Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Tenor12 (talk | contribs)
150 edits
Tenor12 (talk | contribs)
150 edits
Line 1,508: Line 1,508:
Hi. I know this isn't exactly to code, but I'm panicking over all the complicated instructions and the seriousness of this. This will require more than just a block, it will require expungement.
Hi. I know this isn't exactly to code, but I'm panicking over all the complicated instructions and the seriousness of this. This will require more than just a block, it will require expungement.


Someone outed three kids who are transgender. They listed their names and location. This is beyond dangerous. This is a death threat invite. Transgender people keep getting killed and we cannot have people revealed against their will. Please block this user from LGBT Rights in Illinois and possibly more articles of the like. They are 104.235.69.214 <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Tenor12|Tenor12]] ([[User talk:Tenor12|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Tenor12|contribs]]) 23:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Someone outed three kids who are transgender. They listed their names and location. This is beyond dangerous. This is a (possible) death threat invite. Transgender people keep getting killed and we cannot have people revealed against their will. Please block this user from LGBT Rights in Illinois and possibly more articles of the like. They are 104.235.69.214 <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Tenor12|Tenor12]] ([[User talk:Tenor12|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Tenor12|contribs]]) 23:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
[[User:Tenor12|Tenor12]] ([[User talk:Tenor12|talk]]) 23:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
[[User:Tenor12|Tenor12]] ([[User talk:Tenor12|talk]]) 23:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:14, 9 September 2015

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion

    Wikicohen, WikiShanwnio, and IP at Kemi Omololu-Olunloyo

    At the talk page of Kemi Omololu-Olunloyo, there has been an ongoing content dispute that has descended into severe incivility, including claims that one editor is the subject of the article themselves as well as a criminal while the other editor is a stalker who has faced charges. I originally reported this to the oversight email yesterday because I saw it as attempted outing, but that was not acted upon, so I assume that the lack of specific names here means this is not a privacy issue. Still, both editors have ignored warnings on the talk page to keep things civil, and I doubt anything short of a block will stop the incivility at this point. Please note that based on both self-identifying as "Shawn", the IP and WikiShawnio are almost certainly the same editor. ~ RobTalk 14:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Rob, it is the same person. [redacted per WP:OUTING] He seems to think I am her. He has so many obsessive content all over the internet about her and the cops in a long email told me that it was endless work while Ms Omololu-Olunloyo was in canada. Shawn built blogs, stalked Ms O-O's Youtube videos, duplicated and defaced her content, DCMA filings all day. Im telling you what a detective and a spokesman told me. [redacted per WP:OUTING] Shawn said she's not a Pharmacist, not a Journalist, wanted fugitive which is still not proven, says her name is not Kemi, says he has her birth certificate, says he's her non official biographer, says her pharmacy license was revoked 10 yrs ago. All these have been proven wrong and I cannot keep editing his page for libel and slander. This guy outed himself and should be blocked from editing this page but of course he'll create another profile. I am a new wiki writer and just fed up! When you start editing pages of hated ppl, these wikistalkers arrive and something must be done

    Wikicohen (talk) 15:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The way to settle this is at AfD. I predict it will be deleted, but nobody can accurately predict afd. DGG ( talk ) 12:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    thank you Rob for taking the time to enter me into this discussion, I resent the fact you believe I am being uncivil, I have been more than such, you can see by Wikicohens rhetoric that she is upset that someone is adding sourced information to her own authored biography page, I don't think I have anything more to add to this, the fact you believe that I might be concealing my identity as the IP user is uncalled for, I was told to register, I did so. This issue was looked over by the admin because I believe you might not understand the whole picture here, one glance at the Talk page on the Kemi Olunloyo page and you can see what is going on, please don't pool me into what ever facade the user Wikicohen is doing. thank you. WikiShawnio (talk) 15:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    Unfortunate combination in this article of blatant promotionalism and overstatement along with excessive detail of no encyclopedic interest on the one side, along with some relatively minor alleged criminal activity reported with similar over-detail on the other. I suggest AfD, or possibly G11. DGG ( talk ) 23:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with DGG in that this article looks to have been created with a promotional or self-promotional point of view - either way, It isn't neutral. This article has been the subject of uncivil discussion between editors on it's talk page. I think it should also be known that, looking at the contributions of Wikicohen, WikiShawnio, and 70.26.73.164 - the majority of of their edits have been to either the Kemi Omololu-Olunloyo article or its talk page. I highly recommend that these users step away for a bit, cool down, and let others help with the dispute. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 00:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    When I first looked at the article, I thought that Ms. Omololu-Olunloyo probably met the general notability guideline, but I'm less convinced now. When you check what's claimed by WikiCohen with the sources, much of it wasn't supported at all and sometimes even contradicted by the sources. AfD might be the best way to settle this. Sjö (talk) 15:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you on the point of self promotion, I am new to wikipedia and only doing what I have seen others do, I have tried to be as civil as possible, I agree this article is nothing more than a dramatized resume but at the same time I do believe that Olukemi has earned herself enough notoriety online this page might be what Wiki needs, it's hard for me to be unbiased when I am constantly being bumrushed by the subject matter editing and reverting edits, you can plainly see what is going on with this back and forth. WikiShawnio (talk) 00:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Shawn you are not new to Wikipedia, you edit with two accounts, you libel and slander Kemi Omololu-Olunloyo under the controversy section. May I remind you that you said she is not a pharmacist nor Journalist and her license to practice pharmacy was revoked 10 yrs ago, you even claimed to have someone you stalked's (according to Toronto police) birth certificate. you lied that you were her unofficial biographer? Wikipedia edits is about the good the bad and the ugly, not the libelous and slanderous. Your sources are not credible. You keep sourcing from Nigerian blogs and not Nigerian media. Blogs in Nigeria copy whatever each other writes. they write based on celebrity and public figure tweets which may be deleted by those figures later. Ms O-O has not bowed out of Journalism, i will take off that edit AGAIN. Look for better sources and stop destroying the article. Certainly you have a COI with this subject and its a huge one. Also pls stop posting primary sources when secondary sources of her criminal case was reported by 3 Toronto papers. nobody knows if those charges are still pending.I will contact that police department on the update of their website if I have to. Stop posting things you are not sure of. DGG this article was created with neutrality but has been edited and altered too many times by Wikishawnio with false information. there is no self promotionalism. It simply describes a person, their career, their activism and controversy in their life. their numerous achievements and awards were taken out because of that very reason before it was approved. Wikicohen (talk) 11:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I am sorry but is anyone else reading this drivel, bottom line, you keep editing your own biography, seems every day you come to this article and "buff it up" for the readers, all of wikipedia can see your edits and the patterns of your behaviour, I don't know how to handle this situation, I add credible sources., events that actually transpired and you seem to keep deleting sourced information based on the facts you "feel" it paints yourself in a bad light. one day this section is allowed the next day it isn't, then you make these long winded allegations about the internet is attacking "you" when the whole time you are writing your replies like you are not Kemi Olunloyo, do you even comprehend how your actions are being viewed right now? can someone please resolve this issue? WikiShawnio (talk) 14:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Both of these editors have continued their personal attacks on the talk page since this thread was started. Both of them are SPAs that aren't here to build an encyclopedia, in my opinion. ~ RobTalk 14:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    COI editors or not, both of them have shown that they can't maintain a neutral point of view. Sjö (talk) 15:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    you can see from my contribs that I am adding events that transpired with sourced references, it seems like there is a bit of interest in "breaking up" a fight that is not even happening, you have a new contributor to Wikipedia here trying to complete his first rounds of edits on a topic I am very familiar with, it seems like instead of doing some research and reading the interactions between us you are just injecting your opinions without knowing the full picture, I contribute to an article, she deletes it, I try another avenue, even rewording and doing what the mod asks, she deletes it. I am getting the impression because someone has a wikipedia page and is reverting their edits because they might tell the real story, I am now being ganged up on and roped into what ever the user wikicohen is doing., so let the record state that I am simply trying to paint a picture here of the subject matter backed up with credible sources, apparently to some this is not wikipedia material? I don't get that at all. right now I am watching her use her cell phone to revert edits that have been resolved by 3 different moderators. I would like to know how I am not being unbiased here, I do research, I find events I post them with credible sources, she deletes them, so that means that I am like her now? please elaborate here. thanks WikiShawnio (talk) 16:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    the user wikicohen is now following me around and attempting to slander me with accusations I was arrested. I am requesting that it ceases immediately. she is also roping in another person not associated with wikipedia and I keep having to redact the names from the talk pages, wikicohen has even gone ahead and created me a user page without my permission> I don't know what the angle is here but it's hindering my use of the service here. [1] I don't want to be lumped into wikicohens behavior as I am legitimately trying to help this article here with sourced material. The user wikicohen appears to be deleting large chunks of well referenced material because it doesn't tell the story she wants to tell. can someone please look into this, thank you. WikiShawnio (talk) 15:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:WikiShawnio&curid=47631192&diff=677934043&oldid=677933778
    Both users have now begun edit-warring and have violated WP:3RR. I've warned both. WikiShawnio appears to have backed off the personal attacks, which is appreciated. Wikicohen definitely has not, based on: [1] [2] [3] ~ RobTalk 22:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Please let the record state what I am reverting is well sourced material, I believe that wikicohen is attempting to paint the subject in a good light, unfortunately there is alot of controversy to add to the article even yet and I fear we will never come to an impasse on the issues of reverting edits if wikicohen has a COI with the subject — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiShawnio (talk • contribs) 23:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Nobody is trying to paint Kemi in a good light, Wikishawnio's edits have no encyclopedic value based on Facebook posts. He needs to stop reverting MY edits and that is why I have been reverting his. The edit war has to stop, you cannot cite Nigerian blogs using non existent Facebook posts on Nigerian blogs. People go back to those posts and if they cannot see them, it presents a source issue. Use sources from legitimate Nigerian newspapers who actually write the stories not hearsay on Facebook posts that is not even valid some times. Stop posting libelous information. I will continue to go after you for that. For example you say that Kemi is not a Dr. Have you heard of a Pharm.D? Its a doctor of Pharmacy. Do your homework. wiki has no say n that. It is her title on every Medical Journalism platform she has. Now I will continue editing this article and pls do not revert my edits either.

    Wikicohen (talk) 08:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Rob, Edit warring is not why Im here, I will not be harassed outside wikipedia by Shawn (redacted by wikishawnio) [redacted per WP:OUTING]. Harrasing me on twitter (which he tracked me to) will not be tolerated. He can do that with Kemi not me. [redacted per WP:OUTING] To edit this articles with facts, I go beyond articles and hearsay. wikishawnio should stop roping me into [redacted per WP:OUTING]. I am requesting page protection and a dispute resolution Enough is enough. I'm not kemi and Im sure she won't be happy reading all this edit war going on because of her. Wikipedia should be about encyclopedic articles backed up with solid relevant sources. Wikicohen (talk) 11:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    More personal attacks from Wikicohen: [4]. ~ RobTalk 11:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I have backed off from directly interacting with wikicohen, I have even gone and found additional sources to back up my references, I even use the same sources that wikicohen is using, it's frustrating. I will let the admins/mods come to their own conclusions, the personal attacks and libel needs to cease immediately.I am all for locking the page for review, I don't want it deleted nor do I want to hurt Kemi Olunloyo in any way, the story just needs to be told, this is Wikipedia. I/O (talk) 14:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikishawnio, pls stop reverting my edits. When I added that Kemi Omololu-Olunloyo still writes as a Journalist for her websites and a VIP blogger for Pulse Nigeria, you REMOVED them. They were sourced. You went on to call it a temporary position when the website has an entire section of her profile. Also there is no extradition order for her as of August 2015. Nigeria does not extradite it's citizens according to the united Nations. The only extradition order was when she was in Canada and it failed. I have sourced that from the Toronto Sun so pls do not post false information. I have also moved your Nigerian personal hygiene story to the controversy section as its not a career issue. She did not write it as an article. I am still expect a page protection and a dispute resolution — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikicohen (talk • contribs) 18:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • COMMENT These editors are causing great havoc on this page, and action needs to be taken. For me, I would recommend a Topic Ban from the article, and an Interaction Ban with each other. The talk page is a horrendous mess, and the article needs a complete review. It should be locked down, and a couple of uninvolved editors should go through it line by line. Scr★pIronIV 20:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would support a topic ban, but I think an interaction ban is not necessary. They are both SPAs interacting only over this topic, so functionally the topic ban should take care of interaction as well. If it doesn't and personal attacks continue, blocks or an interaction ban can be handed out at that time. ~ RobTalk 14:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I completely agree with a lockdown. I already requested for a page protection Kemi Omololu-Olunloyo must be going crazy if she's reading it all. Wikicohen (talk) 21:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    "Kemi Omololu-Olunloyo must be going crazy if she's reading it all." guys, please don't lump me in with wikicohen, please. I/O (talk) 15:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I have indef-blocked the WikiShawnio (talk · contribs) account. It is easily verified on the web that there has been a long-standing harasmment campaign (or mutual feud?) involving these persons, and the WikiShawnio account is clearly (and barely disguised) part of the same pattern, so I've blocked them for harassment. At the same time, I also consider it quite obvious that the Wikicohen account is indeed the subject of the article – they said here on this board that a Toronto police spokesperson personally gave them information about the case involving that "Shawn" person, "in a long e-mail". I'm pretty sure the Toronto police would not give out such information to somebody who just happens to be a Wikipedia editor interested in Ms Olunloyo, so either that claim is false or the recipient of that communication from Toronto police is Ms Olunloyo herself. Therefore, I warn Wikicohen (talk · contribs) to cease all COI editing on that article immediately. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    As a result of you blocking Wikishawnio, he has started posting comments on Ms O-O's blogs which I read daily and have a right to. Wikishawnio thinks Im Kemi Omololu-Olunloyo. I am not. All Toronto Police records of his arrest and harrasment case is PUBLIC and online. The claim is not false and I am not Ms Olunloyo. Below is what was revealed this morning.

    AI have only one account on Wikipedia and have no time for sockpuppeting. It may be of interest to see a comment left by someone on Kemi Omololu-Olunloyo's Gun violence blog which I read daily. You should be investigating her confirmed stalker Wikishawnio [redacted per WP:OUTING] Pls don't accuse me of false and unwarranted investigations. I appreciate it. I repeat, I do NOT have multiple accounts and have no time for that. The comment written is typical of comments written by Wikishawnio on Kemi's blogs [redacted per WP:OUTING]

    The Writer feels they are talking to Kemi and feel she felt for their "ploy" Unfortunately, I'm not Kemi. I created her page and once again I know the history of Kemi and Shawn McQuaid as told to me by Toronto Police. Never met or spoke to them both but their history is all over the internet. INVESTIGATE Wikishawnio properly. Wikicohen (talk) 10:21, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • You may be misunderstanding the remit of Wikipedia. There's no police force here, and blocking Wikishawnio is the be-all-and-end-all of actions that can be taken against him. If, outside of Wikipedia, you believe that Wikishawnio is harassing you, then your sole recourse is through the legal system. We don't need to "investigate" Wikishawnio worth squat; that editor's already been indeffed. Ravenswing 08:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I filed an SPI against Wikicohen based on fairly obvious IP edits being used to fake support for their edits and edit-war. As a result, they have threatened me with legal action here: [5]. As per WP:LEGAL, they should be indef'd until the threat is withdrawn. ~ RobTalk 14:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC) Pinging Future Perfect at Sunrise as the admin who previously warned Wikicohen[reply]

    Rob, while everyone keeps accusing me of being Kemi or even 4 sockpuppets, you should be watching the comments on this thread on Kemi's blog which I subscribe too. I already notified the administrators of this. Who is posting these sort of messages? They are obviously "talking" to kemi thinking she is Wikicohen (which is me) I cannot prove it is Wikishawnio who was blocked but don't you think when someone posts that they set up someone for a ploy, obsessed about Kemi's tweets which have nothing to do with this page and even more comments like getting dragged out and KILLED? I have a right to seek legal advice when someone else is the sockpuppet. [redacted per WP:OUTING] I need a feedback on this in the investigation. Wikicohen (talk) 09:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm focused on what's occurring on the wiki, not what's occurring off the wiki. If those comments are genuine, then they're certainly deplorable, but that does not allow for legal threats to be made on Wikipedia. You have the right to seek legal action whenever you want, but it is Wikipedia's policy that you cannot make legal threats on the wiki, period. I encourage you to withdraw your threat. ~ RobTalk 02:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to sound completely dumb, but as an uninvolved user, I'd point out that IPs here on WP (and the blog comments offwiki, for that matter) are both "anonymous." I'm not sure how, without CU (to avoid outing), it is possible to be sure that the IPs in question are definitely one person's or the other's without opening an SPI for both of them (which we haven't). Anybody can copy old reverted text, and I'm going to guess that because these people are known to one another, they're going to geolocate to just about the same place anyway, even though there's a lot of play in "location". Shawnio may be doing it, or Cohen may be fluffing "evidence" on her side, but we can't tell based on the extent of procedures at SPI as they currently stand. MSJapan (talk) 21:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you misunderstand; the alleged socking is by Cohen, who is claiming Shawnio is "setting him/her up". I'll let the SPI run its course, but the behavioral evidence is strong. When a bunch of IPs appear in an otherwise low traffic article around the time that an edit war breaks out and heavily favor one side of the war, using the same odd turns of phrase that are rarely used, that points to one thing. Either way, that's not the issue I've brought to ANI. The issue that remains unresolved is that Wikicohen has made legal threats toward me at the SPI. ~ RobTalk 21:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This remains unresolved and the legal threats have not been withdrawn. I just realized, however, that the legal threats have been suppressed due to Wikicohen's outing of another editor, so unfortunately it appears the inaction on this report for a week will leave me with pending legal threats against me from an active editor on the wiki. Joy! Not much that can be done, I suppose. ~ RobTalk 04:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Outing

    I have removed several portions of the above discussion because it appeared that the "outing" policy was being violated. Given the quickly changing nature of the WP:AN/I page, it may not be feasible to use suppression (oversighting) or revision deletion here, but at least I can do ordinary deletion on the material. The "outing" policy is taken very seriously — regardless of whether you believe the redacted material is correct or not, do not reinstate or repeat it here or anywhere else on Wikipedia, or you risk being blocked from editing. 03:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

    Telstra, Australia IP vandalism

    The last month or so, there has been a long list of IPs, all belonging to Telstra, Australia, vandalising the Israel/Palestine articles. Look at User talk:McSly, Modi'in-Maccabim-Re'ut, Talk:Judea, Talk:State of Palestine, Talk:German Colony, Jerusalem, Palestinian territories. He reminded me of my old friend, due to edits like this, but, AFAIK, "my old friend" is still in the US.

    However, I wonder, is it possible to block a range of Telstra-Ips? Or would that catch too many innocents? (Btw, he is active as I type) Huldra (talk) 13:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Block the entire ISP. If they have a problem, it should remain their problem, not ours. Any decent editor can register an account. Likewise Vodafone DE. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Another death-threat against me here from the same; please rev-del and protect. Iow: please do full JarlaxleArtemis-routine when dealing with this guy, Huldra (talk) 13:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey guys, you *really* have to refuse them the possibility to edit their own talk-page; to avoid death and rape-threaths, Huldra (talk) 13:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks User:Gilliam, for that. (Perhaps rev-del the threats?) Also, the same IP was discussed here a couple of days ago: see here. --Huldra (talk) 14:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Revdelled. --NeilN talk to me 15:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks, User:NeilN. I have made a list of (some) of the Telstra socks, used in July/ August this year (not a full list):








    The IPs with @@ after them have issued Grawp-like threats, mostly rev-delled. Feel free to add more IPs, as you find them, Huldra (talk) 16:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like any rangeblock has a lot of collateral, apart from 2-5, which are caught by 60.230.0.0/17. Page protection is the only real solution here from that point of view. Mdann52 (talk) 17:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    In a case like this that's too easy: we'd have to protect every page in the project where they might show up or where they might follow someone. I don't know what the limit is, what too much collateral damage is, but not rangeblocking also has a lot of collateral damage, and I prefer our own editors not fall in that category. Rangeblock away, I say. Drmies (talk) 22:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless you would also advocate rangeblocking large sections of Comcast in the US or BT in the UK, this is a really stupid idea. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    We've had to do it before to stem death threats. Not to mention that this is pretty much the only way to slow him to any appreciable degree. Even then, his abuse of open proxies is quite legendary (which is why he's showing up on BT and Telstra). —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 22:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There is an alternative. Contact Telstra abuse and tell them that we are considering a range block because of the actions of one Telstra user. They may very well block the user on their end to protect their other users from collateral damage if we do it on our end. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's an open proxy (and considering who we're discussing it almost certainly is), then it's not exactly on Telstra, but rather on who owns the TOR node/anonymising service/compromised server. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 21:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If it is my old friend, (who, for sure, knows how to make use of TOR), then why does he *only* appear on Telstra IPs? I´m making some enquiries (off-line), in the mean time, I´ll ask all admins to be very vigilant when it comes to Telstra IPs: remember to block their user-page access too. And could some admin please rev-del 124.181.101.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) death threats? Thanks in advance, Huldra (talk) 21:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Oddy enough I have done this before when I was a Sysadmin, unless Telstra's policies have changed they will file such a request in the nearest bin. It took a court order for me to get them to prevent one of their script-kiddie customers attempting to DDOS one of my domains. The main problem with rangeblocking large sections of Telstra however is that in many parts of Australia it really is the only provider. There is no alternative. Unlike the example above which affected Houston - a city with many other options. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So logged in editors can still edit, and IP editors get a notice that they can either log in or complain to Telstra for allowing one of their users to abuse Wikipedia, forcing Wikipedia to block IP edits from Telstra. Not ideal, but not a disaster for the Australian users either. One could also contact a few news outlets in Australia and let them know what is happening. If they choose to run a story or two on this, Telstra is likely to become a lot more cooperative. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to note that some of these are proxies, not all are in Australia by the looks of things. While blocking Australia may seem a good solution, I don't think this will be productive - partly as there are ways to easily get round this. Now, I can tell you millions of people will be caught up in any rangeblock with this - and it is incredibly hard to tell who is and isn't vandals when it comes to people like ACC dealing with requests like this. Rangeblock is the easy solution, just not the best one here. Depending on what is being inserted, a note to the ISP or police (I haven't seen the edits, but the police are likely to be interested if they are death threats) is likely to be the only solution, unless we want large swaiths of Australia waking up and wondering why they can't fix one typo or suchlike, leading to the problem building up elsewhere. Mdann52 (talk) 19:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    All the above IPs with @@ at the end have rev-delled rape or death threats, mostly death threats. I have no idea as to how Australian police react to this (I am not in Australia), Huldra (talk) 21:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I note here that if Telstra is not one of the biggest ISPs in Australia, it would have to be up there. Rangeblocking the entire ISP will result in a whole load of collateral damage. A complaint should probably be made to Telstra first, although I'm not at all confident it'll be actioned. If it's not, perhaps a message in the rangeblock stating that Telstra failed to respond to death threats originating from their network? Nothing like a bit of media coverage to encourage an episode of corporate responsibility. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    Range blocking Telstra would definitely attract media coverage in Australia, and probably overseas given how large an ISP it is (it's by far the largest telecommunications company in Australia). Telstra has an online form to report abuse here, though it may not be applicable to this case. Nick-D (talk) 00:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As these IPs are making threats of harm, the Wikimedia Foundation should also be informed, and will hopefully be able to help with a response - the procedure is explained at Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm. Nick-D (talk) 00:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    These IPs seem to be from Victoria, and one appears to be from the town of Warrugal. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, thanks for the info. Also, I believe there is an Australian Wikimedia chapter? I would assume they were closer to dealing with Telstra than WMF? (Yeah, I know: this is a "hot potato", and everyone´s reaction is to pass it on the the next person. Sigh...) Huldra (talk) 22:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikimedia Chapters don't handle issues like this (they're essentially clubs of like-minded people) - the WMF is a better point of contact, and seems to take issues like this seriously. I'd suggest that you contact them if you haven't already done so. Nick-D (talk) 11:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I contacted Philippe B, by email last week, as he had been dealing with "my old friend" earlier. However, that was obviously not good timing, so I forwarded it through the "standard channels" earlier today. Huldra (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I did a bit of poking about and came across |this site. While it deals with some nasty business with regards to anti- vs pro-vaccination groups not relevant here, but what was relevant was the inclusion of part of the Criminal Code Act 1995. Quick summary of this is that it is an offence in Australia to use a "carriage service", such as phone, mail, but also including electronic services, to make threats to kill or threats to cause serious harm. You could turn such evidence as you have to police in that particular state. Cybercrime reporting is somewhat in its infancy in Australia but police do respond to it. Blackmane (talk) 03:00, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Extra comment The IP's largely originate from around Melbourne, Victoria with one geolocating to a town 50km north of Melbourne. This would put it in the jurisdiction of the Victorian State Police, although depending on how they respond to the threats it may escalate to the Australian Federal Police (our version of the FBI) if it is viewed as a Commonwealth crime. Blackmane (talk) 03:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Extra extra comment Range blocking Telstra basically means you block pretty much the whole country. Telstra is the largest telecommunications company here but it used to be government owned till its privatisation. As such, most of the other ISP's here piggy back off their hardware. Far better to report to the abuse team on irt -at- team.telstra.com. Blackmane (talk) 03:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, thank you, User:Blackmane. I will email irt -at- team.telstra.com. I contacted WMF, they could confirm that this was, most likely, *not" my old friend, but some copy-cat. Besides that, they were basically doing nothing; just telling me that I should contact local police. I´m on the other side of the world, I doubt police here would do anything about a threat "down under". Also: if I went to the police, my RL name would get known, and could possibly be leaked. (Yes, I´m a bit paranoid after 5 years with constant death and rape-threaths, I´ll admit!) Lets hope the telstra-team does something; if not, I will be back in a short while asking for you to range-block the whole area: *that* would wake them up, I´m sure! Huldra (talk) 23:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Please keep us informed User:Huldra; while I'm not in Victoria, I'm still interested in seeing that this situation is dealt with, preferably without my own access being blocked! Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    User:Lankiveil : I emailed them a couple of days ago; and I have still not received an answer. It is week-end, though, so I think we should give them a few more days. However, if they totally ignore any request, I seriously would suggest blocking Telstra IPs. And no, that would *not* be of any concern to registered editors, (like Lankiveil), it would just stop any Telstra IPs from editing, Huldra (talk) 21:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you imply that you would seek to have the administrators here begin blocking, if not range blocking Telstra IPs with the attendant consumer complaints that would inevitably arise? Telstra has a bit of a reputation for somewhat poor customer service. I suggest drawing some hard lines in the sand to give them a prod. I'm not in Melbourne so I am at no risk of being blocked. I suggest waiting no more than till Wednesday, Australian time, that's UTC+9 at this time of year. Blackmane (talk) 01:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I did. Still not even an answer.. Huldra (talk) 22:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    In That case, the admins should move to start blocking these IPs/IP ranges. Blackmane (talk) 02:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Unsurprising result, Telstra are always useless to deal with. If any admin things they can make some reasonable range blocks that don't hit too much collateral I say go for it, but as noted above rangeblocking the entire ISP would be massive overkill – it's the biggest ISP in Australia and there are plenty of areas where it is the only ISP available. Jenks24 (talk) 02:20, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Gob Lofa

    Gob Lofa and myself were recently blocked for a 24 hours, with the blocking administrator Callanecc making the following statements at our talk pages [6] and [7], making it clear that they would be looking into a IBAN between us and a TBAN for either one or both of us. Nothing as of yet has come of this and I would like to request that action indeed be taken. I would ask Callanecc directly however I noticed on their talk page that they won't be as active as normal until 14 September, but I will notify them of this AN/I.

    This editors problems have not been altered by their recent block and warnings of further action being taken, and it seems to me that they are intent on going back over previous "flashpoints" and trying to elicit a reaction from me, and whilst I have performed a few reverts I have kept them to the most contentious edits and have done my best to remain civil, however I am coming here hoping to get this nipped in the bud before it escalates further with either an IBAN, and a TBAN on Gob Lofa or both of us or whatever action is deemed merited. It needs to stop.

    Callanecc makes it clear that such a decision will be based on mine and Gob Lofa's actions, for example about civility and usage of sources [8]. Callanecc also requested in his block notice to me (linked above) that I remain civil and leave Gob Lofa's talk page alone, and for my part I feel that I have done that except to place an AN/I notice on their page to notify them of this. Unfortunately Gob Lofa seems to have reverted back to the issues I had originally raised here before deciding to close it and go to ArbCom Enforcement instead, and seems to be intent on carrying on before as well as trying to provoke some form of response from me by revisiting previous debates/flashpoints, starting here (23rd August) and most recently today here (30th August) and here.

    I deem a TBAN on Gob Lofa in regards to Troubles related articles is more than justified going by their actions I raised previously and the following recent edits:

    • Despite previously being informed [9] of the problems with their attempt to add a "Terrorism" category to the article, they decided [10] to put it into the start of the second sentence of the lede in a clear violation of WP:UNDUE (talk page discussion makes it clear why). I reverted [11], asking Gob Lofa to go to talk about it, to which they did and this was the result. Note the incivility from Gob Lofa towards Snowded [12].
    • They are also still at the inaccurate edit summaries. Here they state "NPOV, link, reword etc", however what they actually did was reword a more NPOV sourced statement and changed the entire context of it and made it more POV. They also reworded another sourced statement (at the end of the edit) that was inaccurate as my reversion edit summary makes clear. They made the same edit and misleading summary at this article as well.
    • This is another contentious edit. The government was not involved in the violence, and it is highly contentious and inaccurate to state such.
    • This talk page however clearly reveals the real level of bias with their arguments for their edit, an argument that is clearly at odds with the facts, which I make clear with responses of block quotations from several verifiable and reliable sources by respected academics. Most notably Gob Lofa explicitly stated on 15th July: "the BA put it up to republicans first, starting with forcing through Orange marches with violence in March 1970" [13] however this direct quote from one of those sources I provided on 25th August [14] states "On Easter Tuesday, 31 March 1970, the Junior Orangemen had permission to march in Belfast. On their way out they marched along the Springfield Road without incident, but on their return that evening Catholic youths began to throw bottles at the bands and when about seventy soldiers of the Royal Scots Regiment arrived they were attacked with stones and petrol bombs.". There is some difference between Gob Lofa's version of events and what actually happened, and from an editor who frequently states that they are making things more NPOV.

    They also now seem to be trying to provoke/hound me:

    • [15]. An IP was trying to enforce a word change, and after a few reverts I had asked an admin to semi-protect the page, however a completely new IP appears to change it again. Upon reverting, Gob Lofa appears out of the blue, stating I "Take it to talk", even though there is no basis for such a statement or revert considering I was reverting an IPs edit to the stable version. This new IP and Gob Lofa also both edited this article on the 28th August leading me to wonder are they linked.
    • The following (ab)use [16] of their rollback privilege yesterday (not the first time) to make another inaccurate edit summary and what is clear incivility directed at me with "Undo convoluted POV replacement for Britain". That is in regards to me reverting an edit of theirs back on the 1st May [17]. How that edit summary was merited is beyond me. Notified that it is actually misuse of undo and twinkle, not the rollback feature itself Mabuska (talk) 00:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Mabuska (talk) 13:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Also in regards to the Dromore, County Down article, a clear attempt at provocation by highly dubious admonishment [18], though my response to it shows the holes in it. Mabuska (talk) 22:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Having failed to elicit some form of uncivil response from me at Talk:Dromore,_County_Down they decide to do it instead [19]. They have also decided to follow me to the Ulaid article in an attempt to find something to argue with me over to see if they can get a reaction out of me, in this case removing a WikiProject tag I added [20], though my response discounts their reasoning in their edit summary for it [21]. Mabuska (talk) 21:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Continuing to revisit past "flashpoints" to push either their viewpoint or attempt to antagonise by restoring challenged edits:
    • 5 September pushing an edit that was challenged back on 8 July, and continuing with misleading edit summaries, cites the talk page as if there is a consensus for their edit when none exists.
    • 5 September, undoing a revert I made back on 6 July. Once again they restored their inaccurate and unsourced opinion whilst at the same time removing sourced information. Another editor has since reverting them [22].
    Examples will keep being posted until something is done and as Gob Lofa is willing to keep providing them then this issue won't go away. Mabuska (talk) 23:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    A lot of times action just doesn't occur at ANI for various reasons. I'm sure in this case, people either feel they don't want to step on Callanecc's purview or it's difficult to dig into the long-term history of the dispute. I think you're going to need to wait for Callanecc on this one as they are going to be the best person for deciding what to do.
    That being said, the one thing I checked quick was the interaction tool for these two.[23] Gob Lufa's only post to Ulaid was 35 minutes after Mabuska. Unless there's more to the story, it can be relatively reasonable to assume Gob Lufa was following Mabuska around in this one instance. The rest really needs someone who's followed the issues (or has a lot of time to catch up). Unless someone has more to add, I think it might be best to close this and let it be sorted out when Callanecc gets back. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the response. So your suggesting I let this archive and when Callanecc returns post him a direct link to here? That I can do. Mabuska (talk) 10:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:E.M.Gregory again

    Coming here to avoid 3RR. As a result of a dispute on Matthew C. Whitaker, I have been keeping an eye on User:E.M.Gregory's contribs. He started 2015 Ikea murders for political reasons only per the edit comment). He supported this political view with sources from Breitbart. I knew these were not RS, but tried to stay uninvolved - I notified the Sweden Wikiproject to keep an eye on the article here. They did so, and some cleanup was done, including the addition of failed verification templates on all the sources in the Impact section (the "political part" which is the article creator's claimed focus) at the time. EM Gregory has removed those templates twice and left the sources they are tied to in the article. I restored the templates once, but I'm not going to editwar about it.

    In the interests of disclosure, substantial errors were found and corrected on the aforementioned Whitaker article by myself and others, as evidenced by the Talk page, where I and others have documented several and I would note that there was no engagement by E.M.Gregory on the article talk until the initial matter was brought to ANI as the the result of a PA towards me. There is also a pattern: aside from the massive puffery removed on the Whitaker article, another sourcing error was found on another article, apparently due to a typo (because "Whitney" and "Bingham" are very close together on the keyboard, I guess). These "mistakes" seem to be far too prevalent, including what the initial PA was claimed to be. I'd note that I have also been accused of POV-pushing on illegal immigration, which is an issue I don't even edit. The intermediate diff showing the strikeout of a comment disregarding consensus is pretty interesting, too.

    However, if that is, instead, the focus of EM Gregory's editing (aside from combating supposed "academic injustice" via Whitaker), that is a problem if not done fairly. The editing pattern is damaging to the encyclopedia (like moving an article during AfD), and the unwillingness to assume responsibility for the "mistakes" and errors (instead claiming "accidents", "wikihounding" and "SPAs") is a detriment to collegial editing. I'd take an interaction ban if this were indeed a personal issue on my part, but it isn't; EMG's editing pattern (and the IDIDNTHEARTHAT associated with it) is damaging to the encyclopedia, and it's simply not an isolated problem anymore, because it's cropping up on every article he edits. MSJapan (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Frankly I am fed up with User:MSJapan's persistent WIKIHOUNDING. This editor has been WIKIHOUNDING me since I made a simple editing error the week before last, for which I swiftly apologized, and has repeatedly stated that s/he would be glad if I left Wikipedia. I believe that her/his goal is to chase me off Wikipedia. At first, I thought the WIKIHOUNDING was a mere overreaction and have refrained form bringing this to ANI. I hate the aggression on Wikipedia. Today the editor's language leads me to suspect a POV motive. Or, perhaps, a nervous breakdown. Whatever MSJapan's editor's motives, his/her behavior is an overreaction to any actual errors I have committed. Certainly, however, MSJapan's approach is an excellent way to convince rational people to avoid editing Wikipedia.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Then stop editing contrary to policy. You keep adding sources to articles that do not support the statements you want to make. Wikipedia is not a place for your original research, and you don't understand that. Nobody should have go around cleaning up your messes because you didn't do youe due diligence. You don't start a bio article to do nothing but write about scandals, and you don't start an event article to talk about politics. You especially don't remove "verification failed" templates from sources. Respond to issues instead of making ad hominem attacks. Actually, when someone disputes your sources, you need to engage in discussion, not just revert "because it's sourced." Your problem is that you think your opinions trump policies and procedures, and they don't. In short, act like a good contributor, and perhaps people will treat you like one. Until that time, you need to deal with the consequences of your editing behavior. On another note to the admins, have I not provided enough diffs to show the pattern of behavior and lack of engagement to resolve the problem? MSJapan (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If more diffs are needed, this was my removal for clear synth, the talk diff where I explained such, and a wholesale reversion of the edit, despite the talk thread being opened. That's the behavioral point - I made an edit in accordance with policy, explained why on talk in accordance with policy, and was reverted rather than engaged on talk. The substance of the edit is not at question here in this thread.
    I'd also note that this AfD diff on an article EMG is a good indicator as well; the user thinks that writing a BLP focusing on a perpetrator is OK even when it is substantially about the event, and feels that following policies in such cases is "against consensus." The same went for the substantive version of Matthew C. Whitaker before any other editors got involved - a BLP with little to no BLP. There is a similar sourcing discussion on EMG's page here, and prod after prod after prod. EMG has refactored comments at least twice, and has a copyvio notice. I would note that a university bio was OK as a source for David_Mikics (who "automatically passed PROF" on that source), thought a "self-referenced description was OK" on Susya for an NGO, but a uni bio was "unsourced hagiography" on Matthew C. Whitaker. Again, this isn't content, it's editing conduct. When the source suits his purpose, it's OK, and when it doesn't, it isn't, no matter what.
    Wikihounding seems to be a common fallback when someone disagrees with his editing and he can't get his way. He did that to Auslondoner after previously having falsely accused him of abusing SPEEDY and canvassing. He also goes after editors who tag his work as if they're in the wrong for tagging unsourced and single source articles. No one is responsible for the EMG's lack of competence other than him, and he's clearly not willing to accept that. MSJapan (talk) 18:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • This series of edits by E.M.Gregory violates NPOV by exaggerating the connection between the IKEA murders and the rise of Sweden's anti-immigration politics. E.M.Gregory's sentence, "The attack is said to have contributed to producing a major uptick in support for the Sweden Democrats Party, which pledges to limit immigration," falsely portrays the two sources, both of which only mention the IKEA murders as a recent element rather than as a major influence. Challenged on this point, E.M.Gregory expanded the problem, adding a source written before the murders (!!) as well as an opinion piece from the UK which fails to describe the IKEA murders as having a major influence on the popularity of the Sweden Democrats Party. This looks like political advocacy to me, not encyclopedic writing. I'm seeing poor work by E.M.Gregory, not hounding by MSJapan. Binksternet (talk) 18:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, if a problem has been identified, can we please have some actual disciplinary action on top of the problem identification? The user's behavior is getting ridiculous, to the point of effectively inventing things to change. It's actually a minor improvement for once, but the behavior around it negates the whole thing, as the change was made only as a way to attack me (not to improve the content). This should not be the level that it takes to get a minor positive contribution out of the user, either. Said user, by the way, despite being notified of the ANI, hasn't actually addressed anything stated herein (of which there is a substantial pattern illustrated by diffs in several articles, talk pages, and AfDs) other than to accuse me of POV editing and mental instability. I consistently address content, and he consistently addresses me, not the content. Maybe I simply haven't been clear in what I wish to be done, so here it is: The shoddy disruptive POV editing all over Wikipedia and the personal attacks in response to content edits from this user need to stop, by sanction if necessary. MSJapan (talk) 16:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    And some NPA [26]. MSJapan (talk) 20:17, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    which the user attempted to refactor out of the discussion, removing another editor's comment as well: [27] MSJapan (talk) 00:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Still more disruptive behavior:

    It is becoming apparent that when E.M.Gregory does not get his way, he edits disruptively, pushes back against editors who do not agree with him, and generally causes a problem. For that reason, I'm retitling this ANI, as this has really gone well beyond one article. There are too many issues across the contribs at this point to call this isolated or personal. I've found at least three other editors he has caused problems with at this point. By ignoring this, his behavior is being validated. MSJapan (talk) 06:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note — As a heads up, I've added {{Ds/alert}}s to editors involved with the BLPs and warned E.M.Gregory (talk · contribs) about a clear personal attack. To be fair, I do understand why he would feel he was being followed around, but clearly random accusations on talk pages or AfDs is not the proper place to go about dealing with the issue. --slakr\ talk / 08:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User interactions with AusLondonder

    I've mentioned these before, but I'm going to drop them into a subsection to see if Auslondonder wishes to participate in this discussion, because there's a lot of interaction between them, too.

    • [29] - where EMG falsely accuses AusLondonder of CSDing
    • [30] - where EMG goes from lightly reprimanding AusLondonder to notify editors from the previous AfD, and then accuses AusLondonder of violating canvassing by doing so
    • [31] - EMG then returns with the wikihounding accusation MSJapan (talk) 20:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment having had a brief look at some of the articles created/edited by EMG, over and above the quality/misuse of sources, tag removing and general uncooperativeness referred to above. The articles seem to be written in a very WP:Coatrack manner, in which the main purpose of the article is to link immigration and criminality. Some of the articles currently at AfD, might well pass, but need major cleanups. If MSJapan and others have been obliged to follow this editor to ensure reasonable standards of sourcing and neutrality, they are doing us all a favour, not 'wikihounding'. Pincrete (talk) 08:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Firstly, I am perplexed why no admin is replying to this matter or addressing the concerns. I have had some difficult experiences with E. M. Gregory in the past. My perspective is that this editor seems to seek to seek to pursue a political agenda on Wikipedia to a significant extent. This relates mostly to Islam/immigration and related topics (and in the past LGBT issues). This includes misuse and misinterpretation of sources and continual false allegations against other editors. While E. M. Gregory has made some helpful contributions, they also fail to follow some behavioural and editing guidelines. My response to his false allegations against me was fairly robust, as we have clashed in the past when I nominated an article relating to a book about gay "conversion therapy", resulting in false accusations of bad faith and agenda-pushing. AusLondonder (talk) 09:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Auslondoner's record of bring articles the political implications of which he does not like to AFD is remarkable. Trying to remember ever "tangling" or even editing an article on LGBT issues, I came upon his AFD for a book: The Myth of Islamic Tolerance. Cannot find/recall what LGBT -related AFD I might have met him on. More recently, he simultaneously attempted to speedy SeaGlass Carousel and brought to AFD 2012 Paros (Greece) rape and 2003 Route 60 Hamas ambush. The problem is that he does not seem to perform WP:BEFORE, before he nominated articles. Moreover, the sort of reasons he gives for deletion "An encyclopaedia cannot cover every rape committed even if it is *gasp* committed by an "illegal" immigrant." are not exactly policy driven.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      I feel, as I have felt since MSJapan started this, that while it is true that I have made mistakes since I began editing regularly earlier this year, I have in general been a responsible editor. I also suppose that all editors make mistakes. What is intense and inappropriate about MSJapan is not only combing thorough months of edits to fine errors, but saving them up like a magpie to bring here, why not just fix the things? the intensity comes in articles like Douglas Al-Bazi, an article I found at AFD and sourced. I'm not saying that it's perfect, merely that MSJapan's description of it both at the AFD and, particularly, at the [[User talk:slakrs talk page to be almost inexplicable. Unless, of course, his goal is to drive me form Wikipedia, and the only reason for trying to drive me away that I can imagine is that she does not want articles about Christian refugees from ISIS on wikipedia. Perhaps this is not political, whatever the motivation, I do feel that I am undeserving of the language and animosity directed at me by MSJapan, and that both MSJapan (who repeatedly has expressed a desire to drive me off Wikipedia) and AusLondne To me, it feels as though they are working in combination to drive me away form Wikipedia.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have in fact never stated such a position, and I see that EMG has not provided diffs to illustrate that. Meanwhile, I have provided plenty of diffs illustrating that EMG is not a responsible editor. Too many of his articles are written with an agenda in mind, and when confronted, he attacks the editor. The reason EMG finds my explanation "inexplicable" is dumbfounding to me, because I read every source EMG added to the article to try to find the statement he was citing to the source. In no case were those statements there; period. Therefore, it is likely that COATRACKing via Google is what is happening - Google the subject, add every source that his name is in - there's no other way that we could get to the situation that material clearly from a BBC radio program only was being sourced elsewhere. That is not responsible editing.
    A similar thing happened here, where my source-based explanation was met with personal response, and in fact has nothing to do with the article's topic. The same thing happened on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shooting of Danny Gonen - the pushback against the editors, not the sources: "the nom didn't do BEFORE", "Assertion is false" etc, not "the source says." MSJapan (talk) 17:50, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason for the personal pushback seems to be an agenda of wanting these articles on Wikipedia, often for what appears to be ulterior motives. 2003 Route 60 Hamas ambush was created on August 16, and then he basically walked away from the article. It was prodded two weeks later, and that's when the issues started. Every time someone said something in the AfD, EMG went an COATRACKed a bunch of sources in to the article. This is the same thing he did with Matthew C. Whitaker, and several creation edit summaries illustrates this creation/expansion pattern:
    2003 Route 60 Hamas ambush - edit summary on creation diff "article on 2003 Hamas terror shooting, back in the news due to successful lawsuit against bank that transferred funds to Hamas" - CLEARLY not notable as a standalone event, but being written as such. Created the article in one edit, left it alone until it was prodded two weeks later
    Matthew C. Whitaker - Started the article July 14 during coverage, worked on it for about 2 days, then went away from it until it was tagged as undue August 2. EMG removed tags without discussion, and then didn't touch the article again until it was edited August 19.
    [Seaglass Carousel creation diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SeaGlass_Carousel&action=history] - "new article on new carousel, sourcing goes back yrs. , coverage likely to be intense when it opens next week - let them source it to Wikipedia" This is simply inappropriate use of the encyclopedia
    There wouldn't be so much evidence if this wasn't such a widespread problem, and I have probably not gone back more than a month or so of editing (maybe six weeks by now?), except in a few cases, because the point is that this is a long-term problem iwith this editor, not a personal issue limited to interactions with one or two editors. MSJapan (talk) 17:50, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I apologize for my levity at SeaGlass Carousel. The carousel is a big deal, artistically and in terms of coverage. I made a joke because I started the article just before the official opening. I happened to see it at night when the lights were on, the crew was running trials. I was totally take by it. So I wrote the little article. I write when something moves me. My first edit was about a terrorist attack. Mateu Morral. I find these things appalling, what ever the politics of the perpetrator. I suspect that a great many more of the old-time old anarchist and communist terror attacks could support articles than have them now. Often I am moved by a book, or an artist. I recently began several articles (mere stubs) about the cast of a show I saw: ((Hamilton (musical)]] and loved. I was not aware that there was a rule against starting an article and leaving it brief, in the assumption that it will grow. I have been under the impression that this is how Wikipedia functions. I often add just a bit to an article. Say, a reference, or a small fact. Sometimes I start an article in the belief that others, who know more about the topic, will sooner or later come and add to it. this seems to happen. But I have certainly been under the impression that if an incident of terrorism is widely covered by major media outlets, then an article is appropriate. This is true even of a great many such incidents where noone dies. (for example, 2014 Dijon attack, 2006 UNC SUV attack. I remember these incidents vividly, perhaps because I am familiar with the locations where they took place, but I heard about them on the national news at the time they ocurred. To me, MSJapan appears to be setting up a set of requirements for keeping an article on the 2003 Route 60 Hamas ambush that don't exist and/or are not applied to other, somewhat parallel incidents in which civilians are targeted by terrorists. In a broader sense, I do not find his descriptions of my work accurate, or his attitude constructive. I had, as I have stated elsewhere, decided that if I ignored him instead of engaging with him, that he would forget me. Since he has not, I respond here and throw myself on the fairmindedness of editors reading this.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    You "ignore me" insofar as you revert edits out of hand, and refuse to engage in discussion until I bring things here, despite my posting on talk pages and AfDs consistently, documenting all my changes for the record. Meanwhile, you very much don't ignore me when your reversion edit summaries are all some form of "MSJapan is wrong/untruthful/makes unsupported statements", and yet you can't point to where the information you say is in the source, is actually in the source. I would also point out that I have never once made a personal attack against you, and have confined my statements entirely to dealing with sources. You, on the other hand, have accused me (so far) of: being an article topic, POV editing, having a COI, being "mentally unstable", and "having a nervous breakdown." It takes several other editors making the same changes I make and document for them to stick. Three other editors have indicated problems just in this thread, and two of them have never interacted with you. How big does the problem need to get? MSJapan (talk) 03:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Deliberate rewording and coatracking: here. The phrase from Al Monitor reads Whenever groups of Jewish extremists enter, the women begin to chant Islamic verses. If the Jewish groups are seen attempting to pray, the women shout the Islamic religious phrase of Allahu Akbar (God is Great). EMG has changed it to "Israelis", and the source he adds says "where they would study Quran and disrupt the increasingly frequent visits by religious Jews to the site, with shouts of Allahu Akbar (God is Great) and physical assaults." Neutrality aside, "Israelis" are not the same as either "religious Jews" or "Jewish extremists" and that is not an accurate representation of the sources. The fact that this is a new article that EMG is editing reinforces the point that this is an editing problem, not a content dispute. I personally don't care what the content is, as long as it reflects the sources, and it does not. MSJapan (talk) 19:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    COI editing and personal attacks on Democracy & Nature and Talk:Democracy & Nature

    This article is mainly edited by a few editors who only edit this article and two related ones (Inclusive Democracy and Takis Fotopoulos). Although I have tried to explain clearly what problems I see with the article as it currently stands, I continue to be accused of editing with a political bias by John sargis (as well as an IP editor, 165.120.27.172, but I assume that is the same person who forgot to log in). I consider this a personal attack and have notified the editor of this. This was again answered with a personal attack. The editor's user page and talk page show that this person has a history of such attacks. The editor also has a COI with this article, having published himself in this journal several times (e.g., [32] and [33]). In view of these repeated attacks and persistent failure to AGF, perhaps some editor here can have a look. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 12:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • You assume wrong what you think is my IP address. It is not me. You should be sure about your "facts" before making veiled presumptions against me. After I repeatedly showed you the irregularities about the way wiki rules are applied in terms of what you see as "problems" with the article, you blame me for attacking you. I am pointing out the foolish consistencies in the way the rules are applied in that there are many other articles that suffer from the same "rule", but it seems they only apply to D&N, even after it has been pointed out to you those other articles. If there are wiki rules that are “double standards” and an administrator enforces them, then logic dictates that the administrator is biased. This is not a personal attack. Furthermore, I do question your motives since if you think I did attack you personally, you threatened to take me to the WP:ANI board to get me banned. I question your motives, because before you post a grievance against a user with the board, you must FIRST try to resolve the issue on my talk page. Which you did not do. Thus you are harassing me. And I am asking now that an administrator can have a look for proof at my talk page. Thanks. John sargis (talk) 19:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, but again as I have repeated, I want the rules to be evenly applied, which you did not do. The rule says that you go to my talk page to iron out the personal issue(s) and not at the article page which is inappropriate. You bypassed and undercut the rule so that you could preemptively get me banned by going immediately to the administrators. This is harassment. So again a foolish consistency underscores how you use or not use wiki rules for your convenience. John sargis (talk) 20:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your insinuation, Randykitty, is I am hypocritical when you say, “apparently there are situations where you do want those darned Wikipedia rules.” implying I am biased is a personal attack. I replied, above, I want the rules applied evenly, but yet you are insisting not to use them evenly as evidenced not only in your discussions here and especially at your post at 19:36 (UTC) above, but also at D&N page where last year you tried the same editorial tactics with no success of deletion—and now you are at it again. It is difficult for it not come to mind that you have a political bias, but I do not know. John sargis (talk) 21:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • User Randykitty, as demonstrated in Talk:Democracy & Nature, has consistently tried to impose his way of editing the article, by adding repeatedly tags and requests for citations, that were effectively shown to him that are at least irrelevant to the article and constituted the -to my mind as well- justifiable assumption that he indeed maintains a bias toward the entry. His recurrent editing "spree" has been accompanied by his unwillingness to answer to documented and logical questions brought to his attention in the Talk Page. So the assumption of his maintaining a bias towards the article does not constitute a Personal Attack, as so easily and conveniently Randykitty accuses me and other editors of, and this is because all criticizing was aimed at his activity in the entry, accompanied by documented and -to a decent degree- laborious argumentation on his recurrent and lately almost totally exorbitant actions showcased in the Talk Page. And this is particularly so, when in the meanwhile and while he accused the other editors, I tried to contribute to the article by particularly addressing his demands for citations, from the moment they seemed somehow sensible. At the same time, the only thing Randykitty did was mainly deleting, and adding tags!..
    Then, Randykitty didn't take the time to activate the Dispute Resolution procedure, before bringing the matter to the Administrators' board. On the contrary he accuses the other editors involved in the discussion, with a striking nerve, of being a "sect"! But this is to say easily when an editor is short of answers to the points raised by me or anybody else who out of necessity does not spend his life in checking wiki entries and he resorts to the facile ‘accusation’ that "I exclusively edit topics related to the ones mentioned above”. But why specialist knowledge on a topic is something wrong when editing an article in an encyclopedia and in Wikipedia, when of course it's not a field for advocacy? Yes, I do have specialist knowledge on the topic and this is why I take party on discussions related to it rather than on brain cancer surgery. Unless of course, according to Wikipedia rules, people with no obvious knowledge on a topic or on the meaning or the function of a theoretical journal should have more say on any topic, as long as they have memorized some wiki rules. Of course rules are needed but the issue is how (as every rule) are interpreted. Panlis (talk) 07:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Do we really need to give any more rope to this group maintaining a walled garden, per WP:COI, WP:SOAP, WP:NOTHERE, WP:BATTLEGROUND, and WP:NPA. --Randykitty (talk) 08:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Randykitty increasingly acts in -to say the very least- bad faith and total unwillingness to follow any gradual protocol required by Wikipedia before dropping in the row and without any documented reply his "allegations" in this board. Now he demonstrates once again his blatant unwillingness to take part in the discussion in the Democracy & Nature Talk Page and to reply to the concrete arguments posed against his theses, when at the same time, he continues adding tags that have been demonstrated to him to be at best irrelevant and at worst, totally biased as [I (and other editors) have tried to prove here, without any at all, further participation to the dialogue by this obviously Disruptive Editor. It's also becoming now more than clear that the same user uses his "credentials" of thousands of edits in articles and of being an administrator, so as not only to impose his unacceptable editing methods to the D&N entry, despite my and other editors' best attempts to concretely and in detail show his inconsistency (and, ultimately), bias in this case, but to also throw mud against all other editors with whom he simply does not agree with: By putting at the venture labels on them of the sort of "WP:COI, WP:SOAP, WP:NOTHERE, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:NPA" etc..
    And all this when
    (a) positive response to some of his sensible demands was accurately applied to the entry,
    (b) his blatant inconsistencies were meticulously shown with specific examples and passages in the Talk Page, without him caring to give any concrete reply to my and others' argumentation in the Talk Page,
    (c) he jumped without any constraint to blame me and other editors of WP:COI, WP:SOAP, WP:NPA etc., without any effort on his part to follow a normal procedure of the many available in WP:DR and elsewhere before resorting to these accusations and before bringing me and others to the WP:ANI, and finally,
    (d) he continues even at this moment his disruptive editing and undocumented reverses without giving any explanation at all in the talk page for this, while at the same time he has the "nerve" of accusing me (with the non-argument) of "not addressing the underlying problems" (!), something that I tried to do in -I think- a decently laborious and well-documented attempt! Hence Randykitty's action that suits to his case could also be showcased vividly in the following clear passages from WP:DISRUPTSIGNS:

    "A disruptive editor is an editor who exhibits tendencies such as the following: (...)

    1. Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors. Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material; some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well. An example is repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors." (...)
    2. Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging"; adds unjustified {{citation needed}} tags to an article when the content tagged is already sourced, uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is questionable." (...)
    Panlis (talk) 13:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • This thread had been archived. I have restored it in hope of solliciting some input about this case of SPA editors owning some articles. --Randykitty (talk) 08:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having completely lost the argument, Randykitty now returns (as was fully expected of him!) with yet another wp rule: owning. However, once again, he simply distorts another wp rule. He has no evidence whatsoever to support his new allegation apart from the fact that the editors who tried to make sense of his multiple tagging (like John Sargis and Panlis) were involved before in exchanges related to D&N and related entries. However, the owning rule itself stresses that “It is quite reasonable to take an interest in an article on a topic you care about − perhaps you are an expert” and Panlis himself admitted his special knowledge on the topic. Randykitty has to show convincingly that “this watchfulness has become possessiveness” and he NEVER MANAGED TO DO SO, particularly as the editors involved (as well as myself) tried repeatedly to improve the entry following those of Randykitty’s suggestions which were specific enough and looked reasonable,e.g. providing the citations and the links to references he asked for. I also supposed that as long as he does not just put tags all around, without usually giving concrete advice on what has to be done, the editors already involved –and hopefully others as well—would continue helping to improve the entry. Unless of course his real aim is not to improve the entry but simply to have it deleted, after his failed attempt for deletion last year.165.120.27.172 (talk) 11:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still no comments from uninvolved editors. --Randykitty (talk) 08:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to Randykitty’s “interpretation” of wp rules, all comments from ‘involved’ editors can easily be dismissed or ignored, irrespective of the quality of the arguments concerned, just because these editors are interested in a particular topic on which they happen to have some knowledge. On the other hand, his own heavy involvement in this particular entry in the past when he tried (and failed) to have it deleted, does not matter simply because he has managed to make 62,000 edits in the short period of 2 years and 10 months - obviously working on a full-time basis - i.e. over 60 edits per day, apart from starting over 60 new entries!165.120.27.172 (talk) 11:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • After the personal attacks, we now progress to taunting. Directly ON Ani... --Randykitty (talk) 14:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not personally attacking or taunting anybody and that was obviously not my intention. I simply stated some OBVIOUS FACTS and Randykitty, instead of trying to dispute them, resorts to his familiar tactics of playing the victim.165.120.27.172 (talk) 15:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I really need not to "dispute" anything you and the other editors above have been writing. It is there for everybody to see and what is true of it is equally simple to see. Eventually, some uninvolved editors will get around to this and wade through the wall of accusations that has been thrown up above and, if they'll find that you are correct, I'll be swiftly desyssopped and indefinitely blocked from editing here. --Randykitty (talk) 06:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Randykitty, please avoid this "self-defeating" rhetoric. The way you set the demand, i.e. for some non-involved users to intervene in order to clarify if it's that "we" ("the sect" according to your -at least, humiliating-, accusation about me and other editors of the Democracy & Nature entry) "are correct", something meaning that you will have to be "swiftly desyssopped and indefinitely blocked from editing here" (!) is at least disorienting for any user that happens to see this debate. No one asked or suggested such a "response", which shows that you probably have personalized the whole debate. In fact no one asked anything from you, apart from the logical need to show where you believe the editors are mistaken in the first place as regards the editing of the aforementioned entries, particularly when they explicitly claimed that their intention was not Personal Attacking and that they tried to a more or less degree to address your sensible "demands" for citations etc.. On the other hand, you brought two editors before this Board, with a (at least slanderous against me) row of accusations, when, as I tried to show above and in the Democracy & Nature entry's Talk Page, it' s your mistake that you haven't tried to reply to any of the significant arguments raised against your activity, (by abstaining from any dialogue in the entry's Talk Page despite my and others' effort for precise argumentation) and secondly you continued to bypass the fact that significant effort has been in the making to collectively improve the article, even by newer editors like Niceguyedc and Fusedmilk. You didn't even TRY to follow a Dispute Resolution procedure but you jumped directly into here when you saw that not all your demands would be "fulfilled"...Panlis (talk) 15:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are wrong. This is from the WP:NPA.
    "Recurring, non-disruptive personal attacks that do not stop after reasoned requests to cease can be resolved through dispute resolution and third opinions. In most circumstances, problems with personal attacks can be resolved if editors work together and focus on content, and immediate administrator action is not required." (my emphasis). And the bold is what you don't try to do but you bring editors in this board - avoiding an attempt to reply to specific arguments as regards the entry's content in the entry's Talk Page and above.Panlis (talk) 22:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment from uninvolved editor I see an assumption of bad faith towards Randykitty by John sargis, Panlis and the IP (with sock/meatpuppetry always a possibility) which is unusual even by WP standards. Miniapolis 22:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Could I read a reasoning for the conclusion that you see "an assumption of bad faith towards Randykitty by John sargis, Panlis and the IP (with sock/meatpuppetry always a possibility) which is unusual even by WP standards." ?Panlis (talk) 22:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is very easy (and convenient too!) for somebody to declare himself ‘uninvolved editor’ and then to go on slandering other editors like me as sockpuppets etc mainly because I am an IP address editor. However, I thought that according to WP rules “the treatment of IP address editors as second-class editors is unacceptable”. If this rule is not valid anymore please let me know and I will stop immediately taking part in the discussion. I think that good or bad faith should be assessed on the basis of the arguments offered not on the basis of suspicions and offering no arguments at all does not help anybody in drawing conclusions about the good faith of other editors. Quite the opposite.165.120.27.172 (talk) 00:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Randykitty accused me and an editor using an IP address (read first two posts of this thread), of claiming political bias against him in which which he assumes the IP editor is me and thus he reported me to “the editor”. I told him he is assuming wrong. It is not my IP address. Thus by notifying the editor he harassed me for no real reason, because he does not show evidence that it is my IP address and he never first tried to resolve the issue on my talk page, but bypassed that wiki rule to file a grievance against me. I do not see how you can claim bad faith on my part, when it was Randykitty who harassed and threatened me. He replies that there is “no need to start yet another discussion on your talk page” (where personal issues are resolved). And “apparently there are situations where you do want to use those darned Wikipedia rules.” Thus there is proof that he uses the wiki rules when it is convenient for him, and yet he accuses me that I want wiki rules to be used only for some situations. But if you look at my replies, I said that I want the wiki rules “evenly applied”, which is obvious by reading the thread above. Thank you. John sargis (talk) 01:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the editing/behavior pattern of this group of editors is quite clear. They are not here to create a neutral encyclopedia, but to push an agenda. Anybody interfering with that gets hit with a barrage of accusations and wikilawyering. Trying to improve one of "their" articles is hit by demands that other articles that have similar deficits get cleaned up first because if you don't do that, you have a political bias. This all started with an effort by me to make the article on the (borderline notable) journal Democracy & Nature compliant with our journal article writing guide. Sargis, as a former contributor to this journal, obviously has a conflict of interest here, but that doesn't hold them back spouting a stream of accusations in my direction. And as demonstrated above, anybody who dares say that this is not the way things are done here, clearly must be biased against them, too. I think that, at the least, some topic bans are in order here. --Randykitty (talk) 09:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. Everybody and everything you don't like has to be banned. This is direct democracy in action. Particularly so if some people are 'more equal' than others in imposing their own view of what a neutral encyclopedia should all be about and are able to dictate who is allowed to speak and who is not. Personally I refuse to take part anymore in any further 'discussions' of this kind.165.120.27.172 (talk) 11:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • You say
    "I think the editing/behavior pattern of this group of editors is quite clear. They are not here to create a neutral encyclopedia, but to push an agenda. Anybody interfering with that gets hit with a barrage of accusations and wikilawyering. Trying to improve one of "their" articles is hit by demands that other articles that have similar deficits get cleaned up first because if you don't do that, you have a political bias."
    a)You still throw accusations and mud against me and others without even getting into trouble to support your case the way you should do according to WP:AOBF,-as I tried to do-, but you assumed bad faith from the beginning, and this was not accidental as you had attempted to delete the entry as non-notable in the recent past, something that was unanimously rejected with the active participation of other editors as well. And pardon me but..who talks about wikilawyering when you drop rows over rows of Wiki rules which some of them contain significant passages as I tried to show above in my replies that serve the opposite case to what you want to demonstrate! (see the passages from the WP:ANI above, WP:AOBF etc.)
    b)As usually you bypass the argument. What you did and this is why you were criticized in the first place was mostly that you added citation demands repeatedly and in a row despite the clear no-need for them in a significant dialogue to which you decided not to take part and reply, while at the same time I and others tried consistently to address your own demands so as to improve the entry, something that demonstrates a reasonably bona fide approach and clearly undermines your accusations for WP:NPA and doesn't explain at all the initiative for beginning this debate in here!.
    "This all started with an effort by me to make the article on the (borderline notable) journal Democracy & Nature compliant with our journal article writing guide."
    c)Yes, and the editors replied with documented argumentation, passages, examples etc. to your edits in the page's Talk Page; To their answers you did not get into trouble to answer but you brought me and the rest in here when you saw that not all your demands would be fulfilled.
    d)Calling a journal borderline notable needs proof which should be given in the entry's Talk Page and not through aphorisms here. A clear decision that the journal is notable was formed just a year ago after extensive discussion and documentation with the participation of other editors too, when you first raised the non-notability factor. Your insistence to show how not notable the journal is, is just another indication of your obvious bias against it and that you just like to pull at straws in this case.
    "And as demonstrated above, anybody who dares say that this is not the way things are done here, clearly must be biased against them, too. I think that, at the least, some topic bans are in order here. "
    e)This is simply not to say when clear effort to improve the entry was made as a reply to your own dictations. On the other hand your bias is a pattern shown repeatedly, beginning from your attempt to delete the entry a year ago (based on the supposed non-notability of it), which was rejected, by your call still for non-notability of the journal despite the decision last year, by the fact that you proceeded in a spree of cite-tagging that you didn't like to address in the major medium to do it: In the entry's Talk Page.
    g)From the above, the case to my mind is simply pulling at straws and should be archived. Moreover no reasoning at all was given by the non-involved editor who appeared yesterday. Panlis (talk) 16:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, but I think you misread things. The previous AfD was not unanimous at all (despite a host of SPA editors creeping out of the woodwork), which is probably why you didn't link to it directly. (The fact that it was taken to AfD no less than 4 times shows that its notability is not as clear as you try to make it seem). And from the moment that I dared voice some critical remarks of the article on this journal, my motivations have been put into doubt, so it's a bit rich that you now call upon AGF, something you have never done yourself. The references "for which there is no clear need" that I requested are clearly needed. The journal article writing guide, based on a wide consensus in the WikiProject Academic Journals, explicitly states that lists of authors should not be included in an article unless "there are independent reliable sources discussing their involvement with the journal in more than an in-passing way." The appropriate sources should be provided or the list should be removed. Now lest somebody thinks that this is a simple content dispute that does not belong at ANI, please have a look at the talk page of the article and the blatant personal attacks there (continued for all to see in the postings above). --Randykitty (talk) 17:30, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are right, it was not unanimous, you were the only one who didn't agree as far as I recall among a variety of editors. But the documents and dialogue back then demonstrated for good the notability of the article, with dozens of 3rd party references that I digged out, if you remember, which further showed its significance. Secondly, this is not a forum for solving the possible issues of an article but this should be done in its Talk Page to which you decided not to answer. Particularly when the issues raised above were replied in that Talk Page by using relevant examples from many important Journal entries to which for peculiar reasons this rule for Journals you mention doesn't abide, and for which entries you did not make any further fuss e.g. raising respective complaints for their having a simple and direct listing of contributors. And this is mainly because of your bias against the Democracy and Nature entry that has been more than evident from all dialogue in that Talk Page and here, that you disguise as WP:NPA. This is then to my mind clearly a pulling at straws case you continue raising in this Board as it is not intended of course for Dispute Resolution over the content of an article and you very well know it. As per your "critical remarks", you insist on bypassing the fact that the editors of the entry replied to all of them concretely and with evidence in the appropriate page to do this, something that you just did not like and chose arbitrarily to bring the issue of WP:NPA in here instead. But this is also a case of turning a blind eye to the edits of the entry because as I repeatedly demonstrated (but you prefer to ignore), all your sensible demands according to the editors of the entry -older and newer as well-, were met.- Panlis (talk) 19:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Read again. There were several delete !votes, although they indeed are somewhat drowned in the walls of text that you and your friends were dropping on that debate, just as you're doing here. You obviously have read WP:TLDR and are trying to use it to your advantage here. The arguments that you brought forward on the talk page to counter my legitimate concerns were 1/ WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and 2/ "you're biased". That kind of arguments always crop up when a cabal of POV/COI editors are faced with somebody insisting on getting things done in a neutral and encyclopedic way. --Randykitty (talk) 20:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you please use concrete evidence as passages, diffs etc., like I have been persistently doing inhere, so as to justify your "conclusions"? I just read the dialogue in the Democracy and Nature entry's Talk Page and I don't see any other user who had taken part in that discussion (Cwobeel, WallabieJoey, KosMal, Arran Gare and a couple of IP editors) who was in favour of deleting the entry back then except for you.! Isn't that correct? If I am mistaken please correct me by bringing here specific links, diffs etc. and not with aphorisms. My final take on this irrelevant and disorientating debate is that this is not the arena to solve the possible issues of an entry, and the other issues (Personal Attacking etc.) that you raised were addressed in painstaking detail above. I hope this has become clear and I plead you to stop raising repeatedly humiliating and aggressive cases against me by calling me part of a sect etc. and by pulling at straws inhere, as it could be taken for Harassment. You may have plenty of time to do tens of thousands of edits and to jump to conclusions in dialogues and debates, without getting into trouble to offer specific evidence as per WP:AOBF, but unfortunately I have not when it is not justified, as clearly happens in this pulling-at-straws case. And in addition to the fact that I try to be very precise and documented in my interventions these are the two main reasons for which I cannot contribute in the frequency and to the extent I would like to the Wikipedia project. Thank you! Panlis (talk) 20:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nice try, but as my previous comment should have made clear, we're not here to discuss what happened in an AfD a year ago (even though that debate was marred by the same lack of good faith and personal attacks, and, yes, there were other editors !voting "delete", too), nor is this the place to deal with a content dispute. We are here because of the refusal to AGF and the personal attacks at Talk:Democracy & Nature (at the misnamed section Randy Kitty's recurring deletion attempt). The "discussion" there clearly shows that my efforts to explain why something needs to be done were met with scorn, personal attacks (throwing doubt on my integrity), and bullshit arguments that other articles should be cleaned up first. Diffs are not necessary here, a 5 min perusal of the section I just linked do will do the job just fine. --Randykitty (talk) 21:32, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why are you using foul and abusive language such as "bullshit"? Is not that a wiki "no no"? We are proving your bias, since there is a history to your attempt to delete D&N. So how can that not be evidence, because it happened in the past? Randykitty you dis other editors in the previous AfD of D&N as “creeping out of the woodwork” and as "your friends". If that is not an assault or name calling or personal attack or breaking of some wiki rule, or suggesting that bona fide editors are our "friends"let me know what is. Actually, if I were vengeful, I could say the same about the “univolved” editor as "your friend" “creeping out of the woodwork” at this late stage, but I will not because I have no proof. Four times D&N withstood deletion. Is this perpetual attempt to delete not part of something about journal writing? Notable is notable whether weak or strong is it not? Why are you beating a dead horse? Yes, maybe eventually, Randykitty, you will be able to put D&N under your belt, because at sometime you will be able to garner enough support, which speaks volumes of wiki objectivity (notable is notable whether weak or strong). Also you state “lists of authors should not be included in an article unless "there are independent reliable sources discussing their involvement with the journal in more than an in-passing way." We had this discussion about Chomsky who has published in many journals at Wikipedia, but with no reliable sources discussing his involvement with those journals in more than an in-passing way. That is why I demanded evenly applied wiki rules. You came with a ferocity of edits at (as you have tried in the past) the D&N article, and as well as placing tags immediately at Inclusive Democracy & Takis Fotopopulos. As an editor who wants to improve articles, your approach has the opposite effect and can be assumed to be not neutral. You say concerning delete votes on the last attempt to delete D&N, "delete !votes, although they indeed are somewhat drowned in the walls of text that you and your friends were dropping on that debate." A debate is a debate where there is discussion. The "delete" votes and "keep" votes were counted and there were more votes to “keep” as in the other attempts to delete D&N. Why are you accusing editors who help D&N as our "friends"? What proof do you have? Just because they help improve the article you think they are our friends? It is absurd. Furthermore, if you were bona fide and your problem is the quality of the article and not to get rid of the editors because you do not care for their replies, you could have proceeded to a Dispute Resolution procedure and why not open a new thread in the Administrators' Noticeboard with a relevant title. But what you did was to bring me and others to this board by calling us a "sect" and with accusations of WP:COI, WP:NPA etc. etc.. When you found out that your accusations do not have good basis, you came back to the purported problem of the content of the entry, which should be solved with the presence of informed editors about the content of the entry, and not within the context of an accusations thread, as you have just tried to cover over-"nor is this the place to deal with a content dispute" John sargis (talk) 22:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    And hop! Yet another wall of text. The issue here is not the previous AfD, nor am I at this point asking for the article to be deleted. And the fact that I took this article to AfD and has been kept does not mean that I am now barred from improving the article where necessary, because I would somehow be biased. Hardly anybody who participated in the AfD has ever tried to improve the article as you claimed. Please stay to the point, which is your aspersions on my integrity. Could an admin please look at the above evidence and, if found to be correct, block me for disruptive editing so that we can put an end to this nonsense? Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 09:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Can someone summarise what the dispute is about in a few lines? The above is rather overwhelming, but I see lots of "other stuff exists" type arguments about why certain style conventions shouldn't apply to this article. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The dispute started when I removed a list of contributors and a listing of the journal's editorial board from the article, per the reasoning given in WP:JWG, which is based on a broad consensus in the WikiProject Acadmeic Journals: contributors or editorial board members should only be listed if reliable sources exist that discuss in depth the importance of their contributions for the journal. The reason why we are here is that the above group of editors argued that there exist articles on other journals or magazines that also have such lists and that the fact that I wanted to remove these lists in this particular article showed that I am biased and whatnot. It's the latter personal attacks that brought us here. Somewhere in the above walls of text more such attacks and failures to assume good faith are hidden. Of the group of editors involved, at least one (John sargis) has a COI. The other editors involved almost exclusively edit this article and two related ones (Takis Fotopoulos and Inclusive Democracy). I think this basically sums up the walls of text above (and on Talk:Democracy & Nature). --Randykitty (talk) 13:13, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    You tried the exact same tactic last year and failed to delete D&N, so again this year you attempt it. Does this not obviously show some type of bias by expanding your effort to all three related articles (D&N, Inclusive Democracy and Takis Fotopoulos) rapidly adding tags without any genuine discussion? One wonders what the motivation is of your edits, since you now say, “nor am I at this point asking for the article to be deleted”, which still implies your plan for deletion. No one can restrict you (or anyone else) from making suggestions about improving any entry you like. But the issue of motives is very different and this is what we examine here, particularly as you immediately questioned my own motives and personally attacked me and other editors as a “sect”, etc. Prove to me this simultaneous attack on all related articles’ timeline is a coincidence, not unrelated nor politically motivated.

    D&N article: 22 Aug. 13:40 Randykittyk begins editing--3 edits 23 Aug. 11:14 Johnsargis does 3 edits “ “ 11:38 Randykitty does 1 edit “ “ 16:51 Johnsargis does 1 edit 24 Aug. 17:08 Randykitty does 11 edits, @ 17:22 RK adds “Cleanup Tag” 24 Aug. 5:08 Panlis does 4 edits “ “ 9:14 Randykitty does 2 edits “ “ 10:57 Panlis does 2 edits 24 Aug. 11:09 Randykitty does an edit “Take It To Talk” and does 3 more edits

    ID article:

    23 Aug. 17:42 Randykitty begins editing with

    tag plus 4 more edits

    29 Aug. 16:08 IP editor helpful edit. Takis article

    23 Aug. 17:53 RandyKitty begins edits with

    tag plus 5 more edits

    24 Aug. 4:41 Panlis does 1 edit 1 Sept. 6:18 Marcocapelle does helpful edit John sargis (talk) 13:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • You want proof? How about the fact that in the timespan you mention here I edited dozens of other articles, deleted dozens more, took one or two to AfD, etc etc. Where's your proof that I am concentrating on "your" articles? Where's any proof of political bias in any of my edits anywhere? Simple: anything any body does to "your" articles that doesn't go in the direction that you want is, per definition, politically biased. Perhaps it's time for some self-reflection here. --Randykitty (talk) 13:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I never said you only concentrated on the articles. I am showing a timeline where on 23 August your first edits at Inclusive Democracy and Takis Fotopoulos were tags at 17:42 and 17:53 respectively, and on 24 August at 17:08 you add the tag to D&N. If there is not some bias, then prove it. Why did you add those tags in such rapid succession at the articles. It could be construed that you are going after those articles.John sargis (talk) 14:11, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • The fact that other articles don't follow those guidelines should probably be disregarded, unless lack of compliance is so widespread that it calls into question whether the guidelines are indeed widely accepted. It seems to be perfectly reasonable to me to request that sources are provided. Personally, I wouldn't be so insistent that those sources need to demonstrate the importance of the contributors to the journal - it seems a valid matter of interest that notable people have contributed - but if the guidelines reflect consensus, then they should be respected. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow at the intensity of the WP:WALLEDGARDEN here. RandyKitty's edits were perfectly in line with WP:JWG, and the, let's call them 'anti-Randykitty advocates', consist of WP:SPA accounts with close ties to 'D&N' itself, and sat on the Editorial board of the journal, of often published in the niche journal. I've brought the article mostly inline with our guidelines at WP:JWG. WP:JWG is not a 'hard law', so deviations from it can be warranted from time to time, but I've yet to see a justification for doing so here. I'm not convinced the journal is notable, but if it is to exist, it should comply with our guidelines on the subject. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:48, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Everybody who has ever read a theoretical journal of political nature is well aware of the fact that a basic element of its notability is who used to contribute to it, either as a writer or an editor. If you strip the D&N entry (or any similar journal entry), from the names of its contributors, then it could be easily classified by those who never liked it to be listed in Wikipedia FOR POLITICAL REASONS (disguised under some bureaucratic rules) as not notable enough, and then be deleted accordingly. I challenge Randykitty and his friend Headbomb to provide us with a list of similar significant theoretical journals of political nature in wikipedia which do implement the rule they invoke. IF THEY CANNOT PROVIDE SUCH A LIST THEN THEIR GAME SHOULD BE CLEAR TO EVERYBODY! 165.120.27.172 (talk) 14:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hope whomever tries to ban us under wiki puppetry rule did their homework, because if it is proved we are not puppetry puppets of any sort for which there is a wiki rule, then I suppose any editor who attempts to ban us under that rule, is open for harassment. And it would give further credence to our other arguments in this dispute.John sargis (talk) 16:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course, the examples mentioned betray only utter ignorance of the subject. D&N was not a political science journal, as a presumably ignoramus w/p editor classified it. D&N belongs to the same kind of theoretical journals of political nature as The Nation, Monthly Review, New Statesman and many other similar journals where lists of contributors and editors are abundant-as they should be!165.120.27.172 (talk) 15:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    These three are categorized as magazines; if that's the case for D&N, then it should follow instead WP:WikiProject Magazines/Writing guide; if it's peer reviewed, then it needs to abide by WP:JWG. Also, involved editors are welcome to fix any other non-abiding article. Finally, any potential COI must be disclosed, or else that's an easy ban to apply. fgnievinski (talk) 02:55, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Given the extensive evidence presented above by John sargis and Panlis of their continued failures to assume good faith, their POV editing with a conflict of interest, and their clear WP:NOTHERE attitude, I propose that they be topic banned from editing any article related to Inclusive Democracy. --Randykitty (talk) 10:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support as nom. Given that these are the only articles that they edit, an indefinite block could also be appropriate. Not sure what should be done about the ranting IP. --Randykitty (talk) 10:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • REJECT. Banning other editors, simply because their views on how the form of presentation of an entry should be is different from that of an administrator, despite the fact, (as they have shown here and in the past), they may have a vastly superior knowledge on a topic they are interested in than an administrator who has a view on almost everything under the sun in tens of thousands of edits, is not just ‘keeping up with the rules’ . It is a pure form of authoritarianism , if not fascism. In a democratic form of organization, particularly one dealing with knowledge, you fight what you do not like with words, not bans! Every authoritarian regime in the past had always some bureaucratic rules at hand to justify its actions. No originality here. I thought however that Wikipedia was genuinely trying to create an alternative democratic way of presenting knowledge. If bona fide editors do not intervene to stop these purely fascist practices, this could well be the end of Wikipedia as an alternative form of encyclopaedia. In fact, many people would prefer in such a case an orthodox encyclopaedia, which at least is controlled and written by people who do know what they talk about and do not just hide behind bureaucratic rules masquerading as democratic, which could easily be used the way I described. Needless to add that in such a Wikipedia I don’t wish to have any further involvement and therefore I don’t give a damn if the Randykittys of this world ban my ‘ranting’, as he 'politely' called it!165.120.27.172 (talk) 13:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reject Randykitty your sophistry is unparalleled. In your reason for banning/blocking you say: "Given that these are the only articles that they edit…". Let me remind you of what you said at D&N talk 24 Aug. @ 8:47: “You are under no obligation to clean up any article”. So, you want to get us banned on the one hand because we edit only “inclusive democracy” related articles, but on the other hand you claim we are under no obligation to edit any other article. So how does one hold two opposing viewpoints and not be in contradiction, bad faith, or bias? I do not know. Please instruct. You also assumed an IP editor and I are the same person. Your assumption is proven wrong as the two (or one as you would have it) of us have not been banned by wiki puppet rules. Another editor (headbomb) corroborated your wrong assumption and included Panlis in that he thought that we three would get banned as sockmeat puppets. That did not work, because someone, a sensible editor I assume, probably did a check and found out we are all different IPs. Thus headbomb's assumption is wrong. As far as assuming good faith, at the administrator page 24 August@ 21:43 I said I had no proof you have a political bias. In light of these wrong assumptions others must reject your proposal also. Thank you. John sargis (talk) 14:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Reject'. This is a hideous twist of the events! Bad faith was a thing demonstrated, -to say the very least disproportionally- by the user Randykitty in the debate both in the Talk Page and inhere, and I will try to show why in a somehow concise but I feel plausible way:
    a) the user began an activity of repeatedly putting tags and asking for citation demands over, first, the need for such a list and, secondly, the notability of the contributors of the journal themselves, despite the obvious non-agreement in the entry's Talk Page. This naturally led to edit warring and relatively heated debate in an entry which he had attempted to delete last year, something that had been solemnly rejected by all other users who participated in the dialogue back then --and these users were not only John Sargis and I- but uninvolved users as well apart from the ones who are being accused of WP:COI here.
    b) While the editors and I tried to address his, considered as sensible, issues in the journal's Talk Page by focusing primarily on his activity but at the same time without disconnecting his proven bias towards the entry (another indication of which is that he still virtually claims the journal is not notable despite last year's clear decision which had followed abundant documentation about its notability-to which of course turned a blind eye-, and when now implicitly shows his recurrent intentions when he writes "nor am I at this point asking for the article to be deleted”) as Randykitty would very much like them to, he jumped to accusing us in this forum, of WP:COI, WP:POV etc.
    c) This happened without him trying in the first place to use a Dispute Resolution route or post a related to the problematic content subject in here according to the same procedure, and ask for third opinions about the very issues debated in the Talk Page. His primary action in this board was to "tag" and accuse us of WP:COI, WP:PA etc. with the aim to get rid of all dissidents by blocking us. Getting rid of editors involved with the entry and having some experience with it (something that of course does not constitute WP:COI etc.) would be a definite way serving his claimed favor of potentially deleting it in the near future- as is more than evident now from the above.
    d) He showed once more his bias against the entry and his aim just to punish the older editors of the entry for not comforming to all of his demands, when he neglected the important effort to improve the entry that was taking place during the debate and indeed attempted to address mainly his own demands for citations, clean up etc.; just indicatively, sorry for the dropping [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]
    To the naked eye this simply cannot be called "bad faith", by any interpretation, against the user Randykitty as he blatantly accuses me and the rest, and and it is at least disorientating if not a clear mark of authoritarianism to use such a characterization as an "argument" in order to block us from editing an entry based on argumentation and the WP rules.
    e) Even worse, Randykitty was led to the point of essentially "blackmailing" all uninvolved users who happen to read the debate here in case we don't get "assorted" (i.e. blocked from editing the entry and even better for him as he declared, get blocked ad infinitum) when he blatantly stated that "Eventually, some uninvolved editors will get around to this and wade through the wall of accusations that has been thrown up above and, if they'll find that you are correct, I'll be swiftly desyssopped and indefinitely blocked from editing here." -a statement which is a blatant act of self-victimization and emotional "blackmailing" to his favor. And this based on the fact that he has indeed the fluency to do thousands of edits, while I and other editors, as I mentioned in the debate, have not the same time and objective ability to help more with the Wikipedia project as I would like to and this is I believe a legitimate reason of maintaining a "sole-purpose" activity, particularly when I and the rest of editors demonstrate good faith as I clearly showed above, in contrast to Randykitty's direct aim to shut off anyone who doesn't comform to all his demands, that is now more than evident (his initiative says it all). Since as I tried to demonstrate above, no WP:PA was intended (something explicitly clarified by all other parts in the debate) --and calling someone that s/he maintains a bias towards an entry when it is based on his very deeds is not a "personal attack"--, this user, based on his experience, is constantly disorienting in order to pass his agenda: to eventually delete the entry - An aim explicitly demonstrated by his related history and revealed by his own very recent sayings, which I feel I plausibly exposed above.Panlis (talk) 16:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think that the involved parties have summed up their views very well above and request appropriate measures and closure of this thread. --Randykitty (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support this on the grounds of a conflict of interest that the editors concerned appear unwilling to step away from. Also, when an editor states "I hope whomever tries to ban us under wiki puppetry rule did their homework, because if it is proved we are not puppetry puppets of any sort for which there is a wiki rule, then I suppose any editor who attempts to ban us under that rule, is open for harassment", I start to think that action further than a topic ban is justified. No one should be subject to harassment for raising concerns about sockpuppetry, whether they prove to be accurate or not. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:19, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment If you read the thread you will read that we were harassed and taunted as being sockpuppets several times over several days--just don't talk the talk. Yes, right or wrong wiki is always right. Wiki hides behind waves and waves of rules, some of which we pointed out are contradictory and asked why they were not evenly applied, we have to muck through, and we became the problem--sect, sockpuppets, etc.--while Randykitty portrayed himself as victim while all the time he carries all the weapons, sorry I mean rules. Thank you. John sargis (talk) 21:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment John, I don't think I accused anybody here of socking. At the start of this thread, I only remarked that I thought you had once forgotten to sign in. You said you didn't and I left it at that, that's what we here in this rules-infested harassing and taunting wiki call "assuming good faith", but a you have amply demonstrated, you're incapable of that. Socking is not the topic of this thread at all, that's your lack of AGF, personal attacks, and COI editing. Funny that you keep coming back all the time to this non-existent socking accusation, one would almost be tempted to think that you feel guilty... --Randykitty (talk) 22:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Dolovis and page creation problems

    Apologies for the length of this report. The tl;dr version is that I believe Dolovis (talk · contribs)' page creation habits routinely ignore policy, guidelines and past consensus, and represent a drain on community time that far outweighs what little value they provide. I recommend this be stopped. Resolute 23:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Dolovis is an editor with whom myself and a few other editors have had a long and contentious history with regarding article creation. He first came to ANI back in 2011 in which he was creating and/or moving pages and gaming the system as part of a diacritics war that was brewing at the time. He was briefly banned from moving pages, and later re-banned from moving any pages related to diacritics after immediately breaching a promise to reform his behaviour in that area. To the best of my knowledge, that ban remains active. (He is also under a BASC imposed one-way interaction ban with Djsasso, whom Dolovis has targeted more than once, and most recently with scrutiny-evading sockpuppet - that condition placed as part of an unblock request that a clearly divided ArbCom reluctantly granted.)

    I have long been an extreme critic of Dolovis' habits of creating one or two sentence sub-stubs of marginally notable or completely non-notable hockey players, often relying on the bare minimum allowed by the WP:NHOCKEY SNG (recent example: Simon Suoranta; literally a couple thousand more examples available) - inevitably using just a stats sheet or player profile page from a league site as the sole source. His other big habit is to create redirects for non-notable players to any random article that might kind of fit, pretty much just on speculation that said player might become notable someday. I have long felt that these creations are ego-driven efforts to simply grab the first edit for as many new pages as he can, and not done out of a true desire to improve the project. Or, as Ravenswing recently put it: "This isn't any attempt to improve the encyclopedia; this is a manic rush to Game High Score for article 'creation.'" Dolovis' only real goal with Wikipedia is to create as many new pages as he can, and he has shown complete and utter contempt for virtually every policy or guideline that stands in his way. The result is that editors who also monitor in this space have to spend an inordinate amount of time curating and reviewing these articles, while his contempt for policies has caused a great deal of wasted time for editors and admins at WP:AFD, WP:REFUND, WP:RFD - By my count, Dolovis has had over 100 articles deleted at AFD alone; Ravenswing targeted about 75 articles of his for AFD in January 2014. Only ONE ended up as a keep. Four others were no consensus closes, the rest deleted. This represented a massive waste of time for those of us who had to do the research after creation because Dolovis clearly and obviously did not do any research before creation.

    The problems with his creations go far deeper than just a disregard for notability criteria. He has created two speculative articles on NHL teams that don't exist - Quebec NHL team and Las Vegas NHL team - that, aside from being failures of WP:CRYSTAL, I have realized are unattributed copy-paste jobs from Potential National Hockey League expansion. In short, Dolovis is creating copyright violations because it is easier to rip off someone else's work to try and grab that first edit for any future NHL team. Another of his recent creation, 2014 KHL Junior Draft, is likewise an unattributed copy of someone else's article (in this case, 2013 KHL Junior Draft). He has also previously tried to speculate on future NHL teams as well - in this case, ironically, one of the few examples of his putting real work into something (assuming it wasn't likewise just ripped off from someone else's work).

    Dolovis has deliberately created articles on non-notable players and failed to defend them when PRODded (most recent example: Pavel Karnaukhov), because he knows he can just run to WP:REFUND and request a history undeletion to get that first edit back if the player later becomes notable and someone else recreates the article. This is something that has been picked up on by others. This only wastes the time of three separate editors: whomever reviews the article, who deletes it at PROD, and who restores the article later. This is blatant gaming the system. In that thread, Ravenswing also shows numerous links of Dolovis misrepresenting sources to try and claim a player meets an easier criteria of NHOCKEY or misrepresenting NHOCKEY itself to try and justify these creations.

    Dolovis is even worse when it comes to redirect creation. When he knows there is no chance of an article surviving more than a few hours, he just redirects pages to random, somewhat related targets with no regard for the fact that his actions actively hinder the search function. In fact, despite having these redirects deleted at least five times in the past two years, I STILL had to take two more to RFD this week, which are again heading to a delete. As of right now, he has 17 redirects listed at RFD, and every single one is leaning delete. And I am preparing to RFD dozens more for the exact same reason.

    His non-hockey creations are no better, This article was clearly created as a synthesis of Van Gogh self-portrait (1889) - Dolovis obviously does not have those sources and never read them. He simply copied them from the latter article and reworded a couple passages to "create" his version. And then there is this. That might be the laziest article creation in Wikipedia history. He only expanded it (likely a cleaned up version of Google Translate) after someone else reviewed and prodded it.

    All of this is just a long winded way of saying that Dolovis' page creations are of such a low value, that his continual disregard for policy and guidelines - including policies on copyright violations - and that the time wasted in cleaning up, PRODding, AFDing and RFDing is so high, that allowing Dolovis to continue creating pages like this represents such a drain on the community that I believe it needs to be stopped. This has been going on for years. As such, I would like to propose that Dolovis be indefinitely banned from creating any new pages in Wikipedia main space. Given he brags that he has started over 5800 pages, I would suggest that he could direct his future time into expanding those 5800 two sentence sub stubs. Resolute 23:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Ah yes, Dolovis. Indef-blocked after a drawer full of socks and unblocked with a minor edit restriction--see this note by Thryduulf. That seems to have come about quite easily. Drmies (talk) 03:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I completely endorse all Resolute has said and support an indef ban on new article creation by Dolovis. Dolovis is not only a disruptive presence, who's created an appalling amount of work for those who've had to clean up his messes, but he's been extremely tendentious over the years, filibustering at great length to keep his edit count high ... often at times in complete contradiction to arguments he made the week before. As you can see yourself from his edit history, he's far less interested in improving the encyclopedia as in racking up his new creation count, and has found the creation of implausible, desperately obscure redirects an easy way to do it.

      Honestly, I would really appreciate hearing from those in the BASC process who felt that Dolovis' well-merited indef block ought to be reversed. Leaving aside the minor edit restriction to which he agreed (and which he just last week sought to overturn), what led them to believe that he had changed his ways, what assurances did they receive that he would do so, and what monitoring did they undertake to ensure that he did? Ravenswing 06:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Can someone give some background here? The block log only says that it was a block evasion block (which seems odd to create new accounts since they wouldn't inflate your edit count) since the 2012 block and thus the standard offer that was the main basis for the unblock was for sock evasion and this doesn't seem to be the problem here. Is there a discussion about a redirect or article-creation ban (I think there's at least one other user with an ARBCOM ban with that kind of wording)? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    From the sockpuppet investigation, you can see that another account was being used to request deletion of articles created by Ravenswing and Djsasso, using the same rationale used in requests for deletion of articles created by Dolovis. isaacl (talk) 07:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, so still nothing related to this specific problem (ignoring that the only response seemed to be "look at my edit count, I couldn't have done this"). Again, I'm not seeing a history of the new article abuse problem so examples of recent antics (there isn't a huge deleted edit history so there actually aren't a lot of editing articles that became deleted) would be helpful and then we're back to potential solutions: a proposal that Dolovis be banned from six months from creating a new article or redirect without the approval of an admin? (I'd suggest AFC but requiring admins would be a higher standard and one I've seen here before). Is so, suggest that and see if there's a consensus supporting that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't want to go too far into his SPI stuff since it is tangental to his article creation problem, and this was long enough as it is. But that was a hypocritical example of Dolovis using a sock in bad hand fashion to revenge target some of DJSasso and Ravenswing's oldest articles created using the exact same rationale as Ravenswing presented in nominating seven dozen of Dolovis' pages for deletion. Part of the reason why his deleted contributions list is deceptive is the fact that he knowningly creates articles that won't pass a PROD or AFD, but wants the first edit in history so he can request a history restore at WP:REFUND when someone else re-creates an article after the subject does become notable. But in short, he's had over 100 articles deleted at AFD, he's got about 100 redirects at RFD right now - he continues to create redirects of the type that have been consistently deleted at RFD for a few years now even though he is well aware of the consensus against them - and god only knows how many have been deleted through PROD, only to be restored later at REFUND. The long and the short of it is that we are at several hundred pages deleted or about to go, and what does stick, sticks only because they meet NHOCKEY or other SNGs by the skin of their teeth. Even then, those sub stubs themselves offer no value. Given his history of misrepresenting sources, it would honestly take more time than what any of us has to investigate and verify all of those pages as well. Ravenswing spent close to a month last year reviewing and AFDing less than 20% of his creations, at that time. And Dolovis is now getting into creating copyvios, which was the final impetus for this report. He's damned lucky I only picked up on those after his ill-advised request to have one edit restriction removed was archived, otherwise I would have presented this to arbcom in that process. As it is, it wastes our time to have to review this junk, it wastes an admin's time to deal with PROD requests on articles he knows won't stick, it wastes an admin's time at REFUND and it waste's everyone's time at AFD and RFD. Resolute 13:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Break

    as well as
    Anton Karlsson is archetypal of the page creation problem. Dolovis created this as an empty redirect to a page with no information about the player on 20 February 2014. It was prodded; Dolovis removed the prod; it was listed and then deleted at Rfd. Another editor created a page about this player some time later, when they became notable. Subsequently, Dolovis requested the history of their redirect be merged with this page, and is now credited as the creator of this content, even though they contributed exactly nothing to it. This is an WP:EDITCOUNTITIS problem, but a problem nonetheless.
    The bigger problem, of course, is that of the 111 pages listed above, none have survived a deletion discussion (counting the 103 currently listed which are very likely to be deleted shortly, their discussions are really formalities at this point) and this wastes the community's time (it takes, by my count, 312 edits to list the 103 currently listed, not counting the actual discussion, plus subsequently taking up admins' time closing those discussions and deleting the redirects, plus time wasted when Dolovis requests history merges when someone else creates an article). Banning Dolovis from creating pages will not harm the encyclopedia at all, and will give other editors the opportunity to be given appropriate credit when they create pages about notable hockey players, which will further encourage the creation of those articles, which greatly benefits the project.
    Thus (tl;dr) I support banning Dolovis from creating pages in any space, because I'm sure they'll just find a way to game a more limited ban. I have no comment on the socking issue as it seems unrelated to the page creation issue, and doesn't seem to be a current issue anyway. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I am going to keep this pretty brief because Resolute has done a very good job of summing up the issue. Dolovis continually creates articles he know will be almost instantly deleted. And when he can't even remotely argue an article is valid he creates a redirect to some random remotely related page that often has no information on the subject. He has been an extremely disruptive editor in all manner of ways from his ban on diacritics editing to the sockpuppeting to the creation of clearly non-notable pages that are a waste to the communities time. I actually support a full site ban. But I am happy to accept a page creation ban as a first step to see if that helps the situation. -DJSasso (talk) 16:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a six-month topic ban against Dolovis creating articles or redirects without having it approved by an administrator. Proposing a dozens redirects will just annoy someone but if there's a new article, there's a chance to get it approved. I'm going to give a bit of leeway to see if Dolovis can propose articles of any worth to be created which would give us support to remove the ban in the future. Otherwise, there's no way to tell if the problems have been resolved or not. If there's no examples or new articles of the right quality to base this on, we can evaluate extending this in the future. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a very reasonable response; certainly Dolovis should be allowed to create articles if they are worth creating, and not just redirects or stubs on players which they admit are non-notable. However, I propose that this restriction be placed for 14 months. Why 14? Because this will actually prevent Dolovis from creating the mass of redirects from players drafted in the next year's draft. Otherwise, it's not really a sanction, they will pretty much automatically wait it out. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 00:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    In six months, Dolovis can either show that this restriction is no longer needed (by pointing to actual articles created after approval by an admin) or we'll see that Dolovis has done nothing in that way because Dolovis only wants to create stubs and redirects. If there are literally zero edits because this topic ban is essentially a de facto ban for that person (for a lot of editors, a minor topic ban causes a complete meltdown, but we'll see here), then we'll all better off I guess. The personality type that sockpuppets that much and argues that much just after agreeing to restrictions tells me it won't take six months for another problem to surface that this restriction won't matter much. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    On the face of it, this sounds reasonable. My worry, however, is that at no stage in his Wikipedia career has Dolovis embraced the premise of "You're right. I'm wrong. I recognize that I broke the rules, I'm sorry and I won't do it again." Over and over again, he argues for delay -- that some other appeals process be brought into play, that he'll agree to an entirely voluntary, short-term (and unenforceable) moratorium on objectionable behavior, that deadlines be extended for further comment. What would a six-month restriction solve that his nine-month block didn't?

    Beyond that, who's the poor bastard admin who's going to get saddled with doing all the notability research on dozens of new articles, an area in which Dolovis is notoriously indifferent? Ravenswing 06:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • No one's advocating "destroying" anyone. Nor is any editor prevented from being a productive contributor to the encyclopedia by being enjoined from new article creation. Not counting redirects, I've created fewer than a half-dozen articles a year, and I've only created two in the last three years. Over 40,000 edits in, I figure I've found other ways to contribute. Ravenswing 08:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry for butting into such an important discussion — I followed user:Resolute here. So this is where all the editors on Wikipedia are spending their time? Wow!
    Anyway, I won’t stay around long (don’t want to get in trouble), but the opening statement by Resolute got me worried, because I also create a fair number of wp:stubs that end up in the wiki-garbage-can, but did not realize that this could put me on the wrong side of the wiki-law. I hope I am taking things out of context, but sorry, I don't have the time to investigate. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Response by Dolovis

    • Response by Dolovis: When I joined Wikipedia in 2010, I came across thousands one line stub articles about professional ice hockey articles. I found these articles helpful as they encouraged me to become active as an editor to work to improve such articles. One editor in particular, User:Patken4, had created thousands of stub articles about hockey players, (see Roy Mitchell (ice hockey), Randy Murray (ice hockey), and Darrell May (ice hockey) for just three of such examples) and I could see that much more such work was needed in this area. Following the example of Patken4, I volunteered myself into the IceHockey Project to create and improve articles about notable hockey players pursuant to WP:NHOCKEY. Working diligently as a GOOD FAITH editor, I created starter articles for not only NHL players, but also for other major and “Top level” leagues as defined by WP:NHOCKEY and WP:NHOCKEY/LA, including Swedish Hockey League, the Finnish Liiga, Kontinental Hockey League, Czech Extraliga. I dedicated myself to creating articles for all 808 major league players who played in the now defunct World Hockey Association, completing this task on June 4, 2014 (see talk page “thanks” for my efforts). Along the way I have also made many thousands of edits to improve other existing articles.
    I believe in and have remained loyal to the Wikipedia Project, despite what I have perceived as bullying from some editors, including Resolute and DJSasso, who I feel have been harassing me since first joining the IceHockey Project. I have certainly made mistakes. I used to be involved in discussions, and often found myself disagreeing with Resolute and DJSasso – but following such discussions, I always tried to follow the consensus - whether I agreed with it or not. I now try to avoid such discussions.
    I firmly believe that creating stub articles encourages others to add, build, improve, and work collaboratively on on this never ending project called Wikipedia, and yes, I am proud that I have contributed over 5,800 new articles to Wikipedia. I am not concerned if some have been since deleted, because I do not own them and I welcome the efforts of others to contribute to Wikipedia. The harsh welcome felt by most new editors discourages the creation of new articles, but I believe that new articles are the life-blood of Wikipedia. If one takes a look at my edit history, you will find no disruptive editing (yes, I have made mistakes, but I have never tried to disrupt Wikipedia). Despite Resolute's numerous and loud claims that I am a bad faith editor, I am not. Following Resolute's criticism that I was making one line “stub-stub” articles, I tried to take his criticism constructively to improve my stubs to be better. A look at my recent creations will show a pattern of making stub articles for notable subject pursuant to WP:IDEALSTUB, as a starting point for other editors to build upon. Resolute is trying to make the claim that I am disruptive because I am creating too many articles, so therefore I am creating work for the other editors. Following Resolute's thinking, if there were nothing there, there would be nothing to complain about. Look at his uncivil comment following my creating an article for CalgaryNEXT where he writes “As usual, someone else is left to clean up a lazy mess created only as an ego trip” [38]. This was not created as an "ego-trip". It was created because it is a notable subject pursuant to WP:GNG and deserves to have an article. That is but one example of the incivility that I have been forced to accept from Resolute for many years.
    Concerning the redirects I have created: The redirects under discussion here were created over the past 5 years by a number of different editors including myself, User:Alaney2k, User:Canuckian89, User:One95, User:Shootmaster 44, User:Uncleben85, and User:USA1168. What was once considered an acceptable and even helpful edit pursuant to WP:RPURPOSE as a ”sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article”, are now vilified as “bad faith” edits. I don't believe any of these redirects were created in bad faith. If there is a new consensus and guideline stating that it is wrong for players to be redirected to a list of players drafted by NHL teams, then I would happily follow it. Dolovis (talk) 21:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Just so you know, stating that you have created 5800 new articles doesn't do much to tamp down on the concerns that you are game-playing everyone by creating nonsense stubs that get deleted and trying to jump back in when someone else eventually does create the page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I was just addressing the issue of “5800 articles” as raised above by Resolute above. These are not “nonsense stubs”. These are deserving articles created pursuant to WP:Stub. Resolute claims that I have had “over 100 articles deleted at AFD alone”, but what he doesn't say is most of those were AfD'd only after the IceHockey Project lowered its WP:NHOCKEY bar and then targeted such articles for deletion (only articles created by me, not the hundreds created by others). He also doesn't say that these articles were brought directly to AfD where they were summarily deleted pursuant to the new standards for inclusion (when a PROD likely would have been more efficient and less time consuming). I do not create article knowing they will be deleted. I create articles so others can build upon them. Dolovis (talk) 22:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    They were AfD'd because they lacked any substantive coverage so as to pass GNG. We raised the bar on that one section of NHOCKEY because you were abusing the hell out of it and trying to use it as a shield to justify creation of articles on non-notable subjects. If you actually looked for sources to ensure a GNG pass before creation - rather than make the rest of us do it for you - the number of games a minor league player had in his career would never have entered the equation. Resolute 23:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry Dolovis, not buying it for a second. It is hilarious for you to claim there is no bad faith editing in your history given you have two active edit restrictions already, one for bad faith editing in the realm of diacritics, and the other for bad faith use of sockpuppets.
    You claiming now that you will suddenly follow any "new consensus" about not redirecting to draft articles now is curious given I hauled you to RFD FIVE TIMES in the last 18 months or so with such redirects deleted every single time, only to have you come back with yet another run of such creations afterward. This promise today is only being made because you are staring down a page creation ban, not because you respect a consensus that has existed for a long time.
    You have failed to address your cut and paste copyvios. You have failed to address your history of misrepresenting sources. You have failed to address the problem of you creating articles on subjects you know are not notable so you can have history restored later via REFUND. You have failed to address the fact that you will always do the absolute minimum per NHOCKEY - and in most cases, how you never even make the barest effort to look for sources beyond a website that is nothing but a stats page. I haven't mentioned it yet in this complaint, but in the cases where more stringent criteria has forced you to put bare effort in, I would also like you to address your habit of using blogs and other unreliable sources, WP:ROUTINE sources and sources with obviously trivial mentions while making little to no effort to find substantive coverage. This goes well beyond your habit of creating one or two sentence sub-stubs that are of no value, virtually never even bothering to look for sources that cover players in non-trivial, substantive fashion that WP:GNG requires. I gave you the benefit of the doubt when you started here and offered to work with you. And even though you were creating conflicts with others right out of the gate, I still tried to offer constructive advice - the very same advice you are being given four and a half years later and still ignoring four and a half years later. If my attitude towards you is negative today, it is because I have five years of bad faith actions to judge you by. In the end, the ultimate question is still to ask why the community should be forced to spend so much time cleaning up after you. Don't you think five years of having to fix the messes you create is more than enough? Resolute 22:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolute's argument is false deductive reasoning. He argues that because he has taken my edits to RfD, therefore I have made disruptive edits. Again, what Resolute fails to mention is that out of the hundreds of existing redirect edits, he targeted only my edits for deletion - even going so far as to apologize to another editor[39] who he inadvertently RfD'd with my edits. If there are any copyvios, they would inadvertent and minor, and should properly be be addressed through copy editing or appropriate attribution. Clearly, his RfD campaign is a personal vendetta against me and not against my editing, which falls within the standards of what other editors are doing. Dolovis (talk) 00:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I apologized for Alaney for failing to notify him that one of his redirects was taken to RFD. My error there was simply assuming that they were all yours. As to the rest, you're just lashing out in desperation - much like you did the last time you were hauled to SPI and tried to accuse me of using a sockpuppet that voted against myself in deletion discussions to try and distract the discussion. I will once again note that you have failed to address any of the points I raised above, and you failed to answer the questions at the end. So I once again ask: how long should we be expected to fix the messes you leave behind? Resolute 01:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Dolovis, can we resolve the current issue here now? Would you be willing to agree to even a temporary ban on creating articles and redirects? Resolute's argument is that he has taken your edits to RFD which has deleted the redirects in the hundreds, you have an incorrect version of policy. The point is that the redirects and articles you created before (even years before) have been brought to RFD and a number have been deleted. My proposal is simply that you get an admin to approve of it which isn't a terrible chore if you've completed a decent drafts. If the issues with hockey redirects have resolved with your acknowledgment of the current policies, then I see zero issues at all here with my proposal. Else, you currently came back from an block for sockpuppetry, with an edit restriction, which I see that you're currently arguing to remove already and for which the few ARBCOM members who allowed you to return have said you either need to follow or you can retract the agreement and go back to the ban. So if you want people to think that you've seriously reformed, it would be a good idea for you to pre-emptively agree to resolving the problems that got you in trouble before. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    That is a rather gross oversimplification of my argument, actually. His redirects are only one part of the overall problem which, in short, is to do as little work as possible while trying to gain a "high score" for article creation, and leaving behind a morass of sloppy work that achieves so little value that it cannot hope to make up for the time spent cleaning up after him in multiple venues. Resolute 01:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The only person who appears to be concerned with my edit count is Resolute, and I will be happy to remove the “Userboxes” from my user page if they are annoying to Resolute or any other editors. Until now, my understanding was that editors should be aware of WP:REDDEAL when creating redirects, and that RDs to draft lists were otherwise acceptable for nn players. But if this is no longer the consensus, then I will refrain from redirects to NHL draft lists, and even help to start tagging other such redirects for deletion.
    As for article creation, I have long since demonstrated the ability to create sourced articles on notable topics (which is the benchmark for article creation). Viewing my edit history will confirm this. If there are exceptions, then please PROD them or otherwise bring them to my attention so the shortcomings can be addressed. Expecting me, or any editor, to create WP:Good articles on the first draft is not reasonable. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. As discussed at WP:Article development, creating sourced Stub articles is an encouraged activity. If the notability of a subject is disputed, then it should be properly PRODed, or otherwise dealt with pursuant to Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Requiring Admins to move my drafts to main space will just create extra work for everyone. Dolovis (talk) 02:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That is all pure BS. You know damn well that his argument isn't about the edit count on your page. It is the actions you are taking to boost it that are the issue. Creating articles that you know don't meet the notability requirement. That you have been told time and again don't meet the notability requirement. That are sourced to stat pages and blogs, which don't meet WP:GNG. All of this has been pointed out to you by a number of editors, your standard response to most people when they point it out is "Its not my job, its up to other people to come along and do it later". Except that it is your job, if you are creating an article you are expected to source it with reliable sources and to make sure they meet the WP:GNG. You have not demonstrated the ability to create sourced stub articles, a quick look through your created pages show that the vast majority are sourced to non-reliable sources. Then when the articles are inevitably deleted for non-notability you wait until you can ask at refund to restore your edit history once the person meets notability. I have even seen cases where you copy and pasted the content of deleted at afd articles (created by other people) where you then pasted the exact copy a month or two later as a "new creation". -DJSasso (talk) 02:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Resolute, I agree that it's a simplification of the concerns but given that ARBCOM very recently unblocked Dolovis and the little evidence that the actions are ongoing now, you'll be unlikely to find any admin will to block on that basis so I'm focusing on a resolution as to what can be shown now. Otherwise, Dolovis doesn't believe it's a problem at all. Just want everyone to be clear. We'll see from others but I still support the proposal as it provides the least amount of disruption to the project overall in exchange for resolving the largest number of concerns at the moment. And Dolovis, are you actually checking these sources in your hurry to create these articles? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very easy to see it going on right now. Here is one he created within the last month. Only added to it (weeks later) when notified of a prod. [40]. Resolute also showed current examples of his lack of attribution on copy pastes which are current copyvio issues. You can't just focus on the here and now, because that is what the problem has been, here and now we issue a new minor restriction of some sort and he goes on and finds a way to circumvent it or some other policy to flaunt. Perhaps its at the point where it needs to go to Arbcom for a full case. -DJSasso (talk) 02:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • No pulling cross-wiki is fine. But his creation of the article consisted solely of "Marek Sikora is a Polish astronomer." with the only reference being his staff profile. Fine if that is the first edit in a series of edits. But he didn't go back to it until weeks later and it was about to be deleted. Either way I was just using that particular one as an example of its on-going nature. -DJSasso (talk) 03:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Marek Sikora (astronomer) was a listed as a hat note on the Marek Sikora article. Given that he appeared to be notable per WP:NACADEMICS, and had a Polish Wiki article, I chose to create the article rather than just wash the hat note (as I first thought to do). I agree it was a very weak start, and I have since expanded the article with text translated from the corresponding article in Polish. It is currently facing a PROD, and will be deleted unless another editor takes an interest in keeping it. Dolovis (talk) 03:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah so that's basically you guessing that there's enough notability, copying the Polish wiki text (without you independently verifying if it's true at all) and then leaving the really hard work for others, which is why I support the temporary six month topic ban from creating new articles at the moment. Do something else rather than create new stubs as it does sound disruptive. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly, and that therein is the problem. Guessing at notability without going to the effort of actually providing the sources necessary to prove it. Wasting other editors time who have to prod it, then admins who have to do their own research to see if it is notable and then them deleting it. Even worse if it ends up at Afd where then multiple editors have to do that. If you can't source it to reliable sources then you shouldn't be creating it, if you don't know its notable then you definitely shouldn't be creating it. -DJSasso (talk)
    • @Ricky81682:. I'm not asking for a block - though I believe Ravenswing did. I am asking for an end to the time wasting caused by his mass creation of negative value pages. Due to his history, we already have to routinely check for both the existence of sources to meet a GNG pass, and to check that he isn't misrepresenting the paltry sources he does use. And now, given his cavalier response to the copyvio issue, we will have to check for that as well. And this rabbit hole still goes deeper than I have presented here. He routinely creates WP:CRYSTAL articles on potential draft picks a month or two before each year's NHL Entry Draft even though most of those players are not yet notable. For me, that is one instance where I just don't bother because I hate wasting the time of admins and editors at PROD and AFD when some of those articles would just be re-created a month later when notability IS achieved, but it is just another example of Dolovis looking for page creation high scores. In my view, the solution here is an indef ban from creating pages, to be lifted only when he demonstrates - via expanding a good number of his past creations - his willingness to (1) look for and accurately use sources that meet GNG before creation - meaning no more one-reference substubs relying exclusively on a stat sheet or blog ans (2) stop gaming the system via deliberate creation of bad redirects and of topics he knows aren't notable. Ravenswing, DJSasso and myself have been trying for years to hammer home the fact that GNG means non-trivial, substantive coverage in multiple reliable sources. Perhaps once he demonstrates that he will no longer ignore that via expansion and referencing of his past articles, and perhaps once he commits to follow that process going forward, such a ban could be lifted. Resolute 13:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a six-month topic ban of Dolovis creating articles or redirects (uninvolved non admin) This is insane. It creates tons of work for others. Its inconsiderate and is simply gaming the system. I would also Support an indef ban on history merge requests of deleted pages more than a month old to stop the disruption in the future. AlbinoFerret 03:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pursuant to WP:Notability a topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets either the GNG or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline (i.e WP:NHOCKEY or WP:ACADEMIC). Once created, an article may still face deletion pursuant to the deletion policy. This is how Wikipedia works. The Marek Sikora article is the exception to the majority of the work I do on Wikipedia. That article was well-intentioned, and I did verify the sources used in the Polish article, and I still believe he is notable. I fully intended to go back to build the article, which I have done. I believe that my good work far outweighs the weak, and in the interest of resolving this issue I will make a proposition; I will take a voluntary one month break from creating articles, with the hope that Resolute and DJSasso will stop their uncivil comments and harassment towards me. I am a good faith editor who is doing my best to build and improve Wikipedia. Dolovis (talk) 04:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You need more than a month off for those games. Your denail of a problem and trying to lessen the ban time is just IDHT. I think anyone who reads this section will support the bans. You are making work for editors and disrupting the project. AlbinoFerret 04:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So, Dolovis -- you are admitting to doing nothing wrong, and you make no stipulations that you won't start the same behavior all over again 32 days from now ... nor does anything enjoin you from doing so 32 hours from now. What leads you to believe this would be an attractive offer? Ravenswing 06:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per AlbinoFerret, I likewise support an indef ban from the WP:REFUND process. For anyone following this discussion seeking evidence concerning Dolovis' motives, he doesn't have merely several dozen requests at WP:REFUND, he's featured in several dozen archives. [41] I am very hard put to find an unselfish reason for such Wikilawyering, nor one justifying the time and energy spent by those active in that area to go through his requests. Ravenswing 06:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't that a possible contribution history problem? I mean, that's assuming there is actually is a connected history, a refund request would have to required. Isn't the issue that WP:REFUND policy be so liberal (just any request) rather than asking if the request is actually related on a separate editor from the current history which is a different problem? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If it was a article that had some long term editing that was recreated maybe. But whats being merged is redirects and tiny subs. It takes away the incentive to create them in the first place. To make sure that he is creating articles likely to survive an afd. If it looks like a problem the exception can be added that he ask an admin and point to this section as the reason for asking and an admin can decide if its a real article or just more "Im first" games before asking for a merge. AlbinoFerret 07:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support temporary article creation ban, also endorse indef REFUND ban. It looks like Dolovis has a long history of creating articles that have some serious issues with notability, so I think that a temporary ban from creating any new articles in any space (draft, mainspace, redirects, etc) is reasonable. Dolovis, I see you trying to justify your article creation but at no point do I actually see you really owning up to the fact that you've made several articles that had a lot of major issues with them. I feel that giving you a temporary ban will give you the incentive to go over policy and learn how to properly source articles for notability giving purposes. I'll be extremely blunt with this: this has been a long running problem and if things don't change after the temporary ban, you'll likely be facing a permanent ban from creating new articles - if not from editing altogether. I also endorse a permanent ban from requesting article history from REFUND, as I do think that the others make a good case showing that you're really only requesting the article history so you can have the article creation credit - not so you can improve the article. The thing is, numbers mean absolutely squat on Wikipedia. You can make a lot of pages but that doesn't necessarily make you a good editor or even really an asset to Wikipedia if the article quality is poor and others have to run behind you in a struggle to prove notability or delete the articles. Case in point: I remember a user named User:MoonMetropolis that created multiple pages that had serious notability issues. While they were ultimately blocked for sockpuppetry, their poor article creation history definitely gave people another reason to indef them. This is not your first time at ANI, as you've been reported multiple times in the past - and you've already been banned from moving pages. Heck in in 2013 you tried to ask for a topic ban to be removed but everyone successfully argued against giving you these permissions back. You really need to shape up because right now all you're doing is giving yourself enough WP:ROPE to justify someone arguing for you to be indefinitely blocked from editing. To be honest, I'm actually mildly surprised that they aren't asking for an indefinite ban, considering that you've repeatedly been reported at ANI and other boards since you signed up. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd actually endorse a longer article creation ban than six months. I'd actually endorse a year, followed by a year's probation where he's only able to create articles via AfC. Considering that this has been an ongoing problem for years now, I'd actually also support an indef ban on mainspace creation and then after a year, he can create articles via AfC. As far as REFUND goes, that's still an indef since it looks like he's only doing this to grandstand, not to actually improve the article - a process that I think could really, really be disheartening to the people who took the time to create a newer version of the article that did pass notability guidelines. If someone other than him requests restoration then that's fine, but I don't think that Dolovis should be allowed to request article restorations any longer. But yeah... the more I think about this the more I support an indef on mainspace creation until he can prove via AfC that he can make a quality article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It looks like he was unblocked from an indefinite block, but I don't think that this would prevent us from giving him an indefinite block from creating articles in the mainspace. From just what I've seen here, it looks like there's plenty reason to justify restricting Dolovis to AfC for the time being (after the year's block is up), until he proves that he can responsibly create articles. The way he's going, if he keeps getting reported at ANI like this then I'd like to think that ARBCOM would likely approve a new block. (BTW, do they need to approve any future blocks on this user? I always got the impression that if the user kept causing trouble and refused to play nice, they could always be re-blocked.) But seriously though, we've restricted other editors to AfC for far less than this and I think that an AfC restriction and a block from REFUND is a reasonable outcome here. He's abused the system and now we need to make sure that he can edit responsibly before giving him the keys to the car/mainspace. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tokyogirl79 Keeping in mind that a previous editor we referred over to AfC for remedial page creation scrutiny eventually gave up the topic space that they were precieved to be disruptive in and give up new article creation entirely because AfC didn't review the submissions fast enough for their taste. Hasteur (talk) 13:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm aware that this might be a problem, but I'm not sure what else will really be beneficial overall. I think that they need to have their work scrutinized before it goes into the mainspace and a temporary ban from mainspace article creation might not solve the issue. I think that turning him to AfC is probably one of the best case scenarios here. On a side note, if he wanted to ask for people to review his submissions (and anyone would be willing to volunteer for that), I have no problem with him asking qualified editors to review his work after he completes an AfC article. The way he's going, I think that a little one on one will likely be quite helpful. I'm willing to volunteer to shoulder part of this load, if he's limited to AfC only for the time being. I'm just worried that if he's allowed back into the mainspace he might do this without actually having learned anything, given that he doesn't seem to really understand why people find his editing habits problematic and even in violation of part of the spirit of Wikipedia. (IE, the landgrab nature that you referred to below, since Dolovis seems to feel that there's a contest for who gets the most entries created.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note to Delovis: Basically while I know that you're trying to say that you're operating in good faith, if a large amount of people believe that you're doing this for your own personal glory, then that should be a sign that you should stop, pause, and look to check to see if maybe you're doing something wrong. You've been on ANI a lot for various things, all of which tend to center around the same things: creating poor articles and potentially unnecessary redirects and the general consensus seems to be shifting to the idea that you're creating these because you want your article creation numbers to shoot up, not because you're here to edit in a beneficial manner. At some point you really just need to take a look at your editing pattern and ask yourself "maybe it's not them - maybe it's actually me?" Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Support If we're going to be shunting this editor over to AfC, we probably should make sure they're aware of the influx they're about to get. Also I'd like to see some way of allowing editors reviewing this to have a pre-approved "This submission is not qualified for inclusion" deletion process to deal with these in a more rapid timeframe than CSD:G13 (6 months unedited) or many WP:MFD nominations. If we're going to put pressure on the editor to change their behavior with respect to these creations, we need to not allow the editor to keep the crystal ball collection and then make the land grab of "created the article" once someone else did the work of properly creating the article. Hasteur (talk) 13:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    AFC allows pretty much any autoconfirmed user to move articles and numerous articles have been accepted with very questionable results. As such, I propose that Dolovis be restricted to six months unless an admin approves of any drafts in the user's draftspace. It's a higher restriction and a greater burden but it then creates a single point of accountability after the fact. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is unfair and punitive to ban me from using WP:REFUND when I was only following the lead of Admin Djsasso who demonstrated to me that such was the encouraged practice when he undeleted the histories of several recreated articles including Anthony Nigro (he now argues such practice is gaming the system). I have never been warned against using WP:REFUND to restore edit histories, and in fact I was under the impression that it should be done for proper attribution. Dolovis (talk) 15:47, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Restoring an edit history, and creating articles you know will be deleted only to just so you can have the history undeleted to claim the first edit are two very different things. If nothing on the page is from the old version of the page then there is no attribution necessary as I am sure you know. If you are not copying anything why would you need to attribute to authors who didn't contribute to that version of the article. -DJSasso (talk) 16:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Beyond that, Dolovis, I'll bite: why would you care? What is the benefit, to the encyclopedia, for one name over another to be cited as creator of an article? Our interest should be in complete articles, not in the original one- or two-sentence sub-stub that might have been there in the beginning, right? We're not in this for the glory, after all. Just out of curiosity, how many times have you sought to restore an article history that wouldn't wind up having your name listed as the first edit?

      That being said, "unfair?" It is not "unfair" for us to check your abuse of a process. No one gets gets a free pass to abuse a process just because someone else suggested it to us, in good faith, and expecting us to employ it in good faith. Ravenswing 06:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose a ban on creation of new articles, based on my random look at five creations: 1. Stig-Göran Johansson is a Swedish hockey player in the national hall of fame [42]. Nice find. 2. Sergei Yemelin is a young fully professional Russian hockey player. That's an auto-keep at AfD, no problems. Single sourced but there are two links that could have been made into sources as easily. 3. Dallas W. Anderson is a medical devices entrepreneur. The piece has a bit of the gross paid editing smell and would be less than 50-50 at AfD, in my estimation. 4. Mikael Saha is a fully professional Finnish hockey player. Another auto-keep at AfD. 5. Lukáš Jašek is a fully professional Czech hockey player. It was created without diacritical marks, and I suppose therein lies the rub with some people.. Still, this looks like a legitimate content person who is helping Wikipedia and I see no issues either with the creations or the sourcing, at a glance. Carrite (talk) 15:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • His mass creation of two sentence sub-stubs of European elite players is annoying, but ultimately not at the root of my complaint. Also, given he has created thousands of these two sentence sub stubs, the odds of you finding many of them at random are high. To give you a good idea of my complaints, and perhaps the scope of what you need to look for should your offer to mentor come to be, I would point you to his most recent creations:
    1. Santeri Vuoti - Source does not explicitly support the statement it references. Probably would be WP:ROUTINE anyway. (Player is barely presumed notable for having played 15 Liiga games last year, however. No indication a search was done for substantive coverage in reliable third party sources though).
    2. Vladimir Eminger - Source is basically the hockey team's main page. In short, source does not support the statement it references.
    3. Quebec NHL team - Plagiarism, internal copyvio, crystal balling. Blatant attempt to score first edit on a proposed hockey team that does not exist.
    4. Las Vegas NHL team - Plagiarism, internal copyvio, crystal balling. Blatant attempt to score first edit on a proposed hockey team that does not exist.
    5. Chris Durand (ice hockey) - WP:XY-violating redirect of a non-notable player, created to get a first edit, and despite having links of this exact type deleted multiple times at RFD. This is routine.
    6. Pier-Olivier Pelletier - Same as above; 100 more at RFD now, and I'll be nominating 33 more later today (Mostly, but not entirely, created by Dolovis)
    7. NHL coach of the year and NHL Coach of the Year - not a great concern as they are marginally plausible search terms. He may not be aware that the search engine ignores capitalization, so didn't realize he didn't need to create both.
    8. 2017 Stanley Cup playoffs - Unnecessary redirect created massively prematurely and only to score a first edit. This is routine.
    9. Self-portrait without beard - WP:SYNTH as he clearly has not read or used the sources, and only copied from another article while rewording statements from that one.
    10. Flower Beds in Holland - Standard redirect to an alternative title. No issues there.
    • Going a little farther back, we have the one-sentence, CSD A1 eligible creation of the astronomer that he was shamed into expanding via a PROD tag. Without people there to PROD him into putting bare effort into things, he does things like this, where he simply throws an {{Update}} tag on one of his own articles because he can hardly be bothered to update his thousands of creations himself. And given he creates articles on not-yet-notable players (like Pavel Karnaukhov) and then fails to defend them at PROD because he knows he can just abuse WP:REFUND later, I would say that bans from various processes, including and especially REFUND and redirect creation, are strictly necessary. But as demonstrated above, even when he creates articles on players that strictly pass SNGs, he misrepresents sources and makes no effort to find substantive coverage. That is something I would like to see him demonstrate he is capable of without being watched before I would back down from requesting a page creation ban entirely. Resolute 16:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Not wanting to spend my whole day on this, #2 above (a clear SNG Keep) could have the fact of first season documented from one of the external links showing just as easily. #3 above (and presumably #4) could be de-crystal-balled with a retitling to 2015 Quebec City NHL bid, which would be a GNG pass. Agreed that the "2017 Stanley Cup playoffs" is massively premature, but all this all smacks of gross exaggeration of the actual problem presented by what seems to be a good-faith editor... Carrite (talk) 17:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Passing a SNG does not automatically mean a keep. If they fail to prove the notability when challenged (and a player that close to the bare minimum likely would be) they still can end up getting deleted. It specifically lays this out in the SNG. Not to mention the external links to stats pages are not reliable sources to proove notability. But as Resolute points out he creates thousands of articles so its not surprise you would find some two sentence ones, no one is claiming every single article is bad, just that a significant percentage to the point of being disruptive are. -DJSasso (talk) 18:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be entertained if you could show me a couple times when a bio of a hockey player in a fully professional league has ended in deletion at AfD. It simply does not happen. If he was doing stubs of professional croquet players, those might be close. But hockey? Uh, no. Carrite (talk) 22:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure I will look some up. Dolovis, himself has had a number deleted. Non-North American professionals are very frequently deleted due to the varying coverage of fully professional players in different countries. -DJSasso (talk) 00:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I respect that you wish to AGF, Carrite, but I've been seeing these for years. These mistakes are not new, and they are not going away because Dolovis does not care. He is not here to improve the project, he is here to get his high scores and leave the clean-up to others. And that has been his MO for the entire time he's been a Wikipedian. And for the entire time he's been a Wikipedian, the only times his behaviour has been altered is through either community imposed restrictions, or a block for sockpuppetry. Six separate RFDs were not enough to cause Dolovis to stop creating bad redirects. It was only after this report and the risk of shutting his game down entirely became apparent to him that he suddenly decided that he would honour "a new consensus" - which is actually a year and a half old, at least. Ravenswing, DJSasso and I have been dealing with the mess he makes for years, and we'll all tell you the same thing: He will abuse any process he can as far as he can abuse it. And I think Arbcom recognizes this as well, given his attempt to have one of his restrictions lifted ended with a blunt "you can be restricted, or you can be blocked" response. To respond to your comments above: #1 and #2 above could be fixed by finding non-trivial sources that properly cite his claims and then properly inserting those sources, but he won't do that. #3 and #4, could have just waited until teams were actually announced - but that risks his not getting the first edit (and the expansion bid stuff is already covered at Potential National Hockey League expansion). They are also plagiarism. And his massively premature examples are ongoing and annual. It's all about getting first edits. Always has been. Resolute 19:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Carrite, you're missing the forest in favor of picking out a handful of stumps. Quite aside from that notability is a dynamic process -- someone who hasn't achieved notability might well do so years down the road -- of course Dolovis has created some articles that pass notability muster. It would be astonishing if, with the several thousand articles and redirects he's made, he hadn't scored the occasional hit. And I know this as well as anyone; when I filed those 75 AfDs on sub-stubs he'd created a year or so back, there were several stubs I didn't file on, because I judged they passed notability muster.

      That's not the point. You've been around the block, and you know that any number of banned or indeffed editors made some productive edits along the line. Some have had many thousands of productive edits -- people like Betacommand and Mick McNee come to mind. They were sanctioned because the disruption their antics caused not only outweighed the productive edits they made, but caused good editors to quit the project out of frustration.

      Never mind the effect they have on editors who don't quit. Take a look at my contribution history from January of 2014 [43]. I made over 500 edits that month, and easily two-thirds of them involved AfDing non-notable sub-stubs Dolovis created. That time spent didn't count, of course, research I did to ensure the ones I AfDed weren't notable. That time spent constituted time I didn't spend building the encyclopedia; it was time spent cleaning up after messes. Frankly, I don't consider the occasional sound contribution Dolovis makes worth that much time. I don't consider it worth your time as a "mentor," or worth the time it's going to take you to review a subject's notability, not when it takes away from article creation you could be doing. I don't consider it worth the time it sucks from the likes of JohnCD at REFUND. I don't consider it worth the time we've had to spend tightening the NHOCKEY guidelines you cited because despite overwhelming and frequent consensus in a number of discussions, Dolovis routinely ignores consensus where there isn't an explicit black-letter rule.

      I'm unhappy enough at a six-month ban, because just like every other time, we're going to have this all to do over again seven months from now. I think he's had too many chances as it is, over too many years. Ravenswing 05:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support ban on article creation, unless pre-vetted for notability as Carrite has helpfully offered below. From working at WP:REFUND, I am aware of much time wasted on the following often-repeated cycle: (1) Dolovis creates an article about a hockey-player, (2) it is discussed at AfD and deleted as non-notable, (3) months or years later the player becomes notable and an article is created, (4) Dolovis comes to REFUND to ask for his deleted edits to be restored to the history beneath the new article. Steps 1,2 and 4 of this cycle are pure waste motion and do nothing for the encyclopedia. Examples here (3 instances) and here (another 4) on just one archive page. JohnCD (talk) 21:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I've been through the ropes at AfD and if it is judged that Dolovis needs a pre-check on notability of new creations from a mentor before being able to launch them, I hereby offer to serve that role for a six month period. I will report back at the end of that period with the results. Ping me if you wish to go this route. Carrite (talk) 15:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Quick reference to the Special Notability Guideline for hockey might be of use for this debate:

    Ice hockey players are presumed notable if they
    [1] Played one or more games in an existing or defunct top professional league;
    [2] Played one or more games in an amateur league considered, through lack of a professional league, the highest level of competition extant;
    [3] Played at least 200 games (90 games for a goaltender) or achieved preeminent honors (all-time top ten career scorer, First Team All-Star) in top-level minor leagues or second tier national leagues;
    [4] Achieved preeminent honors (all-time top ten career scorer, First Team All-Star, All-American) in a lower minor league, in a major junior league, or in a major collegiate hockey league (Note: merely playing in a major junior league or major collegiate hockey is not enough to satisfy inclusion requirements);
    [5] Were a first-round draft pick in the NHL Entry Draft;
    [6] Played on a senior national team (such as at the Olympic Games or World Championship); or

    [7] Are an honored member of a national or multinational hockey Hall of Fame.

    A large percentage of the recent work by this editor has involved the creation of stub bios of young professional players and prospects. There seems to me to be good faith, given how low the SNG bar is set (just one game played in a fully pro league is a Speedy Keep at AfD). Carrite (talk) 00:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think you understand how SNGs work. They do not cause a "Speedy Keep". It lays out right at the top of them that meeting these does not mean an article must be kept. Not to mention these particular ones don't mention "fully pro" as a number of fully pro leagues do not meet them as explained in the note below the list which you didn't copy over. Some fully pro leagues require 200 games, other fully pro leagues require a first-all star award win etc. -DJSasso (talk) 00:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, no, that's not reality. SNGs are special "low bars" to inclusion (or "high bars" in the case of politicians) to be considered in conjunction with GNG. And trust me when I say that a nomination which clearly passes a SNG criterion is almost invariably shut down at once with a Speedy Keep. One NHL game played and the debate is shut down, regardless of what it says at the top of the page. This is also true for baseball, soccer, American football, and basketball — one game in a top professional league and we're done... Carrite (talk) 14:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is why I'm unsure as to the relevance of the point. We're not talking about sub-stubs that Dolovis has created for players who've played in top-level professional leagues -- although I grit my teeth that he seldom, if ever, bothers with anything more than the two sentences of fact and the bare reference or two that's the irreducible minimum required to clear WP:BLP. We're talking about articles he creates of players who do NOT qualify, over which there's been many a tussle over the years, followed by the inevitable PROD, followed by Dolovis' inevitable removal of the PROD with a bald "Is notable" (if he bothers with an edit summary at all), followed by the inevitable AfD, followed by Dolovis going straight to DRV or REFUND should the subject achieve notability down the road.

    And here's the effect on our workload: in the last two years, judging solely from the edit summaries on his talk page history, he's received notification of seven CSDs, seven copyvios, nine prods, 81 RFDs, 131 AfDs ... and despite his suggestion that the fuss is due to a vendetta a couple editors have against him, these have been filed by over two dozen different editors. After five years, over 50K edits, six blocks, multiple topic bans and edit restrictions, and several hundred articles going through deletion processes, at what point do we admit that this isn't a case of him not knowing any better as opposed to a massive IDHT? Ravenswing 15:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    It has been pointed out on my talk page that I inadvertently omitted the word "top." We are speaking of TOP fully professional leagues: NHL, not AHL, for example. Carrite (talk) 14:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that there is general agreement that there is a problem. I do think that a process of "pre-approval" of new starts for notability which does not tax the bogged down Articles for Creation queue should be sufficient rather than destroying the editor's usefulness to the project, which is making sure that our hockey coverage is as complete as it can be. There is a pretty clear consensus that his redirects of drafted players with no biographies needs to stop. The inclusion rules are fairly definite for specific hockey biographies and AfD outcome can be projected with great accuracy. Carrite (talk) 16:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggested he get an admin's approval so it's not just one person and it's not just a giant slog at AFC (which lets some problematic things though anyways). I can't recall where but that's been done before. It's mostly been redirects being created anyways. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support six-month article creation and REFUND ban, mentorship notwithstanding. This has some unpleasant similarities to the events leading up to this Arbitration case: wildly prolific creator of stubs refusing to work in a more cooperative fashion, long-running, apparently trivial dispute, and well-meaning but ineffective attempts at outsider intervention, which ended in disaster. This goes well beyond the question of "are most of his articles notable or not?" It's about the strain being placed on community processes like REFUND, PROD, on the hockey project due to litigation over guidelines, and so on. In the big picture of hockey coverage, it's more important to keep the project healthy and editors in general happy and active than it is to write a lot of poor-quality stubs, because they're much less likely to get expanded if the people who could improve them have reduced their activity or quit in disgust. Dolovis says he became "active as an editor to work to improve such articles". Great. Let him do that for six months and let's see where we stand. Carrite, I know your desire to help is sincere, but I suspect that as a mentor, you're going to wind up being drawn into the role of champion for Dolovis, ("But, see, that turned out to be barely notable when I dug up a bunch of sources. Don't pick on my mentee! He needs help!"), which is only going to increase the emotional temperature here. (This isn't a reflection on your personality, but on the difficulty of mentoring in these situations.) Having Dolovis stand down on the stubs for a while won't prevent the articles from being created, and it looks like it will save a whole lot of process wrangling and/or administrator time. Choess (talk) 15:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support ban in either AlbinoFerret or Tokyogirl's version. Drmies (talk) 00:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Closure?

    Discussion seems to have reached an end point. Is there perhaps an uninvolved admin that might close this one way or another? Resolute 12:23, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Dolovis has accepted mentorship, so hopefully an administrator will close this report on that note. GoodDay (talk) 13:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think consensus has clearly gone to some sort of restriction. But yes, an uninvolved admin will make the call. -DJSasso (talk) 13:31, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That an admin another editor has offered to mentor Dolovis, and that he has accepted the offer, is very well and good. For my part, I'm not mollified. An offer of mentorship from a non-admin -- especially in reference to overseeing an admin-dependent new article approval process -- is scarcely grounds to say "Well, that's alright then" and forget about the whole thing. I stand on my support of an unconditional six month (or, if possible, indef) ban on new article creation and a permanent ban on using the REFUND process, which I believe remains the consensus opinion. Ravenswing 06:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That, and he's only jumping at mentorship to try and skate by any sanctions. Resolute 18:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If Dolovis were to ignore or go against his mentor's advice? a ban on article creation can always be imposed. GoodDay (talk) 18:35, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Or the ban on article creation can happen now, and he can work with his mentor to improve his editing overall. Personally, I think his interest in having a mentor would rapidly diminish if his games were ended against his will. Resolute 03:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Darn, beat me to it, Resolute. Honestly, GoodDay, if this was just a matter of him needing to be trout-slapped in order to edit in an unselfish and productive manner, this would be an entirely different proceeding. But Dolovis is a smart guy who's been around for years. I'm firmly convinced, through years of seeing his interactions and how these conflicts spin out, that it's not a matter of him not knowing any better; I give him more credit than that. It's that he doesn't care, when consensus, guidelines or the spirit of the law conflict with his goals. Do you really think he's going to be any better six months from now, when he's still up to the same gamesmanship just a couple months after coming off of an indef block? When he's already operating under two topic bans, an interaction ban and an edit restriction? Ravenswing 05:58, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. The mentorship is fine but I still believe Dolovis should still be banned from creating any articles without the approval of any administrator. Since his mentor is an admin, good that's works out but I don't want to hear in six months that the mentor took a break or didn't say "NO" and there was nothing else Dolovis could do as an excuse. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If the reference is to me, I will point out that I'm not an administrator and have no intention of becoming one. Carrite (talk) 15:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually ... this might work to our advantage. While I'm of a mind with Resolute that Dolovis' interest in a mentorship will vanish quickly if it doesn't come with a softening of sanctions, this is his chance to prove us wrong and demonstrate good faith going forward. Putting the work in on his end for six months, without any direct tangible benefit, would go some way to convincing people that there's been a genuine change. Ravenswing 05:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Restoring history of deleted articles

    This discussion has made me think about our practice of restoring the history of deleted articles on request when they are re-created. That is clearly necessary when the new article is based on the old one, but different author(s) of the old one need to be attributed; but where the new article is not based on the old one, or where its author is the same as the only author of the old one, it seems pointless.

    I suggest that we should restore histories only when necessary for attribution. That would remove the incentive for the practice described above, of writing premature articles about non-notable players in the hope of getting "first-author" credit if the subject eventually becomes notable. Unless there is strong disagreement, I shall propose this at WT:REFUND. JohnCD (talk) 16:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    One of the challenges there is that Dolovis was abusing a combination of PROD and REFUND. Without changing the policies around the former, I'm not sure how you mitigate issues such as this with the latter. This is one of the reasons why he whined earlier in this thread about Ravenswing's AFDs and said they could have been PRODs instead - PRODs are easier for him to have restored. Resolute 18:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Restoring PRODs at REFUND is not a problem - they must be restored on request (unless they are speediable as copyvio or attack), but they can be taken to AfD. If one knows the article author is likely to dePROD, the answer is to save time by going direct to AfD. The issue I am raising is about requests to restore the history of deleted premature articles about non-notable persons who later become notable. A discussion has been started at WT:REFUND#Denying refund requests to avoid gamesmanship. JohnCD (talk) 20:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Sietecolores

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

    I strongly dislike coming here, but there's an ongoing issue with an user that needs resolving, and some community input. Sietecolores, presumably a Chilean user, has been, for some days, nominating for deletion several articles related to Pichilemu, a provincial capital of Chile, given that these articles were written by me. I feel the user is harassing me, because we've had different points of view before on other stuff.

    The nominated articles are Marta Urzúa, Radio Entreolas, José Arraño Acevedo, Antonio Saldías and Heredero de tu Amor; all of these but the one about the radio were written long ago, and have stayed here because they pass notability guidelines. There is plenty of material about these individuals, mostly offline, I have pointed out such a thing to Sietecolores, but they have omitted discussing objectively, instead distorting arguments and reasons, prefering to disrupt the project.

    A block (or at least a warning) should be in order. Sietecolores should stop pushing their bias against articles about so-called third-world people and stuff. --Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 00:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    You're required to provide them with an notice to the ANI discussion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marta Urzúa shows that it's not a clear-cut nonsensical AFDs as does Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/José Arraño Acevedo. There are going to be difficulties in finding supporting sources online but at the very least, notify Sietecolores as required above. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sietecolores notified. Blackmane (talk) 02:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, that notification is great. Thanks. Now to the matter at hand: Ricky81682 already noted what I saw as well. I looked at all of them hoping to find easy bad-faith nominations, so I could close them early and we'd be done. But that's not the case. It may well be so that the nominator is picking on this particular community, but that in itself is not in violation of anything--all the nominator would have to say is the magic word, "walled garden". These AfDs by themselves are valid. Drmies (talk) 02:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    A note of background. All these non-notable Pichilemu-related articles have been around in Wikipedia since 2009-2010 when Diego Grez-Cañete joined the project and begun creating them. Prior to that coverage on Pichilemu was equally bad to the coverage of other Chilean towns. Much good content on Pichilemu has been created but also much that is not notable. The non-notable content has survived not because of notability or a "test of time" as Diego suggests but because nobody has cared about the issue. Pichilemu (pop. 13,000) and Chilean towns of that size in general are not a hot topic that might attract scrutiny. Also, users who don't read Spanish might have felt incompetent to evaluate the "notability" of the content that relies on Spanish language sources. Sietecolores (talk) 08:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks fine to me. When someone finds one, then two articles that need AFD, it isn't uncommon to expect a nest of them and go searching. Maybe by article creator, maybe by Wikilinks or some other method. This isn't picking on someone, this is looking for low hanging fruit. Unless a nefarious motive can be demonstrated, you have to assume it was old fashioned hunting and finding within a group. The AFDs themselves each seem reasonable, the number generated won't put an undue burden on the system, the community can decide just as they do all AFDs. Some of the language below the nom is assuming bad faith, which really should be avoided. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The nominations are reasonable, there is something of a WP:WALLEDGARDEN going on here with Pichilemu content. See Template:Pichilemu for examples. I applaud Diego Grez-Cañete for his efforts but some rationalization through mergers/redirects/deletions is needed to keep this content in line with notability standards. Vrac (talk) 21:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a lot of articles about Pichilemu in Wikipedia, most of them are completely unessential. --Keysanger (talk) 11:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an strange case of an editor with so much accounts. User Dieggo Grez has following accounts in the English Wikipedia:
    beside these accounts, Diego has created a lot of other user accounts, see User creation log. I don't know whether the user has commited meatpuppetry, but at least one of them has been blocked because of being used only for vandalism. --Keysanger (talk) 14:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    But, it isn't all about Diego Grez. Diego Grez created his own article in Wikipedia, for himself: Diego Grez It has been created four times and deleted four times. --Keysanger (talk) 15:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I see no evidence that this user is engaging in sock puppetry in this dispute; let's not turn it into a witch hunt. The articles should be evaluated on their individual merits, not all of them are obvious deletes. Vrac (talk) 20:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User: springee and Koch Industries

    Complaint regarding Springee and the Koch Industries page:

    I (VeritasVincintUSA) am a new Wikipedia editor, and attempted to make a substantive change to the Koch Industries article, which I believe to have been deliberately whitewashed. Following the complete reversion of my entire edit, springee and others have attempted to completely shut down or delay discussion on the numerous substantive problems identified with the article. Instead, springee filed a frivolous "sockpuppet" investigation against me[20] and posted a spurious accusation on my talk page about association with a conspiracy theory site.[21]

    In the context of the Koch Industries talk page[22], springee has:

    1) analogized my edits to arguing that the "confederate flag isn't racist"
    2) initially repeatedly argued broadly against the entire substantive edit, while refusing to engage on the substantive details (even after a detailed edit summary was posted for each proposed change)
    3) when he did engage with one of the proposals (see the particularly egregious current language under "Fatal Pipeline Explosion" and springee's defense), he again would only say broadly that "I do not support the new language as better than the existing entry" and reverted my attempted edit without posting any sensible justification

    It appears that springee has also been active on the talk page for the related Americans For Prosperity[23] where he also analogized criticism of the Kochs with "racism." The discussion, to date, on the Koch Industries talk page, coupled with the text of the page, itself, seems to confirm my belief that the entry has been deliberately whitewashed.

    I hereby request redress both, specifically, regarding springee, and more broadly regarding the integrity of the Wikipedia entries concerning Koch Industries and its affiliates. There were allegations of paid PR firms "airbrushing" these specific entries back in 2011[24], and both the activity and text that I observed seems to suggest that some form of shenanigans is ongoing. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 21:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Democracy_%26_Nature&diff=677453992&oldid=677323512
    2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Democracy_%26_Nature&diff=677454112&oldid=677453992
    3. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Democracy_%26_Nature&diff=677454220&oldid=677454112
    4. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Democracy_%26_Nature&diff=677454379&oldid=677454220
    5. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Democracy_%26_Nature&diff=677489213&oldid=677456217
    6. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Democracy_%26_Nature&diff=678449071&oldid=678231531
    7. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Democracy_%26_Nature&diff=678495934&oldid=678491784
    8. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Democracy_%26_Nature&diff=678496972&oldid=678495934
    9. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Democracy_%26_Nature&diff=680197617&oldid=680158358
    10. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Democracy_%26_Nature&diff=680050086&oldid=678770864
    11. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Democracy_%26_Nature&diff=680084321&oldid=680079951
    12. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Democracy_%26_Nature&diff=678491784&oldid=678485497
    13. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Democracy_%26_Nature&diff=678231531&oldid=678110401
    14. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Democracy_%26_Nature&diff=678770864&oldid=678496972
    15. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Democracy_%26_Nature&diff=680055716&oldid=680051076
    16. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Democracy_%26_Nature&diff=680060052&oldid=680056313
    17. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Democracy_%26_Nature&diff=680079951&oldid=680062476
    18. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Democracy_%26_Nature&diff=677772255&oldid=677616691
    19. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Democracy_%26_Nature&diff=677575391&oldid=677575107
    20. ^ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kochtruth/Archive". Wikipedia.org. Wikipedia. Retrieved 2 September 2015. {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
    21. ^ "User talk:VeritasVincitUSA". Wikipedia.org. Wikipedia. Retrieved 2 September 2015.
    22. ^ "Talk:Koch Industries". Wikipedia.org. Wikipedia. Retrieved 2 September 2015.
    23. ^ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Americans_for_Prosperity". Wikipedia.org. Wikipedia. Retrieved 2 September 2015. {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
    24. ^ "Koch Industries Employs PR Firm To Airbrush Wikipedia, Gets Banned For Unethical 'Sock Puppets'". ThinkProgress.org. Think Progress. Retrieved 2 September 2015.

    Springee Initial Reply I don't want to snap at a new user. In this case I think he is misunderstanding things and has filed this in frustration. To address some of his specific points.

    • Sockpuppet investigation: Yes, I did ask for an investigation because VeritasVincitUSA (same user as blocked Kochtruth). I was correct they were the same user but I was wrong in thinking that making a new account was not allowed in that case. Please see Ricky81682's comments on the KochTruth's talk page. Note that I never mentioned the investigation. It was "brought to his attention".[[44]]
    • The user misunderstood my analogy. I was attempting to explain that having a user name like KochTruth suggests a strong POV and thus other editors may be suspicious of claims to a NPOV when a user has such a name. My analogy is here [[45]] and the follow up statement mentioning the confederate flag here [[46]].
    • VVUSA's initial article insertion was 8600 bite [[47]] and reverted by another editor. I have only made one revert of 215 bites [[48]]. VVUSA added a lot of information to the talk page (which I'm OK with) but it's taking myself and others a while to get through it (20,500 bite addition [[49]]). Asking the user to slow down so others can have a proper look seems very reasonable.
    • The question about the KochTruths blog seemed reasonable given the previous user name. I think my phrasing could be better but I think the question was reasonable regardless. Please see VVUSA's talk page for the question and my reply.
    • The implication that I'm no a company payroll is a bad faith claim.

    Overall I think VVUSA may be expressing frustration that things aren't going his way. I believe Ricky81682 was worried that the user might be problematic. I think the user has a clear and strong POV on the subject and clearly wants to make BOLD changes. But I also think he has thus far played by the rules. I would ask that this ANI be closed. Springee (talk) 00:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that a thorough impartial review of the talk page as of the time this entry was filed will tell a different story other than "things not going my way." Specifically, there was a strong-willed reluctance to engage with the facts and sources as presented, coupled with an attempt to circumvent discussion with the frivolous "sockpuppet" investigation and attempt to discredit me by asserting that I was associated with a conspiracy theory site. While I did not mean to assert that springee, specifically, was "on the dole," I continue to believe it is advisable to call the integrity of the articles for Koch Industries and its affiliates into question. The combination of the entries' checkered past, and current presentation, cast down on their integrity.
    springee has repeatedly (on the talk page) tried to cite his belief that I have a "strong POV" to discredit my edits. However, he seems incredibly reluctant to actually engage with the proposed edits and sources, themselves, while the nature of his participation on the Americans For Prosperity and Koch Industries threads demonstrates that he, himself, has a "strong POV." Engagement with the sources would show that the current article suffers from a clear "POV problem." In at least one instance (which I outlined in "Fatal Pipeline Explosion" on the talk page), the text of the existing article is so biased and misleading that it is my contention that the language in question could only have been written by somebody on the company's behalf. It should be noted that springee reverted back to the problematic language without adequate justification or explanation. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 01:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    VeritasVincitUSA, not only are things "not going your way", but, when last I checked, no other editor had agreed with any of your 10 suggested edits. As I said before, an editor who actually wants to improve Wikipedia would only introduce one or two of these suggestions at a time, and allow time for discussion before adding controversial material. As for the thinkprogress.org reference, I believe it was considered "disproved" in the actual Wikipedia investigation. I could be wrong, but at least one item from criticism of Wikipedia is without evidence of actual problems with Wikipedia. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Arthur Rubin: Your claim that "no other editor has agreed with any of your 10 suggested edits" could just as easily be re-framed to state that, at the time of this ANI, only 3 of the 9 proposed edits had any objections or rebuttals since they were posted days ago. One of the three, to which an objection was raised, was the disputed "Fatal Pipeline Explosion" entry. As I indicated, I expect an independent, thorough, review of the Koch Industries talk page as of this ANI will refute your assertion that things were "not going [my] way" or challenge the relative strength of the facts, sources, and arguments that I presented to defend my proposed edits.
    Your assertion that I might not "actually want to improve Wikipedia" is unfair and, again, I rest on the specific facts, sources, and supporting arguments that I have cited on the talk page to support my criticism of the existing article and the need for substantive revisions. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 06:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    ANI is not appropriate for content disputes. VeritasVincitUSA, you started with the name Kochtruth which made me question whether you are here with a proper purpose or not. Many admins would have blocked you outright and moved on. I'm again presuming that you come here with the intent to create a neutral article and not to create a hit piece. The subject matter, as you are well aware, is extraordinarily controversial, is subject to numerous restrictions at the highest Wikipedia levels due to the behaviors there and as such, sources need to be neutral and reliable. Your starting comments here don't indicate that you are treating the views of others with equal respect as required here. An accusation that someone is "whitewashing" an article is no minor nor laughing matter as it's a direct personal attack on the editors. The article exists as it is exists either due (a) to some massive conspiracy of editors to whitewash the article or (b) because that's the consensus view over the years this has been topic. One allegation is frankly not productive here and is likely to get you topic banned if not blocked. At the moment, you've proposed ten separate edits and have opposition to all which is normal for new content proposed on controversial pages. Accept that opposition with an modicum of respect and try suggesting re-wording to provide a consensus viewpoint that supports the views of those who disagree or otherwise, try one of these other remedies for broader support (this is not one of them). However, I warn you that most people would presume that someone who comes, make a demand for a number of specific wordings, received opposition and only responds by making further and further attacks on their opposition is not the kind of editor wanted here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Ricky81682: Your assertion that I have "opposition to all" of my edits is not supported by the discussion (or lack thereof) on the 9 specific edit proposals on the talk page. I just checked again and no specific objections or rebuttals were made to most of the edits as of the time that I started writing this post. "Accept[ing]...opposition with an modicum of respect and try suggesting re-wording" is precisely what I have done on the specific requests where there was opposition. For example, the version of "Fatal Pipeline Explosion" that I attempted to insert (which was promptly reverted by springee without explanation or justification) was not the original proposed revision and reflected the earlier input that I received from other editors. I have not made "demands" for wording as you indicated above. All of this is borne out by the content on the Koch Industries talk page submitted with the ANI request.
    I have also not been the one "attacking." As a new editor, I was immediately met with a "username ban." When I continued the conversation with a new username as directed to by the notice I received, I was met with a "sockpuppet investigation." After posting my detailed edit requests, I was accused of association with a conspiracy theory site. Accusations have been repeatedly made (including in this thread) that I have too "strong a POV" to be an effective editor. And, yet, there is a remarkable lack of engagement from my "opposition" with the specific substance of my edit requests despite all these "attacks" that I have been subject to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VeritasVincitUSA (talk • contribs) 09:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC) (sorry, I forgot to sign) - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 09:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    VVUSA, you actually are attacking via implication. You just again implied that editors on the article are Koch affiliated. That does not help others assume you are coming with a NPOV. You now have three editors on the article who have asked you to slow down and give people time to read over your proposed edits. Please heed their requests and let the process take it's time. Springee (talk) 12:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Where did I "again impl[y] that editors on the article are Koch affiliated" in the paragraph immediately above? I merely responded to the accusation that I was "attacking" people by illustrating how I, in fact, was the one being "attacked." In fact, I explicitly made clear that I was NOT leveling such an accusation against any individual editor (and you in particular, springee) in a preceding paragraph. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 13:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I recommend that an admin also address Springee's tendentious editing. On multiple articles and with multiple editors, Springee reverts material or demands a consensus before well sourced information gets added to the article. This is an explicit example of tendentious editing. As per WP:TEND , "You delete the cited additions of others with the complaint that they did not discuss their edits first." A cursory search of of the article in question or Springee's contributions supply evidence for this on multiple occasions. I can provide diffs if necessary, just ping me. Scoobydunk (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that you were not involved in the recent edits on the page in question. Perhaps you should review them and all of my "changes", all one of them, before accusing me of tendentious editing. If you think there is evidence that I was in the wrong please present it. Springee (talk) 21:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is the evidence of Springee's tendentious editing by ways of removing material from articles for the reason of "no consensus":[50][51][52][53] What's even worse is that Springee is not consistent with his barrier of gaining consensus before material gets added into the article. It appears when Springee finds the material agreeable, he's more than happy to keep it in the article without requiring consensus and even reverts others who remove the material. Here [54] Springee commends the adding of material by Rjensen though there was no consensus to add the material. In the first diff above, Springee reverted removal of some of this material while citing "no consensus", though that material never had consensus in the first place. As explained above, WP:TEND specifically identifies that removing material from others with the complaint of "no consensus" as tendentious editing. Springee has applied this barrier of editing to multiple users on multiple articles.Scoobydunk (talk) 18:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for administrator to close this ANI Though I think VeritasVinvitUSA was not acting in bad faith, this is an improperly formed ANI. I ask that it be closed. Thanks Springee (talk) 17:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I reiterate my request an impartial review of the referenced Koch Industries talk thread in the context of this ANI thread. The hostility, persistent insinuations and accusations regarding my POV and motives, and absence of meaningful, specific, constructive engagement on the substance of the individual edit requests that I have proposed should be obvious to a detached observer. That said, if Springee and others are willing to cease their "attacks" on me, and similarly work constructively as part of the editing process, I do not object to the ultimate closing of this ANI without sanctions being applied. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 17:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Springee - We're past that, I think. You might wish to read WP:BOOMERANG, however, as it may become relevant. VeritasVincitUSA - OK, let's start over. However you intended your statements, some editors have taken them as attacks. The term "Whitewashing" is taken very seriously around here, and you've got to understand that people take that sort of statement very seriously and, frequently, very personally. They don't know you, they just know that a newer editor is demanding sweeping changes to a very controversial article, and that this new editor seems to be accusing people of shenanigans. I'm not saying this is the case, but look at it from their side - we get a lot of that sort of thing. So you're clearly upset, and they're clearly not agreeing to your edits - whether because of perceived bias on your part or because of flaws in the edits themselves, I don't know. So take a deep breath, acknowledge that there were misunderstandings, and start over - pick one of these edits, propose it, and discuss ways in which the core information (who did what when with whom, etc) can be added to the article. Perhaps the references can be supplemented with sources from other editors, or assertions can be corroborated. Discussion is your path forward, here. We have lots and lots of very new editors who come here to right great wrongs - many end up blocked for reasons best laid out at WP:NOTHERE. If you can work with us, we welcome your input, just as we require you to be open to the input of others. If not, then perhaps this is not the project for you. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As you can see from the Koch Industries talk thread, I am not only welcoming of input from others but eager to collaborate with other editors to arrive at the fairest and most objective treatment of the facts. In fact, I incorporated feedback from other editors in each revision of language that I proposed. I am still eager for a constructive dialog and very open to new information, such as additional sources that challenge the facts or narrative in the sources that I initially supplied. Per springee's earlier suggestion to start with a single edit, I recommended that we start with the "Fatal Pipeline Explosion" entry, and even he admitted that the language in the existing article "could use improvement". It would be great if we could start there and work collaboratively and constructively on that topic. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 20:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, I think you do want to discuss and actually I'm pleased that you have elected to put your proposed changes on the talk page rather than on the article. All I, and others are asking is that you slow down and understand that people are going to assume you have a strong POV on the subject. As I've said before, a strong POV is NOT a problem and doesn't mean that you will make bad edits. You just have to understand that people have to be given time to digest the edits you want to make. As I said on the talk page, you should come at this with the assumption that the editors think the current article is fine and thus you must sell them on the idea that your changes will improve things. Often you have claimed a fact is significant but how do we decide that? We have to assume you have a bias towards including those facts based on your strong POV. That means we need something other than your opinion. That's not an attack, just explaining things from the other side of the table. Springee (talk) 21:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment All articles that are related to the Koch brothers have seen a fair amount of both whitewashing and blackwashing, but there are also a lot of editors who are working hard to maintain a NPOV. There has been some actual misbehavior on both the whitewashing and blackwashing sides but there are a lot more claims of misbehavior where no misbehavior -- just a content dispute -- exists. Normally I would predict that this was going to end up at arbcom with the result of discretionary sanctions, but the articles in question are already under discretionary sanctions as part of the american politics case. As the US elections grow more heated, I expect we will see a lot more of this. I think the best answer is to be liberal with the admin-issued warnings and with short blocks when we see misbehavior, meanwhile referring content disputes to WP:DRR. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I accept springee's implicit argument, above, that my own having come on too strong and been too aggressive, coupled with some measure of Status quo bias, is responsible for the current dispute.
    I think it appropriate to apply a metaphor that illustrates what I believe to be the misunderstanding on both sides:
    From my perspective, it was as if I was driving through an unfamiliar neighborhood (Wikipedia) and saw what I believed was a body in the middle of the street (a problematic article). My first instinct was to apply CPR (edit the article), which was completely rebuffed by the local authorities (reverted in its entirety by the existing editors). When I went to file a police report (on the talk page), I was repeatedly reprimanded about the way I was filing the report, asked why I would file a report since it isn't my neighborhood, and repeatedly told there was no body in the street by police officers who had not yet fully read or thoroughly engaged with the police report, itself.
    From the perspective of the local police (existing editors) in a dangerous neighborhood (defending a controversial article), however, my behavior as a proactive and seemingly aggressive newcomer was seen as both against the neighborhood code of conduct, and an implicit "attack" on the quality of service that they had rendered to their local community. Their defensive and skeptical behavior is both understandable and possibly even justified (maybe the newcomer will increase the body count rather than merely help deal with the existing body).
    Given this set of facts, it was inappropriate for me to assume that a murder coverup ("ongoing shenanigans") was being committed. If there is a body in the street (as I contend there still is), it is entirely possible that somebody died of natural causes, and/or that people in the (dangerous) neighborhood are so used to there bodies there that it had not occurred to them to question its presence.
    I look forward to working constructively and collaboratively with the existing editors once they have had a chance to read and digest the proposed edits that I recommended. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 18:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It is worth noting, however, that, since the suggestion that we "start over", another editor (AdventurousSquirrel) has posted yet another personal attack to my talk page[1] and the Koch Industries talk page[2] in an attempt to discredit me. It might be relevant that this user has previously posted long-winded defensive statements from Koch organizations, which are sourced to Koch-owned websites (Kochfacts.com)[3], and replaced independent secondary source citations that cast Koch in an unfavorable light with (again) statements sourced to Koch-owned websites (KochPipeline.com)[4]. The second diff also shows that he is the source of the misleading Koch defense to the EPA 300 oil spill settlement (the "lack of attribution") that is explicitly rebutted by the EPA response (Koch refused to supply maps) in one of my edit requests.
    It is also worth noting that there has been no constructive engagement (or any engagement at all) with the substance of my edit requests since September 3, despite the eagerness of multiple unmentioned editors to pounce on me in this ANI thread.
    I do not mean to make accusations. However, I find the multiple unfounded attacks against me in this thread (which are contradicted by the Koch Industries talk page that I submitted with this ANI request), coupled with the lack of willingness to engage with the underlying edit requests, somewhat suspicious. I hope you will pardon my Shakespeare but they "doth protest too much, methinks." - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 23:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    (adding reflist-talk) - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 23:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi again VeritasVincitUSA. It may also be worth noting that the statements sourced to Kochfacts.com that you've expressed concern for here, are contained in a section called "Koch Industry response", which contains - as you might imagine - responses from Koch Industries. The KochPipeline.com reference, as far as I can tell, was already used in the article, and is used as a reference for one line about the terms of a settlement, along with three other references, including an occupational safety website, and two deadlinks to a newspaper and the EPA website...I'll see if I can recover those two sources. I haven't read about the map thing you mention yet, so I'm not really familiar with what you're talking about. If it's agreed to be an improvement, then it should absolutely be included.
    I'm not sure I can be more clear about what I wrote on your talk page, but I'll give it a go: WP policy says that an account should be operated by one (1) individual. In the English language, individuals don't refer to themselves as "we"/"us"/"our", as I noted you have. I informed you of the policy, and suggested that if you happened to be in violation of it (since you're new and might not be familiar with all the rules), you might want to talk to someone about how to begin editing as prescribed by policy. I don't believe this could be construed as a "personal attack", but I apologize if it was.
    And your "dead body" analogy makes a lot of assumptions that I don't know are true, probably colored by your apparent perception that you are an intrepid savior of some kind, as some of your other comments (and your username) seem to indicate. I think that what actually happened is that some people down the street told you the guy was dead, and you didn't really bother to check his pulse between sprinting up and proceeding to thump on his chest. If you had, maybe you would have found that he just needed to be woken gently, and repositioned slightly - to a bench nearby, perhaps; everyone standing around probably would've been happy to help you walk him over there, or even take him to the hospital to get checked out if need be. And now you're wondering why everyone's upset that you tried to crack the poor guy's ribs.
    But anyhoo, I'm not sure this will get us anywhere - ready to start over when you are. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 07:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds good, and I apologize if I have come on too strong. But, the ball is (and has been) in your court. If we can all agree to start with the "Fatal Pipeline Explosion" edit summary, I look forward to a thorough discussion of the relevant events, facts, and sources as we work through the issues identified by that edit summary. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 14:01, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    To update, almost a day later and still no engagement with "Fatal Pipeline Explosion" or any of the multiple substantive and detailed edit summaries posted on the Koch Industries talk page. The 9 full edit summaries were posted nearly a week ago and there is still no meaningful engagement from any of the editors who were so quick to level unfounded accusations at me.
    Even a cursory review of the specific details of these proposed edits, in the context of the current article text, would show that the existing Koch Industries article is not merely "a dead body", but already blue and starting to attract maggots. springee's broad criticism (that the facts are not significant) are disputed by the detailed edit summaries and supporting evidence. In addition to the "Fatal Pipeline Explosion" language, which is both biased and intentionally misleading, the detailed edit summaries I posted illustrate multiple very significant errors of omission.
    From a report in Rolling Stone that the company pleaded guilty to five felonies including conspiracy to commit fraud, to a US Senate investigation into the company's theft of oil from tribal lands that culminated in a False Claims Act settlement, it should be clear that these edit proposals all have three things in common: (1) they involve "inconvenient facts" from the company's perspective, (2) they are all material, reliably sourced, and more noteworthy that other information already included on the page, and (3) the editors who have attacked me on this page have tried very hard to shut down and/or delay discussion on all of them without any specific justification or supporting arguments on any of them.
    I would encourage the administrators reading this report to thoroughly review the Koch Industries talk page submitted with this ANI in the context of the behavior in this thread, and also take into account the context of the existing article. In the meantime, I eagerly await the response of the existing editors to "Fatal Pipeline Explosion" and the other detailed edit summaries that I posted. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 07:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I also ask that Guy Macon's comment above be treated as a comment by a party that is somewhat involved with the underlying issue at hand. He was very vocal against reporting negative information about the Kochs in the same Americans For Prosperity talk thread that is cited at the top of the page (I knew I recognized the name). I count 19 separate instances of his signature in that one thread, alone. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Man, this just keeps looking worse and worse. I've been playing around with the "Wikiblame" tool, and it looks like, FOR YEARS, anybody who has tried to cite either of these two critical articles[5][6], for any reason, has had their content summarily reverted without explanation. The talk archives for Koch_Industries have multiple angry posts asking why such posts had been taken down, such as this one, which implicates our own Arthur Rubin.[7] In other cases, the same type of behavior that I observed (objecting to the posting of critical content from new users by citing obscure Wikipedia WP: policies while refusing to engage with the content, itself) has been discussed.[8] Not only do I not see myself as a "savior", as AdventurousSquirrel claimed, it appears I was just the first user in all this time that naturally responds to the type of frustration that they attempted to induce with increased (and not decreased) motivation to push through.
    It is also worth mentioning the continued radio silence from the implicated users. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 18:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    UPDATE: Based on the "Wikiblame" evidence described above (and full history of the Koch Industries talk page and Koch Industries article), the content of the Koch Industries talk page referenced above, the content of this ANI thread, and the content of the Koch Industries article as of 9/6/2015, I would like to level a specific "bad-faith" accusation against the named entity Koch Industries.
    This evidence strongly suggests that, over a period of YEARS, individuals directed by Koch Industries and/or operating on its behalf have:
    1) Systematically removed content containing specific citations that paint the company in a negative light.
    2) Responded to negative content with a "playbook" that consists of objecting on the grounds of various arcane Wikipedia rules and/or making broad sweeping objections while steadfastly refusing to engage with or discuss the specific negative content itself.
    3) Posted company statements, and other astroturf that links to company-owned websites, both in place of and in addition to organic Wikipedia content.
    As evidence of "prior bad acts", I reference the 2011 Koch Industries Wikipedia "airbrushing" scandal that was reported by ThinkProgress and others. I call on the administrators and the Wikimedia Foundation to thoroughly investigate this claim. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 20:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It also appears that I am not the first person to make the observation that there appears to be an organized effort to prevent unflattering facts (and, specifically, facts--not criticism) from finding their way onto pages related to the Kochs and/or to be given more prominence within the page. Here is a post by a Reddit user who noted as far back as 2013 that "every time anyone has attempted to add a controversy section [which I pointed out in the Koch Industries talk thread seems to be standard for large, controversial, companies] for Koch Industries it gets removed/shutdown by a group of diligent "contributors"".[9]
    Some of the comments in the cited Americans For Prosperity thread above also show a strong reluctance, from a "loyal opposition", to allow noteworthy (but unflattering) information about the Kochs to appear. Guy Macon (the user who made the comment above) went so far as to say "Just say no to blackwashing" twice and (in bold) "There is a political faction on Wikipedia that wants to demonize the Koch brothers wherever possible." Springee wrote "I don't think the citations rise to the level of rock solid" (the primary, but not even the only, citations in question were articles that appeared in the The Washington Post, one of the most widely circulated and respected newspapers in the United States). Arthur Rubin argued "current coverage of the Kochs is excessive". AdventurousSquirrel is also very active in the thread but his arguments (again, against the negative information--which seems to be a consistent position for him as well) are reasonable and justified.
    There does appear to be an organized, consistent, and loyal opposition to including negative facts about the Kochs and/or presenting that information in a way that is unfavorable to their interests (such as having a "legal and regulatory issues" or "criticism" section that seems to be standard for similarly large, controversial, companies). With respect to the complaints of "excessive coverage", I would point out that Koch Industries is both consistently ranked as one of the largest private companies in the United States and the Kochs are also far more prominent, active politically, and more widely covered by the contemporary media than most similar businesspeople. The edit summaries I submitted (which the "loyal opposition" has refused to engage with) consist of significant, objective, verifiable facts related to the company's history, key details that were omitted, balancing facts that rebut company statements/assertions that are included in the current article without balance, and an accurate substitute for the intentionally misleading treatment of Smalley v. Koch Industries. The silence was, and is, deafening. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 15:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    UPDATE #2: It seems this same cast of characters has also been involved with sanitizing the Charles Koch page over an extended period of time.
    In response to one anonymous user's observation on the talk page that "This bio reads like it was written by Mr. Koch himself or his staff" roughly two years ago, Arthur Rubin justifies having all of the critical information on a separate page (that conveniently doesn't rank in SERPS for "Charles Koch").
    AdventurousSquirrel also objected to including negative information from the separate page in the main Charles Koch profile on the Charles Koch talk page (under "inclusion of JBS") in 2012.
    The evidence I have presented in this thread is strongly suggestive of a pattern of long-term abuse, by multiple users, who have diligently worked to exclude and divert negative information from pages related to the Kochs over a multi-year period. Furthermore, the sophisticated efforts to divert negative information from SERPS and seeming use of a "playbook" to suppress negative content are suggestive of an organized reputation management effort.
    Given Koch Industries' prior history of abusing Wikipedia, I do not believe that remedial actions taken against these specific users/usernames is sufficient. This type of abuse impugns the integrity of the Wikipedia project. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 22:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ "User talk:VeritasVincitUSA". Wikipedia.org. Wikipedia. Retrieved 5 September 2015.
    2. ^ "Talk:Koch Industries". Wikipedia.org. Wikipedia. Retrieved 5 September 2015.
    3. ^ "Koch Brothers Exposed: Difference between revisions". Wikipedia.org. Wikipedia. Retrieved 5 September 2015.
    4. ^ "Koch Industries: Difference between revisions". Wikipedia.org. Wikipedia. Retrieved 5 September 2015.
    5. ^ Mayer, Jane. "Covert Operations". NewYorker.com. New Yorker. Retrieved 7 September 2015.
    6. ^ Dickinson, Tim. "Inside the Koch Brothers' Toxic Empire". RollingStone.com. Rolling Stone.
    7. ^ "Talk:Koch Industries: Difference between revisions". Wikipedia.org. Wikipedia. Retrieved 7 September 2015.
    8. ^ "Talk:Koch Industries: Difference between revisions". Wikipedia.org. Wikipedia. Retrieved 7 September 2015.
    9. ^ "TIL the Koch Industries wikipedia page is whitewashed, please help change this". Reddit.com. Reddit. Retrieved 8 September 2015.

    FYI: This is being reported on DailyKos as some kind of a sting operation. Appears to be a misguided use of both sites involved, and a misunderstanding of how Wiki works, regardless of the merits of including some of the info suggested at the talk page. 99.126.240.200 (talk) 05:17, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmm, an IP that has seemingly never posted on Wikipedia before chooses to level a broad criticism coupled with some misdirection, without addressing any of the specific allegations made above... - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 05:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And, one eagle-eyed Daily Kos reader's comment helped me catch YET ANOTHER example of our cast performing reputation management on Koch-related pages that are outside the bounds of the typical political controversy. Back in 2012, Arthur Rubin removed a reference to Jane Mayer's New Yorker article, and Koch Industries, from the John Birch Society page.[1] According to the user on Daily Kos, over time that article has also been "whitewashed". - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 11:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, it appears that Springee left the following statement on Arthur Rubin's talk page (what, exactly, does "involvement" and "this" consist of): "Since you are also involved with this I thought you might want to know thing are brewing"[2]. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 14:15, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    springee also had the courtesy to implicate Ricky81682 by posting: "We made it to the DailyKos!"[3] to his talk page (note the "we" despite the fact that Ricky81682 was not mentioned on DailyKos). In that same thread, springee seems to be conspiring with Ricky81682 to ban me from Wikipedia. For the record, I fully complied with WP:ROLE, as I indicated on my talk page when accused by AdventurousSquirrel. Let's see if Ricky81682 takes the bait, and if springee implicates anybody else... - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 14:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Admins: watch out for the boomerang

    I had previously asked that we take it easy on VVUSA as a new user. However, it is clear that the user has not been honest with us. In the DailyKos link it is clear that VVUSA is either the author or part of a group that authored the DK article. VVUSA previously claimed to be acting as an individual despite referring to the account as "Our" (see user talk page [[55]]). Both in the DK article and here VVUSA is making a number of accusations that amount to personal attacks. I can no long assume he/she/they are acting in good faith. Springee (talk) 14:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    springee, the eyes of the Internet community are now on Wikipedia. However this gets resolved will reported in a follow up article. As I mentioned multiple times, I am in full compliance with WP:ROLE and have been throughout my time here. Smile, you're famous! - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 14:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it appalling that you have taken to the Daily Kos to malign and slander long-time editors who didn't agree with your edits. I, for one, also don't believe that you are only one person (that's certainly not the way your Daily Kos "We are Kochs" stuff reads). I suggest you take your campaigns and mudslinging personal attacks elsewhere, you are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Capitalismojo, it's not a matter of "not agreeing". Its that multiple of the implicated editors have a multi-year documented history of behavior that is consistent with "reputation management" (and object to any and all information, no matter how noteworthy, well-sourced, or relevant that might be damaging to the named entities whose articles they seem to be faithfully guarding). As I conceded on my talk page, and will repeat here, I concede the point that you, specifically, may have just wandered into the wrong place at the wrong time while acting suspiciously; but, you must admit that the circumstantial evidence (particularly as it relates to Arthur Rubin and AdventurousSquirrel) is extensive and extremely convincing. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 17:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ "John Birch Society: Difference between revisions". Wikipedia.org. Wikipedia. Retrieved 9 September 2015.
    2. ^ "User talk:Arthur Rubin". Wikipedia.org. Wikipedia. Retrieved 9 September 2015.
    3. ^ "User talk:Ricky81682". Wikipedia.org. Wikipedia. Retrieved 9 September 2015.
    • I've been watching this unfold from the sidelines for a while. I became involved with Political activities of the Koch brothers a few years ago specifically because there was quite a bit of whitewashing and filibustering going on, by many of the same editors involved now. My question is: Is there any chance that this will not end up in front of Arbcom soon? - MrX 17:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    MrX, I don't think the existing Wikipedia adjudication process is adequate to handle cases like these. If a third party, in fact, directed or sponsored these editors' coordinated activities, that third-party should be the primary target of any formal Wikipedia inquiry. And, if another third party sponsored or directed that party's efforts, that party should be the ultimate target. My personal bias would be to give the individual editors involved conditional immunity from any formal sanctions in return for spilling the beans on the full extent of their behavior and any third-party that sponsored or directed their activities (and signing a binding agreement to refrain from future abuse). That would enable Wikipedia to develop safeguards to prevent this type of conduct in the future and pursue appropriate remedies against the ultimate leaders/directors of this behavior. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 17:19, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You may not think the Wikipedia adjudication process is adequate to handle cases like these, but that's all we have. Allegations that editors were directed by an outside Koch-connected entity to edit Koch-related articles needs strong evidence, not a witch hunt and lambasting in an anonymous DailyKos article. If you're so certain of malfeasance, you should request and Arbcom case. WMF is not likely to get involved based on the scant evidence from your sting operation.- MrX 17:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    VVUSA, have you ever considered that just perhaps the issue here is not one of conspiracy but instead people getting tired of the issue? First, if you look at my edit history, almost exclusively automotive related until I became interested in a RfC a while back. Do you really think that after 6 years or so on this site I just two months ago decided to work for the Koch brothers? That is the claim you are making. Now look at recent history, many of us were just involved in a long and ugly RfC about a Koch related article. The editor who started the RfC, the same one who just welcomed both you and your DailyKos loving IP friend [[56]] really wore a lot of editors raw. So then you come along and want to start the fights all over again. It was natural that people would say, SLOW DOWN. That is what people were saying to you. You clearly are on a crusade to correct what you think is wrong. That's fine. However, you still need to play within the rules. Other editors, myself included, had just dealt with the very editor who welcomed you. We were not interested in more drama and not interested in fighting. When your edits went too far we said no. It is not our burden to propose changes just because you aren't happy with the articles. You did try to tone down your edits but you weren't able to get consensus in the short period of time you wanted to wait. If you had done this before the RfC fight perhaps people would have been more willing to work at your pace. There is no conspiracy here, just people who were tired of fighting and didn't feel like fighting with you. However, you decided to take things to the next level and publically insult and attack editors both on this site and on an external site. Opening up editors to attacks and harassment from external websites is unquestionably a violation of WP:HARASS and WP:NPA. For these reasons I'm asking that you are given an indefinite block. Springee (talk) 19:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support boomerang - I see nothing but disruption and harassment from VVUSA right now. Perhaps the SPI was in poor faith, but this ANI and several of the responses I have seen from VVUSA incline me to believe that a block is in order. -- Orduin Discuss 19:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The "DailyKos loving IP" does not appear to be my friend, at all. His comment was clearly dismissive of the pattern of behavior that was observed. Per Orduin's comment, I am convinced that both the "sockpuppet investigation" and unsigned accussion of association with KochTruths.com were "bad faith" accusations designed to implicate the messenger rather than focusing on the content. The content I proposed was explicitly apolitical. In the case of the "Fatal Pipeline Explosion" language, the existing language in the article was both biased and intentionally misleading. It is so biased and misleading that I continue to contend that it is the "canary in the coal mine". The transcript of the talk thread certainly makes it appear that springee was deliberately stonewalling any attempt to "correct the record" while placing an undue burden on me to justify the new language prior to inclusion. In fact, an independent user came forward to complain about springee's "tendentious editing" in other contexts, as well, specifically in cases where springee disagreed with the content being proposed.
    Furthermore, as the talk thread indicates, I explicitly refused to question the motives or intentions of *any* editor, despite being repeatedly accused of having ulterior motives, myself. I did not even begin to go down that rabbit hole until AdventurousSquirrel posted his (second personal) accusation to my talk thread. Once I saw his "contributions" on Koch-related entries, it became immediately evident that such edits were not the product of an "attempt to build an encyclopedia" and were instead suggestive of a seemingly ulterior motive of "reputation management." That, coupled with springee's attempt to "rally the troops" to make accusations in this ANI thread that are not consistent with the evidence in the talk thread, is suggestive of some form of coordination. The "doth protest too much" comment earlier in the thread is instructive; the implicated users were more than willing to take the time to level spurious accusations regarding my behavior yet were completely unwilling to engage with the underlying content. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 19:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing at Talk:History of Japan

    Despite warnings to stop [57][58][59], User:Signedzzz continues to add and re-add an unsigned and unhelpful message to an already bitter talk page discussion at Talk:History of Japan.[60][61][62]

    Before this I'd already already declared I'm giving up copyediting the article as there are too many serious problems and—more frustratingly—too many editors who are unwilling to work in good faith on improving the problems—rather, they'd rather attack me when I even bring them up. Discussion and cooperation are impossible, and this hostility will clearly continue without me. Signedzzz isn't the only problem, but the editwarring to keep a message designed to bait and avoid working toward article improvement is a concrete issue that needs to be dealt with. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Replied to "warning" on my talk page. This is ludicrous. zzz (talk) 03:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There is apparently disagreement on that area. I have had my ANI reports altered for not having "neutral" headings in the past, and certainly a heading that gives the impression that Signedzzz is either the only culprit or the principal culprit in this case is not neutral. I frankly don't care about 90% of the stuff you, Nishidani and Signedzzz have been arguing over one way or the other, but implying this dispute is the fault of anyone but CurtisNaito and TH1980 is basically a misrepresentation in my opinion. Another user recently tried to alter a heading in an ANI discussion to make it about me when it clearly was not just about me, and I reverted them; their response was to say the same thing you just did, claiming that I alone, and not the other user, was the "subject of the report" and so should not be allowed delete my own name. I thought he should have just dropped it then, and I think you should just drop it here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You would be right, of course. But, again, if someone felt policy was on Signedzzz's side (and a lot of people think WP:TALKNEW applies to ANI as well as article talk pages) then you would be the one engaged in disruptive edit-warring while Signedzzz is just trying to enforce policy. Again, I frankly agree with the point of view that ANI headers don't have to be neutral, but I think in this case a neutral header would have been more constructive. And I've had just about enough of both users both edit-warring to change ANI headers and inserting non-neutral headers against consensus of late. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment from peripherally involved but basically neutral observer It is not clear what sanction is being called for here. This is essentially a content dispute that has been exacerbated by the toxic atmosphere on the talk page, which was primarily the work of User:CurtisNaito and two other users he brought in to be the "bad cop" to his "good cop" and help him fight his battles. The users in question (User:Nishidani was also involved for a time, and both he and Signedzzz have been accused of trolling by Curly Turkey as a result) have done a pretty poor job of discussing the dispute. Again, I must emphasize that it is not, in my opinion, the fault of Curly Turkey, Signedzzz or Nishidani that constructive talk page discussion is near-impossible in this case. Nishidani briefly brought the dispute into the article space by inserting a bad ref to verify not the factual claim in question but the use of a grammatical structure Curly Turkey disagreed with. This was an unnecessary and somewhat pointy edit, but was also extremely minor. Nishidani and Signedzzz opposed some proposals from Curly Turkey on the talk page, and their comments were collapsed with the heading "Political horseshit not focused on improving the article". I know Curly Turkey has a reputation for not being as polite as he perhaps could be, but in this case all parties on the talk page except for CurtisNaito and TH1980 (including myself) have been uncharacteristically aggressive. The reason I say except CurtisNaito and TH1980 is because CurtisNaito is engaged in his usual passive-aggressive, ignore-every-dissenting-opinion, slow-motion-revert-war, never-ever-use-foul-language but constantly-accuse-others-of-not-being-constructive behaviour, and TH1980 is engaged in his usual "CurtisNaito is right and Hijiri88 is wrong" and "everything I don't agree with is a personal attack, despite what the policy says" rambling. If anyone is to be sanctioned in this dispute, it should not be Curly Turkey or Signedzzz, or for that matter Nishidani, me, Sturmgewehr88, Rjensen, Phoenix7777 or Vivexdino. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Probably the main issue is that some editors are spending an excessive amount of time making personal attacks on other users instead of actually commenting on article content. When I post anything about article content, too many other users ignore the issues at question and instead rely exclusively on personal attacks. Curly Turkey apparently has been having the same problem, though he said it was Signedzzz and Nishidani who were derailing the discussion.

    I don't think the off-topic commentary that Hijiri has been making about me personally on the talk page has contributed much to article content.CurtisNaito (talk) 04:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    For the record, what Curtis calls "off-topic commentary" by me is my asserting that his recent edits to the article have been disruptive and overall unhelpful (something everyone else, including Signdzzz, Nishidani and Curly Turkey agree), that his edits have a tendency to introduce OR and misrepresentation of sources into the article (again, something everyone agrees), and that this pattern is consistent with CurtisNaito's edits to other articles in the past (something everyone agrees now, and agreed in the past on those articles as well). Pointing out where the problems with talk page discussion and the article content originate is not a personal attack, despite what CurtisNaito wants to claim. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If my edits were disruptive to the article, I would not have succeeded at bringing it to good article status before you or any other editor did. You keep on making accusations and personal attacks against me on the talk page, but the problem is that you have no evidence to support your claims. I am reminded about what John Carter said recently about you, "taking recourse to irrational, probably unsupportable, insults and obscenities directed against those with whom you are in disagreement". You apparently disagree with me (while still so often declining to discuss actual content), but that's no reason to make false accusations against me.CurtisNaito (talk) 06:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What "false accusations" have I made against you??? Wikipedia policy clearly defines accusations of bad behaviour made without evidence as personal attacks. You have been asked several times to provide evidence of the above "false accusations" you keep claiming I made -- when is the evidence getting here, Curtis? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:51, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already requested a few times that Hijiri lay off on the personal attacks and discuss article content instead, but he will not listen.TH1980 (talk) 15:54, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And I have requested the same thing of TH1980, who has contributed nothing to the discussion except to claim that I am making personal attacks. In fact, TH1980 appears to have followed me to the article, having never shown any interest in either that article or Japanese prehistory and early history before this. Let's be clear: as long as one has evidence it is not a personal attack to say "User X has been adding OR and misrepresentation of sources to the article. User X has previously added similar OR and misrepresentation of sources to other articles." Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Request move to temporarily block user Ritsaiph for personal attacks

    Hello Wiki admins, am I coming to the right place? I hereby wish to make a request to you all to take action against User:Ritsaiph for making threats, personal attacks, insults, harassment, and using derogatory language against other users while discussing on a thread.

    The case issue can be read at here. This user, who has never made any single contribution to this template, came onto the thread went on whacking another user rudely, who has been contributing to this template for many months, out of sudden just because consensus has reached a deadlock. I hope the Wiki admins consider looking into this manner properly and take further appropriate action against him. We only want to continue our civil discussions but he had to keep attacking and issue threats somehow. Thank you. Myronbeg (talk) 04:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    As it clearly states at the top of every edit block for this page, “When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user page.” I have done this for you. Now please provide specific offs of what you need help with. --Adam in MO Talk 16:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This user was upset that no one shared its POV in the article talk page which concerned making changes to the article. Many other editors have disagreed with the user, so the user had a Wikipedia tantrum and began accusing me of harassment and personal attacks. I do admit to criticizing the users ability to type coherent sentences while ranting on the talk page "If by "personal attacks, harassment and making threats" you mean correcting your poorly typed-grammar, then I fully agree, I am being a terrible person for doing something your grade 2 teacher should have taught you a long time ago... or maybe not so long ago. " and that, in light of the multitude of editors who disagree with Myronbeg, that we could make the edits whether he agrees or not i.e Regardless if he was on board or not, we would simply ignore the user. "We could ride roughshod over you and you can't really do anything about it." I am not apologetic for either of these statements.

    I did state firmly that I would launch an WP:AN or WP:ANI against Myronbeg if the user kept reverting any future edits which had been agreed upon on the talk page, which would constitute as vandalism, "If your intransigence still kept the coloring from being implemented, I could always file a WP:AN or WP:ANI against you for disruptive edits. " diff here [63]. The user implied that he would revert any edits made without his consent, "I did not made any vandalism to this template as the original color was always black for AQAP, red for government forces, and yellow for Houthis (later I requested changing to green, but at least at that time no one objected it unlike I do for AQAP-grey)... I can argue that people are vandalizing this page by imposing their own opinion...You are not in a position to challenge me." diff here [64].

    Because consensus had been reached by an absolute majority of 5 editors to 1, and followed consistency with other articles, I thought it was appropriate to use a heavy-handed response to Myronbeg's continued whinging about no one sharing the users POV. Furthermore, I was the one who actually recommended Myronbeg to file an WP:ANI against me, "Of course, you can file an WP:AN or WP:ANI against me, and I would support it if you did" diff here [65]. I wanted admins to see what kind of an editor he is. One who believes that his opinion weighs more than the opinions of others, and whose attitude has caused editors to divert their energy to argue against him on the talk page rather than improving the map that the article is based on. I am aware that some of the statements I have made were crude and inappropriate and may come under scrutiny. But when all you want to do is to actually make an article better with an improvement seen on many other maps, (Libyan Civil War map and Syrian Civil War map) you get tired of nuisances that impede the progress. --Ritsaiph (talk) 07:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing by MrSean99

    User indeffed by Seraphimblade. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 00:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    MrSean99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – continued disruptive editing after final warning. Inserts apostrophes into decades (e.g. changing "the 1990s" to "the 1990's" contrary to MOS:DECADE. Never responds on talk, never provides an edit summary, so no clues as to motivation and no prospect of participation in any form of dispute resolution. Diffs provided are for illustration – there are others:

    Adding to the difficulty of understanding this editor's motivation, there have also been some edits that are constructive:

    – Wdchk (talk) 16:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Have you tried WP:AIV? Erpert blah, blah, blah... 00:45, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the suggestion, but no I haven't, because in my judgement, there is not enough evidence of a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia to call MrSean99's edits vandalism. The policy states: "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." This user may believe he is doing the right thing and the MOS is wrong. Note that some of his edits have not been reverted. I am happy to listen to other opinions on this point, but my hope is that in a borderline case, it wouldn't matter too much which forum is chosen to request administrator attention. Whatever label we apply, unfortunately the end result is time-wasting. – Wdchk (talk) 02:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked indefinitely, but certainly not permanently. The total refusal to engage with other editors is an issue. If this editor is willing to indicate they would be willing to engage with other editors going forward, I'm happy for anyone to unblock them. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:06, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds fair and reasonable; thank you. – Wdchk (talk) 11:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Admin eyes requested

    At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palagonia double homicide. I am not involved in the dispute, but this deletion debate has started to spin out of control and needs attention by administrators. Winner 42 Talk to me! 06:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I've hatted a lot of the discussion that is not related to the AfD. -- Orduin Discuss 20:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Unsourced ideologies and controversial info for radical parties

    Manolvd1999 (talk · contribs), and 3 "new" IP accounts ([66]) with a sudden interest in the topic, keep adding unsourced "Ideology" labels and other unsourced controversial content in articles of radical Eastern European parties (see Bulgarian National Alliance, Shiv Sena and other similar articles). They have received several warnings and information on the named account's talk page, several users reverted their unsourced edits in those articles. As I am close to 3RR (and a minor edit war is also happening at Shiv Sena), it would be great if someone uninvolved could look into this. GermanJoe (talk) 11:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I have notified the named account and one of the IPs with an active talk page. GermanJoe (talk) 11:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This pattern of editing is remarkably similar to that of the prolific serial puppeteer Greekboy12345er6. It's probably worth comparing this with identified socks, and opening an SPI. RolandR (talk) 12:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Just out of curiosity, does anyone know what 'Anti-Ziganism' actually is??? Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 13:23, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I wish there were some sort of online encyclopedia where one could easily look up things like that... —Wasell(T) 14:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that would be an innovation wouldn't it!!! Cheers Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 14:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And again just now here with another IP. Could an admin please look into this - maybe just semi Bulgarian National Alliance and Shiv Sena for a while? Doesn't make much sense to send additional messages to 4 changing IPs. GermanJoe (talk) 20:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Robert Martinson problems

    Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs) has long been banned from article creation for his massive disregard for copyright. He has a great number of subpages on his user page, all intended as potential articles for others to move into main article space. Recently a new editor copypasted one of these subpages, creating the article Robert Martinson. The first thing I noticed about the page (unaware of its provenance) was the obvious copyvios, numerous quotations in the references. I deleted the copyvios, thinking they were rookie mistakes, and then I added information and sources. In the meantime, Richard had asked a third party to fix the article's history by moving his original subpage over the page, leading the third party to restore the copyvios and erase my changes.

    Now it's a very minor mess, and I'm not sure what the proper way forward is. Plan A is to just revert and move on. Plan B is asking here, and I've opted for Plan B. I'll mention the new editor created some other pages that may have the same copypaste/copyvio issues, I just briefly looked. Richard's other subpages may also be problems, I have not looked.

    I have not named the two other editors, both seem to have acted GF, and if either needs to be told something constructive, presumably their Talk pages suffice. While Richard also seems GF here, this looks like he still does not seem to get copyvio. (And I have no idea of the fine points of his ban.) Choor monster (talk) 15:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • If you think using the quote parameter in the citation templates is "obvious copyvios" and you "deleted the copyvios" you really need to study the fair use policy at Wikipedia fair use policy page. The policy currently reads: "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea." The only violation of Wikipedia copyright policy and plagiarism policy was by the user who copy and pasted my work and attributed it to themselves. They contacted me when they realized they had made an error, and I contacted Sandstein to correct it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I was the admin whom Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) asked to fix the copypaste article creation by another editor by moving the article history from his user space into mainspace. I was then not aware of his article creation ban, but another admin pointed me to this request and linked to WP:ARBRAN. I am now deleting the article Robert Martinson as an arbitration enforcement action: The ban was apparently made because Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) has previously violated copyright, and therefore the prohibition extends to all articles based wholly on his work, whether or not it was he who moved them into mainspace. This should settle the matter as far as I'm concerned, unless anybody wants to consider sanctions for any involved editor via WP:AE.  Sandstein  18:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Deleting it was improper, if you had doubts, you should have migrated it back to User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Robert Martinson and not delete it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Copyright violations are not allowed anywhere on Wikipedia, so if an admin finds sufficient copyvios in a mainspace article to delete it, sending it back or restoring it to userspace would be irresponsible. BMK (talk) 04:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Using the quote feature built into the citation templates is not a violation of copyright, it is the definition of the Wikipedia sanctioned fair-use policy. You are welcome to argue about how much material constitutes fair-use at the Wikipedia fair use policy page. The policy currently reads: "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea." If you think that the definition of Wikipedia fair-use is wrong, then you should lobby to have the quotation feature contained in over 100,000 citations removed from all of Wikipedia. Removing them adhoc from one article is not the way to do it. While I am blocked from moving articles into mainspace there is no restriction from others moving them into mainspace at my request or by me giving permission for someone asking to move it. However, it is a violation of copyright and a violation of rules against plagiarism to copy and paste my work into a new article under the name of another author. If you think that me quoting the New York Times and properly attributing it is a copyright violation, then you also have to believe that me quoting Wikipedia policy above is a copyright violation, weird world isn't it? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except that you don't actually need the extended quotations in the footnotes at all. Footnote quotes should only really be used where the source is large and/or difficult to navigate (i.e. no page numbers) so that the reader may struggle to find the source for the citation, or the source contains differing viewpoints so that it is necessary to pinpoint the actual sentence you are using as a source. In this case, neither applies. Black Kite (talk) 19:15, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That is your personal interpretation of the policy and you should should state that it is your personal interpretation. You are presenting it as fact. The exact wording of facts from the original source prevents semantic drift, we have no idea if the source material will be available in 10 years, 100 years, 1,000 years, or 10,000 years. The original article may read that someone was "from a farm near Fooville", the next editor may rewrite to read that he was "born on a farm near Fooville" and the next editor may change it to "born in Fooville" and the next "born in Fooville, New Jersey. Each small change causes the information to drift slightly and that drift may or may-not be correct, every editor does this when they change wording. The reader has no idea that drift is taking place, unless presented with the original source material. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:49, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, what I am saying is exactly what I wrote, re-read it. Once again you are using the inflammatory "copyvio" for fair-use as defined by Wikipedia policy. If you cannot discuss it in neutral terms you are purposefully being inflammatory. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Response to RAN/ec) In the article in question, you had more full sentence quotation from five NYT articles than you had written in the body of the article. That in itself is ridiculous. Worse, your quotations met none of FUR. Nothing except laziness or incompetence prevented you from summarizing the contents of the NYT articles and leaving out the actual quotations. We're not here for pull-quote journalism.
    • The quote parameter is for responsible usage.
    • I recently created an article Kelayres massacre, over 20K, with fifty footnotes, and I incorporated a grand total of one quotation, from an editorial, since the exact tone seemed to be just as essential to the whole story as the factual content of the editorial (which may, in fact, have been very little). (And there were two FUR pictures, and one PD picture which I asked about on WP:MCQ, just to play it safe.) You? You're not even trying. Choor monster (talk) 19:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well you are awesome that is why your articles do not use the quote feature. However, using words like "obvious copyvios" and "incompetence" makes you less awesome. You are inserting your opinion and personal style as as Wikipedia law. If you do not like using the quote parameter, do not use it. If you think it should never be used, lobby to have it removed globally at the talk page for fair-use policy. Also, Wikipedia:FUR policy is for images. Also, we are not journalists, so I am not using "pull-quote journalism", we are writing a reference-work. Journalists use primary sources, reference-work writers rely primarily on secondary and tertiary sources. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    My opinion seems to be the consensus opinion. I think it should be used. As I said: responsibly. I'll point out I use it frequently over on Wiktionary, since presenting exact quotations over there serves an accepted educational purpose. Choor monster (talk) 20:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it was Wikipedia policy you would have already quoted me the chapter and verse where it is specifically stated as I have already done above. We all have high opinions of our own opinions, but that doesn't make them Wikipedia policy, it is just magical thinking. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • RAN: Given that there's still a lot of work left to do at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20111108, and WP:ARBRAN specifically states "in order for appeals of this remedy to be considered, he shall be required to submit evidence of substantial work on his part towards resolving the Contributor Copyright Investigations filed against him, most particularly the one focused on his text contributions" (referring to the ban on article creation), why are you not doing that before you create articles? —SpacemanSpiff 19:34, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • (ec) So now RAN is creating draft articles with the same kind of copyright problems he will not acknowledge to even exist. Copyright infringement in the Draft space is the same as copyright infringement in the mainspace. It's certainly a violation in spirit, if not the letter, of ARBRAN. Is it time for an amendment to that case? KrakatoaKatie 19:45, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your outrage, but again "copyright infringement" is incorrect, you clearly have a limited understanding of fair-use as defined by the United States Supreme Court or by Wikipedia policy of fair-use. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What SCOTUS permits is irrelevant to us. Citing it is a red-herring, and a serious sign that you don't get WP and WP:COPYVIO. We hold by our own stricter policies. What newspapers and journals and the like do under Fair Use is not something we're supposed to imitate. Choor monster (talk) 20:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again, please stop saying it is in the Bible, just read the Bible. If you are quoting exact Wikipedia policy quote me the exact chapter and verse. This is not the first time I have asked you to quote policy, and not express your opinion as if it were policy. Note that I quoted you the exact text of the Wikipedia policy on fair-use and put it in quotations above, which under your opinion, is a copyright violation. I directly quoted a copyrighted source. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    First, I'm not outraged. Nothing on this website gives me an emotion that remotely approaches outrage. Second, when you've spent the hundreds of hours I have cleaning up copyright problems, we'll talk about who understands copyright and who does not. The NFCC policy clearly states that Wikipedia uses a more stringent standard than does US copyright law. Either you get that or you don't. If you get it, you'll stop what you're doing now. If you don't, you'll be forced to stop what you're doing later. Up to you. KrakatoaKatie 21:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Cleaning up a pile of poop off the bathroom floor does not mean you have the equivalent of an M.D. in proctology or have a Ph.D. in scatology. If you think the "more stringent standard" applies, then work to define it. You can lobby that quotes can be no more than three sentences, or two sentences, or one sentence, or three words. You can lobby that the title of books, and the title of news articles, be restricted to the first three words or the first three letters. You can lobby to have the quote parameter removed from all the citation templates. Until then you are just expressing your personal opinion of how you interpret the Wikipedia fair-use, which is fine. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:43, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Now you are quoting essays, at least that is a step up from saying that your personal opinion is Wikipedia policy, but you are still telling people to read the Bible, again cite the chapter and verse or quote what you are referring to. "Go read the Bible, the answer is there" is never useful. If you found something relevant in the essay WP:CIR, then quote it to me, don't tell me to read it and guess which sentence you found relevant. Thank you. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    More to the point, you haven't answered the question posed by SpacemanSpiff above. There is still a huge amount outstanding at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20111108. Why are you not cleaning those issues up before creating new articles? After all, that's exactly what the sanction stated. Black Kite (talk) 21:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not found any, that is why. Spending the next ten years certifying that the previous ten years of edits do not contain any copyright violations, is a waste of time. If there are any more clear examples, a bot can find them, and I will fix them. Copyright isn't subjective, if a bot cannot find them, how can I be expected to? When we have people who think they understand copyright and fair-use, that do not ... as per the comments above, there really is no way of satisfying their manufactured outrage. During the ANI someone said that my quoting a 1905 New York Times article was a copyright violation. And, by the way, my new articles in my user space are awesome. The people I write about deserve no less. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    While CorenSearchBot flags any new articles that contain copyright violations, there is no bot that checks existing Wikipedia articles for copyright violations. That task has to be done by hand, one diff at a time. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It just needs to be modified to run against the current state of an article and not the first edit of an article. And of course it needs to be run against all of Wikipedia and rank articles on a scale from 1 to 10. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that's not possible. First, we pay for CSB to do its searches, and the burden of doing this against all articles is astronomically higher than the burden of doing this against new articles. Also, new articles are considerably less likely to find Wikipedia mirrors (legitimate or otherwise) and, when they do, that often highlights another problem - unattributed splitting. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suggest the nuclear option. Since the only possible reason for RAN to create new articles in his user space (there are scores of them) is so someone will move them into mainspace, thereby circumventing his article-creation ban, I would think, following Sandstein's point, that they should all be deleted. If RAN is interested in editing Wikipedia, there's plenty of work to be done on existing articles, or, as SpacemanSpiff and Black Kite suggest, he could stop bitching that it will take "10 years" to fix all his copyright violations, and just get to work fixing them. It's not as if he started to do so and then gave up, he's never helped to fix his copyright problems, ever. If he had spent all the time between the institution of the ban and now helping to fix his copyright violations -- instead of creating new articles in his user space with more copyright violations -- he might not be finished, but he'd have a damn good case for having his ban lifted due to his services in cleaning up the mess he had made. Instead, RAN continues to refuse to concede that there are any copyright violations, despite the very clear community and ArbCom consensus that there are, and a major form of them was his extensive misuse of the quote parameter. BMK (talk) 02:57, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck statement per Sphilbrick's comment in the section below. BMK (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Please stop the manufactured outrage and please do not libel me with "he's never helped to fix his copyright problems, ever." Anyone can see all the work I have done simply by looking at the first 100 articles I created in 2005-2006 and then seeing the post ANI changes I made to them. I removed the hidden text of the source documents that I was using to write the biographies. I trimmed long quotations and reworded Air Force *.mil biographies which may/may-not be government public domain. User:Beyond My Ken and I have been antagonistic for years, and he uses every opportunity to try and get me banned permanently. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No outrage -- is that going to be your standard attack on your critics? -- just a possible solution to the problem you have made, which is to delete all your user space articles as straight-forward violations of your topic ban to not create articles. I recognize that there are other possible solutions, such as your being indef-blocked, or some combination of the various choices. BMK (talk) 08:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there is some doubt whether the articles in his user space are typical RAN creations -- which is to say. abusive of the quote parameter to an extent that they are copyvios, I would suggest that Moonriddengirl or some other admin well-versed in copyright matter take a look at a random sampling of his user-space articles, and use the result of that examination to determine if the nuclear option is a viable choice or not. Alternately, they can all be tagged with G12 speedy deletion templates, and individual admins can decide on a case-by-case basis. Either way, I have never understood why RAN has been allowed to take the path he has, which is to clearly thumb his nose at his topic ban - one that was first put in place by the community, and then endorsed and taken over by ArbCom. BMK (talk) 03:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Awesome that you can read minds too: "clearly thumb his nose at his topic ban". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have to read your mind, it's easy enough for everyone to read your actions, and your words speak for themselves. BMK (talk) 05:52, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The quotation parameter is a fine parameter when used in moderation (and completely unproblematic when used with public domain or compatibly licensed material), but the idea that it should be used to archive the content in case the source becomes unavailable in the future is not supported by WP:NFC, which tries in simple language to explain the transformative use of quotations. Capturing the content for fear that it won't be available later is not on that list - if anything, that's far more likely to be seen as competitive with the original publication, as we eliminate the need for our readers to access the original. In terms of reviewing the drafts, I think it would be better if somebody with less history dealing with RAN's copyright issues undertake this, BMK. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • RAN: Please explain how this is in line with our fair use policy. This is now becoming a case of having to update the original CCI and waste yet more time of other editors and as KrakatoaKatie suggests above, it's time for an amendment to the case to stop any more addition of content, period. Given that this is a two day old violation and that our fair use policy is more strictly implemented in user space, any admin is welcome to take an AE action here (I just don't have the time or inclination to looking at the history right now to do so myself). —SpacemanSpiff 03:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That is image policy, it states that the file has to be deleted. No fair-use images on user pages. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, once again you show your ignorance. WP:NFCC isn't just about images, it's about any non-free content, visual or textual. Someday you ought to read the policy so that you can actually follow it.

    Policy

    There is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article or elsewhere on Wikipedia. Articles and other Wikipedia pages may, in accordance with the quotation style guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author (as described by the citation guideline), and specifically indicated as direct quotations via quotation marks, <blockquote>, or a similar method. Other non-free content—including all copyrighted images, audio and video clips, and other media files that lack a free content license—may be used on the English Wikipedia only where all 10 of the following criteria are met.

    #9 I quoted above comes directly after this in the same section. It applies to all non-free content. BMK (talk) 08:30, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's strange is that the quote is totally unnecessary. It does not provide any pertinent information that's not in the article, except for the name of the Governor, which is in the title of the article cited. BMK (talk) 03:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:ARBRAN has this to say: Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) is strongly admonished for creating multiple copyright violations throughout Wikipedia and failing to adhere to the project's expected standards and policies with regards to non-free content. He is warned that continued violations of this nature are likely to result in an indefinite block from editing. I don't see anything restricting that remedy to article space; perhaps it's time for an indef block? Whether through AE or ARCA I'm not sure. GoldenRing (talk) 04:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lest we forget, although it doesn't come into play in this discussion, RAN is actually subject to twin topic bans. The one we've been referring to here disallows him from creating new articles, and its twin disallows him from uploading images to en.wiki. The reason for this was also copyright-related, as part of the restriction is that if he uploads a copyright-violating image to Commons and uses it on en.wiki, it will be treated as a copyright violation to en.wiki. Clearly, when ArbCom made these restrictions -- which can be found at WP:Editing restrictions -- they had absolutely no faith that RAN understood what is and isn't a copyright violation, which is a powerful reason for ignoring his commentary here regarding copy-vios: he simply doesn't know what he's talking about. BMK (talk) 06:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    By your definition we cannot use the title of news articles, remember they are also copyrighted. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you see, once again you've shown that you don't know what you're talking about, since titles are specifically not copyrightable. BMK (talk) 06:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Short phrase headlines are not copyrightable, however headlines such as: "Gen. E. A. M'Alpin Dies At Ossining. Former Adjutant General of New York Stricken at His Country Home in His 69th Year. Long in National Guard. Tobacco Merchant and Republican Leader Owned Land on Which Hotel McAlpin Stands." It would not constitute a "short phrase" because it contains original expression. "General McAlpin Dies" would not be copyrightable as a headline since it states non-copyrightable facts under the "short phrase" rule. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, SpacemanSpiff quotes from WP:ARBRAN above, where ArbCom endorses and take up the community ban. It refers to this AN/I thread, in which it was decided to make permanent the initial temporary ban. That initial ban can be found here, where it is phrased as: "[H]e is banned specifically from creating new articles and from page moves". (Note that there's no specification of where the new articles are created.) So, given this clear ban, why, when I look at RAN's talk page, do I see that he is submitting his user space articles to WP:Articles for Creation? Does he somehow think that the fact that someone else pushes the button to make his article appear in mainspace absolves him of his restriction from creating new articles, and that asking other people to make page moves for him doesn't mean that the page move is essentially his? What he is doing is clearly Wikilawyering around his sanctions and pushing hard against the boundaries of his bans by enlisting other editors and AfC as his proxies. That he has gotten away with this behavior for so long is pretty amazing, actually. BMK (talk) 06:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • My summary: A properly attributed quote is not a copyright violation either under United States copyright law or Wikipedia !law. If you want to restrict all quotations to a single sentence or a single word, then lobby to make that so. The only clear copyright violation was by the user that cut-and-pasted my nascent user-space article and put it in mainspace and attributed it to themselves. It was corrected, when the cut-and-paster contacted me, by Sandstein and there was with no ill will toward the cut-and-paster by me. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:32, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your understanding of US copyright law, the fair-use doctrine, and Wikipedia's NFCC policy (which is deliberately more restrictive) is fundamentally flawed, as shown by your past history, your current actions, and your commentary in this thread. You appear to be making it up as you go along, without truly understanding the real issues, or why your actions contravene your sanctions. You have, in a variety of ways, violated your topic bans, apparently very deliberately so -- just as you violated your community-placed ban before the case went to ArbCom, where you were not slapped on the wrist, but given a last chance instead of being indef blocked. You did not take that last chance, which required you to help clean up your existing copyright violations, choosing instead to continue to create new violating articles in your user space. There really is no excuse for any of these actions on your part. BMK (talk) 08:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    While I can appreciate the use of AFC to verify the contents of drafts, the topic ban is pretty clear that he is banned from article creation / creating new articles. This doesn't specify in what manor, so he's bypassing the direct approach by creating articles through AFC (or by having other editors moving his drafts), which is still in violation of the topic ban. (striken in relation to Choor monster's note relating to this. However, in addition to that, the topic ban included a ban on page moves, yet his page move log is pretty full. - Happysailor (Talk) 15:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Without actually seeing the article in question, it is rather hard to tell if there were copyvios there. I will note simply that there is no rule against quoting, even extended quoting of newspaper or book sources. Indeed, it is rather common in historical areas. The other example given from RA Norton's space (I assume that refers to footnote 2) has a quote consisting of one and a half sentences, which is rather hard to judge as copyvio and not fair use. Whether a quote of such a length is necessary or not, it is rather a stretch to call it a copyvio. Kingsindian ♝♚ 17:57, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That example is from 1912, so it is PD. Assuming a later date as in many RAN articles, note that there was no need to refer to the article by every last subheading—the first heading suffices—the quotation is longer than the article in question! Note too, it's not US Fair Use which is relevant, but WP:FAIRUSE. Note also RAN's defense of his quotations: he seems to very strongly believe in close paraphrasing and nothing but close paraphrasing, and the point of including the quotation is to seemingly discourage anyone from rewriting one of his close paraphrases. It certainly serves no other purpose here on WP. Choor monster (talk) 18:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) @Kingsindian: Please keep in mind that we don't actually follow the normal "fair-use doctrine", we have our own rules, WP:NFCC which are deliberately more restrictive than fair-use. One can make the argument that we should just follow fair-use doctrine, but the fact is that we don't. Because of that, any use of a quotation, of whatever length, needs to be necessary for the article, and should not simply repeat information that has been written into the article in a non-quoted, non-plagiarized manner, which is the preferred way to deal with sourced information. There have been any number of times when I determined that any re-writing of a source's statement was going to water down, misrepresent or too closely follow the quote from the source, and I chose to directly quote the source to get the correct flavor and attitude it conveyed, but the quote didn't repeat something I wrote, it replaced it as being the best representation of the cite. RAN's use of the "quote" parameter in his citations is, instead, repetitive and, generally, totally unnecessary.
    Our policy says quite specifically "There is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article or elsewhere on Wikipedia", but RAN operates on the opposite basis, that he can use quotes whenever he wants to, even when they are repetitive and unnecessary. Such usage would mostly survive scrutiny under the fair-use doctrine, but it is not in line with out NFCC policy. That RAN cannot or will not recognize this (or indeed the intent of his topics bans) is why we are here discussing this. BMK (talk) 18:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever standard of "fair-use" one uses, one and a half sentences surely qualifies. I would barely be able to write any content if such a restrictive standard is used. For instance, I quoted two whole sentences here (at the very end). I hope I am not going to get banned. Kingsindian ♝♚ 18:56, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume an official government committee's statement is PD. Even if it were a private committee making an official statement about some investigation, its exact wording would typically meet NFCC. In contrast, the exact wording of a newspaper summarizing for us what some committee said, or even any PD document, would typically not meet NFCC. Why is this so difficult to understand? Choor monster (talk) 19:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kingsindian: Please also keep in mind RAN's history. He's on an official short leash because of his past infractions, you're not. BMK (talk) 19:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kingsindian, with respect only to the note "there is no rule against quoting, even extended quoting of newspaper or book sources", I just wanted to clarify that there are indeed such rules in both Wikipedia ("Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited." WP:NFC) and the US copyright law that governs us.  :) As our article on fair use notes, amount and substantiality of copied content is a determinative factor. (cf. http://copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html) Prudent use of quotations is not only permitted but good practice, but extensive quotations of any text that is copyrighted and not compatibly licensed is forbidden on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, "extensive" cannot be identified here any more than it is in law, since what qualifies as extensive is defined by a number of factors, including the centrality of the content and its original length, as well as a review of the other factors of fair use. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • When the source is not an official actor regarding some content being written up (if it were, the exact wording is inherently significant), I personally apply the "everybody quotes it" test. Strong editorials and reviews and so on are often the most interesting reactions to something, and tend to get quoted by later writers trying to capture the flavor of initial reactions. In contrast, routine journalism rarely gets quoted by later writers, and is normally never part of the story, then or later, so we should avoid quoting it too. Choor monster (talk) 20:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Moonriddengirl and Choor monster: The two sentences which I quote are not from a government statement, but from a book (actually the book is cited by a journal article, and I quote the journal article). I am of course aware that very long quotations are not a good idea, but as "extensive" is not defined exactly, I apply common sense here. One and half sentences (in the case of RAN) and two sentences (in my case), are surely within the bounds of "brief" and not "extended". Kingsindian ♝♚ 09:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You appear to be quoting one Mohammed Hyder, just not directly from his own recently published memoir October Coup. So far as I can tell, Hyder was a government official, or a high-up NGO functionary, or the like. He wasn't working for the Indian government but for the Hyerabad state, and as someone on the losing side, he could not get official standing for his version. I see absolutely no comparison between your inclusion there and RAN's quotations elsewhere. You are doing things the right way, he is not. Choor monster (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Choor monster: Hyder's memoir, October Coup is as much subject to copyright as the New York Times is. As is the academic journal which quoted his book, which I quoted myself. If quoting one and a half sentences from the New York Times is copyvio, so is quoting two sentences from his book. Kingsindian ♝♚ 10:58, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    You don't seem to get it. Hyder himself was a participant of some importance in the events described in the article. That elevates his words from random journalism to likely NFCC acceptable. Quoting the NYT verbatim regarding the US scandal Watergate or the UK scandal Hackergate would lean to being not allowed here. However, quoting Woodward and Bernstein, the two journalists most associated with Watergate, or any of the Murdoch News journalists, both guilty parties and shocked coworkers, would probably be fair game. Same thing here, not the same thing regarding RAN's use of NYT quotations. I'll mention that in the original Robert Martinson article that sparked this discussion, there was simply a stub of three sentences or so, five footnotes, and all five quoted a full sentence from the NYT, one a bit long. In the new version, not one single quotation appears. There may be some forthcoming, from Martinson or a colleague. But random journalism? No benefit whatsoever. Choor monster (talk) 12:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kingsindian, my comment to you here has nothing to do with what source you're using or how many sentences you're quoting. :) It is purely confirmed to responding to your comment that "there is no rule against quoting, even extended quoting of newspaper or book sources" - I want to be sure that you and others realize that there is such a rule. Better to be clear on that than to inadvertently run afoul of it! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:46, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal

    Delete all articles in RAN's userspace and block indefinitely with the block only to be removed for the sole purpose of clearing up his existing copyvio issues and for no other reason.

    Support as nom. Too much time and energy has been spent on RAN already. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a multi-million dollar installation. You can't make that kind of decision. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 10:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support After reading through all of the above and taking a peak at some of RAN's work I see an editor that is unwilling to work within community norms even after having them repeatedly and over time explained to him. That he is unwilling to take on board criticism of his methods and conform to community norms regarding copyright indicates to me he is not competent to judge copyright issues or add material to the project.

      Since the whole purpose of Wikipedia is to document knowledge without infringing on copyright we take an extremely cautious line on the use of non-free materials so as not to put the project's reputation at risk or open it to legal action. Based on RAN's unwillingness to address the community's concern with his work and his obstinate refusal to even recognize there is a problem I support not only the deletion of his articles, which were created at the very least in violation of the spirit of his ban if not in fact, I also support an indef ban block from Wikipedia until such time as he is willing to recognize and fix the community's concern with his work. JbhTalk 15:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - Although I am the editor who brought up the "nuclear option" in the first place, I would actually much prefer that RAN acknowledge his errors and pledge himself to help undo them before we go there. As I said below, I think that his skills make him potentially a net positive, and I'd like to see him make some effort to make that happen, perhaps working with a mentor, before we go nuclear. So I look forward to seeing some indication from RAN as this discussion continues that he understands what went wrong and will help ameliorate the problem. So... I'm going to continue to monitor his comments, and will decide about this proposal based on that. BMK (talk) 19:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Note that RAN's user subpages were permitted under the creation ban (see the Talk page) in order to demonstrate that he can create content without violating WP's terms. So talk that these articles' very existence violates the spirit of his ban is out of place, but I'll notice that so long as they stayed in his user space, nobody seems to have paid them any attention regarding copyright issues. Whether the request to move the one article to "fix" someone else's copy/paste to main space was a violation is another question. Choor monster (talk) 21:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a long talk page! Is there a particular place where it's specifically stated that creation of articles in his userspace is permitted, or are you going on the fact that almost all the participants in the various discussions assumed that was the case? Because what's interesting is that the topic ban seen on ARBRAN doesn't go into details, it simply says that the community ban is endorsed and taken over by ArbCo,, and the wording of the community ban is as I posted it above, that RAN was prohibited from "creating articles" and "moving pages", without any specification of where that article creation was prohibited. It may be that having been accepted by so many people for so long, it's too late to retroactively enforce the actual wording of the topic ban, and not people's understanding of it, but unless you can point to something on the user page that I missed (which is quite possible, I couldn't read the entire thing), I don't think there's anything there that proactively says it's OK for him to do that, it's just assumed by all and sundry.
      In any event, RAN himself says in one of those discussions that the creation of those articles was designed to show that he could create non-copyvio articles, but here we are again with the same kind of NFCC-violating quotes he got in trouble with before.
      The other interesting thing about the talk page is that, fairly recently, ArbCom rejected RAN's bid to have his restrictions amended, based on an examination of his work to that point, a sign that -- at least in their opinion -- RAN is still not editing up to NFCC standards. BMK (talk) 21:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support sadly. Whether creating articles in user space is permitted or not seems at least plausibly a grey area; whether those articles are permitted to contain copyright violations is most definitely not. I've got a lot of sympathy for giving an editor another go and giving him a chance to demonstrate that he's understood the problems and is ready to remedy them; that chance has been offered, at great length, and the demonstration has categorically not been made. My only amendment would be that the standard offer should still be open; if he can convince someone that he's actually understood the problems and is ready to change, then he should be given another chance. Until that time, the editing privilege should be forfeit. "But there's nothing wrong with what I'm doing," in the face of overwhelming consensus that there is something wrong with it, is not a viable attitude for editing. GoldenRing (talk) 02:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support too many ban-evading and copyvio concerns Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:34, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm still waiting to hear from RAN, who was all over this discussion earlier, accusing critics of manufacturing outrage and making cracks about poop and proctology, but who seems to have disappeared now, when it comes time to provide some kind of pledge of cleaning up his act. BMK (talk) 03:29, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Why? He hasnt actually contributed to cleaning up his past problems in any significant manner. He has repeatedly over YEARS and multiple venues shown that he has no regard for others, wikipedia policy, community consensus or the restrictions placed on him by arbcom (who erred in not making him work solely on his own mess in the first place). I am not suggesting we nuke his userspace out of any punishment for him, I am suggesting we do it because no other editor should have to put up with his crap and vet it all to check its ok. Are you going to do it? Should we ask a specialist like Moon to have a look? Why would we wish that on someone else. There are likely loads of copyvios there *now* that will not have been looked at, because RAN thinks what he is doing is ok. Look at his responses to you above, he is a fanatic, he doesnt care about any other opinion or interpretation than his own. You want him to make some sort of commitment to being a better editor, but time and experience has shown whatever he says, whatever restrictions he is under, he will do what he wants regardless. Why are we wasting everyone's time? Given that he *will* continue the same pattern, any action we fail to take now is only making more problems in the future for other editors. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:11, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - BMK (talk) 20:23, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Articles such as Robert Martinson and eccentric dance are perfectly fine and deleting such notable topics would be disruptive – cutting off our nose to spite our face. Quotations are standard practice in our articles and it seems quite bizarre to suggest otherwise – the current FA contains numerous quotations, for example. Andrew D. (talk) 22:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef block, neutral on deletion I have not thoroughly examined the articles in his userspace, but they should be individually assessed. Hopefully some of them can be salvaged with revdel to excise the copyvios (and I use copyvio here in reference to the NFCC policy). As to the indef block, RAN has been warned over and over and he simply refuses to comply with the community standards. It is one thing to place a brief quote in the body of an article and properly reference it. It is another to fill the reference section with unnecessary copied material and call it 'fair use' in every instance. I believe RAN has exhausted the community's patience here. KrakatoaKatie 03:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support the whole kit and kaboodle, indef included: We've been around the block with RAN before. A lot. His block log reads like the rap sheet of a lifer, he's got a hundred hits on the ANI archives [67], and I bet there are longstanding productive editors with fewer edits than are totaled in those archives. He not only has proven he's more trouble than his contributions are worth, he proved it years ago. Ravenswing 15:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose: See my comments in the previous section. I can see some of the points being raised by people, but bringing out the pitchforks is a huge overreaction. I already dealt with one example in my comments above, another example (this one in RAN's userspace) has a long quote from a jazz historian/critic. I can't really see why Beyond My Ken considers that version a copyvio, but not the current version, since this also includes the same quote. It is a wholly proper and relevant quote, as far as I am concerned. It perhaps could be made shorter, but I don't see it as ban-worthy. Kingsindian ♝♚ 15:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Other problems

    The articles Stuyvesant Polyclinic and Eccentric dance began in RAN's User space. Choor monster (talk) 13:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    I wish I had seen this thread earlier although I see it is not all that old. I see some black-and-white statements to describe a situation which in some cases is not that clear-cut. I am very sympathetic to BMKs frustration, but I wish they had not made the strong statement that RAN has never helped clean up some of the copyright issues. I may be one of the few editors who can say I have worked with RAN to resolve some articles. That said, my involvement ended because we could not reach a resolution of the use of the quote feature in references. It is not quite fair to suggest that RAN is deliberately disregarding copyright rules. I think he accepts that we cannot violate copyright but he believes his use of the quote feature is in compliance with the rules. I fully get that we have tried multiple times to explain that we do not agree with his position, but there is a distinction between a difference of opinion about the application of a role, and a blatant disregard for rules.

    I tried, very hard, to resolve the quote in reference issue. I don't have the links handy but I can find them if someone thinks they are relevant.

    I think it would be an unrealistic expectation that he do know content related work until all copyvio issues are resolved. However it might be reasonable to propose some compromise, for example, some percentage of edits over some period of time have to be devoted to resolving open copyright issues.

    I will volunteer to spend some time working with RAN to resolve some of the open issues. We will have to identify items other than the quote within reference articles, but I'm sure there are many such examples. I think we will still have to resolve the quote within reference issue.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    My prior attempts to solve the quote in reference issue are here:
    Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources/Archive_32#Use_of_quote_parameter_in_footnote_-_a_proposal_to_provide_better_guidance--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If I am incorrect that RAN has never helped to clean up his copyright violations, then I withdraw the statement and apologize for it, but it cannot be denied that his involvement has been minimal at best, and that he now consistently rejects suggestions that he continue that work with the "10 years" canard. As for "content work", the AN/I discussions specifically shied away from saying the RAN couldn't do content work, so he is free to add content to existing articles, even to expand sub-stubs to full-blown articles, what he is not allowed to do is to create articles which has been his primary focus for quite a while, albeit in his userspace and not in mainspace. BMK (talk) 17:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have the impression that RAN simply does not understand this Internet thingie. Many of the examples I've seen probably pass US Fair Use, and he believes that ends the discussion, when of course, the only rules that matter are WMF policies/guidelines, which are much more stringent. That, and his employment of an endless succession of time-wasting Wookie defenses (look, over there, somewhere there's a issue in which WMF took an expansive view of public domain!) is simply a complete failure of competence. Choor monster (talk) 18:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the RAN is an excellent researcher, that he comes up with information that many other editors would never find. His skills as a writer aren't quite as good, but still much more than acceptable, and his ability to nose out subjects that haven't been covered by the encyclopedia is very good indeed. Where he fails is, I think, in judgment, as exemplified by his sticking like glue to his misinterpretation or misunderstanding of Wikipedia policies, and by the choice of which of those subjects he finds to write about. With some frequency the notability of the subject is fairly borderline, but, just as with the use of the quote parameter, once RAN has decided to do something, he digs in and resists all attempts to change his course. That is unfortunate, as such a modus vivendi for a person in his delicate position (3 topic bans and a strong admonishment from ArbCom) needs to be more flexible and to understand the rules he is supposed to live by, becauise failure to do so would seem to inevitably lead to an indef block or even a site ban. That would, I think, be a shame, because he has the potential to be a net positive if he would only be more reasonable, give up the idea that his judgment on these matters is infallible, and listen to what other editors are telling him. Despite his statement above, I don't want to see hoim kicked off the site, I just want him to be able to improve the encyclopedia and at the same time follow policy and his restrictions. BMK (talk) 18:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Robert Martinson article recreated

    I have recreated the article that sparked this thread from scratch. I had planned to give it some more content first, but hit the wrong button. Choor monster (talk) 15:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    IP hopping edit warrer

    Originally I was going to take this to WP:ANEW (and it's too minor an issue for WP:RfPP), but when this user hopped IPs, I figured ANI was probably the best place for it... Anyway, 2.120.157.76 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been edit warring at Streetcars in North America (see article history) to include content that is too trivial for an overview-level article like that, and has been reverted by both myself and Anmccaff several times. I was hoping my recent reversion was the last of this, but now 86.139.221.174 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has made the exact same edit (diff), so it's clear by WP:QUACK that we've got an IP jumper here. I'm asking for a short (c.48 hour) block on both IPs. And, yes, I have notified both IPs of this ANI action. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ThorLives and the Heathenry (new religious movement) page

    In the almost ten years that I've been active here at Wikipedia I've never suggested that any editor be banned or blocked, but unfortunately I’ve come to the conclusion that it may be necessary in the case of User:ThorLives in order to prevent continuing disruption to the Heathenry (new religious movement) page. A self-described "Odinist" – and thus a practitioner of the religion that this article is about, a possible Conflict of Interest of sorts – it is clear from ThorLives' contribution list that this is one of very few articles that they actually edit, and that they have been active on it since opening their account in October 2011 (and thus they've had four years with which to familiarise themselves with policy). Thus, I do believe that their intentions are good, even if their behaviour of late has repeatedly and seriously violated a number of Wikipedia policies, including those on disruptive editing, edit warring, no personal attacks, and "outing", with no sign that they intend to stop.

    The article in question was formerly titled "Germanic neopaganism", but in August 2015 a Requested Move resulted in the group decision that the page would be renamed "Heathenry (new religious movement)". Several hours after User:Sovereign Sentinel had orchestrated the move on 2 September 2015, ThorLives (clearly unhappy with this decision) created a fork redirect back to "Germanic neopaganism". Within the hour I had realised what they had done and undid their edit, thus restoring the page to "Heathenry (new religious movement)", pointing them to the recent Requested Move discussion in my edit summary. Unfortunately, they ignored that and simply restored their fork redirect. Only after being warned about their actions by both User:Brianann MacAmhlaidh and User:Sovereign Sentinel on the article Talk Page did they then undo their edit. This reflects not only an initial refusal to accept group decisions and a willingness to unilaterally act against them, but also shows that they are prepared to wilfully engage in edit warring.

    The very next day, on 3 September 2015, they then proceeded to engage in a range of edits that removed much academically-referenced material and introduced content that was in part poorly sourced – consisting of self-published and other non-reliable sources – and in part not sourced at all. This was always going to be controversial. On 4 September I undid these edits, seeking to bring about the Bold, Revert, Discuss Cycle. However, ThorLives then engaged in edit warring by restoring their edits. Also acknowledging the problematic nature of ThorLives’ content, User:Bloodofox then restored things to how they were, but ThorLives simply undid that too. On 6 September I once again restored the article to the established revision, but fearing that the edit warring would continue and that I myself might be accused of violating the three-revert rule, I successfully requested a three day full protection for the article, which was kindly administered by User:NeilN.

    During this edit war, on the talk page I repeatedly requested that ThorLives engage in dialogue so that their proposed changes, which were both sweeping and controversial, could be discussed with other editors first. They ignored my requests, and in their response instead broke Civility policy by attempting to expose my identity, which is an attempt at "outing" and thus in very clear violation of our Harassment policy, which states very plainly that "attempted outing is grounds for an immediate block". Since then, they have posted some rather odd comments on my talk page trying to "out" me further by linking me to a different user (and wrongly, as it happens) and making pretty uncomfortable accusations regarding my gender, and then most recently they've done it again on the talk page, this time making a personal attack by libelously accusing me of sock puppetry.

    All in all, ThorLives has exhibited a pattern of disruptive editing, edit warring, and outing with no sign that they admit their errors and intend to cease. Attempts have been made to engage in constructive dialogue with them on the article talk page, all of which have proved fruitless. This has all been highly detrimental to the quality and stability of the article in question, and frankly has been unpleasant for me, and it has led me to the unfortunate conclusion (which I most certainly do not take lightly) that a block and/or ban (temporary or otherwise) on this user's ability to edit is necessary. Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I am completely uninvolved with this other than carrying out the requested move, and therefore I am abstaining from this discussion. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 05:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    ThorLives' response

    From ThorLives — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThorLives (talk • contribs) 04:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC) Sorry, I suspected a "sock puppet." Midnightblueowl and Bhlegkorbh made the same edits and same arguments and disrupted the page in the same ways. If you check my edits, I was not deleting material: I was restoring material he deleted.[reply]

    Both editors insisted that "heathenry" is the ONLY term for Germanic neopaganism. Folkish types do not like "pagan" because it has Latin and French roots.

    Both editors deleted academic references dealing with medieval Norse Paganism. For example, who could object to the following, but both constant;y deleted it:

    Our most complete sources for reconstruction are from Iceland. On the alleged existence of a collective Germanic paganism in medieval times, Professor Lois Bragg makes this observation: “But we have no persuasive evidence of any common cult, belief system, or even pantheon that might ever have been recognized among speakers of various Germanic languages across geographical, cultural, political, and dialect boundaries. While there are obvious commonalities, for example in the names of some deities (Odin, Woden, Wotan), these point to common origins rather than common praxis or belief. Compare present-dy Jews, Lutherans, and Mormons who share common myths (the expulsion from the Garden of Eden, the Moses cycle, the Patriarch cycle ) and who similarly name their children after the heroes of these myths (Adam, Aaron, Judith, Rebecca), but maintain distinctive cult practices and identities and even disparage and attempt to convert one another.” Lois Bragg. Oedipus Borealis: The Aberrant Body in Old Icelandic Myth and Saga Fairleigh Dickinson University Press. 2004. ISBN 0838640281

    Both editors deleted saga, Prose Edda, and Poetic Edda references.n

    Both editors deleted links and references to mainline pagan groups. This is the lede before the two removed it:

    Heathenry or Germanic neopaganism,[1] also known as Ásatrú, Odinism, Forn Siðr, Wotanism, Theodism, and other names, is the contemporary revival of historical polytheistic Germanic paganism.[2] Dedicated to the ancient gods and goddesses of the North, the focus of Germanic neopagans varies considerably, from strictly historical polytheistic reconstructionism to syncretist (eclectic), Jungian, occult or mysticist approaches. Germanic neopagan organizations cover a wide spectrum of belief and ideals.

    Much of Germanic Neopaganism's origins are in 19th century romanticism, as the aboriginal cultures of Northern Europe came to be glorified. In the early 20th century, organised groups emerged in Germany and Austria. In the 1970s, new Germanic Neopagan organisations grew up in Europe and North America, although a broad division in the movement emerged between the folkish movement, who saw it as the indigenous religion of the Nordic peoples, and the universalist movement, who opposed strictly racialist interpretations. As present, established Germanic Pagan communities exist in Europe, North America, South America, and Australasia. A few adherents can even be found in South Africa.

    References to the Odinist Fellowship, Odinic Rite, Ásatrú Alliance, Asatru Folk Assembly, and so forth were constantly deleted by both editors.

    Both editors constantly deleted references to Valhalla, a curious "conceit" on a page about Germanic paganism. (It makes sense, however, in a certain context. One small American group, who always uses the name Heathen exclusively, denies that Valhalla exists, and they argue that the dead continue to live in the grave mound)

    Both editors deleted all references to modern Norse pagan leaders and their books, people such as Stephen McNallen, John Yeowell, and so forth.

    I could continue, but you understand the point.

    I should add that, in my opinion, an article on Germanic Neopaganism should be comprehensive, and should not promote a single agenda. It also should contain numerous links and discussions to help readers find related articles. --ThorLives (talk) 05:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you. --Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThorLives (talk • contribs) 04:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This isn't the place to discuss content dispute, which seems to represent almost the entire gist of ThorLives' response here; they have neither acknowledged nor apologised for their repeated gross violations of various Wikipedia policies. All I can say in response to their above post is that I (and others) had good reason to delete the non-reliably referenced, in some some cases not referenced at all, often sectarian, sometimes irrelevant, and at times factually incorrect statements that ThorLives had insisted on repeatedly adding to the article (at the expense of concise, academically-sourced information on this new religious movement which they repeatedly deleted). Wikipedia has clear guidelines surrounding Reliable Sources which ThorLives disregarded time and time again.
    As to the claim that I am sock puppeting and that myself and Bhlegkorbh are one and the same individual, I completely and utterly deny the libelous accusations 100%. I am not, and never have, edited Wikipedia using the "Bhlegkorbh" account (Bhlegkorbh appears to have thrown in the towel and left Wikipedia in July 2014 anyway). ThorLives' claim rests in its entirety on the basis that, at different times, myself and "Bhlegkorbh" have expressed similar arguments and opinions about how the article can be improved (primarily by adding in material from academic studies of Heathenry and deleting un-referenced and poorly-referenced text). However, similar opinions (which would, IMO, be held by anyone familiar with Wikipedia's Manual of Style), have also at times been backed by the likes of User:Bloodofox - so by ThorLives' reasoning I guess that that must be simply be another of my accounts too! Frankly, I suspect that the accusations of sock puppetry launched against me by ThorLives are in part an attempt simply to distract attention from their own behaviour. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    This looks like a content war with some edit warring and mild incivility. Outing maybe, possibly but its not clear. I don't see any 3rr warnings on ThorLives talk page and you should exhaust process there before coming to ANI for a ban ----Snowded TALK 13:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Ordinarily I would have waited until the edit warring got worse before bringing up the possibility of blocking/banning or anything like that, however when ThorLives started engaging in outing, which according to Wikipedia:Harassment is "grounds for an immediate block", I came to the opinion that the situation had become more serious and accordingly required a more serious response. (Also, in the spirit of disclosure for all readers, it probably is fair to say that myself and Snowded have had recent disagreements over content at Talk:UK Independence Party, which at points has become a little heated. That certainly doesn't invalidate their comment, but perhaps it is a factor that should be made clear - to use a colloquialism, we have history, as it were). Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It just means I notice if your name comes up an ANI Midnight, its the way wikipedia works. Given that you seem well intentioned on the UK Independence issues I looked at this one to see if you needed any help, hence the comment ----Snowded TALK 00:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dexbot

    Someone needs to mass undo the edits by Dexbot. Dexbot has wrongly been removing all references to cite doi even though there was no consensus to do so. see the new RFC that shows that people like having all references stored in subpages so that the articles are cleaner. 166.176.57.125 (talk) 02:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Examples? Erpert blah, blah, blah... 02:50, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    see how Milky Way was ruined here. 166.176.57.125 (talk) 02:56, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    One can easily include references in articles cleanly using {{reflist}} AManWithNoPlan (talk) 03:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    It still adds to the text size. The point is to have it all hidden away so that people can edit a clean article without all that nonsense. That's what the new RFC at Template talk:cite doi is about. People should learn how to use templates. 166.176.57.125 (talk) 03:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Point is, the bot needs to be reversed. There was no consensus to implement it, just a consensus to deprecate its use. 166.176.57.125 (talk) 03:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Approved to run at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Dexbot 4, following discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 47#Replace "cite pmid" with "cite journal", among other places. If there's a problem, discuss it elsewhere, the bot is not malfunctioning or operating outside approval. Mdann52 (talk) 16:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, just found Template talk:Cite doi#RfC: Should Template:cite doi cease creating a separate subpage for each DOI? too. Mdann52 (talk) 16:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    On a related note, this is not the first time Bots (or editors using automated tools) have used an RFC's consensus to depreciate use as a justification for making mass-changes. Which isnt what the RFC's were about. To run a bot or make mass-automated changes there should be an RFC specifically about that. The local discussion at project medecine to use cite journal instead of cite pmid should not be taken as justifcation for replacing cite templates site-wide on non-medical articles. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Only in death: I will note the RFC states "however, the bot function should remain, with a BRFA raised to change its function to use cite journal within articles without separate subpages", so this does appear to be in line with the most recent closed RfC on this. Mdann52 (talk) 16:32, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I read that @Mdann52: as changing the function of the existing bot (that was adding the template to be depreciated) so instead of one template it used another. Not changing its function so it replaced already existing uses of the template (which the next sentence appears to be in line with) Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:11, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Isn't anyone going to fix this or not? There's no consensus for Dexbot's actions. That's why there's a new RFC, there a lot Of alternatives than deleting these citations. 166.176.59.107 (talk) 11:34, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Continued victim playing and WP:ICANTHEARYOU by User:Mhhossein

    Over several days, Mhhossein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been engaged in disruptive victim playing and refusal to get the point in Talk:Nuclear weapon#RfC: Section about Ali Khamenei's views. He requested that I open a report here, so as to settle the issue.[68] The user was also asked by VQuakr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to stop the behavior.[69] I previously had requested intervention against his refusal to respect WP:BURDEN here.--Anders Feder (talk) 14:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    While there has been tension elsewhere between the two editors, I don't really see what the problem is. The RfC was closed by Anders Feder with everyone's agreement (as far as I can see). (Technically, the initiator of the RfC should not close it, but since everyone agreed, it is ok here, WP:IAR). It was reopened due to a misunderstanding: it was closed while Mhhossein was writing his comment simultaneously (explanation here). The rest is some back-and-forth over politeness, but since everyone agrees over the content, so I do not see what is to be achieved by fighting over this. My suggestion is to simply accept that it was a misunderstanding and bury the hatchet here. Kingsindian ♝♚ 14:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment by Mhhossein: First of all I really don't know the reason why Anders Feder wishes to increase the tensions by opening unnecessary topics here. However, he made the opportunity for me to have some explanations on this and I was not really willing to take him here in spite of his background.
      • Nuclear Weapon talk page: I opened a topic on the "Islamic views" on nuclear weapon, and for the beginning I wrote a summary of Khamenei's fatwa regarding nuclear weapons, considering that the section will develop later by other users and other viewpoints will be added from other scholars other than khamaneie. Unfortunately, Anders Feder apparently assumed my bad faith and opened a misleading RFC. In fact, he asked "Should the article include a section devoted to Ali Khamenei's views on nuclear weapons, and if so, should it be titled "Islamic views"? while he could easily write: "Should the article include a section on "Islamic view" and should the section include khamenei's view?. The way he opened the RFC made almost every one think that a section is going to be devoted to Khamenei (read the comments) while it was not the fact . Anyway, almost every one agreed on having a section on "Islamic views" or "religious views", and Feder acted in a manner as if there's no consensus. He got angry and had some impolite comments and I asked him to be cool. He said that the section has the due problem and I answered (my previous comment) if there was a due problem why he had opened a RFC for inclusion? As Kingsindian said, I explained how I was writing my comment simultaneously when the RFC was being closed.
      • Warning by VQuakr: He made a strange warning on my talk page and I answered why the warning really did not apply there.
    • Mhhossein (talk) 04:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There is nothing "strange" at all about VQuakr's message to you. It was completely warranted and evidence that the on-going disruption is being caused by you and no one else, and is not, as Kingsindian erroneously and counter-productively characterizes it, "tension between editors". The sole source of disruption is you, and it will continue across Wikipedia until admin action is taken against you, as I correctly predicted in the previous ANI.
    Your other claims are obviously false as anyone can see from the talk page.--Anders Feder (talk) 05:14, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    His message was just strange to my eyes and it simply could have been not strange to yours! As it seems you believe that all what I said was wrong while all what you say is right. If you are sure that I'm the sole source of the problems, be cool because the admins know what to do by theme selves and don't need us to tell them what to do. Mhhossein (talk) 06:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want to pretend that you are cool, no one has required you to respond. Admins often do not know what to do with tendentious editors like you until they become aware of the amount of disruption you are causing. That is the whole point of ANI.--Anders Feder (talk) 07:34, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another Comment by Mhhossein: Pinging @Sa.vakilian: as I had consulted him regarding personal attacks by Andres Feder. More about Andres Feder:
      • Andres Feder hounding me: On some pages, he appears just after I edit them. He even does the same on the talk pages. His edit in Nuclear weapons is an example. Assuming his good faith, he is trying to enhance the encyclopedia, but how can one call these edits anything but harassment ([70]-[71]-[72]?) and I had asked him to stop hounding me two times (one time on his talk page (which was removed by him) and one time on an article talk page where he had hounded me).
      • Andres personal attack over several months: There's a long list of personal attacks by Andres Feder:
    1- here, this editor, Andres Feder, insisted on insulting religion by repeating the phrase "degenerate religious thinking", and here by referring to “all religious fiction” and saying that "all religious texts are fictional", even when I told him that Wikipedia does not care what our beliefs are. He further insulted me by saying, "You can believe in whatever figments of imagination you want!", after which I warned him and asked him to respect the beliefs of others.
    2- He always pretends that I am upset because of the policies, but I try to respect the policies and his behavior has irritated me.
    -Me: "This is the last time you are insulting my beliefs, I respect yours so please respect mine."[73]
    - Editor: "If these policies cause you offence, you are free to set up your own wiki and use any sources you want there". [74]
    -Me: "Of course We are not talking about the policies. The policies are highly required for maintaining an encyclopedia. This is you who causes offense to one's beliefs."
    [75]
    3- The editor tries to use insulting sentences and examples even when we are discussing something else. When I asked "Lightbreather" to guide me on this, Feder came in and said " Not to support the Iranian dictatorship or any other church-state".[76]
    Or here he used this example which is in fact an insult to Khomeini:
    "According to Ayatollah Khomeini, God likes sick-minded and deranged forms of punishment"[77]
    4-I tried to solve the problem through his talk page, but he made more attacks and removed exchanges [78]
    There he said, "you expect me to respect someone who everyone knows was a deranged madman?" (referring to the Iranian Ayatollah Khomeini).
    5- He was given another request to be polite, but he removed that message, too:
    [79]
    6- Some other insults are here: [80]-[81]-[82]. Mhhossein (talk) 08:09, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    When bad-faith editors fill Wikipedia with Iranian state propaganda, good-faith editors will naturally show up to remove it. If that is what you think "hounding" is, then "hounding" is completely fundamental to the way Wikipedia works: contrary to what you believe, Wikipedia is not the place to promote your favorite totalitarian regimes. (And please point me to the policy that prohibits "insulting" "Iranian Ayatollah Khomeini". Maybe you are confusing the policies that apply on Wikipedia with the anti-democratic authoritarian laws that apply in your own country, according to which so-called insults against the "Supreme Leader" is punishable with nothing less barbaric than death?)--Anders Feder (talk) 10:47, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I know Mhhossein and Anders Feder very well and participate in many discussions with them. Andres is right when he says "Wikipedia is not the place to promote ... ", but I think he does not pay attention to WP:FAITH. He is suspicious about the other editors who have different viewpoints like Mhhossein, thus discusses in a way that looks arrogant and offensive.--Seyyed(t-c) 11:21, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Please pay attention to WP:FAITH2. AGF does not mean that everyone on Wikipedia actually is in good faith, or that one must assume it when the contrary has been clearly demonstrated.--Anders Feder (talk) 11:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm looking over some of those links, and I'm missing an important element: where these "personal" attacks are against Mhhossein. Anders Feder is certainly insulting towards the government of Iran and Ayatollah Khomeini, but as he correctly states, there is no Wikipedia guideline or policy requiring him to be nice to either on talk pages, except in so far as his edits on relevant articles must reflect NPOV. Nor does him editing some of the same articles as Mhhossein constitute "hounding."

    That being said, Anders Feder is being unnecessarily caustic towards Mhhossein, and he ought to start practicing more civility before people push for an interaction ban. Ravenswing 11:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    In the absence of administrator action against Mhhossein, unambiguous language is unfortunately the only language he understands. The moment he stops promoting his personal politico-religious causes on Wikipedia, I will not even need to interact with him.--Anders Feder (talk) 11:35, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Anders Feder: It is ok to disagree, even vehemently, with sourcing - but I fail to understand comments like "Sayyid Mahdi Modarresi is no more a professional than a dancer in the adult entertainment industry is a professional". For example, I don't go around calling Israel a "ethnocratic colonial imperial warmonger state", even though I have a POV and edit a lot in WP:ARBPIA. There is no need to use such caustic language, especially when talking about religious beliefs, which people are very touchy about, when you can simply make the point that the source is not WP:RS. I see your actions otherwise as mostly right in insisting on WP:RS. I see Mhhossein as in the wrong in this particular instance, but willing to improve. You are of course not forced to respond to everything which the other user says: if you are running out of patience/time, simply tell them to open an RfC/RSN discussion as I did here: Talk:Quds_Day#Sentence_from_Chicago_Monitor. Kingsindian ♝♚ 11:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There is indeed no need for any one user to do anything on Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is not compulsory. There is no law or policy preventing us all from leaning back and letting trolls and POV-pushers take over. However, that is not my point. I have not implied that there is.--Anders Feder (talk) 12:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Anders Feder: I am sorry that you don't see that comparing a religious figure to a dancer in the sex industry is gratuitous and unnecessary. It is of course important to push back against religious POV-pushers etc., but there is no reason to be gratuitously offensive in doing so. (This is irrelevant of whether Mhhossein actually is such an editor: certainly no case of him being one has been made here). I see mostly good faith disagreements on the talk page, in this instance you are correct about WP:RS and so on. Kingsindian ♝♚ 12:21, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course it isn't necessary for you, since you aren't one trying to do the pushing. It's trivial to sit sanctimoniously perched and tell others how "gratuitous and unnecessary" their actions are. It is another matter to actually do something to push back against religious POV-pushers etc.--Anders Feder (talk) 12:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Anders Feder: Indeed, I have no experience whatsoever in contentious topic areas. This is why I choose to edit in WP:ARBPIA, which is free from trolls, POV-pushers, racists and sockpuppets. More seriously, every editor in this thread has flagged your caustic and unnecessary comments, while appreciating your work in trying to uphold WP:RS. You would do well to heed their advice. This is my last comment on this matter. Kingsindian ♝♚ 12:48, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Anders Feder: Can you prove your accusations? You would, if you could! Mhhossein (talk) 13:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Please be polite and respect the etiquette. Your overuse of exclamation marks amount to shouting, and does not make you seem more intelligent. I am happy to respond to anyone asks a normal question.--Anders Feder (talk) 13:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, they were needed uses! Mhhossein (talk) 14:02, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I shall remember that the next time you engage in victim-playing over something I said. Thanks.--Anders Feder (talk) 14:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ravenswing: Thanks for your intervention. Did you check the links like those in item #1? there he said "degenerate religious thinking" and "all religious texts are fictional", "You can believe in whatever figments of imagination you want!" I would never talk about one's belief in such a place and he should learn to respect others view point. Even if those statements are right, they should be stated in related articles using reliable sources, as I have told him before. Thank you again. Mhhossein (talk) 11:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Kingsindian:Thanks for your intervention. I would even more thankful if you could tell me how I was wrong? Mhhossein (talk) 11:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As I told before in my talk page, focusing on the religious or political issues and trying to judge them with caustic language instead of discussion about improving the article is the main reason of controversy. --Seyyed(t-c) 12:02, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the sole reason of controversy is repeated attempts to promote religious and political agendas on Wikipedia despite innumerous reminders that this is direct violation of policy. Without these promotional efforts, no interaction would be required. And what's worse, those efforts damage real, mainspace content, whereas the kerfuffle regarding talk page commentary is mainly a sideshow.--Anders Feder (talk) 12:11, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Anders Feder: Do you accuse him for WP:POVPUSH!!! Do you have evidence for it?--Seyyed(t-c) 12:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    In the words of Mhhossein, please "be polite and respect the etiquette" - unneeded overuse of exclamation marks is considered shouting.--Anders Feder (talk) 12:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but your case was the needed use of exclamation because as you see almost every one flagged your caustic and unnecessary comments. Mhhossein (talk) 13:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)I was going to ask the same question. From this discussion it seems to me that User:Anders Feder confuses including a neutrally worded, well-sourced section on a mainstream religious viewpoint with promoting that viewpoint. Regarding the RfC itself, User:Mhhossein will have seen the "Edit conflict" message when trying to save his changes, and should therefore not have reopened the discussion; that said, as was mentioned above, arguably Anders Feder should not have closed his own RfC and with hindsight it seems the discussion wasn't entirely over.
    I don't see any need for punitive Admin action against either user. I suggest the RfC stays open for now and that a request for admin closure is logged at WP:AN in a couple of days' time. WaggersTALK 12:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no confusion. Assigning undue importance to a single aspect of a subject while masquerading it as a "neutrally worded, well-sourced section" is a well-known method of tendentious editing.--Anders Feder (talk) 12:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Waggers: I think the discussion is some thing beyond a RFC. One may be confused why he has opened a topic in this board. Andres Feder's harsh language disturbs the atmosphere and hinders reaching a consensus. As he is stuck in a systemic bias he can't accept a disagreement and instead expresses himself using uncivil statements (lots of them presented above). Most of the editors here asked him to practice civility but he ignores to get that. I'm asking you to prosecute the case of his being impolite, hounding and personal attacks. Also he should prove his accusations of POV pushing if there's a case. He considers everything published in Iran as propaganda and every one who holds a viewpoint in support of Iran to have a neutral text is promoting propaganda. I noticed his bias in my first encounter with him last year and I told him that. You can follow this section to get the point. At the beginning of the discussion he said "Yes, people on a crusade to promote their religion on Wikipedia unfortunately often indulge in edit warring because they are unable to have their propaganda included under regular standards of reliability and neutrality, as if being disruptive would somehow make them seem more convincing." Mhhossein (talk) 13:33, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Please drop the ridiculous references to civility since you obviously are incapable of being civil yourself.[83] It is just an attempt on your part to distract attention from your tendentious editing in mainspace. The only thing that disturbs the atmosphere and hinders consensus is your political and religious agendas - I have done nothing in the RfC to hinder consensus. On the contrary, I proposed a close on what seemed to be the agreed outcome, but you—not me—instead continued arguing. As for the reliability of state-controlled media in Iran, see the closing comment at the top of this RfC.--Anders Feder (talk) 14:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with pretty much everything Kingsindian has written here (especially his advice to Anders Feder). While Mhhossein does clearly push his own POV to an extent it's on a relatively lowkey level (the whole adding a section on Khamenei to the nuclear weapons article was over the top though). If Mhhossein was topic banned for POV pushing we'd have to ban pretty much every single other person editing in the topic area too. Brustopher (talk) 14:48, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Brustopher: I just found it necessary to remind you that per WP:POVPUSH, "POV-pushing is a term used on Wikipedia to describe the aggressive presentation of a particular point of view in an article, particularly when used to denote the undue presentation of minor or fringe ideas," and also "calling someone a "POV-pusher" is uncivil and pejorative, and even characterizing edits as POV-pushing should be done cautiously." Remember that "editing a POV in an article that corresponds with one's own personal beliefs is not necessarily POV-pushing." Did I aggressively tried to present a particular POV? How? Please read my "Nuclear Weapon talk page" comment. Thanks. Mhhossein (talk) 19:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gah, too much nesting. Anyway ... in response to Mhhossein's comment to me, yes, I did see those links. Once again, I remind you that while being disrespectful towards your faith or nation might be uncivil (depending on the context), it does not constitute an actionable personal attack on you, and is not a prima facie violation of Wikipedia policies or guidelines.

      To Anders Feder ... eeesh, you're just digging yourself deeper here. Were Mhhossein a paid agent, here solely to push the nasty, nasty views of the Iranian government (sarcasm flag up), the situation wouldn't warrant your repeated language. If you think he's posting objectionably, open a RfC. What you don't get to do is claim -- as you did to me -- that his postings somehow exempts you from the civility rules. You're starting to sound like someone who would warrant an interaction ban. Ravenswing 17:33, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Really? Then so be it - I am not going to pretend that tendentiousness is acceptable to avoid some phony ban.--Anders Feder (talk) 18:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite aside from that it's darkly amusing that someone complaining about tendentiousness feels the need to rebut every statement anyone makes, you're still bound by WP:CIVIL, however much you believe that Mhhossein is some great evil who needs to be stopped at all costs. I'd take a peek at WP:BOOMERANG in your shoes. Ravenswing 01:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's darkly amusing how certain people operating on these boards thinks there is some profound truth in threatening to shoot the messenger. A user who have now been blocked thrice pointed me to the same essay to inhibit me from reporting him just a week ago.[84] Seems its some kind of magic word that people invoke when they lack anything substantive to say.--Anders Feder (talk) 05:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Slanderous accusations by user Lute88

    On 29 August 2015, I read the sentence "Politkovskaya was found dead in the lift, in her block of flats in central Moscow on 7 October 2006, the birthday of Vladimir Putin” in the ‘Murder, investigation and trial’ section of the article Anna Politkovskaya. I felt that the implied connection between the murder of Politkovskaya and Putin’s birthday was an innuendo bordering on libel and thus had no place in an encyclopedia. Therefore, I deleted it. It was immediately reinstated by user Lute88. I deleted it again with an explanation, but it was again reinstated by Lute88 without explanation. After this went on for some time, I brought the matter to the talk page of the article in the section ‘Putin's Birthday & the lead’. There, I found the support of an admin,Drmies. There ensued a heated discussion with another editor,My very best wishes, later joined by Lute88. Drmies explained why the mention of Putin’s birthday was inappropriate and said she was going to delete it. She did so and was immediately reverted by Lute88. After that, Lute88 made a post where he asked why he "was smelling something" and provided a link to a CNN article about Russian trolls paid by Putin. Drmies remarked that this was not funny and I asked her to convince him to stop because I would hate to take the matter further. He replied with this new post: "No fun intended. Againstdisinformation has been pushing the proRussian POV envelope here for some time. And there has been recent media coverage of some professional (and paid too) POV promoters on Wiki. Just being vigilant…"

    I asked him to take his words back, but he made no response. That decided me to bring the matter here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Againstdisinformation (talk • contribs) 22:50, 7 September 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

    Although I agree that, absent some strong evidence of a connection, the death should not be linked to Putin's birthday, this is essentially a content dispute and should be dealt with on the article's talk page. BMK (talk) 03:10, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    BMK I may be wrong but I believe that Againstdisinformation is here to for Lute88 to "take back" the comment 'No fun intended. Againstdisinformation has been pushing the proRussian POV envelope here for some time. And there has been recent media coverage of some professional (and paid too) POV promoters on Wiki. Just being vigilant' - it seems the content dispute has been sorted. Flat Out (talk) 03:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I see that, but Antidisinformation threw around words like "libel" and "slander" in the discussion from the very beginning, which is now getting pretty darn close to violating WP:NLT, so he's not really in a position to demand anything from anybody. BMK (talk) 03:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Againstdisinformation there is no possibility of slander when no-one knows who you are. Both you and Lute88 have been edit warring and this is no way to solve a simple content dispute. The best way to resolve these kinds of disputes is to walk away and work on another article. As BMK notes above, you should read WP:NLT and I would add WP:3RR Flat Out (talk) 03:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Certanly no edit-warring on my part. Antidisinformation however is an SPA that has been edit-warring with a lot of people on Russia-related articles, with total disregard for consensus, RS, 3RR, with legal threats, and now - this. Simply preposterous.--Lute88 (talk) 22:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the article that piqued my vigilance - http://news.yahoo.com/wikipedia-blocks-accounts-linked-paid-edits-200646137.html;_ylt=AwrC0wwVZ.9VMkQAeCPQtDMD;_ylu=X3oDMTByOHZyb21tBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg-- .Lute88 (talk) 22:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This has nothing to do with "vigilance". You just threw that at me as an insult out of frustration when you realised that sensible editors were on my side and you were prevented by an admin to reinstate your preposterous innuendo connecting Putin's birthday and Politkovskaya's murder. Your Russophobic passion has blinded you to the point of believing that anyone who doesn't share it is necessarily paid by the Kremlin. I sincerely hope you come back to your senses. Againstdisinformation (talk) 00:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • And this is precisely what I warned you about in my previous comment here: groundless personal accusations. What "Russophobic passion"? Why? Any reasons for blaming Lute88 of this? It is an ethnically-motivated slander by you, much worse than expressing suggestion that someone might be a COI contributor. And you came here to complain about slander... My very best wishes (talk) 02:17, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    BMK, Flat Out is right, the dispute has already been sorted by the felicitous intervention of Drmies. However, I cannot agree that User:Lute88 can throw any kind of insults at me, just because he does not know my identity. I cannot agree either that I violated WP:NLT because I called a spade a spade. Yes, his accusation is slanderous and I am certain of what your reaction would be if it were thrown at you. Now, you say that I "threw around words like "libel" and "slander" in the discussion from the very beginning". I am afraid that your reading has been cursory. I didn't say at the very beginning that I had been libelled, I just tried to make my opponent aware that, the innuendo he made about Putin would without any doubt be considered libel in a court of law, unless he had incontrovertible evidence. Therefore, I think this has no place in an encyclopedia, which must remain neutral. He can always write this in The Daily Mirror, if he so wishes. Besides, I am not asking for a sanction, I would just like him to take back his words, which, I am sorry to say, I take as an insult. In any case, it's a great comfort for me to see that you agree with me on substance. Againstdisinformation (talk) 04:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Againstdisinformation are you saying you have been libeled? Flat Out (talk) 04:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Flat Out Yes, I consider that accusing me in no uncertain terms of being paid by the Kremlin for editing WP is slanderous. Againstdisinformation (talk) 13:14, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Againstdisinformation - they aren't withdrawing the comment, which is why you came here, so might be best to move on. Flat Out (talk) 00:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The more that is said here, the more confused I become. It's becoming impossible to tell who is supposedly being libeled, slandered or whatever. Since the dispute apparently has been sorted it would be best to drop the matter. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah I'm fairly confused as well. Saying that person A murdered person X on person 3's birthday is clearly not libel for the person 3 unless it's also implied that person 3 supported or sanctioned the murder. While I can't recall any examples offhand, there have definitely been cases when nutty person A have done something (whether murder or whatever) out of their "love" for person 3, where person 3 is horrified by the actions. It may be libel for person A who did the murder to give them incorrect motiviations, but while we should get these things right, I'm not sure libel is ever our biggest concern for murderers even if it's theoretically there. (Of course calling them murderers when they are not would raise more serious libel concerns.) Nil Einne (talk) 05:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Short Brigade Harvester Boris, Nil Einne, I undersand why there may be confusion, there are two cases. The object of the dispute between User:Lute88 and me is the sentence: "Politkovskaya was found dead in the lift, in her block of flats in central Moscow on 7 October 2006, the birthday of Vladimir Putin”. I mentioned to User:Lute88 that, in a court of law, this would without any doubt be considered libel, and I added that, moreover, it was preposterous. This was my argument why it should be removed from the article. A number of editors have agreed with me and this matter is now settled. Note that, at that point, i did not accuse him of slandering me, of course, I am not Mr. Putin. However, he was unhappy with the decision taken by admin Drmies and lashed out at me on the talk page of the article, a first time asking why he "was smelling something" and providing a link to a CNN article about Russian trolls paid by Putin. That was already very offensive but, after he was admonished by User:Drmies, who told him it was not funny, he added "No fun intended. Againstdisinformation has been pushing the proRussian POV envelope here for some time. And there has been recent media coverage of some professional (and paid too) POV promoters on Wiki. Just being vigilant…". This is this direct accusation that I am paid by the Kremlin for editing WP which, in my strongly felt opinion, is slanderous. I asked him to take his words back, but he wouldn't. This is why I took the matter here. As I have already said, I am not seeking a sanction against him, I just would very much like that he be told to take back his words. If he did, that would be the end of the matter for me. Againstdisinformation (talk) 12:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There's actually more than a dozen of such sources. It is a notable fact given the circumstances and that's how sources treat it. Volunteer Marek  20:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Guy If you want to ban me for "being a painfully obvious Warrior For Truth" as you elegantly put it, you should leave the innuendo about Putin and give a medal to Lute88 for slandering me, at least that would be consistent. 13:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)Againstdisinformation (talk)[reply]

    • Ah yes. I did in fact support the removal of that one clause, and I gave my reasons on the talk page, though it may be difficult to find between all the mud-slinging. I don't see libel or slander, just a couple of editors with their own POV bitching at each other. This is NPA territory, as far as I'm concerned, and I urged the two editors to tone it down, clearly to no avail. Drmies (talk) 14:07, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • User Againstdisinformation is clearly engaged in WP:BATTLE and WP:SOAP by starting irrelevant and contentions discussions like here, demanding an apology like here and by edit-warring on multiple pages. I think this is a textbook example of WP:NOTHERE, a "disruption only" account. My very best wishes (talk) 14:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree, but! if it weren't for them that silly "coincidence" would still be in the article. Gadflies are irritating but sometimes necessary--if only this one wasn't so loquacious. (First time I wrote that word! Woohoo!) Drmies (talk) 14:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As should be clear from sources already provided on the talk page by VM and others, this is not a silly coincidence, but something considered significant in multiple RS. Yes, this must be better described and better sourced - I agree. But here is the question: even if you consider his removal on this page a positive contribution, did it worth wasting other people time by starting this ANI thread, other soap-like discussions (link above) and edit wars on a number of pages? However, this is probably a question only WP:AE can answer. If he/she will not be blocked now, I would expect a prolonged drama and waste of time on numerous page. This is already a pattern. My very best wishes (talk) 15:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    My very best wishes, now you agree that there was a problem with the page but, never mind that I pointed it out (like a number of others) and got insulted by Lute88 for it, he is making us lose time. Let's just ban him and these pesky issues of inaccuracies will disappear. Why then did you, volunteer Marek and Lute88 consistently refuse to discuss the issue with me on the article's talk page, if your only concern was to save the community's time? On this waste of time, I beg to differ. There should be a whole team of editors dedicated to tracking inaccuracies (disinformation) if instead of using WP to further an agenda, we want to preserve it as a repository of knowledge anyone can trust.

    Lute88, My very best wishes, Volunteer Marek and Ymblanter are all defending the same POV, roughly stated: Russia is evil. This is their right. However, my goal is to help (as much as my capacities allow) to rid Wikipedia of inaccuracies or, worse, disinformation. I knew this would not attract much sympathy but I did not expect a witch hunt. Now, there is a whole group who share a strongly felt common point of view on everything that concerns Russia and they are hellbent on having me out, because I am an irritant to them. It's very funny that I am accused of WP:BATTLE wwhen Lute88 has erased, without trying to discuss with me, any single edit I made in the last ten days. Now, My very best wishes promised him to help him on the ANI and, of course, here he is trying to put me in as bad a light as he can. This is very sad. I would have preferred, as I have asked many times, a reasoned discussion on the substance of the issues I raised, but I have been consistently dismissed by them.I think this is a loss of time. Why could he not just acknowledge that he went a bit too far when he accused me of being paid by Putin? I would just have said ok, that's alright and all this would not even have started. Againstdisinformation (talk) 15:14, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    "Volunteer Marek and Ymblanter are all defending the same POV, roughly stated: Russia is evil" - Didn't you just show up here to whine about how you're bring "slandered"? Volunteer Marek  20:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Making factually incorrect statements and accusing others without evidence on the ANI is a very bad idea. In particular, (a) no one refused to discuss anything with you (there are very long discussions on article talk pages by numerous users), (b) none of the users you mentioned have "evil" POV you stated, (c) at least three users (including me) on the article talk page did not agree with your removal of this info (this is something debatable), (d) I did not promise Lute88 to "help" on the ANI, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 16:17, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Who is making factually incorrect statements. Let me quote you: "I know these subjects and might be willing to help with sourcing, but discussing anything with such guys again is something I would rather not do". This is taken from the 'A comment' section of Lute88' talk page, which is entirely devoted to me. It's absolutely your right to come to his defense, but this shows also that you were, let's say, reluctant to discuss the issue with me. And where did I ever state that any user had an "evil" POV? Everyone of us has a POV and it would be ludicrous to describe any POV as "evil". It is precisely through the confrontation of POVs that we can hope to achieve impartiality or, at least, consensus. Againstdisinformation (talk) 16:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see any reason to continue this discussion here. As others have said, there's no point demanding someone apologise, and ANI isn't the place for that any way. The rest is a content dispute which can be resolved either on the article talk page, or via some other method of WP:dispute resolution. Nil Einne (talk) 03:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Nil Einne, I think you are right. This has gone on for too long now and we might as well leave it at that. However, I am not asking an apology from Lute88, I am just asking him to take back his claim that I am paid by the Kremlin. He does not have to apologise, he can just say that he didn't really mean what he said and all would be forgotten. Againstdisinformation (talk) 04:41, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Still not something for ANI, at most a single request on the editor's talk page. Nil Einne (talk) 05:06, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the short amount of time Againstdisinformation has been actively 'editing' here, there's been an awful lot of community time sunk into "I've been hard done by" agitation, and "I'm here to right great wrongs" (i.e., WP:NOTHERE). It grew very WP:TEDIOUS some time ago (see this and this ANI). Jangled nerves, hurt feelings, and complaints every time there's a personality clash do not make for useful gadflies but, rather, a needy entity who confuses experienced editors over what the real issue at stake is. There's been no lack of patience been shown the user by other editors, yet the ICANTHEARYOU attitude persists. I truly believe that Againstdisinformation needs to gain more experience in editing articles s/he doesn't feel emotionally invested in before jumping into contentious areas of Wikipedia. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:15, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Iryna Harpy I agree with you on one point. ANI was not the proper venue for the dispute between Lute88 and me. I have come to realize this. It is unhelpful and a great loss of time, especially for me. I am reluctant by nature to report anyone as I have already told Lute88. This is the first and last time I do it. However, Lute88 has been erasing almost every edit I made in the last ten days, without any explanation. I did not complain. He only entered the discussion on the talk page of the article Anna Politkovskaya after an admin agreed with me and deleted the contentious phrase. He also reverted her but she told him she would have none of it. Probably not happy with this, he suggested I was paid by the Kremlin. The admin told him that this was not funny and I asked him to take back his words. His response was: 'No fun intended. Againstdisinformation has been pushing the proRussian POV envelope here for some time. And there has been recent media coverage of some professional (and paid too) POV promoters on Wiki. Just being vigilant.’ Is this civil behaviour ? Now, I don’t see why you provide links to two ANI, which are supposed to shed a bad light on my behavior. The first one was brought against me by Reaganomics88 about misplaced quotation marks. An edit already long since corrected and for which I had apologized (talking of wasting the community’s time). The second ANI was brought against Reaganomics by a third editor and I have nothing to do with it. It's true that, in trying to improve what I perceive as biased articles, I have attracted a lot of animosity, but I challenge you to find a single instance of rudeness, threats or complaints on my part. I have always tried (without much success) to discuss the content and I have never made any ad hominem attack. Againstdisinformation (talk) 13:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Indef block Againstdisinformation until such time that they can understand the difference between a snippy remark and a full on personal attack, until such time that they understand that badgering the opposition (through repeated and loquacious postings) does not make for a collaborative editing environment, until such time that they have familiarized themselves with wikipedia rules/policy/practices/guidelines including WP:RGW. Reading this complaint provides nothing more than a single editor doubling down on doubling down on a content problem. We've already expended enough time/energy on this editor without extracting certain guarantees of improved behavior. Hasteur (talk) 17:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef block for Againstdisinformation. The reason: she/he continue making factually incorrect accusations against other users right on this noticeboard, even after being warned about it. In particular, Againstdisinformation complained about being followed by Lute88 who allegedly refused to discuss. But in fact just the opposite occurred on this page. As clear from the editing history, it was Againstdisinformation who came to revert edit by Lute88, not the other way around (unless another red-linked account was an alternative account of Againstdisinformation). And it was Lute88 who started discussion on this article talk page [85], but received no response from Againstdisinformation. My very best wishes (talk) 19:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think that it is OK to frivolously accuse an editor to be "paid by the Kremlin" and that not understanding that it is just a "snippy remark" deserves being indefinitely blocked then, please, do it. I am used to polite academic debate, not to trading insults. This is the last post I make to explain my perception of what happened, I am growing tired of an almost palpable aggressivity on the part of some editors. Againstdisinformation (talk) 20:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said it was OK. This is not OK. Once again, you accuses someone of something he never did or said. My very best wishes (talk) 22:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I can see only one minor edit by Againstdiscrimination on this page. Is it all one can tell in favor of this user? I am not even sure this edit was an improvement because it has been reverted later by FPS. My very best wishes (talk) 22:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, I do not think that Againstdisinformation is a disruption only account but they have shown a long term pattern of disruptive editing that appears to push a pro-Russian agenda. They have a tendency to twist the truth for their convenience and portray themselves as a victim of aggression whenever they do not get their own way (I personally found myself accused of being part of some kind of shady conspiracy that had been formed to act against them). I think some kind of admin intervention is needed as the rules have been explained to them countless times yet they show no signs of improving their behaviour. --Reaganomics88 (talk) 21:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:The Spartan 003 and reference falsification

    User blocked for one week by Deor. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 00:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    (Lowercase sigmabot III doesn't understand "case not solved", so I'm re-reporting.)

    After receiving a 24 hour ban a month ago for OR and altering sourced content, he's returned to doing the latter. Actually, he returned to doing that about three weeks ago (see [86]), and I warned him about that (see [87]).

    Now, the following edits ([88], [89], [90]) are another instance of altering sourced content. Fortunately, I have that book, and I can confirm that what he added is not what the source says.

    This edit is another case of ref falsification/OR. Peter238 (talk) 07:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked. Since The Spartan 003 hasn't edited in a few days, I've escalated Nyttend's previous 24-hour block to a week-long one, hoping that he'll notice. Deor (talk) 12:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the quick response! Peter238 (talk) 12:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Manika

    Article TNT-deleted by Nyttend, but s/he will honor WP:REFUND if requested. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 00:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The Manika (singer) article has descended into chaos. The article had become overly promotional and possibly with content by individuals close to the subject (e.g. User:ManikaOfficial, User:Manikaofficialmusic). Some of the material in the article appeared to be incorrect; other material was poorly sourced. User:AyanP did some heroic work trying to clean it up, although this got reverted and mixed up by others' good faith edits. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manika (singer) was begun: I and some other established editors have voted keep, other established editors have voted delete, and there's been lots of IP input. The article has since then become a mess: there are IP edits pushing the article towards a more promotional state. Many of the IP edits are well-meaning, I assume, but against Wikipedia policy or poorly formatted. There is some enthusiastic tagging of problems -- perhaps overly enthusiastic: see this by User:Chasewc91? There's been some straightforward vandalism: see this by User:ManikaWard, which I presume is not actually the individual concerned. The whole thing is becoming unreadable and formatting is messing up.

    It would be useful if an "adult" could step in and try to do... something? Warn actual vandals; welcome new editors while pointing them to some advice on how to edit; maybe semi-protect. Thanks in advance for any input. Bondegezou (talk) 09:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The AfD is a mess, the article is even worse, and there were were some silly edit wars a few days ago (Serols is lucky somebody didn't block him for violating 3RR), but your work is heading roughly in the right direction. The insane amount of inline templates shotgunned over the article makes it unreadable; if you are absolutely sure a source is unsuitable (anything Soundcloud or obviously user generated probably is, the magazines I'd have to check in detail) should just be removed per WP:BLP, not even tagged - that will at least make what's left understandable at a first glance. Also, having seen these things before, I'd wager a pint of Shepherd Neame Spitfire that File:Manika.jpg isn't "own work" at all but a copyvio from Facebook or something similar. I'll have a look at cleaning up. Oh, the presence of iTunes has no bearing at all on notability; I've got some songs on there and I don't see people tripping other themselves to creating an article about me (thankfully). In the meantime, I have indef blocked ManikaWard (talk · contribs) as it appears to be a vandalism only account (and assuming Manika doesn't want to vandalise her own article, which is likely, also fails the username policy by impersonating someone). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Bondegezou (talk) 12:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hopefully resolved. I've closed the AFD as TNT delete, i.e. it's worth of keeping but so horrid that we need to start over. I will userfy the page at anyone's request, or you can take it to WP:REFUND. Nyttend (talk) 23:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Boaxy behavior at Sailor Moon

    This whole drama started when Boaxy attempted to add several LGBT categories to Sailor Moon and Sailor Moon (anime). However, several editors, including myself, disagreed with the broad interpretation of the categories and opposed the addition. Boaxy then began to edit war over the categories' inclusion until the articles were protected. An RfC was opened at Talk:Sailor Moon by Sjones23 about whether LGBT was a main theme of the series, which concluded that it was not. Boaxy then immediately opened a second RfC about the categories, during which Boaxy threw fits and began attacking other editors for being anti-gay and insisting that Wikipedia be "politically correct".[91][92][93] AlbinoFerret closed the second RfC as no consensus for including the categories.[94] However instead of excepting the outcome of the RfC, Boaxy throws another tantrum, attacking other editors opposing his position, and add the categories despite the closing of the RfC.[95][96][97][98] The editor is clearly here to push a political viewpoint on this particular set of articles and is unwilling to accept that consensus was not in his favor. —Farix (t | c) 12:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Hmm, second time this morning that the word "petulant" comes to mind. This is obviously editing against consensus and needless cussing. If Boaxy has been here this long they should know the difference between a block and a ban--the former is what they'll get if they continue. Boaxy, drop the stick please. This is silly. Drmies (talk) 14:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not dropping the stick. I am going to permanently infuse it to my hand. I'm sorry for going off, but I'll give a cooling down period before I venture on with this again. This is far from over. I apologize for not controlling my temper, but I still feel those categories should be added to the page. That's like not adding a US Presidents category to Obama's page. It just doesn't make sense. You have a pop culture television series in which four of the eight or so main characters are homosexual, and you don't add LGBT categories? This is some Twilight Zone crap. Boaxy (talk) 05:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Boaxy: Argh. Instead of threatening to edit war indefinitely, why not find a few reliable sources that discuss LGBT themes in Sailor Moon and add them to the article? According to a quick Google search, there is discussion of them. Since you know the show, I'm sure you could find even better results than I found. Don't get yourself blocked over this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is what it is at this point. I'm not going to sugar coat my attitude over something I feel strongly about. I apologized for disrupting the talk page and that is that. This is the place where I plead my case and justify my actions, so I need to be sincere. If you challenge a geologist on the Grand Canyon article, he will be defensive about it. You challenge a pop culture enthusiast, (which is myself) on an article related to a television series he grew up watching and is a big supporter of, he will be defensive. To me there is already enough sources and references on the article to back the categories being added. But for the sake of Wikipedia, I will try to contribute more. In the same token, I have to go through this all over again, and again it has to be in consensus to be included which even then they still might not be. Ugh. Do you see the issue now? Boaxy (talk) 06:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Boaxy statements above and complete refusal to accept the outcomes of two previous RfC should be enough to warrant a topic ban on all Sailor Moon-related articles. This editor has clearly crossed over into WP:TENDENTIOUSness. —Farix (t | c) 18:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban: Boaxy is becoming both tendentious and point-y. Dragging people to repeated RfC's that are bound to have the same outcome as the previous. Their own words ("I'm not dropping the stick. I am going to permanently infuse it to my hand.") indicate that he will not stop disrupting the project until they get their own way. A topic ban seems more than appropriate. Azealia911 talk 19:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Oath Keepers

    This page needs some administrator help - there are two editors in particular and many IP addresses deleting NPOV, cited information and replacing it with non-neutral material - it's here: Oath Keepers.

    Also, I don't know how to seek consensus on the talk page - any help would be much appreciated. Uenuku (talk) 14:09, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • You have administrator help--Doug Weller is on the talk page. I don't know what your specific complaint is, which edits you think are problematic, which editors you are pointing at. And you seek consensus on the talk page by participating in or initiation discussion on the edit/content you think needs work. Drmies (talk) 14:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you. Doug Weller noted on the Talk Page "...I can see we are going to have problems with IPs and SPAs here due to the publicity, so it may need semi-protection which I can't do as I'm involved. Doug Weller (talk) 07:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)". There are two users who have recently made sweeping changes to the article, especially relating to whether the group can be defined as "right-wing". The users have not engaged in the discussion initiated by Doug Weller and contributed to by me.[reply]
    @Uenuku: Doug may be involved, but he is certainly capable of soliciting administrative action if it is needed. No IP has edited the article in ~10 days. Which "two editors" in particular are you referring to, and did you notify them of this discussion? VQuakr (talk) 19:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit warring and POV pushing by 120.18.134.78

    Page protected by Drmies. Cebr1979 (talk) 05:13, 9 September 2015 (UTC)Cebr1979 (talk) 23:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC

    An IP is committing an edit war here and does not participate in talk page discussion. He tries to push his own POV and only communicates using edit history. Mhhossein (talk) 14:18, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • You're probably just as guilty of edit warring. However, the ip-hopping is a bit irritating, as is the lack of talk page participation. I reverted and semi-protected for three days. Drmies (talk) 14:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I will try to handle it through discussions in next cases. Thanks to to your intervention. Mhhossein (talk) 14:48, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Bronx hoaxer needs a block

    IP blocked by Nyttend. Cebr1979 (talk) 23:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

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

    98.113.121.109 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

    The above IP which geolocates to The Bronx has been inserting hoax material in the exact same manner as the person described at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Bronx hoaxer, for instance adding a hoax episode to the end of a list of episodes. I have reverted the harmful edits, but this person needs another block. Binksternet (talk) 17:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for two days. Is this normal, too long, or too short? Feel free to reblock with a different length if appropriate. Nyttend (talk) 18:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    How blatantly obvious does the SOCKing need to be?

    IPs are people too; unless you have solid evidence that this is block evasion, treat this person like anyone else. Nyttend (talk) 22:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Is it appropriate to remove this RFC as an obvious SOCK post attempting to EVADE scrutiny? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:59, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia editors are not required to use an Internet Service Provider that assigns them static IP addresses. --Jayron32 19:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct, but editors are not supposed to log out of accounts to make edits in ArbCom Sanctions to EVADE scrutiny. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have behavioral evidence of socking, SPI is thataway. Otherwise, is there anything to discuss here? GoldenRing (talk) 20:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Would it be possible to do something about TheRedPenOfDoom's repeatedly tagging of my posts with the "SPA" tag? He has done this seven times in around three hours: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 His justification is that although my IP address is dynamic, I have not edited any other topics with the two IPs that I'm using today. Based on his unlimited reverting in this case, I'm assuming the three-revert rule does not apply to article talk pages, but there must be some other rule that applies here. 43.228.158.25 (talk) 22:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Telling us your registered ID would go a long ways toward demonstrating some good faith. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have an account. I've never cared much for being viewed as a member of the Wikipedia "community", and everything that entails. I know unregistered editors are typically regarded as second-class citizens here, but if there is a policy that covers TRPOD's tagging of my talk page posts, it still should be enforced. 43.228.158.25 (talk) 22:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You know full well that checkusers won't do anything about IP's. IP's are not treated like second-class citizens here, though trolling IP's often make that straw-man claim. But if you were to list all the IP's you've edited under, that would demonstrate some good faith. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Prolific Croatian puppet master

    What do we do about an editor who, apparently, can change IPs and create accounts at will? This editor makes what appear on first blush to be good-faith edits, primarily to Bianca Ryan and peripherals and Tiffany Evans and peripherals, but who has used multiple IPs and accounts to introduce (and edit war over) original research and create articles that clearly fail GNG. Within minutes after the puppet master was reported, s/he recognized via the second account that the edits were problematic wrt an encyclopedia and has made the conscious choice to continue treating WP as if it is a fan site. Bianca Ryan is already protected; I hope there's something else we can do. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 🖖 21:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    What's worked in the past for me is watch-listing and protecting the main target articles, in combination with quick blocks and reversion of the user's edits. Keep some data (off-line) as to their usual "tells" and IPs used. Well-formulated brief reports at WP:SPI get quick results in blocking the socks. Many of these sockmasters keep it up for years (so great patience and perseverance is needed on your part), but almost all of them eventually give up, especially if they can see that essentially all of their edits are being undone. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Much obliged. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 🖖 20:20, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Threat of Outing / Personal Attacks

    Oliv0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

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

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

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

    Hello, 4 users from the French Wikipedia (single purpose accounts on the English Wikipedia to "gain control of the page") are threatening to disclose my identity. This come after an edit war that was closed in my favor and the other side bannished for H24. They can not discuss changes in the articles with edit justification so they have to go through personal attacks. One user warned them about that personal attacks are useless to justify changes, but they continue their threat on that other user. Please note that these users have pushed until 4 times (See here and here!!) of the deletion of the related article of Asselineau and finally changed their position to maintain the article but to influence as a group on the content for the article (by azurfrog who lead the team).

    I will wait the result of this request before requesting an oversight. D0kkaebi (talk) 23:48, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The behavior of those users is ridiculous (apparently they don't know or care about WP:OWN); however, in none of those diffs did I see anyone threaten to out you. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 23:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @D0kkaebi: I see on your user talk page that you are asking that others not refer to you by a prior user name. Is that the outing of which you are speaking? If so, providing a diff to when someone referred to you by that name, or whatever other name you consider outing, would be helpful. John Carter (talk) 00:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So did you check the link you are posting? Did you read the first sentence? Let me quote that for you just in case you missed it: "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person had voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia." Now can you give us a link where Laurent Pawlowski from UPR is claiming being member of Wikipedia under the nickname D0kkaebi? And vice-versa, do you have a link where user:D0kkaebi is claiming being Laurent Pawlowski from UPR? Unless you give us a link that expressly shows that, those information are not voluntarily posted. You are threatening of outing and this, "whether any such information is accurate or not". D0kkaebi (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    All 4 users notified. Userlinks added to top of thread. Blackmane (talk) 02:21, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I listed all the personal threats above. There are several. If you need additional explanation or links for evidence, let me know. By the way, shall I request for oversight, or shall I wait the result of this incident? I do not feel comfortable seeing my previous nickname and that I am paid by UPR for my contributions on wikipedia D0kkaebi (talk) 03:15, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No personal attacks or threats in the 2 diffs by me above (I put a nowiki in the first one since it did not display the diff). Outing would mean personal details not already known, but the French AfD I refer to in the first diff mentions at a prominent place as an important fact that Lawren00 is the Lawren00 that could at that time (much less now) be seen on social networks as an activist from the micro-party Popular Republican Union (2007) and among those shown as local leaders on the party's website. The correspondence between D0kkaebi and Lawren00 is something I saw in "What links here" on User:D0kkaebi after I noticed an edit war in which D0kkaebi, who first started undoing disputable changes by Francis Le français, then used the opportunity to modify even more with a definite POV. So I believe this mention of a "POV by D0kkaebi/Lawren00" in the talk page is useful to editors, so that they can have a better view of his frequent arguments and of the possible edit wars on Popular Republican Union (2007) and François Asselineau. As for Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure mentioned in the talk page, I do not think he is paid anything by the micro-party, his POV is rather out of personal conviction. Oliv0 (talk) 06:24, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Your diff mentions half a sentence and your comments on the talk page about personal attacks is 4 lines + 20 from your crew. You justified your revert on several topics and summarized by " addition of "gaullism", "centrist" and removal of section about Internet activism certainly goes against NPOV, article improved by undoing this". Just to discuss one claim, Centrism has been extensively discussed on the talk page here and the only undoubtedly neutral user participating in the page, Ravenswing , concluded that the proper translation for English native is "centrist". I did not agree neither as I preferred "syncretic" but since Ravenswing is neutral, I apply his proposal as a proper consensus. I do not understand why your opinion should prevail on previous discussions and consensus reached on the talk page. Is it because you are admin on the French wikipedia or related to many of them and used to impose your POV without prior discussions? I hope not, and thus, please discuss on the talk before imposing your opinion. D0kkaebi (talk) 07:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) My edit summary you quote just above was clear, and your assertion is false that on the talk page in the link you mention @Ravenswing: would have said that "centrist" is a good English word for what the micro-party calls "neither left nor right / above left and right" (that is, focusing on anti-europeanism and not on left-right divisions).
    And you should certainly not be the one demanding that any modification from other users should first get your approval on the talk page, given your known POV as a local leader of this party (btw, I just had a look at WP:DISCLOSEPAY and it is not clear to me if this counts or not as an "affiliation" that has to be disclosed). Oliv0 (talk) 08:20, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So you say Ravenswing did not say "centrist" is the proper word to describe UPR's political positioning? It does not look like you even checked the link. Rather than interpretation, I'll just quote his words "We need pay no attention to what a Frenchman would call "centrist" -- what matters is what your average English-speaker would think of as "centrist".". This is the best evidence that you just impose your POV without even checking prior discussions and even ignoring others' input. I did not agree with him, but I agree on the logic he brought for the sake of the consensus. So who is not neutral here? D0kkaebi (talk) 22:46, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No personal attacks, and nothing which is not public here ; User:Lawren00 is a redirection to User:D0kkaebi, Lawren00 having public Twitter account with his name ([99]), and this guy telling everything about him and his relations with the UPR on Facebook public page ([100]). Btw, as he is in the board team of the UPR and is quite heavily implicated in the redaction & maintenance of François Asselineau and Popular Republican Union (2007) (with strong Wikipedia:Conflict of interest), doing edit wars with many users on both articles, he should provide the information on his user page by the WMF rules (at least if he receives financial compensations for his activities). Schlum (talk) 07:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC) PS : my contributions list on en WP show that I’m far from being the WP:SPA User:D0kkaebi is on the PRU & F. Asselineau subject… Schlum (talk) 11:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)
    Come on now, D0kkaebi! Is it a "personal attack" or a "personal threat" to suggest that you disclose your relationship with François Asslineau and his Popular Republican Union, as it is central to understanding the reason behind your ongoing claim that most of the other contributors are "not neutral"?
    On the other hand, you are now accusing me of being "a single-purpose account on the English WP"... Well, this is definitely not the case, even though I spent an undue amount of time recently on this matter.
    Moreover, you are deliberately misquoting me as having said that we were trying to "gain control of the page"(please provide the exact wording), whereas practically all of your own contributions revolve around François Asselineau. Who's an SPA now?
    Beyond that, I am a bit tired to see that everytime a thread on a talk page develops into a consensus against your opinion, you resort to administrators: as far as I am concerned, I can assure you that I have plenty of other interests beyond François Asselineau, and would be glad to leave the matter, were it not for the sustained edit-war raging around "his" articles (edit-war in which I have no part, as evidenced by my recent contributions to these articles, which have been extremely limited, or even non existent). --Azurfrog (talk) 08:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Claims of off-Wiki extortion and ongoing investigation at Everett Stern

    Please see Talk:Everett Stern where an IP editor claims:

    • "The Everett Stern team received a extortion fraudulent demand from a 3rd party Wikipedia editor. Mr. Stern immediately reported this to Wikipedia and law enforcement..."[101]

    This is way beyond my comfort zone. JbhTalk 00:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Yeah. I pointed them (this is not singular they--they speak in the first person plural) to OTRS. Thanks for the notice, and what a blast, that talk page and that article. Drmies (talk) 01:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for following it up. I can just tell that article is going to be... errmmm... "interesting" would be the best word. JbhTalk 01:21, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit-warring, forum like commentary, and threats

    ‎Karak1lc1k has been edit-warring for quite some time over a 'disputed' tag at Sabancı Central Mosque ([102][103][104]). The user does not like the fact that the mosque sits on top of a confiscated Armenian cemetery, and he questioned the sources for the claim. Other users at the talk page did not find the sources problematic and suggested he make a request at WP:RSN. However, his persistent edit-warring, and battleground conduct, make it impossible to work with the user.

    More importantly, the user has been making forum-like rant consisting of more than 10,000 characters at the Armenian Genocide talk page. In his comment, he said: "So shut up please. You can't say something you have no serious information about it. Shut up and freak off. Ignorant peasant sheeps. You are fooling by your freaking "lords" you are their freaking slaves freaking morons." Upon reverting this forum-like entry, the user threatens me on my talk page, calling me a vandal and other sort of threats, then reverts me and other users repeatedly. Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:01, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I didn't threat anybody, that's easy to see here the same page you cited: [[105]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karak1lc1k (talk • contribs) 01:13, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I were you I'd write up Adana Armenian Cemetery. Drmies (talk) 01:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • But first things first, Étienne Dolet. I do not see why that editor doesn't have the right to pop that tag on that page--that they go to RSN would be a good idea but is no formal requirement. In other words, you're edit warring too, and you're wrong, in my opinion. Also, you suggest that there's a wealth of commentary on the talk page, with some history, but there isn't: it's you and Winner 42. That doesn't mean the editor isn't right, but it means that you do not have very solid ground for claiming disruption. I'm about to go look at the other edits, but it is important to establish that your sketch of affairs is...well, a sketch. Drmies (talk) 01:15, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Drmies LOL. Adana Armenian Cemetery...checked. As for the disruption over the tag, it's a 'disputed' tag over RS reasoning which makes it entirely dubious. His reasoning for as to why these sources do not constitute RS is troubling as well (i.e. "you know Turkish sources does not accept such statement" or the "I am from Adana, and I know the area, there was no cemetery there"). This kind of reasoning, coupled with the fact that he doesn't want to listen to the whole WP:RSN suggestion by two users, makes me think the disputed tag is there for no other reason other than the presumption that he simply does not like whats found in the article. Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:26, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I would have to say my interaction with user:Karak1lc1k has been less than amicable; after issuing a warning for edit warring, Karak1lc1k changes my section warning to, "A pathetic Anti-Turkist's pathetic Anti-Turkism struggle".
    Any dialogue with Karak1lc1k is filled with racist accusations/childish personal attacks~("Shh. Are you a patrol user? No. So take care of only your business. Don't distort the history. Mr. anti-Turkist "omniscient"(!) (hell yeah omniscient).", "Learn it first, or I mean, live it first, or at least try to learn Turkish, at least boy, at least, before pretending "adulthood" (aka patronizing).", "You are only a system historian, I am the realistic historian. You are a small, little boy..."). It is quite clear that Karak1lc1k suffers from battleground mentality and is not here to build an encyclopedia. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I can see that. But it can't be based on a little bit of edit warring over a tag and an iffy talk page consensus, and a threat that's really no threat at all. If y'all step back, think this over for a bit, and compile a list with diffs that add up to an argument, that would be a much more exciting and potentially fruitful ANI thread. Drmies (talk) 01:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • [ec with ED] OK. That rant, that was ridiculous, and it was righteously reverted by Dr.K. and Athenean. Don't do that again, Karak1lc1k: that sort of stuff can get you blocked (Wikipedia is not a forum), and the partisan rant part means others editors are less likely to take you seriously. As for the supposed threat--well, meh. That's not much. Drmies (talk) 01:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    My only, single thing to say after all; you Europeans never respect any Turkish sources on even Turkish-related articles, what if it was only a propaganda log? For example, we can't say "there is a genocide" by looking a pdf source saying "there is a genocide", even if it's a "respected" newspaper or a comission etc., we can't know the comission's words biased or not biased, you can not force Turks to recognize it with that way. Turkey offered several times for a mutual documentary comission establishment, with academicians, but for example how ridicilus is that the EU comission recognized it with no clarification of the subject. You can not force it with Wikipedia-tic sources. I really don't understand... You Europeans IMO, always taking European or Indo-Perso-European sources about especially historical controversial things... Maybe I raged but it's because of I saw sooo many biased lies about Turks in Wikipedia, I see a dirty propaganda continuing upon us, Europe still sees us as an enemy, that's so funny really, if you take Turks to enemy position, you will be win the Turks' hostility, I don't talk only with my words now, whole Turks, not only nationalists, whole Turks think like that. I mean whole Turkic peoples with saying whole Turks not only Turkey Turks. I already said I didn't threat anybody, but if you see it like that, IDC and it's really funny for me. So you can see this message like that: "He threats us with the hostility of all Turks", see as whatever you want, the brain is yours, and yes I accept that, maybe I didn't have enough information about the Wikipedia rules, but as I said, I was outraged. You'll see, the Armenian lie propaganda will rot. Even the Turkish Armenians (likke Etyen Mahçupyan and so many others) are aware of it. Everybody can add "sources", but "sources" what they desire. Why you don't say them "racist" etc (not for only so-called Armenian genocide)? For example you easily can say yes there is an Indo-European language family, same goes for Ural-Altaic language family, but you really reluctant to trust Turkish sources, now I am asking, are you most of European editors, are you racists? I think yes, you are bunch of anti-Turkist racists... Anyway, I suggest you to research it more deeply, with the sources of two sides, you are biased that's my all criticisms's reason (Yes you can get my words like "threat" here also, I just suggest, but you see it like "threat", this shows everything about the issue). Thanks. Thanks for everything. KARA (talk) 02:15, 9 September 2015
    That is one long single thing. I'm going to block you for edit warring/forum violations on Talk:Armenian Genocide, since you seem to be unable to stop, and then I'll see if NOTHERE doesn't apply. Drmies (talk) 03:13, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Karak1's single biggest edit is this unverified chunk. His other contributions are very much limited to talk page conversation and useless flagging like this. POV edits include this tag bombing session. Drmies (talk) 03:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Since the time/date stamp gets a little mixed up toward the end of the night due to different time zones...did Karak1lc1k repost this before or after s/he was blocked? (If the latter, a longer block might be in order.) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 04:24, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Dispute between BalCoder and Ontario Teacher BFA BEd, re: article Proportional representation

    A new user, Ontario Teacher BFA BEd, is being disruptive on the Proportional representation page, pushing an anti-PR view while ignoring sources. His (I assume he) first edits (16-17 Aug) referred to PR as an electoral system, a beginner error (see first sentence of the article), and that these had no districts (or ridings as he prefers) - all voting systems have districts (if sometimes only one). So I reverted it (on Aug 18) with just a comment assuming it to be frivolous. The changes were re-introduced on 18-19 Aug (partly anonymously) so in seven entries on the article's Talk page (on Aug 20, Aug 23, Aug 24, Aug 25, Aug 26, Aug 27, Aug 28) I tried to explain his errors, some of which are fantastical, reverting his changes four further times (Aug 20, Aug 23, Aug 24, Aug 25). This grudgingly produced some mostly minor corrections but important errors have not been reversed. On Aug 26, wearying, and in the hope of encouraging cooperation, I didn't revert, and instead required him to revert his changes and then integrate them into the article. This was not successful, the serious errors have not been reverted (for example section "Wider benefits to society" remains deleted without a word, closed and open list systems still have no districts, and that remains unsourced). An important sentence in the lead, that MMP "is usually considered a distinct PR method" has been replaced by "is considered a mixed system, which is a distinct voting system", a wrong, pointless statement which misrepresents the sources. This unnecessary and confusing use of "mixed systems" has caused confusion in the past (last autumn, see e.g. Talk Archive 3 - search for tier), and for this reason the term was replaced by me on Dec 11 by "two tier systems", sourced, and entirely uncontroversial. This has now affected the structure of the article (Sep 1), a renamed section "Mixed Electoral Systems" (capitalized) is no longer part of "PR electoral systems" - misleading and confusing - and "List of countries using proportional representation" is now unhelpfully "List of countries using proportional representation or mixed systems". On the Talk page his tone and arguments are not indicative of good faith, throwing my arguments back at me. For example, that I should respect WP:VERIFY, or, when I attempted to invoke WP:BRD, warning me against re-inserting "the same flawed text" and that I should post to the talk page before making any further changes. But I'm not making any changes, I'm only reverting him. When I pointed out that MOS deprecates small sub-sections he replied that they help readers. He changed the Talk section name to read that it is he reverting me, which of course he isn't.

    I don't have the time or energy to continue composing reasoned criticisms of his changes, and no one else is keeping an active watch on the page, so I would like the user blocked from the page. Then I can revert a final time and add some words to the "Link between constituent and representative" section to emphasize that this is an FPTP (first past the post) advantage, his original concern.

    (Full disclosure: I have rewritten most of this article (down to "History"), basically in two chunks on Aug 2 2014 and Dec 11 2014), and have since been trying to preserve the article from the usual decay, from which it has suffered much in its past. Only the section "Party list PR", which User:Ontario has changed, not for the better, remained from before Aug 2014, not because it was good but because I haven't found the energy/enthusiasm to research and re-write it; neither, of course, has any one else). --BalCoder (talk) 07:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I suggest you trim it down more - it is rife with "original research", parenthetical observation, and in a few cases actual misstatements. It does not cover "vote weight proportional to the number of voters" (found in some labour unions), seats reserved for specific groups, and a large number of other systems competing with the traditional "first past the post" system so widely found. Take out all the editorial opinion and work with what remains, and be open to understanding that there are many different flavors of "proportional representation" indeed. Collect (talk) 17:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Collect: Once User Ontario's "original research" and misstatements have been dealt with, if you add a few words to the talk page identifying the other instances, and providing sources demonstrating the relevance to PR of your other points, I'll be happy to make the changes. --BalCoder (talk) 07:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    BalCoder has acted contrary to WP's Wikipedia:Civility policy. Firstly, it states in bold red letters at the top of this page "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page". This was not done by BalCoder. I was notified instead by User:EdJohnston. Secondly, while I attempted to have a civilized discussion with the user about a topic, BalCoder continued to engage in personal insults, intentional rudeness, and belittling behaviour. Specifically, BalCoder has used uncivil tone/language such as "like it or not", "many of your edits are careless", "this is hair raisingly wrong", "most [of your changes] are wrong, confused or confusing, or contain wild claims", and "You finally seem to be getting a grasp on what PR is". I informed the user of the rudeness. However, no apology was given, and no uncivil comments were stricken out. Thirdly, the major point of contention is Balcoder's opinion that mixed (voting) systems do not exist. I have provided a plethora of sources that explain the voting system categories are: PR systems, mixed systems, and plurality systems. [1] [2] [3] [4]: 22 [5] In fact, these categories already existed in the WP article prior to my edits. Additionally, most of the sources that I used to substantiate this fact were also already present in the article, which already identified these different types of voting systems. I simply ensured that, for clarity, the same terms were consistently used throughout the article. Even in the above complaint, BalCoder has admitted to previously altering the original text "mixed system" to "two-tier system" several months prior to my contributions. This was only done in one section of the article, causing unnecessary confusion for readers. Yet BalCoder egregiously characterizes the existence of mixed systems are my unsourced opinion. In truth, not only has the existence of mixed systems been thoroughly sourced, it has been sourced by many other editors prior to my contributions to the WP article!

    Lastly, BalCoder has made several objectively incorrect assertions such as "Ontario has recently chosen MMP; that will not have been because it is not a PR system but because it is" in order promote an anti-plurality voting system agenda. To be clear, Ontario uses FPTP, has never used MMP, and voted against MMP in a referendum in 2007. When I pointed this out to BalCoder, no acknowledgement of being wrong was ever made. I encouraged BalCoder to conduct research to substantiate the assertions he/she made, and post sourced contributions. Unfortunately, BalCoder did not post any sourced research to our discussion. Instead, I had to wade through a combination of sentence fragments, personal insults, and unsourced and often specious personal opinions in order to attempt, in good faith, to conduct a civilized discussion. As thanks for my abundant patience, this user has filed a complaint about me without having the common courtesy (as required) to inform me! I request BalCoder to be blocked from the Proportional Representation article to prevent further vandalism, and for his/her account to be suspended due to incivility, personal attacks, and harassment. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 00:34, 6 September 2015 (UTC) [reply]

    References

    1. ^ "Voting Systems Made Simple". Electoral Reform Society. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)
    2. ^ "Electoral Systems". Administration and Cost of Elections (ACE) Project. Retrieved 31 Aug 2015.
    3. ^ O’Neal, Brian. "Electoral Systems". Parliament of Canada. Retrieved 31 Aug 2015.
    4. ^ "Voting Counts: Electoral Reform for Canada" (PDF). Law Commission of Canada. 2004. p. 22.
    5. ^ Forder, James (2011). The case against voting reform. Oxford: Oneworld Publications. ISBN 978-1-85168-825-8.

    Recovered from archive, not yet any comment by an administrator. --BalCoder (talk) 07:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Interaction ban violation by Ihardlythinkso (talk · contribs)

    No violation, and please stop bickering. Guy (Help!) 13:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Ihardlythinkso has undone my edit to Evergreen Game, in direct contravention of the terms of the Interaction Ban which was applied to him in April 2014. MaxBrowne (talk) 10:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC) The reverse is true [110]. IHTS (talk) 10:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    IHTS was at the article before MaxBrowne, but MaxBrowne was first to edit it after the IBAN. I propose both are instructed to leave the article forthwith. Guy (Help!) 10:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Two editors in iBAN together can edit the same article according to WP:IBAN, so it isn't a matter of "who was at the article first". They just can't trample/undo/modify one another's edits, which is the issue here. IHTS (talk) 10:55, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    IHTS made a series of edits to the article, the last one being on December 26. 1½ years later, MaxBrowne makes a series of substantive edits [111] which seem aimed at improving and developing the article, not stepping on anyone's toes. IHTS makes a minor edit in the midst of this here followed by another series of edits by MaxBrowne here just before IHTS makes the revert that MaxBrowne's complaint is about. By themselves, none of the edits by either party would be problematic, but the bickering is harmful, especially considering the IBAN that is still in effect. Still, I am not prepared to support sanctioning or blocking for otherwise constructive editing. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The minor edit you're referring to was to restore some condition of the text that I'd previously added to the article, which was presumably inadvertently walked on by the user improving the article. (But I put an alert to the fact on the article Talk page how some other text I had added got wiped out [112], so the editor might know about it and be more careful. But that didn't seem to help - more of my previously added text was overlaid after that point. So I restored my original text and included an edit summary that I thought was clear as a bell, that overlaying my edits are in violation of iBAN. Then I sought an admin's help as linked above. Then in spite of my clear-as-a-bell editsum, this ANI was opened.) IHTS (talk) 11:15, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, I did not open this ANI; however, there is an issue here. (One editor overlaying content of another editor they are in iBAN with. Which is what has been happening at that article. So I don't quite understand how you can say "none of the edits by either party would be problematic". I agree the trampling was originally clearly unintentional; however, after my Talk page posts, and lastly my clear editsum, it should have been abundantly clear.) IHTS (talk) 11:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is why two editors under an interaction ban should not edit the same article. Given the length of time MaxBrowne could hardly be expected to know which part of an article was written by you (and I doubt anyone expects him to check edit histories to see if someone he is an iban with has recently edited it) As there is nothing to suggest he was deliberately reverting content you added, you should have left it well alone. Especially since you *did* know that an edit was made by him and reverted it in part to reinsert content. At worst he violated the interaction ban unintentionally (due to IB limitations), you deliberately violated the interaction ban to reinsert your own preferred content. I would note the use of words like 'trampling' and 'walked on' above which clearly show what you think of their editing. I concur with Guy above, suggest you both leave it and look elsewhere. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Your opinion has no foundation in policy, and is contrary to. (WP:IBAN clearly says, that editors in iBAN can edit the same article. So why are you attempting to debate the point?!) And you are wrong in stating that the editor could hardly know about overlaying my edits -- as stated more than once, I updated the Talk page accordingly, twice. (Of course I agree that checking edit histories means work, that is why I updated the Talk page to alert. Duh.) I'm sorry, but my edits were overlaid, that is specified clearly in WP:iBAN as forbidden (so again, why are you arguing the point?!). The first time, yes, the editor violated iBAN unintentionally, but (repeating myself, why aren't you reading?) I posted on Talk and in editsum that, and both together s/ have been abundantly clear. And by "trampling" and "walked on" I mean to convey the editor overlaid my edits, nothing more. (Your assigning insult is pure bad faith. The word "modifying" could have been used instead by me, but that is technical term and doesn't convey the meaning as easily. So go soak your head for picking on my words w/ your bad faith.) IHTS (talk) 12:30, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And BTW, if you think your suggestion to avoid editing that article is so great, then how about you getting a response about your suggestion from the other editor, not me?! (As explained, I think you are totally off-base for other reasons. Nevertheless.) IHTS (talk) 12:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I said 'should not' as in 'best practice not to because of all the shit it causes'. Not 'prohibited from by policy'. I am not required to assume good faith regarding your deliberate reversion of someone you are in an interaction ban with. Which you admit you did. That "your" (smacks of ownership issues there) previous edits (of a year before) were 'overlaid' is not an excuse to violate your interaction ban. There is no situation in English where 'trampled' is a neutral or positive depiction of an event. The herd of cows did not 'trample' the farmer's crops and leave him happier for it. You meant to convey that someone edited the article in a manner YOU did not like and removed YOUR content. And you succeeded admirably. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I give up trying to reason with you, Death. My use of "my" in referring to my edits, was to identify that I made them, me and not some other editor, pertinent to the issue of iBAN and undoing someone's edits, and nothing more. Go soak your head in all the bad faith you display. Goodbye. IHTS (talk) 12:58, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Blatant block evasion

    Could an admin please block Randelearcilla100 (talk · contribs) - they are obviously the same person as serial hoaxer and block evader Randelearcilla (talk · contribs) (same user name, these edits in which they requested that the Randelearcilla account be unblocked, and the same editing pattern. I'd do this myself, but I've had the admin tools turned off while I'm travelling. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 13:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Done --NeilN talk to me 13:26, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Neil, including for the fast response! Nick-D (talk) 13:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (Reopened) It's bigger than this. There are also Randelearcilla200 (talk · contribs) and Randelearcilla300 (talk · contribs), we may need a sleeper check. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone feel like opening Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Randelearcilla? I agree a sleeper check would be quite handy. -- Orduin Discuss 20:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Joseph A. Spadaro

    I just blocked Joseph A. Spadaro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for WP:NPA per this edit, as part of looking into a WP:BLPN discussion in which it became apparent that he was trolling with a BLP violation. Looking at his history, he has form. I wonder if a longer block or perhaps an editing restriction might be in order? Guy (Help!) 13:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    What editing restriction do you think would be appropriate? He was clearly trolling the ref desk (a popular target for trolls, SPI anyone?) so maybe a ban from the ref desk for six months? Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given the user's overall contributions, the block length seems about right for the trolling, misrepresentation, and personal attacks. What I see at the reference desk is a lot of forum talk and some trolling. I think an indefinite ban from the reference desk might be a good idea, but would defer to the folks who actually spend time there. - MrX 15:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Of all the contributors to the RefDesks, Joseph is the least likely troll possible. The diff Guy used to justify the block was simply an angry response to some very stupid comments that appear to me to have been designed to wind him up. DuncanHill (talk) 15:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also observe that Guy forgot to post a block notice on Joseph's talk page, and also "forgot" to tell him that he was opening a discussion about him here. As it says in bloody great big letters on the edit screen "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. You may use Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. to do so." DuncanHill (talk) 15:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If you read Guy's post to JAS' talk page, you will notice that it includes a block notice and a mention of discussing him on admin noticeboards. This is just WP:DTTR. —Kusma (t·c) 16:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    One real block in five years? Hardly a "history". Leave it at a week and see what happens once that block expires. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    But the first one was indefinite for harassment and incivility and at least one was for BLP violations, which would likely have got him blocked this time had it not been for the expletive-ridden outburst getting there first. I see a distinct lack of ability to cope with even quite mild pushback. Guy (Help!) 19:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    But the first one was more than seven years ago. And was lifted in 12hrs. I'd like to see more about the first one rather than making a sweeping statement of "well he was blocked indefinitly for harassment and incivility..." Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:53, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Sexual harassment by new account(s)

    No WP:ILLEGIT use of either of these accounts, should such behaviour arise, WP:SPI is thataway. (non-admin closure) -- Orduin Discuss 20:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Could someone please take a look at User:Bonniejamesj? There appears to be a group of editors, possibly including that editor, using the user page for what appears to be rather clumsy sexual harassment. I will notify everyone who has edited that page. GoldenRing (talk) 15:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry Golden, what makes you think it's sexual harassment? The other user by the way is A.B Heartless (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Who created a similar Page SPACKlick (talk) 15:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Umm, yeah, no. That is not sexual harassment in the slightest. What it is, however, is someone (likely the same person behind both accounts), demonstrating a profound lack of understanding of what Wikipedia is and merely commenting on a crush in the same way people used to carve initials on trees. Resolute 15:17, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that rather depends on whether the advances are welcome, doesn't it? GoldenRing (talk) 15:19, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if the commetnts are unwelcome and even if the details in the post (most of which censored) are not public and being disclosed here without consent the activity is not sexual harassment. It could well be a form of bullying but it refers to friendship not behaviour or relationships of a sexual nature. For all we know the referent could be the user and this could be self promotion, like a description of self on a social media site. SPACKlick (talk) 15:23, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if the "sexual"part is doubtful, I can't see how calling someone cute, innocent and heartless and splashing their school history about is not harassing. GoldenRing (talk) 15:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    See the diffs here and here. I'm smelling possible sockpuppetry. Bonniejamesj created his/her user page (here - "A.B is cute and Innocent..."), the A.B Heartless account is created afterwards, and then edits Bonniejamesj's user page. This, along with their contributions (1 and 2), and these user page creations here and here with almost identical text - makes me feel that this is a simple case of socking and not much more. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 15:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Two accounts created a few hours apart. Their only edits concern the silly message back and forth and requesting redirects to their user pages. I don't see any reason to think this is either sexual harassment or sock puppetry. Their user pages talk about a school. Occam's razor: these are students goofing around. If they continue doing so, block them for WP:NOTHERE disruptive editing. Otherwise, we can close this, I think. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:53, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Rhododendrites - I still suspect sockpuppetry, but if it's decided that it isn't / isn't worth investigating, then I agree - this ANI can be closed. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 18:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oshwah: It's not impossible, of course, but until the accounts are used for something at WP:ILLEGIT, it's not a concern. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Great, looks like you're seeing the same thing that I am :-) ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 19:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Acupuncture talk page

    racism at Talk:Acupuncture and Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)

    would a moderator please step in and get these people to stop, theyre basically saying that chinese people can't do science. wikipedia should not allow this kind of behavior, its really demeaning, might as well be, "slanty-eyes can't think straight" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amaynas (talk • contribs) 16:23, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    If you expect anyone to act on this, you're going to need to provide links to specific examples. If you do not, this will be closed as unactionable. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:18, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I expect it's the usual complaint about the reality-based community pointing out the documented evidence that Chinese studies of acupuncture are never negative, which makes Chinese studies suspect per WP:MEDRS. Guy (Help!) 19:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think these kind of sweeping criticisms of those with whom you disagree is very constructive. (And I'm talking both to Amaynas and JzG, the latter of whom should really stop referring to those he agrees with as "reality-based", as it is a personal attack.) Everymorning (talk) 22:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Harassment case involving Hijiri88

    During a recent proposal to topic ban the user Hijiri88, I posted a message noting some of his behavioral problems. I did this despite my concerns that Hijiri would retaliate by stalking me to other articles, which is what he did the previous time I commented about him on the administrators' noticeboard. The previous time I did that, Hijiri followed me to my good article nomination of the article "Iwane Matsui" in order to make false and offensive statements claiming that I don't "know how to properly/critically read even good English-language sources". Hijiri had never shown any interest in commenting on good article reviews up to that point, and naturally good article reviews should not be used as platforms to attack other users. Though Hijiri's concerns were found to have no merit, he stalked me to several other articles I had edited as well.

    Soon after my last comment Hijiri again began stalking me, following me to the article History of Japan, which I had just recently successfully brought to good article status. He posted an offensive comment on the already complete good article review, which was quickly reverted by user Calvin999 as being obvious harassment. User AlbinoFerret concurred that the edits constituted harassment. Since then Hijiri has been posting numerous off-topic personal attacks on me on the talk page of the article History of Japan, such as when he accuses me of "back-handed, self-promoting quest for bragging rights" or when he falsely accuses me of "lying to the GA reviewer". However, I had brought that article to good level status before Hijiri had shown any interest in editing it. When user TH1980 politely asked Hijiri to stop making personal attacks, for that alone Hijiri responded by accusing TH1980 of being a troll. Hijiri also canvassed the exact same users for support who he was criticized by an admin for canvassing just the previous week.

    The admins were recently asked by another user to look into Hijiri's "foul language used within notes accompanying some of the edits" and this issue still needs to be addressed. Hijiri added the date "around 1570" from a map in the article with the edit summary "No intelligent person could think the previous caption was remotely appropriate". He copyedits the article with edits summaries like "English motherbleeper do you speak it".

    Finally, Hijiri has now followed me to the featured article candidacy of the article Iwane Matsui, though Hijiri had shown no interest before in commenting on featured article reviews. He falsely accuses me of page ownership and misquoting sources relating to an article that has nothing to do with Iwane Matsui. Featured article reviews also should not be used as platforms to make off-topic attacks on other users.

    Therefore I am proposing that Hijiri be page banned from the articles Iwane Matsui and History of Japan. Hijiri had never shown any interest in either of these articles before I commented about him on the administrators' noticeboard, and his main interest in them does not appear to extend much beyond making attacks on me. I will note furthermore that this makes the seventh time this year alone that a similar sort of ban has been proposed against Hijiri on the administrators' noticeboard as a result of non-collaborative editing.[113][114][115][116]

    Support as nominator.CurtisNaito (talk) 17:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Yes, I think seven warnings are sufficient for sanctions to be applied, and these sanctions are very mild.TH1980 (talk) 19:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This user has already been very disruptive, and continues to act in a way we can't tolerate. That is not limited to a special field, but a general problem. I suggest a last, strong warning to make clear that he has either to change his ways or to go away. The proposed sanctions seem too mild. I propose an additional siteban of 3 months length.--Müdigkeit (talk) 20:30, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    How would a site ban solve anything that a topic ban wouldn't? Sounds WP:PUNITIVE to me. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The nature of the proposed ban seems to me very strange. I am myself not particularly aware of many similar bans in other cases, from only two articles, as seems to me to be proposed here. Also, if the concern is possible stalking, well, stalking can continue to other articles, and, when real stalking happens, often does continue to other articles. That would make the current proposal one which might have to be revisited again with another article or two added in the near future if the stalking were real and were continued to other articles later. On that basis, independent of whether I believe sanctions are appropriate here, I think that further consideration of what specific sanctions would be best to propose might not be a bad idea. John Carter (talk) 21:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is BS. CurtisNaito has shown repeatedly that he doesn't understand our core content policies. I have looked at some articles he has edited, and noticed the same problems cropping up over and over again. Pointing out constantly recurring problems with the same user is not "harassment", or even a personal attack. But in most cases, he followed me to the article, not the other way around, so claiming that I am "harassing" him is ridiculous. Curly Turkey, User:Nishidani and User:Sturmgewehr88 have been engaged in the exact same kind of "harassment" or CurtisNaito as I have, consistently pointing out that he has been showing the same problems over and over again, so why is he requesting that I alone be driven off the project? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:59, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong oppose - CurtisNaito is known for his terrible sourcing; half of what he writes is either WP:SYNTH or not supported by his sources, and he sometimes uses unreliable sources to boot. He shows WP:IDHT behavior on talk pages and edit wars on articles while gaming 3RR.
    Hijiri88, on the other hand, has been simply correcting CurtisNaito. Playing the devil's advocate, let's say Hijiri was "stalking" him. He noticed the sourcing issues and checked his contributions for other problems with this user's edits. This is no different than when a vandal (I'm not saying CurtisNaito is a vandal, just using a well-known example) makes a disruptive edit and we check their contributions for more vandalism. There is no policy or guideline that says this is a bad thing. This whole proposal is just an outburst because CurtisNaito doesn't like that someone is actively keeping him from making bad edits, and Hijiri hasn't even been the only editor to call him out for his editing issues. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 22:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have to agree—if you find something objectional in a number of articles attributable to a particular editor, the responsible thing to do is to find out how extensive the problems by tracking down other articles and verifying if there are problems there. That doesn't preclude "stalking", but does not in itself constitute stalking, either. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Michael Demiurgos

    I became aware of Michael Demiurgos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) yesterday with this edit of theirs to Deadman Wonderland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), an article that I have had watchlisted for some time. In it, they removed a number of commas from the article in a seemingly indiscriminate manner, while also replacing uses of the word "and" with "as well as". A quick look into their edit history shows that this is not an isolated occurrence, and indeed, they seem to be performing these detrimental changes across a wide variety of anime-related articles at an alarming rate: see [117], [118], [119], and [120]. In fact, they have received warnings for similar behavior from as far back as February. Based on that, I left a message on their talk page asking them to stop: however, they resumed making the same edits almost immediately: see [121], [122], [123], [124], [125], [126], [127], and [128]. While some of their edits may be an improvement, the vast majority are not, and it may be worth considering blocking this user under WP:COMPETENCE concerns. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 19:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    You have just exchanged brief talk page remarks with each other about this difference of opinion. I think it would be worthwhile to hear Michael Demiurgos's response here before considering a block. Liz Read! Talk! 22:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, and hope they will be willing to comment here. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 23:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Move war regarding Baahubali

    There is a move war going on. The article was stable at Production of Baahubali for several months before the move war sent it to places like Baahubali (film series) and Baahubali . It should probably be moved back there and locked until a proper move discussion can take place. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I think I have notified the users who have "moved" the content, either by actual move or redirect, but I may have missed some. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to expand beyond just production details (something like Kill Bill) so I thought to move it. But it can't be a sseries" with just two entries. Kailash29792 (talk) 20:53, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Production of Baahubali was moved to Baahubali (film series) without prior discussion by IndianCinemaRasigan. I moved it back to Production of Baahubali on the basis that discussion was warranted, and if the editor felt that the contents of the article had exceeded production details, then the contents should be trimmed instead of changing the scope of the article. I left the user a talk page note to that effect. CambridgeBayWeather then moved it to Baahubali citing Kill Bill as the precedent, which is an article that presents an overview of the 2 film Kill Bill series. That's the last I was aware of the article moves. I was fine with it being at Production of Baahubali, and there is precedent for this format at Production of Watchmen, for instance. I would support moving it back until a move discussion can take place. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:05, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Slight error there Cyphoidbomb. The article was listed at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. When you move a page it uses whatever was in the speedy deletion as an edit summary. See this for another example. I thought it was a genuine G6. My apologies if this was not an uncontroversial move. I have moved it back and protected it from further moves. I am now of to the Village Pump to see if the edit summary can be fixed to include the G6 link. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 21:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    CambridgeBayWeather If my comment came across as criticism, it was not intended. I was only going by what the logs say. "12:19, September 8, 2015 CambridgeBayWeather (talk | contribs | block) moved page Production of Baahubali to Baahubali (It is expanding beyond production details. may become something like Kill Bill." Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem there Cyphoidbomb. It is due to the poor (default) edit summary. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And I just gave IndianCinemaRasigan an warning for edit warring. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 21:59, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems like a good candidate for a discussion at Wikipedia:Requested moves if there is still a question of this article being at Production of Baahubali. Liz Read! Talk! 22:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • As someone who is not an expert on films, having read the article it seems quite clear to me that it is about the production. I therefore concur with those who maintain that the title should be Production of Baahubali. I note that there has been no attempt to discuss the move on the talk page where in my opinion such an important move should obvioulsly be discussed first. That said, the quality of English in parts is very low and the article needs heavily copyediting for grammar, prose, and style. I have made just a few minor corrections on the fly. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:55, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Major privacy breach: Please block 104.235.69.214 from LGBT Rights in Illinois

    Hi. I know this isn't exactly to code, but I'm panicking over all the complicated instructions and the seriousness of this. This will require more than just a block, it will require expungement.

    Someone outed three kids who are transgender. They listed their names and location. This is beyond dangerous. This is a (possible) death threat invite. Transgender people keep getting killed and we cannot have people revealed against their will. Please block this user from LGBT Rights in Illinois and possibly more articles of the like. They are 104.235.69.214 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tenor12 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC) Tenor12 (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=680293540"