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

Austrian Empire

Could I get a few more editors experienced in Austrian-Hungarian history to look at the edit war that has erupted in Austrian Empire and Kingdom of Hungary (1526–1867)? I have full-protected both articles after extensive reverting by a number of people - there is a lively discussion on the talk page but it's being plagued by personal attacks thrown around, which makes it difficult for me to call a consensus. Note: I haven't pinged anybody to this discussion as I'm commenting on the overall conduct rather than any specific editor - please advise if I should Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Essentially Von Hebel is correct. Franz formally incorporated the Kingdom of Hungary into the Austrian Empire when Lazlo states he did (its a bit more complicated than that but Hebel's last post on the Kingdom of Hungary talkpage provides the most accurate explanation.) From what I can see the other parties are mis-construing the sources due to the sentence/syntax when translated. In context however Lazlo is unambiguous. The 'personal attacks' seem to be linked to this mis-understanding of the sources, which unfortunately is a common occurance when dealing with non-english RS'. There also seems to be a whiff of pro-Hungarian nationalism - including the KoH as part of the AE lessens it in some manner etc. If you want to call a consensus, you either need more eyes to interpret the source, or no-consensus it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:48, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

While I am not an expert on this subject matter, I will state for the record that I agree with Ritchie333's full protection of the articles (if that helps at all). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

User Only in death does duty end, I have to heavily oppose your early statement! I urge you to read the further discussion since Hebel's explanation and argumentation was disproved more times since then. I have to oppose also in the name of "other parties", becase we support to really insert uncut the source that Hebel does not support, he want's to spare the most important word from it. We have no problem with the interpretation - moreover Hungarian history experts joined the discussion - if you state that "Laszlo is unambigous", then you cannot tell Hebel has right...I have to also reject the charge of "pro-Hungarian nationalism", this is mostly used against the Hungarians or against everyone who does not support those obvious bias' that we notice. The editors participated in the discussion has zero influence on nationality or any nationalistic aim, just the pure historical facts and accuracy are concerned, that are so many times enquestioned and attacked regarding Hungary. The article was pretty good and stable for so many years, now 90% of the top important Hungary related content and section was deleted, and the citation does not represent the true content and meaning of the source that is on the edge of the debate!

I urge Administrator's also with lawyer/jurisdiction or concrete mathematics/inference theory relation to join and read the correspondent talk pages since we cannot put blindly deficient citations losing their real meaning or to avoid average thinking and just to put and alter anything so long we clearly do not cross some technical rules of editing, I mention this since also the validity of my inference was attacked, alhough it should be obvious, not even a University Degree is neccesary to understand that! Good faith and the struggle for factuality and valid content cannot be compromised! Also please check my advice for consensus, since it contains the claimed deletion of a sentence and the the corresponding source's quotation unaltered, next to the former content that does not contradict anything. Moreover a new addition - not our edit - was also worked in those version. It is a pretty generous offer since non of our advices, not even a sub-part was accepted, that is not proving me the real sought for consensus!(KIENGIR (talk) 00:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC))

Basically the Kingdom of Hungary, was caught up in a personal union that became an informal composite monarchy, the Habsburg Monarchy. It officially became a part of the Empire of Austria in 1804 when the former informal composite monarchy was reorganized in an Imperial State comprising many lands that kept the privileges they had enjoyed before. We can have different opinions about how much those privileges were worth under Habsburg rule, but still they were there especially for Hungary that, when it concerned matters Hungarian, was theoretically ruled by it's King and Diet rather than by the overarching Emperor. It has occurred to me since a couple of years that some people are in denial of the fact that Hungary was included in that Imperial State from 1804 to 1848. While Imperial institutions had nothing to say about matters Hungarian, the very idea that Hungary was not a fully sovereign state in that period seems to be so obnoxious to some, that they are looking for rationalizations about how the country was not a part of the overarching Imperial state. But basically, those are not in the books. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 01:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Hebel, why you think the administrators or other participants does not read the corresponding talk pages? Hungary DID NOT BECAME OFFICIALLY the part of the Austrian Empire, as even the source you are pushing is proving that. You ruined all the related articles with your fixa idea, but you could not present any proof, moreover, you systematically remove all other contents proving the divison and you play with words and hinder important information! What you call "theoretically" is just your POW, the are the legal status and laws that only counts! Also "what is in the books" is just a groundless claim, as "seeking for rationalization". Hungarians are fed up of corruption attempts of their history. Since the source speaks about a strictly FORMAL inclusion by an ASSUMPTION, at the same time it clearly stated not any legal terms or affiliations were changed, Article X remained as well in action thus Hungary remained, as it was a Regnum Independens, a separate country. The fact the King of Hungary also rendered the Emperor of Austria title, did not change anything. I have demonsrated more times your argumentation being illogic, contradictive, unfair, non-factual. About sovereignity, de facto sovereignity is always differs from de jure sovereignity, as it is also today. Many countries had a ruler from a foreign House, or by changed titles, but it did not necessarily affected them. You have no chance to distract the Administrators, you will see!(KIENGIR (talk) 00:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC))

I've made another proposal at the talkpage of Austrian Empire. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 07:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I checked and answered there. Because of two major inaccuracy the proposal had to be denied.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC))

I have to clarify articles on dispute has arisen to three - all of them should be discussed in this section since the root of the problem is the same, the main discussion isongoing still in the Austrian Empire - Talk page: Hungary section - Austrian Empire, Kingdom of Hungary 1526-1867, Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867. The latter I did not remove any former addition I just expanded two added sources to have unambigous clear meaning, and a section was added with a modified content, the earlier version were long years present until the same problems arisen near May-summer when the drastic an inacceptable alteration of these pages took part. I did not see any consensus on that page, still I get accusations. Anyway I urge every administrators to check those edits, just to have a clear view how destructive could be to hinder the source's original content and how misleading would be the result. Also it has a clear sight remeving entire sections on fake grounds just to hinder a lawful situation of the subject. I recommend it to everyone, and I ask a protection for the page since my factual and good faith edit's are removed or reverted, also the protecion is asked to conserve my contributions, since it is a great chance to compare it with the similar content of the other two articles - where the disputed edits remanined unharmed until resolution - so non-experts can also see the difference and to understand more the root of the problem.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:25, 25 December 2015 (UTC))

The conflict is now spilling over to the Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867 page where User:KIENGIR is now partly reintroducing text that was removed in May (by consensus). We're not getting anywhere this way. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:30, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

You refer on a "consensus" that is not present on the talk page and I have never seen, anyway it is already abolished. But what kind of "consensus" is that you make with one IP Address? I reached formerly consensus together with Administrator's, and members/representives from the corresponding country/nationality the article involved or connected to, this is a real consensus! Anyway, you added also some modifications to the article that I did not reverted or modified with a good faith, I want to really ask the Administrators how is that possible such a double measure? Like Hebel would be the authorized boss of Hungary related articles who can decide what is "consensus" or what brakes consensus...his edits are always "fair", if he does not like other edits, already there is a conflict...(KIENGIR (talk) 00:54, 26 December 2015 (UTC))

Based on an RFPP request, I've fully locked Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867 (and have already been admonished for protecting The Wrong Version) and I've placed a 1RR restriction on the page when consensus is reached or protection expires. Since Hebel had not received the discretionary sanctions alert for WP:ARBEURO, I gave it to him. As far as I'm concerned, this dispute falls under ARBEURO, even if it's along the edges. Let's treat it that way. Katie^talk 01:12, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Katie, I had already seen that discretionary sanctions were a possibility.

There are basically four things bothering me about this question

a)That words like “formally”, “lawful” and “legal” are used in a way that strangely indicate things that are not in the dictionaries for them.

b)That, as a consequence of a) the article, according to USER:KIENGIR is supposed to say in one paragraph that Hungary is a part of the Empire of Austria (as the sources indeed clearly indicate), while some paragraphs later the exact opposite is stated. Which is inconsistent and OR, because it is based on editor interpretation of legal text

c)That some sourced text for the situation describing the composite monarchy (pre 1804), keeps cropping up in descriptions of the post 1804 situation.

d)Copyvio issues.

Gerard von Hebel (talk) 10:20, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

First of all the articles has no connection to Eastern Europe, only Central Europe.

a) No way, everything is clearly explained in the talk pages

b) No way, this has been many times clarified, only you are the one who does not understand, how dare you to mislead Katie? I never said "Hungary is part of Empire of Austria" (as the sources clearly indicate it is just a formal membership by assumption), in other pharagraphs the lawful affiliations are mentioned, later the details while Hungary's famous status was different like other Crownland's. It is not inconsistent, not more than 90 IQ is enough to understand my professional coherent argumentation. It is based on the source's text.

c) No way, since no relations changed between Austria and Hungary after 1804, so everything is valid, anyway the corresponding source speaks clearly after 1804. The section with detailed information of course contains some earlier descriptions to demonstrate the special status, but they remained still valid after, so they are not outdated information.

d) No way, just another casus belli to avoid detailed and professional information on a bit complex situation, that is average in Wikipedia is similar cases/relations.

Is there any sanction if an editor openly distracts an Administrator? Since the cessation all of the statements Hebel made are clearly demonstrated and can be read on the talk pages. What a shame!(KIENGIR (talk) 02:00, 27 December 2015 (UTC))

Page move and gaming the system

User:Nymf has gamed the system in a redirect "purposely" so a page move cannot be done. After 8 years I would think he would know this is against the rules of wikipedia. The gaming article in question is Malin Akerman. The proof that it was on purpose and that he will do the same again is Nymf's talk page. The background is the following. I had asked an administrator to delete the original "Malin Akerman" redirect article because someone had made it impossible to move "Malin Åkerman." This was done. This seemed like a no-brainer move like Martina Navratilova. Nothing on the talk page on moves in 5-6 years, actress lived whole life in North America, actress self-identifies with Akerman spelling in personal correspondence, and signature, etc... so the move was made.

It was moved back by Nymf with a summary of "per talk page RM request". I thought maybe I missed a new post on the talk page so I went back to check. Nothing, so the summary was bogus. Because it was bogus I checked Nymf's edits and saw he gamed the system by making it impossible to move back without another administrator visit. I told him as much on his talk page but he seemed defiant which told me he will do this again and again (and who knows how many times he's done this in 8 years). It still seems routine to me, but obviously this is a dispute I will now have to take to the Talk:Malin Åkerman page. I have no problem with his revert, but Nymf must be warned by someone official never to do this type of gaming thing again. I've seen many a block for this in my years but an official warning will hopefully suffice. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

There is an old RM request that resulted in no consensus. On the talk page. Nymf probably intended to tell you that he doesn't want that move because of reasons mentioned in the old RM(Nymf partipiciated in it). It is definitely controversial to move, no matter what you think- there was a NC page move five years ago, and your bold move was opposed. Do a RM, and seek consensus. Sure, Nymf's reasoning was unclear, but please assume more good faith next time. I will talk with Nymf about his behaviour on his own talk page.--Müdigkeit (talk) 20:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

That might have justified moving it back, but the edit to the resulting redirect was clearly an attempt to game the system by making it harder for his action to be reversed, which is definitely against the rules. --Aquillion (talk) 21:00, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There was no legitimate reason for this edit. If an edit subsequent to a move added redirect categories or something, that would be one thing, but removing whitespace that doesn't have any bearing on the article appearance is a clear sign of wanting to prevent a page move. Doing it to prevent an edit war is assuming bad faith given that there's no indication there would be multiple reverts. Anyways, per WP:BRD, the next step would simply be a move discussion on the talk page, since the last one was five years ago and closed as "no consensus". clpo13_(talk) 20:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The only good faith explanation for this edit was that it was accidental, but Nymf's comment make it clear it was intentional. Warnings and/or sanctions are appropriate. NE Ent 20:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

The littlecircle can't be used in Canada where this person lives so even if the subject likes it, they would have trouble using it on documents. Both editors are being foolish spending time on this. Legacypac (talk) 21:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@Legacypac: - The little circle can't be used in Canada... - Do you have a source to verify that? - ^theWOLFchild 05:34, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

It is the experience of many of my friends (Chinese, Indian, Ukrainian etc) that you can't get any ID with non-English or French languages on it. I went looking for written rule, which surely exists, but could not find it. Legacypac (talk) 05:40, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

What does that have to do with the price of eggs? That might help and will be something that will be brought up when I form a proper RM (where I want to make sure the sourcing is neat and tidy). This is only about gaming the system, purposely. I asked Nymf to fix the situation so this an/i would never see the light of day, and the response was "Go ahead." So here we are. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

The MOS clearly allows provision for diacritics but as Nymf has pointed it, it's (apparently, I don't know much) a different letter altogether. I say, that the reasoning behind not moving the page was perfectly fine but gaming the system, to make it much harder to move it, was unjustified. And, WQA to the accused, please. Akerman's referred to by the media as Akerman, only because it's easier but since she doesn't bother to use that little circle (I don't know what to call it, sorry) on her social accounts, I'd say the OP's stance is the one I'm going to lean to. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 07:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Just making sure that the warning given by editor Müdigkeit is as official a warning as there's going to be? I don't want to see him saying "well it wasn't an administrator warning so I gave it no mind" in case it ever happens again. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:58, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

It would be good to wait for a statement. Nymf hasn't edited yet. Neither here nor somewhere else.--Müdigkeit (talk) 10:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

By "impossible to move", do you mean that you can't enter the letter from your keyboard? Then use the HTML Unicode point value. It's Unicode Character 'LATIN CAPITAL LETTER A WITH RING ABOVE' (U+00C5). Enter it as Å, and it'll display as Å. --Thnidu (talk) 17:07, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Help with cleanup

I came across the article for Smart Boys as an A7. It was a film so it didn't qualify for an A7, but a look showed that it was created by a sockpuppet of User:Gantlet, who was blocked in 2010 and was evading said block. A look at the article creation history for this sockpuppet (User:Rajeshbieee) shows a whopping 900+ pages. Many of these appear to be for barely notable films. This search engine is likely the best way to look.

Each of these pages need to be gone through and if they don't assert notability or have some glaring errors, be deleted as a page created by someone evading a block/ban. This will be a massive undertaking and I'd appreciate anyone that wants to help with searching and tagging. I'm not going to delete all of them without doing at least a cursory search for sourcing since some of them might pass GNG or some variation thereof. Still, the temptation to just delete them as creations by a sock is strong and I feel that the best way to avoid doing a massive, possible detrimental deletion would be to go through these one by one. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Without yet looking at the articles, they should either be mass-deleted (assuming nobody touched them after the sock), or we need a coordination page similar to CCI pages, otherwise it will be a lot of time wasted.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:09, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I brought this up at WP:INDIA and @Sitush: said the same thing. I figure that this is likely the easiest and possibly best outcome here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

If its 900+ pages someone other than socks must have definitely edited them. I prefer a coordination page. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree, where would be the best place to coordinate this? -- samtar ^whisper 12:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Does not really matter; For instance, WP:INDIA/Rajeshbieee--Ymblanter (talk) 12:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I've very basically put together blocks of ~50 articles to be checked - is this the best method of splitting the work? -- samtar ^whisper 12:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I though about asking a bot to add there all the titles (possibly split into blocks) and then posting individual progress. See how it is done at WP:CCI, e.g. Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Proudbolsahye.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Ah, that would have been so much quicker D: feel free to do that Ymblanter and scrub my manual attempt :) -- samtar ^whisper 12:51, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I do not have a bot. Let us first see if someone could help us just seeing this thread.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to ping you to AN/I @Cyberpower678: do you think you could assist with this given your bot expertise -- samtar ^whisper 13:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I've just run a quick Python script to generate a list of all the titles at WP:INDIA/Rajeshbieee; it's pretty basic, but it's on Wiki, rather than elsewhere. Feel free to revert if you want something with more detail. Harrias ^talk 14:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

For the time being, Harrias could you modify your script to insert a line every 50 articles saying "Block x" (x=x+1) so it can be divvied up? -- samtar ^whisper 14:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

We can do it manually I guess. Thanks Harrias--Ymblanter (talk) 14:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Labs seems to have gone down, as it does intermittently, otherwise I'd be happy to run it again. Harrias ^talk 14:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

You've probably already done what you want to do here; but if not, you could use this tool. The output can be downloaded as wiki markup and pasted wherever you want it (that's how the CCI listings are generated). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• I think people should slow down here. While User:Gantlet was blocked in 2010, that was only a 35-day block, and had expired when most if not all of the articles involved were created. Gantlet wasn't blocked again until this month. Their recidivist socking apparently went undetected for too long, but that alone isn't grounds for summarily purging their contributions. G5 isn't retroactive, and I fear it looks like the articles need to be examined individually and taken through standard deletion processes as appropriate. Or have I missed something? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
• Note that the deleted article Smart Boys was recreated by a new user Omkaaram. Whoever wants to pursue a SPI investigation, this is probably a good case. (The article itself has no issues).--Ymblanter (talk) 07:49, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
  • This is going to be a mess. I did a spot check of some of the items in the first 50 entries at WP:INDIA/Rajeshbieee. Maybe 75% of what I checked is definitely deletion-worthy. However some were not. Brianhe.public (talk) 10:34, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
• I like the coordination page - I'll get started on some of these right now. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:15, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Tokyogirl79, Ymblanter, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz raises a good question about G5 eligibility. As the admins involved in this mess, how do you see this? If an article is problematic, should I G5, or send to AfD? Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:54, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

    I would say unless it is a brand new (clear block evasion) creation and does not fall under PROD/speedy criteria it should be sent to AfD.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:57, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

• Personally I have no true issue deleting these as G5, but I will hold off at this point since I do see some valid points brought up as to why G5 wouldn't entirely qualify here. I'd argue that we should give G5 a little wiggle room here since this will potentially mean hundreds of articles flooding AfD or PROD, which would be more time consuming than if we were to just G5 them as a sock creation. I'd say that this should only apply to articles that are obviously non-notable and cannot be redirected to a valid target like a director filmography. Anything that seems like it could potentially be notable (ie, two usable RS) should go through the other avenues. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:59, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

• Basically, AfD is usually overwhelmed with candidates as it is and we have a person here who has created 900+ articles. If even a fourth of that goes to AfD, that means that there will be over 200 articles going to AfD. Some of these articles are very quickly checked, so this could mean dozens of AfDs open within a short period of time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:01, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

• I'm running across a new issue. One of the creations by the sockpuppet includes a year-by-year discography for a composer with 1000+ film credits. Many of those films do not appear to be immediately notable, so this means that these pages (spanning from 1976 to 2015) will likely require just as much in-depth inspection as the sock articles. Some of the film pages were created by the sock, but some weren't. I don't know that we need to have a complete discography for all of Ilaiyaraaja's work, even if we were to compile the pages by decade rather than by year. Thoughts on this? There's a merge request at Talk:Ilaiyaraaja discography, if anyone wants to give their input. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:10, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Tokyogirl79, The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo), Ymblanter; after reading your thoughts, it seems to me that this would be a reasonable place to invoke WP:IAR, and tag non-notable creations of this author with G5, so as to avoid flooding PROD and AfD. Unless there are any serious objections to this, I will switch to doing that shortly. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:09, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
    • That strikes me as a very bad idea. IAR is rarely if ever validly invoked to justify out-of-process speedy deletion. And G5-ing articles that don't meet G5 requirements will be disruptive for editors reviewing those speedy nominations. If there's no issue about the factual accuracy of Ilaiyaraaja's credits, I don't see why the article needs to be scoured of non-notable items. We have many musician discographies which list nn albums/sinbles/songs, and many author bibliographies which list complete works, not merely those notable enough to have individual articles. Notability standards don't apply within articles, and one of the appropriate functions of an encyclopedia is to be encyclopedic and appropriately complete. Biographies don't mention only notable children, parents, and spouses, after all. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 06:35, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Hullaballoo, part of the issue with this particular composer is that his credits are 1000+ films long. This is separate from the albums he's released, which are listed on the main discography page. The list that the sock created appears to be any film he composed music for, regardless of the length of the contributed work. This means that he could be the main composer for the soundtrack or he could have contributed one piece of music - we have no real way of confirming this with some of the movies, as many of them are fairly old. At some point this goes beyond being a discography and at some level becomes an issue of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Even if we condense this into pages by year, this means that we have at least 5-6 pages that just list films that he composed music for. I'm aware that we do have composer credit pages, but those are for people whose works are a smaller amount, usually under 100 credits. This guy has thousands and churns out a good 20+ soundtracks a year at the very least - he did about 40 in 2015 alone. At some point we have to ask if having a complete listing of every film credit is really worth it, given that the pages for this guy will run the risk of being mammoth chunks of information with little to no true encyclopedic value other than being complete. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:31, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
• Anyone have an idea on what we should do as far as the idea of G5 goes? I have no problem with doing all of the G5s myself, if it comes to that, as long as the pages have been checked over to ensure that we're not getting rid of a valid page. If no one has any truly major objections, here's my proposal: once we complete a section, I'll go through and check to see which pages were tagged as not meeting notability guidelines. I'll check the page and the sourcing, then if it fails, I'll delete it via G5 so that it's not a huge mass of PRODs or AfDs waiting to be handled. Both arenas are usually swamped with entries with relatively few admins monitoring them (relatively speaking) so putting them through those avenues only delays a problem that could be dealt with right away. I'm aware that this process will likely take months to complete, but I'm willing to do this. I just want to make sure that this is relatively acceptable so that I don't get in trouble for doing this. I'm not endorsing an outright deletion of each page (although I can see the merit in doing this), just saying that I don't think that the pages should have to sit in PROD-land for a full week when we could cut through the red tape and deal with them faster. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:10, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Eeekster is disruptively tagging my user-created photographs as no permission

I have complained about his behavior before but no action was taken. Can I request more decisive action please? Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 22:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Could you please provide diffs? BMK (talk) 22:44, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can tell (from examing a few of the recent ones), Eeekster is tagging them correctly. All of the images I looked at appeared to be uploaded by someone other than the creator, and they were credited to the subject of the image, not to the creator (who may be the same person, but that is unlikely for photos). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I am talking about the self-portrait used on my user page. He has done this consistently to all my photographs. (Most of which aren't self-portraits). See his behavior on File:Union Square chess with spectators.jpg, File:Flushing street vendor under LIRR bridge.jpg, File:Flushing, After the Rain.jpg, among numerous others. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 23:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

One tag does not make disruption. CombatWombat42 (talk) 23:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

All three of the images you cite in the previous comment were tagged by Eeekster in October, and have not been touched by that editor since then, after the tags were removed and replaced with an OTRS notice or a license - so these hardly seem relevant now. BMK (talk) 23:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

What I am saying this is repeated disruptive behavior. The tags were repeatedly reinstated (edit-warring behavior) until another administrator intervened. The OTRS tags were in fact unncessary. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 23:17, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

They were originally licensed to begin with. (Creative Commons 3.0, self-produced) Eeekster seemed to have a problem believing they were created by me, simply because I used a full-frame DSLR, a 50mm f/1.4 lens and decent composition. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 23:18, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I would imagine that the problem with the self-portrait is the question of whether you actually took the picture or not -- for instance by setting up the shot with a tripod and timer and then walking into it -- or whether you had someone else take it, in which case the ownership of the image might be debateable, and you might have to show that it was a work made for you by hire. I think the "self-portrait" question is a rather trivial one, and Eeekster should not -- in general -- be tagging such images for permission, as they are de facto owned by the subject (you). There's no particularly need for Eekster to be quite so pedantic about it that it becomes an issue, unless there are reasons to suspect that something untoward is going on in general. I don't see that as being the case here - but I also don't see any need for any kind of sanction for Eeekster beyond perhaps a word to the wise or, at worst, a mini-trout. BMK (talk) 23:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

BTW, FWIW, I like the current image on your user page better than the previous one. BMK (talk) 23:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

In some cases (but not to any current files uploaded to Wikipedia) I set the settings on my camera (and my lens), set up the lighting systems and off-camera flashes, and ask my friend (a fellow escort) to adjust the focus and press the shutter, giving clear, direct instructions. Who owns it then? ;-)

For the last image before that, I lost the original RAW file (plus exported JPG) when I had my laptop stolen by ex-boyfriend last year and only had the crappy local versions hosted on my escort ads lol. That's why it looks too oversharpened. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 23:33, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

In answer to your question: under those circumstances, I think that you own it, but it might be necessary (again, if we're being ultra-legalistic about this, which I do not think we have to be) for you to provide a statement from the other person that they were acting completely under your directions, and therefore is not in any way a creator of the photograph, any more than I am a creator of a play because I assist the author and director in editing and mounting it. BMK (talk) 23:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree on the self-portrait aspect, we shouldn't really doubt that, but we have had issues with what is called "flickrwashing" - people will take high quality photos that are from a press agency and definitely NOT PD or CC, post them to flickr, tag them as CC-BY, call them their own, and then either they or someone else will upload those to commons, hiding the copyvio. For a new-ish editor to do offer high-quality photos, we do have some bit of doubt, and the ORTS step is merely a formality. I would hope that in the future that if you (Yanping) do contribute high resolution photos that the fact that ORTS has demonstrated you have this capability that editors should not doubt that you have the camera equipment to take such photos and this should not be a problem again. --MASEM (t) 23:33, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I lost the original OTRS correspondence -- I was flooded with obligations in October and they couldn't locate all my images. My Flickr account has thousands of uploads, I have been a member since 2010, and I have my own photography website with my own domain name. I'm not that new of a member, I just haven't edited Wikipedia since high school and that was under my old male name (which I don't wish to reveal). Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 23:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

We aren't going to ask you to connect your old account/name to this (zero need to), all I'm saying is that because we on WP have serious concerns about maintaining a free encyclopedia that we are vigilant to make sure that we don't mistag high-quality photos that are not free as free images. Without having the visible tenure of your previous account to go off, the combination of how these photos came to be do set off enough legitimacy alarms. But I'm fully satisified you took them, and the ones lists above are all good. If you upload more photos, I do expect that no one should give you the hassle of claiming you couldn't have possibly taken them or that they don't belong to you, now that we've got enough to go on to know it should be good. You're basically a false positive in our test during vigilance on bad uploads; it happens, I don't think Eeekster was being malicious here, just careful. --MASEM (t) 23:45, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• Tag + 2 disruptive reverts by Eeekster on File:Yanping Nora Soong self-portrait.jpg, despite the fact they were clearly made by me.
• Disruptive tagging on File:Flushing Main St, Kissena Blvd, and 41 Av crowded intersection.jpg
• Tag + 3 disruptive reverts (violation of WP:3RR) on File:Union Square chess with spectators.jpg
• 2 disruptive (re)tags on File:Flushing, After the Rain.jpg
• Disruptive tagging on File:Flushing street vendor under LIRR bridge.jpg
• among many others Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 23:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can see, these are all from October. Where are the "many others" which are more recent examples? ANd, FWIW, there's no "clearly made by me" about your self-portrait, for the reasons I outlined above -- and isn't that you in the Kissena Blvd. picture? So who took it, and under what conditions, and have you provided proof to OTRS that it was you?

You can certainly keep reiterating your complaint, but unless you've got something more recent, I'm just not seeing where you've got a case for Eeekster to be sanctioned. Perhaps others disagree with that, so I'll withdraw and allow them to comment. BMK (talk) 23:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

This was pre-emptive because I was expecting more reverts by Eeekster (which no one took action with last time). However, if he doesn't try to tag my image as unsourced or unlicensed I won't request sanctions. Also, in my self-portrait, I am holding a camera. The lens is photographing a mirror. (d_i = d_o) The subject *is* the photographer.

The Kissena Blvd photographs are not of me, they were taken *by* me. They are street photographs. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 23:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

For the ones with OTRS tags, leave a message on my talk page here and I'll check them when I get home (I never do OTRS stuff at work). They need to have the ticket number added to them. For everything else, unless he is actually harassing you, there's nothing else which can be done here. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)File:Union_Square_chess_with_spectators.jpg states the photo was originally published on flickr. Following the link, there Yanping Soong is claiming an "All right reserved" copyright. Therefore, pending an OTRS email relicensing under a creative commons license, it is a copyright violation from Wikipedia's point of view. The simple solution is simply to creative commons license the photo on flickr -- then when an editor checks the Wiki version of the photo, they'll see it's okay. NE Ent 23:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

BTW, is there a reason why you are not uploading your images to Commons, rather than to here? BMK (talk) 23:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't have time to relicense all my images. I adjusted the license on one (the Flushing after the rain image) just to show that I owned it. As a copyright holder, surely I have the right to re-release images under a new license without declaring the change of license on other places that are published? The reason is that I would like to make them free for Wikipedia's use, and free for use in any derivatives and mirrors that incorporate Wikipedia, but I do not want to systematically release all my images as free (because in some cases I have plans for them), sd in some cases I get paid for licensing image use requests by certain people (doesn't involve any of the images affected).

I prefer they not be uploaded to Commons, for various reasons that I don't have time to explain right now. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 00:20, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

In which case you should probably label them with {{Do not move to Commons|reason=}}. The reason could be "author's request". BMK (talk) 01:32, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

See [1] — Yanping's Flickr account has explicitly said "I'm also Yanping Nora Soong on Wikipedia", and I've saved that revision with the Internet Archive. Since the same person is in control of both accounts, we have no reason to doubt that the Wikipedia account is able to upload images from the Flickr account using licenses that don't appear on the Flickr account. The allegations of Flickrwashing aren't affected by this, of course. Nyttend (talk) 02:44, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, there's a fairly simple way to find out. Upload the image on Google Images and search, check a couple of matches and see ownership (also, some of the matches will just be unauthorized copy of the original but remember to check for anyone claiming to be the original). This process is much simpler on Chrome, download the Image Search Extension, right click on image, search and voila. And, credit me when it's done. --QEDK (T ❄ C) 06:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

You are of course not required to use the same licence on Flickr as you provide here. With the information on Flickr, I think it should be clear to most people that you are the same person as the Flickr account holder, so any licence differences don't matter. However it's always possible someone may miss the declaration. If this happens, I suggest you simply point out to them the Flickr declaration.

I agree that I'm not seeing anything malicious, or even majorly wrong with the October stuff. In particular, I don't quite get what you mean by [2] being clearly made by you. Considering the composition of the shot, it doesn't look so much like it was taken with a tripod. With this and the other details (appearing on other sites etc), it's understandable there may have been concern.

I have much more sympathy for the recent case [3] since as you mentioned it does look likely that it was a self portrait. So I'm not sure the tagging should have happened. Still mistakes happen and we have to be very careful about copyright issues. It would also help if you resolve at least one case of a self-portrait (possibly you already did and it just hasn't been updates), then people can go off that.

BTW, I'm assuming you understand that by freely licencing your images, you are freely licencing those images point blank. While it may not be that likely many will find them, particularly if they are only on en.wikipedia (rather than commons), it remains the case that anyone anywhere is free to use them for any purpose (including commercial) in accordance with the licence terms and it doesn't matter if they are unrelated to wikipedia. (For images with identifable people including yourself, they may also have to ensure they comply with any privacy and similar requirements.)

Likewise, while most people will respect your request not to move a file to commons (see Wikipedia:Moving files to the Commons for example), there's no legal or clear policy barrier (well barring ones unrelated to you, like if other stuff in the image may be copyrighted). If your image is regarded as important to other wikipedias or other wikimedia projects, it's possible someone may do so.

Nil Einne (talk) 11:57, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

• I would like to make them free for Wikipedia's use...but I do not want to systematically release all my images as free I'm still a little drowsy and soon will be consuming a LARGE HAM, so I don't have time to dig for the exact policy, but I'm pretty sure this is exactly the sort of licensing that is not allowed? An image needs to be released under a free license, or not at all, with "only free for Wikipedia" not being acceptable? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:43, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

It depends what Yanping Nora Soong means by the statement. My guess is that she meant she is unwilling to release most of her images on Flickr under a free licence, but is willing to release all the images she uploads here under a free licence. However she feels she doesn't have the time to change the licencing status on Flickr and/or perhaps would prefer to reduce re-use. (Which isn't ideal, but isn't AFAIK forbidden provided it's clear that the images are freely licenced.) I guess she expects that most reusers would be wikipedia and its mirrors because she uploaded them here. But my hope is she understand that regardless of where she freely licences the images, she's released them under the terms of that free licence. Therefore anyone including commercial users, anywhere, are free to re-use the images under the terms of the licence (including allow derivatives). I would note she didn't mention any restrictions when she uploaded the images which seems to support this view. I do agree it's important that she does understand this, hence my question/comment above. Nil Einne (talk) 06:35, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I sell some images through Flickr occasionally, that's all. Most sold prints actually occur on the street in NYC, and I actually pay an investment cost for printing those prints on metal. People who discover the image through Wikipedia are welcome to use the images in any way they wish. It's not a huge issue right now because most of my photography income comes through commissioning new work, not paying for prints of existing work, and of that, most are on the street, not online. There's also the issue of different sizing. I'm very familiar with free licensing. There's also the issue of whether differential licensing can apply to sizes. I'm ready for any consequence of free licensing. It's just that people looking for stock images on Flickr are very different from people looking from stock images on Wikipedia.

And yeah, part of it is just general laziness to go back to the Flickr version of every image I upload to Wikipedia to make the licenses consistent. My wish for uploading to Wikipedia is primarily to educate, inform and inspire. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 11:53, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

What pretty much hits the nail on the head; Yanping Nora Soong is too lazy to update the out of date off-wiki licensing and is demanding other editors, upon noticing off wiki it says "all rights reserved," and on-wiki it says "creative commons," spend their volunteer time tracking the authorship to the point they realize it's really okay. NE Ent 15:48, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's really as hard as you suggest. If you visit the Flickr page and see it says all rights reserved but then check the details in the same page and realise it identifies the same author, it's clear it's not an issue. Presuming you aren't a bot, you should generally be reading a bit more anyway to get an idea whether it's possible the Flickr image is the only stolen. (E.g. you probably should look at the date on Flickr.) In fact, the authors name is unsurprisingly more prominent than the copyright details so you shouldn't really be missing it.

As for bots, do they not have a facility to ignore Flickr users already? I would have thought it necessary so we don't get false positives for anyone on Flickr who regularly steals images but who haven't been taken down.

In any case, volunteer contributions of useful user created freely images, particularly quality ones should always be welcome, and it doesn't make sense to say people can't licence their images seperately on different places since that's in some ways a key selling point (you can freely licence you images and allow people to use them in accordance with the licence while simulatenously continuing to sell them for those who want a different licence). I'm pretty sure there a number of people already doing that by selling their images on stock photo sites and stuff which is perfectly attune to both the wikipedia/media and commons licencing norms. We can and should find ways of dealing with any confusion created.

Nil Einne (talk) 03:51, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Continued addition of unsourced birth place

@Hackinghobb: has been continually changing Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr, George Harrison and John Lennon birth places. These changes are against accepted consensus and without sources, despite multiple warnings. User refuses to discuss or source their claims. Mlpearc (open channel) 16:01, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, but it seems as if the guy has a valid argument that Merseyside wasn't founded as a county until 1974, so the various Beatles couldn't have been born in that county, since it didn't exist at the time. It would seem as if something on the order of "Lancashire (now Merseyside)" would be a suitable compromise. BMK (talk) 17:24, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I've left a message on the editor's talk page. BMK (talk) 17:28, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

No-one was claiming Merseyside was correct? That was just suggested by User:Hackinghobb's misleading edit summaries? There are no other Liverpools in England, nor anywhere in UK. So any county is redundant. Unless there is some infobox policy convention on counties, I don't see it helps the reader at all. A county might be added in the article main body for good measure, but again this seems redundant in the case of the Fab Scouse Four. A different consensus could be established at the Talk Page if need be, if their "Lancastrian-ness" was deemed so important. So this is a just a content dispute. The contentious part is the user's lack of engagement and discussion with other editors, as BMK has rightly pointed out. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:33, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Since the dispute seems to be about whether the birthplace should just be "Liverpool, England" or "Liverpool, Lancashire, England", surely it should be possible to come to some sort of acceptable compromise, as Liverpool is a sufficiently large place that adding a county (whether Lancashire as it was when the Beatles were born, or Merseyside as it is now) is superfluous. The Royal Mail has been trying to discourage the use of counties in postal addresses for something close to 40 years by now. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 19:34, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you in regards to a compromise being available, but I would point out that "location" is not necessarily the same thing as "address", so the Royal Mail's preference for no county in addresses is not really relevant. I frequently come across this problem in regard to places in Manhattan, the mailing address for which is "New York, New York". That, and the well known song by the same name, have encouraged people to use "New York, New York" as a location, when it is simply a mailing address. One can say "Manhattan, New York City, New York" or "New York County, New York" or variations on those (I prefer the latter as being the clearest), but the use of the postal address (and the zip code, which is really completely irrelevant) is not the location of the place. BMK (talk) 19:48, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Maybe WP:RSN would be a better place for this issue? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 01:29, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Why reliable sources? BMK (talk) 02:29, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Because it seems to be the same issue that affects several related articles (WP:BLPN would be a stretch, imo). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 05:22, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I have to disagree with BMK's description of "New York, New York" as just a mailing address. I grew up there, and it's common enough as a way of emphasizing the city (e.g., out of pride) or distinguishing the city from the state. The latter is one way to avoid this type of dialogue, which I've had too often: "Where'd you grow up?" "New York." "What city?" (exaggerated accent:) "I just toldja, NOO YAWK!!" --Thnidu (talk) 16:44, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• They've all been WP:FAs for eons with just "Liverpool, England", so stick to that. There's no need to get into ceremonial county, administrative county, historic county, England, United Kingdom, Europe, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way, Known Universe, etc., because as noted the counties changed in the 1970s or whenever. Let the FAs stand as they were. Trout the user, warn them, and block them if they persist. Softlavender (talk) 02:42, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

KILL! KILL! KILL! KILL! EEng (talk) 08:07, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for sounding a note of caution there, EEng. But I think three ought to be enough. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• Unless there's more than one Liverpool in England, "Liverpool, England" would seem to suffice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:31, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
• This really matters, folks. If it doesn't have its own page, or at least discussions on RSN, COI, SPI and MOS by the time I get up tomorrow, I will be pissed, with a capital P, apostrophes and a hyphen. I believe it means "pool of life". I'd suggest the antagonists get one, but that might take away from the Happy Christmas I wish you all. Begoon ^talk 17:10, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
• I've issued a stern warning and will be happy to block if this continues. I suggest this be closed. Happy Boxing Day everyone! --John (talk) 13:27, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Anyone want to untangle this, um, really really really not here?

See User:Marion.Walker MD. This might be a Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FrankEM/Archive sock but those socks seem to be able to hold it together more. Some samples from the talk page:

Starts: My WP User ID was just stolen and can now be used by both me and the person who stole it and so after I post all this I will never use this ID again.

Also stolen is a Tea House Admin WP User ID and Nthep you can still use your WP ID, but a group of programmers will now be using it too.

STOLEN WP User ID Nthep deleted MY post from the Tea House.

Original WP User ID https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ashton_Cable&action=edit&redlink=1

This WP User is now https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nthep

=Programmer took the WP ADMIN User ID KateWishing https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_tool_apprenticeship/User:YourUsername_(November_2011)&action=edit&redlink=1

This programmer has moved thousands of files, but here is 1 example. 'Another example in the 2008 time-frame https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Prince_Gebauer&action=edit&redlink=1

Notice on the same page but now its 2015 because this programmer moved the files. This ID is one of the programmers favorites it seems. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:NeilN https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:%CE%A3&offset=20150928013341&action=history

Watch how he does this and notice your navigation thru the history files because the dates are rearranged by this programmer and many have been moved and destroyed, and that's a whole other subject, but its what the programmer is doing to WP. Interesting is when I copied this I copied 3 lines, and pasted it here and 2 lines were gone and then reappeared. I know why, and its not good for WP. (cur | prev) 20:10, 15 November 2015‎ Σ (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,790 bytes) (+320)‎ . . (→‎Editor interaction analyzer: Derp) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 18:47, 15 November 2015‎ Cyphoidbomb (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,470 bytes) (+305)‎ . . (→‎Editor interaction analyzer: R) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 16:09, 15 November 2015‎ Σ (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,165 bytes) (+742)‎ . . (→‎Editor interaction analyzer: Fixed) (undo | thank) Marion.Walker MD (talk) 15:39, 25 December 2015 (UTC) Marion.Walker MD (talk) 15:39, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

It gets worse. They are continuing to copy/paste from various pages. Obviously a block is forthcoming but does anyone recognise any of this behavior? Doug Weller talk 17:03, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Really hurting my head reading through this (nothing do to with the fact it's Christmas) and the editor's posts elsewhere - does the editor believe Doc James has access to an account of theirs (per this edit summary)? -- samtar ^whisper 17:15, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Apparently they believe that about half of the admin corps and "any editor whose name is in red" does. After looking at this I'm still not entirely sure if this is some sort of trolling or someone who's simply WP:NOTHERE, but if they're serious they have serious problems comprehending how Wikipedia works and and if they're not it's obvious trolling, so either way I've blocked (and will probably be next in line to be declared as one of those programmers stealing accounts...) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:36, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

{{checkuser needed}}. I'm asking for a checkuser to check Marion.Walker MD. The user is obviously a sock. She mentions Prince Gebauer and Ashton Cable, but I'm not sure if those are her other accounts. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:42, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what this user is getting at. Not sure of possible socks but likely. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:18, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

 In progress.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:26, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Marion.Walker MD and FrankEM are  Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely). I see no justification to check Price Gebauer or Ashton Cable.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:40, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced content from STH235SilverLover

Please note that STH235SilverLover (talk · contribs) keeps adding unsourced content into articles [4] after a final warning was given to them in November [5]. They should be well aware of WP:VERIFY by now.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 01:34, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

One more diff [6] showing unsourced changes.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 01:37, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:AIV? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:22, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Mmm, I don't know if that's truly vandalism. Maybe WP:DISRUPT?--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:02, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:VERIFY says "If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." (wikilink original). I didn't write that, I just copy-pasted it from the last "Unsourced content!" ANI Jetstreamer started about a different editor. See also yet another editor reverting Jetstreamer's unnecessary reversion of STH235SilverLover [7].

Big picture. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia intended to provide information to readers. To help maintain the quality that information, Wikipedia:Verifiability is a rule that says if unsourced content is added, and "any material challenged or likely to be challenged" should be sourced; it goes on at length to explain the nuances of that statement, including what to do about it, including tagging or removing it. Rat the editor out at ANI is not on the list: Verifiability does not exist to play wikt:gotcha every time someone adds unsourced content, and it complements, rather than supersedes other "rules" like assume good faith and is definitely subordinate to not a bureucracy. NE Ent 16:19, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:VERIFY is one of the core content policies, not "a rule" as you say. I'm not gonna argue with you. The editor in question kept adding uncited information even after he had a final warning. Let's an admin take care of this. One more thing: this reversion [8] was not unnecessary, as there were no inline citations to the claims added. A link to an article is not a citation. There seems to be more people than I imagine that does not want to accept what is unsourced and what is not.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 18:11, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

However, it's also a fact that, with the exception of BLPs, it's not required that sources be IN an article in order to satisfy WP:V, they need only exist, and they do not have to be easily accessable. While it is in fact good practice to reference all the things and it's true that anything not referenced can be removed, that is a fact that is often forgotten. Also, I'm in agreement with Ent in wondering how this rises to the level of something that needs to be discussed at ANI. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:50, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Not forgotten by me, actually. I always provide citations for my edits. WP:V reads "Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article." It's crystal clear to me: it says nowhere not to include citations. Finally, if I took this to AIV as suggested above some admins say to take it here, as it happened in the past.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:14, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunatly "circular thataways" sometimes happen and can be extremely frustrating. (Also, as a note, the specific bit I was thinking of in WP:V is point #1 under the "original research" section, clarified in footnote 1 of WP:NOR.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:02, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Retro-redakteur.u12

Anybody wants to react to an unprovoked personal attack [9]? I first thought it is Tobias Conradi, but SPI shows this disruptive account is unrelated.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:27, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

31 hours should do for a start. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:30, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:34, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Someone may also want to have a look at the swath of place renames that this editor did, which I suspect are entirely neutral... (but certainly often half-baked, when the page name changed but the content didn't) LjL (talk) 16:37, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

There is no consensus in the topic of names of Belarusian localities. There are three different transliterations, and the community was not able to decide in favor of any of the three, so that currently we use for large cities most common names, and for others wait for a miracle. They were editing explicitly against consensus, this is why I was sure they are Tobias Conradi (who as Derianus was doing exactly the same in articles about Belarusian localities).--Ymblanter (talk) 16:43, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: You know you have the option of blocking the user based on behavior.  CheckUser is not magic pixie dust.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:00, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Sure, Bbb23, but after they personally attacked me I do not feel I am the right person to do it.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:16, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: The account attacked you in response to your filing the SPI. Such an attack does not prevent you from taking administrative action unless you are otherwise involved. Still, if you feel uncomfortable doing so, I'll do it as the behavioral evidence is sufficiently persuasive to block, or Vanjagenije can do it, peu importe.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:25, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Reference desk vandal

Could some kind admin block 36.3.252.154 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)? They've been vandalizing Wikipedia talk:Reference desk as well as removing reports from WP:AIV, which seems to be backlogged. Thanks. clpo13_(talk) 18:30, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

And 126.46.146.2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Actually, just semi-protect WT:RD and maybe they'll get bored and stop. clpo13_(talk) 18:49, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

The page is now semi-protected until 29 December 2015. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:07, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Removing reports from WP:AIV may seem to a vandal to be useful, but since admins frequently check the history of WP:AIV, it actually makes it more obvious. Unfortunately, the Reference Desks and their talk page are a frequent target for vandals and trolls. At any given time, it is typical that one or two of the Reference Desks are semi-protected, because the admins are playing Whack-a-Mole with the trolls. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:16, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

This [10] was indeed sort of, erm, persistent. Many IP vandals stop after a level 4 warning, not this person. As I am not an admin, all I could do all the time was rollback (Twinkle). Of course, because it is Christmas, less people including admins are around than usual. While I was rolling back I was wondering if there is an easy way of knowing which admins are live online (or at least logged in) in case you would want to talk to them on their Usertalkpage if a report elsewhere (in this case AIV) seems to snow under under a growing backlog? I only know a few admins by name, but even then I'd have to go to their contribs-view to guess if anyone of them is online "right now"? Of course, it didn't occur to me I could also use Twinkle for a Page Protection Request (though even that means, hoping any admin is present and sees it), sorry about that, maybe it would have stopped earlier (unless I am hugely overestimating my effect on WP here lol). Well, anyway, Merry Christmas to you all, or whatever you wish to celebrate around this time of year. Poepkop (talk) 19:37, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Requested range blocks for IP-hopping vandals

Once again IP-users are subtly vandalizing tropical cyclone articles and abusing numerous addresses. The first user utilizes a base IP of 50.153.x.x and an IPv6 address of 2601:3c6:8000:e7c0:x:x:x:x. Given that the vandalizing is nearly identical and the addresses trace back to either Tennessee or Massachusetts, I'm assuming them to be from the same person. The second user is a returning person from the summer whom was subjected to a week-long range block. The second person's IP base of traces back to Mexico, and given the similar nature of their edits I'm assuming them to be the same person as in the linked incident. It's been spread out over several months, with the IPs mainly adding fake tropical cyclone names or altering intensities to incorrect values. Since I don't know how to do so myself, I'm requesting range blocks be implemented as these people likely won't stop for quite some time.

Thanks in advance, ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:31, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Alvin the Almighty

Alvin the Almighty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) / Admiral Alvin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user is repeatedly disrupting Wikipedia despite endless warnings and attempts to help him. An example of his disruptions is adding not useful tags to articles that don't need them, also considered as overkill (example). He also likes adding unnecessary speedy deletion tags to articles which at the end of the day, usually stay. Another of his habits are copy-pasting templates from other users' pages to his own which lead other users to need to delete it. The last example I also believe that the user who added the administrator template (User:GOFA) is an account handled by the same person since GOFA's only interactions were in a page Alvin tagged. My last example of disruption is that the user changes user comments to make him seem like 'the good guy'. He also deletes warnings and in a conversation with User:Samtar, he linked WP:ABF which is a humorous essay as a response to WP:AGF. Pinging @Samtar: @PamD: for comments. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 22:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with deleting warnings - only declined unblock requests are not allowed to be removed. Refactoring comments though is a huge no-no. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:27, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

@The Bushranger: The part about deleting warnings are fine, however on WP:BLANKING it says: Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered, from removing comments from their own talk pages... If a user removes material from their user page, it is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents. In this case, the user has deleted the comments but continues to do what the users commented (not even warnings, just being very friendly) on his talk page not to do. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 11:17, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• @Dat GuyWiki:Maintaining one's own talk page is righteous and is none of your business. With no proper reason, you are accusing one user as my puppet. Considering that you are a rollbacker, you should be aware of WP:What Wikipedia is Not. Yet what i see from [[11]] is that you are no help. WP: Assuming Good Faith, I believe you did not vandalise Wikipedia. Let's look at this then: [[12]]. Looks like you ain't any better than me, given that i have effectively removed filth. By the way my dear little jerk, it seems that Haters gonna hate: you have a little part out there([[13]]) huh? Alvin the Almighty (talk) 14:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Cause of death vandal?

Any opinions about whether User:2600:100E:B109:2C5E:BC96:3D65:ACC6:319 is the Cause of death vandal? If not, most of their contributions have been unsourced, so I've deleted most of them, but if they are the CODV, then a block is probably in order. BMK (talk) 03:41, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't believe that he/she is a vandal, but he/she is definitely not competent to be editing. Most of their edits had to be reverted and none were necessary. --I am One of Many (talk) 06:32, 27 December 2015 (UTC)-

Motion to ban Alwayssmileguys for mass promotion and undeclared paid editing

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

---

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

Dear community, I am putting forward a motion that we, the editors, permanently site ban Alwayssmileguys.

Evidence:

• A sock farm of over a dozen accounts was confirmed by a check user during an SPI.
• Several editors concluded following the SPI and during discussions on the editor's talk page that behavioural evidence indicated mass promotion and paid editing. Several articles were deleted through CSD, AFD, and the remaining were blown up as was done in the case of OrangeMoody.
• At Talk:Seattle Seafair Commodores, Myestro69 issued a statement confirming that they paid an editor to start the page. The page was started by Alwayssmileguys.
• On the talk page of Talk:RingMeMaybe (mobile application), a different editor disclosed that they had been engaged to edit the article for monetary gains. The article was created by Alwayssmileguys.

When confronted with the evidence of paid editing at the SPI and on their talk page, the editor played ignorant and refuted the evidence. This is a clear violation of WP:SOCK and WP:PAID/WP:COI. I have put this motion forward as I suspect this editor may attempt to return or engage in further sock puppetry, especially now that there is a financial implication whereby the editor has already received funds. I am pinging into this conversation other editors that contributed to building this case and dealt with this user for their input: Ohnoitsjamie, The Bushranger, Reddogsix, Deb, and Bbb23. Thank you, Mkdw^talk 04:59, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support community ban. Even following the CU block, Alwayssmileguys came back to harass a user who had proposed some of their creations for deletion. clpo13_(talk) 16:56, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
• Mkdw's pings of the above users didn't work because he signed it after putting in the usernames. I found out because I have the sockmaster's user/talk pages on my watchlist. Repeating the pings: Ohnoitsjamie, The Bushranger, Reddogsix, Deb.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:00, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support. A month or so ago I noticed a pattern where ASG would create an article about some person, with few or no reliable sources; when I looked for more sources I found at least half a dozen instances where the subject of the article immediately linked to the brand-new Wikipedia article from their Facebook page or Twitter profile or official page - in a couple of cases, the person who was the subject of an article also showed up in AfD discussions, or removed speedy tags. While it's not unusual for fans to create pages about people they admire (which is what ASG has claimed to be doing), it not all that common for those people to find out about the Wikipedia articles within a few days (or even hours) of their creation. There is no doubt at all in my mind that this user has been involved in undisclosed paid editing. Combined with the socking both before and after the master was blocked, as well as the frequent attacks on editors who have tagged their articles for deletion, I think a community ban is called for. --bonadea contributions talk 21:24, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support - I absolutely support the ban. As the editor that created the initial Sock investigation I was surprised to see the number of socks involved, but even more surprised to see the editor deny the evidence provided by the CU. Not only did the editor deny their involvement in socking at the investigation, but at various times in the AfD discussion. reddogsix (talk) 21:12, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• Looks like they were blocked two days ago. John Nagle (talk) 21:10, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, they were blocked for socking. This WP:CBAN centres more around their conduct around a conflict of interest and undisclosed paid editing. It should also be noted that they've created subsequent accounts to come back and harass editors through block evasion. Mkdw^talk 23:34, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Haven't interacted enough to opine on a ban, but I will note they're socking. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
• Strong support and will be always happy to block new socks on sight. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:04, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support -- no love lost for sockmasters. GAB^Hello! 04:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Unfortunately I have had to revoke Alwayssmileguys' talk page privileges following several attempts to clear unblock requests from their talk page. A violation of the instructions on the {{Unblock reviewed}} template and process. Mkdw^talk 06:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support. User has promised "I will be back !!!", which indicates to me that the user fully intends to continue the disruption. Best we get this over and done with now so that we can expedite the cleanup. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:03, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support. I've only briefly come across this person, almost solely via the recent AfDs opened by a sockpuppet. I figure I'll just throw another support onto the growing pile. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:32, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

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

sockpuppetry and edit-warring by jordandlee

Resolved

This involves both edit-warring and sockpuppetry, from a very new user (about two months) who has apparently ignored and rejected all advice.

I've been copyediting on Philadelphia Phillies since around June 19 of this year (2015). On December 22 I made four consecutive edits, the last of them consisting of a couple of minor wording changes. The next day Jordandlee reverted the last one, in § 2008 World Series Champions, with no edit memo. I asked him why on his talk page; and seeing that he was a very new user, I requested advice from Sir Joseph, who I saw had had talks with him before (November 2015 — December 2015).

Jordandlee replied on my talk page:

Please pay attention to your edits. Your contributions to the Phillies' page were very careless. Also, there was no need to bring other people into our most recent disagreement. Also, I undid your other edits because, they did, indeed, have many grammar mistakes. Jordandlee (talk) 19:52, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

This was inaccurate in every way. I replied there that in accordance with WP:DR I was taking the discussion to the Phillies talk page, and did so; see there (§ 2008 World Series Champions) for details.

(Everything after this point is in Talk:Philadelphia Phillies#1980 World Series.)

He replied with false statements about my edits* and complaints about interactions with another editor, demonstrating his own ignorance of Wikipedia policies and standards†:

Thnidu recently added and took out a couple of paragraphs to the 1980 World Series section of this article–and I undid them using †my second account, Jorduf. The problem with his/her edits is that *they were not about that subject and what was taken out was. Yet, for some reason Materialscientist undid my revisions. If anyone can explain to me why they are doing that, it would be very much appreciated. Jordandlee (talk) 20:40, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

In reply, I quoted and cited the guideline against multiple accounts, urged him to seek help, and pointed him to the Help Desk. He denied my accusations. I itemized the evidence against him, in detail and with links; he rebutted with an insult. Meanwhile he (as Jorduf) thanked himself (as Jordandlee), further demonstrating his sockpuppetry.

This novice user has been warned repeatedly, first by Sir Joseph, then Muboshgu, and now by myself, and has failed to show any learning or contrition. I request that he be banned.

--Thnidu (talk) 09:23, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Just starting to look into this, but he does seem to admit both accounts are his here. SQL^{Query me!} 11:32, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

And here. SQL^{Query me!} 11:33, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

That being said - I don't see him using the second account to support itself on talk pages, or to skirt 3rr. Just because someone has more than one account isn't necessarily grounds for a ban. I honestly don't see anything actionable here - but I am pretty tired. SQL^{Query me!} 11:41, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

No, I think you are right. Doesn't seem to be any actual sock puppetry going on.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:46, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

The "admission" didn't come till after misuse to conceal edit-warring. In looking through the page history to analyze and document Jordandlee's behavior, I had seen "Jorduf"'s edits with no idea that they were by the same person, despite his claims that

I make it quite obvious I am the same person by stating so, and VERY similar usernames.

That refers to

("and I undid them using my second account, Jorduf").

In fact, until then he had done nothing like "stating so". That was his first mention anywhere of multiple accounts, not disclosed anywhere until well into my exchanges with him. See Talk: Philadelphia Phillies#thn-counterevidence. And that's on top of, and in support of, his edit-warring. --Thnidu (talk) 16:20, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Misuse to conceal edit warring? They've made 3 total reverts to thar page between 2 accounts. There's no evidence that they tried to hide this and they came out themselves that the accounts are theirs. There's been no illegitimate use of either account shown in any evidence you have provided.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:03, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Diffs
The more I've looked into this, the more I see that it isn't primarily a matter of sockpuppetry so much as persistent edit-warring.Here is a still incomplete list of diffs. I can't work any more tonight; tomorrow I'll pick it up again.

I'm collating the diffs for all his edits, starting from his Contributions page and then working through the Revision History of each article he's touched. I haven't gotten to his alter ego Jorduf yet, but there aren't that many there.

Besides Philadelphia Phillies, he's handled Menorah (Hanukkah), Hanukkah, Baseball field, and Peter Bourjos; the big list is in the last of those, which I haven't finished processing. Most or all of the Phillies documentation is above or referenced above; I'll get that into this list after Bourjos.

For each article, the diffs are in chronological order, and unrelated sets of edit and reversion are separated by a blank line. The comments in square brackets are mine.

Menorah (Hanukkah)

• 21:36, 1 December 2015‎ Jordandlee: (It is a chanukia, not menorah. I just don't know how to change the name of the article.)
• 21:42, 1 December 2015‎ Sir Joseph: (Reverted 1 edit by Jordandlee to last revision by 78.147.130.162. (TW))

Hanukkah [These are all on the same terminological points as the diffs in Menorah (Hanukkah).]

• 20:20, 28 November 2015‎ Jordandlee: (Proper terms)
• 20:22, 28 November 2015‎ BethNaught: (Reverted 1 edit by Jordandlee (talk): That spelling is acknowledged, but the article is called "Hanukkah" so we should use that. If you want to change that, file a move request. (TW))
• 18:14, 29 November 2015‎ Jordandlee: (A menorah and Hanukia are two entirely different things (look it up before changing if you don't believe me). Also, 'sundown' is the proper term.) [Undid the reversion]
• 20:02, 29 November 2015‎ Sir Joseph: (Reverted good faith edits by Jordandlee (talk): No, you are incorrect. If you have a concern, use the talk page. The page uses hannukahmenorah which is correct. (TW))
• 21:33, 30 November 2015‎ Jordandlee: (USE OF PROPER TERMS! DO NOT UNDO! A menorah is NOT the same thing as a Hanukia.) [Undid the reversion]
• 21:34, 30 November 2015‎ Sir Joseph: (Reverted 1 edit by Jordandlee (talk) to last revision by Samsara. (TW))

Baseball field

• 21:32, 21 November 2015‎ Jordandlee: (→‎Home plate: Fixed punctuation errors) [Changed commas to em-dashes: "Previously, —and more dangerously, — the plate was made of stone..."]
• 17:23, 30 November 2015 Sir Joseph: (→‎Home plate) [Reversion, dashes to commas.]
• 19:59, 30 November 2015‎ Jordandlee: (→‎Home plate: Fixed punctuation) [Redid commas to em-dashes]
• 20:00, 30 November 2015‎ Jordandlee: (→‎Warning track: Turned dash into hyphen) [In a different sentence; actually, hyphen to dash]
• 21:42, 30 November 2015‎ Sir Joseph: (Reverted to revision 693134844 by Sir Joseph (talk): Rv, to more grammatically correct version. (TW)) [Reverts Jordandlee's previous two edits. In the second of those, at 20:00, Sir Joseph's hyphen is unquestionably correct: it is in the suspended compound "college-" in the phrase "college- or professional-level play".]
• 21:41, 1 December 2015‎ Jordandlee: (→‎Home plate: Sir Joseph, please stop trying to undo everything I do. There is a reason why I change it.) [Commas to dashes again, undoing the reversion.]
• 21:46, 1 December 2015‎ Sir Joseph: (Reverted 1 edit by Jordandlee (talk) to last revision by Sir Joseph. (TW)) [Dashes to commas]
• 01:09, 2 December 2015‎ Jordandlee: (→‎Home plate: Use of correct punctuation ACCORDING TO WIKIPEDIA'S GUIDELINES) [Undid reversion again, commas to dashes]

Peter Bourjos [This list is incomplete, and I haven't finished annotating the ones here. They're are concerned with the timing of Bourjos' move from the St. Louis Cardinals to the Phillies.]

• 19:59, 2 December 2015‎ Jordandlee: (Phillies)
• 20:02, 2 December 2015‎ Jordandlee: (More Phillies)
• 20:13, 2 December 2015‎ Muboshgu: (→‎top: it's still 2015 on my calendar)
• 20:13, 2 December 2015‎ Muboshgu: (→‎St. Louis Cardinals (2014–present))
• 20:14, 2 December 2015‎ Muboshgu: (→‎References)
• 20:14, 2 December 2015‎ Muboshgu: (→‎External links)
• 20:15, 2 December 2015‎ Muboshgu: (→‎top)
• 21:51, 2 December 2015‎ Jorduf: (Undid revision 693473355 by Muboshgu (talk))
• 21:52, 2 December 2015‎ Muboshgu: (Undid revision 693486357 by Jorduf (talk) Yeah it's still December 2015, we don't know if he'll make the Phillies roster or be cut/traded before the 2016 season.)
• 21:59, 2 December 2015‎ Jorduf: (Undid revision 693473647 by Muboshgu (talk))
• 22:03, 2 December 2015‎ Jorduf: (Undid revision 693486518 by Muboshgu (talk))
• 22:07, 2 December 2015‎ Jorduf: (Undid revision 693469794 by 64.9.4.8 (talk))
• 22:55, 2 December 2015‎ Muboshgu: (Undid revision 693487401 by Jorduf (talk) Seriously? Quit it.)
• 22:55, 2 December 2015‎ Muboshgu: (→‎top)
• 00:56, 3 December 2015‎ 71.229.45.29: [No edit summary. IP editor undoing Muboshgu's last edit; it has to be Jord/Jord.]
• 00:59, 3 December 2015‎ Muboshgu m: (Reverted edits by 71.229.45.29 (talk) to last version by Yankees10)
• 03:00, 3 December 2015‎ Jorduf: (adding Phillies)
• 03:24, 3 December 2015‎ Yankees10 m: (Reverted edits by Jorduf (talk) to last version by Muboshgu)

Good night. I'll be ba-a-ack! (tomorrow). --Thnidu (talk) 07:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

So not a sock but an edit warrior now? Yep, certainly seems to be some editwarring. I notice for instance that on the Philadelphia Phillies He's edit warring with you and you are edit warring against him.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:13, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

His notice was sockpuppetry and editwarring. As someone who dealt with him I can feel his pain. While I'm not sure a block is the right answer, I think a mentor/warning might do the trick. It took an almost block to get him to the talk page. He does not seem to want to dialogue and could use a basic course on how to Wiki. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:38, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The evidence of sock puppetry is half ass. He thanked his other account. A warning against edit warring for everyone will suffice. The appropriate place to take sock puppet allegations is WP:SPI. There's a tendency of new users to edit war, it certainly helps to have older users to lead by example and not themselves edit war. It probably also help to also remember not to bite the new comers.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with -Serialjoepsycho-, you were being very hypocritical. As both of you, Sir Joseph and Thnidu, long time editors, told me what to do and not to do, then you immediately proceeded to do them. I'm just wondering how long I have to be editing before I'm allowed to edit war, like the two of you. Jordandlee (talk) 01:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

@Jordandlee: Perhaps you might explain the purpose of your alternate account?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I did so on the Phillies' talk page under the section '1980 World Series'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordandlee (talk • contribs) 01:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

@SQL, Serialjoepsycho, Sir Joseph, Muboshgu, and Jordandlee: Please see the latest exchange between Jordandlee and me at Talk:Philadelphia Phillies#1980 World Series. He now understands why I suspected sockpuppetry, and I now understand that he had no such intention and why he was so argumentative about it. That being so, I withdraw the complaint of sockpuppetry.

Serialjoepsycho, I hope you see now that my suspicion was not "half-assed" but reasonable at the time. Also, if you look at the diff list above you will see that most of his edit-warring was with other editors than me.

Looking again at our last exchange on the Phillies talk page, I think Jordandlee has calmed down, and I know that I have. Jordandlee, I hope that you will read those bits I recommended there, as well as looking through the WP: Help area and getting more familiar with how we do things here. For myself, I don't think there's any point now in finishing that diff list.

And with that I think we can close this issue. Jordandlee sees the necessity of considering others' view of a situation, and hopefully will be less quick to dismiss an opposing opinion.

Happy New Year to all, and to all a good night! --Thnidu (talk) 03:00, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

As this is resolved I'll simply keep the answer to that question to myself.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

User Unjustly Blocked

Can an administrator please review and unblock my account? I've made no violations. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamwil (talk • contribs) 10:07, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Since you can write here, you are not blocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:08, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I mean blocked from editing pages.-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamwil (talk • contribs) 10:16, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

What was your old username? Legacypac (talk) 10:17, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

what do you mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamwil (talk • contribs) 11:18, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

As far as any of us can tell, you are not blocked. If you could share the error message you get when you try to edit - we could help determine what is stopping you from editing. SQL^{Query me!} 11:29, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• Clearly not an IP block as the user can edit here (and they know about ANI on their first edit from this account), so it seems like clear block evasion. I have blocked with instruction to request unblock on original account. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:57, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
• Could it be that this user is trying to edit a protected article? Reyk _YO! 12:07, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

That was why I asked the question I did. SQL^{Query me!} 12:14, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

(←) Well now. Either there is some info unavailable to me, or this was too quick to end. If indeed the problem was they were not yet autoconfirmed, and had no idea how to communicate that, it makes no difference now. Their unblock request was denied and their talk page access removed! I hope maybe a CU confirmed a sock? Otherwise, bye bye new user. Maybe this can be reviewed more closely. Rgrds. --64.85.217.89 (talk) 15:25, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. The block, while not completely unreasonable, was a little pre-emptive, but removal of talk page access seems very excessive given that their single edit to it was to request an unblock. Sam Walton (talk) 15:45, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Here's what I'm seeing: A new user says above "I mean blocked from editing pages." I read that to mean they're not autoconfirmed but it is misunderstood as block evasion. @Boing! said Zebedee: blocks as a sock but also writes on their talkpage @11:59UTC "Alternatively, if you insist this is your only account, please post an unblock request containing details of the message you get when you try to edit." Then @13:40UTC they say they are not a sock, but 3 minutes later @MaxSem: declines the request with "Pfft, you admitted it yourself with your first edit." AND removes TP access in the same edit. This editor needs attention quickly. @Hamwil:, if you are reading here, please read WP:AUTOCONFIRMED and see if that answers your question as to why you cannot edit certain pages (hint: you do not have enough edits yet). Also, it would be nice to know what page you tried to edit. Rgrds. --64.85.217.89 (talk) 16:29, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• I support the reinstatement of talk page access, and I'll add a new message on their talk page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:40, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
• OK, I've added a message to their talk page and I'm watching it and will respond to any replies. But there are a few suspicious things here - the account was registered in April 2015 but made no edits until today and that was an unblock request here at ANI, and their subsequent unblock request on their Talk page says "I demand that I be unblocked immediately" which didn't help and isn't really the way a complete newbie usually responds. Anyway, AGF and all that - if a suitable explanation is forthcoming I'll be happy to unblock and offer my apologies (and would note that in the block log too). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• I really do think it is possible this is a new user being confused about autoconfirm. It can be difficult to understand the difference between being blocked and being prevented from accessing a page. That being said if there is other evidence I am missing then I accept that. HighInBC 17:06, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• I've unblocked this user, per above, to allow them to reply directly here. Reblock if needed after investigation. Prodego ^talk 17:11, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• OK, fair enough - I'll apologise for being too hasty. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Blatant POV editing

There is a block-evading IP using multiple IP addresses to continually insert pro-Israel/anti-Arab material into Wikipedia. The IP claims they are somehow exempt from WP:ARBPIA3, but that it applies to anyone reverting their propaganda. IPs used:

• 83.61.142.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 80.30.76.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 150.214.94.231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 79.157.78.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2.54.44.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Cool Troll Killer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wolfgangmatron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• and several earlier usernames/IPs that I can dig through and find if you need

Going to ping several users that have also been involved in reverting them in case they want to add anything – @TracyMcClark, Murry1975, RolandR, and TheTimesAreAChanging:

Has been blocked on several occasions and warned for edit-warring. Needs action if possible. 220.253.153.55 (talk) 13:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC) (formerly 203.59.211.55)

Might want to consider spi. GAB^Hello! 15:53, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

150.214.94.231 (talk · contribs) used the edit comment "I was editing before the prohibition in November, so WP:ARBPIA3 doesn't apply to me, but it does apply to the IP whose disruptive edit you are restoring for whatever reason" at least twice.[14][15]. That's not what WP:ARBPIA3 says; it reads "All anonymous IP editors and accounts with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict." So all those IPs should be blocked. The non-IPs listed, Cool Troll Killer (talk · contribs) and Wolfgangmatron (talk · contribs), are already blocked. 220.253.153.55 (talk · contribs), the complaining party, is also editing in this area[16][17], which, as an anon, they should not be doing, and since they're complaining here, they know they should't be doing it. ArbCom has made it clear - if you want to edit in this area, you must register and gain some reputation first. John Nagle (talk) 20:57, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Red herring and User:Clepsydrae

User:Clepsydrae is adding material to Red herring that is clearly opinionated original research synthesis based on material he/she saw on the fictional TV show NCSI. I attempted to start a discussion on the talk page but was immediately met with bad faith, calling me "ignorant" which has shut down communication. Given how clearly it violates OR and RS, I would like to see the material reverted and Clepsydrae get consensus for its inclusion through an RfC or other means. Any help appreciated. Thank you. -- GreenC 18:02, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Clepsydrae is edit warring with myself and another editor. I have used up my 3RR for the 24h and won't revert again. -- GreenC 19:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

User Green Cardamom's allegations are unfounded. The user reverted the material twice, once before I had the opportunity to add the references, and a second time after I had added the references, but clearly before ever bothering to review them. I strongly object to his/her use of bureaucratic red tape as a way to force his/her opinion, clearly contrary to the opinions of the references I provided in my edits, onto the Wikipedia population as a whole. It's actions like that which "shut down communication." There's absolutely nothing on my user talk page indicating he/she ever even attempted such communication. My first and only indication was a link to this page. Meanwhile, the sources are valid, scholarly material acceptable in any institution of higher learning (I am a university professor), and I strongly object to Green Cardamom's obfuscation of the issue and bureaucratic bullying in reverting a very simple, straightforward, and clarifying addition to a Wikipedia article. The reason for Wikipedia's existence is to learn, a process that is thwarted when a user closes their mind to anything new or different, particularly when it's well-referenced, and knee-jerk reverts the article to it's old, stagnant, and off-the-mark status. I am new to terms like "OR and RS," but I am NOT new to scholarly research, having earned my first degree more than a quarter century ago, professional associations along the way, and additional degrees since then, with honors (top of my class). Green Cardamom's behavior is NOT scholarly. It's NPOV (I know that term) and anti-learning. Contrary to his/her opinion, he/she is not the expert on the term, and has as much to learn about its history as anyone. I would like to see my latest edit stand as is, and protected from further deletion by those who are apparently married to a falsehood and refusing to examine and follow the substantiating references I provided. Clepsydrae (talk) 19:18, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

EO's explanation of the term may be useful:[18] Clepsydrae (talk) 20:09, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

It is indeed, Baseball Bugs, and Doug Harper's qualified, scholarly efforts certainly support my addition to the red herring article. Thank you. Clepsydrae (talk) 19:44, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Replacement of missing link: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=red+herring — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clepsydrae (talk • contribs) 20:07, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm unable to determine what, exactly, Clepsydrae is objecting to in the article as it stood. He seems to be confusing the use of "red herring" in its literal sense (a type of cured fish) with its metaphorical sense, in which the expression refers to a false lead. Both of these were referred to and dated in the article. It's unclear in what way Clepsydrae thinks the TV show NCIS refutes the previous content of the article, but I agree with the talk-page commenters that it's unacceptable as a reference. (I seem to recall that the only time I watched the show The West Wing, the president [who was supposed to be blindingly erudite] made the point that he read Chaucer "in the original Old English". That statement has always seemed to me to exemplify quite effectively the quality of TV writers' research.) Deor (talk) 20:50, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

The article as it stood relies almost entirely on the [[19]] of "etymologist Michael Quinion" while simultaneously excluding the qualified research of many other, highly-reputable sources, including Merriam-Webster. True, Quinion is an accomplished scholar. He is not, however, to be considered the only expert on the subject. As near as I can tell, he has no degree at all, having merely "studied physical sciences" at Cambridge University. I have two degrees, several professional credentials as a academician, am working on my PhD, and, like Quinion, I too have a website. That does not, however, qualify me as any more of an expert than Quinion. What qualifies my additional paragraph are the independent third-party references from reputable organizations like Merriam-Webster. And again, folks, please STOP referring to the NCIS description as a "reference." I used it only as a very well-worded description of the origin of the term. The references substantiating its origins as truth, however, came from other sources I included using the references tags. The only reason I referenced the NCIS quote was to avoid plagiarism and give credit for where it was due. Again, the NCIS quote is NOT the authoritative source substantiating the origin of the term. It is merely a very good description. As such, it should be left intact, if for no other reason than as the clearest description available of the historically consistent etymology. The authoritative sources (plural) substantiating the origin of the term came from the other sources I provided. Have I made myself clear? Or will I see yet another off-target comment along these lines? Please do not fixate on what is not important. What is important in the paragraph I created is that it reminds readers that a single individual individual's opinion (Quinon) is not sufficient to counter centuries of etymological documentation to the contrary. It reminds users that one individual's blog post does NOT undermine centuries of contrary research to the contrary. Believing otherwise is, at best, "revisionist history." No! Don't do that. That's not the way academia works! My edits restore at least a glimmer of accuracy backed up by centuries of research in the etymology of the term "red herring," while providing a very good description of the still mainstream consideration of its etymology. If Quinion wants to claim otherwise, he's going to have to do substantially more than a mere blog post, and if Wikipedia users want to claim it so, they're going to have to do more than point to a single source. Again, one source does NOT constitute the "status quo" as the article as it stood (stands) wrongly claims. Clepsydrae (talk) 21:29, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Quinion's article is based, not on his "opinion", but, as he says, on research recently (at the time of his writing) published in the journal Comments on Etymology and accepted by the OED. I'd say that's pretty persuasive. In any case, you need to get consensus on the talk page before adding your material to the article again. Deor (talk) 21:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Can you WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS on an article about a phrase? Because that's very much what it looks to me like Clepsydrae is trying to do here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:51, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment Regardless of the strengths of either etymologies, Clepsydrae's content is phrased inappropriately, it is more interested in disproving Quinion, than in presenting the alternative theory. Regardless also of what Clepsydrae claims above, his text is using the TV show as a ref and another dubious source to validate the TV show. The alternative theory MAY be valid, but present wording and sourcing certainly is not. Pincrete (talk) 23:08, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Manualy unblocked user continues disruptions

User:FreeatlastChitchat was manualy unblocked (for unkown reasons), and has now started to disrupt Islam related topics again. He also continues with personal attacks, while asked to stop those. Please read the previous reports (by tons of users) on the noticeboard and please re-evaluate the reason for his unblock (see here). He can't continue like this. 143.176.216.29 (talk) 18:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

FreeatlastChitchat was blocked for edit warring and unblocked because of their promise to adhere to WP:1RR (see User talk:FreeatlastChitchat#December 2015), so it's not an unknown reason for the unblock. I've also notified FreeatlastChitchat of this discussion as required. clpo13_(talk) 18:27, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for clearling that up. I had no clue this could be a valid reason to unblock someone considering the massive disruptions (not just editwars) he has caused. Anyway, please investigate him for his recent repeated or egregious personal attacks. As per wikipedia:No_personal_attacks this may lead to sanctions including blocks. He was asked to stop, but instead replied by making his attacks even more insulting. These attacks are one of many (earlier) disruptions of an Islam related topic, considering his past it should be time to make sure he stops now.143.176.216.29 (talk)

Full block (and unblock) log is here:[20] To see it, check the user's contrib's page and select "block log". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:59, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Also the comments mentioned by the OP were made days after the block would have expired so I don't see what we need to review since they would have been able to make the comments at that time regardless of whether or not there was an early unblock. I think the real question is whether or not the comments being linked to are personal attacks and if any action should take place.--67.68.23.129 (talk) 23:32, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comments by FreeatlastChitchat'. I saw the editing pattern of this IP and commented on the taqiyyah discussion that he was most probably someone who logged out to troll on wikipedia so that his registered account is not hurt. I based my comment on his ability to grasp wikipedia policies even when having only 50 or so edits to his name, and his being able to use wiki jargon without ever having been involved in a situation when its sue was required. However I wanted to give him some rope instead of going straight for investigations/ANI and he hanged himself within the next 72 hours. I am not sure which part of my statement is a personal attack. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:07, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The knowledge of wikipedia-terminology can be explained (partly?) by his use of Dutch wikipedia, where he made many edits. And -if we assume good faith regarding his statements that he has no account- I can imagine your suggestion -without proof- that he was socking was taken as insulting. It certainly wasn't helpful in the discussion. I'd say his running to ANI here (with a very suggestive summary of your recent past) was out of line, and his removal of your talk page post was not helpfull. He'd better have pointed you to make either an SPI or stop the suggestions... I have given him some pointers on his tak page to get possibly unblocked ("manually" ;-)) as I think the block now (3 months with talk page revocation) is way too long and based on what I saw on NL wikipedia, he clearly is more than a troll. (That all is assuming he is not User:143.176.62.228 as is suggested by the blocking admin (@Bbb23:), which I of course cannot verify, but the editing pattern and the type of battlefied behaviour seems different). L.tak (talk) 16:41, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism by 96.241.164.3

96.241.164.3 has been making repeated additions of spurious information to Super Bowl and airline pages, even after several warnings. 32.218.35.213 (talk) 19:25, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked 31 hours for vandalism. Routine vandalism is typically reported at WP:AIV. While blatant vandalism can result in a block without a full set of warnings, the most typical course is for an editor to be reported at AIV after they have received a final (4th) warning, and vandalize again. Monty₈₄₅ 19:38, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

IP sock

I am here with a previous complaint made by User:Snowded here. I was reverted by the user through another IP sock 78.145.96.44. They use the same edit summaries as the other IPs and had the dignity to return to the same page at Hope not Hate. The previous IPs were blocked for WP:NPA and socking if I recall properly. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 22:57, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

The IP just recently tried to remove my thread [21]. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 23:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

The IP is on the verge of entering edit war on my talk page [22], but probably will be in that territory once an admin reaches out. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 23:09, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Please know that I added the ANI notice on their talk page. They just blanked their talk page [23]. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 23:27, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I filed a request for page protection for Hope not Hate. But the IP editor(s) really do need attention, especially given that they're removing ANI reports and edit warring on user talk pages. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:31, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Geolocate says it is the same physical location as the last two IPs who were blocked and we have a threat of sorts repeated over mutiple user pages. Thanks to User:Callmemirela for being vigilant here. ----Snowded ^TALK 05:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Range block requested here earlier today for those interested ----Snowded ^TALK 05:50, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The user has returned edit warring after a 3-hour block. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 15:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Requesting a speedy deletion of article of a living person

I am requesting a speedy deletion of article of a living person David A. Bray as I am the subject of the article. While I have not been involved in past edits of the article, I have monitored them. Personally I never thought I rose to the level of warranting one and would prefer not to be involved in such debates. If it is possible to request a deletion review and courtesy blank upon completion, I would prefer not to be a topic of a Wikipedia article unless required. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Northernva (talk • contribs) 08:22, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Update: I'd prefer not to matter honestly. Is there any chance for a living person to request a speedy deletion and and courtesy blank upon completion out of a right to personal privacy? Or is there a Wikipedia version of the right to be forgotten? Thank you for your consideration. Northernva (talk) 09:04, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

This issue is under discussion at WP:COIN (permalink). – Brianhe (talk) 09:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Brianhe. Northernva (talk) 09:20, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

This is strange. Over at WP:COIN, it's been established that someone created a modest sock farm and created three articles about computer science researchers, all of which are rather favorable to the article subjects. That looks like COI editing. David A. Bray passes the usual tests for notability; he's a high-level Federal official with long articles about him in Forbes and the Huffington Post. He has 114K followers on Twitter.[24]. There's nothing particularly unfavorable in the article; it's rather positive. This seems inconsistent with a request for deletion from Wikipedia. I'd suggest that Mr. Bray mail in an ORTS request (see Wikipedia:Contact us) to establish that they are in fact who they claim to be, and the ORTS team should confirm this. In the presence of sockpuppeting, I'm reluctant to assume that someone claiming to be Mr. Bray is in fact Mr. Bray. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 23:51, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Ah, so I'm not the only one wondering about that... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

John Nagle's course of action makes sense to me. BMK (talk) 06:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

User talk page harassment and general incivility

I'm involved in a few content disputes with Dennis Bratland (talk · contribs) on motorcycle articles. We both have similar interests and seem to bump into each other on these articles. I accept that we have differences of opinions on these articles, and as long as content disputes follow wikipedia guidelines regarding 3RR, civility, NPOV, etc, I see no major issues. However, I am starting to feel that the above user is taking things rather personally and his edits (in particular on my talk page) are harassment.

Firstly, he posted a warning on my talk page, which I removed, which was followed by him undoing my removal of that comment.

[25]initial warning

[26]removal by me

[27]restored comment

[28] request from me, for him not to restore comments on my talk page and for him to leave me alone.

So, I posted a request on his talk page, asking him not to restore removed comments, and not to post anything on my talk page. I made it clear that if he wanted to discuss an article with me, he could do so on my talk page, if he was concerned about my conduct as an editor, he could file a report, and that if he did file a report, I would allow him to post the report notice on my talk page (as I think posting that notice is required). He simply replied "no" to those requests. So, I posted again and said that if he undid my talk page revisions or posted on my page again, I would report him for harassment.

He then reported me for being a sockpuppet/master? I'm not sure which as he claimed I was the sockmaster, but one of the other accounts he reported is a really long established account. The conclusion from the admins involved was there the accounts mentioned were not connected. That's fair enough, I will have good faith in his sockpuppet report, and assume that it was not harassment.

Today, he posted a warning on my talk page, which I removed. I've already stated that I don't require his comments, so that alone was not something that I wished to see. He restored the warning, so I removed it again.etc,etc,etc. In the end, he restored the warning three times on my talk page, in the space of five minutes.

[29] initial warning from the above editor.

[30] restored comment 1st time

[31] 2nd time

[32] 3rd time

He has been editing wikipedia for about 10 years, so I would imagine he is really really familiar with talk page and harassment rules. He has also made numerous ANI reports on other editors, so he is also very aware of the consequences.

This is not the first situation in which the user has used templates/warnings to harass another user. For example:

[33]

[34]

[35]

also of blatant incivility

[36]

I feel bad about this, because I know this user is trying hard to improve wikipedia. He isn't a troll, he has the best intentions when he edits articles. However, when something doesn't go his way, he has a total disregard of wikipedia rules and a total lack of respect for other editors. I now have really mixed feelings about editing any motorcycle related article, as he is quite likely to harass me on those articles too. Can someone please take some action, he needs to understand that a mere content dispute is not grounds for harassment. Thanks Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I've had similar behaviour from the same editor. Fake warnings, ignored requests to stay off my talk page, continued restoration of harassing comments when I deleted them. I compiled a timeline of events here, including some very uncivil language on his part. It is odd that after ten years of editing he is apparently unfamiliar with some basic wikipolicy. --Pete (talk) 10:37, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't know where this "stay off my talk page" rule comes from. It's how we send editors messages. If two editors disagree about a talk page warning, then of course one of those editors can call the warning "fake", but that's only begging the question. I think putting a {{Globalize}} tag on KTM 390 series takes the cake for "fake" templating.

Spacecowboy420 is a troll and serial sockpuppeteer who is only here to disrupt Wikipedia. He searches for the most controversial possible changes he can make in order to kick off an edit war and bring down anyone he can. Flyer22 Reborn (talk · contribs) recognized him immediately, as yet another in a long line of socks from somebody who intends to go on making new troll accounts forever. Zachlita (talk · contribs) is, by an obvious WP:DUCK test, another sockpuppet, though checkuser says they're unrelated. I have no problem saying either Zachlita is a meatpuppet, or an account created while the sockmaster was traveling among different locations. The tag-team editing pattern is blatantly obvious.

Here is a perfect example of Spacecowboy420 deliberate battleground behavior. Or this. Kicking off an effort to expunge all of the expert debunking of the supernatural claim that the Dodge Tomahawk could go 420mph is more of the same deliberate disruption, as is the idea what we cannot talk about the KTM 390 series as Indian motorcycles, and must delete all mention of India and Bajaj. None of it makes sense unless you realize that this person has been doing this for years, picking insane fights and whipping up maximum drama.

Skyring (talk · contribs) is just piling on because he's got an old grudge. It's as unseemly as when he threatened to use his admin powers to block others in a content dispute. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:02, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I am only here to comment about the edit warring on the user's talk page. I just recently went through that on my own. Dennis, please know that WP:DRC applies here. Whilst it may be an essay, you should not edit war on a user's talk page after they've removed notices/warnings. Reverting the user on their talk page is not an exemption from 3RR. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 17:45, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I think there's a misunderstanding on that point. This series of edits [37][38][39] occurred because I was trying to correct an error, where my attempt to copy-paste a line of text from an msn.com article was resulting in the URL being pasted in; apparently that's their copy protection scheme. All I wanted was to to get one complete and correct version of my post saved before it was deleted. I wasn't edit warring to try to get the same thing to stick, just to get the message right.

The real issue here is this: Spacecowboy420 wouldn't be having this kind of conflict if he weren't making blatantly absurd, trollish edits, such as insisting that the source cited mentioned only KTM, and not KTM and Bajaj working together. This content issue matters here: pretty much every article about KTM's Indian-made bikes says that they are Indian bikes, and that Indian company Bajaj builds them in a close partnership with KTM. Spacecowboy420 is here to delete any mention of India and Bajaj for no reason except it's his "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" troll assertion that he knows will incite a the battle he seeks.

I might be a 10-year editor with 40,000+ edits, but there's no doubt in my mind that the sockmaster behind Spacecowboy420 has edited more and for longer than me. This guy is good at what he does. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Dennis is obviously confused above – I'm not an admin. I don't hold grudges; there's no point in this community, nor in life itself. Less stress to just live in the present and not the past. Having said that, SpaceCowboy's description of poor behaviour on user talk pages above struck a chord, because it is very close to how DB behaved a few months ago. Edit-warring, name-calling, gross incivility. Now that I see this is not an isolated incident, I might look to see if I can find other examples. --Pete (talk) 19:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

You're right, sorry. I mixed you up with User:John from the same old grudge. Regardless, I don't think it's a appropriate to stalk your enemies and jump in whenever somebody else has a beef with them. The whole issue that's being dredged up here, over Volkswagen emissions violations, was resolved as a content dispute. Having you lurking and waiting to come back at me with that is not appropriate. If you had a problem, you should have brought it up back then and not used this new issue as an excuse to get your digs in. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Looking over Dennis's contributions, I'm seeing a history of harassment of other editors on their talk pages, particularly new or IP editors. Edit wars and calls to 3RRN are common, and accusations of sockpuppetry seem to be par for the course. A quick look, but I see other editors complaining of harassment in a pattern of behaviour stretching back years. This is one example, but there are others. --Pete (talk) 20:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

People like User:Tiptoethrutheminefield [40] certainly do find themselves butting heads often with people like me. You're right that I have a long history of conflict with editors with multiple blocks to their name. It's funny that you link to that incident, where Tiptoethrutheminefield "adopted", in Andy Dingley (talk · contribs)'s words, one of en. and de. Wikipedia's most persistent and disruptive sockpuppeteers, Europefan/GLGerman. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:24, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Please don't pull me into this, and certainly not in your defence. I still remember the way you hounded Bridge Boy (talk · contribs) User talk:Bridge Boy#Changing Article Name Without Discussion.2C Again! (Yamaha Rz350), another GF motorbike editor, off the project (albeit with some help).

Throwing around blame against others is no excuse for how another editor behaves. So I'm not seeing anything of either of these two editors as being relevant as to how well or poorly the other has acted. But neither is impressing me here. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say you were defending me. I accurately characterized your words about a specific incident. I am not the one who blocked Bridge Boy (talk · contribs); he was blocked for disruptive editing, socking, and personal attacks. There were several other editors besides me who found him impossible to deal with. All the mean things I said about Bridge Boy were true, and then some, and multiple admins had no qualms about showing him the door permanently. If you want him back then I guess you should be asking an admin to unblock him. I'm glad you brought him up, though, because like Spacecowboy420, or Tiptoethrutheminefield, you've identified the pattern here: editors who are not WP:HERE to build an encyclopedia have successfully goaded me into returning their offensive behavior with "incivility", and then someone tries to boomerang it back on me.

Brianhe's comment in the same thread as above is quite relevant: these habitually disruptive, serial socking editors know that they are going to draw a series of warning templates from regular editors, so their defensive ploy is to delete the templates and then play the "get off my talk page" card. The templating is a necessary step to getting action taken to stop the disruption, so they pretend they're being "harassed" on their talk page to bully and intimidate anyone who tries to stop them. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:24, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE editors should of course be blocked, banned, tarred, feathered and whatever. However we clearly disagree as to just who falls under this. I too found Bridge Boy hard work to deal with, but I'm happy to accept them as a GF editor who had something to contribute. You seemed more interested in finding reasons to decide why another editor was an outlaw, and for why you were just the sheriff to organise the lynching. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I very much agree that some of his contributions were invaluable. Much of Spacecowboy420's contributions are wonderful. But the reality is that with editors like that the cost of keeping them is too high, and there's no point in delaying the inevitable. And even then, you can read on his talk page that I spent something like three months trying to politely cajole Bridge Boy into behaving himself. And wasn't it actually SamBlob (talk · contribs) who, technically, initiated the actions that got Bridge Boy blocked? I was there, and I helped, but it's unfair to make it seem like I'm the only one behind getting anybody blocked. And you might have noticed that the admins don't exactly like me. They don't block anybody just because Dennis Bratland asks them to. If anything, they cut them more slack if I'm involved. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:00, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• Ah yes, Dennis Bratland. I remember reading this and being highly unimpressed. --John (talk) 22:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• Well, yeah. You took one side in a content dispute and abused your Admin power by threatening blocks against anyone who crossed you. Funny how that spiked the subsequent discussion, isn't it? I still think that threat successfully discouraged any moderate editors who were thinking of participating from sticking their necks out. I stood up to your bullying, and now we're not friends are we? Yet you got away with it, scot free. Lucky you.

  Looks like somebody is working hard to canvass anybody with an axe to grind to come back here and show their willingness to use Wikipedia noticeboards to settle old scores. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:40, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• I stand absolutely by what I said in September. I am not sure what part of that you find objectionable. I am only contributing here because you pinged me earlier. You seem easily confused, repeatedly mixing me up with Pete, and then mixing up my clear statement which referenced WP:INVOLVED with someone threatening to breach WP:INVOLVED. If not for that I would ask you to clear that up by properly reading the comments. In your case, I fear we would be here a lot longer than any of us have patience for. Can I ask that you at least consider that when everybody says you are out of line, that you may in fact be out of line, rather than everybody else being part of a conspiracy against you? Or would that be asking too much... --John (talk) 22:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• I have perfectly amicable disagreements with lots of other editors all the time. The simple fact is that you are hopelessly compromised when it comes to me. As long as you remain an admin, you should recuse yourself and stop trying to play a role in any noticeboard discussion involving me. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:07, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• I see. So, given this "simple fact", why did you ping me at this discussion of your behaviour? --John (talk) 00:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Let's get real here. Dennis is a long-time productive contributor to WikiProject Motorcycling and Cascadia Wikimedians User Group with two GAs under his belt and countless other good deeds. The editor(s) you held up as a "good faith contributor" "hounded off the project" by him are blocked for their inability to abide by community standards. Give him a slap on the wrist for incivility if you must but this ad hominem endoscopic examination is exactly why people leave Wikipedia, and should stop immediately. – Brianhe (talk) 02:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

If one is a productive editor, one may harass less productive editors. I get what you're saying.

I found DB to be short on some of the basics of editing, such as WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. He seemed to think that if he thought something sounded reasonable, Wikipedia could say it, even if we had no external source making that statement. He also seemed to have a very poor grasp on what constituted edit-warring, which is odd considering the number of times he's appeared on WP:3RRN.

Be that as it may, what we're looking at here is editor conduct, not content. Dennis Bratland has a history of abusing other editors on their talk pages, including edit-warring to keep his abuse visible when it is deleted by the editor. Whether that other editor is a newbie, an experienced Wikipedian, or just someone Dennis Bratland has a difference of editing opinion with is immaterial. We are civil to each other, and we don't call each other motherfuckers when our views differ.[41].

I think it is high time Dennis accepted that, even if he has a difference of opinion, it is wikipolicy – and more productive to the project – to be polite instead of abusive. He has been around Wikipedia long enough – and yes, produced enough excellent work – to know this. --Pete (talk) 06:20, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I've already stated that one of my interests is controversial articles. I enjoy the debate, and getting some form of resolution and consensus on a controversial article is very satisfying. I've been accused of being a sockpuppet/master and that it being confirmed that there was no connection. I should remind you Dennis, that you thought Flyer was a sock of mine as well, so perhaps your judgement of who and who isn't a sock, isn't quite perfect. But this isn't about me. It's about you and your conduct. You refuse to accept the findings of various 3rd party opinions and dispute resolutions, so you revert me on every article you can find, continually slap templates on my user page (despite being asked not to post there) and restore comments/edit war on my talk page. And it's not as if I am the first editor you have done this to, judging from the comments above, your editing style seems to attract this sort of drama. I don't. I have content disputes on various articles that are far more controversial than some silly motorbike article - they stay on the talk page and don't require ANI reports. They get discussed and resolved. The only difference between those articles and this one, is the fact that you aren't content with leaving it on the talk page. You need to take it to other articles and revert me, you need to take it to my talk page, when asked not to. You need to make sock reports with zero evidence pointing towards me being a sock. The difference is you and your way of dealing with other editors. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:44, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I know this isn't about sock accounts, so I will try to keep this brief. Brian, you accused me of being the sock of Flyer22 reborn. That accusation was so unrealistic, that an admin removed that name from the sock report. You also accused me of being connected to Zacklita, and the admin looked into it, using their techy tools and found my account and Zacklita's had no connection. You're clutching at straws in order to try to justify your harassment of me. All of this comes from you giving more attention to the editors than to their edits. Don't assume that every editor who has a different point to yours is a troll. We aren't, we just disagree with you. Don't assume that when two editors are both in disagreement with you, that they are socks. They aren't, they just both disagree with you. All of this chaos and annoyance started because you couldn't accept the removal of one single word from some article you feel that you own. Be a little more flexible and respectful towards other editors and we won't have weeks of dispute resolution, sock puppet reports and ANI reports. Jeeeeeeeez! the removal of the word extraordinary from an article has resulted in this FUBAR situation? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:00, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Randal Adhemar revisited, personal attack and refusal to provide sources.

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

---

Personal attacks and persistent addition of unsourced content, after final on IP talk page User talk:69.200.228.170.

• 66.108.248.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (original, added later, see below at note 2)
• 69.200.228.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Randall Adhemar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

History:

• Unsourced content:

[42] and revert by Wcherowi

[43] and revert by me

[44] and revert by NeilN

[45]

[46] and reverted

[47] and reverted by me

[48]

[49]

• Incident was opened here on 22 December 2015: [50]: Original thread
• Replies by IP and username on user talk ([51]) and on my talk ([52]).
• Due to no reaction on wp:ANI, entry got archived by bot on 26 december: [53]: archived thread
• Removing welcome messages: on IP talk and user talk.
• More lack of AGF: "Notice: Unless bound unbreakably by community rules, as a long-term harasser, user DVdm, it's here demanded. stays away from my user pages.": Stating "Absent yourself, sir, under all circumstances, save those unambiguously required by wikipedia rules."
• Again addition of unsourced content: [54], for which I gave a third level warning—even if the IP was already been 4th level warned for same on their talk page ([55]).
• Result: wall of text on IP talk page, wall of text on NottNott's talk page, vicious personal attack, warned about the latter by user NottNott here.
• reinserting unsourced content with edit summary: "Who on earth are you--no reason, EVER has been given that you CONTINUE CONTACTING ME. And you don't know this subject--visible--but write anyway! Go!"
• vicious attack in response to last week's final warning on the ip talk page, accusing me of labeling him a stalker.

I try to comment as concise as possible to article edits and the rare comprehensible parts of his massive talk page messages, where others (NottNott, Paradoctor, NeilN) take more time to explain, but nothing seems to help, and user openly refuses to add sources. Can this somehow be stopped? - DVdm (talk) 09:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

DvdM (from former Adhemar), to and NielN: There was an easy way to stop the massive talk page responses: user DvDm was consintently requested, or demanded be barred from his page. This was of tremendous importance to me, because--look at the record; the latter part of this user's existence was an attempt most of the time to somehow, in ANY WAY, escape from DvDm, who was not a friend, was never invited to participate in any activities by me, and who high-handedly removed ALL content more than 1 character in length. I could not post. Queries were made of many people. "How can I escape from DvDm's constant bullying? He pulls a bunch of crap, but mostly is very single minded about sources. I have pledged to him NEVER to give a source until he leaves me alone. There has to be someone I can talk to about this. I don't like the new sourcing--people give different rules. But I have to get rid of him. He...I recognize the name, but he dislikes me to the point that whenever I'm on. He shows up, reverts my work, and starts disrupting as much as possible. He shows up on my page! He doesn't say anything remarkable. It's...like a mafia goon...letting you know he's there. It seems like he has a job, but...he won't say anything about himself. He enjoys arguments after impounding all my words. I put them back, he takes them out again. But he keeps demanding the sourcing. THe medieval and turn of the century stuff, well, you know I have a lot of those sources in my head. But I start sourcing, what then? I don't see how he has a right to just be in my online life shutting it down, never giving reasons--sometimes if I ask, and he doesn't want to answer, if I keep asking, maybe the third time he says something. I don't think he even reads it. Like...it won't make sense.

This query, many people know the answer--or, well, you remember now, yes? DVDm knows. I expressed every form of human emotion and took every range of social reaction--save warmth--in an attempt to get him to just GET OFF ME. I abjured him "formally" as I put it, three times, to begone from my life unless Quora rules demanded. But his delight was in irritating me, or so it seemed. Nothing worked. Finally, I was engaging in the practice of putting HUGE MOUNTAINS OF TEXT--all on topic, but great volume in his talk page. It was mild retaliation: if you can ruin my online life, I can start doing the same to yours. OUT! OUT! Begone" --at the last of these maybe three mountains, he threatened to call admin on me for harassment, I indignantly typed, in idle threat (I had begged, but no one ever told me of the resolution machines like administrative inquiry--he didn't KNOW I didn't KNOW, though). Something seemed to change. The next day, I was under inquiry by a secret and invisible committee....which also took over my web page here, such as it was, and created more. At the beginning, I was able to see about half of my accuser's documents, and found that they were grossly dishonest; the fact was, this person who knew the system had been mashing me up in it to no end, and he was (I assume) very afraid that I, not he, would frame the inquiry. And, unbelievably, despite the nastiest behavior and many lies--admitted by him to me privately or in documentation. If it's saved, see if you can find the calculus document where he described the incident that upset NielN for the committee. He admitts to deception there proudly. HOWEVER, was any such document ever provided the committee? IT wouldn't have supported him, except for reminding the powerful Niel of his great dislike for me.Randall Adhemar (talk) 12:07, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: perhaps moot now, in view of the last sentence of this: "I do not write under such restriction--or if I do, they pay me." and "I'm out the door permanently." Perhaps. - DVdm (talk) 11:02, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps indeed. I formerly was ...Adhemar. But there's a — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randall Adhemar (talk • contribs) 12:08, 28 December 2015

Comment: To any admin looking along in ANI it might look like a bomb has gone off here. As an editor and community member RA's personal attacks outlined above would constitute as easily deserving of a ban - there is clearly no net gain for him to continue editing. Unfortunately he also believes editors like DVdm and NeilN are on a hate crusade against him, so when he tries to justify himself he only creates more issues. Repeated personal attacks as outlined above are unacceptable, and if continued he should be blocked.

As a human, RA is somewhat distraught right now - he isn't thinking as clearly as another editor might. As DVdm pointed out RA should leave peacefully, and if no more attacks are made a block wouldn't be necessary. I hope in the real world he has the support network needed to see him through such a terrible condition. NottNott talk|contrib 13:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Leaving peacefully doesn't seem entirely likely. NottNott talk|contrib 14:01, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Note 2: I hadn' realised this before, but it looks like there already was an earlier encounter with the same editor earlier this year:

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

with, for instance:

[56], reverted by me: [57]

[58], reverted by Arthur Rubin: [59],

resulting in archived talk [60]

A month later the calculus thing was resumed under the registered username at [61] and [62] - DVdm (talk) 20:26, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Randall Adhemar claims he was hacked

User says he WP:GOTHACKED, and requests to be blocked. I propose indefblocking the account and all of its associated IPs. Paradoctor (talk) 03:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Blocked as a WP:COMPROMISED account. The 'block from IPs' box was checked so we'll see if that catches them? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:28, 29 December 2015 (UTC)`

In the diff he says: "...blasting messages, including stop sign graphics to confused acquaintances." How can a Wikipedia account send messages to his acquaintances? The stop sign probably refers to the missing sign here, which he accidentally removed with this edit. Looking at this, and all the edits that he has made, and at the ever growing size of his messages, it looks to me as if he does not quite understand the basic editing action of pasting text, let alone the difference between cut/paste and copy/paste. So in my opinion, this might be a case of WP-technical (and social) wp:CIR, rather than one of wp:COMPROMISED. I guess we'll see how this evolves, if at all. - DVdm (talk) 10:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Terrorist96

I've tried my best and continued to engage User:Terrorist96 in what I hoped would become a meaningful discussion at Talk:Liberland, but they've instead told me that I have a 'personal problem', that I'm 'undermining' an article, that I'm not being constructive and threatened me to leave. diff

We've been here before over a month ago - Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive904#Terrorist96 ARBMAC violation.

Surely this apparently routine level of casting aspersions and acting as if one owns an article is below the acceptable standard of behavior?

--Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Tried your best? Just like how you tried your best to find the flag of Liberland used in a news article before you unilaterally decided that it should be removed? evidence. You start a 'meaningful discussion' by removing something so innate to an article as the flag of a country? And if you don't see what's wrong with that, then it IS a personal problem. I'm not gonna waste my time and explain to you that the flag of a micronation is in fact relevant information to be included in the country infobox template. Yes, your edits have been disruptive and undermining, consisting of solely removing relevant information rather than adding information. Asking you to contribute constructively or leave is not a threat. Please look up the definition of threat. Using such words to try to paint a picture in your favor doesn't help your case when any neutral party can see that there was no threat to you. And yes, we were here a month ago, because you were adamant at removing the infobox from the article. We had an RfC and the consensus was to keep the infobox. Since you lost that argument, you're now back to undermine the infobox as best as you can without removing it. In order for me to cast aspersions, it would require a lack of evidence. I've laid out the evidence. And to accuse me of attempting to 'own' the article is laughable. How about you provide proof of that, lest you be accused of casting aspersions? Terrorist96 (talk) 14:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• The relevant discussion is at Talk:Liberland#removal_of_trivia which frankly is a terrible section title and is going to cause friction when worded as it was removed "for obvious reasons." I also don't see anyone actually linking to the MOS style section, just people stating it past each other. Terrorist96 (I'm not particularly with the username either) is not being civil either but it would be better if people actually slowed down and explained their thoughts rather than simply stating that "it's obvious" and "per policy" to remove stuff. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I used the phrase "for obvious reasons" because we've been having a discussion for several months about these various items, and after two RfCs there's still no consensus that the three specific elements I had removed were worthy of inclusion (I have specifically looked at the discussions and haven't found a very coherent argument in favor of keeping them, most of the time people were talking about other issues). Surely at some point we need to apply WP:NOCON. Granted, it's hard to pinpoint the time some of these things became contentious, but because the article was created relatively recently, and has been the topic of AfD and protection because of disruptive edits literally within the first week of its existence, we can't assume that any of it is really settled matter. In any case, the thing that needs to be observed is that TDL has been arguing a similar position (opposed to mine), and they haven't been grossly insulting. That's the kind of behavior that should be promoted, unlike that of Terrorist96. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:03, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Rosecarter915

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

---

Rosecarter915 is adding copyrighted information to articles. I, and several others, have tried to warn her. But, she keeps adding copyrighted information to mainspace. //nepaxt 22:44, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The problem is less that the information is copyrighted as that it is nothing but advertising for The Pavillion Agency. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:58, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree. This is an undisclosed paid editor. Katie^talk 00:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Editor changing his talk page comments a month after it was posted

User:Paulturtle, with this edit changed his own talk page comment a month after it had been originally posted, which is deceitful. I reverted it, and suggested that he add a new comment to upadate his thoughts, but instead he reverted it back in. An admin should tell him that this practice is contrary to the free flow of discussion on talk pages. BMK (talk) 03:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I would be very happy for an admin to look at the entire history of this little spat. I've already explained to Beyond My Ken that making minor alterations to old comments (to which nobody had since replied) and adding a few more thoughts, separately datestamped, about an issue which lots of people who come to that talk page choose to comment, is perfectly permissible under talk page guidelines. His high-handed, borderline "ownership" behaviour in trying to prevent me from doing so, isn't. Shouting at me in edit summaries and falsely accusing me of "deceit" most certainly isn't. You might also care to note that BMK has attempted to delete a reply of mine (somewhat curt) from his own talk page.Paulturtle (talk) 03:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I didn't "attempt" to delete it from my talk page, I did delete it, since you posted it after I told you not to post there again. BMK (talk) 03:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, you have shouldn't have done, nor should you have attempted to delete my reply on your talk page after you had falsely accused me of "deceit" (again, I'd be perfectly happy for an admin to read the edit summary on your talk page as well). Now, in the meantime I would suggest you try to calm down.Paulturtle (talk) 04:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, with some very specific exceptions, I have complete control over what does and does not appear on my talk page. I would suggest that you act like a mensch and restore your comment to what you originally wrote, and not indulge in an Orwellian rewriting of history. BMK (talk) 04:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

You really do need to calm down. Stop making exaggerated accusations about my deletion of a largely redundant sentence from an old comment of mine (I note you've insisted on including a footnote of the sentence which I wanted to lose). And it's clearly not acceptable for the final word on your talk page being an uncivil and exaggerated accusation (of "deceit") levelled at another editor. And stop editing other people's comments, even if it's just formatting, even on this page.Paulturtle (talk) 04:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

You really do need not to change your comments after the fact, especially a month later. BMK (talk) 04:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and please learn how to indent properly. BMK (talk) 04:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

From WP:TPO#Own comments:

Other than minor corrections for insignificant typographical errors made before other editors reply, changes should be noted to avoid misrepresenting the original post. (emphasis added)

BMK (talk) 04:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment @Paulturtle Any editor is permitted to revert non-admin edits to their own talk page. Just strike out the original sentence you no longer stand by, I am sure BMK probably wouldn't object to that. @BMK I don't think there is any harm in permitting him to add a separate timestamped comment if he feels it is necessary (we all feel the need to clarify/revise our thoughts on occasion), although ultimately Paul must respect your final decision. Betty Logan (talk) 04:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks, Betty. I have no objection to a strike-through (although it would be best to add a new time-stamp as well), and I actually suggested a new comment (in my first edit summary) as a corrective measure instead of deleting original content. BMK (talk) 04:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

@BeyondMyKenActually, my original comment was time-stamped as a new comment, albeit within a single paragraph at the time, and I have kept it separately timestamped ever since. You simply tried to revert the lot, even before you started shouting, and I doubt you'd be very happy if I wrote "You are behaving dishonestly, do not post here again" under the message you left on my talk page and then deleted your reply. @BettyLogan, I can see you are trying to broker a reasonable compromise here, which is usually the best way. Leaving the original trivial sentence in, but struck out, is fine by me. We could do with some clarification about what "respect (BMK')s final decision" means. Does it mean respect his decision to accept a compromise? Or does it mean he gets to "decide" what may or may not go in the article or the talk page? The former is fine, the latter clearly isn't.Paulturtle (talk) 04:51, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

User:paulturtle, I'm pretty sure Betty meant you must respect BMK's decision to remove your post from his own talkpage, per her first sentence. See WP:DRC. Bishonen | talk 09:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC).

I'd say the view of "don't change your comments from a month ago" are more the norm around here but I'd say striking it out and both sides taking a break from whatever reason this escalated so quickly is what's needed here. People change their minds on what was said all the said, just don't change it because it just causees more confusion than is helpful. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Somewhat curiously, SocialJusticeWarriors has now started acting "on Paulturtle's behalf" it would seem, reverting the purely factual note that BMK left at Talk:Appeasement regarding the refactoring of Paulturtle's comment so late in the day. This account was created about ten days ago and appears to be showing signs of a single-purpose account. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Are you acting on BMK's behalf? Disagreeing with you doesn't make me a sock. SocialJusticeWarriors (talk) 12:05, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Not at all, I'm simply restoring the accurate description of your, sorry, Paulturtle's late-in-the-day edit, which as you have been told, is contrary to guidelines. Anyway, a single-purpose account will soon be found out. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:08, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I've edited a range of articles and anyway there is no rule against being a single purpose account. SocialJusticeWarriors (talk) 12:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)  Looks like a duck to me -- samtar ^whisper 12:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I've no idea who SocialJusticeWarriors is and he isn't me. I do have a few other sign-ons but I do not use them dishonestly in the same thread. Please don't accuse people of sock-puppetry without better evidence.Paulturtle (talk) 12:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Then perhaps you could ask him to stop editing on your behalf. Thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you stop editing on Beyond My Ken's behalf? SocialJusticeWarriors (talk) 13:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Because, like Jennifer Lawrence, The Bee Gees and General Franco, BMK pays me huge sums of money to make sure he looks good. It's a great deal. And your excuse? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, he's not "editing on my behalf" - he's just serving to make me look petty in a discussion where I was quite careful to keep calm - I was, after all, not the one reverting other people's comments, shouting or slinging false accusations of "deceit" for trimming a single trivial sentence from a month-old comment of mine. There is a notorious character called Harvey Carter, with a long history of vexatious edits under various signons, with whom many of us are wearisomely familiar, some of whose whose antics can be seen on that talkpage. You may find that a fruitful source of inquiry. Or else SocialJusticeWarriors may be some other misguided individual.Paulturtle (talk) 12:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Then by all means restore the information that he has deleted. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:51, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Dharmadhyaksha

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

---

Dharmadhyaksha is being completely ludicrous ignorant and rude. Please ban him from wikipedia. I am trying to make a certain article better and make more sense, but he keeps undoing my changes. He has absolutely no real evidence for his claims and he is being dirty and filthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 777executionprocess777 (talk • contribs) 05:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

This Consorts of Ganesha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is the article in question. This edit summary by the OP is why WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS exists. MarnetteD|Talk 05:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

This doesn't make you much of a Christian at all. In fact, the opposite. --MuZemike 05:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Update: OP has been blocked so if anyone else wants to close this thread that would be great. MarnetteD|Talk 05:34, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Persistent disruptive behavior and edit-warring by User:Legacypac

For the last few months there has been a concerted attempt to clean up Longevity related articles. Various relevant discussions can be found at Talk:Oldest people, Talk:List of the verified oldest people and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World's Oldest People. User:Legacypac is a more recent contributor to this topic but has repeatedly carried out multiple edits (such as consolidating multiple articles) either without discussion or while discussion is ongoing. Despite requests from both sides of the discussion this user has continued to edit in such a fashion. These edits (omitting a few) are a prime example of disruptive bahavior: [63], [64], [65], https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_oldest_living_people&diff=next&oldid=696466509], https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_oldest_living_people&diff=next&oldid=696634187], [66], [67], [68], [69], https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_oldest_living_people&diff=next&oldid=696717136] and [70] resulted in this this rather petty edit summary. A more recent sequence [71], [72], [73] resulted in Legacypac initiating a sockpuppet investigation against the reverting user (the result of the investigation was that it was completely unfounded).

Another user has recently joined in the discussion and their edits reflect the issues with User:Legacypac. See [[74]], [[75]], [[76]], [[77]] and, unfortunately, [[78]].

It appears to me that this users contributions on this topic are not only unnecessary but their behavior and attitude is in fact disruptive and is impacting on the resolution of the current discussions. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Without looking at the specific diffs provided concerning Legacypac, I will note for the consideration of other editors who may wish to comment here that the "oldest living people" area of Wikipedia has long been a WP:walled garden in which the regular participants vigorously resist any changes made by editors from the outside and have promulgated their own unique standards for what is and is not acceptable in the way of sourcing. The entire subject area is in dire need of a shake up and a good cleaning out, and possibly a block or two or three as well. Some thought should also be given to shutting down the WikiProject, as being detrimental to the improvement of the encyclopedia. BMK (talk) 06:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The wall of that garden has been reduced to a picket fence with several gaps, through which Legacypac is attempting to drive a bulldozer. And FYI, I have suggested shutting down the project on more than one occasion. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:38, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm a pretty new participant in this topic. The overlapping super old people lists (5 layers deep in some cases) and serious inconsistencies between lists took a lot to understand, but we are making progress condensing things down to something that can be maintained going forward. If anyone is really interested I can provide diffs of SPAs and vandals who don't like any efforts to consolidate and rationalize. It's pretty brutal. Legacypac (talk) 07:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• I think we can all agree on one thing: that these merges and moves are contentious and should require requested mergers and requested moves discussions, not unilateral actions. Nevertheless, I think the prudent place for these discussions is WP:AE if people want to request sanctions. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• We need more comments on Super Old People topics from experienced uninvolved editors, not campaigning like [79], [80] and [81]
• Before commenting on this ANi interested editor should read the vicious attacks from people opposed to the cleanup [82] [83] all edits by this vandal created just to attack me [84] and this vandal also created just to attack me [85] with such gems as (User:Legacypac is the most evil person in the world, not is the most evil wikipedian in the world). A threat [86] refusal to accept strong evidence of socks or topic banned editors and disruption on AfD [87] just a a few recent examples
• The editor that started this thread has reinserted duplicated info 3x into the article that they complain I edit warred on when I moved out all the info 1x (to a very closely related article) and redirected again after it was restored. [88]
• Even after starting this tread Derby is busy reverting changes by other editors without discussion. [89] with threats of ANi as well [90]
• Far from avoiding discussion or acting without following process, my delete/redirect rate at AfD [91] on Longevity articles appears to be driving some editors into very uncivil behavior. Legacypac (talk) 08:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• User:Legacypac has a history of concerted backstabbing, ad homien attacks, harassment, and divisive behaviour that demonstrates a clear pattern that is by no means limited to his tendentious behaviour regarding the entire suite of longevity articles. This user is fast becoming a net negative to Wikipedia and if spared the block hammer right now, is advised to significantly moderate his presence on Wikipedia or expect to be blocked without warning or another long drawn out discussion at ANI. I will be returning to normal duty on or just after 4 January at which time I will be happy to provide numerous diffs that will turn the air blue. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:05, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Take your drive by slander away please. There is the matter of your uncivil behavior when questioned nicely on why you acted as an Admin to close a edit warring report that you did not read and tell an editor they were not aware of the 1RR template they were edit warring over. [92]. Legacypac (talk) 09:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually Kudpung you are required to provide diffs at the point you make accusations or your above statement is entirely an unsubstantiated personal attack which needs to be backed up or struck. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

COI and BLP issues at an article

Due to the nomination for deletion of M.A.M. Mansoor, bulk of new users and IPs are running COI at M.A.M. Mansoor and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M.A.M. Mansoor. Now, they start to attack me/us as racist(s) (See Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/M.A.M. Mansoor). I am a Wikipedian who contribute for better encyclopedia instead of own policies. I have reported to sock puppet investigation too at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Riyazifarook. Before the COI increase (already started), admin intervention is appreciated. Thanks. --AntanO 06:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article for the duration of the AfD to put a stop to obvious socks and meatpuppets attempting to !vote in the article itself. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry about the AfD either, AntanO. The obvious socks will be ignored by the closing admin. I've removed the attack on the talkpage. Bishonen | talk 09:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC).

Electricburst1996 editing my talk page despite many warnings

I have told Electricburst1996 four times to stop editing my talk page. They will not stop. Their userpage says they are a teenager with autism so maybe there is some gap in cognitive understanding but somebody please try to communicate to them that they need to stop editing my talk page. SocialJusticeWarriors (talk) 14:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

They've already been told to stop and appear to have done so. Sam Walton (talk) 14:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Can we kill this thread already? It's nothing more than a petty complaint against me and nothing that warrants major action. Besides, the editor who started this thread is a problematic editor and a possible sock account. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 14:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)