highly doubt they are going to change in short order but it is possible and that is one reason we suggest creating an account when there is an issue like this. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
          • What appeal? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
            • I am pretty sure Bucket is referring to a decision that applies to arbcom enforcement, not regular blocks. Chillum 18:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
• Agree with block but not with myth that four warnings are in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • what "four warnings"? Prior to this block, the last warning was given on 8 June, over two months ago. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
    • He said the myth that 4 warnings are required. There is no such requirement. Chillum 18:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
      • What does that "myth" have to do with this case? To reiterate: the IP was blocked with no prior warnings in the preceding two months for a very minor transgression. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support block, would have agreed if this was a short period but it appears to being misused for months. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - We don't know that there is one user behind the address. It doesn't matter. Sometimes a school has a group of vandals. This was recurrent low-level vandalism. In view of the infrequency of use but slow persistence of weird edits, a long block was in order, whether of one human or a school with a cadre of teenage vandals or what or what. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse block The tragedy of the commons in action. Those people editing constructively through this address can simply create an account. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Repeated recreation of a copyvio

User:Mr. Nah has repeatedly recreated Draft:Pop Music: An overview and a history of a legend of Bangladesh after it has been speedy deleted for copyright violation. I'm afraid this SPA is impervious to the multiple warnings on their talk page that a block may result from their behaviour. There doesn't seem to be any indication to deleting admins to show that a page has been speedied multiple times. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I will look aflter this. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

What should I do about Tor exit nodes?

When I blocked 2C0F:F930:0:3:0:0:0:221 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for persistent vandalism today, they kindly informed me that the IP is a Tor exit node. What's that supposed to mean to me? That blocking them is pointless? Bishonen | talk 14:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC).

@Bishonen: It means that it's an exit point for totally anonymous encrypted edits, like an open proxy where even the ones who operate the proxy don't know the real IP of the people using the proxy. And since Tor exit points per WP:Tor should be blocked on sight, it was a good block. Thomas.W ^talk 14:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: Aren't Tor exit nodes auto-blocked? --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 14:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Tom. It's possible they weren't telling the truth, QEDK. Maybe they know an ignorant admin when they see one, and were having some fun. Anyway, the user will flit elsewhere, I expect. Sigh. Bishonen | talk 14:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC).

(edit conflict) @QEDK: Usually, yes, but no detection system is 100% accurate. Thomas.W ^talk 14:40, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Thomas.W: Oh, so that is it. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 15:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Genuine ToR nodes don't usually get auto-blocked, but they do get IP blocked as fast as we find them. (I don't know how we find them, but there is someone maintaining a list somewhere.) ToR nodes can be used by people from repressive regimes, both to browse and to edit. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC).

Which can be a good thing, that's why there's WP:IPBE. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 22:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Undiscussed nationalistically motivated page move on Vladimir the Great

A number of IPs have recently, without prior discussion and support on the talk page of the article, changed every instance of the name Vladimir the Great, the common name in English, to the Ukrainian version of the name, Volodymyr in the article, and minutes ago EricLewan, who, judging by their talk page and contributions, have been repeatedly edit-warring over the name Kiev/Kyiv on multiple articles, moved the article, again without prior discussion and support on the talk page, from Vladimir the Great to Volodymyr Sviatoslavych, a name that is totally unknown to English speakers. So I request both a move back to the original name (which I can't do since it was done over a redirect), and full move protection until the matter has been settled on the talk page, the way it should have been done before the move.

I would also welcome a discussion here about both the name of the article and the, to me at least, seemingly organised attempts by several editors to both change all mentions of names that are even loosely connected to the Ukraine, both of cities and of historical persons and entities, to the modern day Ukrainian versions of them, even though for example Vladimir the Great and Kievan Rus' predate both the Ukraine and the Ukrainian language as we know it by several hundred years. Thomas.W ^talk 16:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I moved it back, per the previous talk page consensus at a requested move. You don't need admin powers to undo a page move. BethNaught (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I tried to move it, but the system wouldn't let me do it. Moves over a redirect often require admin powers, BTW, to remove/delete the redirect and make way for the move... Thomas.W ^talk 16:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I am aware of that; this case falls into the limited exception. Strange it didn't work for you though, since it worked for me and I'm not an admin. BethNaught (talk) 16:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

If the redirect has been edited after the move, you need to be an admin to move it back; not otherwise. I don't know how the system could have stopped you, Tom. What exactly happened? Bishonen | talk 16:35, 16 August 2015 (UTC).

I got a message that said that the page had been moved back, even though it obviously hadn't been. (If the name of Vladimir the Great should be changed to the original name it wouldn't be the modern day Ukrainian version of the name, BTW, but to Valdemar Sveinarsson, since he was Scandinavian, not Ukrainian...) Thomas.W ^talk 16:42, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Just guessing, but you might have hit the undo button, which will give you an erroneous "The edit appears to have already been undone." Along with "You may have attempted to undo a pagemove or protection action; these cannot be undone this way." Instead of hitting undo, you should have hit the move button. Just guessing, but that was usually what I saw happen. (Used to do a lot of page move undo's back in the day). Rgrds. --64.85.217.37 (talk) 10:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Rangeblock request to contain excessive sockpuppetry by User:KunoxTxa

This was recently discussed at SPI, and deemed to be not feasible, but I think it needs to be revisited. Their sockpuppetry has grown to frankly ridiculous proportions since then, with no fewer than twenty-two (!!) suspected sockpuppets being blocked in the last six weeks.

This has lead to the repeated deletion, and create protection of a significant number of articles. Add to that the editor's own statement of intending to continue indefinitely, and I think we've gotten to the point were even some level of collateral damage caused by a range block is preferable to allowing the disruption from this editor to continue. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Possible legal threat at Jerry Speziale

Is this a legal threat? I also received this note from a different, just-registered user on my talk page this morning, which may be related. The article has had legal threats made over it previously, see previous ANI thread and the recent discussion at COIN for context. SPAs and apparent COI editing has been a huge headache on this article - it was semi-protected for 6 months yesterday. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• The first diff, IMO, is not a legal threat, but a request to clean up what they believe if defamatory material. The second is closer to the line, but probably still under it as there is no overt threat to go to court, nor a thinly veiled threat. It's probably connected to the COI issue, and based on the language used in all, probably socks. You may have better luck at WP:SPI. GregJackP Boomer! 22:30, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Attempt to censor Wikipedia

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

---

[401] Roscelese is trying to remove sourced information from Reza Aslan, in which Reza supports the killing of Mummar Gaddafi, because he wants to control Reza's image.Big-Endians (talk) 22:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Reza Aslan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Roscelese (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Actually, you are edit warring after being blocked for edit warring. Per WP:BOOMERANG I suggest a block for user Big Endians. I invite editors to look at the editing history of the page Reza Aslan and the editing history of this editor. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I've already blocked the complainant for two weeks for edit-warring to insert BLP violations. Acroterion (talk) 22:13, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

And I was just getting diffs together and everything...... Thanks! Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:14, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Since the subject has been a longstanding target for BLP violations I've semi-protected indefinitely. As for Big-Endians, they're millimeters away from an indefinite block. Acroterion (talk) 22:18, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Legal threat?

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

---

I believe that a legal threat has been made against me on my talk page here. I request review by an administrator. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

The relevant Teahouse thread is Cyberbullying on Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't look like a legal threat to me, but they are clearly NOTHERE. Winner 42 Talk to me! 23:42, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

NOTHERE or not, that to me is a clear attempt to create a chilling effect by mentioning "my attorney" over something that was said to them in the middle of a content discussion. Blocked. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

That's something that commenters often miss, I think, that it's the intent to create a chilling effect that's important about NLT, not the actual words said. There's no magic formula. BMK (talk) 00:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Apologies, I didn't read the diff closely enough, missed the "and my attorney" bit. Winner 42 Talk to me! 01:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agree with BMK and FreeRangeFrog. The blocked editor clearly implied that legal action was underway, and implied further action depending on Cullen's response. Very, very improper. North of Eden (talk) 01:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Unquestionably, qualifies as a legal threat under Wikipedia guidelines. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

This message was clearly meant to have a chilling effect. Chillum 03:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Wikihounding by MSJapan

Editor MSJapan has followed my every move since I disagreed with his opinion on the AfD debate Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Somewhere in America (album), to which he also replied with a personal attack, stating that I did not have the experience required to give my opininon on an AfD debate, which is also an example of WP:BITE (which he acknowledged, but did anyway).

Following my pointing out that he had committed this WP:BITE, he then moved to my talk page, where he thinly-veiled another indirect personal attack on me with, I quote, "instead of calling you "a disruptive single-purpose account who has no interest in contributing to Wikipedia in a positive manner."", followed by various other derogatory statements regarding my edit history. He then proceeded to claim that my pointing out he had committed BITE-ing was a personal attack and mentioned that I was apparently a "disruptive editor". Next, he referenced his earlier passive-aggressive attack by saying "it's very likely the initial comment I didn't make is correct.".

After this, he nominated all of my files for upload for speedy deletion claiming that they were improperly licensed (which they are not), despite me noting that I would provide permission upon request, thus not giving me a chance to do so.

Lastly, he has listed me as a conflict of interest in order to have a page of mine removed, disregarding the fact that an AfD discussion was already in place about said article. Furthermore, I have since been listed for an SPI, despite the fact that I have no relation to the user in question besides that we commented on the same AfD debate with moderately similar viewpoints. This is the only basis for said SPI.

This is a blatant case of Wikihounding, not least because all these events have taken places within two days.Flobberz (talk) 00:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Let's get one thing out of the way: "All these events have taken place within two days" because Flobberz has only been here for two days. This is the diff in question: [402]. As you can see, there is a misunderstanding of policies here, and I responded such because an editor who is here for three days (at the time), has less than 50 edits (at the time), maintains that Wikipedia's notability guidelines are unrealistic, and focuses editing on one article certainly has an opinion that needs to be taken with a grain of salt, especially with the contention that was already present in the AfD.

Flobberz' response was to grab a snapshot of a WP policy, make it into a graphic and then upload it back to WP to be used in an AfD comment. That file was CSDed because of a) the misuse of WP as personal file storage and b) because the license was given as "PD because Wikipedia." This made me curious as to the user's contribs in general; I wondered if I would find a pattern. Well, I did. Every file I CSDed in that batch indicated that the uploaded website screenshots were "free files from someone else, and permission will be provided if asked." See here for an example; the others are the same. Website screenshots are not "free from other people", and we do not upload first and get permission later, especially when one screenshot is a game and not the IP of the website.

He also accused someone else of PA [403] here in another clearly contentious AfD. He clearly waded right into the middle of it and created an issue. I weighed in because someone asked for the opinion of a more experienced editor, and there didn't appear to be a clear consensus as of yet. A decade and 15000 edits should be good enough to be experienced, I thought, so I did the same thing as I did elsewhere, which is to review sources and give an opinion. I might have found it while looking for other stuff, but how I found it doesn't preclude me giving an opinion, especially because I didn't even interact with Flobberz there.

I'd also note some tendentious editing by Flobberz on FreeWorldGroup: [404], [405] where he had reverted others.

Flobberz was listed for an SPI by someone else because of this COIN Report I filed. I filed it because Flobberz clearly stated in the AfD that he was a moderator on the website he was writing an article about [406], a friend of the website owner, and clearly alluded to group editing. Let's also note that the other group editor, User:Icamenal was registered at around the same time and also only edited the FreeWorldGroup article. Add to that an account that was dormant for months User:JSwho that popped up simply to vote keep on the AfD, and things start to look suspicious. I'd also point out that JSwho's only other contribution ever was to GA review an article the first day he registered the username (wherein he claimed he was not a new user). So, a) I wasn't responsible for the SPI, and b) it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone under the circumstances. I'd also note the editor interaction report is really interesting. MSJapan (talk) 01:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a lot of time so I'm going to simply correct a few things you have wrong. Don't think that I don't see your point, because I do, I just feel that the response was harsh and the SPI taken too seriously, as you will see when it concludes. I've been here for 5 days. As I've already mentioned, there was no misunderstanding of the WP policies involved. I had been referring to more than one related AfD debate, and the two policies mentioned were for the multiple AfD debates. Apologies if this wasn't clear enough. The policy grab was simply to prove a point more soundly than mindlessly linking the article, which I didn't believe to be prominent enough. The copyright status is irrelevant really (the reason I gave such a brief justification [and the fact that it was to be used in an AfD debate and not an article]); yes I shouldn't have posted it in the first place - again, apologies - and copyright was not the issue you took with it, we both know both of those things. Copyright is very confusing when uploading Wikipedia articles. I was told which to use and the button I clicked says "I will give evidence of permission when requested", so I don't see why there is a contradiction. Could you clarify on the "IP of the website" part please? The other accusation of PA was because in an all-too-similar situation, another user insulted me, whilst accusing me of a PA, which I was nothing close to. "Wading right in" is unfair, I was simply giving an opinion, which is allowed. I did not create the issue. When I created the article I had simply tried to create an informative page for a popular games portal, something which has been done many times. There is nothing wrong with the article itself - I haven't made false claims, promoted, advertised or "upped" the company which was the cause for my frustration. Cross my heart, I have no relation to JSWho (as the SPI will tell you). I don't know or particularly care who they are, it is simply a very unfortunate coincidence that their good intentions have unwittingly caused more harm than good. Also, if I had created the account of the other editor and not used it vote that would have been slightly pointless, so that too is kind of irrelevant.

I'm sorry if I've taken my frustration out on you. I simply want to be left alone for the fact that I am a new user, because when I registered to the site I had hoped it had changed from when I last registered to it, when I had also experienced discrimination for the fact that I was new. However, I only experienced it again, from multiple people, not just you, and it frustrated me. Let me reiterate that if you read the FreeWorldGroup article there is nothing wrong with it, and there is no reason for it to be deleted, not least because many other pages have many fewer reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flobberz (talk • contribs) 01:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Mqst north

This user continually ignores consensus thinking that his way is the only way. This has been discussed with him on his talk page at User talk:Mqst north#A bit of free advice and the following paragraph also applies following his incorrectly accusing editors who disagree with as sockpuppets. In Talk:Bomaderry railway station#Platform allocations discussion has been taking place concerning changes he has made to that article. He has totally ignored consensus and has continued making similar changes to other stations removing templates which are accepted as being used in stations worldwide and replacing them with his own verbage.Kiama railway station has been totally ruined by him in this way. He has added good historic information but this should not be done at the expense of other information. I believe his attitude in this and other articles such as WestConnex where he has for a third time deleted an infobox against consensus is totally unacceptable in Wikipedia.Fleet Lists (talk) 06:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I was under the impression we were reaching agreement on the specifics at the relevant talk pages. Clearly, you regard my suspicions of sock puppetry/meatpuppetry to be a personal attack, and interpreted it as an escalation, but I think there is a reasonable prima facie case to be made there. In any case, this is not an appropriate place to litigate that issue. Mqst north (talk) 07:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

We were close to reaching agreement on one point only and that was the non enclyclopedic nature of having full bus route lists within each station. But no agreement or consensus whatsoever on the removal of the universally used templates which define services and neighbouring stations and hence such changes should not be continued until some agreement or consensus is reached. Hence this report or your continual ignoring of wikipedia procedures. It has nothing to do with the sockpuppet allegations about me and User talk:JCN217 although they certainly do not improve our relationship.Fleet Lists (talk) 08:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)