Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

"The root of the problem here is Keysanger"

User MarshalN20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was "banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the history of Latin America, broadly construed across all namespaces ...etc" in June 2013 because he "has engaged in tendentious editing and battleground conduct" (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine_History). His ban was conditionally released on 1 September 2015 (diff) whereat he vowed "to assure the arbitration committee that I do not plan to edit any article related to the War of the Pacific any time soon." (diff)

Six weeks later he edited War of the Pacific's talk page and wrote (diff)

1. I am more interested in dealing with other projects in WP than butting heads with a user that doesn't want to drop down the axe
2. This article needs to be heavily reviewed and fixed by an editor other than Keysanger.

And in editor's @Neil P. Quinn: talk page (diff) he continues:

1. Keysanger has been "working" on this article for several years now, and there has been no progress toward it reaching the standards for GA (much less FA).
2. The root of the problem here is Keysanger.
3. [Keysanger] he writes a soup of words that are more confusing than clear.
4. What Keysanger is doing in this case would be like claiming that the Mexican-American War was caused by Mexico's envy of the United States (instead of writing about the accepted view of American Manifest Destiny expansionism).
5. If an editor can't contribute positively to an article, either because he doesn't have the appropriate language skills nor has non-partisan intentions, then that editor should not be allowed to continue making a mess of the article.

It must be emphasized, that I have not interacted with MarshalN20 for a long time (years?), aside from my warning in his Amendment request or as he accused me to be a sockpuppet. That is, MarshalN20 personal attacks have its source solely in his battleground conduct as the tribunal established.

I see in MarshalN20's conduct a blatant violation of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and, even worse, the rules set by the amendment. I expect that the community apply the needed sanctions on the wrongdoer to end definitely the personal attacks. --Keysanger (talk) 10:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't consider to have broken my personal "vow" since I have not actually edited any article about the War of the Pacific. I don't consider talk or discussion spaces the same as articles—albeit discussing the semantics of my words is surely not within the scope of AN/I (as my vow was not part of the resolution that lifted my TB).

In fact, Keysanger's request here is entirely preposterous. I have not personally attacked him, and have actually been quite empathetic to him in our recent interaction (see [1] and [2]). As Dentren indicates, my comments are a criticism of the "work" that Keysanger has done in the article.

I place "work" in quotations because Keysanger's contributions to the War of the Pacific article, in a time-span of over half a decade, has left it in a complete mess (I called it a "soup of words," and that's a mighty kind use of words). The article needs serious work from editors competent in English who can write an adequate prose with proper paraphrasing and summarization of reliable sources. I would volunteer to help, but can't do so now due to other commitments.

This is why I left a message on Neil's talk page. He attempted to help resolve a problem in the article, but the situation is so convoluted that he could not make sense of what was going on. My message was in no way or form uncivil; furthermore, Neil even thanked me for taking the time to explain to him the issue and provide him with an example (see [3]).

This AN/I request surprises me greatly, but at the same time it opens an opportunity for a WP:BOOMERANG case where I hope the community can take a look at the War of the Pacific article and see for themselves its current state. I am even considering to propose that a community topic ban be placed on Keysanger so that he no longer can interfere with other editors taking charge of the article; please let me know your thoughts on this. Sincerely.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 11:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, and by the way, I didn't accuse Keysanger of being a sockpuppet. I pointed out in the SP investigation, as a commenter (not nominator), that the editing patterns between Keysanger and another user were very similar. However, this SPI took place in May 2014; it has been well over a year since then. The fact that this user continues to harbor anger over this, as well as his comment in my topic ban review (of a case that never involved him), serves as evidence that the saber still rattles.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 11:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Keysanger's description of the case is incorrect. The ban has not been lifted on the condition that he doesn't engage in the war of the pacific articles. The ban has been lifted, period. He is free to edit the article and the talk page as he see fit. For a year, if he causes trouble, the ban may be reinstated, and if he doesn't, it may be gone for good. So, this case should be checked only on the grounds of his actual comments. So far, I don't see anything wrong with them. Cambalachero (talk) 12:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest a liberal dose of WP:DROPTHESTICK to Keysanger, first the sockpuppet accusation was made in May 2014, that's over a year old, second, his ban was released in full by the Arb's, MarshalN20 on his own promised not to edit the articles and he's doing just that, the talk page is not the same as the article. Further, you | struck out some of what he wrote and claimed it was a personal attack, Dentren | removed your strike out and MarshalN20 actually | re-wrote the struck out parts even though they didn't qualify as a personal attack, further your were the sole | opposer of his request to release him from his Ban, and you went back to 2013 to show diffs of his supposed "bad behavior". (* Edited 10/14/2015 1525 EST * ) Looks like Keysanger tried to | close down part of this discussion as well, big time not cool, and I should know, I've been called on just that same thing. Let's have an admin close this up with a note to drop the stick. KoshVorlon 16:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Kosh,

you didn't understand the issue. As I wrote below, sockpuppetry is not the case. MarshalN20 and WCM accusation was immediately rebuked by the admins. The case here is MarshalN20's "The root of the problem here is Keysanger". It is a personal attack under any consideration. --Keysanger (talk) 20:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The root of the problem is explained in my original posting at SPI [4]. The key points back then, remain the same now:

1. Keysanger is disruptive on the War of the Pacific, seeking to remove material on the grounds of a national POV basis. This doesn't reflect a WP:NPOV or the prevailing view in the literature. He's been raising the same issue on the article since September 2009 as far as I am aware.
2. Keysanger has repeatedly baited Marshal about his topic ban.
3. Keysanger has a WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality, disagree and you're an enemy. I thought long and hard before raising the SPI, largely for the wrong reason as at the time I regarded him as a wikifriend. As you can see above - [5] apparently I was "rebuked" by the SPI.

I would strongly urge Keysanger to drop the stick here, withdraw what is a frivolous complaint and take a break from the article before he sees a WP:BOOMERANG headed his way. WCM_email 22:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with WCM analysis of Keysangers behaviour. He has long tried to impose a particular vision on the events sorrounding the War of the Pacific, one which avoids putting Chile as the "bad boy" diff. He has extended his activity to Economic history of Chile solely for the purpose of cleaning or creating a particular image of Chile regarding the causes of the War of the Pacific, and rejected mediation diff. Keysanger is an old user, active for more than 6 years, we should expect a minimum standard from him.

PS. In August Keysanger made a vitriolic attack on me diff after I brought up the issue of him using socks/meatsocks (if untrue, why react that way?). I declined to bring the issue up for ANI then, I bring it up now anyway, just to not let this behaviour pass by. Dentren | ^Talk 07:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I ask you to return to the central point of the discussion, is MarshalN20's battleground mentality compatible with the goals of Wikipedia?. In my honest opinion, Personal attacks are contrary to this spirit and damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia. --Keysanger (talk) 10:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Keysanger, accusing me of having a battleground mentality is an extremely offensive personal attack. I let it slide when you presented the case here, but no more (i.e., stop). I also encourage you to read WP:BOOMERANG, specifically:

“ A common statement on noticeboards is "this isn't about me, this is about them". There is sometimes a belief that, if someone's perceived misbehavior is reported at a noticeboard, the discussion can only focus on the original complaint, and turning the discussion around to discuss the misbehavior of the original reporter is "changing the subject" and therefore not allowed. However, that just isn't the case. Anyone who participates in the discussion might find their actions under scrutiny. ”

Moreover, Dentren's diff ([6]) shows a good example of a potentially good contributor to the article (Ramirez) being driven out of the article by Keysanger.

This situation is what needs to stop. It is increasingly become clear to me that the only way to stop it is by banning Keysanger from the War of the Pacific article.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 15:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Point of Clarification

Above Keysanger claims that Marshal accused him of sockpuppetry, this is not true. I started the SPI check after a new user appeared, with obvious knowledge of wiki processes and immediately began editing on the War of the Pacific and supporting Keysanger in talk. He was also disruptive on Chile-Peru football rivalry which was a bit of a pet project of Marshals. Check out Chelios123 (talk · contribs) for details. At the time it seemed a clear case of WP:DUCK to me. Although not actively involved in the War of the Pacific I was previously one of the parade of editors that have tried to mediate the dispute on this article. WCM_email 11:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

He accused me as he wrote "Based on the history, it seems that there is either a sock or meat relationship going on here." (diff), but that isn't the point in this case. --Keysanger (talk) 12:00, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Au contraire, Keysanger, this is very relevant to the case. Your opening statement here intends to portray the idea that I have an agenda against you, and also that you are appalled by my alleged breaking of an inconsequential "vow". However, this example and the one of your ArbComm comment (both which you brought up here on your own), demonstrate that you have raised this AN/I case in bad faith. Raising a frivolous AN/I report because you are still angry over a year-old SPI, but claiming it is for a good cause, fits the definition of a cynical gaming of the system. The boomerang is real.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 12:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

This ANI is the epitome of battleground behavior. When is soon? Even if he "vowed" "to assure the arbitration committee that I do not plan to edit any article related to the War of the Pacific any time soon." the topic ban was lifted. Soon is undefined and in requesting a topic ban be lifted pretty much shows an intention of editing in this area. Arbcom lifting the topic ban allows for him to edit in this area. There's no actually need to wait for the "soon" time period, if this isn't already after "soon". While he does not softly kiss any ass I'm not really seeing any breach of Marshal's release from his topic ban.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Community proposal: Article Ban for Keysanger

Approximately since 2007, Keysanger has been editing War of the Pacific. He is the article's main contributor ([7]). After half a decade, the article does not even meet the standards for a GA; meanwhile, Keysanger has consistently exhibited ownership ([8],[9],[10]), POV-editing ([11],[12],[13],[14],[15]), inappropriate use of sources ([16],[17],[18]), and edit warring ([19]). This has effectively obfuscated discussions in the article's talk page ([20],), preventing other editors from contributing to the article. Moreover, there have been concerns raised about Keysanger's relationship to suspicious Australian IPs (most recent). Mediations have been attempted in the past, to no avail.
Therefore, in order to promote new contributions and less conflictive editing in War of the Pacific, I propose that the community place an indefinite article ban on Keysanger from the mainspace and the talk space of the War of the Pacific. This WP:ABAN can be appealed to the community after a year. Keysanger would be free to edit other topics about the War of the Pacific, but his WP:ABAN can be expanded to a topic ban if the aforementioned disruptive behavior continues in these other articles.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 16:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support - as nominator. I thought about proposing a topic ban, but an article ban is more precise and less problematic for administrators to handle. It is also a way to encourage Keysanger to exhibit good, collaborative behavior while he works in areas that are of interest to him (there are plenty of articles in the War of the Pacific topic area [21]).--MarshalN20 ^Talk 16:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
• OpposeYou mean it's not GA yet? OMG! How will it ever be completed by the deadline at this pace? Oh there is no deadline. With no deadline it's lack of GA status is irrelevant. I also see what seems to be an accusation of sock puppetry but there seems to be no evidence. I'm wondering how the SPI turned out? I'm also not really seeing any diffs that show anything that looks like misconduct. This pretty much suggests that there is no misconduct. No misconduct, no reason for any type of ban. I notice that there is currently no reason that you can't edit this article. Since your interested in it achieving GA status I encourage you to go forth and start taking action to get it to get it to GA status. I encourage the both of you to limit your interactions with each other solely to discussion of article content. Wikipedia has multiple means of dispute resolution to help form a consensus, such as a WP:RFC, so if you find that you can not form a consensus among yourselves I encourage you to use some form of dispute resolution to get a consensus. As I understand Marshaln20, you have already been topic banned from this area once and have been given a second chance. I wish you the best of luck with this second chance. I caution the both of you in your future interactions. Good luck.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho: I consider that this is a valid criticism. Thank you for highlighting the flaws in the proposal. I have added diffs, per the recommendations. I will add some more—there is plenty. I do not plan to add more evidence of Keysanger's bad use of language (I do not want to humiliate him). Also, the outcome of the SPI is not under question; a number of users (myself, WCM, Dentren) have expressed concern with Keysanger's relationship with users (Chelios, IggyAU/IggyAu) and IPs from Australia. I concur with the idea that there is no deadline; however, I consider that the purpose of article writing is to reach the standards set up by our community (the GA & the FA process). If we don't have a set goal, or focus, then what are we doing in Wikipedia? Keysanger has been working on War of the Pacific since 2007 and he is the article's top contributor; if he can't take the article to GA standards (at least), either because he can't or want, then the article should be open to other editors to contribute. At least that's my view on it.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 22:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm personally not convinced. This is not to suggest that someone else won't be. I would honestly again recommend caution. Your free not to. But you do know what the boomerang is. And there is no deadline. You can set goals. Personal goals. Other people can share these personal goals if they wish to. This person may have a goal set. I don't know. I could ask them but they aren't required to answer and it doesn't matter because it's not relevant. If you want to see it GA then go there. Edit the article. Do not repeat the actions that have before lead to a ban. Don't talk to them unless it's about article content. If you can't come to a consensus then use [[WP:DISPUTE] Resolution. You just got your topic ban lifted. You are apparently interested in the subject. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho: I understand Joe, trust me that I do. I love to work in articles with editors such as yourself, because you know the procedures and can hold a friendly discussion in spite of disagreements. However, this doesn't happen in War of the Pacific. EdJohnston best explains the difficulty of working in this particular article when he writes that "[it] has been in dispute for seven years" and that "[it] has been the subject of many complaints at AN3 and at ANI over the years, but I haven't noticed any sustained admin attention to addressing the problems there" ([22]). Taking a controversial article through the GA/FA process is difficult, albeit not impossible. However, it requires that all parties strive towards a common goal. I know this to be true because that is how it was done in the Falkland Islands article, which I am proud to have helped in taking to FA status. I agree with Ed that admin attention is badly needed in War of the Pacific. I am proposing a solution to the problem; the community can agree or disagree, but at least I tried to help resolve this serious matter. Warm regards.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 02:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose on principle. I will generally oppose sanctions proposed by involved parties. There are exceptions. This is not one of them. Blackmane (talk) 22:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Blackmane, the problematic editing on behalf of Keysanger has been an issue at least since 2009. I would like to hear how you would address it. Keysanger had had time to learn and acknowledge himself with Wikipedias rules and policies. Now I see he is just gaming the system having actual ownership of War of the Pacific trough persistently disrupting and tiring out anybody contributing there that does not agree with his preferences (you can take a look the history of the article). What should be done? Dentren | ^Talk 07:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support Keysanger appears to be on a crusade to "get" MarshalN20. I say the actions (like the ones I noted above ) speak for themselves, loudly. As for Serialjoepsycho's argument about not usually supporting a ban notice by one of the involved parties, who the heck else would bring it. I don't think that's a reason to discount . KoshVorlon 11:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@KoshVorlon:As for my argument? Could you point out where I've made this argument?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support Support, albeit reluctantly. I have to agree with Kosh Vorlon that Keysanger appears to have been pursuing Marshal seeking sanctions against that editor. In addition, despite being advised to, he appears unable to drop the stick and disengage as I and others have suggested. The thing that finally convinced me to support the proposal was the "this isn't about me, this is about them" statement, after he was warned by several commentators about the WP:BOOMERANG. WCM_email 12:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support, agree with MarshalN20 analysis. There is long-term (5+ years, half a decade!) disruption and ownership issue. Keysanger is definitely hindering the development of this article, because he uncompromisingly try to enforce his particular view of the conflict. Dentren | ^Talk 18:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
• Comment It seems Keysanger's English writing abilities have been called into question in these incidents. I not only don't see any big issue with their English here, but find the concept that they should be sanctioned also based on a perceived lack of grammar extremely worrying. If their edits contain English mistakes, correct them. It's a wiki. LjL (talk) 15:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Agree wholeheartedly, that isn't a reason for sanction. The continued battlefield mentality and refusal to drop the stick on the other hand is. WCM_email 16:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I agree as well. It was insensitive, and so I have removed it. Thank you for the comment LjL. As WCM indicates, there are other more serious behavior-based concerns here.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 19:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment- Insensitive matters little when competence is required WP:CIR. Weak competence in English can be a justification for a ban. A few minor errors wouldn't be justification however.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• WP:CIR is just an essay - neither a guideline nor a policy - and stating that "weak competence in English can be a justification for a ban" is outright ridiculous. LjL (talk) 22:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:CIR is just an essay. This is not a meaningful point. If a weak competence in English rises to a level of disruption it is a justification for a ban.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support, per above reasonings. --Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 17:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. What's needed here is an interaction ban. Both are at fault here, certainly, but Marshal's been topic-banned from this area before. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Keysangers comment

Who are the commentators of this accusation?

• MarshalN20 is an involved editor
• Wee Curry Monster is an involved editor
• Dentren is an involved editor
• Cambalachero is an involved editor

Why does matter who are the accusers and judges?

Because Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary (though not exclusive) means of decision making and conflict resolution is editing and discussion leading to consensus—not voting. (Voting is used for certain matters such as electing the Arbitration Committee.) Straw polls are sometimes used to test for consensus, but polls or surveys can impede, rather than foster, discussion and should be used with caution.

Hence, comments must be done by neutral, independent and objective editors and not by the gang of friends.

What about my contribution to Wikipedia?

Well, you may like my English or not, but I have made many of the best contributions to the article War of the Pacific. That is the reason why, for example, Dentren's tag was deleted. They were not my friends, they didn't accuse Dentren to be spy or terrorist. They analysed the content of the article, find out what Dentren wanted to say (!) and rebuked. They were volunteers from the Dispute Mediation that I, that is Keysanger, called to help. Is it my blame that:

• MarshalN20 was banned of all articles of Latin America history?
• Darkness Shines was blocked because Sockpuppetry?
• Eduardo Eddy Ramirez was a SPA?
• etc, etc

If any one of you want to contribute to an article, e.g. War of the Pacific, he is free to do it. Keeping the rules of Wikipedia.

What can we learn from this "discussion"?

Most of the editors are tired to discuss with people that recur to vociferate and to bring his friends because they are unable to argue.

--Keysanger (talk) 14:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

No Keysanger, I am not involved, I've never edited the article and my only involvement in talk was to act as a mediator. Which I remind you was at your request [23]. The only reason I commented was because of your inability to drop the stick. You really do need to disengage here. WCM_email 16:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment This is all also completely irrelevant. So what would be my question? So what if Marshaln20 was banned? So What? He's also been unbanned I notice. So what about what ever petty issue you've mentioned. What about your own Ownership issues? What about your own edit-warring? Even if they were some how involved how is this even remotely important? What about your own battleground behavior? Have you no answer for the charges(for lack of better term) that they have made?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Serialjoepsycho:

MarshalN20 was banned of all articles about Latin America history, hence, he wasn't allowed to edit the article, so, it wasn't my "ownership" the cause of the prohibition, but his battleground mentality as is indicated in the ban!. Dentren's contributions were rebuked by the volunteers of the Third Opinion team, Darkness shines was blocked because of sockpuppetry, and Eduardo Eddy Ramirez was a {{Spa}}. So, I ask you: why do they accuse me of "ownership"?.

It is not remotely important, it is very important to judge independent, neutral and objective. You can't expect neutrality from a person that has an interest to get a goal from the discussion. This is the reason why there are a independent judiciary power in a republican system and also in Britain. Can you imagine that some one accuses you of murder and he call also the jurywomen and jurymen?. Would you accept it?. I can't accept it.

Do you want to now how it works: You accuse someone, get some votes from friends and as another says the libel is ridiculous you change the accusation ([24]), so you keep the old votes and get new ones.

Greetings, --Keysanger (talk) 13:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Marshaln20 is no longer banned from this topic area. This is not relevant. There's nothing to suggest that they are accusing you of ownership because they were banned. This also isn't a court of law. The votes aren't votes. Consensus is not a vote. If you get banned there will be a strong policy basis for it.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Note that MarshalN20 had been topic banned because of a discussion about Juan Manuel de Rosas. An Argentine ruler, half a century before the War of the pacific, and with no links at all to that topic, besides the broad thing of taking place in the same continent at some point in the past. Now that his topic ban has been lifted, it is completely irrelevant to raise that point here for this discussion. Cambalachero (talk) 03:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL Actually specifically notes that mention of past sanctions, when the reason for them no longer exists is of itself uncivil. Which is immaterial in any respect as the topic ban was not imposed for incivility. WCM_email 19:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment I'm confused as to why or how espionage and terrorism got included into this discussion ("they didn't accuse Dentren to be spy or terrorist"). So strange. I hope this matter can finally be resolved by the community; the problem would only be prolonged if it got archived without a solution.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 04:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Dentrens comment

I interpret the issues brought up here as evidence of Wikipedias grave problems. Editors are stuck in perpetual conflicts, some of them frozen, some of them re-activated. We seriously need to consider whether we will be able to solve problems being around here for over five years, when he haven't done so so far. Nothing Keysanger says makes me believe he will change his intransigence on putting forwards his particular view of Chile's role in the War of the Pacific. These prospects can easily be shaped into a pessimistic view on Wikipedias future: Aging editors locked on old disputes, biting and playing power-cards on newcomers. I seriously wish we had some new faces in the War of the Pacific and that we older editors move on to new topics so that we do not become temple guardians. Dentren | ^Talk 09:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

You get nothing when you change an editor and put another one. You have to improve the quality of the contributions and the best way, until now, is the consensus. You tagged the article, delivered a rationale that was rebuked by the Third Opinion volunteers. That are the facts. --Keysanger (talk) 11:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Back to reality, there no such thing as consensus in the articles where Keysanger has proposed himself to defend a the state of Chile against information that puts the country as a "bad boy" in his eyes. Examples: War of the Pacific, Economic history of Chile#Saltpetre Republic (1873–1914). Sietecolores (talk) 15:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Three alternate noncontradictory proposals

I had been hoping to stay out of this mess, having visited it at the third opinion noticeboard and seeing that the real problem is that User:Keysanger and User:Dentren shouldn't be allowed to edit the same article. The War of the Pacific was at the dispute resolution noticeboard, but the issues got to the point where the volunteer moderator tried to refer it to formal mediation. It passed the conditions for formal mediation, but, in the northern summer, was unable to get a volunteer mediator in a timely manner and so was declined. This dispute is continuing to drag on. Maybe the ArbCom should have put nineteenth-century Latin American history under discretionary sanctions, but that is in the past. Now Keysanger has posted to my talk page to ask me to talk to Dentren: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARobert_McClenon&type=revision&diff=686944857&oldid=686536914 Dentren persists in putting tags on the article. I couldn't understand the dispute at Third Opinion, but another volunteer did answer, and said that using the framework of one historian to compare the views of other historians is not original research, but Dentren thinks that it is.

I suggest that any of the following actions be taken:

First, topic-ban both User:Keysanger and User:Dentren from War of the Pacific. Interaction bans don't work well, and their antagonism for each other is making the article toxic. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Second, request the re-opening of formal mediation for War of the Pacific. The topic-ban will be specific to the article and its talk page, and will not preclude formal mediation. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Third, as a last resort, put War of the Pacific under community general sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Let's start with two, formal mediation, and maybe one, a ban from the article and the talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic-ban for Keysanger & General Sanctions for War of the Pacific. Oppose topic-ban for Dentren.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 15:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Rationale for my decision

I disagree with laying any blame on Dentren. He is right that Keysanger is using sources incorrectly. For example, in the "Cause of the War" section, the text reads as follows: “ US historian Fredrick B. Pike calls this allegation "absurd"[35]:33 ([25]) ” The problem with this is that (A) Pike is writing in 1963 and, therefore, (B) We can't claim that Pike is criticizing sources from 1992 (Salazar & Pinto) and 2002 (Salazar). It simply doesn't make sense. I do, however, think that Dentren's claim that this is original research is wrong; he is confusing OR with misuse of sources. We must also consider the level of accuracy of Keysanger's historiographic analysis. Keysanger is openly against the idea that Chile's motives for the conflict were economic ([26],[27]). Nonetheless, in Encyclopedia Britannica we find: “ War of the Pacific, Spanish Guerra del Pacífico, (1879–83), conflict involving Chile, Bolivia, and Peru, which resulted in Chilean annexation of valuable disputed territory on the Pacific coast. [...] The territory contained valuable mineral resources, particularly sodium nitrate. [...] National borders in the region had never been definitively established; the two countries negotiated a treaty that recognized the 24th parallel as their boundary and that gave Chile the right to share the export taxes on the mineral resources of Bolivia’s territory between the 23rd and 24th parallels. But Bolivia subsequently became dissatisfied at having to share its taxes with Chile and feared Chilean seizure of its coastal region where Chilean interests already controlled the mining industry.([28]) ” Hence, as I explained to Neil, economics was a major foundation for the conflict. Even Pike writes that Chile "had been irresistibly tempted by neighboring territories." To sum things up: Keysanger's edits reflect a point of view that is against the mainstream. Dentren is right, but he has not been clear on his points. The best solution to this problem is, therefore, to focus on Keysanger's behavior. The best tools available are either the article ban or the topic ban.--MarshalN20 Talk 19:58, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I would like to see War of the Pacific under community general sanctions as a minimum, mainly to give admins the tools to nip disruption in the bud. The War of the Pacific continues to have an impact on regional tensions to this day and there are nationalists in Peru, Bolivia and Chile that perpetuate a conflict as intractable as other problems that have plagued wikipedia such as the politics of Northern Ireland and the Troubles.

Part of the root of the matter is that we've seen Dentren explain himself poorly, what he insisted was WP:OR was in fact a misuse of sources to infer a conclusion that simply could not made by the original author as his work predated the material it was used to criticise by some 50 years. It would be helpful for the article if Dentren were to take a break for a while to allow new opinion, I would prefer that to be a voluntary break by Dentren for a period of say 3 months? Dentren has edited in a toxic atmosphere and I believe a break from the issues may help him achieve a new perspective. Please note in suggesting a voluntary break I am not inferring any wrongdoing on his behalf, merely noting that a break from such an atmosphere would be beneficial.

Wikipedia is supposed to give a neutral POV and whilst all editors have their own POV, it should not lead to conflict with the consensus building process. After observing the pattern of behaviour on that article, I have to conclude that Keysanger has been unable to disassociate his own personal views and his intransigence has meant the article has stagnated for years. I have seen Keysanger produce good content and I would not wish to see him under permanent sanctions. I would also ugre that he take voluntary break for a similar period.

If these editors cannot agree to a voluntary break, then I would have to suggest that the community consider enforcing one.

Finally noting my comment about the intractable nature of the conflict, I strongly support the call for formal mediation on this article. WCM_email 21:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Doesn't really look like much is going on at that article other than the issues with Dentren and Keysanger. Doesn't really seem to be a reason to impose community sanctions. Banning these to from here or putting them both under these community sanctiosn when working on this article would seem to do so.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment There have been past attempts by several users to get involved in the article, but they all ended up leaving due to a variety of conflicts with Keysanger. Some I can think about right out of the top of my head are Arafael, Likeminas, Eduardo Ramirez, Ian, Darkness Shines, among others. It simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny that one user (Keysanger) is going to have so many others opposing his edits. There is a very obvious common denominator in these editing conflicts, and, just like EdJohnston, I don't understand why administrators have over these many years ignored the problem in War of the Pacific.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 03:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
• Comment. Albeit I strongly dislike any comparison of my editing with Keysangers biased and long-term ownership aims I am grateful of the attention this issue has received. The War of the Pacific article has been a dormant problem and this is just the last of Keysangers many conflicts in the article where he is unable or unwilling to rescind his biased editing (take a look for yourself in the archives of the talk page). I am reclutanly willing to take a break, but will not do so to let Keysanger get a free hand on the article as he have had so far. I am willing to compromise, and appreciate if you all keep an eye on the article. Dentren | ^Talk 15:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

User Jss199

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

---

Jss199 (talk · contribs) has made 173 edits since February 2014. I think he intends for some of his edits to be constructive, but he has a pattern of making unconstructive edits even after he has been warned. Some examples: removal of citations, removal of sourced content, adding unsourced content, introducing deliberate factual errors. He has received a number of warnings from several editors. He never responds to a warning or request for explanation or discusses on an article talk page or user talk page. He marks all of his edits as minor, including removal of entire paragraphs and other significant content changes, even after being asked not to do so numerous times. He rarely leaves an edit summary. Perhaps someone here will be more successful in getting him to communicate. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 22:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Following up: Jss199 was notified about this report as soon as it was posted. He continues adding unsourced content and marking all edits as minor. His pattern is to make no edits for days or weeks after a warning, then resume his usual behavior. Sundayclose (talk) 13:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Discretionary sanctions in re: editor Trackinfo on Caitlyn Jenner article (Result: )

• Request for Discretionary sanctions

• Editor

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

• Article

Caitlyn Jenner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Warning

Diff to Discretionary Sanctions Alert (with "pa" parameter): [29]

• Latest edit

Diff to latest edit in violation: [30]

• Reported by

Respectfully, {{u|Checkingfax}}{Talk} 01:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comments

What exactly is being reported here? Is Trackinfo subject to a 0RR sanction on articles relating to transgender issues? @Checkingfax:, you're going to have to do better than just vaguely report another editor with no request for administrator action. Are you asking for a block? warning? editing restriction? You should not expect admins to play a guessing game. Also, if you're asking for sanctions, which are covered by arbcom cases, against another editor you should go to WP:AE Blackmane (talk) 01:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

[[Caitlyn Jenner]] is a DS page, not an 0RR page. {{u|Checkingfax}}{Talk} 01:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment

Here is the editing guideline we all work under:

The article currently uses feminine pronouns throughout, as per the applicable guideline,[[MOS:IDENTITY]]. Please do not change feminine to masculine pronouns, or attempt to rewrite all sentences to avoid pronouns altogether. See the talk page for further discussion.

There is also a DS that takes it a step further. Respectfully, {{u|Checkingfax}}{Talk} 01:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment

Here is the violation basis:

Request discretionary sanctions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area subject to discretionary sanctions;

Respectfully, {{u|Checkingfax}}{Talk} 01:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

From your diff, Trackinfo reverted reverted to a version where there was no gender pronoun, so I can't see how your "editing guideline" applies. Also, Trackinfo is correct that there is a discussion currently underway. A notification was posted here, talk:Caitlyn Jenner#MOS:IDENTITY is being revisited: How should Wikipedia refer to transgender individuals before and after their transition? with discussions going on at WP:VPP#Revisiting_MOS:IDENTITY_in_articles_about_transgender_individuals and WP:VPP#Clarifying_MOS:IDENTITY_in_articles_in_which_transgender_individuals_are_mentioned_in_passing. Blackmane (talk) 01:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

From the diff, Trackinfo changed [...]"Jenner married 'her'"[...], to: [...]"Jenner married"[...]. That is the pronoun removal. {{u|Checkingfax}}{Talk} 02:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• Talk page boilerplate regarding pronouns

Because this article contains material about one or more [[trans women]], it should adhere to Wikipedia's guideline on gender identity, even if it is not a biography. According to [[MOS:IDENTITY]], such a subject should be referred to using the gendered nouns and pronouns (e.g., "she", "her") that "reflect that person's latest expressed [[gender self-identification]]". This applies in references to any phase of her life. Quotations and titles of published works are notable exceptions. Also please avoid phrases that seem logically impossible or distracting (e.g., use She became a parent for the first time, not She fathered her first child). Finally, please note that this talk page is [[not a forum]]. If material violating this guideline is repeatedly inserted or if there are other related issues, please report the issue to [[WT:LGBT]] or, in the case of living trans women, to [[WP:BLPN]].

Your report is inconsistent. First you complain that Trackinfo is changing a feminine pronoun to a masculine pronoun. Then you point to a pronoun removal as the problem. So which is it? In any case, the discussion at WP:VPP will establish a policy to dictate this. IMO, this is a total non issue. Admins may disagree with my view. Rather than fill this thread up as a discussion between you and me, I'm going to step back and let others comment as I've made my stance clear. Blackmane (talk) 02:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I am reporting the pronoun removal ("her"). There is no inconsistency by me. It's right there in the diff I submitted above. We are supposed to leave pronouns in articles and not make transgender articles gender neutral by removing pronouns. Respectfully, {{u|Checkingfax}}{Talk} 03:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Please read the phrase:

Also please avoid phrases that seem logically impossible or distracting (e.g., use She became a parent for the first time, not She fathered her first child).

Clearly 1) the pronoun was unnecessary. I wrote the original phrase without a pronoun. 2) Inserting the pronoun is thus deliberately forcing a clear WP:BLP violation on Chrystie Crownover. Is there a sourceable statement that she approves of wikipedia stating that she married a woman? Is there any question that a rational reader might get confused by this phrasing? Trackinfo (talk) 05:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Trackinfo: The aim is to avoid confusing the reader. The reader is what Wikipedia is written for. Since Jenner was publicly a male at that time, and it was not therefore a same-sex marriage (and could not have been legally as same-sex marriage was not even in the realm of possibility), the pronoun "she" should be avoided there, even if we need some other form of re-wording (such as "Jenner had been dating Chrystie Crownover, and married her after graduating from Graceland" or "Jenner dated Chrystie Crownover during high school, and married her after graduation"). Softlavender (talk) 03:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Policy and style in this area is a subject of active discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Revisiting_MOS:IDENTITY in articles about transgender individuals. The AP Stylebook and the American Society of Copy Editors are struggling with the issue.[31]. That last reference is worth a read. Until some consensus emerges, enforcing a specific decision in this area seems premature. John Nagle (talk) 03:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Please note I referred to the active discussion in my edit notes. Since I wrote the original phrase, the other editor that I reverted is trying to force the (unnecessary) gender pronoun into the sentence in question. Trackinfo (talk) 20:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I linked to 2 concurrent policy discussions on VPP that are going on now. Like I said before, even a liberal reading of the discretionary sanctions could result in an interpretation that led to sanctions against Trackinfo. Also, Checkingfax, you were inconsistent. You linked to a DS that instructed editors not to change feminine to masculine pronouns, which clearly Trackinfo was not doing. But when I pointed it out, you stated that you were reporting the pronoun removal, which in the context of the ongoing VPP discussions looks like a reasonable edit. I move that this thread be closed with no action. Blackmane (talk) 01:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment- I was never inconsistent. Here is a snippet from the editnotices and Talk page notices:

...or attempt to rewrite all sentences to avoid pronouns altogether...

A pronoun was removed, and it was not replaced by her proper name. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 01:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY doesn't say that, so please do not keep trying to enforce that, as it clearly doesn't work for someone who was married three times to three different women in heterosexual marriages, and who won numerous high-profile awards in men's sports. Softlavender (talk) 04:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Sweepy appeal

User:Sweepy wishes to appeal the block I placed on him but appears to be incapable of following the instructions, despite having them explained to him by another editor. SpinningSpark 18:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

There is a language problem here. Can someone explain to him on his talk page in German? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Done (though I'm not a native speaker myself). I'm just unsure whether it'll benefit him... LjL (talk) 19:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I offered German before, but it was not taken up. Widefox; talk 12:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Had another go (native German), things should now be assumed to be as clear as possible language-wise; further intransigence may henceforth be safely attributed to other reasons.-- Elmidae (talk) 17:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

That last sentence almost itself sounded German. LjL (talk) 18:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

In proper Deutsch that would be further intransigence henceforth to other reasons may safely attributed be haben sind gewesen gehabt haben geworden sein. EEng (talk) 03:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Sweepy has responded to the explanation in German by shouting in German that this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit.

Sweepy might consider that ENWP really isn't the place for them. The policies and guidelines here are probably more idiosyncratic than those at DEWP. Blackmane (talk) 01:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by BulgariaSources

BulgariaSources (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues to make major changes like [32], [33], [34], [35], [36] to the Bulgaria national football team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) without leaving any edit sums or making any attempt to reach a consensus on the article's talk page. This has been going on for quite some time, and has included the using of IP accounts, despite being reverted on numerous occasions by different editors and messages being left at Talk:Bulgaria national football team#Changes being made by BulgariaSources and User talk:BulgariaSources#Major changes to Bulgaria national football team, etc., but still they continue on as before.

Similar edits have been made by the same editor to other Bulgaria related articles, but the editor continues to leave no edit sums and make no attempt to engage in any type of discussion to clarify their reasons for making those edits as well.

For the record, I've been assuming good faith, but I am starting to wonder whether this editor is really not here to help build an encyclopedia. I have notified them of this discussion here, so perhaps they will comment and help clarify things. I feel, however, that a failure to respond here means that some sort of administrator action is warranted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Might be time to throw all of the socks into the drawer. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd go one further and say that a medium length block is in order, considering they've been blocked twice before for this sort of behaviour. (For disruptive editing at the end of July, and for sockpuppetry at the beginning of August). Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

It seems as if BulgariaSources has never made an edit outside of the article namespace since their account was created in July 2015. It also seems as if they have not left an edit sum for any of the edits they have made during that time. I am not sure if this means they simply have no desire in engaging in discussion with other editors, or that they feel unable to do so effectively in English. Regardless, no acknowledgment at all of any of the comments directed to them either on their user talk or article talk pages is making it quite hard to resolve these issues through discussion and not administrator action. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

CurtisNaito at History of Japan

CurtisNaito made a grand total of two edits (out of a total of over 5000) to the article History of Japan, nominated it at WP:GAN, and ten days later (after a very superficial review) it was made GA on 25 August. The article's status has been under heavy dispute by a large number of editors since, and after a month long WP:GAR, it was delisted today. Less then 12 minutes late CurtisNaito renominated it, and has editwarred with me to keep it nominated. Despite being told on his talk page that, per Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations/Instructions#Step_1:_Prepare_the_article, the article is to be brought up to quality before nomination. His persistent WP:IDHT response is that "the nominator is permitted to decide whether or not he or she believes the article to be of good level quality"[37][38]—obviously not the case because the article was just delisted for not meeting the criteria. CurtisNaito has already been warned at ANI to drop the IDHT approach or he'll be sanctioned with a 72-hour block. He continually tries to filibuster any attempt at discussing the article or his behaviour, including currently at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan‎‎. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

My personal belief is that the article is already of good level status, and that is why I chose to nominate it. In general, I think Wikipedia allows nominators to decide whether or not they want to continue with the nomination of a good article. On the good article review FAQ, one rule states, "Nominators have no special privileges over other editors, except that they can withdraw the nomination." Another says, "I failed the article, and the nominator just nominated it again without fixing the problems I identified! - That's okay. There is no time limit between nominations..."

During the good article reassessment, there was not a very clear consensus to delist. At least four users or maybe more were in favor of keeping. It is true that user Prhartcom, who delisted the article, stated that the article is only "70–90% there" towards good article status. However, my hope is that the future good article reviewer will check the article for quality and assess whether or not the article is at 70-90% or greater. If it is at 70-90% or more, then I expect that the future good article reviewer will merely ask for changes, rather than failing the article outright. Naturally though, whether it passes or fails is up to the good article reviewer.

I'm sure it will take a long time for the article to get picked up for good article review. It usually takes months. In the unlikely event that the article is still very far from good article status right now, all we need to do is improve the article before the review happens. If CurlyTurkey or any other user asks me to make changes to the article prior to the review, then I will make those changes. If any further improvements are asked for, I am ready and able to make them.CurtisNaito (talk) 05:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Also note that, while I did make only two edits before initially nominating the article. One of them was a large edit. I modified almost every section of the article in order to add citations and make the text more concise. I believe that if the article is up for nomination, there will be good incentive to solicit new opinions and to improve the article even further.CurtisNaito (talk) 06:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

• CurtisNaito's disruptive behaviour both here and elsewhere should have resulted in blocks a long time ago. He and I were recently both told not to bludgeon discussions or engage in IDHT behaviour or suffer immediate 72h+ blocks. He almost immediately violated this moratorium by claiming on the GAR that no misrepresentation of sources had been found in the article, ignoring all the talk page discussion to the contrary (Ctrl+F this page for "IDHT" for the specific examples). His recent behaviour since the GAR closed has gone to a whole new level. Full disclosure: CurtisNaito has been monitoring my edits for the past year or so, jumping in any opportunity he sees to get rid of me. There is currently an ArbCom case due to be opened involving me and another editor with whom I am currently IBANned. CurtisNaito has absolutely nothing to do with this dispute, but immediately jumped in to badmouth me. However, the need to sanction him for his atrocious behaviour on the HoJ page is completely unrelated to the ArbCom case. If he is blocked but has anything worthwhile to contribute to the ArbCom discussion, he should be allowed do so. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC) Edited 11:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC).

I don't believe any misrepresentation of sources was found in the article. During the good article reassessment, it was concluded that the accurate sourcing requirement "is done as much as possible" because "I was able to perform my spotcheck and have my questions answered." It was also noted during the reassessment that the article was at least 70 to 90% towards good article status. There was thus good reason to renominate it. If needed, I will make improvements to the article even before a good article reviewer picks it up, though when the time for good article review comes I'm expecting the good article reviewer may ask for revisions.CurtisNaito (talk) 12:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Acrimonious bickering about an unrelated ArbCom case

Self-collapse by Hijiri88. Sorry. Disputes involving CN tend to enter TLDR territory very quickly. Can one of the many reviewers who have already been poring over the article for weeks and finding mistake after inaccuracy after OR claim that have yet to be resolved act as the reviewer and immediately reject the nomination until further discussion has taken place and consensus has been formed? Also, if there was any justice on Wikipedia, your IDHT claim I don't believe any misrepresentation of sources was found in the article. would result in an immediate block per Dennis Brown's explicit warning (with the caveat that you would be unblocked if you wanted to submit evidence to ArbCom, of course). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC) Edited 12:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC). I don't think there is a need to immediately reject it. In fact, the user TH1980 did a thorough spotcheck of the article and found no inaccuracies or misrepresentation to speak of. Given how many users have checked the sources and found no problems with the way they are cited, this doesn't seem to be a big issue with the article. Ultimately though, the future good article reviewer will likely check some or all of the sources in order to determine who is right.CurtisNaito (talk) 12:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC) FWIW, pinging another user apparently doesn't work if the link is broken in the first post and you edit it. I have heard tell you need to re-sign the post or some such. And why did TH1980 not find the misrepresentation that I later rooted out in the exact same text? TH1980 was recently the subject of a separate ANI thread because virtually all of his non-mainspace edits since May have been attempts to undermine me -- his !voting the opposite way to me in a GAR should most definitely be taken with a pinch of salt, especially when he makes outrageous claims like that he has checked the sources and there was no misrepresentation in order to justify such !votes. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC) Comment This area and these editors are presently before arbcom with an open case. This section should be closed and anything of importance should be brought up during the case. AlbinoFerret 14:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC) As you're well aware, I'm not involved in the ArbCom case. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC) I will point out that the clerk in the case has added Sturmgewehr88, CurtisNatio and TH1980 to the case as involved parties.[39] and your activity on the sections and talk pages may yet see you added. AlbinoFerret 12:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC) Comment Like CurtisNaito said, it's up to the nominator to decide whether or not to nominate an article. There was nothing wrong with nominating it. All Wikipedia articles are continuously improving, and this one will improve before, during, and after any future review. I did go over the sources and I didn't see any problem with the citations. I did need to give the article a good copy-edit, but I corrected the typos before the reassessment was over.TH1980 (talk) 14:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC) You never gave "the article a good copy-edit". Why would you lie at ANI? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC) Comment If this is a behavior issue, as it seems to be, behavior is covered by the ArbCom, and, with the case about to be opened, I agree it would be reasonable to allow the Arbs to address this behaviorial issue. John Carter (talk) 15:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC) I'm not involved in the ArbCom case. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC) Note I included the caveat that CurtisNaito is NOT involved in the ArbCom case but should be allowed to comment if necessary, even if he is blocked for this entirely unrelated problem, precisely because I new AlbinoFerret and John Carter would try to Wikilawyer and game the system by bringing up ArbCom to derail this discussion. I knew they would because they did this exact thing not long ago with my wikistalker TH1980 (whose almost every edit outside the mainspace since May has been to undermine me) -- and, lo and behold, who is the other user to comment here? Anyway, CurtisNaito is in no way related to my dispute with that other user, and merely posted to ArbCom to continue his campaign to get me removed from the site. If he wants to post evidence to ArbCom he should be allowed, but this should not be used as an excuse to oppose all sanctions against him for his other behaviour. Please also note that John Carter and AlbinoFerret also condoned my getting blocked for my dispute with CurtisNaito, during the ArbCom case, even though I am a named party in the ArbCom case, so there is some major hypocrisy going on here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC) I am frankly disgusted by the above editor's insistent refusal to ever assume even the slightest degree of good faith, and instead continue to indulge in what some might reasonably call his ongoing paranoic jumps to conclusions about the motivations of others. That behavior, in and of itself, particularly the rather extensive history of such behavior, is probably the main concern the arbs will have to review in this case. It is also worth noting that Dennis Brown in his opening comment specifically noted in the request for arbitration that the interactions of CN and Hijiri were problematic, and that CN has in fact requested of thhe be specifically added as a party. Therefore, therefore, there is a very good reason to believe that his conduct will be potentially subject to review in the arbitration as well. However, evidently, none of that seems to have been considered in the framing of the ill-informed, wildly prejudicial, and frankly rather irrational attempt to insult others above based not on facts, but rather on what seems to be that individual's own preconceived biases. John Carter (talk) 22:54, 21 October 2015 (UTC) @John Carter: Where in the above did I fail to assume good faith? CurtisNaito made a statement about my unrelated dispute with him on ArbCom. You supported CurtisNaito's ANI thread on me while the ArbCom case was being initially assessed. I was blocked based on what he said. You condoned this block. You thereupon opposed a block for TH1980 based on their supposed, at best peripheral involvement in the ArbCom case. Your comments there ran that discussion off the rails. All of these are facts, not assumptions. I stated before you posted here that there is an open ArbCom case in which CurtisNaito is peripherally involved, and if he is blocked for his actions on the HoJ page he should still be allowed post evidence to ArbCom if he wishes. So why did you feel the need to repeat what I said with the allowance made for a temporary block and a provisional unblock carefully removed? You had clearly read my comment, since you expressed agreement with AlbinoFerret's view that "these editors" (plural) are involved in an ArbCom case. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC) @Curly Turkey: Would you be willing to add this evidence to the ArbCom case, just in case this thread gets run off the rails? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC) This thread has already run off the rails, and I have nothing to do with the ArbCom case. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC) I repeat, despite the insistence of editors involved in this discussion, the arbitration committee determines what is and is not involved in the cases presented to them. CurtisNaito has specifically requested the drafting arbitrator that he be made a party to the case on that individual's talk page, and Dennis Brown, in his comment requesting the case be opened, specifically referred to a prior incident of a dispute between Hijiri88 and CurtisNaito. I had attempted to remove the collapsing, but the collapser, I believe Hijiri, has collapsed at least two comments in this thread already, making it more effort than it is worth to revert the multiple collapsings. It is the place of the arbitration committee to determine what is and is not relevant to their case, and I cannot see how it is necessarily reasonable for involved parties to determine on their own, without the input of the arbs, what is and is not relevant to a case before ArbCom. I believe the comment in the visible collapse note, "Acrimonious bickering about an unrelated ArbCom case," while clearly indicating that the collapser considers him or herself qualified to make decisions for the ArbCom without their input, and the rather presumptive judgment contained in it, "Acrimonious bickering about an unrelated ArbCom case," that the parties involved are not in fact the sole determiners of what is and is not related to the case, despite the apparent belief to the contrary, and suggest that the individuals involved perhaps allow the arbitrators to determine what evidence can be considered relevant to the case, considering their greater knowledge and awareness of the policies and procedures involved, than parties and prospective parties to that case. John Carter (talk) 23:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

• That CurtisNaito's editwarring with me over an invalid GA nomination at History of Japan is irrelevant to an ANI case about Hijiri and Catflap and Nichiren Buddhism is an empirical fact. The scope of an ArbCom case cannot be all of Wikipedia. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I have moved the end of the collapse template once again above my last comment. The edit warring on the History of Japan talk page has only taken place after roughly a month has passed since the arb request was first made. I realize the extreme situations the arbs have been facing has been a reasonable cause for their delay, but, at the same time, I also think that virtually anyone would acknowledge that had the arbitration opened more quickly, in the normal manner, the individuals who have been waiting for the case to be opened, none of whom have had any direct indication when that might happen, may well have been, in a sense, postponing related action until such time as the case was opened and they presented their evidence. If that were the case with CN, that in and of itself might be seen as accounting for his apparent lack of other activity since the request was made.

To Hijiri, you explicitly accused me of wikilawyering above, which is at the very least an implicit accusation of bad faith.

I also point out to Curly Turkey that BMK has specifically indicated on the ArbRequest evidence page that CT be added as a party to the arbitration.

I personally consider the rather poorly-thought-through, possibly rather GAMEy and OWNy, attempts to stifle any discussion, or even consideration of mitigating factors in the recent events, such as the collapsing of comments, itself extremely disruptive, and I sincerely urge Curly Turkey to refrain from such behavior in the future. Whether he wants that to be the case or not, there is a very real chance at this point that he will himself be made a party to the existing case, and, if that is the case, his own conduct, including attempts to collapse and thus refuse to address concerns of other editors, whether they agree with his own perceptions or not, and the possibility of such actions being in and of themselves inherently disruptive, may very easily be addressed there. And I believe I would be within the bounds of reasonable conduct here to remove further attempts on his part, or the part of anyone, to try to ignore the input of others regarding related matters. Those who may choose to respond to this thread should be given a full indication of related matters, including the matters collapsed by CT above, before being asked to make a decision. John Carter (talk) 15:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Collapsed comment. (Please sign your name when you collapse or archive text, as the original collapser of this did not do. BMK (talk) 22:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I did accuse you of wikilawyering, because that is what you did. You accused me of being the collapser solely to associate me with this thread more than I am, in order to draw the link you need between this thread and the ArbCom case. Why on earth would I refer to my own post as "acrimonious bickering"? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC) @BMK: Can you quote the relevant policy or guideline that says I am required to ~~~~ collapse titles? I have never heard this rule before, and I have seen probably hundreds of editors violate it. Furthermore, I did sign it, just not with four tildes; the collapse was clearly made by me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC) Yeah, the primary rule it falls under is "Don't be a WP:DICK. I know that's hard for you to follow, but give it your best. BMK (talk) 01:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC) @BMK: How on earth does my collapsing my own off-topic reply to JC's off-topic comment and clarifying that I was the one doing the collapsing but not doing so with four tildes qualify as "being a dick"? Have you just resorted to childish name-calling at this point? You make up an imaginary guideline and accuse me of violating it, and then when called out you call me a dick? How is that in anyway appropriate? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

The one stifling discussion here is you, John Carter, with this filibuster about an entirely unrelated ArbCom case. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't say so. I believe that John Carter is simply making everyone aware that this issue is not a straightforward one, as it is scrambled up with the issues in that ArbCom case, which is why I've requested that the scope of the case be expanded to include all the editors involved in the conflict. BMK (talk) 04:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not involved, and if CurtisNaito is in any way involved, his involvement has nothing to do with the conflict here. If the issue were in some way related (which it's not) that would be an awfully strong reason CurtisNaito shouldn't be allowed to renominate the article. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the difference between when the article was delisted from GA and when it's current state (for the purpose of nomination) I see a majority of minor wording fixes that do not appear to resolve the issue with respect to the concerns raised. I suggest that the GA Nominator withdraw the nomination unless they wish their actions to be construed as WP:IDHT/WP:FORUMSHOP as the only reason to re-nominate so quickly after being delisted (especially in light of the cosmetic changes to the article) is to make a disruptive point. Hasteur (talk) 20:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The immediate renomination against the wishes of the editors sends a clear WP:OWN message and, I am sure, will emphatically discourage all necessary collaborative effort. zzz (talk) 23:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm purposefully ignoring whatever is going on with ArbCom because it isn't necessary to evaluate the local issues here. The rationale behind renominating appears to be based on the reviewer's initial opinion that the article is 70-90% close to fulfilling the GA criteria. Whether that that percentage is accurate or not, a nontrivial amount of work in article breadth and original research evaluation is needed on the article based on the reviewer's close. Those improvements have not been implemented yet (I see mostly copyediting improvements since 21 October), so it's premature to open a GAN so soon after delisting. CurtisNaito, I think it's a good idea to withrdraw the nomination for now and continue to improve the article-- there's no hurry here to renominate. Getting another reviewer for another GAN right away is not what is needed (and frankly, Prhartcom did a fantastic job of facilitating discussion on the GAR). I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 07:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

(ec) If CurtisNaito removes the nomination of the article and promises to wait for consensus to renominate, the issue here will be resolved. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

He renominated 12 minutes after it was delisted? This sounds like serious WP:OWNership, let alone the continued WP:IDHT comments here. Will an admin please act on Dennis Brown's warning that CurtisNaito would be blocked for 72 hours for violating IDHT? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 05:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Sturmgewehr88, tell me again about how often you disagree with Hijiri88 and criticize him for his intransigent attitude. I need to be reassured, because without your constant assertions of such, I would start to think that you were a proxy of your fellow "-88" editor, or worse. BMK (talk) 18:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: give me a few hours and I'll add diffs if that's what you're asking? And yeah, I'm definitely a proxy "or worse" since I care so much about ないちゃー poets and he edits extensively on Ryukyu. </SARCASM> ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 18:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Then a word to the wise: you need to re-evaluate what seems to be your habit of supporting H88 in practically every noticeboard thread he's involved in, because you're creating a specific appearance of off-hand approval of everything he does. Whatever is true or not about him, that's not conceivably the case, and you might want to be more circumspect about your support in public discussions. BMK (talk) 18:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: I'll keep that in mind. I have never supported Hijiri's misbehavior, I've actually supported sanctions against him for it in the past. However, I do usually support him in content disputes, because he's usually right, and I rarely see some truth in his accusations. Take TH1980 for example. Hijiri accused him of being a sock almost the instant he noticed him. I have never beleived that TH1980 is a sockpuppet. However, I have seen first-hand an obvious pattern of wikistalking. TH1980 has gone to almost every dispute that involves Hijiri and immediately takes the opposing "side" no matter what the dispute is about. This is a textbook example. Just because Hijiri has a habit of crying wolf doesn't mean that wolves don't exist. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 19:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, I shall assume that you know best about what you're doing, just keep in mind how it sometimes looks from the outside. BMK (talk) 20:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Please close this section

• Note: AlbinoFerret has a personal beef with me; keep that in mind when wading through this interminable filibuster. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

That's the second person you've accused of "filibustering". Before you try for a third, I suggest you look up the definition of what an actual filibuster is. If either AF or JC were really "filibustering", no one would be able to get an word in edgewise, and that's clearly not the case here - everyone's having their say. Having facts inconvenient to you or with which you disagree pointed out is not a filibuster, in this case it's an attempt to provide context for the issue at hand. You may not like it, and you may disagree that their relevant, but it is in no way "filibustering", nor is it an illegitimate use of an AN/I report, in which all aspects of the issue reported are subject to examination. BMK (talk) 04:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

They are not "aspects of the issue reported", they are attempts to muddy the waters. This issue is unrelated to the ArbCom case, and this issue needs to be dealt with. Are those facts "inconvenient to you"? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

CurtisNaito is a party at Arbcom case that deals with editors in this area. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08_and_Hijiri88 This section should be closed and reopened at a future date if necessary. AlbinoFerret 13:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret Please demonstrate how CN being a party to the ArbCom case involves this. Yes, Hijiri88 started the GAR but other editors commented and the consensus was to delete. I don't see how Curley Turkey is involved in the ArbCom case and therefore question if this really is connected to the ArbCom case between 2 other editors. Your proposition that being an associate party to an ArbCom case precludes other Dispute Resolution actions on other topics makes a very dangerous precedent that I believe should never be encouraged. Oppose closing this untill concrete evidence can be shown that CN's actions are directly related to the above mentioned ArbCom case. Hasteur (talk) 13:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

While not a named party, Curly Turkey has involved himself in the dispute. Rather than retype, look here.[40] The topic of the nominations has already been added to evidence.[41] AlbinoFerret 13:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Until a clerk or ArbCom member agrees that Curley Turkey belongs in as a party to the case, I'd suggest we try to resolve this here. I see this dispute as a sidebar to the case, and I suspect with the large amount of reviews ArbCom has recently granted, they'll pass on pulling this into the case. I also note it's only your leap that puts Curley into the case, and therefore doubt the consensus. Hasteur (talk) 13:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Careful, Hasteur, if you get on AlbinoFerret's bad side, you'll find yourself a "named party", too. Just look at how far backwards he's bending to try ot get me named—and how hard he's trying to filibuster this discussion. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually the nominations are a point of the case as they started right after CurtisNaito posted against Hijiri88 in a section on the noticeboards. It doesnt matter if Curley is added, CurtisNaito and the nominations already are part of the case. This is close to forum shopping, as this evidence should have been added to the arbcom case because of the place (nominations) and the party involved (CurtisNaito). This was added October 2nd in the case request.[42] AlbinoFerret 13:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Evidence of what? CurtisNaito is editwarring against people, therefore Hijiri and Catflap are bad people? No, AlbinoFerret, you're just creating drahmah while trying to filibuster this discussion. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually the nominations are a point of the case as they started right after CurtisNaito posted against Hijiri88 in a section on the noticeboards. AlbinoFerret, you know perfectly well that that is completely untrue. CurtisNaito posted about me on "the noticeboards" because I was already challenging his faulty GA and FA nominations, and had been doing so (successfully, I might add -- I have always remained appropriately focused on article content, which is more than can be said for CurtisNaito) since May. (And if you try to assert that I have been "following" CurtisNaito since May, please bear in mind that he followed me to four other disputes before that over a two-year period.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The drafting arbitrator has indicated that Curtis Naito, TH1980, and Sturmgewehr88 all be added as parties to the existing case as perhere. Considering that there have been numerous complaints regarding CN and Hijiri88 among others recently, it seems to me that this matter, which is in ultimately the same topic area as that of the Catflap and Hijiri, and involves some of the same principals, as well as others who were asked to be made parties to the arbitration in the opening statements, specifically including Curly Turkey, I think it is reasonable to say that this matter can probably be addressed as part of the ongoing serious of behavior which is being dealt with by that case. John Carter (talk) 14:16, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

It should be noted that the comment which was made about the article being 70 to 90% towards good article status was made in the middle of the review, long before many changes were made. In fact, at the very beginning of the review, I was told by Dr. Blofeld that, "it does appear to have the basics in place and is adequately sourced for GA." Dr. Blofeld said this before several sourcing spotchecks were done, which, according to Prhartcom, left the issue of source verification "done as much as possible". In other words, this article is extremely close to good article status, so much so that Prhartcom recommended that the article be reviewed again "in due course" Although I am hoping that the future good article reviewer will make recommendations for changes, I am already prepared to take suggestions on how to improve the article. I think the argument against renominating would be stronger if there was no one around with the time to improve the article upon request. However, I have the time to modify the article depending on what others users say between now and the many months which may pass before a review begins.CurtisNaito (talk) 17:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Both of those editors explicitly stated that they had not examined the sources even a little bit, and they also stated that they are not topic specialists and so don't know how comprehensive the article is. Put simply: They didn't say one way or the other whether the article's many critics were right in any of our assertions, since no one was talking about the quality of the prose. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC) Edited for clarity 08:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC).

• Please close after blocking CurtisNaito for 72 hours for his repeated and continuous WP:IDHT behavior so we can all go back to editing. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 05:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose block, support expansion of ArbCom case, support everyone going back to editing. BMK (talk) 18:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

(NAC) No boomerangs (especially ones proposed by involved editors) will be thrown today. Knock off your disruptive point making lest you find yourself at the mercy of a testy Administrator. Hasteur (talk) 13:08, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Boomerang for Curly Turkey Curley Turkey has hidden discussion under a double hat.[43] when I removed it to show my comments Curley Turkey reverted it.[44] Then proceed to post multiple ABF comments to the section.[45][46][47] I have never edited an article he has to my knowledge. AlbinoFerret 23:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC) I have never edited an article he has to my knowledge.': no, you haunt ANI and target certain editors. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Oppose CT didn't "hide" anything and you know it. He collapsed off-topic discussion under an appropriate title that clarified the content of those posts. Any closer is free to look at whatever was under those hats. Your actions here (attempting to filibuster legitimate discussion with endless reams of text about an unrelated dispute, repeatedly lying about the timeline of events, jumping in immediately to a dispute to which you are not party just because you like one of the participants' external edits and dislike one of the other editors', etc.) clearly justify everything he has said, so there was no assumption of bad faith. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC) AlbinoFerret curiously thanked me for the above post. I'm not sure if it was meant ironically or if I actually convinced him of my point of view and a withdrawal of this proposal is forthcoming, but the latter seems unlikely. If the former, this seems like an abuse of the thank function. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC) Unacceptable. LjL (talk) 23:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC) @Hijiri88 Endless reams of text? What? I have two small posts under the hat with a total of 67 words. I did thank you for being so loyal to your friend. AlbinoFerret 00:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC) "Your" was plural. You and John Carter are clearly in this together, and no one could seriously argue that he has not been posting endless reams of text. You were the one who initially tried to make this about ArbCom (although I had already specified that if Curtis is blocked he should still be allowed to contribute to the ArbCom case, so both you and John Carter were being redundant), and you are now arguing that John Carter's endless reams of text should be allowed to clutter this thread and cloud the issue rather than being collapsed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Thats just fantasy, I have never edited a article with John Carter. I havent to my best knowledge ever had a conversation on either of our talk pages. Well I do vaguely remember there may be one on my talk page, but I cant for the life of me remember what it was about. This sounds like talk of a mini cabal, who are plotting against people. I think you better think that over a bit and come back and strike it. As for endless reams of text from others, I have no more control over the amount of text anyone posts that I do of yours, which is none. AlbinoFerret 01:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Hijiri88s claim is, I regret to say, simply another manifestation of his previously and well documented paranoid tendencies.I believe it would be at best inopportune to take any action here, pending the arbitration, and I find it nothing less than hilarious that Hijri, who has as was indicated per recent discussion, BLUDGEONed a page with no less than 71 edits, would accuse anyone else of talking too much. And I note that Hijiri himself posted on six different occasions in the total of 14 comments made to this subthread before my comment here. That, by the way, is more than a little amusing considering this very recent comment in which he indicated he was going to attempt to devote himself to building the encyclopedia. John Carter (talk) 15:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC). Yes, and then I woke up the next day and found a whole lot more nonsense that I needed to deal with. I really would like to be working on Ariwara no Narihira or Natsume Sōseki instead. Or heck, even dealing with CurtisNaito's unending nonsense IDHT ramblings on Talk:History of Japan ("influence of regency over shogunate = influence of shogunate over imperial court; the two are the same, so having a source that verifies one automatically verifies the other") is more productive than posting here. The really amusing thing, though, is your claiming that I am paranoid and assuming bad faith while you are the one who said "Hijiri88 should be TBANned from Christianity because he will follow me to that topic area".[48][49] I really don't understand why you refuse to just get along and work together, like we did in the old days ... on articles on Christianity ... to which I couldn't have followed you because I had never heard of you ... huh.[50][51] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Can we clarify, are you claiming that John Carter is not trying to filibuster this thread with endless reams of off-topic commentary? Or are you claiming that you are not trying to facilitate this by uncollapsing said and calling for sanctions against the collapser? The claim that you and he "don't edit the same articles" (John Carter hardly ever edits articles to begin with, and hasn't since you started editing articles) is immaterial -- you are very clearly collaborating right here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC) I am not collaborating with anyone. Collapsing other peoples on topic comments about where this issue should be raised is a serious problem. The ABF posts by him, and now you are very sad. AlbinoFerret 01:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC) There is no assuming here. You are acting in bad faith, in order to filibuster this discussion. In the section above you explicitly asked for the thread to be closed, and when that failed you tried to make this into a boomerang. Furthermore, the user who not long ago wrote this should not be accusing others of fighting imaginary mini-cabals. You are not only in a glass house here, you are storing your throwing stones inside your tinfoil hat. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC) I suggest you strike all of these accusative posts your making. AlbinoFerret 02:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC) There is nothing accusative in my posts. I'm just stating the facts. And why would you tell me to strike a post that you thanked me for? Why did you thank me? Are you admitting it was ironic? If so, do you understand why this is problematic? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Oppose - Curly Turkey did nothing wrong. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 05:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Oppose - Playing the "Boomerang card" (against whomever) is inappropriate here, since in this instance its point is simply obfuscation. BMK (talk) 18:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Boomerang for AlbinoFerret For drowning this discussion in drahmah unrelated to the issue raised. Note that AlbinoFerret's revenge against my collapsing the attempted filibuster was suddenly to try to name me party to an ArbCom case involving an editor I've never interacted with and areas in which I don't edit. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Cut the crap please, and discuss what needs to be discussed. You cannot control the shape and form of an AN/I discussion, even when you are the OP. BMK (talk) 04:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC) "Discuss what needs to be discussed"? None of you are discussing CurtisNaito's behaviour at History of Japan. That's the crap that needs to be cut. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Support - and I nominate John Carter for his share of the boomerang for WP:WIKILAWYERing: they both came here claiming that this discussion should be "put on hold" until the case at ArbCom was over (in a few months), and that CurtisNaito shouldn't be blocked during an ArbCom case. Well guess what? John Carter supported Hijiri getting blocked during the ArbCom case. Hijiri was blocked for a week, yet I heard no pleas from John Carter to wait until after ArbCom. The fact that he got away with this before over TH1980, and is trying again, is sickening. And a trout to Beyond My Ken for "being a dick" about collapsing. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 05:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Support Lying ("Hijiri88 started the GAR as revenge against CurtisNaito for his ANI posts, not the other way around"), BLUDGEONing this thread with off-topic commentary, KETTLE ("The sinister cabal of Japan-focused editors are assuming bad faith by accusing me of coordinating my filibuster efforts with John Carter"), edit-warring (constantly reverting the collapse), double-standards ("Hijiri88, whose name is in the ArbCom filing, and his co-cabalists should be blocked, but all users on my side should be exempt from blocks by virtue of me claiming they are involved in ArbCom"), using the "thank" function ironically... a 24-hour block for AlbinoFerret in light of all this would be mild given all this, but it would at least teach him that this behaviour is inappropriate and might prevent further disruption. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Oppose This section is casting aspersions against me and others, and think this is a completely bogus charge. AlbinoFerret 12:26, 24 October 2015 (UTC) It's not even close to being as bogus as the section you opened on Curly Turkey, or your (and John Carter's) claim that CurtisNaito should be untouchable during an ArbCom case while conveniently letting "the other side" get blocked. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 14:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC) This is to my eyes simply a desperate, and rather transparently desperate, attempt of the individuals involved in making the request to try to dodge the inevitable criticism of the ongoing Arbitration case, and seems to me to just be adding more fuel to the charges against the individuals making it. John Carter (talk) 14:47, 24 October 2015 (UTC) This is a transparently desperate attempt to drown the discussion of CurtisNaito's behaviour at History of Japan with non sequiturs about an irrelevant ArbCom case. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 15:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC) User:Curly Turkey, you seem to be incapable of understanding that the conduct of all people involved, including you, who have recently been requested by I think more than one person to be added as a party to that case, are not in a position to make the sort of absolute pontifications as the one above, even though you have made it several times recently. The arbitration in my eyes will, with luck, address the matter of the pre-existing battlelines which have been drawn in this content, which Catflap seemed to, inadvaertently, step into. Your refusal to believe that you could possibly be wrong in your recently oft-repeated assessment of the situation, which you repeated again above, can not unreasonably be seen as raising questions regarding your judgment. John Carter (talk) 15:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Keep bludgeoning away, the ArbCom case ain't getting any more relevant. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 15:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC) to try to dodge the inevitable criticism of the ongoing Arbitration case What? Could you rephrase that in an intelligible manner, please? Are we trying to avoid criticizing the ongoing Arbitration case? Or are we trying to avoid being criticized for the ongoing Arbitration case? If the former, why would we be compelled to criticize it, and why would we want to avoid doing so? If the latter ... what? The Arbitration case was your idea, and every involved party including Sturmgewehr88 and myself have been compliant with it, so why on earth would we be criticized for an arbitration case existing? And what on earth does any of this have to do with Curly Turkey, Prhartcom, CurtisNaito and History of Japan? Also, way to throw stones in your glass house, John Carter. Never accuse me or Sturmgewehr88 of being paranoid or violating AGF again, please. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC) substitute the word "sanctions" for criticism, if you prefer. And, Hijiri88, I am not the only one who has accused you of paranoia, Hijiri. The frankly remarkable display of narcissistic gall in your preemptive demand of me regarding what I can and cannot do is itself something I think will probably be noted by the arbitrators. I have myself refrained from adding any evidence yet until such time as Catflap himself submits evidence. I will however submit as part of my evidence the e-mail Sturmgewehr88 forwarded to me in which he asked you whether you wanted Th1980 to be discussed at ANI, and your response. There is a serious question regarding the amount of impact on these matters numerous e-mails and possibly other on- and off-wiki communications exchanged by multiple parties have had in the cementing of the "sides" here, and I think that is something that will certainly be submitted as evidence, and, with luck, considered by the arbs in determine how to deal with this situation. John Carter (talk) I hope you also hand over your emails between you and Catflap, but then again, that would be self incrimination. The only thing that email proves is that I wasn't proxying for Hijiri. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 18:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Support The intention was clear. zzz (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Strong oppose, I only see mobbing by some users with histories of blocks here. LjL (talk) 17:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC) You mean AlbinoFerret, John Carter, and BeyondMyKen? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 17:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Nope. LjL (talk) 18:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC) @LjL: "With histories of blocks" what does that have anything to do with this? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 18:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC) That seems obvious to me by now but I guess those people who don't find it obvious will just ignore it. LjL (talk) 18:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC) @LjL: obviously it's "obvious to [you]" or else you wouldn't have said it, but nobody else knows what you're thinking. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 19:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC) I don't only say things that are obvious to me, do you? That would be pretty dull. LjL (talk) 19:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC) No, we all know what he's thinking, despite his bad-faith efforts to obfuscate. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC) So now your an Internet mind reader. Are you using software, or is it some mysterious inborn psychic ability? AlbinoFerret 23:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Was this comment supposed to mean something? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Well, you said you know what someone is thinking. If it isnt software based, you must be a real powerful psychic to be able to read minds over the internet. AlbinoFerret 23:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Again, was this comment supposed to mean something? It's like reading random YouTube comments. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC) Hey, you were the one who said they knew what people were thinking,[52] not me. While I think its impossible I thought you might have some explanation for the claim. You might think your full of psychic energy, but maybe its something else entirely different. AlbinoFerret 00:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC) Ljl said it was obvious what he meant, and it was. If your comments are meant to be anything else but disruptive, you'll have to show us how. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC) Oppose - of course. BMK (talk) 18:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Boomerang for LjL Photograph of a cat We can haz all boomrangz? I haven't taken part in this discussion. How dare I? Maybe my contributions could have made a change, and now the chance is gone forever. I think I should definitely be hit by a WP:BOOMERANG. --LjL (talk) 12:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC) You should have posted on the sky being blue, or what songs are in the top 40. AlbinoFerret 12:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Well you can have a WP:WHALE instead for such a WP:POINTy proposal. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 14:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Pointing out that Curly Turkey just removed other people's comments from this section. I can't easily revert that because of intervening edits. LjL (talk) 15:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Well, I obviously did that in bad faith, to get at my longstanding enemy Hijiri. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 15:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC) I claimed nothing about faith, but please take the time to restore the deleted content. LjL (talk) 15:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC) I notice the obvious refusal to directly address the concern raised about removal of comments, which, considering the nature of this page, and the history of that editor in making unilateral declarations regarding what is and is not acceptable and/or appropriate, potentially one that raises very serious concerns regarding his conduct. John Carter (talk) 15:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC) No, but John Carter is accusing me of bad faith, despite my having restored the content. Anything but discuss CurtisNaito's behaviour at History of Japan for some reason. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 15:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC) For the record, I do not think that anyone noting a tendency toward unilateral pontification is necessarily called acting in bad faith by people who are not involved. And the rather obnoxious insistence that I am somehow obligated to discuss an article which falls outside of my own interests is an amusing comment, and a rather transparent attempt at misdirection. If you can actually deal with the matters of present concern in the appropriate locations, that would probably be to everyone's benefit, including your own. John Carter (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Well, that was gibberish. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 17:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Sometimes we all need a little boomerang on the head, and a strong trout whack.--MarshalN20 Talk 15:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC) This whole section is becoming pure trolling. Stop commenting here. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 18:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Stop saying boomerang Perhaps we should let the boomerang cool off for a little while, it is getting hot. It is meant for occasional use and there seems to be a line up to use it here. HighInBC 00:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC) The fact remains that AlbinoFerret started off the whole mess with a blatantly disruptive attempt to derail this thread, after he saw that an uninvolved editor, and myself, and an admin had just agreed with the OP. By your own logic, a double-boomerang should therefore be legitimately deployed in this instance. zzz (talk) 01:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC) Suggest WP:FRISBEE for HighinBC for not letting us say "boomerang" anymore. BMK (talk) 04:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC) I am wondering about the terminology for an offensive projectile that redirects itself mid-flight not to the person who launched it, but instead, ninja-style, to the user that (mis-)directed its redirection. SurelyProbably this has come up before. zzz (talk) 05:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC) I don't think so, and don't call me Shirley. BMK (talk) 08:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Mahensingha misunderstanding/misusing rollback "rights"

This editor claims his credibility granted him "certain rights and privileges", including WP:Rollback, after admitting that they "not simply" broke WP:3RR, but used "a special administrative feature to revert consecutive edits" which, while they amounted to an edit war, did not constitute vandalism or anything contemplated as a valid use of rollback.

As they somewhat proudly proclaimed (see first link again), the user they were edit warring against is now blocked for WP:Sock puppetry used to edit war (not, however, for the reasons Mahensingha attacked them, namely a WP:COI without evidence), but that's really neither here nor there.

I think this user does not understand the proper use of rollback, or, for that matter, what having flags on Wikipedia means (certainly not "rights and privileges" in my book), and they should either be explained much better than I was able, or revoked those flags.

LjL (talk) 15:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I am going to ping @Nakon: who gave this user the rollback right. My personal opinion is that rollback is easy come and easy go. There does seems to be some argument in making it go in this case. I will wait for others to comment first though. HighInBC 15:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

It looks like Mahensingha only rolled back the removal of maintenance templates at Bihari Rajputs. This seems to be within discretionary boundaries of policy. Are there other examples of misuse?- MrX 15:31, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The removal and reinstatement of those templates showed to be a contentious issue (particularly the bogus COI-related one, I'd say). Anyway, I'm just going by the fact that the editor himself stated: "It is not that I simply reverted 3 or even more edits of the user. I used my Rollbacker rights, a special administrative feature used against Vandalism to revert consecutive edits of that nature". I read this as saying they not only reverted more than 3 times, but they used rollback to do so. The feature is "used against vandalism", but they didn't use it against vandalism. In fact, I later removed the COI template myself because there were no grounds to keep it. I believe understanding what vandalism is is required. LjL (talk) 15:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

It's my understanding that rollback is only to be used against clear vandalism and the placing and removal of ordinary maintenance templates and tags isn't vandalism. I don't know if this warrants taking away the rollbacker right but Mahensingha should better understand the proper use of rollback. And Nakon hasn't edited for a week so I'm not sure if or when they will reply to your ping. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

@Liz: Per WP:Rollback, the feature can be used

1. To revert obvious vandalism and other edits where the reason for reverting is absolutely clear
2. To revert edits in your own user space
3. To revert edits that you have made (for example, edits that you accidentally made)
4. To revert edits by banned users who are not allowed to edit (but be prepared to explain this use of rollback when asked to)
5. To revert widespread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) which are judged to be unhelpful to the encyclopedia, provided that an explanation is supplied in an appropriate location, such as at the relevant talk page

BMK (talk) 04:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Many of us consider bulk removing maintenance templates in bad faith as vandalism. It is reasonable to use rollback when the reason for reverting is absolutely clear. Mahensingha will need to defend his own use of rollback since this is obviously not an unambiguous case.- MrX 16:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I think rollback was probably used inappropriately, but honestly, that's not my main reason for filing this report. What concerns me is this editor's apparent (stated) belief that flags such as rollback make them "superior" to other editors. I think it's deleterious for people who think like this to have such flags, until they understand what they really are about. LjL (talk) 16:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I again suspect here that the current reporting user is a sock puppet of the blocked user User talk:Burbak earlier name User talk:Suijai who has been consistently engaged in disruptive editing and using multiple accounts for accomplishment of the same tasks of taking complete ownership of the Article Bihari Rajputs. I request the eminent Admins and other experts to look into the matter more seriously, so as to discourage such anti wikipedian behaviours. It was not only me but other eminent wikipedians too observed the behaviour of the User:Burbak See here]. Please also refer to the detailed investigation of sockpuppet here. May be I am not able to effectively deal with this issue, but certainly such practices of the sock be controlled so that no one finds is so easy to do it here. It is needless to explain much, the eminent body is wise enough to find the fact. It is definitely an intentional report filed in response to what happened with User talk:Burbak and seems to be a sock for the same.--MahenSingha (Talk) 17:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I'm totally a sockpuppet of Burbak (admin note: no, I'm not), feel free to start a sockpuppet investigation about me. LjL (talk) 17:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Then Please tell me that why have you filed this report after the result of the sockpuppet investigation of the said user. If you were so unsatisfied then you could have done it earlier in due time when after the incident you sided with the user who right after the release of his block started same for which he was blocked. I certainly suspect you under prevailing situation.--MahenSingha (Talk) 18:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Once again regarding the words used what the LjL is reporting are not my words, as I simply reproduce it from the policy page where the process of Rollback is defined. I can't remember for how long I hold the Rollbacker Flag, but can the reporting user cite any other issue where I misused this feature. It is the proof that I whole heatedly abide by the policies. But, can he give a link that he has equally or a bit advised Burbak the other party reverting the page again and again imposing his ownership on the page. The reporting user claims here that he is just a 10 daysyears (corrected) old on wikipedia. Is it really so? All these and his sudden changed behaviour makes me think that he is intentionally doing this in response to the disciplinary action taken against the other party involved in disruption. --MahenSingha (Talk) 19:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Uhm, no, sorry, my claim was that my user is 10 years old on Wikipedia, not days. I suggest you read more carefully. As to the rest, well, it seems inconsequential to the report here. LjL (talk) 19:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Rollback is just a button. Any editor can use Undo, or edit a previous version, to accomplish the same result. The other methods provide for an edit comment, and should be used in preference to a rollback if there's any question as to why the action was taken.

A COI issue was alleged at one point, but this doesn't look like a typical COI issue. The issue here seems to be edit warring at Bihari Rajputs which took place between October 11, 2015 and October 15, 2015.[53]. See [54] and [55]. This appears to be a slow edit war over a citation format template. The citations look OK; they're proper book citation templates, not bare links. The real motivation appears to be political/social; see User_talk:Mahensingha#Why cant you accept that Yadavs are sudras?. That's an ordinary content dispute. Argue on the article talk page over that, if you wish; that's normal on Wikipedia. Find sources and argue over them. Bring in other editors for advice. That's fine. That's how Wikipedia handles controversial issues. Petty edit warring over irrelevant issues gets you nowhere, takes up a lot of time as others have to figure out what's going on, and ends with editors blocked. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 06:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

It is not my concern here to address any content issues (in fact, I originally reached that article as an uninvolved editor who noticed an incident). I am here to note that 1) rollback was misused 2) the misuser shows no understanding of that 3) they actually show an understanding that rollback is a "privilege".

Rollback may be similar to undo, but as noted above, it comes with certain very specific rules about its usage. I'm simply asking that these be acknowledged and respected by the user, which is in the scope of this noticeboard. LjL (talk) 12:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

@ LjL, I hope you can notice the Admins involvement throughout the issue and you certainly must not ignore the sockpuppet investigation results for the other party involved. I have already told you that I corrected many citations on that page even before you did it recently, but the said user used to undo all such creative efforts since ages ago on the page. I was really interested in making the article more meaningful in a very positive spirit but the sense of user's ownership over the article did not allow me. He was involved in this behaviour even after the release of symbolic block.--MahenSingha (Talk) 16:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:Own is not WP:Vandalism (which would allow you to use rollback), and as John Nagle said, this report should not be concerned with the content dispute. It's about your interpretation and use of the rollbacker flag. LjL (talk) 16:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I never said that it was over the content dispute, neither I reverted to the content related edits. I think you must again refresh yourself thoroughly about the chronology of events involved in this issue and to the edits I reverted with due focus on the unlawful user behaviour of User:Burbak. I really feel uneasy to stress the issues time and again. There was nothing good which you still favour to such a length. Try to understand as I have personally requested you for number of times that please not to encourage the anti policy or unlawful user acts on the wikipedia. Rest I leave it up to you. Thanks.--MahenSingha (Talk) 18:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Long-time disruption and refusal to WP:HEAR

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

For several weeks now, Apokrif consistently tries to soften criticism against scientology. The account removes the classification of scientology as a cult in France [56], [57], [58]. Under WP:AGF, I supplied the source, the actual parliamentary report [59]. That didn't help, Apokrif just kept deleting, and deleted the source as well [60], before changing strategy and starting to add the weasel word "some authorities" (obvious nonsense and WP:OR, France does not have alternative authorities) [61], [62], [63], [64], [65].
As an admin already put in on talk, At least one of the arguments that editor has used, to the effect that a parliamentary report is not a sufficient declaration to declare whether a group is counted as a cult, as per here, unusual at best. [66]. At least three users have told Apokrif to stop, but the user refuses to WP:HEAR and just goes on. After the last round, I told the user it would move to ANI if the disruptions continued, but I see it did not help and Apokrif just continued. It's obvious this user is here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and won't be bothered by a complete consensus against them. As discussing with the user does not help, I take it here. Jeppiz (talk) 16:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Just for the record, I am a former admin, not a current admin. But I believe that if you think that the matter rises to the level of disruptive editing as per WP:DE, it would probably be best to raise the matter at WP:AE. John Carter (talk) 16:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

"For several weeks now, Apokrif consistently tries to soften criticism against scientology." That's wrong, as can be seen in the article history. I gave several sources which help to put into perspective the parliamentary report, and frankly I wonder if Jeppiz or other contributors even bothered to read them. Apokrif (talk) 16:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Isn't Scientology as a topic under sanctions? —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 16:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

"the parliamentary report has little or no parliamentary value" That claim by Apokrif says it all about this user. And I can see no "sources" given by Apokrif, just links to other Wikipedia pages. In other words, Apokrif disputes using a parliamentary report and disputes using articles in leading French media if they contradict Apokrif's POV, but the user is happy using Wikipedia-links as sources if they conform to their POV. It is obvious that this is a case of WP:NOTHERE Jeppiz (talk) 16:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

If I wrote this (several edits and edit conflict in this section), I was actually meaning "no legal value", as explained in a source I quoted in the talk page (which I suggest you read before going any further). "France does not have alternative authorities" I'm not sure I get your point, did you read this? Apokrif (talk) 16:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

" And I can see no "sources" given by Apokrif" Did you refresh you browser (e.g. with the F5 key)? I gave links to a circulaire, a minister's answer to the National Assembly, and a book, here. Apokrif (talk) 16:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

"just links to other Wikipedia pages" Did you read them? They explain (minus some links) all that is needed to know on this topic (an argument and a source are two different things). Also, we should favor reliable sources, like this PhD dissertation, rather than "leading media" which not always know what they're talking about. Do you have anything to say (you never did, although I explicitly asked you) to dispute the use of this source or of the other sources I cited? Btw, which "leading French media" are you referring to? Is is this Nouvel Obs paper, which only says " En France, il a été classé comme "secte", dans un rapport parlementaire de 1995, jamais actualisé depuis" and so gives us not much more than the report itself? Thats' another question I already asked without getting any answer, so if you have anything to add to the debate, why don't you do it in the relevant place (the article Talk page)? Apokrif (talk) 17:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss the article, the topic is your behavior. The fact of the matter is that

*(at least) three different users have reverted your edits, so you know the consensus is against you.

*Even more users have disagreed with you on the talk page.

You're edit warring and disrupting a sensitive article, it has gone on for much more than a week, and you refuse to acknowledge that the consensus is against you, you just continue to ignore other opinions. Jeppiz (talk) 19:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

"you just continue to ignore other opinions" Wrong: I discussed them here and in other places (but perhaps you have a page refresh problem, did you try F5 as suggested above?). Could you please answer my relevant questions above and, so as not to obscure the debate, remove the inaccuracies (like "tries to soften criticism") you wrote? Apokrif (talk) 19:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I've alerted User:Apokrif to the discretionary sanctions under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology. EdJohnston (talk) 19:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

EdJohnston, that is helpful but it does not appear to have helped. We've already tried to explain WP policies to Apokrif, I only took it hear after the refusal to HEAR said policies became apparent. Jeppiz (talk) 20:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

If that is the case, then once again I think WP:AE might be the place to go. AE also has the advantage of having any sanctions it implements be basically irreversible, and it also in general gets a few more views than individual ANI threads, as there are much fewer threads there and the matters brought there tend to be more straightforward than a lot of ANI threads. John Carter (talk) 21:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: Did you ever consider that reading my answers and the sources I cite, and answering my questions, might be more constructive than repeating the same inaccuracies again and again? I'm afraid your display or reading problem is still not fixed. Apokrif (talk) 13:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism of page tags by nationalist tag-team, Iryna Harpy and Faustian

Vandalism of page tags by nationalist tag-team, Iryna Harpy and Faustian

I have been an editor for now over 3 years now, and this is my first complaint here. I have issues with Iryna Harpy and Faustian, who work as a WP:TAGTEAM. I have had a problem with them on Polish census of 1931 repeatedly deleting the NPOV tag. (I believe this is the only time that I have invoked it on a page, and I did so with good reason, infra.)

Evidence submitted

Iryna Harpy was warned here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Iryna_Harpy&oldid=685660546#Do_not_remove_NPOV_tags_until_issues_resolved_on_pages. And here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Iryna_Harpy&oldid=685660546#Disruptive_Editing_of_the_Polish_census_of_1931 Faustian was warned here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Faustian#Do_not_remove_NPOV_tags_until_issues_resolved_on_pages. And here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Faustian#Disruptive_Editing_of_the_Polish_census_of_1931 And here for removing maintenance tags by Poeticbent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Faustian#November_24 Iryna Harpy was warned for innappropriate conduct on talk pages recently here by Admin Softlavender: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=683692541#Harassment_by_user_Iryna_Harpy Iryna Harpy was warned for canvassing on her talk page regarding Ukrainain nationalist POV here by user Volunteer Marek https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Iryna_Harpy&oldid=683535025#2.2C000_dead_Russian_soldiers Iryna Harpy here is canvassing Faustian here on Ukrainian pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Faustian&oldid=638861689#Articles_being_changed and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Faustian&oldid=638861689#New_article_makes_me_very.2C_very_nervous and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Faustian&oldid=638861689#WARNING_regarding_Wiki_naming_policy_for_ethnic_groups_and_self-identification Faustian was blocked for edit warring on Polish-Ukrainain issues here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Faustian&oldid=638861689#March_2014 Faustian was warned by Admin  Sandstein  of The Arbitration Committee sanctions for violating normal editorial process in pages related to Eastern Europe here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Faustian&oldid=638861689#Arbitration_enforcement_warning:_Eastern_Europe In this case, over a year ago, the editors of the 1931 Census of Poland decided to replace the census results data from a tertiary source, to the published census itself (the secondary source). Faustian here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Polish_census_of_1931#Regarding_manipulation and Iryna Harpy here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Polish_census_of_1931#Removed_original_research Began making claims that citing from the original census document, which is standard practice on WP for a census, was OR, Synth, or a violation of policy regarding primary sources. (Comments from uninvolved editors on the NORNB and village pump policy are contrary to this opinion see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Polish_census_of_1931 and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Primary_source_guidelines_on_census_pages ) A year later, percentages were calculated per WP:CALC and data was put in tables. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polish_census_of_1931&diff=next&oldid=684533225 This resulted in POV blanking and more similar complaints from Iryna Harpy, (Faustian also reverted the page,) also claiming that editors cannot translate foreign documents, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Polish_census_of_1931#Objections_to_the_fidelity_of_this_page_reporting_the_results_of_the_Polish_Census_of_1931 In a discussion on the NORNB, Iryna Harpy, admited that she, herself, translates foreign langue into English in her editing, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Polish_census_of_1931 I consider this a tactical play to censor the page. Please note that this census was the last in what had been an extremely ethnically, linguistically, and religiously diverse region before WWII. The census data is an important tool for social scientists and students studying the region now that archives are now open. It is important that the original census be made public. So, to avoid disruptive objections about OR, I took the time to save images of the population totals both nationally and from each city and province and provide links on the page. This resulted in Iryna Harpy, censoring the images in what I consider vandalism here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polish_census_of_1931&oldid=685657081 My edits adding the image links has been sustained by other editors and presently remains on the page. I also noticed that the page was giving undue weight to the opinions and contentions of a Communist Party historian Jerzy Tomaszewski that the census itself was somehow rigged, but obscuring that source through citing it indirectly through other tertiary sources, and also not giving equal weight to contemporary sources from the era of the census, or post-communist historians. Therefore, I tagged the article with the NPOV tag. This resulted in the WP:TAGTEAM of Faustian and Iryna Harpy repeatedly deleting the tag, with comments like “no need for tag judt because one single editor has a problem” purporting to speak for all of the remaining editors of the page. See here: here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polish_census_of_1931&oldid=686103633 here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polish_census_of_1931&oldid=686118684 here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polish_census_of_1931&oldid=686189263 here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polish_census_of_1931&oldid=686359396 and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polish_census_of_1931&oldid=686412518 This is contrary to what the tag itself clearly states, “"The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight." Also note that it reads, "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." Thus, there is no rule for a consensus on the page for an editor who see a problem with NPOV to tag the page. Also note that improper deletion of page tags is considered vandalism: “Abuse of tags Bad-faith placing of non-content tags such as {afd}, {delete}, {sprotected}, or other tags on pages that do not meet such criteria. This includes baseless removal of {policy} and related tags.” WP:VANDTYPES (NPOV is funadmental WP policy) Since the dispute had not been resolved, repeatedly removing the tag was baseless, and thus vandalism since those who removed it were attmepting to defeat the clear purpose of the tag. If nothing else, it was disruptive to normal editing process. Reverting vandalism is not edit warring or a violation of 3RR. Even though he had engaged in vandalism, Faustian reported me for edit warring and violating the 3RR rule here citing Iryna Harpy in support of his contention., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User_talk:Doctor_Franklin_reported_by_User:Faustian_.28Result:_blocked.29 The result is that I got blocked by Admin MSGJ without giving me an opportunity to respond. I honestly didn't think I had done this. I was not reverting the page content itself, just the tag in accordance with the stated policy. I was acting in good faith, and I believe that some clarification is in order on the NPOV tag if I was incorrect. I then requested to have the block that was placed on me removed. I even agreed to not edit the page again for the duration of the block, and requested to be able to respond to another editor on the noticeboards. This was denied by Admin  OhNoitsJamie, who considered this not as a first time possible violation of 3RR, but made a comment about “You don't get to keep ugly tags up until someone joins the discussion who agrees with you.” here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Doctor_Franklin#You_have_been_reported_for_your_behavior. Well that assumed bad faith on my part, failed to address that another editor, Piotrus, had edited the tag on the page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polish_census_of_1931&oldid=686453370 and agreed with my point in the talk page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Polish_census_of_1931#What_exactly_is_not_neutral_here.3F. Thus, the NPOV tag worked as intended, despite the vandalism and disruptive editors. Since this was my first citation for violating 33R, I consider the refusal to accept my promise to not edit the page for the duration of the block, and the resulting threats about sanctions for NPOV tagging by Admin  OhNoitsJamie inappropriate and punitive, contrary to the policy for blocking a user which did not amount to a violation of 3RR.

In conclusion, this is my first complaint here. I have had a clean record in this regard, and I believe that there were problems with the other editors cited, and the application or explanation of the relevant policies related to the NPOV tag by admins. I was acting in good faith and trying to address this problem on the noticeboards when I got blocked. Doctor Franklin (talk) 17:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I've collapsed the above for brevity's sake. What exactly are you asking for here? What actions would you like to see taken (in a short two or three sentence reply)?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

1. I would like an explanation for the application of 3RR and vandalism of page tags. “Do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.” Should mean exactly that.

2. I request protection of the image galleries from vandalism.

3. I am requesting a WP:IBAN on Faustian and Iryna Harpy editing the same page for canvassing, following each other around and tag-teaming. Alternatively, I request that they be considered as a binary unit for issues of consensus and revert limits, or other sanctions that the admins deem appropriate.Doctor Franklin (talk) 03:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Please see this: [67]. Doctor Franklin is involved in a one-man crusade against various other editors and this is part of his disruptive behavior. An example is here: [68] (this also linked to, in the other link I provided)Faustian (talk) 19:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I would have similarly noted the ethnicity of the individual and Nazi collaboration per RS-biased had the person been a Ukrainian, Lithuanian, Belarussian who collaborated with the Nazis. I object to the insinuations. WP:ASPERSIONS. I didn't inject that person into the page to hide the true source of the claim: A Communist party historian. Nice try. [Edit to note that Marek Edelman would not have found anything that I wrote offensive.] Doctor Franklin (talk) 03:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Faustian This would be a clear WP:BOOMERANG were it not too long to read. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

If you can't be bothered to read what was written, please consider abstaining from commenting lest you be considered overtly biased.Doctor Franklin (talk) 03:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

What a tl;dr hodgepodge of 'anything I can find to indict a couple of editors by cherry picking stuff I haven't a clue about and am taking out of context because it suits my purpose' (and, my, what a delightful way to start the day).

Doctor Franklin has already explicitly misused another noticeboard as a venue to conduct a witchhunt - beginning on 9 October here - despite the fact that a number of other editors were disputing his changes, which speaks volumes for the calibre of this experienced WP:SPA. An editor who tries to develop an article introducing this offensive content is WP:NOTHERE, nor should they be. Considering how many editors involved in the article have disputed RS and OR issues, I can't help but wonder why he's targeted Faustian and myself. By the processes of his own logic, wouldn't that make all of the others who disagree with him Ukrainian nationalists? And multiply the number of TAGTEAM-ers by a half a dozen? Ultimately, I believe that the article falls under ARB sanctions. Doctor Franklin's accusations deserve to be met with a BOOMERANG and a block from editing any articles that fall under ARBEE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

You are here, because you removed a gallery of 22 images which I added, and two other editors further edited and wanted on the page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polish_census_of_1931&oldid=685629667 and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polish_census_of_1931&oldid=685630808 Should I ping them? After being warned, you removed the POV tag, contrary to its clear wording. I do agree that this falls under ARBEE sanctions, and Faustian has already been warned about that on his page. You raised the claim of OR, so I put it on the noticeboards. The un-involved outside editors disagree with you. One even posted on Faustian's talk page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Faustian#Primary_sources.2C_secondary_sources.2C_and_the_census Should we ping him here about your claims of OR? [Edit to note that Marek Edelman would not have found anything that I wrote offensive. See above.]Doctor Franklin (talk) 03:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

This guy's disruptions continue. You were already blocked for being disruptive and violating 3R by removing the POV tag that you alone wanted at the top of the article, and that 5 others had removed. So now here you are. A note: your comment above was misleading. On of the editors who added the table also stated: [69] "While I agree that the gallery looks kind kinda ugly, IMO it is no harm to keep it until that time some not very lazy Wikipedian copies the relevant info into our wikitable. Of course the tables should not be copied completely; only language totals be enough, so everything fits into a single table: Languages per voivodships." In this discussion Woogie10w (talk observed [70], "A week ago I gave Dr. Franklin the benefit of the doubt and assumed that his edits were made in good faith. During the past week we have seen a pattern of disruptive editing that is obviously aimed at wearing down the patience of other editors in an attempt to gain control of this article and turn it into a soapbox for his OR and fringe theories." This ANI that Doctor Franklin opened is a perfect example of that.Faustian (talk) 04:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, addressing Doctor Franklin's enumerated points above:

• 1. Your block for 3RR is correct and their removal of the NPOV tag is not vandalism. The part that you aren't seeing there is that a consensus of several editors are removing the tag and only you are trying to keep it up. Here you need to defer to that consensus and drop the stick. If you want more input from other editors then there are other ways to do it without needing that tag. I would suggest that you place a small concise, neutrally-worded request for more opinions on the talk page of WikiProject Poland...not the TLDR post that is there currently. Please do read TLDR otherwise your posts won't have the positive impact that you are hoping for. People don't like responding to raw data dumps.
• 2. There is no way to protect only a section of a page. Editors should once again work on the article talk page for consensus on how to handle the copy of the census that you have provided. The better idea would be to link to them but not display them. That way you leave it up to the reader to click through to analyze the data. Primary sources are permissible like that. Showing the whole thing within the article isn't normal or a good writing practice.
• 3. I haven't seen evidence which leads me to the conclusion that an IBAN is necessary or that tag teaming is going on. This is a content dispute that has gotten out of hand across several noticeboards. I would encourage editors to not try to get anyone in trouble but to continue to try to reach a consensus and work together. If necessary, follow dispute resolution or file a request for comment to gain more input and balance from additional editors.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Bad faith removal of AFD discussion

EEng removed a poster's vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonia Gerena Rivera (2nd nomination) and refuses to apologize for removing it. That's just not nice. I think a topic ban may be warranted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.48.209 (talk) 17:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

This is not a vote. Creating a new account for the sole purpose of closing an AFD while masking your prior identity, so other editors don't know your prior history at Wikipedia is not allowed. When you then LOG OUT of that account to do it again: [71] that's doubly wrong, and THEN when you use a new IP address to "report" the problem here, and then do the SAME problematic thing YET AGAIN, that's now a triply bad thing. When you're in a hole, stop digging my friend. --Jayron32 18:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Watch out for the boomerang, IP (and EEng needs to be banned from what topic, exactly?). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

This is a sock of the topic banned IP editor in the world's oldest people articles judging by the IP address. Block, close, move on. Blackmane (talk) 01:16, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Who should do formal closures?

Sockfest of Asdisis. No such user (talk) 21:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I strange thing had happened recently. I opened a formal closure request and a totally random user had closed it. I naturally reopened it and it stood like that for a few days until yesterday when another editor had closed it with an explanation "already done". I pointed out to him that the closure was not done properly by a random user and he said: "Sorry, I didn't realize that the close was done by a "random editor". Why didn't someone just reopen it? I will look at it again to see if I can help.". Then he made a mistake by thinking the closure was done by an admin. Both I and the editor who closed it initially had pointed out that mistake. Then the editor who had closed it had backed down from the whole discussion because, as he had put it: "it's not enriching my life and it's not improving the encyclopedia.". I again pointed out that said it needs to be properly closed, and that he had made a mistake. He said I can go to ANI. Here I am. My question here is. Can any random user go and close formal requests. I can also ask, what would happen if I were to close other formal requests. I would like for the request to be properly closed by an uninvolved admin. Links: Talk with the editor who closed the formal request. [72] Continuation on my talk page [73] If you would like to read the discussion for yourself, it is linked at the bottom of this second section. I will just write a brief description as objective I can since I was involved in the discussion. A RS was presented with a request to be included in the article. Another editor objected. Another editor closed the request pending consensus, and purposed an alternative edit. I accepted his suggestion. The editor who initially objected had changed his opinion and went to include the edit in the article. I asked of the person who closed the request pending consensus to close it since we reached a consensus with his alternative purposal. Then another editor had contacted the editor who had entered the edit to the article on his talk page with the following claims :"what is your problem, why are you introducing Croatian propaganda to the article". He reverted the edit and went on to post a source to validate his revert. The source is a youtube link on Serbian language. I asked him to provide a quote from the source on English. He didn't do that. I also can't see the content of the other source he presented, but it supposedly says something that I agree upon, and irrelevant to the edit request. The discussion then had stopped, and the already described chain of events had happened. Initial discussion [74] 141.136.228.115 (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC) Reading over Wikipedia:Edit requests, it would appear that any editor can assess the consensus of an edit request discussion and make the requested edit or refuse to and close the request. Specifically, it states Responding editors may decline to make any edit, and are especially likely to reject edits that are controversial, violate Wikipedia policy, or do not have evidence of consensus. The only time that the closer needs to be an administrator is when the article is under full protection and editing is limited to admins. But being an admin is not a requirement for an ordinary edit request close. Liz Read! Talk! 19:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC) We are speaking here of the formal closure request. Even if he had closed only the edit request we can hardly say it would be valid since he is not impartial which can be seen from his explanation. 141.136.228.115 (talk) 19:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC) I will rephrase my request. I would like for the formal closure request be dealt with an admin or any other well established editor who is impartial. This editor first had seen the discussion then he felt he disagrees then he closed it. That's hardly impartial. 141.136.228.115 (talk) 20:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC) Also, do I have to note again that the editor who eventually came to close the request had agreed it was closed improperly.141.136.228.115 (talk) 20:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC) If a RFC is improperly closed, you can ask for a review of the close on WP:AN and say why you think the close was improper. But the reasons must not be that you disagreed with the close, or if the closer is an admin or not. Valid reasons are that the closer was involved, simply counted votes, or completely ignored consensus that is obvious. AlbinoFerret 20:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC) Formal closure requests can't be closed by just anyone. Especially not in such a way this one was closed. If that can be done then I can freely go and close a few myself. I will just repeat what the other editor who came to close it in a proper way said:"Sorry, I didn't realize that the close was done by a "random editor". Why didn't someone just reopen it? I will look at it again to see if I can help.". I really didn't think this will be such a big deal. Let someone experienced and impartial close it and let's be done with it. It's not so long. There is only 1 source and none that opposes it. You do realize in what position I'm put as an IP editor? The matter is very simple. I have a RS and I want to introduce it in the article. If someone disagrees, they are free to contest my source with their own sources , but as long it is uncontested I should be able to put it in the article. This case is also simple. A random editor came and closed the formal request because he doesn't agree with it and not because it is the consensus. Also how to build a consensus when there's only 1 source that supports only one side? I thought a RfC is not needed to include a RS in the article , but it's obviously needed, so I will consider to open one. Especially if this request is not closed properly by an impartial and relevant user.141.136.228.115 (talk) 21:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC) To repeat perfectly clearly what had happened since there is some misunderstanding. An user came and saw a discussion. He strongly opposed the suggestion. He did a "clever thing". Instead to join the discussion, find sources and participate into establishing a consensus he just closed it to meet his point of view. Well that would for sure be a nice way to "win" a discussion, wouldn't it? 141.136.228.115 (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Q: When doing a formal closure, is it black tie or white tie and tails? I can never remember. BMK (talk) 22:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

It depends on how formal, White tie is the most formal. :) But it doesnt say anything about Socks. AlbinoFerret 00:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, very, very good, AlbinoFerret, very good indeed. Blackmane (talk) 01:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by *AirportUpdater*

*AirportUpdater*

I've been editing here for as long as I can remember, as an IP of course. But I have a complaint to make about this particular user. *AirportUpdater* .

Overview
When I came across the user I noticed that he was removing hyphons '-' from airport links on articles despite a consensus on WP:AIRPORTS. Not only, he has have removed references from articles. This could result in the article ending up with a source tag.

Report
Here is 1 example of his disruptive editing: from this diff .

He continues the exact same behaviour using the exact same edit summary on multiple articles, despite consensus.

Action
I would like the user to be blocked for a while, maybe even indef. The editing has gone to far, without any admin action. Please take care of this situation as soon as possible. Thanks.

46.208.248.225 (talk) 18:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

If that example is typical, what he's doing looks like a waste of time, though it's not clear why he should be blocked for it. There are no hyphons (or even hyphens) in "Orlando International Airport". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I can see why you might want me be blocked but my edits are not meant to harm any pages. I am simply making each page better. In relation to references, there is no need for them when flights are already running. That's why I've been deleting them from airport pages (and I'm not the only one doing so). Now, talking about MCO, this has been an ongoing issue and topic between editors and I have been commenting on WP:Airports about this issue. For the longest of times, MCO has been listed as "Orlando" on every airport website and I am simply sticking to this idea. We are currently in discussions on WP:Airports and until a final decision has been made, there shouldn't be any changes to the airport pages. Hope you understand. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 19:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, 46.208.248.225, I would consider you creating a talk page so we can discuss this matter privately instead of bringing to the Administrator's attention first. Thanks, *AirportUpdater* (talk) 19:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I must admit I am confused about the idea that you don't need sources for flights that are currently active (am I misunderstanding?), like in [75]. Wikipedia relies on sources; not everything is required to have an inline citation to stay, but when there is a valid inline citation to prove a fact, it doesn't seem appropriate to remove it to me. LjL (talk) 19:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks you for your comment. Yes, you are correct. However, on airport pages, this is how we do things: When an airline announces a new service, we add the airport with a "begin" date and a source verifying that this is accurate. Then, when the service does start, there's no need for the reference anymore telling us when it will begin so it makes no sense to keep it. That's why these sources are then deleted. Hope this answers your question. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 19:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

It answers it I guess, but it's concerning that it is the way it's done just on airport pages. Since "unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope" (from WP:Local consensus), the accepted guidelines about having reliable sources in the articles are as valid for airport pages as for any other article. LjL (talk) 19:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, I don't know about other articles as I am only an Airport Updater (my name). All I know is regarding references for airline routes, we've always been deleting these after flights have begun. Otherwise, the page would get very clobbered and littered with unnecessary junk. One last thing we airport editors do is put references when services resume or end. Again, after they do resume/end, we take away the source as there is no need for it anymore. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 19:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

References to sources are not "unnecessary junk"... :-\ Don't you have sources with a consolidated list of current flights that you could use as non-inline references for such articles? LjL (talk) 19:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Have you ever edited an airport's page before? It seems as though you aren't entirely sure what I'm talking about yet. Airport articles only need sources for new/resuming/ending flights that will happen in the future. Once that date has passed, there is no need for a reference telling us when it will begin, end, or resume. It is, junk (it doesn't benefit the page anymore). Understand a little better? *AirportUpdater* (talk) 19:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't need to have edited an airport's page to know that claims on Wikipedia need to be backed up by sources. Do these airport pages claim that certain flights are currently ongoing? If so, are sources given to verify that the claims are true? If not, why not? LjL (talk) 19:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Every airport page has a chart listing which airlines fly from that airport and the destinations (next to the airline) that each airline flies to. Some also have which concourses/gates/terminal they are located at. Here are some examples: John F. Kennedy International Airport, Pittsburgh International Airport. Maybe looking at these pages can answer your 2nd question because I believe I've answered it multiple times already. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 19:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

If you can see, there are some sources next to routes that will be beginning, ending, or resuming. There is no need for sources next to all the others because they are already running. This is how it's always been on Wikipedia. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 20:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

My second question is a simple one that can be answered with "yes" or "no". My tentative answer is "no", as I can see no sources to the lengthy tables of current routes. Is that how it's always been? I don't know, but that's inconsequential. I'm sure if people systematically remove the sources, then in the long run they will not be there. LjL (talk) 20:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Please consider that I do not share the opinion that administrative action needs to be taken against you, as to me, it seems obvious you have acted in good faith. At the same time, I see a possible inconsistency between Wikipedia guidelines and your "typical-of-airport-articles" edits, and I think it's worth making sure the people who routinely edit airport articles (like any other group) do it in line with the guidelines of the rest of the encyclopedia. LjL (talk) 20:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Exactly! It's always been like this. I'm not the first one to be deleting sources for routes that are running so I have no idea why this person is accusing me of doing something disruptive and worth blocking. Good discussion. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 20:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

...And thank you very much for agreeing. I am not a kind of person that goes around editing articles for pure enjoyment, I do it to make each page as accurate as possible without having unnecessary text in places it shouldn't be. Thanks again, *AirportUpdater* (talk) 20:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I must still stress that citations that verify the material contained in the article are not unnecessary, though, but in fact necessary in most circumstances. That doesn't mean you should be sanctioned, but if removing such citations is the norm for the airport articles people, then those people should really start a discourse with the rest of Wikipedia. LjL (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. Citations are definitely necessary, I couldn't agree more. Airline/destinations charts are a whole different ballgame though as you've noticed. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 21:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I am picking up a strong sense of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and a touch of WP:OWN here. "(Policy X) is important, except for this one thing _I_ do" is not a Wikipedia policy I'm familiar with, nor is "We've always done it that way so it's fine". Perhaps the reason no one has commented on the sourcing issues with these articles might be that they're not a highly-trafficked area of WP?

WP:RS is policy. Not "...policy except for these articles..." or "...policy when I think it should be..."--POLICY. *AirportUpdater* needs to abide by this just like everyone else. GJC 23:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

This is absolutely false. I am not sticking to my ideas even though the community has moved on (as stated in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT). Absolutely not. The community has been doing the same thing I've been doing long before I even started editing. To answer your question, these pages have a very high traffic and is constantly being updated by many editors. It seems as though you are not familiar with how airport pages work based on your thoughts and comments. I recommend you take a look at a few pages to see how they look, then make accusations if you still have any. Here are some examples: Pittsburgh International Airport, Orlando International Airport, John F. Kennedy International Airport. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 23:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, if you really want to. I suggest you read WP:AIRPORTS a little more carefully. If you still think no hyphons are needed, then you are welcome to start a new disscussion at WT:AIRPORTS. Why it was obvious that you were acting in good faith, note, that you can't rely on your opinion. I think community should find consensus, a non-involved editor can close if everyone's happy that this will have no action. 46.208.248.225 (talk) 06:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, websites are not a Wikipedia. Just because they do it one way doesn't mean we copy it. 46.208.248.225 (talk) 06:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

• I have an idea: how about dropping the mindnumbing enumerations of which carriers fly to which cities, departing from which concourses? Such information changes frequently (WP:NOTGUIDEBOOK) and really has little to do with understanding the subject. This would reduce the arguing such as above by 100X. EEng (talk) 15:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I was afraid to suggest it... then again, I am an inclusionist (who does find it a bit backwards that long list like those generally survive while there's a trickle of genuine articles semi-irreversibly deleted, but that's off-topic I guess). LjL (talk) 16:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

It's an idea. But I know that's never going to happen. Wikipedia is the only place where you can easily pop on and see where a city has flights to around the country/world. It's very helpful for someone who is trying to book a flight. They can see if that city has a nonstop flight to whichever city they want to go to. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 16:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

What part of WP:NOTGUIDEBOOK don't you understand? EEng (talk) 21:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I just looked at John F. Kennedy International Airport and the amount of information and unnecessary detail is just staggering. And, this might just be me, but I've never run into anyone who consulted Wikipedia when booking a flight. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikivoyage is a guidebook though, might it not be helpful to unobtrusively move the ever-changing flight information there and then continue to maintain them there? Although I'm not even sure wikis are the best place to search for that kind of data, because I suspect a backend that could connect origins with destinations would be so much handier... LjL (talk) 21:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Looking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports is an eye-opener. It seems like updating flight information is the primary activity of the WikiProject. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes; updating flight information is a common task carried out by members of the WikiProject, but it contributes to building an accurate and comprehensive encyclopedia so I'm not sure why it would be considered a negative thing. The airlines and destinations served from an airport are relevant and notable, and they help to provide context to the reader by indicating the significance of the airport. The references to WP:NOTGUIDEBOOK would be justified if the articles were including non-notable information such as fares, frequencies or timetables, but the airlines and destinations serving an airport are significant, verifiable, widely covered by both primary and secondary sources, and are of interest to the majority of people reading an encyclopedic article about an airport. OakleighPark 12:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Verifiable and sourced, right? LjL (talk) 12:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Whether or not the destination tables are sufficiently sourced is debatable; most current destinations do not have inline citations as the airline's timetable is considered to be the implicit citation. This is stated in WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT, but if it's not in agreement with Wikipedia's policies then it should be discussed and changed. I'm sure the editors of WP:Airport would be happy to address your concerns and work towards a constructive solution for ensuring that the referencing in destination tables meets Wikipedia's standards. However, I strongly disagree that just because there are issues with referencing that all destination tables should be removed. OakleighPark 13:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I am not saying people go to Wikipedia to book flights, I'm saying that Wikipedia is a good site people can go on to get an idea of what flights run from which cities. Yes Liz, us airport editors are all about updating flight information. It keeps us constantly checking Wikipedia to make each airport page better. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 03:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

This is entirely inappropriate article content. In addition to NOTGUIDE, there's WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. Hey -- why not include fare information too?

The fact that this information is the locus of editing disputes makes it not just deadwood, but wormwood. It should all be removed. And yes, a look at e.g. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports#Chinese_carriers_operating_.22direct.22_flights_from_China_to_Europe_via_another_Chinese_city shows how bankrupt all this busy-bee activity is. EEng (talk) 04:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I see where you are getting at. There are constantly issues regarding these airline routes (and that is a good example that you gave), but again, these charts aren't going to get deleted because they've been on every airport page since Wikipedia even started. They go way back and I think they are a great way to see how many nonstop routes each city has. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 05:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, these airline/destinations charts are one of the most important stats for an airport that everyone looks at when they visit an airport page. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 05:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The more stuff like that you say the more you strengthen the argument for removing it -- all of it. EEng (talk) 05:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Don't forget maps, articles about roads, railway lines etc.. Because WP:NOTGUIDE. Did someone mention fare information? New York City transit fares *grabs popcorn, sits back to watch* Ssscienccce (talk) 06:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Articles on roads and railways aren't subject to the kind of rapid change airline routes are, nor do they involve anything like the same mind-numbing quantities of information. The transit fares article should certainly be cut. EEng (talk) 06:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Just because the Wikiproject frequently has discussions to establish consistency, it does not make it 'bankrupt'. The discussion linked to was a case where what was reported by some sources (ie:direct flights from certain Chinese airports to the US) was not an accurate reflection of the real-life situation (ie:the flights were actually just domestic flights that were linked to the US flight only by having the same flight number). Such discussions may seem menial and pointless to many people, but they contribute to the quality of the encyclopedia by ensuring that the airport articles are as accurate, consistent and reflective of real-life as possible. Removing content because it has sparked discussions and disagreements among editors will do nothing to improve Wikipedia. OakleighPark 13:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• Agree with EEng. This primary-sourced or unsourced garbage does not belong on Wikipedia. The project needs to be reminded of our core policy on verifiability. A lot of these articles will need trimming. --John (talk) 06:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Can you give some specific examples of content you think is not verifiable? Ssscienccce (talk) 06:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

If the issue is that the destination tables are lacking appropriate sources, then surely the best solution would be to improve the quality of the referencing in destination tables, instead of removing them. Just because they currently lack sources, it doesn't mean that the information is unverifiable. OakleighPark 13:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

That is not a good idea, take to WT:AIRPORTS. 87.112.66.233 (talk) 06:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

You make valid points elsewhere but this report is getting way too off-topic... however, to stay within its realm, part of the original issue was that the reported editor was alleged to be removing references from those tables (or elsewhere in airport articles). Inline citations aren't mandatory for everything, but at least if the content is dubiously sourced or not easy to verify from the non-inline sources, then they shouldn't be removed. LjL (talk) 13:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Moved to WT:AIRPORTS, please post your input there. And please act in good faith. 87.112.66.233 (talk) 06:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

@Diaanaa, David Biddulph, GiantSnowman, Blackmane, and JzG:need consensus on keeping/nuking transit fares, routes and times.ping admins for urgent attentionMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 07:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

@Diaanaa, David Biddulph, GiantSnowman, Blackmane, and JzG:retryMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 07:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Is that how you form consensus now, pinging a small group of specific people in an ongoing discussion? --LjL (talk) 11:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Mahfuzur rahman shourov is under the mistaken impression that there is some sort of committee of higher up admins that can lay down the law as it were, which is somewhat amusing since I'm not an admin. @Mahfuzur rahman shourov: admins do not make editorial decisions as you think. Admins are granted privileges to enact the will of the community and to protect Wikipedia from disruption or damage. Blackmane (talk) 10:26, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I think this discussion has gotten way off topic for an Admin page. These are great discussions to be held on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports if you chose to do so. There you can discuss these topics with actual airport editors such as myself. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 12:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Is the Wikiproject page the right place to propose deletion of the Wikiproject?

This discussion is highly relevant for right here. It seems to me there is an out-of-control group of editors tag-teaming on airport and airlines articles which has been hiding their non-Wikipedia-compatible practices by dealing with each separate regular editor who arrives, one-by-one. In their tag-teaming, they try to create an impression that the newly arriving editor is being disruptive for noting and tagging or otherwise beginning to address the obvious problems. I got their treatment recently, when I arrived at American Airlines destinations to disambiguate a term. I noticed it was entirely non-encyclopedic, an extreme example of a directory, and in passing I removed an asserted future destination claim. On basis that Wikipedia is not a place for forecasts of future film releases or airline services or other crystal-ball items. From an I.P. editor and from editor Oknazevad I got obstinate treatment asserting that "wp:AIRLINES" (not a policy or even a guideline) rules, when that is merely a link to their WikiProject. I was eventually directed to their [WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT]] guideline, which is a local consensus out of sync with Wikipedia. Some of this is reflected at User talk:Doncram#New services. They called my tagging an article "bad faith" and "disruptive and unneeded" and stated bureaucratically "it has been removed". Which is not how legitimate tags pointing out problems are to be handled.

I didn't take it further then, but seeing others' encountering this stuff now and being equally horrified, I think it is time to eliminate all of this stuff.. on airport articles and on the 433 (!) airlines destinations articles in Category:Lists of airline destinations. This may all be moved to WikiVoyages perhaps, but certainly is to be removed from Wikipedia. The "Other stuff exists" argument about trains does not hold water; this is egregrious directory stuff and needs to be cleaned up, including for reason that we need clear treatment for trains editors and others elsewhere that this other stuff existing does not justify directories elsewhere. These editors' out-of-sync views and cumulative treatment of concerned other editors make this a bigger issue than one simply to be covered by themselves in their Wikiproject. Also, there have been past AFDs in ancient times (2007) which failed to stop this stuff (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Airlines destinations/archive and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Airlines destinations); it has only gotten worse since then.

Has a big new AFD been started yet, or could someone please start one (and post here and notify myself and others concerned about this), or where else is this being addressed, besides here (which should continue here). This is a big ongoing problem area, which is not going to be resolved by a chat among airport/airline updaters themselves. --doncram 22:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Ever heard of WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH? You accuse the WikiProject of a grand conspiracy when the reality is that 99% of the members are just trying to improve the coverage of airports on Wikipedia. In my years of editing airport articles, I have never observed any 'cumulative treatment of concerned editors', as disagreements are regularly discussed in a civil manner to reach consensus. I think a lot of the conflict stems from misunderstandings from people who aren't too familiar with airport articles. For example, future destinations are only added to tables when it is reported in a verifiable source and is almost certain to actually happen, so stating that it is a 'crystal-ball item' is completely inaccurate. If concerned editors took some time to observe what actually happens in the Wikiproject, they would see that everyone is there to improve Wikipedia and improve the quality and consistency of airport articles; not to deliberately circumvent Wikipedia's policies and attack editors who disagree them, as some people are alleging.

Finally, demanding that a Wikiproject be deleted is extremely nonconstructive, especially when you appear to have significant misconceptions about how it operates and what it does; if you are genuinely wanting to improve Wikipedia, then why not suggest ways that the Wikiproject could improve instead of demanding such drastic action? OakleighPark 23:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Discussion started at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pages in Category:Lists of airline destinations about this following comment above about whether these articles are needed or not. Any further opinions are welcome on the AfD page --Mdann52 (talk) 16:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Chicbyaccident

User:Chicbyaccident is displaying serious competence issues. I first encountered the user because major changes were made to the layout of Freemasonry, which is a GA article. In addition to the edit comment made by the reverter, I informed the user of the issue on their talk page The user then moved Grand Master (Masonic) without discussion, and I requested a tech move back for that reason. I also informed the user of the issue on their talk page, making reference to other editing issues as well, such as:

• redirecting "Frat" to the "Brother" dab page.
• [changing the redirect https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frater&type=revision&diff=685913291&oldid=288956384] of Frater to Brother. I reverted it and now see it was changed again to redirect to Fraternity despite the fact that the word Frater does not appear in either of those articles, and its redirect to Refectory is based off the English usage, not the Latin.
• Created now-deleted Category:Orientalist fraternalism for no apparent reason other than personal opinion.
• Executed a cut-and-paste move from IOOF Hall here.
• Rewrote Fraternity lede twice to include inline refs to Wikipedia/Wiktionary, as well as equating fraternities and fraternal organizations: 1 and 2 after I reverted the first time. rm #2 because sources changed and text didn't. Rv'ed for SYNTH, discussion before lede changes requested on talk.
• Created Category:Grand Masters based solely on a shared name.
• Removed material from an established template in use on 30 articles without discussion.

These edits have been very disruptive to the encyclopedia, especially because the moves have to be undone by board request because of good-faith edits afterwards. Discussion has not proven useful. because the same edits are being made. Editor shows no hint of wanting to do anything besides change Wikipedia to suit the editor's opinions without consideration of precedents, policies, or collegial editing practices. MSJapan (talk) 00:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Why are these edits are being described as "serious competence issues?" They look more like mistakes or routine editorial disagreements to me. I do note the issue with the problem of undoing moves here, and the editor has already been encouraged to consider requested moves in the future. The concerns regarding the frat/brother matter were discussed here from last week already and the editor is engaging in appropriate talk page discussion. I don't see evidence that the editor has repeatedly done more cut-and-paste moves after being notified. The issues with the lede for Fraternity do not rise to anything actionable. Yes, the Wikipedia references here were not appropriate, but most of those references seemed fine otherwise, and the edits overall were made in good faith to address an issue with citations. Category:Grand Masters has justification based in WP:SHAREDNAME, so let the deletion discussion run its course. I'll note as well that Chicbyaccident has been responsive to concerns with their edits and has engaged in reasonable discussion about it ([76], [77], [78]). I don't find the characterization to be accurate here. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 07:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I do not feel there has been discussion; I feel that CbA's attitude is "I'm right, and why can't you see that?" The discussions you point to have not progressed, because even though there is supposed acknowledgement, I have a serious issue with the followup, which excuses the behavior and then dismisses whatever it is as something the editor "wasn't really interested in pursuing." In short, the editor appears to want to edit what they want, and when someone objects, they simply go away and do the same thing elsewhere. It will be seen that I asked the editor not to simply make mass changes, and everywhere I looked, that was what was happening. When I quote a policy and the editing continues contrary to that policy, it's not a mistake anymore. Even the "Frater" discussion was met with "your source is not consensus" and the claim that Merriam-Webster Online was "a pay site." One cannot massively rewrite a GA article with no history of work on it and expect it to go unnoticed. I'd point out that after the revert on Freemasonry, Chic has had no interest in continuing a discussion on the matter, and simply went on to change other articles instead, like Fraternity, where the request for discussion prior to lede changes has simply been ignored. I don't know what else to call willful ignorance of clearly stated policy when the edits are otherwise AGF than an inability to understand it. I really feel that making a mess out of a page for whatever reason and then simply ignoring the area when challenged is not the sort of behavior we want to foster here. Here's another example of what I'm talking about: [79]. In this case, it seems that specifying terms only have been added, which should only serve to make the article more useful. However, in Arkansas, Shriners are no longer required to be Masons first, so that change in membership standing is wrong. Shriners are also in Canada and the Phillippines as well as other countries, so it's not only an "American" group anymore (which is why it's now called Shriners International, and has been for several years), so that change is wrong. The reason I have the AGF issue is because a little basic knowledge in the subject area should show the edit to be wrong before it is ever made. I feel that much of these changes are being made simply because the editor thinks the edits are correct, and that's not how WP works. MSJapan (talk) 04:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree 100% with User:I JethroBT.

Editor MSJapan is wrong to suggest that there is any issue at all relevant for wp:ANI. Editor MSJapan is a longterm editor and should and does know better.

If this goes any further, it may be relevant to re-consider that MSJapan and other editors interested in Masonic topics have repeatedly engaged in wp:OWNERSHIP-violating behavior, with too-strong, automatic contention over any edits by non-Masonic editors that touch on articles in their domain. Contention has often involved attempts to block/ban others who accidentally edited in their turf. I haven't yet seen tag-teaming going on in this case (I am not sure of the Masonite association of one other editor contributing in this case), but one frequent issue in Wikipedia history is tag-teaming of Masonic-focused editors against others. Contention dates from at least 2006: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive81#Behaviour of Masonic Editors on Freemasonry Pages. In 2008, this: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive463 and this:Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive449#Longterm nonconstructive editor.... I personally encountered this stuff in 2010: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive634#Masonic_buildings. In that 2010 ANI discussion I greatly appreciated editor Uncle G arriving and providing perspective about Masonic editors' behavior that they observed had been running for five years at that time. In 2013 ANI Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive805#Unresolved issue..., editor JASpencer noted that MSJapan's involvement in 138 administrative noticeboard cases and expressed particular concern about bullying-type tactics being applied against a newish editor who'd never been banned and had no previous ANI involvement. The concluding statement by another editor in the thread asked for MSJapan "to not misuse noticeboards in this way again". Which is what is happening again now. --doncram 11:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not interested in character assassination carried out by an editor who was sanctioned by Arbcom and topic-banned for the very behavior that brought him into contact with the "ownership" he sees, which was multiple editors trying to contain the damage he was doing through mass stub creation (and the whole basis of the case, which was brought against him by WP:NRHP, not WP:FM). There is no ownership in preventing mass rewrites of a GA article without discussion (as GA status depends upon stability), there is no ownership in preventing an article being rewritten to the point where it no longer addresses its topic (because then it ceases to be useful), and no ownership in preventing redirects to dab pages, because those redirects are prohibited by policy. My main concern is a problematic editor not addressing their problems, but simply doing the same thing again somewhere else. MSJapan (talk) 04:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Blacklist website

• bfwa.in: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Administrators blacklist these websites www.bfwa.in and www.bfwa.in/ . a group of editors is spamming them in Bollywood movie pages. Someone even created a two templates of this new website. --The Avengers (talk) 16:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The Avengers, this is best taken to the MediaWiki spam black list page and requested there. Ravensfire (talk) 16:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Looking at External link search, there are only 8 links to this website on Wikipedia pages and two of those links are in this message thread. Either all of the spam has been quickly removed or this is not that big of a problem. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

@Liz: I had to remove many links from Bollywood Articles and file this SPI, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Rikki233752 . Not a big problem now, but if they are blacklisted, it would reduce some work as if a latest movie Shaandaar had the links, they will be added again. Someone should check whether i filed my report correctly here MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. There are two sections, proposed additions and completed proposed addition. In the SPI i didn't report the IPs. You can't find the links as they were removed. I did plain search instead of the specific search that you did. How to do this external link search?The Avengers (talk) 01:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I deleted the spammy templates earlier. There's not much else to clean up, I don't think. Black Kite (talk) 00:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Persistent and belligerent copyright violation

User Haken arizona has, over a period of many months, introduced large chunks of copyright protected material into a number of motor racing-related articles. Until challenged, these edits were simple, blatant copy-paste additions from reputable online sources, such as the New York Times, Motor Sport, and others. Those that I have found so far are:

• Watkins Glen International (diff) - copyvio from Motor Sport
• Juan Pablo Montoya (diff) - copyvio from ESPN
• 1984 Italian Grand Prix (diff) - copyvio from Ayrton Senna Foundation
• Phoenix street circuit (diff) - copyvio from New York Times
• Korean Grand Prix (diff) - copyvio from Sky Sports

Having identified that there was a problem with Haken arizona's editing behaviour I placed the standard warning on their talk page regarding copyright. Their copyright violation addition to the 1984 Italian Grand Prix article, identified above, was made subsequent to this, so I placed a more strongly worded warning to get their attention (although I realise that I inadvertantly misidentified the article). At first, they flat out denied having simply copied sources, but then moderated their tone to suggest that they were quoting sources rather than copying them, and then asked for assistance to avoid repeating the error. This I provided. I thought we were getting somewhere. They then attempted to rework some of their additions to the Phoenix street circuit article, but these still included exceptionally close paraphrasing of the original source. For example:

• Haken arizona: "City of Phoenix decided in 1987 to hold a Formula 1 race to get global exposure and encourage economic development in the area."
• New York Times: "...the city decided three years ago to hold a race to get exposure and encourage economic development in the area. "

and

• Haken arizona: "The suggestion came from Howard Pynn, a Scottsdale businessman and Formula 1 fan."
• New York Times: "The suggestion came from Howard Pynn, a Scottsdale businessman and race fan."

and

• Haken arizona: "On January 13, 1989, the Phoenix City Council approved a five-year contract with Jack Long and Bernie Ecclestone, F1's commercial rights holder, to promote and run the race."
• New York Times: "On Jan. 13, the Phoenix City Council approved a five-year contract with Long to promote and run the race..."

On the basis of this, I reverted the additions, and in the edit summary included a link to WP:PARAPHRASE to expand on my explanation of why I had done so and to provide information. Haken arizona did not like this and reverted my removal, in the course of which their edit summary reverted to flat out denials of ever having used the New York Times at all, and accused me of being on a "power trip". Could somebody else please take a look at this and decide what to do? Frankly, I have better things to do with my time than chase around after people who either can't get their head around simple copyright regulations, or are not willing to educate themselves when provided with the appropriate information. Thanks! Pyrope 19:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your work monitoring this user. I have fixed his content on Phoenix street circuit from the NY Times at least. I couldn't find the other source articles as he did not offer any links. I've given him a final warning for copy vio and will monitor. Thanks for reporting, -- Diannaa (talk) 23:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Hopefully, when they realize it isn't just me being an arse they may take time to learn. Who knows. By the way, the other sources are hotlinked above, direct to the source article. Pyrope 14:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I apologize about this. I won't make the same mistake again. I did made edits to use only my words but member Pyrope thought that was not enough without giving me any explanation or at least editing the article himself, all he did is erased my work and told me "try again". I asked for him to give examples which he did wrote here on this page. (talk) Diannaa Thanks for fixing Phoenix street circuit article and not reverting to old skeleton description. Haken arizona (talk) 15:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

@Haken arizona: You can see by my example on Phoenix street circuit how thoroughly the prose has to be reworked to no longer be a copyright violation. As a rule of thumb it's best not to have three words in a row that are identical to your source material. Also, in the future, if you could please provide a link to your source material that would be really helpful. I was unable to locate your sources "New site for grand prix race,Observer Reporter Washington, associated press June 4th 1989" and "The Phoenix New Times, The Less Than Grand Prix by Tom Fitzpatrick Wednesday, 10 May 1989" and a link to where the material can be found online would solve that problem. Thanks, -- Diannaa (talk) 15:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Mike Daisey

The revision history of "Mike Daisey" makes it clear that somebody using Mid-Maine Communications has a monomania about a single, never-sourced allegation related to the biographee. The article's on my watchlist because of earlier trouble within it three years ago, when the biographee was the subject of intense bloviating; since that time, the bloviators have found new obsessions, the froth has died down considerably, and I infer that the article is no longer on many admins' watchlists. Since Mid-Maine Communications Person seems to obtain new IP numbers fairly easily and there are few constructive contributions by other IPs, my personal inclination is just to S-protect the article for half a year. Shall we do that? (If the decision is no we shouldn't, I'd ask more admins to put this article on their watchlists.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:16, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

@Hoary: Looks like the article was put under pending changes protection for six months just today. I'll keep this on my watch list, but I suspect the combined efforts of reviewers and admins will be able to address any issues stemming from this particular editing behavior. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 05:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Though I am not an administrator, I put this article on my watch list, and will keep an eye on it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both. Yes, pending changes protection was an excellent idea. -- Hoary (talk) 13:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Article editor performs massive OR violations

Article editor has been engaging in singularly "upgrading" a large number of dialects into languages, with no discussion whatsoever at any language-related talk page that would have alerted Wikipedia linguists to what was going on. There is absolutely no academic support for these moves, on the contrary, they are in direct opposition to what reliable sources class as dialects. To compound matters, Article Editor has already been indeffed once by Fut.Perf. for "undiscussed mass renamings and redirects". These moves where done by Anthony Appleyard and Philg88 (who no doubt acted in good faith) in response to requests from Article Editor. I propose:

• 1. That the following controversial WP:OR violations be undone, at least until they have been properly discussed: [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86].
• 2. That Article Editor be banned from making requests for "uncontroversial" moves. I would also strongly encourage the admins in charge of WP:RM to consider whether a move really is uncontroversial or not before carrying it out. Every single one of the moves above is a flagrant WP:OR-violation and certainly not uncontroversial.
• 3. That all current requests by Article editor at WP:RM for upgrading dialects to languages against all WP:RS consensus be rejected. Not one of them is uncontroversial. Jeppiz (talk) 00:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
• @Jeppiz: He tried it again: see this diff. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Add Frainc-Comtou language to be reverted? If so, the 2 talk pages listed at #1 here would both automatically move along with their articles. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
    • @Jeppiz: The moves were indeed done in good faith, and I naturally have no problem with their reversion. We have a section at WP:RMT where a request to revert a move claimed to be uncontroversial will be actioned.  Philg88 ^♦talk 06:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
• @Jeppiz and Philg88: I have moved Lorrain language, Champenois language, Tuscan language, Gallurese dialect, Angevin language, Frainc-Comtou language back to "dialect". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • @Anthony Appleyard and Philg88:, thank you both for your comments and for restoring the articles. If somebody wants to argue that these are languages, and back it up with WP:RS, we should of course discuss it, but (knowing this academic field quite well), virtually all academic sources say the opposite, so at the very least a discussion is necessary. Thanks again for restoring the articles! Jeppiz (talk) 22:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
• @Jeppiz and Philg88: What should happen to the page Norman language? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Anthony Appleyard: I'd say it should stay where it is - article says it is a language rather than a dialect but I'm happy to defer to the opinion of someone more expert on the subject.  Philg88 ^♦talk 05:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
• @Anthony Appleyard:, I also think it could stay. I only mentioned those that are undeniably (according to the complete academic consensus) dialects, not languages. There are quite a few linguists considering Norman as a language (and some considering it a dialect) so I didn't include it, nor Gascon (for the same reasons). Jeppiz (talk) 22:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Requesting a range block

As the title says I want to request a range block for a series of 175.157.xx.xxx as they've been used for continuous vandalism.

• Special:Contributions/175.157.28.20
• Special:Contributions/175.157.40.117
• Special:Contributions/175.157.40.241
• Special:Contributions/175.157.47.125
• Special:Contributions/175.157.33.203
• Special:Contributions/175.157.33.72

All of these IPs have been used to vandalize Sheshadre Priyasad and Dinakshie Priyasad continuously. Both articles have been protected multiple times as a precaution. However, the vandal is so desperate that he returned to vandalize the pages right after the protections has expired. -- Chamith (talk) 07:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the articles for a month (one is being PRODed by someone else). Rangeblock isn't the way to go here. Most of those that you have listed have gone stale and only one is active.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:16, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Competence/Copyright issues with User:Dhudhi

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

---

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

the users only edits have been to spam copyright material. They don't appear to be able to communicate in English which is problematic as their focus is the troubled areas covered by the ArbCom caste case where communication is essential. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I've issued a final warning and will monitor. Thanks for reporting, -- Diannaa (talk) 14:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Update: User is now indef-blocked for copyright violations after final warning. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Vettelisthebest

This user was previously blocked for sockpuppetry that he made to revert my edits and avoid 3RR. Now he started edit war, to restore insignificant parts of the table in the 2015 Blancpain Endurance Series season article. The article is already more than the recommended 100kb, so I didn't see any reason to keep his version of the table. As you can see, he still spits on 3RR. [87] [88], [89] Corvus tristis (talk) 12:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

This is a content dispute and it doesn't look like any discussion has happened yet on Talk:2015 Blancpain Endurance Series season. It looks like you are both verging on an edit war so, in the spirit of WP:BRD, it's time to discuss the matter right now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

We had a disscusion on my talk page, but then he suddenly stopped the disscussion and removed it [90]. Corvus tristis (talk) 14:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Programmatic Media

Programmatic media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The following contribution to the programmatic media page has been repeatedly reverted by Macrakis and JohnInDC.

"It has been suggested that the interactive media division of WPP Group's Ogilvy and Mather (now known as Neo@Ogilvy), has the deepest roots in terms of exploring mechanised media. Their 1981 venture, known as Teletext, entailed the broadcast of print material on television sets equipped with a special decoder that utilised binary code. Programmatic media has built on this digital framework with an algorithmic method of transacting cross-media."

The last revert came with the following warnings on my talk page unsourced verifiability. It was suggested that the fact about "Teletext and Oglivy & Mather" was "nonsense" and the "1981" date is inaccurate.

After lengthy conversations, the following link was shared by User:JohnInDC https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=950&dat=19790516&id=DwEMAAAAIBAJ&sjid=21gDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6334,14832&hl=en here

It was suggested that I "Forget Joseph & Turow and Yale" (my Joseph Turow citation), which I believe is the integral part of the paragraph.

Following another lengthy conversation, the following link was shared https://books.google.com/books?id=rK7JSFudXA8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22the+daily+you%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAGoVChMI-fXXp8DRyAIVDJWACh345w5n#v=onepage&q=teletext&f=false this link

This links to the page referred to in my Joseph Turow citation (which was apparently non existent and also the reason that a warning has been placed on my talk page).

I would be grateful if someone could confirm whether the reverted item contained citations or not. If so it would also be useful to gain an opinion on whether citation about O&M being involved with a teletext venture in 1981 is in line with the book.

If The above can be confirmed, it could be suggested that the other editors removed a perfectly relevant paragraph without a reasonable justification and also added unnecessary warnings on my talk page (on numerous occasions).

The users Macrakis and JohnInDC continually revert any content that I add to this page and refute anything that I add on the talk page. The administrator User:Jbhunley does not appear to have a neutral approach, and has been known to use expletives in conversations with me. I am now at the point where I am simply receive deletion threats (sometimes based on make belief rationales).

Please advise. Regards, -JG (talk) 17:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

References

Not an administrator. Used one (1) expletive. And for the last time stop copying my signature. Jbh^Talk 18:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The problems with the page, Programmatic media, and Jugdev's unrelenting resistance to any changes or improvements to the thing, were previously raised here at ANI, at this link. Macrakis, Jbhunley and I (among others) have spent quite a bit of time trying to improve the prose, clarify the concepts, and generally bring the thing more in line with what a Wikipedia article should be. Our concerns, and edits, have been extensively discussed (almost literally one by one) on the article Talk page. Jugdev has reflexively resisted all of these efforts, and in response routinely - and persistently - simply restores the text that he authored. Indeed he has been blocked at least twice in the past two weeks for edit warring. I invite interested editors to review the prior ANI filing, and the article Talk page, Jugdev's Talk page, and the current version of the page up against one of the earlier iterations, to permit them arrive at their own conclusions about where the problematic editing & behavior here in fact lies. JohnInDC (talk) 18:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

While I'm here, I'll take a moment to comment on the single substantive issue that Jugdev raises above:

The passage that Jugdev would like to re-insert (he has done so by my count 8 times already - hence the blocks) is factually incorrect, inaccurately reflects the cited source, and is of no articulable relevance to the article subject. Ogilvy & Mather did not invent Teletext. Teletext was not invented in 1981, but well before that; and Teletext (involving the rote reproduction of ad copy text on TV screens) is not a precursor of programmatic media, which is the real-time purchase and sale of customer-specific advertising space based on computer algorithms. Indeed the cited source says none of the these things, but rather notes that O&M by virtue of a two-year stint in creating marketing material for a Teletext undertaking by Time, Inc., may have had the “deepest roots” in persuading wary clients to purchase ads in the nascent 1990s field of “interactive media”, including CD-ROMs and on line services such as Prodigy.

Every one of these issues was extensively discussed on the Talk page (search for “1981” to see a sample). JohnInDC (talk) 18:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

As this is a content dispute I'm not sure the discussion belongs here. Nevertheless - Jugdev, per WP:DISCLOSE, would you like to advise us of any conflict of interest in matters relating to Ogilvy & Mather? RichardOSmith (talk) 18:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

There are two aspects to this matter: procedural and substantive.

Procedural: Jugdev does not appear to respect the consensus judgment of three other editors that this particular paragraph is both irrelevant and misleading. He repeats arguments he has made before (many of them generic rather than specific) and which have been answered before. He flatters his own contributions as "technical" and questions other editors' literacy. In general, he acts as though he owns the article, presuming that if he feels his concerns haven't been addressed, there is no consensus. He deploys absurd arguments, like "Are you suggesting that Yale University [Press] would allow the publication of inaccurate facts?"[91]; not only are presses generally not responsible for the contents of books they publish, but the issue here is his (mis)interpretation of the text.

On the substance: Multiple sources (including WP itself) show that Teletext was not invented in 1981, and not by Ogilvy and Mather. His paraphrasing of the source (which two editors have checked) is incorrect. The connection between Teletext as "mechanised media" and programmatic advertising is tenuous at best, since the core defining characteristic of programmatic advertising is targeting, whereas Teletext was broadcast, showing the same content and the same ads to all users. Adding weasel words like "It has been suggested that..." to questionable statements doesn't make it OK to add them. Puffery like "has the deepest roots in terms of exploring mechanised media" (even if sourced) doesn't belong in WP.

Finally, I feel that Jugdev is beating a dead horse, wasting our time, and discouraging other editors (User:NinjaRobotPirate and User:RichardOSmith are no longer editing this article). I have no idea whether this is intentional (WP:AGF), but it is certain disruptive. I only bother to respond at such length because I hope it will keep me and others from having to waste more time on endless, pointless discussions with an editor who refuses to listen to consensus. --Macrakis (talk) 18:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• Jugdev's response to the above

We must not digress from the items that have been noted in my original request to the administrators. We should address any other items in turn so that things do not get lost in translation. All of my contributions to Wikipedia contain citations from the industry and academia. -JG (talk) 19:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

When you bring an issue to AN/I, all aspects of it are going to be examined, not just the ones that serve the purposes of the reporting editor. This being the case, you need to respond to the comments of the editors you've complained about, and of uninvolved editors. For instance, a specific question was asked about your connection, if any, to Olgivy & Mather. You need to respond to these things - stonewalling will not serve you well. BMK (talk) 19:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

That article is a mess. How advertising networks and intermediaries decide what ads appear on a displayed web page is important and complex. The article does not provide much understanding of the process; there's real time bidding, multiple layers of intermediaries, and tracking going on behind the scenes. Here's a Gizmodo article which does a far better job of explaining this.[92]. The article tree which starts at Online advertising addresses the subject better, and has links to over 40 other articles about the details of online advertising. Those links do not include the article in question. This is almost an orphan article; it's linked from Online Target Advertising, which itself is an orphan article. Deletion is starting to look like a good idea here. Comments? John Nagle (talk) 20:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I have put a lot of time into trying to get my arms around the subject, and in trying to clean up the article, but I have never been comfortable with where we collectively have got with the thing and I have no objection at all to deleting Programmatic media if the topic is already covered, better, elsewhere here. JohnInDC (talk) 20:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Please address the items noted in my original request. anything else in my opinion are another conversation - happy to discuss once we move on from this particular case. -JG (talk) 20:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of both Programmatic Media and Online Target Advertising, per WP:REDUNDANTFORK. If the articles are deleted, this dispute becomes moot. As for the Teletext/Prestel/Ceefax issue, those were one-way systems which broadcast data by piggybacking it on TV signals, similar to the way closed captions work. Such broadcast content could not be targeted at all, and hence is irrelevant to "target advertising". Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Deleting makes sense to me. We should also delete the 240 SEO-like redirects that Jugdev has made, pointing to this article as I suggested a few weeks ago. --Macrakis (talk) 20:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Jugdev has removed the template from Programmatic media, so that'll require another avenue. JohnInDC (talk) 20:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agree. The article has had a whiff of PR/SEO about it from the beginning, those redirects to everything under the sun have been an issue from the outset. Even the term itself does not seem to be widely used. JohnInDC, Macrakis and all of the other editors who have worked on it have done a yeoman job cleaning it up but it should go. Jbh^Talk 20:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Programmatic media Jbh^Talk 20:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

-JG, WP:BOOMERANG is worth a read. Despite your accumulation of multiple sanctions, you chose to raise the matter here. Editors will look at what all sides are saying and past history and determine who is really causing the disruption. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

NeilN Thank you sir. -JG (talk) 21:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Adding all the redirects (Programmatic media inventory Programmatic media suppliers Programmatic media agency Programmatic media company Programmatic media uk Programmatic media us Programmatic media france Programmatic media germany Programmatic media spain Programmatic media italy Programmatic media netherlands Programmatic media india Programmatic advertising inventory Programmatic marketing inventoryProgrammatic advertising suppliers Programmatic marketing suppliers Programmatic media owner Programmatic marketing agency Programmatic advertising agency Programmatic advertising company... and over 100 more) to the AfD. That's blatant keyword spamming. Nobody does that on Wikipedia. Now someone has to clean up the mess. John Nagle (talk) 21:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

John Nagle, its in good hands. The administrators will instruct as required.-JG (talk) 21:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

As an aside, is it just me or, while all/most of those terms make grammatical sense in themselves (and some, like "programmatic media buying", the first one mentioned in the Programmatic media lede, even have some 100 hits on Google Books), "Programmatic media" itself - the article's main title - doesn't really mean anything? LjL (talk) 21:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Deep in the Talk page there's some discussion about renaming / moving the article to something a bit more descriptive but I think we figured to attack the substance first. (In short, you're right.) JohnInDC (talk) 21:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The talk page is long and tedious to read, but it really does help understand the situation. A clear consensus emerged among several editors for various changes, all of which Jugdev opposed. He seems to see this consensus-building as an attempt to hijack his article. I don't know what to think about the 100+ redirects or the repeated insistence to include certain corporations in the article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:10, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Boomerang Topic Ban for OP

I propose a boomerang topic ban on the OP, User:Jugdev, from the Programmatic media article and from the Programmatic media topic area, broadly defined, both for ownership attempts at the article, and as a vexatious litigant, whose use dispute resolution raises competency issues. As NinjaRobotPirate points out, there is a consensus on the article talk page, and the OP continues to oppose it. On 5 October, the OP filed a request for moderated discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard, but failed to identify the other editors. The request was closed by the coordinator, stating it was the responsibility of the filing party both to list and to notify the other editors. On 6 October, the OP filed another request for moderated discussion. This request was even more malformed, failing to identify the article at all, although it did list the other editors in the text of the request. This request was likewise closed. The OP was warned that future incorrect use of dispute resolution, after having the procedures explained in detail, might be considered disruptive editing. On 22 October, the OP filed a third request for moderated dispute resolution, this time listing the other editors, but still failing to notify them. Now on 23 October the OP has filed this request at ANI. It isn't clear what administrative action the OP is requesting, but it is clear that the administrative action to be taken should include a boomerang topic-ban. (A block might be in order, but that is another question.)

• Support topic-ban as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support, also because I don't know if we can talk about a WP:COI here as it was denied by the editor, but there definitely is something fishy (see Search Engine Optimization) going on. LjL (talk) 23:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - I was about to strike this request for two reasons. First, the article has been nominated for deletion, and its deletion will render the topic-ban moot. Second, the subject editor has been blocked for two weeks (longer than the period of the AFD). I won't object to an uninvolved administrator archiving this whole thread, including the topic-ban proposal, as a case of the OP being blocked by his own boomerang. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Jugdev has edited other, related articles and indeed his first edit-war block came in connection with another, related article. I'm skeptical frankly whether he will be able to observe the limits of a topic ban, and would be surprised if it turned out to be anything but a rest stop on the way to an indef block, but that's a discussion for another day. JohnInDC (talk) 01:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
• Comment As mentioned above, the article is at AfD and headed for deletion, mooting this specific issue. I can't figure out what Jugdev is trying to accomplish. At first it looked like a COI issue, but it doesn't seem to benefit anybody. All those redirects look like search engine optimization, but why drive traffic to Wikipedia for an article on a general subject? The insistence over a bogus claim about Teletext, a dead technology, remains puzzling. I dunno. In two weeks, their current block expires. WP:ROPE may be appropriate. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 03:06, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - It is a bit of a mystery. I don't think it's a COI, despite the fixation on this Ogilvy & Mather / Teletext issue. I literally think that issue became the focus of discussion because it was toward the beginning of the article and it was the first change he wanted to re-introduce after returning from his prior block. I believe ultimately it's a competence issue - with Exhibit One being his decision to press here at ANI an issue that was linked directly to - and directly contradicted by - a reviewable source. So, yeah, I agree about ROPE. JohnInDC (talk) 17:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Constant vandalism on time travel in fiction by multiple connected IPs

The article Time travel in fiction is constantly being vandalized by different IP which I think are connected because they have almost no editing history except for blanking out content from the article without explanation.[93]. I request the IP range be blocked and the article protected for now.--Taeyebaar (talk) 20:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

This doesn't look like vandalism to me. If you check the article's history, the IP editor has used an edit summary several times. Although he has blanked an entire section, it was with the explanation that it's an unsourced example farm. The citations removed were labeled unreliable. It looks to me like this IP editor is making a good-faith attempt to clean up the article, though his efforts have apparently not been well-received. I see a few reverts from various editors, so maybe you might try starting a discussion on the talk page to see if you can come to a consensus. There hasn't been a post there in over 3.5 years. Personally, I think the IP editor has a point about the unreliable sources and example farm. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The Harvest of Sorrow

I am notifying User:Volunteer Marek and User:My very best wishes. This two editors are looking for any excuse in order to delete all my edits to the article. I tried to find a solution, but it came out they are just excuses, they just want to delete everything. Please check Talk:The Harvest of Sorrow to see the relevant facts. Here are the diff [94], they always roll back to a stub article. Also Volunteer Marek is going under all my contributions in order to delete them, as it is evident in Robert Conquest, The Harvest of Sorrow and Warsaw Pact.-- Flushout1999 (talk) 22:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Flushout1999 is hitting a trifect on those article. WP:POV - on Harvest of Sorrow, he's got a criticism section which is six times the length of the rest of the article, misrepresenting sources - the sources actually give a positive reviews to the book but Flushout1999 has managed to cherry pick single sentences or out of context quotations to make it seem like the sources are critical of the book, and to top it all of WP:COPYVIO where they copy paste entire paragraphs (cherry picked of course) from the sources. In particular they've been told about WP:COPYVIO, they've been warned about it, but none the less persist in re-adding copyvio material. I suggest an indef block until the user acknowledges that we have a policy on copyright and promises to respect it. Volunteer Marek  22:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

A discussion recently started on another page; here is a comment about this. Then an RSNB report was filed by another user. Here is a discussion on talk page of Flushout1999. My very best wishes (talk) 22:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Marek and MVBW. They deserve thanks, because someone is going to have to through Wikipedia and remove/fix all of Flushout1999's edits, which are a toxic combination of POV-pushing, tendentiousness, and copyright violations. As best I can tell, Flushout1999's sole reason for editing Wikipedia is to try to discredit Robert Conquest (a reputable, if opinionated, historian) by any means necessary. Personally, I was planning to wait till he was done and then try to clean up the damage, but a more proactive approach would probably be wiser. MastCell ^Talk 23:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

MastCell, Volunteer Marek, and My Very Best Wishes are correct. Flushout1999 is editing contrary to policy and looks like he isn't here to build an encyclopedia. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Just had the unfortunate experience of looking through User:Flushout1999's recent edits. Propose either block or topic ban for Flushout1999 until he can behave himself. Darx9url (talk) 04:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

This is just looking to me as a cherry picking of old diff in order to put myself in a bad light and imply that I am in bad faith. I ask the administrators to go through the entire talks that have been reported here. The editors here are just now working as a team in order to have my edits deleted definitively, because they share the same point of view on these particular topics.

My edits were all well sourced with reliable sources, if there was copyvio is because I am still new here and I had not time to read all the policies until few days ago (see my contributions to verify, still few and on few pages). Here all these users are just looking for a way to punish me as I have been too "bold" in their opinion. They actually know and are aknowledging that the facts I reported in my edits are well sourced and real, but nonetheless they are always looking for new ways in order to delete my edits. What happened here is that they never assumed good faith since the beginning, go in Talk:Robert Conquest, you will see a persistent constant attack towards me with allegations of "having an agenda" (perhaps, just to improve the article?) and claims of being marked with a "sin". While what you see in The Harvest of Sorrow it looks to me like just a hidden vandalism (WP:SNEAKY: "reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages") as they don't delete only what they claim should not stay there (for copyvio and not RS) but everything everytime. And, moreover, they don't improve the page in any form, just reverting it to a stub.

This is, in actual facts, POV pushing of their own personal point of view and a form of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing as they want to be present in the articles only what is according to their own personal point of view. Moreover User:Volunteer Marek and User:My very best wishes are now working as a team in order to delete my edits in The Harvest of Sorrow and discourage me to correct eventual issues on my edits. What I see it's just a distortion and misuse of the wikipedia policies in order to not have others editors going ahead with the edits they dislike (as these edits are not in agreement with their own personal point of view) even if, in the final outcome, these edits would comply with the wikipedia policies. In fact they are just working as political partisans here on wikipedia, in order to not have reported important facts that they dislike while knowing they really did happen. -- Flushout1999 (talk) 07:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Boomerang block (48 hours) for forum shopping at ANI and tendentious editing with a refusal to accept consensus or drop the stick. Hard to take you serious when you have refused to follow policies such as copyright under the claim that you are new. You began editing in July 2013. We don't appreciate having our time wasted collectively with such tripe. There is currently an article which is full-protected for a week because of you and I'm surprised that you didn't get blocked then. Perhaps it would be a good idea if someone would leave a neutrally-worded request on the talk pages of the three pertinent WikiProjects for more input into future discussion. This may relieve the editors that have been dealing with this and get more eyes on those articles.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

User is swearing and disresping.

User in question is The kyle 3

• here, he wants to remove an article from Wikipedia about a man who was killed during a car accident caused by Palestinian rock throwing. I quote: "The old fuck crashed his car because people threw something at him for being an illegal "settler""

• here I quote: " "People" like you noisily masturbate over things like that so you can further the lie of "it's the Israeli Jews who're the victims under threat!" "

• here he regards "Israelis" as legitemate targets. (Not soldiers, not civilians, just "Israelis")

What disingenuous behaviour. I clearly said "those Israelis who are legitimate targets", not "all Israelis are legitimate targets". The kyle 3 (talk) 05:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

• here again he talks about the death of a man, saying that because he and all of the Israelis are occupeyers, he is responsible for his death. Also states all Israelis are Kahanists, equivelent to calling all Germans "Nazis".

Enough said, user should be warned. --Bolter21 23:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I said that "settlers" are kahanists. Many are, or otherwise are equally pro-ethnic cleansing and rabidly anti-Palestinian as the kahanist element is.

"Settlers" and the IDF in the Palestinian West Bank very often are responsible, if not all the time, for the circumstances that lead up to their deaths, being as they are a hostile military force engaging in occupation, or otherwise a pack of pro-ethnic cleansing land thieves-- as you know as an Israeli yourself, no one recognizes the "settlement" project as legal except for your own government and the worse kinds of pro-Israel "activists"

The kyle 3 (talk) 05:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

He should be blocked. He's an editor with an agenda, and their kind doesn't usually last even as long as that guy has. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Ha ha ha as though Gregory, the author of so many of those execrable and worthless "single Israeli died, oh no!" articles doesn't have an agenda? What shameless hypocrisy. The kyle 3 (talk) 05:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

The last uncivil edit that was cited here was made two days ago, and it occurred once (here). A block at this very time is not justified unless events occur since. Blocks are not to be used in a punitive measure, but a preventative measure in order to protect the encyclopedia. The diffs brought fourth here do not justify this. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if comments like this one today are uncivil, but I certainly wouldn't call them civil. LjL (talk) 00:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh wait, today is not the 22nd. LjL (talk) 00:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I"ll let the admins decide on that. --Bolter21 23:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• The situation is more complex: a series of pathetic articles are being created (this example) with copious dollops of horror at the death of an Israeli caused by the monstrous actions of criminal Palestinians who throw stones. The articles are part of a campaign to ignore encyclopedic issues such as the root causes; instead, appeals to emotion are used to distract from those issues. Johnuniq (talk) 23:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not really sure how that's relevant to the issue at hand, or how the use of epithets like "pathetic" for something like that is appropriate. LjL (talk) 23:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Seconded. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:00, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

As in real life, it's easy to be horrified by a bad act, but reacting to that bad act by whacking it without contemplating the underlying issues seldom has a useful effect. Johnuniq (talk) 00:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but ANI cannot solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or the related underlying causes for an editor to misbehave about it. LjL (talk) 00:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

There's currently a major case at Arbcom involving Israeli/Palestinian article disputes. In any event, this is probably not the venue to discuss Israeli/Palestinian controversies. GAB^Hello! 01:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Good call, GAB. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:47, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I just like stating the obvious. For the record, I find the personal attacks disgusting and support a stern warning against them. There's a reason Arbcom is considering blocking all editors with under 500 edits from getting into this subject matter. GAB^Hello! 01:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

FYI, I've left the editor a warning because a few of their edits were quite obviously controversial, and yet were marked as minor. LjL (talk) 00:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Awesome, LjL; thank you for doing that. I think that this is the only action that's truly merited. I'm going to mark this as a preliminary resolved ANI thread. If this thread needs to continue, please do not hesitate to remove the {{resolved}} tag placed below :-) ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I removed the resolved tag. Have a look at what this editor just added as his response to this complaint. That's after LjL's warning. Obvious NOTHERE is obvious. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

In this diff,[95] kyle declares the term "Israeli" to be a "made-up nationality". That betrays the agenda behind his editing. Editors with agendas don't belong here. If he's not indef'd today, he will be eventually. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Redacted my resolution statement. Thank you for re-opening this. Seeing this definitely shows that action should be considered. I think a 42 hour block is justified for WP:DISRUPT and WP:CIVIL. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:58, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Looking at their block log, The_kyle_3 has been blocked three times in the past four months (for, among other things, personal attacks), two of those blocks resulting in talk page access revocation. User should know better by now, so I'm leaning towards a longer block. Maybe not an indef, but he needs to know that the WP:ROPE he's pulling is tied around his neck.

I'm looking through his contributions to see what value (if any) he adds to the site before I take any action. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Probably not going to satisfy everyone, but I'm liking this idea: I thought I'd notify The_kyle_3 that Arbcom approved discretionary sanctions on articles relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Then I saw that he's already been notified. Going back through some of my contributions has confirmed my memories of being uninvolved. The closest anyone could argue I've come is making sure that antisemitic canards by white supremacists are presented as such, which has nothing to do with supporting or opposing any of the factions currently fighting in the Levant. The_kyle_3's problematic behavior only occurs in articles relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict. He also demonstrates other problematic behaviors there, such as edit warring. Now, if we had any real samples of his behavior outside of that topic, we could tell if it was just the topic... or just him. Time to find out where the problem lies. And so, my decision is that:

• The_kyle_3 is now topic banned from pages relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict (broadly construed) until 00:00 UTC, 1 November 2016.

Or, he is now invited to edit elsewhere on the site. If his problematic behavior continues in other topics, we'll know it was him and we'll have enough WP:ROPE. If his problematic behavior continues on this topic, we'll have enough rope. If the problem is the topic, then the topic ban will give him time to learn civility, and possibly give him time to become a productive editor in that topic. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

They could have gotten away with a warning, but they just had to respond with more of the same. GAB^Hello! 12:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, this guy is most likely a sock of a very old banned editor. Notice his reference here to Jayjg who hasn't edited in the topic area for literally years. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Possibly, but immaterial. Given the remark about every settler who is killed is to blame for his own death, the editor should not be editing in the I/P area, and the 1 year ban is lenient, but, if this is a Ist time offence, fair.Nishidani (talk) 19:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that socks are not a big deal to you all of a sudden. Please stop following me around. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Second opinion

I'd like a second opinion concerning the content added by Therapgod (talk · contribs). I was taking a lap through the CSD logs and Therapgod seems to have a lot of material deleted via csd and afd - not terrible uncommon, however the user in question is apparently attempting to rebuild material that was deleted cia xfd processes. Not overly concerning in and of itself, however if the deleted contributions are any indication this could soon end up in the realm of disruptive editing. I'd be of the mind to caution rapgod about this possible eventuality at this point, however I'd like a second opinion on that course of action and whether or not the user's contributions still fall in the realm of good faith editing. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

The article subject reminded me of someone. I checked: Yesson20 (talk · contribs), who also edited about the same article subject, last edited Wikipedia about an hour before Therapgod created their account. It may just be an amazing coincidence, or just a user who forgot their old password and created a new account. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:15, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Both talk about "verified celebrity accounts on social media sites": [96], [97]. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Probable sock? If so then this should probably be bounced to SPI for a look see, otherwise I don't see anything that concerns my original post. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

IP mass attack?

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

---

• 2602:304:CDC0:D470:29F7:D2D0:E953:E8A7 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2602:304:CDC0:D470:F12D:34:D335:1BFF (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2602:304:CDC0:D470:E5AD:390C:DB39:DDB4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Got mobbed by a bunch of IPs that have been vandalizing after I blocked one of them. I had to protect my user and user talk to prevent further attacks. Any info on them? They seem to be the same person. bibliomaniac15 07:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Here are some others:

• 2602:304:CDC0:D470:54DA:31DE:216D:59A0 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2602:304:CDC0:D470:381C:85BB:C52F:7187 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

bibliomaniac15 07:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I haven't looked at their edits yet, but the IPs listed all appear to be within a range. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protect these boards, please. Now. Doc talk 07:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

See this. Looks like a rangetroll :-) ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi protected these boards for a short time. bibliomaniac15 08:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Rangeblocked. NativeForeigner ^Talk 08:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Soapboxing/Edit Warring on the Uncyclopedia Article

User Shalir Salim (talk · contribs), has been edit warring on the Uncyc article. They claim that Uncyc is not a part of Wikia anymore, and has removed any reference on the page of there being two wikis, despite the fact that UncycloWikia is still active. Despite being reverted by multiple editors, Shalir keeps trying to claim that there is only one site. In addition to this, they don't seem to take a hint that they're in the wrong, and goes as far to accuse another editor of vandalism. --DSA510 Pls No Bully 19:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Dittoes. Bottom line (which can be studied on Talk:Uncyclopedia), there is the original website, operated by Wikia and administered in part by me; also a fork begun in January 2013 favored by DSA510 who posted above. The Wikipedia article, after several rounds of drama and discussion, documents both websites and the schism with a careful effort to avoid favoritism. Shalir Salim has recently edited this article to remove all references to the original website. I have told Salim on his talk page that this view is counter-factual. It can be argued that the fork is the "real" Uncyclopedia based on the personalities that assemble there; it can also be argued that if the patrons of Joe's Pub rejoin in the basement of one of them, it is not Joe's Pub. In any case, the Wikipedia article reflected a careful balance of these perspectives, which has been broken for reasons I presume are self-serving. The facts have not changed since that balance was struck. Spike-from-NH (talk) 04:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Dimadick and the addition of WikiProject Women category (and peripheral categories) to every single female tennis player

Suddenly today I see the addition to hundreds, and I assume soon to be thousands, of female tennis players a new category... WikiProject Women. That is way to general a category to add to every single female player that ever played the game of tennis. Do we add WikiProject Men to every male player? Do we add "WikiProject Homo Sapien" to all players? I deleted some additions and I asked the person in question to stop so it could be discussed wiki-wide... the answer was an emphatic no. So here we are. All I want is for it to stop since the widespread addition was challenged. User:Dimadick will be notified. It looks like this is not the first time this editor has had problems with adding categories. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. As far as I know, there's no limit on how many WikiProjects an article can belong to. There are unique issues that affect women more than men and WikiProject Women seeks to address those issues. Adding related WikiProject tags is no more disruptive than adding related categories, and there are plenty of categories specifically for women. clpo13_(talk) 23:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Categories get removed all the time from articles for being far to generalized or fivolous. This one takes it almost to the nth degree. 1/2 our tennis biography articles are affected. I can open a full RfC under Biographies or MoS. I sometimes go to a category like "cities in france" or "NFL teams" or "river of the United states" etc... to narrow my search for things. But this category is ridiculously large if it's tagged for every single female that ever lived and is here in this wikipedia. Before it gets tagged onto that large a base it needs to be discussed wiki-wide. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll admit that the subject of that WikiProject is pretty broad, but nowhere on the page does it list criteria for what articles can or cannot be included. Given that, I really don't see how Dimadick has done anything wrong. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 02:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

This isn't a question of punishment. The user started adding bunches of these. I asked him/her to stop and reverted several of those additions. The protocol now is for him to show a proper need and convince a consensus that the addition is warranted... not keep adding more and more. They refused, so we are here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The relevant guideline would be WP:PROJSCOPE, which discourages edit warring over the inclusion of project headers. I would suggest that you just leave it alone. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I haven't checked specifically, but my impression was that that project was being added to every article about a woman. If that's the case, I would say that's an unmanageable number of articles, and could become a problem if the project generates style or format guidelines and then attempts to enforce them across all those articles, a sizable percentage of the encyclopedia. If I'm correct about their intended scope, I would suggest to the project that choosing articles about people who have advanced the cause of women's rights or something similarly restricted might be a more manageable and appropriate purview. BMK (talk) 04:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. WP Biography has a unmanageable scope of articles on that basis. The better thing is to suggest that WP Women consider task forces for their articles that are basically the underlying major projects. Just like WP India has an Indian films taskforce and WP Films has an Indian films task force that I think redirect to each other, WP Women can create a women tennis players task force that's really a task force underneath WP Tennis. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Correct. let's take someone like Billie Jean King. I have no issues with that addition at all. But otherwise what would stop me from say... adding to EVERY US President and every UK Prime Minister, the categories wikiproject Mammals, wikiproject Homo, wikiproject Primate. They all fit but you can 100% bet it would be challenged (as it should be). Would @NinjaRobotPirate: say those additions should also be ignored? This is just far too broad a project if it intends to have itself attached to every single female on the planet. I think most of the tennis players are already listed under WikiProject Women's sport, and special ones are listed under WikiProject Women's History. Here's a query since it's running through my mind... if this sticks and I want to challenge this with an RfC, where would be the best most all-encompassing place to put it? Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate would say that he doesn't really care what WikiProjects do as long as they don't get in his way. But I don't see the harm in making task forces. If it were me, I'd go to WikiProject Women and suggest Ricky's idea. If that didn't work, then I'd maybe try starting a discussion at WP:WikiProject Council. If that didn't work, then I'd fall back to WP:VPP, I guess. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

On the German Wikipedia they made the decision long ago to add "Frau" as a category to all female biographies. I just checked Maureen o'hara and it's still there, but I was under the impression that the need for this (in order to measure the proportion male/female biographies) was answered with Wikidata. There all people items are assigned properties for human and gender. Anyone know whether the German Wikipedia is still adding that category? It seems a bit redundant to me. Jane (talk) 05:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Women is not about Women's rights, that is WikiProject Feminism. WikiProject Women has a much wider scope and discussions on its page regularly addressed the need to add more articles about women, whether manually or about robot. Since the discussion is about their scope, I wonder if they should be notified. Dimadick (talk) 06:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

They were notified before this an/i took place. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, and while this an/i is going on Dimadick continues to add this item to every woman and specifically tennis player articles. Talk about bad faith and chutzpah. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest that User:Fyunck(click) has misunderstood what WikiProject|WikiProjects are. They are not categories to help readers find articles. They are there to direct groups of editors to articles that fall within their particular field of interest. When an article is created, it should be added to as many relevant WikiProjects as possible so that editors who might have an interest in contributing to it can do so. The only people who should be concerned if there are too many articles, or inappropriate articles, being added to WikiProject Women are the members of WikiProject Women. The best place to discuss if the new additions are appropriate is probably the project's talk page. --Nicknack009 (talk) 08:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

A couple things. Those articles that fall within this field of interest are every notable female in history. I still say that's ridiculous. And it was being discussed at the project page, but while it's being discussed there (and here) this particular editor will not stop adding what I deem as controversial/overkill. They aren't even a member of the project from what I was told. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, there is a WikiProject Women's sport so for the women tennis players could it be suggested to Dimadick that this project be added instead of WikiProject Women? As an example I have been adding WikiProject Women writers to articles about women who are authors, and articles about their books. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I try adding both banners where they are missing. Dimadick (talk) 09:50, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

This is a forum shop in the wrong forum; OP started Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women#So_what_criteria_is_used_to_tag_articles_with_this_category.3F shortly before filing here. Per WP:PROJSCOPE projects define their own scope and per WP:PROJGUIDE concerns should be raised at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council. NE Ent 12:50, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm the co-founder of {{WikiProject Women}}.

Let's take a look at Jane Austen. Should we have a discussion over including both WikiProject England and WikiProject Hampshire, or including both WikiProject Biography and WikiProject Women writers, or including both WikiProject Literature and WikiProject Romance? IMO, there is room for all of these. If editors want to concentrate on a subgroup of articles, they can create a WikiProject, and work on those articles. This entitles them to add their project's banner to talkpage space. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

This isn't a question of having multiple banners. Almost every tennis player has multiple banners. No qulams about that at all. This is about a particular editor adding a particular banner that encompasses every single woman on wikipedia. Specifically 1/2 of all our tennis bios. Most already have a women's sport banner. Some already have a women's history banner. But this editor is now being reverted by multiple editors for adding an over-reaching banner to these articles. And make no mistake, this An/i is not here because of wikiproject women. It is here because a single editor kept adding the banner, was challenged, would not discuss these additions, and kept (and keeps) adding more... even while this discussion is happening. It is not inconceivable that wikiproject women and I could have seen eye to eye and come to a compromise. But User:Dimadick pretty much dared me to bring it here because of words and actions. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

• Regarding Task Forces: At WikiProject Women, we've talked about creating a separate Wikiproject or a TF for Women in Leadership and for Women Entertainers... we haven't created either, but we've talked about it... and there's talk about Women in Religion, too. Fictional women are also within this project's scope; did you know that WMSV did a series of edit-a-thons on them, bringing Lisbeth Salander to GA? Any woman who self-identifies as a woman is a woman, so transgender women are women, and are within this project's scope, i.e. Chelsea Manning. We're not going to start creating a slew of new task forces for all of these subdivisions of "women" as we don't want to split up our resources.
• Regarding "Frau": While a "Frau" category has probably accomplished something similar at the German language Wikipedia, we have not gone in that direction on En Wiki and I haven't seen any discussion about doing so; if there is, link please.
• Regarding Wikidata: it does NOT capture every article created on Wikipedia, and it does not have a gender value for every biography.
• Regarding AfD: if an article has a WikiProject Women talkpage banner, and if the article lands at AfD, then WikiProject Women will be alerted and can participate in the discussion.
• Regarding banner specificity: If a woman's biography is tagged with more specific banners, e.g. {{WikiProject Women's History}}, {{WikiProject Women writers}}, and so on, we don't add WikiProject Women, but if there are no "women" talkpage banners on an article's talkpage, why shouldn't we add an applicable one, such as WikiProject Women? Note, only 15.5% of En Wiki's biographies are about women, so it's a slim subset of WPBIO.

  But that's not the case here. Let's look at a couple articles in question. Talk:Dorothea Douglass Lambert Chambers already had 7 banners on it... two of which were "Wikiproject Women's sport" and "Wikiproject Women's History." Talk:Suzanne Lenglen had 6 banners that also included "Wikiproject Women's sport" and "Wikiproject Women's History." Maybe a more modern player like Steffi Graf that had 5 banners including "Wikiproject Women's sport." You don't see me removing multiple banners just because they're there. Above you say that "If a woman's biography is tagged with more specific banners we don't add WikiProject Women. Well most of these additions are already tagged so you should be admonishing this rogue editor who won't follow protocol. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to try again. WikiProject Women exists and sets its own scope. If there are too many articles for the project to manage, that is not your problem, it is theirs. You really have no dog in this fight.

Incidentally, your accusation that Dimadick "dared" you to bring the issue here appears to be misleading. The evidence of Dimadick's talk page is that you first threatened to report this to the administrators, and Dimadick told you to go ahead. --Nicknack009 (talk) 20:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

FkpCascais again

I need external help at this point.

Recap: There was a complicated RfC. It was closed against FkpCascais's stance. After further debates, he asked for a review of the close, which is, let's say, ongoing. This is when I got involved. In the meanwhile, there has been (a lot) more discussion on the article's talk page.

I have been sort of mediating. FkpCascais has gone from seemingly hating my guts to apologizing. The current problem is that I had added a "disputed" tag to one of the two main points of contention. FkpCascais removed it twice and then removed my talk page request not to do that (I see he has reverted that now, though).

He had repeatedly removed another such tag before (prompting me to report him for edit warring) and had been told by, among others, HighInBC that the tag should stay. He had gone well over 3RR before.

There is also an IP-hopping sockpuppet involved in this (opposing FkpCascais), and I have more than enough of everyone, really. FkpCascais needs to cool down and realize that the RfC was against his stance and that it's completely backwards that, even though his stance is still reflected in the article, he's even getting "disputed" tags removed. LjL (talk) 00:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

What I am proposing with this report is that FpCascais be somehow made to relent from edits and arguments on topics related to ex-Yugoslavia (I think there have been issues on other articles too, but I have not been involved), or at least Serbs of Croatia. How this is achieved is not my concern, but talk pages can't just keep on inflating with people running away from the sheer length and absurdity, and the consensus from the RfC can't be unilaterally overturned. LjL (talk) 14:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

You added this last paragraph just now, you are asking for me to be removed. I am asking for an admin please to see LjL conduct as reviewer. From the very start they were not been making a neutral review but a clear tendentious one with a goal of prooving me wrong. I dont think that is a review at all, but rather involvment in the dispute. They even got to call things "my side and their side" that much neutrality has been seen on their behalve. Once I continue providing sources and backing up my points, it obviously becomes a situation where I become the undesirable one. I am the only one providing sourced arguments there against the Croatian POV, remove me and we will be left with no Serbian editors and the articles will loose even the chance of being neutraly written. What the admins need to do is to see what happened there and recoment this users to stop trying to eliminate me. They made a consensus ammong them which is not backed by any reliable sources and which goes clearly against what English-language sources are saying. Albino made a very controversial close, and now LjL all that has been doing there is to proove me wrong. That is a valid position as edtor, but than they are not a review that was asked, and should stop pretendng to be one. FkpCascais (talk) 14:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Of course I added the last paragraph now, everyone can see the double signature. AlbinoFerret's close is not "very controversial", since you're effectively the only one still opposing it. You're making a ruckus. I also take big issue with the concept that to be neutral, the article needs to have both Croatian and Serbian editors. I'm neither, and in fact, I'm sadly starting to think that if neither nationality took part in its editing, it would be for the better. And, of course, no, a review going counter your opinion is not the review you asked for: I do recognize that. LjL (talk) 14:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Just one minor point of correction LjL, I asked for the review. FkpCascais mentioned starting one and then waited a few days, so I started it since I closed the RFC. AlbinoFerret 00:16, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I will be asking for formal mediation on this. LjL started wrong foot on this from the very start, and now is ignoring 20 reliable sources and engaging in WP:OR by making their own interpretation of the constitution. Things dont work that way, 20 authors certinly know why they are saying something, and there is no need for a Wikipedia editor to go to the Constitution and check their findings. They are unable to provide RS so that is why this is happening. FkpCascais (talk) 00:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

LjL the talk-page revert of your comment was an accident, I reverted myself instantly. Also, I must say that LjL has been condoning the participation of that very same evading-block editor, and having a nice long chat with him at their talk-page, even using the arguments provded by the IP at the article talk-page dscussion against me. Strange at least! FkpCascais (talk) 00:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

"Things don't work that way" is valid about ignoring the result of an RfC, too. And my talk page is mine to talk to people at, thank you. LjL (talk) 14:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh and sorry about the original section heading HighInBC, it wasn't meant literally, but this has really felt... weird. Couple of days ago he gave me a half barnstar and apologized for, well, you can see that on my talk page; couple of days before that, he was hating me and saying I was "lying through my teeth", and removing tags; now he seems to be back to that. I am confuzzled. LjL (talk) 00:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I assumed you made the initial missinterpretation of soures by accident, I AGF towards you, however by seing your continuos loyering of one side only, you making ways to ignore sources, I really have to say I was not wrong, you are indeed involved in this, and you are being tendentious. I can, and will, provide clear exemples of your tendentious atitutde if asked to do so. FkpCascais (talk) 00:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I need to say I objected LjL being the reviewer of the close from the very begining, and I had my reasons, but I ended being flexible. Can I please ask this time for the reviewer to be an experienced admin please? This is an easy case actually, just that a series of mistakes were made in the process. Or, if the admins believe the option of fomal mediotion is better solution, that would be great as well. FkpCascais (talk) 00:32, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The review should be closed. There's a very solid consensus that it should be closed, despite it having become another very long thing to read because this is basically how you murk waters. LjL (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

And perfectly sourced material (your own words) will be left out... You are letting emotions affect your decitions now, you know it. FkpCascais (talk) 00:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Mirror, mirror... LjL (talk) 00:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Not funny at all. This entire process was handled extremely poorly, and I spent weeks digging into sources and finding consensus ammong them. FkpCascais (talk) 00:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

But you found none. You are actually still going counter RfC consensus, and I have also spent a long time trying to sift through your mess and arbitrate a little. I've had enough. LjL (talk) 00:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Cause all you have been doing there is trying to find a way to dismiss my 20+ sources, a terribly difficult task. Obviously you had it enough and we got here. If you only once accepted sources are right we wouldnt be here. FkpCascais (talk) 01:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

And I didnt found consensus? Not because you receve advices from an evading indef-blocked editor and a user opposing me constituously claiming it is all propaganda my sources are saying (strong arguments for sure). But there is a clear consensus ammong the sources for what really matters, 20+ sources agree ammong them about most, it is just minor peripherical aspects left to work out and can be finished quite easily. But you come and you question everything, even clearly establshed facts backed by 20+ sources and contradicted by... zero sources and 2 partisan editors. Such as "Serbs lost constituent status in Croatia in 1990." You ignore the 20 authors, and you want to see yourself the Constitution. OK, you said you can do it talk-pages without breaking WP:OR, but how are you going to insert it n the article iif you have no RS opposing the statement? What are we loosng time there for? So you ignore WP:TRUTH, Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:OR just to see if it is possible to make them right and me and my 20+ sources wrong, that is crystal clear. FkpCascais (talk) 01:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Every time someone examines those 20+ sources they come to the same conclusions that they dont say what you want them to say. An RFC, outside editors who looked after the RFC. Its starting to look like filibustering. Its starting to look like you are WP:NOTHERE because you are ignoring the consensus of everyone else and want to continue in an endless discussion that goes round in circles, Its time to drop the stick. AlbinoFerret 01:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

They are not all saying "Serbs lost the constitutive status in Croatia in 1990" yes or not? FkpCascais (talk) 01:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

You are being accused of not dropping the stick and WP:NOTHERE, and you thing that dragging the discussion to this ANI will help your cause? Listen to the others and drop the stick, you "lost" the RfC and soon the review. What else to do. Prevent a consensus enters the article? That would be a first, at least for me. 93.171.64.118 (talk) 02:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I asked for a review of your close cause you didnt even read the sources, you just copy/pasted their argument, and later you refused to clarify the close to me. So obviously you want it now to be dropped. FkpCascais (talk) 01:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

@AlbinoFerret:, I was even willing to have lengthy debates, but not ruckus. Not ruckus like removing tags, edit warring and even reverting me on the talk page, which I'm sure was done in the heat of the moment (since it was undone), but whatever: it shows what this has come to. LjL (talk) 01:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I told you the revert at the talk-page was a mistake, for God sake, the screan I was using is small. I reverted mself instantly. But using whatever to get me out, nice from you. FkpCascais (talk) 02:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh my God, WP:NOTHERE is perfect! All this time I was trying to point that he isn't discussing in good faith in my own words and I didn't know of this. This perfectly describes it. Thanks. 159.224.0.18 (talk) 01:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

LjL, if you look closer at the discussions, you'll see he's really been attacking everyone who doesn't agree with him. The user who started the discussion got reported by him. He got fed up with Fkp and left. I got attacked that I'm a sock to the point that it's generally accepted as a fact, although no report was made. Director got attacked as a nationalist. You got attacked...The whole discussion should be reviewed so let's leave it for the admins. Every single editor had left the discussion because of FkP and if it weren't for me he would successfully enter his POV to the article after all the opposition is gone, one way (by blocking) or another (by exhaustion). I told it a long time, he's not been discussing in good faith and it's really hard to notice until you get involved with him. Isn't that right LjL. It's hard to notice that when someone puts a direct question how he neglects to answer it and buries it with a wall of text. You can't easily notice if you don't read carefully. But when you get involved you see it very clearly. Your last section is a great example. 159.224.0.18 (talk) 01:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're pretty much on the spot (but you still shouldn't evade blocks). LjL (talk) 01:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I shouldn't have to since I'm not blocked. ;) I can tell you that I'm staying away from this user when this is over. I won't get involved in another of his "discussions" since I tend to finish it when I get involved. I can tell he's doing some contributions on football related topics. I would advise him to stay on that topic,but I doubt he would listen. 159.224.0.18 (talk) 01:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I am not even going to comment this evident cumplicity the two of you had been having from the very begning. I will defend myself by saying just one thing: I was the only one to present sources there, and plenty. That was my way of "attacking you", sorry both of you perceve it that way. FkpCascais (talk)

No: I previously documented your way of attacking me, and perhaps it's due time to bring it up. LjL (talk) 01:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Of course I attacked you, you were lying about sources clearly ignoring parts of a sentence thus turning their meaning upside-down. FkpCascais (talk) 01:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, admitting and justifying your personal attacks won't help but, but on contrary... Stop, take a deep breath and objectively think what you are doing.93.171.64.118 (talk) 02:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Listen pal, even if I didnt existed, your tendentious editing will not get to the articles cause people here are not fools. And you were not indef-blocked because of me reporting you, but because of your own edits. So deal with it, and stop chasing me around. Get a life. FkpCascais (talk) 02:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Let's not get paranoid and see someone who doesn't exist and think someone is following you. If you get blocked here it will be because of proving the arguments against your behavior in this very own report. You are still not dropping the stick and you are even admitting and justifying personal accusations. You made them against everyone participating here and all in front of admin eyes. I told you, take a deep breath and think about what you are doing to yourself here.93.171.64.118 (talk) 02:32, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I see there is now a push into making this look as if it is me not dropping the stick. But the case is the following, in a cntent dispute I was alone representing one side vs a group of editors. I have plenty of sources, that is what made me hang on all the way. However, a reviewer came and made a close just copy/pasting their argument claiming consensus ammong editors. He made a mistake, but once a mistake is made it is hard to fix it without making the closing editor look bad. For some reasons, and in quite strange ciircunstances, an editor offered to be a reviewer, although rather than offering itelf, he started reviewing by their own will and sort of self-declared as such. All they been doing while eviewing is trying to make me wrong. I am please asking for a real review. If the reviewer want so, I will not even participate, and I will respect whatever the cocnclusion will be. Or a mediation. Whatever the admins find more appropriate. FkpCascais (talk) 01:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

You don't get infinitely many reviews until one agrees with you. Also, one doesn't "offer to be a reviewer", and I didn't close the review, which is still ongoing (but ought, for the love of everything good, to be closed soon). LjL (talk) 02:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

LjL you went above and beyond. I know that some will look at the claim of 20+ sources with concern that perhaps there was a mistake someplace. But you looked and found there was none. I am glad you did, because being an outside editor you confirmed that everyone else was right. This should have ended with the RFC, but I am glad you looked and found there was consensus. AlbinoFerret 02:11, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

You made the poorest close I have ever seem in 10 yers, I ask any admin to confirm it, and if I am wrong I will block myself. FkpCascais (talk) 02:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Here.93.171.64.118 (talk) 02:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

There is already a review, and its going against you. You dont seem to understand that you dont get to argue again and again and again until by some slim hope you get someone (unlikely) to agree with you. AlbinoFerret 02:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah and let's remember LjL was slightly on his side at the beginning. It someone finds himself/herself in that situation I strongly recommend he/she takes a few days and tries to deal with him himself/herself.LjL I hope you saw what I was going trough this last few MONTHS. 93.171.64.118 (talk) 02:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

LjL, There was just one close by now, and a non-admin one, in a hot-topic case. So it is not me asking for indefinite reviews for sure, and you certanly read the part me saying "I will respect whatever the cocnclusion will be". Do you have problems understanding my English or you iintentionally pretend not to? FkpCascais (talk) 02:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

You removed a comment against you.[98] granted by an IP that is probably shouldnt be here, but that removal should be by an admin if anyone. AlbinoFerret 02:16, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, now make a party because of it. Anyway, that will not make your close any better. FkpCascais (talk) 02:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Because his comment about not asking for indefinite reviews wouldn't make much sense if he didn't remove my comment. Fkp, you can't and you shouldn't take this as a fight and try to win by getting others blocked by neglecting arguments and with personal accusations, by removing other peoples' comments.93.171.64.118 (talk) 02:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

At least let this current review finishes against your favor until you ask for another one. ;) All this doesn't help you look like you had dropped the stick.. 93.171.64.118 (talk) 02:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

You dont even have a stick... @Everyone else, so nice you condone an evading-block user to post, and LjL even let him participate in the discussion perfectly aware of who he was and his sockpuppeting. FkpCascais (talk) 02:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

You let me open a RfC. What a big mistake that was, to bring your fallacies to the eyes of other editors. So if someone is letting someone participate, as if it's up to them to decide who should participate. Everyone is free to make a report against anyone and you didn't make it. 93.171.64.118 (talk) 02:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I sure hope this is my last night I spend like this. I didn't get much sleep this last few months. FkP go to sleep and allow us others go as well. We can continue tomorrow. Maybe you really should sleep it over so you realize what you have done here.93.171.64.118 (talk) 02:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

What is this all about?

If you want to know, then expand this hat. But it's a content dispute not belonging here

This is my edit (The entire section "Socialist Yugoslavia", you can see the content and the sources, it was empty before my edit), this is the close of Albino (look at the argument and the edit of mine and the sources He sugests removing the entre section and replacing by a sentence saying just: "On 22 December 1990, the Parliament of Croatia ratified the new constitution,[89] which was seen by Serbs as taking away rights that had been granted by the Socialist constitution.[90]"). This is basically an attempt to eliminate perfectly sourced content and replace it with a dubious sentence, but OK, that is my view, someone should confirm it. At bottom of Talk:Serbs of Croatia is where the review of LjL is found. I will leave this thread and not answer anymore unless asked by an admin. FkpCascais (talk) 02:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC) That's another thing. You really shouldn't make unilateral edits while that very own thing is being discussed. Look at what you did here. Another user pointed out that the very same thing we are discussing on Serbs of Croatia is also present on Croatian_War_of_Independence article. You open this discussion (20:00, 18 September 2015 ) to point that both articles will be changed after the RfC is over. Then you go and unilaterally edit the article yourself ( 00:24, 20 September 2015). That article is still standing with your unilateral edits while the RfC is already closed against you. That's not a way Wikipedia is edited. Did you think no one will notice you went on unilaterally edit an article although the discussion is still open and pending? I could have reverted you, but I haven't.Since I know you would go to edit warring there as well and have that article protected as well.93.171.64.118 (talk) 02:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC) Will someone please remove an evading blocked user? It is not because he is criticizeing me, couldnt care less, but because he is cluttering the thread. Thanks. FkpCascais (talk) 03:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC) Question for admins: there are many articles that dont get much attention beside the involved editors. Such articles clearly are some international disputes such is this case. Puts head-a-head the opposed views each nation has. In my view the ideal situation would be to have a decent number of editors from each, plus neutral ones, side making consensus all together by gathering sources, seing wht they say, and applying our rules and principles. However, when one side has just one editor, the situation becomes clearly totally different than that ideal one I mentioned. The easiest thing the lone editor can do is letting the other side have their way. But is that fair for Wikipedia as a neutral free online encyclopedia? This case here is very interesting because it demonstrates all the problems the lone editor faces if he wants to fight for archiving neutrality. Armed with sources, I am facing all possible and impossible means to get my text out or to get me out. Albino made a close just copy/pastng their arguments and I bet the life of my sons he didnt even opened one single source of the 20 I presented to see what they actually say. Then LjL, she imposed herself as reviewer and has been her best to see how to turn around things and make me loose. It was terrible for me. She even missquaoted sources, when I checked them to see how could I have missed them saying what she claimed they say, I found out she just lied brutally. Why she did that? Even so, I was conviced to give her a chance. But, what should I do as an editor when I see she is reviewing clearly tendentiously? Cause, they really got me to the limit, it is just a pharse to see when I am going to give-up or if I am going to do something they could report me for, then they have the group, and have the close editor who clearly wants to support his mistake... I really couldnt have done much better, I gatheres so many sources, all of them scholar and in English, all of them verifiable just with a click at Google Books, I made an edit as fair as possible having in mind te sources, and I am basing my arguments at talk with sources (I am so much pressured I even have to source my comments! And I do!). They hardly look at the sources (besides LjL who I made look at them after much reluctancy on her behalve; she did the best to avoid looking at sources and was trying to find a way to convince me to just accept the close, she even proposed an "one for you-one for me solution" just to escae dealing with sources, cause they knew I had sources). I had to gently ask to give sources a chance, after what they in anger just 10 minutes later, made a totally tendentious presentation. Instead of accepting to see what sources say, they started immedately working to defend their goal... Wait... should a reviewer clearly back one side? I dont think so, but that has been her behavior all time. Of course, in that edit, actually only 1 of the 4 sources says what she clamed, you can see the reality ofthat thread of hers: Talk:Serbs_of_Croatia#Sources_suggesting_.22rights.22_may_have_been_retained. FkpCascais (talk) 03:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC) Well some things need to be said, and I think that other editors are not aware of your behavior on Croatian War of Independence article. I on the other hand have been dealing with you for months and I'm perfectly aware of it. Now's the time to point it out. It wouldn't be productive if I had gone to edit warring over there, so I waited to an opportunity like this. 93.171.64.118 (talk) 03:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC) Yes indeed, I did this at that article. Please, please dont mention it anymore, if someone noteces I added perfectly sourced content in an article I will not get a chance to mantain my terribly tendentious nationalist editor reputation. FkpCascais (talk) 03:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

To prove what LjL is doing, please see the exemple of what they are doing here Talk:Serbs_of_Croatia#Two_points_about_the_RfC on point 1. Lets see her claims if are backed with sources. 14:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Not that it matters much, but I'm male, by the way. LjL (talk) 15:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Just look what is happening there. I will saying nothing, just judge by yourselfs who is doing what. FkpCascais (talk) 15:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

History repeating itself

This seems a lot like Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Request_for_RFC_close_review. The same actors, the same dispute, same wall of text. It is also very reminiscent of the discussion at Talk:Serbs of Croatia. ANI is not the place to carry on a debate. While I agree that the original thread needs to be closed. I also think that while all involved(except for the IP hopping sock) are acting in good faith the behaviour of all should be examined. While I have acted only as an admin in this area I would welcome fresh eyes as the whole thing is making my old mind wrinkle.

I don't think it is serving any of the party's interests to be carrying on this dispute here. I have read what has been written and it seems like the involved party's have already made their point and now just going in a cycle of disagreement. I ask that the involved party's refrain from providing information that is already present on this page and instead continue the debate on the article talk page. I ask that an uninvolved admin close the current RFC review on WP:AN and if there is not anything new here this too. HighInBC 15:49, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure; may I additionally ask that if the RfC review is closed in favor of the RfC close (i.e. against FkpCascais's stance), than that consensus be, at this point, and finally, enforced in the article, in one way or another? Dead-letter consensus isn't useful. LjL (talk) 15:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

In my experience when an RFC has that much debate afterwards there is a problem. A strong consensus is rarely hard to enforce because those who agreed with it want it enforced. The RFC repeatedly referred to here involved few editors and numerous occurrences of sock puppetry(including the person who proposed it).

A fresh RFC with a clearly defined set of outcomes that is not created by a blocked user would represent a much more clearly enforceable consensus. Right now it takes someone with the patience of Job to sift that RFC and find the reason in it. Props to @AlbinoFerret: for closing such a mess of an RFC. HighInBC 16:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks HighInBC, I do think another RFC would likely be a good idea. But the way that RFC was laid out is really bad. I think another editor should open a new one, one who doesnt write a question that is almost TLDR, that leads to less participation. Another issue is how to remove the sock. They were heavily discounted in the RFC so they really didnt impact it much. I counted the IP's as one editor, and even if taken out completely it doesnt change anything. You have been doing what you can, but they seem to come back again and again. AlbinoFerret 17:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I am sure now that an uninvolved senior editor came questioning LjL conclusions, LjL wants to see the RfC closed as quckly as possible. FkpCascais (talk) 17:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Every time I read a comment on this topic, its like deja vu all over again or Groudhogs day. AlbinoFerret 20:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Boomerang

This is what is happening. I am facing a clearly tendentious "reviewer" who is making WP:OR, intentionally ignoring reliable sources (sometimes even pretending not to understand their content despite being all in perfect English), and sugesting to drop Wikipedia:Verifiability. As revewer he has clearly been siding since the very begning clearly not in compliance with WP:NPOV, absolutely necessary for a reviewer. I am askng please uninvolved admins to review LjL behavior as reviewer, the link here is just one exemple of the constant he has been having there. In a subsecton I made, which LjL colapsed,are more diffs of exemples of their tendentious atitutude. FkpCascais (talk) 18:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Nikhil1234567

User Nikhil1234567 (talk · contribs), adds unsourced claims about Hinduism in "Religion in Country X" articles [99], [100], [101]. He was informed/warned by several editors [102], [103], [104], [105], [106], but continues to rapidly add unsourced content [107], [108], [109] with support from several, possibly related, IP´s (41.136.*):

• 41.136.53.229 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 41.136.33.229 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 41.136.50.83 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 41.136.43.117 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 41.136.11.105 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 41.136.28.5 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Examples: [110], [111], [112], [113], [114], [115], [116], [117], [118]. JimRenge (talk) 05:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

• "Hinduism compromises mainly of Indian people in Tajikistan.They are thought to be around 100 Hindus in the country." Not quite up to snuff. No reference could probably be found on that one. Doc talk 08:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

There's certainly enough for a SPI here, BTW. Nikhil1234567 could be blocked for being a sockmaster in addition to adding a bunch of unsourced claims. Doc talk 09:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Blocked 41.136.0.0/18 for two weeks. Waiting for Nikhil1234567 (talk · contribs) to respond here before taking further action. If they continue to edit without communicating please update this thread. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Softlavender being disruptive and removing talk she doesn't like

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

---

This user is removing editorial questions regarding the article about Catlyn Jenner. Also, 3rd revert. Jørgen88 (talk) 07:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

She's being reasonable, and you are not. This is the talk page note in question: [119]. Here is useful information regarding how we deal with gender identity in articles -- Samir 07:08, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

"not hypotheticals designed to irritate people. PeterTheFourth (talk)" I mean... is Wikipedia the place to censor? Is it suppose to be a "safe space" for people who have a tendency to get "triggered"? It shouldn't be Wikipedias job to shield overly sensitive people, come on now. Jørgen88 (talk) 07:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Punchy questions are often good, but should be addressed in the appropriate area. The issue you raise is regarding the manual of style and how transgendered individuals should be referenced in articles. There actually is a relevant discussion to your concerns here: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Revisiting_MOS:IDENTITY_in_articles_about_transgender_individuals. I would suggest participation in that discussion as opposed to the talk page of one article. There is no administrative action required here -- Samir 07:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

• WP:BOOMERANG alert: OP is a sockpuppet with 500 edits who is posting transphobic trollisms on Talk:Caitlyn Jenner. He was blocked for three weeks in July for sockpuppeting and block evasion. His userpage Jørgen88 declares he is a frequent editor on the Norwegian Wikipedia but he has never edited on the Norwegian Wikipedia: [120]. This is an obvious sockpuppet-master of the MarkBernstein-stalking Sanstalk, given the post a few minutes ago on my talk page disparaging MarkBernstein: [121]. Paging JzG. Softlavender (talk) 07:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  • He's being disruptive but he's not the sockpuppet you think that he is -- at least by my view of the contributions, which extend back six years, most of them being quite reasonable, aside from the edits to Adam Kotsko from 3 months ago. I might be wrong, so please go to WP:SPI if you want to investigate further. He's been directed to the appropriate MOS discussion page, the warning on your talk page has been reverted, so no other action is required now, unless he does something else egregious. -- Samir 07:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Samir, please do not continue to close an ongoing discussion. You may advocate for the user, but don't close down the discussion. He's trolling, edit-warring, and socking (he is already a proven sock). Softlavender (talk) 07:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

No proof has been given in that incident, someone decided to use WP:Duck on me to stop me from adding sourced content. And if you feel users who you don't agree with are all trolls, you'll have a hard time working together with the community. Jørgen88 (talk) 08:11, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Jørgen88, drop it now. The appropriate issue is WP:NOTFORUM. Talk pages are not for your irrelevant speculation about how the article could be worded. I don't care about the socking allegations, your discussion is not relevant for that talk page and anything to further engage the issue will result in a block. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:16, 25 October 2015 (UTC) {{archive bottom}

I've dropped a long time ago. And about the baseless sock allegations, I completely agree with you: I Don't Care Anymore. Jørgen88 (talk) 08:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Persistent disruptions (and WP:LEGAL) despite several warnings

Rajatbindalbly disrupts Wikipedia by resufing to WP:HEAR. The user originally demanded that we change List_of_languages_by_number_of_native_speakers to fit the personal opinion of some "Dr. Nautiyal" [122]. This was rejected, and explained. However, the user continues to disrupt the page (as evidenced by talk history). Despite the obvious WP:OR-pushing being rejected by at least four users, Rajatbindalbly continues to reset the question endlessly [123], [124], [125], [126], [127], [128], [129], [130], [131], [132], [133], and making the request edits just the same, despite the complete consensus against it [134].
In addition to these disruptions, the user goes after users who object to their POV, sometimes with WP:NPA violations [135], sometimes "just" repetitive. [136], [137], [138], [139], [140], [141], [142].
In addition to the refusal to WP:HEAR and the disruptions, the user even took to WP:AN (!) to try to get their POV pushed through there. [143]. It was of course swiftly thrown out, and NeilN closed it by explicitly stating that ANI should follow if Rajatbindalbly continued this behavior. [144]. As Rajatbindalbly ignored Neil's warning just like he has ignored the complete consensus by Thomas.W, kwami, Arjayay, Stabila711 and myself.
Last but not least, the user also violated WP:LEGAL be threatening to have the Indian PM block Wikipedia in India unless we let him have his way. [145].

• In short the Rajatbindalbly disrupts WP by completely refusing to WP:HEAR, by resetting the same rejected demand eleven times (and counting), by spreading the conflict to several pages, by making the edit even though it's unanimously rejected, by threatening to have WP blocked if he does not get to call the shots. This disruption has taken up a lot of time for several editors and it's time to stop. I suggest Rajatbindalbly eithed be indeffed or blocked from any article connected to India, as the user is most certainly WP:NOTHERE for the right reasons. Jeppiz (talk) 16:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The legal threat is enough to put the guy on Himalayan ice, at least until he retracts and disavows the threat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but I'd want a more permanent ban on him editing India-related articles. Posing a question is fine, and I can even understand resetting the question if someone thinks there's a problem with the answer. But ŕesetting the question eleven times, after several users have declined it, and continue resetting after several users have told them to stop, that is indicative of a problem. Jeppiz (talk) 16:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

• However, the link provide in the OP is not a legal threat. A legal threat involves some for of legal action, such as a law suit, retraining order, C&D letter, etc. Petitioning a government official, however, ("I will also request The Prime Minister Office to Ban wikipedia in India") is not a legal threat. —Farix (t | c) 17:32, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

@TheFarix: but requesting the prime minister to ban wikipedia is a threat of legal action and causes a "Chilling effect" by trying to get the user in trouble with outside resources because of a on wikipedia dispute. Hasteur (talk) 18:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

It is definitely a legal threat by Wikipedia's use of the term, and even more outrageous than the usual. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Sock with a grudge making personal attacks.

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

---

Trolling IP is probably a problematic editor that Acroterion, Binksternet and DrKay dealt with. See here and here. GAB^Hello! 16:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

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

90.200.46.221

This editor, 90.200.46.221 (talk · contribs) makes people into Islamic/Arabic. Yi Gu was in Category:South Korean Roman Catholics before 90.200.46.221 made him Islamic. Julia Mullock apparently converted. Ben Gurion did just fine without Arabic transliteration of his name. I didn't have a look what else he did, but I think somebody should look into 90.200.46.221's edits, and possibly block him. Debresser (talk) 20:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

User Ans2015kivanc

User Ans2015kivanc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is engaged in excessive edit warring and continues to do so after being warned by an admin. He reverted edits in the article Ganja, Azerbaijan 5 times in 24 hours:

• [146]
• [147]
• [148]
• [149]
• [150]

In total he reverted the same edits 17 times since October 9. Thank you for your attention. --vacio 20:49, 25 October 2015 (UTC)